6 ms·

Humans are meant to eat meat, not just veggies.

mistercow 14y ago
What do you mean by "meant to"? I suppose humans are also "meant to" be eaten by bears or die from minor infections, but I'm not exactly eager to sign up for that, are you?
- SeanLuke 14y ago
  I think he's referring to Vitamin B12.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Fortunately, modern technology makes it very easy to get adequate B12 without consuming any animal products.
- mc32 14y ago
  I think one (not being a prey for a bear) takes no biological re-adjustment (well, except provisions to live longer, I suppose). On the other hand, getting used to a radically different diet would take many generations to adjust to. For example, after a few thousand years, some people are not yet used to cow's milk, or used to wheat. Long term, yes, nature should take care of that.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Huh? I've been a vegetarian for 16 years, and a vegan for one year, and I'm quite adjusted. I don't remember any generations passing in that time, but I might not have been paying attention.
    - mc32 14y ago
      I meant adjusting naturally to the different source of nutrition. If you're a vegan, you would normally need to be very careful of your diet so that you do not introduce nutritional deficiencies into your system, or you would need to subsidize your nutrition with vitamins. Long term, the body could find a way to bypass the nutritional subsidies --it could take a very long time (cows had to develop additional stomachs to adjust to eating primarily grass, for example).
      - sdm 14y ago
        Ahhh... you have to be pretty careful with what you eat if you eat meat as well to. Just walk down the street for examples. Generally, the length of our digestive system is sited as one of the main reasons we are so poorly adapted at eating meat.
        ceejayoz 14y ago
        Our ancestors generally weren't eating massive portions of heavily processed, heavily spiced meat. Taco Bell gives you the shits because it's Taco Bell, not because it's meat.
        mistercow 14y ago
        In fact, many of our ancestors were often eating so little meat as to be nutritionally insignificant, which is the other major hole in the "eating meat is natural" argument. But I really don't know why you added "heavily spiced" in there. Spices are usually more or less nutritionally neutral.
        ceejayoz 14y ago
        > Spices are usually more or less nutritionally neutral. Nutritionally neutral, but not gastrointestinally, as folks sensitive to spicy food can attest.
      - mistercow 14y ago
        It's not really any more difficult to keep your nutrition balanced as a vegan than as a carnivore. Either way, you have to pay a bit of attention to what you eat, not eat too much of this, and not eat too little of that. And what's wrong with taking supplements? You keep invoking the concept of "natural", but there is nothing intrinsically superior about nature. Humans are in control now, and we're doing a lot better for ourselves than nature ever did.
drcube 14y ago
Then you should applaud this company, which is trying to bring meat to those who can't otherwise eat it for health or ethical reasons.
- lupatus 14y ago
  But, it isn't actually meat... It is full of phytoestrogen-supplying soy, industrially-processed plant fillers from peas and barley, and other chemicals like titanium dioxide. I would rather eat a steak with a bowl of pea-barley porridge on the side.
ceejayoz 14y ago
We're meant to die at 40, too. I'm not a vegetarian, because I love my meat, but if you can give me a meat replacement that's indistinguishable in nutrition, texture, and flavour, what's wrong with that?
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  It's not indistinguishable in nutrition.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Not yet, but I'd imagine there are plenty of folks working on that.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    It's not that hard to find a meat-free diet that supplies all the nutrition that you require. Meat-heavy diets come with their own problems, and there's no point in replicating those with something "indistinguishable".
xcallmejudasx 14y ago
Can you site some proof that we are physically meant to eat meat that doesn't use observation as the main reasoning? We are usually characterized as omnivores because of a vast amount of observation of people eating meat, however our bodies aren't exactly designed for it. For starters, the small intestine of carnivores is much shorter than non-carnivores and has a higher level of acidity in the stomach. This is because the nutrients need to be extracted and the waste expelled before the meat rots inside the body(which it partially does in a human body since our intestine is much longer by comparison than other carnivores). There's also the issue of short, dull, canines and much smaller temporalis muscle that powers the jaw. This is why we have to spend more time chewing and grinding meat down into smaller pieces instead of just tearing off chunks and swallowing it whole like most carnivores. We wouldn't be able very easily bite through hide and tear chunks of meat off nor would we be able to digest (most)raw meat without getting sick. Most of our carnivorous traits are remnants from evolution that were never replaced. We more closely resemble a herbivore that has maintained some basic primal ability to process meat than we do a carnivore that has adapted to process vegetation.
- drcube 14y ago
  We're omnivores, not carnivores. Hence the teeth and intestines. Cecil Adams had this to say in 1990, I'd be interested if others would provide an update: "Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores. Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again. Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation — bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung. The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat...

What do you mean by "meant to"? I suppose humans are also "meant to" be eaten by bears or die from minor infections, but I'm not exactly eager to sign up for that, are you?

SeanLuke 14y ago
I think he's referring to Vitamin B12.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Fortunately, modern technology makes it very easy to get adequate B12 without consuming any animal products.
mc32 14y ago
I think one (not being a prey for a bear) takes no biological re-adjustment (well, except provisions to live longer, I suppose). On the other hand, getting used to a radically different diet would take many generations to adjust to. For example, after a few thousand years, some people are not yet used to cow's milk, or used to wheat. Long term, yes, nature should take care of that.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Huh? I've been a vegetarian for 16 years, and a vegan for one year, and I'm quite adjusted. I don't remember any generations passing in that time, but I might not have been paying attention.
  - mc32 14y ago
    I meant adjusting naturally to the different source of nutrition. If you're a vegan, you would normally need to be very careful of your diet so that you do not introduce nutritional deficiencies into your system, or you would need to subsidize your nutrition with vitamins. Long term, the body could find a way to bypass the nutritional subsidies --it could take a very long time (cows had to develop additional stomachs to adjust to eating primarily grass, for example).
    - sdm 14y ago
      Ahhh... you have to be pretty careful with what you eat if you eat meat as well to. Just walk down the street for examples. Generally, the length of our digestive system is sited as one of the main reasons we are so poorly adapted at eating meat.
      - ceejayoz 14y ago
        Our ancestors generally weren't eating massive portions of heavily processed, heavily spiced meat. Taco Bell gives you the shits because it's Taco Bell, not because it's meat.
        mistercow 14y ago
        In fact, many of our ancestors were often eating so little meat as to be nutritionally insignificant, which is the other major hole in the "eating meat is natural" argument. But I really don't know why you added "heavily spiced" in there. Spices are usually more or less nutritionally neutral.
        ceejayoz 14y ago
        > Spices are usually more or less nutritionally neutral. Nutritionally neutral, but not gastrointestinally, as folks sensitive to spicy food can attest.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      It's not really any more difficult to keep your nutrition balanced as a vegan than as a carnivore. Either way, you have to pay a bit of attention to what you eat, not eat too much of this, and not eat too little of that. And what's wrong with taking supplements? You keep invoking the concept of "natural", but there is nothing intrinsically superior about nature. Humans are in control now, and we're doing a lot better for ourselves than nature ever did.

drcube 14y ago

Then you should applaud this company, which is trying to bring meat to those who can't otherwise eat it for health or ethical reasons.

lupatus 14y ago
But, it isn't actually meat... It is full of phytoestrogen-supplying soy, industrially-processed plant fillers from peas and barley, and other chemicals like titanium dioxide. I would rather eat a steak with a bowl of pea-barley porridge on the side.

ceejayoz 14y ago

We're meant to die at 40, too. I'm not a vegetarian, because I love my meat, but if you can give me a meat replacement that's indistinguishable in nutrition, texture, and flavour, what's wrong with that?

jacoblyles 14y ago
It's not indistinguishable in nutrition.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Not yet, but I'd imagine there are plenty of folks working on that.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  It's not that hard to find a meat-free diet that supplies all the nutrition that you require. Meat-heavy diets come with their own problems, and there's no point in replicating those with something "indistinguishable".

xcallmejudasx 14y ago

Can you site some proof that we are physically meant to eat meat that doesn't use observation as the main reasoning? We are usually characterized as omnivores because of a vast amount of observation of people eating meat, however our bodies aren't exactly designed for it. For starters, the small intestine of carnivores is much shorter than non-carnivores and has a higher level of acidity in the stomach. This is because the nutrients need to be extracted and the waste expelled before the meat rots inside the body(which it partially does in a human body since our intestine is much longer by comparison than other carnivores). There's also the issue of short, dull, canines and much smaller temporalis muscle that powers the jaw. This is why we have to spend more time chewing and grinding meat down into smaller pieces instead of just tearing off chunks and swallowing it whole like most carnivores. We wouldn't be able very easily bite through hide and tear chunks of meat off nor would we be able to digest (most)raw meat without getting sick. Most of our carnivorous traits are remnants from evolution that were never replaced. We more closely resemble a herbivore that has maintained some basic primal ability to process meat than we do a carnivore that has adapted to process vegetation.

drcube 14y ago
We're omnivores, not carnivores. Hence the teeth and intestines. Cecil Adams had this to say in 1990, I'd be interested if others would provide an update: "Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores. Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again. Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation — bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung. The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat...