In Defense of Meat Eaters, Part 1: The Evolutionary Angle
Meat is murder.
Meat will clog your arteries.
Meat is an unnatural food.
Man is really an herbivore.
Meat will give you cancer.
Meat is bad for the environment.
It’s easy to forget that these are the common arguments leveled against meat-eaters. It’s easy to forget that most of the developed world assumes meat is inherently unhealthy – for our health, for the environment, and for animals. It’s easy to forget these things because, as Primal Blueprinters, we’re immersed in the literature and are actively involved in what we eat. To that end we understand that man evolved eating meat, that meat is an important part of a healthy human diet, and that meat production doesn’t have to be the unsustainable, industrialized monster it’s mostly become (and which rightly garners the most negative press). Still, what is the average meat eater to say in opposition to these charges?
First, when people condemn meat-eating, they aren’t actually railing against Primal eaters. They’re fighting a bogeyman, a perverted corruption of what a real meat-eater constitutes. They see the slaughterhouse-porn videos and assume that’s how it always goes down. You mention you eat a high-fat, high-animal food diet, and all they see is E. coli-contaminated blood on your hands. You mention something about local farms and pastured animals, but all they hear is the imagined cries of slaughtered calves, fattened on corn and soy that could have fed starving children. You smell the seared gristle and delicious beefy scent of a grilling steak, while they can smell only the excessive methane flatulence of a cow on a junk food diet. Now I don’t mean to paint an unfair or inaccurate portrait of your average anti-meat activist. But the fact remains that many simply have a viscerally negative reaction to the very idea of meat eating. They see the horrible conditions on factory farms and can think of nothing else. It makes sense, actually; I cringe (and wrinkle my nose) whenever I drive by that CAFO in Coalinga on I-5 heading to northern California, for example. If that’s all they see, I can’t say I blame them for being intolerant of meat-eating.
Still, it’s largely an emotional argument against meat eating, and that can be easily countered with real facts and awareness. By definition, an emotive argument shuns reason (when it conflicts) and clings to straws that bolster the emotion. The passionate anti-meat activist even carries a static arsenal of factoids and soundbites that sound true and gel with Conventional Wisdom. They might sound sensible, but they crumble under close scrutiny. My personal favorites are the anti-meat arguments that invoke human evolution as justification, simply because they’re so specious and so easy to counter. Let’s take a look…
Man is really an herbivore.
They love pulling this one. Fruitarians point to the fruit-loving chimps as proof – they’re our closest living relatives (though not as close as the purely carnivorous Neanderthals were, not that they’d acknowledge that little fact) and they eat a diet of roughly 70% fruit, with some insects and other plant matter thrown in. If they’re our closest living relatives, doesn’t it follow that our diet should be pretty similar to theirs? I dunno about you, but I consider six million years of evolutionary change to be a pretty significant amount of time. Oh, and don’t tell them about those chimps that actively hunt monkeys and other apes for fresh, raw meat. Just show them this video instead.
A lot can happen in six million years. Why, it might even be enough time – theoretically, of course – for a hominid to develop a big brain, hands with a precision grip that facilitated tool development, a fully bipedal gait with proper weight transmission at the ankles, mastery over fire, and a fully-fledged linguistic system. But no, six million years isn’t enough time for hominids to adapt to eating meat.
In reality, of course, meat fueled our evolution, as you’ll see in a bit. We are obligate omnivores, if not closet carnivores (if we have to).
But wait – what about our eight times body length small intestine? Carnivores’ small intestines are around three times their body length, while herbivores have much longer ones, right?
Actually, when measured from ass to mouth (the real distance that matters), our 8 to 1 ratio lies roughly in the middle of the pack between obligate carnivores like dogs (3.5 to 1) and cats (3 to 1), and herbivores like cows (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1). How perfect is that? The obligate omnivore is nestled right in between the carnivore and the herbivore.
Besides, intestinal length isn’t even the best way to determine dietary need. An animal’s particular arsenal of digestive organs is. Actual herbivores have special organs designated for breaking down cellulose – multi-compartmental stomachs, for example. We have but one, and it absolutely cannot break down cellulose to any significant degree. If we were herbivores, we might even have rabbit-like cecums, highly developed digestive sacs that do the brunt of the digestive work for hindgut digesters. I almost wish we had that capability, if only for the advantage of cecotropes – fecal pellets high in vitamins, nutrients, and proteins that rabbits expel for later consumption. Delicious.
Our measly little stomachs can’t handle all that fiber. If a person really wanted to be a true herbivore, he or she’d have to chew cud for hours (that’s why cows are known for chewing cud – it’s a way to predigest all that tough stuff), vomit it up after a little digestive work in the stomach, and repeat the process. Thanks, but I’ll just take some steak with my salad.
And, like clockwork, they interrupt with:
Okay, maybe we did eat some meat, but we were scavengers fighting over scraps. Meat wasn’t a big part of our diet!
Not if you believe the fossil evidence that shows hominids actually manipulated bones “on which flesh was abundant… rather than defleshed from field kills.” We weren’t just starving opportunists. We actively hunted animals, large and small, to obtain large amounts of meat and fat. The only way to get your hands on an intact carcass loaded with delicious flesh – as the evidence clearly shows our ancestors did so on a regular basis – is to kill it yourself. Waiting around for the lions to have their share is hyena territory, scavenger stuff. You don’t become the ultimate predator and propagate your species across the entire globe by solely scavenging for bone scraps – although we did plenty of that, too, as fossil records show evidence of bone marrow extraction from two million years ago using complex stone tools.
If we were meant to eat meat, we’d have claws and big fangs.
Tool-making and large brains are as much an inseparable part of humanity as claws and fangs are of lions. You might argue that claws and fangs “make” the lion, because without them they would die out. Tools and big brains make the man. You can’t take tools away simply because they aren’t a physiological member attached to our bodies; tool making is an integral aspect of human evolution. Our hands and brains make tool usage possible. Think of our tools, our weapons, our hands, and our big brains as our “claws and big fangs.”And as I mentioned earlier, we’ve been using those technological “claws and big fangs” to obtain meat and marrow for at least two million years, plenty of time for tools to become an essential aspect of our human-ness.
Besides, we aren’t arguing that man is purely carnivorous. He certainly can be, but the point of contention is whether meat is a natural part of the human diet. It clearly is. Throwing in shoddy comparisons to actual carnivores like lions and tigers is dishonest and only serves to muddy the waters.
And so, it’s not that we were “meant” to eat meat. It’s simply that we evolved eating meat. Meat represented a reliable source of dense caloric energy packed with nutrients and vitamins essential to our prosperity. Big brains (the existence of which, I’m hoping, even the most ardent vegetarians don’t argue against) were made possible by the consumption of meat, organs, and other nutrient-rich animal products. Instead of spending all their metabolic energy processing cellulose and plant matter, our ancestors turned to a high-meat diet, which utilized fat-soluble vitamins (already converted into the forms we can best take advantage of) and meant energy could be diverted away from a big fermenting pot of a stomach and toward fueling their massive brains. Our brains eat up about 25% of our basal metabolic rate, compared to 8-10% for the apes who eat far less animal matter. Our brains are large and our guts (well, sometimes) are small and bereft of cellulose-consuming bacteria, while a gorilla’s brain is relatively small and its gut enormous and well-equipped with the proper bacteria. How else are they supposed to process all that plant matter?
Easy to digest meat and fat made our big brains possible. I’m not saying vegetarianism makes people stupid, because it doesn’t. I’m just saying they should give credit where credit’s due. You’re able to ruminate on the horrors of meat eating and “articulate” your arguments for a very simple reason: your ancestors ate a ton of fresh, bloody meat and animal fat. Just be glad they didn’t share your dietary proclivities, or else you’d be ruminating on actual grass, twigs, and sticks instead of enjoying culture, language, music, and the other accomplishments of mankind’s big ass brain.
And that about sums up the evolutionary anti-meat angle. It sounds compelling, if all you’ve got under your belt is a semester of high school biology, but it crumbles under real scrutiny.
Tomorrow, we’ll explore a couple other arguments, but for now, let’s discuss any other examples of pseudo-scientific anti-meat talking points grounded in faulty evolutionary science. I’m sure I missed a few…
Read Part II: In Defense of Meat Eaters – Animal and Human Well-Being
Get Free Health Tips, Recipes and Workouts Delivered to Your Inbox
Posted By: Mark Sisson
(
Don’t forget that we also have canine teeth – albeit, not like wolves or big cats, but they are there for a reason and are quite useful in tearing up a good, juicy steak!
Mmmm, gorillas and chimps have quite impressive canines…
Gorillas and chimps hunt for meat, so need the impressive canines.
Gorillas most certainly do not hunt meat! Primate canines are not functional except as sexual and aggressive displays. Humans do not have enlarged canines.
but if we are sophisticated modern humans, we lack the instinct to kill and eat animals. if we were real carnivores we wouldnt turn up our nose at fresh roadkill, or eating the family pet.
hahahahaha roflmao. that always gets me as the first deer I ate was hit by a car in front of me and left with a broken leg. I cut it’s throat, threw it in the back and brought it home to cut up. have eaten good softshell turtle and rattlesnake as fresh roadkill, but never hunted them. and yes I have no qualms eating dog or bunny or goldfish or any other “pet”.
I like the subtle subtext they use: if I eat raw meat and pets and roadkill, I must not be a sophisticated modern human. this particular argument is unfalsifiable.
oops, above post was not meant to be a reply. anyway, about teeth.
I find the best use of my back “herbivore” teeth is for crunching bones and exoskeletons so they dont have anymore sharp edges, as well as grinding up animal skin and gristle into swallowable chunks. funny how the “herbivore adaptation” often cited by veg heads helps to get the most nutrients out of animal parts.
“Still, it’s largely an emotional argument against meat eating, and that can be easily countered with real facts and awareness. By definition, an emotive argument shuns reason (when it conflicts) and clings to straws that bolster the emotion.”
I don’t disagree with this assessment, but the issue at hand is the question Is killing animals for food wrong or not? That is a moral question and if you take a side one way or the other, with a commitment to avoid appeals to emotion, then you are necessarily committing yourself to some objective view of morality. And I’m not so sure there is one. After all what argument against killing people at random does not, strictly speaking, appeal to emotion? Rather than shooting down simpleminded arguments used by some anti meat eaters, you need to begin by establishing and defending this objective basis for morality, in my opinion.
Most sophisticated anti meat eaters will argue along the lines that the business of morality is all about improving conditions for happiness and flourishing and ameliorating suffering. Animals clearly have a capacity to suffer, therefore causing them unnecessary suffering is wrong. I tend to agree with this basic view of morality. But I don’t see it as an argument against eating meat, I see it as an argument in favor of eating meat raised and slaughter in the most humane way reasonably possible.
True, the moral question is not so easy to tackle on objective grounds alone. But the issue at hand here was explicitly the arguments from human evolution, leaving other arguments (including perhaps the moral question, though it is a bit off-topic for this site) for a later post.
Great post, Mark. Those chimps are intense!
People always point out that apes are herbivores, and that we do not, at first glance, seem carnivorous at all.
In one of your rebuttals to this, you touched on my favorite argument for meat consumption: The human digestive system.
One of the most intriguing arguments is to tell them that the only reason we evolved bigger brains in the first place is because our intestines became smaller with the introduction of meat. You know, Kleiber’s law and all that.
Would there be any pigs left in the world if people didn’t eat them? What else are pigs good for? If we didn’t eat pigs, they would go extinct. Do vegetarians want that on their conscience?
Au contraire!
The pigs from the first Spanish settlers in Florida still have descendants running around. Texas has more wild boars than any other state. In both states they are considered nuisances because of the environmental damage to native animals.
And my husband and I plan to put several of those nuisances in our freezer after a week-long hunting trip near Eagle Pass. Grocery store pork doesn’t hold a candle to these IMO.
Great post! I am definately going to share this with my vegetarian friends
. You couldn’t have said it better.
“And so, it’s not that we were ‘meant’ to eat meat. It’s simply that we evolved eating meat.”
I think this gets to the crux of the real argument. Most vegans (esp. raw dieters) would say if we weren’t meant to eat meat, then we shouldn’t if other sources are available. Killing animals with tools and cooking them is not the same as killing them with our hands/teeth (or scavanging for them) and eating whole chunks of flesh raw. The extremists would say the best diet tactic is throw out your stove. Blah blah blah. The debate will go on forever.
I guess if we have gluten, nut, egg, dairy, and/or fructose allergies, we should just die off. Not sure how moral that stance is.
Come to think of it, is there such a thing as a meat allergy?
Honestly, I think for the most part man has been adapting food to him, rather than adapting to food. Cooking meat is part of this, but so is modifying and distributing fruits and vegetables from their original wild form. And with the intro of grains, everything is now thrown completely out of whack.
In any case, what we are meant to eat or not based on someone’s chosen point in history is almost irrelevant today–from a nutritional and moral point of view.
However, if we are finding sickness and disease are becoming more prevalent in society, we should at least begin to look at that newcomer called grains, rather than excuse it.
Some of the common ancestors of humans and other primates seem to have evolved to eat meat, and it is speculated that this could have led to bigger brains and longer lives.
However, about 2.2 million years ago, our ancestors lost the ability to properly metabolize Neu5Gc, which is very high in red meat. Neu5Gc causes acute inflammation in humans, and we are the only species of primate that does not produce it endogenously.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Mediterranean diet seems to work so well. The Mediterranean diet is low in red meat and contains a moderate amount of fish. Fish is low in Neu5Gc.
So my guess is that our ancestors did evolve to eat meat which led to bigger brains and longer lives, as the Paleo diet claims, however we later switched away from a meat-centered diet and yet kept the evolutionary gifts from our brutish past.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3346666/Mystery-of-the-meat-eaters-molecule.html
Did you ignore these parts of the article:
‘Prof Varki stresses, however, that “we have not proven any link to disease, just suggested that it is something to explore”.’
That’s good, because I’d like to see the explanation for why the Inuit, some of whom subsisted mostly on caribou (i.e. red meat), were never observed to have developed significant amounts of heart disease, or any other disease of civilization until they switched from traditional to Western diets.
‘They found that we are the only primates whose bodies do not produce Neu5Gc – although further research established that our Neanderthal cousins were missing this version of the sugar acid, too.’
Note: Neanderthals were purely carnivorous, and likely did not eat much fish.
Also, as far as I know, homo sapiens did not begin to eat seafood until relatively recently, much later than 2.2 Ma. Also, the Mediterranean diet is not uniquely healthful; in most prospective trials, IIRC, it does slightly worse than a standard low-carb diet on markers of health.
“Man has been adapting food to him, rather than adapting to food.”
Succinct but powerful truth.
This is just awesome; I love it.
You’re dead-on when you talk about the growing bias against meat-eating, especially in our touchy-feely, divorced from nature society. (I’ve got nothing against being touchy-feely, by the way; just noting that “sensitive” is now often equated with “weak”, and how much we’ve lost touch with the facts of the natural order.) When I tell people I eat meat, I always hold my breath, waiting for the looks of disdain, because of all the times I’ve been judged by ill-informed vegetarians. Isn’t that cracked?
I’m definitely looking forward to the sequels to this post.
I’ve found that presenting facts to vegetarians doesn’t work. They argue from an emotional slant, and you can introduce all the facts that you want, but you an’t overcome the fact that they’ve fallen for the “cute factor” of animals, and that’s why they don’t eat them. They’re just too darn cute. They’re many times PETA members, and don’t get me started on them! I got an email from their fearless leader once after posing a (politely worded) question, and her response dripped in self-righteousness. I let my energy and body speak for me now. A picture (or live body) is worth a thousand words.
Right on. We should start our counter group MEATAA (Meat Ethically Acquired To Appease Appetite).
I think there’s a lot of vegetarians that actually frequent this site and other paleo blogs. I think vegetarianism is a lot of things to a lot of people. For some of us it is thousands of years of cultural and religious tradition not some new trend of the decade. So it’s going to be really hard to argue with someone’s religion, I mean whole wars fought over that kind of stuff.
One of the problems I have with other vegetarians, or vegetarian options at a restaurant, is trying to get enough protein in my meal. I’m not sure why this is the case, but every vegetarian meal (outside of an Indian restaurant) is nothing but starch. India might not have the best dietary track record, but at least as a culture that has had a number of vegetarians for thousands of years and the heavy reliance on lentils helps the protein needs. It’s unfortunate that even my recently turned vegetarian friends haven’t figured out how easy (and tasty) lentils can be.
Mark, since your family used to be mostly vegetarian I assume you share this observation? What kind of dietary advice do you have for vegetarians like these to increase protein intake? In India the majority of vegetarians do not consume eggs (as these are considered meat) but do consume dairy, and a large amount of lentils (masoor, channa, etc.)
Here you go, Meena:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegetarian-protein/
“And so, it’s not that we were “meant” to eat meat. It’s simply that we evolved eating meat. ”
Hey Mark, did you ever study Evolutionary Biology, or read Richard Dawkins?
You have a great grasp of how evolution actually works….
Great post….
as always….
Joseph
Grains were commonly used for religious rituals for thousands of years, too, and the Judeo-Christian bible, to pick just one example, mentions grains and grain-based foods (i.e. bread) many times. The eating of grain is undoubtedly an older practice than vegetarianism is in H. sapiens, as far as that goes.
Also, are you intimating that one should never argue against a religious position simply because wars have been fought over religion? So, basically, I’m not allowed to argue against stoning children or slavery because the Torah/Old Testament (whatever you want to call it) mentions such practices as being permissible in certain situations? Nevermind eating shellfish or pork…
You are free to argue, but I think when things come to religious principles you have to accept that your arguments may fall on deaf ears. Religion doesn’t really exist in the realm of logic, so logically arguments won’t work for a lot of people if that is their primary motivation.
Oh, personally, I’m totally fine with vegetarianism for religious/cultural reasons (and, incidentally, vegetarianism amongst those with a distaste for meat.) I just don’t think those are reasonable arguments in favor of vegetarianism, just like religious prescriptions for meat-eating (or a taste for meat) would not be valid arguments for carnivory/omnivory. Misunderstanding on my part
Grains were actually God’s punishment when Adam and Eve were cast out of The Garden of Eden and had to fend for themselves
Life forms eating other life forms is how capital-l Life continues itself. As far as I can tell, this system has been working pretty damn well for, oh, 3 billion years? 4 billion? I see no reason to mess with it.
Anywho, here are a couple of specific evolutionary points in favor of meat eating:
-Strictly speaking, none of the great apes (our taxonomic family) are herbivorous, as gorillas eat insects and orangutans eat insects and bird eggs. Insects are, in fact, animals, which makes all the great apes omnivorous.
-Taurine: humans have a limited ability to produce the stuff, as do dogs, while herbivores can manufacture all the taurine they need. Cats, the strictest carnivores, famously cannot produce any taurine at all, and they will go blind and/or suffer heart problems as a result. Vegans, notably, have lower levels of taurine than the general human population. Taurine is not available, or is extremely low, in plants, but animals are rich in taurine.
-Vitamin A: humans only have a limited capacity to convert beta carotene to vitamin A, and this varies from individual to individual to the point that certain people may have to obtain vitamin A in its final form – retinol. Retinol is, of course, only found in liver and animal fats (yolk and milkfat) because herbivores have no problems with the conversion.
-Vitamin B12: Herbivores tend to obtain this vitamin by absorbing it through their intestinal tract or redigesting specialized feces (i.e. cecotrophy). Humans can do neither. There are no real plant sources of B12, and you’d have to ingest unreasonably large amounts of un-fortified brewer’s yeast, aka vegemite, to obtain the necessary amounts. Severe B12 deficiency will eventually lead to mental problems and death, though the symptoms may be masked for a while because the liver has large stores of the vitamin. (Not in children, though.) This is, natch, one of the more well-known (and rock solid) objections to vegetarianism, especially veganism. (By the way, eggs contain a factor that inhibits B12 absorption and milk was not available in the human diet, past childhood, until 10k years ago. But milk and eggs are animal products, last I checked, and do not come from plants. Maybe I’m wrong.)
-There are no essential nutrients for humans, vitamin C included, that cannot be found on the carcass of an animal.
-It’s sometimes argued that the Inuit and the Masai have some sort of “special” genetic adaptation that allowed them to live entirely on animal products. This argument is hard to take when, according to Steffanson, explorers of European, American, Polynesian, and African heritage lived with the Inuit and ate their diet in perfect health. The Plains Indians also survived for long periods of time on buffalo only, or on buffalo-derived pemmican, as did European fur traders who lived on the plains.
-Haem iron, as opposed to non-haem iron, is only found in significant quantities in meat. The human intestinal tract has specific receptors for haem iron. If haem iron was not available in large quantities of meat during our evolution, then why would our guts have receptors exclusively intended for it?
In short, I just can’t see that humans are herbivores if we cannot obtain, or adequately synthesize, every essential nutrient from plants. On the other hand, we CAN get all essential nutrients from animal products. Nevermind that other than regionally-specific plants (soy, quinoa) protein quantity and quality in plants is generally very poor. Humans, like dogs, seem to be digestive omnivores (dogs have similar digestive systems), but can (and sometimes must) function perfectly well on a carnivorous diet.
Hey Icarus, great reply!! I just wanna point out one thing, only the egg white portion of RAW eggs has that nutrient that blocks B12 absorption. Cooking eggs, or eating only the egg yolks (cooked or raw) has none of the B12 blocking effect. Just wanted to add that, but really great reply though.
To you Mark, and all of you as well, this is a great article with very top-notch readers. I am a long-time lurker, and this is my first time that I felt compelled to post. Great site Mark! Keep up the good work.
“Most sophisticated anti meat eaters will argue along the lines that the business of morality is all about improving conditions for happiness and flourishing and ameliorating suffering.”
InviQtus, that is because most sophisticated anti meat eaters hold consequentialist views on morality, which make them subject problems like: why happiness should even be the greatest end (as apposed to beauty, love or some action being an end in itself), what if happiness of animals and humans are incommensurable (which is to say: is it actually ok for one human to die for any certain number of animals?) Also, how is it possible to determine the total net happiness? (what if conditions that seam to produce the greatest happiness today yield less in the long run?) What if we explicitly try to produce the least happiness but, by some unintended consequence yield the greatest? Does that make us right, regardless of our intentions?
Neu5Gc,
My girlfriend is Moroccan and eats red meat with her family often.
I used to snicker-sneer at the herbivores often, but since reducing my meat intake tremendously, I feel better, lighter, more energetic.
This wasn’t done purposely, just a gradual evolution once incorporating more whole grains, fruits and veggies.
My body stopped screaming for meat as a necessity. Yet I am still carnivore, just the lighter kind.
P.S. My husband has fangs and claws. Vampire.
Keep on preaching mark! I eat this stuff up like I do bacon & eggs cooked in coconut oil!!
This is wonderful and goes along perfectly with Dr. Eades “Are we meat eaters or vegetarians” (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/peta-cspi-and-other-menaces/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-i/)
Thanks for such a great post!
I just tell vegetarians to watch the nature channel. Or “Survivor” right around the 2 week mark when all the contestants really get hungry, and the most ardent vegetarian, ‘girly-girl’ ends up killing a rat with a stick and eats it because self-preservation compels her to. It’s easy to be a vegetarian when you’re FULL.
Regarding the “nature channel,” it’s worth noting that there are, as far as I know, no extant hunter-gatherer societies who are vegetarians.
Well said! I wish I’d have thought of “it’s easy to be a vegetarian when your’re FULL”
Meat eating gives human nearly twice the average life-span of ape’s.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34433388/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Johnny
My wife’s friend has been a vegan for over 2 decades, based on not health but the unethical raising and manufacturing of animal meats. It’s a political statement (though I think it’s more a religious proclamation) against the meat industry. I respect that.
But when she made the decision to become a vegan and for boycotting, there was not much option or easy access to responsible animal farming and husbandry as there are now. If she wants to send a message to the large-industry meat growers and manufacturers, then do so by becoming a consumer of small, local meat farmers. What a terrible waste of a powerful message otherwise.
Maybe your wife’s friend doesn’t find it within her values to be a part of the slaughter of animals in general. As twisted as it is I understand your claim for her actions to be a waste of a message but she’s speaking even louder because she is boycotting the meat industry all together. Also, if you understand her reasoning for not eating meat based on the factory farming logic, then have you considered buying cruelty-free meat as well? Keep in mind though – the animals that are raised on these local farms, if in any quantity are still being sent to the same slaughterhouses that the factory-raised animals are being sent to – another horror in-and-of itself.
Nice to read this with a stomach full of tasty Korean beef bbq and veggies! I look forward to part 2.
What a great coincidence, Mark.
Had been working on this post all morning from an article I was emailed, just posted it and tweeted it, then looked over and saw yours announced on Facebook.
Hope this complements:
http://freetheanimal.com/2009/12/human-lifespan-another-potential-link-to-early-fat-meat-scavenging.html
How timely. Here’s a related article from MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34433388/ns/technology_and_science-science/
“InviQtus, that is because most sophisticated anti meat eaters hold consequentialist views on morality, which make them subject problems like:…”
Wyatt, I agree with your list of problems associated with consequentialist views of ethics. My point in mentioning it is only to show that many who are opposed to using animals for food have, if not compelling, at least less embarrassing arguments than the ones shot down in Mark’s blog post. With regard to consequentialism, though, I would say that while your objections should be kept in mind, I am unaware of any ethical theory not open to a similar host of objections. That said, we are highly social beings and we cannot maintain functional societies without a workable view on how to treat other beings effected by our actions. Consequentialism seems to me to be the most consonant with the way most thoughtful people tend to decide moral issues and the view most conducive to maintaining healthy, functional societies. (Again, though, I don’t take it to be an argument against eating meat.)
“Consequentialism seems to me to be the most consonant with the way most thoughtful people tend to decide moral issues and the view most conducive to maintaining healthy, functional societies.”
Well, I’d say that smart thieves are the very best at sorting out consequences, rather than operating from moral principles. After all, mere consequences go all ways. If mere consequences are the standard, then, consequences to whom?
Thus, the most clever thieves can steal you blind all the while they’re making you believe that it’s to your benefit — that, or they guilt you into buying the “best for society” con and can take even more.
Since I live in one of America’s most preachy-vegan-infested cities, this information is nice to have presented in a clear and concise manner. Bonus points for including phrase #1 of the top 10 phrases I never expected to see on this website… “ass to mouth.”
Well, I’d like to just bring in a little theological question I have always had. Please don’t be alarmed atheists!! Only certain people believe evolution and christianity cannot co-exist, I am not one of those. It interests me however that we have evolved to eat meat, but haven’t evolved a completely ethical way of doing this. I myself am a huge meat consumer, but spent the majority of my life a vegetarian/vegan/raw vegan. When I was diagnosed with a tummy disorder raw veganism made me sicker and fatter than I have ever been, I took a metabolic test, taking my ethnicity into account (I’m American Indian) and started eating lots of meat and no dairy. I feel better, and truly feel like this way of eating is better for my body, but…if shalom is a restoration of the earth as it should be (no violence, poverty, crime etc) as we christians see it, is eating meat now as ethical as shooting someone in the name of Jesus? I’m a pacifist, and feel like that is not an area of real spiritual doubt, but the whole killing animals thing..still wondering about it. If anyone at all has anything interesting to add, feel free! I’d like to make a disclaimer that this is not about religion, I’m talking about these matters on a philosophical/ theological level.
Jasetyn:
I’ve but a simple and straightforward question: as an American Indian, why would you take up the primitive philosophy (religion) of your conquerors?
Language is one thing, as you have to get along and that’s the only practical means of doing so, but an unnecessary thing like virile, capable American Indians who forged that land and survived on their own for tens of thousands of years bowing to a myth of a crucified Jewish man?
It offends and disappoints even me. Stand up, Woman! For your impressive heritage!
I read the Book “Born to Run” and along with stating the obvious benefits of barefoot running and why we run McDougall goes into persistance hunting performed by the Masai tribe in Africa. Then he contradicts that whole thing with saying that a vegan life is what we really should stive for…huh? I believe he got everything right in that book except the vegan part…sad!!!
I’m glad I’m not the only one who picked up on this in the book… I’m reading it at the moment and was thoroughly confused by this. Other than that I think it’s a pretty good book.
Regarding the raw meat argument I like what Don Matesz commented over at Free the Animal:
“Just one point though, if you think it is natural to eat meat, you should eat meat like nature intended you to, raw. Just like EVERY other carnivore and omnivore.”
Nice reasoning (sarcasm). Try this on for size:
Just one point though, if you think it is natural to eat grains and legumes, you should eat grains and legumes like ‘nature intended you to,’ raw. Just like EVERY other gramnivore, e.g. birds.
Joke’s on you. Humans can and do eat raw meat; but can’t eat grains raw.:
http://freetheanimal.com/2009/12/is-there-really-any-such-thing-as-low-fat-eating.html#comments
I stepped into the world of eating raw meat earlier this week, and I must say it was probably THE best meal I’ve ever had. It fueled my body so perfectly. The meat was incredibly tender, I almost didn’t have to chew. Yes, there are risks, but with enough precaution I think I will continue to eat this way as often as I can.
I <3 Meat.
InviQtus, I agree with your statement and understand that you merely making observation. Utilitarianism does have an edge with most people because of its rooting in human psychology. That is to say, one can point to experiences like how,
“… we are highly social beings and we cannot maintain functional societies without a workable view on how to treat other beings effected by our actions.”
A question I have refers to equating usefulness with some transcendent or universal value. My questions extend to all ethical (and anti-ethical) systems. True that Mark took a swipe at popular vegetarianism. Wouldn’t you like to see him dig in against some more clever arguments of both a utilitarian and rights-based fold?
“If we were herbivores, we might even have rabbit-like cecums, highly developed digestive sacs that do the brunt of the digestive work for hindgut digesters.”
How priceless that so many studies which blame animals fats for heart disease, etc. use rabbits as models!
“The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Keith is a very good read for anyone who wants to look at the validity of vegetarianism from a political, moral or nutritional standpoint – coming straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, since Lierre was a committed vegan for 20 years before realizing it was not the answer for health, morality or the envirmonment.
Elizabeth,
that book in your hand is quite possibly the Bible of food! I just discovered it recently, and I have to say that it has changed my life immensely. Of course, I will be getting the Primal Blueprint here soon, because, well…… look what site we’re on. lol.
I experienced first hand that we have to eat meat to thrive. I was a raw foodist for 7 long months and it gave me innumerable problems.
The reason why I stuck so long on a diet that was making me weaker is because the dogma is so strong in the raw food community that you are led to believe that everything negative is detox and that you are responsible and the diet is not adjusted well enough on your part.
The dogma is dangerous for impressionable young minds looking for an answer and my guess is that a lot of people will go far enough to induce permanent damage on their body because of the dogma.
I discovered that I already had leaky gut problems prior to eating raw, probably from the grains, dairy, NSAIDS… I felt bad all the time so I looked for an answer and found raw food. Let me tell you that its shocking when you start to see that the way you thought would heal you is making you sick. You find all sorts of reasons to deny it.
Anyway, just my opinion, but I think its a good thing to have a voice to help people know that there are other choices besides eating the standard American diet or vegetarianism.
Let us not forget there are predators that would certainly devour us as well.
“Well, I’d say that smart thieves are the very best at sorting out consequences, rather than operating from moral principles. After all, mere consequences go all ways. If mere consequences are the standard, then, consequences to whom?”-Richard Nikoley
By consequentialism I am referring to the moral view that an action is to be judged good or bad on the basis of the consequences of that action as it effects sentient beings. The overriding drive of all sentient beings is toward flourishing and away from suffering. So I would argue that this basic fact about living things is our best frame of reference when considering the best course of action (and I would further argue that a society will be better off where the largest percentage of people give thought to just what is the best course of action, thus the need for a workable moral theory). The thief is chiefly concerned with the consequences of an action as they pertain to him/herself. This would be egoism.
“Thus, the most clever thieves can steal you blind all the while they’re making you believe that it’s to your benefit — that, or they guilt you into buying the “best for society” con and can take even more.”-Richard Nikoley
If your arguing here that a moral view can be wrong because credulous people might be duped by it, well, I would say that this charge would surely apply to any other view of morality you could think of.
“Only certain people believe evolution and christianity cannot co-exist, I am not one of those.”-Jasetyn
I don’t see how a literal reading of Genesis could be made compatible with the theory of evolution. If Genesis were true we would expect to see all animal species appearing at the same time in the fossil record relatively recently in geological time. That is not what we see at all. So, if you accept evolution by natural selection then you cannot accept a literal reading of the bible. That being the case no one would be able to give you the theological information you are seeking without first knowing what method you are using for deciding what parts of the bible to keep and which parts to throw out.
Literal reading with and understanding of the writer and the language it was translated from.
“In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth” That should be a chapter in itself.
“And now” The beginning of the chain leading to Jesus. Not the beginning of creation. Lucifer had reign over the Earth before Genesis.
The Books of Moses were written about God’s chosen people, not about all people.
Also the word LET…” Let there be light” etc. The original word did not mean create. It meant something similar to “bring back”.
Save the earth! Eat enviro-friendly, grassfed cattle! Mono-cropping is destroying our topsoil, our ecosystems!
It’s a moral imperative…..
Any interpretation of the Bible that suggests that evolution serves a divine purpose is completely incompatible with evolutionary theory. Evolution is based on *random* mutations and shaped by natural selection. Randomness and purposefulness do not mix.
SerialSinner, check out chaos theory
I am very familiar with it. Chaotic data is not = to Random data.
According to this article:
http://www.humanist.veggroup.org/articles/nature_tells_us_nothing_about_vegetarianism_572
the arguments made in the article above are irrelevant.
I cannot believe I wasted so much time as a vegetarian. Now I am zero carb (9 months now) eating just meat and my lifts at the gym have gone up, I have flat abs and tons of energy, clear skin, soft hair, etc. Meat is human food; the rest is for animals. We are meant to get nutrients from animals who eat the nuts, fruits and vegetables. We eat the fatty meat and protein.
SerialSinner, I stand corrected
Great stuff Mark, seems like some people always trying to rewrite history. I’m 1/2 way through The Primal Blueprint and man do I feel much better with no grains, no potatoes and no sugars, veggies and meat for me. Still working on upgrading the quality of beef I eat. I’m making progress and that’s the key. Fill you in as I go Mark.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated” – Mahatma Gandhi
Perhaps people will wake up sooner rather than later…or perhaps we can just all start eating each other…
I am sure there is a way to justify that too.
Think of the plants! I don’t see why it’s OK to indiscriminately kill plants and not animals. Soybeans don’t want to get eaten either, which is probably why they produce so many antinutrients. Come to think of it, grains (seeds) are the plant equivalent of infants or fetuses – which is probably why they try so hard to reduce our absorption of essential nutrients like calcium and magnesium, eh?
How ’bout we just eat nothing; then nothing ever has to die as a result of our evil and selfish desire to eat. Except us, of course. This is all covered in much greater detail and more eloquent prose in The Vegetarian Myth, by the way, which I am guessing you haven’t read.
Here’s a tidbit: when grey wolves, those evil carnivores, were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, biodiversity went UP, not down, because elks were stripping the plant life bare and not leaving room for other species to survive. In many ecosystems, carnivorous species are ESSENTIAL, certainly in the ocean – where nearly every animal is carnivorous. So why can’t humans be carnivorous, too, especially since we evolved that way?
I got the argument from my vegan father today that cooking meat “stinks” and that’s how we know to stay away from it. Buh?
Later, I’m going to tell him that his processed soy burgers stink even more.
Richard, thank you for responding to me, but it would have been more interesting if you responded to my question. I think your historical information may be slightly inaccurate however, as I am not a conquered woman, nor is my culture or my people for that matter. I grew up in a culture not tainted my the monotheism of Genesis (as Toynbee might put it) yet I have never experienced these superhuman ’savages’ you alude to, indians are people too, I hate to break the hearts of ‘dances with wolves’ fans. Invictus, I didn’t realize I had to make myself quite so clear, but I understand your issue. I’m a person of average intelligence, therefore I do not read Genesis as literal but as a literary interpretation. I did say theological, no?
Jasetyn:
I don’t understand your reply, or the Toynbee name drop.
You speak english, you’re a Christian. You’re conquered and rather than resist, you embrace and make excuses for it. And I think that’s sad for the indigenous who came out on the short end of innovation. Perhaps they were plenty happy and should have just been left alone, as we seem to be able to do — at least now and at long last — with those few who inhabit the Amazon & New Guinea.
Look, knock yourself out. Go ahead an believe that your peoples were savages that needed “saving” buy the sword, which is ultimately the only thing that submitted your ancestors and ensured that you would grow up believing in a 2,000 year old foreigner as god’s chosen for your unwashed salvation.
I wish you well, but with you’d give ‘em hell.
It’s really none of your damn business what she does. Are you always such a control freak, or are you just like this with women? Excuse my language, but your arrogance is intolerable.
julietx:
“your arrogance is intolerable”
[yawn]
I didn’t imply my people were savages, sir, just people. Toynbee wasn’t a name drop, the Genesis reference was his. And I’m really unsure what your vantage point is compared to mine..oh right! My people are ‘conquered’. We have the option to believe in ancient practices as well as new information, and by the way.. my particular nation never submitted, which is why we still exist and I grew up speaking my native language..shocking. Sorry for hijacking the comments fellow PBers, we’ll keep this in PM for future reference.
Jasetyn:
All I’m saying is that I find unfortunate that in the face of domination by Europeans that so many natives of this continent saw a need to be “saved” or whatever by the god[s] the Euros brought with them.
My wife’s family is all from Mexico and other parts of S/Central America and they’re 100% catholic.
I find it mystifying and sad all at the same time. If they want to believe, fine, by why weren’t their own practices good enough.
That’s what I mean by conquest and it is a form of submission.
Missionaries probably don’t think of it this way, but part of their mission is the eradication of traditional indigenous cultures. In every corner of the earth, indigenous societies are almost always traditionally animists in their religious outlook; this is being rapidly replaced with a monoculture of monotheism and slight variants like Buddhism. I agree, Richard, that it is quite a sad sight to see.
This is none of my business, but it is certainly none of your business why Jasetyn or anyone else subscribes to his or her spiritual beliefs.
It’s supremely arrogant and even racist to dictate to another that her beliefs must fit with your concept of her ancestry. As humans of free will, protected by the first amendment of our constitution, we have the right to worship, or not, as we see fit. Modern humans with full human rights are free to break from their ancestors’ traditions.
Don’t try to force people into little boxes of your making.
Again excuse me for butting in.
julietx:
“This is none of my business…”
Bonus points!!!
julietx:
“your arrogance is intolerable”
You guys, Mark and co., just proved my point against supposed Paleo advocates “proof” that our ancient ancestors were heavy meat eaters.. because they DID at times eat meat, doesn’t mean humans are MEANT or BUILT to eat meat…
plus the “tools” used to hunt/kill animals-meat, or the “cut marks” on fossil animal bones, doesn’t prove anything… those spears, tools, etc
were used LARGELY for protection for humans AGAINST large carnivorous predators.. same reason as residues, partial circumstantial evidence FOR eating grains as early as 100,000 years ago pointed out in this article, is shoddy at best…
The human digestive tract/enzyme system/organ system/etc prove the diet of humans, the same as with any animal in a zoo, the zoo keepers know exactly what type of food stuff is ideal and meant to be eaten by said animals…
ALso, because most vegans/vegetarians/raw foodist, sterotypically eat high grain diets, doesn’t mean they are correct or that they represent what a vegan/vegetarian/raw food diet IS or SHOULD be… so the Paleo crowd continously gets the typecasting wrong… same as if vegetarian hippies classify categorically that all meat consumption is bad because 300 million AMericans eat the high fat, high cholesterol SAD diet, which includes a ton of meat… well, they are not equivalent, since Paleo diets choose far heaalthier cuts of meat…
why can none in EITHER camp get these arguments right and complete, and take ego or emotion out of it and look at pure physiology/anatomy/digestion/etc?
PS. the human intestinal tract, small and large, is ~30ft long, divided by an `2.5-3ft torso length (mouth to anus), makes the ratio 11-12 to 1, right in line with humans being a frugivore/herbivore…
PPS. Paleo advocates always point out that humans aren’t herbivores since we don’t have hind guts and don’t chew cud like cows, per se… and that fiber isn’t a nutrient to humans and can’t be digested, thereby somehow boasting their debunking arguemnts… NEWSFLASH… FIBER ISN’T MEANT TO BE USED AS NUTRITION IN A HUMAN DIET.. IT’S MEANT FOR BOWEL SWEEP AND INTESTINAL BULK FOR BOWEL MOVEMENTS, and to a lesser extent for SCFA production… geesh folks… how elementary can we be in these base arguments… if Mark would debate me, as a former bodybuilder of 15 years and also a former raw foodist/vegan, etc, I have all aspects in experience and can argue all sides with facts, not emotion or bias, I could refute all arguments used in this 2-part series by him that meat eating is normal/necessary/required by humans..
My Analysis of True Human Nutrition
This is my analysis of nutrition and why I no longer believe that Raw Vegan is best:
Where do I start?? At this point I feel I need to post an essay on everything I’ve come to understand about nutrition, if even one person gets it, it will be worthwhile. Let me start by saying, I am no one. I have no qualifications other than being a certified personal trainer. Everything I’m about to tell you will be straight up, with no BS. If you or your kid benefits from me writing this than I’ll happily take the time to write every word carefully. I am a martial artist of the most honest kind, my goal is to see things with unbiased eyes. Last spring I started my raw food adventure and it has been interesting, to say the least. My desire to be a great athlete and the best martial artist of the 21st century sparked my strong interest in nutrition. So far I have spent about 300hrs researching nutrition and health. Just reading, learning and testing everything I can. I don’t have kids yet, just to be clear. In the thread, I meant to say, if I did have kids, I wouldn’t feed them raw vegan. My goal last spring, was to figure out, “what should I eat?” and also, “what is the natural diet of he human animal?”. Now finally in the last few months I really started to piece it together. (Of course there will always be evolution and more to learn/unlearn).
Most of my information as been drawn from 4 general sources: athlete diets, Paleolithic diets, raw vegan diets, and scientific papers. My aim is to achieve great health. I am really only concerned with health vs. non-health. I am not concerned with vegan vs. non-vegan OR raw vs. non-raw, that is why you can trust that I am telling you what I believe is healthiest, period. I have found it is best to leave the philosophy in the books and just concentrate on what you need to do. Please keep this point in mind, I can’t stress this enough, philosophy and health don’t always mix well.
Anatomy?:
Luckily for us the human being is the most adaptive animal the world has ever seen. Just going by anatomy comparisons alone it appears as though the human is slightly more carnivorous than the chimpanzee (whom we do share approx. 98.2% of our physical makeup (suggested by our slightly less volumeous and shorter digestive system and larger brain). You may or may not know that the chimpanzee generally eats approximately 5% of its foods from animal sources. This is not insignificant! In fact as far as primates are concerned scientists put us on the borderline between a frugivore (fruit is a staple), and a faunivore (animal foods are a staple). This has been beneficial to humans because it has allowed us to draw on a large range of foods and live in a large range of climates (even if our lifestyle was not optimal, we could still survive).
Refer to this scientific paper for more info:
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc2.shtml
I hope this is enough to convince you that humans are indeed non-vegan by nature’s standards, like it or not.
What I suggest as an approximately “ideal” diet;
(By volume or approximate servings)
Raw Fruit 50%, but 30%-60% is the general range
Raw Vegetables 35%, but 20%-50% is the general range
(at least 50% being greens)
Raw Nuts, seeds, meat, eggs, insects 15%, but 5%-30% is the general range
These suggestions are based on my research and interpretation of science.
Specialty Diet Comparisons: The Raw Vegan diet and the Paleolithic Diet
While I admire the simplicity and brilliance of both diets, it seems that advocates of both camps, “can’t see the forest for the trees”. Touching on anatomy again, the comparison of digestive system length to diet composition, would require a continuum chart. Generally speaking the mammals with the shortest digestive systems (cats) eat mostly meats while the animals with the longest digestive systems (herbivores like cows) eat mostly green plants and leaves. Fruit lies in the middle of this continuum. I like to use this fact to point out flaws in the Paleolithic diets that advocate low sugar and fruit and excessive meat and vegetable intake. Few animals eat heavily from both the vegetable and meat category. Anatomy comparisons do not support this. Pros of the Paleolithic diet include fat soluble nutrients and others from animal sources. Examples may include Vitamin A (retinol), Vitamin D, Vitamin K, EFAs, cholesterol and B12. Also there are a few others that are more available from animal sources, such as zinc and iron. Another pro of this diet (but only when alkaline body chemistry exists) is extreme hard tissue strength of bones and teeth. It is possible, using raw animal products to heal cavities and teeth enamel. Luckily we as humans can draw on alternative sources of these nutrients, in fact our unique makeup allows us to draw on two or more unique sources of many nutrients. The con of the Paleolithic diet is that it lacks the soft tissue regeneration capabilities of the raw vegan diet and the other legendary benefits(picture a wrinkly 60 year old tribesman). This diet could benefit from more fruit. Another con is the availability of safe and healthy sources of animal foods in our western society. As I’ll mention later, I’ve successfully added raw organic eggs to my diet, with no ill effects.
But I can get all those nutrients from plant sources?
While you probably can (at least somewhat), obtain all these nutrients from plant sources. These particular nutrients are better obtained from animal sources for the same reason that carbohydrates are better obtained from fruits instead of grains. Since you need to obtain your energy from sugars one way or another, it is more efficient to obtain them from fruits instead of grains because there is less conversion required. The same will go for vitamin A, K, EFA’s, B12, Iron and Zinc from animal sources, its just easier. The conversion of beta carotene to vitamin A is a lengthy process. Vitamin B12 eh? The info on this vitamin is mixed at best. All B12 is originally produced by bacteria. Supposedly these bacteria live inside the body but presumably not in the area of the intestines where the vitamin is absorbed. Whether this is true or not, I cannot say. I would suspect that this bacteria will grow more prolifically in the intestines of a person who is eating only natural foods and following food combining rules. However I’ve read, some raw vegan fed apes that live in zoos will develop b12 deficiency.
The Raw Vegan diet is great but unfortunately it is a fad. It wont stay popular forever, how can it, it lacks significant contributors to healthy human nutrition. Believe me I wish the whole deal about humans being true vegans was true, I really wish it was, I don’t really enjoy eating animal foods, but it simply isn’t true. That is just dogma, based on philosophy, which is man made. Nature doesn’t believe in philosophy, it simply is what it is. The pros of this diet are the high water content, the one step nutrition (fruit more efficient than grains, energy wise), the very low toxicity levels (allowing the body to clean and heal from degenerative diseases), and its correction of body chemistry (helps you become alkaline again). It is very high in antioxidants, phytochemicals and its soft tissue (skin and organ) regeneration capabilities are tremendous. The cons of this diet are the lack of fat soluble vitamins from animal sources. Another con is it does not follow the true way of nature, which may ultimately result in “hitting the wall” that some raw vegans experience. There are likely many more micro-nutrients that we are unaware of at this time. I would not reasonably suggest avoiding an entire food group that is part of your natural diet. This may explain David Zane Mason’s blood test (slightly low in vit A and D, even though he eats plenty of beta carotene and lives in Florida?) This is just an idea only, and may or may not be the case.
This is from Storm’s Blog:
“But now after over thirty years I find myself besieged on all sides by intolerable food and drug cravings. I’m experiencing a level of agony that I never experienced up until now. When I first started I never experienced what is commonly known as detox. It did take a certain amount of discipline to change life long eating habits. But right from the start I was so excited by the incredible results until I was just swept away by the momentum of the discovery of a new frontier.”
One would assume that after thirty years that he wouldn’t have food cravings unless something was missing…? Just a thought. As far as kids are concerned, my readings suggest that it is more critical for children to include the fat soluble vitamins as they are still developing. This is especially true for their teeth and bone health. If your kid is experiencing tooth decay, than steadily increase animal sources of the nutrients I mentioned while making sure to include ample vegetables for minerals. Increase until the tooth decay stops. Toothy decay should not take place if the diet is good. Adults are more in a maintenance state. Therefore many adults will succeed and many will fail on a raw vegan diet depending on each individuals own deficiencies and health conditions. That is why you must do what works for you. This is the recipe for strong teeth and bones in kids and adults:
Fat soluble vitamins from animal sources +
alkaline body chemistry+
lots of minerals from veggies= strong bones and no cavities
It is interesting to note that the International Natural Hygiene society no longer promotes the original raw vegan diet advocated by their founder Dr. Herbert Shelton because too many of their clients and advocates have developed deficiencies. http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet.html
Interestingly the diet that I suggest is similar to the Instincto-omnivorous diet on this page. Shelton was a genius and brilliant logician but he was too philosophical in my opinion, that was ironically his greatest asset and downfall.
The Primal diet: my dietary strategy
What to do? I feel it is best, since neither raw vegan nor Paleolithic diets hold an entirely accurate view of reality. To combine the two in a way that works best for you, philosophy be damned! You have to do what is best for your personal health regardless of what certain people may think. This diet I will call your Primal diet. This diet you must make your own and you must combine everything you know and feel to obtain optimum physical health and mental health. Take into consideration your current health, ethnic background, and mental preferences. Your diet must possess the openness of flexibility or else, like the stiff tree in the storm, it will break. Your goal should be to obtain the benefits of both diets with the cons of neither. For instance, I don’t believe generally that supplements are healthy because you shouldn’t eat things that aren’t food, but in some cases they might be helpful. Same with dairy, it is obviously not a natural food for humans. Why would an animal use the milk of another animal?? However some peoples have traditionally used raw grass fed milk from cows with no ill health effects. This is why I say take into consideration your ethnic background, for instance, if your oriental, you might consider keeping some rice in your diet. No one can say for sure what will work best for you. If you genuinely follow your intention to be healthy than you must be flexible, without philosophy, and eventually you will find your own primal diet, and then your optimum nutrition will be guaranteed. I am personally just getting started on this path, and it is exciting and liberating. In my own diet I decided to only add 4 things to my un-supplemented raw vegan diet. I added raw eggs from organic free range hens, cod liver oil because it is extremely high in Vitamin A, D and EFA’s, brown rice and millet. I added the grains because I like them and they helped me stop yo-yoing on and off raw. While they may not technically be optimal on paper, they are optimal for me because I was able to stabilize my eating patterns. More research needs to be done, because there is something in animal foods that our bodies just like to have, plain and simple, that is why I added the eggs. I also added them because I don’t know where to buy healthy meat around here and I don’t feel like eating raw meat or insects, but technically we should be able to eat them if there is nothing wrong with them. Let me tell you right now that the difference between factory farmed animal foods and healthy organic properly fed animal foods is like the difference between SAD eaters and raw vegans. Treat your animal foods like raw nuts, you obviously don’t want to eat to much. Remember products from healthy animals are not necessarily bad for you! It comes down to what is the diet that your body is adapted for. Humans have made use of cooked foods for 1 million years or so. Is this long enough to adapt to cooked foods? I do not know. Ancient tribes made use of what foods they had available to them , this often included more animal foods than was optimal for pure health. But this has caused the human race to adapt even further to animal foods, there was no vegan tribes. This is another reason to not avoid this food group because we have adapted to it, at least to a certain degree. Probably if we only ate grains for a million years, than a million years from now it would be unhealthy to eat a diet that does not include grain. To summarize, the point I’m trying to make here is that you have to consider what your body is adapted to and I’m advising you to disregard the clear cut rules, if you listen to both your body and mind, you’ll know what direction to take.
Sincerely,
The Workoutman
So many errors in this, where to begin… Tool making is a cultural practice, period. It has nothing to do with evolving to eat more meat. Tool making can be used for many different things, tool making is not a biological natural replacement for hunting down meat. Tool making is an idea that came into existence through our large brain. Our brain can be used as an anatomical comparison between species but tool making is in no way compared to a cats sharp claws that are given to it through biological processes.
It’s just ridiculous to use evolutionary biology to make your point then tell the readers that tool making is similar to sharp claws and fangs of a lion. There is a huge difference! Humanity’s tools are a result of culture not biology. If it was so natural to use tools to hunt down and kill animals every human being would have the desire to do just that. Many human beings do not want to kill and eat animals and that is not just for moral reasons. It simply isn’t appealing. How many cats would be against eating raw meat from a freshly killed animal? I have no desire to create a tool or buy a tool to kill an animal then use another tool to gut or skin the animal. A cat wouldn’t think twice about eating a freshly hunted animal nor would an omnivorous bear. If meat eating was so healthy for humans you would think a larger portion of humans would be evolved to have the instincts to kill the animal and eat it more immediately without adding seasoning or cooking. So many so called meat eaters do so only when the meat is altered by heat or preservatives. Claws and sharp teeth are used to tear open flesh and help carnivores and omnivores obtain their food. They don’t need to create anything outside of their own bodies to help them hunt down food. If we are so highly evolved to eat meat and it was truly much more healthy for us, as many of the comments on this page are stating, then we would evolve to make meat eating much more efficient. Human beings wouldn’t have flat molars, small mouth openings, weak jaws, carbohydrate digesting enzymes, higher pH levels when food enters the stomach, smaller stomachs, the inability to detoxify vitamin A, flat nails, softer teeth and on and on…
I find it funny that you use comparative anatomy in part of your argument and call raw vegans dishonest when we tell you how much human beings differ from carnivores. If meat were the preferred source of nutrition for human beings, you would think that our biology would come at least a little close to carnivores but this is not the case. In fact lets use your example of the small intestines. While human beings have smaller intestines than most herbivores on average, we have much larger small intestines than both carnivores and herbivores. We are much closer to herbivores in terms of stomach capacity(carnivores and omnivores have 3 times larger stomachs as a percentage of digestive tract volume) and intestinal length yet you claim that our intestinal length proves somehow that we are more omnivore than herbivore.
And while you are being intellectually honest with the readers you should include that most raw food eaters against meat eating are not saying human beings are herbivores but instead frugivores. This is important as this is a completely different classification. Do us one better and compare our anatomy to the frugivorous chimpanzees rather than herbivores. Because that is what we are, frugivores. We are not herbivores, omnivores or carnivores, we are frugivores. Fruits have much less cellulose than vegetables, making fruits the easiest food to digest for human beings. You will find that our anatomy to the chimps is nearly identical. By the way chimps only eat meat because of cultural reasons, it has nothing to do with a natural instinct to eat meat. Jane Goodall, the famous researcher on chimpanzees, emphasizes that not all chimps eat meat and the few that do, only do so to gain sexual favors from female chimps.
Human beings have a large brain this is true but why do you think it was evolved in large part from eating meat? Where is the proof of our brain becoming more complex from eating meat? This is a silly notion that meatarians always throw out there with zero evidence. Do you have fossil records that prove this because I can come up with plenty of fossil dentition records that prove that prehistoric man was a fruit eater. There have been carnivores eating meat and animal fat much longer than human beings, how are there not more intelligent carnivores? The human brain is powered by glucose, blood sugar, not from fatty acids. The most intelligent creatures besides human beings eat mostly fruit so why is meat the key to brain power?
Just because many people choose to eat meat does not make it the best choice. With our large brains often brings many social problems that human beings struggle with. One is the diet, if you simply look at physiology there is no argument. What digests the fastest and best on an empty stomach when a human eats? Fruit! This is a fact easily proven by human digestive biochemistry.
Regardless of our physical evolutionary history, humans do not require meat to maintain a nutritious diet.
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”
http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357