Our natural diet??

Brake4Squirrels · Jul 10, 2002

One of the arguments for vegetarianism is that human beings don't need meat to live. That is true, seeing as though I haven't died yet. But I've been reading a lot of stuff about how human beings' bodies' are designed to eat meat (wild game actually). The simple fact that we need certain vitamins that we can only get from animals seems to point to the fact that it is part of our natural diet. By "natural diet" I'm saying the diet we ate as our bodies were evolving. Omega-3 fatty acids and DHA are in fish that scientists think helped our brains become as intelligent as they are today. Maybe all of our philosophical discussion is because our ancestors were fishermen and fisherwomen. Maybe a vegetarian diet isn't natural if it must be supplemented with modern pills. If it were natural, we wouldn't need any supplements for maximum health, right? Through my research, I've read that our bodies are exactly as they were 40,000 years ago, before agriculture came along. I just want to know what everyone else thinks of this. Perhaps its true, but maybe our health isn't as important as the lives of animals. Like I asked soilman, where do you draw the line here? <a href="http://www.beyondveg.com" target="_blank">www.beyondveg.com</a> <a href="http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/paleodiet/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/paleodiet/index.shtml</a> 
brake 4 squirrels

GhostUser · Jul 10, 2002

you can take everything to an extreme. Define healthy. Would old age fit into your definition, say if you were able to live to 120 and be more-or-less "coherent"? 
Well, then try not to eat, period. Well, almost period. There's been <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/m1511/2_21/59164982/p1/article.jhtml" target="_blank">some research</a> saying that ultra-low calorie diets may help one live longer. That sounds great and all, but I'm not going to try it.... 
And while you are suggesting that health should be a major factor (or at least, could be a major factor) in deciding who gets to eat what, I'm not 100% in agreement with that.... 
There needs to be some check on the methodology, too. For example, agriculture and the industrialized farming that we are now familiar with has significantly reduced the nutrition of a lot of our foods that we would ordinarily find in the "wild." That's one reason for the nutrition supplements. You have to fortify your bread with vitimins and minerals because we stripped them out in the first place by processing the flour so it wouldn't go rancid on the way to market.... 
And besides, biologically, we aren't even close to comparable with carnivores or omnivores. We can supplement our diet with meat, when necessary, but we are primarily designed for consuming plant food....

GhostUser · Jul 10, 2002

i get tired of hearing this argument and ones like it, such as the "canine-teeth=meat-eating" one. 
what i don't understand is why people think that we,in this day and age, must eat as our ancestors did millions of years ago. we have many other food sources available to us than they did, but we must still eat their limited diet, although there are much healthier alternatives now?

zoebird · Jul 10, 2002

historically speaking, humans have had a variety of diets, from vegetarian to carnivore, based on their environments and food availability. It's hard to say that humans were "meant" to eat any particular diet, but that they are capable of surviving with any number of different sorts of diets. 
and i think that's the most important thing to remember.

HappyDaisy · Jul 10, 2002

Yes, I think, too, that we should look at the situation as it is NOW, and not what we ate eons ago. 
As it is NOW, we do NOT need to consume flesh to survive. We have vast quantities of other options available at our friendly neighborhood supermarket. We are not in a situation where there are no stores. We do not need to forage for food. 
And we do not need to eat flesh now and contribute to factory farming, etc. The animals weren't factory farmed back in the day when we had to forage. They are now. And that's partly why I don't eat flesh. 
Also, I think it's healthier to be a veg*n. Lower saturated fat, lower cholesterol, fewer calories, higher fiber, increased veggie and fruit intake - all things that have been studied and proven to maybe help you live longer, or at least avoid a lot of illnesses that people (mainly highly carnivorous ones) get.

LadyFaile · Jul 10, 2002

if we can adapt to live in so many different climates and surroundings, we can adapt to eating different diets. like people living by the coast tend to eat more seafood because it's more wildly available. native indians ate lots of local wild animals, because that's what was available. now, almost any type of food is available to almost anyone, so why limit yourself to what your ancestors ate. if your ancestors were inuit who ate only fish and seals, but you lived in a big city in a warm climate, would you eat only fish? i'm sure you couldn't find seal in a grocery store <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

"> 
so yeah i don't put too much thought into what we're "meant" to eat

GhostUser · Jul 10, 2002

This research was gained via animal research however the results ,as published in scientific america were thus. 
That consumption of approximately half the daily recommended coloric intake for sex and weight , mice lived 1 1/2 times longer than a mouse fed regular calories. 
In the test on the same man who did the research he was about 30 lbs lighter than he was in college at about age fifty.

Michael · Jul 11, 2002

Personally I couldn't care less what some study or expert has to say. I don't eat meat. I feel fine. Good enough for me.

Brake4Squirrels · Jul 11, 2002

Carbonwafer and HappyDaisy, 
The reason certain things are healthy for us NOW is BECAUSE human beings ate them eons ago. Our bodies have adjusted and adapted to these foods overtime, and that's why we need them today to survive. For example, cats and lions did not evolve on rice, therefore, rice is not healthy for them. (they aren't going to die upon eating it, but over time, they will not thrive) Lots and Lots of zebras and rodents is what they evolved on, and that's why they are healthy for cats. We didn't evolve on lots of and lots of animals, and that's why lots and lots of meat is not healthy for us. 
I think science is important, it lets us know all kinds of things and we can use it to our advantage. I think we should be doing what we can to find out what will give us the greatest quality of life. 
Puppy Vaugn--- Yes, I do think that health is a large part of what we should be doing. It adds quality and quantity to our lives. It is important. Also, I'm wondering about our place in the environment as well. I am not an ecology expert (I tried to get into the class, but it was closed) but who knows?? Perhaps the rest of the environment is evolved for our consumption of some kinds of animals. I really don't know. 
Carbonwafer, 
I'm not saying WE ARE CARNIVORES. Otherwise we'd look exactly like a big cat. However, we don't look exactly like the great apes either. We came from them, so yes, of course a large part of our diet should be plants. Science has proven that they are healthy for us. But, our guts are smaller, our intestines are shorter, and our rib cages are more straight. These are aspects of carnivores... So I think it could be possible that we thrive eating omnivore stuff, because we have physical characteristics of both. 
Zoebird-- of course we can survive on many different things. Going back to my cat example, a cat won't die eating only rice, but it certainly won't be the strongest, healthiest cat of the group. That goes back to the importance I place on health. I just wonder what it really is that human beings will THRIVE on. Don't we all want to be the healthiest, strongest, best quality human being of the group??

BigWaxJesus · Jul 11, 2002

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by Brake4Squirrels of course we can survive on many different things. Going back to my cat example, a cat won't die eating only rice, but it certainly won't be the strongest, healthiest cat of the group. That goes back to the importance I place on health. I just wonder what it really is that human beings will THRIVE on. Don't we all want to be the healthiest, strongest, best quality human being of the group??</div>
</div>
 
well, do you feel as though you're thriving on a plant-based diet? are you healthy? if so, i don't see the point in worrying about this so much, because that, too, will effect your health. just look at all the examples of the strong and healthy people that eat vegetarian. i think that's proof in itself that we can thrive on vegetarian diets.

GhostUser · Jul 11, 2002

but, what about if the food we can eat now makes us healthier? what if our ancestors had eaten more modern, healthier stuff instead of mainly red meat? how do u know that humans wouldn't have evolved into healthier, stronger animals? everything has to start somewhere. it is too limiting to say that we must eat what our predecessors did, when there are many healthier alternatives

RedStarJedi · Jul 11, 2002

If you look at the human disestive track it is rather long much like am herbavoire's is. Animals that substaine primarily on meat have short digestive tracks to rapidly expell any bad meat they may have ingested. 
I have heard about that study on calorie intake as well.

soilman · Jul 11, 2002

zoebird writes: 
==================== 
historically speaking, humans have had a variety of diets, from vegetarian to carnivore, based on their environments and food availability. It's hard to say that humans were "meant" to eat any particular diet, but that they are capable of surviving with any number of different sorts of diets. 
and i think that's the most important thing to remember. 
================== 
My goodness, rambling zoebird being consise, brief, succint. I never thought I'd see that! 
I wanted to add one thing to what zoebird said though, a short one. Not only have humans based their diets on their environment and "food availability" which was of course unavoidable, but they have historically also added dietary proscriptions with and without rational explanations. Sometimes there were rational explanations, true and false. Other times, dietary proscriptions were simple taboos, foods were proscribed for not much more reason than "the person in charge whom we all listen to said not to eat that" 
This is true about kosher laws too, according to what I learned in Hebrew school -- which was that Jews were told by God to be Kosher because in return for being kosher, God would favor them. Thus I learned in Hebrew school, that there were no "health reasons" given by jewish law, for being kosher. While after the fact, some observers might claim that certain kosher practices might be healthier, the actual reason "we are kosher" according to my hebrew education was simply because we agreed to it in order to make sure God would favor us. That is all. In other words: "the person in charge whom we all listen to said not to eat that." Such irrational proscriptions have long been a part of many cultures. I think they can have had more effect on people's diets than environment and availability. This seems to be true with animals too. The existence, in its environment, of something that humans think could be quite good at sustaining a certain species of animal, doesn't necessarily means that the animal actually eats it. 
I absolutely echo zoebirds "important thing to remember."

soilman · Jul 11, 2002

"If you look at the human disestive track it is rather long much like am herbavoire's is." 
Not really. It is intermediate in length. Shorter than most herbivore's, longer than most carnovore's. Relative to body size. The commonly known non-primate that has a digestive system that most closely approximates that of a human -- is the pig. And the natural diet of a pig is -- what zoebird said is the most important thing to remember about the diet of a human. A pig can eat one thing or another thing, or both -- and if any animal anywhere can eat it, with some exceptions, a pig can probably eat it too.

GhostUser · Jul 11, 2002

that new avatar is freaky

Brake4Squirrels · Jul 11, 2002

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by carbonwafer but, what about if the food we can eat now makes us healthier? what if our ancestors had eaten more modern, healthier stuff instead of mainly red meat? how do u know that humans wouldn't have evolved into healthier, stronger animals? everything has to start somewhere. it is too limiting to say that we must eat what our predecessors did, when there are many healthier alternatives</div>
</div>
 
Carbonwafer: 
maybe I wasnt clear. WHY do you think "healthy" things are healthy?? Are they healthy for every species? Do you think milk products are healthy? They've only been introduced into human diets very recently, and we can see the negative effects by looking at the rates of lactose intolerance. The existance of lactose intolerance demonstrates that milk isn't really all that healthy. If it was, no human being would have a problem with it. You gotta think about why "healthy" things are healthy, and how they came to be that way--- for OUR species, in specific. 
6Feet: 
I'm starting to wonder how I would feel or look like if I had been an omni for the past several years. Right now, I seem to be fine and healthy, but it is all relative. I know I could be MORE healthy and physically fit, but I also know that I could be worse. I just don't know. 
I think part of what makes vegetarian diets so healthy is that vegetarians focus so much on vegetables and fruit, which is what should be the base in our diets. Meat eaters don't focus on that stuff because they think they're okay doing what they're doing. If any person focused on vegetables and fruit just as a vegetarian would, they would reap the benefits just the same. I'm not sure it's just the absence of meat that makes it so much better, it's the variety in plant foods that is good. 
brake 4 sqrs.

RedStarJedi · Jul 11, 2002

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by soilman "If you look at the human disestive track it is rather long much like am herbavoire's is." 
Not really. It is intermediate in length. Shorter than most herbivore's, longer than most carnovore's. Relative to body size. The commonly known non-primate that has a digestive system that most closely approximates that of a human -- is the pig. And the natural diet of a pig is -- what zoebird said is the most important thing to remember about the diet of a human. A pig can eat one thing or another thing, or both -- and if any animal anywhere can eat it, with some exceptions, a pig can probably eat it too.</div>
</div>
 
I should have been more clear I meant in relation to a carnivore. Thaks for helping me clear that up

stonecrest · Jul 11, 2002

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by Brake4Squirrels I think part of what makes vegetarian diets so healthy is that vegetarians focus so much on vegetables and fruit, which is what should be the base in our diets. Meat eaters don't focus on that stuff because they think they're okay doing what they're doing. If any person focused on vegetables and fruit just as a vegetarian would, they would reap the benefits just the same. I'm not sure it's just the absence of meat that makes it so much better, it's the variety in plant foods that is good.</div>
</div>
 
i'm going to have to disagree with this. unless we're talking about the meat eaters that don't eat meat too often, the average meat eaters eat a lot of meat. (aye, what a horrible sentence). they average over 110 grams of protein (over twice what is recommended) and meat is a very bad source of the "bad" fats. certainly eating more fruits and veggies could help their diet, but only seriously cutting back in the meat consumption would enable them to lead as healthy lives comparable to veg*ns. 
just my opinion. 
i may have misinterpretted your post a bit, however. if what i just said agrees with what you said, then forget i even posted. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

"> 
-scott

soilman · Jul 11, 2002

"what if our ancestors had eaten more modern, healthier stuff instead of mainly red meat? " 
HD writes: 
================= 
I think, too, that we should look at the situation as it is NOW, and not what we ate eons ago. 
=============== 
carbonw writes 
================ 
what i don't understand is why people think that we,in this day and age, must eat as our ancestors did millions of years ago. 
====================== 
LF writes: 
============== 
native indians ate lots of local wild animals, 
=============== 
carbonw writes: 
============== 
what if our ancestors had eaten more modern, healthier stuff instead of mainly red meat? 
============= 
Where are all these misconceptions coming from? 
Starting with LF's: americans who inhabited n and s america before the influx of europeans, and while their culture lasted despite the europeans, did not eat lots of local wild animals. Only a minority of them did. The far-north ones did -- where vegetation was scarce. The north america great plains ones did -- where herds of wild bovine animals were plentyful, and lush green plants were scarce. But take the eastern coast where the original 13 states were: the people there ate mostly plant-food. Where I live now, the 3 major foods, supplied via agriculture, called the "3 sisters," were squash, corn, and and beans." This supplied most of their food. It was supplemented with leafy greens, roots, sessile animals like clams, mussels, and oysters, on only the occaisional deer-kill. They depended on corn, squash and beans, to live thru the winter, not meat. 
Similar diets were had thruough the area. 
I believe the south americans also had similar diets -- with animal hunting being the exception rather than the rule. 
While there is lots of evidence that some humans living eons ago, stalked large animals, and ate them, it is quite likelty that other groups ate gathered wild foods: berries, leaves, roots, or that they ate both. The evidence of animal bones would presist longer, in archeological evidence, than the evidence of letuce leaves. While we have cultural evidence from things like cave drawings, that people stalked animals that doesn't mean that they didn't also gather plants, or that some groups gathered plants mostly, while others stalked animals mostly. It isn't exactly like there is a huge amount of archeological evidence covering the whole gamut. Big pieces of the "puzzle" could be missing. 
The early civilizations were not hunters. The Egyptians ate mostly grain, and fruits and vegetables. Apparently so did the Greeks, and the Romans. The Roman army that conqured large area of Europe 2000 years ago did their conquerijg fed by the grains they carried with them.

GhostUser · Jul 11, 2002

there is also some who think that our early ancestors were scavengers, not hunters, which again suggests that they ate what was available and didn't specifically search out one particular type (i.e., meat over vegetation). 
going back to the original post, modern society pretty much offers us whatever we want, at least in regards to variety of food types. so we can over-induldge in meat, or fruit, or whatever, in ways that wasn't possible in the days of yore.... 
which then places the notion of eating meat almost squarely on the shoulders of morality, since we are not eating meat (in this society) for "substenance," meaning that it's all we can find, so we better eat a deer or we'll die, but we eat (or do not eat) meat out of pure choice, not happenstance. This is, of course, a luxury of our society and thus, at least in my opinion, makes eating meat ultimately a moral decision.

Our natural diet??

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Administrator

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Banned

Banned

Registered

Registered

Registered

Banned

Banned

Registered