This is my diet pretty much. I also try and eat very little carbs just enough for my BJJ and weight lifting and that's it. I'm not sure what to think of Vegan diets and eating less meat in general. The science on this stuff is all over the place and riddled with poorly done studies.

I'm aware that fewer animals killed means fewer animals bred into captivity.  Not sure what your point is.  Or do you think it's better for animals to be born into a system that (for example) puts them in a tiny cage and keeps them there their entire life at a huge cost to the planet's environment, and to the health of the humans who eat them?  Nearly 99% of the animals on the planet are now domesticated animals, with animal agriculture ironically doing more to cut into wild spaces for animals than any one other thing.  About a third of the planet's ice-free land is now devoted to animal agriculture, either directly or indirectly, and it's completely unsustainable.

Pointing out that animal agriculture involves rape and murder would have seemed an excessive comparison to me too, when I ate meat.  No one likes to hear bad things about our habits.  Things definitely change when you "take the red pill" and learn what really goes on behind closed doors in factory farms.  Murdering and raping animals is only not excessive to the degree that we accept it as necessary.  But it's 100% unnecessary since we have alternatives, and those alternatives are generally cheaper and healthier.

We humans engage in a curious form of racism, and that's thinking the human race is better than other kind of animals (speciesism, as it's sometimes called).  With how horrible humans are to each other, to the environment, etc., I don't think the evidence suggests that humans are deserving of special treatment.

The science isn't really all over the place.  Vested interests are creating studies to attempt to sew doubt with the public, just like the tobacco industry did in the second half of the 20th century.  Here's an example: want to create a study that tries to debunk cholesterol being bad?  Create a study where everyone eats the same amount of cholesterol, measure their cholesterol, note that they all end up with different amounts of cholesterol, and declare that there's no correlation.  That's the kind of science that the dairy and egg industries are famous for.  But it's junk science: everyone has different starting levels of cholesterol because of genetic differences.  However, if you reduce cholesterol in people's diet, you get a drop in bad cholesterol.  If you increase the cholesterol in people's diet, you get a rise in bad cholesterol.  Open and shut.

Independent science, not funded by vested interests, shows a consistent narrative.  Cholesterol is bad, saturated fat is bad, excessive amounts of animal protein in the diet is an anti-nutrient due to it overwhelming the liver, etc.  Vested interests are becoming increasingly brazen in creating junk science to convince people to buy their products, so government health agencies have had to start ignoring all industry-funded science in coming up with health recommendations (as the Canadian government recently did when updating the Canada Food Guide, as one of several recent examples).

You really don't have to look any farther than this: the healthiest and longest-living populations are the most plant-based such as the traditional Okinawan diet (98% plant-based), the Adventist vegans (100% plant-based), etc.  The adventist vegans are the longest-living population ever studied by science.  And these populations not only live longer, they have a reputation for being vibrant in their old age (aging okinawans doing tai chi, aging adventists mowing their own lawns instead of being in nursing homes, etc.)  People can debate theories until you're blue in the face, but when you put it to the test the more plant-based a population is the more likely it is to thrive.

There are examples of largely plant-based populations in pre-history where "old age" was living into your 70s so, yes, that was true for some of them.  Less plant-based typically meant shorter lives, and worse weather tended to mean shorter lives, so plant-based populations near the equator typically lived the longest, and the inuit typically lived the shortest lives in pre-history.

Not eating meat isn't just about nutrition.  The populations who eat the most meat have the most cancer, the most diabetes, the most stroke, the most heart disease, the most neurological disorders, the most sexual dysfunction, etc.  The populations who eat the most plants tend to have the fewest instances of all of the above.

The average North American vegan is deficient in three essential nutrients.  That sounds bad until you realize that the average North American omnivore is deficient in seven essential nutrients.

What's optimal for nutrition is to eat foods that have high levels of nutrition per calorie.  Animal foods tend to rate extremely low on this scale.  Presuming the same number of calories, eating a wide variety of animal products in your diet will mean less nutrition in total and less nutrition variety than eating a wide variety of whole plant foods.

And then there's the microbiome.  Eating even small amounts of meat reduces the diversity of your gut bacteria, and we're learning more every month about why that's a bad thing.

Cool story, bro.

Defensive much?

Thanks for the links, I looked at them with interest.  I didn't find it very persuasive, however.  The ideal nutrition isn't just about hitting the right macro-nutrient and micro-nutrient ratios, it's about preventing disease.  And the science is pretty clear that the most plant-based diets tend to ward off the most disease.  Well, the most whole plant-food diets do, I'm the first to say that processed plant foods should be avoided.

Nutrition science tends to be based in theory.  I'm more interested in population studies that look at what large populations eat, and how healthy they end up in practice.  The Adventist studies are instructive in this regard.  They look at healthy and active people who focus on whole foods, because it's a tenant of the seventh day adventist faith that since they're made in god's image they should be healthy to as to honour that image.  The adventist vegans suffer less disease than the adventist vegetarians, and the adventist vegetarians beat out the adventist omnivores.  Studies like that are looking at healthy people who tend to be active and eat whole foods and the studies are balanced for socio-economic differences, and are therefore very compelling.  And they strongly suggest that even small amounts of high quality meat (even when paired with regular exercise) can't beat out a strictly whole food plant-based diet when it comes to warding off disease.

You say Asians got un-used to eating dairy.  It's that they rarely ate dairy in the first place, not that they at some point got used to not eating it.  Humans only started eating dairy about 8-10K years ago, a blink of an eye evolutionarily.

And your body can get used to almost anything.  Someone from a long line of heavy drinkers might have a higher tolerance towards alcohol.  But that doesn't mean being a heavy drinker is good for you.

Interesting fact, not super relevant:

There has never been a successful 3-generation-or-more society that had a primarily vegan diet. Ever.

We all have different genetics, but we all share the same basic biology.  In the same way that all koalas need to eat eucalyptus leaves, we can also make generalisms about nutrition that hold true for all humans.

Vegans and omnivores both tend to have nutritional deficiencies (on average, 3 essential nutrients for vegans, and 7 essential nutrient deficiencies for omnivores in one study).  It's possible you're more sensitive to something your missing now, vs. what you were missing before.  Are you eating enough things high in omega-3 fatty acids (flax, chia, etc.)?  Farm animals are supplemented with vitamin B12 these days so eating factory farmed meat means getting B12 supplements too.  Are you supplementing with B12 directly now to make up for the fact that you're no longer supplementing with B12 indirectly?  Vitamin C is key in both improving absorption of several nutrients and reducing the effect of several anti-nutrients, so are you consuming ample amounts of vitamin C in your food each day?  Are you getting lots of beans in your diet to make sure you're getting enough lysine?  How about lots of leafy greens and fruit?