Meat Consumption: How Much Is Needed Weekly?

How much meat do you need weekly to avoid deficiencies?

An 80kg man training for strength needs between 120 and 160 grams of protein daily, according to the most repeated calculation. Translated into chops, that’s about two kilos of meat per week. This figure has circulated in prepper forums, gyms, and nutrition groups for years, with no consensus on whether it is a physiological necessity or an excuse to keep eating steak. The discussion, which has lasted over four years, starts with an apparently simple question and ends in a battlefield involving the WHO, Bill Gates, B12, gluten, and shotguns.

What science says about weekly meat grams

The starting point is a recommendation repeated in the material: between 1 and 2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. For an average 80kg male, this means a minimum of 80 grams daily and a maximum of 160. Since 100 grams of red meat provide approximately 20 grams of protein, the range translates to between 400 grams and 1.1 kilograms of meat per week just to cover protein, excluding breakfasts and dinners.

This is where disagreement begins. Some argue that red meat should be limited to once a week and that the bulk of protein should come from fish, eggs, legumes, and dairy. Others defend that meat—especially organic—is superior for regulating hormones, claiming its effect on testosterone and cholesterol is positive. The evidence cited in the exchange is scarce and highly contested: the same studies are used to support opposing views.

The caloric calculation that confuses

One of the most cited exercises in the discussion starts from a different base: total calories. A man consumes an average of 2,200 calories per day, equivalent to 30,800 weekly. If meat provides 2.8 calories per gram, two kilos of meat add up to 5,600 calories, barely 18% of the weekly total. The conclusion drawn by those doing the math is that two kilos are not excessive, but a modest fraction of the diet. The problem is that this percentage says nothing about the quality of those calories or the rest of the diet.

The discussion then shifts to carbohydrates. Those who eat little meat are accused of stuffing themselves with cereals and legumes, and are blamed for everything from nutrient absorption issues to neurological disorders. The most extreme claim—that cereals and legumes are neurotoxic—appears without scientific backing and is immediately countered with an epidemiological argument: countries with the highest Alzheimer's diagnoses are precisely those where cereals and legumes are least consumed.

The undisputed nutrient: B12

Amid the noise, there is one point where almost all positions converge: vitamin B12. Strict vegetarian and vegan diets require supplementation, and denying this is denying the evidence. The dose mentioned in the conversation is 2,000 micrograms weekly, one pill a week. Those who have gone years without eating meat admit taking it; those who eat meat note that deficiency also appears in populations with high meat consumption.

B12 is synthesized by soil bacteria, not animals. From this arises one of the most curious theories in the exchange: that eating unwashed fruits and vegetables grown in organic soil would suffice to obtain it. This hypothesis does not hold up with available data and is not recommended by any nutritionist in practice.

Complete protein: Does it exist only in meat?

The question of which vegetables contain the nine essential amino acids runs through much of the exchange. The answer given is that soy, chickpeas, black beans, kale, and even potatoes have a complete amino acid profile. The difference lies in concentration: potatoes provide about 2 grams of protein per 100 grams, while legumes match or exceed meat in dry weight.

The PDCAAS index, which adjusts protein quality based on digestibility, penalizes vegetables. But some argue that this penalty is overstated and that combining cereals with legumes perfectly covers needs. The practical conclusion is that one can live without meat, but it requires more planning and attention to detail.

Political noise burying the question

As the discussion pogre, the nutritional issue is buried under ideological trenches. The WHO and its funding, the Bill Gates Foundation, pharmaceutical companies, changing vegetarian labels over the years, and cross-accusations about hidden interests appear. Personal insults, mockery, and at one point, a proposal to settle the matter with shotguns also emerge. None of this answers the initial question.

The result is an exchange of 109 replies where the specific figure—how many grams of meat per week—is answered indirectly, if at all. The repeated range is 1 to 2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight daily, with meat as just one source among several. The question of whether it is necessary remains open, likely for another four years.

---

The most revealing aspect of the exchange is not the figure, but how easily a nutritional doubt turns into a fight over identity, politics, and institutional distrust. In the end, everyone finds the data that confirms what they were already eating.