something like this would have been a break in the attempt of emotional building before his masters death.

We both came to the conclusion that processed foods cause major health side effects. So why are you still sticking to your claim of "meta data tells me..." when they use those very meats to conduct their research.

Humans have always used weapons and traps to hunt. And like what was said MANY times before, to eat meat did not mean every day for every meal. It is an opportunistic food source where nutrients are gained. Just like humans didn't eat berries on demand. They couldn't preserve them, nor did they farm them.

Past AND MODERN studies suggest wine has benefit to antioxidants, lipid regulation, and anti-inflammatory properties. (this is NOT A MISINTERPRETATION)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30487561/

Until you understand what a variable and control is in addition to where the data comes from, there is no point in arguing over the authenticity of long term results. It won't matter if you could site every legitimate study because there will be cause for false information through lies, food quality, and extenuating circumstances like health and lifestyle. This is the downside of not being able to fund a proper study which would still only be inclusive to one side. Ie too much protein (plant or meat) causes gall or kidney (too lazy to look up) stones but won't disclose that plants do as it isn't the target of the study.

they skimmed it to like 1 frame in this chapter. When she was a child (adult now) she received help from mc after being deceived/underestimated. Being a child at that time and the fact that mc was in seclusion for 10 years, the only timeline that makes sense is when he was under tutelage from his master. Thus this is an offscreen moment that would have held poor influence in world building chapters.

evil guy: YOUR CUNNING TRICK
MC: Bro I'm not the one sacrificing people and using special weapons...

honestly, judging from the dark energy, and that demonic energy is purified with his flames... Its probably a foreshadowing of struggling with the energy until he can cook

hmmmm
His father turned his back
His mother walked away
His sister loathed him
His eldest sister beat him up all the time under "love"
Plum blossom sister hates the whole family
2nd elder beats him up for not attending events but puts him in situation to get beat up when he attends
His ex-fiance beat him up with a chair (deserved)
Namgoong is crazy and killed her whole family
Tang girl only realized she loved him after he was about to kill her
Seol'ah tortured him to get the answer she wanted

but he's so fragile. Lived through the pounding of a 5 star

cripple him for disrespect

sometimes curiosity kills people

MC: Fuck, now I'll be marked by the demons

This was what I meant by your logic that "plants are better than meat so it's better to eat plants" is flawed.
1 • The tests don't have a proper control
2 • Eating in excess of anything is unhealthy (whether error is smaller or not)
3 • If the human body couldn't safely digest meat, it wouldn't have evolved to

1. If there is no overseer for the test to ensure that all applicants of the test are honest, the test cannot be validated. If the examinees are not completely honest with medical background (intentional or not), the test cannot be validated. Because different people (age, sex, location, genes, ect) are different, different results can be expected, thus it will be hard to validate the test. If the test is not controlled for a long period, the result received is only a short-term result. Bodies have an amazing ability to conform. Just like strength training increases muscles, overeating stretches the stomach, sudden diet changes cause bowel irritation. It's possible that if you eat a proper amount of meat every day, the "increased risk" will disappear over long term.

2. This brings us to proper consumption. There are risks to raising bad cholesterol in plants too from things like plant oils. If you removed all the fat from meat you could get rid of most oils too, reducing cholesterol intake. It's not about the fact that it's unhealthy but that the room for error is smaller. You can receive all the protein you need and take in a healthy level of nutrients that are bad for you. This may sound bad, but it really isn't. Too much (banana) potassium shuts down the liver. Too much (fruit) sugar shuts down the kidneys. Our bodies are able to expel bad thing that enter when within reason. Just because plants can cover a wide range of nutrients doesn't make them better. If you eat too much it still creates risks

3. The human body has a digestive system specifically designed for digesting meats (based on the dissection of animals), as well as teeth designed for "cutting" meat.

I'm basing my evidence on evolution and facts that both sides cause medical conditions. Rather than tests that have meat and don't (as this doesn't solve if plants have risks too).
By the way, it was proven that wine (a type of alcohol) can exhibit positive effects on the body, if drank seldomly.
Ultimately the debate you are trying to have is: the safest way to consume nutrients or the healthiest way to feel full.
The answer to both is eat an expanding food, then take supplemental pills to fill in the rest of the nutrients.
If this was really about what is healthier meat or plants, the answer would be that both have different risks associated to them therefore it doesn't matter as long as it's within the recommended amount, whether that high or low volume.

Edit: Cancer is linked to additives. Carnivore are sharp, pointed teeth with muscular jaw. 1 stomach & high acidity.

If all you took was to eat a maximum amount of 1 serving of meat a week, you read that wrong. You can eat meat every day and it'd be just as healthy as plant-based food. Because we have organs designed to break down meat we should be using those. This is what was meant by selective reading

If your argument is that eating unhealthily isn't the same as eating unhealthily, I don't know how much farther this can go. Just like how eating meat can cause those who have a predisposition to medical condition to have unhealthy side effects, the same is true for plants. This makes the risk value the same. Eating meat can increase cholesterol and clog arteries. Eating bananas can increase your potassium and shut down your liver. Same thing. They give an increased risk to already unhealthy people.

So congrats plants are not safer than meat, nor vice versa. If you are looking for the safest way, it'd be to use pills to maintain perfect equilibrium.
This is actual scientific knowledge. There CAN be negative effects on plant consumption IF eaten beyond the recommended amount. But it's curious there aren't a lot of tests on the negatives on plants.

You don't have to eat meat. But I also said you don't have to eat vegetables or fruits either. You can literally get all of your nutrition from pills in a better more accurate way.

Remember almost all crops are sprayed with pesticides even the organic labeled ones (if it isn't on the list of "non-organic" pesticides, it's legal to label it organic in USA)

Also keep in mind that as healthy as they are praised, vegetable can cause heart attacks, diabetes, and a series of digestive problems. They say if you have "health issues" but if we are 100% honest, a medical disease only multiplies the effect. This means it's always been a problem, but the disease has magnified the problem.

If you eat too much potassium all the time, you could overwork your liver causing damage. After a while you could have a heart attack
If you eat too much meat all the time, you could build up too much cholesterol in veins. After a while you could have a heart attack.

The cause is to eat too much (meat/potassium), the effect is death by heart attack. Now which is worse when eating?

This is why I said neither is without risk. There is no true answer. My answer for you is: based on evolution, you should eat a serving of meat at least once a week to make your body function in the way that processes meat. I'm sure there is a difference in the way organs are used to process different foods. Even if its slightly different.

ABOVE ALL, EAT PROPER SERVINGS TO BE HEALTHY

You know what? I thought about things to debate based on your reply but

This is simply the explanation we are given in similar works of fiction. If you don't like it, go complain to book and comic authors

If this is one of the first things to explain, you haven't read enough novels. I'll just say this: Most stories that have a "system" setting, either everyone's system is generally the same, or only the MC has one. The only difference of the everyone is the "tier" of the MC's skill or the exponential increase of skills. This is actually the first story I've read that everyone has a system but NO ONE had a skill. With that based on experience reading there isn't anything further to discuss

All in all is it ok to not eat meat? No because our bodies have developed to be an omnivore. Do I necessarily mean every meal should be eaten with "red meat", no. There are poultry and fish as well. CAN you survive without meat? Yes, you could live on pills and grains (to push digestive system) and get all the nutrients you need which eliminates "bad factors".

The main point I've been trying to point out is that meat consumption isn't unhealthy. Eating high volumes is unhealthy, to a point I never remember a single pyramid (or other diagram) that equated meat as a high serving. ¹The food pyramid of 2-3 servings of "protein" is actually a maximum value where fruits of 3-4 were a minimum value [¹ wiki].
²Even Harvard has done tests to determine meat isn't unhealthy, it's our consumption value that is. [² https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-red-meat]

So to the main point is there are studies that suggest that eating plants build up chemical value in your system and thus contribute to cancer and other medical conditions. Eating fish increases mercury in your system. So, do we avoid meats, fish, AND plants? Of course not. The healthy thing to do is actually limit to the correct values you are supposed to consume while switching between protein alternatives sometimes. (meaning not 100% - red meat, plant type, fish, nuts, or poultry).

This debate in itself has always maintained a side of unbiased. I'm not trying to push meat but "healthy levels" of meat. I'm not saying you need it every day, but because of body evolution every so often at least. Which can also be worded as "You need meat in your diet at least once in a while because this is how our bodies evolved to be". The two sentences make the difference depending on the audience reading them. The first undervalues the meat (if you aren't objective), where the 2nd overvalues meat. This is targeting a specific conclusion by using words to influence an objective persons opinion. Just like giving one sided negatives of meat but not the negatives of alternative consumption. I've never really seen a test that targets "the best option" objectively but tons of "why this is bad/good".
Keep in mind food corporations influence media, politicians, and "empirical data". Like there was a driving test that was once done to show how habitual marijuana consumers are "dangerous drivers" but was revealed to have made the driver in the virtual test to have driven a vehicle with the response of an 18wheeler. When he still didn't crash they used a forced crash scenario. So why would WHO say meat is bad? Socioeconomics and bribery could both reasons. Or the report is a fact driven article to lead a consensus of their bias.

"As the atmosphere is slowly changing, humans change with it. They are slowly becoming more proficient at using Mana to become stronger and gain additional abilities. Humans that adapt themselves before others (or better then others) are called "awakened" / "hunters" / "raiders" in these kinds of stories."
.
It's been 14 years getting used to the dungeons, 2 year of which (time MC spent in Isgard) was when "large monsters started to appear more frequently" (chpt 2). The world developed their information enough to make it a major course in college, which then progressed to the point where "it'll be hard to find a school now that doesn't teach those classes".(monster biology and dungeonology).
They should have progressed to the point where people have skills especially since cyclopes, minotaur, and dungeons increased frequency by the time he disappeared. In every novel that's come out they are considered at least B-rank and go past S-rank.
According to your own slipshod explanation that talks about progression; the earth, by your standards of evolution, is already past the midway point of adaptation. Being on the back end of evolution, how come NOT ONE PERSON HAS A SKILL?
Even if you group skills categorically, there would still be skills that DON'T require mana. Like warrior or archer type skills.

fuckin runs off so he cant be counterclaimed... That's a hard strategy to beat

honestly Its not that they forget but that by chapter 30 they fuck the future so bad that even major events change (dates/order/ect) making their careful planning nonstop to be worthless

And he's pretty friggin OP right now.. He just isn't showing off.

enough guts to call himself a girl to get revenge

when the father sees the trick of the old man, then the father pulls an ambiguous answer. confirms and solidifies sons position, but at the same time gives him a life risking trial (which every candidate needs to pass anyways)