For many people, a steak dinner is just dinner. But researchers say meat, especially red and processed meat, is also tied up in ideas about masculinity, driving higher consumption among men and, with it, a notable emissions gap.

According to The Guardian, a growing body of research suggests men consistently eat more meat than women, even after accounting for differences in energy needs.

Lauren Camilleri, who researches meat-eating and masculinity at Victoria University, said the gap is both large and persistent. "This likely stems, Camilleri says, from longstanding cultural and symbolic associations — the myths that meat is masculine and plants are feminine; that men are hunters, women gatherers; that real men eat meat," The Guardian stated.

A recent French study linked transport and diet patterns to a 26% emissions gap between men and women. Diet was a key part of that picture, and men often show greater reluctance to eat less meat or to try plant-based diets.

The pattern is especially visible in Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released in September found that about two-thirds of Australian men eat meat and that more than half consume at least 198 grams of meat per day, exceeding daily recommendations.

The average Australian meat eater consumes about 13 grams more meat per day than a decade earlier.

Experts say that resistance is often cultural, not nutritional. Camilleri said that many men tie meat-eating to manhood and can take pressure to change their diets as a personal threat.

High meat consumption is linked to serious health concerns, particularly when red and processed meats dominate the plate.

Dr. Luigi Fontana, director of the Charles Perkins Centre Royal Prince Alfred Clinic in Sydney, pointed to evidence connecting animal products high in saturated fat to elevated LDL cholesterol, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Processed meat is listed as carcinogenic, while red meat is classified as a probable carcinogen.

There is also a clear climate cost. Agriculture accounts for close to one-fifth of Australia's carbon pollution, with livestock methane making up most of agricultural emissions. Meat production accounts for about one-eighth of human-caused climate pollution globally.

Still, cutting back does not have to mean going vegetarian or vegan overnight. Experts said a more realistic starting point is to treat meat as a smaller part of meals rather than the centerpiece.

The EAT-Lancet Commission's updated planetary health diet offers one model: seafood and poultry in limited weekly servings, with beef, pork, and lamb reduced to about one serving per week.

Fontana said he supports meals built around whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes, plus small amounts of eggs and fish.

Stepping down from red meat to chicken, then fish, or a vegetarian dish can reduce environmental impact while improving diet quality. Plant-based staples such as grains and legumes can also be easier on a grocery budget than beef.

High-performing athletes who eat little or no meat help show that animal protein is not required for strength or performance, which may make cutting back on meat-eating feel more accessible to skeptics.

"We don't need to be perfect," social scientist Diana Bogueva said. "If you do even small changes, this needs to be embraced."

Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.