Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Beastt, every single one of those groups moved away from meat-eating because their hunting devestated the local ecosystem. Look at the very first human tools. What are their purpose? What are almost all of the tools that we find up until humans became agrarian used for? They're used to kill animals, cut up their flesh, break their bones for marrow, and render their skins as clothing and other useful items. These things far predate our species; so we can only conclude that we have some evolutionary tendancy towards meat eating.
Don't you think that using that same kind of evidence we could make a good argument that we have some evolutionary tendancy towards devastating the ecology, making war and committing murder? If we do make such an argument, does that mean it's a good thing or that we should strive to continue?
I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. There exists a signficant level of compelling and interesting evidence many aren't familiar with. I'm just putting it out there along with the observation that it's contrary to human compassion, contrary to human physiology and devastating to human health. Perhaps that's enough.
__________________ When expressing a view becomes illegal, those with something to say and questions to ponder will be made criminals. But ask; who has really committed the harmful act, those who speak an opinion, or those who oppress them?
The american heart association recommends about 4 ounces of lean meat a day. That is not very much meat. In general it is not all that healthy for us to eat meat and it is difficult to digest. But if we do not eat meat then it is difficult to get some of the things we find in meat, like protein. You can get the protein you need without eating meat, but it is difficult, you have to eat a lot of beans or something like that.
This is probably the most common misconception concerning diet in western cultures today. The industries which profit from the sale of protein rich foods have done a remarkable job of building upon a faulty study performed by Mendel and Osborn clear back in 1914. The two used rats in an attempt to determine the most beneficial mix of amino acids. The study concluded that a combination similar to what can be found in eggs was best. [Osborn, T., "Amino Acids in Nutrition Growth," Journal of Biological Chemistry, 17:325, 1914]
It wasn't until years later that the use of rats as test subjects came under scrutiny. It doesn't take one long to recognize that human needs are extremely different from those of rats. In fact, human breast milk provides only 5% of its calories as protein while the breast milk of rats contains 49%. [Bell, G., "Textbook of Physiology and Biochemistry," Williams and Wilkins, Balantine; Adapted by McDougall, J.]
A quick look at the actual figures for human protein needs shows that all of the concern about obtaining enough protein in the diet is unfounded.
Full Range of Protein Recommendations
2½% of total caloric intake.
Source: Various articles from the; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Quote: "Many populations have. in fact, lived in excellent health on this amount."
4½% of total caloric intake.
Source: The World Health Organization (Listed as 32 grams per day for a 150 pound man.)
6% of total caloric intake.
Source: The Food and Nutrition Board (Listed as 4½% plus a 30% safety margin.)
8% of total caloric intake.
Source: The National Research Council (They also factor in a safety margin which they publish only as "substantial" but further emphasize that this is not a minimum daily requirement but a recommended daily intake.)
That means that if all one were to eat were potatoes, they would still be ingesting all of the protein their body needs along with a safety margin even above the recommendations of The National Research Council. The down side is that protein, just like any other nutrient, can be detrimental if over-consumed to a significant enough degree. The disease most heavily linked to the over-consumption of protein is now at epidemic levels in the United States. Unfortunately, most sufferers still go to an M.D. for advice on how to combat the disease through diet and they receive the same advice the could likely get from their next door neighbor. The vast majority of medical doctors simply don't receive any training in nutrition. In the mid 80s, a study was performed including all 125 medical schools then in the U.S. Only 30 had a single required course in nutrition. A subsequent Senate investigation revealed that on average, medical students receive 3 hours of nutrition training for each 4-years of medical school. [Kapleau, Philip, "To Cherish All Life,"Harpur and Rowe, San Francisco, pg 59]
The disease running so rampant right under our noses is osteoporosis and part of the reason is that doctors continue to recommend an increase in calcium ingestion. They do this despite the fact that Americans, on average, consume far more calcium than do people in countries where osteoporosis is all but unheard of. Protein alters the blood pH from it's normal 7.35 - 7.45. The body counters this acidic effect by drawing calcium from the skeletal system into the blood stream where it restores the proper pH to the blood. Most of the calcium is then filtered by the kidneys, along with the excess protein, and excreted in the urine.
In a number of studies where test subjects were split into low-protein and high-protein diets, all of the subjects on the high-protein diet showed a negative calcium balance while all of the subjects on the low, (but adequate), protein diet showed a positive calcium balance. Different groups of the test subjects were provided from 0 to 1,400 Mgs supplemental calcium daily. [Anad, C., "Affect of Protein Intake on Calcium Balance of Young Men Given 500 Mg Calcium Daily," Journal of Nutriton"] [Hegsted, M., "Urinary Calcium and Calcium Balance in Young Men as Affected by Level of Protein and Phosphorus Intake," Journal of Nutrition] [Walker, R., "Calcium Retention in the Adult Human Male as Affected by Protein Intake," Journal of Nutrition, 1972] [Johnson, N., "Effect of Level of Protein Intake on Urinary and Fecal Calcium and Calcium Retention", Journal of Nutrition, 100:1425] [Linkswiler, H., "Calcium Retention of Young Adult Males As Affected By Level of Protein and of Calcium Intake," Trans New York Academy of Science]
And few people stop to think about why we're so worried about not obtaining enough protein in the first place. In cultures consuming the standard western diet, the diseases of greatest concern are not diseases of deficiency. They're diseases of excess. While people are running around trying to consume plenty of protein, heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes routinely account for more than 60% of deaths annually. All four of those diseases, (most notably heart disease), are heavily tied to the very same foods most people turn to in an attempt to assure they get enough protein. How many people have heard of kwashiokor? I would bet very few. Probably most have heard of pelegra, beriberi and scurvy, but how many know of anyone who has suffered from any of these diseases? These are the diseases of deficiency. While heart attacks alone account for 35% - 40% of deaths anually, automobile accidents account for less than 1% most years. Yet we continue to increase the number of air bags in cars, make it a law that a seat belt must be worn and have entire divisions of police agencies dedicated to traffic patrol. Trying to reduce traffic fatalities is a good thing. But compared to the deaths linked to diet, it's an almost insignificant concern.
The fact is the human body has no need for any dietary cholesterol. And the most popular protein foods are usually accompanied by significant levels of saturated fats, (which raise syrum cholesterol), and cholesterol. And despite efforts by certain industry interests to suggest that cholesterol is a lesser concern than age, heredity, smoking, etc., a vast body of evidence shows a direct correlation between cholesterol ingestion, syrum cholesterol levels and death from coronary heart disease and stroke. http://www.christianforums.com/t2280...l#post19735104
Plant sources include; Spinach 49% Soy Bean Curd 43% Wheat Germ 31% Broccoli 45% Soy Beans 35% Rye 20% Mushrooms 38% Lentils 29% Wild Rice 16% Green peas 30% Cauliflower 40% Navy Beans 26% Pumpkin Seeds 21% Lemons 16% Cholesterol Content = 0 [USDA, "Nutritive Value of American Food in Common Units," Handbook #465]
Originally Posted by JohnR7
Also meat to some degree is a effective use of available land. If it were not for eating animals I am told it would take quite a bit more land to produce the food we need to survive. It is kind of like using a animal to pull a plow. If they get hungrey there is plenty of food for them growing along side of the irrigation ditch. But if you have a tractor, then you have to find the money so you can go out and buy gasoline. For people without the resources to buy gasoline, then a animal maybe more practical for them.
I'm not sure who told you this but I would take anything they said with a bit of skepticism from now on. The use of agricultural lands to produce livestock and food for livestock is one of the most wasteful of all practices. It has been shown that while an acre of land can feed 20 vegetarians, that same acre can produce enough food for just one omnivorous human. Approximately 80% of all the grain grown in America is fed to livestock. For each 16 pounds of grain fed to cattle, one pound of meat is returned. The total caloric loss when all of the nutrient value has been run through an animal and harvested as meat is 90%.
Most people are very aware that we are losing rain forest at 150 acres per minute. Few people are aware of the primary reason for this loss. America can no longer raise enough livestock to supply the demand for meat. Fortunately for us, starving people in South America are happy to accept American money in exchange for the use of their land to raise cattle. So they slash the growth in the rain forests and burn what remains. Then for about 3 or 4 years, cattle can graze on the grasses that grow in place of the rain forest. However, rain forests have a remarkably fast turn-over of available nutrients. Beyond about 4-inches, the soil is virtually sterile. As long as the rain forest ecosystem continues to cycle, the exchange of nutrients keeps the forest flouishing. But when replaced by grass and grazing cattle, the land is turned to eroded waste in 3 to 4 years. To keep American dollars coming in, more land is then slashed and burned and the process continues.
Two hundred years ago, the average agricultural land in American contained 21-inches of rich, fertile topsoil. Today that figure has dropped to an average of 6-inches. At the present rate our agricultural lands will be completely depleated in less than 50-years. The U.S.D.A. says the productivity of America's cropland is down seventy percent with much of it on the brink of becoming barren wasteland and admits that this constitutes an unparalleled disaster. [[Hur, Robin, "Six Inches From Starvation; How And Why America's Topsoil is Disappearing," Vegetarian Times, March 1985, pg 45-47]
And that's to say nothing of the water needed to raise livestock. Whereas a pound of wheat requires, on average, 25-gallons of water to reach harvest stage, a pound of beef requires 2,500 gallons. An article in Newsweek put it this way; "The amount of water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a [Naval] destroyer.". [Newsweek, "The Browning of America," Feb. 22, 1981, pg. 26]
Consider that only 3% of the Earth's water is fresh and 80% of that is locked up in the polar ice caps and you begin to see the problem. A full 50% of the water used in the U.S. is used for livestock production.
Anyway, I'm growing terribly long-winded and drifting decidely off topic. So I'll apologize and try to shut up for a while.
__________________ When expressing a view becomes illegal, those with something to say and questions to ponder will be made criminals. But ask; who has really committed the harmful act, those who speak an opinion, or those who oppress them?
Last edited by Beastt; 7th November 2005 at 01:34 PM.
Although Beastt has been made a good case that veganism is a healthier diet, I still do not think he has shown that it is the natural one. When considering what is the natural diet, we must consider what the animal naturally eats. Apart from a few isolated exceptions, humans include meat in their diet. This habit has grown up independently in many different areas, and has persisted through extremely long periods of time, which fashions or cultural effects do not do. Completely vegan cultures seem to be the exception rather than the rule. We must also consider what would be a viable diet for humans outside of civilisation; it would generally be much harder for a human to acquire the necessary nutrients if he ate no meat.
Since humans evolved quite recently from animals that ate no meat, and since our diet (though it includes meat) is primarily herbivorous, it should not be surprising that the human digestive system exhibits characteristics of a herbivore. This may well mean that a vegan diet is healthier, for a human who has easy access to a wide range of foods. However, this does not necessarily mean that veganism is the natural human diet.
Although Beastt has been made a good case that veganism is a healthier diet, I still do not think he has shown that it is the natural one. When considering what is the natural diet, we must consider what the animal naturally eats. Apart from a few isolated exceptions, humans include meat in their diet. This habit has grown up independently in many different areas, and has persisted through extremely long periods of time, which fashions or cultural effects do not do. Completely vegan cultures seem to be the exception rather than the rule. We must also consider what would be a viable diet for humans outside of civilisation; it would generally be much harder for a human to acquire the necessary nutrients if he ate no meat.
Since humans evolved quite recently from animals that ate no meat, and since our diet (though it includes meat) is primarily herbivorous, it should not be surprising that the human digestive system exhibits characteristics of a herbivore. This may well mean that a vegan diet is healthier, for a human who has easy access to a wide range of foods. However, this does not necessarily mean that veganism is the natural human diet.
Certainly you offer some points worthy of consideration. In reading your post I considered that I had focused more on what seems to be healthiest and what our physiology suggests than what is "natural". I'm not really sure I can pin-point exactly what that term even means in reference to human diets.
But I also think what you're suggesting here requires that we consider man to be the only animal for which the anatomy/physiology of the body doesn't produce a conclusion concerning what the body is naturally equipped to consume. http://www.christianforums.com/t1169...l#post10930995
As for the idea that meat is easier to obtain in quantity, certainly there is some credit which must be given. But there are other concerns which are perhaps less obvious to the casual observer. Prior to more modern civilizations men had to contend with the fact that even a fairly minor injury could result in death. We had little concept of medical care or sanitation. Every animal which hunts must consider the risk of injury and the potential for losing the ability to hunt through injury. This is one of the reasons that a second look is being taken at the assumption that a large part of early man's diet consisted of meat. If you are unable to outrun your prey, have no built-in hunting equipment like a true predator and are subject to debilitating injury, suddenly it doesn't look quite so difficult to spend long hours gathering plant-based foods rather than spending both time and calories attempting to hunt an animal with greater speed, strength and agility. One must remember that long before monetary exchange was conceived, man still had a budget. It was a budget of calories. Great care had to be taken not to expend more calories in the pursuit of food than would be returned through the food if obtained. A failed hunt expends more calories than does an unsuccessful venture foraging.
__________________ When expressing a view becomes illegal, those with something to say and questions to ponder will be made criminals. But ask; who has really committed the harmful act, those who speak an opinion, or those who oppress them?
That means that if all one were to eat were potatoes, they would still be ingesting all of the protein their body needs along with a safety margin even above the recommendations of The National Research Council.
Yeah, if they ate 16 pounds of potatos a day.
A quick look at the actual figures for human protein needs shows that all of the concern about obtaining enough protein in the diet is unfounded.
Not really, I had a protein deficency once when I was on a diet for about 6 months and I was not eating any meat. Of course protein is easy to pick up with a soybean supplement. But I know from experance that if you do not eat meat then you have to be careful with your diet to be sure you get all the protein and other nutrients that you need. Even though you only need a small amount every day.
Usually in american most of the problems come from excess. Having to much fat or salt or to much whatever in the diet. They say that most anything in moderation is fine, but an excess of anything can cause problems.
Last edited by JohnR7; 7th November 2005 at 02:56 PM.
Certainly you offer some points worthy of consideration. In reading your post I considered that I had focused more on what seems to be healthiest and what our physiology suggests than what is "natural". I'm not really sure I can pin-point exactly what that term even means in reference to human diets.
But I also think what you're suggesting here requires that we consider man to be the only animal for which the anatomy/physiology of the body doesn't produce a conclusion concerning what the body is naturally equipped to consume. http://www.christianforums.com/t1169...l#post10930995
The table you produced seemed to compare humans with true carnivores and true omnivores. I do not believe that humans fit perfectly into any of the three categories; I would personally describe humans as "herbivores plus a little meat". Conversely, I could say that you are suggesting that humans are the only animal for which the instincts and behaviour produce an incorrect conclusion. The reason humans seem so unusual is because they have very recent ancestors which ate no meat, and were forced by strong environmental pressures to quickly adopt a meat-eating diet.
Originally Posted by Beastt
As for the idea that meat is easier to obtain in quantity, certainly there is some credit which must be given. But there are other concerns which are perhaps less obvious to the casual observer. Prior to more modern civilizations men had to contend with the fact that even a fairly minor injury could result in death. We had little concept of medical care or sanitation. Every animal which hunts must consider the risk of injury and the potential for losing the ability to hunt through injury. This is one of the reasons that a second look is being taken at the assumption that a large part of early man's diet consisted of meat. If you are unable to outrun your prey, have no built-in hunting equipment like a true predator and are subject to debilitating injury, suddenly it doesn't look quite so difficult to spend long hours gathering plant-based foods rather than spending both time and calories attempting to hunt an animal with greater speed, strength and agility. One must remember that long before monetary exchange was conceived, man still had a budget. It was a budget of calories. Great care had to be taken not to expend more calories in the pursuit of food than would be returned through the food if obtained. A failed hunt expends more calories than does an unsuccessful venture foraging.
This does not fully take into account that humans would naturally hunt in organised groups rather than as individuals, and have evolved a highly developed intelligence which makes up for our physical weaknesses. The development of tools also assists greatly; just think of how much the potential for injury could be avoided by the development of even the spear. Regarding medical care and sanitation, tribal groups will care for their injured members with what limited ability they have, and humans act in a much more sanitary way than other apes.
As for the idea that meat is easier to obtain in quantity, certainly there is some credit which must be given. But there are other concerns which are perhaps less obvious to the casual observer. Prior to more modern civilizations men had to contend with the fact that even a fairly minor injury could result in death. We had little concept of medical care or sanitation. Every animal which hunts must consider the risk of injury and the potential for losing the ability to hunt through injury. This is one of the reasons that a second look is being taken at the assumption that a large part of early man's diet consisted of meat. If you are unable to outrun your prey, have no built-in hunting equipment like a true predator and are subject to debilitating injury, suddenly it doesn't look quite so difficult to spend long hours gathering plant-based foods rather than spending both time and calories attempting to hunt an animal with greater speed, strength and agility. One must remember that long before monetary exchange was conceived, man still had a budget. It was a budget of calories. Great care had to be taken not to expend more calories in the pursuit of food than would be returned through the food if obtained. A failed hunt expends more calories than does an unsuccessful venture foraging.
You should probably look to the 250,000 or so modern hunter-gatherers if you want some ideas... Depending on region, their caloric intakes usually average close to about half meat... But in some regions it is mostly one way or the other. It just depends on the available resources. In general, these societies do not need to spend long hours hunting or gathering. Their knowledge and diets are so wide that food is not difficult to obtain, and they usually only spend a few hours a day on such activities. Hunters don't have to hunt that often, since one killed animal can generate enough meat for several people for a number of days, and in most of these societies, meat is shared with everyone.
I hate to say it, but one reason humans are where we are is because we eat meat. Predatory animals are significantly "smarter" than herbivorous ones (excluding fruigivores). Look at a wolf. Wolves have to work together to track down an elk this takes teamwork and some smarts.. An elk simply has to walk up to some grass and start munching-not much brainpower needed.
Our ancestors used the first tools to eat meat. It was a scarce resource but flesh and marrow have plenty of nutrition. Chimpanzees occasionally eat meat. They don't sit there and say "hmm... I shouldn't be eating this monkey...my body is evolved to eat plants." Meat is an important resource for humans.
I think the main problem stems from overeating. We eat entirely too much protein in our (American) diets. But of course, I work out so meat is a large part of my diet along with fresh fruit, vegetables, and whole grains.
You miss the point, John. As nutritional needs go, humans have a rather broad range when it comes to protein. However, the range still runs from 2½% of total calories to 8% of total calories. That means that as long as you're getting sufficient calories and the food source contains at least 8% protein, you're getting plenty of protein. Since potatoes contain 11% protein, you'd need ingest only about 2,000 calories of potatoes which is quite well below 16 pounds. Certainly you'd be missing other vital nutrients, but the point is that you really don't need to worry much about protein unless you're eating nothing but junk food, are on some very strange diet, almost devoid of protein or are ingesting insufficient calories of foods with very limited or moderate protein content.
Originally Posted by JohnR7
Not really, I had a protein deficency once when I was on a diet for about 6 months and I was not eating any meat. Of course protein is easy to pick up with a soybean supplement. But I know from experance that if you do not eat meat then you have to be careful with your diet to be sure you get all the protein and other nutrients that you need. Even though you only need a small amount every day.
I'm not sure of the specifics of the diet to which you refer. Your comments about personal experience only suggest that it was a very poorly designed diet.
You speak of experience. I can offer you my own experience, John. I was raised a vegetarian and maintained that diet for 32-years. I've never had a protein deficiency and have always enjoyed good health. At 32-years of age I became more interested in diet and began doing a fair amount of research. Though I had no plans of altering my diet, what I found out left me a bit bewildered. I had assumed that the diet I was raised on was optimal, (an assumption most people seem to make). I even put the information aside for a period of months because I simply didn't want to accept that a vegan diet would be healthier. But eventually I couldn't lie to myself anymore. I picked up the books again, ordered videos and actively searched for information which would tell me more of what I wanted to hear. But I always ended up back at the same point and I gradually began to make the changed to a nearly vegan diet. I've been on that diet for 13-years. Since the change I've certainly suffered no ill effects but the only real change I noticed to my health is that I feel less weighed down. I haven't lost weight but I feel somewhat more energetic. The other major change is that rather than the usual 2 or 3 colds per year, I now get a cold about once every 5 or 6 years. I also started exercising regularly about 10-years ago so it's impossible to know which, if either, are responsible for the reduction in rhinovirus infections.
People often default to soy products as an exclusive example of a plant-based food which provides sufficient protein and while it's true that soy does contain high levels of protein, it's certainly not alone. Here are a few other plant-based foods which contain levels of protein well beyond the needs of humans; Wheat (17%), Oatmeal (15%), Pumpkin (15%), Cabbage (22%), Lentils (22%), Rye (22%), Millet (22%), Barley (11%), Spinach (49%), Watercress (46%), Broccoli (45%), Cauliflower (40%), Mushrooms (38%), Lettuce (34%) Green peas (26%), Cucumbers (24%), Celery (21%), Tomatoes (18%), Onions (16%), Beets (15%), Lemons (16%), Honeydew Melon (10%), Cantaloupe (9%), Sunflower seeds (17%), Sesame seeds (13%), Almonds (12%), Cashews (12%). That's a dramatically shortened list taken from "Nutritive Value of American Foods in Common Units, U.S.D.A. Handbook #456."
Dr. John McDougall M.D. is a very well respected nutritionist and author. Here's what he has to say about protein; " A very common myth is you can't get enough protein from vegetable foods. That's entirely untrue. You know, if you look back at the scientific studies done over the last 50-years, they clearly show that for human needs, vegetable proteins are superior. As a matter of fact, I challenge any dietician to try and design me a diet that is protein deficient based around any starch and any vegetable. You can't do it."
That challenge has stood for over 2 decades.
Originally Posted by JohnR7
Usually in american most of the problems come from excess. Having to much fat or salt or to much whatever in the diet. They say that most anything in moderation is fine, but an excess of anything can cause problems.
I completely agree that the health problems in this country are caused primarily by excess. We eat too much fat, too much sugar, too much protein and way too much cholesterol. And certainly an excess of anthing can cause problems. But it should be noted that protein isn't excluded from this. And while people only need from 2½% to 8% of their calories from protein, most people are eating at least 3 times that much. Any protein you ingest and don't use to build or rebuild tissues within a few hours, is either stored as fat or excreted in the urine. Once stored as fat, it can't be used as protein again. And excreting all that extra protein on a daily basis eventually takes its toll on the lumen of the kidneys. Fortunately, for humans, we're born with about 4-times the lumen necessary to maintain healthy urinary output. But if we suffer damage to kidney tissue through injury or disease, the lumen lost to excess protein consumption, can put us into kidney failure. And when you over-consume protein, you lose calcium from the skeletal system which also increases the strain on the kidneys as it is also filtered from the blood and excreted in the urine.
I'd be interested to know what kind of diet you were on that lead to a protein deficiency. Are you sure you weren't simply deficient in one or two essential amino acids? Even that is rather difficult to do with any kind of reasonable diet. Though it's certainly possible to design a protein deficient diet, unless you restrict yourself to rice and candy, it's rather difficult to do.
People tend to have the same attitude about diet that they have about religion and politics. In most cases, whatever they were raised with becomes "the gospel" for them and whether or not they've put any study into the topics, they viciously defend what they were raised with. I know I'm no exception in this matter. As I stated, it was very difficult for me to accept that I could better the diet I had been raised on, and held a sense of pride in. It wasn't until I exposed myself to the vast pool of information that I reluctantly began to have doubts. The same goes for religion. I was raised by parents who both had very distinct beliefs in a supreme being. As with most children, I was sure that my parents were the smartest people in the world and would never tell me anything that was untrue. It took a very traumatic event in my life to make me seriously reconsider the beliefs I had been raised with. And I wanted to believe that there was some caring entity watching over me who might help me when I most needed it. It simply wasn't what reality offered and I eventually began to explore religion without the loyalty I'd held for the beliefs I'd been raised with. The result was atheism and it has provided me with a clarity that religion simply never offered. Atheism makes sense.
__________________ When expressing a view becomes illegal, those with something to say and questions to ponder will be made criminals. But ask; who has really committed the harmful act, those who speak an opinion, or those who oppress them?
Last edited by Beastt; 7th November 2005 at 10:03 PM.
I hate to say it, but one reason humans are where we are is because we eat meat. Predatory animals are significantly "smarter" than herbivorous ones (excluding fruigivores). Look at a wolf. Wolves have to work together to track down an elk this takes teamwork and some smarts.. An elk simply has to walk up to some grass and start munching-not much brainpower needed.
Our ancestors used the first tools to eat meat. It was a scarce resource but flesh and marrow have plenty of nutrition. Chimpanzees occasionally eat meat. They don't sit there and say "hmm... I shouldn't be eating this monkey...my body is evolved to eat plants." Meat is an important resource for humans.
I think the main problem stems from overeating. We eat entirely too much protein in our (American) diets. But of course, I work out so meat is a large part of my diet along with fresh fruit, vegetables, and whole grains.
I find this to be a very interesting concept. However, in light of the research and medical data, I can't find justification to call it anything more than that. Have you based this on any actual studies or is it more just personal observation?
Though meat would certainly provide a source of nutrition for almost any animal when other foods are in short supply, the results of fueling a human body on an omnivorous diet over a life-time is rather like trying to run a gasoline engine on kerosene. It's simply the wrong fuel and it will and does have detrimental effects.
The diseases most linked to diet are Heart Disease, Cancer, Stroke and Diabetes. If you look at practically any chart showing causes of death, you'll find that these four diseases account for anywhere from 60% to 77% of total deaths in the U.S. The leading cause always seems to be heart disease which is most chronically linked to the ingestion of saturated fat and cholesterol. It's so bad in countries like the U.S. that most people have come to accept heart attack and stroke as a natural expectation accompanying old age. This simply isn't the case. Many regions throughout the world are practically unfamiliar with the concept of heart attacks and strokes. These diseases are caused from years of ingesting saturated fats and cholesterol.
I'm not trying to say that annual death rates would drop by 60% if people were to give up the animal products in their diets. Certainly some people avoid these foods and still die from heart attacks and strokes. But the statistics are significant. Vegetarians suffer less than one-quarter the heart attack rate associated with a standard diet. Vegans suffer between 1/10th and 1/15th, depending upon where the information is obtained. Vegetarians suffer only 40% of the cancer rate attributable to those consuming a standard western diet. You can see that the numbers begin to point a finger at certain foods. And when you look deeper, you find that these are the very same foods that human physiology suggests we're are poorly equipped to digest.
And it's not only a case of statistical implication. We know why these foods cause these diseases. Saturated fats and cholesterol form the plaque which clogs arteries leading to heart attacks and strokes. This same plaque also clogs arteries in other parts of the body which explains the higher rate of impotence found in meat-eaters as compared to those who abstain. The waxy paste which meat becomes in the bowel, obstructs waste material, allowing the meat to begin rotting while still in the human digestive system. Carnivores have comparatively short digestive tracts to move this material through and out of the body quickly. Rotting meat releases known carcinogens, leading to the characteristic high rates of colon cancer found everywhere meat consumption is high. We all see the constant advertizements for fiber supplements and just seem to conclude that insufficient fiber is just the way things are. Meat contains zero fiber while most plant foods contain a least some, and usually substantial amounts of fiber.
We've simply come to accept a lifestyle of strokes, cancers, heart attacks, osteoporosis, diabetes and a number of other common diseases. But these diseases aren't a natural part of life or of growing old. They're the result of poor food choices which gradually take their toll.
I understand that your argument is more concerned with diet choices which have brought us to where we are. I tend to disagree that predators are naturally smarter than prey animals. I will say they have better hunting instincts. But the argument can also be made that since the average hunting carnivore is successful in only about 1 out of every 10 hunts, perhaps the pray animals are quite skilled as well as a good intellectual match for the predators. And while pray animals spend most of their day awake and grazing, predators tend to tire very quickly, often spending more than 20 hours of every day sleeping. There are trade-offs made for lifestyles concerning diet. Not that a lion can decide to be other than a lion or eat as other than a carnivore. Certainly that's not the case. But humans do have a choice and we can make the one that seems to promote health and energy or one which promotes disease, reduced energy levels and compromised endurance.
Having said that, I'm going to attempt to put a clamp on my keyboard for a while. Obviously this is an area of personal interest for me but I fear I'm diverting the thread unnecessarily away from the specific intent. Thanks for bearing with me.
__________________ When expressing a view becomes illegal, those with something to say and questions to ponder will be made criminals. But ask; who has really committed the harmful act, those who speak an opinion, or those who oppress them?
Last edited by Beastt; 7th November 2005 at 10:55 PM.
Linear Mode
