15
   

Do humans require meat?

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 10:07 am
Inuit (Eskimos) subsisted almost entirely on meat, and often ate parts raw. Indeed cooking destroys the vitamin C they got from raw meat. They have some specialized adaptations to the environment. But apparently cold-adapted humans survived well on the same diet (yes, they experimented).


Quote:
This calls to mind a question I've dealt with before: Why do the Eskimos (or Inuit, as those in Canada and Greenland generally prefer to be called) stay there? It turns out that the people of the north have a highly evolved physiology that makes them well suited to life in the arctic: a compact build that conserves warmth, a faster metabolism, optimally distributed body fat, and special modifications to the circulatory system. One marvels at the adaptability of the human organism, of course, but still one has to ask: Wouldn't it have been easier just to move to San Diego?

Much of what we know about the Eskimo diet comes from the legendary arctic anthropologist and adventurer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who made several daredevil journeys through the region in the early 20th century. Stefansson noticed the same thing you did, that the traditional Eskimo diet consisted largely of meat and fish, with fruits, vegetables, and other carbohydrates — the usual source of vitamin C — accounting for as little as 2 percent of total calorie intake. Yet they didn't get scurvy.

Stefansson argued that the native peoples of the arctic got their vitamin C from meat that was raw or minimally cooked — cooking, it seems, destroys the vitamin. (In fact, for a long time "Eskimo" was thought to be a derisive Native American term meaning "eater of raw flesh," although this is now discounted.) Stefansson claimed the high incidence of scurvy among European explorers could be explained by their refusal to eat like the natives. He proved this to his own satisfaction by subsisting in good health for lengthy periods — one memorable odyssey lasted for five years — strictly on whatever meat and fish he and his companions could catch.

A few holdouts didn't buy it. To settle the matter once and for all, Stefansson and a colleague lived on a meat-only diet for one year under medical supervision at New York's Bellevue Hospital, starting in February 1928. The two ate between 100 and 140 grams of protein a day, the balance of their calories coming from fat, yet they remained scurvy free. Later in life Stefansson became a strong advocate of a high-meat diet even if you didn't live in the arctic; he professed to enjoy improved health, reduced weight, etc, from meals consisting of coffee, the occasional grapefruit, and a nice steak, presumably rare. Doesn't sound half bad, and one might note that until recently the Inuit rarely suffered from atherosclerosis and other Western ailments.

Vitamin C can be found in a variety of traditional Eskimo/Inuit staples, including the skin of beluga whales (known as muktuk), which is said to contain as much vitamin C as oranges. Other reported sources include the organ meats of sea mammals as well as the stomach contents of caribou. You're thinking: It'll be a mighty cold day in the arctic before they catch me eating the stomach contents of caribou. Indeed, you have to wonder whether the Inuit really ate such stuff either, since Stefansson describes it being fed to dogs.

Other aspects of the arctic diet also remain controversial. For example, some say the Eskimos could get vitamin C from blueberries during the summer months, while others say you'd be lucky to find enough berries to cover a bowl of Rice Chex. I say let's not sweat the details of the menu, which varied from region to region anyway. We know Eskimos got enough vitamin C in their traditional diet to survive because obviously they did. Now it's academic — most arctic natives live in villages and get their vitamin C from OJ and Juicy Juice, just like you and I.

Oh, and for all you vegetarians who've seen the error of your ways and were thinking of adopting the Inuit diet — think twice about the raw meat thing. Vitamin C might not a problem, but E. coli might.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 10:09 am
@MontereyJack,
the debate continues

cooking for food could have started between 800,000 and 2,000,000 years ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2029052/Evidence-humans-began-cooking-2m-years-ago.html

http://www.livescience.com/15688-man-cooking-homo-erectus.html

http://www.livescience.com/5641-fire-tools-75-000-years.html

Quote:
"Around 800,000 years ago we see some of the first evidence for hominid controlled use of fire," said study leader Kyle Brown, a graduate student in archaeology at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and at Arizona State University
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 10:28 am
@Anomie,
No, my original post referred specifically to the conditions in which our early modern human ancestors developed their dietary preferences. It was not an appeal to emotion, although it is certainly useful to you to characterize in that manner, so that you can dismiss it without addrressing it.

Playing word games does not alter that all you have offered in the way of evidence is a questionable (in that it makes assumptions and claims which are unsubstantiated, and which FM has now directly contradicted) graph from a commercial source that flogs TVP. You can play your meaningless word games to your heart's content, it does not change that you have presented to evidence to support your position. If you don't know what evidence means, i suggest you invest in a dictionary. They are most useful books.

If you fling terms such as "the paleolithic concept," in which the operation of the definite article implies that such a concept is a recognized scientific or academic term, then you have the burden of proving it as such. I am in no way obliged to play your game.

You silly attempts at rhetorical questions are meaningless in the face of what we know from archaeological sources about the diet of early modern humans. Hominids had mastered fire before h. sapiens arose. Any grain in the human diet was gathered, not the product of agriculture, and therefore was not a significantly large food source. Other gathered foods would have been of just as much significance, and game animals, including fish and shellfish where applicable, would have been a much more important food source in terms of the proportion of the diet. I know these things because of the archaeological record. Yours is basically an argument from ignorance. Saying that your claims are silly is not an emotional appeal, it is an accurate description of where you are lead by your ignorance. I suggest to you that you know nothing about the evidence archaeology provides us about the diet of early modern man, and so you make these silly arguments up as you go along. They are silly because they are evidence free.

Meat is not necessary to your diet because you live in a post-industrial, agronomic society. That has no bearing on the dietary habits humans developed before either agriculture or industry were developed. A realistic justification would be founded on what archaeology tells us about our ancestors' diets, not the meaningless word games you play.

I am providing scientific reasoning, you are the one who is not relying on any scientific reasoning. I was glad to see that you worked your "normative" bullshit into your response, though. That idiocy always cracks me up.

Spend a few years educating yourself about archaeology and paleoanthropology and then come back and we'll talk.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 10:31 am
@Anomie,
Once again, your argument is evidence-free. Paleolithic refers to a tool-making level of culture of early modern humans. Hominids had mastered fire before paleolithic culture arose. You're talking out of your ass, once again. You don't know what you're talking about, and, as always, you just indulge in perorations based on your shallow knowledge of the jargon of philosophy. There is not a shred of scientific content in your babblespeak.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 10:31 am
Yep, dates like "earliest" keep getting pushed back all the time.

So it looks like humans can exist pretty much entirely on just meat. (Ice age neanderthals who lived near glaciers in the recent ice ages, from the usual scientific tests were pretty much entirely carnivorous too).

On the other hand, we can also subsist pretty much entirely on vegetable matter. The "Three Sisters" of Mesoamerican agriculture, corn, beans, and squash interact together to make unmetabolizable components of each other edible, and provide what the anthropological literature says is a complete diet. Squash seeds are rich in protein. So those little bags of pumpkin seeds you find in the snack food aisle actually are good for you. They did grow a bunch of other crops, tomatoes, avocados, chiles (which also contribute nutrients), and cacao among them, but those three repeatedly are cited as complete. It wasn't exactly my area of specialization, but I'm reporting what I've read. And of course they ate chihuahuas in small quantities if they were among the elite.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 12:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
There is some interesting work which has been done by Israeli archaeologists on a site where Neanderthals moved in after the site had been occupied by early modern humans. The Neanderthal middens showed very little evidence of gathered foods (although there was some)--they apparently subsisted largely on game. The early modern human middens had the same game remnants, but also had large amounts of evidence of gathered foods. The Neanderthals disappeared from the site while early modern humans continued to occupy it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 12:15 pm
I've been looking around online, and it may be the new digs at the Carmel Caves which were begun in the late 1960s. The problem i'm having identifying the site is the sheer number of archaeological digs in Israel.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 12:18 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
No, my original post referred specifically to the conditions in which our early modern human ancestors developed their dietary preferences.

I stated:
Quote:
you have onlyONE post that has satisfied the topicthough I did disagree with several of arguements

Simply REFUTE my arguements, MontereyJack did in fact accomplish this.

Quote:
It was not an appeal to emotion, although it is certainly useful to you to characterize in that manner, so that you can dismiss it without addrressing it.

Is this scientific?

Abductions do not appear to be scientifically valid.

Also, do you want me to argue relativism, your synthetic propositions have no valuation of truth reliability, therefore ANY predicates that satisfy such conditions are equal.

For simplification, your vague applications are of emotional consequences, that is the only possible conslusion.

Perhaps I have clarified, this time, if not, I will directly refute you with Sorites paradox.

Quote:
Playing word games does not alter that all you have offered in the way of evidence is a questionable (in that it makes assumptions and claims which are unsubstantiated,


Why are you practicing double standards, the same standards must also apply to your opposing arguement, from my interpretation, you may also be "playing word games".

Solution: verify these unsubstantiated arguements, and verify why your arguements do satisfy these conditions.

Also, "offered in the way of evidence is a questionable" requires deconstruction, it is a fuzzy concept.

Quote:
and which FM has now directly contradicted) graph from a commercial source that flogs TVP.


Can you elaborate, the objective of the "commercial source" is to demonstrate that sun warrior has a higher essential amino acid density than generally suggested proteins.

If you disagree, refute it, that is all.

Quote:
If you don't know what evidence means, i suggest you invest in a dictionary. They are most useful books.


You orginally quoted "evidence", which has ben operationalised by scientific methodology, you cantinue to practice double standards.

Your arguement: It is a vegan "commercial source", therefore it must be incorrect.

What is the derrivation of this assertion?

Quote:
If you fling terms such as "the paleolithic concept," in which the operation of the definite article implies that such a concept is a recognized scientific or academic term, then you have the burden of proving it as such. I am in no way obliged to play your game.


Relative:
If you fling terms such as "silly," in which the operation of the definite article implies that such a concept is a recognized scientific or academic term, then you have the burden of proving it as such. I am in no way obliged to play your game.

I did state that synthetic attributes are subject to relativism.

Furthermore, let us evaluate where I stated the "paleolthic concept":
Quote:
My diet attempts to practice the paleolithic concept.

This is normative, I was not stating science, this is for personal use, I intrigued by nutrition and sports performence, there errors I have made that I was never able to correct, that being nutrition.

Quote:
You silly attempts at rhetorical questions are meaningless in the face of what we know from archaeological sources about the diet of early modern humans.


No, it is YOU that is arguing this "rhetorics", I do not acknowledge this concept, I am intrigued by the meaning of words, your 'pejorations' suggest this, as well as appealing to ridicule, authority, consenus, further reducing these notions to the individual (at myself personally), there is certainly empirical evidence in our texts.

Quote:
Hominids had mastered fire before h. sapiens arose. Any grain in the human diet was gathered, not the product of agriculture, and therefore was not a significantly large food source. Other gathered foods would have been of just as much significance, and game animals, including fish and shellfish where applicable, would have been a much more important food source in terms of the proportion of the diet. I know these things because of the archaeological record.


Yes, there is evidence for the utilisiation of fire.

Provides evidence for the other assertions, or my arguement that asserts your practice of double standards cannot be refuted.

Quote:
Yours is basically an argument from ignorance. Saying that your claims are silly is not an emotional appeal, it is an accurate description of where you are lead by your ignorance.


This is not arguement from ignorance.

However, yes I do deny non cognitive suggestion to be propositional, being that they are emotional appeals, though you may operationalise "silly" if you desire, be aware that I am referring to the cognitive properties of words NOT the morphology of the words.

Quote:
I suggest to you that you know nothing about the evidence archaeology provides us about the diet of early modern man, and so you make these silly arguments up as you go along. They are silly because they are evidence free.


I previously stated the following:
Solution: verify these unsubstantiated arguements, and verify why your arguements do satisfy these conditions.

The rest has already been refuted, abductive inferences and fuzzy concepts.

Quote:
Meat is not necessary to your diet because you live in a post-industrial, agronomic society. That has no bearing on the dietary habits humans developed before either agriculture or industry were developed. A realistic justification would be founded on what archaeology tells us about our ancestors' diets, not the meaningless word games you play.

I previously stated the following:
Solution: verify these unsubstantiated arguements, and verify why your arguements do satisfy these conditions.

Also, you have faith to the extent of CERTAINTY in archeology, this does not satisfy the entire science required for this topic

You are also red herring logical arguements, such as the semantics, which is an emotinal appeal of normatives, being "meaningless word games" in this case.

When you stated ralistic justification, can you explain the meaning of this?

Are you referring to justification theory, this is open to interpretation, hence SUBJECTIVE properties.

Quote:
I am providing scientific reasoning, you are the one who is not relying on any scientific reasoning. I was glad to see that you worked your "normative" bullshit into your response, though. That idiocy always cracks me up......Spend a few years educating yourself about archaeology and paleoanthropology and then come back and we'll talk.


Your arguements repeat the logical fallcies.

What is normatives?

Definition:affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality

What I am attempting to clarify, is that normatives CONTRAST positive interpretations (i.e SCIENCE).

You are arguing AGAINST SCIENTIFIC REASONING, yet self refutingly, you state that you are in fact arguing of scientific reasoning.

Perhaps you should define your terms prior to usage.

Quote:
Once again, your argument is evidence-free. Paleolithic refers to a tool-making level of culture of early modern humans. Hominids had mastered fire before paleolithic culture arose. You're talking out of your ass, once again. You don't know what you're talking about, and, as always, you just indulge in perorations based on your shallow knowledge of the jargon of philosophy. There is not a shred of scientific content in your babblespeak

Yes, what are you suggesting?

There was gross selection pressure in the paleolithic era, however is it contemporarily the case?

You previously stated:
Meat is not necessary to your diet because you live in a post-industrial, agronomic society.

Is the concept of CULTURE independent of evolution?

Furthermore, yes, I have accepted refutation by MontereyJack, who may have also accepted refutation by ehBeth, is MontereyJack sources "evidence free/bullshit"?

This is a cherry picking fallacy.

I am intrigued by the compatibility of evolution and culture.

Science is of philosophical derrivation, self refutingly, you have argued philosophical concepts.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 12:36 pm
@Anomie,
More babblespeak, and a continuing lack of any evidence from you. I am not obliged to disprove the bullshit you're peddling. You have the burden of proving it. You have failed completely. No surprise there.
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 12:43 pm
@Setanta,
Absence of evidence = evidence of absence
Absence of proof =/= proof of absence

You have misinterpreted the proof for evidnece.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 12:47 pm
@Anomie,
Nonsense. Leaving aside that i did not make any such idiotic argument as you allege, you have provided no evidence, and playing a childish word game doesn't change that. You have alleged that humans cannot manufacture proteins in their bodies, and FM has refuted that. You have argued that paleolithic man had to have eaten raw meat before he could have cooked it, and MJ has pointed out that man mastered fire before paleolithic man existed. ehBeth did not refute MJ's assertion, she merely refined it and provided a source. Basically, your entire performance here has been based on your babblespeak, and you continue to play that game, because you have nothing else to offer.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 01:01 pm
@Anomie,
Anomie wrote:
Furthermore, yes, I have accepted refutation by MontereyJack, who may have also accepted refutation by ehBeth, is MontereyJack sources "evidence free/bullshit"?


My post provided links to the research supporting MJ and Setanta's comments.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 01:53 pm
@ehBeth,
He's just peddling his babblespeak, he's just here to argue, not to actually canvass the subject.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 02:55 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You have alleged that humans cannot manufacture proteins in their bodies, and FM has refuted that


Can you quote this?

When I replied to your original post I stated humans require essential amino acids, being that they cannot be synthesised from new, I did not state that humans cannot manufacture proteins.

Quote:
You have argued that paleolithic man had to have eaten raw meat before he could have cooked it, and MJ has pointed out that man mastered fire before paleolithic man existed.


Yes, I continue to argue this, the paleolithic existed prior to cultural phenomena, it is a spectrum of 2.5 million years, a concept, just as cladistics, for categorisation, human construct.

Fire may have existed 500-400 thousand years, however why is it pressuposed that this AIDED (or "mastered") raw meat consumption, is there any evidence that this was consistently regulated 500-400 thousand years ago to the present?

I originally stated:
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


Are you following now?
I was referring to CONTROL.

Also, can digestive biology evolve, is there any gross selection pressure from this, meaning did digestive biology evolve from the sub speciation to homo sapien sapiens?

The further back the timeline of fire is suggested decreases my beliefs of carnivorous traits.

Quote:
ehBeth did not refute MJ's assertion, she merely refined it and provided a source.


How do we distingish "refuted" and "refined", this arguement is from assertion.

As an example, we may all be in fact be wrong, the suggestion may be more specific, just as the shape of Earth concept.

Are you arguing 'wronger than wrong'?
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:02 pm
@ehBeth,
MontereyJack stated, 400,000 to 500,000 years ago.

You stated, 800,000 and 2,000,000, though I am not convinced by this.

Setanta, this is where I do not follow, sources that generally practice false attributions, the 'dailymail' being an example, yet you deny my "commercial source", all it stated was the amino acid composition, per 100 grams of protein.

There was no manipulations, such as "probably".
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:06 pm
@Anomie,
I did not "state" anything. I gave you the links that provided references to the sources for the original research.

Have you followed the live science links that identify the journals and scientists?

Have you looked at the source research?


~~~~~~~



Why any of this matters seems bizarre, when you're touting a manufactured protein source that wouldn't have been available to anyone 100 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years ago.
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:16 pm
@ehBeth,
Yes "live science" stated one quote, in the entire article:
"Around 800,000 years ago we see some of the first evidence for hominid controlled use of fire"

Where is the derrivations of this research?

Also,

Does the following post satisfy "touting"?


Quote:
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.


Very well.

There are more nutrient dense sources, though beef does appear to have the highest essential amino acid profile, the vegans have sun warrior protein:


*illustrates graph*

This is how senanta suggested that I was "peddling" this "commercial source".

This was in fact cultural refutation.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:21 pm
@Anomie,
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?
Is vitamin b12 exclusive to diary and meat, are you certain it would have not been the lakes/rivers/other water sources?

As it appears, I will be defending specifically veganism, and vegatarians to a lesser extent, however acknowledge that I am NOT a vegan, my nutrition does have poultry, fish, and occasionally diary and meat.


This is from your opening post. You have provided no evidence that man must have been eating raw meat (although certainly they may have, you have no basis for your "must have"). You have provided no evidence that the efficiency of the immune system has decreased, by any cause, let alone the hilarious claim that culture has decreased its efficiency. Your vague question about B12 from lakes, rivers and other waters sources has no attribution. I respond to those foolish questions as i do becuase you say you will be defending veganism, which implies that you think you have answers to those silly questions.

ehBeth provided three sources, two of which were not the Daily Mail, as she has pointed out to you. She has also pointed out to you what i've already pointed out to you, that the diet that vegans promote in our age has only been available for a few generations at most, and is only available because of modern industrial-scale agriculture and industrial agronomic food production techniques. Your appeals to the diet of ancient man, apart from being founded on stunning ignorance, ignore that such a diet would not have been possible for them. Prior to the domestication of plants about 10,000 ybp, grains, to use an example to which you alluded, would not have been available to them in quantities sufficiently large to have replaced game.

You're working without a net here, and denying that you are about to fall flat on your ass. Good luck.
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:22 pm
My objective was to obtain genetic evidence, unfortunately farmerman requested such evidence, which I was in fact anticipating the evidence from this knowledgable individual.

The only genetic evidenced I have reviewed is dentistry correlation between frugivours.

I have not viewed any nucleotide polymorphisms or hox genes that define frugivorous morphology.

However, I am aware that is most certainly evidnce.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 03:22 pm
@Anomie,
do you need to be taught how to click through on the links?

from the 3rd you click through to

http://www.livescience.com/2764-cooking-cognition-humans-smart.html

where you pick up

Quote:
About 2 million years ago, the human brain rapidly increased its mass until it was double the size of other primate brains.

"This happened because we started to eat better food, like eating more meat," said researcher Philipp Khaitovich of the Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai.




Quote:
The research is detailed in the August 2008 issue of Genome Biology.


and then ooooooooh we google and get

http://www.highbeam.com/publications/genome-biology-online-edition-p409521/august-2008


and if we're keen, we track down the full article or pay for it



(do that for all of the live science links and you'll start to get the picture)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 09:12:12