species-specific diet
Replies
-
Back to the topic - Vegetarians live longer healthier lives according to many reputable studies. Why do you think that is? I have already stated a number of times, I don't believe it is solely (or even the main reason) is because lack of meat. So what points are you arguing with me?0
-
I haven't done the research yet, but I'm going to guess that at least in the United States, there is a relationship between vegetarianism and socio-economic status. Those would also be the same people who have access to quality health care and have low risk jobs, gym memberships or access to safe recreational areas in their neighborhoods.0
-
Back to the topic - Vegetarians live longer healthier lives according to many reputable studies. Why do you think that is? I have already stated a number of times, I don't believe it is solely (or even the main reason) is because lack of meat. So what points are you arguing with me?
comparing which vegetarians to which meat eaters? !Kung san tribespeople (at least when they're not being kicked off their land by the Botswana government) lead long and healthy lives (well into their 80s and 90s or beyond) and they eat a lot of meat. They also eat a lot of fresh plant foods, including a kind of nut that's a great source of healthy fat (mongongo nuts)
if you're comparing USA vegetarians with USA meat eaters (i.e. standard american diet) - then that says a lot about the standard american diet.
What about studies comparing modern hunter-gatherers (those who are not being kicked off their lands or otherwise persecuted) with those eating vegetarian diets?
Even a study comparing USA paleo dieters with USA vegetarians would be interesting.0 -
I think humans have too many contributing factors to lifestyle to just put longevity on food. stress levels, location, country living vs city living, is your job active or sedentary, air quality, water quality, poverty vs comfortable income, genes. All nutrients are important, and there will always be food that is healthier than other food but all points above come into play when it comes to longevity. A well balanced life is key. ( I didnt read any thing but the original post)0
-
Why not save the time and just send us all personalized diet plans of exactly what you want us to eat?0
-
Want to compare Primates diets? To call something that eats 95% plant based and 5% meat (when a decent portion of that is insects) is a bit of a stretch to call it an omnivore.you only have to take a census of pre-industrial tribes and bands around the world to see that veganism and vegetarianism isn't that common (as most of those pre-industrial groups eat meat). since they aren't affected by marketing, advertising, or money, that completely invalidates pretty much your entire post.
The meat they eat now, and the meat humans ate 100 years ago isn't the same as the meat being consumed today. To say it refutes the entire post is a huge overstatement. Not to mention the fact remains - vegetables in their natural state have not been linked to cancer, when consuming red meat has been (maybe not the meat in general, but what is in the meat).
If we were talking about meat that is "clean" then it's a whole different story.
you weren't talking about clean meat though, were you? You were trying to claim that humans are evolved for a mostly vegetarian diet, which simply isn't true.
yes, wild meat is a lot healthier than farmed meat, especially industrial/factory farmed meat. But that's a whole other issue
I think you jumped ahead. In my original post here I said I didn't think removing meat was the solution, but adding more fruits and vegetables was when it came to increasing longevity. It's not like I am saying I believe in plants being the only food source for humans. Those are words that many of you have put into my mouth to make this more black and white. I said a number of studies (and no study proving the opposite) show that vegetarians live longer, healthier lives. I don't believe it is because they are vegetarian. I believe it is because they consume less meats and eat more vegetables and fruits. Not removing meat, but adding more veggies is the reason they live longer.
Someone who studies this should know about the teeth, intestines etc in relation to omnivores and carnivores. Those are just facts, not info I pulled out of my butt.
it's not words I've put in your mouth, it's what you've been claiming - that humans are adapted to be "mostly vegetarian" <--- those are your words, and so on.
the stuff you've posted frequently comparing human teeth to herbivores and carnivores etc, is largely irrelevant because it ignores the fact that humans are primates. You need to compare humans to other primates, because that's what humans are. Primates are omnivorous, and some are adapted to eat more meat than others (e.g. humans, chimpanzees). They may not be facts you've pulled out of your butt, but their relevance to human evolution and what the natural diet of humans is has been grossly overestimated and cherry-picked by the pro-vegan lobby. We're adapted to eat the diet of our recent ancestors, so if you're discussing animals in different orders (primates is an order) it's totally irrelevant because it's like saying that humans shouldn't give birth lying down because reptiles lay eggs (or some other non-sequiteur) - compare humans to other primates, and look for patterns in the diets of primates and how primates are adapted to what they eat, and it's very clear that humans are adapted to be hunter-gatherers, which includes eating a significant amount of meat, by necessity (although humans have much more recently learned how to do agriculture and produce plant foods that provide enough protein.... but you can hardly call this the natural human diet)
Chimpanzee diet - mostly herbivore - except it will eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to medium-sized mammals, including other primates - this makes up for less than 5% of their diet.
Baboon diet- quiet similar - but mostly vegetarian.
Gorilla Diet- They must eat a lot of meat b/c their bodies are built like brick **** houses! Nope! Gorillas actually consume 97% plant and only 3% of their diet is meat- termites and caterpillars.
Can you find a study or research that shows these primates eat more than 5% meat? If you want to consider these insects meat.
No way I would compare the SAD with any diet. We all know and agree that the SAD is a sad diet indeed.0 -
To the OP: while you make some interesting points, you are forgetting one major factor here. Not everyone is in agreement with you. People have differing views and perspectives...trying to persuade them with poorly researched info is not going to help your argument. It's true if it's on the internet right?
Should it hold more weight if you read it in a book as opposed to a published study? Are you seeing that people are disagreeing with things that I was not arguing? Other things that they can not refute, they just ignore like our intestines.
At least the few I'm going back and forth with on here have something to present.0 -
Yes C & P - but it's supporting evidence of the primate diet - & yes I found that there actually is ONE carnivore primate!
Primates exploit a variety of food sources. It has been said that many characteristics of modern primates, including humans, derive from an early ancestor's practice of taking most of its food from the tropical canopy.[106] Most primates include fruit in their diets to obtain easily digested carbohydrates and lipids for energy.[44] However, they require other foods, such as leaves or insects, for amino acids, vitamins and minerals. Primates in the suborder Strepsirrhini (non-tarsier prosimians) are able to synthesize vitamin C, like most other mammals, while primates of the suborder Haplorrhini (tarsiers, monkeys and apes) have lost this ability, and require the vitamin in their diet.[107]
Many primates have anatomical specializations that enable them to exploit particular foods, such as fruit, leaves, gum or insects.[44] For example, leaf eaters such as howler monkeys, black-and-white colobuses and sportive lemurs have extended digestive tracts which enable them to absorb nutrients from leaves that can be difficult to digest.[44] Marmosets, which are gum eaters, have strong incisor teeth, enabling them to open tree bark to get to the gum, and claws rather than nails, enabling them to cling to trees while feeding.[44] The aye-aye combines rodent-like teeth with a long, thin middle finger to fill the same ecological niche as a woodpecker. It taps on trees to find insect larvae, then gnaws holes in the wood and inserts its elongated middle finger to pull the larvae out.[108] Some species have additional specializations. For example, the grey-cheeked mangabey has thick enamel on its teeth, enabling it to open hard fruits and seeds that other monkeys cannot.[44]
The gelada is the only primate species that feeds primarily on grass.[109] Tarsiers are the only extant obligate carnivorous primates, exclusively eating insects, crustaceans, small vertebrates and snakes (including venomous species).[110] Capuchin monkeys, on the other hand, can exploit many different types of food, including fruit, leaves, flowers, buds, nectar, seeds, insects and other invertebrates, bird eggs, and small vertebrates such as birds, lizards, squirrels and bats.[64] The common chimpanzee has a varied diet that includes predation on other primate species, such as the western red colobus monkey.0 -
Want to compare Primates diets? To call something that eats 95% plant based and 5% meat (when a decent portion of that is insects) is a bit of a stretch to call it an omnivore.you only have to take a census of pre-industrial tribes and bands around the world to see that veganism and vegetarianism isn't that common (as most of those pre-industrial groups eat meat). since they aren't affected by marketing, advertising, or money, that completely invalidates pretty much your entire post.
The meat they eat now, and the meat humans ate 100 years ago isn't the same as the meat being consumed today. To say it refutes the entire post is a huge overstatement. Not to mention the fact remains - vegetables in their natural state have not been linked to cancer, when consuming red meat has been (maybe not the meat in general, but what is in the meat).
If we were talking about meat that is "clean" then it's a whole different story.
you weren't talking about clean meat though, were you? You were trying to claim that humans are evolved for a mostly vegetarian diet, which simply isn't true.
yes, wild meat is a lot healthier than farmed meat, especially industrial/factory farmed meat. But that's a whole other issue
I think you jumped ahead. In my original post here I said I didn't think removing meat was the solution, but adding more fruits and vegetables was when it came to increasing longevity. It's not like I am saying I believe in plants being the only food source for humans. Those are words that many of you have put into my mouth to make this more black and white. I said a number of studies (and no study proving the opposite) show that vegetarians live longer, healthier lives. I don't believe it is because they are vegetarian. I believe it is because they consume less meats and eat more vegetables and fruits. Not removing meat, but adding more veggies is the reason they live longer.
Someone who studies this should know about the teeth, intestines etc in relation to omnivores and carnivores. Those are just facts, not info I pulled out of my butt.
it's not words I've put in your mouth, it's what you've been claiming - that humans are adapted to be "mostly vegetarian" <--- those are your words, and so on.
the stuff you've posted frequently comparing human teeth to herbivores and carnivores etc, is largely irrelevant because it ignores the fact that humans are primates. You need to compare humans to other primates, because that's what humans are. Primates are omnivorous, and some are adapted to eat more meat than others (e.g. humans, chimpanzees). They may not be facts you've pulled out of your butt, but their relevance to human evolution and what the natural diet of humans is has been grossly overestimated and cherry-picked by the pro-vegan lobby. We're adapted to eat the diet of our recent ancestors, so if you're discussing animals in different orders (primates is an order) it's totally irrelevant because it's like saying that humans shouldn't give birth lying down because reptiles lay eggs (or some other non-sequiteur) - compare humans to other primates, and look for patterns in the diets of primates and how primates are adapted to what they eat, and it's very clear that humans are adapted to be hunter-gatherers, which includes eating a significant amount of meat, by necessity (although humans have much more recently learned how to do agriculture and produce plant foods that provide enough protein.... but you can hardly call this the natural human diet)
Chimpanzee diet - mostly herbivore - except it will eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to medium-sized mammals, including other primates - this makes up for less than 5% of their diet.
Baboon diet- quiet similar - but mostly vegetarian.
Gorilla Diet- They must eat a lot of meat b/c their bodies are built like brick **** houses! Nope! Gorillas actually consume 97% plant and only 3% of their diet is meat- termites and caterpillars.
Can you find a study or research that shows these primates eat more than 5% meat? If you want to consider these insects meat.
I didn't say humans are adapted to eat identical diets to other great apes. I said compared to other primates, humans are clearly adapted to eat more meat.
Gorilla brain size is very small compared to its body size (compared to other great apes), and they are not that clever compared to other great apes. Neanderthals have a much bigger brain compared to their body size, they too were built like brick **** houses, they had to be, in order to kill animals the size of those that they ate. They also needed their large brains to be able to make the weapons they needed to kill them, and to hunt co-operatively. They almost certainly had language (some still claim they didn't, well I reject that claim, and this is the most contravertial statement I've made so far on the entire topic of palaeoanthropology in this thread, everything else is palaeoanthropology 101). So if you compare gorillas with neanderthals (or any other species of human you choose), it's clear that humans are more adapted to eat meat than gorillas are. I chose neanderthals as the most extreme example (i.e. biggest brains and ate the most meat of all human speices). Homo sapiens are far, far, far, far more like neanderthals than gorillas. The main dietary difference between H.sapiens and H.neanderthalensis is that H. sapiens ate fish/seafood. H. sapiens probably needed less food overall, due to having smaller brains and a smaller frame size (i.e. smaller muscles).
Gorillas also sit around all day and do very little other than eat. Humans on the other hand spend long periods of the day doing things other than eating. herbivores and animals that eat mostly plant foods need to spend more time eating in order to get enough nutrition, as animal foods are a lot more calorie dense. plant foods also need more digestion. modern hunter gatherers spend about 20 hours a week acquiring food (hunting, gathering) and don't eat any more frequently than other modern humans, i.e. they spend most of the day not eating, then eat when hungry.
Robust australopithecines are extinct apes, a side branch from the proto-human lineage, and they seem to be more adapted to eat plants rather like gorillas, i.e. smaller brains, bigger teeth (one species was known as "nutcracker man" on account of having jaws that would have been able to crack nuts) - on the human lineage you have an ongoing trend in more meat eating and larger brains and smaller jaws, i.e. eating softer foods that require less chewing, i.e. meat rather than very fibrous vegetable foods. australopithecines other than A. gahri did not make stone tools, they were not clever enough. they went extinct, probably because they failed to compete with humans.
Chimpanzees have bigger brains in relation to their body size than gorillas, and are a lot cleverer, and they co-operatively hunt small monkeys. Although you put 5% for the amount of animal protein consumed by great apes, I can't remember the exact figures, but chimpanzees eat more animal protein than gorillas.
Throughout human evolution, humans have eaten more meat, become more adapted to eating meat, and have grown bigger brains. The human gut is different to the gorilla's gut in that it's smaller, because gorillas need their bigger gut in order to digest the larger amount of plant food that they need, The human gut is not adapted to eat the diet of a gorilla, humans need more meat and can't digest very fibrous vegetable matter. (even pulses like lentils require the right micro-organisms in the gut for humans to be able to digest them, because humans don't make the enzymes to digest them, which is why many palaeo dieters omit them from their diet)
eating more meat = able to grow a bigger brain = able to plan, make tools etc and catch more meat = ongoing trend in humans towards more hunting and eating of meat as the brain has developed. Human teeth and guts have adapted to this, i.e. smaller teeth (and the invention of cooked food led to teeth/jaws getting smaller in Homo sapiens, neanderthals seem to have used their teeth for something other than eating, so their jaws remained big in spite of the amount of meat they ate, that's another debate....)0 -
here is the short and sweet i got from reading this - eat less cholesterol to live longer0
-
btw (addendum to my above post)
where I said humans need to eat meat, I mean palaeolithic humans.... the invention of agriculture has enabled humans to get enough plant protien and other protein (e.g. dairy) to not need meat any more.
My post is about human evolution and the natural human diet, i.e. species specific diet, the topic of this thread
as I've said in the past I've nothing against the vegetarian or vegan diet, I'm just countering the claims by some hardcore vegetarians/vegans that meat is not natural in the human diet.0 -
Yes C & P - but it's supporting evidence of the primate diet - & yes I found that there actually is ONE carnivore primate!
Primates exploit a variety of food sources. It has been said that many characteristics of modern primates, including humans, derive from an early ancestor's practice of taking most of its food from the tropical canopy.[106] Most primates include fruit in their diets to obtain easily digested carbohydrates and lipids for energy.[44] However, they require other foods, such as leaves or insects, for amino acids, vitamins and minerals. Primates in the suborder Strepsirrhini (non-tarsier prosimians) are able to synthesize vitamin C, like most other mammals, while primates of the suborder Haplorrhini (tarsiers, monkeys and apes) have lost this ability, and require the vitamin in their diet.[107]
Many primates have anatomical specializations that enable them to exploit particular foods, such as fruit, leaves, gum or insects.[44] For example, leaf eaters such as howler monkeys, black-and-white colobuses and sportive lemurs have extended digestive tracts which enable them to absorb nutrients from leaves that can be difficult to digest.[44] Marmosets, which are gum eaters, have strong incisor teeth, enabling them to open tree bark to get to the gum, and claws rather than nails, enabling them to cling to trees while feeding.[44] The aye-aye combines rodent-like teeth with a long, thin middle finger to fill the same ecological niche as a woodpecker. It taps on trees to find insect larvae, then gnaws holes in the wood and inserts its elongated middle finger to pull the larvae out.[108] Some species have additional specializations. For example, the grey-cheeked mangabey has thick enamel on its teeth, enabling it to open hard fruits and seeds that other monkeys cannot.[44]
The gelada is the only primate species that feeds primarily on grass.[109] Tarsiers are the only extant obligate carnivorous primates, exclusively eating insects, crustaceans, small vertebrates and snakes (including venomous species).[110] Capuchin monkeys, on the other hand, can exploit many different types of food, including fruit, leaves, flowers, buds, nectar, seeds, insects and other invertebrates, bird eggs, and small vertebrates such as birds, lizards, squirrels and bats.[64] The common chimpanzee has a varied diet that includes predation on other primate species, such as the western red colobus monkey.
flashback to 1st year university essays on this kind of stuff..........!!!..... I haven't studied anything much related to primates other than apes and occasionally monkeys for a very, very long time lol.
humans are more interesting lol
but yes you're on the right lines of fitting humans in when you compare them to more closely related species.0 -
Neanderthals got 100% of their protein from meat (molecular studies have confirmed this). They ate plant foods for carbohydrate and micronutrients.
There is protein in plant food in addition to carbohydrates and micronutrients. Just pointing that out.0 -
I haven't done the research yet, but I'm going to guess that at least in the United States, there is a relationship between vegetarianism and socio-economic status. Those would also be the same people who have access to quality health care and have low risk jobs, gym memberships or access to safe recreational areas in their neighborhoods.
I would think differently, as a college student I was far from rich and resorted to eating mostly vegetarian meals at the time because meat was so expensive.0 -
If you want to talk ancestors to man you have to take into account the energy expenditure it took them to get meat. It took a lot of time and energy to hunt and prepare meat so logically, in most areas, it would make more sense for them to eat nuts and vegetables and fruit as the bulk of their diet (unless they were in regions or conditions where they were unavailable). This is part of why I don't get the whole "paleo" thing because they eat far more meat than ancient man really would have. I doubt ancient man had a whole foods to buy his lean meat all prepackaged for him, js.0
-
Neanderthals got 100% of their protein from meat (molecular studies have confirmed this). They ate plant foods for carbohydrate and micronutrients.
There is protein in plant food in addition to carbohydrates and micronutrients. Just pointing that out.
absolutely. however the molecular evidence suggests that neanderthals protein came from meat. just because they ate plants does not mean their protein came from them.
there are two separate studies on this - one of them which looked at the molecular structure of neanderthal bones, to see what kind of protein they were eating. This suggested 100% meat (no fish, no plant protein - I don't have the details of the study (I don't currently have any access to academic journals besides what google will find, i.e. a few abstracts with only the basic details of the studies)
another study of their teeth showed traces of cooked plant food, i.e. they ate plants, and cooked them
put those two studies together, it paints a picture of people who got all their protein from animal sources, i.e. ate significant quantities of meat, but also ate cooked plant foods, which (based on what we know of plant foods) must have provided them with carbohydrates and micronutrients.
It also suggests that they ate meat in greater quantities than plant food, otherwise plant proteins would have showed up on the first study. Hardly surprising though, considering they lived in the sub-arctic climate of Europe in the ice ages... plant foods would not have been available in large quantities, and they may have gone through the coldest part of the year eating very little plant foods. Clearly they were a species that relied on eating a lot of meat.0 -
I've got to hand it to you, JJ. You have been here a very short amount of time, but you already have a rep for preachy posts about a diet and lifestyle (that you don't even follow), spouting nonsense as facts, and a condescending attitude towards women. It took me months to get a rep around here yet you have managed to do that in about a week and a half. Well played sir, well played.
Before I nuke this thread, I'd like to point out something very obvious that you fail to mention in your ridiculous comparison of cancer rates between India and the United States. If the Indian way of eating is so much better than the USA way, wouldn't that also express itself in the mortality rates? Indian citizens can expect to die in their lower 60's, while Americans live to their upper 70's.
1. Wouldn't healthier eating habits lead to longer lifespans?
2. Wouldn't longer lifespans contribute to higher cancer rates (the rate of cancer in those last 10 years is exponentially higher)?
3. If you're going to try to explain it because of better medicine or healthcare access, doesn't that open the door to a whole host other differences, which makes your direct comparison and jumping to conclusions ridiculous on it's face?
4. Do you get tired of being both preachy and wrong?
5. How do you not have 18 strikes and been banned already?
6. Is that a second account under a different username I see you interacting with?
7. vvvvv This vvvvv
0 -
Neanderthals got 100% of their protein from meat (molecular studies have confirmed this). They ate plant foods for carbohydrate and micronutrients.
There is protein in plant food in addition to carbohydrates and micronutrients. Just pointing that out.
absolutely. however the molecular evidence suggests that neanderthals protein came from meat. just because they ate plants does not mean their protein came from them.
there are two separate studies on this - one of them which looked at the molecular structure of neanderthal bones, to see what kind of protein they were eating. This suggested 100% meat (no fish, no plant protein - I don't have the details of the study (I don't currently have any access to academic journals besides what google will find, i.e. a few abstracts with only the basic details of the studies)
another study of their teeth showed traces of cooked plant food, i.e. they ate plants, and cooked them
put those two studies together, it paints a picture of people who got all their protein from animal sources, i.e. ate significant quantities of meat, but also ate cooked plant foods, which (based on what we know of plant foods) must have provided them with carbohydrates and micronutrients.
It also suggests that they ate meat in greater quantities than plant food, otherwise plant proteins would have showed up on the first study. Hardly surprising though, considering they lived in the sub-arctic climate of Europe in the ice ages... plant foods would not have been available in large quantities, and they may have gone through the coldest part of the year eating very little plant foods. Clearly they were a species that relied on eating a lot of meat.
So you're telling me there was 0 protein in the planted they ate?0 -
Neanderthals got 100% of their protein from meat (molecular studies have confirmed this). They ate plant foods for carbohydrate and micronutrients.
There is protein in plant food in addition to carbohydrates and micronutrients. Just pointing that out.
absolutely. however the molecular evidence suggests that neanderthals protein came from meat. just because they ate plants does not mean their protein came from them.
there are two separate studies on this - one of them which looked at the molecular structure of neanderthal bones, to see what kind of protein they were eating. This suggested 100% meat (no fish, no plant protein - I don't have the details of the study (I don't currently have any access to academic journals besides what google will find, i.e. a few abstracts with only the basic details of the studies)
another study of their teeth showed traces of cooked plant food, i.e. they ate plants, and cooked them
put those two studies together, it paints a picture of people who got all their protein from animal sources, i.e. ate significant quantities of meat, but also ate cooked plant foods, which (based on what we know of plant foods) must have provided them with carbohydrates and micronutrients.
It also suggests that they ate meat in greater quantities than plant food, otherwise plant proteins would have showed up on the first study. Hardly surprising though, considering they lived in the sub-arctic climate of Europe in the ice ages... plant foods would not have been available in large quantities, and they may have gone through the coldest part of the year eating very little plant foods. Clearly they were a species that relied on eating a lot of meat.
So you're telling me there was 0 protein in the planted they ate?
I'm telling you the results of the two studies. You make the conclusions for yourself.
Study A: 100% of their protein came from meat
Study B: they ate cooked plant foods (how much or how often, the study can't say, but clearly not very much in light of the other study....)0 -
I've got to hand it to you, JJ. You have been here a very short amount of time, but you already have a rep for preachy posts about a diet and lifestyle (that you don't even follow), spouting nonsense as facts, and a condescending attitude towards women. It took me months to get a rep around here yet you have managed to do that in about a week and a half. Well played sir, well played.
Before I nuke this thread, I'd like to point out something very obvious that you fail to mention in your ridiculous comparison of cancer rates between India and the United States. If the Indian way of eating is so much better than the USA way, wouldn't that also express itself in the mortality rates? Indian citizens can expect to die in their lower 60's, while Americans live to their upper 70's.
1. Wouldn't healthier eating habits lead to longer lifespans?
2. Wouldn't longer lifespans contribute to higher cancer rates (the rate of cancer in those last 10 years is exponentially higher)?
3. If you're going to try to explain it because of better medicine or healthcare access, doesn't that open the door to a whole host other differences, which makes your direct comparison and jumping to conclusions ridiculous on it's face?
4. Do you get tired of being both preachy and wrong?
5. How do you not have 18 strikes and been banned already?
6. Is that a second account under a different username I see you interacting with?
7. vvvvv This vvvvv
That's a pretty graph you have there Dave.0 -
If you want to talk ancestors to man you have to take into account the energy expenditure it took them to get meat. It took a lot of time and energy to hunt and prepare meat so logically, in most areas, it would make more sense for them to eat nuts and vegetables and fruit as the bulk of their diet (unless they were in regions or conditions where they were unavailable). This is part of why I don't get the whole "paleo" thing because they eat far more meat than ancient man really would have. I doubt ancient man had a whole foods to buy his lean meat all prepackaged for him, js.
which ancestors are you talking about? Homo habilis? Homo ergaster? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo sapiens idaltu?
they all ate different diets.
and hunting meat does not take that much effort compared to the amount of food you get from it.
Hunting a woolly mammoth would have taken a few hours, max. It would have provided enough meat for the whole tribe to eat for a very long time. They are mahoosive creatures. If you don't want to include neanderthals because they're mostly not our ancestors, then consider Homo sapiens idaltu who are our direct ancestors.... they ate hippos, they're pretty big animals too, so the same thing applies.
prior to hunting, humans scavenged dead meat. that doesn't take very long to get hold of, just chase away the vultures with sticks and stones....
it does not take that much time or effort to hunt meat, and as humans got cleverer (bigger brains) they got more efficient at hunting meat, figuring out how to trap or corner animals prior to killing them. Middle palaeolithic humans made huge stone tipped spears for hunting with.0 -
For future reference don't cite a study unless you have read more than an abstract. There's a a lot of details left out that are important, especially if you're using it to prove a point. Stick to ones where you do have all the info. There should be more studies on the same topic you may be able to find.0
-
When you've hunted a woolly mammoth let me know how long it took.lol0
-
That's a pretty graph you have there Dave.
you know i just look for excuses to whip something out0 -
Why not save the time and just send us all personalized diet plans of exactly what you want us to eat?
^ great comment!
0 -
That's a pretty graph you have there Dave.
you know i just look for excuses to whip something out
How YOU doin'? :bigsmile:0 -
For future reference don't cite a study unless you have read more than an abstract. There's a a lot of details left out that are important, especially if you're using it to prove a point. Stick to ones where you do have all the info. There should be more studies on the same topic you may be able to find.
I've read all the studies (and a lot more besides those), I can't reference you more than the abstract (if that's even available, it may not be) because I don't have access to it. I've studied this at university, where I had access to entire libraries of scientific journals. I am not currently at university, so can't currently access any journal articles. the journals themselves require a subscription to read more than the abstracts of studies.
The fact that neanderthals ate a lot of meat is palaeoanthropology 101, I'm not saying anything that's controversial, other than to promoters of this idea that humans are not naturally meat eaters. If you want to claim something controversial, like that neanderthals ate only a little meat, then the onus on you is to prove it.
Prove to me that it's so difficult for "early man" to find meat that it's better for them to stick to vegetable foods..... I should have asked you to do that right from the start rather than attempt to provide you with information.... oh well you live and learn...0 -
When you've hunted a woolly mammoth let me know how long it took.lol
have you ever studied anthropology? hunting meat with palaeolithic weapons does not take long.
how long do you think it took? and what evidence do you have for your claim that meat eating is so difficult and time consuming that it's better for "early man" to stick to vegetable foods?0 -
If you want to talk ancestors to man you have to take into account the energy expenditure it took them to get meat. It took a lot of time and energy to hunt and prepare meat so logically, in most areas, it would make more sense for them to eat nuts and vegetables and fruit as the bulk of their diet (unless they were in regions or conditions where they were unavailable). This is part of why I don't get the whole "paleo" thing because they eat far more meat than ancient man really would have. I doubt ancient man had a whole foods to buy his lean meat all prepackaged for him, js.
Except once again, you are forgetting the natural world. Pre agriculture, it would have been bloody difficult to eat nuts unless it was autumn. I suppose they must/could have stored them, but how many they could find/how long they lasted is anybody's guess.
I imagine they ate almost exclusiveley meat for weeks/months after they had killed/scavanged a big, dead animal and ate plants at other times. Like I said, trying to eat wild plats in a temeprate winter will get you pretty much nowhere. It is only modern agriculture that has allowed us to have the level of homogeneity in the diet that we have now.
Also; agriculture has probably be around long enough for humans to adapt to whatever their local version of it is/was, within reason (this might exclude relativeley modern things like pesticides etc)0 -
Hunting meat is far less energy intensive than gathering enough plants to eat. Look at it in modern terms. A modern cow has an average meat yield of 569 pounds. How long do you think it would take to gather 569 pounds of fruit, nuts, and seeds, using only wild sources? Which do you think takes more time and energy?If you want to talk ancestors to man you have to take into account the energy expenditure it took them to get meat. It took a lot of time and energy to hunt and prepare meat so logically, in most areas, it would make more sense for them to eat nuts and vegetables and fruit as the bulk of their diet (unless they were in regions or conditions where they were unavailable). This is part of why I don't get the whole "paleo" thing because they eat far more meat than ancient man really would have. I doubt ancient man had a whole foods to buy his lean meat all prepackaged for him, js.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions