species-specific diet

neandermagnon

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.

redraidergirl2009

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.

redraidergirl2009

When you've hunted a woolly mammoth let me know how long it took.lol

DavPul

That's a pretty graph you have there Dave.

you know i just look for excuses to whip something out

mmddwechanged

Why not save the time and just send us all personalized diet plans of exactly what you want us to eat?

^ great comment!

Sarauk2sf

That's a pretty graph you have there Dave.

you know i just look for excuses to whip something out

How YOU doin'? :bigsmile:

neandermagnon

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...

neandermagnon

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?

SteveJWatson

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)

tigersword

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.

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?

ubermensch13

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.

LishieFruit89

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

SteveJWatson

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.

neandermagnon

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.

MoreBean13

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.

redraidergirl2009

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.

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?

Tell me which would have more nutrients 569 pounds of beef or 569 pounds of vegetables, fruit and nuts?

redraidergirl2009

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.

SteveJWatson

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.

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?

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.

redraidergirl2009

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.

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?

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.

SteveJWatson

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.

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?

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.