Meat consuming makes us--?

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Omnivores, actually.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on January 21st, 2011

• Evidence?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 22nd, 2011

• For one, there are no totally carnivorous human societies.
  
  That, in and of itself, speaks volumes.
  
  For another, we are not built like creatures who subsist on a totally carnivorous diet. Our biology doesn't support it.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on January 22nd, 2011

• If, by omnivore, you mean any creature that eats both plants and animals then ALL species are omnivores and the term has little to no meaning. Not even lions and tigers eat only meat yet I still wouldn't hesitate to call them carnivores. It might surprise you to find out that there is no species of mammal or bird that will never eat meat. If you don't believe that then I challenge you to find me one that wlll not. Does that mean there is no such thing as a herbivore?
  
  
  For one, there are no totally carnivorous human societies.
  
  That, in and of itself, speaks volumes."
  
  Quite the contrary. Nearly all primitive societies subsisted on a diet that was 80% or so meat by caloric content. This has been shown by studies of the bones of cavemen and such. It is true that in this day and age few people eat like this but evolution is a slow process. Most people of non-Middle Eastern descent came from peoples who didn't encounter the agricultural revolution until about 2,000 years ago. In fact some societies never did like the traditional Inuit and many others. When given a modern diet rich in grains, fruits and vegetable they start to develop the "diseases of civilization" like obesity and diabetes that they had never had before.
  You could simply compare the intenstinal system of humans with that of our close relatives the chimpanzees and gorillas. They are mostly(but not totally) vegetarian. They are much larger tracts. An human's is much closer to that of your typical carnivore.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 24th, 2011

• That there are no species of mammal or bird that will never eat meat doesn't surprise me at all. Given the right circumstances, animals will eat what they have to in order to survive. However, the fact that seed eating bird will occasionally eat animal products doesn't make the bird an omnivore or a carnivore. Not any more than a lion that occasionally ingests grass makes the lion an omnovore or an herbivore.
  
  As for primitive societies subsisting on a diet that was 80% meat by caloric content...that's not surprising when those societies had no agricultural based food system. They ate what they found and what they found varied seasonally, whether it was fruits, vegitables, or animals.
  
  Typical omnivorous behavior, in fact. NOT carnivorous behavior.
  
  Just because the agricultural revolution didn't take place until relatively recently in human evolution DOESN'T mean we were carnivores before then. That just doesn't fit the picture at all.
  
  These so called "diseases of civilization" you refer to...they come about due to factors other than eating an omnivorous diet. They come about by changes in work habits and life styles that arise from being able to live a life of luxury and plenty, including suplimenting a large portion of their diet from unbalanced sources of nutrition.
  
  An unbalanced diet combined with a sedentary life style is what causes these "diseases of civilization" you are refering to. If it were primarily carnivorous, combined with a sedentary life style, there would still be problems. If it were primarily vegetarian with a sedentary life style...again, problems.
  
  If you wish to compare intestinal size with respect to different species, then don't forget the ratio of intestinal length versus animal size between carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores. When viewed holistically, human intestinal tracts support a more omnivorous diet than carnivorous or herbivorous.
  
  Funny how vegetarians will take this ratio and say it supports their view, while those dead set against any vegetables will take this SAME ratio and have a completely opposite view.
  
  Whatever one eats, it must be a BALANCED diet in terms of nutrition and life style.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on January 24th, 2011

• A number of diseases of civilization may have nothing to do with whether one is sedentary or not. Diabetes is nonexistent amongst those peoples who live on a nearly all-meat diet. Yet it is not rare among "civilized" people who do exercise. The current diabetes and obesity epidemic in America began right about the very same time(around 1980) that fruits, vegetables, whole grains, etc., became a larger part of our diet. The government and media told us it was healthier and most people believed it. When was the last time you saw a television show that touted the benefits of eating more fat? Or red meat? We're now paying the price for trusting the "experts."
  The numbers I've seen on intenstinal length ratios are;
  Typical carnivore: 4
  Humans: 6
  Typical herbivore: 20
  Interpret this however you wish.
  The word BALANCED sounds very reasonable but what do we mean by that? Is a diet of 80% meat/20% vegetable BALANCED? How do we know that a BALANCED diet is even the best?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 25th, 2011

• 1980 is when fruits, vegetables, and whole grains became a larger part of our diet?
  
  Where are you getting THIS from?
  
  Fruits, veggies, and whole grains have been a part of the American diet for CENTURIES. No society here, whether in the 200 plus years of the country's existence or during the colinization period or in the Native Americans before then, subsisted on a "nearly all-meat diet" to the extent that you expouse.
  
  Just sticking to the history of the nation, fruits, veggies, and grains have been an essential part of the diet. Certainly any farm family would dispute your position. And, since they have always formed the cornerstone of food production and distribution for others, they would dispute your contention with the rest of the population as well.
  
  Archeologically speaking, human history as far back as it can be traced has shown an omnivorous diet. And this goes back FAR more than just 20,000 years or so. Thousands of millenia, in fact.
  
  There is more to what determines a carnivore than intestinal length. Relative numbers and distribution of cell types, including how they are structurally specialized, are more important than just the length of the intesting. The makeup and distribution of the human intestinal cellular structure in intermediary, between carniverous and herbivorous. Dogs are carnivores. However, their intestinal charicteristics have more in common with omnivores and, in fact, it's a known fact that wolves eat a significant amount of plant material in the wild.
  
  The structure of our teeth don't support an exclusively carnivorous or herbivorous...they support an omniverous diet.
  
  In fact, our hands also support an omniverous diet.
  
  Our saliva supports an omniverous diet.
  
  Human biological and historical evidence supports our species as omnivorous.
  
  That doesn't mean that we can't consciously make a choice and choose to live our lives as vegetarians, carnivores, insectivores, or whatever else. So long as we eat a BALANCED diet which supplies all of our nutritional needs.
  
  But we ARE omnivorous.
  
  :):)

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on January 25th, 2011

• Oh, and "balanced diet" means that your diet is supplying you all the necessary nutrients, in reasonable portions, to maintain a healthy body. It does NOT refer to any given ratio of meat to veggies.

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on January 25th, 2011

• Where am I getting this from? The FDA for one. I'm also old enough to remember when people typically had bacon and eggs for breakfast instead of cereal and juice. Ask any old fogie. We used to eat a lot more fat than we do today. Do you think that the endless propaganda on the evils of saturated fats, red meat, etc., had no effect?
  I do not dispute that an omnivorous diet was the norm in our nation's history. I do dispute it was prior to the agricultural revolution in Europe about 2,000 years ago.
  If dogs are carnivores but their intestinal characteristics are that of an omnivore then we must be misinterpreting what an omnivore's intestinal characteristics are. That's staightforward logic.
  Wolves eat a significant amount of plant material in the wild??? Yeah, that explains why farmers have to proctect their crops from wolves and hungry feral dogs. Have you ever heard of someone's cornstalks being eaten by them? Or their potatoes dug up?
  The structure of our teeth cannot tell you much about how carnivorous we are for the simple reason that we don't catch and kill our prey by biting them like almost all other predators. Instead we throw spears or shoot arrows which is why we have the kinds of hands we do.
  As far as the saliva theory goes you must keep in mind that it changes depending upon what we're eating. Yes, our saliva can adapt to a vegetable diet but that in no way means it's what our bodies prefer.
  An all-0meat diet is a BALANCED diet as it will contain everything the body needs. After all, the creature we're eating had to have the necessary vitamins and minerals to survive.
  You have every right to choose an omnivorous diet as I do to choose a mostly carnivorous one. But physically and genetically you are designed for the latter whether you are willing to admit to it or not. Simply declaring that we're omnivores doesn't make it so.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 26th, 2011

• And I'm quite old enough to remember such breakfasts as well.
  
  And my parents remembered back even farther, what with having been born in the early 1920's. And raised in large farm families. And their parents were born well into the 1800's. ALL of whom ate a diverse diet including fruits, veggies, and grain which was typical of life back then.
  
  This ISN'T a new thing.
  
  You may dispute the omnivorous diet prior to the agricultural revolution all you wish. But your dispute still flies in the face of archeological evidence extending many millenia beyond this.
  
  "If dogs are carnivores but their intestinal characteristics are that of an omnivore then we must be misinterpreting what an omnivore's intestinal characteristics are. That's staightforward logic."
  
  No, it's a clear example of over simplification to support one's own views.
  
  "Wolves eat a significant amount of plant material in the wild??? Yeah, that explains why farmers have to proctect their crops from wolves and hungry feral dogs. Have you ever heard of someone's cornstalks being eaten by them? Or their potatoes dug up?"
  
  This has nothing to do with the statement I made. Wolves are carnivores. Yet their intestinal makeup is closer to that of omnivores than than carnivores. This is a fact. And they DO eat a significant amount of plant life in the wild. Wolves are opportunistic eaters and will eat berries and plants and insects as well.
  
  http://www.wolfweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=26
  
  "The structure of our teeth cannot tell you much about how carnivorous we are for the simple reason that we don't catch and kill our prey by biting them like almost all other predators. Instead we throw spears or shoot arrows which is why we have the kinds of hands we do."
  
  If the structure of our teeth cannot tell us much about how carnivorous we are, then neither can the length of our intestines.
  
  "An all-0meat diet is a BALANCED diet as it will contain everything the body needs. After all, the creature we're eating had to have the necessary vitamins and minerals to survive."
  
  We went over this before in another string. Present your balanced, all meat diet which you say provides all the necessary vitamins and minerals to survive. I asked you for this repeatedly before in the following string and you never posted it:
  
  http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/8709659
  
  I again invite you to do so now. Unless your "all meat diet" includes what I talked about before, then you CANNOT have a balanced diet.
  
  Just saying "eat meat, that's all you need" is false and misleading. Muscle meat, typical of the diets of "civilized" societies, just don't cut it.
  
  So....feel free to post your balanced, all meat diet for us to see and evaluate.
  
  :):)

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on January 26th, 2011

• Spam. Nothing but spam. It contains everything you need. Eat as much as you want. No calorie counting or exercise. Try it. You'll lose weight if you're overweight and if you have diabetes it will go away as long as you're on the diet.
  You don't believe me? Instead of seeing and evaluating PUT IT TO THE TEST. If you're chicken try it out on an overweight pet. It works for them too.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on January 27th, 2011

• Sorry, dude.
  
  SPAM contains chopped pork shoulder meat with ham meat added, salt, water, modified potato starch as a binder, and sodium nitrite as a preservative. Spam's gelatinous glaze, or aspic, forms from the cooling of meat stock.
  
  So, in addition to NOT being all meat, it has potato starch in it, something you are dead set against.
  
  And all the nutrients you need to survive, if you were to subsist solely on a meat diet, are not in there because the organs which contain them in animals are not used in the production of SPAM.
  
  http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sausages-and-luncheon-meats/1472/2
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(food)
  http://www.spam.com/products/spamclassic.aspx
  
  There is no liver, no spleen, no brain, and nothing else from an animal which would contain the total vitamins and minerals required for a balanced diet. There is no Vitamin A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B12, D, E, K, and next to no Vitamin C.
  
  It has 1% of the RDA of Calcium, 3% for Iron, 2% for Magnesium, 4% Potassium...and the list goes on here.
  
  Total calories per serving (2 oz) is 174, so a dozen servings must be consumed just for the RDA on calories.
  
  About the only thing SPAM has plenty of is sodium, at 767 mg per serving. That's 32% of the RDA. So in trying to gain enough calories for a day, you have to consume 9,204 mg of sodium along with it.
  
  And you STILL only get a tiny fraction of some of the vitamins and minerals you would need each day for a health diet.
  
  That one would lose weight on a SPAM only diet should thus be no surprise at all.
  
  So, your diet fails not only the nutritional test, but your own test as well (what with potato starch being in it, and all.)
  
  As for diabetes...no, it will NOT "go away".
  
  Type 1 diabetes comes about because of the body's inability to produce insulin. This is NOT something that "goes away". It's a lack of insulin production which requires insulin injections to treat. Or the person DIES.
  
  Type 2 diabetes, however, is an insulin resistance, wherein the body cannot utilize insulin properly. This may be controlled by controlling the person's diet. However, the condition never "goes away". It's always there and the person must continue treatment, even if only by controlling his diet, for the rest of his life.
  
  Diabetes has no cure, including changing one's diet. It must be treated for the rest of the person's life.
  
  Try again.
  
  Oh, and be sure to include the organs necessary to obtain all the vitamins and minerals on a daily basis. And don't forget...cooking destroys many of them.
  
  :):)

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on January 27th, 2011