8 ms·

One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants wa

One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Food should have labels when it includes stuff other than plants (or other than what we humans evolved to eat typically). The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Germany where companies have started to use the English term, even though we have plenty of normal German terms. It sounds like a brand or a fad.

User23 4y ago
Homo sapiens is something like 100 to 300 thousand years old from the latest estimates I’ve seen. Agriculture is maybe six to twelve thousand years old. I don’t think there’s a strong evolutionary argument that humans are meant to primarily eat plants, but rather quite the opposite. And then there’s the amusing observation that cows are entirely plant-based.
Mistletoe 4y ago
Are you implying humans evolved to only eat plants? Every documentary and paper on early humans I see points to otherwise, and that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-led-to-smaller-stomachs-bigger-brains/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-l...
- beebeepka 4y ago
  Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. Sounds like self-congratulatory hogwash to me. Creatures eat what they can. Some purely carnivorous species have been around way longer than us, and yet, the stars did not align just the right way for them.
  - Aaargh20318 4y ago
    > Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. We know for sure we have evolved to be omnivores. This can easily be determined based on e.g. our teeth and the length of our digestive system.
    - oblak 4y ago
      Well, of course. We don't even need science to determine that humans are omnivores. Just look around - not everyone eats meat.
      - lambdaba 4y ago
        Because meat is expensive, primarily. Especially from poorer backgrounds there is a culture of minimizing meat consumption and saving it for children just because of it's rarety. That's the meat of the argument for me.
        oblak 4y ago
        I grew up in eastern Europe. Yes, meat was more expensive 30 years ago. These days, thanks to endless subsidies, meat is way cheaper than quality vegetables and most nuts. And yet, people choose not to eat it. Earth shattering, I know. Damn, some people really get pissed off when you make the "wrong" choice of not eating meat.
        steve_adams_86 4y ago
        Meat is cheap where I live and about 10% of the population doesn’t eat it. It’s actually 13% according to surveys, but let’s say 10% to be safe. I could also hunt or spearfish like I used to. Meat is easy to get. There’s no need for it though. Meat is amazing if you’re starving because it contains a lot of stuff a hungry person needs. Kale is not going to do the same things for you. However, it’s unlikely anyone on here is starving. Meat has rapidly diminishing returns as you stop starving and have a more stable diet of plants. Eventually eating meat becomes harmful, but eating plants does not.
- bubsie 4y ago
  It's obvious that we ate meat as early humans, but the article and theory that meat evolved our brains is just that, a theory. There's also been theories that fire and cooking is more associated with brain development since we're able to absorb more nutrients from meat and tubers that we forged. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes...
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Hypothesis - not theory
- atomack 4y ago
  Here's an article citing research published this year that disputes the idea that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat: "They concluded that the evidence for increased carnivory in our ancestors is merely an effect of increased sampling of the archaeological record at certain time intervals starting around two million years ago, meaning that there is no strong relationship between eating more meat and the evolution of larger brains in our ancestors." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/fourteen-discoveries-made-about-human-evolution-in-2022-180981344/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/fourt...
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  There are as many (or more) studies indicating that human coprolites contained more plant than animal matter. It seems it would depend largely on the season, climate, location, and other factors. Some human populations had little to no reason to hunt. Others more recently would have needed to hunt due to relentless cold conditions from long winters. We are opportunistic and diverse feeders. It doesn’t seem like there’s a clear advantage to eating animals outside of calorie density and availability when plants are absent. It seems more helpful to view meat eating simply as diversification. Our plant based diets would have supported large brains, and they still do. There’s no clear reason to believe that eating other animals enlarged our brains.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vel0city 4y ago
> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat. We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved to eat meat. We've been eating meat for many millennia. I'll agree, not at the ratio that's common in the normal US diet these days, but its disingenuous to suggest that plants were the sole default of food, and it is only a modern thing to eat meat.
- lambdaba 4y ago
  Evolved to eat plans as an option, yes, but not as a preference. It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting, and that's with modern, highly selected for plants... My bet would be we evolved to eat animal fats and protein, and that is most of the selection pressure for our big brains too. Hunting while being a rather frail primate takes brains.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    There are heaps of people who thrive strictly on plants who aren’t bloated or struggling to digest their food or get calories in.
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      Yeah, I mean you can even do a keto vegan weight gainer diet if you go fairly processed. It isnt hard at all if you allow carbs. Coconut oil, brown rice protein and pea protein for the keto. Use actual brown rice and legumes for the carb version. But to the point of the GP, I can't tolerate legumes (even fermented) and I don't think very many people at all tolerate brown rice protein, that is why they lowered it so much in soylent. Some people have different dietary needs. I haven't found a way to get sufficient protein without animal products that doesn't leave me with digestive issues. Even just using broccoli and greens, along with oatmeal ended up being unpleasant. And this is just for normal fda levels of protein, not adding muscle mass after an injury or illness levels of protein.
rsynnott 4y ago
It’s a new term in English, too; I assume because people found ‘vegan’ off-putting? Not really sure; it turned up about a decade ago, and as the article says is poorly defined.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  Veganism is a moral and ethical lifestyle choice with wide ranging implications whereas plant-based is a descriptor of the things that go into a foodstuff. A vegan will only eat plant-based food (and so “plant-based” and “vegan” are often used interchangeably to describe a food) but someone who follows a plant-based diet might buy leather goods (and is therefore not vegan). A good example of this nuance is the Impossible Burger. The Impossible Burger is plant-based but not vegan because it was tested on animals.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Interesting. Apparently they had to do it or they wouldn't get FDA approval. Probably a necessary step for wide adoption. I'd still consider them vegan. 1. https://www.greenmatters.com/p/does-impossible-foods-test-on-animals https://www.greenmatters.com/p/does-impossible-foods-test-on...
  - cogman10 4y ago
    I don't think "not tested on animals" is something generally accepted as being required to be vegan. AFAIK, the main qualifier is "does not consume animal products." Impossible meat does not have animal products in it and is not currently being tested on animals. Similarly, most medicine is animal tested, yet I've never heard someone claim that medicine isn't vegan.
nine_k 4y ago
Indeed, "animal-free" could look more cool. It also is more strict, and may get you sued. Say, crepes with fruit jam are definitely plant-based, but they may not be animal-free: the jam may contain bits of gelatin, and the easiest way to make nice-looking crepes is to fry them on lard.
- layer8 4y ago
  Yeah, but the non-rational parts of the brain aren’t good with negation. Reading “animal”, even when suffixed by “-free”, the brain feels it doesn’t want that thing with “animal” on it. Better give it something with “plant” on it.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Why? "Animal-free" means that animals are free, not taking part in the food.
    - layer8 4y ago
      It’s a priming effect. Once your brain sees “animal”, it associates the product or label with animals right away, before higher-level linguistic processing, an association which then has to be undone by the “-free”. That undoing is time-delayed and incomplete. One common analogy is how when someone says “don’t think of X”, it’s hard to not think of X.
DigiDigiorno 4y ago
Does Germany not have an ingredient list on food products? Unfortunately it's usual full of things we didn't evolve to eat, but that's the place to look Also, while actual plants are pretty great, the "plant based" products aren't imo. I find that they are very processed. They aren't throwing the "plant based" label on the salad mix. Every now and then it's put on something that was already plant-based prior to the fad, like falafel, but that's not the norm. The label in itself is tantamount to non-meats "other than what we humans evolved to eat" Chimpanzee's still eat meat as part of their diet, they don't eat highly processed soy topped with thickener laden vegetable oils.
nradov 4y ago
For much of pre-history it seems our diet may have been largely carnivorous. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247
- myshpa 4y ago
  Or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs - Anthropologist Debunks the Paleo Diet
- tomtheelder 4y ago
  Did you read this? It's like a carnivore fan-fic, it's absolutely hilarious. I've almost never read a clearer example of starting with a conclusion and trying to bend the evidence to fit it.
weakfortress 4y ago
> plant based was the default My canine teeth tell a different story. Meat was eaten when it was available. Certainly they also ate berries and what not as cavemen. However, it wasn't like grug, or medieval grug, went out of their way to eat 3 square meals consisting of mostly vegetables. Grains, probably. But vegetables were often times as much of a luxury as meat. "Beyond meat" etc are all poisons as far as I am concerned. To turn vegetables into a meat-like substitute requires some seance with dark magic. Their entire marketing gimmick is to compare it to Tofu. Tofu is minimally processed. Beyond meat and things like it are typically processed more than your average bag of potato chips.

User23 4y ago

Homo sapiens is something like 100 to 300 thousand years old from the latest estimates I’ve seen. Agriculture is maybe six to twelve thousand years old. I don’t think there’s a strong evolutionary argument that humans are meant to primarily eat plants, but rather quite the opposite. And then there’s the amusing observation that cows are entirely plant-based.

Mistletoe 4y ago

Are you implying humans evolved to only eat plants? Every documentary and paper on early humans I see points to otherwise, and that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-led-to-smaller-stomachs-bigger-brains/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-l...

beebeepka 4y ago
Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. Sounds like self-congratulatory hogwash to me. Creatures eat what they can. Some purely carnivorous species have been around way longer than us, and yet, the stars did not align just the right way for them.
- Aaargh20318 4y ago
  > Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. We know for sure we have evolved to be omnivores. This can easily be determined based on e.g. our teeth and the length of our digestive system.
  - oblak 4y ago
    Well, of course. We don't even need science to determine that humans are omnivores. Just look around - not everyone eats meat.
    - lambdaba 4y ago
      Because meat is expensive, primarily. Especially from poorer backgrounds there is a culture of minimizing meat consumption and saving it for children just because of it's rarety. That's the meat of the argument for me.
      - oblak 4y ago
        I grew up in eastern Europe. Yes, meat was more expensive 30 years ago. These days, thanks to endless subsidies, meat is way cheaper than quality vegetables and most nuts. And yet, people choose not to eat it. Earth shattering, I know. Damn, some people really get pissed off when you make the "wrong" choice of not eating meat.
      - steve_adams_86 4y ago
        Meat is cheap where I live and about 10% of the population doesn’t eat it. It’s actually 13% according to surveys, but let’s say 10% to be safe. I could also hunt or spearfish like I used to. Meat is easy to get. There’s no need for it though. Meat is amazing if you’re starving because it contains a lot of stuff a hungry person needs. Kale is not going to do the same things for you. However, it’s unlikely anyone on here is starving. Meat has rapidly diminishing returns as you stop starving and have a more stable diet of plants. Eventually eating meat becomes harmful, but eating plants does not.
bubsie 4y ago
It's obvious that we ate meat as early humans, but the article and theory that meat evolved our brains is just that, a theory. There's also been theories that fire and cooking is more associated with brain development since we're able to absorb more nutrients from meat and tubers that we forged. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes...
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Hypothesis - not theory
atomack 4y ago
Here's an article citing research published this year that disputes the idea that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat: "They concluded that the evidence for increased carnivory in our ancestors is merely an effect of increased sampling of the archaeological record at certain time intervals starting around two million years ago, meaning that there is no strong relationship between eating more meat and the evolution of larger brains in our ancestors." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/fourteen-discoveries-made-about-human-evolution-in-2022-180981344/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/fourt...
steve_adams_86 4y ago
There are as many (or more) studies indicating that human coprolites contained more plant than animal matter. It seems it would depend largely on the season, climate, location, and other factors. Some human populations had little to no reason to hunt. Others more recently would have needed to hunt due to relentless cold conditions from long winters. We are opportunistic and diverse feeders. It doesn’t seem like there’s a clear advantage to eating animals outside of calorie density and availability when plants are absent. It seems more helpful to view meat eating simply as diversification. Our plant based diets would have supported large brains, and they still do. There’s no clear reason to believe that eating other animals enlarged our brains.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vel0city 4y ago

> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat. We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved to eat meat. We've been eating meat for many millennia. I'll agree, not at the ratio that's common in the normal US diet these days, but its disingenuous to suggest that plants were the sole default of food, and it is only a modern thing to eat meat.

lambdaba 4y ago
Evolved to eat plans as an option, yes, but not as a preference. It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting, and that's with modern, highly selected for plants... My bet would be we evolved to eat animal fats and protein, and that is most of the selection pressure for our big brains too. Hunting while being a rather frail primate takes brains.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  There are heaps of people who thrive strictly on plants who aren’t bloated or struggling to digest their food or get calories in.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    Yeah, I mean you can even do a keto vegan weight gainer diet if you go fairly processed. It isnt hard at all if you allow carbs. Coconut oil, brown rice protein and pea protein for the keto. Use actual brown rice and legumes for the carb version. But to the point of the GP, I can't tolerate legumes (even fermented) and I don't think very many people at all tolerate brown rice protein, that is why they lowered it so much in soylent. Some people have different dietary needs. I haven't found a way to get sufficient protein without animal products that doesn't leave me with digestive issues. Even just using broccoli and greens, along with oatmeal ended up being unpleasant. And this is just for normal fda levels of protein, not adding muscle mass after an injury or illness levels of protein.

rsynnott 4y ago

It’s a new term in English, too; I assume because people found ‘vegan’ off-putting? Not really sure; it turned up about a decade ago, and as the article says is poorly defined.

phphphphp 4y ago
Veganism is a moral and ethical lifestyle choice with wide ranging implications whereas plant-based is a descriptor of the things that go into a foodstuff. A vegan will only eat plant-based food (and so “plant-based” and “vegan” are often used interchangeably to describe a food) but someone who follows a plant-based diet might buy leather goods (and is therefore not vegan). A good example of this nuance is the Impossible Burger. The Impossible Burger is plant-based but not vegan because it was tested on animals.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Interesting. Apparently they had to do it or they wouldn't get FDA approval. Probably a necessary step for wide adoption. I'd still consider them vegan. 1. https://www.greenmatters.com/p/does-impossible-foods-test-on-animals https://www.greenmatters.com/p/does-impossible-foods-test-on...
- cogman10 4y ago
  I don't think "not tested on animals" is something generally accepted as being required to be vegan. AFAIK, the main qualifier is "does not consume animal products." Impossible meat does not have animal products in it and is not currently being tested on animals. Similarly, most medicine is animal tested, yet I've never heard someone claim that medicine isn't vegan.

nine_k 4y ago

Indeed, "animal-free" could look more cool. It also is more strict, and may get you sued. Say, crepes with fruit jam are definitely plant-based, but they may not be animal-free: the jam may contain bits of gelatin, and the easiest way to make nice-looking crepes is to fry them on lard.

layer8 4y ago
Yeah, but the non-rational parts of the brain aren’t good with negation. Reading “animal”, even when suffixed by “-free”, the brain feels it doesn’t want that thing with “animal” on it. Better give it something with “plant” on it.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Why? "Animal-free" means that animals are free, not taking part in the food.
  - layer8 4y ago
    It’s a priming effect. Once your brain sees “animal”, it associates the product or label with animals right away, before higher-level linguistic processing, an association which then has to be undone by the “-free”. That undoing is time-delayed and incomplete. One common analogy is how when someone says “don’t think of X”, it’s hard to not think of X.

DigiDigiorno 4y ago

Does Germany not have an ingredient list on food products? Unfortunately it's usual full of things we didn't evolve to eat, but that's the place to look Also, while actual plants are pretty great, the "plant based" products aren't imo. I find that they are very processed. They aren't throwing the "plant based" label on the salad mix. Every now and then it's put on something that was already plant-based prior to the fad, like falafel, but that's not the norm. The label in itself is tantamount to non-meats "other than what we humans evolved to eat" Chimpanzee's still eat meat as part of their diet, they don't eat highly processed soy topped with thickener laden vegetable oils.

nradov 4y ago

For much of pre-history it seems our diet may have been largely carnivorous. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247

myshpa 4y ago
Or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs - Anthropologist Debunks the Paleo Diet
tomtheelder 4y ago
Did you read this? It's like a carnivore fan-fic, it's absolutely hilarious. I've almost never read a clearer example of starting with a conclusion and trying to bend the evidence to fit it.

weakfortress 4y ago

> plant based was the default My canine teeth tell a different story. Meat was eaten when it was available. Certainly they also ate berries and what not as cavemen. However, it wasn't like grug, or medieval grug, went out of their way to eat 3 square meals consisting of mostly vegetables. Grains, probably. But vegetables were often times as much of a luxury as meat. "Beyond meat" etc are all poisons as far as I am concerned. To turn vegetables into a meat-like substitute requires some seance with dark magic. Their entire marketing gimmick is to compare it to Tofu. Tofu is minimally processed. Beyond meat and things like it are typically processed more than your average bag of potato chips.