Humans Are Natural Herbivores

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Like you said, there are plant eating animals with very large brains, and like I said, there are meat eating animals with very small brains. Our abstract thinking has nothing to do with eating meat. I wasn't trying to prove that humans have small brains compared to large plant eating animals, I was trying to prove that meat eating does not increase the brain size in a species.

There is plenty of protein found in plants. Naturally, humans aren't 200kg body builders, so no meat is necessary. If we did eat all this meat to grow a larger brain, we'd have also evolved to have a body designed to use meat properly. I just realised these arguments go around in circles so I'll probably stop now but if you want just read over the numerous threads on this topic and you'll find a counter argument.

Oh, and various websites say that many believe chimpanzees should be reclassified as homo instead of pan.

In my last post there is a link to a new finding showing how human teeth HAVE been found to have adapted to eat meat.


Eating meat does not change brain size, a sudden emergence of increased protein over centuries increases it. The hominids did not suddenly find new "protein plants" as a source, they ate the same plants they always did. The protein obviously came from meat this includes fish and even bugs.
Not sure why you want to change science?

Chimps can be homo, they have similar DNA. Homo Dentilis was obviously homo, it also had full bodyhair and looked like a chimp and was a plant eater.
The meat eating homo species came later, much later. Again it's one reason why we have the increased brain over erectus or modern chimps. There is a HUGE gap there, millions of years.
Along the way there are cave fossil records of stone weapons and all sorts of large game hunting, rhino, girraffe, the bones have been cut by tools etc..

Some websites do enjoy posting bias pseudo-science or harping on one simple conflicting point but I haven't seen any studies that put any doubt into these facts.

It doesn't mean this is the absolute best diet.

[SmartAlx]

I don't think the extra protein is what did it. This is definitiely a case of correlation not equating to causation. Consider the point in time when hominids added meat to their diets. They HAD to add meat to their herbivorous diet because there wasn't enough plant material to survive on. The periods of time in which we struggle the most are the periods where we see the greatest advances in evolution. The extra protein might have helped the development of the bigger brain but it wasn't the primary driving force.

And actually, when man first began to cultivate rice, beans, spinach and other vegetables high in protein (the agricultural revolution) he DID "suddenly find new "protein plants" as a source." Of course that was man (after he had the bigger brain) and much later. It's interesting though, isn't it?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I don't think the extra protein is what did it. This is definitiely a case of correlation not equating to causation. Consider the point in time when hominids added meat to their diets. They HAD to add meat to their herbivorous diet because there wasn't enough plant material to survive on. The periods of time in which we struggle the most are the periods where we see the greatest advances in evolution. The extra protein might have helped the development of the bigger brain but it wasn't the primary driving force.

And actually, when man first began to cultivate rice, beans, spinach and other vegetables high in protein (the agricultural revolution) he DID "suddenly find new "protein plants" as a source." Of course that was man (after he had the bigger brain) and much later. It's interesting though, isn't it?

It is interesting.

Like you say, those farmers were already human. Looking at those groups there is also decent amounts of meat eating. Right after the last ice age the paleo-indians who populated North America had to deal with this 1000 year cold spell (Younger-Dryas). Awful conditions, not remotely close to the original jungles where planteaters thrive.
Much vegetation went extinct but the bison remained and were readily hunted.

If you think about it, for Humans, especially groups of 14-15yo men, hunting must have been the most fun they could have (besides whatever type of love life took place back then?). Teenageish age guys are often looking for excitement and can be restless and so forth. Nowdays we have things to do, buy a motorcycle, join the Army, bodybuild, martial arts, partys, nightlife, college life, fast cars. I do remember a time where basic life seemed unimportant, being with friends and fun/excitement was all-important.

Since we know that early humans in North America had a tendency to NOT fight among tribes as it's better for survival to trade tricks, secrets, more mate selection etc...For humans making weapons and hunting must have been huge.

The morals and ethics actually were dealt with by some tribes. There is an old mythological story about a woman and a buffalo where the basic message is it's ok to kill prey for food because the prey is somehow re-born.
Point isn't that it's true just that they did eat lots of meat and they did think about right and wrong.

[Andrew Gubb]

Read the OP (I replied to this thread before without doing so )

Re: eating meat makes you less of a man

While I don't have any aims to be any more manly than God chooses me to be and totally reject the masculine paradigm of our societies, I have to point out that all of my girlfriends have pointed out the great taste of my sperm since going vegan.

Apart from that, I think I could have eaten meat when I was a carnivore without "altering" it to make it palatable. I should also say that I find avocadoes comparatively boring without salt, oil and lemon to spice them up, too. Same with rice dishes or beans or whatever else I cook - needs spice.

Just pointing that out. Great article apart from that though. Double thumbs up

Love

Andrew

[rachelar]

I don’t know whether we are physiologically designed to eat meat or not. To be honest, I don’t much care, since I firmly believe that personal experimentation is the way forward, and then whatever makes you feel better is what you should eat. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, so to speak.

But I’m not convinced by most of the arguments presented by people who argue against omnivorism. Much is made of meat-eaters ‘not doing their research’ and a great deal of abuse is often leveled at them, but I find there is often a lack of research on the parts of the vegetarians (and definitely a lack of willingness to consider another side. Someone argued that, if you go looking for evidence for omnivorism, then you’ll find it- but the same is true for the vegetarian argument).

For instance, HealthySoul, I think you’ve changed your argument a bit. First you say that humans don’t like plain cooked meat with no sauce or spice, then you say that we do, and we just don’t like it raw:

Originally Posted by HealthySoul

Similarly, we do not have taste buds for amino acids (protein), and need to alter flesh from its natural form by cooking it in sauces, spices, and/or fat to make it palatable. If you don't believe me, I would love to watch you try to eat a portion of boiled chicken or steak without adding anything to it. After noting your displeasure and inability to do so, I will give it to a dog or cat and watch as it eagerly wolfs it down.
…
Although we don't have taste buds for flesh, eventually we learned to control fire, and learned that if we heated meat up for a good period of time, it would taste much better and be safer for our digestive system. After humans were able to control fire and cook their food, suddenly meat can be altered to taste really good.

I like plain cooked chicken, beef, pork, anything, but I also like blue steak. I remember a few months back someone posted a pro-vegetarian post with the argument: ‘If we were meant to like meat, why doesn’t anyone like the taste of blood?’ He/she received several replies from people who do enjoy the taste of blood. So I’m not convinced by the argument that we don’t have tastebuds for meat.

Originally Posted by Beuford

Human brain - 1.3-1.4kg
Elephant brain(herbivore) - 6kg
Horse(herbivore) - 0.53kg
Chimpanzee(almost herbivore) - 0.42kg
Dog - 72 grams
Cat - 30 grams
Alligator - 8.4 grams

Obviously, the amount of meat consumed does not increase brain size, as an alligator has an 8.4 gram brain and is something like 360kg. However, brain size is not the only factor, so you'd have to get really specific in the function of the brain to justify why meat would increase the capacity, then you'd have to explain why carnivores seem to have the smallest brains. It is likely human intelligence is the result of something else, and don't say it was hunting together as a team, because I'm pretty sure dogs can do that, and they don't exactly have the intelligence of a human.

I’m not sure of the science about this and haven’t made my mind up either way, but this article was published a few days ago and it might be relevant to this discussion: BBC News - Did the discovery of cooking make us human?

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by rachelar

I don’t know whether we are physiologically designed to eat meat or not. To be honest, I don’t much care, since I firmly believe that personal experimentation is the way forward, and then whatever makes you feel better is what you should eat. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, so to speak.

But I’m not convinced by most of the arguments presented by people who argue against omnivorism. Much is made of meat-eaters ‘not doing their research’ and a great deal of abuse is often leveled at them, but I find there is often a lack of research on the parts of the vegetarians (and definitely a lack of willingness to consider another side. Someone argued that, if you go looking for evidence for omnivorism, then you’ll find it- but the same is true for the vegetarian argument).

Much of the difficulty of this whole argument stems from the fact that there are physiological indicators of omnivorism and herbivorism. They've been discussed already in this thread and argued over as well. Well, it should be obvious then that humans are neither pure herbivore and not omnivore either. The vegetarian... errr... herbivore argument is true of our general species (not liking plain meat, raw meat, or blood), but it might not be true for specific individuals. There are individual TASTE differences, but you can't deny physiological evidence such as intestine length, lack of canine teeth, etc. This makes it pretty obvious to me that we are the missing link between pure herbivore and pure omnivore. We are EVOLVING. We aren't completely evolved or we would have the omniverous psysiological makeup like a dog, a pure omnivore.

Now we have the ethical dilemma of deciding which is "more evolved" the omnivore or the herbivore. We clearly no longer require meat to survive and we now possess enlightenment over the sanctity of life. I can foresee a time in which we as a species shutter at the thought of the barbaric practice of killing for food. Right now we are a bit backwards. Most "civilized" people consider it barbaric to be the person who has to butcher the animal. Yet they greedily eat the meat. They don't respect the animal as the people in the past did. And they don't respect the person who butchers so they can eat that meat. They take their diet for granted. There's a real disconnect there. I can see that changing over time.

I respect people who slaughter the animals themselves a whole lot more than the people who would never do it, but eat the meat anyway. I say if you are going to survive off of the killing of something, you should be willing to be involved in the process of killing that animal. Otherwise you are no better than a hypocrite.

[arthurb999]

It was the high concentrations of DHA and iodine in the animal fat we ate.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by diozen

There are no universal diets that is perfect for everyone. Each of our bodies are unique and our dietary needs differ depending on our physiology and genes.

Each species has a diet--a species-specific diet (Cows all [optimally] eat grass, cats all eat meat, dogs eat meat and grass, bears eat whatever the heck they can find, zombies all eat human flesh[ok, made that one up]. We are a species, therefore we have a species-specific diet.
What would that be? Well, if you look at our physiology, you will see we are frugivores.
Behavior has nothing to do with it--even mass behavior. If someone started a cult where they all ate, say, a serving of dirt with every meal (gotta get that b12, right?) --that doesn't change our physiological needs--no matter how big the cult grew.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by arthurb999

I saw a show about human evolution and it showed how the different species of homosapiens came to be. The only one that survived was the primarily meat eater. In fact, it was the fat from the meat that helped our brains develop to what they are now.

No thanks... I'll stick to my grass fed beef over your wheatgrass shakes any day.

Oh you saw a show?! Well it must be true! The TV said it! If you'll excuse me, I've gotta go get my shamwow and help the forth grade hooligans get back to Colorado from Peru with Britney Spears now, okay? (sorry--couldn't resist)

Any way, what would you rather really do (as these would be you options in nature) Take a bite of a) a cow[if it were whole and raw--I'd doubt you'd care about it being grass fed] b) grass [like a true herbivore] or c) a mango (or any other fruit for that matter).

[arthurb999]

Well we weren't brought up on raw meat... sure eating a raw cow may seem gross to most since we've been cooking for years... but sushi is gross to some and a delicacy to others.

Also... fire has been controllable by humans for around a million years... enough time to evolve to cooked meat.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by arthurb999

Well we weren't brought up on raw meat... sure eating a raw cow may seem gross to most since we've been cooking for years... but sushi is gross to some and a delicacy to others.

Also... fire has been controllable by humans for around a million years... enough time to evolve to cooked meat.

ahh...the "nuture" side of this argument. If we had been brought up to eat raw meat--it'd be cool with us, and I think you're probably right. The question is, if we weren't at all brought up to eat meat--that would probably gross us out ("You mean you eat *cow*!?), similar to how eating dogs and cats grosses us out even when they're cooked. But if you'd eaten the SAD (standard american diet) all your life with the exception of fruit, I doubt any of us would find that gross.

[secrets0stolen]

"If you think about it, for Humans, especially groups of 14-15yo men, hunting must have been the most fun they could have (besides whatever type of love life took place back then?). Teenageish age guys are often looking for excitement and can be restless and so forth. Nowdays we have things to do, buy a motorcycle, join the Army, bodybuild, martial arts, partys, nightlife, college life, fast cars. I do remember a time where basic life seemed unimportant, being with friends and fun/excitement was all-important."

Have you considered that perhaps a combination of societal pressures, crazy hormones we put in animal products (in addition to the ones there just because it died), poor parenting, and overstimulating technology (too much TV, video games, etc) is what causes many teens (believe me, it's not just guys) to become reckless thrill seekers? How do we know teen guys even had this "crazy phase" way back when? It's just a stereotype that it's just a "manly" thing to do.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by arthurb999

It was the high concentrations of DHA and iodine in the animal fat we ate.

That's okay, I shouldn't have to eat meat from other animals to get this DHA and iodine. My body is full of it. I turn various plants into meat, like a cow turns grass into meat. If you cut me open there will be meat inside my body, and animal fat too.

[Scipio]

The whole field and study of evolutionary nutrition points to humans as omnivores, who on average, had 60% of their calories from animal sources. First of all, you have to look at what we ate in the last million years, not the last 4 million, where we were different animals entirely. The study you quoted compares data from millions of years ago, yet our hominid ancestors went through a drastic change on the African savannah about a million years ago. Our brains became much bigger and our digestive systems became shorter at the same time. We lost the large digestive system of animals that primarily survive on fiberous vegetables because it is just too calorically inefficient to have a huge calorie consuming brain and a huge calorie consuming digestive system. Read the papers published by Cordain et al that speculate on the nutrients needed to make that evolutionary shift. Most likely it was scavenged brain and bone marrow of kills made by other animals, which we broke open with tools. The content of the brains and bone marrow had high concentrations of DHA and arachidonic acid (which a vegetarian diet DOES NOT have) to make up the increasing brain size, and it was also calorically dense enough to allow our digestive systems to shorten. Let me emphasize that there is no debate on the issue of of whether we were omnivores in the scientific community studying evolutionary nutrition--the only debate is whether we ate tubers along with fish, or brain and bone marrow. Only these two options would provide enough DHA and AA to allow the increase in brain size, as well as the caloric density to reduce the size of our digestive systems.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by Beuford

That's okay, I shouldn't have to eat meat from other animals to get this DHA and iodine. My body is full of it. I turn various plants into meat, like a cow turns grass into meat. If you cut me open there will be meat inside my body, and animal fat too.

If you're a human being, you don't turn anything into DHA.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Oh you saw a show?! Well it must be true! The TV said it! If you'll excuse me, I've gotta go get my shamwow and help the forth grade hooligans get back to Colorado from Peru with Britney Spears now, okay? (sorry--couldn't resist)

The show was probably based on the research into evolutionary nutrition.

Seriously, it seems like some of the vegans here are much like Christians who deny the validity of evolution. You are free to look up on pubmed the massive amount of studies into evolutionary nutrition, instead of just denying the scientific evidence in favour of your dogma.

I would love it if we evolved eating only vegetables. Heck, it would be cheaper on my food bill. The thing is, if you are at all aware of any of the research going on in the field, you know it just isn't true.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Scipio

The show was probably based on the research into evolutionary nutrition.

"Probably based on" isn't really a reason to trust a third, forth, or fifth(or who know's maybe fiftieth) hand source. Even originally published research contradicts, and who was the study funded by? There are lots of things that go into determining validity of a source. Hearing someone say they say something on TV doesn't fall into the likely valid category.

If you look at the evidence--evolutionary and not--it is most likely humans are frugivores. The modern day evidence is even more reliable because it's observable, repeatable, etc.

[Cochonette]

I really get tired of hearing this argument "humans are natural herbivores." False claims only undermine one's case, and since I'm vegan, that really bothers me.

[Fullcrum]

secrets0stolen, I am not sure what evidence, evolutionary and not, you are looking at to support the argument that humans evolved to be frugivores. I can argue, though I will not, that if humans were evolved to be frugivores, we would never have left the trees and remained in the forests like chimps. The truth is, we moved onto the plains millions of years before modern humans evolved. Nitrogen-15 isotope analysis of Neanderthal fecal materials made us realize that they were even more carnivorous than we, getting up to 80% of calories from meat. The arguments for our lack of sharp teeth, claws, and other predatory stuff fails when we realize that human evolution is INTIMATELY related to our tool use. In fact, without the development of tools, human evolution would have progressed very differently. This key point, I believe, many people arguing evolutionarily for veganism do not understand.

The probable direct ancestor to both Neanderthals and modern humans, Homo heidelbergensis, actively hunted animals. They made spears. Check it out: Homo heidelbergensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For over 1.5 million years, humans have been making stone tools, first to butcher dead animals, then to hunt live prey. In fact, ancient obsidian blades were the sharpest tools ever made by humans, sharper than any chef's knife or steel surgeon's blade today, sometimes less than a nanometer thick. To get this level of precision in tools, indeed, to make stone tools at all, requires hours of time and years of practice. For ancient humans to dedicate that much time to making tools SPECIFICALLY towards the butchering of animals, shows that they must have been very important, indeed, towards human survival.

For those of you doing the whole chimps-as-vegetarians argument, I would direct you to this article: Chimpanzee Hunting Behavior and Human Evolution » American Scientist . Chimps actively hunt. They may spend hours doing so. They reduce the populations of Red Colobus Monkeys in the core of their territories by as much as 50%. Their hunting is quite significant, as you will see by this article.

I am only trying to get real science across. I respect veganism, you DO get tons of antioxidants, it DOES make you feel great, but I cannot stand spurious arguments, evolutionary or otherwise, in its favor.

I challenge you, secrets, to lay a more convincing foundation for an evolutionary argument for fruitarianism than 1.8 million years (the birth of Homo erectus) of progression towards meat eating.

Most vegans, even those in the raw vegan community, understand this. Frederic Pautenaude supplements B-12 and choline, Shazzie supplements, David Wolfe eats ants to get his B-12, and the list goes on. Indeed, I am only aware that Dr. Doug Graham thinks supplementation unnecessary. We are clearly not "meant" for veganism, but I can also argue that veganism is quite able to make strong, healthy, happy humans, if only we stop ignoring our evolutionary history.

As Richard Feynman said, "Nature cannot be fooled."

[Humancure]

Originally Posted by rachelar

I don’t know whether we are physiologically designed to eat meat or not. To be honest, I don’t much care, since I firmly believe that personal experimentation is the way forward, and then whatever makes you feel better is what you should eat. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, so to speak.

Brilliant!

Also - I'd like to add that your nutrition depends on your goals - Eating meat increases aggressiveness - which is vital if you want to fuel your goals - whilst vegetarian diet can help you with being closer to nature (and God).

I don't think there is a right and wrong way about this - everyone is at their own level of development, and there are just as many ways to the "top of the mountain" as there are souls created.

[pilahawaiian]

Humans are Natural Herbivores, and that is why most people die before their time.



http://www.facebook.com/l/fcbe2;video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8384134159042346609#"

[joelr]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Have you considered that perhaps a combination of societal pressures, crazy hormones we put in animal products (in addition to the ones there just because it died), poor parenting, and overstimulating technology (too much TV, video games, etc) is what causes many teens (believe me, it's not just guys) to become reckless thrill seekers? How do we know teen guys even had this "crazy phase" way back when? It's just a stereotype that it's just a "manly" thing to do.

The growth hormones only effect us in pseudo-science websites that are against meat.
Studies have not shown higher GH levels in humans. That type of GH is not compatible with humans AND GH does not absorb through the gut.
You don't drink GH, it won't work that way. It's not an oral med/muscle enhancer, human or bovine.

I don't know of anything linking technology to thrill seeking or any evidence that parenting was better/worse in paleo humans so it's to reandom a variable to consider.
Hunting is fun for a huge cross section of humans actually.
If a world-wide study was done I think a large majority of folks would claim to entertain thoughts of it.
I would not kill an animal in that sense unless I had no other food source but I would love to hunt, put a laser sight on an animal and call it a day. No-one gets hurt. Except me who'd get eaten by a lion.

But in the northern climates there often was no other food. Especially in the younger-dryas 1000 year drought. I'd surely hunt for my loved ones. Fun and food. Back then, I'd already be outside. With not much else to do. No way are there enough plants to support a well rounded diet in permanent winter.

It is not proven but there is even a theory that it was humans who caused the extinction of many large game species through hunting.

[jeff3]

I think it odd that so many try to argue over what chimps and apes eat most of the time in an effort to prove they are either/or herbivores or omnivores. They then completely ignore the FACT that less than 10% of the human population eats exclusively plants, and they do so by choice (with only few exceptions). Humans are obviously omnivores because over 90% of us eat meat and plants, I don't even see the argument, it does not exist. Now if you want to argue from moral or spiritual positions that we should choose to go against what has allowed our current success as a species (population wise), go ahead. If you choose to be a vegetarian, by all means do so, even tell me why....just don't try to get me to deny what I see with eyes and what is easily measured by consumption rate.

At the least, quit bringing up what monkeys eat if the standard doesn't apply both ways.

[scorpio1980]

Jeff3 you said exactly what I was just thinking.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by jeff3

I think it odd that so many try to argue over what chimps and apes eat most of the time in an effort to prove they are either/or herbivores or omnivores. They then completely ignore the FACT that less than 10% of the human population eats exclusively plants, and they do so by choice (with only few exceptions). Humans are obviously omnivores because over 90% of us eat meat and plants, I don't even see the argument, it does not exist. Now if you want to argue from moral or spiritual positions that we should choose to go against what has allowed our current success as a species (population wise), go ahead. If you choose to be a vegetarian, by all means do so, even tell me why....just don't try to get me to deny what I see with eyes and what is easily measured by consumption rate.

At the least, quit bringing up what monkeys eat if the standard doesn't apply both ways.

I use the other great apes because they are very similar in their digestive capabilities. You see less than 10% of the human population eating exclusively plants because you live in a wealthy part of the world no doubt. I was led to believe the majority of the world could not afford to eat meat regularly, so they only had it sometimes or not at all.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by Scipio

If you're a human being, you don't turn anything into DHA.

You turn alpha-linolenic acid into DHA, which comes from plants.

[Jaiysun4]

BBC News - Did the discovery of cooking make us human?

"The daily mountain of fruit and vegetables would mean a six-hour chewing marathon.

It is already accepted that the introduction of meat into our ancestors' diet caused their brains to grow and their intelligence to increase.

Meat - a more concentrated form of energy - not only meant bigger brains for our ancestors, but also an end to the need to devote nearly all their time to foraging to maintain energy levels.

The eating of meat ties in with an evolutionary shift 2.3 million years ago resulting in a more human-looking ancestor with sharper teeth and a 30% bigger brain, called Homo habilis.

The most momentous shift however, happened 1.8 million years ago when Homo erectus - our first "truly human" ancestor arrived on the scene.

Homo erectus had an even bigger brain, smaller jaws and teeth.

Erectus also had a similar body shape to us. Shorter arms and longer legs appeared, and gone was the large vegetable-processing gut, meaning that Erectus could not only walk upright, but could also run.

He was cleverer and faster, and - according to Professor Wrangham - he had learned how to cook.

"Cooking made our guts smaller," he says. "Once we cooked our food, we didn't need big guts.

"They're costly in terms of energy. Individuals that were born with small guts were able to save energy, have more babies and survive better."

- Evidence meat eating is actually essential to what made us human.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by Jaiysun4

The daily mountain of fruit and vegetables would mean a six-hour chewing marathon.

Explain that to me. I don't have any meat in my diet and I am not chewing for 6 hours a day. Maybe if you ate nothing but leaves but fruit is high in calories and doesn't need to be chewed for 6 hours.

[Fullcrum]

Why is everyone only selectively replying to little flaws in the other side's argument? I dare any of the humans-are-biologically-vegan people to refute any of my previous arguments, including the one that says that most fruitarian and raw vegan proponents in general support supplementation of certain nutrients. Shazzie herself says that to say that humans are born to be vegan is false.

Here is the link: Is the unraw unvegan movement rumbly in your tumbly? Shazzie Blog

And the bit that interests us:

Originally Posted by Shazzie

But it’s not natural to be vegan
No, it isn’t. Even “vegan” horses and cows eat a lot of insects and poo. That’s why I supplement (which is also not natural). I’m heavily into being as self sufficient as much as possible. I am looking at how to create that reality here in my new home in the south of the UK. I am a being of limitless possibilities and I know it can be done, with the help of a few non-local supplements. My personal feelings are: Would I rather eat part of an animal than take a very tiny small unnatural supplement? No. You may choose otherwise, and that’s totally fine. But for my daughter, it’s slightly different. She’s not me and she’s got a lot of growing to do. I want to make sure she doesn’t even have borderline deficiencies, which is why she eats a small amount of non-flesh animal products.

David Wolfe eats ants. I mean, really. He justifies it by saying that they have a "less consciousness", as in, less self-awareness than a cow. I shall not contend with this point at the present time.

I have heard no credible scientific refutations towards the lack of certain nutrients in a raw vegan diet, nor any admittance that humans in general may, in fact, may not be designed for a purely vegetarian diet.

On the theme of admittance, I shall admit the following:

That raw veganism will give you tons of energy, more than most people are used to.
The high levels of antioxidants and other nutrients will greatly slow down the aging process.
The raw vegan diet may in fact BE THE BEST DIET for humans, or at least many of us, because with our modern juicing and blending technology, our abundance of year-round ripe fruits cultivated to increase the qualities humans like in fruit, abundance of greens tender enough to eat and lacking high concentrations of poisons like many greens in the wild, and other amenities of modern technology and distinctly un-natural, human-driven processes, the nutrient density of the raw vegan diet can be almost unsurpassed on most fronts.

But I shall not admit that humans are "designed" to be raw vegan, only that, in the modern world, it may be the best option given our resources. It certainly uses less land and water than the current industrial farming system of animals.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Why is everyone only selectively replying to little flaws in the other side's argument? I dare any of the humans-are-biologically-vegan people to refute any of my previous arguments, including the one that says that most fruitarian and raw vegan proponents in general support supplementation of certain nutrients. Shazzie herself says that to say that humans are born to be vegan is false.

Here is the link: Is the unraw unvegan movement rumbly in your tumbly? Shazzie Blog

And the bit that interests us:

What is a shazzie?

The same positive things can be said about a diet that includes lean protein sources (like tuna), complex carbs and good fats, all in proper ratios.

Actually I'd say that diet has been tested more so than the vegan diet.
Vegan does NOT automatically equal health or longevity through diet. Not even close. Vegans are still free to overeat carbs, particularly sugar, which is the single largest cause of obesity and all the health problems.

I had a friend do vegan for about 1 year and he looked awful. Chubby and skinny. Of course it's obviously possible to eat well as a vegan but by itself it is in no way intrinsically healthy.
Saying people will definitely have more energy is so wrong it's almost a crime. Vegan or no you still have to figure out the proper ratios and what foods to eat.
Eating beet sugar all day, for example, is not going to give anyone energy.