Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Dieting / Supplement Discussion' started by YukisHeart, Oct 17, 2011.
Are you trying to tell me that this looks edible to you?
How can we be "designed" to only eat veggies if we don't even have the ability to digest cellulose. Wouldn't that be something really important for the design of a herbivore?
Also what herbivore CAN also eat meat? If it can also eat meat then its not an herbivore, its an omnivore.
As far as this original post is concerned, milk is only slightly acidic and most grains are just as acidic as meats are. Greens are alkaline but in the end this is not super important. Only people with diseases like diabetes usually have acidic blood, its a non issue with healthy people.
This . . .
I'm not religious at all, but if we are talking about being designed to eat something, then why would god design us to be herbivores and then give us a dental and digestive structure that makes it more difficult. MAE has no clue what he is talking about.
To the post above . . . That steak looks DISGUSTING! I would take a raw wheatgrass salad over that poison any day.
No one has acidic blood. If they did they would be dead. Please stop posting on the subject if you have not completed at least a collegiate level biology course.
If your "supposed to" and "designed for" "facts" were even "true" (goddamn I love quotes), it still doesn't mean shit.
Correlation =/= Causation
learn 2 science.
P.S. Watch iCaveman - those bastards get so damn hungry after a few days of eating flora that the only thing on their minds for a week is how to best murder a large animal.
Yes, that's why humans have eaten meat for thousands of years. There no way our bodies were designed to eat meat.
I'm going to go jump off a building for ever thinking that animal protein has any benefits for the human body.
Ok let me try to put this a different way. Humans are omnivores. We have been omnivores for as long as we have fossils. Humans today have traits common with BOTH herbivores and omnivores. This is what I am defending. We today have more traits that we share with herbivores than we do with omnivores (which does NOT mean that we are not omnivores today). Now in the past, as humans began to eat more animal products, our bodies have been evolving, growing to favor animal products. Today, our society consumes more animal products than ever before. As we continue this trend, we will continue to evolve to favor animal products. We will gain more and more omnivorous traits, and lose more and more herbivorous traits. However, and this is the whole point I have been trying to make, if you were to rewind the film of evolution, the further back you go, the less omnivorous traits you would find, and the more herbivorous traits you would find. Now does this mean that eventually you would find humans being 100% herbivorous? No, I'm not claiming that at all. I'm fine with humans always being omnivorous. But back then, our bodies were MUCH more suitable for a herbivorous lifestyle. Humans, who have been scavengers, started eating more and more animal products, evolution, takes over, here we are today. We still have many herbivorous traits, and we had even more in the past. So by rewinding evolution, you can see that the human body was designed in a way that benefited from a herbivorous life style. Evolution allows us the luxury of being omnivores, but that doesn't mean that the human body was designed to eat meat. Our body today is more equipped for animal products than our ancestors, but even today we still are not as well suited as other omnivores.
PSS. Come someone really tell me how to quote sections? lol
False. Our intestines (shorter than any of our primate relatives, more in line with omnivores like pigs), teeth, digestive enzymes (I see you ignored the bile / gall bladder question), atherosclerotic patterns, everything points to being omnivores.
"began to eat"? Humans have been eating animals since we've been human or longer. The idea that humans ever survived on a plant-based diet is absent from archeoanthropological literature - you know, the people that ACTUALLY STUDY EARLY HUMANS. Revisionist vegan history doesn't compare to actual science.
This is simple nonsense. Any anthropologist will tell you that humans have, at various times, eaten primarily animal-based diets. You think humans ate apples and lettuce during the Ice Age? Ask an anthropologist about all the times a early human campsite is dug up, and almost no signs of food other than animal bones were found.
The science does not bear this out, in a number of ways. One, where do you set your arbitrary "far enough back" line? Why not go further than that? Why not less? I'll go with the separation of humans from other early hominids (sapiens). There is no evidence that suggest that true humans were not avid consumers of animal foods whenever they could be found. There is even some compelling evidence to suggest that humans' evolution to having powerful brains was fueled by consumption of energy-dense and fatty-acid dense animal foods such as seafood, marrow, and brains.
Evolution can lead to near full adaptation over several hundred thousand years, which we've had. There's no reason to think that the diet that humanity (homo sapiens) ate for most of its existence - rich in animal foods and fats in addition to vegetables and fruits - has not been fully adapted to.
Basically: (citation needed)
No, we have omnivorous traits. Loads of them. Nothing but them. Herbivorous traits by definition would be present in herbivores but not omnivores. We lack traits of both true herbivores and true carnivores, and have for our entire existence as a species.
If you're going to say that humans evolved in a way that goes against accepted knowledge in science, you should post studies to back it up. Not fact sheets that were debunked the week after they came out in the 70's.
You can multi-quote by hitting the "reply" button, then putting "[ / quote]" without spaces at the end of the section you wish to address, then putting "[ quote]" at the front of the rest.
You should also take another look at the links I provided, or just research the matter yourself. I've studied nutrition and biological sciences for years, and even my vegan evolutionary biology professor admitted that humans have always eaten meat. He just said that we had a moral obligation not to.
Remember that this moral obligation to save the animals means that zealous vegans will deliberately spread misinformation to trick people into doing the right thing, from their point of view. I don't blame them any more than the door-to-door evangelists who are really just trying to save my soul.
Acidosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maybe you should retake your biology course before blaming other people for ignorance.
You said our bodies are designed to be herbivores. Now your trying to say that a really long time ago that was true. Maybe before we evolved into humans sure, back when we were more apelike its probable. However humans are not "designed" to be herbivores. If you believe in evolution then there is no such thing as something being designed to do something. Like I said if we were true herbivores then it would be pretty damn important for us to be able to digest cellulose.
Acidosis does exist. So does alkalosis for that matter.
I believe Scott's point was that blood ph is pretty constant.
If your blood ph deviates ever so slightly.... you die. (7.35-7.45 is the margin)
Any thing outside of that and you're in big trouble.
And 7.4 is more of a neutral/slightly alkaline state.
So in essence he's right, nobody can have "acidic" blood.
However your urine and saliva ph can vary pretty much.
Usually from 6.0 up to 8.0 on the ph scale. And in certain cases even lower or higher than that.
To the thread starter,
Yes, it is good advice to take veggies/alkaline foods when you eat meat to buffer the acidic effect. It's good to do this even if you're healthy.
If you want long term health, your best option is a balanced diet.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
will you guys PLEASE STOP QUOTING THE STEAK PICTURE!
Way to default to wikipedia without an actual understanding of the bodies physiological processes.
Acidosis occurs when there is an underlying metabolic or systemic issue. It WILL NOT occur in a healthy human because they eat so called "acidic" food.
Humans have obscenely strong mechanisms that exist to maintain acid-base homeostasis in the blood. It is apparent that people that buy into the fallacies of acid/alkaline eating lack the knowledge that:
1.) buffering agents that reversibly bind H+ ions and impede any change in pH exist in our bodies
2.) extracellular buffers include bicarbonate and ammonia
3.) proteins and phosphate act as intracellular buffers
4.) the bicarbonate buffering system is how we maintain a relatively constant blood pH and it does a pretty good job at counteracting anything that would alter it
5.) if any of that fails your rate of breathing will change which will alter CO2 in the blood
6.) if there is still an imbalance in pH the kidneys have multiple mechanisms to control pH by the excretion of excess acid or base
Excuse my ignorance.
Please start using paragraphs, this is painful.
I would argue that evolution stopped for us 10,000 years ago. We simply are not subject to natural selection in society. Genetic mutations that could be favorable are not going to be increased throughout our species because the "survival of the fittest" simply isn't there.
Were our monkey like ancestors 16 million years ago herbivorous?
Sure, the evidence points in that direction, but we have evidence of pre-human hominids eating meat 500,000 years ago. Humans have always been omnivores, plain and simple.
Not only does he not understand evolution, but he doesn't understand the timelines either.
It's theorized that about 2 million years ago Australopithecus ate meat, and that there were two camps of Australopithecus - those who ate meat, and those who didn't. One group had significantly larger brains, eventually evolving into the first Hominid species. Guess which one?
So we've had +2 million years to adapt (+80,000 generations) to meat eating. Not only that, but our brain absorbs ketones more easily than glucose - certainly not a sign of a natural vegetarian bias.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have animals to eat.
So our bodies don't adapt if we change our diet over time? (genuine question).
I was taught that for example it was normal to be lactose intolerant, just like most mammals are (after weaning). But as humans began to consume more dairy/milk we have evolved to be able to consume dairy without problems.
You make it sound as though eating fruits and veggies (aka. alkaline foods) are not necessary for long term health.
Of course nobody is going to develop acidosis or health issues because they ate one big steak and didn't eat a salad or alkaline foods to aid in the buffering process. Not a healthy person at least.
Yes! all these mechanisms, buffering systems, metabolic processes, etc. help maintain homeostasis not only in your blood but in the body as a whole.
I mean, i'm all for meat, animal and animal-by products. But i'm also a proponent for eating alkaline foods. There is no fallacy in the benefits of a balanced acid/alkaline diet. You can't expect to live a long healthy life by eating a highly acidic diet. No way! Your body can only handle so much before it starts to sway away from homeostasis.