Why humans are herbivores.

[deleted account] ( 440 moms have responded )

Are human beings anatomically more similar to natural carnivores or to natural herbivores? Let’s find out….

* Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
* Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
* Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.
* Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
* Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.
* Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
* Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.
http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/i...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jenn - posted on 03/04/2011

2,683

36

93

But it isn't the meat that is killing people - it's the over-consumption of it - which is why I said gluttony kills. Over-consupmtion of ANY food can kill you. If people actually ate a real serving size of meat the way they are supposed to, instead of eating half a fucking cow for supper, they wouldn't have issues. So again - meat doesn't kill. Gluttony does.

Lady Heather - posted on 03/04/2011

2,448

17

91

Why humans are omnivores: Because cheeseburgers are delicious.

Sharon - posted on 03/04/2011

11,585

12

1314

LIE LIE LIE!!! hahahaha!! That is all open to interpretation and the exclusion of other facts.

Humans are not carnivores. We would get sick and possibly die on an all meat diet.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Omnivorism
The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores
Archeological Record
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws
Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.

The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.

Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

Jenn - posted on 03/04/2011

2,683

36

93

Or - we are omnivores much like many mammals are, as well as several other animals like some bird, and reptiles.

All omnivores:

Ant
Badger
Bear
Cassowary
Chicken
Chimpanzee
Chipmunk
Coatis
Crow
Deer mice
Dog
Domestic pigeon
Duck
Fox
Geese
Human
Hedgehog
Kea
Lizards
Monkey
Panda
Rhino
Piranha
Polar bear
Rail
Rat
Raven
Ralidae
Rodent
Sloth
Snail
Snapping turtle
Squirel
Swan
Swine
Swordfish

This conversation has been closed to further comments

440 Comments

View replies by

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/07/2011

18,592

9

2933

I am gonna repeat something I wrote earlier...we do need protein. We can get it from many sources. The recommended amountis 40-70 grams per day, the average person consumes twice that amount. That IS too much.

Sharon - posted on 03/07/2011

11,585

12

1314

Quote Julianne: Just a limited meat intake because over consumption causes many health problems. Especially when it comes to red meat. I don't think red meat should be consumed by any human. Red meat is for carnivorous animals which humans are not. White meat can cause issues too if its not the right kind or an excessive amount. End Quote

AGAIN? With the over consumption? Geezus christ. EVERYONE has already agreed that OVER CONSUMPTION/GLUTTONy is bad in anything.

You will find, Julianne, to never say never. Making absolute statements is very broad and very damning. "No meat at all" "no milk at all"

You also can't seem to legitmately back up many of your statements. You're ignoring everything everyone has to say based on blatantly falsified "research" by a man who has a book to promote.

And this LUDICROUS statement - had me laughing so hard I nearly peed my pants

QUOTE JULIANNE: If humans needed animal protein i would be dead long ago because i NEVER liked animal meat. END QUOTE

Um so YOU never liked meat - means No one needs meat? WTF? I've never liked peas or squash - there fore no one needs green veggies or vine grown Cucurbitas fruits.

Iridescent - posted on 03/07/2011

4,519

272

1078

I'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, but I have a very hard time taking your word in any health related subject (without researching it myself) after all the misinformation you have posted throughout 3 quite large threads on diet and health, the basic lack of knowledge of the human anatomy and also physiology, and your complete lack of supporting sources in your statements.



I see you state "I never said it makes me healthier, but the food i do eat makes for a healthier decision compared to what most people eat, even other vegans." yet hear you really saying, "I know so little about my body, I believe that taking an enzyme or eating one that comes naturally in certain foods will excuse me from my basic metabolic need for protein, and eventually my lack of knowledge of my body's needs will cause me to become very ill if I am not already."



You are welcome to agree or disagree, but it really doesn't matter to me. All I know for sure is that I want to know what your intended degree is that you are going to school for, and run away from those in that profession like my ass is on fire.

[deleted account]

Actually I am a vegan.

I never said it makes me healthier, but the food i do eat makes for a healthier decision compared to what most people eat, even other vegans.

I did say several times throughout this thread that limited animal intake and the correct type of meats makes for a healthier diet than over consuming meat products and stressing the body. Humans should avoid RED meat, and grass fed animals for the rest should be eaten if any meat at all. Meat and animal product consumption should be less than 10% of the diet. Milk should be avoided completely.

Iridescent - posted on 03/07/2011

4,519

272

1078

(I'm really just waiting for the post that says being a vegetarian makes you so healthy, that eventually you don't need to eat anything at all and will live forever. Essentially what was said about protein...only leaves carbs and fats!)

Minnie - posted on 03/07/2011

7,076

9

786

Just like human milk contains enzymes solely put there for the purpose of digesting the milk.

Iridescent - posted on 03/07/2011

4,519

272

1078

No! Eating high enzymatic foods only helps you digest them if it's difficult for you due to a lack of an enzyme. Lactaid is used for this purpose, just as an example. Your body still needs at LEAST that amount of protein listed above.

Iridescent - posted on 03/07/2011

4,519

272

1078

@Lisa - earlier, she stated humans don't have small intestines. I have no idea how her course could possibly include human A&P with that belief. When I asked her about it, repeatedly, she refused to reply.

Isobel - posted on 03/07/2011

9,849

0

282

I think after two and a half MILLION years of evolution...it's kinda part of us now. In fact, many scholars believe that meat is the REASON we became different from our ape relatives...that it made our brains bigger :)

[deleted account]

Amino acids help your body create enzymes, if you eat high enzyme foods you need less amino acids.

Iridescent - posted on 03/07/2011

4,519

272

1078

Minimum protein needs vary depending on injury, illness, and activity level, as well as growth status (are you a child, in a high growth state, or an adult who is done?). The absolute minimum required by the body is 1.05g/kg/day - so convert your weight into kg, and multiply by 1.05g. Some people need more, up to 3.5g/kg/day (except when injured or ill, and this includes during pregnancy). If you do not get the minimum amount of protein per day, first your pre-albumin levels drop. Second, you become anemic. Eventually it leads to death, if you let it go long enough.

Minnie - posted on 03/07/2011

7,076

9

786

I'm just curious as to what you're currently studying, Julianne. I gather it has something to do with health? Is there basic A & P included in it? I just wonder, because if the program you're in is giving you false information, or leaving information out, they're doing you a disservice and wasting your money.

Minnie - posted on 03/07/2011

7,076

9

786

Julianne, what about the cell membranes?



Anyways, it is currently recommended to get about 100grams of protein daily during pregnancy, as not getting enough of that is linked to preeclampsia. Personally, I have a hard time getting that amount into me.



I surmise that each person needs a different amount of protein intake each day, depending on metabolism and lifestyle.

[deleted account]

@ laura, that was my point, we did need to supplement with meats because we could not get vegetables and fruit year round. We started eating meat as a need to survive. We don't actually need it.

Iridescent - posted on 03/07/2011

4,519

272

1078

Wrong again. Enzymes are used to break down proteins into their amino acid forms, which we then use. The amount of enzymes your body MAKES and uses to do this has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of protein you need to consume.

[deleted account]

@Amy, i should be more specific, we need high levels of enzymes from live fruits and vegetables. Amino acids are used to create enzymes, yet if we were to eat the live enzyme we would not need as much of the amino acids from protein. If we eat all fruits and vegetables we don't need to go out of our way to get high protein foods since less protein is needed and the amount in the vegetables would cover the amount of amino acids we do need. Its not necessary for me to supplement protein because i don't eat meat.

Minnie - posted on 03/07/2011

7,076

9

786

We get amino acids from proteins. Enzymes are necessary for chemical reactions.



We absolutely DO need protein- they are the building blocks for our cell membranes. Without them, your body does not repair itself and will eventually fall apart into a jiggling disgusting mass.

Isobel - posted on 03/07/2011

9,849

0

282

Yes, you CAN...now...because of our industrialized society. Our ancestors did not have supermarkets and health food stores. They had to eat what was IN their neighbourhood.

Therefore...while yes, we CAN survive without meat (and good on ya for doing it)...it is NOT the natural state of affairs.

Iridescent - posted on 03/07/2011

4,519

272

1078

Whoa, Julianne! If humans didn't need protein at all, only enzymes, then why on earth is my daughter under the care of the best doctors in the world for her disease, and on an Essential Amino Acid formula (Cyclinex-2) to provide her daily protein? It's so she gets exactly what is needed and NO MORE. Amino Acids are proteins. No protein = no life!

[deleted account]

If humans needed animal protein i would be dead long ago because i NEVER liked animal meat. Besides, humans don't need protein at all. We need enzymes, and protein is broken down into enzymes in order to use it. So the body uses excess energy to break down the protein but really you can get natural live enzymes from any raw fruit or vegetable.When the natural enzymes were no longer available or consumed, the need for protein developed. Its basically the second best thing. I don't eat foods specifically high in protein, yet i get enough of every nutrient. The entire point is that we don't need that protein at all if we eat plenty of natural raw foods. If people are consuming meat, it should be healthy meat in limited amounts.
I am not trying to push a vegetarian or vegan diet by posting this. Just a limited meat intake because over consumption causes many health problems. Especially when it comes to red meat. I don't think red meat should be consumed by any human. Red meat is for carnivorous animals which humans are not. White meat can cause issues too if its not the right kind or an excessive amount. Grain fed obese animals should not be something we consume. Grass fed, free range, and hormone free animals should be the animals of choice in limited amounts, if you want to avoid health risks caused by meat. Meat and meat product intake should be less than 10% if any. Milk should be removed entirely.

Erin - posted on 03/06/2011

6,569

25

232

**Mod Warning**

Can we please refrain from the in-thread bickering? Please drop it and get back on topic, or we will be locking this thread.

Erin -DM Mod

Mrs. - posted on 03/06/2011

1,767

6

30

Yes, Krista E. you're right. It is very typical for people to start debating a person character or just little things they don't like about them when they have run out of steam.



I agree it's gone totally off subject. I'm bored too.

Krista - posted on 03/06/2011

12,562

16

842

I find that when people can't back up what they say or don't want to answer questions that are uncomfortable they tend to attack someone's character or tone. That's pretty atypical.

Not to be pedantic, because I know how much you hate it when people nitpick about an off-topic subject, but I think you meant "typical", not "atypical."

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

Once again Rebecca...it is the tone....more like bait, and instigate. If you need to think I can't handle a debate, rather than choose not to humor you...think what you need to in order to sleep at night.

Charlie - posted on 03/06/2011

11,203

111

401

*YAWN* are we done watching you pat yourself on the back? can we get back on topic please ?

Mrs. - posted on 03/06/2011

1,767

6

30

I'll take it as a compliment then that a lot of different people have a lot of strong opinions about what I say. It's probably an indicator that I make strong points. Sometimes the strongest debaters are not always the most liked.

I don't take it personally. Nor would I flag these posts as being a personal attack. Even though, taken in some people's context...they could seem that way.

I find that when people can't back up what they say or don't want to answer questions that are uncomfortable they tend to attack someone's character or tone. That's pretty atypical.

I got a strong omnivore hide though. I can take it lightly.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

You have presented some very good articles Loureen. I definately still relate to the vegetarian/vegan arguements though.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

"It still doesn't make my questions any less valid."

Nope it doesn't Rebecca, it just makes me not want to answer you.

Charlie - posted on 03/06/2011

11,203

111

401

Also wanted to add that by the time homo erectus came along and had evolved the meat tearing teeth we have today there was no need for us to evolve into classic predator style animals with claws and fangs .

Homo erectus used intelligence as their main predatory tool , they were the first to invent the hand axe , they were far beyond simple animalistic features they were able to hunt and forage and displayed far greater ability to exploit their enviroment .

Intelligence and cognitive growth was their weapon not physical biological change .

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

I also have a strong personnality and love to debate in real life. My personallity does not change on line.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

Rebecca, I will say it again. I have answered so many of your questions already. All I feel I am doing in here is repeating myself.

Also, as far as your tone, often when you are on the side of the agreeing party, it seems many people will not call out rudeness like this. Why are they gonna pick on their teammate after all?

Mrs. - posted on 03/06/2011

1,767

6

30

I'm pretty sure it was just you and Marina but hey...I agree with you, if every single person on the board thought I was rude then yes I'd probably just embrace it and call it a day.



Still, that's not the case.





It still doesn't make my questions any less valid.



Kisses.

Charlie - posted on 03/06/2011

11,203

111

401

As for the second link I believe that humans bodies ( especially teeth as my first link stated ) evolved to become omnivores the change in teeth in our relatives the homo erectus shows just this it isn't as simple as being conditioned .

Isobel - posted on 03/06/2011

9,849

0

282

well...when everybody thinks you're rude...it's probably not the way THEY are reading it...it's probably the way YOU are writing it...like I said, meh.

I don't really care, I'm a bit of a troll myself from time to time.

Charlie - posted on 03/06/2011

11,203

111

401

WHat I liked about the article I posted though is it's clear comparisons between the two groups of healthy omnivores and vegitarians which is paramount to the debate over whether one is healthier than the other , the article also shows many flaws in the very ideas Dr sears put forward as reasons for vegitarians being healthier in the long run .

While I agree with a lot of what Dr sears says in the article about the health benefits of the vegetarian diet I do not see a clear comparison to a healthy omnivore being presented , what I feel he is saying it is healthier to is todays "normal" diet of over consumption of meat but this isn't very clear in the article he makes no mention of diet or amounts of the group he is comparing to ............... Im not sure it IS good data to back your side up with when it is so up in the air .

Mrs. - posted on 03/06/2011

1,767

6

30

Generally, I write the way I speak, it is what it is. Some people get it, some people agree that my tone and my approach has been non-judgemental -two people don't. I know that it is easy ( myself included I can project meanings into things that simple aren't there) online to misinterpret and assume things when you are fired up. That's why I specifically went back and read my posts and your posts to make sure I was not judging you or baiting you. I tend to be very direct (in person and online) and sometimes some people don't care for it - I'm not perfect. I really made an effort not to do that. Of course, my personal tone isn't really the debate here...but if I was a bit more sensitive I could say you've been less than kind assuming a whole lot that I did not actually say from what you call "tone".

I'm not much of a baiter compared to others I've encountered online in general. I'm not up for attacking. I've said that already. I actually like to debate. I'm asking you those questions to debate them not to make you mad or challenge your life style.

I know you say you won't answer my questions because you feel I'm being too aggressive in asking them and that I would just twist your answers to make them mean something else. I don't feel I've been doing that. I'm sorry you feel I have. I honestly wanted to know. They are honest questions I struggled with when facing these issues in my own life. They are question that lead me to make big choices. I like debating them because it is interesting to me what conclusions people have come to in their own lives about the same issues.

I also happen to think that some of the points you've made had some holes in them. That doesn't mean you are wrong. It just means I'd like them filled in so the debate can continue.

But hey, I'm just one person. I do however, respect your lifestyle and your values. I was just pointing out that it didn't seem, in several posts that the feeling was mutual. That and debating points brought up to the best of my ability.

It takes all kinds to debate and not everyone is gonna love me. I'm cool with that. Still doesn't mean I'm not making valid points.

As far as online trolls go...I'd say I'm com ci com sa.

Isobel - posted on 03/06/2011

9,849

0

282

it's easy to find data backing either side...because done properly both diets CAN be equally healthy...done wrong, they can be equally as bad for you

Charlie - posted on 03/06/2011

11,203

111

401

And another interesting article showing the longevity and health of omnivores compared to vegetarians.
Many people become vegetarians because they believe that such a lifestyle is healthier, particularly in terms of heart disease and cancer. They believe that an intake of meat, and particularly animal fat, will shorten their lives. As evidence of this, a study of largely vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists is usually quoted (32) despite the fact that its authors conclude: ' We hope that no-one will take data from this report and use it to say "Food A lowers or food B raises mortality risk". ' It is certainly true that this religious sect suffers less from heart disease than the general population. However, the use of this argument to show that vegetarianism is healthier is flawed. A similar study of Mormons in Utah, who eat a considerable amount of meat, found similar low levels of the disease. In fact, the diet of both communities had little or no impact on their incidences of heart disease; the incidences of the disease is low because they are both close-knit and supportive communities, a situation which is known to be protective as far as such diseases are concerned (33) .

Comparisons of the health and longevity of cultures with different dietary habits confirms that meat eaters, such as Eskimos, Nagas and Maasai, can expect to live twice as long as primitive vegetarians. It may be said that such a comparison is flawed because the situations in which these peoples live is very different but there are cases throughout the world where meaningful comparisons can be made.

In Kenya two tribes, the Maasai and the Kikuyu, live in the same country, the same climate, the same political system and the same environment. The Maasai, when wholly carnivorous, drinking only the blood and milk of their cattle, were tall, healthy, long-lived and slim. The Kikuyu, when wholly vegetarian, were stunted, diseased, short-lived and pot-bellied. Over the last few decades, the Kikuyu have started to eat meat — and their health has improved. Since 1960 the Maasai diet has also changed, but in the opposite direction. They are now eating less blood, milk and meat, replacing it with maize and beans. Their health has deteriorated (34) .

A study by Drs. W. S. McClellan and E. F. Du Bois (35) found that the Eskimos in Baffin Island and Greenland living on a diet composed almost entirely of meat and fish, and eating no starchy or sugary foods, suffered few diseases. This was not the case with the Labrador Eskimos. They had been 'civilised' and lived on preserved foods, dried potatoes, flour, canned foods and cereals. Among them the diseases of civilisation were rife.

Dr. Sir Robert McCarrison (36) , working in India, similarly compared the northern tribes — Pathans, Sikhs and Hunzas — who ate meat and fresh vegetables, had fine physiques and were healthy and long-lived with the Plains peoples — Madrassis, Bengalis and Kanarese — who ate little meat or milk, living mainly on rice and who were overweight and unhealthy.

Other studies have purported to show that vegetarianism is healthier. In July 1994, the British press carried headlines like 'Vegetarian diet means longer life' as they reported a vegetarian study from the British Medical Journal (37) which said that vegetarians suffered forty percent fewer cancers and heart disease than meat eaters.

But the public were being misled — the study was badly flawed.

¨ The study's vegetarian cohort was selected through the Vegetarian Society and the meat-eaters were then selected by the vegetarians themselves. This is hardly the way to conduct an unbiased trial — if they want to prove a point, and what vegetarian doesn't, they will pick those who are most likely to be unhealthy. It is human nature.

¨ The vegetarians were mostly women, while the meat-eating group contained more men. Women live longer than men. In the age range of the subjects studied, men have four times the heart disease of women — enough to confound the figures significantly.

¨ The vegetarians were younger than the meat-eaters. As younger people have a lower death rate, one would expect more deaths among the meat-eaters regardless of dietary influences.

In this study, the two groups were not comparable and the study is worthless.
Vegetarianism and coronary disease

Other evidence refutes the 'vegetarianism is healthier' dogma. London has a high proportion of Asian immigrants. They live in the same environment as the indigenous population and mix freely with them. But the incidence of coronary artery disease is much higher in the Asian population. A study published in 1985 (38) was pretty conclusive evidence that the Asian's diet — high in linoleic acid and predominantly vegetarian — was not protective against the disease.

It is usually better to compare similar populations in the same area as, in the study above, the Asians have a different evolutionary background to northern European Caucasians. One study which did this, compares vegetarians and fresh fish eaters from two neighbouring Bantu villages. (39) This study found that the fish eaters had higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, lower blood pressure and lower blood fat levels than the vegetarians. Both blood pressure and lipids increased throughout life in vegetarians but remained fairly constant throughout life in the fish eaters.

The published literature on fruit and vegetables and cardiovascular disease is extensive. In 1997, Drs Ness and Powles reviewed some ten ecological studies, three case-control studies, and sixteen cohort studies reporting measures of association between intake of fruit and vegetables (or intake of nutrients mainly obtained from fruit and vegetables) and coronary heart disease, together with five ecological studies, one case-control study, and eight cohort studies for stroke. (40) They point out that cohorts at 'low risk' have failed to show a protective association between intake of fruit and vegetables and cardiovascular disease (for example, a study of 26 473 Seventh Day Adventists followed up for six years, frequently quoted in support of a vegetarian lifestyle being 'healthy', showed null findings for fruit, and that many uncertainties remain concerning the relations between consumption of fruit and vegetables and the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The best evidence, surely, is obtained from looking at actual people who have a proven long life. In 1992 scientists at the Department of Community Health, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Japan, published a paper which examined the relationship of nutritional status to further life expectancy and health status in the Japanese elderly (41) . It was based on three epidemiological studies.

¨ In the first, nutrient intakes in ninety-four Japanese centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher proportion of animal protein to total proteins than in contemporary average Japanese.

¨ The second demonstrated that high intakes of milk and fats and oils had favourable effects on ten-year survivorship in 422 urban residents aged sixty-nine to seventy-one. The survivors revealed a longitudinal increase in intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, fish and meat over the ten years.

¨ In the third study, nutrient intakes were compared between a sample from Okinawa Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and sixty-five were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. It found that the proportion of energy from animalproteins and fats were significantly higher in the former than in the latter.


References
...
32. Association between reported diet and all-cause mortality: 21-year follow-up on 27,530 7th Day Adventists . Am J Epidem 1984; 119 (5): 775.
33. Egold B., Laskar J., Wolf S., Putvin L.. The Roseto effect: a 50-year comparison of mortality rates. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 1089-92
34. McCormick J., Elmore-Meegan M.. Maasai diet. Lancet 1992; 340: 1042-3.
35. McClellan W. S., Du Bois E. F.. Prolonged meat diets with a study of kidney function and ketosis. J Biol Chem 1930; 87: 651-668.
36. McCarrison, Sir Robert (with Sinclair, Dr. H. M.). Nutrition and Health . Faber & Faber, London, 1953
37. Thorogood M., Mann J., Appleby P., McPherson K.. Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters . Br Med J . 1994; 308: 1667-70.
38. McKeigne P. M., Marmot M. G., Adelstein A. M., et al . Diet and risk factors for coronary heart disease in Asians in north-east London. Lancet 1985; ii: 1086-90.
39. Pauletto P, et al. Blood pressure and atherogenic lipoprotein profiles of fish-diet and vegetarian villagers in Tanzania: the Lugalawa Study. Lancet 1996; 348: 784-8.
40. Ness A R, Powles J W. Dietary habits and mortality in vegetarians and health conscious people: Several uncertainties still exist. Br Med J 1997; 314: 148.
41. Shibata H., Nagai H., Haga H., Yasumura S., Suzuki T., Suyama Y. Nutrition for the Japanese elderly. Nutr Health. 1992; 8(2-3): 165-75.
42. Holmberg L., Ohlander E. M., Byers T., Zack M., Wolk A., Bergstrom R., et al . Diet and breast cancer risk. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1805-11.
powerful anticarcinogen from animal fat sources. Cancer. 1994; 74(3 Suppl): 1050-4
Diseases. Medical Hypotheses 1995; 45: 115-120

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

Kate, I know I already wrote it somewhere. but the amount of protein that is being consumed is 50% more than is needed or recommended for survival, and a healthy diet. We should be getting between 40-70 grams of protein per day. That means people are ranging from 80-140 grams per day. That is ALOT!

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

Laura "meh...she always seems to come off that way...I think she needs to work on the tone that she puts across on-line...anyhoo..."

Yup...I agree.



Someone earlier in the posts said that I cannot just talk about general population when I talk about meat eaters. Why not? Plenty of people have mentioned how the only vegetarians that they know are not healthy. A huge majority of meat eaters do not consume it in healthy doses, or the correct quality. Infact, I would definately bet that would be a large percentage of the meat consumers. I am NOT saying specifically anyone in here....so retract your claws back in. I have no idea how well or idealistic any of you eat.

Charlie - posted on 03/06/2011

11,203

111

401

Australopithecus may have been a herbavore but our closest relation the Homoerectus was designed to eat meat .



Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth.



In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated at around 2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared to have suitable teeth.



Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of the University of Arkansas has revealed that the first members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their most likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, the species that produced the famous fossil Lucy.



Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves and stems, but not meat.

But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are not only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat.



"Ungar shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard University.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn41...

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

For the record, for those of you that have NOT read all my posts, and SOOOOOOO many of you haven't...and that is possibly why you all keep asking the same questions over again, I believe and know you CAN lead a healthy lifestyle eating meat. I still believe that it could be healthier without it. As I have ALREADY SAID some people cannot live without it. Some people can.

NOT ALL VEGETARIANS LEAD A HEALTHY DIET< SAME FOR VEGANS! Also, there are MANY meateaters that are sick becouse of eating meat, over consumption? Sure, choice of variety of meat attributing to the sickness? Definately. Do I think ALL meat eaters are going to drop dead of a heart attack...no. Do I think red meat is not good for human consumption? YES!

You are all saying that I am the one without the open mind. Nope...pretty open minded, you are all just picking pieces of what I say to back up that you think I am not. I can't do jack shit about that.

Isobel - posted on 03/06/2011

9,849

0

282

meh...she always seems to come off that way...I think she needs to work on the tone that she puts across on-line...anyhoo...

I think the reason people are still arguing the validity of your argument that vegetarianism is NECESSARILY a healthier diet is that you refuse to compare apples to apples.

You can't compare the healthiest vegetarian diet, to the crappiest hot dog eating omnivorous diet...it's just not a fair comparison.

If you want to compare to prove vegetarianism is necessarily healthier...you have to compare it to a HEALTHY diet that includes the recommended amounts of both veggies AND protein/meats.

~♥Little Miss - posted on 03/06/2011

18,592

9

2933

Rebecca, I believe I have already told you to READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS, and you will find many of your answers.

"
If some of my questions and challenges make you feel cornered or judged - "

No, not cornered or judge..infact you saying this makes it more certain that you are attempting to bait me and pick a fight...not a debate. I find your tone to be extremely condesending, aggressive (not in a good way), and instigating. That is why I haven't bothered to answer some of your questions. And, also that you would not have even asked some of them if you READ ALL OF MY POSTS!

"Several people have said that dairy and eggs are less healthy. Still, you choose to be a vegetarian not a vegan. You said yourself you tried it and it didn't work. Now if someone said to you, but a vegan lifestyle is healthier than a vegetarian...."
This is another example of how your line of questioning me leads me to believe anything that I say regarding "WHY" I am a vegetarina you are just going to attempt to debunk. Why should I bother? It is clear to me that if I give you an answer, somehow it will be twisted into you deciding I am a hypocrit...but of course you will not outright say that cause it could be a THUMP. I don't feel like getting into a pissing match with you. You have made your choices that are right for you, and so have I.

Just becouse I have chosen the diet that I have, does not mean I don't respect other peoples views. But, it has been twisted that way. Fine...

Jenn - posted on 03/06/2011

2,683

36

93

Also about the poop thing - if you are pooping after every meal, you are supposed to eat 6 meals a day - so you mean to tell me that you shit 6 times a day?!? :/

Minnie - posted on 03/06/2011

7,076

9

786

I think of breastfed babies- moms are ALWAYS worrying about their babies who don't poo every day, and some who go two weeks without pooing. And then there are other babies who carry on, having multiple poos a day. And yet they're all getting human milk.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. ...
  8. 9

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms