figgypiggy:

The main thing to remember is that not a single one of those confident-sounding statements have any support from science or the facts!  They're all baloney, and a confident delivery won't change that.

"Many people, especially the elderly, no longer have sufficient amounts of hydrochloric acid to digest meat well or quickly"

That's a completely false statement, unsupported by any science (ask for a citation — they won't have one), or by any evidence whatsoever.  Try the experiment from the article: "Eat a steak and some whole corn kernels, and see what comes out the other end.  It won't be the steak."

That being said, some people do end up with a temporary insufficiency of HCl.  Why?  A normally-functioning digestive system secretes more HCl when we eat meat — but because so many people today eat a low-protein diet of highly processed "food" mostly composed of simple sugars, simple starches, and oils (which do not require HCl to break down), some of them can temporarily experience a bit of stomach upset if they switch abruptly to eating healthy amounts of meat.

(These people often also have GERD, which is usually caused by such a diet — and which resolves itself upon switching to an evolutionarily appropriate diet of meat, vegetables, and other unprocessed foods.  See Paul's example above.)

Solution: as Paul pointed out, acid supplementation will get anyone with a problem over the hump.  A shotglass of vinegar is often sufficient.  Betaine HCl supplements are great if you can't bring a bottle of vinegar with you.  And as Paul found, you won't need to do this for very long, because we've been eating meat for at least 3.4 million years and our bodies are well-adapted to consume it.

"nor do many folks, regardless of age, consume enough fiber to provide the bulk to move meat through the system and eliminate it"

More unsupported bunk.  Insoluble fiber is not necessary to move anything through your system and eliminate it: peristalsis does a fine job by itself.  In fact, the only controlled study ever done on insoluble fiber (the DART trial) showed a 20% increase in death rate from cereal fiber supplementation!  (Reference.)  

(An aside: note how a 20% increase in a controlled trial is called "not significant" when it contradicts the established wisdom...but when self-reported observational data already proven to be bunk is juggled to produce a theoretical 12% increase that supports conventional wisdom, it's trumpeted all over the world.)

EDIT TO ADD: Also note how the writer sneaked in the incorrect assumption that meat is ever "eliminated".  As the article explains, meat is completely digested by enzymes and absorbed in the small intestine, leaving nothing to "eliminate".

"therefore it [meat] tends to remain in the body for extended periods which is not good for it."

GI transit time is well-known and well-measured.  The article conclusively debunked this statement (reference).  Ignoring evidence and confidently stating the opposite isn't an argument.

"When you add to this that most cattle are given hormones and antibiotics and are exposed to pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and other toxic chemicals in water and feed"

Why are they exposed to all these toxins?  Because they're eating the same corn and soybeans the vegetarians tell us we should be eating!  Epic fail. 

Industrial agriculture is an environmental disaster whether the end result is fed to cattle or to people.  Cattle should be eating grass, and we should be buying meat from cattle that eat grass.  Grass-fed cattle don't require any of these toxic chemicals to survive, because they're eating their own evolutionarily appropriate diet.

"producing one pound of red meat requires hundreds of the amounts of water that is required to grow bushels of grain"

Another bunk claim, based on the idea that even the worst industrial feedlot beef is fed on corn and soy its entire life.  In reality, cattle die if you feed them on grains for more than a few months — it's called "finishing".  They grow up on pasture.  And as I said above, the paleo community buys and supports grass-fed beef, which has negative carbon impact if managed correctly!

That's right, negative carbon impact.  Well-managed grazing fixes carbon.  What vegetarians call "waste", farmers call fertilizer: nitrogen from urine, mulch from feces.  Otherwise the Serengeti and the Great Plains would have blown away into dust millions of years ago from the tens of millions of wildebeest and bison that grazed there.  (In the case of the Serengeti, they still do.)

Animals are a necessary part of the circle of life.  Sterilizing the land with Roundup, pumping it full of ammonium nitrate, and shipping the harvest to a city where they're turned into human feces and flushed into the nearest body of water isn't sustainable in any sense.  Only grazing animals can return their "waste" to the soil and keep it healthy.

JS

Cc:

JS

Jules:

Your problem isn't fat digestion or absorption unless you have steatorrhea (fatty stool): you may see oil in the toilet when you poop, it'll smell terrible, and you'll probably have to make frequent bathroom runs.  You may even experience some degree of anal leakage.  If steatorrhea is your problem, you may well have some sort of cirrhosis (including PBC) or other liver injury, and you need to see a medical professional about that.

If not, you probably have a metabolic issue.  Post a question in the Talk forum if you want to talk about it: include detailed sample daily menus (including what sort of fats you're consuming) and how they affect your weight and energy levels.

JS

Aky:

"To get that much pleasure or excitement from food, now that is depressing."

I disagree!  Life's purpose is to get food so it can keep on living -- and to reproduce if it gets enough extra.  Eating should be a joyous occasion, because it allows life to continue.  See: Live Now, Live Later.

JS