So the only real nutritional difference between my diet of chicken, fish, shellfish, eggs, and someone who also eats red meat, is that they are getting more iron than I am?

Maybe slightly more saturated fat, but it's not much different from chicken.  Chicken fat is around 30% saturated, pork is around 35%, and beef is maybe 40%:

http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/fat-saturated.php

I didn't know that those were the only differences.  I thought that there was some fundamental element that you could only get from red meat, and that's why everyone was so keen on it.  In that case, I won't bother trying to eat it, I'll just stick with what I like.

I didn't know that those were the only differences.  I thought that there was some fundamental element that you could only get from red meat, and that's why everyone was so keen on it.  In that case, I won't bother trying to eat it, I'll just stick with what I like.

You are 100000% ahead of those on SAD if you stick to anything that does nto contain grain. But no those are not the only differences, red meat is great for vit k .

If you don't like red meat then don't eat it - just monitor your iron (which you should do anyway if you are in that chilbearing age range).

If you want to start eating it then try using it in very small quantities in stews and things.

I have also heard that red meat helps balance your Omega-3/Omega-6 ratio. Even going so far as to say that grain-fed red meat has a better ratio than even the healthiest white meat that is fed a natural diet.

There is also a logical extension to draw from the fact that red meat is higher in saturated fats. More saturated fat means less polyunsaturated by percentage. So even if the PUFA in red meat has a less-than-ideal 3/6 ratio, you are consuming less by percentage. I believe that's the idea, but someone please correct me if not.

That said, if you are eating fish then you are getting ample Omega-3 already. Chicken and fish is a good combo.