"Also I believe there were nutritional benefits."
I'm pretty sure that, before the invention of vitamin pills, meat was probably the best way to ingest a good variety of vitamins. To put it simply, let the animal roam the environment, eating all sorts of different plants, each with a few vitamins and minerals. Then eat the animal and get it all at once. Since the invention of vitamin pills, I think the nutritional rationale for meat eating is weaker.
"Since the invention of vitamin pills, I think the nutritional rationale for meat eating is weaker."
Not at all true.
"Whole" foods have intrinsic factors that scientists don't even fully understand yet, let alone have the ability to identify or synthesize.
Take garlic as one example.
Whole garlic has amazing antibiotic/antiviral/antiseptic properties and scientists *thought* it was due to the presence of the compound allicin.
So, they separated the allicin and used it for experiments on bacteria and viruses and got terrible results.
Applying whole garlic "puree" on the bacteria and virii killed them.
Now scientists admit they have no idea *which* of the many active compounds in garlic is respnsible for its curative powers.
That "unknown quantity" in whole foods is charmingly referred to as the "X Factor".
Soy is another example.
It contains phytoestrogens and Asian women have remarkably low incidences of estrogen dependent cancers such as breast or cervical.
So, they "separated" the phytoestrogens from the soy, stuck it in tablets and capsules but it just doesn't work as well that way.
In fact, divorced from the whole soy bean, soy "supplements" can actually be harmful, especially to the thyroid.
The whole bean works wonders but when "scientifically diddled with" soy can actually become "dangerous".
Meat contains much more than just protein, vitamins and minerals.
Their are mulitudes of enzymes and macrobiotics that make it such a "perfect" food.