Let's End This Debate: Meat eaters Get In Here
- Thread starter RBGrider
- Start date
If you eat alot of meat during the week. before you go to bed saturday night drink some castor oil that way the old meat will be expelled sunday morning. And you wont get the heavy gut.
Vagina Feaster
Banned
I agree with everything RBGrider says.
Meat was largely the reason why I used to have such terrible skin. Gross acne. Ever since I became vegan, my skin is glowing, I'm thin and I have more energy.
Vegetable, fruits, green tea.... I'm always snacking on carrots.
So fuck meat.
Meat was largely the reason why I used to have such terrible skin. Gross acne. Ever since I became vegan, my skin is glowing, I'm thin and I have more energy.
Vegetable, fruits, green tea.... I'm always snacking on carrots.
So fuck meat.
I would also not only are vegetable cheap but they help keep your stamina up. But I know I am addicted to meat I eat meat everyday Steaks. Beef tenderloin is the greatest, and leg of lamb. I live in Detroit so I go to the Eastern market and I buy the whole shank and whole leg they cut it for you exactly the way you want it and its also cheaper that way. I know I need to slow down because im at 225 right now but im only 5-11 I need to get back to 200-205.
Most comprehensive long term study of diet and its effect on health. Recognize. Soy is not the enemy although the meat industry would like to convince you of this. 
What do 100,000 readers know that you don't? Learn more about this best selling, ground-breaking book, embraced by thousands who want to improve their health and their lives. Summarily ignored by the mainstream media, the ground-swell support speaks volumes about the importance of this provocative and timely book by Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II.
The science is clear. The results are unmistakable.
Change your diet and dramatically reduce the risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
Respected nutrition and health researcher, Dr. T. Colin Campbell reveals the truth behind special interest groups, government entities and scientists that have taken Americans down a deadly path
Even today, as the low-carb craze sweeps the nation, two-thirds of adults are still obese and children are being diagnosed with Type II diabetes, typically an “adult” disease, at an alarming rate. If we’re eating healthier, why are Americans stricken with heart disease as much as we were 30 years ago?
Drawing on the project findings in rural China, but going far beyond those findings, The China Study details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes and cancer. The report also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and opportunistic scientists. The New York Times has recognized the study (China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project) as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the “most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.”
“After a long career in research and policy-making, I have decided to step ‘out of the system.’ I have decided to disclose why Americans are so confused,” said Dr. Campbell. “As a taxpayer who foots the bill for research and health policy in America, you deserve to know that many of the common notions you have been told about food, health and disease are wrong.”
“I propose to do nothing less than redefine what we think of as good nutrition. You need to know the truth about food, and why eating the right way can save your life.”
Early in his career as a researcher with MIT and Virginia Tech, Dr. Campbell worked to promote better health by eating more meat, milk and eggs -- “high-quality animal protein … It was an obvious sequel to my own life on the farm and I was happy to believe that the American diet was the best in the world.”
He later was a researcher on a project in the Philippines working with malnourished children. The project became an investigation for Dr. Campbell, as to why so many Filipino children were being diagnosed with liver cancer, predominately an adult disease. The primary goal of the project was to ensure that the children were getting as much protein as possible.
“In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer...” He began to review other reports from around the world that reflected the findings of his research in the Philippines.
Although it was “heretical to say that protein wasn’t healthy,” he started an in-depth study into the role of nutrition, especially protein, in the cause of cancer.
The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, “this project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.”
The findings? “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored,” said Dr. Campbell.
In The China Study, Dr. Campbell details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, and also its ability to reduce or reverse the risk or effects of these deadly illnesses. The China Study also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and irresponsible scientists.
The China Study is not a diet book. Consumers are bombarded with conflicting messages regarding health and nutrition; the market is flooded with popular titles like The Atkins Diet and The South Beach Diet. The China Study cuts through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those concerned with the effects of aging. Additionally, he challenges the validity of these low-carb fad diets and issues a startling warning to their followers.
What do 100,000 readers know that you don't? Learn more about this best selling, ground-breaking book, embraced by thousands who want to improve their health and their lives. Summarily ignored by the mainstream media, the ground-swell support speaks volumes about the importance of this provocative and timely book by Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II.
The science is clear. The results are unmistakable.
Change your diet and dramatically reduce the risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
Respected nutrition and health researcher, Dr. T. Colin Campbell reveals the truth behind special interest groups, government entities and scientists that have taken Americans down a deadly path
Even today, as the low-carb craze sweeps the nation, two-thirds of adults are still obese and children are being diagnosed with Type II diabetes, typically an “adult” disease, at an alarming rate. If we’re eating healthier, why are Americans stricken with heart disease as much as we were 30 years ago?
Drawing on the project findings in rural China, but going far beyond those findings, The China Study details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes and cancer. The report also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and opportunistic scientists. The New York Times has recognized the study (China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project) as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the “most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.”
“After a long career in research and policy-making, I have decided to step ‘out of the system.’ I have decided to disclose why Americans are so confused,” said Dr. Campbell. “As a taxpayer who foots the bill for research and health policy in America, you deserve to know that many of the common notions you have been told about food, health and disease are wrong.”
“I propose to do nothing less than redefine what we think of as good nutrition. You need to know the truth about food, and why eating the right way can save your life.”
Early in his career as a researcher with MIT and Virginia Tech, Dr. Campbell worked to promote better health by eating more meat, milk and eggs -- “high-quality animal protein … It was an obvious sequel to my own life on the farm and I was happy to believe that the American diet was the best in the world.”
He later was a researcher on a project in the Philippines working with malnourished children. The project became an investigation for Dr. Campbell, as to why so many Filipino children were being diagnosed with liver cancer, predominately an adult disease. The primary goal of the project was to ensure that the children were getting as much protein as possible.
“In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer...” He began to review other reports from around the world that reflected the findings of his research in the Philippines.
Although it was “heretical to say that protein wasn’t healthy,” he started an in-depth study into the role of nutrition, especially protein, in the cause of cancer.
The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, “this project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.”
The findings? “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored,” said Dr. Campbell.
In The China Study, Dr. Campbell details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, and also its ability to reduce or reverse the risk or effects of these deadly illnesses. The China Study also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and irresponsible scientists.
The China Study is not a diet book. Consumers are bombarded with conflicting messages regarding health and nutrition; the market is flooded with popular titles like The Atkins Diet and The South Beach Diet. The China Study cuts through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those concerned with the effects of aging. Additionally, he challenges the validity of these low-carb fad diets and issues a startling warning to their followers.
Of course if you eat more meat in your diet than vegetables it is not good. Just as if you eat only vegetables and get no protein it's not good. It's all about balance as with anything in life. You act like vegetables are not treated with toxic pesticides and grown with genetically enhanced seeds to produce them faster and larger 
One of my bols is a 360 pound Vegan who smokes blunts and drinks cognac every day. Tell me that nigga is healthy. The fuck outta here. If meat was not meant for digestion everybody would become sick. EVERYBODY your body would reject it naturally. The reason some of you cannot digest meat might be because you do not have enough enzymes to break down the food properly do to your fucked up fake healthy diet that some Jamaican told you about. They eat meat in China they just eat it with alot of vegetables. Get a clue.
One of my bols is a 360 pound Vegan who smokes blunts and drinks cognac every day. Tell me that nigga is healthy. The fuck outta here. If meat was not meant for digestion everybody would become sick. EVERYBODY your body would reject it naturally. The reason some of you cannot digest meat might be because you do not have enough enzymes to break down the food properly do to your fucked up fake healthy diet that some Jamaican told you about. They eat meat in China they just eat it with alot of vegetables. Get a clue. 
YES, this is true.
But using this the best is to eat FISH(so much is polluted now
Red meat like buffalo has the "good fats" that fish have. Shit is different than beef and pork.
The other meat we can sure eat, but to maximize your life health I think a diet of fish, healthy fats, and veggies the best, thus we are omni.
That's what it is...
Of course if you eat more meat in your diet than vegetables it is not good. Just as if you eat only vegetables and get no protein it's not good. It's all about balance as with anything in life. You act like vegetables are not treated with toxic pesticides and grown with genetically enhanced seeds to produce them faster and larger
Your consumption of meat does not provide any additional enzymes for your system. Enzymes do not build up in your body from food you eat they are food specific and do not remain in your system after that food is digested. Even if meat did provide enzymes they would only come from eating the meat raw as cooking food kills most of the enzymes they contain. Hopefully non here are foolish enough to eat raw meat...a true test of whether you are meant to eat meat if there ever was one...it might kill you though. Further,You do not have the stomach acids required to digest meat see my section on digestion:
RBGrider said:
Moderation is one point in the discussion and that you understand at least that eating less meat will reduce your likelihood of illness is to your credit. However, what you miss is that eating meat is NOT consistent with the biology of humans. Your argument that EVERYBODY would get sick if meat were bad for us is absurd. Everyone is not sickened by smoking cigarettes are you going to extrapolate from this that therefore cigarettes are not bad for you?
Last edited:
CO SIGN
I TELL PEOPLE THIS SHIT ALL THE TIME
THEY THINK IM CRAZY.......
I LOVE WHEN PEOPLE USE THIS ARGUMENT
IF YOU THINK ITS THAT SIMPLE
TRY EATING RAW MEAT WITH YOUR ANIMAL LIKE K-9s
Well you don't have the dentition to eat flesh..which is why your eat must be cooked and tenderized for you to consume. Hunters and meat eaters have evolved certain types of dentition. Cats which are dedicated carnivores and dogs which are omnivores (by virtue of them being more scavenger than hunter) have large canine teeth or fangs for grasping prey and holding onto to it. Both cats and dogs have 4 canine teeth. Humans do not have fangs or canine teeth they have cuspids which while pointed like the canine are not meant to grasp and hold prey. Incisors are used to bite off large pieces of food. Consistent with natural meat eaters Cats and dogs both have 12 incisors. Humans have only 8. Next are the molars. The dedicated carnivore, the cat, has only 4 molars while in contrast the dog has 10. The molars in these animals are sharp and are used to shear and chop food. Human molars are flat for grinding. More than half the teeth of a carnivore are incisors and canine. Humans have dentition more suited to eating food which must be masticated like fruit and nuts and vegetation as oppose to being ripped and swallowed in large chunks like flesh is eaten by carnivores like the cat or even omnivores like the dog. It is also important to note that digestion in humans begins in the mouth with the chemical breakdown of carbohydrates. No chemical digestion occurs in the mouth of cats or dogs, the saliva is used purely as a lubricant for swallowing large chunks of food. The differences in the structure of the jaw bone also alludes to the type of food a creature is designed to eat. Humans jaws are capable of both up and down and side to side movements in a rotating action, this is again consistent with a natural vegetarian which must be able to masticate its food. Cats and dogs jaw structures only allow up and down movements. It is also instructive to note that while our molars meet top to bottom the molars in cats and dogs do not. This again alludes to our mouth being structured for foods other than meat.
If this is not clear to you then try this experiment: pick an innocuous creature...say a cow or a pig, since so many here love steak and pork chops, go to a farm and jump on one of these creatures and try to eat them with your "canine" teeth...see how far you get.
CO-SIGN AGAIN
MOST PEOPLE DONT KNOW ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN LIFE AND HOW
HOMO SAPIEN MAN CAME TO EAT MEAT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR FOOD FROM THE EARTH BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY TO GROW VEGETATION AFTER PARTIAL MIGRATION, DUE IN PART TO THE COLD CLIMATE DURING THE ICE AGE AND
SEPARATION OF THE LAND MASSES AFTER.
Shiiiiitttttt....you ever see white folks fuck up them rare steaks.
I went to a function at a steak house and one of my white co-workers steak was rare and bleeding as fuck....VEGANS REPRESENT!
omnivores would eat a fuckin' dead human if hard pressed.
Vegans are lame as hell. Everything you eat is a substitute look-a-like for some meat product. Veggie burgers, Veggie buffalo wings, veggie meatballs, veggie hot dogs, WTF. Just bowl that tofu shit up to look like a mass of whateva. Dump some veggie soybean byproduct on it, consume it, and go about your day; farting every 3 minutes and breath smelling like you been eating cat food. No need to be pressing it into steaks, chops and shit you recognize, complete with grill marks then run around bragging like you believe because you don't. You MISS it and you know it! lol.
-VG
So very true Lexx
I'm a veg, have been since I was 13years.
@ pork
Most comprehensive long term study of diet and its effect on health. Recognize. Soy is not the enemy although the meat industry would like to convince you of this.
What do 100,000 readers know that you don't? Learn more about this best selling, ground-breaking book, embraced by thousands who want to improve their health and their lives. Summarily ignored by the mainstream media, the ground-swell support speaks volumes about the importance of this provocative and timely book by Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II.
The science is clear. The results are unmistakable.
Change your diet and dramatically reduce the risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
Respected nutrition and health researcher, Dr. T. Colin Campbell reveals the truth behind special interest groups, government entities and scientists that have taken Americans down a deadly path
Even today, as the low-carb craze sweeps the nation, two-thirds of adults are still obese and children are being diagnosed with Type II diabetes, typically an “adult” disease, at an alarming rate. If we’re eating healthier, why are Americans stricken with heart disease as much as we were 30 years ago?
Drawing on the project findings in rural China, but going far beyond those findings, The China Study details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes and cancer. The report also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and opportunistic scientists. The New York Times has recognized the study (China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project) as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the “most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.”
“After a long career in research and policy-making, I have decided to step ‘out of the system.’ I have decided to disclose why Americans are so confused,” said Dr. Campbell. “As a taxpayer who foots the bill for research and health policy in America, you deserve to know that many of the common notions you have been told about food, health and disease are wrong.”
“I propose to do nothing less than redefine what we think of as good nutrition. You need to know the truth about food, and why eating the right way can save your life.”
Early in his career as a researcher with MIT and Virginia Tech, Dr. Campbell worked to promote better health by eating more meat, milk and eggs -- “high-quality animal protein … It was an obvious sequel to my own life on the farm and I was happy to believe that the American diet was the best in the world.”
He later was a researcher on a project in the Philippines working with malnourished children. The project became an investigation for Dr. Campbell, as to why so many Filipino children were being diagnosed with liver cancer, predominately an adult disease. The primary goal of the project was to ensure that the children were getting as much protein as possible.
“In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer...” He began to review other reports from around the world that reflected the findings of his research in the Philippines.
Although it was “heretical to say that protein wasn’t healthy,” he started an in-depth study into the role of nutrition, especially protein, in the cause of cancer.
The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, “this project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.”
The findings? “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease … People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored,” said Dr. Campbell.
In The China Study, Dr. Campbell details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, and also its ability to reduce or reverse the risk or effects of these deadly illnesses. The China Study also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and irresponsible scientists.
The China Study is not a diet book. Consumers are bombarded with conflicting messages regarding health and nutrition; the market is flooded with popular titles like The Atkins Diet and The South Beach Diet. The China Study cuts through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those concerned with the effects of aging. Additionally, he challenges the validity of these low-carb fad diets and issues a startling warning to their followers.
Excellent read.
There is definitely a market for vegan meat substitutes but that market is primarily for you reformed meat eaters who just can't kick their chicken jones.
By and large truly health conscious vegans won't eat these pre-prepared products--- far too much sodium. Few people who ate meat will claim they gave it up because it tastes terrible,
meat is given up once you have evolved to a place where your health rises above your taste buds in level of importance. You must be crazy talkin bout people stinkin
yall eat butts and guts and shit ..breath smellin like 4 day old putrefied flesh and bowel movements got people runnin for helicopters.
Shiiiiitttttt....you ever see white folks fuck up them rare steaks.
Yes this is what my brother below alludes to.
CO-SIGN AGAIN
MOST PEOPLE DONT KNOW ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN LIFE AND HOW
HOMO SAPIEN MAN CAME TO EAT MEAT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR FOOD FROM THE EARTH BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY TO GROW VEGETATION AFTER PARTIAL MIGRATION, DUE IN PART TO THE COLD CLIMATE DURING THE ICE AGE AND
SEPARATION OF THE LAND MASSES AFTER.
Whites due to the cold climate their societies developed in had to resort to eating larger amounts of flesh because farming often was a hit or miss proposition.
Still while I understand your point NO human sees a dead bloody animal on the floor and gets a hunger response. Not even YT.
Still while I understand your point NO human sees a dead bloody animal on the floor and gets a hunger response. Not even YT.
That's because we have grocery stores.
People have been known to eat other people when hungry enough.
Please show me where the fuck I said Eating meat contributes to enzymes.
THANK YOU!! I'm a vegetarian, but I don't care if other people want to eat meat. Cutting it out of my diet works for me. If eating meat works for you go ahead and have that steak. Now if you were gaining crazy weight, had no energy, and shooting pains in your limbs like I used to then I might recommend going vegetarian, but other than that live your life.
Dr. Truth said:
If I misunderstood what you were saying here I apologize Ahk. But....
Truth is Human beings are omnivores
If you believe in evolution than
Most primates ate mostly fruit and insects(o yes insects have alot of protein and are good for your diet)
later Primates ate a balance of both in there diet and so should we
read this article
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
If you believe in evolution than
Most primates ate mostly fruit and insects(o yes insects have alot of protein and are good for your diet)
later Primates ate a balance of both in there diet and so should we
read this article
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
Hey just listening to coast to coast and they said they found a baby T-Rex in Congo and it ate one of the men that captured it damn.
You vegans don't understand how important meat is. We on a damn porn board and I bet you if you ask everybody on here would they rather give up sex or meat 4 out of 5 will give up sex.
We can go on and on...
Humans weren't meant to eat meat? Yes, I've heard the arguments. Then by that logic they weren't meant to eat plant matter either. So what if they're not able to digest all that a carnivore can or as efficiently. Humans can't digest all that dedicated herbivores can as efficiently either.
At the risk of getting a Colin Powell, I'm gonna post excerpts form a paper about this very subject cause some of the ghettonettic bullshit in here is pissing me off...
Humans can't digest cellulose. That's the cell wall of plants. Among other things, it gives the plant it's stiffness and rigidity. It also serves to contain the cell matter (as opposed to just a cell membrane in animals). That's why a few hours later (a few days for for those with incontinence) you can still recognize the food you just ate! It passes through you untouched as would nail or hair in your gut. Why is this so? You don't have the proverbial chops to hang with it. All sorts of stuff happens to humans that don't occur in true herbivores. And of course they do things we don't that allows them to take advantage of a truly herbivorous diet. Gas and undigested material are two signs of incomplete adaptation. This is not to suggest that the food source is 'bad'. By no means. It's thoroughly demonstrable the usefulness and benefits of a varied vegetarian diet. That's not the point of this examination. This is an investigation of what the digestive system is most capable of doing (a topic with which, I believe, their has been very little, honest and intelligent discussion I'm afraid). Humans can digest plant matter – to a degree. Just as they can digest animal originated organic matter - to a degree. But no where near as good as true herbivores or carnivores. On the herbivorous side of things, cows, horses, elephants etc., all eat types of plants and parts of plants that the human digestive system would balk at even if it were cooked, to say nothing of it being raw. But for a moment just look at what their biology has to do to gain nourishment from their food stuffs. These guys are eating and chewing almost all day!! And if they're not chewing fresh plant matter they're chewing the cud (semi-digested plant matter) vomited up from one of their stomachs! Cows have four chambered stomach systems to handled the demands of digesting simple grass. Do you have four stomachs? Of course not, all we hear is the oft repeated line about having a long set of small intestines...
In fact it's now theorized that true herbivores have evolved such large bodies in comparison to their carnivorous cousins to house their huge digestive tracts. This is generally the rule seen in the animal record from before the time of the dinosaurs 350 million years ago straight up until today's terrestrial animals. Huge herbivores with modestly sized carnivores in comparison generally. Again look at cows, horse, deer – huge guts for digestion. By comparison humans are not built to the same ratio. Take a look at the dentition too. Herbivorous mammals have long rows of molars to chew with. Look at the jaws and the attendant muscles for chewing - massive for prolonged mastication. And humans? We've been losing molars – yes we had more in the past than now... Come the fuck on people!! Don't be writin' this shit in public!! I hope to fuck you ain't sayin' this shit and embarrassing the fuck out yourselves...
Now, for perspective, lets look at a primate cousin of humans who are true vegetarians – gorillas. As a quick aside, chimps aren't vegetarians. One could argue that they are evolving towards a more omnivorous diet though. For the most part they are frugivores that supplement their diets with protein sources from hunting other smaller primates and insects. Baboon troops also fall into this category for the most part. Gorillas are nowhere as ferocious as they've been made out to be. In fact compared to some others they're best described as peaceable plant munchers. Make no mistake they are susceptible to the same intraspecies rivalries that result in violent outbursts, the tell tale 'chest pounding' and such, but viscous out of control killers they are not. Gorillas are massively stronger than their humans counterparts but that's a result of the roll of the genetic dice. Examine the skull. There is something there called the sagittal crest. A sail shaped bong prominence that runs along the top length of the skull bisecting it in half left and right. Can't miss it. Humans used to have them to. These are the attachment sites of the mandibular muscles on either sides of the head that allow not for biting into soft flesh but chewing tough plant matter.
Again, early human skulls looked similar because we also had huge muscle attachment sites on out skulls that resulted in a similar sagittal crest. It existed because at the time, humans had a diet that was much more like some pf or primate cousins – filled with chewing lots of tough plant matter. Gorillas continue to chew for long periods and on tough plant matter. Humans don't. This wasn't do to a sudden increase in meat eating though. It was due to the advent of cooking. That 3rd molar otherwise known as the wisdom tooth? It's a relic from a past when we had a far more vegetarian, pre-cooking diet.
When you see the skulls of extinct humans cousins who were likely dedicated vegetarians, they look like a great departure from us. Eating plant matter is tough work and it shows in the bone structure; the skull formation. If anything can be said, we've been evolving away from being dedicated vegetarians.
Whoever is on here saying that biting through soft flesh is harder to do than trying to pry a walnut open with your teeth don't know what the fuck they talking about!! You should call that bullshit what it is - ghettonetics!! The fuck you mean? This is the shit that get me pissed about folks following bullshit off feelin' or 'gobbledygook culture bullshit' to the point that it affects what the fuck is in front of their face. Look, if you really wanted to say that humans don't catch their prey with the same tools as a dedicated carnivore then, the fuck say that!! Ain't that shit obvious? Humans don't have night vision, claws, size and speed on their side. They got precise language, teamwork, a trap and really sharp spear motherfucker. And that shit done worked beautifully for some two million years.
Look, as soon as humans found out how much concentrated energy was in meat, they went looking for ways to supplement their diet with it. The energy gained from a pound of flesh far exceeds what can be gotten from pound of plant matter in almost all cases. Are there trade offs? Of course there are, but the problem that some human populations are encountering with meat eating is a thoroughly modern invention of just the last 60 years. But That's another story....
At the risk of getting a Colin Powell, I'm gonna post excerpts form a paper about this very subject cause some of the ghettonettic bullshit in here is pissing me off...
Humans can't digest cellulose. That's the cell wall of plants. Among other things, it gives the plant it's stiffness and rigidity. It also serves to contain the cell matter (as opposed to just a cell membrane in animals). That's why a few hours later (a few days for for those with incontinence) you can still recognize the food you just ate! It passes through you untouched as would nail or hair in your gut. Why is this so? You don't have the proverbial chops to hang with it. All sorts of stuff happens to humans that don't occur in true herbivores. And of course they do things we don't that allows them to take advantage of a truly herbivorous diet. Gas and undigested material are two signs of incomplete adaptation. This is not to suggest that the food source is 'bad'. By no means. It's thoroughly demonstrable the usefulness and benefits of a varied vegetarian diet. That's not the point of this examination. This is an investigation of what the digestive system is most capable of doing (a topic with which, I believe, their has been very little, honest and intelligent discussion I'm afraid). Humans can digest plant matter – to a degree. Just as they can digest animal originated organic matter - to a degree. But no where near as good as true herbivores or carnivores. On the herbivorous side of things, cows, horses, elephants etc., all eat types of plants and parts of plants that the human digestive system would balk at even if it were cooked, to say nothing of it being raw. But for a moment just look at what their biology has to do to gain nourishment from their food stuffs. These guys are eating and chewing almost all day!! And if they're not chewing fresh plant matter they're chewing the cud (semi-digested plant matter) vomited up from one of their stomachs! Cows have four chambered stomach systems to handled the demands of digesting simple grass. Do you have four stomachs? Of course not, all we hear is the oft repeated line about having a long set of small intestines...
In fact it's now theorized that true herbivores have evolved such large bodies in comparison to their carnivorous cousins to house their huge digestive tracts. This is generally the rule seen in the animal record from before the time of the dinosaurs 350 million years ago straight up until today's terrestrial animals. Huge herbivores with modestly sized carnivores in comparison generally. Again look at cows, horse, deer – huge guts for digestion. By comparison humans are not built to the same ratio. Take a look at the dentition too. Herbivorous mammals have long rows of molars to chew with. Look at the jaws and the attendant muscles for chewing - massive for prolonged mastication. And humans? We've been losing molars – yes we had more in the past than now... Come the fuck on people!! Don't be writin' this shit in public!! I hope to fuck you ain't sayin' this shit and embarrassing the fuck out yourselves...
Now, for perspective, lets look at a primate cousin of humans who are true vegetarians – gorillas. As a quick aside, chimps aren't vegetarians. One could argue that they are evolving towards a more omnivorous diet though. For the most part they are frugivores that supplement their diets with protein sources from hunting other smaller primates and insects. Baboon troops also fall into this category for the most part. Gorillas are nowhere as ferocious as they've been made out to be. In fact compared to some others they're best described as peaceable plant munchers. Make no mistake they are susceptible to the same intraspecies rivalries that result in violent outbursts, the tell tale 'chest pounding' and such, but viscous out of control killers they are not. Gorillas are massively stronger than their humans counterparts but that's a result of the roll of the genetic dice. Examine the skull. There is something there called the sagittal crest. A sail shaped bong prominence that runs along the top length of the skull bisecting it in half left and right. Can't miss it. Humans used to have them to. These are the attachment sites of the mandibular muscles on either sides of the head that allow not for biting into soft flesh but chewing tough plant matter.
Again, early human skulls looked similar because we also had huge muscle attachment sites on out skulls that resulted in a similar sagittal crest. It existed because at the time, humans had a diet that was much more like some pf or primate cousins – filled with chewing lots of tough plant matter. Gorillas continue to chew for long periods and on tough plant matter. Humans don't. This wasn't do to a sudden increase in meat eating though. It was due to the advent of cooking. That 3rd molar otherwise known as the wisdom tooth? It's a relic from a past when we had a far more vegetarian, pre-cooking diet.
When you see the skulls of extinct humans cousins who were likely dedicated vegetarians, they look like a great departure from us. Eating plant matter is tough work and it shows in the bone structure; the skull formation. If anything can be said, we've been evolving away from being dedicated vegetarians.
Whoever is on here saying that biting through soft flesh is harder to do than trying to pry a walnut open with your teeth don't know what the fuck they talking about!!
You should call that bullshit what it is - ghettonetics!! The fuck you mean? This is the shit that get me pissed about folks following bullshit off feelin' or 'gobbledygook culture bullshit' to the point that it affects what the fuck is in front of their face. Look, if you really wanted to say that humans don't catch their prey with the same tools as a dedicated carnivore then, the fuck say that!! Ain't that shit obvious? Humans don't have night vision, claws, size and speed on their side. They got precise language, teamwork, a trap and really sharp spear motherfucker. And that shit done worked beautifully for some two million years. Look, as soon as humans found out how much concentrated energy was in meat, they went looking for ways to supplement their diet with it. The energy gained from a pound of flesh far exceeds what can be gotten from pound of plant matter in almost all cases. Are there trade offs? Of course there are, but the problem that some human populations are encountering with meat eating is a thoroughly modern invention of just the last 60 years. But That's another story....
Humans weren't meant to eat meat? Yes, I've heard the arguments. Then by that logic they weren't meant to eat plant matter either. So what if they're not able to digest all that a carnivore can or as efficiently. Humans can't digest all that dedicated herbivores can as efficiently either.
At the risk of getting a Colin Powell, I'm gonna post excerpts form a paper about this very subject cause some of the ghettonettic bullshit in here is pissing me off...
Humans can't digest cellulose. That's the cell wall of plants. Among other things, it gives the plant it's stiffness and rigidity. It also serves to contain the cell matter (as opposed to just a cell membrane in animals). That's why a few hours later (a few days for for those with incontinence) you can still recognize the food you just ate! It passes through you untouched as would nail or hair in your gut. Why is this so? You don't have the proverbial chops to hang with it. All sorts of stuff happens to humans that don't occur in true herbivores. And of course they do things we don't that allows them to take advantage of a truly herbivorous diet. Gas and undigested material are two signs of incomplete adaptation. This is not to suggest that the food source is 'bad'. By no means. It's thoroughly demonstrable the usefulness and benefits of a varied vegetarian diet. That's not the point of this examination. This is an investigation of what the digestive system is most capable of doing (a topic with which, I believe, their has been very little, honest and intelligent discussion I'm afraid). Humans can digest plant matter – to a degree. Just as they can digest animal originated organic matter - to a degree. But no where near as good as true herbivores or carnivores. On the herbivorous side of things, cows, horses, elephants etc., all eat types of plants and parts of plants that the human digestive system would balk at even if it were cooked, to say nothing of it being raw. But for a moment just look at what their biology has to do to gain nourishment from their food stuffs. These guys are eating and chewing almost all day!! And if they're not chewing fresh plant matter they're chewing the cud (semi-digested plant matter) vomited up from one of their stomachs! Cows have four chambered stomach systems to handled the demands of digesting simple grass. Do you have four stomachs? Of course not, all we hear is the oft repeated line about having a long set of small intestines...
In fact it's now theorized that true herbivores have evolved such large bodies in comparison to their carnivorous cousins to house their huge digestive tracts. This is generally the rule seen in the animal record from before the time of the dinosaurs 350 million years ago straight up until today's terrestrial animals. Huge herbivores with modestly sized carnivores in comparison generally. Again look at cows, horse, deer – huge guts for digestion. By comparison humans are not built to the same ratio. Take a look at the dentition too. Herbivorous mammals have long rows of molars to chew with. Look at the jaws and the attendant muscles for chewing - massive for prolonged mastication. And humans? We've been losing molars – yes we had more in the past than now... Come the fuck on people!! Don't be writin' this shit in public!! I hope to fuck you ain't sayin' this shit and embarrassing the fuck out yourselves...
Now, for perspective, lets look at a primate cousin of humans who are true vegetarians – gorillas. As a quick aside, chimps aren't vegetarians. One could argue that they are evolving towards a more omnivorous diet though. For the most part they are frugivores that supplement their diets with protein sources from hunting other smaller primates and insects. Baboon troops also fall into this category for the most part. Gorillas are nowhere as ferocious as they've been made out to be. In fact compared to some others they're best described as peaceable plant munchers. Make no mistake they are susceptible to the same intraspecies rivalries that result in violent outbursts, the tell tale 'chest pounding' and such, but viscous out of control killers they are not. Gorillas are massively stronger than their humans counterparts but that's a result of the roll of the genetic dice. Examine the skull. There is something there called the sagittal crest. A sail shaped bong prominence that runs along the top length of the skull bisecting it in half left and right. Can't miss it. Humans used to have them to. These are the attachment sites of the mandibular muscles on either sides of the head that allow not for biting into soft flesh but chewing tough plant matter.
Again, early human skulls looked similar because we also had huge muscle attachment sites on out skulls that resulted in a similar sagittal crest. It existed because at the time, humans had a diet that was much more like some pf or primate cousins – filled with chewing lots of tough plant matter. Gorillas continue to chew for long periods and on tough plant matter. Humans don't. This wasn't do to a sudden increase in meat eating though. It was due to the advent of cooking. That 3rd molar otherwise known as the wisdom tooth? It's a relic from a past when we had a far more vegetarian, pre-cooking diet.
When you see the skulls of extinct humans cousins who were likely dedicated vegetarians, they look like a great departure from us. Eating plant matter is tough work and it shows in the bone structure; the skull formation. If anything can be said, we've been evolving away from being dedicated vegetarians.
Whoever is on here saying that biting through soft flesh is harder to do than trying to pry a walnut open with your teeth don't know what the fuck they talking about!!
Look, as soon as humans found out how much concentrated energy was in meat, they went looking for ways to supplement their diet with it. The energy gained from a pound of flesh far exceeds what can be gotten from pound of plant matter in almost all cases. Are there trade offs? Of course there are, but the problem that some human populations are encountering with meat eating is a thoroughly modern invention of just the last 60 years. But That's another story....
I appreciate your response but you're wrong. Humans share far more in common with herbivores then they do omnivores.
The stomach juices of meat eaters are closer to a pH of 1 (much higher when eating their natural diet of raw meat & bone). Humans pH is closer to 3 or 4 - much more alkaline. Meat of course must stay in human digestive track longer than most foods because it is more difficult to digest. The mean retention time for humans is 45.6hrs +/- 11.1 - from what I've read. Meat WILL putrefy in the digestive track in 20hrs or 30hrs...NOT something you want to happen on your kitchen table let alone inside your body. The shorter digestive time of creatures equipped to eat meat is precisely what ensures that this does not happen.
. The length of this digestive process is what assists foods that must be fermented. Do you know what happens to meat in a 98 environment for 35 to 45 hours? It’s called putrefaction. Putrefied meats release a host of unfriendly toxins into the body. Consistent with this, natural omnivores and carnivores like the dog and cat retain their food for digesting for a fraction of this time and have little or no capacity for fermentation because they lack caecum. Fiber is vital to the human diet, (which is what cellulose is by the way) the fermentation of this fiber by bacteria in the large intestine supplies nutrients, particularly short chain fatty acids like butyrate, to the cells which line the large intestine. Butyrate is particularly valuable as an energy source for the cells of the large intestine and has been shown to protect against some forms of colon cancer. Meat contains very little dietary fiber.
Omnivores and carnivores have small intestines that are anywhere from 3 to six times there body length. The intestine of these creatures is smooth to allow the rapid expulsion of highly toxic waste associated with the digestion of meat. Herbivores and humans have small intestines, which are from 10 to 12 times their body length. Herbivorous animals that consume plants containing a high proportion of cellulose must ferment (digest by bacterial enzyme action) their food to obtain the nutrient value. They are classified as either ruminants (foregut fermenters) or hindgut fermenters. The ruminants are the plant-eating animals with the celebrated multiple-chambered stomachs. Herbivorous animals that eat a diet of relatively soft vegetation do not need a multiple-chambered stomach. They typically have a simple stomach, and a long small intestine. These animals ferment the difficult-to-digest fibrous portions of their diets in their hindguts (colons).
Many of these herbivores increase the sophistication and efficiency of their GI tracts by including carbohydrate-digesting enzymes in their saliva. A multiple-stomach fermentation process in an animal, which consumed a diet of soft, pulpy vegetation would be energetically wasteful. Nutrients and calories would be consumed by the fermenting bacteria and protozoa before reaching the small intestine for absorption. The small intestine of plant-eating animals tends to be very long (greater than 10 times body length) to allow adequate time and space for absorption of the nutrients.
Yes again look at the jaws of creatures that eat meat vs those that exist on vegetarian diets....canivores jaws are capable only of up and down chopping motions not circular motions that allow the mastication of food.
If humans had to rely on their natural hunting abilities they would starve in the extreme. You better thank your stars that God put nuts, fruits, and soft vegetation for our ancestors or the human family would never have thrived.
Last edited:
Dukes, dogs started out from a carnivorous past and are evolving towards (if they haven't already achieved in some quarters) an omnivorous existence. Therefore their biological toolkit shows clear antecedents leading back to that past. But that says nothing of the current strategies employed by a given population. With humans it is the same. You don't necessarily need degrees in comparative anatomy or evolutionary anthropology to figure this (the latter being my specialty). So what if we don't have every niggling component some other organism has, the question is, have humans been successful with what they've got? We could state all manner of structures in humans that are homologous with structures in other organisms that we would be found to be inferior in function to but that still doesn't negate their usefulness in humans.
I have already pointed out that humans were far more herbivorous in the past. Your restating it adds nothing new to the discussion. The fact remains that for the past two million years humans all over the planet have been adept (and continue to be adept) at exploiting multiple food sources including meat. What one finds is that humans typically only resort to a single staple/food type in extreme environmental conditions or as a result of adherence to singular cultural traditions. The effect of prolonged subsistence on specialized diets results in human types that can subsist off of extremely unvaried food sources with little to no adverse effects. But that is an exception to the human rules of diet NOT the norm. I wouldn't advise anyone to do that except under extreme survival conditions.
There was a fundamental change in the survival strategy of hominid ancestors on the order of 2-3 million years ago that has resulted in a massive change in skull morphology (among other things). The change is, in my opinion, a result of a combination of factors not discussed but heavily reliant on the increase in protein from meat sources and the application of fire to cooking for nearly all foodstuffs. This next part is still contentious but the addition of more protein to the diet not only leads to the change in skull structure but may have contributed to larger brains as well in a circular feedback loop of (in no particular order and at times happening concurrently) hunting/fishing ---> more intense communication ---> more protein ---> cooking ---> bigger brains ---> softer foods ---> mores successful communicators ---> better hunters ---> bigger brains ---> changes in skull morphology, etc., etc . Supplementing the diet with fishing as much as hunting also may well have contributed to this.
Your quoting of the difference in the gut processes of various mammals hasn't changed the fact that for over two or three million years humans have sustained themselves on a variety of different foods in addition to successfully and regularly adding protein in the form of fish, fowl, small or large game, insect, etc. Humanity's widespread distribution is due to the fact that they are able to derive nourishment successfully and regularly from a variety of different food stuffs. It doesn't matter that they are not able to be as efficient or specialized as a shark or an elephant. They just have to be good enough at it to survive and thrive. And that's what we are. It's all that any species has to do. Natural selection weeds out any that can't adapt. It's as simple as that.
Moreover, I stated in my last post that the problem that humans have with meat haven't cropped up until the last 60 or so years. I'm alluding to the industrialization of food manufacturing process which has allowed access to unprecedented amounts of protein that would seem outrageous to not only our hunter/gatherer ancestors but to ordinary people just one hundred years ago. As such, widespread complications with meat consumption have arisen from three main issues: quantity, quality, and frequency. My position has been that humans have been consuming meat almost as long as they've been human, but they've never had access to the quantities of meat that you can find at any supermarket, nor had the 'luxury' of access to supplies of meat that allow for daily (frequency), copious consumption of it at levels maintained only for those in the West. It's simply not sustainable through hunting/gathering, herding, or even old-style cattle ranching. And of course there's also the subject of the poor quality of meat/choice of meat. With all the things you can find on what's wrong with those most readily available meats, I won't belabor that point.
By the way, the hominid ancestors of humans were most likely, primarily frugivores that supplemented their diet with other plant parts such as tubers, seed and nut with the occasional protein source most likely in the form of insects but not limited to the rare smaller mammal. It's rather unlikely that humans suddenly developed the ability to digest meats and fats in the last 2-3 million years. What's new is the opportunity made possible by human biological and social evolution and 'technology'.
Last edited:
Similar threads
