Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is meat healthy?
Replies
-
amorfati601070 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up!
I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
I agree with this. Meat does possess essential nutrients but as a complete package it has a lot of negative drawbacks. Cutting down on meat is always a good idea. Processed meats should be completely avoided as it is a class 1 carcinogen. Meat substitutes have come a long way and I hope they become even more mainstream.
That study was misrepresented by the media. If you actually read it it says if you eat bacon EVERY day it raises your colorectal cancer risk from 5% to 6 %. It doesn't say if you occasionally eat it you risk is higher.
5 -
singingflutelady wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up! I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
I agree with this. Meat does possess essential nutrients but as a complete package it has a lot of negative drawbacks. Cutting down on meat is always a good idea. Processed meats should be completely avoided as it is a class 1 carcinogen. Meat substitutes have come a long way and I hope they become even more mainstream.
That study was misrepresented by the media. If you actually read it it says if you eat bacon EVERY day it raises your colorectal cancer risk from 5% to 6 %. It doesn't say if you occasionally eat it you risk is higher.
In addition, the "Class 1" quoted by the PP is misleading and possibly scare-mongering:IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
Source: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
5 -
A judgement like this is entirely dependent on other circumstances. In general even, if meat is healthy, is dependent on consumption and excretion. If to be thought of respectively, like any other food items; sure, meat is healthy.2
-
CurlyCockney wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up! I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
I agree with this. Meat does possess essential nutrients but as a complete package it has a lot of negative drawbacks. Cutting down on meat is always a good idea. Processed meats should be completely avoided as it is a class 1 carcinogen. Meat substitutes have come a long way and I hope they become even more mainstream.
That study was misrepresented by the media. If you actually read it it says if you eat bacon EVERY day it raises your colorectal cancer risk from 5% to 6 %. It doesn't say if you occasionally eat it you risk is higher.
In addition, the "Class 1" quoted by the PP is misleading and possibly scare-mongering:IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
Source: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
yup I am actually taking a medication on the class 1 list (azathioprine). yes there is a link between it and cancer but it's not that high really.2 -
singingflutelady wrote: »CurlyCockney wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up! I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
I agree with this. Meat does possess essential nutrients but as a complete package it has a lot of negative drawbacks. Cutting down on meat is always a good idea. Processed meats should be completely avoided as it is a class 1 carcinogen. Meat substitutes have come a long way and I hope they become even more mainstream.
That study was misrepresented by the media. If you actually read it it says if you eat bacon EVERY day it raises your colorectal cancer risk from 5% to 6 %. It doesn't say if you occasionally eat it you risk is higher.
In addition, the "Class 1" quoted by the PP is misleading and possibly scare-mongering:IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
Source: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
yup I am actually taking a medication on the class 1 list (azathioprine). yes there is a link between it and cancer but it's not that high really.
I should also mention azathioprine is also on the WHO list of essential medications even though it's a group 1 carcinagen0 -
Meat. healthy. yes.0
-
We are omnivores, so we are designed to eat meat...that's what these canine teeth are for.2
-
I don't see any one food as healthy or unhealthy it is the diet on the whole that matters. That said offal provides a lot of nutrients.0
-
People been eating meat for thousands of years and it hasn't killed off everyone.
So I would say yes.0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up! I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
Cholesterol.
Yes, yes, I know, I know, healthy young adult men are capable of making all the cholesterol they require, granted they get enough fat in their diets (so low fat vegan is a very bad idea; if you must do vegan, at least be sure to get adequate fats!). The question is, what if you are very young (immature liver and huge need for brain building cholesterol), very old (declining liver function and higher need for cellular repair- one of cholesterol's main jobs), a pregnant or lactating woman (increased cholesterol needs for growing another person's brain and nervous system, not to mention high hormone production - cholesterol is a precursor for every hormone in your body), have hepatitis or some other chronic liver condition? Are you absolutely sure you'd be able to make enough? Cholesterol is so utterly vital to get our existence, that yes, we make our own (otherwise we would quickly die, especially without a dietary source). Where do vegans get their cholesterol, especially when/if their ability to manufacture it gets compromised?
This isn't a compelling argument to me. Obviously someone with a medical condition that precludes them from making cholesterol will need supplemental cholesterol from outside the body. This is no different than a type I diabetic who needs insulin because their body doesn't make it. You can't extrapolate medical conditions to make recommendations for healthy people.
For the groups you mentioned, can you produce any documented cases of cholesterol deficiency? What were the outcomes?
2 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up! I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
Cholesterol.
Yes, yes, I know, I know, healthy young adult men are capable of making all the cholesterol they require, granted they get enough fat in their diets (so low fat vegan is a very bad idea; if you must do vegan, at least be sure to get adequate fats!). The question is, what if you are very young (immature liver and huge need for brain building cholesterol), very old (declining liver function and higher need for cellular repair- one of cholesterol's main jobs), a pregnant or lactating woman (increased cholesterol needs for growing another person's brain and nervous system, not to mention high hormone production - cholesterol is a precursor for every hormone in your body), have hepatitis or some other chronic liver condition? Are you absolutely sure you'd be able to make enough? Cholesterol is so utterly vital to get our existence, that yes, we make our own (otherwise we would quickly die, especially without a dietary source). Where do vegans get their cholesterol, especially when/if their ability to manufacture it gets compromised?
This isn't a compelling argument to me. Obviously someone with a medical condition that precludes them from making cholesterol will need supplemental cholesterol from outside the body. This is no different than a type I diabetic who needs insulin because their body doesn't make it. You can't extrapolate medical conditions to make recommendations for healthy people.
For the groups you mentioned, can you produce any documented cases of cholesterol deficiency? What were the outcomes?
Someone asked what do animal products supply that can't be obtained through plants. The answer is cholesterol (there are no plant based sources. None.).
She also asked if it is ever "necessary" to eat meat. Again, there are certain times in life, and medical conditions, where cholesterol needs are higher, the ability to make it is compromised, or both. During those times it may be necessary to have a dietary source. Since the last fifty years or so the dogma pertaining to cholesterol has been "the lower the better" (though that seems to be (finally!) changing), I doubt you'd find good, well conducted RCTs showing the effects of deficiencies in cholesterol (it wouldn't fit the dogma). We do know from recent meta-analysis, that high cholesterol appears to be protective in the elderly (older people with high cholesterol tend to live longer than those with "normal" cholesterol). Normally the less cholesterol you eat, the more your liver produces, and vice verse. But, as we all know, our bodies don't always function "normally".
0 -
Wanted to add - total cholesterol levels of exclusively breastfed six month old infants are on average 200. Total cholesterol levels of exclusively formula fed six month old infants are on average 140. That's a pretty big discrepancy, and given that breastfeeding is the biological norm I think it represents a deficiency in formula. Babies have immature livers and cannot produce enough cholesterol to keep up with demand, without adequate dietary intake (even with adequate fat intake - formula is formulated to have similar fat content as breastmilk, but it doesn't have as much cholesterol, in the case of soy formula there is no cholesterol present). What does this mean? Not sure, except there is evidence that formula fed babies are more susceptible to illness and infection, and some studies show lifelong effects (though many of these studies do not control for confounding factors very well, admittedly).
Since the low fat, low cholesterol dogma started getting pushed, in the 1970's, we have seen an explosion in the incidence of childhood neurological disorders, childhood obesity, NAFLD among children, and type 2 diabetes among children. We've come a long way in the way we look at fat, but only recently (2015 guidelines) is cholesterol no longer a "nutrient of concern". I'd love to see some RCTs showing the effects of insufficient dietary cholesterol on children, but I'm afraid they'd be unethical.2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Wanted to add - total cholesterol levels of exclusively breastfed six month old infants are on average 200. Total cholesterol levels of exclusively formula fed six month old infants are on average 140. That's a pretty big discrepancy, and given that breastfeeding is the biological norm I think it represents a deficiency in formula. Babies have immature livers and cannot produce enough cholesterol to keep up with demand, without adequate dietary intake (even with adequate fat intake - formula is formulated to have similar fat content as breastmilk, but it doesn't have as much cholesterol, in the case of soy formula there is no cholesterol present). What does this mean? Not sure, except there is evidence that formula fed babies are more susceptible to illness and infection, and some studies show lifelong effects (though many of these studies do not control for confounding factors very well, admittedly).
Since the low fat, low cholesterol dogma started getting pushed, in the 1970's, we have seen an explosion in the incidence of childhood neurological disorders, childhood obesity, NAFLD among children, and type 2 diabetes among children. We've come a long way in the way we look at fat, but only recently (2015 guidelines) is cholesterol no longer a "nutrient of concern". I'd love to see some RCTs showing the effects of insufficient dietary cholesterol on children, but I'm afraid they'd be unethical.
But are children actually eating less fat and cholesterol since the "dogma" began getting pushed than they were before?0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up! I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
Cholesterol.
Yes, yes, I know, I know, healthy young adult men are capable of making all the cholesterol they require, granted they get enough fat in their diets (so low fat vegan is a very bad idea; if you must do vegan, at least be sure to get adequate fats!). The question is, what if you are very young (immature liver and huge need for brain building cholesterol), very old (declining liver function and higher need for cellular repair- one of cholesterol's main jobs), a pregnant or lactating woman (increased cholesterol needs for growing another person's brain and nervous system, not to mention high hormone production - cholesterol is a precursor for every hormone in your body), have hepatitis or some other chronic liver condition? Are you absolutely sure you'd be able to make enough? Cholesterol is so utterly vital to get our existence, that yes, we make our own (otherwise we would quickly die, especially without a dietary source). Where do vegans get their cholesterol, especially when/if their ability to manufacture it gets compromised?
This isn't a compelling argument to me. Obviously someone with a medical condition that precludes them from making cholesterol will need supplemental cholesterol from outside the body. This is no different than a type I diabetic who needs insulin because their body doesn't make it. You can't extrapolate medical conditions to make recommendations for healthy people.
For the groups you mentioned, can you produce any documented cases of cholesterol deficiency? What were the outcomes?
Someone asked what do animal products supply that can't be obtained through plants. The answer is cholesterol (there are no plant based sources. None.).
She also asked if it is ever "necessary" to eat meat. Again, there are certain times in life, and medical conditions, where cholesterol needs are higher, the ability to make it is compromised, or both. During those times it may be necessary to have a dietary source. Since the last fifty years or so the dogma pertaining to cholesterol has been "the lower the better" (though that seems to be (finally!) changing), I doubt you'd find good, well conducted RCTs showing the effects of deficiencies in cholesterol (it wouldn't fit the dogma). We do know from recent meta-analysis, that high cholesterol appears to be protective in the elderly (older people with high cholesterol tend to live longer than those with "normal" cholesterol). Normally the less cholesterol you eat, the more your liver produces, and vice verse. But, as we all know, our bodies don't always function "normally".
Ok, that makes more sense
I think I interpreted the question differently, and thought that you were saying that people should eat meat just in case this happens, not "here's a case where people should eat meat"
I hope I didn't seem aggressive or badgering. I just wanted to know the scientific basis of the claim I (mistakenly) thought you were making, which seemed pretty sweeping.
I'm definitely still in the low cholesterol "camp", but it will be interesting to see if the relationships are more complicated than we think. Incidentally, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that scientists actively try to maintain "dogma" and silence dissent. It's more of a conservatism thing, where no one wants to jump the gun on a new study or theory, until it can be reconciled with the current body of evidence. This is especially true for things that we currently have lots of data we've interpreted to show health risks.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Just like all food, it has to be taken in context of your overall diet. A diet of nothing but red meat is not healthy. A balanced diet that includes red meat is very healthy.
It's not as much fun as going around labeling everything individually as "healthy" or "unhealthy" but that's how it works.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Wanted to add - total cholesterol levels of exclusively breastfed six month old infants are on average 200. Total cholesterol levels of exclusively formula fed six month old infants are on average 140. That's a pretty big discrepancy, and given that breastfeeding is the biological norm I think it represents a deficiency in formula. Babies have immature livers and cannot produce enough cholesterol to keep up with demand, without adequate dietary intake (even with adequate fat intake - formula is formulated to have similar fat content as breastmilk, but it doesn't have as much cholesterol, in the case of soy formula there is no cholesterol present). What does this mean? Not sure, except there is evidence that formula fed babies are more susceptible to illness and infection, and some studies show lifelong effects (though many of these studies do not control for confounding factors very well, admittedly).
Since the low fat, low cholesterol dogma started getting pushed, in the 1970's, we have seen an explosion in the incidence of childhood neurological disorders, childhood obesity, NAFLD among children, and type 2 diabetes among children. We've come a long way in the way we look at fat, but only recently (2015 guidelines) is cholesterol no longer a "nutrient of concern". I'd love to see some RCTs showing the effects of insufficient dietary cholesterol on children, but I'm afraid they'd be unethical.
But are children actually eating less fat and cholesterol since the "dogma" began getting pushed than they were before?
I know it got so bad that pediatric groups came out in the 1980s (the high point of the low fat dogma) and strenuously cautioned against low fat diets for young children (I'm assuming they were starting to see the negative impact that such diets have on growing brains and bodies). Those cautions still exist. And, yes, I do believe the data exists that shows that we are, in fact, eating less cholesterol (and less saturated fat) than we did 30-40 years ago. We actually seem to be hitting the (now outdated) cholesterol guidelines pretty close:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/databriefs/calories.pdf
"The Dietary Guidelines recommendation for cholesterol
intake is a limit of 300 milligrams (mg) per day (as shown
on the Nutrition Facts food labels). On average, males
consume 307 mg of dietary cholesterol per day and females
consume 225 mg per day (figure 3). Cholesterol intakes
are lower in young children."
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »richieZavaleta wrote: »Keep it up! I have been vegetarian for 3 years. My alergies went away, my weight is better and my cholesteral is 146. My doctor likes my bloodwork. I think we can also ask the question is eating meat unnessesary.
I think this is the real question. Of course consuming meat can/does have nutritional benefits, I'm not entirely sure why that's being debated. But is it actually necessary in 2016 for us to eat meat? What can meat provide that plants cannot (or cannot substitute)?
Cholesterol.
Yes, yes, I know, I know, healthy young adult men are capable of making all the cholesterol they require, granted they get enough fat in their diets (so low fat vegan is a very bad idea; if you must do vegan, at least be sure to get adequate fats!). The question is, what if you are very young (immature liver and huge need for brain building cholesterol), very old (declining liver function and higher need for cellular repair- one of cholesterol's main jobs), a pregnant or lactating woman (increased cholesterol needs for growing another person's brain and nervous system, not to mention high hormone production - cholesterol is a precursor for every hormone in your body), have hepatitis or some other chronic liver condition? Are you absolutely sure you'd be able to make enough? Cholesterol is so utterly vital to get our existence, that yes, we make our own (otherwise we would quickly die, especially without a dietary source). Where do vegans get their cholesterol, especially when/if their ability to manufacture it gets compromised?
This isn't a compelling argument to me. Obviously someone with a medical condition that precludes them from making cholesterol will need supplemental cholesterol from outside the body. This is no different than a type I diabetic who needs insulin because their body doesn't make it. You can't extrapolate medical conditions to make recommendations for healthy people.
For the groups you mentioned, can you produce any documented cases of cholesterol deficiency? What were the outcomes?
Someone asked what do animal products supply that can't be obtained through plants. The answer is cholesterol (there are no plant based sources. None.).
She also asked if it is ever "necessary" to eat meat. Again, there are certain times in life, and medical conditions, where cholesterol needs are higher, the ability to make it is compromised, or both. During those times it may be necessary to have a dietary source. Since the last fifty years or so the dogma pertaining to cholesterol has been "the lower the better" (though that seems to be (finally!) changing), I doubt you'd find good, well conducted RCTs showing the effects of deficiencies in cholesterol (it wouldn't fit the dogma). We do know from recent meta-analysis, that high cholesterol appears to be protective in the elderly (older people with high cholesterol tend to live longer than those with "normal" cholesterol). Normally the less cholesterol you eat, the more your liver produces, and vice verse. But, as we all know, our bodies don't always function "normally".
Ok, that makes more sense
I think I interpreted the question differently, and thought that you were saying that people should eat meat just in case this happens, not "here's a case where people should eat meat"
I hope I didn't seem aggressive or badgering. I just wanted to know the scientific basis of the claim I (mistakenly) thought you were making, which seemed pretty sweeping.
I'm definitely still in the low cholesterol "camp", but it will be interesting to see if the relationships are more complicated than we think. Incidentally, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that scientists actively try to maintain "dogma" and silence dissent. It's more of a conservatism thing, where no one wants to jump the gun on a new study or theory, until it can be reconciled with the current body of evidence. This is especially true for things that we currently have lots of data we've interpreted to show health risks.
No, no, not aggressive at all. I was really just kind of musing anyway She basically asked if meat is necessary, and I took it as 'is meat *ever* necessary' and I could definitely see situations where it might very well be. 0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »We are omnivores, so we are designed to eat meat...that's what these canine teeth are for.
This argument makes no sense. Have you seen what a Gorilla's mouth look like? Have a look at our GI tract too compared to the carnivorous animals. It's long, not short. If we're doing an appeal to nature argument we can also look at our other anatomical features. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, small mouths and we have digestive enzymes in our mouth (unlike carnivores). We're incredibly slow too, we'd make *kitten* hunters without weapons. Our anatomy and physiology sets us up as predominant herbivores that are capable of eating meat..not meaning we're necessarily meant to.4 -
amorfati601070 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »We are omnivores, so we are designed to eat meat...that's what these canine teeth are for.
This argument makes no sense. Have you seen what a Gorilla's mouth look like? Have a look at our GI tract too compared to the carnivorous animals. It's long, not short. If we're doing an appeal to nature argument we can also look at our other anatomical features. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, small mouths and we have digestive enzymes in our mouth (unlike carnivores). We're incredibly slow too, we'd make *kitten* hunters without weapons. Our anatomy and physiology sets us up as predominant herbivores that are capable of eating meat..not meaning we're necessarily meant to.
This doesn't make sense.
We are not gorillas.2 -
amorfati601070 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »We are omnivores, so we are designed to eat meat...that's what these canine teeth are for.
This argument makes no sense. Have you seen what a Gorilla's mouth look like? Have a look at our GI tract too compared to the carnivorous animals. It's long, not short. If we're doing an appeal to nature argument we can also look at our other anatomical features. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, small mouths and we have digestive enzymes in our mouth (unlike carnivores). We're incredibly slow too, we'd make *kitten* hunters without weapons. Our anatomy and physiology sets us up as predominant herbivores that are capable of eating meat..not meaning we're necessarily meant to.
This doesn't make sense.
We are not gorillas.
The point was that gorillas are herbivore (aside from insects), yet they have huge canine teeth..they don't use them for eating meat. If we had a mouth that was "designed" for eating meat it would look like this.
But instead it's closer to this..
2 -
There's some talks and research that debunks the whole China study. It's a very flawed study that seems to make sense on the surface but falls flat if you really pick it apart. Meat that is not treated with hormones and from humanely treated animals who lived a healthy life is very heathy for you. But not too much of it. Eating meat as the main part of every meal is not a good idea unless maybe if you are super physically active. Also how your own body digests meat is important to consider too. Everyone is a bit different.0
-
amorfati601070 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »We are omnivores, so we are designed to eat meat...that's what these canine teeth are for.
This argument makes no sense. Have you seen what a Gorilla's mouth look like? Have a look at our GI tract too compared to the carnivorous animals. It's long, not short. If we're doing an appeal to nature argument we can also look at our other anatomical features. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, small mouths and we have digestive enzymes in our mouth (unlike carnivores). We're incredibly slow too, we'd make *kitten* hunters without weapons. Our anatomy and physiology sets us up as predominant herbivores that are capable of eating meat..not meaning we're necessarily meant to.
You can't compare us to gorillas. A lot of our anatomical features adapt us for hunting prey, and jeopardize the need for the stereotypical characteristics of a carnivore like sharp teeth and short GI tract. So many features like bipedalism and sweating adapt us for endurance hunting, while technology like fire (cooking) and weapons (hunting) replace the need for long canines and retractable claws. The modern human is the classic example of an omnivore, feeatures of both carnivores and herbivores. We just haven't had enough time to evolve to shed these vestigial structures characteristic to herbivores, like wisdom teeth (chewing plants) and the appendix (digesting tough plant tissue).3 -
The point was that gorillas are herbivore (aside from insects), yet they have huge canine teeth..they don't use them for eating meat. If we had a mouth that was "designed" for eating meat it would look like this.
gorillas eat meat. deer have been known to eat meat too and scavenge off carcasass. Bears hunt deer, wolves eat nuts and berries. most animals are probly ominvoris , if only to a small extent.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100305-first-proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/
3 -
Individual foods are not healthy or unhealthy, only a total diet can be either. Too much lettuce would be unhealthy, that doesn't make lettuce unhealthy. The only way an individual food could really be considered unhealthy is either, if it is poisonous or if a person is allergic to it. I eat plenty of things that people may say are unhealthy, but there is nothing wrong with my diet. I'm at about 12% bodyfat, have a resting heart rate between 55 and 60 and have plenty of lean mass and bone density, so eating occasional doughnuts, cake or ice cream will not do anyone any harm.
Admittedly I am vegetarian, but that's nothing to do with meat being bad for me, I'm just not prepared to support the things that the meat industry does.0 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »My debate: eat however you want. It's not worth arguing over cause you're in control of your diet. IMO we have evolved eating meat for thousands of years. I prefer keeping meat in my diet for its nutrition, but I'm not going to argue with someone that they have to eat meat, cause at the end of the day, they're going to believe in what they think is right regardless of my opinion. I'd rather enjoy my life and diet, rather than argue about it lol.
Well said0 -
amorfati601070 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »We are omnivores, so we are designed to eat meat...that's what these canine teeth are for.
This argument makes no sense. Have you seen what a Gorilla's mouth look like? Have a look at our GI tract too compared to the carnivorous animals. It's long, not short. If we're doing an appeal to nature argument we can also look at our other anatomical features. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, small mouths and we have digestive enzymes in our mouth (unlike carnivores). We're incredibly slow too, we'd make *kitten* hunters without weapons. Our anatomy and physiology sets us up as predominant herbivores that are capable of eating meat..not meaning we're necessarily meant to.
Did not say we were carnivorous, said we were omnivores. We are designed to eat and thrive on many diets. I really don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
Personally I am not going to waste my time arguing over nonsense like this. Like politics and religion, you will NEVER get someone to change their stance once they are dug in with debating. People change their minds in private, when it serves them and when they come to it on their own.
Me, I eat everything. Sometimes I eat a lot of meat, sometimes I can go for months without eating meat. To each his own...5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Wanted to add - total cholesterol levels of exclusively breastfed six month old infants are on average 200. Total cholesterol levels of exclusively formula fed six month old infants are on average 140. That's a pretty big discrepancy, and given that breastfeeding is the biological norm I think it represents a deficiency in formula. Babies have immature livers and cannot produce enough cholesterol to keep up with demand, without adequate dietary intake (even with adequate fat intake - formula is formulated to have similar fat content as breastmilk, but it doesn't have as much cholesterol, in the case of soy formula there is no cholesterol present). What does this mean? Not sure, except there is evidence that formula fed babies are more susceptible to illness and infection, and some studies show lifelong effects (though many of these studies do not control for confounding factors very well, admittedly).
Since the low fat, low cholesterol dogma started getting pushed, in the 1970's, we have seen an explosion in the incidence of childhood neurological disorders, childhood obesity, NAFLD among children, and type 2 diabetes among children. We've come a long way in the way we look at fat, but only recently (2015 guidelines) is cholesterol no longer a "nutrient of concern". I'd love to see some RCTs showing the effects of insufficient dietary cholesterol on children, but I'm afraid they'd be unethical.
But are children actually eating less fat and cholesterol since the "dogma" began getting pushed than they were before?
Highly unlikely. For everyone (not simply children) total fat has not declined, and some types of sat fat have increased (cheese, for example). Red meat is interesting, since compared to the 1970s (a high point) it appears to be down, but compared to other times (arguably with better eating patterns than the '70s), like the '50s, it's still higher. Here's a source: http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
Also, lots of the foods that people anti sugar worry about (all the ultraprocessed stuff) tend to be high in fat (including sat fat and cholesterol) as well as sugar. For example, the book Salt Sugar Fat talks about the increase in cheese consumption as a result of these products.0 -
amorfati601070 wrote: »amorfati601070 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »We are omnivores, so we are designed to eat meat...that's what these canine teeth are for.
This argument makes no sense. Have you seen what a Gorilla's mouth look like? Have a look at our GI tract too compared to the carnivorous animals. It's long, not short. If we're doing an appeal to nature argument we can also look at our other anatomical features. We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth, small mouths and we have digestive enzymes in our mouth (unlike carnivores). We're incredibly slow too, we'd make *kitten* hunters without weapons. Our anatomy and physiology sets us up as predominant herbivores that are capable of eating meat..not meaning we're necessarily meant to.
This doesn't make sense.
We are not gorillas.
The point was that gorillas are herbivore (aside from insects), yet they have huge canine teeth..they don't use them for eating meat. If we had a mouth that was "designed" for eating meat it would look like this.
So gorillas are herbivores apart from the fact they're not.6 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMXk5Z6-IHYThis discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions