species-specific diet
Replies
-
I think there is much to be said about quality v quantity of life in this debate. It might be true that by eating "one" type of diet we can increase the average life span, but that doesn't guarantee a high quality of life or that we will survive that long either.
While I'm not advocating debauchery, I do advocate enjoyment and looking at what you view as a "quality life" over quantity. We can only really play the percentages as to the risks of surviving everyday, but there are no guarantees. There are plenty of studies that show you can live a healthy life with other types of diets, and lifestyles, all within moderation. If you get more enjoyment out of that life than eating a veggie raw diet would bring(which I know I'd be miserable if I had to eat only that way), then I'd rather give up 4-6 years and have a higher quality of life eating a burger now and then.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:
My thoughts exactly
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?
You do then have to somehow store the meat or have enough people to eat it all before it goes off, so its probably not a simple as that, either.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?
You do then have to somehow store the meat or have enough people to eat it all before it goes off, so its probably not a simple as that, either.
neanderthals lived in a subarctic climate so the cold probably preserved the animals they hunted for quite a while, especially during winter when plant foods were likely to have been a lot more scarce. In fact I've seen it suggested that neanderthals started cooking meat in order to thaw it out during the winter (no idea how much evidence there is for this, but it's an interesting idea)
I'm interested in how H. sapiens idaltu got around this problem, as they lived in Africa. Homo sapiens may have lived in larger groups than neanderthals (other evidence suggests that), so what you said above, re enough people to eat all of it before it goes off, maybe applies.0 -
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.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.
Tell me which would have more nutrients 569 pounds of beef or 569 pounds of vegetables, fruit and nuts?0 -
I think there is much to be said about quality v quantity of life in this debate. It might be true that by eating "one" type of diet we can increase the average life span, but that doesn't guarantee a high quality of life or that we will survive that long either.
While I'm not advocating debauchery, I do advocate enjoyment and looking at what you view as a "quality life" over quantity. We can only really play the percentages as to the risks of surviving everyday, but there are no guarantees. There are plenty of studies that show you can live a healthy life with other types of diets, and lifestyles, all within moderation. If you get more enjoyment out of that life than eating a veggie raw diet would bring(which I know I'd be miserable if I had to eat only that way), then I'd rather give up 4-6 years and have a higher quality of life eating a burger now and then.
I think the problem is that americans aren't taking in a fatty mcdonalds burger "not and then", there are people doing this daily.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.
Tell me which would have more nutrients 569 pounds of beef or 569 pounds of vegetables, fruit and nuts?
They will have different levels of them, obviously. The meat would have things essential, but lacking in a plant diet, such as fat and easily digestible protein.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.
Tell me which would have more nutrients 569 pounds of beef or 569 pounds of vegetables, fruit and nuts?
They will have different levels of them, obviously. The meat would have things essential, but lacking in a plant diet, such as fat and easily digestible protein.
Some plants and seeds and nuts have fat and of course protein.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.
Tell me which would have more nutrients 569 pounds of beef or 569 pounds of vegetables, fruit and nuts?
They will have different levels of them, obviously. The meat would have things essential, but lacking in a plant diet, such as fat and easily digestible protein.
Some plants and seeds and nuts have fat and of course protein.
Yes, but you wont find many nuts/seeds about in seasons other than autumn, will you? Nor will you find much fruit, unless you live in the tropics. All edible wild plants in spring/summer will be mostly leafy stuff - tubers etc might appear from late summer, I suppose. I imagine we are overlooking another plentiful animal-based protein source here too - insects and crustacea.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.
Tell me which would have more nutrients 569 pounds of beef or 569 pounds of vegetables, fruit and nuts?
They will have different levels of them, obviously. The meat would have things essential, but lacking in a plant diet, such as fat and easily digestible protein.
Some plants and seeds and nuts have fat and of course protein.
Yes, but you wont find many nuts/seeds about in seasons other than autumn, will you? Nor will you find much fruit, unless you live in the tropics. All edible wild plants in spring/summer will be mostly leafy stuff - tubers etc might appear from late summer, I suppose. I imagine we are overlooking another plentiful animal-based protein source here too - insects and crustacea.
and if you read my original post you'll see that I said people would probably eat more meat in climates when those foods weren't readily available.0 -
Animal protein is easier to digest than plant protein.
And as far as nutrition, grass-fed beef (since I used a cow for my example) has plenty of protein, omega-3's, B vitamins, vitamin A, vitamin E, selenium, iron, vitamin C, magnesium and zinc.0 -
I read that plant protein is easier to digest. Regardless, our bodies can digest them both. Just depends which source you prefer.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.
Agreed. I've worked in AK native health, and it's the transition to westernized lifestyles that is doing the damage.0 -
I read that plant protein is easier to digest. Regardless, our bodies can digest them both. Just depends which source you prefer.
Key word in this is "prefer" - and if we are talking about an optimal diet for humans, until very recently, preference wouldn't have come into it, availability would have been the only factor.
So, I remain unconvinced that there is such a thing as an optimal human diet. You can be perfectly heathy eating a diet with or without meats or dairy, depending on the individual and their unique ancestry/genetics, obviously.0 -
and if you read my original post you'll see that I said people would probably eat more meat in climates when those foods weren't readily available.
Essentially thats all of them, most climates exhibit some degree of seasonality in types of food available, although of course this is much less marked in certain parts of the tropics.0 -
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.
Or accusing people of being transgendered because they don't agree with him. Or asking women if their husbands aren't given them enough attention because they disagree with him. OP has lost any credibility with me.
If anyone wants to talk to an actual vegetarian, I'm one (unlike OP).
ETA: I also have two science degrees.... Might make it a bit more interesting to talk to me too
0 -
I'm tired of being intellectual, this thread needs a little humour. Hope this works. And I'm trying to select jokes that both omnivores and herbivores will enjoy.
0 -
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.
Or accusing people of being transgendered because they don't agree with him. Or asking women if their husbands aren't given them enough attention because they disagree with him. OP has lost any credibility with me.
If anyone wants to talk to an actual vegetarian, I'm one (unlike OP).
ETA: I also have two science degrees.... Might make it a bit more interesting to talk to me too
science degrees are :drinker: :flowerforyou: :happy:0 -
What fun, I left this at Page 1 and come back to it already at Page 5! And thanks Neandermagnon, I thoroughly enjoyed your posts :bigsmile:0
-
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.
Or accusing people of being transgendered because they don't agree with him. Or asking women if their husbands aren't given them enough attention because they disagree with him. OP has lost any credibility with me.
If anyone wants to talk to an actual vegetarian, I'm one (unlike OP).
ETA: I also have two science degrees.... Might make it a bit more interesting to talk to me too
science degrees are :drinker: :flowerforyou: :happy:
Thanks I saw this special on the history channel- I know that's not the best source- but it said that scientists (??) think that humans did not out compete Neanderthals- but actually bred them out of existence. The implication was that Europeans are more "Neanderthal" than say Africans. That was a really interesting show
I also love science! And your posts were great
0 -
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.
Or accusing people of being transgendered because they don't agree with him. Or asking women if their husbands aren't given them enough attention because they disagree with him. OP has lost any credibility with me.
If anyone wants to talk to an actual vegetarian, I'm one (unlike OP).
ETA: I also have two science degrees.... Might make it a bit more interesting to talk to me too
science degrees are :drinker: :flowerforyou: :happy:
Thanks I saw this special on the history channel- I know that's not the best source- but it said that scientists (??) think that humans did not out compete Neanderthals- but actually bred them out of existence. The implication was that Europeans are more "Neanderthal" than say Africans. That was a really interesting show
I also love science! And your posts were great
thanks
yes, I think the above theory is correct, i.e. they were assimilated rather than out competed to extinction (although it was probably a bit of both, IMO, i.e. population in decline already due to not competing well and/or not adapting well to the climate changes going on at the time, and then the last remaining ones interbreeding... or something along those lines).
Genetic studies show that Africans from countries south of the Sahara have 0% neanderthal DNA, while everyone else in the world has 1-4% neanderthal DNA, (and some Asian populations have 1-6% DNA from another species of human known as Denisovans, but nothing else is known about Denisovans, only that they mated with Homo sapiens people....poor Denisovans, what a legacy LOL)
I also think it's possible that people from some parts of Europe may turn out to have more than 4% neanderthal DNA, but there's no hard evidence of that so far......... just that it seems to me that some people from some European populations have more neanderthal characteristics than others, and these populations can be traced back to the last places where neanderthals lived before they went extinct. And it would be an interesting explanation for me being 5'1", heavy build/large frame, short limbs, big rib cage LOL (i.e. average height for female neanderthals and similar body proportions) :laugh: but without DNA evidence, you can't tell if it's from convergent evolution, i.e. Homo sapiens populations re-evolving evolving similar characteristics as adaptations to the European climate and similar. Without DNA evidence this as not a very scientific opinion (and pretty controversial) so don't read too much into it. But the 1-4% neanderthal DNA comes from genetic studies so is a lot more reliable, and not controversial.
I found this cartoon and thought it was pertinent to this thread lol
0 -
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.
Or accusing people of being transgendered because they don't agree with him. Or asking women if their husbands aren't given them enough attention because they disagree with him. OP has lost any credibility with me.
If anyone wants to talk to an actual vegetarian, I'm one (unlike OP).
ETA: I also have two science degrees.... Might make it a bit more interesting to talk to me too
I have a couple of those too, both in biology, but I don't 'do' humans, usually.....0 -
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.
Or accusing people of being transgendered because they don't agree with him. Or asking women if their husbands aren't given them enough attention because they disagree with him. OP has lost any credibility with me.
If anyone wants to talk to an actual vegetarian, I'm one (unlike OP).
ETA: I also have two science degrees.... Might make it a bit more interesting to talk to me too
science degrees are :drinker: :flowerforyou: :happy:
Thanks I saw this special on the history channel- I know that's not the best source- but it said that scientists (??) think that humans did not out compete Neanderthals- but actually bred them out of existence. The implication was that Europeans are more "Neanderthal" than say Africans. That was a really interesting show
I also love science! And your posts were great
thanks
yes, I think the above theory is correct, i.e. they were assimilated rather than out competed to extinction (although it was probably a bit of both, IMO, i.e. population in decline already due to not competing well and/or not adapting well to the climate changes going on at the time, and then the last remaining ones interbreeding... or something along those lines).
Genetic studies show that Africans from countries south of the Sahara have 0% neanderthal DNA, while everyone else in the world has 1-4% neanderthal DNA, (and some Asian populations have 1-6% DNA from another species of human known as Denisovans, but nothing else is known about Denisovans, only that they mated with Homo sapiens people....poor Denisovans, what a legacy LOL)
I also think it's possible that people from some parts of Europe may turn out to have more than 4% neanderthal DNA, but there's no hard evidence of that so far......... just that it seems to me that some people from some European populations have more neanderthal characteristics than others, and these populations can be traced back to the last places where neanderthals lived before they went extinct. And it would be an interesting explanation for me being 5'1", heavy build/large frame, short limbs, big rib cage LOL (i.e. average height for female neanderthals and similar body proportions) :laugh: but without DNA evidence, you can't tell if it's from convergent evolution, i.e. Homo sapiens populations re-evolving evolving similar characteristics as adaptations to the European climate and similar. Without DNA evidence this as not a very scientific opinion (and pretty controversial) so don't read too much into it. But the 1-4% neanderthal DNA comes from genetic studies so is a lot more reliable, and not controversial.
I found this cartoon and thought it was pertinent to this thread lol
*drool*
Your brain is so sexy.
Can you talk science to me some more???
*fans self*0 -
I am just wondering if this is going to turn out like your vegetarian thread and halfway through you're going to tell us you are just pretending to be a human but nonetheless you are an expert on what humans should be doing.
Or accusing people of being transgendered because they don't agree with him. Or asking women if their husbands aren't given them enough attention because they disagree with him. OP has lost any credibility with me.
If anyone wants to talk to an actual vegetarian, I'm one (unlike OP).
ETA: I also have two science degrees.... Might make it a bit more interesting to talk to me too
science degrees are :drinker: :flowerforyou: :happy:
Thanks I saw this special on the history channel- I know that's not the best source- but it said that scientists (??) think that humans did not out compete Neanderthals- but actually bred them out of existence. The implication was that Europeans are more "Neanderthal" than say Africans. That was a really interesting show
I also love science! And your posts were great
thanks
yes, I think the above theory is correct, i.e. they were assimilated rather than out competed to extinction (although it was probably a bit of both, IMO, i.e. population in decline already due to not competing well and/or not adapting well to the climate changes going on at the time, and then the last remaining ones interbreeding... or something along those lines).
Genetic studies show that Africans from countries south of the Sahara have 0% neanderthal DNA, while everyone else in the world has 1-4% neanderthal DNA, (and some Asian populations have 1-6% DNA from another species of human known as Denisovans, but nothing else is known about Denisovans, only that they mated with Homo sapiens people....poor Denisovans, what a legacy LOL)
I also think it's possible that people from some parts of Europe may turn out to have more than 4% neanderthal DNA, but there's no hard evidence of that so far......... just that it seems to me that some people from some European populations have more neanderthal characteristics than others, and these populations can be traced back to the last places where neanderthals lived before they went extinct. And it would be an interesting explanation for me being 5'1", heavy build/large frame, short limbs, big rib cage LOL (i.e. average height for female neanderthals and similar body proportions) :laugh: but without DNA evidence, you can't tell if it's from convergent evolution, i.e. Homo sapiens populations re-evolving evolving similar characteristics as adaptations to the European climate and similar. Without DNA evidence this as not a very scientific opinion (and pretty controversial) so don't read too much into it. But the 1-4% neanderthal DNA comes from genetic studies so is a lot more reliable, and not controversial.
I found this cartoon and thought it was pertinent to this thread lol
*drool*
Your brain is so sexy.
Can you talk science to me some more???
*fans self*
it's 2am in my timezone... too tired for science lol
here's some more anthropology humour
eta: there should be two pictures, I can only see one.0 -
I jumped around here a bit - this is a long thread, but I was wondering if there was talk about the benefits of a pescetarian diet. JJ, what do you know about the benefits of being a pescetarian?0
-
Bumping because I appreciate getting the scientific perspectives. Interesting stuff!0
-
I thought that had something to do with birth mortality rates or something...0 -
I thought that had something to do with birth mortality rates or something...
Well, I'm sure a lot of women died giving birth. And probably there was hypothermia, accidents, being eaten by mountain lions, murder.... But there was also poor dental hygiene, disease, starvation. The flu probably killed many back then before vaccinations and what not- tuberculosis, head trauma, infections.... Lots of great ways to die young in ancient times.0 -
I thought that had something to do with birth mortality rates or something...
Well, I'm sure a lot of women died giving birth. And probably there was hypothermia, accidents, being eaten by mountain lions, murder.... But there was also poor dental hygiene, disease, starvation. The flu probably killed many back then before vaccinations and what not- tuberculosis, head trauma, infections.... Lots of great ways to die young in ancient times.
I don't think flu had evolved then (at least not human flu), it and a lot of illnesses we have now jumped the species barrier and came from animals in post-neolithic times. Same as swine flu and avian flu have done recently. Micro-organisms evolve much faster than big organisms because they have such a short lifespan (you can have dozens of bacteria generations in a single day, and they can evolve resistance to antibiotics in a matter of weeks), so whatever infections diseases there were back then would have been totally different to the ones now. And as people lived in smaller groups at a much lower population density, there was probably a lot less human to human infectious diseases.
the data on the age of death of palaeolithic people comes from the bones themselves, because the vast majority of people who ever lived, their bones didn't fossilise, so what you have in the fossil record is just a tiny snapshot from the miniscule percentage of people whose bones ended up being fossilised. So it's impossible to have statistics on stuff like infant mortality or life expectancy, etc.
The fossil record suggests that middle palaeolithic humans did not often live past age 35-40 or so, and afaik most of this data comes from neanderthals (who are not the only middle palaeolithic humans, but a lot of their skeletons have been discovered). The younger age of death (if it's not due to imprecise forensic techniques) may be due to earlier human species having shorter natural lifespans. Though you have to bear in mind that any data like this is basically doing an autopsy on someone who died tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of years ago. i.e. it's hard to determine how they died and whether they'd reached the end of their natural lifespan or not. Some skeletons show problems associated with old age, which indicates that those individuals did live at least close to what was probably their natural lifespan. Determining their chronological age at death is another matter, but there's other evidence for neanderthals and earlier humans having shorter lifespans and shorter childhoods.
I don't like bumping up all the pseudoscience on this thread.... maybe we should make a science nerd thread somewhere for scientific discussions :flowerforyou: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