It has been a matter of intensive debate, as to which diet is beneficial for general good of humans and which kind is more nutritious.

The debate is so intensive that people concentrate only on good part of their arguments and highlight the bad part of others, wishing to get away with a victory of sorts.

Since I am a vegetarian by practice and by religion, I pitch in with the vegetarians. Still trying to be impartial I will acknowledge that despite all the posturing, the truth lies somewhere in between. This is an argument for balance in approach to both schools of thought. We will keep the moral, ethical and religious issues away as the point to be analyzed is an advantageous diet.

In case you feel that a complete examination should include these issues then my stand is this.

As a part of preservation of food chain, non-vegetarian way of life is valid. The need of nature, as in, location, weather and its demands like that of colder climes cannot be denied. Eskimos need their blubber to survive. Moral issue is conceptual and every one to their concept is also valid. Different strokes for different folks.

Ethical issues of trauma and treatment of animals at the moment of reckoning has been addressed and mitigated to some extent by stringent implementation of certain procedures, (to minimize the pain of slaughter,) in some parts of the world. The animal is stunned and made immobile by an electric shock and slaughtered immediately, sparing it the pain of death. I hope sincerely that this seeps to the economically backward peoples quickly.

As for religion, only one religion that I know of mandates vegetarianism. The Jains of India are completely vegetarian. Rest all give sanction to non-vegetarian food. So there is not much to talk, let alone debate about this aspect.

There is an interesting insight to this. In the state I live, Andhra Pradesh, India, Meat is called “Veta Kura” or the food of the Hunt. As the story goes, animals were culled (harvested, A systematic hunt to reduce population), when their population increased and the crops and safety of the general human population was endangered. It was then that they were allowed to consume meat.

Non-Vegetarian:

The Pros:

Non–vegetarian diet is more nutritious as protein, minerals like calcium, phosphorus and vitamins like A, as in fish and some white meats, are abundant in it.

Non–vegetarian diet is absolutely essential to avoid protein deficiency.

Non–vegetarian diet sustains the energy levels longer and more consistently than vegetarian food.

Non–vegetarian diet keeps a person alert and active, while vegetarian food induces sleep and lethargy.

This is true. During a study two chess players were given, one a Vegetarian Carbohydrate diet while, the other a Non-Vegetarian Protein diet. Their performance was evaluated and it was found that the person who given Protein was far more alert and far less sluggish at the board.

The cons:

Non-vegetarian diet is not easily digestible and so puts a heavy load on the gastric system, progressively deteriorating it capabilities.

Non-vegetarian diet has little or no fiber leading to improper digestion. Constipation is the resultant complication.

Non-vegetarian diet has fats that lead to high cholesterol, resulting to Cardiac and cerebral ailments.

Non-vegetarian diet can lead to infectious pandemics like Encephalopathy, Salmonella, Foot and Mouth Disease, Bird Flue and Swine Flu.

Vegetarian:

The Pros:

Vegetarian diet is easily digestible and so puts a minimal load on the gastric system, preserving its capabilities.

Vegetarian diet has a lot of fiber leading to proper digestion, and unhindered bowel evacuation.

Vegetarian diet has very little fats that lead to high cholesterol, in comparison Non-Vegetarian food. In all fairness consumption of this has to be monitored and controlled as a matter of precaution.

In Vegetarian diet the risk of infectious disease is significantly less, but proper sorting and cooking, can reduce the risk even more.

Vegetarian diet is also nutritious as protein, minerals vitamins like A, B, C and are abundant in it.

Vegetarian diet also has many sources of proteins, as in lentils and legumes.

The cons:

Vegetarian diet is not good at providing the sustaining effect normally, but special recipes are available to do so. It is a bother though!

Vegetarian diet is not so pro energetic; however it does provide the starting surge.

Here is another insight. An average animal consumes 10 to 30 times the food consumed by a human. If the land being used for fodder cultivation, were used to grow human food, perhaps Hunger would disappear. On the other hand, if we did not waste so much, we could still do it! That is some cud to chew!