Human Biology and Vegetarianism - Are we meant to be vegi?

[Louloubelle]

Is an Inuit diet healthier than a vegetarian/fructarian one?

Where the Inuit live, yes it is. That's why the Inuit live and the early colonisers died.

Yes, they manage to get the necessary vits from blubber etc., and fish oils are also doign them good. But again Inuit life expectancy is significantly shorter - without a thorough understanding of causes of death and the possible role of diet within this it is hard to say that their diet (whilst providing vits+oils and avoiding other bad things) is perfectly suited ('designed') to their biological make-up.

*bangs head against wall*

Life expectancy was shorter in the past because the Inuit lived in a hostile environment with no access to health care.

Now their life expectancy is shorter because of the inheritance of racism, inequality, denial of hunting rights, pollution, cultural genocide and the highest suicide rate in the world amongst young men.

Their traditional diet is the best possible diet for that part of the world and the few clever settlers who decided to follow their diet were rewarded by not getting sick from scurvy. The rest got very ill and many died. Try attempting a fructarian diet on the Inuit land and see how long you last. Not long at all.

I'm not sure it's worth debating this though, as you seem to have an opinion on this that isn't going to change regardless of any facts relating to the issue.

 

[ska invita]

apologies for long post - interesting thread, so please have patience

Life expectancy was shorter in the past because the Inuit lived in a hostile environment with no access to health care.

Now their life expectancy is shorter because of the inheritance of racism, inequality, denial of hunting rights, pollution, cultural genocide and the highest suicide rate in the world amongst young men.

[...]

I'm not sure it's worth debating this though, as you seem to have an opinion on this that isn't going to change regardless of any facts relating to the issue.

im dissapointed in this post loulou - I think I have been very balanced in my comments - I have said in at least two posts that life expectancy stats are meaningless without a breakdown of cause of death, and clearly there are countless factors that reduce life expectancy. For example, in addtion to your factors, modern Inuits smoke far more cigarettes than Canadian neighbours.

Life expectancy stats are only usefull if we can see clearly the causes of death and, for the purpose of this discussion, see a pattern of diet related illlness in premature death.

You also presume I am arguing a case - far from it. I am trying to get to the bottom of a question thats niggling me - to what extent have we evolved to eat meat?

Sipphou Chan's post above questions wether primates are "essentialy herbivores", and others have picked up on this too. IF anyone can be bothered to reread this thread the articles regarding primate diet suggest that primates eat a huge amount of vegitation, plus some termites. Chimps also ocassionaly eat the meat of other monkeys, but this is not a regular source of diet, but usually the outcome of fights.

Here is a good link looking at different primate species and their diets:
http://www.tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

Of the different primates listed only chimps eat meat, and up to 5% at that - why is it so contentious to say that this is an "essentialy herbivorous" diet? That figure of 5% changes depending where you look - Siphhou Chan says 3%. Yes, techinically this makes chimps omnivours, but just because animal meat makes up 3-5% of their diet doesnt mean their biological make up has evolved sufficiently to deal with this intake.

Evolution is constantly in flux, and it is wrong to think that practice is perfectly in tune with biological state - clearly not, hence extinction.

I didnt realise the issue of primate diet was contentious - I thought that was pretty established. The question is, as dash two picks up on, to what extent have humans evolved from primates in terms of our digestive systems?

THe link provided by dash 2 suggest changes in amino acid metabolism - but it seems that major organs remain the same - we still have an appendix (practically defunt), we still have a long intestine, we still have jaws best suited for plant form.

This isnt a fructarian rant, its a genuine question asked to the more educated urban75 minds than mine to find out how our bodies have evolved to best consume food, and if our biology has any preference as to diet. The key question is:

what are the evolutionary changes between humans and primates that show a real evolutionary adaptation for the processing of animal meats?

From what i have seen posted so far primates, across the species, are 'essentialy herbivores' - I dont have a problem with that phrase, and I think the link above backs that up. Yes chimps and homo sapiens are ominvorous in practice - but what does our biological makeup dictate?

I would like to see evidence of how we have evolved to process a higher meat intake. So far we've got amino acid metabolism - is there anything else?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Our ancestors probably ate a lot of bugs, like most omnivores do now. So not really a vegi diet.

 

[ska invita]

Our ancestors probably ate a lot of bugs, like most omnivores do now. So not really a vegi diet.

read the thread JC

 

[Louloubelle]

im dissapointed in this post loulou - I think I have been very balanced in my comments - I have said in at least two posts that life expectancy stats are meaningless without a breakdown of cause of death, and clearly there are countless factors that reduce life expectancy. For example, in addtion to your factors, modern Inuits smoke far more cigarettes than Canadian neighbours.

Life expectancy stats are only usefull if we can see clearly the causes of death and, for the purpose of this discussion, see a pattern of diet related illlness in premature death.

You also presume I am arguing a case - far from it. I am trying to get to the bottom of a question thats niggling me - to what extent have we evolved to eat meat?

so why have you ignored all the links giving very clear information that shows that humans have been eating meat for millions of years?

would you like me to post them again?

Sipphou Chan's post above questions wether primates are "essentialy herbivores", and others have picked up on this too. IF anyone can be bothered to reread this thread the articles regarding primate diet suggest that primates eat a huge amount of vegitation, plus some termites. Chimps also ocassionaly eat the meat of other monkeys, but this is not a regular source of diet, but usually the outcome of fights.

Chimps regularly hunt for meat. If you'd watched Life On Earth you'd have seen David Attenborough following a group of chimps as they hunted for monkeys. They hunted as a group and set up and ambush, the end result of which was some rather grizzly footage of a chimp holding onto a monkey and eating it's head while the other chimps pestered it for their share of meat. The chimps and monkeys were not fighting. The chimps wanted to eat monkeys and set about hunting them. There is overwhelming evidence that chimps hunt other animals for meat, it's been filmed and documented I don't understand why you have a problem accepting it.

Here is a good link looking at different primate species and their diets:
http://www.tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

Interesting. From your link we see that orangutans, gorillas and chimps all eat animal protein.

Of the different primates listed only chimps eat meat, and up to 5% at that - why is it so contentious to say that this is an "essentialy herbivorous" diet?

from your own link

The orangutan seems to obtain the majority of its nutrients from plant based sources, specifically simple and complex carbohydrates from the fruits and roots it consumes. Proteins seem to be obtained from the insects, small vertebrates* and bark it eats, and possible sources of fatty acids are minimal but include oils from leaves and other vegetation, eggs, insects and small vertebrates.*

The diet of the gorilla depends on where it is located, in the east or west of Africa. In the Eastern population, the gorillas are mostly folivorous (meaning they generally eat leaves) - in one study this was 86% of the animal's diet. Galium vines, wild celery and three or four other species make up a high proportion of the diet. Small amounts of wood, roots, flowers, fruits, and grubs* also are eaten.

In the Western population, fruits are the most important element in the gorillas’ diet, although they also eat leaves, pith and stems (e.g. wild ginger). In a study undertaken on one group in Gabon, it was found that the fruits of at least 95 plant species were utilized. Western gorillas also have been found to obtain termites through the bark of trees * and wade through streams and rivers to harvest water plants. They also differ from the Eastern population in their greater use of animal-derived foods3.

RE chimps and bonobos
Both species are omnivorous. Chimps eat a lower percentage of fruit and a higher percentage of insects * and other meats* as compared to bonobos. In long and dry seasons when fruit is scarce, tree seeds, flowers, soft pith, galls, resin and bark become an important part of their diet. Termites* are the most nutritionally important insects in their diet, Mammals such as monkeys, pigs and antelope * are also eaten, particularly by males, but along with termites only account for about 5% of their diet. Females tend to consume more animals than the males.


so from your own link we can see that these apes are omnivorous. It even says that they are omnivorous. It's there in black and white, yet you're trying to say that they're not.

That figure of 5% changes depending where you look - Siphhou Chan says 3%. Yes, techinically this makes chimps omnivours, but just because animal meat makes up 3-5% of their diet doesnt mean their biological make up has evolved sufficiently to deal with this intake.

Evolution is constantly in flux, and it is wrong to think that practice is perfectly in tune with biological state - clearly not, hence extinction.

But the apes are not extinct are they? The threats to apes are war, hunting and environmental decline. It's amazing that they're still hanging in there really so I think we can safely assume that they can digest meat or they would be extinct.

I didnt realise the issue of primate diet was contentious - I thought that was pretty established. The question is, as dash two picks up on, to what extent have humans evolved from primates in terms of our digestive systems?

Primate diet is not contentious. Apes are omnivorous. The only contentious issue is that some vegans and vegetarians have delusions about ape diets that they use to promote the idea that humans should be veggie / vegan. The website I've been linking to is a vegitarian website but one that looks unflinchingly at the facts regarding ape diet.

what i have seen posted so far primates, across the species, are 'essentialy herbivores' - I dont have a problem with that phrase, and I think the link above backs that up.

*runs screaming from thread*



* these are meat. Obviously

eta
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_edpik/b_1.htm
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html


chimps have even been seen and documented making weapons to hunt other animals
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201007.html
http://www.livescience.com/animals/070222_chimp_hunters.html

and this link is interesting on a number of levels
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...lution/FossilRecord/Chimpanzee/Chimpanzee.htm

 

[Louloubelle]

I'd be interested in your opinion of this video nik

 

[Louloubelle]

I also find this very interesting and moving

 

[ska invita]

Fascinating links there - Id like to respond to them all in one go, although I think we might be talking at cross purposes here:

Chimpanzees seem to be the only primate to hunt, and do so on a social basis. The parrallel with humans is profound on this point. But the issue here is this: what kind of a biological make up do our primate/human ancestors have that enables them to process meat?

Chimps other primate cousins eat no meat - they are therefore herbivores, and would have a herbivorous digestive system to match. Chimps have come to make occassional, often territorial hunts, and have an additional 3% of their diet made up by meat (the article you just posted by Stanford backs up that figure). To what extent is their digestive system different to that of their herbivore primate cousins? Has it evolved to process this meat?

I dont know the answer to that . From their we need to see how the human digestive system has evolved to deal with eating more than 3% meat, if it has at all.

The thing is you can have a digestive system designed for a herbivorous diet and still eat meat - cows are the perfect example: herbivores, but farmers have been feeding them meat 'products'. The cow can consume a little meat, as can a chimp.

But just because a chimp is an omnivore in practice (although meat makes up a tiny 3% of the diet), doesnt mean its digestive system is that diffferent from other strictly herbivorous primates. Maybe it is - thats what Id like to find out: to what extent have we evolved from our herbivour ancestors to process meat: the fact that we can and do eat meat doesnt automatically mean that our digestive system has evolved sufficiently to deal with this meat intake. Maybe it has - but I would like to see evidence of how. Dash 2 mentioned amino acid metabolism - but what else?

The things is there are parts of the human digestive that are clearly not designed to deal with meat - the long intestine we have means that bits of meat never get shat out and just sit there rotting in the gut, hence the need for colonic irrigations. This is hte kind of thing I want to know about; how far has evolution adapted our bodies to deal with meat in our diets?

 

[Louloubelle]

So is this all about justifying the "need" for colonic irrigations?

There is no need for colonic irrigations.

btw

bonobos hunt as well as chimps

our intestines are similar to those of apes except that we have (IMMIC) a longer small intestine and a much shorter colon

linky

http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/metab-carn/metabolic-carnivory-1a.shtml

 

[Detroit City]

That's about all I know in biological terms - are we designed as herbivores or carnivores or what?

we're designed to be omnivores....

 

[toggle]

we're designed to be omnivores....

we have evolved to be omnivores. No designing involved.

 

[ska invita]

we're designed to be omnivores....

we have evolved to be omnivores. No designing involved.

...worth at least skim reading the thread before posting

Interesting. From your link we see that orangutans, gorillas and chimps all eat animal protein.

...yeah, but theres a huge difference in digesting grubs/insects (the animal protein you refer to) and cow meat. If you have a digestive system that evolves over millions of years to deal with 95% herbivorous matter plus a small percentage of insects it is not going to be well suited to eating cow flesh. I may be a layman in all this, but that seems pretty clear to me.

What is your argument here: are you saying that the digestive system of primates is readily suited to eating the flesh of large mammals? From what I can see it clearly isn't.

Over the weekend I've been thinking about people's posts, and particularly Louloubelles.
I think we can break the subject down into two groups:
1. What are the positive and negative effectives of different food stuff (including meats) on humans, and
2. To what extent has our biological make-up/digestive system evolved from that of our primate ancestors to deal with the intake of meat.

Loulou was spot on to pick up the nutritional benefits of fish products: they can contain all kinds of different oils and vitamins, as her posts made clear.

But each common meat type eaten by man (fish, cow, sheep, goat , chicken etc.,) needs to be considered in turn for compatiability with human biology.

For example, most GP's (a conservative bunch really) now would discourage the eating of red meats, as there are many diseases that can be traced back to them, not least cancer and heart disease:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4088824.stm

-basically, it seems that red meat easily gets 'stuck' in the gut, the human intestine not best suited ('designed!') for heavy meats - hence an attempt to remedy this is to eat more fibre to try and push out this essentialy rotting flesh from the gut - or colonic irrigation.

Other meats (white meats) seem to be relatively easier to digest and process, so the effect is not as pronounced, but not insignificant: vegetable matters moves through the human intestine with ease, but the dense fibre of meat is just that much harder for humans to process. Indigestion and constipation are huge problems, particularly amongst Americans who tend to eat a very meat based diet.

There are endless quotes like this:

`On the authority of many eminent men we learn that constipation is in the history of every case of disease, especially of the stomach and bowels. If people would eat those foods that induce natural bowel activity, they would run but slight risk of cancer. Internal growths need have no terrors for the man who eats intelligently, thereby avoiding bowel stasis [slow movement of the bowels] with all its attendant miseries.' (George Teasdale, Nature Heals!, p. 36)

`Indigestion and constipation are the starting causes of the diseases of civilization. If you wish to produce cancer with a fair degree of certainty, supply constipated patients with plenty of meat and endeavour to deal with their constipation by means of irritating, purgative drugs.' (The Diet System, p. ll)

The reason why Sir Arbuthnot Lane mentions meat in particular is because meat contains no fibre whatsoever. As such, when meat is not eaten together with fibre-rich foods, or when it is eaten in excess, it is a highly constipating food.
http://www.keepwell.com/constipation.htm

I think this hints at the problem for me - I think people think I have a hidden agenda that is anti-meat - it's not that, I simply want to understand better how our digestive system has evolved in evolutionary terms to deal with meats.

 

[selamlar]

Excuse the c+p:

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.]

 

[selamlar]

Also,

Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet
Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.

Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.

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.

 

[dash_two]

I am not sure that meat would rot inside the human digestive tract. The bacteria that cause the rotting of meat generate by-products that are poisonous to us. The upshot would be that people would poison themselves every time they ate and tried to digest a steak. This obviously doesn't happen.

The 'Beyond Vegetarianism' website has an interesting page on differences between the human digestive tract and those of chimps and orangutans. But it also claims that our tract is similar in its proportions of small intestine to colon to those of certain monkeys whose diet contains a higher amount of meat, both insect and vetebrate.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6c.shtml

 

[ska invita]

I am not sure that meat would rot inside the human digestive tract.

Perhaps the use of the word rot is not very techinical (no doubt it isnt ) - not sure what the technical name for unidgested meat is.
- the point is that:

If meat proteins reach the colon in an undigested form they will putrefy, the result of this rotting is the release of toxins into the colon and offensive gas. Research has shown that protein in meat cause putrefaction twice as fast as vegetable protein. Autointoxication happens due to the putrefaction and toxin production. The liver recycles the toxins into the bile instead of eliminating them. By eating meat the high protein value is counterbalanced by the high fat value of the saturated fats within meat.
http://www.cause-of-kidney-stones.com/Red_Meat.html

The typical American man has, at the age of 53, six pounds of undigested red meat in his lower bowel
http://www.mindconnection.com/interests/meat.htm

Its this kind of data that allows colonic irrigation companies to thrive (parituclarly in the uS) - they certainly have more of the same on this:
http://www.colonhealth.net/colon_hydrotherapy/use_colon_cleansing_for_better_digestion.htm
http://www.heartlandhealing.com/pages/archive/colonic_therapy/index.html

 

[dash_two]

I am a bit dubious about the claims put around by practitioners of colonic irrigation or those making a living from detox diets. The idea of autointoxification and people harbouring huge amounts of fetid sludge in their guts is a very old one but which fell out of medical repute by the 1920s due to a lack of scientific evidence. Quackwatch has more on the subject:

http://www.quackwatch.com

But too much red meat is reliably associated with an increased risk of colon cancer. Nitrites in bacon and other cured meats seem to be the worst for this.

tbh I do think it's unwise to eat a lot of red meat as we're not Neanderthals, and people will do themselves no harm by cutting it out of their diet altogether. I doubt our ancestors got to eat red meat every day, certainly not ruminant skeletal muscle (ie steak).

There were plenty of other sources of animal protein which could have been foraged for on a much more frequent basis: grubs, eggs, molluscs, nestlings, lizards etc (yum )

 

[Stigmata]

Humans could no longer cope with raw flesh though. Meat has only been a regular part of most people's diet for a small part of our history. The Medaeval diet for the vast majority was pottage - veggie soup, bread and eggs as well as nuts and berries in season. The rich ate pig, swans, ducks etc.

Nah, there would have been plenty of opportunites to feed on rabbit or fish depending on where you lived. Meat would have been less common but it was still remarkable when someone cut it out of their diet altogether (usually for religious reasons).

 

[ska invita]

I am a bit dubious about the claims put around by practitioners of colonic irrigation or those making a living from detox diets.

Fair point - if I have a mo I will try and find a source that backs up that 'undigested meat in the gut of an american' claim from a more reliable source - although there must be some truth to it - I doubt they can go around making completely fabricated claims like this.

tbh I do think it's unwise to eat a lot of red meat

I think the evidence for the link between red meat and cancers is undeniable - just the other day another report came out:

Red meat vastly increases breast cancer risk
Older women who eat even small amounts of red meat are at significantly greater risk of developing breast cancer, according to a study published today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,2050000,00.html

There were plenty of other sources of animal protein which could have been foraged for on a much more frequent basis: grubs, eggs, molluscs, nestlings, lizards etc (yum )

And this would more closely match primate feeding patterns. Grubs are not that different from some fruits in terms of texture, and would be digested in a completely different way to tough meats. Incidentally, in clinical trials red meats include cows, pigs and sheep.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4088824.stm

Fish and chicken fall somewhere inbetween vegetables and 'red meat' in terms of ease of digestion.

But it seems that possibly the biggest problem with animals products is animal fats (saturated and trans fats are the ones that cause disease) and these fats are common to all meats (although fish does have beneficial properties):
Harvard breakdown on these fats

Saturated fats are mainly animal fats. They are found in meat, seafood, whole-milk dairy products (cheese, milk, and ice cream), poultry skin, and egg yolks. Some plant foods are also high in saturated fats, including coconut and coconut oil, palm oil, and palm kernel oil.

These fats lead to heart disease:

-Cronoary heart diease is the single biggest killer in the US with 1 in 5 deaths:

So while I take on board that humans have evolved to produce strogner acids that aid in the digestion of meats, there are a range of other bodily functions that cant deal well with this intake, and greatly reduce our lifespan.This has to be a question of evolutionary adaptation - carnivores dont die of heart disease and cancer.

 

[selamlar]

This has to be a question of evolutionary adaptation - carnivores dont die of heart disease and cancer.

Under natural conditions, accident and starvation are the main causes of death amongst all animals. Effectivly, you just get too old and slow to keep up. In captivity, however, carnivores (and herbivores) die of pretty much the same spectrum of things as we do.
My pet rat died of cancer, my dog had a stroke, my other dog died of a ruptured tumour on her liver.

 

[Louloubelle]

Fair point - if I have a mo I will try and find a source that backs up that 'undigested meat in the gut of an american' claim from a more reliable source - although there must be some truth to it - I doubt they can go around making completely fabricated claims like this.

LOL

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/fecalcolon.asp

 

[Louloubelle]

carnivores dont die of heart disease and cancer.

I think you are mistaken about this

Felids especially suffer from many different cancers as any long term cat owner will tell you

Big cats (at least in captivity) die from high rates of mammary cancer.

Felids are also susceptible to leukemia

 

[dash_two]

And this would more closely match primate feeding patterns.

I think you can see a continuity with such patterns rather than a close match. After all, you could probably survive okay on the diet fed to chimps in the zoo, although you might need some supplements eg B12 and iron. But the diets of chimps and our human ancestors cannot be exactly the same because they inhabited different environments. Chimps are forest animals. The early australopithecines inhabited a 'mosaic' environment of open woodland bordering on savannah.

Prehistoric humans from Homo erectus onwards did hunt game in a fairly determined way, as shown by archaeological finds of cutting tools, spears, sites used for butchery, and cave paintings.

Hunting game with spears cannot have been easy, it must have been dangerous and provided an unreliable source of nonetheless high-quality food. Coming home with a big kill must have been like hitting the jackpot. Had all animals been as easy to hunt as dodos were on Mauritius, it is doubtful that people would have bothered to develop complex rituals around the activity, or decorate rocks and caves with paintings of game animals and their hunters.

So game meat might have been something people ate two days out of six, maybe less (I dunno). We lie somewhere in the spectrum between chimps and Neanderthals.

 

[ska invita]

I think you are mistaken about this
Felids especially suffer from many different cancers as any long term cat owner will tell you
Big cats (at least in captivity) die from high rates of mammary cancer.
Felids are also susceptible to leukemia

I would guess this is partly to do with inactivity - domestic and captive animals do not get the excercise they would in the wild and suffer illness as a result. Depression in animals can also lead to ill health.

Carnivores are evolved to eat meat: a short gut that reduces the time meat stays in the system. I can find nothing that documents carnivores dying from cancer of coronary heart failure as a result of their all meat diet (in the wild).

GOing back a step this is interesting, and relates to your post above Dash 2 - I don't think it contradicts anything posted so far:

It is usually thought that early humans began eating meat to satisfy their need for protein, but ongoing research by Milton’s former student Craig Stanford, now an anthropologist at the University of Southern California, suggests that eating meat is as much a social gesture as a dietary necessity. With Jane Goodall, Stanford studies chimpanzees at Gombe National Park in Tanzania. He has found that Gombe chimps eat about 3 percent of their diet as meat; primarily they hunt colobus monkeys.

Chimps don’t routinely hunt monkeys, though. They separate into small groups to forage for fruits, and they go after a monkey only when they come upon it by chance. Even then they might not hunt--they tend to do so when a female in heat happens to be part of the foraging group. Then, once a male makes the kill, a fascinating ritual often ensues. Immediately, within seconds, the female comes racing over with her hand out, says Stanford. The male pulls away the carcass until the female allows him to copulate with her. Then the male shares the meat. Sometimes he will induce her to copulate, then wave the carcass in her face and pull it away until they copulate again. Then she gets some meat.

The chimps thus use meat as a commodity exchange--in this case, to elicit sexual favors. Stanford has found that foods more nutritious than meat, such as oil palm nuts, are available year-round. Such immobile foods are much easier to procure than monkeys, which fight like the dickens and provide no more than a few ounces of meat per chimp. It’s not just a nutritional decision when they decide to hunt, Stanford says. They have more in mind.

Chimps appear to eat meat for social reasons more than nutritional reasons, agrees Milton. It’s kind of like a date. It’s a party, a community event.

Did we humans start eating meat for similar reasons? Stanford wouldn’t be surprised: Other researchers have shown that dominant chimps withhold meat from enemies and dole it out to allies, using it in a cleverly calculated political way.
http://discovermagazine.com/1995/may/gutthinking503

 

[Louloubelle]

I can find nothing that documents carnivores dying from cancer of coronary heart failure as a result of their all meat diet (in the wild).

Hardly a surprise though is it? Why would you expect to find such a document?

The reason you don't find anything about cancer and heart disease in animals in the wild is because it's a jungle out there and animals in the wild don't live long enough to get the old age diseases that pets and captive animals die from.

Pets and captive animals if kept in good conditions tend to live to be much older than wild animals - (elephants excluded) and so so fall prey to cancers that wild animals don't live long enough to get. As with humans, some animals are just unlucky and die young from cancer.

In order to study how much an all meat diet affected cancer in carnivores you would need a group of carnivores who were fed a carnivorous diet and a group who were fed an omnivorous diet and study both. This would be cruel and rather pointless.

 

[ska invita]

Pets and captive animals if kept in good conditions tend to live to be much older than wild animals - (elephants excluded) and so so fall prey to cancers that wild animals don't live long enough to get. As with humans, some animals are just unlucky and die young from cancer.

Fair point

In order to study how much an all meat diet affected cancer in carnivores you would need a group of carnivores who were fed a carnivorous diet and a group who were fed an omnivorous diet and study both. This would be cruel and rather pointless.

I would be suprised if science doesnt know everything there is about the cardiovascular health of wild animals. Cruel and pointless sums up the majority of animal experiments IMO.

However, all that would be necessary to discern cancer and coronary problems in a carnivour would be the odd autopsy in older animals - I'm sure this has been done, and I just cannot imagine that evolution would have allowed carnivorous animals to prosper on an all meat diet if it meant getting cancer etc., Since neither of us armchair sceintists know for certain we should leave it as moot until something more conclusive is posted. I would be very suprised to learn that wild carnivours suffer the same red meat related illnesses as humans - but lets wait and see if someone comes up with something.

Heres something in the mean time:

Dogs, cats, and the other natural carnivores do not get colon cancer from high-fat, low-fiber, flesh-based diets. But we do.

Oriental people and those living in developing nations do not suffer from bowel disorders to the same extent that Americans do because their diet is less refined and includes more vegetables and fiber rich foods.

The incidence of colon cancer in the United States is 900% higher than in Nigeria and 1300% greater than in Uganda, two countries in which the diet is traditionally high in fiber. Yet after two generations of living in the U.S. , American blacks contract colon cancer at the same rate as American whites. Second generation Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii, having left their traditional high-fiber diet, also contract colon cancer at the same rate as the rest of the American public.
http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/paramahamsa/cancerbreast.htm

 

[ska invita]

No matter how much fat carnivores eat, they do not develop atheroscieross (clogged arteries).

http://www.webtribe.net/~watchdog/watchdog90.htm

It is important to remember that the key to the prevention of CHD lies in the combination of medical interventions and public health measures. Central to this must be the understanding that human beings are not anatomically, physiologically or biochemically suited to take in large amounts of animal fat. Humans have flat, grinding teeth, long intestines and low levels of cholesterol, the great majority of which is carried in low-density lipoprotein.

In other words, humans are not natural carnivores. We must face the fact that high-calorie, high-animal-fat diets, which may at one time have enabled us to survive as a species, have become counterproductive. Cholesterol-lowering drug interventions, while important, will not be sufficient to stem the growing epidemic of atherosclerosis in the world unless they are accompanied by major changes in dietary and exercise habits.
European Heart Journal

No matter how much fat carnivores eat, they do not develop atherosclerosis. It is virtually impossible, for example, to produce atherosclerosis in a dog, even when 100 grams of cholesterol and 120 grams of butter fat are added to its meat ration (5). (This amount of cholesterol is approximately 200 times the average amount that human beings in the USA eat each day!)

In contrast, herbivores rapidly develop atherosclerosis if they are fed foods, namely fat and cholesterol, intended for natural carnivores. Adding only 2 grams of cholesterol daily for 2 months to a rabbit’s chow, for example, produces striking fatty changes in its arteries.
http://www.baylorhealth.edu/proceedings/11_4/11_4_roberts.html

 

[Louloubelle]

c'mon nik

you've linked to some hippy site using comic sans FFS



do you have any links to support your hypotheses that are from reputable scientific sources?

eta as you've added another post

I'm referring to this link

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/paramahamsa/cancerbreast.htm

Don't have time to read the other one now

later

 

[ska invita]

c'mon nik
you've linked to some hippy site using comic sans FFS

Font snob! People who use comic sans have feelings too you know! #
-those other sources should be suitably times roman for you...

 

[ska invita]

Not sure if you will agree with the following but here is a recap of what I have learnt from all of the above, and I think are the most uncontroversial points:

• Carnivors have evolved to eat a meat only diet.
  
  
• Herbivors have evolved to eat a non-meat diet.
  
  
• Primates, our ancestors, eat a herbivorous diet, except for a very small proportion of insects and grubs.
  
  
• The exception to this are the Chimpanzees (our closest relative amongst the primates) who occasionally hunt, kill and eat other monkeys. This makes up at most 3% of the chimps diet, and is more of a cultural activity than dietary requirement.
  
  
• Humans have evolved from primates, and have a similiar digestive system. They continue to have a long intestinal tract, grinding (not ripping) teeth etc.,
  
  
• Humans in general have evolved to have a stronger acid coctail in their digestive system than primates do, to deal with an increased meat intake.
  
  
• Inuits have evolved to have a slightly shorter intestine, due to the high amount of meat intake - they also have a different liver and urine funtion to compensate.
  
  
• Of meats, fish have the most nutritional value, which contain a range of oils and vitamins. Inuit evolution suggests that this does put some strain on the digestive system when eaten in highg volumes.
  
  
• "Red meats" (cows,sheep, and pigs) have the most detrimental effect on the human body, and cause cancer and coronary 'problems' (deaths).
  
  
• All animal flesh contains saturated fats which also can lead to incidence of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease (found a study here where, as you would expect, saturated fats create heart disease in monkeys link>) - the most common death amongst Americans. This is a problem for primates and humans, but not for carnivors - suggesting our digestive system is not well suited to such fats.
  
  
• The claims that a lot of meat goes undigested in the gut seem to be grossly exagerated - however it does take much longer for humans to process meat than carnivores: between 2 and 3 days.