Vegetarian

[Spark]

Originally posted by CD Lee

Showing of course that it is possible to become a very good hunter and tracker. Especially if your life depended on it. Who needs guns? Early men did not use them kill animals. I'll bet Indian hunting parties could have done just as well.

*** RRRRRRRRRRRR no, showing how hard it is to catch enough game to sustain only 5-10 people!!!
To add a point about Native hunting parties, as I mentioned, these parties weren't organized so they could get some good meat to eat! Not only was it for that (there i'll give you one point) but for shelter, clothing, medicine, religion/rituals.

Yes, but that still did not stop hunters and hunting parties from doing it. Even in the rain forests TODAY, tribes still hunt and successfully kill pigs with bamboo spears with no steel, and have a good portion. Saw that one on TLC, and they basically snuck up on him and skewered him with multiple spears. (Not bad considering they had a camera guy following them and still got the pig. )

*** I got nothign on that one

Acutally, it is accurate, just not to all tribes, as you pointed out. But they did do certain things to exist. Eaters of opportunity. Using Native Americans is a GREAT example. They did not have guns or horses for a while, some were nomadic, some were not, and we know what they did in an undeveloped land to survive. You are just saying that we cannot attribute all aspects of one tribe to all other tribes.

*** Well i posted what i think about those examples and i'll wait and see what your response is before i go into this one.

So in summary, I think a lot of your 'beef' is not the historical record of man eating meat, but rather, that some people draw general or extreeme conclusions from them. Such as, "well, if they had a spear and killed with it, they only ate meat from the spear or must have ate 90% meat". I can understand that people will do that from time to time. And the converse is also possible. "Well if they had access to vegetables, they would not spend valuable time and calories to hunt meat." People tend to do what they desire. Bears don't mind 50 bee stings on the nose, if they can get some yummy honey. Not the easy road, but it sure tastes good.

*** You're partly right. Again, I'm not arguing that we didn't eat meat or anything, i'm arguing it's importance/significance in our diet and it's role in our survival. The reason I got into this thread was because people were all, "Bah, we were designed to eat meat from day one!!! We are meat eaters blalbalbal" And i'm simply stating, well if meat was so crucial, then why was it not an important staple in this civilization, or that one? Maybe meat isn't an important part of our diet, especially if the civs mentioned didnt' need it.

I"m off to Montreal!!! I'll be looking forward to Sunday !!

[Spark]

Originally posted by ghthomason



It's called an apendix. Used to digest uncooked meat.

So when we get our apendix taken out what then?

[Ming Yue]

Props to GThomason. Hominids have always been biochemically and physiologically able to consume and obtain nutritive value from meat, cooked or uncooked.

even without an appendix, we have sufficient enzymatic action to get nutrition from raw meat.

[CD Lee]

Spark,

My reply about Native Americans is in regard to your or others logical reasoning that hunting meat as part of a diet staple, is unreasonable when working in undeveloped pure wilderness.

So my argument is not that they ate meat and that proves we should be meat eaters. I am showing the practicality of small groups or tribes, hunting meat as part of their diet. Yes it took calories, and energy, but the bounty of a small hunting party was reaped by many many others that did not do the hunting. They dried what they could not consume immediately. American Indians were absolute expert hunters and trackers. They were these things because of the environmental conditions and the skills passed from generation to generation. There are volumes written on American Indidan habits and lifestyles. Just because there was a lot of oral tradition does not mean their claims are invalid, or cannot be substantiated by evidence. There is a multitude of evidence on these things.

Also, you seem to base your conclusions on what you deem reasonable. I try to look at the historical records more than just reason. Don't forget, indigenous peoples native to a land, are much more efficient in their ability to utilize small amounts of food, and have incredible endurance. Metabolism changes based on eating habits, allowing us to survive in very slim times. There is one indian tribe in particular that I watched on TV, that had very sever obesity problems due to this response. Their ancestors lived off of almost nothing for so long, when they started eating normally, their children exploded in weight gains.

I am frankly amazed that anybody was able to live without grocery stores and farms.

[Spark]

Originally posted by ghthomason
And how many cave-paintings have you ever seen of people picking apples from trees?

I would bet NONE.

Because early people painted images that were important to them and their survival--antelope, buffalo, rabbits, deer....

I'm not saying people didn't eat any veggies, but clearly our early ancestors (again, not modern Indians or Romans) knew the value of eating meat, and recognized the risk of hunting was far outweighed by the gains of the kill.

Actually, one of the caves with the earliest cave drawings (Chauvet-Pont-D'Arc) has more paintings of predators than any animal which would help survival and there are none which indicate any activities of hunting.

GHThompson, I think it's only fair that if you're going to say things like "clearly our early ancestors knew the value of eating meat", then you would have to give some sort of proof to this claim, and how you in fact know that they thought this.

[Spark]

Originally posted by ghthomason
If you don't eat uncooked meat, then you have nothing to worry about.

So if my apendix is taken out, I can't eat sushi???

[CD Lee]

Some interesting research written by a PHD student named Mary G. Enig and Sally Fallon. This is available on the web.

"The early explorers consistently described the native Americans as tall and well
formed. Of the Indians of Texas, the explorer Cabeza de Vaca7 wrote, “The men
could run after a deer for an entire day without resting and without apparent
fatigue. . . one man near seven feet in stature. . . runs down a buffalo on foot
and slays it with his knife or lance, as he runs by its side.” The Indians were
difficult to kill. De Vaca reports on an Indian “traversed by an arrow. . . he does
not die but recovers from his wound.” The Karakawas, a tribe that lived near the
Gulf Coast, were tall, well-built and muscular. “The men went stark naked, the
lower lip and nipple pierced, covered in alligator grease [to ward off mosquitos],
happy and generous, with amazing physical prowess. . . they go naked in the
most burning sun, in winter they go out in early dawn to take a bath, breaking
the ice with their body.”

GREASY AND GOOD

What kind of foods produced such fine physical specimens? The diets of the
American Indians varied with the locality and climate but all were based on
animal foods of every type and description, not only large game like deer,
buffalo, wild sheep and goat, antelope, moose, elk, caribou, bear and peccary,
but also small animals such as beaver, rabbit, squirrel, skunk, muskrat and
raccoon; reptiles including snakes, lizards, turtles, and alligators; fish and
shellfish; wild birds including ducks and geese; sea mammals (for Indians living in
coastal areas); insects including locust, spiders and lice; and dogs. (Wolves and
coyotes were avoided because of religious taboos.)"


The explorer Cabeza de Vaca is quoted in WW Newcomb, The Indians of
Texas, 1961, University of Texas.




Sources of Fat for the American Indian10
Saturated
Monounsaurated
Polyunsaturated
Antelope, kidney fat
Bison, kidney fat
Caribou, bone marrow
Deer, Kidney fat
Dog, meat, muscle
Dog, kidney
Elk, kidney
Goat, kidney
Moose, kidney
Peccary, fatty tissues
Reindeer, caribou, fatty tissues
Seal (Harbor), blubber
Seal (Harbor), depot fat
Seal (harp), blubber
Seal (harp), meat
Sheep (mountain), kidney fat
Sheep (white faced), kidney fat
Sheep, intestine, roasted
Snake, meat
Squirrel (brown), adipose
Squirrel (white), adipose

Game fat, says Eaton

USDA data, prepared by John L. Weihrauch with technical assistance of
Julianne Borton and Theresa Sampagna

Politically correct paleodieters also ignore the fact that the Indians hunted
animals selectively. The explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who spend many years
with the Indians, noted that they preferred “the flesh of older animals to that of
calves, yearlings and two-year olds. . . It is approximately so with those
northern forest Indians with whom I have hunted, and probably with all
caribou-eaters.” The Indians preferred the older animals because they had built
up a thick slab of fat along the back. In an animal of 1000 pounds, this slab
could weigh 40 to 50 pounds. Another 20-30 pounds of highly saturated fat
could be removed from the cavity. This fat was saved, sometimes by rendering,
stored in the bladder or large intestine, and consumed with dried or smoked lean
meat. Used in this way, fat contributed almost 80 percent of total calories in
the diets of the northern Indians.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson, The Fat of the Land, MacMillan Company, 1956



This is a tiny example of the kind of historical facts that can be found on the lifestyles of American Indians.

See the full text at:
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...americans.html

[Spark]

Originally posted by CD Lee
Spark,

My reply about Native Americans is in regard to your or others logical reasoning that hunting meat as part of a diet staple, is unreasonable when working in undeveloped pure wilderness.

So my argument is not that they ate meat and that proves we should be meat eaters. I am showing the practicality of small groups or tribes, hunting meat as part of their diet. Yes it took calories, and energy, but the bounty of a small hunting party was reaped by many many others that did not do the hunting. They dried what they could not consume immediately. American Indians were absolute expert hunters and trackers. They were these things because of the environmental conditions and the skills passed from generation to generation. There are volumes written on American Indidan habits and lifestyles. Just because there was a lot of oral tradition does not mean their claims are invalid, or cannot be substantiated by evidence. There is a multitude of evidence on these things.

Also, you seem to base your conclusions on what you deem reasonable. I try to look at the historical records more than just reason. Don't forget, indigenous peoples native to a land, are much more efficient in their ability to utilize small amounts of food, and have incredible endurance. Metabolism changes based on eating habits, allowing us to survive in very slim times. There is one indian tribe in particular that I watched on TV, that had very sever obesity problems due to this response. Their ancestors lived off of almost nothing for so long, when they started eating normally, their children exploded in weight gains.

I am frankly amazed that anybody was able to live without grocery stores and farms.

CD Lee,

Ok, this was a very clear post! I wish I could do the same
I guess we'll have to simply disagree with the practicality of hunting b/c as i mentioned with my buddy John Rae, he gathered what seemed immense amounts of game, which was of course dried and salted for later consumption, and could only sustain a handful of people (who were also directly involved in the hunting) for a few months. And I should mention that he is truly an exception when it came to this, and was out hunting his native translators.

Hmm I would say that I draw my conclusions from the knowledge I have gained and experiences I have had studying certain fields. Besides, doesn't one gather information, process it and thus draw a conclusion from it? Again, not all of history is recorded, and written out in black and white. The Historical Records don't always tell us the answers we are looking for. We have to fill in the gaps from what is available and thus draw a 'reasonable' conclusion to the questions we are posing. I guess this is why in History there are so many articles debunking so and so HAHA I think you'll agree this is what History is all about - two people seeing/interpreting actions differently bc the 100% proof doesnt' exist. I feel that I have tried to give examples of my reasoning (and I know I'll have to do better to convince you ) that are not wild, sweeping statements, but are fairly conservative and objective, and I think I have gone into far greater detail than some.

[Ming Yue]

Hmmm... cave paintings also don't show people building shelters, making clothing, having babies... seems to me like they painted the most exciting parts of thier existence, which would be hunting.
I can't recall ever seeing a cave painting with a mundane daily activity portrayed, but I haven't seen that many, either.

Saying that neolithic man NEVER ate fruits or vegetables as a basic food source is too broad a statement.

Of course it depends on thier location, but it would seem that the stone age diet included available fruits, greens and nuts, although not a major portion. They were hunter/gatherers, after all. No grains, though.

To prove it, I'd have to procure a chunk of Neolithic human poop and a big ol microscope, so I'll just see if you'll accept my logical conclusion for now.

[rubthebuddha]

i don't think it's come up in the thread yet, but what about the fact that our bodies are designed to be able to digest meats? some may take longer than others, but the fact remains that we can.

this only addresses the question of whether or not it's part of our existence. the question of whether or not we should choose to is exclusive to this, and like most choices, this may come down just to personal preference.

[Spark]

Ok guys,
You've asked for some info and I have found it. This is from a book written by Peter Cox where in this sections addresses the myths of meat eating throughout history. I will source his references at the end.

... many people still mistakenly blieve that hyumans are somehow 'genetically programmed' to eat flesh foods, and cannot thrive without them; that we are, in essence, carnivores. All right then, let's look at the evidence.

Scientific evidence suggests that our ancestors probably originated in the East African Rift Valley, which is a dry and desolate place today, but would have been very different 2-4 million years ago. The habitat was very lush then. There were large, shallow freshwater lakes, with rich, open grasslands on teh flood plains and dense woodlan beside the rivers. Fossil evidence shows that foodstuffs such as Leguminose (peas and beans) and Anacardiaceae (cashew nuts) were readily available, as were Palmae (sago, dates and coconuts). Evidence gained from teh analysis of tooth markings indicates taht our ancestors' diet was much teh same as teh Guinea Baboon's is today - hard seeds, stems, some roots, plant fibre - a typically tough diet requiring stripping, chopping and chewing actions.
Our ancestors had very large molars, with small incisors, unsuited to meat consumption but ideal for consuming large quantities of vegetable matter. By 2.5 million years BC, however, evidence shows that the land began to dry out, forcing Australopithecus (the name of one of our very early ancestors) to desert this idyllic Garden of Eden and to try and survive on teh savannahs, where they were poorly prepared for the evolutionary struggle that was to come.
Before this crucial point, there is little doubt that our ancestors had largely followed a vegetarian diet, typical of primates. Recent studies of minute scratches on the dental enamel of Australopithecus suggests that their diet consisted of largely hard, chewy seeds and berries, although few eggs and small animals may have been consumed too. Most scientists consider it unlikely that Australopithecus was a systematic hunter, or killer ape, as this species has sometimes been depicted.

Academic American Encyclopedia, 1992

Peter Cox then goes on to address how this move forced our ancestor's to adapt, and yes, had to eat meat to survive, whether it be scavenging or trapping small animals ... thus the term omnivore arose.

... in his book The Naked Ape, Desmond Morris made an interesting observation about this period when he wrote:

"It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets, we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient primate feedign patterns."

... So here we ahve a pciture of a species which was originally vegetarian, whch then due to force of circumstances adapted to become omnivorous. This reality is a long, long way from teh 'meat is an essential part of the diet' myth. It is clear from recent analysis of human remains that even during this period of our development, plant food was still by far the most important source of food. The level of strontium present in bones is an accurate guide to teh amount of plant food consumed, and scientists at teh University of Pisa, Italy, who have analysed teh bones fo early Europens have found that they were eating an 'almost exlusively vegetarian diet' right up to teh time agriculture was developed.

Fornaciari, G and Mallegni, F., "Palaenutritional studies on skeletal remains of ancient populations from the Mediterranean area: an attempt to interpretation' Anthropologischer Anzeiger, Dec 1987, 45 (4) pages 361-370

[morbicid]

wow what a huge thread
can u say... got chi girls

[Spark]

Originally posted by ghthomason
This says nothing about the claims that scavenging marrow probably super-charged our evolution. The fatty acids in bone marrow would have contributed enough calories to allow our brains to develop further.

If we hadn't started eating meat, we'd still be dumb monkeys.

Well that's the first time in this thread anyone has said anything about "marrow super-charging our evolution." So how could I have said anything about it???? And you also say "probably" ... that isn't very definitive and doesn't really hold up any arguement.

The last part shows me how little you know of the theory of evolution so I'm not even going to touch it.

In terms of the Sushi comment, I was not being obtuse. You stated, "the apendix is used to process uncooked meat." Sushi is uncooked meat. You then ammend your statement to that sushi is not red meat, even though you did not say red meat. So before you make posts you should probably make up your mind first what it is you are saying instead of changing the rules in the middle of the game.

[Spark]

Originally posted by Ming Yue
Hmmm... cave paintings also don't show people building shelters, making clothing, having babies... seems to me like they painted the most exciting parts of thier existence, which would be hunting.
I can't recall ever seeing a cave painting with a mundane daily activity portrayed, but I haven't seen that many, either.

Saying that neolithic man NEVER ate fruits or vegetables as a basic food source is too broad a statement.

Ming Yue
You may have brought inadvertently and interesting point. You point out all these things not found in cave paintings, and of course to conclude that just because there aren't cave paintings of having babies, building shelters, gathering vegetables, etc .. that it didn't happen is ridiculous. These were all boring day to day activities that surely were not exciting.
But huting on the other hand and bringing home a huge kill would surely have been and extraordinary event, some thing (as your logic would state) that is NOT day to day activity, thus worthy of some sort of glorification in the form of paintings.

[Spark]

CD Lee,

I appreciate your post on Natives and am weary I may have to succed that point to you
But I hope you can appreciate my post and this one as well as backing up my suggestion of where we came from wasn't this carnivorous hunting machine that came back everyday from the wilderness with heaps of wild game in tow. This exerpt from the same book above you might find interesting.

... the plain fact is that the sort of hunting that our ancestors practised was never a good enought way of providing food for everyone. Careful studies of societies who lead similar lifestyles to those of our ancestors - such as the Bush People of the Kalahari - reveal that the probability of obtaining meat on any one hunting day is about one in four. Now, just how long do you think a society can exist, based on a 25 per cent success record? By contrast, the women always return from their gathering expeditions with food - a 100 per cent success rate. And the entire tribe could comfortably feed itself if each member put in a 15-hour week ...

It is quite clear that in original societies such as these, hunting is only possible on the back of an effective, dependable and reliable source of plant food. Once the tribe is certain of food, then those men who want to (about one third of the Kalihari males never hunted) can go off and gamble on a kill-nothing jeopardised if the come home empty handed. And yet, many modern people, living entirely synthetic live in wholly unnatural Western environments, still believe and behave as if meat-eating is the magic thread which keeps us in touch with the primitive, authentic humans we think we ought to be. Modern people who have never been told of the absolutely crucial role of 'woman the gatherer' in human development are, to be blunt, profoundly ignorant. They are ignorant about the history of their own species, which makes them ignorant about their very own, personal identities. And ignorance leaves them open to exploitation.

Zihlman, A. in Dahlberg, F., (ed.) Woman the Gatherer , Yale University Press, 1981.

Truswell and Hanson, 'Medical Research amoungst teh Kung' in Lee, D. (ed.), Kalahari hunter-gatherers, Harvard University Press, 1976.

Coon, C.S. The Hunting Peoples, Jonathan Cape, 1972