[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by jeff3

What's the source for this info ? I'm not doubting, just curious where it came from..


The question of homo-sapiens dietary status is generally accepted by the scientific community to be omnivorous, there are arguments against that of course, but the consensus is omnivore, opportunistic feeder. I've noticed most arguments for humans being herbies are presented by other herbies and I have no problem with that except it's a flimsy reason to not eat meat since man has been eating meat as far back as we have found "footprints", so, for a herbivore, we sure do eat a lot of meat.

If you don't want to eat meat, just say ,"I don't want to eat meat because XYZ", but to say "We are herbivores, therefore, we should not eat meat" is historically wrong. You don't need a scientific reason to make a personal decision. The hitch here is that the scientific reason is sought out to convince others of ones "correctness" and make the case that everyone should do the same. I think it's just an integral part of human nature to try and impress ones will on other people, especially if you believe in what you are saying (think crusades) so I don't get all wadded up over it, but, I call 'em like I see 'em.

This is an interesting site that gives a brief overview of the subject. Put up by vegetarians, no less. They simply say this is the wrong argument to use and that ethical, environmental, and health reasons are more valid.
Humans are Omnivores -- The Vegetarian Resource Group

I'm not saying what you should eat or not btw. I don't think I've ever said that. I also don't debate that humans are omnivores by most definitions (eat both meat and vegetation for nutrition). I was just pointing out that we are not built like omnivores. So the "we are omnivores we should obviously eat meat" argument doesn't hold water for me. We act like omnivores, and are build like herbivores, so I guess it's up to choice. I think both sides should abstain from using the evolutionary/anatomical argument.

Here is a good article. All the information is cited:
Baylor Health Care System: Twenty questions on atherosclerosis

1. Is atherosclerosis a disease affecting all animals or only certain animals?

Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.

I can't find the article about classification of Humans online, but as i said, it doesn't really matter.

Here is another
Thematic review series: The Pathogenesis of Atherosclerosis. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy: part II: the early evidence linking hypercholesterolemia to coronary disease in humans -- Steinberg 46 (2): 179 -- Journal of Lipid R

Indeed, dogs and cats, carnivores, did not develop atherosclerosis on cholesterol feeding, as Anitschkow had himself recognized and reported (2). However, this was not because their arteries were somehow immune but simply because, despite the large increase in dietary cholesterol, their blood cholesterol levels did not rise high enough. These species have very effective systems for converting dietary cholesterol to bile acids and excreting it.

There is also a lot of good information about some of the founding studies linking diet to heart disease.

Again i agree that looking at our past is not entirely useful in deciding on a dietary strategy. However looking at the science, it does appear that a largely vegetarian diet is best for health. So as far a ethics of eating meat go you don't have to look at PETA, you can look at the science. I hold the ethical view of "do no harm," so avoiding animal products seems obvious to me. It is the best way for me to avoid harming myself.