The Great Vegetarian Meat Debate... (suspect, considered, world, family)

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by jtur88

On the other hand, the people of the Caucasus mountain region north of Turkey have legendary longevity, frequently living will past 100, with a diet low in meat proteins.

Trivia on Health and Old Age Places with High Longevity: Transcaucasia Part 3 | Trivia Library

In these Caucasian areas of great longevity, the diet consists largely of milk in the form of cheese and buttermilk; vegetables such as green onions, tomatoes, cucumbers, beans, and cabbage; meat including chicken, beef, young goat, and--in winter--pork; and fruits, particularly grapes. The long-lived people consume a surprising 1,700 to 1,900 calories a day, considerably more, according to Dr. Leaf, than for people of advanced age elsewhere in the world. Seventy percent of the calories come from vegetables, with an average of 70 to 90 gm. of protein which is largely derived from milk rather than meat. Cheese is eaten daily in the Caucasus, but it is low in fat content. The daily fat intake is around 50 gm.

Apart from the enormous milk-food consumption, that's basically what comes to mind when I think of a "balanced, properly portioned, biologically appropriate diet". I do like a good, hard cheese though. I'll have to increase the consumption.

Also, I'll bet you don't see any obese Turkish goat herders in the Caucuses nor do they eat at Mickey D's. I would postulate that those people are active to the day they die. I think lifestyle needs to be taken into account as much as diet.

[eevee]

Originally Posted by NSX

I don't see the relevance of your question since vitamins are not unnatural.

Gee, let me think for a second, Which would I rather have….

A diet consisting of synthetic vitamins, be fit and in near perfect health OR a diet filled with “natural” meat and be overweight, cancer-prone, heart disease-prone and have beef rotting in my colon?

how can you complain about people making assumptions that vegetarians are weak and skinny when YOU just made one yourself that people who eat meat are overweight and cancer prone? hypocritical much?

there are healthy vegetarians and unhealthy vegetarians. there are healthy omnivores and unhealthy omnivores. there are some fat vegetarians that eats tons of carbs, nuts, and dairy products so are putting themselves at risk for heart disease. there are vegans that have nutritional deficiencies due to poor diet choices and rely heavily on pills. and there are omnivores w/ health issues of their own. good health is not guaranteed by not eating meat nor are all meat eater doom to disease and health issues

[eevee]

Originally Posted by NSX

There are numerous studies showing that (mostly with red-meat) there is a definite increased risk of cancer and heart-related issues even with normal-sized portions of meat. Also, I won't even get into the thousands of Americans that are getting sick from contaminated meat each year.

Let's look at your example of the "undisciplined" person whom cannot control their quantities. If you eat over-consume meat, odds are that you will get unhealthy and fat. On the contrary, if you "over-consume" fruits and vegetables, if anything, you are probably just making yourself much healthier.

right, because no one got sick from contaminated spinach? or peppers? or peanut butter? I've never gotten sick from meat (I like my meat well cooked); I'm pretty sure I did get a bit sick from the pepper scare

your forgetting that vegetarians, unless they are vegans, do eat dairy products. many who identify themselves as vegetarians may be ovo-lacto vegetarians so eat eggs and dairy products. both of these are high in fats and should be over consumed. again, there are plenty of overweight vegetarians stuffing their faces w/ huge bagels, cheese, milkshakes, ice cream, and other processed junk (BOCA burgers aren't exactly fat free). one shouldn't even overeat healthy fats like nuts and avocado.

so yes, if a vegetarian overeats these items, they CAN become overweight and unhealthy

[jimboburnsy]

Just a note to any vegetarians and or vegans who may read this thread -

I'm not advocating that anyone change their diet on the basis of what is "natural" or, in terms I have used, biologically appropriate. It is clear that people eating vegan/vegetarian diets do fine in terms of health and they are able to get ample protein from non-animal sources. Humans are able to synthesize some important amino acids that allow them to have complete diets and still adhere to folivorous guidelines, be it out of necessity or dogma. Vegans and vegetarians tend to be healthy people but I wonder if it isn't simply because they pay attention to what they eat, have taken some initiative in educating themselves with regard to nutrition, think of food more as fuel than as flavor and are probably more likely to lead active lives.

I do not believe that including or excluding animal protein from the diet makes it necessarily healthy or unhealthy. Humans are irrefutably adapted to hunting and eating meat but we are also adapted to take advantage of any opportunity to feed, more or less regardless of what that opportunity is.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by godsavethequeens

Eating meat is barbaric. Vegetarians/Vegans are more highly evolved.

Just when we all thought there were no more good jokes, huh?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by eevee

how can you complain about people making assumptions that vegetarians are weak and skinny when YOU just made one yourself that people who eat meat are overweight and cancer prone? hypocritical much?

there are healthy vegetarians and unhealthy vegetarians. there are healthy omnivores and unhealthy omnivores. there are some fat vegetarians that eats tons of carbs, nuts, and dairy products so are putting themselves at risk for heart disease. there are vegans that have nutritional deficiencies due to poor diet choices and rely heavily on pills. and there are omnivores w/ health issues of their own. good health is not guaranteed by not eating meat nor are all meat eater doom to disease and health issues

You betcha, eevee! Our digestive biochemistry is remarkably similar (identical?) to that of the N. American bear family, which I studied as a biologist for many years. They all looked particualr healthy to me, and since we evolved from very similar organisms, I see no evidence that we lost any of their omnivorous abilities along the way.

The arrogance & assumption of superiority by vegans is astounding. Their imagined perfect world would soon die off, as the necessary agricultural restructuring to provide enough protein and carbs for us all would devastate the last vestigates of global semi-natural habitat.

As a result, the cutsy wild animals close to many vegans' hearts (the bunnies, deer and other fun little woodland creatures) would soon find themselves homeless, their once diverse but relatively unproductive habitat reduced to a macro-agro-mono-culture of hybrid rice, which is spectacularly vulnerable, BTW, to bacterial, viral or insect attack.

Oooooppssss.... Another wonderful but poorly developed theory shot to h$ll....

Of course, bio-energetically speaking, the pre-conversion and concentration of simple fats, proteins and carbos that omnivores (cows, pigs, chickens, for example) conveniently do for us before we consume them greatly reduces our personal energy expenditures. Perhaps we'd be a lot thinner if we all had to get by grubbing for a few grains?

Imagine: a McDonald's Big Oatburger. Makes your mouth water don't it?

Me, I think I'll stay as a lowly partially-evolved but quite functional and happy omnivore, just as Darwin intended me to be!

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by rifleman

The arrogance & assumption of superiority by vegans is astounding. Their imagined perfect world would soon die off, as the necessary agricultural restructuring to provide enough protein and carbs for us all would devastate the last vestigates of global semi-natural habitat.

Rifleman,

What I hear a lot of is "we don't have big teeth or claws to catch and kill prey. We must be natural vegetarians". I think that the argument is logically valid, but it is elementary and is not sound. It fails to recognize that humans have had cutting tools and killing tools for over 2 MM years, since our inception as a genus. It's true that we do not have giant, deeply seated canines for bleeding prey or crushing esophagae but we have something even better - hands for forming tools and wielding weapons connected to a brain for setting traps and planning ambushes. You don't need big teeth and claws when you can fashion a razor sharp knife out of obsidian or flint and throw or thrust spears hardened by fire.

A detailed examination of our brachial and digestive morphology is particulary damning to the human frugivore/folivore argument. Tree dwelling primates whose diets have significant quantities of leaves tend to have an intact cecum for extracting nutrition from cellulosic material. Do you know what we call the cecum in humans? It's the vestigial appendix. Our bodies have "given up" grazing. Also, while we may look like we should be tree climbing pros, when contrasted against other primates it is clear that we are built to run, not to climb. While fruit certainly played an important part in our ancestral diet, if it was a primary food we did not adapt to climbing trees to get it.

In modern times, it may be the case that hunting meat is no longer an absolute necessity and modern humans can certainly do just fine without any meat in the diet.

I just prefer to hunt and remain in touch with humanity.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

It fails to recognize that humans have had cutting tools and killing tools for over 2 MM years, since our inception as a genus. It's true that we do not have giant, deeply seated canines for bleeding prey or crushing esophagae but we have something even better - hands for forming tools and wielding weapons connected to a brain for setting traps and planning ambushes. .

I don't think you can make that leap. Our genus evolved from something, it did not just magically appear out of thin air, full equipped as modern man. In every organism, the mechanism for feeding is paramount in its development, obviously predating any later structures including prehensile hands, which in any case, evolved according to the survival value of just transporting prey to the mouth. The most primitive living things are reproductive organs with mouths. Everything else came later, to supplement and fine tune the basics.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

Rifleman,

What I hear a lot of is "we don't have big teeth or claws to catch and kill prey. We must be natural vegetarians". I think that the argument is logically valid, but it is elementary and is not sound. It fails to recognize that humans have had cutting tools and killing tools for over 2 MM years, since our inception as a genus. It's true that we do not have giant, deeply seated canines for bleeding prey or crushing esophagae but we have something even better - hands for forming tools and wielding weapons connected to a brain for setting traps and planning ambushes. You don't need big teeth and claws when you can fashion a razor sharp knife out of obsidian or flint and throw or thrust spears hardened by fire.

A detailed examination of our brachial and digestive morphology is particulary damning to the human frugivore/folivore argument. Tree dwelling primates whose diets have significant quantities of leaves tend to have an intact cecum for extracting nutrition from cellulosic material. Do you know what we call the cecum in humans? It's the vestigial appendix. Our bodies have "given up" grazing. Also, while we may look like we should be tree climbing pros, when contrasted against other primates it is clear that we are built to run, not to climb. While fruit certainly played an important part in our ancestral diet, if it was a primary food we did not adapt to climbing trees to get it.

In modern times, it may be the case that hunting meat is no longer an absolute necessity and modern humans can certainly do just fine without any meat in the diet.

I just prefer to hunt and remain in touch with humanity.

All true and scientifically accurate. So, why is it that humans who wish to deny our lineage of being omnivorous feel, somehow , justified in claiming a higher level of evolution? many of these more rabid plant consumers, who keep say, a dog, as a pet even, feed their animal the same way they feed themselves. Lol, canines cannot subsist on plant matter alone, yet people will attempt to feed them this way to satisfy their own sensibilities. Most dry dog food is about 80% grains and dessicated veggies anymore as well. Thus the relish, that a canine who eats a dry dog food diet, will take, with a bone and scraps from your steak. During the winter I feed my dogs as much extra animal fat as possible, trimmings off of roasts, steaks etc, to help them stay warm. Humans that must work outside in the winter should keep their protien/fat intake up as well. Hard physical work in cold climates requires this type of fuel. I suppose if your digs are in SoCal, or South FL, you can get away with a grazers diet, but it won't get you far in a Northern winter.

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I don't think you can make that leap. Our genus evolved from something, it did not just magically appear out of thin air, full equipped as modern man. In every organism, the mechanism for feeding is paramount in its development, obviously predating any later structures including prehensile hands, which in any case, evolved according to the survival value of just transporting prey to the mouth. The most primitive living things are reproductive organs with mouths. Everything else came later, to supplement and fine tune the basics.

Toolmaking definitely pre-dates modern humans. You're right that at some point there were hominids that were incapable of much more than throwing rocks, but by the time humans recognizeable as "modern" emerged toolmaking had been going on for a very long time.

EDIT: If not from the inception of the genus (which I still believe is the case), MOST DEFINITELY from the inception of the species.