Did we evolve to eat meat?

[Dirk]

Hi Dirk,

Your replies read as being posted in haste.

You are right, I'll get back to it later.

 

[Beau]

Re: Questions

That seems to be more semantic quibbling. Laura didn't say that meat would actively heal the body, she suggested that healing of the body would be the result of switching from vegetable consumption to meat consumption -- when it would no longer be irritated, as you say.

I agree she didn't write that meat would actively heal it. The point I made is that it might just as well heal if something else (or nothing) is eaten that doesn't irritate the digestive tract as the vegetables do. Switching to meat is not the point. Leaving out the vegetables is.

So basically you are playing devil's advocate with absolutely no evidence or proof or your argument other than, "maybe it works some other way too". That's faulty logic 101. You don't even know if what you are saying is even true. That's hardly a point you are making, other than proving you can find the most annoying and nitpicky way to discuss a topic with people.

 

[truth seeker]

Re: Questions

I don't know, maybe it pays well and people give it a try, but their conscience doesn't allow them to continue with it? Sure, it makes a big difference, how they are killed.

Absolutely! I'm sure they don't experience such issues to the same degree at organic farms.

Anyway, thanks for the fruitful discussion, fellow forum members, my brain is fried :P.

Have some bacon, it'll do you good. ;)

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it seems to me that that's the same as saying it's a moral issue.

A moral issue is intellectual, I am talking about instinct.

Perhaps I'm off here, but most people take to one diet or another for one of two reasons: health or morality. The fact that you link your emotions via conscience with some aspects of your diet says to me that there is a moral issue at play. This is usually a program as diets should not (in my opinion) be an emotional issue. That you further link it with instinct says to me that you may feel as if there is something organically in you that puts you above others.

Instinct - "Instinct are the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

I would say from the definition above that humans don't necessarily have an instinct to kill - it is a choice. It sounds to me that somewhere along the line, you made a choice based on how you felt. You said, "The thought of hunting an animal down is disgusting to me...". You feel disgusted by thinking of performing such an action and therefore make the choice to do it or not. That is a decision fueled by emotions. As humans, we make such decisions everyday. They are not necessarily instinctual. If diet was based on instincts, I would think that everyone would fall into one category: carnivore, herbivore or omnivore.

We are programmed to have certain feelings surrounding food that have little to do with whether the food itself is healthy for us. Some, based on upbringing, we feel are either "good" or "bad". I believe it's the same with killing animals - it has become an industry where we kill indiscriminately and without regard for whether how we do it is the best way or not. If we grow up viewing it as part of the natural order of things, life and death/rebirth, we can come to respect and honor it. What you see happening in slaughterhouses is a disrespect for all life, not just that of the animal.

 

[Dirk]

Re: Questions

So basically you are playing devil's advocate with absolutely no evidence or proof or your argument other than, "maybe it works some other way too". That's faulty logic 101. You don't even know if what you are saying is even true. That's hardly a point you are making, other than proving you can find the most annoying and nitpicky way to discuss a topic with people.

Ok, fair enough.

But isn't Laura's conclusion that meat is a necessity after her experience with her son faulty logic too?

The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat made her son better. What did it?

It could be:

1. The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat.
2. Leaving the veggies out.
3. Introducing the meat.
4. Something entirely different

In at least one of those four there is no meat is involved. So from this experience it cannot be concluded that meat is necessary.

Let me know if my logic is still faulty.

Sorry, to have such a discussion about such a delicate subject Laura, I hope all is well, and by no means I suggest you to experience with it. I am glad the meat seems to help him.

 

[Beau]

Re: Questions

So basically you are playing devil's advocate with absolutely no evidence or proof or your argument other than, "maybe it works some other way too". That's faulty logic 101. You don't even know if what you are saying is even true. That's hardly a point you are making, other than proving you can find the most annoying and nitpicky way to discuss a topic with people.

Ok, fair enough.

But isn't Laura's conclusion that meat is a necessity after her experience with her son faulty logic too?

Only if you ignore ALL the other information presented to you in this thread. Added: Plus all the other relevant info in the Diet and Health section.

 

[truth seeker]

Re: Questions

So why not try it and get a firsthand experience?

I am trying, but not on face value.

Sorry, but to me, face value would be if we just told you to try the diet saying that it worked for us, not presenting research showing the conclusions that were reached. You may also want to take note that you stated earlier that you wanted us to try the 80/10/10 diet without further proof - at face value.

But isn't Laura's conclusion that meat is a necessity after her experience with her son faulty logic too?

The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat made her son better. What did it?

It could be:

1. The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat.
2. Leaving the veggies out.
3. Introducing the meat.
4. Something entirely different

In at least one of those four there is no meat is involved. So from this experience it cannot be concluded that meat is necessary.

Let me know if my logic is still faulty.

It sounds to me that you either didn't fully read the threads presented to you by Laura or you didn't fully understand them as the reasons and logic were stated. Perhaps you may want to give them a second look?

 

[shijing]

Re: Questions

But isn't Laura's conclusion that meat is a necessity after her experience with her son faulty logic too?

The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat made her son better. What did it?

It could be:

1. The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat.
2. Leaving the veggies out.
3. Introducing the meat.
4. Something entirely different

In at least one of those four there is no meat is involved. So from this experience it cannot be concluded that meat is necessary.

Let me know if my logic is still faulty.

It is in one way, I think, if you accept that your fourth point is vacuous (it's a possibility, but being undefined it can't really help in the solution to the problem -- Occam's razor suggests that defined variables should be considered and either confirmed or eliminated first). So if we throw that out, the problem is that there are only two variables -- and that being the case, your first point subsumes the first two because either (1) meat is good, (2) veggies are bad, or (3) both are true since the first two conclusions aren't mutually exclusive. If there was a third option, things would be more complicated, but being that there are only two, it doesn't really matter if the solution is (1), (2), or (3) since any of these would indicate that a diet should maximize meat and minimize vegetables (either because meat is good, or because veggies are bad, or both). However, as truth seeker mentioned, you can get past this as a mere logical exercise by reading the threads suggested which provide data and evidence for all of this.

 

[Dirk]

Re: Questions

Sorry, but to me, face value would be if we just told you to try the diet saying that it worked for us, not presenting research showing the conclusions that were reached. You may also want to take note that you stated earlier that you wanted us to try the 80/20/20 diet without further proof - at face value.

I don't want you to do that. That's none of my business. Though I certainly wouldn't mind you trying, being succesfull on it and then tell me that I am right and how great I am.

(I hope you don't take the last sentence too seriously).

But isn't Laura's conclusion that meat is a necessity after her experience with her son faulty logic too?

The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat made her son better. What did it?

It could be:

1. The combination of leaving the veggies out and introducing the meat.
2. Leaving the veggies out.
3. Introducing the meat.
4. Something entirely different

In at least one of those four there is no meat is involved. So from this experience it cannot be concluded that meat is necessary.

It sounds to me that you either didn't fully read the threads presented to you by Laura or you didn't fully understand them as the reasons and logic were stated. Perhaps you may want to give them a second look?

Maybe I didn't understand them correctly. But I raised my objections and I did not get a satisfactory reply to the objections I raised, unfortunately. (See reply nr. 14 for instance, where I comment on the article where they just jump to the conclusion that meat is necessary because the size of digestive tract is decreased). Joe says it is legitimate, but I don't have a clue why. Yes, the caloric density of meat is very high, but is that what is necessary for a small digestive tract with a low MBR? Can't fruits with readily absorbable sugars be just as good or even better for a small digestive tract with a low MBR. Realize that 5% of the calories from fruit come from protein and 5% come from fat. There is still fat and protein in such a diet. People might debate whether it is enough, but I am able to concentrate and work well on it, have superior athletic abilities (provided I get enough rest) and can build substantial muscle on it. Generally I feel much better on it, then on any other diet, provided I manage my circumstances well, which is difficult in the stage of life I am in right now. Also, I don't think it is a good diet to be on when an ice age coming, so in that sense meat may be a great choice, despite the fact that it still may be suboptimal in an evolutionary sense.)

 

[Dirk]

Re: Questions

the first two because either (1) meat is good, (2) veggies are bad, or (3) both are true since the first two conclusions aren't mutually exclusive. If there was a third option, things would be more complicated, but being that there are only two, it doesn't really matter if the solution is (1), (2), or (3) since any of these would indicate that a diet should maximize meat and minimize vegetables (either because meat is good, or because veggies are bad, or both). However, as truth seeker mentioned, you can get past this as a mere logical exercise by reading the threads suggested which provide data and evidence for all of this.

Sorry, I don't follow you here, why aren't they mutually exclusive?

There are other foods then meat or veggies. Fruit for instance.

 

[truth seeker]

Re: Questions

I don't want you to do that. That's none of my business. Though I certainly wouldn't mind you trying, being succesfull on it and then tell me that I am right and how great I am.

(I hope you don't take the last sentence too seriously).

I did actually (in terms of you meaning it) but it's a moot point as I'm not interested.

People might debate whether it is enough, but I am able to concentrate and work well on it, have superior athletic abilities (provided I get enough rest) and can build substantial muscle on it. Generally I feel much better on it, then on any other diet, provided I manage my circumstances well, which is difficult in the stage of life I am in right now. Also, I don't think it is a good diet to be on when an ice age coming, so in that sense meat may be a great choice, despite the fact that it still may be suboptimal in an evolutionary sense.)

Well, it sounds as if you've made your decision then and are satisfied with it. I wish you well. :)

 

[Dirk]

Re: Questions

Well, it sounds as if you've made your decision then and are satisfied with it. I wish you well. :)

Thanks. Yes, further debate at this point is useless and a waste of time.

 

[mkrnhr]

I disagree. There are other foods then meat or veggies. Fruit for instance.

This is what we call in French "faire le con". You have trouble understanding very basic concepts or you are just making comedy. A normal person when confronted with a new idea would take it, measure it, take some time to digest it (no pun intended) and then interact in a constructive manner. You have difficulties so take your time to search and understand, and then respond in a more intelligible manner.

 

[shijing]

Re: Questions

the first two because either (1) meat is good, (2) veggies are bad, or (3) both are true since the first two conclusions aren't mutually exclusive. If there was a third option, things would be more complicated, but being that there are only two, it doesn't really matter if the solution is (1), (2), or (3) since any of these would indicate that a diet should maximize meat and minimize vegetables (either because meat is good, or because veggies are bad, or both). However, as truth seeker mentioned, you can get past this as a mere logical exercise by reading the threads suggested which provide data and evidence for all of this.

Sorry, I don't follow you here, why aren't they mutually exclusive?

It's the same as saying (1) cubes are blue, (2) orbs are red, or (3) both. (1) could be true and not (2), or vice versa, or they could both be true -- in other words, the two propositions don't contradict each other.

There are other foods then meat or veggies. Fruit for instance.

But fruit wasn't included in your original set of propositions. But there is data on the forum about fruit as well -- well worth reading!

 

[Seamus]

Hi Dirk.

You are right, I'll get back to it later.

I think its a good idea to take a break. Sometimes it can feel like you're being attacked when lots of people are all jumping in at once to answer your posts, but everyone is honestly trying to answer your questions. I hope you come back to this later and continue the discussion. FWIW, it might be a good time to take a deep breath, maybe do some pipe breathing, and calm down. :)

Maybe I didn't understand them correctly. But I raised my objections and I did not get a satisfactory reply to the objections I raised, unfortunately. (See reply nr. 14 for instance, where I comment on the article where they just jump to the conclusion that meat is necessary because the size of digestive tract is decreased). Joe says it is legitimate, but I don't have a clue why. Yes, the caloric density of meat is very high, but is that what is necessary for a small digestive tract with a low MBR? Can't fruits with readily absorbable sugars be just as good or even better for a small digestive tract with a low MBR. Realize that 5% of the calories from fruit come from protein and 5% come from fat. There is still fat and protein in such a diet. People might debate whether it is enough, but I am able to concentrate and work well on it, have superior athletic abilities (provided I get enough rest) and can build substantial muscle on it. Generally I feel much better on it, then on any other diet, provided I manage my circumstances well, which is difficult in the stage of life I am in right now. Also, I don't think it is a good diet to be on when an ice age coming, so in that sense meat may be a great choice, despite the fact that it still may be suboptimal in an evolutionary sense.)

I can concede the point that meat might not be necessary for basic survival, as we probably all know people who have lived on vegetarian or vegan diets for many years. After all, humans evolved from primates, and primates are primarily vegetarians. There are lots of other evolutionary holdovers from our primate past. However, I don't think you can argue that human evolution is not tied to the consumption of animal fat and protein. Human brains function better when they are fed a steady supply of essential fatty acids and high quality protein, therefore humans that consume meat are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Furthermore, the article doesn't argue that meat is necessary because the size of the digestive tract is decreased, it argues that the digestive tract is better adapted to a carnivorous diet because meat meets our digestive needs better than plant matter.

Laura gave an excellent in depth answer in reply #18:

The human gut does a poor job with fiber. Yes, it can sweep our gut because it remains undigested, but it is very poor at meeting our nutritional needs.

Digesting meat is not as energetically costly as digesting cellulose. Animal tissue can supply energy and protein in a concentrated and unoccluded form. Another way to ease the workload of the gut is to do some of the digestion OUTSIDE the body: cooking.

In fact, I think you answered your question all by yourself at the end of post number 14:

Chimps and gorillas eat bark as part of their diet. Luckily that is not on my menu, but I can imagine that a serious GI tract is necessary for digestion of such foods.

The point that a more robust GI tract is necessary to properly digest plant fiber is correct, although I'm not sure how much bark Chimps and Gorillas eat. It also helps to answer the question of why humans have a smaller GI tract. Chimps are omnivores, like humans, but their diet is primarily vegetarian. They also consume lots of fruit:

The chimpanzee diet is primarily vegetarian, although the chimpanzee is omnivorous and also eats meat. The primary chimpanzee diet consists of fruits, leaves, nuts, seeds, tubers, and other miscellaneous vegetation. Termites are also eaten regularly in some populations. Western Red Colobus Monkeys (Piliocolobus badius) are sometimes hunted by the chimpanzee, although Jane Goodall documented many occasions within Gombe Stream National Park of chimpanzees and Western Red Colobus Monkeys ignoring each other within close proximity. Chimpanzees will typically spend six to eight hours a day eating.

Gorillas meanwhile are more strictly herbivorous:

Gorillas are herbivores, eating fruits, leaves, and shoots. Further, they are classified as folivores. Much like other animals that feed on plants and shoots, they sometimes ingest small insects as well (however, there has been video proof that gorillas do eat ants and termites much in the same way as chimpanzees.) Gorillas spend most of the day eating. Their large sagittal crest and long canines allow them to crush hard plants like bamboo. Lowland gorillas feed mainly on fruit while Mountain gorillas feed mostly on herbs, stems and roots.

Both animals have larger digestive tracts than humans. Both animals subsist primarily on plant matter, including fruits, leaves, shoots, nuts, seeds and tubers. Doesn't that logically suggest that humans have smaller digestive tracts because they are adapted to eat more meat and less plant matter? If we have smaller digestive tracts because we evolved to eat meat, doesn't it follow that meat is necessary for our us? Sure we can survive without meat and better than most carnivores. Some fruit, leaves, shoots, nuts, seeds and tubers still taste good to us, probably because we evolved from primates. We can survive without meat, but is that really your argument? Like Perceval and others, I think you are being nit picky if that's your whole argument. You disagree with the premise that meat is necessary for human survival, but that's not the point that the article is making:

All that has been said here should not be confused with an attack on vegetarianism. Whether to eat animal products or not, like any lifestyle decision made from a place of subjective morality, is a personal decision which should be considered very carefully. What has been challenged is the increasingly widely held assumption that a vegetarian diet, or as close as one can get to it, is the 'right' diet for everyone, the healthiest diet and the diet best for the environment. Political correctness, a blight on social interaction and the relationships between disparate groups, is equally out of place in discussions on nutrition. It may not be politically correct to eat animals, but it is nutritionally correct to do so. Indeed, it is this path that has provided us the ability to have the debate.

Maybe you could answer a few questions that I have. Dogs can survive on dog food made primarily from grain, does that mean that meat is unnecessary for them? If fruit is such great brain food, why aren't chimps as smart or smarter than us? They probably eat more fruit than most humans. If fruit is as good as meat, why did the ancestors of humans ever start hunting and eating meat? If fruit is as good as meat, why do chimps eat insects and sometimes hunt monkeys? If fruit is as good as meat, why do tropical peoples eat meat, when they can have all the fruit they want? Why go through all the trouble of hunting for or raising meat?

 

[Guardian]

Re: Questions

I immediately believe that, but the fact that we ate animals, doesn't mean we have evolutionary adapted to eat them.

I can look in a mirror and see that my meatsuit evolved to be carnivorous predator. I brush those "canine" fangs and sharp front teeth twice a day. I think they're called "canines" because my teeth don't look all that different from my dog's? Meat rippers in the front and bone crushers in the back. Then there are those predator eyes I'm looking into the mirror with, set in the front of my face, only about an inch or so apart and looking straight ahead. A herbivore's eyes are much further apart, set more to the sides of their heads...to watch for us.

Like other meat eaters, I've got a fairly simple digestive system... only one stomach, and a relatively short intestines. A wolf weights about 75-85 lbs and its intestines is 10-12 feet long... I weight approx. twice as much and my intestines are about twice as long. I grow sharp claws that I need to trim with heavy duty clippers (or my very sharp teeth) every other day or so. If I didn't cut my nails regularly, they'd be well suited to ripping out a small animal's throat within a couple of months. Yes, I KNOW this is a horrible thought...but it's the truth. Long nails on a human who eats a lot of protein quickly become potentially lethal claws.

Just look at our bodies Dirk, we're a LOT closer to wolves and big cats than we are to cows and goats.