chatterbears wrote: ↑
May 23rd, 2018, 5:21 pm
Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangutans are herbivorous apes. Insects and meat make up a small proportion of their diet, estimated as 2%. While the common chimpanzee is mostly herbivorous, it does eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to medium-sized mammals, including other primates.
If you actually read the journal I posted, very early cultures (thousands of years old) did not have a meat-based diet.
Egypt - Wheat, barley
China - Wheat, soya, sorghum
India - Corn, rice, wheat, lentils
Middle East - Wheat, chickpeas
Mexico, Mayas - Corn/maize, amaranth
Peru, Incas - Potatoes, quinoa
It is fairly clear that major early human cultures practiced a predominantly plant-based nutrition. But also, even if it were true that Humans were evolved to eat meat [which it is not], plant-based foods are objectively better for our health.
"We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity.
https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/po ... rian-diets
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.
"British Dietetic Association confirms well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages
I carefully checked out your references.
Plant-based diets are more environmentally
sustainable than diets rich in
animal products because they use fewer
natural resources and are associated
with considerably less environmental
damage.101-105 The current worldwide
consumption of diets high in meat and
FROM THE ACADEMY
December 2016 Volume 116 Number 12 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS 1975
dairy products is considered by some as
unsustainable.101,103,105 The systematic
review conducted by the Scientific
Committee of the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans provides evidence that diets
higher in plant foods and lower in animal
foods (like a vegetarian diet) are associated
with lower environmental damage.106
Many scientists are calling for a
substantial reduction of livestock products
in the diet of humans as a major way
to reverse climate change.105 Compared
with omnivorous diets, vegetarian diets
utilize less water and fossil fuel resources
and use lower amounts of pesticides and
fertilizers.107 Substituting beans for beef
in the diet would significantly reduce the
environmental footprint worldwide. To
produce 1 kg protein from kidney beans
requires 18 times less land, 10 times less
water, 9 times less fuel, 12 times less
fertilizer, and 10 times less pesticide in
comparison to producing 1 kg protein
from beef.108 In addition, beef production
generates considerably more manure
waste than from any other animal food
According to the US Environmental
Protection Agency, about 70% of all
water pollution in rivers and lakes in
the United States is a result of pollution
from animal farms.109 Animal agriculture
is associated with land degradation,
air pollution, loss of biodiversity,
and global warming.104,110 Meat production
makes a significant contribution
to anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions and anthropogenic methane
and nitrous oxide production.101,103,111
Using calculations based on 210 common
foods, greenhouse gas emissions
from consuming a vegetarian diet were
found to be 29% lower than from the
use of a nonvegetarian diet,112 while a
vegan diet can have >50% lower
greenhouse emissions compared to a
While new technologies for animal
farming are available, a recent study
found that greenhouse gas emissions
from the production and consumption
of animal products were reduced
only 9% due to a more efficient
livestock production.113 The authors
concluded that cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions necessary to meet the global
temperature target “imply a severe
constraint on the long-term global
consumption of animal food.”
have suggested that reducing animal
production has a greater potential to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions than
“technological mitigation or increased
The use of antibiotics in farm animals
as growth promoters and for the prevention
and treatment of animal diseases
has generated antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. This antibiotic resistance can
be transmitted to humans through animal
food consumption and is now a
major public health problem, causing
illnesses that are difficult to treat, and
resulting in increased morbidity, mortality,
and health care costs.105,
This is mainly a fairy tale, because the references cited by the article and linked to same, are broken links, that is, uncheckable references.
As a fairy tale, I don't insist the article's assertions are false, but I insist they are unverified, and thus should not be toted as they have been.
There is one refrence which is extant, that is 106. And in part it reads,
In other words, although meat increased land requirements, diets including meat could feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian-style diets.
So the only reference that is extant and can be checked QUOTED BY YOU, CHATTERBEARS, TO PROVE YOUR OWN POINT actually disproves your point.
That is my point.
You are a bit of a fanatic, and you can overlook important facts. A fanatic's one tactic of many is to cherry-pick facts. You do that.
I agree that Thomas Hobbes user here should be more verbose and he ought to expand on his opinions to make them stick.
However, he had one good point: man did not evolve for plant-based agricultural work any more than he has evolved to hunt, or to do meat-productive agricultural work.
And you cite evolution. One of man's achieving great survival success was the harvesting of proteins and fat tissues, that is, high-calorie food products, and healthy, otherwise nutritional food, because the brain uses an incredibly large amount of energy.
So food intake welcomed cooking food, both meat and veggie based food, because it greatly reduced the energy needed to digest food.
And food intake welcomed fatty animal tissues, because it is full of calories.
Actually, food tastes good which historically and in OLD evolutionary terms were rich in survival values: sugar, fat, non-sugar carbs, protein, in this order.
My point is that you, chatterbears, missed that an omnivorous diet is healthier than a vegan diet. My point is that you missed that a proper omnivorous diet uses less land and energy, and is safer for the environment (as per your cited study's express words) than either all-meat diets or no-meat diets.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.