Veggies vs Meat
Replies
-
Okay, I see you have had Stat 101, correlation vs causation. Since you are making this argument, the burden is on you to show that there is no causation. The argument was made, by the way by a Ph.D, Biochemist who not only knows something about statistics, but who, as part of a sophisticated laboratory has a resident statistician available to check correlations. I don't really expect you will be able to do a regression analysis (for simple data, Stat 102), or Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (Stat 103) I would appreciate it, however if you could give me some RATIONAL explanation of why you think there was correlation without causation. Please, not "common sense."
Can you put that into plain simple English for us normal people?
Actually, if you want to pretend to get fancy, we can go there. A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify and independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). If you regress x on y, you can standardize to get the correlation coefficient, or, you can take the square root of the r-squared from the regression. There are a large number of applications for which I would not be particularly inclined to use either technique.
As for not letting correlations rule your life, I'll take reasonable evidence, based on research, even correlational research, over "common sense." Also, there is a fair amount of research in nutrition that uses true experiments, which provide much better evidence for causation than research that is purely correlational in nature.
Of course, science is riddled with examples of things that are common sense that are simply not true. In fact, Quantum Physics completely defies common sense. Point is correlations are useful (and more useful than common sense) but not to assume causality, you need to do more work to prove your hypothesis based on the observed correlation is true.
Mutt, take a good look at what Millicent said. She obviously knows more about statistics than both of us put together. She certainly cleared up a few things for me, particularly when she said, " A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify an independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). " That is a beautiful, clear explanation. In my version of statistics, I always felt that all seemingly possible independent variables had to be considered before causation could be assumed. That is, you had to show lack of correlation for all other possible explanations. Of course there are always an infinite number of other possible explanations. She is saying, if I understand her correctly, that if you have a reasonable explanation of causality and the data confirms it, you probably have causality. Millicent, if you are hovering around out there please correct me if I am wrong.
Thus, if my understanding of what Millicent said is correct. Case closed. Unless you can come up with a reasonable variable that was not considered we have causation, or more precisely, probable causation. However, I would also note that she said that a controlled experiment is always preferable. Of course I agree, but that is not always possible.
Indeed, I think she knows more about statistics than you, me and a few other people thrown in for good measure. However, you said it, unless you have a reasonable variable that was not considered.... Something as complex as the China Study is riddled with variables that they may not have considered. We cannot know everything, this is why correlations are only useful to a point. The statistical methods are only as good as the data provided. We haven't even touched on selection bias although admittedly Campbell did post his raw data.0 -
Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.
Look up the definition of carnivore;
A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,
Mainly or exclusively.
Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.
Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.
And everything I have read suggests we humans are herbivores that have adapted to live on an omnivorous diet.
The fact that you hold that belief is stating the obvious! I'm trying to understand your point. Someone asked are dogs carnivores. Did you think I was saying since dogs are carnivores humans are too?0 -
@Elizabeth. No time here, to write a proper response. I didn't accuse you of being incapable of debate. I merely stated that I suspect you may be circling back here because there's something about the discussion which makes you do that--boring or not. When I find myself doing that, sometimes it's worth looking inward as to what may be motivating that.
Really...if you read an insult in what I said, I really wasn't intending to insult you.0 -
@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.
I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?
I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."
By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.
As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.
With that, I am done here.
Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.
I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.0 -
Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.
Look up the definition of carnivore;
A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,
Mainly or exclusively.
Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.
Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.
And everything I have read suggests we humans are herbivores that have adapted to live on an omnivorous diet.
The fact that you hold that belief is stating the obvious! I'm trying to understand your point. Someone asked are dogs carnivores. Did you think I was saying since dogs are carnivores humans are too?
It was me that asked if they considered dogs carnivores, as they also eat plants and grains. Just as humans clearly evolved to eat plants, but can eat meat as well. If it's cooked. I don't believe we digest raw meat very well? That to me would be another factor in favour of us being biological herbivores. Carnivorous species digest meat better when it's raw. We mostly have to have it cooked.0 -
@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.
I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?
I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."
By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.
As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.
With that, I am done here.
Elizabeth, thank you for your articulate and informative post. If I have belittled you, I assure you it was unintentional. However, your previous posts seemed to consist only of photos of stakes and steaks and annotated rappers. Pardon me if I didn't understand that you actually do have a brain. You seem to have taken great pains to hide it.
That having been said, let me also assure you that if you felt "cruel or heartless" because of what you eat, I most assuredly did not force you to feel that way. I am stating what I feel about cruelty to animals, which I deplore, and if you feel "cruel and heartless" perhaps you are. For me, and a great number of other people, what you eat IS extremely important, and shows a moral or ethical choice or lack thereof. I am not going to refrain from talking about that for anyone or to spare anyone's feelings. If you felt guilty, perhaps you should examine why. I am not assigning guilt or casting aspersions.
Anyway, if you have a point of view to express, why not do so? Why resort to photos?0 -
@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.
I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?
I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."
By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.
As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.
With that, I am done here.
Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.
I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.
Mutt, I would be lying if I didn't say that I consider vegetarianism to be morally superior to meat-eating. Most vegetarians do feel that way, but very few are willing to say it. Having said that, I would never make a statement that I was "morally superior" to you or anyone else, because, 1. as you pointed out, I know nothing about you, and 2. such a statement would be out of place and presumptuous. I certainly consider vegetarianism to be the most moral way of eating, but virtue consists of more than just what you eat. You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.0 -
Gasp. A contradiction and a rationalization all in one. You say that vegetarianism is morally superior as an ideal, but not as it to each individually. Actually not really a rationalization. You are saying you feel superior, but don't want to hurt his feelings.@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.
I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?
I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."
By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.
As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.
With that, I am done here.
Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.
I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.
Mutt, I would be lying if I didn't say that I consider vegetarianism to be morally superior to meat-eating. Most vegetarians do feel that way, but very few are willing to say it. Having said that, I would never make a statement that I was "morally superior" to you or anyone else, because, 1. as you pointed out, I know nothing about you, and 2. such a statement would be out of place and presumptuous. I certainly consider vegetarianism to be the most moral way of eating, but virtue consists of more than just what you eat. You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.
Just say how you feel and everything else will work itself out.0 -
Gasp. A contradiction and a rationalization all in one. You say that vegetarianism is morally superior as an ideal, but not as it to each individually. Actually not really a rationalization. You are saying you feel superior, but don't want to hurt his feelings.@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.
I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?
I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."
By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.
As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.
With that, I am done here.
Good post. I'm not going to say that about the vegetarians on this thread but there was one on the original thread who kept saying they were sick of being put down for pursuing what they considered to be the morally superior way of life. That irked me considerably, it's fine to argue the science but please don't tell me you are morally superior particularly when you know nothing about me.
I do agree that the arguments around correlation vs causation have become somewhat circular. Although it's fun to debate and I've expanded my understanding in some areas perhaps we're not getting anywhere anymore.
Mutt, I would be lying if I didn't say that I consider vegetarianism to be morally superior to meat-eating. Most vegetarians do feel that way, but very few are willing to say it. Having said that, I would never make a statement that I was "morally superior" to you or anyone else, because, 1. as you pointed out, I know nothing about you, and 2. such a statement would be out of place and presumptuous. I certainly consider vegetarianism to be the most moral way of eating, but virtue consists of more than just what you eat. You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.
Just say how you feel and everything else will work itself out.
I said that vegetarianism is the most moral way to eat, but I did not say that all vegetarians are more moral than all non vegetarians. See my Hitler example. That is neither a contradiction nor a rationalization. Even though I am a vegetarian, I would have a hard time claiming to be moral if I sold cocaine to children or was a murderer for hire. I don't think that is so hard to understand. And yes, I do believe in saying what I think.0 -
Excluding ANY other aspect of a person's life, do you feel morally superior to someone who eats meat?I said that vegetarianism is the most moral way to eat, but I did not say that all vegetarians are more moral than all non vegetarians. See my Hitler example. That is neither a contradiction nor a rationalization. Even though I am a vegetarian, I would have a hard time claiming to be moral if I sold cocaine to children or was a murderer for hire. I don't think that is so hard to understand. And yes, I do believe in saying what I think.0 -
It was me that asked if they considered dogs carnivores, as they also eat plants and grains. Just as humans clearly evolved to eat plants, but can eat meat as well. If it's cooked. I don't believe we digest raw meat very well? That to me would be another factor in favour of us being biological herbivores. Carnivorous species digest meat better when it's raw. We mostly have to have it cooked.
Agreed, I've read that we don't digest raw meat as well as cooked. Cooking food allowed us to extract more energy and nutrition allowing bigger brains, smaller stomachs.
Saying that, stable isotope studies indicate that as far back as 3 million years our ancestors were eating a fair amount of animal flesh. Fossil record also shows evidence of animals skinned using stone age tools as far back as 2.5 million years. Don't have a reference for that right now.0 -
Excluding ANY other aspect of a person's life, do you feel morally superior to someone who eats meat?I said that vegetarianism is the most moral way to eat, but I did not say that all vegetarians are more moral than all non vegetarians. See my Hitler example. That is neither a contradiction nor a rationalization. Even though I am a vegetarian, I would have a hard time claiming to be moral if I sold cocaine to children or was a murderer for hire. I don't think that is so hard to understand. And yes, I do believe in saying what I think.
First of all, you cannot "exclude any other aspects of a person's life." Again, see my Hitler example. Second , as I also said, it would be presumptuous to make any such claims, and I never would. Do I fee good about eating vegetarian? Yes, of course. Do I feel guilt-free eating vegetarian? Yes of course.0 -
The only reason I ask for clarification is because many times I when I have talked to a vegan, I sense a air of superiority or smugness. No, not all, so I doubt this is coming from me. But your reasoning simply confirms what I observe.
Excluding ANY other aspect of a person's life, do you feel morally superior to someone who eats meat?I said that vegetarianism is the most moral way to eat, but I did not say that all vegetarians are more moral than all non vegetarians. See my Hitler example. That is neither a contradiction nor a rationalization. Even though I am a vegetarian, I would have a hard time claiming to be moral if I sold cocaine to children or was a murderer for hire. I don't think that is so hard to understand. And yes, I do believe in saying what I think.
First of all, you cannot "exclude any other aspects of a person's life." Again, see my Hitler example. Second , as I also said, it would be presumptuous to make any such claims, and I never would. Do I fee good about eating vegetarian? Yes, of course. Do I feel guilt-free eating vegetarian? Yes of course.0 -
Wow, so many pages... why don't you all stop arguing and go burn some calories. Go for a walk, lift some weights - GET OFF YOUR A$$E$ and GO DO SOMETHING .. I just burned 951 calories and I'm about to go burn some more. & if you go to www.veganbodybuilding.com - you will see that people get the same results whether or not they eat meat - it doesn't matter.0
-
But this is the internet. Someone is always wrong.Wow, so many pages... why don't you all stop arguing and go burn some calories. Go for a walk, lift some weights - GET OFF YOUR A$$E$ and GO DO SOMETHING .. I just burned 951 calories and I'm about to go burn some more. & if you go to www.veganbodybuilding.com - you will see that people get the same results whether or not they eat meat - it doesn't matter.0 -
It was me that asked if they considered dogs carnivores, as they also eat plants and grains. Just as humans clearly evolved to eat plants, but can eat meat as well. If it's cooked. I don't believe we digest raw meat very well? That to me would be another factor in favour of us being biological herbivores. Carnivorous species digest meat better when it's raw. We mostly have to have it cooked.
Agreed, I've read that we don't digest raw meat as well as cooked. Cooking food allowed us to extract more energy and nutrition allowing bigger brains, smaller stomachs.
Saying that, stable isotope studies indicate that as far back as 3 million years our ancestors were eating a fair amount of animal flesh. Fossil record also shows evidence of animals skinned using stone age tools as far back as 2.5 million years. Don't have a reference for that right now.
The Australopithecines (A. anamensis, A. afarensis, A africanus, A. robustus, and A. Boisei) all had dentition that would indicate they were plant eaters, i.e., massive back teeth, jaws, and facial and cranial structures, suggesting a diet demanding excessive grinding and powerful crushing. The timeline for Australopithecines is to about one million years ago.Homo also had robust dentition. Again, when the Australoithecines or Homo could scavange a kill, I am sure they ate meat. Also, creatures such as worms were probably also on the diet. I would resist any claim that our ancestors, prior to Anatomically Modern Humans, approximately 150,000 years ago had a diet consisting largely of meat.0 -
You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.
MYTH! There are letters he wrote talking about how sausages were his favourite food. I have no idea where the myth comes from, but myth indeed it is. He wasn't teetotal either.0 -
You may or may not know that Hitler was a vegetarian (for health, not ethical reasons), and he was obviously far from moral.
MYTH! There are letters he wrote talking about how sausages were his favourite food. I have no idea where the myth comes from, but myth indeed it is. He wasn't teetotal either.
I saw a documentary on him which said , as you said that he loved meat, particularly pheasant, but that he had some severe gastro-intestinal anomalies that made him violently ill when he ate meat. So, let's just say that for an evil SOB he ate a lot of veggies.0 -
Wow, so many pages... why don't you all stop arguing and go burn some calories. Go for a walk, lift some weights - GET OFF YOUR A$$E$ and GO DO SOMETHING .. I just burned 951 calories and I'm about to go burn some more. & if you go to www.veganbodybuilding.com - you will see that people get the same results whether or not they eat meat - it doesn't matter.
Sometimes we need to exercise our muscles and other times our brains. You should try the later every now and then.
JK! 0 -
It was me that asked if they considered dogs carnivores, as they also eat plants and grains. Just as humans clearly evolved to eat plants, but can eat meat as well. If it's cooked. I don't believe we digest raw meat very well? That to me would be another factor in favour of us being biological herbivores. Carnivorous species digest meat better when it's raw. We mostly have to have it cooked.
Agreed, I've read that we don't digest raw meat as well as cooked. Cooking food allowed us to extract more energy and nutrition allowing bigger brains, smaller stomachs.
Saying that, stable isotope studies indicate that as far back as 3 million years our ancestors were eating a fair amount of animal flesh. Fossil record also shows evidence of animals skinned using stone age tools as far back as 2.5 million years. Don't have a reference for that right now.
The Australopithecines (A. anamensis, A. afarensis, A africanus, A. robustus, and A. Boisei) all had dentition that would indicate they were plant eaters, i.e., massive back teeth, jaws, and facial and cranial structures, suggesting a diet demanding excessive grinding and powerful crushing. The timeline for Australopithecines is to about one million years ago.Homo also had robust dentition. Again, when the Australoithecines or Homo could scavange a kill, I am sure they ate meat. Also, creatures such as worms were probably also on the diet. I would resist any claim that our ancestors, prior to Anatomically Modern Humans, approximately 150,000 years ago had a diet consisting largely of meat.
So I remembered where I saw those claims and found the discussion paper. It's a debate between Loren Cordain and Campbell (how appropriate). Here is a page that hosts the PDF containing the debate (you can find it around the web by googling for it as well):
http://crossfitbirmingham.ning.com/forum/topics/the-protein-debate-loren
Oddly, Campbell makes almost no citations. Cordain's citation list is huge. Just saying.0 -
But this is the internet. Someone is always wrong.Wow, so many pages... why don't you all stop arguing and go burn some calories. Go for a walk, lift some weights - GET OFF YOUR A$$E$ and GO DO SOMETHING .. I just burned 951 calories and I'm about to go burn some more. & if you go to www.veganbodybuilding.com - you will see that people get the same results whether or not they eat meat - it doesn't matter.
Yeah, so much to do...0 -
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".0
-
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".
Agreed. Let's go get some meat. Polish or Italian sausage for you, dear?0 -
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".
Agreed. Let's go get some meat. Polish or Italian sausage for you, dear?
fnarr fnarr0 -
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".
Agreed. Let's go get some meat. Polish or Italian sausage for you, dear?
Polish! And then some Italian!0 -
Amen to that.0
-
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".
Agreed. Let's go get some meat. Polish or Italian sausage for you, dear?
fnarr fnarr
No fears, fteale. The day is drawing nearer when animal husbandry--a most inefficient way to feed our population--will be unsustainable. The crops we now feed farm animals will go to feed people directly. In the process of this, meat will increase in price to such an extent that most people will find it unaffordable. Right now, in the US, government subsidies make meat and dairy possible for the average person to buy. Without those subsidies, the cost of these animal products would make them treats, not mainstays. Sorry, sausage eaters...you will need to find new amusements.0 -
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".
Agreed. Let's go get some meat. Polish or Italian sausage for you, dear?
Polish! And then some Italian!
I'm not picky about what country my sausages are from.0 -
Ten pages and we're still actually debating the original topic? SMH .... If my friends were here, this thread would actually be full of "fun and games".
Agreed. Let's go get some meat. Polish or Italian sausage for you, dear?
Polish! And then some Italian!
I'm not picky about what country my sausages are from.
I'm glad I went through middle school so I understand this pun. It almost went over my head, but PHEW!!, I finally figured it out. Yay, me!0 -
i think a balanced diet is best. you should be eating both meat and veggies. >~< thats how we've been eating for thousands of years. what makes one suddenly decide that cutting out a food group is a good idea? thats just obsurd.0
This 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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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