Are humans designed to be herbivores?

[g0rph]

Putting the definition against the article it raises doubts, since the cells still come from animals and the medium in which they grow.

As mentioned above. Once the original cells are harvested, future batches will be made from cells that themselves did not come from animals.

Strictly speaking, the first batch is not vegan as it exploits an animal. Future batches containing no cells that originate from the animal could quite truly regarded as vegan.

Either way, I hope it succeeds. It has far more chance of reducing animal suffering than any other method. Most people are not going to go WFPB because they love the taste, texture and experience of animal flesh.

 

[fakei]

As mentioned above. Once the original cells are harvested, future batches will be made from cells that themselves did not come from animals.

Strictly speaking, the first batch is not vegan as it exploits an animal. Future batches containing no cells that originate from the animal could quite truly regarded as vegan.

Either way, I hope it succeeds. It has far more chance of reducing animal suffering than any other method. Most people are not going to go WFPB because they love the taste, texture and experience of animal flesh.

It's your word against doctor Milton Mill's, but what about the foetal serum which is extracted from embryos?

 

[Graeme M]

The fact that people survived on those diets doesn't mean they are ideal, even to those that adapted, there's a lecture of doctor MacDougall on this issue.

That's true, but no diet in the past guaranteed anyone of survival or a long life. What we can do today depends entirely on modern technology. The question is, which diet does the science tell us offers the best chance of a healthy life when averaged across the population today? That diet is the Mediterranean diet which includes animals.

The thread title is concerned with whether or not we are designed to be herbivores and not whether or not we are herbivores.

I want to say that we are not "designed" to do anything, if by design you mean an intelligent process. Of course we are designed by evolution, but that's a somewhat different thing. Appealing to design in the context seems to be a bit of a misnomer because the design in question is a filtering process against random changes, with the filter being applied depending on local contexts. And the way people adapted to different contexts was by not reproducing as well (and by dying).

So I don't think we can say anything about what we are designed for. Some people are adapted to a mostly animal diet. Some are not. And what any one of us is best suited to eat as a consequence of our ancestral gene pool is nearly impossible to tell from the surface given the extraordinarily quick intermixing of populations, so quick that selection has not been able to act effectively.

Sure our distant ancestors pre Homo Sapiens may have been plant eaters mostly, but since our appearance humans have eaten both animals and plants, and *that* is what we are adapted to doing. Whatever that might mean for us now. We are omnivores.

 

[fakei]

That's true, but no diet in the past guaranteed anyone of survival or a long life. What we can do today depends entirely on modern technology. The question is, which diet does the science tell us offers the best chance of a healthy life when averaged across the population today? That diet is the Mediterranean diet which includes animals.

And which of the Mediterranean diets would that be?

One of my grandmothers grew up in rural Portugal, considered a Mediterranean country, her diet when growing up had nothing to do with mine. I found this when I started eating vegetarian, whole grains and legumes, that's when I started hearing from her that that's how she ate when she was a kid. Because they only had meat once a week. What is the difference between having meat once a weak and fish twice and a vegetarian diet in terms of nutrients?

The Mediterranean diet you may be referring to that showed impressive results was studied in rural Crete in the 60's, or so, it was similar to my grandmother's, and so was the rural diet studied by Dr. T. Colin Campbell published in his famous China Study.

Then you have studies done by doctor Ornish and doctor Esselstyn's program for people with severe heart disease who were treated with a vegan diet. And other similar studies.

Basically they arrived to the conclusion that a low fat whole grain vegan diet is the best.

 

[Brian W]

The question is, which diet does the science tell us offers the best chance of a healthy life when averaged across the population today? That diet is the Mediterranean diet which includes animals.

I would like to see this science. Do you have a link. The last I heard, that claim was debunked years ago. Here we have a large study comparing a plant based diet to a Mediterranean diet and it concludes: "People who choose to adopt a plant-based diet not only demonstrate healthier lifestyle patterns but also tend to consume a wider variety of nutrient-rich and antioxidant-rich foods. This type of diet is often associated with numerous health benefits, including a lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and some forms of cancer."
Plant-Based Diets versus the Mediterranean Dietary Pattern and Their Socio-Demographic Determinants in the Spanish Population: Influence on Health and Lifestyle Habits - PMC

"This study suggests that a low-fat vegan diet is more effective than a Mediterranean diet for reducing dietary AGEs and promoting weight loss. The findings challenge the notion that the Mediterranean diet is superior for weight management and metabolic health. The dramatic reduction in dietary AGEs on the vegan diet, achieved without changing cooking methods, offers a simple dietary strategy for potentially reducing the risk of chronic diseases associated with AGE accumulation. The strong correlation between changes in dietary AGEs and weight loss, independent of calorie intake, suggests that AGEs may play a role in weight regulation beyond just calorie content."
Going vegan vs. Mediterranean diet: Surprising study reveals which is healthier

 

[Lou]

The thread title is concerned with whether or not we are designed to be herbivores and not whether or not we are herbivores. I think that is an important distinction and do we define according to what we are capable of eating or according to what is the most suitable diet for us. We also need to take into account how we have evolved since the onset of technology and maybe what we would have been naturally is not what we are now. Designed seems to be the question though, so I would say yes, we are designed to be herbivores (as in optimum diet) but also to be adaptable.

Oh yeah, you are Christian....
I don't like the "designed" part. but I was just going to ignore it.

 

[beancounter]

Humans have evolved to be omnivours. There was no "design".

 

[Graeme M]

And which of the Mediterranean diets would that be?

When people talk about this diet, they are referring to a pattern of eating, not a specific set of foods. It's largely plant-based with nuts, fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains etc, but also some dairy (usually yogurt), fish and small portions of red meat. I suspect the reason this generally works is because humans ate that way in the past, give or take. That is, what fruits, berries ansd nuts they could find, tubers, insects, fish and wild animals. No hunter/gatherer population ate nothing but plants as far as we know, but many likely ate mostly plants.

The problem with vegan diets is that we don't know before we start what our genetic history might mean for our ability to extract nutrients from foods. Sure, one can very carefully plan their diet, maximising use of foods available to us because we can transport foods around the world and because we can take necessary supplements. But it's way easier to get adequate nutrition eating Mediterranean. I am willing to bet there was no human population who lived near the sea who did NOT eat fish, shellfish, crustaceans etc.

I would like to see this science. Do you have a link.

You don't have to look very far. I certainly have never seen anything to state that a Med diet is not the best general purpose eating pattern for humans. Here's a recent study that concludes that PB diets with a little animal protein offers health benefits, while a strictly vegan diet comes with risks that can be mitigated with supplementation and food fortification (ie using modern technology):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378512222001451

The study you refer to comparing Med diet with PB diet is talking more generally about mostly PB, not specifically vegan (just 1.65% of the respondents ate a strict vegan diet). They also observed that:

"Furthermore, it is crucial to emphasize that plant-based diets are not necessarily suitable for everyone and may require careful monitoring, especially in the initial stages of adoption. Supervision by healthcare professionals is essential to ensure that individuals maintain an optimal nutritional balance and to prevent any deficiencies or imbalances that may result from improperly planned diets."

Also, the fact that Spanish young folk are adopting more PB diets because of concerns about climate change and animal welfare don't tell us anything at all about long term suitability of such diets.

As to the Vegan Vs Med diet article, Dr Gil offers some helpful analysis:

A vegan diet can be healthy and nutritious but as far as i can tell, it has its shortcomings and may not be suitable for all. Plus, it is absolutely not the diet that most people are willing to adopt, which explains the low levels of vegan dietary adherence in the population generally and the fact that most people who try the diet eventually give it up.

 

[fakei]

When people talk about this diet, they are referring to a pattern of eating, not a specific set of foods. It's largely plant-based with nuts, fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains etc, but also some dairy (usually yogurt), fish and small portions of red meat. I suspect the reason this generally works is because humans ate that way in the past, give or take. That is, what fruits, berries ansd nuts they could find, tubers, insects, fish and wild animals. No hunter/gatherer population ate nothing but plants as far as we know, but many likely ate mostly plants.

If you are accustomed to a real traditional rural diet in which the main staple is whole grains and everything else is, paraphrasing Plato in the Republic, a delicacy, I don't think you will have much difficulty changing to a vegan diet by adding, nuts, peanut butter or soy drink to it as replacing delicacies.

Where my grandmother lived the main dish was noodles and chickpeas, that's by strange coincidence what I was fond to eat before discovering allergy to wheat, now it's chickpeas and spelt bread made in the pressure cooker, but the other day I heard an interview with a woman some decades younger than her describing their meal as rural workers, it was rice, beans, vegetables and, maybe, someone would bring five olives for each.
In my grandmother case they also had goat milk, by the way, because they raised goats, which doesn't mean they drank the amounts people do today.

People were constrained by many things including the necessity to sell animal products to buy the other things.

The problem with vegan diets is that we don't know before we start what our genetic history might mean for our ability to extract nutrients from foods. Sure, one can very carefully plan their diet, maximising use of foods available to us because we can transport foods around the world and because we can take necessary supplements. But it's way easier to get adequate nutrition eating Mediterranean. I am willing to bet there was no human population who lived near the sea who did NOT eat fish, shellfish, crustaceans etc.

There are always exceptions, and even with all the experience experts may have, we can't just follow what they say without confront it with how we feel and what works for us.

Porphyry for instance acknowledged vegetarianism was suitable for those in pursuit of a higher philosophic ideal and not necessarily for those in mundane pursuits. Lifestyle matters, and philosophers, like after them monks and nuns, also avoided other practices that may have demanded more micronutrients.

Because like Jeff points in his channel there is also a thing called recycling of nutrients done by the body, which probably works better if they are not lost.

 

[Tom L.]

As mentioned above. Once the original cells are harvested, future batches will be made from cells that themselves did not come from animals.

Strictly speaking, the first batch is not vegan as it exploits an animal. Future batches containing no cells that originate from the animal could quite truly regarded as vegan.

Ah! I was wondering about that point, and I agree.

 

[g0rph]

Ah! I was wondering about that point, and I agree.

Also, there is "Impossible" ?
They did animal testing. On rats. To get FDA approval for their synthetic heme iron additive.

There was a lot of discussion and disagreement about this, and many said "Impossible is not vegan".
But this was a one time thing, and whilst it was unfortunate, it almost certainly got their products out more quickly and more widespread.

We could argue that no, they were not vegan.
But they will do no more testing. The ingredient is approved (in some countries). So when exactly can we start calling it vegan? The product contains no animal products.
I mean, most of us here on this forum ate meat at some point. At what point after we stop can we claim the same?

Same as some cosmetic brands. They used to do animal testing. They stopped, and now claim vegan or vegan friendly status.

 

[g0rph]

It's your word against doctor Milton Mill's, but what about the foetal serum which is extracted from embryos?

No. It is not my word against anyone.

If a batch of cultured meat is grown from FBS then by definition, it is not vegan.

But as I mentioned (twice or more), long-term, that won't be necessary. Once underway, future batches can be made with no original animal tissue and could quite fairly be labelled vegan, in much the same way as some cosmetic brands are now vegan, when before, they were not.
Or even some food brands....Flora used to use dairy. Now they do not...

Either way, as the article mentions, vegans should support lab grown meat. And if for some reason, they continued to use FBS, then no, it would not be vegan to consume, but if that practice ends, and long-term, no animals are needed in the process, then why not?