15
   

Do humans require meat?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 05:37 pm
@Setanta,
Well that's cheating, Set. Virtually anything is acceptable with "lots of garlic."
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2012 10:39 pm
@JLNobody,
I rarely eat red meat. Once in a while a celebratory filet mignon, more rarely but with equal passion chopped liver with mayonaise on rye. But usually chicken, turkey or fish.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 05:27 am
@JLNobody,
That pretty well describes me. I just cannot digest beef, unless its ground as in a cheesebuggy or a meatloaf. Of course, in each and every case, one wants lots and lots of garlic . . .

The author here hasn't shown up in quite a while . . . i wonder if he/she/it grew embarrassed about flogging the vegan TVP . . .
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 06:08 am
@Setanta,
Apropos of that, the flogging of the vegan protein product:

Veggie protein meaty looking things are one of the many things I do not fully understand about vegetarianism and vegetarians in general. In the grocery store, I see for sale all-vegetable burgers, all-vegetable sausages, even something that looks like a chopped pieces of chicken but made entirely of tofu.

Why, I've asked my vegetarian friends, would you want to eat something that looks like something you profess you wouldn't want to eat? It's as if I was opposed to eating fish, but took the time and effort to whiten a nice piece of pork until it looked just like a piece of halibut. Wha?

Wouldn't it make more sense, and be more appealing to the vegetarians, if the all-veggie protein, instead of being made to look like sausages, was squeezed out in the form of potatoes or slices of squash?

Joe(Maybe a nice rutabaga)Nation
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 06:13 am
@Setanta,
hes told us all he can about his superior life choice and se must gape at his aura and marvel. Meanwhile Ill have a nutha piece a bacon if you dont mind.


HEY, I got that Cutright book as a paperback facsimile print by U of Nebraska in 2003. It cost me all of 3.98 (mailing included). Got it through ABE's Booksellers. Eazy peezy.
I spent the last three nights (exclusively) reading it. It was a long read because theres so much actual detail. I loved the actual descriptions of the geography and the species they "whacked". NOW, when I get done with some projects , Ive gotta go down to the Philosophical Society of Philly to get a peek at the original journals. I think I can put together a scholarly reason as I get farther into my own work to compre their descriptions of landforms. I got a kick out of their spelling. I felt right at home. Thanks for the tip , it was enjoyable AND informative
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 06:18 am
@Joe Nation,
I agree entirely, but the prevelance of TVP (textured vegetable protein) is more insidious. Many years ago i had to review contracts for a unit of a university (an environmental center) which included contracts for the food service. One of the more exciting tasks was reading every specification to see if it included language on TVP. If you don't specify on meat products, suppliers had the right to provide a product which was up to 40% TVP. After the bids were let, every year, i'd get a string of telephone calls which would go something like this: "This is Jones at Jones' Meat Packing . . . hey, you must be crazy, i can't possibly provide 4800 lbs. of ground beef with no more than 10% TVP--hell we always sold it at 40% until you came along (a flat lie--i had 45 years worth of contract records), but i think i could do this at 20% TVP.

"You can read--the specs are no more than 10% TVP. I'm sure Smith of Smith Meat Packing can help me out.

"Hey . . . don't try to push me around . . . hey . . . i gotta 'nother call, i'll get back to you this afternoon

"This is Smith at Smith Meat Packing . . . hey, you must be crazy . . .

Same story every year. I used to wonder just how many thousands of tons of TVP was sold to unsuspecting or just plain stupid people in procurement around the country who were clueless.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2012 06:19 am
@farmerman,
Great book, ain't it . . . i really loved that . . . now i wish i had a copy to reread . . . sorry you had to shell out the big bucks on it . . .
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 07:47 pm
@Setanta,
How should a "commercial source" ought to be?

The graph is of empirical facts, that is the amino acid profile of the suggested foods, however you do state:
Quote:
Sunwarrior is a non soy, raw whole grain


Furthermore, "whole grain" is a false attribution, which is practiced by all producers that appeal to this fuzzy definition.

Simply, "whole grain" =/= whole food

I would not personally recommend any 'shake', post exercise, I would recommend RAW food containing biochemical agents, grains (proteins in this case) require processing for digestion, therefore are not RAW.

While it does amino acids that is more compatible to milk than whey protein, it remains allergenic, just as milk, or specifically hypo-allergenic in this case.

All processed nutrition is of averse effects, being inflammatory.

Did I not already state that it has been suggested that 'death begins in the colon', the correlation between senescence and digestion, toxicologically?

My personal 'shake' practices followed as whey, isolated whey, hydrolised whey, to sun warrior protein, which was in fact recommended by my coach.

The ONLY 'advantages' whey protein has to sun warrior is that it is more readily digestible and may cost lower, that is all, this is why I personally used whey, though the 'window of oppurtunity' objective is falicious, being that the conditions are pressuposed, catabolism must be reversed, therefore the 'window of oppurtuniy' conditions must be satisfied as soon as possible.

As for the "peddling", this graph is of cultural refutation to edgarblythe, meaning in this case, vaganism is a culturally sustainable nutrition, however this is not the objective of the topic.

These supplements are for convenience, yet the sun warrior is more nutrtious, whilst no fortified micronutrition.

There are nutritional implications to processing, pasteurisation as an example:
http://www.realmilk.com/whichchoose.html

I do hope this clarifies.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 08:17 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Genetic dispositions don't mean much to me, and i think it is correct to say that they follow rather than lead evolutionary change...Early modern man needed to store fat in order to survive winter once they had moved into termperate zone climates, and especially when they began to live on the periglacial steppes.


Yes, I agree.

Quote:
It is far more efficient to store fat by eating fatty meats than it is to eat non-game sources of food and convert them to fat.


Humans require essential fatty acids, this is of a vegatation source (i.e seeds and nuts), though an animal carrion may also have this.

If you are referring to being energy efficient, my arguement also applies to this.

Is efficiency a valid arguement?

The energy requirements of organsisms are variable.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that humans have the biological aparatus for hunting, perhaps artifacts utilised for hunting/trapping, yet has this culture always been the case?

Quote:
Our ancestors had strong impulses to eat fats and sugars, and to store fats and sugars outside the body to sustain them over the winter.


I am not convinced, this appears to be empathetic, conditioned by culture perhaps?

Did you view my example of the sea, it is an example of self preservation?

This adaptative phenomena follows, just as a adrenaline released by fear, this secretion is after being subjected to the stimulus.

When humans are subjected to metabolic adaptation, how is this "strong impulses" defined?

Have you personally fasted?

I fast every two days for 24 hours, it is intermitted practices, originally being distressful for the internal system, however this is no longer the case.

Also, are you referring to inside the body?

Or, are you referring to storage of carrion and fruits?

Quote:
The fats could almost be said to have been more important than the protein.


What is this "more important" interpretation?

There are essential requirements for protein and lipids.

If this is a hypothetical suggestion, such as the isolated food diet that will entail the highest survival duration, it may be uncertain.

Quote:
There is such a thing as protein starvation, which has been recorded in ships at sea on long voyages and long marches of armies which herded their own livestock.


Essentail amino acids are necessary to sustain physiology, intriguingly there is data that suggests hypertrophy is possible on near negligible protein consumption, there is the homeodynamics of energy in a biological system.

However, I already stated that essential amino acids are required.

Let us assume consumption PRIOR to neolithic intervention (i.e agriculture), meaning no grain or legume consumption.

Quote:
I have heard, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of a claim that we have a genetic disposition to want fats and sugars, and to prefer to get them from meats and fruits.


Testimonies that are "recorded" are assumed to be consistent, unless refuted.

This applies to all scientific recordings, faith in 'rationality', cognitive bias is suggested to be evolutionary phenomena.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 08:22 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
The author here hasn't shown up in quite a while . . . i wonder if he/she/it grew embarrassed about flogging the vegan TVP . . .

I do not know how to respond to abductive conclusions.

Fuzzy/synthetic/instrumental concepts.

Social science suggests that my neurotype has no empathy, yet I most certainly DO acknowledge this phenomena, perhaps even more, however what does it mean to respond by empathy, there dord not appear to be truth reliability

Should I respond by 'pejoration'?
Why should I respond by 'pejoration'?
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 08:25 pm
To clarify:
-I am not a vegan.
-I am arguing for veganism as a sustainable nutritional practice, naturally.
-My diet attempts to practice the paleolithic concept.
-I am arguing against the necessity for animal (kingdom) protein, more so mammal protein, this is in fact refuting my personal nutrition.
-These arguements attempt to validate the contemporary scientific reliability of paleolithic nutrition, culture is excluded, no fire, hence no grains or cooked meat.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 08:29 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
What does this graphic show us? Is it that the various amino acids in several foods are different? I mean glutamic acid is glutamic acid. I dont see it compparing proteins v amino acids.

The Y axis doesnt make sense specifically.


The y axis: milligrams of amino acids/100 grams of protein.
For clarification, the y axis spectrum consists of 0-3.5 grams to illustrate amino acid density, per 100 grams of protein, of each colour coded protein on the graph.

The x axis: amino acids.
For clarfication, generally amino acids that cannot be synthesised by humans.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2012 10:06 pm
@Anomie,
Quote:
For clarfication, generally amino acids that cannot be synthesised by humans.
I didnt go over them all , I couldnt size the x axis terms but I saw enough that all of the amino acides listed were synthesized within DNA or RNA . Eg glutamic acid is built by 2 groups of 3 nucleotides. GAA and GAC. Aspartic acid is built from 2 groups of three nucleotides. GAC and GAU. all the ones with U (uracil) are in RNA and those with Thymine are in DNA. Both are used and synthesized within he human genome.

Is the only purpose of the graph to sell the "Sun Warrior" product?? If thats the case then the only amino acids that are higher in SUn Warrior are those that are groups of nucleotidal components of messenger RNA.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:17 am
@Anomie,
Your babblespeak does not hide that the only "evidence" you have presented is a questionable graph from a commmercial source which is flogging TVP. In your subsequent post, you claim that your "diet attempts to practice the paleolithic concept." Leaving aside for a moment that "the paleolithic concept" is not a recognized scientific term--in your subsequent bulleted points you reject animal protein sources and the use of fire for cooking. What the **** is paleolithic about that?

Basically, you're just making **** up as you go along, Paleolithic humans used animal protein sources and they used fire. Very likely, grains were no very large part of their diet as they only had them by gathering--agriculture being thousands of years in their future. So there is nothing in the least paleolithic about the silly story you're constructing here.

It's bad enough that you (apparently) cannot construct coherent sentences in plain English to state your meaning. While you practice your babblespeak, however, you make claims which you have not supported and which are flat contradicted by the terms you use. The fact that you might be willing to acknowledge that contradiction does not alter that what you offer is meaningless bullshit.

Nothing obliges you to eat meat, and i don't care if you do or you don't. Nothing obliges anyone here to stop eating meat, and certainly not on the basis of your floridly overwritten line of crap, for which you provide no realistic justification.
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:21 am
@Setanta,
You have been subjected to many logical fallacies, this deviation has NO truth reliability, I may simply argue this relativity of emotional appeal, that is all you have argued in this thread, being no factual statements and a manipulation of English Prime context in an attempt to sustain the inconsistencies of these fallacies.

Quote:
Your babblespeak does not hide that the only "evidence" you have presented is a questionable graph from a commmercial source which is flogging TVP. In your subsequent post, you claim that your "diet attempts to practice the paleolithic concept.


Define "evidence"?
What do you mean by "questionable", when are the conditions of a "commercial source" satisfied, SHOULD I argue relativism, being that your fuzzy concepts enable this to be so?

Quote:
Leaving aside for a moment that "the paleolithic concept" is not a recognized scientific term--in your subsequent bulleted points you reject animal protein sources and the use of fire for cooking. What the **** is paleolithic about that?


Can you state the required conditions and elaborate "not a recognised scientific term"?

Where have YOU satisfied these necessary conditions?

As for "what the ****", yes, I am eliminating CULTURE, I desire to know the human diet.

genetic code =/= cultural phenomena

Humans may consume grains, by culture.

In terms of animal protein, are you willing to agree that humans may consume it raw?

Quote:
Basically, you're just making **** up as you go along, Paleolithic humans used animal protein sources and they used fire.


How do you KNOW this?

Quote:
Very likely, grains were no very large part of their diet as they only had them by gathering--agriculture being thousands of years in their future.


How do you KNOW this?

Also, what do you mean by "very likely", how is this measured?

Quote:
So there is nothing in the least paleolithic about the silly story you're constructing here.


Does science use these 'pejorative' predicates?

I use 'pejorative', being that there is no logical basis for silly, it is non cognitive, just as 'boo, you are wrong'.

You appeal to emotion.

Quote:
It's bad enough that you (apparently) cannot construct coherent sentences in plain English to state your meaning.


Is this a valid arguement, you have onlyONE post that has satisfied the topic, though I did disagree with several of arguements, and this is how you clarify.

Quote:
While you practice your babblespeak, however, you make claims which you have not supported and which are flat contradicted by the terms you use. The fact that you might be willing to acknowledge that contradiction does not alter that what you offer is meaningless bullshit.


Are you referring to the fact that I consume meat, yet I question if it valid?

Relatively, your arguement itself is a contradiction.

Is science open to falsification?

This open for arguementation.

Quote:
Nothing obliges you to eat meat, and i don't care if you do or you don't. Nothing obliges anyone here to stop eating meat, and certainly not on the basis of your floridly overwritten line of crap, for which you provide no realistic justification.


So you ARE agreeing that meat is NOT necessary?

Culturally, this appears to be the case, however I desire to know if the 'cave man' consumed animal protein PRIOR to cultural phenomena, I would argue that it is a specific enviroment consequence for a sustaining cultural basis (i.e fire and grain), if there was no fire and grains, how did civilisation exist?

I not certain what is "realistic justification", can you define this?

However, if you continue to assert this non operational language, there is nothing to argue, simply your circular repetition.

What do I want know?

Why do you believe science suggests humans to be consumers of animal protein, naturally.

As suggested, I desire scientific reasoning, a positive analysis, no normatives appeals.
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:39 am
Dietary specialisation appears to be self refuting.

How does dietary morphology/physiology evolve?

How is a frugivore consistent with a fruitarian?

How is a canivore consistent with a faunivore?

Conditions must be defined, or are they cognitively synonymous?

Morphologically, primates appear to be null of carnivorous traits, be it the gastrointestines, dentistry, limbs..ect.

Carnivours digest protein faster, hence reducing pathogens, whilst have increased hydrocloric concetrations, over 10 times of humans, just as humans digest carbohydrates.

Then there are the implications of protein quantity, as an example, what is the optimal macro nutrient ratio of protein, excluding extraneous variables, is a large mammal excessive quantity of protein, did humans hunt in large groups, or smaller mammals, perhaps insects (class), or did humans simply gather?

Humans appear to be 'oppurtunists', regions vary, dietary conditions may also vary, there must be selection pressure, how would/did digestive morphology/physiology evolve?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:41 am
There are some obvious ways we can tell what hominims way far back ate. Tooth wear analysis, isotopic examination of tooth structure, and chemical, genetic, and microscopic examination of organic remains found around hearths and at occupation sites give us a great deal of information about what people have eaten.

There probably never have been humans without culture. Our closest relatives, the great apes, have culture of a sort, that is learned behavior, learned either from observation of parents or by direct teaching, which differs between different groups of the same species. Chimpanzees are opportunistic feeders, and they can utilize and seemingly know when to find, something like 300 different foodstuffs, including fruits, leafy plants, seeds, nuts,probably wild ancestors of some grain-like plants, insect, and animal protein. There's no reason to think our ancestors were any different (archaeological evidence says they weren;t). Fire has been part of the food prep for more than 500,000 years, and that expands the range of edible materials, as do specific preparation techniques, such as leaching, which gets rid of toxins in some plants. I seem to remember that there are also medicinal plants that chimps eat when they seem to be suffering from certain problems. I don't beilieve you can really separate culture from diet.

In fact early hunter-gatherers were larger and more well-nourished than early agriculturalists because they ate a much wider range of things. In fertile climates, with low population density, hunter-gathering requires far less energy than agriculture in comparable climates does. Basically we've always eaten anything that doesn't eat us first. And considering that Savenor's in Cambridge has sold lion steaks in the past, we'll even eat anything that eats us too.
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:49 am
@MontereyJack,
While I am alreasy aware of what you have stated, I am most certainly not aware of :
Quote:
Fire has been part of the food prep for more than 500,000 years


Is there any evidence for this?

This is prior to homo sapien sapiens speciation, the suggestions I have viewed have been significantly sooner than you have stated.

Can humans hunt prey/scavenge and consume raw animal protein?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:54 am
Consume raw animal protein: sure. Steak tartare. Animal predators do it all the time. Apes do it too.

400,000 to 500,000 years is the generally accepted range now for control of fire. That's back to homo erectus. There is some evidence that it may date back more than a million years, tho that's still not a consensus. And there's a lot of suggestion that changes in our skull and jaw shape and cranial musculature, the slowly increasing gracialization we've undergone since Cro-Magnon and Neanderthat is because of control of fire and cooking and its increasing use, which makes foods more easily edible and reduces the energy costs we have to expend to develop the larger jaw, larger teeth, and heavier musculature. in processing raw foods.
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:58 am
@MontereyJack,
Very well, we are agreeing.

However, experimantation is required, perhaps a human killing a dog and consuming it raw.

Originally, I stated:
Quote:
Why is meat cooked, if the paleolithic humans consume meat, it must have been raw prior to fire, has culture decreased the efficiency of the immune system, specifically in this case?


It appears anthropologists have suggested that humans may evolved with tools in order to do so, yet this does not appears to be consistent with the evolutionary theory.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 10:12:22