Eating meat, brains, and marrow made us human

[russianrocket]

how come you never hear about meat allergies.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

how come you never hear about meat allergies.

My mom's allergic to beef and pork. Yes, allergic. There's a compound in them she can't tolerate. And yes, she *always, always always* buys grass-fed and organic.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

My mom's allergic to beef and pork. Yes, allergic. There's a compound in them she can't tolerate. And yes, she *always, always always* buys grass-fed and organic.

lol that explains why you are the way you are . I never said there is no such thing, as a person can be allergic to just about anything. Just that it is very rare and uncommon to hear of, yet it is one of the most common foods in America.

[Groundless]

[QUOTE=edmarriott;663505]
(a) do you believe things like fibre and vitamin C say, are necessary for optimal health?

(b) if the answer to the above is yes, how do you intend to get them if you don't eat fruit or vegetables?
QUOTE]

Let's start with fiber.

It is/was an exercise in flawed logic.

A summary from Good Caories/Bad Calories

Fiber
the refined carb hypothesis morphed into the fiber hypothesis

this fit better with Ancel Keys’s hypothesis, much easier to promote than dissing sugar

led to the idea that lack of fiber causes obesity

less available energy in fiber-rich diets (fiber is zero-calorie bulk)

fiber hypothesis took off in the media, had to be paired with the anti-fat message to get traction (i.e., fat is causative, fiber is protective)

became part of the conventional wisdom;
its benefits were overstated another example of Rose’s mass prevention philosophy

however, the evidence refuting the fiber hypothesis steadily piled up
since it was part of the conventional wisdom, it just wouldn’t die
proponents completely disregarded the evidence or rationalized away the data, saying fiber has other benefits

fiber became detached from the original hypothesis and was promoted based on what was yet untested (staying alive by staying one step ahead of the science)

Fiber from fruits and vegetables causes digestive harm.

(a) do you believe things like fibre and vitamin C say, are necessary for optimal health?

Everything needed for optimal human nutrition is in fatty red meat. meat with fat is all you need to live well.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

lol that explains why you are the way you are . I never said there is no such thing, as a person can be allergic to just about anything. Just that it is very rare and uncommon to hear of, yet it is one of the most common foods in America.

Lol, her genetics do explain why I can't tolerate a lot, but as far as nutritional ideas (aside from organic, whole, natural focus) we couldn't be more different.

She *does* eat a lot of buffalo, and insane amounts of chicken and turkey. She's also allergic to seafood though. (Essentially Mercola.com diet sans her allergies, and with pasteurized dairy) And she still thinks I'm going to die for being vegan.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Haha, I was thinking about this image before you posted it.

[RomanHD]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

how come you never hear about meat allergies.

Man, I have been thinking about EXACTLY the same thing for weeks. There are TONS of people who can't drink milk, eat wheat, nuts, some fruits or even some vegetables. How many people are allergic to meat, except for shellfish? I'm not sure, but I would say very little, or maybe even none.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

how come you never hear about meat allergies.

Because meat is what our bodies have been evolved to eat. We have a built in survival mechanism to allow for vegetation but, only in times of crisis.

We have a cat's guts with a bonus appendix to allow for vegetation to be consumed in times of desperation.

We are trying to devolve in a couple of generations (become ruminants) what our bodies have evolved over millions of years.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by Groundless

We have a cat's guts with a bonus appendix to allow for vegetation to be consumed in times of desperation.

That is not the function of the appendix.

[togasalad]

The brain development of pre-human primates was actually spurred by their use of tools. This DID lead them to be able to eat meat with more regularity, which encouraged brain development in pre-humans. Modern humans are still omnivores by nature, but developing a larger brain is no longer an issue for our species. That being said, some people's systems are more efficient running closer to the carnivore end, while others run better on the herbivore end. Using evolutionary "habits" to dictate a modern diet is like reading the news from 50 years ago to find out what we should do today. It's only useful to a certain extent.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Beuford

That is not the function of the appendix.

The appendix has no function in the digestion of meat, and no carnivore has one. Our appendix is a reduced form of the cecumit stores putrefactive bacteria during times of all meat, and is necessary when vegetation is re-introduced to allow the bacteria to recolonise the colon and break down the vegetable residues (fibre) so they can be voided. People who have had their appendixes out have ongoing digestive problems, requiring careful attention to the diet- no problems on all-meat- but arise on an attempt to reintroduce vegetation after a period of abstinence.

The all-important appendix is- in most people- in constant use, and is the one thing we have which allows us to follow the diet we consider 'normal', and is an excellent survival tool even for those of us on the all-meat diet. It is a fully developed organ, and is not in any danger of atrophy in any human group. In an emergency requiring the eating of vegetation, you really would not want to be knocked down by an inability to poo. Eating of seeds and other small, hard indigestible things which can lodge in and obstruct the opening into the appendix, can produce a situation leading to inflammation and very serious consequences. Real omnivores have a much larger, more actively functional cecum, and lack a true appendix. Feces resulting from eating vegetation is composed of 80+% dead bacteria, whereas on all-meat it is nearly sterile, merely discarded body wastes (and unused nutrients).

[Barcs]

^The appendix isn't just for vegetation. Many scientists today say that it is used to store helpful bacteria and whatnot, in the event where you have an intestinal problem like diarrhea, where most of the bacteria is expelled. This bacteria is extremely important because it essentially is exactly what breaks down the food in the intestines.

Originally Posted by SheldonCooper

Is that a reference to the article or to your own post or the other posts at this thread? Because...

I was referring to the article and the title of the thread, which suggests that meat was the primary catalyst in human evolution. This can't possibly be true because they generally only ate meat when they had to. I'm not suggesting veganism was a catalyst either, although eating a nutrient rich diet surely helps survival.

I'm just trying to point out the logical flaws and scientific misconceptions that the OP is taking from the article. Evolution is all about natural selection. Favorable mutations that help a species survive and procreate. Obviously higher intelligence fits the bill, for evolution of the brain. I haven't seen any evidence that links the evolution of the human brain with eating meat. If you or Groundless would like to provide some evidence, I'm always looking to learn new things, especially about evolution. The article itself wasn't that bad, moreso it was the conclusions derived from it.

You are cherry-picking, a good example of it would be your argument from semantics:/. Awfully

.
When did I argue semantics? I merely corrected the incorrect / misleading claims of the article and the illogical argument of the OP that humans are humans because our ancient ancestors ate meat as part of their diet. Reading the article again, I realize it wasn't that bad, it was really what Groundless concluded from it.

Also, as you said they clearly they did eat meat. I don't think nobody is suggesting to make meat the primary diet.

The OP has suggested this multiple times.

Overall in the whole world meat is nobody's primary diet. It is always in combination with vegetables and wheat, EVEN IN HAMBURGERS. I do not think the article is suggesting to make meat the primary diet but not to exclude it completely. It is not using this evidence from the good old Australopithecus to say 'here here you SHOULD eat meat' but rather to show that the vegans' argument that eating ONLY vegetables and fruits is more natural really lacks fundamental and evidence as clearly, with the little evidence we have it could work the other way as well.

Yes, but the logic used to reach that conclusion is fallacious. As I mentioned, natural selection is the biggest part of evolution. You can't claim that because ancient ancestors ate meat, that it's automatically healthy and should be part of our diet, today. It's not logical. They ate meat to survive. There are plenty of other reasons to eat meat in your diet, but this is not one of them. Their primary diet WAS fruits and vegetables, but that's not a good argument for veganism, either. They aren't human. That's the main problem with this argument.

Fast forward and we have been eating cooked meat for millenia and we are a lot smarter than those habillis For some reason brain evolution and becoming a predator go hand with hand. I am a layman but I am not the only one to make the connection:

Again, that's not a scientifically sound or logical conclusion. Obviously we're smarter than homo habilis. The brain has been evolving for millions of years, and you will notice an intellectual increase in virtually every mammal known to man throughout their evolution. It has nothing to do with the fact that they ate meat when necessary. If anything, the increased intelligence is what led to the use of tools and eating meat, not the other way around.

Using evolutionary "habits" to dictate a modern diet is like reading the news from 50 years ago to find out what we should do today. It's only useful to a certain extent.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it much clearer than I could

lol that explains why you are the way you are . I never said there is no such thing, as a person can be allergic to just about anything. Just that it is very rare and uncommon to hear of, yet it is one of the most common foods in America.

I never hear about allergies to spinach, so I guess that means we should all eat only spinach! What about pine cones? Surely one of our ancient ancestors ate them, so we should as well.

BTW I'm not saying meat is bad. Omega 3 fatty acids are very healthy for you. The key is eating a balanced diet, high in nutrients and avoiding processed foods.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Barcs

The brain has been evolving for millions of years, and you will notice an intellectual increase in virtually every mammal known to man throughout their evolution. It has nothing to do with the fact that they ate meat when necessary. If anything, the increased intelligence is what led to the use of tools and eating meat, not the other way around.

where did you get this from?

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

where did you get this from?

Logic and knowledge of evolution. If a favorable trait helps a creature survive, that is what they become. Higher intelligence in a species leads to better survival chances. If creatures became dumber, they are much more likely to go extinct, as many have. Is it wrong? Compare modern day felines, to their ancient ancestors. Do the same for dogs, apes, hominids, elephants, etc. It holds true.

With that said, not every creature has increased intelligence. Many evolve better physical traits to survive, but in higher mammals, intelligence is key.

I edited my original post, btw.

[SheldonCooper]

Again, that's not a scientifically sound or logical conclusion. Obviously we're smarter than homo habilis. The brain has been evolving for millions of years, and you will notice an intellectual increase in virtually every mammal known to man throughout their evolution. It has nothing to do with the fact that they ate meat when necessary. If anything, the increased intelligence is what led to the use of tools and eating meat, not the other way around.

Err, it works both ways, they are definitely correlated but we cannot assume what the causation is. It is as hard for me to show that eating meat caused the increase in intelligence as it is for you to show the opposite.

If you compare the progress of human intelligenve with that of a cow, just 'intelligence = better' does not hold that much. Of course what is true is that humans needed intelligence a lot more as they were never very adapted to their environment. Anyway , what I can tell you is that human intelligence has progressed so much in comparison to other mammals that it is still very difficult to explain the cause. There are many theories and in fact, the one about dietary changes is strong amongs scientists. Of course, we really cannot tell right now for sure. This article seems to be better than what the OP linked: Food and Human Evolution


I think ultimately the fact that humans never specialized to a single environment and instead relied on progress on intelligence to overcome it is what made us human. (probably COOKING plaid the most important role, yet we have people demonizing it) That's also the reason an ommivore diet beats the rest, if we started an "utopia" in which humans ate only vegetables, they would specialize on vegetables and become more vulnerable to environmental change.

Yes, but the logic used to reach that conclusion is fallacious. As I mentioned, natural selection is the biggest part of evolution. You can't claim that because ancient ancestors ate meat, that it's automatically healthy and should be part of our diet, today. It's not logical. They ate meat to survive.

I was just using rhetoric. I am a guy that is against the extermination of flavour through prohibition of meat and cooking so I have always disliked when vegans used the opposite argument (Ancestors ate only vegetables and fruit, so meat is unnatural) so I was really just enjoying myself.

The OP has suggested this multiple times.

Yeah, for soem reason I assumed the OP was reasonable, but it turns out he wasn't. Sorry.

[edmarriott]

Originally Posted by Groundless

Well, I eat exclusively 2-3 lbs of red meat daily. I eat only when hungry. I drink water when thirsty. That is what I eat. So, I can safely say I believe this enough to bet my life on it.

I have gone down the ornish/pritikin path and found it woefully lacking. This has been my experience, which probably does not reflect yours.

I feel fantastic eating this way. All measurements from blood tests have improved or stayed the same in the nearly 6+ months of eating this way.

How do you know what you think you know?

Please read Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories, then come back and discuss when you have an objection based in facts instead of statements with no backing.

I haven't read that book, but I know what its about and have read similar stuff.

So anyway, as I asked first (and maybe to humour me while I'm maybe reading that book)- are you going to answer my questions?

Regards

Ed.

[edmarriott]

Originally Posted by edmarriott

I haven't read that book, but I know what its about and have read similar stuff.

So anyway, as I asked first (and maybe to humour me while I'm maybe reading that book)- are you going to answer my questions?

Regards

Ed.

Apologies, I see you have in a separate reply. Will consider further and revert

[Dave Plaza]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You can skip all the junk science simply by noticing that you get the best results from eating whatever you believe will give you the best results.

Probably the best advice that I have ever heard on this site. To the point and correct... Most impressed