An image that constantly circulates in various places is this:
As much as I agree with veganism, distorting facts to make a point is not the way to go. In fact, it’s counterproductive.
An herbivore is an organism that feed exclusively or mainly on plants. Herbivores typically have adaptations towards a specialization of eating and digesting plant matter. This could include but is neither limited to nor has to have flatter teeth to grind plant matter, long intestines, gut microbiome to digest cellulose and other hard-to-digest parts of plants.
A carnivore is an organism that feed exclusively or mainly on animal tissue. As herbivores they typically have adaptations towards specialization of eating animal tissue such as sharp teeth, short gut and some way of capturing prey, such as claws, ability to sprint or venom.
Omnivores are organisms that feed on both animal tissue and plants. There is no strict definition of how large portion of the diet that has to be, to be classified as omnivore. Omnivores typically lack specializations to either animal or plants, and have more intermediate traits.
Class of diet is not a taxonomic taxon – that is a unit in biological classifications (the science of taxonomy) such as genus or species. Carnivora however, is a taxon; it includes among others felines and bears. Not all members of Carnivora are carnivores. It includes carnivores, omnivores and herbivores.
The herbivore, carnivore and omnivore diet classifications is a classification based on what diet an animal generally have, not what it couldhave. Neither does it reflect evolutionary relationships, even though they might correlate in some instances.
A clear example how this is true is that you’ll find carnivores that are cats, fungi, worms and even plants.
Within biology, humans are clearly regarded as omnivores (Ley et al., 2008).
Before we get into evolutionary arguments. Let’s just get some common misconceptions clear first. Humans did not evolve from the chimpanzee or any other now-living primate. Humans didn’t evolve from great apes to be something else; we are great apes – or Hominidae. Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, actually humans share common ancestors with every single organism ever existed if you go back long enough. Since chimpanzees and humans are closely related, humans share a much more recent ancestor with chimpanzees than for example a horse.
In the image above, the species A, B and C is different species. A and B is more closely related than A and C, and B and C. Where the arrow points is the most recent common ancestor between A and B. That doesn’t mean that A evolved from B, but that A and B evolved from an ancestral species that diverged into A and B. This species didn’t look neither like A nor B. At the very root of the tree lived a species that is the common ancestor between A, B and C. One important point though is that A, B and C are equally distant from the species at the root of the tree.
Lastly, and this might be the most important one: Evolution is not teleological. Evolution does not have a purpose, aim or goal. There is no such thing as more evolved or de-evolution. Humans are not more evolved than chimpanzees; we just diverged in different direction. The quantitative unit of evolution is time, and as far as I know humans has not evolved longer than chimpanzees. Evolution is the change of living organisms over time that depend on many factors, but a lot less chance than some people think, and no planning ahead what so ever. No are created to be food.
Human evolution = loss of sanity
What I mean with that subtitle is that, when people reflect over human evolution to construct an argument, often they lose the ability to view the human species objectively and transform humans into something completely separated from the rest of the vast number of species on earth. Humans are unique, but so are every single species on earth. Some people even claim that human evolution has stopped, and that of course is utterly ridiculous.
I’d like to present something I’d like to call the ‘Alien David Attenborough thought experiment‘: Imagine that you are an alien biologist travelling from a distant planet to study life on earth (I like to use David Attenborough’s voice to narrate this, that’s all). You study all the different species, describing behavior, diet and appearance. When you start describing humans, what diet would you assign humans to have? What behaviors would you ascribe humans? If I would do it, I would certainly not say: “Homo sapiens diet has for thousands of years included meat in some populations, and less in some, but really, they are made for fruit” neither would I say: “Humans live in artificial buildings and wear fabric clothing, this is however a very unnatural state for the Homo sapiens species”. I think that this could be a nice strategy to get away from an anthropocentric prison of mind.
The ancestors of Homo sapiens cooked their food, cooking has been around for approximately a million year (that is around 500 000 years longer than the human species has existed) (Berna et al., 2012; Organ, Nunn, Machanda, & Wrangham, 2011). Traces of humans eating meat is also ancient and seems to have been around for as long as our species existed (Pobiner, 2013). One of our closest relatives the chimpanzee also eats an omnivorus diet with mainly fruits, but occasionally eats animals (McGrew, 1983).
Reflecting to my previous discussion, saying that meat-eating is unnatural because we need to cook it (which we don’t) is a flawed argument. Likewise is the claim that we need to be able to hunt down grazing prey with our bare hands,kill and eat it raw a flawed argument. Due to our highly developed brain, we don’t need that, we find other ways. That trait is no stranger than a lions teeth.
The whole idea of finding an ancient diet that we are “made” for, is just absurd, we are not exactly the same as pre-historic humans. The changes in our environment have led to several adaptations regarding diet. For example, mammals give their young mother’s milk (that is the very definition of mammal). This stops at a certain age and the offspring is able to eat as their parents. Milk contains lactose and mammals have an enzyme called lactase to digest lactose. When the child stops receiving milk, the expression of this enzyme is turned off. However, in some human populations this enzyme remains active through adulthood, which is referred to as lactase persistence. This is thought to be an adaptation to the habit of drinking milk from domesticated animals (Tishkoff et al., 2007).
A different relatively recent human adaptation is a duplication of the gene AMY1 that encodes an enzyme called amylase that digests starch. Duplication of genes typically result in an increased production of the enzyme, thus this is hypothesized as being an adaptation to the use of agriculture which would increase the amount of starch in the diet (Perry et al., 2007). For these adaptations we are talking about, we are in a time frame of ~10 000 years.
Here I really like to emphasize that the naturalistic fallacy of equating a ‘is’ with a ‘should’, is something we really should avoid. The fact that humans have eaten meat and drinking milk is no argument that we should, unless we had to (we don’t).
I feel that this deserves an own paragraph to just think a bit about cherry picking. The image this discussion started from is guilty of cherry picking on several points. So what is cherry picking? Usually multiple data sets or data points exists in a particular case. For example, global warming, many research groups around the world has published articles with data measuring the effect of global warming. Since data contains noise and bias in addition to signal, the data will fluctuate in varying degree. If one has a specific viewpoint and then choose only to look at the data that verifies that viewpoint, and disregard data that is contradictory without relating to it is cherry picking. Look at this plot here:
If a cherry picker chooses only to look at the data points where the arrow points, the cherry picker might miss the general upward trend. The second point is an outlier and might be just due to noise.
This is why we in science do meta analysis and repeat experiments by other groups to verify results before they even come close to be regarded as facts.
Cherry picking is basically confirmation bias in practice, but also it is related to anecdotal evidence, where a person claims something based only on an anecdote. This is bad science, and something that is easy for everyone to fall into if one is not aware of the cognitive biases one has. But it’s a completely different thing to do it deliberately to prove a point. Yes, I’m looking at you alternative medicine promoters who use books by single “Dr”s as proof of ideas completely contradictory to everything we know.
I’ve been building a theoretical background now for the case, which should apply for similar claims of humans being herbivores or “made for plants” or whatever, but let’s spend some time on this image:
First of all, it is obvious that the point of this image is to try and show that humans are “frugivores” thus, more like the primate (which I really cannot identify the species of, not a primatologist). Please note that just due to shared evolutionary history, we will be more similar to a primate in many cases simply by that.
Secondly, frugivores are basically omnivores. Frugivores are usually used as a term for omnivores that feed on fruit. Most frugivores do not eat exclusively fruit. Anyway, orangutans are usually referred to as frugivorous. Take a look at this orangutan skeleton and look at those canines. Just as a contrast for that – cherry picked – image representing all frugivores.
So let’s go down the table and just stop and think at every row.
Physiological food: What the hell is that? A platonic diet?
Hands/legs: Is this reflecting adaptation towards specific diets? I think not.
Walking: Well this is obviously cherry picked to fit the idea. These walking styles are in no way representative of diet. Some primates walk upright, and many primates are omnivores.
Mouth opening: Again, is this evidence for specialization? The image tries to imply that only meat eaters have large mouths, what about hippos?
Teeth: Human teeth look neither like an herbivore or a carnivore. Again, cherry picking away, what would happen if you used a panda as representative of herbivore teeth?
Chewing: This behavior is clearly related to what type of food you are actually eating and not a fixed behavior that is a clear adaptation to specialization of food. Some foods needs to be chewed more to swallow.
Saliva: As discussed above, humans have adapted to eating starch from agriculture. Omnivores are expected to handle both vegetable matter and animal tissue, so this is nothing strange.
Urine: The urine is the body’s way of excreting waste products, regulating water balance and body pH levels. The pH is dependent on what one eats. A high protein diet is causing acidic urine; an animal does not have a carnivorous diet because it has acidic urine (Rose, Parker, Jefferson, & Cartmell, 2015).
Urate oxidase: Humans and other higher apes have this gene, but it’s not functional. Otherwise this is present in virtually all organisms. Apes are outliers in that sense.
Gastric acid: This is simply wrong. Human gastric acid has a pH of 1.5 – 3.5 which is highly acidic (Lehrer, 2014)
Fibers and cholesterol: This might be true, but it’s mainly carnivores that really need these traits. I don’t know if this is representative of the given groups, but from what you might notice, you shouldn’t trust the image.
Sweat: Humans are like omnivores in this sense even according to the image.
Intestines: As one might expect from an omnivore the intestines have an intermediate relative length between carnivores and herbivores.
Short alkaline colon: Here my guess would be that since a bear is chosen as a representative for omnivores – which are closely related to carnivorous polar bears, It might be the reason why omnivorous bears are biased towards carnivoury.
Cellulose: Humans are like omnivores in this sense even according to the image.
Digestion: As one might expect from an omnivore the digestion time according to the image is an intermediate between carnivores and herbivores.
With that being said, there are additional problems one would face if one would claim that humans aren’t omnivores. Humans are not able to synthesize sufficient b12 in the gut, neither can humans acquire b12 from any other source than animal origin or artificially fermented – supplements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 (accessed: 04/01/2016). Additionally humans absorb iron form heme-sources most efficiently. That food that contains blood (West & Oates, 2008).
I’ve said it earlier and I say it again. This is not an argument for not being vegan. Humans are omnivores, but can live on a completely vegan diet with the supplementation of B12 from fermentation. I think that trying to claim that humans are something else than omnivores are just counter productive since it’s quite easily debunked and we lose credibility. There are plenty of reasons to be vegan and still stick to what is true. This post is mainly focused on debunking the claim that humans are herbivores and should therefore eat only plants, but the post should qualify to debunk anyone claiming that humans are biological meat eaters and therefore should eat meat, likewise.
And hey! This is the longest ever debunking of a meme I ever done, and probably will do. Memes are stupid
Berna, F., Goldberg, P., Horwitz, L. K., Brink, J., Holt, S., Bamford, M., & Chazan, M. (2012). Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109 (20 ), E1215–E1220. doi:10.1073/pnas.1117620109
Lehrer, J. K. (2014). Stomach acid test. Retrieved January 4, 2016, from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003883.htm
Ley, R. E., Hamady, M., Lozupone, C., Turnbaugh, P. J., Ramey, R. R., Bircher, J. S., … Gordon, J. I. (2008). Evolution of Mammals and Their Gut Microbes. Science , 320 (5883 ), 1647–1651. doi:10.1126/science.1155725
McGrew, W. C. (1983). Animal foods in the diets of wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Why cross-cultural variation? Journal of Ethology, 1(1-2), 46–61. doi:10.1007/BF02347830
Organ, C., Nunn, C. L., Machanda, Z., & Wrangham, R. W. (2011). Phylogenetic rate shifts in feeding time during the evolution of Homo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108 (35 ), 14555–14559. doi:10.1073/pnas.1107806108
Perry, G. H., Dominy, N. J., Claw, K. G., Lee, A. S., Fiegler, H., Redon, R., … Stone, A. C. (2007). Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation. Nat Genet, 39(10), 1256–1260. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng2123
Pobiner, B. (2013). Evidence for Meat-Eating by Early Humans. Nature Education Knowledge, 4(6), 1. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273
Rose, C., Parker, A., Jefferson, B., & Cartmell, E. (2015). The Characterization of Feces and Urine: A Review of the Literature to Inform Advanced Treatment Technology. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 45(17), 1827–1879. doi:10.1080/10643389.2014.1000761
Tishkoff, S. A., Reed, F. A., Ranciaro, A., Voight, B. F., Babbitt, C. C., Silverman, J. S., … Deloukas, P. (2007). Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe. Nat Genet, 39(1), 31–40. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ng1946
West, A. R., & Oates, P. S. (2008). Mechanisms of heme iron absorption: Current questions and controversies. World Journal of Gastroenterology : WJG, 14(26), 4101–4110. doi:10.3748/wjg.14.4101
236 thoughts on “Humans are not herbivores”
Good blog – some of the comments on here are a little rude and argumentative, but that is their prerogative. Science is science and not all things can be proven, we are only human and led by people we think have the knowledge. Don’t forget recently we were advised that the medical books had to be altered to say that lymph nodes are also found in the skull/brain. Everything is a learning curve. Being a vegan is someone’s choice as long as you feel well then carry on…….
Fantastic debunk. I personally have a very balanced diet, which I am extremely happy with and thankfully I am healthy!. I have been looking for intellectual an elegant article to give to a rather ‘force upon the world their views’ friend about this exact subject. I have always believed people can choose their (within obvious margins) diet but not force their opinions on it to other people (much like many other things!
I think this statement is extremely important ‘This is not an argument for not being vegan. Humans are omnivores, but can live on a completely vegan diet with the supplementation of B12 from fermentation’. This is how it should be talked about.
You seem to make the three behavior groups distinct from one another. Have you heard of the physiological faculative herbivores and faculative carnivores as opposed to obligate omnivores?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh wow I just read some of the older comments.
Sorry for all the hate you received!
Compliments on a good quality, well referenced post. Thank you
I appreciate this article. Humans are omnivores. Diet may not be by choice, but by health. This, however, does not change the fact that humans are omnivores. Unlike dogs, humans can live without meat in their diets. Not to be rude, but I would rather this article was reviewed for grammar before being posted. It is my fear it loses some clout due to grammar issues. In truth, I feel it is a well researched article that points out flaws seen in other articles that render them more unprofessional than mere grammar issues can. Education regarding vegan and vegetarian diets would be more helpful than “slamming” those who enjoy the taste of meat.
Thank for you the lack of bias and the references; you even explained cherry picking. I was sceptical when I saw “veganbiologist.com” (in terms of bias) but thankfully I finally found a vegan or plant-based diet focused website that isn’t clinging to the notion that the reason we should only eat plants is because we are herbivores…that really grinds my gears.
Admittedly I’m only a vegan for selfish reasons; I believe it’s the best diet for my health. Yet if there was science to prove a carnivorous diet was more healthy then I’d eat meat exclusively. For that reason, thank you for trying to remaining objective.
You’re wrong lol Sorry I just can’t be bothered to refute what you wrote even though it wouldn’t be very difficult
The article clearly states you can live a healthy life on a vegan diet. Don’t go. Pls ;'(
That’s all well and good (cherry picked “science” sucks), but the fact of the matter is, eating meat causes many preventable diseases in humans. It’s not good for us and we know it. We have the data. If we were supposed to eat it, would it not be good for us? Or at least not kill us?
Were I an alien biologist, I would be truly puzzled as to why the human species continues to participate in a diet that definitely kills them even whilst knowing this to be true:
“The culturally omnivorous upright, great ape eats a steady diet of foods that are detrimental to it at great cost to the environment as well. A most bizarre, contrary creature willing to risk cancers, hormonal disruptions and diseases of the gut in order to put on grand displays of excess despite entire “nations” succumbing to what they have termed, diseases of affluence. Meat in other great apes has long been used by lower status males as currency for sex. Perhaps the consumption of meat is linked to a mating ritual? A holdover from the food scarce ice age? More observation is needed.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t agree with this. We have been omnivorous since the beginning of time. Meat isn’t the only culprit when it comes to diseases. There are tons of people that live to be close to a hundred or even live past that and all their diets have one thing in common, they eat meat. The fact is, things affect people differently. Some people are susceptible to heart disease and cutting certain things out can help. Some are just fine eating meat. The Queen of England is 92 years old and in excellent health. She’s a creature of habit and for dinner every night she typically eats red meat. She also enjoys fish and eggs.
The truth is, there are studies that show that meat can be bad for certain individuals. Just like there are vegetables that can be bad for certain individuals. Please don’t spout misinformation in the future.
The worst vegans keep claiming Earth could easily feed N-billion people “if only” everyone switched to plants. It’s a reckless position because it excuses countless other overpopulation impacts, and it’s impossible (not just unlikely) in terms of human instinct. “Single issue bias” affects too many vegans who think they’ve found the ultimate righteousness.
I think many of them just lack the constitution to handle death as a means of life, even though other species do it daily. How can it be unnatural, overall? Many vegans may be HSPs. But I favor them over rabid meat-eaters and gun nuts who lack empathy. Phasing out the far-right brain would do the world a lot of good.
If one must be a staunch vegan, at least stop claiming the world can handle more people and food is the main bottleneck. Oil still grows most crops so veganism hardly solves the fossil fuel problem. And putting wind turbines all over the place won’t do much except make farms and mountains uglier while decimating bats and birds that we count on for natural insect-control.
As opposed to your perspective that we are simply over populated based on our numbers? Which is an unsolvable issue you stupid twat.
On the other hand, the diet of the average person can be remedied either through education or force and we can indeed decrease our ecological footprint by 2/3s overnight.
Turning produce into meat is the most wasteful calorie conversion on this planet
Misinformed vegans are funny.
I’m an omnivore and at times vegetarian. It amuses me that people will say that meat is the root of diseases and such. This was never the case at one time, now though with what we see today and there are many things which are the cause of obesity and cancers to name two. Most of the problems we see today are from the over-consumption of food period with little or no exercise. All food, plant-based and animal is subject to sprays, fertilisers, hormone additives, antibiotics and a myriad of other bits as well as additives, preservatives and processing all of which we consume which once was never the case. Nothing is safe or natural unless you grow or breed your own. That now though is subject to scrutiny and demand because of the diseases created and can spread without control.
As an omnivore, I also know that the human race overindulges and flesh is by far over consumed and overrated. Any nutritionist will tell you that a serve/portion is no bigger than the palm of your hand or 5% of your meal and should be once daily. All that we eat is for survival and health, overindulgence is not and leads to obesity, to heart disease and diabetes to name a couple, not mentioning joint stress and arthritic diseases which set in as a result. This applies to both herbivores and omnivores.
There is an old saying, “Everything in moderation.” This is the truth of the matter, food has become a major spectacle in everyone’s life hence all the reality and cooking shows. We do not eat for health and wellbeing any more, so producers are over-stretched to supply and resort to measures which are harmful to all of us and mostly illegal or downright dangerous if you could get any of it into court to be tried. But who cares people are getting rich off the back of it and the purchasers could not give a damn or are oblivious to the consequences.
Every man and woman needs to wake up to themselves and also teach their children the right way we should eat. Food is not a pacifier, it is a special need for health and survival instead we are making ourselves sick on it. We are abusing animals and in that process poisoning ourselves and them through over-indulgence.
Well, you would probably be ridiculed by the other alien biologists as a quack from a degree asteroid because:
“but the fact of the matter is, eating meat causes many preventable diseases in humans. It’s not good for us and we know it. We have the data. If we were supposed to eat it, would it not be good for us? Or at least not kill us?”
Correlation is not causation. Long-term health effects are related to (A) the preservatives we use to make food last longer & (B) the fact that we eat way, way more meat than would have been available to us for most of history. The former is why people are finding that vegan imitation meat is also unhealthy. The latter is partly due to cultural reasons but also because we have a biologically-driven preference for meat since, when food is scarce, being able to bag a fatty, calorie-dense animal is HIGHLY advantageous.
Also, the diseases you’re worried about would not have occurred in ancient humans both because their diets were completely different and they would not have lived long enough to manifest them. Even if they did, it would be irrelevant from the point of view of evolution since it would happen so late in life that those people would have had plenty of time to spread their genes. Evolution is not some magical process that trends unrelentingly toward perfection, it’s a destructive process driven by failure to reproduce, so as long as you can reproduce, your gene will get passed on even if it causes cancer when you’re 70 or whatever.
“The culturally omnivorous upright, great ape eats a steady diet of foods”
A biologist should find it odd that there are hundreds of cultures on the planet but not a single one of them is vegan. It’s only recently become possible with the advent of nutrient fortification and supplementation. It is an entirely artificial state. One assumes that an alien biologist would have learned this quickly, not just randomly assumed that humans don’t need to eat meat. After all, if all humans you’ve ever observed eat meat, the default assumption would probably be that they need to, in which case it doesn’t really matter if it has health effects later in life because they still need to eat it.
Even if the aliens discovered vegans, the fact that only a small percentage of humans doesn’t eat animal protein would probably suggest, to a naive observer, that they have some kind of genetic mutation or special food source. Investigation into this phenomenon would lead to the discovery that humans have begun heavily modifying their own food sources relatively recently.
“at great cost to the environment”
A biologist should be well aware of the concept of an invasive species and how, even for organisms that understand this problem, there would be incentives they might be willing to pursue at the expense of others. From there, they can probably study the culture and have a basic idea of what those incentives are pretty quickly.
“A most bizarre, contrary creature willing to risk cancers, hormonal disruptions and diseases of the gut”
This is the exact pseudoscience the blog is criticizing, and you know vegetables make you sick too, right? For all the more some vegans talk about how disease-ridden meat is, literally every time I’ve gotten food poisoning has been from a vegetable.
“in order to put on grand displays of excess despite entire “nations” succumbing to what they have termed, diseases of affluence.”
Oh yeah, that’s another thing, an objective, neutral biologist likely wouldn’t randomly single out meat as the problem when there are a lot of factors causing the “disease of affluence,” such as sugar, lack of exercise, and overeating in general.
“Meat in other great apes has long been used by lower status males as currency for sex. Perhaps the consumption of meat is linked to a mating ritual?”
I know you’re making a joke here–or at least I think you are–but that sort of undermines your point because an alien biologist would have absolutely no reason to leap to this conclusion, it’s just a partisan dig at non-vegans. Which is actually a good point to close up on: Why do so many vegans assume that aliens wouldn’t understand omnivorism?
They would have been subject to similar forces of evolution and, based on the only example we have, it seems that predation is not only an inevitable part of evolution but it’s probably important to the development of intelligent societies as well. Predators tend to be smarter and our ancestors’ intelligence seems to be correlated with increased meat consumption, which might be explained by greater availability of calories since our brains are a disproportionate drain on our bodyies’ energy reserves.
What’s more, aliens that travel the stars would probably be expansionist. Not only is that true of life in general, but a non-spreading species would have no reason to want to leave their home planet, assuming they even still exist and haven’t been out-competed by more territorial species. Therefore, an advanced alien scientist would probably have a very strong understanding of the forces that drive an organism to over-consume and, even if they found some way around those, they would have no reason to suspect that other, more primitive species have.
In fact, they might actually just decide to eat us. Who knows?
people need to stop eating meat ( not eggs). It’s a waste of energy storing dead carcass and provides no benefit to the body . Meat industry is a big scam . Look at the cows and all grazing animals . From where are they getting their calcium and proteins and becoming huge and strong ? If we don’t eat meat then it would be no harm to the body , but without eating vegetables we can die . Schools should teach this fact to the children that we need vegetables to survive .
LikeLiked by 1 person
So long as meat is raised and consumed properly, it isn’t a problem. How meat is prepared and consumed is very important. Humans are built nothing like cows and we are not made to be their size. Had we four stomachs, the processing system of a cow, and the need to graze on mostly grass all day long, then we would do it. Even animals that are similar to humans don’t do that. Comparing us to cows isn’t proper.
While I agree that the meat industry is mostly bad, stopping people from eating meat is infringing on the freedom to eat what we want.
Have you heard of the Maasai? Traditionally, they eat primarily cow meat, cow blood, cow dairy, and the occasional plant. They usually don’t have health problems beyond accidents and disease (which can happen to anyone, including vegans). Many live to be over 100.
Saying that schools should teach dietary habits is wrong. We don’t need state propaganda (yes, it is propaganda) taking the place of what should stay at home. That isn’t the business of the government in the first place.
I think you meant the freedom to kill whatever we want. ❤
I agree, humans are able to eat and digest an omnivorous diet. However, with the understanding we now have of how various diets affect health, the case can be made that human health benefits by leaning heavily toward a plant-based diet. Though humans can survive on a diet of pretty much anything, we can only thrive (health-wise) when we eat within a framework that supports maximum energy efficiency in the body.
Saturated animal fats have been demonstrated to increase blood viscosity and alter cell membranes both in the blood and elsewhere in the body. This reduces efficiencies in blood circulation and thus, oxygen delivery and removal of carbon dioxide for all cells, slowing many reactions and limiting the potential for reliable health and performance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4208768/
The many notable benefits of a mostly plant-based diet include significantly improved capillary blood flow, improved lipid profiles including cholesterol, triglycerides, fibrinogen, red blood cell aggregation and deformability, homocysteine, and platelet aggregation. Patients feel better, potentially longer, lose weight, stop snoring, and keep their brain function to the end of a long life.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845138/
This is what makes a primarily plant-based diet attractive to me. Thanks for an insightful article!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If that is the case, then why am I more energetic and active, and with fewer health problems, than ever eating mostly meat? Why didn’t my doing vegan the “right” way do it for me? Are these investigations surrounding cooked or raw meat? Is the meat prepared with certain ingredients that might affect it?
I’m sure you can understand why these questions are important.
You also forgot the fact that humans also have the unique ability to throw projectiles accurately and with velocity.
Great article!! I’m feeling very enlightened!! The spelling and grammatical errors did make some information vague or hard to understand. But all in all it was an interesting read. Thanks for taking the time to research and post.
Thanks for doing this. That stupid meme annoys me.
Regardless of what humans are designed for, I do great on mostly meat (including the organs). I don’t have health problems and have never been better. I can’t say the same for when I was a vegan. Considering my ancestry, this might not be such a bad idea as they were dominantly meat-eaters. I’m sure you could understand that it is possible that different developments of humans learned to digest different amounts of any given foods. You confirmed that there is lactose tolerance in certain branches, one of which I belong to. I will never be a vegan and I have my own morals around meat consumption that many vegans would whine at me about (that’s another problem in the vegan community, some expecting everyone to agree with their *superior* morals).
Anyways, I don’t have expectations for what other people eat, and I don’t care about their opinions regarding my dietary choices. We will all die some day and longevity shouldn’t be everything.
Love your reply. People should be tolerant to everyone’s opinions as long as they do not harm anyone let’s try and live life to the best we can.
So eating meat doesn’t harm anyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He does harm other animals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Incredible piece you wrote here. In case you still want to know what species of primate is in the infographic, it’s most likely a chimpanzee, from what I can see.
Greetings from a primatologist.
This is the most sanity I’ve read literally this entire year
I can’t thank you enough for this article. I have a background in archaeology and have been a long time vegetarian who is currently debating to switch over to a completely plant based diet because of ethical reasons and because it looks like it is s possible to do in a healthy way.
I got a fair amount of hate from certain vegans online when I stated on one occasion that there is quite a lot of proof that humans have been eating an omnivorous diet for thousands of years. I was amazed on how rude one person got, when I clearly stated that I am on their side, but also that I think it is wrong to make false claims about what we are just for ideological reasons. I feel like it is hard to find a place online to talk about this without being dismissed and antagonized.
The species of primate in the infographic isn’t just most likely a chimpanzee, it is definitely a chimpanzee, a quick Google image search will find you the full uncropped version of the same photo. This knowledge makes that entire infographic fraudulent, since chimpanzees are classified as omnivores and we have known since 1960 that they eat meat, after Dr Jane Goodall observed chimps eating a bushpig piglet when she was studying them at Gombe Stream in Tanzania, their favourite prey that they hunt are red colobus monkeys, Bonobos have also been observed hunting and killing other animals, so meat eating is not at all uncommon in both chimp species. That photo was clearly chosen because the teeth look near identical to a humans, and I imagine with the intention to deceive since no one who knows anything about chimpanzees would think that they are strict frugivores.
The whole argument that we should eat a diet similar to what the ancestor of humans may have ate has never made sense to me. The same people that try to argue that human ancestors were frugivores (by which they mean herbivores) then also do a 180 and try to argue that dogs don’t need to eat meat.
We have the option now in the modern day to easily eat a vegan diet. I think focusing on the health benefits and the environmental benefits does more good than trying to do logical backflips with biology.
It’s personal choice. You cannot get all nutrition from vegetables. Certain vitamins only come from eating meat which makes some vegans deficient. How are you going to fertilise vegetables? Defeats the object to use chemical fertilisers! A varied diet with a limited amount of red meat is optimal in my opinion. Stop bullying people into this stupid idea. We are not time travellers we don’t actually know it was the perfect diet thousands of years ago!!
This is coming from a fellow 34-year meat-eater (whereas last 4 years of my life, I’ve been vegan)
> It’s personal choice.
Yes, and unfortunately, our personal choices can have terrible effects on some animals.
> You cannot get all nutrition from vegetables. Certain vitamins only come from eating meat which makes some vegans deficient.
There are indeed few things(Most importantly B12), which you can easily get by supplementing. If you came to me 100 years ago with this, I’d agree with you, but in 2021, it’s not a serious argument…
> How are you going to fertilise vegetables?
– If you are against synthetic fertilizers it for any reason, There are veganic/regenerative farming methods using green manure (check Helen Atthowe’s work)
– If you think we MUST use animal manure, there can surely be ways to use manure from some animals, without killing billions of them.
> A varied diet with a limited amount of red meat is optimal in my opinion.
I think some animal products can be part of healthy diet (though not necessary), but when you really think about consequences, it still doesn’t justify killing a sentient being. Hopefully lab-based meat will be a thing soon.
> Stop bullying people into this stupid idea.
Why stupid? It’s basically an ideal not to harm sentient beings… I’m sure you’d agree with it…
It’s a propaganda thing. Give enough evidence that humans are omnivores & they’ll cite the naturalistic fallacy, only to later forget they said anything and go back to claiming all animals are naturally vegan.