What the data actually shows about meat, lifespan, and cause-and-effect
Question:
I keep seeing claims like this that Hong Kong eats the most red meat and live the longest. Are these claims accurate or misleading? What does the terrain model say about these claims?
Answer:
Every time I see claims from accounts like Carnivore Aurelius, I’m reminded how important it is to slow down and actually check what’s being asserted. A consistent pattern of misleading statistics and oversimplified conclusions shows up again and again, especially when it comes to diet and longevity.
This claim falls apart once you look at what’s actually being measured and what’s being ignored. The oft-repeated statement that Hong Kong eats “1.5 pounds of red meat per person per day” does not come from dietary intake data. It comes from food supply statistics, which measure total meat available in the system divided by the population. That number includes restaurant waste, bones, trimming losses, spoilage, and unequal consumption driven by tourism and wealth concentration. It does not mean the average person is eating anywhere near that amount daily. Actual dietary surveys show much lower individual intake, especially among older adults.
The second error is assuming longevity automatically proves diet causation. Hong Kong’s high life expectancy is strongly linked to non-dietary factors: low violent crime, excellent sanitation, walkable cities that encourage daily movement, strong family support structures, and rapid access to medical care as well as a heavy reliance on fruits, vegetables and rice. If red meat were the driving cause of longevity, we would expect the highest meat-consuming nations to consistently live the longest. They don’t. Countries like the United States, Australia, and Argentina consume large amounts of red meat yet have significantly lower life expectancy than many lower-meat populations.
This argument also relies on extreme cherry-picking. When we look at populations known for exceptional longevity rather than selecting a single modern city, the pattern reverses. The world’s longest-lived populations, often referred to as Blue Zones, are characterized by diets centered around fruits, vegetables, tubers, legumes, and starches, with meat used sparingly or occasionally. Red meat is not the dietary foundation in any of these populations, yet they consistently outperform meat-heavy societies in lifespan and healthspan.
Another key point people overlook is that Hong Kong’s current elderly population did not grow up eating a modern high-meat diet. Most older residents lived through periods of poverty where meat was scarce and eaten infrequently. Their diets were built around rice, vegetables, fruit, and small amounts of fish or animal foods when available. Longevity reflects cumulative lifetime conditions, particularly early-life nutrition and long-term lifestyle patterns, not what younger generations are eating today. As Western dietary habits have increased in Hong Kong, so have chronic diseases, and the longevity advantage is already beginning to erode.
It’s also important to recognize that meat consumption in Hong Kong increases with income, not with health. Higher meat intake tracks alongside higher rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and metabolic disorders. If red meat were inherently protective or a “superfood,” we would expect higher consumption to correlate with better outcomes. Instead, the opposite trend is emerging as diets shift away from traditional plant-centered patterns.
From a biological perspective, calling red meat a superfood makes little sense. Red meat is acid-forming, increases mineral loss, and produces nitrogenous and putrefactive waste that the body must neutralize and eliminate. It requires significant digestive and metabolic effort and leaves behind residues that burden the kidneys, liver, and lymphatic system. A true superfood would reduce metabolic load, support mineral balance, and aid elimination rather than increase it. Red meat does none of these things.
At its core, this argument commits multiple errors simultaneously: it uses false consumption data, confuses correlation with causation, ignores conflicting population data, and overlooks basic physiology. Hong Kong’s longevity exists despite rising red meat intake, not because of it. When real intake data, lifestyle factors, early-life nutrition, and biological burden are taken into account, the claim that red meat explains Hong Kong’s lifespan simply doesn’t hold up.
If you’re genuinely interested in understanding what humans are biologically adapted to eat — beyond headlines, memes, and diet trends — the following articles provide a much deeper foundation. They walk through human anatomy, digestive physiology, historical diets, and why so many modern arguments about meat rely on misunderstanding both data and biology. You can start with What is the Natural Human Diet? to understand the broader framework, then explore The Carnivore Delusion for a direct breakdown of common carnivore claims. For those who want anatomical evidence rather than ideology, Humans Are Herbivores: Comparative Anatomy lays out the physical realities of the human body. And finally, Desire Health? Return to the Garden of Eden ties these ideas together by looking at health through the lens of design, simplicity, and biological alignment. Taken together, these articles offer a clear alternative to reductionist diet arguments and invite a more complete, biologically coherent view of health.