food for thought

IM0

after reading this its pretty clear humans were not meant to have a large amount of meat in our diets. I normally laugh at the idea of vegeterianism but after reading this its certainly food for thought about reducing meat in your diet by alot, not to the extreme like vegeterians or vegans though, just reducing meat intake by alot not eliminating it completely though

The Natural Human Diet

MORE SHARING SERVICES

When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop and snack on them? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to these questions, congratulations—like it or not, you're an herbivore.

According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history, humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.

HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY

Although many humans choose to eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the dubious title of "omnivore," we are anatomically herbivorous.

TEETH, JAWS, AND NAILS

Humans have short, soft fingernails and pathetically small "canine" teeth. In contrast, carnivores all have sharp claws and large canine teeth capable of tearing flesh.

Carnivores' jaws move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey and swallow them whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from side to side, allowing them to grind up fruit and vegetables with their back teeth. Like other herbivores' teeth, human back molars are flat for grinding fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars.

Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, "You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines."

STOMACH ACIDITY

Carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their extremely acidic stomach juices to break down flesh and kill the dangerous bacteria in meat that would otherwise sicken or kill them. Our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison because strong acids aren't needed to digest pre-chewed fruits and vegetables.

INTESTINAL LENGTH

Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through the animal relatively quickly, before it can rot and cause illness. Humans' intestinal tracts are much longer than those of carnivores of comparable size. Longer intestines allow the body more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from plant-based foods, but they make it dangerous for humans to eat meat. The bacteria in meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, increasing the risk of food poisoning. Meat actually begins to rot while it makes its way through human intestines, which increases the risk of colon cancer.

Read author John Robbins' discussion of the anatomical differences between humans and carnivores or review Dr. Milton Mills' entire article on the topic to learn more.

HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY

Humans also lack the instinct that drives carnivores to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. While carnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and ate the raw corpse would be considered deranged. Carnivorous animals are excited by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of blood, intestines and raw flesh, and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us, another indication that we were not designed to eat meat.

IF WE WERE MEANT TO EAT MEAT, WHY IS IT KILLING US?

Carnivorous animals in the wild virtually never suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strokes, or obesity, ailments that are caused in humans in large part by the consumption of the saturated fat and cholesterol in meat.

FAT AND CHOLESTEROL

Studies have shown that even when fed 200 times the amount of animal fat and cholesterol that the average human consumes each day, carnivores do not develop the hardening of the arteries that leads to heart disease and strokes in humans. Researchers have actually found that it is impossible for carnivores to develop hardening of the arteries, no matter how much animal fat they consume.

Human bodies, on the other hand, were not designed to process animal flesh, so all the excess fat and cholesterol from a meat-based diet makes us sick. Heart disease, for example, is the number one killer in America according to the American Heart Association, and medical experts agree that this ailment is largely the result of the consumption of animal products. Meat-eaters have a 50 percent higher risk of developing heart disease than vegetarians!

EXCESS PROTEIN

We consume twice as much protein as we need when we eat a meat-based diet, and this contributes to osteoporosis and kidney stones. Animal protein raises the acid level in our blood, causing calcium to be excreted from the bones to restore the blood's natural pH balance. This calcium depletion leads to osteoporosis, and the excreted calcium ends up in the kidneys, where it can form kidney stones or even trigger kidney disease.

Consuming animal protein has also been linked to cancer of the colon, breast, prostate, and pancreas. According to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project on Nutrition, Health, and the Environment, "In the next ten years, one of the things you're bound to hear is that animal protein … is one of the most toxic nutrients of all that can be considered."

Eating meat can also have negative consequences for stamina and sexual potency. One Danish study indicated that "Men peddling on a stationary bicycle until muscle failure lasted an average of 114 minutes on a mixed meat and vegetable diet, 57 minutes on a high-meat diet, and a whopping 167 minutes on a strict vegetarian diet."9 Besides having increased physical endurance, vegan men are also less likely to suffer from impotence.

FOOD POISONING

Since we don't have strong stomach acids like carnivores to kill all the bacteria in meat, dining on animal flesh can also give us food poisoning. According to the USDA, meat is the cause of 70 percent of foodborne illnesses in the United States because it's often contaminated with dangerous bacteria like E. coli, listeria, and campylobacter. Every year in the United States alone, food poisoning sickens over 75 million people and kills more than 5,000.

Dr. William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of the authoritative American Journal of Cardiology, sums it up this way: "[A]lthough we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores." Learn more about how meat damages human health.

HUMAN EVOLUTION AND THE RISE OF MEAT-HEAVY DIETS

If it's so unhealthy and unnatural for humans to eat meat, why did our ancestors sometimes turn to flesh for sustenance?

http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/the-natural-human-diet.aspx

pharmaton

get a blog ffs :rolleyes:

Sauve

We don't need long nails and teeth, we have victorinox

Also, moderation ftw.

keith16

But meat is delicious.

Sauve

I just noticed Peta wrote that :rolleyes:

.Henry Sellers.

Load of propaganda bollix.

Peregrine

Well PETA are hardly going to tell us all to eat meat.

IM0

.Henry Sellers. wrote: »

Load of propaganda bollix.

hard to argue with though, makes alot of sense when you read through it

Muise...

Pandas made the change in the other direction - from carnivorous to herbivirous. And now look at them: munching bamboo all day long for divil a bit of sustenance, way too busy chewing to bother with reproducing and continuing their boring, monochrome existence as a species. Eejits.

shruikan2553

It sounded like something from a vegetarian. Its from PETA, at least I could listen to a vegetarian's opinion and just agree to disagree. PETA's opinion is about on the same level as the westboro baptist church.

sok2005

Muise... wrote: »

Pandas made the change in the other direction - from carnivorous to herbivirous. And now look at them: munching bamboo all day long for divil a bit of sustenance, way too busy chewing to bother with reproducing and continuing their boring, monochrome existence as a species. Eejits.

You can say what you like about PETA but leave pandas out of this! They are adorable.

spank_inferno

We started out as carnivors....

... We continue as such.

Not food for thought.

Muise...

sok2005 wrote: »

You can say what you like about PETA but leave pandas out of this! They are adorable.

meh, inefficient emo-bears.

The One Who Knocks

Although many humans choose to eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the dubious title of "omnivore," we are anatomically herbivorous

This is wrong. Therefore the whole argument is fundamentally wrong, as it is based on this point. We are not anatomically herbivorous. We are anatomically omnivorous.

1. We have hydrochloric acid in our stomachs - herbivores do not.
2. We don't have cellulase (which breaks down plants) - herbivores do.
3. We have canines - herbivores do not.

We are similar to other omnivores such as bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans. Therefore we thrive on a diet consisting of both plants & meat.

Biggest load of b*llsh*t I've read in a long time.

Rabbo

If we weren't supposed to eat meat, we wouldn't find it so palatable nor would we require so much protein to remain healthy.

IM0

shruikan2553 wrote: »

It sounded like something from a vegetarian. Its from PETA, at least I could listen to a vegetarian's opinion and just agree to disagree. PETA's opinion is about on the same level as the westboro baptist church.

is the info in it factually wrong though thats the point

tayto lover

I'll read that link when I finish my steak.

gw80

peta propaganda, humans do get a thrill out of hunting, fishing and ultimatley killing,im no antrapologist but have there ever been a group or tribe of human beings that have not ate some form of meat or fish in their diet?

we could probably do with reducing the amount alright.

sok2005

Muise... wrote: »

meh, inefficient emo-bears.

You wouldn't pass up on a cuddle from this though. http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/stash-1-50d6f47d1d5fa.gif

wretcheddomain

If we weren't meant to digest meat then why can we digest meat?

I'm going off for a ham sandwich.

/thread

Magnetics

Here's a few very interesting documentaries on this:

Forks over knives, Food Matters and Fat sick& nearly dead

Eye openers to say the least

ScumLord

IM0 wrote: »

after reading this its pretty clear humans were not meant to have a large amount of meat in our diets.

That statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense seeing as we do eat meat and have done since before we were humans. Would the same people go back and tell neanderthals that they weren't meat eaters?

The whole reason humans could travel all over the globe is because they are meat eaters, eating vegetation can be dangerous and it's nutritional value not always immediately obvious (grains) but we always knew we can eat whatever animal we come across.

thecatspjs

A lot of that makes sense to me, but I don't have the relevant expertise in the area of human biology to question any parts of it properly. I certainly do think that a large amount of people eat too much meat instead of vegetables/nuts etc.
I personally reckon it's more about balance than cutting meat out. As the OP said, eat less meat and replace it with the stuff you should be munching on anyway.

wretcheddomain

Magnetics wrote: »

Here's a few very interesting documentaries on this:

Fat sick & nearly dead

Sunday morning material right there.

rawn

Basically meat shouldn't be the main portion of our dinner, it should be a side portion. I wouldn't cut it out altogether. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." - Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food.

Of course PETA are gonna convince you to not eat meat for their own agenda. You should eat less meat for your own benefit though.

IM0

it helps when making points to see if the point youre arguing is not already covered and beaten in the link

Magnetics

Rabbo wrote: »

If we weren't supposed to eat meat, we wouldn't find it so palatable nor would we require so much protein to remain healthy.

Sure loads of things we find palatable are absolutely terrible for us

On the protein issue, we can get a very high percentage of it from fruit and veg. Meat is not the only good source of protein

Muise...

sok2005 wrote: »

You wouldn't pass up on a cuddle from this though. http://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/stash-1-50d6f47d1d5fa.gif

selfish little goth cub won't give me back my ball. :mad: :pac:

sok2005

rawn wrote: »

Of course PETA are gonna convince you to not eat meat for their own agenda.

Does PETA get a euro each time someone refuses meat?

wretcheddomain

Magnetics wrote: »

On the protein issue, we can get a very high percentage of it from fruit and veg.

Examples?

NuckingFacker

I agree. Raw meat is awful, and probably bad for you. That is why God invented cookers and barbecues. Mmmm. Ribs.

rawn

sok2005 wrote: »

Does PETA get a euro each time someone refuses meat?

Every time someone shares a PETA story on Facebook, a little lamb gets set free...

...to be eaten by a wolf. #circleoflife #thatsnaturebítches #meatismurder

I don't normally use hashtags, ever, but this time they seemed appropriate

IM0

IM0 wrote: »

hard to argue with though, makes alot of sense when you read through it

It really doesn't.

IM0 wrote: »

is the info in it factually wrong though thats the point

Yes, it is. It actually uses completely abstract statements to prove an unrelated point.

"Do you dream about hunting prey? If not, you shouldn't eat meat", well I don't dream about harvesting wheat or pulling up carrots either. I guess I should just starve since I don't have any dreams about living as a hunter-gatherer or farmer.

Shout Dust

When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop and snack on them? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to these questions, congratulations—like it or not, you're an herbivore.

I also don't salivate at the sight of leaves and grass, what does that make me?

rawn

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Examples?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=high+protein+fruit+and+vegetables

sok2005

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Examples?

Quinoa, chickpeas, wholegrains, beans, pumpkin seeds, peanut butter.

IM0

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Examples?

straight off top of head. kidney beans and various nuts

Magnetics

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Examples?

sok2005 wrote: »

Quinoa, chickpeas, wholegrains, beans, pumpkin seeds, peanut butter.

and soybeans, lentils, peas, artichokes

SparkySpitfire

3 issues:

1. They say we don't look at animals and salivate at the thoughts of killing them, nor do we gorge on carcasses we happen to come across.
I would argue that this is more of a matter of living in a modern society. If man never looked at an animal and thought "yum", then why would they have started to kill and eat them in the first place? Secondly, if I saw a carrot on the ground I wouldn't pick that up and eat it. Maybe because we live in a society where that wouldn't be the norm.

2. They say we don't have the characteristics of carnivores. Why are they comparing us to carnivores when we're omnivores? Should we not be compared to hedgehogs instead of lions?

3. It's written by PETA = biased as ****. Anyone can hire a researcher to back up their own agendas.

Now excuse me, my hog roast needs turning.

wretcheddomain

rawn wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=high+protein+fruit+and+vegetables

sok2005 wrote: »

Quinoa, chickpeas, wholegrains, beans, pumpkin seeds, peanut butter.

The point isn't that certain fruit and vegetables have modest protein content but that the vast majority of people do not exclusively rely on these sources (kindly quoted above) for their protein intake. Meat and fish are the principle sources of protein and whether or not certain vegetables have modest content is not the reality of how people have actually received their protein for many thousands of years.

Red Kev

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I agree. Raw meat is awful, and probably bad for you. That is why God invented cookers and barbecues. Mmmm. Ribs.

Steak Tartare is gorgeous, when made properly. The German variant Mettwurst is pretty fabulous when well made as well.

pharmaton

sok2005 wrote: »

Does PETA get a euro each time someone refuses meat?

brace yourself it's the daily mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106757/PETA-killed-95-adoptable-dogs-cats-care-year.html


wrt fruit & veg proteins, they are not devoid of protein, peas/chickpeads, spinach, broccoli even potatoes contain a relatively high amount (although nowhere near comparable to meat content). If you eat dairy products you can add in more and with nuts or the occasional egg you can have a meat free diet that is substantial enough to get by on.
Wouldn't be my cup of tea though I don't eat vast amounts of red meats, I'm happy enough with chicken and fish to compliment my rda.

rawn

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The point isn't that certain fruit and vegetables have modest protein content but that the vast majority of people do not exclusively rely on these sources (kindly quoted above) for their protein intake. Meat and fish are the principle sources of protein and whether or not certain vegetables have modest content is not the reality of how people have actually received their protein for many thousands of years.

If you eat them in high enough quantities, you'll get your protein. But my opinion is that you shouldn't rely on meat to be your main source of protein. The meat portion on your plate shouldn't be bigger than your veg and starch.

Tin Foil Hat

IM0 wrote: »

after reading this its pretty clear humans were not meant to have a large amount of meat in our diets. I normally laugh at the idea of vegeterianism but after reading this its certainly food for thought about reducing meat in your diet by alot, not to the extreme like vegeterians or vegans though, just reducing meat intake by alot not eliminating it completely though



http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/the-natural-human-diet.aspx

This article is written by someone who fails to understand that our use of tools and cooking had direct consequences for our subsequent evolution.

kona

IM0 wrote: »

after reading this its pretty clear humans were not meant to have a large amount of meat in our diets. I normally laugh at the idea of vegeterianism but after reading this its certainly food for thought about reducing meat in your diet by alot, not to the extreme like vegeterians or vegans though, just reducing meat intake by alot not eliminating it completely though

fillet steak ftw, seal it up and taste the blood.

The One Who Knocks

Before this turns into a full blown argument, I'm gonna reiterate my main points.

Although many humans choose to eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the dubious title of "omnivore," we are anatomically herbivorous

This is wrong. Therefore the whole argument is fundamentally wrong, as it is based on this point. We are not anatomically herbivorous. We are anatomically omnivorous.

1. We have hydrochloric acid in our stomachs - herbivores do not.
2. We don't have cellulase (which breaks down plants) - herbivores do.
3. We have canines - herbivores do not.

We are similar to other omnivores such as bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans. Therefore we thrive on a diet consisting of both plants & meat.

desertcircus

IM0 wrote: »

after reading this its pretty clear humans were not meant to have a large amount of meat in our diets. I normally laugh at the idea of vegeterianism but after reading this its certainly food for thought about reducing meat in your diet by alot, not to the extreme like vegeterians or vegans though, just reducing meat intake by alot not eliminating it completely though



http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/the-natural-human-diet.aspx

This is an absolutely terrible article. Humans evolved as omnivores, eating cooked meat (because cooking drastically reduces the amount of calories needed to digest food and so maximises the benefit you get). That's why we have sharp teeth at the front of our mouths; they're built to rip and cut meat. The length of our intestines is a consequence of the fact that cooking food minimises the chances of it causing us to get ill, and so we can get the most nutrition by having a long intestinal passage. The buildup of fat in our arteries is at least partially a result of the fact that we're living vastly longer than our bodies evolved to keep working properly for.

There's a very strong case for vegetarianism, but it's a moral rather than a scientific one. We shouldn't eat animals because it's impossible to properly justify the deliberate killing of sentient creatures to satisfy our desire to eat meat (and I say that as someone who eats meat; it's very hard to square it morally). Resorting to abysmal science cheapens the moral case.

rawn

rawn wrote: »

You should eat less meat for your own benefit though.

Less than what?

Between animal welfare, economic issues, ethical issues and nutrition, plenty of people are already well informed on reasons to limit or increase their meat intake. 'Less' isn't a general rule.

mcwinning

Given that it comes from PETA I would suspect it is severely cherry picked literature.

Miss Lockhart

Jamez735 wrote: »

Before this turns into a full blown argument, I'm gonna reiterate my main points.



This is wrong. Therefore the whole argument is fundamentally wrong, as it is based on this point. We are not anatomically herbivorous. We are anatomically omnivorous.

1. We have hydrochloric acid in our stomachs - herbivores do not.
2. We don't have cellulase (which breaks down plants) - herbivores do.
3. We have canines - herbivores do not.

We are similar to other omnivores such as bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans. Therefore we thrive on a diet consisting of both plants & meat.

Although I agree we are anatomically omnivorous I have to point out that some of your own information is just as factually incorrect as that which you are refuting. Herbivores do have HCl in their stomach.

Frosty McSnowballs

I'd eat myself if I was made of meat.