Humans: Carnivorous?

[Weave]

Do humans naturally eat meat?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

 

I don't wholly agree that eating meat is completely unnatural. I believe it as something to fall back on possibly. However, the acceptance of HOW natural it is, is something I disagree stongly about. I'd say that we are bourderline Omnivorous/Herbivore.

So:

How natural is eating meat?

[Web Rider]

wait wait....didn't this get posted here already?

 

Seen it, debunked it, ain't worth doing it again.

[Rev7]

I honestly don't think that one can get protien from vegatables and cheeses. Me I personaly think that it is in the human nature to eat meat.

[Weave]

@ Web Rider - Has this topic already been touched on before? If so... could you give me the link to that other topic (if one exists). Or are you implying that it's not worth discussing? No trying to be agressive or anything... just wondering.

 

@Rev7 - I happen to get all my protein. Besides, it's the essential amino acids that are important. I've already said that soy, nuts, beans, and rice are fine. Plus, the number one cause of food related death is heart failure or stroke... caused by meat and fatty foods... not protein deficiency.

As for human nature... I disagree that eating meat is by any means apart of human nature. However, I do agree that part of our abstract thinking is to look for more pleasurable things... which we indulge in by consuming meat. Like the flic said though... cigarettes are the same way. Plus, do you feed a baby meat? No... you feed it milk, carrots, apple sauce, and peas. Eventually... you begin to give it very small amunts of meat so that the child develops a tolerance to it, like poison for example.

[Totenkopf]

I vote for omnivore. And if meat be poison......please let me kill myself with a nice piece of prime rib.....rare preferably, but med rare will do fine.

[mimartin]

I am really going to believe a talking pig telling me not to eat meat. Makes as much sense as a cow telling me to eat more chicken.

 

I’m sorry but the argument that Carl Lewis was a vegetarian and could kick anyone’s butt is insane. Carl Lewis couldn't kick his way out of a paper bag.

 

Therefore, to answer the question, we are both!

[Achilles]

Without watching the clip (blocked from work), I will submit that yes, humans did naturally become carnivorous. Our biology has evolved for both consumption of meat and plants. Some evidences suggests that adapting meat to our diet was a necessary step for brain development. Et cetera, et cetera.

 

I understand that it is becoming popular to raise moral questions about eating meat and our increased understanding of nutrition has made it possible to live without meat, but that does not magically invalidate its involvement in our evolution as a species.

 

And regarding feeding babies meat: I suspect it has nothing to do with building up their tolerance to a poison and everything to do with their not having teeth

 

EDIT: One last thing I forgot to mention:

 

Plus, the number one cause of food related death is heart failure or stroke... caused by meat and fatty foods... not protein deficiency.

Yes, in modern humans, with mostly sedentary lifestyles and fatty meats that come from factory-farmed animals. Early humans however were highly active and ate lean meats that came from highly active animals. So it almost seems like we're almost dealing with two entirely different sets of questions, wouldn't you agree?

[Weave]

I vote for omnivore. And if meat be poison......please let me kill myself with a nice piece of prime rib.....rare preferably, but med rare will do fine.

 

In the middle ages, kings used to take small amounts of poison and increase those doses as their tolerance to the poison fortified. Same goes with meat. You don't give a baby a prime rib... it's going to throw up uncontrollably. You give it small doses of meat when the child's young. Then you build and build until he/she has a tolerance. It also explains why people lose their tolerance to meat after not eating it for a long while.

I’m sorry but the argument that Carl Lewis was a vegetarian and could kick anyone’s butt is insane. Carl Lewis couldn't kick his way out of a paper bag.

 

Nah... you're probably right... but Jack La'Lane (sp?) definitely could kick your @$$.

 

And regarding feeding babies meat: I suspect it has nothing to do with building up their tolerance to a poison and everything to do with their not having teeth

 

Well... you can grind up some meat in a food procesor and it'd have the same texture as peas.

The baby would still get sick.

[Hallucination]

Plus, the number one cause of food related death is heart failure or stroke... caused by meat and fatty foods... not protein deficiency.

I'm fairly certain it's caused by high amounts of cholesterol and a lack of exercise. I'm 100% sure humans are meant to move a little more than 1 km a day.

 

As for the video, it would be better if it included human-herbivore comparisons, as well as a few human-omnivore comparisons (if I remember correctly, I eat a tomato or two every so often). I think it would have been interesting to follow up the wolf digestive system-human digestive system comparison with a human digestive system-cow digestive system, since cows happen to have four stomach chambers and we have one.

 

I also think (this could just be me) that the video was slightly biased. And the voice actor for the pig needs to DIAF.

[Achilles]

Well... you can grind up some meat in a food procesor and it'd have the same texture as peas.

The baby would still get sick.

All that tells me is that Baby's digestive system probably doesn't develop sufficiently to handle meat until Baby has teeth to chew it with anyway.

[Weave]

Yes, in modern humans, with mostly sedentary lifestyles and fatty meats that come from factory-farmed animals. Early humans however were highly active and ate lean meats that came from highly active animals. So it almost seems like we're almost dealing with two entirely different sets of questions, wouldn't you agree?

 

This was just to support my arguement on: Do Vegetarians get enough protein.

Basically... I was just saying that vegetarians do. As for lean meat, that raises the question: Do we need to slaughter so many animals whom have lots of fat?

Here's another flic... but let's move on after this cause it's off-topic.

 

Plus, let me change my first post, so that it narrows this debate down a little more narrowly.

 

As for meat adding to the development of the brain and abstract thinking: It doesn't explain why other primates haven't developed such traits after so long. Plus, too much meat leads to brain degeneracy. I do agree that lean red meat DOES benefit someone... but the fact that hardly anyone actually goes out and eats specifically lean red meat does discredit the whole point of eating meat IMO.

 

I also think (this could just be me) that the video was slightly biased. And the voice actor for the pig needs to DIAF.

 

Of course it's biased, it's supposed to be persuasive. There isn't a single document that isn't at least somewhat biased.

 

As for the voice acting:

 

All that tells me is that Baby's digestive system probably doesn't develop sufficiently to handle meat until Baby has teeth to chew it with anyway

 

True. But let's try it on a completely vegie-raised baby and see.

If you give a non-anemic, Johova Witness child some meat... it's definitely going to be in the bathroom all day long. Simply, the kid has no tolerance. You can't give me meat or I'll throw up. Mainly because I've lost my tolerance to it... and my digestive track is fully developed.

[mimartin]

Another problem with the video is Chimpanzees are pictured as herbivores, but like us, they are omnivores.

 

Damn Achilles already got my second point about difference between game and farmed raised animals.

 

Weave I admire you for having the will power to not eat meat and I’m all for not being cruel to animals. I also support conservation of animals, both with my vote and with my pocketbook. My grandparent taught me if I killed the animal that I must use the animal. Meaning I have to eat or use all the parts the parts possible. Hence, I hunt but rarely kill. Usually carry only a camera instead of a gun.

[Weave]

Weave I admire you for having the will power to not eat meat and I’m all for not being cruel to animals. I also support conservation of animals, both with my vote and with my pocketbook. My grandparent taught me if I killed the animal that I must use the animal. Meaning I have to eat or use all the parts the parts possible. Hence, I hunt but rarely kill. Usually carry only a camera instead of a gun.

 

As for the chimp thing... I know... I was chastizing the video because of that one

 

As for the hunting... it's good you use the whole animal and not waste it. That's also a problem with killing animals now-a-days... we completely waste most of them and just end up killing more animals as a result.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

 

The Narrator is super dramatic though.

[Jae Onasi]

Oh, Rev7, you certainly can get proteins from vegetables and cheeses. For those who don't already know, a protein is a long chain of amino acids, and there are 20 amino acids. Our bodies can make 11 of these amino acids. The other 9 essential amino acids cannot be made by our bodies--we have to ingest those somehow, normally by eating food.

 

In terms of food and protein content, any food that has all 9 of the essential amino acids is called a complete protein, and anything that has some but not all of the 9 essential amino acids is an incomplete protein. Foods such as meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, and soy are all complete proteins. Grains (corn, wheat, oatmeal), legumes (like lentils, kidney beans, black beans, navy beans, quinoa, etc.), nuts, and seeds are all incomplete proteins, but if you eat a variety of these different incomplete proteins, you'll end up getting all the essential amino acids. Different protein combinations will provide all the necessary amino acids, and these combinations include grains and legumes, corn and legumes, nuts/seeds and legumes, and so on.

 

The reason we don't give babies meat right off the bat is because their digestive systems and kidneys aren't mature enough to handle high-protein foods, and they have to mature enough to be able to swallow foods safely. At a very young age (the first couple months), they need breast milk or a baby formula that is similar in composition (including the protein content) to breast milk. Yes, babies may throw up meat, but they usually spit up a lot of any of their foods just because the muscles between the esophagus and stomach aren't mature, either, and food comes up a lot easier as a result. The current thought about when to start solid foods is shown in many guides such as this one here, though every parent needs to discuss that with their pediatrician or family doctor because each child is individual.

 

@Weave--I suspect the higher fat content in the meat would be what would make you throw up rather than an intolerance of meat in general. I had the same problem after I had my gall bladder out, especially if the meat was very high fat. It was definitely an incentive to eat lower-fat proteins.

Hey, we need some good veggie recipes from the vegetarians. I'd love to learn how to make some interesting dishes vegetarian dishes besides refried beans or bean soup. Our family needs to learn how to eat less of the typical American diet and more of healthier foods.

[Achilles]

This was just to support my arguement on: Do Vegetarians get enough protein.

Understood, but the original question was "Do human naturally eat meat?".

 

My argument thus far has been "yes". Your counter-arguments thus far have been "modern vegetarians do not need to".

 

Basically... I was just saying that vegetarians do. As for lean meat, that raises the question: Do we need to slaughter so many animals whom have lots of fat?

Again, completely ancillary. We breed animals to be fat because it allows you to "harvest" more meat per animal. I don't particularly care for fatty meat and tend to go for leaner cuts when treating myself to the red.

 

Not sure what this has to do with our natural relationship with meat though

 

As for meat adding to the development of the brain and abstract thinking: It doesn't explain why other primates haven't developed such traits after so long.

Actually, it seems rather self-explanatory: they are on a different evolutionary branch. Had they developed like us, they would have been us. Since they didn't they are still them.

 

But in the spirit of debate, how would you categorize chimps using tools to capture grubs and termites for snacks? Carnivorous?

 

Plus, too much meat leads to brain degeneracy. I do agree that lean red meat DOES benefit someone... but the fact that hardly anyone actually goes out and eats specifically lean red meat does discredit the whole point of eating meat IMO.

And in the context of early man?

 

True. But let's try it on a completely vegie-raised baby and see.

I'm all for it. Still not sure what it has to do with the original question.

 

... and my digestive track is fully developed.

While I'm sorry to hear that, I do still want to point out that you seem to be making my point for me

 

Another problem with the video is Chimpanzees are pictured as herbivores, but like us, they are omnivores.

Doh! You beat me to it.

 

Damn Achilles already got my second point about difference between game and farmed raised animals.

We're even

[Weave]

@Weave--I suspect the higher fat content in the meat would be what would make you throw up rather than an intolerance of meat in general. I had the same problem after I had my gall bladder out, especially if the meat was very high fat. It was definitely an incentive to eat lower-fat proteins.

 

True for me... but for Vegans and Vegetarians who do not take advantage of their diet and end up eating fatty foods to fill themselves up (bad Vegies as I call them, since they abuse their diet), this seems untrue since they also cannot eat meat after going without it for a long time.

Another example is my mother. She cannot eat beef because of her intolerance to it: She eats turkey, chicken, fish, and pork... but cow meat makes her sick. Why? Because she hasn't eaten it in a long time and lost her tolerance to it. She is certainly by all means tolerant to fat (hence her cheesecake addiction) but i still retain the belief that meat needs to be developed as a tolerant substance first. Although, not having too much fat tolerance certainly does help with no meat tolerance. I agree with that whole-heartedly.

 

As for recipes... I've got a million of em'... I'll compose a little presentation later tonight. (Probably in a PM or a thread in Ahto Spaceport)

 

Again, completely ancillary. We breed animals to be fat because it allows you to "harvest" more meat per animal. I don't particularly care for fatty meat and tend to go for leaner cuts when treating myself to the red.

 

Not sure what this has to do with our natural relationship with meat though

 

That's 'cause I'm on a mission of conversion, hence the underlying question, "How many animals REALLY need to be killed, for christ's sakes!" See... the point of that little excerpt is off-topic intentionally because, at least, I want people to think about, Do we really to kill animals in the numbers they are slaughtered in (even if you do eat meat). Quite frankly, it has nothin' to do with the debate... I'm just being Vegie-nazi and imposing my views on people... but... sadly... I suck at letting people know when I'm just being cryptic... so, in all seriousness, this has nothing to do with my topic.

 

And in the context of early man?

 

Like you said earlier: humans of then were highly nomadic... they moved around a lot and were very active: The degeneracy can be caused by fat... I was being too broad with that... but the effects caused by too much meat upon a human now and then... isn't really different... assuming that you're talking about homo-sapiens sapiens when you relate it to "humans of then"... Alas, you're correct... I'm doing conversion again... it's too much trans fats and other sorts of negative minerals/nutrients that leads to brain degeneracy.

 

While I'm sorry to hear that, I do still want to point out that you seem to be making my point for me

 

I'm pointing out that my digestive tract can't take meat because I've lost my tolerance to it. I'm just speculating on whether or not a fully developed digestive tract is relevant to digesting meat since I have a fully developed one and used to eat meat. Now that I've stopped, I can't eat it anymore. My point is: I think building a tolerance to meat is much more important to eating it than the actual digestive tract.

 

--------

 

As for humans not being able to eat meat, NATURALLY......

 

1. We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals. Other animals can kill the bacteria that infest a corpse. Humans cannot... therefore, we have to cook it to kill the bacteria. Which is inconsistent with meat enhancing the brain since we would have already had to know how to cook it in the first place (which is thought abstraction). So... i doubt meat enhances thinking because we would have had to eaten it before in order to learn how to cook... and since our digestive systems can't break down the bacteria in meat... we probably got our enhanced thought from other things (natural selection perhaps).

 

2.We are not built to run after prey and catch it... no tools included. The only reason this ever happened was because of our ability to problem-solve and use tools.

 

3. Our teeth are mainly vegetarian, save for the canine (which are pretty whimpy, let's face it... it's not like we can rip straight into the hide of an animal while it's dead on the ground...)

 

---

 

...not to be mean or anything... but it sounds like you're assuming that I'm backing up "No" to the answer of my question. That's untrue, I'm saying that it's not nearly as natural as people think. I believe us to be more herbivore than carnivore... more like in between an herbivore/omnivore (bouderline). However, I admit that I didn't clarify the quesion: How natural is it really? I'll be sure to clarify things more in future debates.

And as for the Brain developing arguement: I think that has more to do with evolutionary thought process than what's in our diet. I don't wanna brag... but I used to have a low IQ (below 90) in Elementary school (meat days) and now I have one that's over 150 (non-meat days)... I'm just not convinced with the research, especially considering that it's a weak theory and a RECENT study.

[Achilles]

That's 'cause I'm on a mission of conversion, hence the underlying question, "How many animals REALLY need to be killed, for christ's sakes!"

*shrugs* If this is going to go off on a tangent about factory-farming, then I'm right behind you.

 

See... the point of that little excerpt is off-topic intentionally because, at least, I want people to think about, Do we really to kill animals in the numbers they are slaughtered in (even if you do eat meat). Quite frankly, it has nothin' to do with the debate... I'm just being Vegie-nazi and imposing my views on people... but... sadly... I suck at letting people know when I'm just being cryptic... so, in all seriousness, this has nothing to do with my topic.

*puts Weave on his buddy list because he's honest*

 

I'm pointing out that my digestive tract can't take meat because I've lost my tolerance to it. I'm just speculating on whether or not a fully developed digestive tract is relevant to digesting meat since I have a fully developed one and used to eat meat. Now that I've stopped, I can't eat it anymore. My point is: I think building a tolerance to meat is much more important to eating it than the actual digestive tract.

It's possible.

 

1. We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals.

We don't now. It's possible (I'm speaking highly speculatively here) that we had them in the past. We've had fire and have been cooking food for a very, very long time. It's entirely possible that we lost that trait at some point in our evolutionary developement.

 

Which is inconsistent with meat enhancing the brain since we would have already had to know how to cook it in the first place (which is thought abstraction). So... i doubt meat enhances thinking because we would have had to eaten it before in order to learn how to cook... and since our digestive systems can't break down the bacteria in meat... we probably got our enhanced thought from other things (natural selection perhaps).

The argument wasn't that meat was necessary for cognitive function, per se, rather that our bodies required more robust sources of protein to sustain increasing body mass/brain size (Lucy was 2.5 feet tall compared to modern females which are typically twice that size and have much larger brains). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that adopting meat as a food source provided a catalyst for larger bodies/more developed brains.

 

2.We are not built to run after prey and catch it... no tools included. The only reason this ever happened was because of our ability to problem-solve and use tools.

Which would be consistent with naturally selecting for intelligence. We do have predatory traits though (although I suppose they could be scavenger traits also. Hmmm....).

 

3. Our teeth are mainly vegetarian, save for the canine (which are pretty whimpy, let's face it... it's not like we can rip straight into the hide of an animal while it's dead on the ground...)

*still stuck on early humans as scavengers* Hmmmm...

 

...not to be mean or anything... but it sounds like you're assuming that I'm backing up "No" to the answer of my question.

You're correct, I am. If this is in error, then I apologize.

 

That's untrue, I'm saying that it's not nearly as natural as people think.

The opposite of natural is artifical. Early man (primates?) artificially selected meat as a food source?

 

I believe us to be more herbivore than carnivore... more like in between an herbivore/omnivore (bouderline).

I would agree (as would most biologist/anthropologist) that omnivore is pretty much dead on.

 

However, I admit that I didn't clarify the quesion: How natural is it really?

Pretty natural

 

And as for the Brain developing arguement: I think that has more to do with evolutionary thought process than what's in our diet. I don't wanna brag... but I used to have a low IQ (below 90) in Elementary school (meat days) and now I have one that's over 150 (non-meat days)... I'm just not convinced with the research, especially considering that it's a weak theory and a RECENT study.

One would have to rule out social bias in IQ tests and the fact that adults tend to have more developed cognitive function than children (brains still developing and all ). It is possible that more veggies have made you smarter. It's also possible that finishing elementary school made you smarter as well

 

Take care!

[Rev7]

Oh, Rev7, you certainly can get proteins from vegetables and cheeses....

Thank you for informing me.

@Jae-- If you get your gall bladder removed, you can't eat red meat.

btw, I do eat lots of greens too,and I try to eat my meat in moderation. I know that too much meat IS BAD for your body, I honestly prefer fish than cow.

[Jae Onasi]

Actually, assuming everything's going normally, there are no long term food restrictions after gall bladder surgery. I've been eating red meat for the last 8 years since I had it out. There are some short-term restrictions as the body adjusts to not having a gall bladder, but after that, unless there are specific issues for an individual, there aren't any restrictions.

 

@Weave--there's always the possibility of allergies to meat (or any food) that can cause vomiting rather than just an intolerance. My daughter has a dairy allergy that manifested in that way. Also, we can fight off most bacteria in meat--no food is sterile, and the stomach acid kills off many bacteria. Some bacteria like salmonella can survive the hostile environment of the stomach and cause problems, but that's not a common thing.

We can digest raw meats--my parents used to serve 'cannibal sandwiches' (raw hamburger) at parties and people loved them. Fortunately, we know a little bit more about food safety issues now....

[PoiuyWired]

Well, cannibal sandwiches are basically dumb down steak tartar??

 

Personally I think we are mostly Omnivore. While we are not that close to things like chimps, their diet would give us a good vision on what we might have used to support our diet before we start massive hunting. Chimps hunt, then again they also eat termites and ants, things I don't quite enjoy eating (grasshoppers, on the other hand, is yummy)

 

Plus, rather than things like cows and sheeps and chickens and dogs and guniea pigs, there are other meat sources out there in the form of fish and shellfish and what not.

 

And yes, generally we do consume most of a fish.

[Darth333]

1. We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals. Other animals can kill the bacteria that infest a corpse. Humans cannot... therefore, we have to cook it to kill the bacteria.

Go tell that to an Inuk! When buying a few veggies at a coop store up North, someone once told me something along those lines: "yuck! Rabbit food!"

 

As for human nature... I disagree that eating meat is by any means apart of human nature. However, I do agree that part of our abstract thinking is to look for more pleasurable things... which we indulge in by consuming meat.

I also disagree with that and believe that it's an environment thing. People living close to the see will normally eat more fish/seafood than people who live inland (however I guess that with modern transportation means, that becomes less true as it's easy to get fresh fish in most places).

 

To take the inuit example again: plants in the arctic grow only a few months per year (berries are quite popular in August) and there's no way you can grow veggies there. Eating seal, fish, beluga, cariboo, birds, etc was just a natural thing (but with modern life diet also changes and unfortunately today, junk food has a huge place in that diet too because it's easy to get). The animals there are not seen as cute furry pets but as a normal part of the foodchain and everything has a use: the bones, the skin, the meat, the feathers... Even today, in Nunavik, every village has "community freezers" where hunters take fish, meat and skins to the freezers for the use of other community members.

 

Humans are omnivorous. What our bodies can/cannot tolerate is influenced by the environment we live in and general habits and lifestyle. Just think about the North American tourist that goes down South and isn't careful about what he eats

[tk102]

We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals. Other animals can kill the bacteria that infest a corpse. Humans cannot... therefore, we have to cook it to kill the bacteria... and since our digestive systems can't break down the bacteria in meat...

I don't think it's a question of enzymes or stomach acids breaking down bacteria as much as building up an immune system that can stave off bacterial toxins and infections -- sort of like what you described with your own digestive tract not tolerating cooked meat.

 

There are a number of humans that consume raw meat on a regular basis. Darth333 has already given the example of the Inuit and Google or Wikipedia will lead a number of other diets based on raw foods (including raw meat).

[Web Rider]

@ Web Rider - Has this topic already been touched on before? If so... could you give me the link to that other topic (if one exists). Or are you implying that it's not worth discussing? No trying to be agressive or anything... just wondering.

 

Yes, though it may have been before the database crash, as there are only 3 pages of topics in Kavar's Corner which seems like far less than there were. However, it may have been posted on Deviantart, as since both there and here have similar debates and members with similar attitudes, I often get them confused. But I looked, and couldn't find it.

 

I am also implying that the topic is not worth discussing, though I'm a little late for that. Humans have both carnivorous and herbivorous teeth, and some that are a bit of a mix between the two. Meat eating has been a common facet of many cultures and peoples from all over the world. While humans may not be designed for say, tearing the side out of an antelope, even without tools humans are capable of catching smaller prey, and it's also highly likely that if you picked up a rabbit, you'd be able to bit through it's sides uncooked.

 

As people has stated above me, it's likely humans were tougher critters a few hundred thousand years ago, and were more animalistic, and therefore capable of eating raw (red) meat. Our desire to cook things is not dependent on meat, as many vegetables are cooked for a variety of meals as well. Meat tends to smell good when cooked, as most things primitive humans discovered were done so out of curiosity or accident, and the idea of cooked food likely derives from some cave guy sticking his piece of meat in the fire and noticing it smelled good, and then repeating the process.

 

I do agree with you that fatty foods are bad, and am extremely pissed at my college for having such crappy food when they go on and on about how healthy their stuff is. So while I will disagree that red meat is bad, I will agree, that like all things, an excess of it is bad, and too much fat is bad. I would be in full support of raising far leaner animals.

 

dang...I just discussed it...poo.

[Ray Jones]

Meat tends to smell good when cooked, as most things primitive humans discovered were done so out of curiosity or accident

Or by simply imitating things from their environment.

and the idea of cooked food likely derives from some cave guy sticking his piece of meat in the fire and noticing it smelled good, and then repeating the process.

Most probably the idea for cooked food came with animals that found their end in bushfires.

[Web Rider]

Or by simply imitating things from their environment.

Most probably the idea for cooked food came with animals that found their end in bushfires.

 

Have you ever smelled charred flesh? It's one of the nastiest things you'll ever smell. While it's possible that an animal may be just rightly cooked in a fire, it's very unlikly.