Are humans designed to be herbivores?

[Graeme M]

Probably because shellfish are pretty easy to collect.

I often wonder about this. Plenty of research tends to show sea animals are a great addition to the human diet - in fact in some studies, pescatarian vegetarian diets perform better then purely plant-based diets. I have often suspected that we adapted very early on to diets with high fish/shellfis/crustacean content. Largely because as we spread, we'd stick to waterways and coastlines. I think about indigenous Australians and note how densely forested the coastal fringe can be and it's unlikely many people were heading into the bush to live. Where I come from there are huge shell middens from centuries of indigenous occupation.

 

[g0rph]

Studies show we still are.


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.


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.

I did say 100%.
And your replies seem to agree with my assessment.
they only had fish twice a week.
Meat once a week at most,

And remember, one of the benefits in those times with having a small farm with animals, was to provide when crops were low yield, or failed entirely.

If I was to go off-grid, I would certainly at least have some chickens for eggs and backup protein if needed.

This thread has made me realise that humans will never be vegan en masse. Lab-grown meat (and dairy) seems to me to be the best hope for a large reduction in suffering, but then it's hard to see that at least some animal produce will continue to be consumed ad infinitum.

Even if we (as a species) take all the current advice on converting to a plant focused diet, there will always be some animal produce.

 

[fakei]

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.

Sorry but your arguments make no sense.

Firs the only supplementation needed is B12 which could be obtained naturally in the past. And is also given to animals who feed humans, by the way, so it's being artificially supplemented in both cases.

Second, what exactly means planning? Do you think you can eat a lot of pork, cod fish and dairy, olive oil, sugar and refined grains and have good results? Or instead eat only salad and not run into trouble.

You ignore studies which have already been mentioned, which is a different thing.

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.

You keep repeating things without any support, in which way is unnatural? In which way is inferior? Show the studies that contradict it.

 

[fakei]

I did say 100%.
And your replies seem to agree with my assessment.
they only had fish twice a week.
Meat once a week at most,

And remember, one of the benefits in those times with having a small farm with animals, was to provide when crops were low yield, or failed entirely.

If crops failed they would actually consume less animals, because they would have to sell more animal products to buy more staple food. That's why during the potato famine in Ireland as potato prices rised the Irish kept buying more potatoes and less of the rest, you can look for it, it is a case study.

 

[fakei]

For the skeptics about the benefits of a PBD, you can watch the video below, which mentions a lot of studies. You can also look for the works of T. Collin Campbell, Dean Ornish, Cadwell Esselstyn among others, chef AJ has been running a lot of interviews with PBD Dean Ornish and C. Campbell have been recently interviewed by her.

 

[g0rph]

If crops failed they would actually consume less animals, because they would have to sell more animal products to buy more staple food. That's why during the potato famine in Ireland as potato prices rised the Irish kept buying more potatoes and less of the rest, you can look for it, it is a case study.

It obviously depends on circumstance.
And your example above also shows that having animal products to sell was also important.
But one main reason farming animals was so useful is they *can* be used for nutrition if crops fail, especially animals that can eat plants that humans cannot such as grass and weeds.
They also supplied fertiliser and helped remove unwanted pests.
A purely plant-based diet and more importantly, a vegan lifestyle is only possible because of modern technology.

 

[fakei]

It obviously depends on circumstance.

Yes, whether you have YouTube patrons sponsoring your lifestyle or you are really on survival mode.

And your example above also shows that having animal products to sell was also important.
But one main reason farming animals was so useful is they *can* be used for nutrition if crops fail, especially animals that can eat plants that humans cannot such as grass and weeds.
They also supplied fertiliser and helped remove unwanted pests.
A purely plant-based diet and more importantly, a vegan lifestyle is only possible because of modern technology.

Whatever the role animals played on nutrition or controlling other animals they were a luxury, if things got worse people would consume less animal products, not more.

If you have three cows and your crops fail are you going to sell/trade one cow to get enough flour to get you for some months until you grow new crops, and in the meantime you go to your neighbour who has a bull to get another cow pregnant so you can have another one to trade for more flour, or are you going to eat the cows, which without refrigerator will not be edible more than a few days?

 

[fakei]

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.

BTW, to further show how upside down these arguments are, if you look at rural diets associated with more longevity and health benefits, like Okinawan and Cretan and the ones featured in the China Study (a must read for everyone interested in this subject), these were plant based diets to which people were driven by necessity, not planning or medical recommendation, so the plant based diet was the natural diet.

On the other hand the modern Mediterranean diet, which is the one that is only possible with industrialization and modern economy and technology is the one that requires planning. I live in a Mediterranean country and all my life knew people who had items removed from their Mediterranean diet by doctors because they had diabetes, high cholesterol, cancer, etc, and this includes sea foods, like cod fish in people with high uric acid.

 

[g0rph]

It obviously depends on circumstance.
And your example above also shows that having animal products to sell was also important.
But one main reason farming animals was so useful is they *can* be used for nutrition if crops fail, especially animals that can eat plants that humans cannot such as grass and weeds.
They also supplied fertiliser and helped remove unwanted pests.
A purely plant-based diet and more importantly, a vegan lifestyle is only possible because of modern technology.

What exactly do you "disagree with" @1956? Surely it's better to discuss than slam the X ?

 

[g0rph]

What exactly do you "disagree with" @1956? Surely it's better to discuss than slam the X ?

Ok. So it is the "A purely plant-based diet and more importantly, a vegan lifestyle is only possible because of modern technology."

What I mean by this, is that whilst 100-200-500 years ago you could certainly strive to be plant-based and not exploit animals, you would find it very difficult not to at some point, even if it was just killing a chicken as you'd run out of grain one winter or even using insects, grubs and worms to supplement when plant-food was lacking.
It would certainly have been extremely difficult to avoid animal protein at some point, and you would likely need to use animals for labour and transport.

You could argue that eating animal protein in a crisis is still vegan and that using animals to plough a field was necessary, but that isn't my point.
The wide availability of all food-stuffs that has come about through globalisation has made veganism, or at least an avoidance of cruelty to animals a moral imperative.

 

[fakei]

Ok. So it is the "A purely plant-based diet and more importantly, a vegan lifestyle is only possible because of modern technology."

What I mean by this, is that whilst 100-200-500 years ago you could certainly strive to be plant-based and not exploit animals, you would find it very difficult not to at some point, even if it was just killing a chicken as you'd run out of grain one winter or even using insects, grubs and worms to supplement when plant-food was lacking.
It would certainly have been extremely difficult to avoid animal protein at some point, and you would likely need to use animals for labour and transport.

Sorry to disappoint you but chicken used to be rich men's food, you would be doing a better bargain bartering that chicken, or her eggs, for flour. You have both economics and nutrition against these kind of arguments. First because it is more efficient to produce calories through plants than through animals, second because the proportion of macro nutrients in grains is closer to human needs than in animal products.

Plutarch wrote near 2000 years ago that there was no need for humans to eat meat with the plant foods available at the time and that the habit of eating meat must have come from some natural disaster that hit mankind making plants less available. Before him there were the Pythagoreans and before Orphism advocating vegetarianism.

 

[g0rph]

Sorry to disappoint you but chicken used to be rich men's food, you would be doing a better bargain bartering that chicken, or her eggs, for flour.

It depends on era and situation

You have both economics and nutrition against these kind of arguments. First because it is more efficient to produce calories through plants than through animals, second because the proportion of macro nutrients in grains is closer to human needs than in animal products.

Of course. Other than B12 and possibly D3 of course.

Plutarch wrote near 2000 years ago that there was no need for humans to eat meat with the plant foods available at the time and that the habit of eating meat must have come from some natural disaster that hit mankind making plants less available. Before him there were the Pythagoreans and before Orphism advocating vegetarianism.

And it's the natural disasters such as famines that made owning animals such as cows for milk and hens for eggs, so important.
Such animals can eat crops that we cannot. So in those cases being less efficient is kind of moot.

The Irish potato famine...
"Scientific analysis of dental calculus – plaque build-up – of victims found evidence of corn (maize), oats, potato, wheat and milk foodstuffs."
"Soup provided by the government would often contain rotten meat and other unpalatable vegetables. Yet, it's all there was to eat, causing even more suffering during the Irish Famine

 

[fakei]

It depends on era and situation

Chickens are frail and they need a greater portion of grain in their diet compared to other animals, that may have been the reason they were a rich man's food.

Of course. Other than B12 and possibly D3 of course.

B12 was available at the time in the water and food contamination, this has been repeated several times; vitamin D was not necessary since people got enough sun exposure, it's not necessary now if people get sun exposure. It might have been/is a problem for Afro Europeans in particular living in Northern Europe

And it's the natural disasters such as famines that made owning animals such as cows for milk and hens for eggs, so important.
Such animals can eat crops that we cannot. So in those cases being less efficient is kind of moot.

Such animals also need to be fed, or have large amounts of land for pasture.

It's not moot, that's why pastural people were constantly suffering migrating pressures, invading/raiding the Roman empire and other empires based on agriculture.

It's also the reason giving momentum to the plant based movement, the fact that people realised it is not sustainable to be feeding animals to feed humans instead of feeding directly the humans.

The Irish potato famine...
"Scientific analysis of dental calculus – plaque build-up – of victims found evidence of corn (maize), oats, potato, wheat and milk foodstuffs."
"Soup provided by the government would often contain rotten meat and other unpalatable vegetables. Yet, it's all there was to eat, causing even more suffering during the Irish Famine

What is this supposed to show?

 

[g0rph]

Chickens are frail and they need a greater portion of grain in their diet compared to other animals, that may have been the reason they were a rich man's food.


B12 was available at the time in the water and food contamination, this has been repeated several times; vitamin D was not necessary since people got enough sun exposure, it's not necessary now if people get sun exposure. It might have been/is a problem for Afro Europeans in particular living in Northern Europe


Such animals also need to be fed, or have large amounts of land for pasture.

It's not moot, that's why pastural people were constantly suffering migrating pressures, invading/raiding the Roman empire and other empires based on agriculture.

It's also the reason giving momentum to the plant based movement, the fact that people realised it is not sustainable to be feeding animals to feed humans instead of feeding directly the humans.




What is this supposed to show?

Yes, B12 and D3 of course was not as necessary to add to the diet back before clean water and no internet and TV but it certainly applies today so was worth mentioning.

The mention of what people ate in the Irish potato famine is an example of what people had to eat in times of famine...which included milk products and meat.

Land for pasture would not have been a big deal going back far enough. We have used cow's (and other animals) milk for 10000 years or so and used oxen for ploughing for at least 6000 years. Ruminants are great for converting nutrient-weak soil into available crop-land.
If we also look at pigs, it was at least 9000 years ago they were domesticated...mainly for food.
Whether or not all of this was necessary (the use as labour and soil health almost certainly was, as was having animals that could eat grass and weeds) is not relevant...
We are omnivores.

In the end, we are going around in circles.
Humans have eaten meat and later milk products for 100s of thousands of years. It is an ingrained part of our psyche. It's probable that it isn't the best diet and definitely isn't necessary for most people today.

When I try (usually unsuccessfully) to promote a plant-based diet, I steer clear from bogus claims of us being frugivores or herbivores because they simply don't stack up to history.

 

[fakei]

Yes, B12 and D3 of course was not as necessary to add to the diet back before clean water and no internet and TV but it certainly applies today so was worth mentioning.

If it was not necessary it cannot be used as an argument to show a strict vegetarian diet was not possible in the past.

The mention of what people ate in the Irish potato famine is an example of what people had to eat in times of famine...which included milk products and meat.

It shows that meat, rotten, was provided by the government and that they seem to have had a lacto vegetarian diet, which is what I've wrote about rural populations. Meat was negligible or non existent, dairy was low but more common.

Land for pasture would not have been a big deal going back far enough. We have used cow's (and other animals) milk for 10000 years or so and used oxen for ploughing for at least 6000 years. Ruminants are great for converting nutrient-weak soil into available crop-land.
If we also look at pigs, it was at least 9000 years ago they were domesticated...mainly for food.
Whether or not all of this was necessary (the use as labour and soil health almost certainly was, as was having animals that could eat grass and weeds) is not relevant...
We are omnivores.

It may have skipped your attention, but there is a difference between omnivorous and omnivore that has been mentioned already.

In the end, we are going around in circles.
Humans have eaten meat and later milk products for 100s of thousands of years. It is an ingrained part of our psyche. It's probable that it isn't the best diet and definitely isn't necessary for most people today.

When I try (usually unsuccessfully) to promote a plant-based diet, I steer clear from bogus claims of us being frugivores or herbivores because they simply don't stack up to history.

We are going in circles because the same arguments that have already been refuted like claiming it was impossible for people to be strictly vegetarian before globalisation and modern technology keep being repeated.

The discussion is about whether we are herbivores or not. I've been refuting the wrong claim that people could not be strictly vegetarians before modern times which is being used as an argument. With this claim refuted in all possible manners, the issue for discussion is what diet works better for humans.

And studies have show it is a plant based one, because it contains in general less fat, more fiber, more antioxidants, and is more balanced in terms of proteins.

I've drawn my conclusions from data and personal experience and have little doubts about being an herbivore.

 

[g0rph]

This omnivore (who eats a plant based diet) will leave it there then

 

[fakei]

When I try (usually unsuccessfully) to promote a plant-based diet, I steer clear from bogus claims of us being frugivores or herbivores because they simply don't stack up to history.

My arguments are not to convince anyone to follow any diet. In fact even have some fear when debating on the internet of persuading the wrong people. This being a vegan forum, people are supposed to be already persuaded.

Once knew a person trying to become vegetarian, she spent the day eating cookies and didn't eat properly at lunch, excluding important items like legumes and eventually ran into troubles. People not always understand how to eat properly.

A diet of whole grains, legumes and vegetables works, but if people start including stuff that will leach the body out of micro nutrients, or have unnatural lifestyles with unnatural demands, like many do, that's a whole different story.

 

[fakei]

This omnivore (who eats a plant based diet) will leave it there then

We agree on disagreeing .

 

[arriagdall]

The issue with the question is humans were not designed, we evolved. However, when you analyse the research, a plant-based diet is best for our health.

 

[g0rph]

The issue with the question is humans were not designed, we evolved. However, when you analyse the research, a plant-based diet is best for our health.

As long as we supplement, I agree.