150 replies to this topic

[Rick Moranis]

proof that healthy vegetarians live less or retract your statement.

Take a look at vegan Dr.Greger's lecture: Why don't vegetarian/vegans live longer?
1) http://www.reddit.co..._longer/c0mqzr8 (youtube video in link)
2) and a 2nd link

Edited by Rick Moranis, 29 July 2010 - 01:37 AM.

[maxwatt]

We have evolved for about two million years using fire. Our digestive systems, jaws and teeth have evolved to be about 2/3 the size of those of animals of similar size, that eat raw food. We have devolved digestively, and cannot thrive on only raw food. There is nothing natural about anything we do, nor are our ancestors' ways any guide to what is good for us. To believe that is to be caught up in the teleological fallacy of the caveman diet. I suspect there are several phenotypes around. Given our rapid and varied evolution, different set of genes have survived, and what is a good diet for some people is not good for others.

Our early primate ancestors were similar to the Green Monkey of Africa, which eats primarily fruit and leaves. When apes diverged from monkeys, our ancestors were chimpanzee-like creatures. Chimps are primarily vegetarian, but as much as 25% of their diet is meat (and a few insects.) Chimps catch small birds, monkeys, and the offspring of other chimpanzees. They actively hunt Green Monkeys, by the way. Chimps have horter intestines than the monkeys, and a smaller appendix. As do we, but our teeth are smaller, our jaws weaker, and our guts are proportionally less of our body mass.

South India is vegetarian. No meat. They thrive.* Some cheese, but not necessarily. Interestingly, they show no B12 deficiency (if they remain in India) even though the diet is theoretically devoid of adequate B12. (Though we make B12 in our intestines, we do not absorb it there... only if you eat your own or a friend's turds will you get that source of B12. Gorillas often breakfast on fresh gorilla dung, which is their source of B12. Their diet in the wild is at least 95% vegetarian -- no dairy either.) Back to the South Indians -- I theorize they get their B12 from insect contamination of the grains they consume. Up to 5% of processed grains in the US consists of insect parts, according to Consumer Reports. Perhaps even more in South India.

The mega-fauna of North America are no longer thought to have been driven to extinction by early Native Americans. The timeframes do not coincide for starters. There was a paper on it in Nature last year, FWIW.

And food for thought:

Fresh baked rye bread, chopped raw onions, and steak tartar: ask your butcher for lean London broil or top sirloin, and have him double-grind it. He'll know what it's for. Cut the bread into big slices at least half an inch thick. Spread with butter, and spread the raw meat on top of that, over 1/4 inch thick. Top with the chopped raw onions, preferably red onions. Not one or two here and there; cover it so you can barely see the meat through the onions. This is quite yummy. I once broke out my "sandwich" amidst a dozen picnicking vegetarians. You should have seen them scatter. Do you think it was the onions? Or the smell of raw meat that made them nauseous?


* A bit of doggerel from India during the days of the British Raj:

"Behold the mighty Englishman
He rules the Indian small;
Because being a meat eater
He is five cubits tall."

[ajnast4r]

proof that healthy vegetarians live less or retract your statement.

Take a look at vegan Dr.Greger's lecture: Why don't vegetarian/vegans live longer?
1) http://www.reddit.co..._longer/c0mqzr8 (youtube video in link)
2) and a 2nd link

? he actually says vegetarians live longer than meat eaters in that 2nd piece. & it is an opinion piece on veganism, not vegetarianism, and not what i would call proof that a healthy vegetarian will live less than a health omnivore. dr greger needs to google:define the words vegetarian and vegan and learn the difference.

Edited by ajnast4r, 29 July 2010 - 02:02 AM.

[Logan]

I have a question for the OP..What about those nutrients that we get from meat that we cannot get from vegetarian sources?

there are no essential nutrients contained in meat not available from vegetarian sources.

Alright, so I shouldn't have said "essential". You are right, as a vegetarian, not a vegan, you can get all the same essential nutrients that one would get from a meat-eating diet. I believe though that the OP is vegan. Also, what about carnosine? Can you get carnosine in a vegetarian diet?

[ajnast4r]

Also, what about carnosine? Can you get carnosine in a vegetarian diet?

not that im aware of. a little digging turns up that sheeps milk has carnosine so its reasonable to think that dairy does as well.

Edited by ajnast4r, 29 July 2010 - 02:27 AM.

[Application]

Humans can synthesize carnosine from other amino acids. Yes, there are studies showing vegans have lower levels of carnosine, but their levels are not zero and longevity implications of lower levels are not documented. Other than b12 there is no essential nutrient that cannot be obtained from plant foods.

I have a question for the OP..What about those nutrients that we get from meat that we cannot get from vegetarian sources?

there are no essential nutrients contained in meat not available from vegetarian sources.

Alright, so I shouldn't have said "essential". You are right, as a vegetarian, not a vegan, you can get all the same essential nutrients that one would get from a meat-eating diet. I believe though that the OP is vegan. Also, what about carnosine? Can you get carnosine in a vegetarian diet?

Edited by Application, 29 July 2010 - 02:32 AM.

[Application]

That's one. You got me. But if we weren't "designed" to eat meat as you put it, one would expect the omnivorous centenarian to be the exception, while the opposite is true.

Well, clearly being omnivorous or vegetarian doesn't preclude being a centenarian. But given the US is less than 5% vegetarian and less than 1% vegan, you aren't going to see piles of vege/vegan centenarians.

[ajnast4r]

being a centenarian i think has little to do with diet & a lot to do with genetics.

[Application]

Great post. Sorry, though not surprised, to see the hostile reception here in this saturated fat loving and carb phobic forum.

Meat enthusiasts, where is the vitamin C coming from in these 100% flesh diets?

LOL, who said anything about 100% flesh diets? Ha ha, you vegetarians can be ridiculous. It's all about moderation and balance my friend.

See below for why 100% flesh diets is a topic. It aint the vegis spewing this stuff.

A study of 400 centenarians (or people close to 100)...guess what it found...NO VEGETARIANS.

Weston A price traveled the world and studied indigenous cultures...guess what he found...NOT A SINGLE VEGETARIAN INDIGENOUS CULTURE

If you want to sacrifice years of your life to decrease the suffering of animals, by all means go ahead. In fact, I even think that's noble.

BUT DON'T CONFUSE THAT WITH BEING HEALTHY. If you do, you are just a member of the vegetarian CULT

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.

First off, I don't subscribe to any dietary religions. Second, I'm not an animal lover.

Sacrifice years of my life? How so? What is the mechanism behind eating cooked, red meat that enhances health at the cellular level?

And the rest of your bunk is pointless.

Edit: from my original post: "most vegetarians eat like crap."

*sigh* , in denial, like so many vegetarians

Try to imagine eating a healthy vegetarian diet in the wild

First, you would need K2. nevermind that you couldn't find any MK4 without eating an animal, you would actually need to ferment something, LOL.

next, it would be pretty much impossible to achieve any decent omega3:6 balance

you couldn't find b12

and you probably couldn't even find enough calories to survive

we evolved eating meat because it benefited our evolution. meat is nutrient dense, and calorie dense. Compare 1000 calories of ribeye to 1000 calories of apples.

actually, fresh meat (provided it isn't overcooked) has all that a man needs to survive, and even thrive.

stefansson visited the inuits and found that they subsisted SOLELY off of seal meat and oil. in perfect health. he went back to western civilization and ate nothing but meat and organs for over a year under laboratory observation, in perfect health.

now, you can look at these facts, and there is only one self-evident conclusion: we are designed to eat meat, and benefit from it.
indeed, I believe there is a strong case that humans thrive most on a diet of pretty much ONLY meat, provided that there is a high enough fat content.

I urge you to reconsider, but you seem pretty far in denial at this point

[Application]

Agree, genetic outliers are not necessarily the most useful group to study to understand optimal diet.

being a centenarian i think has little to do with diet & a lot to do with genetics.

[ajnast4r]

Agree, genetic outliers are not necessarily the most useful group to study to understand optimal diet.

exactly.

[CobaltThoriumG]

being a centenarian i think has little to do with diet & a lot to do with genetics.

Well then, perhaps in our genetics the OP can tell us what it is that says categorically we should never eat meat, which is what he asserts. This thread is ridiculous. And I take issue with the false premise that we were "designed" at all other than inadvertently by natural selection, more akin to the erosion of a canyon over time than what most people mean by the word "design." OP, you have succeeded in failing to address the chimps, our closest, omnivorous relatives. Just going against their "design" are they?

And while I raise the possibility, I don't concede that a vegetarian diet is more ethical. It clearly does give many vegetarians a warm, fuzzy feeling because they believe it is more ethical. (And, as humans, we tend to defend, clearly with self-interested motivation, the bases of our warm, fuzzy feelings, to wit, religion.) And won't concede such. Until someone can conclusively prove that a cow, for instance, humanely raised, not suffering in excess of what the role requires, is better off having never existed than having existed to be a meal. Who are you to decide that for the cow? I could just as well decide that for a plant on the basis that all life has a form of consciousness. But wouldn't be so presumptuous. The willful infliction of suffering beyond that inherent in the role of meat is abhorrent. Beyond that there is only opinion and sentiment.

Edited by CobaltThoriumG, 29 July 2010 - 06:40 AM.

[ajnast4r]

not suffering in excess of what the role requires

hello moral gray area

is better off having never existed than having existed to be a meal. Who are you to decide that for the cow?

3rd option, cow lives its life.

obviously the ethics of vegetarianism are not black and white... its not a viable world solution right now but i think if you have the ability than it IS the ethically superior thing to do, if in your canon of ethics is a reverence for sentient life. vegetarianism is, and should be, an active exercise in compassion.

[Sillewater]

I always find it funny that threads like this explode on every forum I've been too.

[ajnast4r]

I always find it funny that threads like this explode on every forum I've been too.

lol here too... its a very charged subject for a lot of people.

[TheFountain]

2. Those cave paintings. Lots of asparagus, huh?

Those paintings depicting animals could be symbolic of something like animal worship, not necessarily denoting consumption.

4. Few things are nutritionally imperative. Meat happens to be an excellent source of several nutrients.

So are nuts. But people seem to argue against consuming them in large quantities though.

I don't recall anyone ever asserting man was a pure carnivore. We're totally omnivorous and highly adaptable.

What 'we' are is open for interpretation.

Edited by TheFountain, 29 July 2010 - 12:09 PM.

[TheFountain]

I overlooked your first question. The pig pancreas, most assuredly. But that's just me. Not that there's anything wrong with cherries. I rather enjoy them. But if there were a lion about to chase me from the table, I'd grab some pancreas first.

So are you just saying we're not pure carnivores or are you saying we're not "designed" to eat any meat? If the latter, plainly absurd, I suppose you would say all the omnivorous centenarians (are there any vegetarian centenarians?) must just be lucky.

You must not be paying any attention if you think there are no vegetarian centenarians.

http://www.happycow....opic.php?id=157

[TheFountain]

*sigh* , in denial, like so many vegetarians

Try to imagine eating a healthy vegetarian diet in the wild

We are not in the wild?

First, you would need K2.

'pops a couple k2 pills shortly before getting his levels checked and finding that they are just dandy*

You were saying?

nevermind that you couldn't find any MK4 without eating an animal, you would actually need to ferment something, LOL.

next, it would be pretty much impossible to achieve any decent omega3:6 balance

you couldn't find b12

and you probably couldn't even find enough calories to survive

we evolved eating meat because it benefited our evolution. meat is nutrient dense, and calorie dense. Compare 1000 calories of ribeye to 1000 calories of apples.

You are talking about a bygone era that has no bearing on the current state of humanity. Besides the life span studies show that most of our paleo ancestors lived to be around 30-40 tops. This was them 'living in the wild'.


The rest of what you say is idealistic and unproven.

Edited by TheFountain, 29 July 2010 - 11:55 AM.

[TheFountain]

That's one. You got me. But if we weren't "designed" to eat meat as you put it, one would expect the omnivorous centenarian to be the exception, while the opposite is true.

But the longest living people on the planet (where average life span goes) are the okinawans. And their diet is mostly vegetarian. They eat some fish, but most of their food is root vegetables and such. Whatever happens at 'festivals' has nothing to do with their normal diet.

[TheFountain]

That's one. You got me. But if we weren't "designed" to eat meat as you put it, one would expect the omnivorous centenarian to be the exception, while the opposite is true.

Well, clearly being omnivorous or vegetarian doesn't preclude being a centenarian. But given the US is less than 5% vegetarian and less than 1% vegan, you aren't going to see piles of vege/vegan centenarians.

Exactly. People on this forum have this silly mistaken notion that there are rows of vegans out there that number in the hundreds of millions and that it is just closing in on the poor meat eating crowd who will soon not have a source for their hamburger meat because the factory farms are shutting down in the wake of this vegan onslaught.

HELLO? Veganism and vegetarianism are still a fringe movement! The VAST majority of americans are still happy meat eaters. And the average life expectancy seems to be getting lower by the year here.

Edited by TheFountain, 29 July 2010 - 12:07 PM.

[babcock]

Seems the OP is just confused about omnivorous activity.

OP, have you ever seen a comparison of a human jaw with any other omnivores jaw, I assume not.

Here are some examples:

Carnivores - eat meat - have a specialized pair of large slicing teeth (PM4/M1) called "carnassials" that form the major slicing pair of teeth in the jaws, have reduced their other molars so they slice & swallow, with minimal chewing of food.
Wolf
Cougar
Dog

Herbivores - eat plants - have flattened, nearly identical pre-molars & molars. These teeth have exposed enamel & dentine ridges on their surfaces to grind plants.
Horse
Deer
Rabbit

Omnivores - eat meat & plants - Pre-molars & molars have small cusps for grinding, but are not otherwise highly specialized. Canines may be short or long & may be used for function unrelated to killing prey.
Bear
Pig
Primate...which was our evolutionary ancestor?

Human, please take note of the similarities to the other omnivores.

Evolution doesn't lie and there's no indication that humans ever evolved to a state where they only ate plants. Primates are omnivores and if you buy into that whole evolution thing we seem to have evolved from primates. I don't really think there's much scientific backing for evolution though...

If you want proof that humans are omnivores then you need look no further than your mouth. If we were meant to only eat plants our molars would be far more highly specialized like herbivores teeth. Our muscles in our jaw would also have developed differently to encourage our lower jaw to move side-to-side rather than up and down.

Humans our truly omnivores, there is no doubt. We need to eat a wide variety of food in order to be at maximum health. It's not about meat is right or vegetables are right. They're both right, everything in moderation.

I would suggest you read (I'll probably catch flak for this) "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. Although these are more about what has happened to the food industry in the 20th century it gives significant insight into why we need to obtain our nutrients from a wide variety of whole foods, meat, fruits, veggies.

[Trevor]

being a centenarian i think has little to do with diet & a lot to do with genetics.

And while I raise the possibility, I don't concede that a vegetarian diet is more ethical. It clearly does give many vegetarians a warm, fuzzy feeling because they believe it is more ethical. (And, as humans, we tend to defend, clearly with self-interested motivation, the bases of our warm, fuzzy feelings, to wit, religion.) And won't concede such. Until someone can conclusively prove that a cow, for instance, humanely raised, not suffering in excess of what the role requires, is better off having never existed than having existed to be a meal. Who are you to decide that for the cow? I could just as well decide that for a plant on the basis that all life has a form of consciousness. But wouldn't be so presumptuous. The willful infliction of suffering beyond that inherent in the role of meat is abhorrent. Beyond that there is only opinion and sentiment.

I can't stress enough that this has nothing to do with ethics.

[chris w]

2. Those cave paintings. Lots of asparagus, huh?

Those paintings depicting animals could be symbolic of something like animal worship, not necessarily denoting consumption.

Well, except that dudes in the paintings carry some strange, long sticks in their hands

[Trevor]

Omnivores (bears, pigs) have the sharp canines of the carnivore AND the pronounced incisors of the herbivore. They also have molars that are BOTH pointed and broad-topped.

That is not even close to a set of human teeth.

[Trevor]

I don't like using the term "vegetarian" or "vegan". You can take 100 vegetarians and they all have different diets. MOST VEGETARIANS EAT LIKE CRAP. There is far more to an optimum diet than just kicking out the meat.

Oh, and for all you paleo and "what our ancestors did" people, most of their animal diet would have come from insects and other creepy crawlies.

It's hard to believe that we have to discuss the deleterious effects of consuming meat on this forum.

[TheFountain]

2. Those cave paintings. Lots of asparagus, huh?

Those paintings depicting animals could be symbolic of something like animal worship, not necessarily denoting consumption.

Well, except that dudes in the paintings carry some strange, long sticks in their hands

Which may also be symbolic of something. Like a primitive lightning rod that connects them to the animal gods.

Edited by TheFountain, 29 July 2010 - 02:21 PM.

[scottl]

It's hard to believe that we have to discuss the deleterious effects of consuming meat on this forum.

1. Show me any human data showing that hormone free, anti-biotic free meat is harmful.

2. Someone once said that politically the major distinction was not liberal vs conservative but between those who are "live and let live" and those who wish to control other people. I haven't run across many meat eaters trying to convert vegetarians (there probably are some) but there are many many vegetarians determined to convince me that I should not be eating meat. Why is that?

3. I do not believe there is one diet that works best for everyone. Some people thrive on a vegetarian diet and perhaps would do poorly eating meat. Some need meat in their diet and really feel better eating it (sorry no science to back that up). For others it is optional. People are not one size fits all, why would their optimal diet (or supplemental regimen) be?

NB: I ain't saying eating lots of plants ain't healthy for everyone.

[TheFountain]

1. Show me any human data showing that hormone free, anti-biotic free meat is harmful.

There is circumstantial evidence showing that pro-anabolic foods may well be pro-aging. This means dairy too.

2. Someone once said that politically the major distinction was not liberal vs conservative but between those who are "live and let live" and those who wish to control other people. I haven't run across many meat eaters trying to convert vegetarians (there probably are some) but there are many many vegetarians determined to convince me that I should not be eating meat. Why is that?

Are you kidding me? What planet are you from? Every other meat eater I know who knows I am vegetarian criticizes it as if its some weird alien concept to them. My entire family tried converting me back to meat based diet the first 3 years I was a vegetarian. Give me a break man, there are just as many meat eaters doing it as vegetarians.

[babcock]

Omnivores (bears, pigs) have the sharp canines of the carnivore AND the pronounced incisors of the herbivore. They also have molars that are BOTH pointed and broad-topped.

That is not even close to a set of human teeth.

Yea, well we also don't walk on all fours or have fur covering our bodies. Different species develop different characteristics due to their evolution. A pig's tusks are required to prove dominance in their society. Tusks are used for fighting, not eating. Same with bears. Same with several primates who's societies evolved to have an aggressive dominance practice that generally involves seriously injuring or even killing an opponent in a fight of dominance.

If you really thought all omnivores should have the exact same characteristics I guess you would think there would only be a few species of animals on the planet then eh?

The scientific wording that defines an herbivore is "lacking specialized molars and lacking specialized canines". We lack both hence we are omnivores.

The argument you just made is not sound based on current biological classification. There are no species that posses both specialized canines and specialized molars. But hey, maybe you should present your theory to the scientific community declaring that bears and pigs should be put in their own special category of eaters because you think they possess both specialty teeth.

Your zeal for this subject is blinding you to see reason.

Edit: Added quotes.

Edited by babcock, 29 July 2010 - 04:15 PM.

[Soma]

If you want to sacrifice years of your life to decrease [by eating a vegetarian diet]

Well, that's not exactly fair. That is a massive broad generalization.

The southern california adventist "blue zone" community certainly hasn't "sacrificed" years of their lives by eating vegetarian.