Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

[24KT]

Shattering The Meat Myth:
Humans Are Natural Vegetarians
By Kathy Freston

Going through the comments of some of my recent posts, I noticed the frequently stated notion that eating meat was an essential step in human evolution. While this notion may comfort the meat industry, it's simply not true, scientifically.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."

That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.

But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.

[powerpack]

Dont quite agree
I think being a carnivore or a herbivore had more to do with were you lived.
Eskimos cant be herbivores etc.
What was your sustenance was what you ate.
We are uniquely adapted to be able to live of nearly anything.

[suckmymuscle]

Shattering The Meat Myth:
Humans Are Natural Vegetarians
By Kathy Freston

Going through the comments of some of my recent posts, I noticed the frequently stated notion that eating meat was an essential step in human evolution. While this notion may comfort the meat industry, it's simply not true, scientifically.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."

That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.

But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.

  The key feature in the hyper-encephalization that happened from Homo Ergastus to Homo Sapiens was the consuption of calorically dense foods, not necessarily meat, as well as facing the challenges of finding food as proto-humans migrated out of Africa - problem-solving skills. The Human brain is calorically costly to build and maintain - the 3 pounds of encephalic tissue consume a quarter of all ingested calories a day -, and there aren't many plants that are calorically dense, so proto-humans most likely did eat non-plant matter to develop into Humans.

  Meat was probably the calorically dense food that allowed for increased brain size in Eurasia, but this does not necessarily hold true elsewhere. Other calorically dense foods that helped to encephalize the Human brain were nuts, certain oily seeds and fruits like olives, as well as insects like termites. Insects and animal muscle were probably the most important, though, because calorically dense plant foods, like nuts, seeds and fruits like avocados are rare to come by.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Deicide]

Shattering The Meat Myth:
Humans Are Natural Vegetarians
By Kathy Freston

Going through the comments of some of my recent posts, I noticed the frequently stated notion that eating meat was an essential step in human evolution. While this notion may comfort the meat industry, it's simply not true, scientifically.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."

That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.

But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.

Oh boy, Jaguar is trying to sell something again.

[Option D]

Shattering The Meat Myth:
Humans Are Natural Vegetarians
By Kathy Freston

Going through the comments of some of my recent posts, I noticed the frequently stated notion that eating meat was an essential step in human evolution. While this notion may comfort the meat industry, it's simply not true, scientifically.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."

That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.

But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.

NO. 

[Migs]

bullshit vegetarian brainwashing attempt.

[FREAKgeek]

We don't need sharp teeth, claws, etc cause we developed a higher brain. We use our intuitive minds to get food.

Animal meat in the wild is quite healthy; it has a much better fat profile than farm raised meat. It is not directly responsible for such health problems.

[suckmymuscle]

We don't need sharp teeth, claws, etc cause we developed a higher brain. We use our intuitive minds to get food.

  This argument of yours is terrible because our digestive system doesen't take into consideration our intelligence. We can use our intelligence to create even more artificial foods like a cookie full of hydrogenated fats, refined flour and sugar and artificial colors, but it doesen't mean that our system will understand that we have intelligence and thus can make and eat any foods and thus digest anything we ingest. Our digestive and gastro-intestinal systems are different from those of apes but not radically.

  And the argument that we are not meat eaters because we lack the morphological as well as physiological adaptations that carnivores have is a good one. If we were meat eaters, natural selection would have equiped us with the apparel to catch prey, like claws and fangs, as well as the physiological adaptation to digest meat effectively, like a very acidic stomach and a short gastro-intestinal tract. The hydrochloric acid solution in the stomach of a lion is over 10 times more concentrated than that of a Human!

  However, the key factor that disproves the theory that we it doesen't matter that we lack the morphological adaptations to meat eating because our intelligence enables us to catch prey without claws and fangs is that we also lack the physiological adaptations. Our powerful brains might allow us to not require claws and fangs, but even with our brains we would stll need the physiological adapatations to eat meat. That is, our intelligence dispenses our need for claws and fangs for us to be carnivores, but it doesen't dispense the physiological adapations required to properly digest meat. Conclusion: Humans are not carnivores. I have just proved it.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[kiwiol]

If we weren't "meant" to eat meat, we simply would not have the capacity to digest it and assimilate energy and other nutrients from it's composite matter the way we do. Glass or coal is an example of something we aren't "meant" to (and therefore, do not) eat, as is plastic. But we are able to eat, digest and thrive on meat, not to mention a lot of us enjoy it big time.

Humans are creatures of choice who get to choose what they want and do not want to do within the realm of all that is possible. Vegetarianism is simply a lifestyle / dietary choice that some people choose to subscribe to.

[Deicide]

  This argument of yours is terrible because our digestive system doesen't take into consideration our intelligence. We can use our intelligence to create even more artificial foods like a cookie full of hydrogenated fats, refined flour and sugar and artificial colors, but it doesen't mean that our system will understand that we have intelligence and thus can make and eat any foods and thus digest anything we ingest. Our digestive and gastro-intestinal systems are different from those of apes but not radically.

  And the argument that we are not meat eaters because we lack the morphological as well as physiological adaptations that carnivores have is a good one. If we were meat eaters, natural selection would have equiped us with the apparel to catch prey, like claws and fangs, as well as the physiological adaptation to digest meat effectively, like a very acidic stomach and a short gastro-intestinal tract. The hydrochloric acid solution in the stomach of a lion is over 10 times more concentrated than that of a Human!

  However, the key factor that disproves the theory that we it doesen't matter that we lack the morphological adaptations to meat eating because our intelligence enables us to catch prey without claws and fangs is that we also lack the physiological adaptations. Our powerful brains might allow us to not require claws and fangs, but even with our brains we would stll need the physiological adapatations to eat meat. That is, our intelligence dispenses our need for claws and fangs for us to be carnivores, but it doesen't dispense the physiological adapations required to properly digest meat. Conclusion: Humans are not carnivores. I have just proved it.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
SUCKMYMUSCLE

SUCKMYMUSCLE

This thread is THG approved.

THG approved

[Eisenherz]

THG approved
THG approved

THG approved

[Endo]

The necessity for the human ingestion of the twenty essential amino acids would leave me to the conclusion that humans are naturally omnivorous. It would be too hard in a natural environment to get a complete protein (ie one with all of the 20 essential aa). To accomplish this without animal products you have to mix and match the right things, like beans and rice.

[FREAKgeek]

 
  However, the key factor that disproves the theory that we it doesen't matter that we lack the morphological adaptations to meat eating because our intelligence enables us to catch prey without claws and fangs is that we also lack the physiological adaptations.

The saturated fat and cholesterol from meat (grass fed or wild) has not caused me to suffer from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, or any other problem that this silly article is trying to tie together. If you take notice, these diseases are a fairly recent phenomenon, and stems from more likely causes of pollution, refined sugar and food processing - all which is fairly recent.  You didn't have this epidemic 100 years ago.

[FREAKgeek]

The necessity for the human ingestion of the twenty essential amino acids would leave me to the conclusion that humans are naturally omnivorous. It would be too hard in a natural environment to get a complete protein (ie one with all of the 20 essential aa). To accomplish this without animal products you have to mix and match the right things, like beans and rice.

Right.

Plus, they also have a hard time getting B12 too, unless they incorporate dairy.

[suckmymuscle]

If we weren't "meant" to eat meat, we simply would not have the capacity to digest it and assimilate energy and other nutrients from it's composite matter the way we do. Glass or coal is an example of something we aren't "meant" to (and therefore, do not) eat, as is plastic. But we are able to eat, digest and thrive on meat, not to mention a lot of us enjoy it big time.

  A dog can eat candy and it's body can use the carbs in it as energy. They can also digest and excrete the metabolites with no problems. Yet, a dog's digestive and gastro-intestinal tract was designed to process meat. What's your point? Humans can digest meat, but not as effectively as a lion can. We don't have the morphological(claws, fangs) and pysiological(strongly acidic stomach, short gastro-intestinal tract for quick excretion etc) that carnivores have. The fact that even meat eaters who partake of only ultra lean meats like chicken and turkey breast have higher rates of artherosclerosis and cancer than vegetarians suggest that our bodies have difficulty with animal flesh.

Humans are creatures of choice who get to choose what they want and do not want to do within the realm of all that is possible. Vegetarianism is simply a lifestyle / dietary choice that some people choose to subscribe to.

  False. Humans are creatures of choce in that they have intelligence which allows them to obtain any foods they desire and go beyond their instincts and experiment, but the fact that we are creatures of choice doesen't mean our digestive and gastro-intestinal tracts are. There is a gradation of organic compounds our digestive system can process, with the simple sugars and phytochemicals from fruits and vegetables at one extreme, grass - which we can't digest - at the other extreme, and things like meats and starchy carbs like grains in the middle. Things like refined flour and sugar would also be at the extreme close to grass. The more we distance from fruits and vegetables the more the metabolic cost of processing a food. Compare the difference of eating an apple to a portion of pork of equivalent weight. Compare how you feel much heavier after eating the pork than the apple, and how much longer the pork clogs your digestive system.

  Personally, I don't believe that Humans are vegetarians. I believe that Humans are omnivorous beings and that our primate ancestors ate, besides fruits and vegetables, eggs from birds, roots and insects - like termites. We probably also ate meat but it oly was a small poirtion o]f the diet. Diets heavy in meat probably only started about 50,000 yeara ago in the beggining of the Paleolithic Era when we went out of Africa and became Cro-Magnon that had game as the principal item of food because the places they went were cold and wild animalks were the only food source. This is a pretty short period of time, which explains why we don't process meat nearly that effective.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[tbombz]

our brains and thumbs are our physical adpations to allow meat eating

and our intestiones is very long. which is how its supposed to be if we are to digest meat - which takes very long to digest. if we had a short digestive tract we would never be able to fully digets meat.

[Get Rowdy]

  Compare the difference of eating an apple to a portion of pork of equivalent weight. Compare how you feel much heavier after eating the pork than the apple, and how much longer the pork clogs your digestive system.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

On the topic of clogging, I hit a chinese buffet last thursday to dominate a hangover, ate a shitload of honey chicken, sweet/sour pork, and beef in blackbean sauce and it clogged me hard.  It only just came out an hour ago.

Baked beans >  Chinese food

[suckmymuscle]

our brains

  How is the brain a physical adapatation to process a food? Explain yourself. You aren't making any sense. If you mean by this that our brains became so big due to the intellectual demand that hunting game without the claws, fangs and speed that carnivores posses, then I must point out to you that if our brains have evolved for this reason, then we should have digestive systems similar to that of carnivores, because intelligence can substitute for claws and fangs, but it does not eliminate the need for a digestive system suited for digesting meat. That is, the argument is bad because our intelligence allows us being successful at catching prey without claws and fangs, but it doesen't help us in digesting it. To digest it properly, we would need the appropriate digestive system and intelligence can't do anything about it.

and thumbs are our physical adpations to allow meat eating

  Actually, chimps and gorillas also have opposable thumbs and the former eat meat at only 5% of their diets and the latter are exclusively vegetarians. Our hands with opposable thumbs are actually adapatations to pick fruts and hold branches. it has nothing to do with meat eating. How do I know this? Because macaques and other monkeys have hands with opposable thumbs and they are vegetarians. Since the large apes evolved from creatures similar to macaques, then ergo , hands with opposable thumbs could not possibly have evolved to eat meat. Again, you're not making any sense.

and our intestiones is very long. which is how its supposed to be if we are to digest meat - which takes very long to digest.

  You couldn't be any wronger. Carnivores have shorter gastro-intestinal tracts than vegetarians, not longer. Our GI is ten times longer than a lion's, but only one third the lengh of a bovine! Going by your logic, then lions should have the longest GIs of all, but they have some of the shortest. Meat putrefies creating ammonia and other poisons in the body, so animals that eat lots of meat have short GI to expel the toxic by-products from meat metabolization as soon as possible. Our long GI are actually to extract as much nutrients as possible from fibrous vegetable matter.

if we had a short digestive tract we would never be able to fully digets meat.

  Lmao! I'm sure you're regretting having made this post. Lions, dogs and other meat eaters have much shorter GIs than ours and digest a lot morte meat much easier. You frankly have no idea what you're talking about.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Nicrah]

Also based on scientific fact, if we were indeed natural herbivores, the enamel on our teeth would be thicker to support eating such foods and prevent the greater amount of wear on our teeth due to dirt and sand particles.....suck on that muscle

[kiwiol]

  A dog can eat candy and it's body can use the carbs in it as energy. They can also digest and excrete the metabolites with no problems. Yet, a dog's digestive and gastro-intestinal tract was designed to process meat. What's your point? Humans can digest meat, but not as effectively as a lion can. We don't have the morphological(claws, fangs) and pysiological(strongly acidic stomach, short gastro-intestinal tract for quick excretion etc) that carnivores have. The fact that even meat eaters who partake of only ultra lean meats like chicken and turkey breast have higher rates of artherosclerosis and cancer than vegetarians suggest that our bodies have difficulty with animal flesh.

  False. Humans are creatures of choce in that they have intelligence which allows them to obtain any foods they desire and go beyond their instincts and experiment, but the fact that we are creatures of choice doesen't mean our digestive and gastro-intestinal tracts are. There is a gradation of organic compounds our digestive system can process, with the simple sugars and phytochemicals from fruits and vegetables at one extreme, grass - which we can't digest - at the other extreme, and things like meats and starchy carbs like grains in the middle. Things like refined flour and sugar would also be at the extreme close to grass. The more we distance from fruits and vegetables the more the metabolic cost of processing a food. Compare the difference of eating an apple to a portion of pork of equivalent weight. Compare how you feel much heavier after eating the pork than the apple, and how much longer the pork clogs your digestive system.

  Personally, I don't believe that Humans are vegetarians. I believe that Humans are omnivorous beings and that our primate ancestors ate, besides fruits and vegetables, eggs from birds, roots and insects - like termites. We probably also ate meat but it oly was a small poirtion o]f the diet. Diets heavy in meat probably only started about 50,000 yeara ago in the beggining of the Paleolithic Era when we went out of Africa and became Cro-Magnon that had game as the principal item of food because the places they went were cold and wild animalks were the only food source. This is a pretty short period of time, which explains why we don't process meat nearly that effective.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Sucky, I see what you are saying and no arguments with the part about animals having a capacity to digest meat that is superior to that of humans in terms of extent and efficiency. Most animals are a lot more physically capable than humans in many ways. And yes, apple is easier to digest than pork and lighter on the system. But bottomline, we can and do eat meat and get a lot out of it, even if it could have a negative impact on health in other ways (which it doesn't in everyone).

I think humans are best off with a mixed diet. If some of us want to eat more meat even at the possible expense of health, so be it - you got to live a little. That's what I meant, when I was talking about exercising choice.

[YoungBlood]

I don't even have to read the article to know that it's absolute bullshit.
We have teeth to eat the meat (and of course it comes in handy elsewhere chewing on rabbit food), but the main reason I can tell it's bullshit (a waste of time is what I should say) is that we need protein...as Ron says "Simple as that." Complete protein that comes from meat....not half aminos from rice and the other half from beans or shit like that, which then gives you a ton of carbs....


...oh yeah, and carbs are NOT essential in any way shape or form. Yet, we are constantly told that a higher carb diet is better for us.

[24KT]

All scientific arguments aside, ...I go by how my body feels and functions. Vegetarianism works for me. 

[FREAKgeek]

Dolphins don't have gills.

I guess they weren't meant to live in the water either.

[YoungBlood]

...I go by how my body feels and functions. Vegetarianism works for me. 

I'm sure you've controlled all factors for months on end to allow for complete 100% unbiased data. Yes?

[24KT]

I'm sure you've controlled all factors for months on end to allow for complete 100% unbiased data. Yes?

No, not months, ...just 3 weeks. 21 of the seemingly hardest days of my life.

Do you think I looked forward to giving up bacon cheeseburgers? Are you on drugs?
I did it because my body felt better and worked better without meat in it.
The data was very biased. extremely biased. Meat made my body feel like shit, and I don't like feeling like shit.
That's the problem with most people... they grow up feeling like shit, ...and for them it's normal. They don't know any other way. However, if you can allow them to feel what they're supposed to feel like for any extended period of time, ...they know the difference, ...and won't willingly want to go back to feeling like shit.