150 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

The digestive tracts of the great apes are proportionally similar in length. The ratio of a carnivore's digestive tract is less than half of a human's. A carnivore's intestines are short and smooth in order to prevent putrefaction. Our intestines are designed to keep food in long enough to extract the nutrients. Any raw meat would quickly rot and move too slowly through all the pockets and pouches. I wonder if meat consumption has been linked to colon cancer?

Yes it has.

[Logan]

The digestive tracts of the great apes are proportionally similar in length. The ratio of a carnivore's digestive tract is less than half of a human's. A carnivore's intestines are short and smooth in order to prevent putrefaction. Our intestines are designed to keep food in long enough to extract the nutrients. Any raw meat would quickly rot and move too slowly through all the pockets and pouches. I wonder if meat consumption has been linked to colon cancer?

Yes it has.

I'm sure this is a case where too much red meat was being consumed. Everything in moderation!

[Logan]

Wow. This thread has really hit a hot button with people. I was originally going to make a thread about the evolutionary short-comings of humans (the list is LONG), but I decided to stick with the dietary factor instead. Instead of engaging in straw man arguments and red herrings, I'll provide some evidence as to why humans aren't designed for meat consumption and let you all chime in.

A few points first:
1. Most vegetarians/vegans eat like shit. The term "vegetarian" is literally infinite in scope. We must debate the consumption of meat on the human body by itself.
2. Do not divert the topic of the effects of meat on the human body into an ethical debate. That's not what we are here for and, frankly, I could care less about the animals you eat.

Let's take a look at our biological relatives. Humans, along with gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and chimpanzees, are considered "great apes." We are 98-99% genetically identical. People like to believe that we are the perfect end result of nature's design when the fact is that we are lucky to be here. You hear people say, "I'm not an ape!". Yes, you are. Self-importance doesn't change your DNA.

I think those a few percentage differences in humans and apes goes a pretty long way. I believe we are also fairly close in genetic make up to other animals like rats. Humans ARE a very different much higher evolved species than apes and monkeys.

What is the point of you making this argument about meat anyway? People are going to eat meat and love eating in for as long as we are around. So who the fuck really cares? Meat that is cooked the right way or eaten raw is perfectly fine in moderation and will not have a significant effect on one's life span or health span.

You don't see anyone making a thread on why humans are not designed to be vegans do you? You're argument is completely moot and you have zero concrete evidence to back it up.

I'm sure you have good intentions but this "humans are not designed to eat meat" thing is going to be impossible to argue. Really it's all relative and depends on each individual and how each individual has conditioned themselves through diet. All I know is that if I am working out a a lot and doing a lot of weight training, I NEED meat in my diet, otherwise I just don't feel right.

[Trevor]

The digestive tracts of the great apes are proportionally similar in length. The ratio of a carnivore's digestive tract is less than half of a human's. A carnivore's intestines are short and smooth in order to prevent putrefaction. Our intestines are designed to keep food in long enough to extract the nutrients. Any raw meat would quickly rot and move too slowly through all the pockets and pouches. I wonder if meat consumption has been linked to colon cancer?

Yes it has.

I'm sure this is a case where too much red meat was being consumed. Everything in moderation!

The word "moderation" is a red flag warning you that the writer doesn't have a clue what they are talking about - along with "balanced", "sensible", "reasonable", and "responsible". They are "get out of jail free" words.

So everybody, remember: Come home at a reasonable hour after drinking responsibly and don't forget to eat a balanced diet with sensible portions.

Holy crap! I should write diet books.

[Logan]

The digestive tracts of the great apes are proportionally similar in length. The ratio of a carnivore's digestive tract is less than half of a human's. A carnivore's intestines are short and smooth in order to prevent putrefaction. Our intestines are designed to keep food in long enough to extract the nutrients. Any raw meat would quickly rot and move too slowly through all the pockets and pouches. I wonder if meat consumption has been linked to colon cancer?

Yes it has.

I'm sure this is a case where too much red meat was being consumed. Everything in moderation!

The word "moderation" is a red flag warning you that the writer doesn't have a clue what they are talking about - along with "balanced", "sensible", "reasonable", and "responsible". They are "get out of jail free" words.

So everybody, remember: Come home at a reasonable hour after drinking responsibly and don't forget to eat a balanced diet with sensible portions.

Holy crap! I should write diet books.

Really?? So eating meat or red meat a few times a week is going to increase the risk for colon cancer? That's what I meant by moderation. What the fuck?! I guess I have to stop using that word. Gee thanks for educating me master! So don't tell me you are have an alcohol phobia as well. A few drinks, meaning 2, will not harm most healthy individuals. A drink or two consumed periodically might actually have some health benefits.

Sorry dude, try not to take this personally, but I really hope this thread dies soon. This will be my last post. Peace out.

[Sillewater]

I haven't read this entire thread (tl;dr) but I'll post this study anyways:

Circulation. 2010 Jun 1;121(21):2271-83. Epub 2010 May 17.


Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. rmicha@hsph.harvard.edu


Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for relationships of red (unprocessed), processed, and total meat consumption with incident CHD, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults. Of 1598 identified abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective cohorts and 3 case-control studies. All data were abstracted independently in duplicate. Random-effects generalized least squares models for trend estimation were used to derive pooled dose-response estimates. The 20 studies included 1 218 380 individuals and 23 889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10 797 diabetes mellitus cases. Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P<0.001). Associations were intermediate for total meat intake. Consumption of red and processed meat were not associated with stroke, but only 3 studies evaluated these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.

PMID: 20479151 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]PMCID: PMC2885952 [Available on 2011/6/1]

In the end its probably the intermediate glycation products causing the problems in health (as shown by the epidemiological evidence), and probably those who eat meat (on average) tend to care less about their health.


Are we meant to eat meat?? Who cares.

[Trevor]

Wow. This thread has really hit a hot button with people. I was originally going to make a thread about the evolutionary short-comings of humans (the list is LONG), but I decided to stick with the dietary factor instead. Instead of engaging in straw man arguments and red herrings, I'll provide some evidence as to why humans aren't designed for meat consumption and let you all chime in.

A few points first:
1. Most vegetarians/vegans eat like shit. The term "vegetarian" is literally infinite in scope. We must debate the consumption of meat on the human body by itself.
2. Do not divert the topic of the effects of meat on the human body into an ethical debate. That's not what we are here for and, frankly, I could care less about the animals you eat.

Let's take a look at our biological relatives. Humans, along with gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and chimpanzees, are considered "great apes." We are 98-99% genetically identical. People like to believe that we are the perfect end result of nature's design when the fact is that we are lucky to be here. You hear people say, "I'm not an ape!". Yes, you are. Self-importance doesn't change your DNA.

I think those a few percentage differences in humans and apes goes a pretty long way. I believe we are also fairly close in genetic make up to other animals like rats. Humans ARE a very different much higher evolved species than apes and monkeys.

What is the point of you making this argument about meat anyway? People are going to eat meat and love eating in for as long as we are around. So who the fuck really cares? Meat that is cooked the right way or eaten raw is perfectly fine in moderation and will not have a significant effect on one's life span or health span.

You don't see anyone making a thread on why humans are not designed to be vegans do you? You're argument is completely moot and you have zero concrete evidence to back it up.

I'm sure you have good intentions but this "humans are not designed to eat meat" thing is going to be impossible to argue. Really it's all relative and depends on each individual and how each individual has conditioned themselves through diet. All I know is that if I am working out a a lot and doing a lot of weight training, I NEED meat in my diet, otherwise I just don't feel right.

"I think those a few percentage differences in humans and apes goes a pretty long way." - Glib.

"I believe we are also fairly close in genetic make up to other animals like rats." - It doesn't matter what you believe. It's not true.

"Humans ARE a very different much higher evolved species than apes and monkeys." - Brain - yes. Body - No.

"What is the point of you making this argument about meat anyway?" - This is a human longevity forum. Creating discussions pertaining to such is its purpose.

"People are going to eat meat and love eating in for as long as we are around. So who the fuck really cares?" - Pointless.

"Meat that is cooked the right way or eaten raw is perfectly fine in moderation and will not have a significant effect on one's life span or health span." - There's that word again! And, add "the right way" and "not have a significant effect" to that list.

"You don't see anyone making a thread on why humans are not designed to be vegans do you?" - Haven't seen one. Of course, this thread could be one in the same.

"You're argument is completely moot and you have zero concrete evidence to back it up." - Did you happen to read the post?

"I'm sure you have good intentions" - I never considered any intention.

"this "humans are not designed to eat meat" thing is going to be impossible to argue." - Other than the fact that we are not even remotely adapted for it, how do you mean?

"Really it's all relative and depends on each individual and how each individual has conditioned themselves through diet." - Relative to what? Condition yourself through diet? You made that one up.

"All I know is that if I am working out a a lot and doing a lot of weight training, I NEED meat in my diet, otherwise I just don't feel right." - That is because the rest of your diet sucks.

Edited by Trevor, 31 July 2010 - 05:31 AM.

[Application]

Wow. This thread has really hit a hot button with people. I was originally going to make a thread about the evolutionary short-comings of humans (the list is LONG), but I decided to stick with the dietary factor instead. Instead of engaging in straw man arguments and red herrings, I'll provide some evidence as to why humans aren't designed for meat consumption and let you all chime in.

A few points first:
1. Most vegetarians/vegans eat like shit. The term "vegetarian" is literally infinite in scope. We must debate the consumption of meat on the human body by itself.
2. Do not divert the topic of the effects of meat on the human body into an ethical debate. That's not what we are here for and, frankly, I could care less about the animals you eat.

Let's take a look at our biological relatives. Humans, along with gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and chimpanzees, are considered "great apes." We are 98-99% genetically identical. People like to believe that we are the perfect end result of nature's design when the fact is that we are lucky to be here. You hear people say, "I'm not an ape!". Yes, you are. Self-importance doesn't change your DNA.

I think those a few percentage differences in humans and apes goes a pretty long way. I believe we are also fairly close in genetic make up to other animals like rats. Humans ARE a very different much higher evolved species than apes and monkeys.

What is the point of you making this argument about meat anyway? People are going to eat meat and love eating in for as long as we are around. So who the fuck really cares? Meat that is cooked the right way or eaten raw is perfectly fine in moderation and will not have a significant effect on one's life span or health span.

You don't see anyone making a thread on why humans are not designed to be vegans do you? You're argument is completely moot and you have zero concrete evidence to back it up.

I'm sure you have good intentions but this "humans are not designed to eat meat" thing is going to be impossible to argue. Really it's all relative and depends on each individual and how each individual has conditioned themselves through diet. All I know is that if I am working out a a lot and doing a lot of weight training, I NEED meat in my diet, otherwise I just don't feel right.

I feel best smoking cigarettes, but wouldn't feel very solid jumping into an anti-smoking thread to argue that smoking is natural, relative, and part of the human design.

Edited by Application, 31 July 2010 - 05:46 AM.

[Application]

Really?? So eating meat or red meat a few times a week is going to increase the risk for colon cancer? That's what I meant by moderation. Well, I guess I have to stop using that word. Thanks for educating me! So don't tell me you are have an alcohol phobia as well. A few drinks, meaning 2, will not harm most healthy individuals. A drink or two consumed periodically might actually have some health benefits. I happen to think there are ways to drink responsibly. It's called going out and having no more than 2 or 3 drinks over a 3 or 4 hour period and enjoying time meeting new people and hanging with close friends. You should try it out some time. Don't worry, it's not going to kill you, cause cancer, or significantly shorten your life span.

Sorry dude, try not to take this personally, but I really hope this thread dies soon. This will be my last post. Peace out.

There is epidemiological evidence pointing towards a dose dependent relationship; more animal products consumed= higher rates of colon cancer. Plus if the OP is correct and our intestines are so long that meat putrifies and rots before being excreted, would you want to subject yourself to that a number of times per week?

from: http://www.all-creat...erand-inte.html

[Logan]

Wow. This thread has really hit a hot button with people. I was originally going to make a thread about the evolutionary short-comings of humans (the list is LONG), but I decided to stick with the dietary factor instead. Instead of engaging in straw man arguments and red herrings, I'll provide some evidence as to why humans aren't designed for meat consumption and let you all chime in.

A few points first:
1. Most vegetarians/vegans eat like shit. The term "vegetarian" is literally infinite in scope. We must debate the consumption of meat on the human body by itself.
2. Do not divert the topic of the effects of meat on the human body into an ethical debate. That's not what we are here for and, frankly, I could care less about the animals you eat.

Let's take a look at our biological relatives. Humans, along with gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and chimpanzees, are considered "great apes." We are 98-99% genetically identical. People like to believe that we are the perfect end result of nature's design when the fact is that we are lucky to be here. You hear people say, "I'm not an ape!". Yes, you are. Self-importance doesn't change your DNA.

I think those a few percentage differences in humans and apes goes a pretty long way. I believe we are also fairly close in genetic make up to other animals like rats. Humans ARE a very different much higher evolved species than apes and monkeys.

What is the point of you making this argument about meat anyway? People are going to eat meat and love eating in for as long as we are around. So who the fuck really cares? Meat that is cooked the right way or eaten raw is perfectly fine in moderation and will not have a significant effect on one's life span or health span.

You don't see anyone making a thread on why humans are not designed to be vegans do you? You're argument is completely moot and you have zero concrete evidence to back it up.

I'm sure you have good intentions but this "humans are not designed to eat meat" thing is going to be impossible to argue. Really it's all relative and depends on each individual and how each individual has conditioned themselves through diet. All I know is that if I am working out a a lot and doing a lot of weight training, I NEED meat in my diet, otherwise I just don't feel right.

"I think those a few percentage differences in humans and apes goes a pretty long way." - Glib.

"I believe we are also fairly close in genetic make up to other animals like rats." - It doesn't matter what you believe. It's not true.

"Humans ARE a very different much higher evolved species than apes and monkeys." - Brain - yes. Body - No.

"What is the point of you making this argument about meat anyway?" - This is a human longevity forum. Creating discussions pertaining to such is its purpose.

"People are going to eat meat and love eating in for as long as we are around. So who the fuck really cares?" - Pointless.

"Meat that is cooked the right way or eaten raw is perfectly fine in moderation and will not have a significant effect on one's life span or health span." - There's that word again! And, add "the right way" and "not have a significant effect" to that list.

"You don't see anyone making a thread on why humans are not designed to be vegans do you?" - Haven't seen one. Of course, this thread could be one in the same.

"You're argument is completely moot and you have zero concrete evidence to back it up." - Did you happen to read the post?

"I'm sure you have good intentions" - I never considered any intention.

"this "humans are not designed to eat meat" thing is going to be impossible to argue." - Other than the fact that we are not even remotely adapted for it, how do you mean?

"Really it's all relative and depends on each individual and how each individual has conditioned themselves through diet." - Relative to what? Condition yourself through diet? You made that one up.

"All I know is that if I am working out a a lot and doing a lot of weight training, I NEED meat in my diet, otherwise I just don't feel right." - That is because the rest of your diet sucks.

Alright, I'm back. I know I know I said I wasn't going to post again. Enough of the personal attacks. I will take responsibility and admit I started on this. BTW, my diet is great. How do you know what my diet is like? Are you saying is sucks because I include some meat in it? Dude, chill out. This argument is seriously getting old.

I understand you are passionate about what you believe in, but, like I said before, you have zero solid evidence to back up this argument you are making.

Take it easy man. Eat what you want and everyone else will eat what they want.

Now i seriously need to get a life. What the hell am I doing on here so much on a Friday night?

[Healthy Skeptic]

I'm very suspicious of anyone advocating specialty diets like paleo or vegetarian as a clear answer when I've seen no satisfactory controlled studies on their effect on lifespan. Overall lifespan is more important to me than any single chronic condition. The peoples with the longest lifespans eat meat. The Japanese and the Okinawans in particular eat less meat than Americans but they view outright vegetarianism as very weird. Less than 1% of Japanese are vegetarian. India and Thailand have relatively high concentrations of vegetarians(and lower rates of some chronic conditions than Americans), but also have terrible average lifespan.

[TheFountain]

I'm very suspicious of anyone advocating specialty diets like paleo or vegetarian as a clear answer when I've seen no satisfactory controlled studies on their effect on lifespan. Overall lifespan is more important to me than any single chronic condition. The peoples with the longest lifespans eat meat. The Japanese and the Okinawans in particular eat less meat than Americans but they view outright vegetarianism as very weird. Less than 1% of Japanese are vegetarian. India and Thailand have relatively high concentrations of vegetarians(and lower rates of some chronic conditions than Americans), but also have terrible average lifespan.

The okinawans are practically vegetarian. They eat fish more than land animals and very very little of the latter. About 8 times less than the average westerner. This means something, like it or not.

Edited by TheFountain, 31 July 2010 - 10:45 AM.

[sthira]

Trevor, your writing reminds me of the fruitarian, Douglas Graham. Also, ajnast4n has done most of the heavy-lifting here by providing coherent answers to the nutritional concerns raised by the meat-eaters. Personally, I'm healthy, have bveen eating a vegan diet for a long time, my biomarkers indicate that it's indeed possible to thrive on a vegan diet. Most vegans I know are really chill, generally laid-back people who have little need to prove anything to anyone. Finally, it's ridiculous to exclude compassion for sentient creatures when arguing the merits and challenges of veganism and vegetarianism.

[Riceater]

Chicken and fish count as meat right?

[Logan]

I'm very suspicious of anyone advocating specialty diets like paleo or vegetarian as a clear answer when I've seen no satisfactory controlled studies on their effect on lifespan. Overall lifespan is more important to me than any single chronic condition. The peoples with the longest lifespans eat meat. The Japanese and the Okinawans in particular eat less meat than Americans but they view outright vegetarianism as very weird. Less than 1% of Japanese are vegetarian. India and Thailand have relatively high concentrations of vegetarians(and lower rates of some chronic conditions than Americans), but also have terrible average lifespan.

The okinawans are practically vegetarian. They eat fish more than land animals and very very little of the latter. About 8 times less than the average westerner. This means something, like it or not.

Umm, fish consumption is not included in the vegetarian diet. Fish is meat, meat is meat, and if you are a true vegetarian, you don't eat meat.

Has anyone considered genetics playing a partial role in the longevity of Okinawans?

[Logan]

Does anyone else think this could be another full_circle thread?

[stephen_b]

There is epidemiological evidence pointing towards a dose dependent relationship; more animal products consumed= higher rates of colon cancer. Plus if the OP is correct and our intestines are so long that meat putrifies and rots before being excreted, would you want to subject yourself to that a number of times per week?

The phrase "more animal products" brings up the possibility that processed meats (full of salt and chemical preservatives) were lumped together with unprocessed red meat, as processed but not red meat has been found to be associated with CVD and diabetes in this recent study (PMID 20479151).

Also, see PMID 20661817: "Our results do not support the hypotheses that fat, protein, and red meat increase the risk of distal [colorectal cancer]".

[Mind]

Just a couple of data points here, not only are there some human (mostly indigenous) cultures that consume mostly meat/animal products - Masai and Inuit - but at least two people experimented with eating nothing but meat (and fat) for over a year. They reported (subjectively) feeling fine.

Also, even though it is not a major part of their diet, one of our closest genetic cousins loves to eat meat and expend quite a bit of energy getting it.

Different (non-meat) diets could be much better for health and longevity, and ethical arguments are an important part of the equation, however, humans (up until the present day) have almost always been omnivorous and have little trouble eating, digesting, and extracting nutrients from meat. To continue promoting the logic in the title of this thread is rather trollish, as one poster adeptly pointed out earlier.

Edited by Mind, 03 August 2010 - 05:11 PM.

[babcock]

From Science Daily today: http://www.scienceda...00811135039.htm

The evolutionary stories of the Swiss Army Knife and the Big Mac just got a lot longer. An international team of scientists led by Dr. Zeresenay Alemseged from the California Academy of Sciences has discovered evidence that human ancestors were using stone tools and consuming meat from large mammals nearly a million years earlier than previously documented. While working in the Afar Region of Ethiopia, Alemseged's "Dikika Research Project" team found fossilized bones bearing unambiguous evidence of stone tool use -- cut marks inflicted while carving meat off the bone and percussion marks created while breaking the bones open to extract marrow.

The bones date to roughly 3.4 million years ago and provide the first evidence that Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, used stone tools and consumed meat. The research is reported in the August 12 issue of the journal Nature.

Well if history provides any evidence, Bazinga...

[e Volution]

...

Hehe, I haven't been following this trollish thread but just read this article and was going to post it myself. Seems you beat me to it! Does this mean we have to adjusts the starting date of the "Paleolithic" ?

[pobuoy]

ok, a lot of misinformation in this thread

1. vegetarians do eat meat(eggs, fish), as opposed to a true vegan
2. i read the blue zone book, and i believe the sardinians, okinawans, and costa ricans all eat meat
3. we only eat large quantities of grains/vegetables becuase they are cheaper to produce, have a longer shelf life,. traditionally meat is hard to kill, spoils extremely fast after being killed in the wild, and in older times meat was reserved for festivities and or the wealthy. even the blue zone book had a story where a sardinian's family could only afford to eat meat once a week.
4. somebody pointed out that animals eat organs after the kill, true, but as modern humans, we are raised on muscle meats, so we have a taste for muscle meat. If one reads about past dietary habits(even going back as little as fifty years), in the past humans aet liver, intestines, hearts, kidneys, thymus, and other organs. furthermore, some modern communities still feast on organ meats.
5. i wonder why humans revert to cannablism when faced with starvation, as opposed to eating wood (whether it be from tree bark or a boat oar)

stop trying to push your vegan/vegetarian agendas. we are omnivores. as a matter of fact, an argument can be made that humans function better(long term) on an all meat diet

[yoyo]

Wood is mostly cellulose (only accessable to ruminants etc.) and lignin (pretty much the plastic of the natural world, only things that can break it down are some specialized microorganism, and termites which i think use said microbes in their guts)

[inkyoto]

Wood is mostly cellulose (only accessable to ruminants etc.) and lignin (pretty much the plastic of the natural world, only things that can break it down are some specialized microorganism, and termites which i think use said microbes in their guts)

Well, if cellulose and lignin are the only two problems, you can alway pop a couple of pills with cellulase and ligninase to assist with proper digestion of your sawdust porridge in the morning. What is the nutritional value of timber like? Minerals? Vitamins? Amino acids? Any EFAs?

[yoyo]

Wood is mostly cellulose (only accessable to ruminants etc.) and lignin (pretty much the plastic of the natural world, only things that can break it down are some specialized microorganism, and termites which i think use said microbes in their guts)

Well, if cellulose and lignin are the only two problems, you can alway pop a couple of pills with cellulase and ligninase to assist with proper digestion of your sawdust porridge in the morning. What is the nutritional value of timber like? Minerals? Vitamins? Amino acids? Any EFAs?

um, people in donnar party or R v. dudley and stevens situations don't have cellulase and ligninase pills handy...

[rwac]

um, people in donnar party or R v. dudley and stevens situations don't have cellulase and ligninase pills handy...

I wonder if you could bioengineer a friendly gut bacteria that digests cellulase and ligninase. Might be more effective than enzyme-in-a-pill. You'd have to eat cellulose and lignin to keep it around, though.

[wiserd]

ok, a lot of misinformation in this thread

1. vegetarians do eat meat(eggs, fish), as opposed to a true vegan
...
5. i wonder why humans revert to cannablism when faced with starvation, as opposed to eating wood (whether it be from tree bark or a boat oar)

stop trying to push your vegan/vegetarian agendas. we are omnivores. as a matter of fact, an argument can be made that humans function better(long term) on an all meat diet

1. "Pescatarians" eat fish. Vegetarians, by most definitions of the term, do not.

5. Certain parts of pine trees can be nutritive, but most people don't have the survival skills to know what to eat and what not to. The archea needed to digest cellulose would give a human diarrhea so actual wood can't be consumed. But inner bark and the needles are potentially nutritive.

I've seen one store selling pine needle juice. (Blended and strained.) I think it tasted good, but I tend to have unusual tastes.

Edited by wiserd, 03 September 2010 - 06:54 AM.

[njligernj]

I find it very interesting how dismissive certain people seem to be about the concept of vegetarianism. First off (on a board where you'd expect people to be somewhat thoughtful and willing to do a modicum of research) people pulling the "no vegetarian centenarian" card with such absolute conviction.

About a month ago I decided to stop eating meat for a while. It was not a moral decision (although there is the whole "it's the best thing you can possibly do for the environment" side) but rather I thought I could drop a few pounds. I also did consider that rather than pontificate without facts I'd actually try something myself for a while before forming an opinion (not a popular idea in this day and age I am sadly aware).

So then I heard the "no centenarians" deal. So (like any logical person) I did a net search. In about five minutes I found 4-5 pages talking about different 100+ year old people who were vegetarians. Couldn't have been easier. Yet this is such a common belief and people are willing to accept it without doing even the most basic investigation themselves. Why is that? Is is simply because they like meat and therefore will accept any argument no matter how easily proven false? (I believe it is true that there is no vegan centenarian however anyone with a modest understanding of statistics would realize there are sample size issues there. Regardless I don't want to get sidetracked by veganism because it's a different thing entirely with a whole host of issues which vegetarians do not have.)

I wish vegetarians would stop playing the "we aren't designed to eat meat" card.

I wish non-vegetarians would stop playing the "you need supplements" card (or for that matter the "oh yes we were designed to eat meat" card).

I don't care what cavemen (or women!) did. Couldn't care less. There are likely many people on this board who would not be alive right now if they were cavemen. You might take medicine or have had an operation (or even had a severe bout of the flu) as a child which would have ended your life in those times. Forget cavemen, many of you might not be alive if you were born in a third world country. So why are we arguing about what cavemen or indigenous tribes do? We aren't them. We need to make decisions based on what we CAN do.

How many meat-eaters here do not take a single supplement? There might be a few but I'm sure a lot of meat-eaters take a couple of supplements. Vegetarians need B-12 and carnosine. Easily available. When I ate meat I took a few supplements. If I go back to eating meat I will take supplements. As a (temporary?) vegetarian I take some supplements. What does this prove about the viability of either diet? Nothing.

Let's say they invented a "Jetsons" food pill. It supplied perfect nutrition and they are all designed around individual nutritional needs. All scientists/dietitians agree that eating these pills instead of real food will make you healthier and live much long. Would you not take the pills because "cavemen didn't eat food pills" or "this tribe doesn't eat pills"? You might continue to eat food because you like it ... but anyone using cavemen or indigenous arguments would be a fool. It's no different with our diet today. It doesn't matter what people used to do (or continue to do in third-world areas).

We CAN supplement and given the fact that we can I'd love to know IF vegetarianism (with some b-12 and carnosine) is a better diet option. However all I get is idiots on BOTH sides dragging up these absurd arguments about cavemen.

You can't go on vegetarian message boards because the ethical issues outweigh everything else (many of them would continue to eat veggie even if it turned out it wasn't healthy so it's not very helpful from my perspective of mainly health concerns). Then on boards such as these you run into such absolute disdain for facts that you can't have a real discussion about pros and cons because people are vehemently arguing points they could dismiss by taking two minutes to search the net.

I am no vegetarian zealot. I may well go back to eating meat. However in just one month I have had "meat-eaters" try to "convert" me back to meat on numerous occasions. I have not once tried to convert anyone myself (because I don't know if it's a good idea myself so why would I preach to someone if I don't have all the facts).

I understand there are annoying vegggies/vegans out there who get preachy (I've been annoyed by them myself in the past -- in fact I am MORE annoyed by them now because their attitude and way of discussing the issue turn so many people off to the idea that it creates this atmosphere where you can't even discuss it in a reasonable fashion).

However I think people who eat meat drastically underestimate how much pressure vegetarians come under to eat meat. My Mom practically started crying when I told her I hadn't eaten meat for a month ("what will I cook for you when you visit?") and anyone else I tell I have to sit through tedious explanations about protein ("no shit really you need protein? I've NEVER heard that before"). I supplemented protein when I ate meat for post-workout -- I supplement protein now as well. What's the difference?

This is all in one month (maybe a month and a half) and only telling a few people whenever it came up naturally in conversation ("want a hot dog?"). At first I told people because I thought it wasn't a big deal in this day and ago -- lately I've been NOT telling people because I don't want to sit through their tedious myth-based opinions. I'm in the closet after a month! So don't give me the "all veggies try to convert us but we just let them be" line. Doesn't work and it has nothing to do with the science. Even if vegetarians were exactly what you think they are -- or ten times worse -- it doesn't mean anything in regard to the viability (or lack thereof) of the diet. It's like going to the gym and talking to some dumb jock gym-rat and then concluding "I'm never going to exercise because the people who work out are annoying." I probably couldn't hang out with the stereotypical vegetarian and I definitely have WAY more in common with the meat-eating population than the stereotypical vegetarians -- but none of that has anything to do with the health value of the lifestyle.

So, is there ANYONE out there actually interested in openly discussing pros/cons of the diet (assuming proper supplementation and assuming we live in 2010 not 10,000 BC)?

[hypnotoad]

Let's say they invented a "Jetsons" food pill. It supplied perfect nutrition and they are all designed around individual nutritional needs. All scientists/dietitians agree that eating these pills instead of real food will make you healthier and live much long. Would you not take the pills because "cavemen didn't eat food pills" or "this tribe doesn't eat pills"? You might continue to eat food because you like it ... but anyone using cavemen or indigenous arguments would be a fool. It's no different with our diet today. It doesn't matter what people used to do (or continue to do in third-world areas).

Yea but we don't have a Jetson's pill. All we have to go on is looking at the nutritional intake of humans throughout evolution to give us insights as to the proper type of foods we should be eating now. Part of knowing what would be in the Jeston's food pill is knowing what makes us healthy, and why. Here again we can look at evolution to give us clues. People, just like all animals, should be eating the types of foods they evolved to consume. Dogs don't eat grains in the wild, but some birds do. Rabbits don't eat meat, but cats do. When you give an animal (humans included) foods it isn't evolved to eat, its health can suffer (or even kill it) In a proper, balanced eco-system predators and prey will tend to consume food types suited to their bodies. Figuring out just how humans fit into that equation is the reason for looking back at how ancestors ate for millions of years (moving from proto-human vegetarians to advanced meat eating modern humans using tools and fire.)

Of course looking at what ancient humans ended up eating isn't the whole story, its just one aspect. If early man had access to Oreos he would have consumed them as well. Environmental pressures and restrictions influenced our diets to a great degree. But there again, that resulted in evolutionary changes and adaptations that you take into account when trying to decide the best type of modern food intake. For example, fructose in the form of naturally bound fruit is a tolerable source of sugar since it was naturally limited in quantity in the wild. But when you remove the fiber from fruit and extract all the sugar into "juice drinks" you end up with so much fructose as to have negative impacts on health. So blindly taking the "some fruit sugar is ok, thus MORE must be better" approach is wrong. But what is does tell is that a more tolerable way to consume fructose is when it's in naturally occurring fruits.

To me the critical issue is not if humans evolved to eat meat - It's pretty obvious we did - it's a question of how much, what kind, how is it prepared, and how does it fit into the overall diet that matters. That's where the tough questions lie, since something like MTOR expression might hurt maximum longevity, but have no meaningful impact until middle age or beyond. There is no conceivable downside, as far as I can see, why including occasional/limited grass-fed beef in your diet would have any negative impacts. Low quality, hormone-laden grain-fed meat is another matter.

Only if someone consumed and ALL meat or NO-meat diet, THEN they would need to pay closer attention to getting the full spectrum of nutrients. Innuits on an all-meat diet didn't just eat muscle, they ate key organs as well. Similarly, vegans need play close attention to adequate B12, dietary fats etc. As far as I know, a pure vegan diet cannot get enough B12 for maximum health, but could easily manage it through supplements.

So it's up to you, if you want to avoid meat, don't kid yourself that it's because we "aren't designed" to eat it or it's unhealthy in moderation. If you don't like the taste, or think it's unethical, then no big deal.

Edited by hypnotoad, 19 September 2010 - 04:52 PM.

[Sorcerer]

A more important question is not whether man evolved to eat meat (as if he had evolved to be vegetarian and then went on a multi-thousand-year meat-eating spree on every continent) but whether or not man evolved to drink/eat the products made from the milk of other animals, which are laden with natural hormones made for the offspring of said animals.

Of course, nowadays, with genetically engineered bgh things are a lot worse.........

I would agree with toad. There is natural meat and then there is grain-fed, antibiotic-laced supermarket meat.

Going back to foods in their natural form is the basis of health, I believe. Within that, people can decide which foods are better for them through experimentation. More carbs vs more protein or fat, etc.....

And to think that all those years the fda was promoting margarine (trans omega 6 fats) and criticizing coconut oil and other NATURAL fats!

Oh, well, when financial interests are involved.........

[njligernj]

All we have to go on is looking at the nutritional intake of humans throughout evolution to give us insights as to the proper type of foods we should be eating now.

We have more than that though surely. We have science. We can analyze how foods impact our bodies. This seems more valuable that looking back at cavemen.

There is no way our ancestors ate the perfect diet for a human being -- food was often tricky to get so they ate what they could get their hands on. This doesn't really teach us all that much. Yes we know what poisons us (and doesn't) but it provides little insight into much else. Let's say that eating meat (just for an example I'm not saying this is fact at all) is actually bad for you but the ill effects don't manifest until extended use (80 or so years into your life). For almost all of recorded history that would be utterly irrelevant because very few people lived past that age.

In that case BOTH sides of the argument can be correct: it was best for humans to eat meat in the past because it provided the easiest source of nutrients and proteins and since other factors would kill them off long before the meat it didn't matter; on the other hand, now we live long enough to see the negative side effects we might want to consider a different lifestyle.

That's where the tough questions lie, since something like MTOR expression might hurt maximum longevity, but have no meaningful impact until middle age or beyond.

Oh crap you just said what I said (only much more succinctly). Well I'm not erasing it now.

There is no conceivable downside, as far as I can see, why including occasional/limited grass-fed beef in your diet would have any negative impacts. Low quality, hormone-laden grain-fed meat is another matter.

Agreed. I'd be curious if the average meat-eater on this list eats none of the latter. In many areas it's arguably easier to be vegetarian than investigate the background of the meat.

If you don't like the taste, or think it's unethical, then no big deal.

But I don't think either of those things. I just want to do whatever is best but because of the vegetarian ethics agenda on one side and general apathy and lack of research on the other side it's difficult to make an informed decision. The internet is borderline useless -- you spend time reading an article which seems reasonable until the last line says "besides, the Bible tells us that man cannot live longer than 120 years anyway so don't worry about eating meat."

I do feel better (and I apparently snore way less since I stopped eating meat) but I'm open to the idea that just because something works short-term it could still be bad long-term. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of reliable data on the carnosine supplementation either (the majority of it seems to come from the bodybuilding side) although I'm still looking into that.