species-specific diet
Options
Replies
-
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
Whats with this holier than thou attitude argument? It is straight up facts here... If Wayne Gretzky came up to you and said he was the best hockey player of the 90's - It would not be him being "holier than thou" it would be a fact.
It is sad that people would rather be ignorant than wrong and learn something new. The good thing is that lady only has two cats to take care of, so she won't push her close mindedness on offspring.0 -
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.
Inuits today rarely eat only high fat/blubber diets. They tend to consume a lot of alcohol, and also are on the low end of the socioeconomic scale, with little education and very limited access both to a gerally varied diet and to the traditional hunting grounds and hence traditional diets. This also makes them less physically active. To say that the low life expectances among Inuits compared to regular Canadians is due to their consumption of a traditional cold environment diet is to look at the wrong place for a problem which is a lot more complicated than just what they used to eat.0 -
NO.
thank you for your well thought out contribution to the discussion!
You have started this same discussion on several threads recently. I'm bored so can't be bothered to join in yet again with your rubbish - are you going to tell us how you are a vegan who eats meat again. :yawn:
You might be bored with your lack of weight lost. Or maybe by the fact you don't have a leg to stand on in a debate with someone who uses the powerful tool of logic and facts. So why don't you just waddle on out of here unless you have some new or insightful info to present. Please be sure to fact check before posting too!
HA HA HA
Nice, resorting to personal insults makes you seem so credible.
What facts did I need to check? This thread is just the same stuff reworded that you always post.
And as to my lack of weight loss I reset my ticker in Jan so you have no idea how much or little I weigh - and since I have started NROL4W I am currently not weighing myself.
People in glass houses.........0 -
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.
Inuits today rarely eat only high fat/blubber diets. They tend to consume a lot of alcohol, and also are on the low end of the socioeconomic scale, with little education and very limited access both to a gerally varied diet and to the traditional hunting grounds and hence traditional diets. This also makes them less physically active. To say that the low life expectances among Inuits compared to regular Canadians is due to their consumption of a traditional cold environment diet is to look at the wrong place for a problem which is a lot more complicated than just what they used to eat.
^ perfect. I will bow to that
However you look at it diet still plays a significant role in their mortality - be it with more booze 0 -
NewYou - see how others are posting something of substance? I'll leave you be now. No need to reply to someone who's not providing any useful info.
Have a great night!0 -
Actually I came in disagreeing - because he is wrong and I have the right to say that.
Back on topic
A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries
Which study is this please?0 -
Here's a species specific breakdown of the diets of humans over the last 3 million years. (the earliest humans appeared around 3mya) Human is not a species, btw, it's a genus. Homo sapiens is listed below (both Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens)
Homo habilis - scavenged lion kill, smashing up the bones to extract the bone marrow, after the lions had finished with it. Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo erectus/ergaster - seems to have eaten scavenged meat more than hunted meat, probably did not know how to use fire. was believed to hunt by running animals into the ground (a similar technique to the !kung people of the Kalahari, but without the sophisticated weapons they have, just sticks and stones) Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo heidelbergensis - a recent discovery of a stone tipped spear made by this species suggests that they hunted in a similar way to the neanderthals. they probably had fire. Probably their diet was somewhere between H. erectus/ergaster and H. neanderthalensis, seeing as they're intermediate between the two. i.e. scavenging less and hunting more.
Homo neanderthalensis - co-operatively hunted very large animals with stone tipped spears, they wore clothes made from the skins of the animals they ate. They used fire and ate cooked meat and cooked plant foods. they are not directly ancestral to us, however middle palaeolithic Homo sapiens had a very similar culture and very similar stone tools. They probably also ate a range of raw plant foods as well as cooked plant foods.
Homo sapiens idaltu - they hunted and ate hippos, likely using similar techinques and weapons to neanderthals. they likely had a similar culture to neanderthals i.e. controlled use of fire, cooking meat and probably plant foods too, possibly making clothes (although as they lived in a much hotter climate than the neanderthals they may not have done, but could still have used animal skins for other puroses, e.g. blankets, baby carriers etc)
upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens - developed much more sophisticated weapons for hunting animals, and also developed the ability to fish (i.e. making fish hooks, bows and arrows, atlatl (spearthrowers), and similar). they ate meat and fish. (neanderthals seem to have only eaten meat and not fish and only had short range hunting weapons like thrusting spears, neanderthals went extinct about 10,000 years after upper palaeolithic H. sapiens sapiens arrived in Europe) Also would have cooked some plant foods, eaten others raw, etc. Diet likely to have been similar to modern hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. !kung San.
neolithic homo sapiens sapiens - developed the ability to farm plants and animals. Populations where dairy herding/farming was common have evolved the ability to digest lactose after early childhood, and human populations learned to produce high protein plant food in sufficient quantities for humans to have less need of meat. Basically, neolithic populations adapted to the food that they could produce in the areas where they lived, this is only small changes in the digestive system, e.g. lactase enzyme persisting after childhood. neurologically speaking we're still the same as upper palaeolithic homo sapiens sapiens. In early neolithic populations, over-reliance on large quantities of single plant species caused health problems and nutritional deficiencies. These problems became less over time as agricultural techniques developed in complexity and resulted in a wider range of different foods. Only minimal changes in evolution have happened during this time, we are by and large better adapted for an upper palaeolithic diet/lifestyle, although some changes have happened in some populations, e.g. the ability to digest lactose after childhood in populations that traditionally farm/herd dairy.
If you want to eat your species specific diet, then go palaeo (if you're from a population that has herded or farmed dairy for millennia, then dairy's fine too. Palaeolithic people probably ate grains in small quantities when they were in season, so grains in small quantities is natural in the human diet, despite what some palaeo advocates claim).
If you don't want to go palaeo then don't, I don't personally care either way, and I don't follow the palaeo diet myself (I can digest dairy and like it therefore I eat it), but if you want the most natural, species specific diet, then read the above re Homo sapiens sapiens, which is what I presume you are seeing as you have a vertical forehead and a dome shaped cranium.0 -
Here's a species specific breakdown of the diets of humans over the last 3 million years. (the earliest humans appeared around 3mya) Human is not a species, btw, it's a genus. Homo sapiens is listed below (both Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens)
Homo habilis - scavenged lion kill, smashing up the bones to extract the bone marrow, after the lions had finished with it. Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo erectus/ergaster - seems to have eaten scavenged meat more than hunted meat, probably did not know how to use fire. was believed to hunt by running animals into the ground (a similar technique to the !kung people of the Kalahari, but without the sophisticated weapons they have, just sticks and stones) Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo heidelbergensis - a recent discovery of a stone tipped spear made by this species suggests that they hunted in a similar way to the neanderthals. they probably had fire. Probably their diet was somewhere between H. erectus/ergaster and H. neanderthalensis, seeing as they're intermediate between the two. i.e. scavenging less and hunting more.
Homo neanderthalensis - co-operatively hunted very large animals with stone tipped spears, they wore clothes made from the skins of the animals they ate. They used fire and ate cooked meat and cooked plant foods. they are not directly ancestral to us, however middle palaeolithic Homo sapiens had a very similar culture and very similar stone tools. They probably also ate a range of raw plant foods as well as cooked plant foods.
Homo sapiens idaltu - they hunted and ate hippos, likely using similar techinques and weapons to neanderthals. they likely had a similar culture to neanderthals i.e. controlled use of fire, cooking meat and probably plant foods too, possibly making clothes (although as they lived in a much hotter climate than the neanderthals they may not have done, but could still have used animal skins for other puroses, e.g. blankets, baby carriers etc)
upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens - developed much more sophisticated weapons for hunting animals, and also developed the ability to fish (i.e. making fish hooks, bows and arrows, atlatl (spearthrowers), and similar). they ate meat and fish. (neanderthals seem to have only eaten meat and not fish and only had short range hunting weapons like thrusting spears, neanderthals went extinct about 10,000 years after upper palaeolithic H. sapiens sapiens arrived in Europe) Also would have cooked some plant foods, eaten others raw, etc. Diet likely to have been similar to modern hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. !kung San.
neolithic homo sapiens sapiens - developed the ability to farm plants and animals. Populations where dairy herding/farming was common have evolved the ability to digest lactose after early childhood, and human populations learned to produce high protein plant food in sufficient quantities for humans to have less need of meat. Basically, neolithic populations adapted to the food that they could produce in the areas where they lived, this is only small changes in the digestive system, e.g. lactase enzyme persisting after childhood. neurologically speaking we're still the same as upper palaeolithic homo sapiens sapiens. In early neolithic populations, over-reliance on large quantities of single plant species caused health problems and nutritional deficiencies. These problems became less over time as agricultural techniques developed in complexity and resulted in a wider range of different foods. Only minimal changes in evolution have happened during this time, we are by and large better adapted for an upper palaeolithic diet/lifestyle, although some changes have happened in some populations, e.g. the ability to digest lactose after childhood in populations that traditionally farm/herd dairy.
If you want to eat your species specific diet, then go palaeo (if you're from a population that has herded or farmed dairy for millennia, then dairy's fine too. Palaeolithic people probably ate grains in small quantities when they were in season, so grains in small quantities is natural in the human diet, despite what some palaeo advocates claim).
If you don't want to go palaeo then don't, I don't personally care either way, and I don't follow the palaeo diet myself (or at least not what gets posted on the internet calling itself palaeo, plus I follow the 90% rule so eat 90% clean 10% whatever) but if you want the most natural, species specific diet, then read the above re Homo sapiens sapiens, which is what I presume you are seeing as you have a vertical forehead and a dome shaped cranium.
I have read a number of places that new evidence suggests that although our ancestors ate meat, their diet was mostly that of a vegetarian much like apes of today.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
http://www.herenow4u.net/index.php?id=cd6299
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/wpblog/2012/04/21/are-humans-naturally-vegetarian/0 -
So, I think Panda's need more fiber.0
-
Well I learned some info here from the OP and rob? Was too good to be true with no trolls until Newme came in.0
-
Here's what I still don't understand after 3 of these threads OP. Why does it matter what humans were intended to eat? We eat an omnivorous diet now and thrive on it. It's not "natural" to have almond milk, whey, or meat substitutes. (It's also not natural to use the internet to track calories btw) But we are able to get nutrients from all of those things, so why shouldn't we eat them?
Since you're not a vegan, why do you feel so strongly about this topic? Three threads in a few days' time is pretty excessive. It's not wonder people are tired of debating with you about it.
You tend to create a false dichotomy that the only two options are veganism and the standard American diet, and that's just not true. Do you have a study comparing the vegan diet to a nutrient dense diet rich in vegetables and lean meat?0 -
Also you still haven't responded to neandermagnon's information. Rebuttal?0
-
Here's a species specific breakdown of the diets of humans over the last 3 million years. (the earliest humans appeared around 3mya) Human is not a species, btw, it's a genus. Homo sapiens is listed below (both Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens)
Homo habilis - scavenged lion kill, smashing up the bones to extract the bone marrow, after the lions had finished with it. Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo erectus/ergaster - seems to have eaten scavenged meat more than hunted meat, probably did not know how to use fire. was believed to hunt by running animals into the ground (a similar technique to the !kung people of the Kalahari, but without the sophisticated weapons they have, just sticks and stones) Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo heidelbergensis - a recent discovery of a stone tipped spear made by this species suggests that they hunted in a similar way to the neanderthals. they probably had fire. Probably their diet was somewhere between H. erectus/ergaster and H. neanderthalensis, seeing as they're intermediate between the two. i.e. scavenging less and hunting more.
Homo neanderthalensis - co-operatively hunted very large animals with stone tipped spears, they wore clothes made from the skins of the animals they ate. They used fire and ate cooked meat and cooked plant foods. they are not directly ancestral to us, however middle palaeolithic Homo sapiens had a very similar culture and very similar stone tools. They probably also ate a range of raw plant foods as well as cooked plant foods.
Homo sapiens idaltu - they hunted and ate hippos, likely using similar techinques and weapons to neanderthals. they likely had a similar culture to neanderthals i.e. controlled use of fire, cooking meat and probably plant foods too, possibly making clothes (although as they lived in a much hotter climate than the neanderthals they may not have done, but could still have used animal skins for other puroses, e.g. blankets, baby carriers etc)
upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens - developed much more sophisticated weapons for hunting animals, and also developed the ability to fish (i.e. making fish hooks, bows and arrows, atlatl (spearthrowers), and similar). they ate meat and fish. (neanderthals seem to have only eaten meat and not fish and only had short range hunting weapons like thrusting spears, neanderthals went extinct about 10,000 years after upper palaeolithic H. sapiens sapiens arrived in Europe) Also would have cooked some plant foods, eaten others raw, etc. Diet likely to have been similar to modern hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. !kung San.
neolithic homo sapiens sapiens - developed the ability to farm plants and animals. Populations where dairy herding/farming was common have evolved the ability to digest lactose after early childhood, and human populations learned to produce high protein plant food in sufficient quantities for humans to have less need of meat. Basically, neolithic populations adapted to the food that they could produce in the areas where they lived, this is only small changes in the digestive system, e.g. lactase enzyme persisting after childhood. neurologically speaking we're still the same as upper palaeolithic homo sapiens sapiens. In early neolithic populations, over-reliance on large quantities of single plant species caused health problems and nutritional deficiencies. These problems became less over time as agricultural techniques developed in complexity and resulted in a wider range of different foods. Only minimal changes in evolution have happened during this time, we are by and large better adapted for an upper palaeolithic diet/lifestyle, although some changes have happened in some populations, e.g. the ability to digest lactose after childhood in populations that traditionally farm/herd dairy.
If you want to eat your species specific diet, then go palaeo (if you're from a population that has herded or farmed dairy for millennia, then dairy's fine too. Palaeolithic people probably ate grains in small quantities when they were in season, so grains in small quantities is natural in the human diet, despite what some palaeo advocates claim).
If you don't want to go palaeo then don't, I don't personally care either way, and I don't follow the palaeo diet myself (or at least not what gets posted on the internet calling itself palaeo, plus I follow the 90% rule so eat 90% clean 10% whatever) but if you want the most natural, species specific diet, then read the above re Homo sapiens sapiens, which is what I presume you are seeing as you have a vertical forehead and a dome shaped cranium.
I have read a number of places that new evidence suggests that although our ancestors ate meat, their diet was mostly that of a vegetarian much like apes of today.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
http://www.herenow4u.net/index.php?id=cd6299
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/wpblog/2012/04/21/are-humans-naturally-vegetarian/
Neanderthals got 100% of their protein from meat (molecular studies have confirmed this). They ate plant foods for carbohydrate and micronutrients. Other middle palaeolithic humans (H. sapiens idaltu, early H. sapiens sapiens, H. heidelbergensis) had very similar cultures to neanderthals, and so likely had similar diets in terms of a heavy reliance upon meat. H. sapiens may have eaten fish during the middle palaeolithic era, even though they hadn't invented fish hooks yet. But they would not have been able to get enough plant protein to survive prior to agriculture. Plant protein in enough quantities to meet a human's protein needs was simply not available
Modern hunter-gatherers eat more than a little meat. Go look at the !kung San diet. The Inuit have the diet highest in quantity of meat and fish. the !kung San diet consists of about 80g protein a day, most of which comes from meat.
Yes vegetable sources are and always have been important in the diets of all primates, including humans, but for humans they're more a source of carbohydrate and micronutrients, and in some cases fat (e.g. nuts). They've never been a significant source of protein for human populations prior to the invention of agriculture.
Claims of being "mostly vegetarian" are grossly exaggerated. Humans have always eaten meat, until we got good enough at agriculture to produce enough plant protein and other post-agricultural protein foods such as dairy, to become less reliant on it. In fact it goes so far as to say that we would not have evolved had we not eaten meat, because there's a correlation in primates between brain size and animal protein consumption. The protein and fat from meat is necessary to grow and fuel our large brains. The largest brained humans, i.e. neanderthals, ate the most meat. H. sapiens is not far behind neanderthals in terms of brain size (it's thought that a change in brain wiring in H. sapiens resulted in them being able to develop more complex technology than the neanderthals despite having slightly smaller brains). Completely vegetarian primates have the smallest brains. Even chimpanzees eat meat (they hunt small monkeys), they have the largest brains of non-human primates.
By all means eat and even promote a plant based diet, for ethical reasons, or economic reasons or whatever. However it's not right to deny the importance that meat has played in human evolution, or to claim that humans are not adapted for eating meat, or that meat was only a small part of the human diet. There is a lot of bias among some vegetarians that has resulted in promoting incorrect ideas about human evolution, and in some cases it's descended to the level of pseudoscience.0 -
Anyone eliminating food sources that humans have eaten for tens of thousands of years is making a choice to ignore reality. Our bodies are amazing and can and will adapt to nearly any nutritional situation. So if you want to eliminate animal protein for some reason, go ahead! It's not very logical, but you will be fine. Your body is plenty smart enough to compensate for your choices.0
-
Here's a species specific breakdown of the diets of humans over the last 3 million years. (the earliest humans appeared around 3mya) Human is not a species, btw, it's a genus. Homo sapiens is listed below (both Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens)
Homo habilis - scavenged lion kill, smashing up the bones to extract the bone marrow, after the lions had finished with it. Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo erectus/ergaster - seems to have eaten scavenged meat more than hunted meat, probably did not know how to use fire. was believed to hunt by running animals into the ground (a similar technique to the !kung people of the Kalahari, but without the sophisticated weapons they have, just sticks and stones) Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo heidelbergensis - a recent discovery of a stone tipped spear made by this species suggests that they hunted in a similar way to the neanderthals. they probably had fire. Probably their diet was somewhere between H. erectus/ergaster and H. neanderthalensis, seeing as they're intermediate between the two. i.e. scavenging less and hunting more.
Homo neanderthalensis - co-operatively hunted very large animals with stone tipped spears, they wore clothes made from the skins of the animals they ate. They used fire and ate cooked meat and cooked plant foods. they are not directly ancestral to us, however middle palaeolithic Homo sapiens had a very similar culture and very similar stone tools. They probably also ate a range of raw plant foods as well as cooked plant foods.
Homo sapiens idaltu - they hunted and ate hippos, likely using similar techinques and weapons to neanderthals. they likely had a similar culture to neanderthals i.e. controlled use of fire, cooking meat and probably plant foods too, possibly making clothes (although as they lived in a much hotter climate than the neanderthals they may not have done, but could still have used animal skins for other puroses, e.g. blankets, baby carriers etc)
upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens - developed much more sophisticated weapons for hunting animals, and also developed the ability to fish (i.e. making fish hooks, bows and arrows, atlatl (spearthrowers), and similar). they ate meat and fish. (neanderthals seem to have only eaten meat and not fish and only had short range hunting weapons like thrusting spears, neanderthals went extinct about 10,000 years after upper palaeolithic H. sapiens sapiens arrived in Europe) Also would have cooked some plant foods, eaten others raw, etc. Diet likely to have been similar to modern hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. !kung San.
neolithic homo sapiens sapiens - developed the ability to farm plants and animals. Populations where dairy herding/farming was common have evolved the ability to digest lactose after early childhood, and human populations learned to produce high protein plant food in sufficient quantities for humans to have less need of meat. Basically, neolithic populations adapted to the food that they could produce in the areas where they lived, this is only small changes in the digestive system, e.g. lactase enzyme persisting after childhood. neurologically speaking we're still the same as upper palaeolithic homo sapiens sapiens. In early neolithic populations, over-reliance on large quantities of single plant species caused health problems and nutritional deficiencies. These problems became less over time as agricultural techniques developed in complexity and resulted in a wider range of different foods. Only minimal changes in evolution have happened during this time, we are by and large better adapted for an upper palaeolithic diet/lifestyle, although some changes have happened in some populations, e.g. the ability to digest lactose after childhood in populations that traditionally farm/herd dairy.
If you want to eat your species specific diet, then go palaeo (if you're from a population that has herded or farmed dairy for millennia, then dairy's fine too. Palaeolithic people probably ate grains in small quantities when they were in season, so grains in small quantities is natural in the human diet, despite what some palaeo advocates claim).
If you don't want to go palaeo then don't, I don't personally care either way, and I don't follow the palaeo diet myself (or at least not what gets posted on the internet calling itself palaeo, plus I follow the 90% rule so eat 90% clean 10% whatever) but if you want the most natural, species specific diet, then read the above re Homo sapiens sapiens, which is what I presume you are seeing as you have a vertical forehead and a dome shaped cranium.
I have read a number of places that new evidence suggests that although our ancestors ate meat, their diet was mostly that of a vegetarian much like apes of today.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
http://www.herenow4u.net/index.php?id=cd6299
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/wpblog/2012/04/21/are-humans-naturally-vegetarian/
Neanderthals got 100% of their protein from meat (molecular studies have confirmed this). They ate plant foods for carbohydrate and micronutrients. Other middle palaeolithic humans (H. sapiens idaltu, early H. sapiens sapiens, H. heidelbergensis) had very similar cultures to neanderthals, and so likely had similar diets in terms of a heavy reliance upon meat. H. sapiens may have eaten fish during the middle palaeolithic era, even though they hadn't invented fish hooks yet. But they would not have been able to get enough plant protein to survive prior to agriculture. Plant protein in enough quantities to meet a human's protein needs was simply not available
Modern hunter-gatherers eat more than a little meat. Go look at the !kung San diet. The Inuit have the diet highest in quantity of meat and fish. the !kung San diet consists of about 80g protein a day, most of which comes from meat.
Yes vegetable sources are and always have been important in the diets of all primates, including humans, but they're more a source of carbohydrate and micronutrients, and in some cases fat (e.g. nuts). They've never been a significant source of protein for human populations prior to the invention of agriculture.
Claims of being "mostly vegetarian" are grossly exaggerated. Humans have always eaten meat, until we got good enough at agriculture to produce enough plant protein and other post-agricultural protein foods such as dairy, to become less reliant on it. In fact it goes so far as to say that we would not have evolved had we not eaten meat, because there's a correlation in primates between brain size and animal protein consumption. The protein and fat from meat is necessary to grow and fuel our large brains. The largest brained humans, i.e. neanderthals, ate the most meat. H. sapiens is not far behind neanderthals in terms of brain size (it's thought that a change in brain wiring in H. sapiens resulted in them being able to develop more complex technology than the neanderthals despite having slightly smaller brains). Completely vegetarian primates have the smallest brains. Even chimpanzees eat meat (they hunt small monkeys), they have the largest brains of non-human primates.
By all means eat and even promote a plant based diet, for ethical reasons, or economic reasons or whatever. However it's not right to deny the importance that meat has played in human evolution, or to claim that humans are not adapted for eating meat, or that meat was only a small part of the human diet. There is a lot of bias among some vegetarians that has resulted in promoting incorrect ideas about human evolution, and in some cases it's descended to the level of pseudoscience.
I think those were old outdated studies & information. There has been new evidence presented in the scientific journal Naturwissenschaften among others. So the idea that their diet was meat seems to be decreasing with each new piece of evidence and each passing year.
The assertion is drawn from 50,000-year-old skeletal remains found in El Sidrón Cave in northern Spain. The teeth of 13 individuals showed layers of calcified plaque, which contained a range of carbohydrates and starch granules. Some revealed alkyl phenols, aromatic hydrocarbons and roasted starch granules, which suggests the beings spent time in smoky areas and ate cooked vegetables. Few lipids or proteins from meat were found.
“The idea that Neanderthals were largely meat-eaters has been hard for me to accept given their membership in a mainly vegetarian clade. It is exciting to see this new set of techniques applied to understanding their palaeo-diet,” says Richard Wrangham, an anthropologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hardy also told Science Daily that on another level, the findings suggest that these individuals "had a sophisticated knowledge of their natural surroundings which included the ability to select and use certain plants for their nutritional value and for self-medication."
This isn't the first time research has suggested vegetables played a larger role in Neanderthal diets than previously thought. In 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a study related to fossilized grains of vegetable material found in Neanderthal teeth. Some of it was cooked.0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
Let's all be civil here.
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic within a forum topic. Off-topic or derogatory remarks are disrespectful. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
Arewethereyet
MFP Moderator0 -
Humans have been eating meat AND cooking food for over a million years. The thought that a raw vegan diet is ideal when humans have been eating a cooked omnivorous diet since before Homo sapiens existed is a silly argument.0
-
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
Let's all be civil here.
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic within a forum topic. Off-topic or derogatory remarks are disrespectful. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
Arewethereyet
MFP Moderator
I sent my "apology" msg to NewMe about 10 mins ago. hopefully thats outa the way0 -
Humans have been eating meat AND cooking food for over a million years. The thought that a raw vegan diet is ideal when humans have been eating a cooked omnivorous diet since before Homo sapiens existed is a silly argument.
did you read the last bit? there is evidence that they DID NOT eat meat for millions of years. Not a very silly argument.
Don't disagree or discount something just because you don't understand it. Open your mind at least to the ideas.0 -
Here's a species specific breakdown of the diets of humans over the last 3 million years. (the earliest humans appeared around 3mya) Human is not a species, btw, it's a genus. Homo sapiens is listed below (both Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens)
Homo habilis - scavenged lion kill, smashing up the bones to extract the bone marrow, after the lions had finished with it. Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo erectus/ergaster - seems to have eaten scavenged meat more than hunted meat, probably did not know how to use fire. was believed to hunt by running animals into the ground (a similar technique to the !kung people of the Kalahari, but without the sophisticated weapons they have, just sticks and stones) Also ate whatever plant foods it could find.
Homo heidelbergensis - a recent discovery of a stone tipped spear made by this species suggests that they hunted in a similar way to the neanderthals. they probably had fire. Probably their diet was somewhere between H. erectus/ergaster and H. neanderthalensis, seeing as they're intermediate between the two. i.e. scavenging less and hunting more.
Homo neanderthalensis - co-operatively hunted very large animals with stone tipped spears, they wore clothes made from the skins of the animals they ate. They used fire and ate cooked meat and cooked plant foods. they are not directly ancestral to us, however middle palaeolithic Homo sapiens had a very similar culture and very similar stone tools. They probably also ate a range of raw plant foods as well as cooked plant foods.
Homo sapiens idaltu - they hunted and ate hippos, likely using similar techinques and weapons to neanderthals. they likely had a similar culture to neanderthals i.e. controlled use of fire, cooking meat and probably plant foods too, possibly making clothes (although as they lived in a much hotter climate than the neanderthals they may not have done, but could still have used animal skins for other puroses, e.g. blankets, baby carriers etc)
upper palaeolithic Homo sapiens sapiens - developed much more sophisticated weapons for hunting animals, and also developed the ability to fish (i.e. making fish hooks, bows and arrows, atlatl (spearthrowers), and similar). they ate meat and fish. (neanderthals seem to have only eaten meat and not fish and only had short range hunting weapons like thrusting spears, neanderthals went extinct about 10,000 years after upper palaeolithic H. sapiens sapiens arrived in Europe) Also would have cooked some plant foods, eaten others raw, etc. Diet likely to have been similar to modern hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. !kung San.
neolithic homo sapiens sapiens - developed the ability to farm plants and animals. Populations where dairy herding/farming was common have evolved the ability to digest lactose after early childhood, and human populations learned to produce high protein plant food in sufficient quantities for humans to have less need of meat. Basically, neolithic populations adapted to the food that they could produce in the areas where they lived, this is only small changes in the digestive system, e.g. lactase enzyme persisting after childhood. neurologically speaking we're still the same as upper palaeolithic homo sapiens sapiens. In early neolithic populations, over-reliance on large quantities of single plant species caused health problems and nutritional deficiencies. These problems became less over time as agricultural techniques developed in complexity and resulted in a wider range of different foods. Only minimal changes in evolution have happened during this time, we are by and large better adapted for an upper palaeolithic diet/lifestyle, although some changes have happened in some populations, e.g. the ability to digest lactose after childhood in populations that traditionally farm/herd dairy.
If you want to eat your species specific diet, then go palaeo (if you're from a population that has herded or farmed dairy for millennia, then dairy's fine too. Palaeolithic people probably ate grains in small quantities when they were in season, so grains in small quantities is natural in the human diet, despite what some palaeo advocates claim).
If you don't want to go palaeo then don't, I don't personally care either way, and I don't follow the palaeo diet myself (or at least not what gets posted on the internet calling itself palaeo, plus I follow the 90% rule so eat 90% clean 10% whatever) but if you want the most natural, species specific diet, then read the above re Homo sapiens sapiens, which is what I presume you are seeing as you have a vertical forehead and a dome shaped cranium.
I have read a number of places that new evidence suggests that although our ancestors ate meat, their diet was mostly that of a vegetarian much like apes of today.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
http://www.herenow4u.net/index.php?id=cd6299
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/wpblog/2012/04/21/are-humans-naturally-vegetarian/
Neanderthals got 100% of their protein from meat (molecular studies have confirmed this). They ate plant foods for carbohydrate and micronutrients. Other middle palaeolithic humans (H. sapiens idaltu, early H. sapiens sapiens, H. heidelbergensis) had very similar cultures to neanderthals, and so likely had similar diets in terms of a heavy reliance upon meat. H. sapiens may have eaten fish during the middle palaeolithic era, even though they hadn't invented fish hooks yet. But they would not have been able to get enough plant protein to survive prior to agriculture. Plant protein in enough quantities to meet a human's protein needs was simply not available
Modern hunter-gatherers eat more than a little meat. Go look at the !kung San diet. The Inuit have the diet highest in quantity of meat and fish. the !kung San diet consists of about 80g protein a day, most of which comes from meat.
Yes vegetable sources are and always have been important in the diets of all primates, including humans, but for humans they're more a source of carbohydrate and micronutrients, and in some cases fat (e.g. nuts). They've never been a significant source of protein for human populations prior to the invention of agriculture.
Claims of being "mostly vegetarian" are grossly exaggerated. Humans have always eaten meat, until we got good enough at agriculture to produce enough plant protein and other post-agricultural protein foods such as dairy, to become less reliant on it. In fact it goes so far as to say that we would not have evolved had we not eaten meat, because there's a correlation in primates between brain size and animal protein consumption. The protein and fat from meat is necessary to grow and fuel our large brains. The largest brained humans, i.e. neanderthals, ate the most meat. H. sapiens is not far behind neanderthals in terms of brain size (it's thought that a change in brain wiring in H. sapiens resulted in them being able to develop more complex technology than the neanderthals despite having slightly smaller brains). Completely vegetarian primates have the smallest brains. Even chimpanzees eat meat (they hunt small monkeys), they have the largest brains of non-human primates.
By all means eat and even promote a plant based diet, for ethical reasons, or economic reasons or whatever. However it's not right to deny the importance that meat has played in human evolution, or to claim that humans are not adapted for eating meat, or that meat was only a small part of the human diet. There is a lot of bias among some vegetarians that has resulted in promoting incorrect ideas about human evolution, and in some cases it's descended to the level of pseudoscience.
Covered the inuit diet. they also have higher mortality rates (4 times more) and less than 25% reach the age of 60. Not a good diet to follow.
It's not me promoting these "pseudoscience" ideas. It's leading researchers & scientists who study these bones who are coming up with these new findings that are basically telling you everything you learned, and everything that was written about neanderthals diets could very well be wrong.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions