Are humans really designed to be meat eaters?

[henslee]

[Shell Beau]

1. Oh no! Here we go!

Oops forgot the :popcorn:

[henslee]

3. Sorry, Shell but I must have ignored this question previously. But lately

I can't stop thinking about it. And the only people I can turn to are you guys. And yes I am willing to endure smart alec smilees.

[Shell Beau]

12. What has got you thinking about it? Are you a vegetarian?

I've heard arguments for and against humans being designed to eat meat. So, I don't know if there is a satisfactory answer for you!! :)

[henslee]

26. The article about the pig trying to escape slaughter truck rekindled

the notion. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4304608 I have a real problem lately eating creatures that seem intelligent and sensitive. I am about a 90 percent vegetarian. I will eat fish or poultry like once every week and a half, just because I impulsively crave the protein. I dont really plan veggie meals properly. Also, I am told too much soy is bad for dudes. I know all this is wussy but I'm not really a big wuss.

[Shell Beau]

29. It's not wussy! It is whatever works for you!

I understand what you mean about eating animals. I feel that way a lot too!

[flvegan]

78. Hey, there. I'm a dude, and I haven't had a problem with soy.

Matter of fact, as a gym rat, I've grown more as a vegan than I ever did sucking down boneless, skinless chicken breast and whey shakes. My arms are 19" with a good pump, and I don't ramp that up by being fat.

It's not wussy. Being compassionate about what happens in the industries that supply us with meat is very manly. Caring rocks. If it were wussy, it'd be like crying at a funeral, or when discussing an emotional event.

[Kali]

84. Replacing meat with soy.

If you just replace the typical western amounts of meat with soy you are at some risk of some problems. If you replace the amounts of meat in many non-western diets with soy you will do better.

But then again if we all reduced the amounts of meat (and processed grain)and increased the amounts of fruit and vegs we would all do better and still enjoy the pleasure and benefits that meat provides.

[flvegan]

90. But why would I?

I'd not sit down to a 12 oz porterhouse soysteak. Besides, the human body should process soy better than cow, pig or chicken. I don't care what the beef industry says, the bioavailability of soy bills with the gods in comparison.

Also, if you're referring to estrogen issues with the intake of soy, that's been debunked many times over.

The benefits of meat are nil. Pleasure derived from suffering is ego working at it's worst. I'll leave those things way behind me, thanks.

[Kali]

136. I was referring to products like

soy hot dogs, hamburgers etc - things that essentially mimic western meat-centric meals.

Most "ethnic" diets use meat as a condiment or flavoring agent, not the main portion (excepting special occasions). A diet that is omnivorous, moderate in most respects, perhaps higher in fruits and especially vegetables and varied would likely give one the highest plain of nutrition.

However as mentioned many other times, we can certainly survive, even in terms of successful evolution on a variety of extremes for undetermined generations, even borderline starvation.

Your third to last sentences is incorrect. The second to last is hyperbole, having no real relevance to the discussion of human dietary origins, though it is clear that is how you have justified and reinforced your personal dietary choices. I begrudge no one their personal choices. I do object to attitudes of superiority, misinformation, and the use of scare tactics in the attempts by some to convince others of the personal choice they have made.

[flvegan]

160. Actually, I think you are mistaken.

I don't justify my diet. Nor do I allude to attutudes of superiority, misinformation, nor scare tactics.

I also don't try to convince. I can't. One can only decide, thereby convincing oneself.

Please, correct/enlighten me...

As for the mimics...it tastes good. I never said otherwise, did I?

And as for your "most ethnic diets use meat as a..." I'd ask for clarity there. Specifics if you will.

[henslee]

101. I guess I was trying to be more funny than serious. Tell you what,

I feel way better not eating meat. Never have that bloated feeling. Feel way more energetic.

[flvegan]

113. Funny?

No, funny would've been if you said, "I like soy because it's good for me and the estrogen helped me grown these incredible breasts." and added a pic of some silicone enhanced porn star.

I wouldn't have even posted a retort, as I'd STILL be laughing my ass off!

[TimeChaser]

14. Well, I'm a Zoology major,

and I think that human teeth indicate that we evolved to be omnivores. All the teachers and professors I've known tend to agree with me.

[kick-ass-bob]

16. That's what I've always seen. We have both sets of teeth

for tearing meat and for chewing plants. Our requirements for protein also leads one to think we needed at least some meat (back in the old days of hunting and gathering) but it is quite obvious that we always needed fruits and vegetables as well.

[Kali]

24. Also check out

Forward placed eyes (predator) and relatively short gut - omnivore/carnivore.

[alarimer]

81. The digestive tract isn't long enough to be completely

vegetarian and we lack the enzymes in our guts (cellulase) to digest cellulose (major component of plants) properly. Exclusive meat eaters (like, say, lions) have shorter digestive tracts (relatively speaking). Since our are imtermediate, it points to humans evolving as omnivores originally. It pays to be flexible and eat what's available, I suppose.

[Dangerously Amused]

121. "All the teachers and professors I've known tend to agree with me."

I respect your credentials, and I appreciate your arguments. My question about all the teachers and professors who agree with you though is, are they all omnivores? People tend to take the side of / argue for whatever is in their best interests; particularly so when their credibility is at stake. I am not saying that makes them wrong, certainly a zoology prof has more education than I do in that specific area. However, as a matter of principle, it is fair for every party to question any potential bias in an opposing viewpoint.

[TimeChaser]

128. ... I seriously doubt it

Especially since most comments come when comparing the digestive tracks of herbivores, carnivores and omnivores or comparing teeth.

[RedCloud]

138. Become physical anthropology majors then!

In Fizz Anthro you will learn neat stuff such as why we have such large canine roots and small canines. (Note: this is not going well for you carnivores.)

Eyes in front of the face have little to do with being predators and everything to do with being arboreal. If primates did not have stereoscopic vision they would fall and perhaps die. And may be a source for the fear of falling dream...

I said primates, and they tend to avoid meat except where the human bastards have ruined their habitat. Chimps may eat insects. I can't say whether out of necessity or a groove they feel when picking each other's bugs when grooming.

Humans primarily did not eat meat in the good old days. This is why they had to fashion weapons of occasional destruction just to kill, because humans are not designed to kill other organisms (Big problem with the predator theory here!)

Humans also tend to congregate in large numbers, unlike most predators.

And finally we are STINKY FUCKING ANIMALS! Our armpits, if never shaved or bathed, the way nature intended, would ward off our predators for we stink to high heavens in our natural state and also alert other animals. So how could we be predators?

This is one professor challenging the credentials of your professors and calling an Inquisition on them.

[Kali]

151. Is that your field? Physical Anthropology?

You obviously got something out of 101, but you seem to have missed a bunch as well.

[Arkansas Granny]

147. All reading I have done indicates that humans evolved to be

omnivorous. Seems right to me.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

86. Why does it matter?

Eat what you want, let me eat what I want and shut the fuck up, k? :evilgrin: (I'm just playing about the shut the fuck up part)

[Beaverhausen]

89. No one is telling anyone what they should or shouldn't eat

they are just discussing the issue. Some people find it interesting.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

91. I was making a point...

And kidding...Jeez. :eyes:
Duckie

[MalibuChloe]

10. may I join you?

:popcorn:

[anarch]

20. no freakin' doubt...

This thread is designed for eatin' popcorn. :popcorn:


I have to admit, combining a discussion of vegetarianism with a discussion of evolution is pure genious.

[Peter Frank]

129. No popcorn for ME...

[ashling]

152. Hi, Shell ... can you help me out?

I noticed that you were the first to respond, so I tought I would ask you before I read through this whole thing:

Is this going to be a meat vs. vegitarian thread, or a design (intelligent or otherwise) vs. evolution thread?

Because if this is a design issue, I want to know who I talk to about some other "design flaws" that have been bugging me lately. Like that one spot on your back that you can't reach. You know, the one that really itches. And the fact that nasal fluids drip down the back of your throat.

:yoiks: :yoiks:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

159. How's everyone doing?

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[kick-ass-bob]

2. yep. and leaf eaters. and also:

:popcorn:

[ZombieNixon]

4. No, just popcorn eaters...

:popcorn:

[no name no slogan]

5. ohnonotagain

[kick-ass-bob]

6. HEY! I have a joke for you...

:rofl:

[no name no slogan]

7. oh NO! Is that more than a million?

:toast:

[henslee]

8. Okay, I'll drop it.

[no name no slogan]

11. no big deal

there've been quite a few flame-fests here lately about dietary choices, that's all. :7

[johnnie]

9. I don't think so

But I eat meat anyway.

[Kali]

13. Not designed,

but evolved, as omnivores and scavengers, (check out dentition) why?

[Loonman]

15. Yes

Look at the fricking teeth. "Designed" being a figure of speech, I would imagine.

[redqueen]

17. Designed? Hmmmmmm.....

;)

Yes, I think we've evolved to be meet eaters. Our teeth and the length of our digestive tract seem to back that up.

:hi:

[kick-ass-bob]

18. !!

Intelligently, no?

:crazy:

[redqueen]

19. Of course!

By the Flying Spaghetti Monster! ALL HAIL FSM!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

123. Ramen! n/t

[northzax]

163. and, as you can plainly see in every rendering of the FSM

there are meatballs. if meat is good enough for his noodliness, then it's good enough for me.

[henslee]

28. But isn't the long intestine we have NOT designed to have meat cook

inside our bodies in that it takes longer to digest?

[Kali]

30. Our guts are intermediate - not long,

we are highly adaptable - look at the lifestyle choices you can indulge in and still survive. We are not specialists.

[henslee]

34. I am learning so much here, today.

[redqueen]

31. No, IIRC, it's the longer tracts that are a characteristic of meat eaters.

Ours is medium sized, indicating we're omnivores.

[Spacemom]

32. I thought it was the reverse?

I've read the shorter tracks are for meat eaters, get it digested and through the system before it starts to rot. Longer systems were for maximizing the amount of nutrients absorbed from plants.

[redqueen]

33. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

Either way, our medium sized one still would indicate omivore status, right?

[Spacemom]

35. Correct

makes sense to me. :)

[redqueen]

37. Lucky me.

Being wrong but still halfway right. :P

[AirmensMom]

52. Cats have short digestive tracts.

They are obligate carnivores.:P

[TimeChaser]

39. Yep

The thing to really look at, though, is the cecum. In most herbivores it's large and highly developed. In carnivores it's often non-existent. Humans have a very small cecum.

[redqueen]

42. I looked that up!

I wonder what the blind gut is for, anyway.

[johnnie]

54. You are correct

[LostInAnomie]

21. My ex-girlfriend was if you know what I mean. ;)

[Karmageddon]

22. meat eaters and plant eaters, but apparently not pretzel eaters**

**(based on the experience of our clueless leader)

[StopTheMorans]

23. yes, are you bbqing tonight?

:9

[Lochloosa]

25. Forward looking eyes and canine teeth...we are hunters of meat

[RedCloud]

139. try reduced canines and stereoscopic color vision!

For eating ripe fruits.

[Kali]

146. reduced canines are a function of changing jaw shape due primarily

to increasing size of brain case. Stereoscopic vision good for hunting as well. Color vision - yes. Humans evolved as omnivores.

[hfojvt]

27. no, we were just designed to eat

Apples, until our ancestors ate the wrong apple and got kicked out of the garden.
Oops, no, I just re-read it. It mentions livestock in the garden, and right afterwards, God prefers mutton to grain.
The Bible says yes.
That should settle it! :hide:

[LeftyMom]

36. Well, I don't think we're "designed" at all.

We have herbiverous and omniverous ancestors and that's reflected in our digestion and dentition (the vestigial eye teeth for example.) That said, a cursory examination reveals that humans aren't cut out for animal flesh. Flesh-eaters generally have short, wide intestines, prominent eye teeth and no troubles with excessive cholesterol- cats are a good example. Humans have none of those traits.

That said, the evidence is pretty clear that humans live longer and healthier lives on a diet comprised primarily or exclusively of plant matter.

[Shell Beau]

38. What evidence?

Just asking. Not necessarily disagreeing.

[StopTheMorans]

40. selective

[Dave Reynolds]

69. You know...studies.....yeah, studies...

there on the internets.

[Kali]

47. um, the cholesteral issue is more recent

having to do with fat, the origins of that fat and less to do with what would have been (should be) naturally LEAN protien.

[flvegan]

63. I fail to see the point.

We can eat the muscle, but not the fat? Don't recall seeing a true meat eater pick around the fat on a carcass before...

[Kali]

64. The amounts of fats common in the animals we eat now

did not exist until recently. (evolutionarily speaking) Of course what fat would be present would be highly desirable - maximum calories - that is why we crave fats and sweets, when they were rare in the environment, those individuals that craved and therefore ate the most of them would have an advantage. Now with calories super-abundant that drive is a problem.


Fats also tend to be where toxins get deposited. It has been established that grass fed beef is lower in bad cholesterol and lower in fat in general than the usual product - the same is highly likely to be true of other meats. I suspect the "healthy benefits" of venison and buffalo are diluted when they are fed like typical beef animals are.

[flvegan]

65. Okay...um

I don't think anyone craves fats and sweets for their maximum calories. I think, and this is just me, it's cuz they taste good.

Grass fed beef cows are also raised completely differently, though I agree that diet does play a part there, most definitely.

[TimeChaser]

67. But the question is, why do they taste good to you?

[flvegan]

71. I understand your point

but if my body truly drives what I need, and drives me to want those things, why was it (as I don't anymore) that on Thanksgiving, I could be bloated on turkey, and have stuffing coming out my ears, yet I'd still pick the candied skin off the bird?

To me, if it's suggested it's because I thought the maximum calories were important, that sort of throws evolution back a few eons. Also, how do I override such hardwired instinct? The very thought of animal fat makes me ill, and I don't crave sweets at all.

To specifically answer your question, though, probably for the same reason that a soy riblet does, or veggie fajitas do. Enjoyment.

[TimeChaser]

75. "Enjoyment"

But why do you "enjoy" anything? Try to step back and see humans as an animal.
Why do predators break bones to suck out the marrow? Is it because they "enjoy" it? The marrow is nutritionally, very good for them. To eat the marrow increases their fitness, so it's favorable. However, they are animals, they don't think "this is good for me, I'm going to eat it." Because of this, natural selection would favor animals to which marrow "tastes good."

[flvegan]

79. Okay

Humans, as advanced as they are, "enjoy" largely based on ego or "I want" whereas true predators/carnivores eat to live. Yes, the marrow is nutritionally very good for them. Animals lack the ego that we have. The sense of self is lost on them.

Humans, technically, are animals, though. However, it's survival vs. enjoyment on the diet scene. If humans only ate for survival, there'd be A LOT of McDonald's joints up for sale.

[TimeChaser]

82. Not survival vs. enjoyment

We evolved in a world with limited food supply, so we evolved to eat for survival. Therefore there is a desire, an enjoyment, of eating because natural selection would favor humans who enjoyed eating.

[flvegan]

85. So then folks in 3rd world countries

don't enjoy eating, then.

We, as a society, do NOT eat to survive. Have you seen the obesity rates?

Besides, if we, as such an evolved species ate to survive, we'd develop more sustainable agriculture, and naturally eschew meat (the primary cause of wiping out the Amazon, global warming, world hunger, etc). OR, maybe it comes down to folks don't give a shit, eat what they like and say fuck the rest.

Natural selection favoring humans that enjoy eating? Whatever.

[TimeChaser]

92. You confusing the world we evolved in to the world we live in today

Then food was limited resource, therefore early humans who enjoyed eating would have an advantage against those who did not. This is similar to the evolutionary reasons why humans enjoy sex.

Today we still enjoy eating even though in most cases there is not lack of food. This is why we have an obesity problem.

People in third world country are no different, they enjoy eating as much as we do (if not more), they simply lack resources.

[flvegan]

96. You really hit it.

The world we "evolved" to in no way resembles the world in which we live. Why?

Because the human species evolved and the world evolved. Sadly, our enjoyment overrides both. Our desires cause us to shit on our evolution because right here, right now, it's what we want.

Our minds and bodies evolved, our world seemed ready for it, yet our attitudes, outlook and ego were left somewhere way behind.

You want evolution? When mankind realizes that what the individual wants directly has an impact on others, and he/she reacts as such, that's fucking evolution. That's betterment of the species. That's ensuring survival.

[RedCloud]

142. I say no hit, foul ball!

We now look at evolution as mating success. It doesn't do a fellow any good to be all rugged like a stegosaurus if he frightens away the mating pool.

Eating is done for survival. Today's modern human is stuck on overkill, but I notice animals will hoard if too much food is around.


Eating with a large group may actually cause the females to cycle together if that armpit odor is left unchecked. This means they may compete around ovulation for sexually available males, NOT the other way around. Guys don't have their pick of females. It works the other way.

So if we are meat eaters, why not an increase in canine size? Would we be able to bite an animal to death if we had to? Have any of you tried this? Or do you get your meat at the grocery store?

[RedCloud]

141. Hooray for Lefty mom!

:loveya:

[China_cat]

41. They're evolved to be omnivores

taking advantage of whatever food source is available. This includes meat.

[anarch]

43. my canine teeth are quite long and sharp, like a baboon's, yet

I am a vegetarian.

Explain that, Mr. Scientist!



(actually, baboons are mostly vegetarian themselves...)

[Cathyclysmic]

44. Form follows function....

We have the teeth and the ability to digest meat. With that said, I don't eat beef because the meat industry regulations in the U.S. are a joke and our beef is disgusting and, also, as a nation we are gluttonous with the amount of meat we eat.

That's my two cents, I'll step back now....:popcorn:

[Kali]

49. I agree in general with your generalizations

but they are generalizations and there are alternatives to mass-produced meat products.

[Cathyclysmic]

57. In general, it's easier to avoid meat

then spend my day making sure the beef I'm eating has not been feed hormones for two generations and confirm what quality of feed they were given, in general.

:hi:

[Kali]

58. Never mind what was fed to your plant foods?

Just sayin' - either way if you didn't grow it yourself, you got nothing but the grower/sellers's word for any of it. Best is do it yourself second is a relationship with a farmer/grower.

[Cathyclysmic]

119. Anything you eat can hurt you.

To be practical, beef is one of the foods on the market that causes more then a stomach flu and is not curable. US beef has been banned in Europe and Japan for two years because of it's poor standard.

I enjoy a good hamburger as much as the next person, I'm just not willing to trust my government to have my health in mind.

[Kali]

133. Oh hi again

Oh well, I posted a long rant on your taboo topics thread, but let me just say, while I don't agree with any of this international trade crap - trust me, a lot of these bans are strictly political - I mean where has BSE ACTUALLY shown up (in the human population)? Yes that's right, EUROPE. Do we accept meat from them? I think right now we don't even accept live breeding animals. Do you know how many people have been diagnosed with it? Do you know how many are expected to be diagnosed in the next 10 or 20 years? It's actually very few. Sure its a horrible disease and we need to do whatever it takes to prevent it, but the fact is there are a HELL of a lot more risky things people do every damn day than eat meat.

Yes for some it is one risk that they feel comfortable giving up, I mean it's pretty simple to eliminate one ingredient from your diet but what about the really dangerous things that would be more inconvenient - who is going to give up car-life, a much riskier thing to engage in statisically?

Again, what irritates me is that attitude of superiority some have over folks who aren't willing to give up what is in all reality a safe, nutritious and delicious food.

[Cathyclysmic]

164. I hate to google -slap but,

Europe has changed their beef standards in the last twenty years. The US decided not to improve it's standards. That is why our beef is banned.

I understand your passionate about people not going on rants, but this is a disease that acts like any other. Just like the flu, chicken pox and HIV, it has a host , a carrier and the person who gets infected. To think the US beef industry is this mythical fairy land where the beef will never infect anyone is careless.

So, with that being said...let's follow the path of a disease.

1920

February 1991 The first people who describe the Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease ( CJD) of the human brain are Hans G. Creutzfeldt and Alfons Jakob.

1950 Year after year a hundred people die in New Guinea of CJD. The native call the Creutzfeldt-Jakob-Disease "Kuru".


November 1986 The first official BSE-case in Great Britain. Government admits the mad cow disease.

July 1988 Bone meal and organs are forbidden to feed.

August 1988 John Mac Gregor demands the cattle with acute BSE-Symptoms to be killed.

End of 1988 In Great Britain 2,100 cattle die of BSE.

November 1989 It is discovered that people can get BSE.

1990 10.000 cattle in Great Britain are supposed to be sick of BSE.

1990 In a week 300 cattle fall ill of BSE.

December 1990 The ban of feeding bone meal to cattle, sheep and goats is announced.

February 1991 In France the first BSE-case appears.

February 1992 The first BSE-case in Germany is supposed to come from an imported cow from Great Britain. But this case is known only in 1994.

1992 In Great Britain each month about 2500 cattle die of BSE. 37,280 cattle in 12 months.

1993 19 kinds of animals can get BSE among these are pigs, cats, hamsters, sheep, goats, monkeys, raccoons, panthers and guinea pigs.

May 1995 Stephen Churchill dies of a new variant of the mortal CJD. He is the first sacrifice in Great Britain.

March 1996 Eight young people fall ill of CJD by eating prion-infected cattle products.

1998 Fast BSE tests are introduced in Europe. In Portugal 475 BSE-cases are discovered from 1990 to the end of 1998

October 2000 In Great Britain 84 people die of CJD

22. Nov. 2000 Spain has the first BSE-case

24. Nov. 2000 There is the first BSE-case in Germany. The cattle has been born 1996 in Schleswig-Holstein.

End of 2000 Germany has 5 BSE-cases.

31. Dec. 2000 In Great Britain 25 cattle with BSE are discovered in a week. Some say there are 1101 BSE-infected cattle. In England 87 people die of CJD, in France 3 people.

9. Jan. 2001 In Germany there are 10 BSE-cases. 6 from Bavaria, 2 from Lower-Saxony and 2 from Schleswig-Holstein.

In 2003 one case was reported in Canada and one in the United States (in a cow born in Canada).

On Oct 17 2005, there were 9 cases of suspected CJD in Idaho. Which is an uptick from the 300 cases the US has per year. Scientist have not concluded why this 'uptick' has happened.

It is slow-moving disease, but I'm a pragmatic person. If I can do something relatively easy to protect my health, I will. And you are right, we just don't know for certain what is in our beef and that is not good enough for me.

[Neil Lisst]

45. Yes. Otherwise, we couldn't digest it.

How much meat is a different issue, but we were designed to ingest meat as well as veggies and fruit. Some cultures exist almost exclusively on animal products, like the Inuit or the Masai.

Humans are marvelously adaptable when it comes to diet.

It's lack of activity that kills, not diet. The body is amazingly resilient if it is worked daily. Eating won't kill you, but sitting on your butt all day will.

[Kali]

50. Well said.

I agree. (sitting here on my butt all day - aarrggg)

[Neil Lisst]

157. Oh, I can Talk the Talk. THAT I'm great at. Walking?

uh, can't we get a golf cart?

[Redstone]

46. Yes. It's why our teeth look like they do.

Actually, they look like that because we're designed to eat any old thing.

Redstone

[El Fuego]

48. Yes. That is why I have the manual dexterity to operate my gas grill.

[jandrok]

51. Good answer!

Although I prefer charcoal, the theory is the same.

[Bridget Burke]

53. Yes. We're also designed to eat plant products.

Humans can be healthy on mostly animal diets or vegan diets. Personally, I prefer a combination.

Were we designed to eat Oreos?

[Shell Beau]

56. Mmm, I hope so! Oreo's dipped in milk, OMG!!

:9

[dr.strangelove]

55. Burn baby burn

[Mr. McD]

59. No, we evolved as meat eaters.

No designer required.:)

[Dangerously Amused]

60. Physiology 101.

We have certainly not evolved to be carnivores, and probably not even omnivores. Yes, we CAN digest meat, but our bodies are not "DESIGNED" to eat meat. We can also digest coins, gum, paperclips, tin foil, rubberbands, pencil erasers, dental crowns, Q-tips, and little plastic parts not intended for children under three.


When is the last time anyone you know chased and caught their prey? We aren't fast or agile or lithe enough. But carnivores are.

Do you think a person could kill an animal it caught with the kind of teeth we have? Our front teeth are flat and chiseled. They cannot pierce leather. However, they are very good for taking bites out of fruits and vegetables. The "canine" teeth we have are not true canine teeth, they are too short in relation to the other teeth to deliver a deadly puncture wound to anything. However, they do hold an apple in place nicely while our front teeth scoop out a bite.

Our stubby fingers are another problem. It would be difficult to hold on to prey of any size without claws to hook into them, as true predators have.

Finally, human small intestines are generally 10-12X our body length (head to tailbone), a typical ratio for all herbivores. Herbivores need this length to break down the fibers in fruit and vegetables so as to absorb the maximum nutrient value. But because meat has no fiber and breaks down quickly in the stomach, carnivores have shorter intestines (typically 3-6x body length).

Furthermore, herbivores have relatively small stomachs compared to the rest of the digestive system, because they "graze," or eat smaller amounts over a longer period of time. Herbivores graze because their food supply is generally more available to them, and doesn't run away. Human stomachs are small compared to our longer intestines and the rest of the digestive system. Conversely, carnivores have larger stomachs, because they eat bigger, heavier meals more infrequently (whenever they can catch something), and their smaller intestines allow for the displaced capacity.


Here are some good links:

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/murti-polveg5.html

http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl-2003-wi-meat.html

[Kali]

72. I beg to differ with several of your assertions

We do not digest the assorted items you mention in your first paragraph, not many organisms could - they merely pass through with a bit of an acid wash.

Humans have chased and caught their prey for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. We evolved brains and the ability to use tools. Besides that the early meat eating was likely scavenged and not hunted.

Human intestines are intermediate as mentioned before, not same length as pure herbivores. A better comparison would be between humans and their nearest completely herbivorous primate relatives. Anybody know any ratios there? I don't, but I suspect I know.

The rest of your comments on stomach size and intestine use is misleading because there are a variety of physiological strategies utilized by herbivores to digest cellulose, from not ingesting much (ripe fruit eaters) to almost exclusively indigestible loads - these animals (ruminants such as cattle, termites)) rely on other organisms to actually digest for them. They are not alone - we carry a load of bacteria that help us as well, but they are specialists. We are not. We are omnivorous and have been for a VERY long time. We are so adaptable that we can survive at either extreme as well - witness the yuppie vegan in western culture vs a traditiona Inuit who rarely sees a plant. (and talk about fatty meat - whew)

[Orsino]

83. Just look at the Inuits who still eat mostly meat.

Yes, we evolved the digestive systems to handle meat, and the teeth to tear it apart. Mostly, though, we evolved the brains necessary to hunt cooperatively and craft the tools needed to kill and butcher. The concentrated calories both enabled and encouraged the evolution of big brains.

Agriculture has defied that evolved behavior, though. We (most of us) now get more than enough calories, and have the luxury of choosing foods other than meat. I try to take advantage of that, and am eating less of it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

61. I'm guessing it all started when an unlucky cockroach was

ingested while hiding in a squash of some sort. Og found it tasty, and began eating them on a regular basis. Gradually, he tried worms, grubs, lizards and snakes. He didn't start on mammal meat until a long time later.

[Kali]

73. Probably it was a mammal kill.

Perhaps the victim of a fire or lightening, thus the discovery of bbq and bbqing at the same event.


Just kidding here. Sort of.

[Dangerously Amused]

124. You raise a good point.

Even "pure" vegetarians, for example cows, ingest and digest some measure of animal protein in the form of the insects that are on the vegetation they eat.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

126. Insects and grubs, and eggs are staple to many primates' diets.

Assuming that evolution theory is correct, and that creatures adapt to survive, or go extinct; it makes sense that we adapted ourselves to accomodate a diet that includes meat.

A vegetarian friend of mine landed in the hospital when, after a decade of abstaining from meat, she decided to try some beef. I don't remember the specifics of her illness; but it had something to do with lacking appropriate enzymes to properly digest the meat.

So it's pretty clear to me that we can adapt to any diet; but in certain circumstances anyway, we need to be careful about how we alter our habits.

[flvegan]

62. Interesting comparison here

Meat Eaters

1. Has Claws
2. No pores on skin: perspires through tongue
3. Pointed front teeth to tear flesh
4. No flat back molar teeth to grind food
5. Salivary glands in mouth (not needed to pre-digest grains & fruits)
6. Acid saliva: no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
7. Strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest tough animal muscle.
8. Intestinal tract only 3 times body length so rapidly decaying meat can pass out of body quickly


Plant eaters

1. No Claws
2. Perspires through pores on the skin
3. No sharp pointed front teeth
4. Flat back molar teeth to grind food
5. Well developed salivary glands, needed to pre-digest grains & fruits
6. Alkaline saliva, much ptyalin to pre-digest grains
7. Stomach acid 20 times less strong than meat-eaters
8. Intestinal tract several times body length (plant foods do not decay as quickly so can pass more slowly through the body)


Humans

1. No Claws
2. Perspires through pores on the skin
3. No sharp pointed front teeth
4. Flat back molar teeth to grind food
5. Well developed salivary glands, needed to pre-digest grains & fruits
6. Alkaline saliva, much ptyalin to pre-digest grains
7. Stomach acid 20 times less strong than meat-eaters
8. Intestinal tract several times body length (plant foods do not decay as quickly so can pass more slowly through the body)

It's from a biased source, but it's still sound info.

We also cook our meat and tenderize it so that we can eat it.

[TimeChaser]

70. And what about the cecum?

[flvegan]

74. What of it?

We have one. Exclusive carnivores have a much smaller or nonexistant one.

I'm not a doctor, so my dialogue here is limited. Forgive me in advance.

[TimeChaser]

77. Yes, exclusive carnivores have tend to have non-existent ones

but exclusive herbivores have much, much larger and highly developed cecum, which we lack. That indicates that we are omnivores along with the fact that we still have canine teeth (though much smaller ones than exclusive carnivores) which most exclusive herbivores lack.

Edited for typo

[flvegan]

88. Agreed. Like dogs, we are opportunistic carnivores, at best.

However, there's little denying that the average human body runs best on an herbivorous diet.

I say average to try to dissuade the onslaught of "I knew someone that was vegetarian for 3 weeks and her leg fell off" type posts.

[TimeChaser]

95. The average human body functions best when all its nutritional needs are

fulfilled. We're omnivores, so we're evolved to fulfill those needs in many different ways.

"Average" human body, maybe. But there are some peopled who'd get very sick if they didn't eat some meat (myself included)

[flvegan]

97. I will restrain from saying "untrue" here

I was soundly and quite respectfully put in my place by a DUer with AIDS who has a doctor telling him to eat meat. Wayyyyyyy outta my league, and because of that, I restrain from drawing lines in the sand like that.

However, a balanced, responsible veg* diet would not cause folks to get sick. The "need" to eat meat is a farce. You can probably guess who has pushed that one so hard.

[TimeChaser]

100. For healthy people, perhaps

Unfortunately, not all people are born healthy. Some people are forced into a vegetarian lifestyle because of heath issues, while some people have to avoid it for health issues.

Also remember that there are individual tastes. Some people can't stand the taste of certain foods (I don't like legumes or tofu, just as some people can't stand meat). So we're omnivores, some people like meat, some people don't.

[flvegan]

103. You do make a good point.

I won't dally towards health issues, as I'm no doctor. I don't know of examples, other than the one I posted, as to why one would need to avoid a veg diet. However, I also haven't ruled it out.

Taste. Tastes. Knock-knock-knockin on ego's dooooorrrrr...

[TimeChaser]

104. Hey now

Some people taste things differently due to genetics. I won't insult your taste if you don't know mine, thank you.

[flvegan]

105. Pardon me, but

I didn't insult anything. I stated fact. However, if you do indeed have a genetic disposition to tasting non-animal products like, well, poop, then I'd withdraw my statement, and stipulate to your need.

[TimeChaser]

107. It's not that far

Just stating that not everyone tastes everything in the same way. Something that tastes good to you may not taste good to me. Ever do the Phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) experiment in highschool biology?

[flvegan]

109. Yet you missed my point.

Eating for survival V. eating because it tastes good. The PTC biology test doesn't interest me. Taste lies in ego, again.

[TimeChaser]

110. Okay fine

If not not wanting stuff that, honestly, tastes like shit to me, is ego, then fine, call me an egomanic.

[flvegan]

111. I wouldn't do that.

And no need for the violent mood swing, either.

If it were between you and I, and that was your response, I'd want to know what you ate, how it was made, etc. I'd rather help than point a finger and say "egomaniac" as that helps noone.

I wouldn't eat something that tastes like shit, either.

We can also probably agree that neither one of us really knows what actual shit tastes like. Right? Right?

[TimeChaser]

118. Sorry

I'm admittedly a little moody, I've been lacking sleep from staying up late studying for tests and other wonderful things.

If I eat something and find I don't like the taste, I'll usually wait a while and try it again some other time. Or maybe even try it a few years later. Still, there are some things that I just don't like the taste of. Like green beans, I hated those as a kid and still hate them. I grow out of tastes, like uber sugary things. And grow into them, like bitter tea. Who knows, maybe in another twenty years I'll enjoy tofu, but as it is now, I don't.

[flvegan]

120. Psst...don't tell anyone, okay, but

I fucking hate carrots. And green beans? Ick.

Prepare tofu right, and it's awesome. Prepare it wrong...hmmm...ew.

I respect what you've said, now get some sleep. We need more well-rested, well-schooled libs (staying up late for "other wonderful things" as well) on our side, k? Good luck on your tests, too...

[Kali]

76. Missing a few thing here.

Human molars are NOT flat (except old grain eaters - their teeth tend to wear flat due to bits of sand and stone from grinding the grain)

Not sure what you mean by salivary glands - by definition they are in the mouth, all types of eaters have them. ????

I would dispute the acid measurements, I suspect that is highly variable in individuals.

You also forgot about eye placement. Sides of the head - herbivores/prey animals, to the front, carnivores/hunters.

Tool use and brain changes need for claws and teeth.


Again, humans are not herbavores OR carnivores, we are a combination. We are opportunists and have been for a VERY long time.

[flvegan]

93. Mmmkay...

Flatter than a true carnivore. Evolved to grind better.

Reread the comparison on salivary glands.

Dispute all you want. Post data, then let's talk.

Eye placement. Two words: hammerhead shark.

Agreed, the human mind is certainly evolved to make up for the lack of the other needed things.

Agreed...omnivores, so to speak.

[Kali]

135. back atcha

"Flatter than a true carnivore. Evolved to grind better."

Yet not flat like a true herbivore. Much like pig and bear teeth - both omnivores. Evolved to handle a variety of foods. Omnivore.

*************************************

"Reread the comparison on salivary glands."

Nothing there on the glands, as for enzymes and pH this sort of data vary depending on diet, not taxonomic group. Pure carnivores would have no need for "predigestive" enzymes - they tend to bolt their food without chewing.

*************************************

"Dispute all you want. Post data, then let's talk."

You made the assertion - you post YOUR data - perhaps not from an admittedly biased source. (also see above)

*************************************

"Eye placement. Two words: hammerhead shark."

Two more words: try again. Anything terrestrial? To help YOUR argument, forward facing eyes also enable primates to have depth perception - handy when swinging through the branches, however in general it is a trait of predators: Eyes in front, hunts; eyes on side, hides.

[Solon]

143. Another thing about hammerheads, and other sharks...

Hammerheads do not use their eyes for hunting, largely, they use other sensors, namely the ones that detect electrical impulses in fish, and their heads evolved to cover as much area as possible below their body. They mostly hunt for fish and other sharks that hide in the seabed, and the best way to detect them for their electrical sensors is by having a wide head so they can properly triangulate the exact position of their prey, similar to how dolphins do the same thing with sonar. They also detect prey under the seabed using sound, though they also use eyes their eyes a little better also. In fact, pretty much all predators of the sea do not rely on their eyes nearly as much, for the simple reason that the ocean is not the best medium for light to travel far, forgetting things like mud being kicked up, and most of these animals hunting at night.

[flvegan]

161. Try again?

That's all you have to dispute hammerhead sharks?

BTW, you disputed. You post data (we can do this all day long, btw).

[Deja Q]

66. I'll ask my boyfriend and get back to you...

:popcorn:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

68. This human is.

Ever since I was a baby, I would get very interested whenever my mother would cook meat with a good savory smell, like bacon.

I have tried the veggie life and had major blood sugar problems. The healthiest I have ever been was on low carb, but I can't hold out longer than a year on that. All my "readings" went down: blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.

That said, it can't be denied that I am overweight.

But I think if our evolution was mostly during our hunting and gathering days we are meant to eat limited game meat and lots of nuts, berries and grasses.

[Kali]

80. We can not digest many grasses without a LOT of cooking

we CAN digest the seeds of grasses (grains) and we can also digest fruits and some roots. I would mention (not just to irritate the raw foods folks as well) that we have probably been cooking almost as long as we have been eating meat - and that in turn may have allowed an EXPANSION of the vegetable matter we could exploit.


Anything in moderation - probably the safest bet, eh? (

[Beaverhausen]

87. With all the colon cancer in my family I stopped eating meat for survival

almost 20 years ago!

[StellaBlue]

94. vegetarian here

:popcorn:

[henslee]

98. Does that mean no dairy?

[StellaBlue]

102. avoid it

insofar as possible

but I will eat a cake if someone bakes it for me, etc.

no milk at home

[arwalden]

99. It's Just Amazing To Realize That Humans Have Survived This Long...

... isn't it?

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

106. We were not designed...

we evolved, and somewhere down the road we started eating meat. It's disputable when humans picked up the behavior of consuming meat but the important thing is that we did. Humans eat meat, maybe we're not the best fit organism to consume large quantities of meat but we do anyway for nutritional and pleasureful reasons.

Even if the behavior of meat consumption is relatively new, so what? At one point the use of tools was new, we change, we evolve. No species holds constant so because we now eat a mixture of plant and animal matter we are omnivores. We are omnivores because we eat meat and plants, not omnivores because of how our digestive track takes the stuff or the structure of our jaw.

Last time I checked the definition of an omnivorous was eating both animal and vegetable foods... and we do. So whether or not humans were meant to eat meat, we do now, and we like for the most part and many see little reason of stopping so this behavior so now we have evolved to eat and consume meat. We picked up a new behavior, we seem pretty intent on sticking with it so I'd say as of now we're "designed" to eat meat.

[flvegan]

108. Good points. First,

a belated welcome to DU! Glad to have you here.

So, humans eat meat. Why?

As for the "behavior of meat consumption is relatively new, so what?"

So what indeed. Health, environment and animal cruelty aside, so what, right? Allegedly, we evolved. In this scenario, I'm not seeing it.

As for little reason in stopping? Check the paragraph above...

[Kali]

127. You seem to be mixing up value judgements with science

I think most of us are trying (at least I am, perhaps I shouldn't speak for others) to use the term "evolve" in its biological sense, rather than the "ethical" implication that we should be morally "evolving" to some higher cruelty free (to use one of your other value judgements as an example) ideal.

Evolution makes no value judgements, has no ego, has no motive or direction, except to keep passing the genetic material along. Not to say that the development of "ethical thought" may not be advantageous for some or that the lack of that, the complete feeding of ego might not be advantageous for others. The problem is you really can't tell if you were "succesfull" for several more generations. And nature, being what it is - there are no absolutes, variability and adaptability seem to be the best way to succeed, but not always - another variation. Ain't life and its organizing energy great?

[tigereye]

156. this thread is very interesting

am enjoying your arguments quite a bit. You seem to have good biological/ anthro. type arguments.

Disclaimer, I was a vegetarian (not an ovo-lactarian) for years before it became trendy. However, every so often I would cheat and crave!/ have a Reuben. I gave up being a veg. because at the time, I just got really bored with the food options - this was long before there were a lot of veg. restaurants and other options.


:hi:

[flvegan]

162. You should check the specific post I was responding to.

Maybe.

[JackDragna]

112. Yes, we're meat eaters.

Our bodies produce enzymes that break down the high amount of fat and protein found in meat. We also have the dentition for eating meat. Anyone who says otherwise is advocating vegetarianism a little too zealously.

[LeftyMom]

115. We have the dentition for eating meat?

Then what's with the cooking and tenderizing? Not to mention the knives to cut it up into manageable peices- something else carnivores manage to eat just fine without.

Go ahead, take those fearsome canines and rip off a chunk o' deer. :eyes:

[Kali]

137. We cut up and cook the vegetables too.

We don't really have the teeth to eat grain either - we generally grind it up with tools as well.

[LeftyMom]

140. but we don't have to

We can eat greens and carrots and whatnot as is but cook them to create variety. Cooking and tools allow us a more varied plant-based diet (and more food storage options) bue we can eat those foods without.

Humans don't do real well on haunches of raw meat.

[Kali]

144. Raw meat is entirely digestible

we don't have to cook it either. (steak tartare and jerky both come to mind)

[LeftyMom]

145. Raw meat has to be pounded, processed and treated to death

or sliced super thin to allow humans to eat it as human teeth aren't really cut out for the job. Even then, as human digestion isn't acidic enough to kill off the bacteria and viruses, it's a risky proposition.

[Kali]

149. Your arguments apply to fruits and vegetables as well.

You probably couldn't chew or digest much wheat or barley with out "processing it to death" either. Other things are toxic unless cooked or processed in some way - the need to process doesn't prove anything. It just shows we had the brains to figure out how to exploit the resourse, or even just to make it taste better! But it doesn't prove we evolved as either carnivores or herbivores, infact it just adds to the evidence the we eat/ate widely.

Personally I don't care to, but I feel perfectly capable of biting and chewing and digesting a chunk of raw meat off of a larger chunk. I prefer it cooked, but the fact is, often cooking actually toughens meat, not always the other way around

As for bacteria and viruses - one developes immunities beyond what digestion kills. Not saying there isn't nasty stuff out there than can kill you first but hey, tetanus is in dirt - you could pick that up grubbing for a tuber, in fact there are all kinds of pathogens that can be found on plant food as well. (of course the nice thing about many rotten fruit/grain products is......alcohol!)

[William Bloode]

150. Ha!

That statements a load of crap! I eat raw meat all the time and have no problems with it. A raw potato is harder to eat than raw meat.

Have ate raw meat my whole life, has never made me sick one time.

[WindRavenX]

116. but would you say that our physiology and biochemistry...

...argues for a diet primarily based in the consumption of meat?
Because personally, that's just as silly as what you are claiming to be a zelous arguement for vegetarianism.

[WindRavenX]

114. It would probably be best to say that humans are more evolved...

...for a diet based primarily on fruits, vegetables, and grain products with some meat thrown in for a primary source of protein; this is probably what our ancestors' diets consisted of.
Arguing that we are "designed" to eat meat is a terribly misleading question because I would argue that the diets of modern Homo sapiens in developed worlds is for the most part poor; the exception seems to be many Asian cultures which have most meals based on carbohydrates with a small portion of meat to serve as a source of protein. I don't think I need to explain that the diets of most American and other rich nations is poor-- far too much meat consumption.
We are built to hoard fat-- this is an advantage for those groups of peoples in the artic that DO have diets that are high in fat and meat.

Overall, I'd say that we have not, at any point, evolved with the mechanisms to have our diets based primarily on meat.

[yewberry]

117. Dunno. Does it matter?

I mean, on an individual level, what humans were "designed" or evolved to do means little. We make our own choices.

I know what's best for me; you decide what's best for you.

(In the meantime, I've got these knees that aren't particularly well-adapted to walking upright, and yet I insist on doing it every day. You do what you do, know what I mean?)

edit:clarity

[Ellen Forradalom]

122. They're designed to be meat beaters

at least half of 'em

[Err]

125. No...we're designed to eat both meat and vegetables.

It's in the teeth structure. :)

I prefer meat exclusively. I don't like veggies at all.

[Peter Frank]

130. You're not alone...

[Maddy McCall]

131. "Designed" by whom? Humans are evolutionary creatures...

and we have evolved to eat and utilize meat.

[BikeWriter]

132. I am a meat eater, yes.

[enigami]

134. meat, meat, meat,meat

eat em up, yum yum

[Solon]

148. Is there supposed to be a debate here?

OK, besides the fact that we aren't designed, here's a couple of things, first, our primate cousins's evolutionary path diverged from our own about 3 million years ago, so to claim that because a Gorilla is a herbavore, we should be to is, frankly, stupid. On the other hand, Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, hunt monkeys, and are even cannabals in the right circumstances, along with eating plants and termites. But regardless of these two groups of animals, our closest relatives, we are from the Homo family, so lets start there.

Our ancestors in Africa left the trees and forests that are closest living cousins still live in. At first they used the trees as shelter, but wandered onto the grasslands to find dead carcasses to eat from. Eventually, the concentrated calories and protien that was availuable in a varied diet lead to larger brains evolving, and we became more efficient scavengers, two of the first designed tools were the hammer and the axe, both primitive and made of stone. They both served one purpose, by and large, and that is to shear meat from bone (the axe)that lions and hyenas couldn't remove, and also to crack open the bones of the dead animals (the hammer)to get to the marrow that lions and hyenas ignored.

Eventually, as new species of humans evolved, they made more sophisticated tools, and also were able to coordinate their actions in much more advanced ways. This may have borne language at this point or not, we don't really know, though it is possible. What changed, most dramatically, is the transition from just a scavenger to an all around sophisticated opportunistic eater, overall. We can survive on berries and fruits in the forest, a dead rabbits found in the wild, or antelope on the plains. This was fueled by us actually being able to hunt actively, rather than ride on the coattails of other, larger, predators. Spears and other tools developed at this time bore out this change. Another change at this time is probably the one where we stopped being prey to the other predators as well, and were able to fight them off in groups. This probably explains why humans, at this point, aren't categorized by other predators as prey except in the most extraordinary circumstances, like for the old, rogue, or sick lions and tigers.

[Chicago Democrat]

154. A thinking person!

Why can't everyone think like us. Thanks for the great post.

[Chicago Democrat]

153. Human's AREN'T DESIGNED! we evolved....

Snow bound & Mountainous tribes evolved meat eating enzymes.

and it gradates from there. For some people therefore, meat is anathema based on thousands of years of interaction with the environment. Therefore 'meat eating ability' is different from race to race and family to family.


I am sick of arguing about this from some morality that I don't ascribe to.

[Truebrit71sbruv]

155. Without doubt...

... we are omnivorous - which means we have evolved to consume both meat and vegetable/leaf matter. Our physiology would not be able to support the eating of one without the other without significant supplements.

[Nikia]

158. We need B12

Which is only found in animal products or modern fortified foods.
I don't think animal flesh consumed in normal amounts provide all the other vitamins that we need either.
As others have said, we are omnivores. Various groups of humans are evolved more to certain diets. For example, in some groups lactose intolerance is rare while in other groups not being lactose intolerant as an adult is rare. Certain foods are more readily digested with a cultivation of certain bacteria and eating those particuliar foods often keeps the bacteria levels high enough to digest them easily.