to live off of the land for a long period of time subsisting soley on plant matter would not work. there are vital nutrients such as certain amino acids and protiens that can be found in nature, but not all in the same location at the same time. it would not be possible to live long term off of nature without comsuming meat. take a few courses on biology and human anatomy and the information you seek is easily accesible. for those in the us take ap biology and humay anatomy and its all youll ever need to know that humans are truly omnivorous
Why do we eat meat?
- Thread starter KathleenW
- Start date
Remember, all those things you learn in school are researched by people who were raised to believe that humans are omnivores, so they put their pre-conceved notions down on paper, and provide examples that proved it for them, ignoring facts that did not support their claim. Without searching for knowledge first-hand, you are doing nothing but re-gurgitating knowledge that may be inaccurate. That is too easy, find the truth for yourself.
lovelyrenata
New member
- Apr 11, 2008
- 29
- 0
- 1
Again, this is quite simply NOT TRUE. It is a common misconception, but it is absolutely 100% wrong.
If we're going to engage in a discussion about vegetarianism (as opposed to meat-inclusive diets), then let us at least do so based upon the ACTUAL TRUTH.
The fact remains (and is scientifically proven) that you DO NOT NEED meat in order to be healthy. Even if eating meat did not pose any risk to your health (which it does), it is simply not necessary. There is not a single nutrient found in meat that cannot easily be obtained in a well-balanced vegetarian diet.
Here are a couple reliable and unbiased references about vegetarianism. Note that these sources not only outline the benefits of vegetarianism, but also the pitfalls:
American Heart Association on Vegetarianism
University of Georgia on Vegetarianism
Here is an excellent and well-researched article on the nutritional and health aspects of vegetarianism from a British perspective:
Vegetarian Society UK - Vegetarian Vitality
Here is where you can find the articles listed above, and many more about vegetarianism, courtesy of the USDA:
Food and Nutrition Information Center
Finally, here are a few less objective sources which, nevertheless, contain some very compelling insights into vegetarianism and veganism:
Humans are Not Designed to Eat Meat
PETA - Intro to Veganism
Vegetarian/Vegan 101
Now, let's resume this discussion based upon the TRUTH. If you can't support your argument with facts, perhaps you should consider doing a little research before posting. If you simply like eating meat and don't care about the well-documented health risks, or the cruelty and carelessness of the meat industry, just say so.
Instead of perpetuating myths and lies to support our lifestyles and make ourselves feel better, let's try dealing with the ACTUAL TRUTH and work on placing our lifestyle choices in clear perspective. We might actually learn something from one another, maybe even benefitting from each other's viewpoints and experiences.
If we're going to engage in a discussion about vegetarianism (as opposed to meat-inclusive diets), then let us at least do so based upon the ACTUAL TRUTH.
The fact remains (and is scientifically proven) that you DO NOT NEED meat in order to be healthy. Even if eating meat did not pose any risk to your health (which it does), it is simply not necessary. There is not a single nutrient found in meat that cannot easily be obtained in a well-balanced vegetarian diet.
Here are a couple reliable and unbiased references about vegetarianism. Note that these sources not only outline the benefits of vegetarianism, but also the pitfalls:
American Heart Association on Vegetarianism
University of Georgia on Vegetarianism
Here is an excellent and well-researched article on the nutritional and health aspects of vegetarianism from a British perspective:
Vegetarian Society UK - Vegetarian Vitality
Here is where you can find the articles listed above, and many more about vegetarianism, courtesy of the USDA:
Food and Nutrition Information Center
Finally, here are a few less objective sources which, nevertheless, contain some very compelling insights into vegetarianism and veganism:
Humans are Not Designed to Eat Meat
PETA - Intro to Veganism
Vegetarian/Vegan 101
Now, let's resume this discussion based upon the TRUTH. If you can't support your argument with facts, perhaps you should consider doing a little research before posting. If you simply like eating meat and don't care about the well-documented health risks, or the cruelty and carelessness of the meat industry, just say so.
Instead of perpetuating myths and lies to support our lifestyles and make ourselves feel better, let's try dealing with the ACTUAL TRUTH and work on placing our lifestyle choices in clear perspective. We might actually learn something from one another, maybe even benefitting from each other's viewpoints and experiences.
SCOTCHlMIST
Member
- Mar 2, 2008
- 44
- 0
- 6
Hmm, throwing meat from daily menu, no thank you
Human eat meat because they are biologically predisposition do eat meat, simple as that. Our ancestors couldn't find all the necessary nutritions from plants, plus they didn't had x-box so they enjoyed a little zebra hunting
It is possible however to find all necessary stuff in the plants. But that's not the point. The point is that humans are biologically omnivores (not carnivore, not omnivores).
check this short site out http://membrane.com/synapse/library/health/diet/research/humans_are_omnivores.html
Human eat meat because they are biologically predisposition do eat meat, simple as that. Our ancestors couldn't find all the necessary nutritions from plants, plus they didn't had x-box so they enjoyed a little zebra hunting
It is possible however to find all necessary stuff in the plants. But that's not the point. The point is that humans are biologically omnivores (not carnivore, not omnivores).
check this short site out http://membrane.com/synapse/library/health/diet/research/humans_are_omnivores.html
IwouldDIEforDavidt
Member
- Apr 16, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
Can't be bothered. The evidence you posted was from biased sites spouting nonsense science. Humans don't need claws to kill animals, because we have evolved superior brains to make fire and guns to kill them with instead.
Edit: Oh go on then. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959372412.Ot.r.html
You tell me where to get a good source of protein and iron from then.
Edit: Oh go on then. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959372412.Ot.r.html
You tell me where to get a good source of protein and iron from then.
Well i'm not sure what are we talking about here, do you guys need proof that humans ARE omnivores,
than just go to google search
here are some sites which tells you that humans are by nature omnivores, thus the reason we eat meat
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
"Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. "
http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm
than just go to google search
here are some sites which tells you that humans are by nature omnivores, thus the reason we eat meat
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
"Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. "
http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm
Wow, somehow I can't believe this arguement is still running.
Humans can eat meat raw, at most evidence points to them having done so. Fire was introduced to process vegitable matter. There are many plants which are inedible without processing, but become so after. Fire was the easiest way to make vegitation more edible. Meat is easier to digest when it is raw. The reason why raw meat is considered inedible now is that it takes a while to go from freshly butchered animal to consumer in the modern methods of consumption. There is a difference between eating a raw hunk of cow that you just cut off and eating hamburger that might be a week old.
Once again, humans are omniverous and like many omniverous animals can healthily exist by eating only plants. Eating only meat however might lead to severe malnutrition. Ok, will lead to. Everything in moderation.
Humans can eat meat raw, at most evidence points to them having done so. Fire was introduced to process vegitable matter. There are many plants which are inedible without processing, but become so after. Fire was the easiest way to make vegitation more edible. Meat is easier to digest when it is raw. The reason why raw meat is considered inedible now is that it takes a while to go from freshly butchered animal to consumer in the modern methods of consumption. There is a difference between eating a raw hunk of cow that you just cut off and eating hamburger that might be a week old.
Once again, humans are omniverous and like many omniverous animals can healthily exist by eating only plants. Eating only meat however might lead to severe malnutrition. Ok, will lead to. Everything in moderation.
Yes it's my motto, having said it once in ~200 posts. Of course.
Besides, I didn't say I couldn't be bothered with facts. More like couldn't be bothered with finding evidence to refute the heaps of biased sources that have been posted so far.
That doesn't give me a good source of protein. It also has a lot of rubbish in it, like;
drinking milk depletes calcium
eating excessive protein is bad for you???
Funnily enough I've been eating about three times the RDA of protein for the last few months and my strength has steadily increased. I've become leaner and stronger yet my diet consists of mainly meat and dairy-related products.
To even hope to acheive the same level of health as I have now would require me to eat tonnes of vegetables a day.
Besides, I didn't say I couldn't be bothered with facts. More like couldn't be bothered with finding evidence to refute the heaps of biased sources that have been posted so far.
That doesn't give me a good source of protein. It also has a lot of rubbish in it, like;
drinking milk depletes calcium
eating excessive protein is bad for you???
Funnily enough I've been eating about three times the RDA of protein for the last few months and my strength has steadily increased. I've become leaner and stronger yet my diet consists of mainly meat and dairy-related products.
To even hope to acheive the same level of health as I have now would require me to eat tonnes of vegetables a day.
guyanaconnect
New member
- Apr 13, 2008
- 24
- 0
- 1
Since you asked, I'll be more than happy to enlighten you.
Protein is probably the most misunderstood nutrient in Western culture. The average North American consumes considerably more protein than what is actually needed. Excess protein is simply discarded by the body. A common misconception about protein is that it provides energy. This is misleading. Proteins are used by the body to manufacture and maintain tissue, among other things. Carbohydrates are really where most of our energy comes from. When there is no other energy source available, protein may be used to generate energy, but this is an extreme condition not normally found in a healthy body.
As any well-informed vegetarian can tell you, protein is found in abundance from a number of plant sources. Legumes (especially dark beans like black beans, lentils, kidney beans, and many more) are excellent sources of both protein and iron. Nuts are also a wonderful source of protein, as are certain leafy green vegetables like spinach. Soy is considered a complete protein all by itself, while other plant sources may need to be combined to form all the amino acids needed by the body. This is why a diverse diet (whether meat-inclusive or not) is so important to human nutrition.
Meat is rich in both protein and iron (as well as saturated fats and cholesterol). Iron is less abundant in plant sources, but human iron requirements are still easily met with most of the foods listed above, as well as many others.
I hope that answers your question.
Protein is probably the most misunderstood nutrient in Western culture. The average North American consumes considerably more protein than what is actually needed. Excess protein is simply discarded by the body. A common misconception about protein is that it provides energy. This is misleading. Proteins are used by the body to manufacture and maintain tissue, among other things. Carbohydrates are really where most of our energy comes from. When there is no other energy source available, protein may be used to generate energy, but this is an extreme condition not normally found in a healthy body.
As any well-informed vegetarian can tell you, protein is found in abundance from a number of plant sources. Legumes (especially dark beans like black beans, lentils, kidney beans, and many more) are excellent sources of both protein and iron. Nuts are also a wonderful source of protein, as are certain leafy green vegetables like spinach. Soy is considered a complete protein all by itself, while other plant sources may need to be combined to form all the amino acids needed by the body. This is why a diverse diet (whether meat-inclusive or not) is so important to human nutrition.
Meat is rich in both protein and iron (as well as saturated fats and cholesterol). Iron is less abundant in plant sources, but human iron requirements are still easily met with most of the foods listed above, as well as many others.
I hope that answers your question.
fred_weasley_freak
Member
- Feb 16, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
Name one.
Dogs also don't mind sniffing the butts of other dogs, but this would disgust humans as well. Our predispositions against eating raw meat have more to do with conditioning, and notions of cleanliness than genetics. As I said before, I know many humans who do, indeed, enjoy the flavor of raw meat. And I'll bet even a dog would preferr seasoned cooked meat to raw meat - they just don't have the capability of doing that. Note the site never said we are *incapable* of digesting raw meat, because as I have mentioned, this is completely and utterly false.
Not only is that a website with an agenda, but the "facts" they list do not even resemble an objective, scientific analysis of the situation.
Herbivores can digest tree leaves - we cannot. Herbivores have incredibly long intestinal tracts, which give them very large guts, and smaller brains, we do not (even closely related species of monkeys have smaller brains and larger guts relative to eachother depending on diet). Our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, who share 98% of our DNA, eat meat. Just ask Jane Goodall, who had to keep her son locked in a type of cage at night when he was a baby, so that the chimps wouldn't eat him (she said they tried).
Oh - and chimps don't have claws either.
Not only is that a website with an agenda, but the "facts" they list do not even resemble an objective, scientific analysis of the situation.
Herbivores can digest tree leaves - we cannot. Herbivores have incredibly long intestinal tracts, which give them very large guts, and smaller brains, we do not (even closely related species of monkeys have smaller brains and larger guts relative to eachother depending on diet). Our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, who share 98% of our DNA, eat meat. Just ask Jane Goodall, who had to keep her son locked in a type of cage at night when he was a baby, so that the chimps wouldn't eat him (she said they tried).
Oh - and chimps don't have claws either.
69chevycamaro
Member
- Mar 30, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 6
Interestingly, I have read some articles which suggest raw meat may even be significantly healthier than cooked meat, notwithstanding the obvious problem with potentially deadly bacteria growth (such as E-Coli). I tend to believe this is probably true, since raw food, in general, is healthier than cooked. Also, this assumes that the meat obtained is free from chemicals, steroids, preservatives, hormones, and bacteria which invariably infest most of the meat available in your local grocery store. This is in no way analogous to being carnivores, however. Carnivores have stronger digestive acids and the proper bacteria to defend against the harmful organisms found in raw meat. They also have shorter intestines for faster expulsion of toxins resulting from the digestion of animal matter.We DO have longer intestinal tracts than most carnivores (ranging from about 20 to 30 feet in length). At one time during our evolution, we also had a caecum--the part of the digestive system found in herbivores (never in carnivores) responsible for digesting plant cellulose. Most people know of this now-defunct organ as the appendix.
Even though we no longer have a functioning caecum, we still need cellulose in our diets. Another word for cellulose is FIBER. If we don't eat enough cellulose, we risk digestive problems such as constipation. Certain types of cancer have also been linked to low-fiber diets. We share 50% of our DNA with bananas, too.
The fact that we share 98.4% of our DNA with apes proves nothing and could be used on either side of this argument. Gorillas, also sharing 98% of our DNA, are predominantly herbivores, only occassionally supplementing their diets with termites and ants. Even assuming chimps are our closest living relatives, the 1.6% difference in DNA accounts for very significant variations between species. [If you don't believe me, look in the mirror while holding a picture of a chimpanzee. With any luck at all, you will notice a few differences.] There is simply not enough data to suggest that because chimps eat animals, we must also eat animals. Chimpanzees also sleep in trees and pick fleas off one another.
Let us, for the sake of argument, set aside the faulty logic of comparing our diets to those of chimpanzees, and assume that what is good for chimps is good for humans. Chimpanzees may indeed eat the occassional small animal, but the bulk of their diets consist of leaves, fruit, bark, seeds, flowers, and other plant-based food, along with insects. Meat is supplemental to their diets, but not the primary staple.
Sources:
The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix
Nutrition and Digestion
All About Apes
DNA Relatedness
Even though we no longer have a functioning caecum, we still need cellulose in our diets. Another word for cellulose is FIBER. If we don't eat enough cellulose, we risk digestive problems such as constipation. Certain types of cancer have also been linked to low-fiber diets. We share 50% of our DNA with bananas, too.
The fact that we share 98.4% of our DNA with apes proves nothing and could be used on either side of this argument. Gorillas, also sharing 98% of our DNA, are predominantly herbivores, only occassionally supplementing their diets with termites and ants. Even assuming chimps are our closest living relatives, the 1.6% difference in DNA accounts for very significant variations between species. [If you don't believe me, look in the mirror while holding a picture of a chimpanzee. With any luck at all, you will notice a few differences.] There is simply not enough data to suggest that because chimps eat animals, we must also eat animals. Chimpanzees also sleep in trees and pick fleas off one another.
Let us, for the sake of argument, set aside the faulty logic of comparing our diets to those of chimpanzees, and assume that what is good for chimps is good for humans. Chimpanzees may indeed eat the occassional small animal, but the bulk of their diets consist of leaves, fruit, bark, seeds, flowers, and other plant-based food, along with insects. Meat is supplemental to their diets, but not the primary staple.
Sources:
The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix
Nutrition and Digestion
All About Apes
DNA Relatedness
Soccerchick94
New member
- Mar 14, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
Now we're just splitting hairs. I don't entirely disagree that we may be more closely related to chimpanzees than to gorillas. The fact of the matter is, while interesting to speculate, comparing humans to apes is of little value in determining what a human diet "should" be. It is likely that we share a common ancestor with chimps, but I think you will agree we have evolved very differently from our fuzzy distant cousins.
Not only are we more closely related to chimps than we are to gorillas, but *chimps* are more closely related to *us* than *they* are to gorillas. Chimps don't share 98.4% of their DNA with gorillas.
And gorilla intestinal tracts are far, far, longer than ours. Have you ever seen a gorilla's gut? We can't digest nearly the amount of plant material that they can.
Indeed, but meat was a consistant part of our ancestors diets throughout our evolutionary history, from at least the time when we split from chimps.
And gorilla intestinal tracts are far, far, longer than ours. Have you ever seen a gorilla's gut? We can't digest nearly the amount of plant material that they can.
Indeed, but meat was a consistant part of our ancestors diets throughout our evolutionary history, from at least the time when we split from chimps.
GUlUN
New member
- Apr 5, 2008
- 26
- 0
- 1
I find it very hard to take seriously information on how meat is bad for you from websites with names like "CrazyVegan". Please post a link to a paper describing how meat is not a natural part of the human diet published a respected, peer reviewed journal, preferably one related to anthropology, medicine, or biology.
Edit: BTW, Austrolopithicus Bosei and Robustus are usually now placed in a separate genus, Paranthropus, based on morphology, and are not considered to be ancestors of modern humans.
Edit 2: I just remembered that analysis of certain Olewan (I think) tools have confirmed that they were, indeed, used on animal flesh, based on microware patterns (the technique is reliable, and I do know about about using an SEM). Er. . . wait, I think Olewan may be after the period I'm thinking of, or something. Whatever industry the Homo Erectus were a part of.
Edit: BTW, Austrolopithicus Bosei and Robustus are usually now placed in a separate genus, Paranthropus, based on morphology, and are not considered to be ancestors of modern humans.
Edit 2: I just remembered that analysis of certain Olewan (I think) tools have confirmed that they were, indeed, used on animal flesh, based on microware patterns (the technique is reliable, and I do know about about using an SEM). Er. . . wait, I think Olewan may be after the period I'm thinking of, or something. Whatever industry the Homo Erectus were a part of.
amazinglygreat
New member
- Apr 16, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 1
No offense, but I'd like to see the documentation to back up this claim. If we have 98.4% DNA in common with APES (not merely chimps, mind you)...then it seems logically impossible that chimps would not also share at least this much in common with other apes. Correct me if I am wrong. I am very pleased to tell you that I have not.If you are implying that animal matter formed the primary bulk of our diets throughout our evolutionary history, I completely disagree. I think it's clear that humans have been eating animals throughout our recorded history, but not ALL humans, and certainly not all the time. The BULK of the human diet has historically been plant-based. In present times, we know that the healthiest diet for a human being contains only a small amount of meat compared to a relatively large portion of carbohydrates and vegetables. This fact is mirrored in all of our closest relatives, including the chimpanzee. Although they do eat meat, it is in relatively small proportion to plant-based food.
If we are talking pre-history, back to the divergent evolution of chimps and humans, I would be very interested in seeing some conclusive research regarding the dietary habits of these evolutionary ancestors. I suspect there is very little conclusive evidence in this regard.
If we are talking pre-history, back to the divergent evolution of chimps and humans, I would be very interested in seeing some conclusive research regarding the dietary habits of these evolutionary ancestors. I suspect there is very little conclusive evidence in this regard.