Serious Nutrition: A corrupt government's favorite topic

[Shiruba]

I'm gonna be neutral on this one, but Soul Fly, if it's really that safe for humans to eat meat raw, then why is it that it's always recommended to be cooked for possible health risks? Fish might be an exception, but the other ones? Doesn't seem to be so.

jynx, I'm pretty sure dogs are actually omnivores, not carnivores. At least not obligate carnivores.

But, Dandatpenguin, it's true that the Harvard article never said that milk was outright bad for you, at least as far as I read it, it just shows that milk doesn't actually help - twisting facts just means people are less likely to trust you, especially when they're already gonna be hostile as-is.

 

[Soul Fly]

I'm gonna be neutral on this one, but Soul Fly, if it's really that safe for humans to eat meat raw, then why is it that it's always recommended to be cooked for possible health risks? Fish might be an exception, but the other ones? Doesn't seem to be so.

you need reading exercises, incoming self-quote because people love not reading and firing off replies:

the only reason we cannot have it raw is because we're susceptible to foodborn pathogens and bacteria (ie: food poisoning) since we're not conditioned for them. It's the same reason the guy from USA takes malaria shots before going for the African Safari or gets diarrhea bingeing on Vietnamese street food, just on a more magnified scale. That and the fact that the excessive saturated fat gained from meat has a chance of clogging up your arteries etc etc.... because ONCE AGAIN THANKS TO OUR INTELLIGENCE... we are an extremely sedentary species, compared to any other wild creature and our civilized lifestyle doesn't permit it anymore.

Even eating raw fish as-is is suicidal. The ones used for sashimi and shit are usually frozen/treated etc to kill of food poisoning agents and the likes...

 

[Shiruba]

Lo siento. I saw that just a few moments before you'd responded.
I do, actually. I start to stop paying attention to all the details when it's a big text wall, particularly when the person seems to be angry due to their [ab]use of bold and capital letters.

Alright, but do the animals that eat them [lions, bears, etc] regularly get sick from the bacteria in the meat they eat? That's more what I was asking; do humans need to treat it differently than those animals would would due to having different/more prominent possible health risks?

 

[Soul Fly]

Okay I'm tired of doing this over and over now

the only reason we cannot have it raw is because we're susceptible to foodborn pathogens and bacteria (ie: food poisoning) since we're not conditioned for them. It's the same reason the guy from USA takes malaria shots before going for the African Safari or gets diarrhea bingeing on Vietnamese street food, just on a more magnified scale.

Go ahead and read my first source link too.
If you don't get it even after this, you can resort to stitching dunce hats...

 

[Rugi]

Human intelligence is has put us at the top of the food chain to the point that if you live in developed countries you can eat just about any type of food. Yet some humans insist on limiting themselves through religion, being vegan and just not liking the idea that certain food might not be as healthy as they thought it was. Is the intelligence of the human-race decreasing on average? because sometimes it feels that way

 

[Cshadow]

also I am going to point out that the human body is designed to hunt and eat meat, sure you can compensate, but we are preditors,

This isn't entirely true. Consider the following:

You are a four foot tall, half-naked ape-like creature. You have fingernails instead of claws; your teeth aren't very sharp, having been designed for a more herbivorous diet; and to top it all off, you lack the reflexes, running speed, body mass, and raw power boasted by potential prey and predator alike. You do, however, have an impressive brain, opposable thumbs, and a throat that will eventually develop the tools needed for complex verbal communication. Having said that, it will take hundreds of thousands of years before these things allow you to procure meat reliably.

Humanity's hunting capabilities are far from instinctual; we weren't born knowing how to fasten weapons, build traps, or track animals. We had to learn how to do all of that. Even today, we rely on the technology we've developed to take down prey that could kill us very easily (like moose), or that are too fast to catch on foot (like rabbits). Of course, hunting is more for sport now, since you can just run down to the grocery store for all of your meat-related needs.

If I recall correctly, modern anthropological theory believes that early humans relied on a diet consisting mostly of fruits, nuts, roots, and other vegetation. Without the right technology, hunting would have been dangerous and unreliable. This means that if early humans ate meat, it was because they found and secured whatever other animals left behind. Even then, this would have been dangerous, too, as we would have been in direct competition with other scavengers / predators looking for a free meal.

This isn't to say that we "shouldn't" have eaten meat, though. By the time we were effective hunters, the benefits of hunting (more food, clothes, bones for tools) would have made foraging nearly obsolete. Nomadic lifestyles would have made foraging harder, too, as new environments would have exposed us to unfamiliar vegetation, and it's not like we would have automatically known what was poisonous or good for us.

And of course, to develop an an agricultural society, we would have had to know how to farm; just like hunting, farming techniques would have taken hundreds of centuries to develop. Agricultural societies would have also been unique to, what, the Americas, and some parts of Africa / Asia? I can't remember the specifics, I just remember Europe being largely composed of nomadic societies. I could also be thinking of the Germanic tribes instead. Whatever, someone will correct me.

I've gone off on a tangent. Reigning it in:

tldr; Humans weren't built to hunt, but that sure as hell didn't stop us. We developed the skills and technology needed to become good hunters. I'm not familiar enough with what Gato was talking about to be able to comment, but I know that hunting gave us clothes, tools, and and a ton of food very quickly. Hunting (and the consumption of meat) has everything to do with why we survived and developed the way we did.

Should we stop eating meat? I don't know, that's a personal decision. Meat is definitely not a necessity anymore and we have more than enough ways to meet our body's needs without having to slaughter animals. I'm not really familiar enough with all the ethical concerns in regards to this argument, though.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Me saying a government is corrupt is a form of yellow journalism or sensational writing to make the reader want to read this post. Secondly If we are truly born predators and are made to eat meat then why would we have to cook it in the first place? All other carnivorous animals don't need to cook their food in order to digest it, then why do we have to.

I'm sorry, that's just fucking sad. How can you expect anyone to treat this thread seriously if you can't even keep the TITLE out of sensationalization? You've already shown that you require some kind of eye candy to make us read this, so how can you expect a civilized discussion? You've started this with the intent to provoke a reaction from people that don't share your views and explain why we are wrong in my opinion that's what it seems like at least

As I said...the homo-blank genus is not designed to eat meat. The trasition from cro-magnon to neanderthal/homo erectus occurred when our brains discovered fire and found we were able to fuel our brains with complex proteins and calories from excellent, energy-packed meat. Carnivores in nature require huge caloric intakes because they spend a lot of energy hunting their food, where humans use the "efficient" brain to hunt instead. We have already seen evidence of our pure vegetarian ways disappearing--the appendix and wisdom teeth are examples of this. Humans could not be where they are now without meat.

Now, if you want to present a reason for us to stop eating meat, you're going to have to give one. Is your argument that humankind is an evolved enough species that we do not need meat to continue to thrive? If you want to make a thread about the ethics of meat as opposed to a life on pills and supplements, go right ahead, but you at least have to start off with the fact that YES, humans for hundreds of years have been meat eaters. My personal opinion of that is NO, I am the top animal on the food chain on earth and I will eat meat if I damn well please.

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

I find the OP's comment on Milk "acidifying" our bodies almost laughable-- because if you're really worried about acids detracting from your calcium supply, then there's far worse than milk. Whether most people even realize it, they're constantly consuming highly acidic foods, whether it be citrus or straight up vinegar in almost a majority of seasonings and found in almost every culinary culture-- there's no escaping it. Acids are also some of the healthiest forms of seasonings; and certainly blasting a burger with Tobasco or Lemon juice is better for you than covering it with more salt.

Hell, when I eat a bowl of Ramen, I go through half a soy sauce bottle full of vinegar on average-- I'm far past worrying acid in milk. lol

Acidic foods are a staple of human diet, and targeting milk as a culprit is laughable when looking at food as a whole.

In the end, we're all going to die-- the point is to live with health and nutrition that will allow us to live lives rich enough in experience to satisfy us. To me, living without some fatty tuna on sushi vinegar rice, hamburgers with vinegar-rich BBQ sauce, and Lemon grass chicken would just-- not be living.

I am perhaps the only person here who actually had acidic blood pH (7.0) at one point in my life, and that was because I had an abnormal amount of ketone bodies. I was practically at the brink of death, and thankfully, I did not have a coma or lose consciousness.

 

[Myzozoa]

The attributes of the human race are not static: the physical features of our bodies do not appear like the sun, rising at an appointed hour, at which time the diligent analyst points to its features and prescribes specific diets, medicines, and exercises. I am present at my own making. And if I evolved with certain capabilities, such as the ability to hunt or to digest both meat and plants, then I also evolved to have a conscious, which in addition to giving me some modest ability to interact with the world rationally, also presented me with notions of causality and morality much contributing to my present neurosis.

Never let it go somehow unmentioned, in this discourse on 'evolution,' that humans are a social animal. This, as much as any other attribute, is a product of evolution and a factor in it. The great process of acclimating animals to live within society, and to make 'progress' (to make society productive in so many senses, but I am most interesting in pointing technological progress, and we see in this current atmosphere of globalization just how vastly changed society has been by technology), involved many notable forces other than animalistic considerations for survival, and these forces should not be given less primacy than those evolutionary considerations in justifying our diets.

Society is the human's environment, and society exerts forces that produce humans with certain attributes. This is a self-conscious process in current societies: government, press, individuals all debate the intricacies of the forces of socialization such as education, art, law, international regimes, business regulation, human rights. The forces of socialization are tied to notions of progress. We, as humans, find ourselves considering not just what capabilities we have now, but also what the future of these capabilities could and ought to look like. Humans evolved to think in terms of progress, and in that sense humans are very interesting, because it makes them moral...

Is meat economically sustainable at its current rate of consumption? Is there some present or future utility gained if certain individuals (perhaps they possess a troubled moral conscious but it does not matter) choose to stop eating meat or even just cut back their meat consumption significantly? I will make no attempt to give an answer to this question, but if these individuals are capable of doing so in their present economic and material conditions, and there is some utility in it, then it would be better if they did... And it is central that this way of justifying a diet be understood to be 'evolved' and 'natural' as any other diet. If the concern is health, I will only say that it seems to be possible to be healthy without eating flesh, it may be less convenient, but it is possible.


Remind yourself, when you find yourself so eager to justify every moral and pragmatic transgression through reference to past necessity, that posterity may look back on your petty naturalizing with immense condescension. The transition to more plant based diets in rich parts of the west may be an environmental and economic necessity, which, as it is delayed, threatens the future outlook for the human and many other species. We cannot only embrace progress when it is convenient, and then when it is not convenient, gesture at some unfortunate attribute given by human nature as an excuse for not considering anything beyond what the present holds for us. We must also engage in revising what practices we have already adopted in order to stand in security for the future. In order to 'progress', which is precisely what it is to meet our ethical obligations to future generations, we may have to adopt some allegedly inconvenient practices, one of which will most likely be a reduction in the percentage of the western diet which meat currently accounts for. All the better that some individuals take it upon themselves to navigate the problems of such lifestyles that may become the norm in the future. When or if the transition becomes absolutely necessary, it can be undergone less painfully thanks to such efforts.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Alright, but do the animals that eat them [lions, bears, etc] regularly get sick from the bacteria in the meat they eat? That's more what I was asking; do humans need to treat it differently than those animals would would due to having different/more prominent possible health risks?

Of course all predators are at risk to infections from bacteria and whatnot-- but the risks expand beyond this to parasites. One of the reasons Sashimi (fish) became a "safe" practice is because the method of slicing allowed Sashimi chefs to uncover and remove worms and other potential parasites (sea fleas, whatnot). In fact, if you haven't been trained in this, you really shouldn't be making sashimi...

But all predators are at risk of picking up these types of problematic hitch-hikers. Heck, even herbivores are not immune-- (there are species of parasites that infect and brain-wash ants to climb to the top of leaf blades so they will be accidentally ingested by rabbits and other herbivores so the worms can grow in the bunny's stomach for instance...).

Generally speaking, it's nicer not to deal with infections and parasites (but most animals just live with 'em); hence washing veggies and cooking meat. It's not rocket science-- if you're a human. Hell, even animals have evolved all sorts of methods to improve hygiene, but haven't taken it to our extreme because they're not smart enough. Biologically, you can live with parasites/infections, just as you can eat raw meat-- the point is that we're smart enough to avoid it...

This isn't entirely true. Consider the following:
You are a four foot tall, half-naked ape-like creature. You have fingernails instead of claws; your teeth aren't very sharp, having been designed for a more herbivorous diet; and to top it all off, you lack the reflexes, running speed, body mass, and raw power boasted by potential prey and predator alike. You do, however, have an impressive brain, opposable thumbs, and a throat that will eventually develop the tools needed for complex verbal communication. Having said that, it will take hundreds of thousands of years before these things allow you to procure meat reliably.

We also have height that allows us to see over grass, keen (enough) vision, a decent base running speed, and our thin hair and more efficient sweat glands (more numerous per skin surface than any other mammal) make us one of the most (if not THE most) effective long distance runners in the animal kingdom-- plus the intelligence, tool use, and social / communication abilities... yeah, we're different from any other predator, but that doesn't mean that our ancestors weren't damn effective at it even before they really got the ball rolling on technology.

Have you ever wondered why many animals (even predators) in the animal kingdom have a natural tendency to flee from humans or leave us alone? We may seem like physically weak and helpless animals now (when fat and untrained)-- but leopards will instinctively flee from any bipedal primate. Why? Well if you look at our war-like relatives, the chimps, you'll get a window into an era in mammalian history where strong primates with superior intelligence, ability to use rocks, and living in troupes-- even without the tools or complex vocalization of modern humans, were an intimidating presence for most animals.
(chimps will hunt down, flush out, and kill leopards if they notice the leopard before the leopard notices them-- and runs)

4 foot tall, clawless, fangless, yes-- but lacking Speed? Lacking physical strength? Not physically intimidating? Mmmm I think you're way off basis on that front...




As I said in my earlier post though (and I agree with Myzozoa on this point) looking at evolutionary past to decide what we should eat now is pretty absurd.

 

[newtonja]

By the way I don't mean that we should eat meat on the premise that our ancestors ate meat. But onto something else interesting. when the government tried to put less emphasis on wheat and grain the cereal companies put a lot of effort to prevent that from happening. Which I found pretty amusing.

 

[Stallion]

Sentience is defined as the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Unlike humans plants cannot feel, perceive, or experience subjectivity. Plants cannot decide for themselves because they do not have a brain, we can. I never stated the plants were lesser beings than us I simply stated that they are not sentient and I have no problem eating them because I need to eat them to survive. On the other hand animals who are sentient beings and can make relationships, have emotions, feel pain, and have the will to live just as humans are not needed in my diet.

We are omnivores, our body is designed to eat both meat and plants. It's great to have a strong sense of ethics and I believe in making better choices when it comes to my animal products (free range eggs/chicken for example) but at the end of the day our anatomy is designed in such a manner where our bodies run optimally with a mix of meat and plants. Hell, you wouldn't tell a Lion off for eating meat and killing other animals because that's what it needs to function at an optimal level. So why should we as humans feel a misguided sense of ethical concern based soley on our higher intelligence when we evolved specifically to eat both meat and plants?

 

[noobcubed]

Ugh, I came here looking for a discussion on how governments can improve their nations' eating habits and, surprise surprise, within the first post it has been derailed into a discussion about the ethics of eating meat.

I don't really care about your point of view, as long as you stick to it. It's not fair to be all holier-than-thou about fox hunting and then go home and have roast chicken (at least the fox roamed free, whereas the chicken was probably restrained in a box to stop it from moving and burning off its own body mass). And as for people who say "I can't eat anything with a face", that's equivalently, "slaughter is fine as long as I am desensitised to it" - the amount of discomfort you might feel seeing a dead fish's face is orders of magnitude less than what the fish felt en route to your local supermarket.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Actually this thread is getting pathetic.
Firstly, I doubt saying "this is getting laughable" is going to help with one's argument.
Secondly, can you guys please get your facts right? The content of this thread basically suggests accuracy in facts-- it isn't an opinion thread. So sort your facts out.


My few words after studying biology in university:
1. Having fingernails instead of claws is a primate feature, and is not linked to diet.
2. Humans are omnivores. Evidences are
a) the length of intestines in humans are half way between carnivores and herbivores. Humans simply do not have a long enough tract to digest what an average herbivore eats. Humans lack the fungi and bacteria in intestines to digest cellulose, so humans can not digest cellulose.
b) the dentition formula (ie: how many of each type of teeth) is also different from carnivores and herbivores. Whilst we have less molars than herbivores, we also lack certain teeth types in dogs.
3. The cooked meat issue is not due to us being unable to digest raw meat. Raw meat can still be consumed by humans. It's not a dietary adaptation, but our digestive systems had been significantly going downhills when it comes to raw food, ever since the discovery of fire. Because we rarely eat uncooked meats. It's about safer, not about unable to do.


Now please become more mature, more accurate, and stay on topic.

 

[v]

ok it seems like dandatoenguin is arguing vs everyone else so im gonna step in and say you should collectively find a more contentious aspect of nutrition to discuss

 

[WhiteDMist]

Most meat eaters will argue the case that we HAVE to eat meat to get protein. This isn't the case. You can get protein from spinach, cereal, soy, nuts, seeds, supplement bars, and beans. Plenty of different foods to get protein from which are good for you and you should be eating on a regular basis anyways. Now for the argument for OMEGA-3 we don't need the animal fat that provides OMEGA-3 but the vitamin itself which can be obtained by supplements.

Ok, it's been a while since I've taken Nutrition (former Restaurant Mgmt major turned Business), but there is one major fact that you need to take into account. The human body naturally can produce around half of the different types of amino acids (proteins) that it requires, but the rest must come from food. There are 9 essential proteins that the body must receive from food, or else it will start devouring itself (since our bodies cannot store amino acids like it can with fats and carbohydrates). Meat naturally supplies all 9 amino acids as far as I know, but most any other protein source only supplies a few types. That means that people on vegan/vegetarian diets must have a wide range of non-meat protein-rich foods in order to cover all that individual sources lack. Generally soy proteins have most of the proteins, so that is a good reason for their popularity in such diets. That should be mentioned in the OP.

Sources: Princeton

 

[Mr.E]

We also have height that allows us to see over grass, keen (enough) vision, a decent base running speed, and our thin hair and more efficient sweat glands (more numerous per skin surface than any other mammal) make us one of the most (if not THE most) effective long distance runners in the animal kingdom-- plus the intelligence, tool use, and social / communication abilities... yeah, we're different from any other predator, but that doesn't mean that our ancestors weren't damn effective at it even before they really got the ball rolling on technology.

Oh god, that reminds me of that one documentary where those dudes just like chased a young antelope or whatever for three days straight or some shit until it just tired out and gave the fuck up...

Ah, here we go:

 

[Cresselia~~]

Ok, it's been a while since I've taken Nutrition (former Restaurant Mgmt major turned Business), but there is one major fact that you need to take into account. The human body naturally can produce around half of the different types of amino acids (proteins) that it requires, but the rest must come from food. There are 9 essential proteins that the body must receive from food, or else it will start devouring itself (since our bodies cannot store amino acids like it can with fats and carbohydrates). Meat naturally supplies all 9 amino acids as far as I know, but most any other protein source only supplies a few types. That means that people on vegan/vegetarian diets must have a wide range of non-meat protein-rich foods in order to cover all that individual sources lack. Generally soy proteins have most of the proteins, so that is a good reason for their popularity in such diets. That should be mentioned in the OP.

Sources: Princeton

Add on to that: vegans actually have to take lab produced pills to intake those amino acids, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to obtain those amino acids that are essential.
Vegans I know become vegan for ethical purposes, not because it's "natural".
If it's natural, you don't need to take pills for that.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Though it's true that if you are just cool with eating bugs, you can get all of those proteins there...

Japanese Ground hornet, larvae/pupae/premature adults--Salted and roasted with a splash of Shoyu (soy sauce).

Catching/eating 'em seems to be a pretty popular hobby in eastern Japan. My father in law loves catching 'em, mother in law cooks 'em, and I certainly don't mind munching 'em down with a nice tall glass of Asahi.

taste like peanuts... but meaty. mmm




And if you got REAL balls, you can go after the Japanese giant hornets... the kind that cause several deaths a year and can kill an entire colony of thousands of European honey bees in an hour with a squad of 10...

(Oosuzume-Bachi, Japanese giant hornet sitting on mound of decapitated/poisoned European Honey Bees)

 

[Exclaimer]

I don't really know much about nutrition (trying my best to correct that with nutrition classes), but I think a very interesting topic of discussion would be the general lack of variety in American diets (particularly us southerners, gotta love that meat+potatoes lifestyle). For example, I live mostly on meat, starches, and salads, with maybe a vitamin supplement every other day or so, and I seem to be doing just fine, minus the fact that I'm a lazy computer slob who needs to exercise more. >.>

It seems to me that humans have evolved to survive and thrive off of very little variety, especially in the early days of agriculture through the Middle Ages, when bread fueled the lives of almost every European human being. They could live upwards of 35 years on a diet so much more bland then the present standard, which is pretty impressive. Of course, we have far more variety than that now, but a human can live 70 years easily off of a diet much like mine.

I don't actually know much about this topic, but I'd like to discuss it with you guys and learn something about it. I apologize if my post is filled with crap, since most of it comes off the top of my head and I can't be bothered to research at midnight, but I appreciate you reading it anyways. :D