Are humans designed to be herbivores?

[Tom L.]

I knew that protein in excess of what you need was metabolized for energy like carbohydrates and fats, and not stored- at least, that was the science at one time.

I hadn't heard that you can only absorb so much protein per meal- although it doesn't surprise me if this is true. Since I started cutting back on dairy, I've made more effort to get enough calcium and vitamin B-12. Oddly, the body can store significant amounts of B-12, which is unusual for the B-complex vitamins: they are water-soluble, and amounts in large excess of what you need have generally been thought to be simply excreted.

At my Thanksgiving dinner, I brought two veggie burger patties to microwave, each of which had a listed protein content (from mushrooms, soy protein concentrate, and wheat gluten) of about one-quarter of your RDA. I'd planned to eat one the next day- but it was so good I chowed down on both of them. Now I feel badly about that! But it was only one meal and I won't do that again.


I've learned more recently that there is a limit to how much calcium one can absorb at one meal, so I take only one calcium / vitamin D tablet at a time, and separately from a meal with other calcium-rich foods such as broccoli or kale. However, I do take my calcium tablet with food and water, as the accompanying instructions advise.

 

[fakei]

.
There are a lot of factors that go into protein absorption, and there is a need for more research but the latest info and general consensus is that about only 25 g of protein can be absorbed per meal.

If you search it on the Internet the current scientific belief is that there is no limit for absorbing proteins.

The 25g is a theory that has to do with the use made after being absorbed.

And it seems to be directed at athletes trying to build muscle.

Edited the post after further reading.

 

[Lou]

If you search it on the Internet the current scientific belief is that there is no limit for absorbing proteins.

The 25g is a theory that has to do with the use made after being absorbed.

And it seems to be directed at athletes trying to build muscle.

Edited the post after further reading.

I read a little about that. Utilization is what I think they call it. And I'm not sure it makes a practical difference.
and yep most of the research has to do with athletes.

 

[g0rph]

Just to add to that , I found this blog...

Protein Intake Ceiling Myth - Origin Symmetrics

There's this kind of worldwide belief that you can only digest ~30g of protein per meal, and any additional protein is just peed out and wasted. This is BS--Here's why:

originsymmetrics.com

I haven't investigated its veracity mind you

 

[Lou]

I haven't investigated its veracity mind you

I have done a little research on this subject.
I am leaning towards there being a limit.
There are a lot of articles on both sides of this argument.
Many of them I don't completely understand,

The reason I'm leaning torwards there being a limit is more based on my previous experiences with researching nutrition. First off, as soon as you have studies that may throw shade on the egg, milk, meat, and supplement industries they get involved. Not only can they fund their own research but they can make sure that research that doesn't support their industry never sees the light of day.
Also they do influence the mainstream media and influence what is reported.

Those are billion dollar industries. And basically there are no industries that make money off of good nutrition.

Case in point. the article you referenced is from a protein supplement company.

I don't have a good enough understanding of the biology to refute the article. Actually it appears to make sense. but then since most of us eat 3 or 4 meals a day and only need 50 to 90 g of protein a day - there is. little reason to exceed the "ceiling" anyway.

 

[fakei]

I read a little about that. Utilization is what I think they call it. And I'm not sure it makes a practical difference.
and yep most of the research has to do with athletes.

It should make, because if protein is absorbed, used or not do build muscle, it will still have other impacts that would not have if not absorbed and immediately excreted.

 

[fakei]

Just to add to that , I found this blog...

Protein Intake Ceiling Myth - Origin Symmetrics

There's this kind of worldwide belief that you can only digest ~30g of protein per meal, and any additional protein is just peed out and wasted. This is BS--Here's why:

originsymmetrics.com

I haven't investigated its veracity mind you

One thing that looks strange in this theory is that people have different protein needs according to height, age, lifestyle, etc, which can vary considerably, but all have the same ceiling.

 

[fakei]

Another issue is that throughout history two or even one meal a day have often been the tradition.

 

[g0rph]

One thing that looks strange in this theory is that people have different protein needs according to height, age, lifestyle, etc, which can vary considerably, but all have the same ceiling.

Yeah, I kind of agree with the link I shared (even if I cannot say for certain).
Although, even if we are different heights, weights, etc, I wonder if that's the same for our organs that are responsible for the processing of food and more importantly, nutrients?

On another interesting (to me anyway side-note, I recently bought a pack of "complete food".
It was from a company called "Comfoo" here in Sweden. I believe it's very similar to "Huel" and in the States "Soylent" amongst others.
Totally plant-based, and in one portion, which you make into a drink (from powder), it contains a fully nutrient-balanced meal.

It was "okay". Filling enough, tasty enough, but I am not sure I could do it long-term.
It's a plant-based, fully vegan meal supplement and I got it as I often have no time for lunch at work (and forget to bring something).

I'd be interested what people thought of these things? (Maybe worth another post?)

 

[fakei]

Yeah, I kind of agree with the link I shared (even if I cannot say for certain).
Although, even if we are different heights, weights, etc, I wonder if that's the same for our organs that are responsible for the processing of food and more importantly, nutrients?

Organ size tends to be proportional to height, it seems; I guess it's probably not always in the same proportion since people of the same height may still have different shapes and sizes.

I tend to look with suspicion to theories that make it look very difficult for humans to survive in difficult conditions, and unless daily protein needs are grossly inflated this looks like one of those. But I don't understand enough of the subject.

On another interesting (to me anyway side-note, I recently bought a pack of "complete food".
It was from a company called "Comfoo" here in Sweden. I believe it's very similar to "Huel" and in the States "Soylent" amongst others.
Totally plant-based, and in one portion, which you make into a drink (from powder), it contains a fully nutrient-balanced meal.

It was "okay". Filling enough, tasty enough, but I am not sure I could do it long-term.
It's a plant-based, fully vegan meal supplement and I got it as I often have no time for lunch at work (and forget to bring something).

I'd be interested what people thought of these things? (Maybe worth another post?)

That's great . There is a thread about vegan products and another about food.

 

[fakei]

Here is a condensed version of Dr Mills' arguments, difficult to contend with, in particular the scavengers.

 

[No Longer Active]

"What are humans designed to eat" puts us in a hard set category that doesn't have any meaning in reality. All diets are adaptations to circumstances and it could be argued that in any country that has the means, the preferable adaptation would be to a plant based diet. Humans can eat both plant and animal foods but that does not make an omnivore diet the ideal one for us. As far as ancestory goes, how far back do you want to go. Remember the word "human" is a human word and is therefore somewhat arbitrary in this context. What if we chose "primate" rather than "human." Might our answers be different?

I found an interesting article:

The zoologist Jordi Casamitjana looks at the current scientific evidence suggesting human ancestry was mostly plant-based, not meat-based as old-fashioned scientists used to think.​

Human Ancestry Was Plant-Based

 

[fakei]

"What are humans designed to eat" puts us in a hard set category that doesn't have any meaning in reality. All diets are adaptations to circumstances and it could be argued that in any country that has the means, the preferable adaptation would be to a plant based diet. Humans can eat both plant and animal foods but that does not make an omnivore diet the ideal one for us. As far as ancestory goes, how far back do you want to go. Remember the word "human" is a human word and is therefore somewhat arbitrary in this context. What if we chose "primate" rather than "human." Might our answers be different?

I found an interesting article:

The zoologist Jordi Casamitjana looks at the current scientific evidence suggesting human ancestry was mostly plant-based, not meat-based as old-fashioned scientists used to think.​

Human Ancestry Was Plant-Based

Important takeaway to our topic:

By the way, although the term omnivore is often used to describe species that eat both animals and plants, strictly speaking, there is not such a thing as an omnivore adaptation, but instead what defines the animals who receive this label is the lack of adaptation to either plant or animal food — which is something quite rare as most species, after millions of years of evolution, have tended to adapt to either, even if only slightly. One thing is to be omnivorous (note the different spelling) as an individual (to eat foods from many sources, plant and animal) but another is to be an omnivore (to have a biological adaptation not to eat more than one type than another), so while we can say that most individual animals can become omnivorous if forced by circumstances, most are not omnivore as they would be better adapted to thrive from one type of food than another.

 

[Graeme M]

Jordi's article confirms what we already know - humans are omnivores who have eaten animals for as long as we have existed as a species. Which means that our ideal diet is whatever we can get our hands on that allows us to survive and reproduce. And given we managed to do that all over the planet for a quarter million years it seems animals are a perfectly fine food for humans.

Does that mean we can survive on a purely plant-based diet today? In the right places with access to the right foods and with some attention to what we eat, probably.

I think a lot depends on our individual genetics given humans do have adaptations to suit eating animals which is why supplements and fortification might be necessary for thriving on a purely plant-based diet. Which again is why I think a mixed diet like the Med diet is likely to be the most widely suitable diet taking all populations and practical considerations into account.

I think a purely plants-only diet is definitely what we should aim for as vegans, I am just not convinced it's suited to everyone in every circumstance.

A vegan-friendly diet isn't purely plants come what may though, it's the diet that suits your circumstances while aligning with vegan ethics as much as you can.

 

[fakei]

Jordi's article confirms what we already know - humans are omnivores who have eaten animals for as long as we have existed as a species. Which means that our ideal diet is whatever we can get our hands on that allows us to survive and reproduce. And given we managed to do that all over the planet for a quarter million years it seems animals are a perfectly fine food for humans.

Does that mean we can survive on a purely plant-based diet today? In the right places with access to the right foods and with some attention to what we eat, probably.

I think a lot depends on our individual genetics given humans do have adaptations to suit eating animals which is why supplements and fortification might be necessary for thriving on a purely plant-based diet. Which again is why I think a mixed diet like the Med diet is likely to be the most widely suitable diet taking all populations and practical considerations into account.

I think a purely plants-only diet is definitely what we should aim for as vegans, I am just not convinced it's suited to everyone in every circumstance.

A vegan-friendly diet isn't purely plants come what may though, it's the diet that suits your circumstances while aligning with vegan ethics as much as you can.

If studies have shown that a plant based diet is better than the Mediterranean diet in preventing a variety of diseases, why the insistence in saying it is more suitable?

Rural communities, who were the ones doing the heavy work and living in difficult circumstances, you can go and read Flavius Vegetius treatise on military issues where he says peasants made best soldiers because they were accustomed to hardships, were the ones having a plant base diet just like the Roman army. And if you try a proper one of unprocessed food, whole grains, legumes and vegetables and do hard work you will see the results.

 

[No Longer Active]

Jordi's article confirms what we already know - humans are omnivores

NO NO NO! You missed the whole point!

 

[g0rph]

If studies have shown that a plant based diet is better than the Mediterranean diet in preventing a variety of diseases, why the insistence in saying it is more suitable?

Rural communities, who were the ones doing the heavy work and living in difficult circumstances, you can go and read Flavius Vegetius treatise on military issues where he says peasants made best soldiers because they were accustomed to hardships, were the ones having a plant base diet just like the Roman army. And if you try a proper one of unprocessed food, whole grains, legumes and vegetables and do hard work you will see the results.

My take on this, that outside our modern world, we were highly suited to be eating mainly plants, and to supplement on animals.
Seems entirely reasonable. Gorillas, Bonobos, chimps, and essentially all our closest cousins are mainly plant-eaters who supplement on animals where needed.
The problem with a strict vegetarian diet is that we need to be extra mindful of certain nutrients... B12, D3, Omegas amongst other things.
We of course can and should simply be mindful of this, but a standard Mediterranean diet will include them naturally.
Peoples living around a bountiful sea would have found it very easy to supplement with fish and crustaceans.

If you were to go and live off-grid you would find it extremely difficult to maintain a 100% plant-based diet.

 

[fakei]

My take on this, that outside our modern world, we were highly suited to be eating mainly plants, and to supplement on animals.Seems entirely reasonable. Gorillas, Bonobos, chimps, and essentially all our closest cousins are mainly plant-eaters who supplement on animals where needed.

Studies show we still are.

The problem with a strict vegetarian diet is that we need to be extra mindful of certain nutrients... B12, D3, Omegas amongst other things.
We of course can and should simply be mindful of this, but a standard Mediterranean diet will include them naturally.
Peoples living around a bountiful sea would have found it very easy to supplement with fish and crustaceans.

To be honest I don't know how people lived in piscatorial villages, my grandmother lived near a river and they only had fish twice a week.

Fishermen were probably subject to the same constraints, of selling their products and probably worse since farm animals can be kept alive untill sold or eaten and fishing on high sea is among other things dangerous, everything adding to the cost, and fish doesn't last long, so it had to either be consumed shortly after or it had to undergo a drying process, and since everything that involves more work involves more costs, selling was probably better.

Regarding shellfish in pre refrigeration days, don't know how it worked, it can be lethal if not eaten fresh.

If you were to go and live off-grid you would find it extremely difficult to maintain a 100% plant-based diet.

Don't know what it means going off -grid in nutritional terms, but considering that wild herbs have been the food of last resource in rural areas, the opposite looks true, in fact in extreme situations people tend to survive on plant only diets.

So one may ask what exactly was the nutritional meaning of animal products in rural societies.

Meat once a week at most, in some cases in festivities only, in others never, looks negligible.

Dairy seems to have been consumed more regularly, but in modicum amounts. For what purpose? It's not that high on protein in particular if one is consuming it in very small amounts. Maybe fat is the answer, even in the region of olives, olive oil was still a delicacy in the old days.

 

[Graeme M]

NO NO NO! You missed the whole point!

I didn't miss the point, I didn't agree with it. Jordi clearly has to agree humans have eaten animals, but he wants to pretend that it was an experiment, a mistake. Yet you can't claim that when we are talking about evolution. Evolution has no goals and the experiments it throws up (ie random mutations that act on reproductive fitness) are tested by time and that very reproductive success. And we have been very, very successful eating animals, so successful we even have adaptations to suit such as the variable rates of endogenous ALA conversion, the need for dietary B12, lactase persistence and so on. He is making stuff up.

If studies have shown that a plant based diet is better than the Mediterranean diet in preventing a variety of diseases, why the insistence in saying it is more suitable?

I am unaware of any study that says a plants-only diet is the healthiest diet without careful planning and some kind of supplementation/fortification, which means it is not a natural diet but a modern arrangement enabled by modern circumstances. The Med diet on the other hand is shown to not require such supplementation and can be eaten by most people anywhere at all in most circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a plants-only diet cannot be a healthy and successful diet to follow so long as people do what is necessary, I'm simply saying we can't claim it is a natural, healthy diet without that. it is not.

 

[Lou]

I'm pretty sure there is still some debate on this from the archeologist and anthropologist communities but there seems to be ample evidence that early human migration first occurred along rivers, lakes and the coasts. Probably because shellfish are pretty easy to collect. And once the resource is exhausted, you just pick up and go down the shore 5 miles.

Coastal migration

Coastal migration: the role of water in the dispersal of archaic homo

aquatic-human-ancestor.org

Another theory that I really like is that once our earliest ancestors came out of the trees, our bipedal locomotion, and the fact that we can sweat allowed us to cover long distances. We could spot vultures circling large predator kills from way off. And once we got there we could use a combination of team work, stones and clubs to scare off the scavengers. we were probably the only animal that could open the large thigh bones with rocks to get to the marrow. There is even archeological evidence of that. Could explain how we were successful before we discovered fire and tools.

Evidence for Meat-Eating by Early Humans

The first major evolutionary change in the human diet was the incorporation of meat and marrow from large animals, which occurred by at least 2.6 million years ago.

www.nature.com