shamon

I’m asking for what YOU think not what others think. The post was someone else’s position on what we were talking about. I’ve read a lot on the beyondveg site. Oddly enough, a vegetarian who’s primarily against raw food diets runs the site.

The statement says that "Again, meat is the best source of B12, beef liver being a far better source then eggs or dairy products, with salmon and trout coming in behind that." Beef liver isn’t the best source of B12 b/c a serving contains 33 times the amount of B12 that you need. In fact, my posted B12 RDA figures almost prove that humans are at least macrobiotic. A serving of saltwater fish gives you about 100% of the RDA of B12.

How can I be a troll if I started this thread. My point is that if someone goes around telling others that meat is required in their diet b/c of B12 and that beef liver is a “far better” source than fish or dairy or eggs, I HAVE so say something b/c it blatantly wrong. Wrong for all humans. I was talking with brighid anyway.
At least you admit that your food choices are based on feelings. It is refreshing to see someone admit the truth even though others may view it as inferior.

brighid

Some of the physiological evidence that humans are adapted to a diet that includes substantial animal products (fauna; i.e., we are faunivores) is:


Heme iron receptor sites. Our intestines contain receptor sites specifically for the absorption of heme iron, which is found in nutritionally significant quantities only in animal foods. This is strong evidence of evolutionary physiological adaptation to animal foods in the human diet.

B-12 considerations. Humans need vitamin B-12, but all current evidence suggests that plant foods were not a reliable, year-round source during human evolution. Geophagy and coprophagy are not plausible sources, leaving animal foods (including insects) as the sole reliable, plausible source.

Taurine synthesis. Relative efficiency of synthesis: the synthesis of taurine is much less efficient in humans than in herbivorous animals.

Beta-carotene to vitamin A conversion. Relative efficiency of conversion: the conversion of beta-carotene to vitamin A is much less efficient in humans than in herbivorous animals.

Sufficiency and balance of EFAs. Common, staple plant foods generally do not contain the right "balance" of EFAs, and production of EPA, DHA from plant source fats may be inefficient. It's hard to understand why--if humans really are natural vegans--the "optimal" balance of EFAs is apparently so difficult to achieve with plant foods.

Bioavailability issues. Relative efficiency of digestion/bioavailability: Although animal foods are generally easier for any mammal to digest than plant foods for structural reasons (e.g., cell wall considerations), the fact that many staple plant foods contain high levels of factors that inhibit the human digestive process suggests a long evolutionary dependence on animal foods as major nutrient sources. Examples of the relative bioavailability are as follows.

Iron in animal foods is more bioavailable than in plant foods.

Zinc is more bioavailable in animal foods than in plant foods.

Animal protein is digested more efficiently than plant protein.

Analysis of bitter taste thresholds by Glendinning [1994] shows that the human bitter taste threshold is in the same range as faunivores.

Taken individually, many of the above points are equivocal. When considered collectively, however, they strongly point to animal foods having an important role in the human diet during evolution.
Also, two important hypotheses relating diet and evolution were discussed here:


The incidence of hereditary hemochromatosis, a relatively common (in certain populations) "iron overload" disease, may be an example of a partial genetic adaptation that promotes survival in the high-carbohydrate, lower-animal-food diets of agriculture, by increasing iron absorption.

The carnivore-connection hypothesis of Miller and Colagiuri explains the high incidence of NIDDM in former (and only recently Westernized) hunter-gatherer populations as being due to insulin resistance; i.e., their insulin resistance level has not yet begun to adapt to the high-carbohydrate diets of agriculture.

Specific concerns for fruitarians. Additionally, specific hypotheses regarding fruitarianism were presented:

Heightened B-12 risk. Strict fruitarianism might accelerate vitamin B-12 deficiency by decreasing production of gastric acid. This may be a low-risk issue as it is very rare for anyone to strictly follow a fruitarian diet long-term; i.e., "cheating" and binge-eating are common on the diet.

Low zinc and feelings of "euphoria." Zinc deficiency is a plausible potential explanation for the "euphoric" mental feeling reported by some fruitarians (also an explanation for the loss of libido reported by some).

Diabetes-like symptoms. The carnivore-connection hypothesis of Miller and Colagiuri might explain the high incidence of diabetes-like symptoms among fruitarians, and the extremely high failure rate among those who try the diet. It seems plausible, given the predominant picture presented by the anecdotal record, that most people are not genetically adapted to a diet in which (approximately) 75+% of calories come from sugar, a simple carbohydrate that requires insulin for metabolism.

<a href="http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7l.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7l.shtml</a>

shamon

Well, if you strike a cow it will moan in pain. Isn’t this a common sense indicator that a cow experiences pain? This doesn’t exist for fish. They avoid death like all mobile creatures, but they probably don’t feel pain, otherwise there would be an indicator for this. I can’t conclusive prove it, so please don’t ask, but neither can anyone else, it’s just common sense.
I never said the bare minimum requirement. I’m not being ridiculous when I say the NO ONE requires mammals in their diet. NO ONE. Any site that covers nutrition will tell you this.
It’s a slightly different issue than the “unneeded” argument I support. No one would recommend that anyone eat meat (mammalian) raw, not even you. They CAN but you wouldn’t recommend that anyone do it. Let’s be reasonable, I’m not making outlandish claims. No one would recommend that others eat meat raw b/c it’s ridiculous.
Cooking isn’t required for the food in the natural human diet. It can’t be b/c we haven’t been able to consistently make fire long enough for our physiology to change. What we can eat raw is a good rule of thumb as to what we actually require in out diet? Flaws?

brighid

Shamon -

Let's repeat this again: RDA requirments are to prevent deficiencie but are not to ensure functional or biochemical normalcy in the human body! So, a normal, healthy FUNCTIONAL body NEEDS more and an athletic, healthy body requires EVEN MORE!

But hey - if you are only interested in being slightly above deficient - good for you. I, on the other hand want a healthy, athletic body performing at peak functional and biochemical standards.

Brighid

brighid

This is important because it directly implies that brain size is closely linked to the amount of metabolic energy available to sustain it [Milton 1988, Parker 1990].
This point will become central as we proceed. For now it is enough to observe that the amount of energy available to the brain is dependent on how the body's total energy budget has to be allocated between the brain and other energy-intensive organs and systems, particularly the digestive system. Further, how much energy the digestive system requires (and thus how much is left over for the brain and other "expensive" organs) is a function of the kind of diet that a species has developed to handle during its evolution. As we proceed, we will return to the ramifications of this for human diet as it relates to the evolution of the large human brain.
The reality of encephalization--the relatively large human brain--with its correspondingly high intelligence, is readily apparent. The object of current research and debate, however, is the examination of what evolutionary factors have driven the development of increased human encephalization. Such research provides insight into our evolutionary diet, and also reveals why any comparative "proof" that ignores intelligence and the significant impact of brain size on metabolic requirements is logically dubious.

Extensive energy required for brain growth. Parker discusses the life history variables in non-human primates, and then examines how life history events relate to large brain size, gestation period, maturity at birth, growth rates and milk consumption, weaning and birth intervals, age of puberty, and other events. The motivation for studying such events is that the brain is the "pacemaker of the human life cycle" [Parker 1990, p. 144], and the slow pace of most human life history events reflects the extensive energy required for brain growth and maintenance.
Foley and Lee [1991] analyze the evolutionary pattern of encephalization with respect to foraging and dietary strategies. They clearly state the difficulty of separating cause and effect in this regard; from Foley and Lee [1991, p. 223]
In considering, for example, the development of human foraging strategies, increased returns for foraging effort and food processing may be an important prerequisite for encephalization, and in turn a large brain is necessary to organize human foraging behaviour.
Dietary quality is correlated with brain size. Foley and Lee first consider brain size vs. primate feeding strategies, and note that folivorous diets (leaves) are correlated with smaller brains, while fruit and animal foods (insects, meat) are correlated with larger brains. The energetic costs, both daily and cumulative, of brains in humans and chimps, over the first 1-5 years of life are then compared. They note [Foley and Lee 1991, p. 226]:
Overall the energetic costs of brain maintenance for modern humans are about three times those of a chimpanzee. Growth costs will also be commensurately larger.
Then they consider encephalization and delayed maturation in humans (compared to apes), and conclude, based on an analysis of brain growth, that the high energy costs of brain development are responsible for the delay in maturation.
Dietary shift beginning with Homo. Finally, they consider the dietary shifts that are found in the fossil record with the advent of humans (genus Homo), remarking that [Foley and Lee 1991, p. 229]:
The recent debate over the importance of meat-eating in human evolution has focused closely on the means of acquirement... but rather less on the quantities involved...
In considering the evolution of human carnivory it may be that a level of 10-20% of nutritional intake may be sufficient to have major evolutionary consequences...
Meat-eating, it may be argued, represents an expansion of resource breadth beyond that found in non-human primates...
Homo, with its associated encephalization, may have been the product of the selection for individuals capable of exploiting these energy- and protein-rich resources as the habitats expanded (Foley 1987a).
The last sentence in the preceding quote is provocative indeed--it suggests that we, and our large brains, may be the evolutionary result of selection that specifically favored meat-eating and a high-protein diet, i.e., a faunivorous diet.

Negative evidence suggesting DHA/EPA-synthesizing enzymes may be inadequate for complete nutrition. Although the issue of whether alpha-linolenic acid is essential for humans is still controversial, it is clear that DHA, which can be produced by converting alpha-linolenic acid, is essential in infants (mother's milk contains ready-made DHA). Although the human body will synthesize such long-chain fatty acids from precursors in the diet when not directly available, the rates of synthesis generally do not support the levels obtained when they are gotten directly in the diet. This is particularly critical in infancy, as human milk contains preformed DHA and other long-chain essential fatty acids, while plant-food-based formulas do not (unless they have been supplemented).

· EFA levels in human milk. Sanders and Reddy [1992] compared the levels of EFAs in breast milk from women who followed vegan, vegetarian, and standard Western diets (the latter serving as control group). Levels of DHA were found to be lowest in the milk from vegan mothers (37.8% of control group level), highest in the standard diet, with (lacto-)vegetarians in the middle (81% of control group level). The study authors note [Sanders and Reddy 1992, p. S71]:
The proportion of DHA in erythrocyte total lipids of infants breast-fed by vegans was 1.9% compared with 3.7% in infants fed a [cow's] milk formula containing butterfat as the sole source of fat and 6.2% in infants breast-fed by omnivores [standard Western diet] at 14 weeks postpartum.
·
o Studies that found no changes in DHA levels from flaxseed oil supplementation: Dyerberg et al. [1980], Singer et al. [1986], Kelley et al. [1993], Cunnane et al. [1995], Mantzioris et al. [1994], Layne et al. [1996].
o Studies that reported DHA decreased with flaxseed oil supplementation: Sanders and Roshanai [1983], Allman et al. [1995].
o Studies that reported DHA increased with flaxseed oil supplementation: Kestin et al. [1990], and Sanders and Younger [1981]. Note that the latter study found an increase in DHA for vegan subjects only, in plasma glycerides, but not in platelets (they found no differences in DHA in the non-vegan control group).
The weight of the studies above suggest that flaxseed oil does not provide efficient support for DHA synthesis.

The scientific evidence available to date is somewhat unclear. Synthesis of EPA and DHA (from plant source oils) may be adequate in some individual adults; whether that is true for the general (adult) population is unclear. The apparent difficulty in getting a favorable fatty acid "balance" on a vegan diet; the sporadic efficiency of conversion of LNA to EPA/DHA; and the recent evidence of decreasing human brain size appear to support the idea that humans have adapted to diets that include preformed EPA/DHA (i.e., animal foods). Beyond this, however, the real question is to what degree humans may be dependent on obtaining these preformed n-3 fatty acids from the diet not simply to prevent potential deficiency but for optimal functioning. Conclusions are at this point equivocal and more research is needed in this area.
...........................


ANd furthermore you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence that people DON'T need to eat meat and I have provide much to the contrary! To state that no one needs to eat meat is just plain stupid and a bunch of unsubstantiated bull shit.

Brighid

shamon

Your B12 RDA is 33 times the normal amount? That’s quite athletic. You did say that you eat what you feel is best for you, and that beef liver is the best source for B12. Therefore, you advocate eating beef liver as the best source of B12 even though ONE serving gives you 33 times the RDA.

Disagree?

shamon

This does not require killing an animal. Consuming animal products doesn’t either.

I understand that everyone doesn’t have access to plant sources or non-meat sources. I’m not talking about primitive humans, humans in 3rd world countries, etc. I’m talking about you and you are none of these things. YOU don’t have to eat meat.

We’re not herbivorous. This makes perfect sense to me also.

We’re not herbivorous. This makes perfect sense to me also.

I’ll have to look more into this.

More available is not unavailable. All this proves is that mammals that eat plants with a nutrient have more of that nutrient b/c they eat it all day. Meat contains too much iron.

More available is not unavailable. All this proves is that mammals that eat plants with a nutrient have more of that nutrient b/c they eat it all day. Zinc can be gotten perfectly well without killing an animal.

I’ll have to look into this, I’ve never heard of this. Besides this doesn’t prove anything about our diet other than what it states.

Copy/pasting from the beyondveg site again. Here’s a page with a rebuttal to all of beyondveg’s claims - <a href="http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm" target="_blank">http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm</a>

I’m still interested in what YOU think though. Animal foods HAVE played an important role in our evolution. I never said anything contrary to this. Vegetarianism supports this also.

Meat provides too much iron. Meat has no carbohydrates so the above can’t be related to meat eating. Lower-animal-food diet could be dairy – it doesn’t really say.

[quote]The carnivore-connection hypothesis of Miller and Colagiuri explains the high incidence of NIDDM in former (and only recently Westernized) hunter-gatherer populations as being due to insulin resistance; i.e., their insulin resistance level has not yet begun to adapt to the high-carbohydrate diets of agriculture.

I’m not a fruitarian. The beyondveg site is written by a VEGETARIAN that is against raw food diets. I agree with the site so copying/pasting content from there isn’t doing anyone any good. A link will suffice.

shamon

I cannot reply to copy/pasted content from other websites. A summary of their findings, in YOUR own words, and a link will suffice. I’m interested in what YOU think. Please stop pasting content from other websites when a link is perfectly adequate.

I have provided un-biased information (no beyondveg copying or veggieworld content). Any site that covers basic nutrition and any site that covers the nutritional components of common foods will prove that humans don’t require meat in their diet. Here’s a site from the government that proves it. Any site will do as long as it doesn’t have an agenda and provide adequate information about nutrition and the nutritional components of food.
<a href="http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/vitb12.html" target="_blank">http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/vitb12.html</a>

What do humans get from meat that they MUST get from meat? There isn’t a reputable site in the world that could list the nutritional components of food and make the claim that we must eat meat to get essential nutrients b/c plenty of non-meat foods have the same nutrients. Flaws? And please, YOUR thoughts.

brighid

Shamon - I HAVE given you my own thoughts, at nauseum! You certain CAN reply to those things posted, you simply choose not to.



I have certainly had enough of banging my head up against the wall with you, therefore because this is taking up WAY too much of my valuable time AND there seems to be no progress being made I am going to take a break from all of this.

And I am not sure where I could possibly get any less biased information then from a vegetarian discussing the finer points of nutrition and meat eating. Futhermore - don't use ad hominems. The information contained in that site is one of the few I have found NOT to have an agenda. I mean, a vegetarian extoling the benefits of eating meat... sheesh! Now, if you would like to discuss any of the data or prove it wrong - go right ahead.

Suddenly I feel like I have been talking with a Jebus Lover all day... ahhh... must get away from the mind of all cult followers .... must get away .... you are sucking the life right out of my brain .... ahhhhhhhh..... Jesus is God... fish ... not MEAT... danger Will Robinson ... hypocrite ... hypocrite!

Brighid

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

shamon

Where did I use ad hominem attacks? Where specifically did I use them? I need to know seriously b/c I don’t use ad hominem attacks or name-calling and I may have accidentally done this. If I have I sincerely apologize but I need to know where it was so that it won’t happen again.

Examples of this and name calling would be “Jebus Lover” or “cult followers”. I hope I said none of this to you.

Go to any site that lists nutritional components and tell me ONE MEAT that provides something you cannot get from a vegetarian diet. ONE MEAT? Is that too much to ask? I’m just asking for ONE MEAT – this will conclusively prove that humans must have meat in their diet. Just one meat that provides something a vegetarian diet cannot – just one. We can end this thread right now if you can do this one thing. Just type the name of the meat and provide a link to your source and it’ll be done. Just one is all I ask.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>