species-specific diet

jjrichard83

Every animal has a species-specific diet. So why is it so hard to come to the conclusion what the idea diet is for humans? There are already many studies that show what diet you need to live a longer life (statistically).

My guess is the almighty dollar. Money is what makes the world go round - supports fake claims, and keeps people in business. I don't see many fake claims about the vegan lifestyle (unless it comes from godless MLM's).

I believe it's ignorant to think that humans are the only known species who don't require specific diets. There has to be an ideal one...

And to play devils advocate (many of you already know I believe a vegetarian diet (mostly raw) is the best for our health) - I don't think it's the absence of meat that makes it healthy. Even though pretty much all meat is laden with harmful chemicals that we consume & that factory farms are one of the largest contributors to pollution and world hunger. I think it's the added amount of fruits and veggies that are providing the best benefits. People who eat more of that leave less room for other junk the body doesn't need (processed junk, breads, pasta, etc).

Also vegans and vegetarians are less likely to drink, smoke, and make less healthy choices in general, which could also result in the added years in the life expectancy.

So if you knew of a diet that added 6 - 15 years onto the average followers life ( 8%+ longer than others) AND have the last number of years in your life healthier closer to the end, what would hold you back from making those choices?

Is it just not wanting to admit your diet has been wrong all these years?
There is not enough evidence to support the idea that a vegetarian based diet is better?
Eating habits well established, and don't want to change them now?
Or something else?

Like I said, I dont believe it's the absence of meat (organic is much better than the alternative), but the added benefits of veggies and fruits that would help this better quality and longevity increase.

Btw - here is a small list that believe in what I just wrote (note- none of these research facilities get funding from the fruit and vegetable associations) :

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics - 50 years + studies with over 96,000 case subjects throughout the US and Canada.
Loma Linda University in California (vegetarians live 7 years and vegans 15 years longer)
Harvard Nurses Health Study - 35 year follow up studies - 15,000 americans
Oxford University - 45000 adults over 20 years
German Cancer research Centre - 1904 completed the 21 year study

Here are a few reporting the opposite (note there are not many studies in favour of this):

A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found that the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease was 26 percent lower among vegans compared to regular meat eaters, but 34 percent lower among lacto-ovo vegetarians (vegetarians that eat dairy products and eggs) and pescetarians (those that eat fish but no other meat).
Occasional meat eaters, vegetarians and fish eaters had similar risks of mortality from all-causes. These were lower than mortality rates from regular meat eaters. However, vegans had mortality rates identical to those from regular meat eaters.
Conclusion: a meta-analysis of 5 prospective studies showed that both vegetarians and vegans had lower mortality rates from heart disease than regular meat eaters. However, in the case of vegans, this did not lead to lower risk of mortality from all causes.

^ so technically that still supports that vegetarians live longer.

Russell Smith, PhD, in his massive review study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates actually decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much higher for vegetarians.

Lastly - there is evidence in animals (cats & mice) that a dramatically reduced calorie intake (but highly nutrient dense) increase their life expectancy by over 40%! These studies have not taken place on humans, but it could be the next big thing for us if we want to live past 100 & healthy. What has the most nutrient dense qualities? Fruits and veggies!

skinnyinjapan1

tldr

but after reading the first paragraph;

Pandas eat bamboo all day and nothing but bamboo. Why do they eat all day? Because bamboo has almost no nutritional value. Is it thus the best food for them? No. Do they want to eat anything else? No.

I therefore do not believe there is such a thing as a perfect inherent diet for every species.

Although it would be awesome to have a diet that would make you not have to go to the toilet ever again. Imagine that!

benol1

Thank you JJ for your interesting contribution!

SteveJWatson

Because humans cover the planet and exist in most ecosystems somewhere. Part of the reason that we are so successful as a species is that we are very good at being generalists - look at our dentition, its about as unspecific as you can get.

Of course, our genetics play a part, because different foods are more plentiful in different geographic areas and assuming until recently (in evolutionary terms) populations moved more slowly, then natural selection would have put pressure on those individuals least able to process the diet available locally.

Ergo; there is no 'ultimate' diet for Homo sapiens, its down to the individual to find theirs.

And; i've seen some awful crap spouted about the health benefits of vegan diets, just like any other. Vegan diets can be better or worse for you than diets that include meats/eggs etc. You can be a vegan and exist on Fry's chocolate creams if you like.... A vege freind of mine used to eat almost nothing but pizza.....

jjrichard83

just because we don't understand something doesn't make it less true.

Kinda like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxuZnMEcGVY

jjrichard83

tldr

but after reading the first paragraph;

Pandas eat bamboo all day and nothing but bamboo. Why do they eat all day? Because bamboo has almost no nutritional value. Is it thus the best food for them? No. Do they want to eat anything else? No.

I therefore do not believe there is such a thing as a perfect inherent diet for every species.

Although it would be awesome to have a diet that would make you not have to go to the toilet ever again. Imagine that!

Pandas do not eat much else - and because bamboo doesn't really have many nutrients - they need to consume huge quantities of it. Spending nearly 16 hours a day eating just bamboo... They have been known to eat some other plants and even occasionally small animals if needed. They will sometimes but rarely eat bananas, oranges, fish and honey. It would suck for humans to have to consume food for 10+ hours a day to survive...

jjrichard83

Because humans cover the planet and exist in most ecosystems somewhere. Part of the reason that we are so successful as a species is that we are very good at being generalists - look at our dentition, its about as unspecific as you can get.

Of course, our genetics play a part, because different foods are more plentiful in different geographic areas and assuming until recently (in evolutionary terms) populations moved more slowly, then natural selection would have put pressure on those individuals least able to process the diet available locally.

Ergo; there is no 'ultimate' diet for Homo sapiens, its down to the individual to find theirs.

And; i've seen some awful crap spouted about the health benefits of vegan diets, just like any other. Vegan diets can be better or worse for you than diets that include meats/eggs etc. You can be a vegan and exist on Fry's chocolate creams if you like.... A vege freind of mine used to eat almost nothing but pizza.....

I had a vegetarian friend who only ate fake meat, and processed frozen food. I know what you mean! lol.

As far as living everywhere - Inuit inhabited areas (very cold with high fat/blubber diets) live 15 years less than the average Canadian (1991-2001 study). In this time, Canada's life expectancy has rose by 3 years, and the inuit's has not. In the three five-year periods studied, from 1989 through 2003, the infant mortality rate was approximately four times higher in the Inuit-inhabited areas, compared with all of Canada.
Only 25% of their population (not counting infant mortality) will live to see their 60th birthday & their cancer risks are through the roof compared to the rest of Canada (both meat and veggie eaters).

Just because you CAN live off certain foods doesn't mean it's the healthiest choice was my point.

Lyadeia

So basically my diet is "wrong" because I am not one of those holier than thou vegetarians who go around saying that everyone else's diet is wrong.

jjrichard83

So basically my diet is "wrong" because I am not one of those holier than thou vegetarians who go around saying that everyone else's diet is wrong.

I'm not a vegetarian either, but in short... Yes. Our diets appear wrong according so many studies, our biology, and straight up facts. Hard to swallow for some people I know, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Hard to find one strong study that actually disagrees with it. - However I hate to call you out as being ignorant but... I did mention that meat may not be the culprit, and the added amount of fruits and veggies and healthier choices in general in the diet could actually be the result of a longer, healthier life, not the vegetarian/vegan diet itself. The fact that less of bad foods is eaten, making more room for healthier options could be the real cause, not the elimination of meat. Just a theory, but one that meat eaters should be happy with considering the lopsided evidence.

girlinahat

I don't think it correct to state that every animal have a species-specific diet. Pandas have been cited before with bamboo, and yet bamboo is NOT the ideal diet for them. They choose bamboo over other nutrient sources because of their own awkwardness. Bamboo is a terrible source of food.

But how do you measure 'ideal' in terms of diet? Humans, like rats, have evoled to be omnivores. We are chance-eaters. Early hunter-gatherers ate what they could get, whether that be berries or slower moving creatures. Our 'success' if measured in evolutionary terms is that we have colonised all parts of the planet and adapted to survive in different locations. The fact that we are omnivores allows us to do this.

Is longevity of the individual a measure of success? If so then maybe the Inuit are failures, and yet there is no clear evidence that can show that it is the consumption of a meat-based diet that reduces lifespan rather than other factors. Rates of cancer are high in India, where a more vegetarian-based diet is the norm.

I agree that being vegetarian/vegan often means the higher consumption of leafy greens and fresh foods, however not exclusively so. However it is the focus on the healthy lifestyle that gives the benefits, NOT the removal of meat from the diet.

jjrichard83

I don't think it correct to state that every animal have a species-specific diet. Pandas have been cited before with bamboo, and yet bamboo is NOT the ideal diet for them. They choose bamboo over other nutrient sources because of their own awkwardness. Bamboo is a terrible source of food.

But how do you measure 'ideal' in terms of diet? Humans, like rats, have evoled to be omnivores. We are chance-eaters. Early hunter-gatherers ate what they could get, whether that be berries or slower moving creatures. Our 'success' if measured in evolutionary terms is that we have colonised all parts of the planet and adapted to survive in different locations. The fact that we are omnivores allows us to do this.

Is longevity of the individual a measure of success? If so then maybe the Inuit are failures, and yet there is no clear evidence that can show that it is the consumption of a meat-based diet that reduces lifespan rather than other factors. Rates of cancer are high in India, where a more vegetarian-based diet is the norm.

I agree that being vegetarian/vegan often means the higher consumption of leafy greens and fresh foods, however not exclusively so. However it is the focus on the healthy lifestyle that gives the benefits, NOT the removal of meat from the diet.

read my last reply.

As far as india and cancer rates go - India cancer rates are dramatically lower (percentage wise) than America.

World Health Organization reported in 2008 that:
per 100,000 population : (women in brackets)

Lung cancer : India 10.9 (2.5) USA 49.5 (36.2)
Kidney India 1.1 (0.7) USA 16.1 (12.8)
Breast India -- (--) USA 22.9 (76.0)
Bladder India 2.8 (0.6) USA 21.1 (5.8)


The list goes on... In fact the only cancers India beat USA in were liver 3.2 to 1.2, Oral, larynx, and esophagus (possibly because of not having proper early detection of these cancers like the States does. Either way, the numbers seem pretty lopsided, and the average Indian seems to have a better chance not getting cancer compared to the average American.

America (the superpower) should be head and shoulders above other countries in health and disease prevention - especially 3rd world countries but they are not. And as the American diet creeps into other countries, we are seeing the same health problems following with it.

jjrichard83

ALL CANCERS :
(per 100,000)

INDIA VS. USA

INDIA Men

---

92.9
INDIA Women

---

105.5

USA Men

---

335.0
USA Women

---

274.4


Source - WHO

granted the research is 5 years old- however in that time American children have been given the title of "the first generation to possibly live shorter lives than their parents". Not a good title. DO you think USA has gone in the positive direction to fix this health issue?

I don't want to make it a US vs. THEM debate, but the info is there for all to see. It doesn't look bright, so to the people who are saying "so you think I'm wrong?" Someone has to be- b/c people are not getting healthier as time goes on - and the only things changing in food are GMO's, factory farming, increased pesticides & drugs, and extreme processing of "food like substances". Most people on this site - meat eaters or not are not the main problem - they are doing something about it and care.

Serafimangel

Most people on this site - meat eaters or not are not the main problem - they are doing something about it and care.

I think this demonstrates a problem in the entire arguement, it could be argued that vegetarians have lower health risks/live longer etc, but compared to whom? People who are just as aware of what they are eating yet eat meat, but meat that isn't over processed and the rest of their diet is balanced? Or people who shovel Macdonalds down their gullets every day and not exercise? I read the posts but as I havent read the actual studies I don't know but there are thousands of factors that can influence health and wellbeing, surely isolating this one isn't showing the be all and end all of what constitutes the perfect diet? Were smoking, drinking, exercise, mental health, geographical area and other such factors taken into account?

Just playing devil's advocate

jjrichard83

Most people on this site - meat eaters or not are not the main problem - they are doing something about it and care.

I think this demonstrates a problem in the entire arguement, it could be argued that vegetarians have lower health risks/live longer etc, but compared to whom? People who are just as aware of what they are eating yet eat meat, but meat that isn't over processed and the rest of their diet is balanced? Or people who shovel Macdonalds down their gullets every day and not exercise? I read the posts but as I havent read the actual studies I don't know but there are thousands of factors that can influence health and wellbeing, surely isolating this one isn't showing the be all and end all of what constitutes the perfect diet? Were smoking, drinking, exercise, mental health, geographical area and other such factors taken into account?

Just playing devil's advocate

I think the theory is that vegetarians and vegans usually make better diet and health decisions overall. Like I said, meat is most likely not the main factor. It's the abundance of other crap and food like substances. However many on here seem to think vegetarian/vegan diets are not great - this is showing that they not only have longer life expectancy - but more quality years spent not being sick near the end too...

jjrichard83

Either everyone got a msg from the moderators or everyone who is posting are just smart good arguments on both sides, but it seems like we are all (well most of us) on the same page (more or less)! Nice to see an un-railed vegetarian/meat discussion

ron2e

The human species is omnivore, ie eats everything. If we had been designed as vegetarians we would have had large flat teeth for grinding and two stomachs so we can properly digest the mush the teeth produce. Also vegetarians find it hard to get all the nutrients the body needs from their diet and tend to rely on supplements. To be honest, if I had to stick to a vegetarian diet to get 7 extra years of life, I would consider that 7 extra years of suffering and would rather enjoy what I ate and die when the time came!

jjrichard83

The human species is omnivore, ie eats everything. If we had been designed as vegetarians we would have had large flat teeth for grinding and two stomachs so we can properly digest the mush the teeth produce. Also vegetarians find it hard to get all the nutrients the body needs from their diet and tend to rely on supplements. To be honest, if I had to stick to a vegetarian diet to get 7 extra years of life, I would consider that 7 extra years of suffering and would rather enjoy what I ate and die when the time came!

You are greatly misinformed here, flat out wrong.

Are you suggesting that herbivores all have two stomaches? Are you also suggesting that our teeth are designed to tear into meat?
If so, I suggest you take a look at Baboons teeth. They are also 95% vegetarian - most of the other 5% is insects. How can you think that our teeth are designed for tearing meat from bones when our mouths and jaws are built in the way they are? And how do you swallow your food? I bet you chew it a bit before you swallow - not just tear a pice off and slide it down your throat with your tongue.

As far as the "nutrient needs" you are once again off. I will agree than some vegetarians are not smart in their diets, but you are suggesting that is a negative and a diet containing meat provides all the nutrients. It comes down to how smart each individual is in choosing their food so they get sufficient amounts. B12 btw doesn't come from animal meat - it comes from plant and soil bacteria.

Lets spend some more time on stomaches...

Carnivores and omnivores both have (on average) large intestines that are 3-6 times the length of their body (pelvic to shoulders) when both humans and herbivores are between 10-13 times the length.

Also it's not 7 extra years... Many people are in declining health for over 10 years near the end of their lives, so not only would you die sooner (on average) but you would also be in decline longer. Your quality of life as a whole could be decreased. We are talking about ideal for a species as a whole - the only one that has been able to stand up to ALL the scrutiny has been vegetarianism.

Can humans eat meat? Yes! We can also eat glue, but that doesn't make it healthy for you. While I am at it, meat consumed now was not the same quality consumed 100 years ago- heck, grains are not the same unless they come from Europe too...

We can eat meat, and we do. That is not debatable. OUr bodies were not designed to eat meat - if you look into the biology of it, that should not be debatable either.

There are harder to debate topics supporting your stance, but the ones you provided are very easy to disprove. It comes down to choice. Same thing with smoking & drinking excessively. People know it may not be the healthiest, but still choose to do it. Doesn't make their diet "wrong" but it isn't the most ideal for our species either.

Here is some more to read if you'd like from Harvard - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17345967 If it was meant to be in our diet, do you think there would be issues of it causing cancers? when is the last time you heard of fruits and veggies being cancer causing?

redmeathead

I have been sitting and reading your posts. You come across as harsh but damn I would not want to get in a debte with you. seem to know your stuff and just killing it. I don't see how someone can argue with the facts you present. I know because I spent the last 40 mins trying to disprove it. You are dead on. Doesnt mean I will stop eating meat but you are def getting me to think differently on the vegetarian diet. Hard to dispute the evidence man!

redraidergirl2009

< is vegetarian. Doesn't rely on supplements.

jjrichard83

I have been sitting and reading your posts. You come across as harsh but damn I would not want to get in a debte with you. seem to know your stuff and just killing it. I don't see how someone can argue with the facts you present. I know because I spent the last 40 mins trying to disprove it. You are dead on. Doesnt mean I will stop eating meat but you are def getting me to think differently on the vegetarian diet. Hard to dispute the evidence man!

Before anyone says anything - YES there was a 2002 study that linked some veggies to cancer. However search deeper & it was not the vegetables that were causing it - it was the use of nitrate fertilizers. It's not the actual fruit and vegetables, it's the mass produced problem with nitrate fertilizers. A problem that would not occur if there was not as much meat consumption (but that is a totally different subject). This is the same food that is being fed to factory farmed animals, so the amount in there would be multiplied along with all the other drugs they inject into the meat & quality of food given + carcinogens in meat when cooked. No one who knows anything about carcinogens is denying that it is in meat.

Either way you cut it, there are better choices. However us as meat eaters are directly affecting many others who do not choose to eat meat due to the unforeseen externalities. (i.e potatoes require 2 gallos of water per pound - when beef requires 441 gallons per pound (beef industries highly suspect calculations) - private group calculations have it more at 2500 gallons - so somewhere in between. However it also takes roughly 6 lb. of grain to get 1 lb. of beef as well. Take into account the land needed to grow food just for the cattle, which is why they are now trying to grow vegetables and fruit faster - making it unhealthy so they can keep up with meat demands.

Sarah38Anderson

I am a vegetarian and have been since 1998, I cook meat for my husband and two children.
I can be just as unhealthy as a meat eater, I am overweight and find it difficult to loose weight, therefore I would never preach to anyone about their food or lifestyle choices. The same as someone who eats meat should not presume all vegetarians have a holier than thou attitude