150 replies to this topic

[Trevor]

For my first post after several years of lurking, I thought I would compile some of my thoughts on why the human body is not designed to consume meat. We should only look at how the human body is designed and not any other folklore. Anyone referring to "what our ancestors did" should be completely ignored for several reasons. First, our human ancestors were around for 200,000 years before us. Our evolutionary ancestors were around for 1,000,000+ years before that. In that amount of time, they did A LOT of things. Second, even if we gain real knowledge into what they did, it doesn't mean they were right. I'd love to hear your feedback on this. Bear in mind that I'm comparing the human body to pure carnivores and this is not to be confused with life or death situations.


1. Humans have no natural desire to consume meat.

We have no "taste" for it. When people think of eating meat, they immediately think of barbequed ribs or a filet mignon from Outback. Carnivores are primarily after the nutrient-rich organs. If someone were to put a bowl of cherries and a pig's pancreas side by side, which one are you going for?

2. Humans have no natural capability to consume meat.

Leave your ripped up caveman theories at the door. In the wild, humans are epic fail in the carnivore arena. Comparatively speaking, we aren't strong, we aren't fast, we can't smell, we can't see at night, we can't jump high, we can't swim naturally, we can't stay quiet enough to hunt, we have no claws and our teeth and jaws are useless. And, most importantly, unlike all carnivores, we have no hunting or killing instinct. It's a different story when some cute waitress brings your kill to the table with a bottle of K.C. Masterpiece.
All carnivores are capable of killing at birth or shortly thereafter. For the first 13 years of life it is highly unlikely that a human male (much less, a female) could have a prayer of getting hold of a wild animal and killing it. And this is when you are growing the most!

3. Our digestive tracts aren't designed for it.
I won't go too much into this one as there is tons of information on this. Just try swallowing fresh, raw meat whole. Better yet, give it to an infant.

4. Meat is not nutritionally imperative to humans.
All ten essential amino acids as well as every other nutrient for optimum health are found in plants. You get your protein the same place the animals get it - from foods that grow out of the ground. There is a huge misconception about this as the vast majority of people have no understanding of how amino acids work. They believe that not eating meat cannot be "healthy" because of the flabby vegetarian with no energy they see at the office. It should be noted that most vegetarians eat like crap.


I'll leave it at that as I'm a man of few words. I'm looking forward to hearing your feedback on this!

Edited by Trevor, 28 July 2010 - 06:26 PM.

[CobaltThoriumG]

1. Taste is cultural/environmental. Raise a human from birth on raw meat and it will have a taste for it.

2. Those cave paintings. Lots of asparagus, huh?

3. Cow = 4 stomachs. Man = 1. Cow = herbivore. Man = not herbivore.

4. Few things are nutritionally imperative. Meat happens to be an excellent source of several nutrients.

I don't recall anyone ever asserting man was a pure carnivore. We're totally omnivorous and highly adaptable.

Edited by CobaltThoriumG, 28 July 2010 - 06:44 PM.

[Trevor]

1. Taste is cultural/environmental. Raise a human from birth on raw meat and it will have a taste for it.

2. Those cave paintings. Lots of asparagus, huh?

3. Cow = 4 stomachs. Man = 1. Cow = herbivore. Man = not herbivore.

4. Few things are nutritionally imperative. Meat happens to be an excellent source of several nutrients.

I don't recall anyone ever asserting man was a pure carnivore. We're totally omnivorous and highly adaptable.

1. You can't feed a baby raw meat and expect it to be healthy or even survive. I disagree with humans not having a taste for carbs when our brains run on them.

2. First, cave paintings mean nothing. Second, as I said in the original post, it doesn't matter "what our ancestors did."

3. Horse, gorilla, chimpanzee = 1 stomach.

4. Any nutrient you gain from meat ultimately came from the ground (except b12 which is manufactured in the intestines).

[rwac]

1. Taste is cultural/environmental. Raise a human from birth on raw meat and it will have a taste for it.

Habit is a funny thing. There are cats which refuse to eat meat, because they're used to eating dry food.

[rwac]

1. You can't feed a baby raw meat and expect it to be healthy or even survive. I disagree with humans not having a taste for carbs when our brains run on them.

2. First, cave paintings mean nothing. Second, as I said in the original post, it doesn't matter "what our ancestors did."

Humans also have a taste for sugar. Doesn't mean it's healthy. The Liver is perfectly capable of manufacturing sufficient glucose for the brain.

Sorry, it does matter. You can't ignore history, there was a time before agriculture.

Edited by rwac, 28 July 2010 - 07:21 PM.

[CobaltThoriumG]

I overlooked your first question. The pig pancreas, most assuredly. But that's just me. Not that there's anything wrong with cherries. I rather enjoy them. But if there were a lion about to chase me from the table, I'd grab some pancreas first.

So are you just saying we're not pure carnivores or are you saying we're not "designed" to eat any meat? If the latter, plainly absurd, I suppose you would say all the omnivorous centenarians (are there any vegetarian centenarians?) must just be lucky.

[Trevor]

1. You can't feed a baby raw meat and expect it to be healthy or even survive. I disagree with humans not having a taste for carbs when our brains run on them.

2. First, cave paintings mean nothing. Second, as I said in the original post, it doesn't matter "what our ancestors did."

Humans also have a taste for sugar. Doesn't mean it's healthy. The Liver is perfectly capable of manufacturing sufficient glucose for the brain.

Sorry, it does matter. You can't ignore history, there was a time before agriculture.

Humans will go into ketosis under those circumstances, carnivores won't. Humans, and our recent biological ancestors simply could not kill and eat a wild animal and our bodies are perfectly adapted for that fact.

There simply is no logical debate about this. We haven't even discussed our digestive tracts, enzyme capacity, HCL capacity, etc.

CAN we eat meat? Of course. Most animals can eat any kind of food and gain nutritional value but what we are after is optimum health.

[aLurker]

[rwac]

Humans will go into ketosis under those circumstances, carnivores won't. Humans, and our recent biological ancestors simply could not kill and eat a wild animal and our bodies are perfectly adapted for that fact.

Ketosis is a perfectly normal state, I seriously doubt that people have eaten 3 meals a day for any stretch of history.
As for our recent ancestors, you are mistaken. There is a reason that North/South America does not have large land animals, they were hunted to extinction.

There simply is no logical debate about this. We haven't even discussed our digestive tracts, enzyme capacity, HCL capacity, etc.

This is a simple matter of losing capacity through disuse. Most of us have not been eating meat heavy diets for most of our lives.

CAN we eat meat? Of course. Most animals can eat any kind of food and gain nutritional value but what we are after is optimum health.

Optimum health includes not need to eat ever 6 hours.

[rwac]

yes, but it's fun.

[kismet]

Herewith I want to coin a new phrase "mechanistic fallacy", i.e. the idea that arguments based solely on biological "plausibility" and mechanism of action are sound. With a little tinkering almost any idea short of homeopathy can be made -plausible-

It bears repeating (for the OP & other lurkers) that speculation is basically worthless, so what does the hard science say? (i.e. studies performed on actual human beings)

e.g. big differences between types of meat and preparation techniques (white, boiled very likely fine or almost harmless); potential but modest benefits of vegetarianism for males, etc, etc

Edited by kismet, 28 July 2010 - 07:58 PM.

[dosquito]

A study of 400 centenarians (or people close to 100)...guess what it found...NO VEGETARIANS.

Weston A price traveled the world and studied indigenous cultures...guess what he found...NOT A SINGLE VEGETARIAN INDIGENOUS CULTURE

If you want to sacrifice years of your life to decrease the suffering of animals, by all means go ahead. In fact, I even think that's noble.

BUT DON'T CONFUSE THAT WITH BEING HEALTHY. If you do, you are just a member of the vegetarian CULT

[Forever21]

This thread is making me want to binge on candied bacon and pork rinds.

[Trevor]

A study of 400 centenarians (or people close to 100)...guess what it found...NO VEGETARIANS.

Weston A price traveled the world and studied indigenous cultures...guess what he found...NOT A SINGLE VEGETARIAN INDIGENOUS CULTURE

If you want to sacrifice years of your life to decrease the suffering of animals, by all means go ahead. In fact, I even think that's noble.

BUT DON'T CONFUSE THAT WITH BEING HEALTHY. If you do, you are just a member of the vegetarian CULT

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.

First off, I don't subscribe to any dietary religions. Second, I'm not an animal lover.

Sacrifice years of my life? How so? What is the mechanism behind eating cooked, red meat that enhances health at the cellular level?

And the rest of your bunk is pointless.

Edit: from my original post: "most vegetarians eat like crap."

Edited by Trevor, 28 July 2010 - 08:29 PM.

[dosquito]

A study of 400 centenarians (or people close to 100)...guess what it found...NO VEGETARIANS.

Weston A price traveled the world and studied indigenous cultures...guess what he found...NOT A SINGLE VEGETARIAN INDIGENOUS CULTURE

If you want to sacrifice years of your life to decrease the suffering of animals, by all means go ahead. In fact, I even think that's noble.

BUT DON'T CONFUSE THAT WITH BEING HEALTHY. If you do, you are just a member of the vegetarian CULT

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.

First off, I don't subscribe to any dietary religions. Second, I'm not an animal lover.

Sacrifice years of my life? How so? What is the mechanism behind eating cooked, red meat that enhances health at the cellular level?

And the rest of your bunk is pointless.

Edit: from my original post: "most vegetarians eat like crap."

*sigh* , in denial, like so many vegetarians

Try to imagine eating a healthy vegetarian diet in the wild

First, you would need K2. nevermind that you couldn't find any MK4 without eating an animal, you would actually need to ferment something, LOL.

next, it would be pretty much impossible to achieve any decent omega3:6 balance

you couldn't find b12

and you probably couldn't even find enough calories to survive

we evolved eating meat because it benefited our evolution. meat is nutrient dense, and calorie dense. Compare 1000 calories of ribeye to 1000 calories of apples.

actually, fresh meat (provided it isn't overcooked) has all that a man needs to survive, and even thrive.

stefansson visited the inuits and found that they subsisted SOLELY off of seal meat and oil. in perfect health. he went back to western civilization and ate nothing but meat and organs for over a year under laboratory observation, in perfect health.

now, you can look at these facts, and there is only one self-evident conclusion: we are designed to eat meat, and benefit from it.
indeed, I believe there is a strong case that humans thrive most on a diet of pretty much ONLY meat, provided that there is a high enough fat content.

I urge you to reconsider, but you seem pretty far in denial at this point

[Rick Moranis]

What is the mechanism behind eating cooked, red meat that enhances health at the cellular level?

Edit: from my original post: "most vegetarians eat like crap."

The mechanism is somehow protective of AGE formation and eating meat helps control blood sugar. This comment was posted in tynan.net (a formerly-vegan blog):
http://textsnip.com/d7e363

Blood sugar is necessary but can create AGEs in excess (glycation is a factor of heart disease). I try to normalize my blood sugar by fasting 12-16hrs (I found it harder to fast on the vegan diet I was on).

And the saturated fat seems to lower Lp(a)
Youtube: Guy who runs 2 marathons has "healthy diet" has triple bypass surgery at age 49 and high lipoprotein(a)
http://textsnip.com/c0fbc2

Changes in dietary fat intake alter plasma levels of oxidized low-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a).
"OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of dietary modifications on oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL). METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-seven healthy women were fed two diets. Both diets contained a reduced amount of total and saturated fat. In addition, one diet was low in vegetables and the other was high in vegetables, berries, and fruit. The dietary intake of total fat was 70 g per day at baseline and decreased to 56 g (low-fat, low-vegetable diet) and to 59 g (low-fat, high-vegetable diet). The saturated fat intake decreased from 28 g to 20 g and to 19 g, and the amount of polyunsaturated fat intake increased from 11 g to 13 g and to 19 g (baseline; low-fat, low-vegetable; low-fat, high-vegetable; respectively). The amount of oxidized LDL in plasma was determined as the content of oxidized phospholipid per ApoB-100 using a monoclonal antibody EO6 (OxLDL-EO6). The median plasma OxLDL-EO6 increased by 27% (P<0.01) in response to the low-fat, low-vegetable diet and 19% (P<0.01) in response to the low-fat, high-vegetable diet. Also, the Lp(a) concentration was increased by 7% (P<0.01) and 9% (P=0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in the dietary fat intake resulted in increased plasma concentrations of lipoprotein(a) and OxLDL-EO6."

Silaste ML atvb 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14739118

--
I wonder how much meat we're supposed to eat (and if we should value fat more than protein as Gary Taubes suggests -- saying fat has been valued for all its nutrients and the protein was discarded to dogs). It seems a current hunter gatherer Hadza tribe does eat it:
http://ngm.nationalg...a/finkel-text/5

They will eat almost anything they can kill, from birds to wildebeest to zebras to buffalo. They dine on warthog and bush pig and hyrax. They love baboon; Onwas joked to me that a Hadza man cannot marry until he has killed five baboons. The chief exception is snakes. The Hadza hate snakes.

The poison the men smear on their arrowheads, made of the boiled sap of the desert rose, is powerful enough to bring down a giraffe. But it cannot kill a full-grown elephant. If hunters come across a recently dead elephant, they will crawl inside and cut out meat and organs and fat and cook them over a fire. Sometimes, rather than drag a large animal back to camp, the entire camp will move to the carcass.

Edited by Rick Moranis, 28 July 2010 - 09:40 PM.

[Trevor]

A study of 400 centenarians (or people close to 100)...guess what it found...NO VEGETARIANS.

Weston A price traveled the world and studied indigenous cultures...guess what he found...NOT A SINGLE VEGETARIAN INDIGENOUS CULTURE

If you want to sacrifice years of your life to decrease the suffering of animals, by all means go ahead. In fact, I even think that's noble.

BUT DON'T CONFUSE THAT WITH BEING HEALTHY. If you do, you are just a member of the vegetarian CULT

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.

First off, I don't subscribe to any dietary religions. Second, I'm not an animal lover.

Sacrifice years of my life? How so? What is the mechanism behind eating cooked, red meat that enhances health at the cellular level?

And the rest of your bunk is pointless.

Edit: from my original post: "most vegetarians eat like crap."

*sigh* , in denial, like so many vegetarians

Try to imagine eating a healthy vegetarian diet in the wild

First, you would need K2. nevermind that you couldn't find any MK4 without eating an animal, you would actually need to ferment something, LOL.

next, it would be pretty much impossible to achieve any decent omega3:6 balance

you couldn't find b12

and you probably couldn't even find enough calories to survive

we evolved eating meat because it benefited our evolution. meat is nutrient dense, and calorie dense. Compare 1000 calories of ribeye to 1000 calories of apples.

actually, fresh meat (provided it isn't overcooked) has all that a man needs to survive, and even thrive.

stefansson visited the inuits and found that they subsisted SOLELY off of seal meat and oil. in perfect health. he went back to western civilization and ate nothing but meat and organs for over a year under laboratory observation, in perfect health.

now, you can look at these facts, and there is only one self-evident conclusion: we are designed to eat meat, and benefit from it.
indeed, I believe there is a strong case that humans thrive most on a diet of pretty much ONLY meat, provided that there is a high enough fat content.

I urge you to reconsider, but you seem pretty far in denial at this point

Alright, here we go again...

"Try to imagine eating a healthy vegetarian diet in the wild" Billions of people throughout history as well as our biological relatives and thousands of animal species.

K2 is produced by gut flora (just like other animals)

Omega 3:6 balance: Omega 3 in plants, seeds etc, are a far better source because they aren't oxidized as quickly because they are protected by the antioxidants in the plant.

One wouldn't need to "find" b12. It is also manufactured by gut flora (just like other animals).


"and you probably couldn't even find enough calories to survive" uhhhh....nope, you got me there. Just kidding. I don't think that one even needs a response.

"we evolved eating meat because it benefited our evolution" Is that why we have no use for it and don't have the digestive tract for it?

"meat has all man needs to survive" Except vitamin c (which carnivores manufacture and humans don't), vitamin E, countless antioxidants and fiber (which carnivores don't need because their intestinal tract is short and smooth). Next, muscle meat is the least nutritious part of the animal.

The eskimo deal was debunked long ago. Not that you care. The inuit are among the lowest life expectancy in the world. Good luck selling that one at this forum.


Let me reiterate that I do not follow any dietary religions nor are my decisions based on emotion for animals. Everything I do (and don't do) is backed by mountains of scientific evidence.

[Application]

For my first post after several years of lurking, I thought I would compile some of my thoughts on why the human body is not designed to consume meat. We should only look at how the human body is designed and not any other folklore. Anyone referring to "what our ancestors did" should be completely ignored for several reasons. First, our human ancestors were around for 200,000 years before us. Our evolutionary ancestors were around for 1,000,000+ years before that. In that amount of time, they did A LOT of things. Second, even if we gain real knowledge into what they did, it doesn't mean they were right. I'd love to hear your feedback on this. Bear in mind that I'm comparing the human body to pure carnivores and this is not to be confused with life or death situations.


1. Humans have no natural desire to consume meat.

We have no "taste" for it. When people think of eating meat, they immediately think of barbequed ribs or a filet mignon from Outback. Carnivores are primarily after the nutrient-rich organs. If someone were to put a bowl of cherries and a pig's pancreas side by side, which one are you going for?

2. Humans have no natural capability to consume meat.

Leave your ripped up caveman theories at the door. In the wild, humans are epic fail in the carnivore arena. Comparatively speaking, we aren't strong, we aren't fast, we can't smell, we can't see at night, we can't jump high, we can't swim naturally, we can't stay quiet enough to hunt, we have no claws and our teeth and jaws are useless. And, most importantly, unlike all carnivores, we have no hunting or killing instinct. It's a different story when some cute waitress brings your kill to the table with a bottle of K.C. Masterpiece.
All carnivores are capable of killing at birth or shortly thereafter. For the first 13 years of life it is highly unlikely that a human male (much less, a female) could have a prayer of getting hold of a wild animal and killing it. And this is when you are growing the most!

3. Our digestive tracts aren't designed for it.
I won't go too much into this one as there is tons of information on this. Just try swallowing fresh, raw meat whole. Better yet, give it to an infant.

4. Meat is not nutritionally imperative to humans.
All ten essential amino acids as well as every other nutrient for optimum health are found in plants. You get your protein the same place the animals get it - from foods that grow out of the ground. There is a huge misconception about this as the vast majority of people have no understanding of how amino acids work. They believe that not eating meat cannot be "healthy" because of the flabby vegetarian with no energy they see at the office. It should be noted that most vegetarians eat like crap.


I'll leave it at that as I'm a man of few words. I'm looking forward to hearing your feedback on this!

Great post. Sorry, though not surprised, to see the hostile reception here in this saturated fat loving and carb phobic forum.

Meat enthusiasts, where is the vitamin C coming from in these 100% flesh diets?

[CobaltThoriumG]

Meat enthusiasts, where is the vitamin C coming from in these 100% flesh diets?

Where's the Inuit scurvy? Really, this is silly. It's not about pure vegetarianism vs. pure carnivorism. It's about longevity. Where are the vegetarian centenarians? No matter how much you like cute, furry, cuddly things, and perhaps you are ethically superior, that's beside the point, we're omnivores.

Edited by CobaltThoriumG, 28 July 2010 - 10:06 PM.

[hypnotoad]

The eskimo deal was debunked long ago. Not that you care. The inuit are among the lowest life expectancy in the world. Good luck selling that one at this forum.

Doesn't look like it to me: http://wholehealthso...n-of-inuit.html 25% of their population lived past 60, which is about what you could expect from any typical primitive group that has no modern medicine, drugs, or surgery. I would imagine living in the tundra hunting seal and whale in bitter cold to be a harsh and rugged life, hardly ideal conditions to look for maximum human lifespan.

Just try swallowing fresh, raw meat whole. Better yet, give it to an infant.

What's so dangerous or difficult about eating raw meat? You make it sound like someone will drop dead or something. And who eats raw meat anyway? Humans have been using spears and tools to kill and hunt animals for millions of years. Just like human use tools to prepare and consume many plant based foods.

You can't feed a baby raw meat and expect it to be healthy or even survive.

Why not? What is the magical substance in plants that meat does not have? What did the traditional Inuit feed their babies, aside from mother's milk? Boxes of granola and applesauce?

At the end of the day, animal flesh is just concentrated protein, essential fat, + variety of vitamins and minerals. It's no big deal. Making it out to be the boogey-man is making you look like you have an agenda, despite your claims to the contrary.

Edited by hypnotoad, 28 July 2010 - 10:51 PM.

[Trevor]

Meat enthusiasts, where is the vitamin C coming from in these 100% flesh diets?

Where's the Inuit scurvy? Really, this is silly. It's not about pure vegetarianism vs. pure carnivorism. It's about longevity. Where are the vegetarian centenarians? No matter how much you like cute, furry, cuddly things, and perhaps you are ethically superior, that's beside the point, we're omnivores.

No, no, no, no. It has nothing to do with ethics or cute, cuddly things.

Let me say it again, most vegetarians eat like crap. We are here to design the optimum diet and lifestyle based on scientific evidence of the mechanisms at the cellular level.

[Logan]

Has anyone mentioned carnisone and l carnitine yet? Don't think you can get either of these from vegetarian sources.

Someone mentioned cooking meat reducing AGEs...What??? I thought cooking meat creates AGEs. Fresh uncontaminated rare red meat and rare fish is healthier and easier to digest than cooked meat IMO.

[Trevor]

The eskimo deal was debunked long ago. Not that you care. The inuit are among the lowest life expectancy in the world. Good luck selling that one at this forum.

Doesn't look like it to me: http://wholehealthso...n-of-inuit.html 25% of their population lived past 60, which is about what you could expect from any typical primitive group that has no modern medicine, drugs, or surgery. I would imagine living in the tundra hunting seal and whale in bitter cold to be a harsh and rugged life, hardly ideal conditions to look for maximum human lifespan.

Just try swallowing fresh, raw meat whole. Better yet, give it to an infant.

What's so dangerous or difficult about eating raw meat? You make it sound like someone will drop dead or something. And who eats raw meat anyway? Humans have been using spears and tools to kill and hunt animals for millions of years. Just like human use tools to prepare and consume many plant based foods.

1 out of 4 hits 60? Well, sign me up. I'm sure that statistic has nothing to do with their diets considering all the people in the world that live in cold climates.

[Logan]

For my first post after several years of lurking, I thought I would compile some of my thoughts on why the human body is not designed to consume meat. We should only look at how the human body is designed and not any other folklore. Anyone referring to "what our ancestors did" should be completely ignored for several reasons. First, our human ancestors were around for 200,000 years before us. Our evolutionary ancestors were around for 1,000,000+ years before that. In that amount of time, they did A LOT of things. Second, even if we gain real knowledge into what they did, it doesn't mean they were right. I'd love to hear your feedback on this. Bear in mind that I'm comparing the human body to pure carnivores and this is not to be confused with life or death situations.


1. Humans have no natural desire to consume meat.

We have no "taste" for it. When people think of eating meat, they immediately think of barbequed ribs or a filet mignon from Outback. Carnivores are primarily after the nutrient-rich organs. If someone were to put a bowl of cherries and a pig's pancreas side by side, which one are you going for?

2. Humans have no natural capability to consume meat.

Leave your ripped up caveman theories at the door. In the wild, humans are epic fail in the carnivore arena. Comparatively speaking, we aren't strong, we aren't fast, we can't smell, we can't see at night, we can't jump high, we can't swim naturally, we can't stay quiet enough to hunt, we have no claws and our teeth and jaws are useless. And, most importantly, unlike all carnivores, we have no hunting or killing instinct. It's a different story when some cute waitress brings your kill to the table with a bottle of K.C. Masterpiece.
All carnivores are capable of killing at birth or shortly thereafter. For the first 13 years of life it is highly unlikely that a human male (much less, a female) could have a prayer of getting hold of a wild animal and killing it. And this is when you are growing the most!

3. Our digestive tracts aren't designed for it.
I won't go too much into this one as there is tons of information on this. Just try swallowing fresh, raw meat whole. Better yet, give it to an infant.

4. Meat is not nutritionally imperative to humans.
All ten essential amino acids as well as every other nutrient for optimum health are found in plants. You get your protein the same place the animals get it - from foods that grow out of the ground. There is a huge misconception about this as the vast majority of people have no understanding of how amino acids work. They believe that not eating meat cannot be "healthy" because of the flabby vegetarian with no energy they see at the office. It should be noted that most vegetarians eat like crap.


I'll leave it at that as I'm a man of few words. I'm looking forward to hearing your feedback on this!

Great post. Sorry, though not surprised, to see the hostile reception here in this saturated fat loving and carb phobic forum.

Meat enthusiasts, where is the vitamin C coming from in these 100% flesh diets?

LOL, who said anything about 100% flesh diets? Ha ha, you vegetarians can be ridiculous. It's all about moderation and balance my friend.

[CobaltThoriumG]

We are here to design the optimum diet and lifestyle based on scientific evidence of the mechanisms at the cellular level.

Vegetarian centenarian. Just one please. Still waiting.

[Trevor]

We are here to design the optimum diet and lifestyle based on scientific evidence of the mechanisms at the cellular level.

Vegetarian centenarian. Just one please. Still waiting.

Come on, man! Give me a break! You know I can't do that!

Oh wait. Nevermind.

http://www.wiunion.o...aspx?NewsID=434

[CobaltThoriumG]

That's one. You got me. But if we weren't "designed" to eat meat as you put it, one would expect the omnivorous centenarian to be the exception, while the opposite is true.

[Logan]

I have a question for the OP..What about those nutrients that we get from meat that we cannot get from vegetarian sources?

[hypnotoad]

1 out of 4 hits 60? Well, sign me up.

Look at the morality rates across age groups again. It's obvious from looking at the data that life was harsh and brutal for the Innuit from an early age. Death from childbirth, injury, infectious diseases etc. They had No modern medicine in a physically dangerous world. If the meat diet was so harmful as you claim they would have all dropped dead from cancer or heart attacks by 40 or 50 - but instead you see the rate of death drops off incredibly smoothly even intil their 80s and 90s.

http://bp0.blogger.c...al_of_inuit.png

I quote from Stephan:

One of the classic counter-arguments that's used to discredit accounts of healthy hunter-gatherers is the fallacy that they were short-lived, and thus did not have time to develop diseases of old age like cancer. While the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers was not as high as ours today, most groups had a significant number of elderly individuals, who sometimes lived to 80 years and beyond. Mortality came mostly from accidents, warfare and infectious disease rather than chronic disease.

Actually I'm curious - what is it you think makes animal flesh so harmful? What component is so harmful?

Edited by hypnotoad, 29 July 2010 - 12:55 AM.

[ajnast4r]

lets be clear on the distinction between vegetariansm and veganism. it is no less possible to live healthily on a vegetarian diet than it is on a omnivorous diet. veganism is a totally different story... the decision to be a vegetarian is one of ETHICS not health... its possible to live healthily consuming meat in moderation. (and thats coming from a 10+ year vegetarian)

If you want to sacrifice years of your life to decrease the suffering of animals, by all means go ahead. In fact, I even think that's noble.

proof that healthy vegetarians live less or retract your statement.

First, you would need K2. nevermind that you couldn't find any MK4 without eating an animal, you would actually need to ferment something, LOL.

1st, tempeh. 2nd, vegetarians eat eggs & dairy, so their sources of k2 are no different than omnivores

I have a question for the OP..What about those nutrients that we get from meat that we cannot get from vegetarian sources?

there are no essential nutrients contained in meat not available from vegetarian sources.

Edited by ajnast4r, 29 July 2010 - 01:24 AM.