http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html Is this true? Are vegan diet healthier than meat diet?

File: 32 KB, 300x218, jessica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 00:05:29 2011 No.2402612 [Reply] [Original]

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
Is this true?
Are vegan diet healthier than meat diet?

Alpharius Mon Jan 24 00:14:29 2011 No.2402650
File: 100 KB, 635x525, fuck vegans.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

No.
Meat diets also aren't healther than vegan diets.
You can be a vegan and eat nothing but pancakes smothered in syrup all day. That would not be healthy.
Adding a bit of spiced sausage and butter to that diet would not make it better.

Health is all about balance.
Furthermore, the author of that site is biased, cites almost no sources, disagrees with almost every expert on the subject, and makes several silly points. For example:
>The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat. Real carnivores and omnivores don't have that problem.
Because nobody's ever choked on a vegetable, right?

>Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian.
Yes, trace is back far enough, and they survived off minerals and sunlight.

>The animals most similar to us, the other primates, eat an almost exclusively vegan diet (and their main non-plant food often isn't meat, it's termites).
Oh, so we should eat bugs?
Also, primates eat meat, given the chance, they just are almost never given the chance, because plants are easier to find.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 00:19:29 2011 No.2402669 File: 37 KB, 384x305, Food pyramid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

>>	Implying Mon Jan 24 00:26:29 2011 No.2402694 >>2402650 Regarding that picture: veganism is not about completely avoiding animal products, it's about avoiding them when able.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 00:40:29 2011 No.2402758 >>2402650 >Also, primates eat meat, given the chance, they just are almost never given the chance, because plants are easier to find. Cats also eat rices if you give it to them

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 00:42:29 2011 No.2402765 >>2402758 This is relevant to the discussion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 00:51:29 2011 No.2402795 >>2402650 Don't chimps eat other baby chimps fairly regularly? We should start eating babies too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 00:52:29 2011 No.2402796 >>2402795 Humanitarian for the perfect diet?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:00:29 2011 No.2402814

>>2402612
Cutting out animal products doesn't cut out high fructose corn syrup, candies and chocolates, etc. Nothing is unhealthy about lean animal protein, and too much fat is bad, whether it's saturated animal fat on a steak or vegetable fat used to fry your french fries.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:12:29 2011 No.2402844 >>2402814 This. I've gained weight as a vegetarian - mostly because I have limited options eating out so I get crappy processed food, fries, or something from a vending machine.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:15:29 2011 No.2402851 >>2402814 I want to point out that this in no way comments on the morals or ethics behind eating meat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:16:29 2011 No.2402854 Would you eat your pet dog? what the fuck is the difference between a dog and a cow or a chicken?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:19:29 2011 No.2402865 >>2402854 because im hungry

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:23:29 2011 No.2402869 >>2402865 could you kill your pet dog or just have some one else kill it?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:28:29 2011 No.2402876

>>2402854
From an objective standpoint there is no difference, and if you had a pet cows or chickens from the time you were a child you would love them like your dog.

However, this doesn't mean we should stop eating meat because we don't eat our pets. What it means is that people who eat cows should realize the difference between the animals is purely based on culture and geography.
Whether they continue to eat meat knowing the animals are capable of the same emotion and kindness as their dog is entirely up to them. However Humans are animals, and animals eat each other. I see nothing unusual here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:30:29 2011 No.2402882 >>2402854 if i was starving, yes, i believe i would. there is no difference. Humans ride that list too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:33:29 2011 No.2402893 >>2402854 how is eating plants any better? why use antibacterial soap? why get flu shots? why buy a fly swatter? Their tissues and surfaces are teaming with life. In many cases, these organisms are animal by definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:38:29 2011 No.2402908 >>2402854 For several reasons. I have emotional ties with my dog which bleed into my feelings for all dogs, so no. Dogs are cute and chickens are ugly. I'm not accustomed to eating dogs, it's not something I grew up doing.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:40:29 2011 No.2402917

>>2402893
The poster you replied to is still arguing from an emotional standpoint (or trolling) while you base your argument on logic.
If you ask [specific irrational vegetarians] to pin down the exact point where is becomes OK to eat animals, or what kingdoms and classes of life are OK to eat, they stop making sense. "Don't eat them because it makes me feel bad" The truth is, there exists no such point. Anything people do is free game, anything any other animal does is free game as well. I say specific because I am vegetarian as well. Go figure.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:42:29 2011 No.2402926

>>2402694
so full of shit.

A vegan (pronounced VEE-gun) is someone who, for various reasons, chooses to avoid using or consuming animal products. While vegetarians choose not to use flesh foods, vegans also avoid dairy and eggs, as well as fur, leather, wool, down, and cosmetics or chemical products tested on animals.

period.

there is no, "oh, when i feel like it's convenient for me" bullshit.

if use use white sugar you are consuming a product filtered using bone char.
You ain't vegan.
you got wool clothes?
you ain't vegan.
Use shampoo?
You ain't vegan.
"as far as is possible and practical" is just excuses...your life isn't at stake, just your convenience.
Either you give it your all, or you are just another poser.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:44:29 2011 No.2402938

At the very least the intestinal tract length holds true for fish.

http://limnology.wisc.edu/personnel/mcintyre/publications/wagner_etal_2009_Functional-Ecology-LT-cic
hlid-gut-length.pdf

Though really I don't see how anything besides the specialization of the intestinal track matters when talking about nutrition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:44:29 2011 No.2402939 >>2402917 yeah...i've seen cows eat ducks... there is no such thing as a vegetarian to me

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:44:29 2011 No.2402940
File: 131 KB, 612x480, food chain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I have a life-long mission to eat one of every type of animal on the planet. Obviously this won't be possible because of deep sea things, endangered species, and so on, but it's nice to have goals. I am looking forward to lion burger next week. Pic related.

>>2402650
> Yes, trace is back far enough, and they survived off minerals and sunlight.
For this statement, you are my new hero.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 01:49:29 2011 No.2402962 >>2402612 >Are vegan diet healthier than meat diet? Highly unlikely. We've evolved to eat meat. Thus it seems that it would be worse to not eat meat, unless special precautions are taken.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:50:29 2011 No.2402963 >>2402939 the thing of it is, animals don't put each other in small cages and expect each other to live their entire life in there without ever moving or seeing the sun.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:52:29 2011 No.2402969 >>2402962 >We've evolved to eat meat. >[citation needed]

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:56:29 2011 No.2402984

people treat animals like shit. i'd be for eating your dog, atleast you knew it had a good life. let's put you in a room with 1000 other people, with only standing room, feed you chicken shit (which they do feed other livestock), never clean the room, and when others get sick just let them die next to you.
inb4 sounds like an ICP concert

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:56:29 2011 No.2402986 >Are vegan diet healthier than meat diet? no http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/01/06/vegetarians-and-heart-disease/

Scientist Mon Jan 24 01:56:29 2011 No.2402990

>>2402969
Really?

Our teeth. Our digestive track. Our appendix. All of it is indicative of an animal which is not a pure plant eater.

There's also the fossil evidence which shows that our ancestors ate meat.

There's also the indisputable fact you need vitamin B12, which in practice only comes from animal meat, yeast, and the like, not from everyday plant matter. For our ancestors in hunter gatherer mode, I can only assume that they did not have access to fermentation or soy on the African plains.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:56:29 2011 No.2402991 >>2402938 ha I have some Tanganyika cichlids in a tank sitting right here. I should look at their intestine tracks, and see if my data matches up. Their diet is mostly fish pellets though...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 01:59:29 2011 No.2403006 >>2402969 actually this is old news ... http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:02:29 2011 No.2403019 >>2402990 >Our digestive track. You're pulling literal shit out of your ass. See: >>2402938 Find me a reference of equal weight that this does not hold true in other animals and humans as well.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:06:29 2011 No.2403029

>>2402969
>>2402990
>>2403019

Why does it matter whether we're evolved to or not?

Unless you think it's "What God intended!", I don't see why it matters at all.

I don't care whether or not I'm designed/evolved to eat meat, I can, I like to, it's practical, so I will.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:07:29 2011 No.2403033 >>2403019 Our obviously not plant eater teeth. Vitamin B12. The appendix. Anthropology evidence, such as this anon cited: >>2403006

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:07:29 2011 No.2403036

i mean, you can get every thing you need to replace meat from other sources (including dietary supplements), i think to me it's really a moral issue. if i couldn't kill it (under normal circumstances, not like if i was starving to death) i wouldn't eat it. i could eat people, but do i? i mean, if there were no laws would you eat people? that being said, would you like to be eaten?

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:08:29 2011 No.2403039 >>2403029 Indeed. I'm not trying to say what is moral is natural. Only religious idiots believe that. However, as a question of matter of fact, our human ancestors ate meat, and our teeth and dietary needs adjusted to this new food accordingly.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:09:29 2011 No.2403047

>>2403036
>i mean, if there were no laws would you eat people?
Yes, I definitely want to. I don't want to sound like I'm just trying to be edgy or morbid, but I'm really curious and would like to try it.

>that being said, would you like to be eaten?
Nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:10:29 2011 No.2403056 >>2403039 our ancestors enslaved other people. therefor it is okay to own slaves?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:11:29 2011 No.2403058 >>2403029 You can eat nuts and bolts if you want to for all I care, that has no relevance on the discussion of what is optimal for you and more importantly me to be eating. Don't throw me in with the moral argument faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:15:29 2011 No.2403074 File: 42 KB, 500x375, sandwich ham croissant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >my sandwich when omnivorous digestive system

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:20:29 2011 No.2403096 >>2403056 Did you even read a fucking thing I said?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:29:29 2011 No.2403132

>>2403033
I'll just verify parts of OP's link since it's faster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_teeth
>Between 4 and 5 canine teeth (tushes, tusks) between the molars and incisors
Horses do actually have canines, thus canines =/= carnivores.

>Vitamin B12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12
>Biosynthesis of the basic structure of the vitamin in nature is only accomplished by simple organisms such as some bacteria and algae, but conversion between different forms of the vitamin can be accomplished in the human body.
Source is bacteria, not meat.

>The appendix.
I assume you mean to imply the vestigial nature of it. All that does is push us more into the frugivore category, that alone isn't enough to optimize us for meat consumption.

>Anthropology evidence, such as this anon cited:
It argues that meat was essentially the earliest form of multi-vitamin... it does not argue that we became omnivores.
>Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have developed a more elongated small intestine

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:30:29 2011 No.2403137
File: 468 KB, 1440x900, look.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hey guys: If saturated fat is bad for you, why does the body store its extra energy in the form of saturated fatty acids?

Why can I live for an indefinite period of time in ketosis but I will surely die if I don't consume essential fatty acids?

>mfw low-fat=healthy

Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:37:29 2011 No.2403162

>>2403132
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Let me see if I can find some more scholarly articles. We are asking two related questions:

1- Are humans adapted to eat only plant matter? Was it practical to do so for our ancestors?

2- Did our immediate ancestors before agriculture regularly eat meat?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:41:29 2011 No.2403177 >>2403132 >Vitamin B12 Source is bacteria, not meat Read the article you linked. We must still obtain it through meat or dairy sources. Before the advent of artificial dietary supplements, surviving on a fully vegan diet was impossible.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:43:29 2011 No.2403185 >>2403162 Reading this http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Wz8Kf3mO_i4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA191&dq=human +meat+omnivore&ots=jhT8Ywb_ZZ&sig=hgVbWdMg0EoJaFt-2KZACvQJKlU#v=onepage&q=human%20meat%2 0omnivore&f=false atm.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:43:29 2011 No.2403188

>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 dug into the raw corpse would be considered deranged.
>Carnivorous animals are aroused by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of 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, more proof that we were not designed to eat meat.

I fucking laughed.

That's simply retarded. We're not "innately repulsed" by raw meat, it's a cultural thing.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:45:29 2011 No.2403197

>>2403162
I've had a moment to think about this.

>1- Are humans adapted to eat only plant matter? Was it practical to do so for our ancestors?
This is going to take a bit more time to answer, but

>2- Did our immediate ancestors before agriculture regularly eat meat?
this is relatively easy to answer. The archaeological evidence clearly shows that our ancestors made spears and shit to kill animals, and ate their meat. This really isn't in dispute, is it?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:46:29 2011 No.2403201

>The next person you meet head-on who claims meat is "tasty," stop him in his tracks and insist that he eat a large plate of plain, unseasoned, boiled beef or boiled chicken in front of you &endash; note their displeasure.

Another silly argument. Of course if you don't cook a food properly it will taste bland. Ask a vegetarian to eat boiled asparagus or boiled white rice and note their displeasure.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:48:29 2011 No.2403206

>In general, plant-eating creatures have the longest lifespans. Elephants, horses, and chimpanzees are at the top of the list while lions, tigers, and wolves are about half that. Humans' lifespans are even longer than the elephants etc. (even before modern medicine), providing more evidence that we're in the plant-eating camp.

HE USES THIS AS AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

It's like he's actually mentally disabled.

>>	Implying Mon Jan 24 02:49:29 2011 No.2403212 >>2402926 Someone's mad. Someone's also misinterpreting my meaning.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:50:29 2011 No.2403214
File: 9 KB, 251x223, 1288510863320s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2403162
From the abstract: "The overall effect of the 10-week period without dietary fruits and vegetables was a decrease in oxidative damage to DNA, blood proteins, and plasma lipids, concomitantly with marked changes in antioxidative defense."

hmm... 10 weeks without eating plants and we see a reduction in DNA damage and higher antioxidant defense capacity.

And another study showing less DNA damage in populations who eat less fruit=veg. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/7/1428.long
From the abstract: "African-Americans had ... lower self-reported intake of most antioxidants (than whites). Levels of oxidative DNA damage, measured using the alkaline comet assay, were lower in African-Americans than Whites"

Alright everybody, thinking caps ON

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:52:29 2011 No.2403217 >>2403214 >herp derp forgot the first link http://www.springerlink.com/content/ba92700veem7fjd2/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:52:29 2011 No.2403219 >>2403206 >>2403206 either that or there is serious trolling afoot

Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:52:29 2011 No.2403220

So, remind me, anyone have any reliable links regarding the availability of vitamin B12 to those who didn't eat meat or do fermentation? I'm curious now. From what I can find, there is no source besides those two, which from my understanding would not have been available to our ancestors before the agriculture revolution.

However, how did our earlier fruit / plant eating ancestors survive? Did they not need vitamin B12? Do the herbivore primates not need vitamin B12? Anyone?

Most of the papers I've found on google scholar are debating the relative important of meat in the diet. None of them really discuss if our ancestors could have practically survived on a no-meat diet, which seems to be the interesting question at hand.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:54:29 2011 No.2403224

>>2403214
I never claimed that we only eat meat. I've only been claiming that meat was a necessary component of the diet of our immediate ancestors prior to the agriculture revolution.

I'm less sure now. Can anyone answer my questions in this: >>2403220

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:56:29 2011 No.2403229

Humans are omnivores.

We eat meat and we eat plants and shit tastes good.

Also we don't proceed to shit our pants after doing so.

Isn't it kind of self evident that when you eat too much fruit you get direaha, you eat nothing but meat you get constipation, and that we can't really digest fibre enough evidence that we're ment to eat whatever the FUCK we can get our hands on?

Chimpanzee's are no stranger to eating baby pigs, monkeys, termites, and then following it up with a nice salad or piece of fruit.

So why suddenly do we have to be humongous faggots and over think something as simple as eating? Mr chimp isn't being a faggot, he likes bananas, he likes ripping off monkey faces and eating them and he likes getting laid.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 02:57:29 2011 No.2403233

>>2403162
>http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

>Citations fucking no where

>1- Are humans adapted to eat only plant matter? Was it practical to do so for our ancestors?
Do remember that being able to eat non-plant matter and being optimized to eat large quantities of non-plant matter are two extremely different things. Are you suggesting that animals were more plentiful than plants at any time in history with perhaps the exception of harsh winters?

>2- Did our immediate ancestors before agriculture regularly eat meat?
If by regularly you mean in 'regularly and in substantial quantities' then you've phrased the question right.

Of course neither of these answers will affect the question of meat consumption's impact on longevity.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 02:59:29 2011 No.2403237 >>2403220 http://www.alsearsmd.com/missing-link-ate-meat/ Seems marginally reliable, and it does rip apart the idea that you can get vitamin B12 from anywhere but animal meat.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:00:29 2011 No.2403242 >>2403237 I'm still curious that if the only source of vitamin B12 is animal meat, how did our much earlier herbivore ancestors survive? Did they have the ability to produce their own B12, which we have subsequently lost?

Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:06:29 2011 No.2403249

>>2403242
Ok. Wiki says that no animal could ever synthesize B12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12

>Thus, herbivorous animals must either obtain B12 from bacteria in their rumens, or (if fermenting plant material in the hindgut) by reingestion of cecotrope fæces.

>While lacto-ovo vegetarians usually get enough B12 through consuming dairy products, vegans will lack B12 unless they consume B12-containing dietary supplements or B12-fortified foods. Examples of fortified foods include fortified breakfast cereals, fortified soy products, fortified energy bars, and fortified nutritional yeast. According to the UK Vegan Society, the present consensus is that any B12 present in plant foods is likely to be unavailable to humans because B12 analogues can compete with B12 and inhibit metabolism.[31][32]

Claimed sources of B12 that have been shown to be inadequate or unreliable through direct studies[33] of vegans include laver (a seaweed), barley grass, and human intestinal bacteria (human colonic bacteria produce B12, but it cannot be absorbed from the colon).

Seems pretty convincing to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:06:29 2011 No.2403250 >>2403220 If I recall correctly over-ripe fruits are undergoing fermentation.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:08:29 2011 No.2403253 >>2403249 Or of course, from drinking milk or other animal products. How do the modern herbivore primates get their B12? Do they need B12?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:12:29 2011 No.2403267

>>2403237
>Everybody had presumed that Lucy and her kind (and even human beings of the genus Homo) were vegetarians up until and after the development of modern humans.

News to me, the Great Hunter has been a figure head of human evolution for like fucking ever.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:12:29 2011 No.2403269

Carnivory is the primitive condition in macrofauna, herbivory the more derived. An obligate herbivore has a huge number of necessary adaptions of the gut and teeth. They start off eating meat and then evolve to eat plants, not the other way around.

Given the extreme generalization of the human dentition and digestive tract it seems silly to think that we might have evolved the organs necessary to eat nothing but plants, and then lost them. The logical conclusion is that we are omnivores, ascended from carnivores.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:17:29 2011 No.2403282

>>2403269
I agree. Still though, I'm curious. How do herbivores get their required nutrients, such as B12? Either they manufacture the nutrient (impossible for B12), digest it (possible for B12, but what source?), or their bodies do not need B12 (maybe?). Specifically I'm looking for the modern herbivore primates. Anyone know where to look?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:19:29 2011 No.2403291 >>2403269 So the first carnivores ate... air? Their own bodies?

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:20:29 2011 No.2403293 >>2403291 They ate other animals. What is your probleM?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:20:29 2011 No.2403294

>>2403253
Primates usually eat small amounts of insects, oysters, lick the dirt off their toes and actually eat dirt; I have also heard that some of them eat their shit which contains cyanobacteria (they reside in the lower intestine so on second pass B12 will be absorbed) but I don't know if that's true.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:22:29 2011 No.2403299 >>2403294 Indeed. I'm finding that all of those are possible options. Do only primates need B12?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:24:29 2011 No.2403304 >>2403293 There is a numerical problem unless you're saying that millions of carnivores suddenly formed out of water and started feasting.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:26:29 2011 No.2403311 >>2403304 No. There were plant eating animals first. With all of these plant eating animals, one species evolved to eat meat. What's the problem?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:27:29 2011 No.2403315 File: 55 KB, 500x315, rabbits eat their own poo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2403249 >>2403253 >mfw herbivorous B12 production requires either multiple stomachs or coprophagia

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:28:29 2011 No.2403317 >>2403311 >They start off eating meat and then evolve to eat plants, not the other way around.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:28:29 2011 No.2403318 Are we seriously discussing if vegANS are completely retarded or not?

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:28:29 2011 No.2403320 >>2403315 Mmm. I see. Thanks!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:28:29 2011 No.2403321 >>2403299 that's what I'm finding as well. All animals seem to need it, and it's produced by the bacteria of the bowel. Herbivores get it either by ruminating and thus redigesting some of the bacteria from the lower gut, or by eating their own shit.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 03:29:29 2011 No.2403326

>>2403317
Oh. I see. I'm not intimately aware. I could be wrong. The other guy probably knows more than me, when he said that carnivores evolved first - quote unquote.

Perhaps these carnivores ate bacteria initially, and that's what he meant? I'm not quite sure either.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:30:29 2011 No.2403328

>>2403318
People are dumb, bro. Especially so on 4chan.

Damn, the first few posts should have been along the lines "Vegans are unhealthy fucks" and then page 15'd.
Vegetarians are significantly more sensible.

But then you've got like anti-vegans that eat nothing but meat, those guys are just as dumb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:30:29 2011 No.2403329 >>2403299 Checked on the fermenting fruit idea yet? I've also heard that's where we first came into contact with alcohol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:30:29 2011 No.2403330 >>2403304 I said macrofauna... believe it or not macrofauna didn't spring into sudden existence without ancestors. Ancestors are yummy.

in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti !B.0X4iZ/uM Mon Jan 24 03:30:29 2011 No.2403331

If the thing in OPs pic had knowledge of sin, it wouldn't be fat, because it wouldn't have eaten all of the shit to get fat. You're like "not knowing sin is free, eat this," at the end of the day, you're all faggots who couldn't run the world to save your lives. Revolution incoming, the real humans are taking over.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:31:29 2011 No.2403332 >>2403299 Only herbivores can produce B12 from their own bacterial flora. I guess primates are kind of a special case because many of them are mostly herbivorous but can't ferment cellulose and thus aren't equipped to produce B12.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:32:29 2011 No.2403345 >eat marmite >all the B12 you could ever want Sucks to hate marmite.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:38:29 2011 No.2403367 >>2403332 >I guess primates are kind of a special case Not really. Squirrels, as just one example.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:41:29 2011 No.2403381 >>2402963 Nor do other animals participate in mass agriculture. Animals get a lot closer to eating meat on a large scale than they are to proactively farming.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:42:29 2011 No.2403383 File: 26 KB, 445x343, ujustmad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2403328 The effects of living solely on meat for one year. http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf Results: optimal health.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 03:45:29 2011 No.2403392

technically, we would be doing the world a favor if everyone switched to no-meat diets. as long as people were reasonably educated on that shit, health would substantially increase in theory among other major benefits (but i don't even remember the list of possibilities, probably mostly bullshit idk). with that said, we have it, it's delicious, and its satisfying in every sense that we define meat with. whether it would be more efficient for our bodies and good for the environment to all stop eating meat is irrelevant as its such a fundamental part of human history and life. perhaps the people associated with vegetarianism will one day stop being complete pussy retards who defend their lifestyle with empathy for animals (its not wrong, just always exaggerated and mislead, we don't live in a perfect world). and maybe it will become culturally "trendy" to eat different types of whatever that have little or no meat in them. its one of those things you just keep to yourself, whether you're doing the right thing (for the wrong reasons) or not. doesn't appeal to that many people yet, just annoys them.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 04:14:29 2011 No.2403453

Ok. Gonna jump in here. Whatever is the deal with vitamin B12, it's going to be secondary.

Meat contains a humongous amount of energy and can be easily metabolized. Plants do not and cannot be.

This is why succesful hunting was a turning point in human evolution. Ample protein and energy allowed for the development of bigger brains and eventually ended early human scarcity.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 04:29:29 2011 No.2403474

"Our so-called "canine teeth" are "canine" in name only. Other plant-eaters (like gorillas, horses, and hippos) have "canines", and chimps, who are almost exclusively vegan, have massive canines compared to ours."

>ALMOST

the only reason chimps don't eat more meat is because they have to hunt so hard to get it.

so chimps are probably our closest relatives?

http://scienceblogs.com/neuronculture/2008/10/chimpanzee_hunting_tactics_an.php

yeah! definitely vegetarians thos chimps!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 04:47:29 2011 No.2403500 >>2403392 >its such a fundamental part of human history So is religion. Care to reevaluate that statement?

Scientist Mon Jan 24 04:47:29 2011 No.2403501

>>2403392
>technically, we would be doing the world a favor if everyone switched to no-meat diets.
Why?

>as long as people were reasonably educated on that shit, health would substantially increase in theory among other major benefits (but i don't even remember the list of possibilities, probably mostly bullshit idk).
Citations please. Thus far, it seems the opposite is true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 04:51:29 2011 No.2403505 >>2403453 Meat [...][ can be easily metabolized. >except for red meats

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 04:53:29 2011 No.2403509 >>2403501 >Why? We feed animals a tremendous amount of food that could otherwise go to people. >Citations please. Thus far, it seems the opposite is true. [citation needed]

26 male never been kissed, original Mon Jan 24 04:57:29 2011 No.2403519

>>2403509
>We feed animals a tremendous amount of food that could otherwise go to people.

Protip: world hunger doesn't exist for shortage of food. It's much more political.

Also, you want citations? See else-thread. Relevant links reproduced here:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/01/06/vegetarians-and-heart-disease/
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
http://www.alsearsmd.com/missing-link-ate-meat/
http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/neuronculture/2008/10/chimpanzee_hunting_tactics_an.php

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 04:58:29 2011 No.2403523 >>2403519 Well shit. Wrong trip. Was bitching at some waifu faggots in /a/ about being forever alone because they haven't had a gf in 2 years.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:04:29 2011 No.2403533

>>2403519
I supposed I should have just gone ahead and thrown it in there but I was referring the energy neccessary.

I forget the estimates but for every X of beef there's something like 10X of plant matter that goes into it. This is just not very energy, space, or time efficient. It becomes more noticeable if you bring down the politics and start trying to feed everyone.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 05:06:29 2011 No.2403539

>>2403533
>I forget the estimates but for every X of beef there's something like 10X of plant matter that goes into it.
Sure.

>This is just not very energy, space, or time efficient.
Sure.

>It becomes more noticeable if you bring down the politics and start trying to feed everyone.
Now here is where I want some citations. I remain unconvinced that given the current political climate, world hunger would decrease if everyone spontaneously switched to a vegan and/or vegetarian lifestyle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:13:29 2011 No.2403554 >>2403539 >I remain unconvinced that given the current political climate Where did I say that? I said "if you bring down the politics" but perhaps I should have said threw out the political bullshittery to be more clear.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 05:16:29 2011 No.2403559

>>2403554
Oh. Ok. Sure, if you change the political climate, then world hunger can go away. I don't see how people's diets matter though. Without political change, there's still world hunger, vegan or not vegan. With political change, you can eliminate world hunger, with the current level of meat eating, and without.

I don't even think that the political chance required would be less if some people spontaneously changed to veganism. Those who are hungry will take what they can eat, and if it's only plants, well they're effective vegans, though not vegans by choice.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:25:29 2011 No.2403579 >>2402669 I know it's taken about 160 posts and three hours, but I got that documentary and watched it. Vegans/vegetarians got told HARD in that thing. I highly recommend it to everyone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:34:29 2011 No.2403605 >>2403505 Yes. I don't need to cite any sources, merely point to the fact that herbivores usually have multiple stomachs and repeatedly digest their food over extended periods. Meat is what we're made of. It needs very little processing.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:39:29 2011 No.2403617

>>2403519
1: Results find most vegetarians (the ones who only avoid meat with little other changes) aren't doing much better than meat eaters, but it's probably because of dietary substitutions (soy and oil use in Taiwan, sodium consumption in China). Note: This article only covers risk factors for Heart Disease.

2: It argues that meat was essentially the earliest form of multi-vitamin... it does not argue that we became omnivores.
>Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have developed a more elongated small intestine

3: No citations or indeed evidence anywhere

4: Makes no mention of quantity, they could eat meat ritually twice a year and we'd find evidence of 'meat eating'... doesn't make them omnivores or carnivores

5: A study of 2 people... congratulations?

6: How common is it? Under what conditions do these hunts take place? Is this exclusive to chimpanzees? There are far more factors than just evidence of a hunting ability.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 05:40:29 2011 No.2403624

>>2403617
>4: Makes no mention of quantity, they could eat meat ritually twice a year and we'd find evidence of 'meat eating'... doesn't make them omnivores or carnivores
You're being disingenuous. What could the possible definition of omnivore be besides "occasionally eats meat"? Eating meat twice a year is still eating meat.

>>	jgraves99 Mon Jan 24 05:43:29 2011 No.2403630 Aside from the lack of vitamin b12 in a purely natural vegan diet, it can be as healthy as a normal diet without restrictions.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:44:29 2011 No.2403631

>>2403559
If you produced meat to feed 6 billion people and assumed it's 50% of their diet you have to produce enough plant material for 63 billion people. Those are just rough examples to illustrate the point though.

It's just highly inefficient is all and that's without even getting into all the animal wastes they'd produce.

>>	in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti !B.0X4iZ/uM Mon Jan 24 05:44:29 2011 No.2403632 OPs picture is fucking disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:45:29 2011 No.2403636 >>2403630 As long as you're getting sufficient energy and nutrients, the source is largely irrelevant. This has little to do with pre-technological "natural" diets, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:46:29 2011 No.2403637 >>2403624 Omnivores do not 'occasionally' eat meat, they eat meat, plant material, and even carrion regularly.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 05:46:29 2011 No.2403639 >>2403631 Again, inefficient yes, but the efficiency problem is not what is keeping us from stopping world hunger. I'm not sure if you're still trying to imply that, but I'm being cautious here.

>>	jgraves99 Mon Jan 24 05:47:29 2011 No.2403643 >>2403636 Yes, as long as you get enough nutrients, though outside of a manufactured (fortified diet source) source, vegan diets lack B12.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 05:49:29 2011 No.2403646

>>2403637
Ok. As long as we agree that our human ancestors prior to the agriculture revolution must have eaten meat at least twice a year or died. Repeat: they ate meat or died. Glad we're agreeing on this.

However, I don't know any more beyond that at the moment, though I still consider only twice a year implausible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:52:29 2011 No.2403653 we're omnivores we didnt become this smart by eating just vegetables

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:52:29 2011 No.2403656

>>2403605
I'll add that consumption of livestock massively increases our entropy upon the environment. We used to eat meat because we saved resources doing so, needing far less meat than plant matter to subsist, which was easy to get, being able to trap mammoths and run gazelles to the ground.

Now? It may be a result of decadence, using far more r resources than we really need.

>>	red fedora hat Mon Jan 24 05:53:29 2011 No.2403657 >>2402612 A vegan diet is healthier if by healthy you mean skinny and weak. There's a reason why one doesn't give infants soy milk.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:54:29 2011 No.2403661

>>2403639
By the way I said 63 billion but it's probably 33 billion

I don't know what you're searching for exactly, the point is in and of itself that the food demands I've mentioned would be extremely inefficient. It would simply require so much of our energy to achieve it.

Additionally while I have no doubt we can feed 6 billion people... I'm not so sure about 5 times that.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 05:55:29 2011 No.2403662

>>2403656
>I'll add that consumption of livestock massively increases our entropy upon the environment. We used to eat meat because we saved resources doing so, needing far less meat than plant matter to subsist, which was easy to get, being able to trap mammoths and run gazelles to the ground.
>Now? It may be a result of decadence, using far more r resources than we really need
I think you're trying to make a moral claim implicitly. Let me first say that there's nothing inherently wrong with decadence in my worldview.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 05:55:29 2011 No.2403665 >>2403661 We have enough spare food now to feed everyone. We waste it because there's no money in feeding everyone. I'm not following you at all.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 05:58:29 2011 No.2403672

>>2403646

Twice a year is entirely insufficient. If not meat they'd have to consume some other animal matter regularly (eg: milk, eggs, insects or even blood). Given how dense an energy source meat is, it's far more plausible that they hunted and ate meat whenever they could.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:01:29 2011 No.2403681

>>2403646
All I said is they ate meat, doesn't necessarily explain why they did. Primitive ritual, to get through a drought, they wanted some other part of it but ate the meat to make up the lost energy. Evidence that they did doesn't tell us why they did.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:02:29 2011 No.2403685 >>2403672 Agreed. Just taking what I can get. I at least got him to agree that humans before the agriculture revolution must have eaten meat at least yearly or died. That's a pretty big blow to "veganism is better than meat! nya nya!" on its own.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:02:29 2011 No.2403687 >>2403665 >>2403662 I'm pointing out that we are using a lot of resources that could be put to better use. I am making a moral point. Decadence places a strain upon ones body, mind and environment.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:02:29 2011 No.2403689 >>2403681 B12, go! Did humans before the agriculture revolution eat their own shit? Where else could they have gotten it from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:03:29 2011 No.2403691 >>2403672 Bugs are classified separately from animals when talking about diet you know. That said BUGS are very likely source of food far more so than meats.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:03:29 2011 No.2403694 >>2403687 >I am making a moral point. Decadence places a strain upon ones body, mind and environment. And I disagree that all decadence is bad. I am a hedonist at heart - as long as I don't harm others while enjoying myself.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:13:29 2011 No.2403729

>>2403689

Humans can't safely engage in coprophagia. Our solid waste is too toxic to us (and no, our largely artificial modern diets is not the cause of this).

>>2403691
>Bugs are classified separately from animals when talking about diet you know

A vegan can't eat bugs either, because they're (wait for it) animals.

>That said BUGS are very likely source of food far more so than meats.

What exactly are you basing this on? Spearing or stoning a single herd animal provides more food faster than raiding termite hills.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:14:29 2011 No.2403732
File: 51 KB, 622x418, Termite.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2403685
Not really, because I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint and reason things were done in the past do not necessarily equal reasons they should be done in the future.

Just for illustration purposes say that meats were basically a dietary supplement taking the place of an extreme amount of rarer plant nutrients. Say also that eating meats was found to reduce life span by 10-20%... at that point you weigh costs and benefits and I know that I personally would just start taking diet supplements.

OR say more realistically that a 10% meat diet can improve health while a 50% has noted decrease in health.

In either of those cases what our ancestors did has as much bearing on my decisions as the moral veganfags.

>>2403689
Trace amounts from not cleaning their hands when they took a shit? Or I don't know... this little guy right here...

Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:16:29 2011 No.2403735

>>2403729
>Humans can't safely engage in coprophagia. Our solid waste is too toxic to us (and no, our largely artificial modern diets is not the cause of this).
Indeed. I was being facetious.

Still, remind me where the not-meat-eating contemporary primates get their B12, and why ancient humans couldn't have done the same?

PS: I still that the evidence is rather clear that ancient humans ate meat at least occasionally.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:16:29 2011 No.2403737

>>2403694
I realize that I haven't substantiated my point, but I'm interested as to where you draw the line since your post implies that you do.

Okay, might as well, but briefly. Dependence, addiction and consumption of resources for no apparent benefit. Our bodies become soft, our patience and determination wears thin. Society becomes ineffective, the environment is depleted of resources, not just oil, but biodiversity and water.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:17:29 2011 No.2403740

>>2403732
>Not really, because I'm not arguing from a moral standpoint and reason things were done in the past do not necessarily equal reasons they should be done in the future.
That's awesome. I'm not arguing morality at all. This entire thread has never been about it. It's been about ascertaining whether our ancestors ate meat, whether the human body is set up to require eating meat (absent technological advances), and whether it's healthier to live a vegan lifestyle now with the available technology.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:19:29 2011 No.2403744

>>2403737
Well, as I said, I believe that people ought to be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they don't harm other people.

Obviously, as almost all human actions can harm other people, it's a non-starter on its own. What JS Mill's Harm Principle is meant to do is to frame the argument. Any restrictions of liberty may only be done from the perspective of preventing harm to another person.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:22:29 2011 No.2403751
File: 123 KB, 500x500, 1287993767263.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2403729
>A vegan can't eat bugs either, because they're (wait for it) animals.

>Moral argument
>implying I care
Clearly you're not following my posts

>What exactly are you basing this on? Spearing or stoning a single herd animal provides more food faster than raiding termite hills.

Let me guess this straight...
It's faster and more energy efficient to forge a weapon.
Wander out to the hunting grounds with the rest of your tribe/family/whatever.
FIND an animal to kill.
Run it down until it's exhausted.
So that you can finally kill it and drag it all the way back to your starting point.
To finally butcher it and prepare it for consumption.

Than it is to, find a termite mound and pick the suckers out and eat them?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:22:29 2011 No.2403752

>>2403735
>where the not-meat-eating contemporary primates get their B12

Seeing as contemporary primates ARE meat-eating, I'm not sure I understand your question.

They eat plenty of eggs and bugs because they're easy to catch and they lack strong predatory instincts or tool use, but they'll eat heartier meats whenever they can get their paws on it.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:25:29 2011 No.2403758 >>2403751 Yes. That's my understanding. The energy and nutrient content of the meat, plus the large amount of meat for a single kill, can make it more efficient than plucking terminates.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:25:29 2011 No.2403759

>>2403752
Really? Some links I've been googling since this thread started said that some of the modern primates don't eat meat. So, you're saying that all of them eat meat, or eggs, or some other animal byproduct like milk? Just curious, got any sources on that?

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:27:29 2011 No.2403769

>>2403751
>It's faster and more energy efficient to hunt
>than find a termite mound and pick at it

Yes, it is.

Also if you've seen animals feeding on termites you'd know that the little bastards start burrowing out of reach and don't go quietly when caught.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:29:29 2011 No.2403777 File: 65 KB, 319x316, 1295732248448.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2403751 ARE YOU SHITTING ME? REEVALUATE YOUR LIFE FRIEND

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:31:29 2011 No.2403783 >>2403759 The fact that they're still alive? They can't eat their own shit any more than we can. Unless you're a ruminant or can reprocess your own feces, there is no way out of eating meat or animal byproducts.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:32:29 2011 No.2403790

>>2403740
Oh good we're on a common ground, I'll reword the end of what you quoted to be more precised then.

Even if our ancestors ate meat in the past (probably out of environmental necessity) that does not mean that it is or will be beneficial to continue to do so, particularly not at the volume that modern America does.

The adaptability to be able to gain energy and nutrients from so many potential food sources no doubt had it's place but we're now to a point where we can reconsider what our dietary priorities should be.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:33:29 2011 No.2403792 >>2403783 Again. I'm not arguing against you. Just asking for sources in case a thread like this comes up again.

Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:34:29 2011 No.2403795

>>2403790
>Even if our ancestors ate meat in the past (probably out of environmental necessity) that does not mean that it is or will be beneficial to continue to do so, particularly not at the volume that modern America does.
Indeed. What is moral is not necessarily natural, and what is natural is not necessarily moral.

(PS: It generally takes religion to believe the evil that moral = natural.)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:36:29 2011 No.2403804 I've been a vegetarian for about 4 months now, had a steak today. Just wasn't the same. :/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:36:29 2011 No.2403805 I just grilled up a chicken breast for breakfast. It was quite tasty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:38:29 2011 No.2403810 >>2403758 >>2403769 >>2403777 As a modern day hunter who uses modern day rifles. No... just no.

>>	Scientist Mon Jan 24 06:39:29 2011 No.2403813 >>2403810 I think you grossly overestimate the amount of nutrients you can get from picking up individual terminates, and grossly underestimate the energy costs of doing so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:44:29 2011 No.2403826 File: 15 KB, 200x278, marshall.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2403813 lawyered.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:47:29 2011 No.2403832

>>2403792

Springerlink is being a cunt with runtime errors so I can't find the papers, but the gist of it is that all animals need B12 to live and consumption of animal matter is the only source for any species without a redigestion pathway for bacterial fermentation products.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:48:29 2011 No.2403835

>>2403813
And you're grossly underestimating the amount of energy used hunting with modern day tools let alone when you had to chase down and kill things by hand.

Based on calories alone termites give more per gram. (Shitty termite chart, only one I could find)

http://www.planetscott.com/babes/nutrition.asp

http://www.healthaliciousness.com/nutritionfacts/nutrition-comparison.php?o=17095&t=13433&h=
13433&s=100&e=100&r=259.00

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:49:29 2011 No.2403838 You're average vegan is probably more health than you're average omnivore but I doubt there is anything inherintly wrong with eating meat.

Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:55:29 2011 No.2403868

>>2403810

Don't spout bullshit. I hunt moose and deer and one kill of the former fills my chest freezer with meat that lasts me the better part of the year.

Actually I think I'll have one of my meat pies tomorrow.

>>2403835
>underestimating the amount of energy used hunting with modern day tools

Have you ever been hunting before? You use an automated camera to find a good location and then sit your ass in a blind until one of the animals you spotted on camera gets close enough to put a round though. Your biggest discomfort is the occasional need to piss.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 06:58:29 2011 No.2403878 >>2403868 >Have you ever been hunting before? You seem to be one of those southern flatland hunters; you've never actually seen a forest, let alone a forest on a mountain, have you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 24 07:08:29 2011 No.2403909 >>2402612 Insects are better than meat.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math