Do humans require meat?

This from the Mayo Clinic web site

Red meat — no longer bad for us?
By Jennifer Nelson, M.S., R.D. and Katherine Zeratsky, R.D.14 comments postedRead commentsPost a commentNew research is casting doubt on the idea that red meat increases your risk of heart disease.

Researchers at Harvard pooled data from 20 studies to see if different types of red meat — unprocessed versus processed — had different effects on the risk of heart disease, diabetes and stroke. Unprocessed red meat was defined as beef, hamburger, pork, lamb or game. Processed meat included bacon, salami, sausage and luncheon meats — any type of meat preserved by smoking, curing, salting or addition of preservatives.

Data on stroke were too limited for the researchers to draw firm conclusions, but here's what they found regarding heart disease and diabetes:

Red meat. About 100 grams (roughly the size of a deck of cards) a day was not associated with a higher risk for heart disease and only a slightly higher (but not statistically significant) risk for diabetes.Processed red meat. About 50 grams (two-thirds the size of a deck of cards) a day was associated with a 42 percent higher risk for heart disease and a 19 percent higher risk for diabetes.Total red meat. A daily total of 100 grams of processed and unprocessed red meat was not associated with risk for heart disease. However, it was associated with a 12 percent higher risk for diabetes.What is it about processed red meat that seems to increase disease risk? Surprisingly, processed meat has about the same amount of saturated fat as unprocessed red meat — and actually contains less cholesterol and iron. Could it be other ingredients such as sodium? On average, processed meat has about 622 milligrams of sodium in about 2 ounces, while unprocessed meat has 155 milligrams. Researchers hypothesized that salt's effect on blood pressure weakens vessels. What about nitrates added to processed meats? Nitrate preservatives may also damage vessels, reduce insulin secretion and impair control of blood glucose — which may increase risk for heart disease and diabetes.

Should you run out and order a slab of beef? No. For one thing, the studies reviewed had a number of limitations. Additional randomized, controlled studies will be needed to confirm the findings. Keep in mind too that the serving sizes used were quite small — larger servings may have different effects.

I plan to stick with my mostly plant-based diet and keep red meat as an occasional indulgence. And I'll definitely stick to lighter lunch fare in place of subs loaded with processed meat.

"MayoClinic.com,"

meat is used in most of the world as a "Flavoring".
I believe in what Julia Child always said
"We shouldnt be afraid of our food, and if you need a reason to eat something, then you are missing the whole point of food enjoyment"

I eat steak every chance I get. On the rare side.

Two ideas which relate to the question...

1. You don't need to believe in evolution to comprehend that Elaine Morgan is almost certainly correct in thinking that modern humans originally lived in water, we share a hundred or more traits with the aquatic mammals. That most likely says that the original human diet was some combination of shellfish and fruit and when humans moved back onto land, they had to substitute other kinds of meat for shellfish and fish.

2. Humans do not have the body girth which you'd associate with herbivores and generally cannnot eat enough veggies to prosper from it. Even neanderthal remains show the rounded rib cage and torso which we lack and you can see the difference:

Human obviously don't need meat, as billions of people, and many cultures have existed over time with little to no meat in their diet.

It's really not hard to combine foods to get complete protein.

In fact, in this country (the U.S.) it's very possible to get a glut of protein, which is hard on various organs of the body.

I am a homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens are omnivores.

Joe(I am an omnivore.)Nation

gunga believes that we arose from the water like a big shad. He s ays, by way of one of the people he believes< that humans share features with aquatic mammals.
We are hominimns, arisen from hominids and Pongids. The common ancestor was more a vegetarian and the early style rib cage of sahelensis shows that they had a big gut. A big gut is typical of hominids that rely on plant material for nutrient. The gut lapilli are stretched out so as to enable the intestines to suck out all the nutrient it can from the relatively low food value of plants. Look at a gorilla its a land dwelling herbivore and has a gut like President Taft. Chimps are omnivores and are quite ripped. We share almost all of the chimps DNa, and where we dont, weve actually subducted 2 of their chromosomes and fused em into 1.

Chimps will eat other monkeys and bush meat including insects and some pretty vile stuff that crawls and creeps.
We are like chimps, certainly we aint like a manatee or a porpoise, and we arent like a gorilla or an orangutan.

what aboot penguins. could we be descended from them?

they're awfully snazzy dressers...

I wish it was baboons. Think what a wonderful red ass we could have.

That's just his way of dealing with his webbed toes.

That whole aquatic ape thing came out of "The Naked Ape"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape_%28book%29 didn't it? They were trying to figure out why we, or our ancestors, stood up. Morris figured if our predecessors spend a lot of time wading in the lakes, rivers and oceans going after shellfish and the like, we would develop better standing up posture.
Busting open clams gave us tools....blah, blah.
A lot of that book is bogus.

Born to run http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us (pardon me, if I am mentioning non-scholarly books on this subject, I am both a non-scholar and a heavily interested reader.) has an interesting take. The author thinks we traded four footed motion for two -footed because it allowed us to run, not necessarily faster, but for longer periods of time, allowing us to run our prey to exhaustion. That allowed us large bits of protein on the hoof, led to co-operative hunting, planning skills, maybe language [it's coming your way, Oegi!!] and, because we were upright, bigger lungs and hearts.

That worked really well to get us out on the grass plains.
~It's strikes me as ironic that present day groups of hunter/gatherers eat more meat (as well as lots of veggies and roots) than the civilizations in Ur and Egypt of 4000 BCE did. They subsisted on a lot of bread and beer with just some fowl and the occasional pork/goat/mutton chop.

~
We are the only group of omnivores who, because of religious dicta or taboo, voluntarily eschews meat.

Joe(did that while I was a hippie/yoga student--hated every minute of it)Nation

Desmond Morris had ideas of the development of human characteristics from apes but he didnt say that we evolved from water dwelling mammals like Mprgan did. Morris work was kinda out there too and Morgan, who is a fiction writer with no credentials in anything but ENglish literature.
She is full of **** and didnt present any decent evidence because I think shes afraid that she may kill her golden goose.(She did hawk a lot of her work to TV) Much "junk science" doesnt present data or evidence, not only because there is none but also because any pretenses of authenticity would be shot to pieces and the authors would lose their meal tickets. Look at von Deniken and his Chariots of the Gods? he never got into it with anyone of reputation .

....
...Chariots of the Gods fir quite well my twelve years old imagination, so its not all bad...it deserves a meal ticket for that particular purpose...its entertainment for children and goes well together with the famous five and such like ! Good summer reading under some orange tree when you are twelve I guess...

It is in the human genome, specifically frugivorous nutrition for carbohydrates.

Such foods do not require culture, and are readily deconstructed by our biological apparatus, furthermore the kilo caloric restrictions of a higher non digestible carbohydrate ratio (ie fibre).

Grains lack fibre, and 'empty kilo caloric' carbohydrates may have NO fibre, this results significant biomass increase of our species, several hundred EXTRA kilo calories per human, daily.

This phenomnamay be a result of 'obesity', and even occurs to 'domesticated' organisms, that being cultural intervention.

I am surprised, farmerman, specifically this quote:
We shouldnt be afraid of our food, and if you need a reason to eat something, then you are missing the whole point of food enjoyment.

Vegatables may not satisfy your conditions of "flavouring", it is uncertain for now, however it is suggested that vegatables do release toxic substances when heated, hence the 'lack of taste', perhaps.

My personal experience suggests that vegatables, and most certainly fruit do have a better taste than meat or processed carbohydrates/fats, or are you suggesting that sodium and glucose manipulation of food industry sellers is "the point" of nutrition?

You are appealing to normatives, furthermore you continue to appeal to the 'creationist' nomenclature, where is your genetic basis for the human diet?

Worst of all, I must subject myself to a genetic fallacy to suggest this.

Let us exclude culture, contemporary environmental consequenses for a sustaining cultural basis is extrinsic, I desire a natural scientific arguement.

It has been suggested that starvation exhibits neuro adaptative phenomena.

Simple example:
You are stranded in the sea for 90 days, during this phase you may only have access to the seawater organisms.
Initially, the captured seawater organisms do appear to be "flavouring", perhaps the most that will be consumed is the outer tissue (minus the skin), however after three weeks symptoms of malnutrition are observable.
Neurology will eventually overide this 'irrational' behaviour, kilo caloric restrictions may not even be necessary, the eyes, skin and organs will appear "flavouring", or more specifically nutritious in this case.

Hebivore =/= eat enough veggies

The spectrum is not restricted to vegatables.

Also, what are you suggesting, does bone anatomy entirly determine the human diet?

Diseases and cooking may be correlated, as well as the unecessary consumption of saturated fatty acid chains, they are not essential.

It has been suggested that 'death begins in the colon', meaning that antigens are ultimately the consequence of general physiological decline.

Is this "omnivore" interpretation necessarily true?

This is deconstructed to a herbivore and carnivore continuum, as "omnivore" it remains as a fuzzy concept, just as 'cladistics', the human diet must be operationalised, biochemical, anatomical, hence physiological definition may be measured.

Also, the chimpanzee arguement is intriguing, however is cannibalism necessarily dietry, there may be social implications.

Can humans hunt other organisms, such as boar or dog with their biological apparatus, excluding artifacts/tools?

Perhaps we are in fact insectivores and scavengers, the macro nutritionl requirements for protein is open to interpretation, however contemporary science has suggested this to be a low ratio.

The health Benefits of Red Meat
http://www.eatthefatoftheland.com/red-meat.html

Red meat is a great protein source. One hundred grams (slightly less than a quarter of a pound) of raw red muscle meat contains 20-25 grams of protein. One hundred grams of cooked red meat contains 28-36 grams of protein. During cooking the water content decreases and nutrients become more concentrated. Protein from meat provides all essential amino acids (lysine, threonine, methionine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, leucine, isoleucine, valine) and has no limiting amino acids. The protein is highly digestible.



Red meat is an excellent source of B vitamins. One hundred grams of red meat provides over two thirds of the daily requirement of vitamin B-12, and up to 25% RDI of riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6 and pantothenic acid. Liver is an excellent source of vitamin A and folate.



Beef and lamb meat are among the richest sources of iron and zinc. One hundred grams of red meat provide at least 25% of daily adult requirements of these two minerals. The iron in meat is mostly haem-iron which is well absorbed. Furthermore, the absorption of zinc from a diet high in animal protein is greater than from plant foods. Red meats are also good sources of selenium. One hundred grams provide 20% RDI of selenium. Red meats contain several endogenous antioxidants such as: ubiquinone, glutathione, lipoic acid , spermine, carnosine and anserine. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) has antioxidant and immunomodulatory properties. It is mostly present in the fat component of red meat.



According to the conventional wisdom, the consumption of red meat should be severely limited due to its saturated fat content. Fifty-one percent of the fat in red meat is monounsaturated, of which 90 percent is oleic acid. This is the very same monounsaturated fat found in olive oil. Monounsaturated fats both lower LDL cholesterol and raise HDL cholesterol. Saturated fat constitutes 45 percent of the total fat in red meat. However, a third of that is stearic acid, which increases HDL cholesterol while having no effect on LDL. The remaining 4 percent of the fat is polyunsaturated, which lowers LDL but has no effect on HDL. Thus 70 percent of the fat content of red meat will improve the relative levels of LDL and HDL. The remaining 30 percent will raise LDL cholesterol but will also raise HDL cholesterol and will have an insignificant effect on the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL.



Do not trim off the fat from your steaks and chops. A low-carb dietary that is high in protein and low in fat will cause illness. The following is a description given by Stefansson on page 69 of the Fat of the Land at the beginning of his year on an all-meat diet under medical supervision at Bellevue Hospital. "The chief purpose of placing me abruptly on exclusively lean was that there would be a sharp contrast with Anderson, who was going to be on a normal meat diet, consisting of such proportions of lean and fat as his own taste determined. In the Arctic we had become ill during the second or third fatless week. I now became ill on the second day. The time difference between Bellevue and the Arctic was due no doubt mainly to the existence of a little fat, here and there, in our northern caribou—we had eaten the tissue from behind the eyes, we had broken the bones for marrow, and in doing everything we could to get fat we had evidently secured more than we realised. At Bellevue the meat, carefully scrutinised, was as lean as such muscle tissue well can be. Then, in the Arctic we had eaten tendons and other indigestible matter, we had chewed the soft ends of bones, getting a deal of bulk that way when we were trying to secure fat. What we ate at Bellevue contained no bulk material of this kind, so that my stomach could be compelled to hold a much larger amount of lean. Moreover, I had in New York a much larger stomach than in the Arctic: there it had been constricted in accord with the small bulk of a lean-fat diet; here in 'civilisation ' it had been expanded through the needs of a bulky mixed diet. The symptoms brought on at Bellevue by an incomplete meat diet (this ration of lean without fat) were exactly the same as in the Arctic, except that they came on faster, diarrhea and a feeling of general baffling discomfort. Up North the Eskimos and I had been cured immediately when we got some fat. Dr. DuBois now cured me the same way, by giving me fat sirloin steaks, brains fried in bacon fat, and things of that sort. In two or three days I was all right, but I had lost considerable weight."

The way to achieve success on a low-carbohydrate program is to replace carbohydrates with fat. Humans cannot live on protein alone. In some Central American states, feeding political opponents only lean meat was an “elegant” way of getting rid of them. Diarrhea develops and death soon follows within a few months.