Are humans omnivores or herbivores?

[Bugsy]

I've not read all of this thread, but I think it's an interesting point for discussion.

Personally, I think we it would be more beneficial for us to be omnivores - because from an evolutionary perspective, we would be able to draw on more food sources which would increase our chances of survival...

However, there is published research of studies on mammals which has found that a calorie restricted diet (without malnutrition) increases lifespans by around 30% and is associated with less health complications (which may result from their being less physical matter - thus cancer etc, is less likely) - which I guess would suggest that maybe our bodies would respond better to meat free diet (as I guess this would be the easiest way to have a low calorie, high vitamin diet).

So maybe we are not designed to eat meat.

So... do vegetarians on the whole live longer that omnivores? If so, that's a statistic I'd like to see.

There's no clear answer to that one, BarkingSpider.

So many other factors play a part that any sort of research is bound to encounter practical obstacles. A person could be a vegan and live in an unhealthy environment and die earlier, while a moderate meat-eater could be in a more healthy environment and live longer. In addition, folks can have a genetic predisposition for certain illnesses. I certainly wouldn't regard any chart stating that vegetarians/vegans live longer as credible.

On the other hand, and falling back on my own experience as a vegan and, naturally, coming into contact with like-minded folks, it would appear that the quality of life is, in general, better for vegetarians/vegans, since they seem healthier and appear to have more energy and also a more positive outlook on life. Furthermore, vegetarians/vegans tend to avoid cigarettes, alcohol, sugary/junk foods and drinks, so it's possible that that might also figure into the equation somewhere.

But I hasten to add that my remarks are based entirely on my own, empirical, observations and in no way represent the result of any dedicated research.

MsG

[Monty417]

I've not read all of this thread, but I think it's an interesting point for discussion.

Personally, I think we it would be more beneficial for us to be omnivores - because from an evolutionary perspective, we would be able to draw on more food sources which would increase our chances of survival...

However, there is published research of studies on mammals which has found that a calorie restricted diet (without malnutrition) increases lifespans by around 30% and is associated with less health complications (which may result from their being less physical matter - thus cancer etc, is less likely) - which I guess would suggest that maybe our bodies would respond better to meat free diet (as I guess this would be the easiest way to have a low calorie, high vitamin diet).

So maybe we are not designed to eat meat.

So... do vegetarians on the whole live longer that omnivores? If so, that's a statistic I'd like to see.

Don't think there's much in it. Albert Schweitzer lived until the age of 90. Albert Einstein 76.
Linda McCartney 55.
Paul McCartney Too fcuking long.

[bluntslane]

No more for me chef, I'm full.

Laters.

[Tiger-Monkey2]

So Bugsy, do you consider yourself to be a herbivore and not an omnivore?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

[StickyEnd]

Please leave the ad hominem comments to bugsy out of it. Play the ball not the man.

Biologically humans have to be literally weaned on meat to develop the gut enzymes necessary to partially digest meat. Naturally we dont have those enzymes. If someone doesnt eat meat for a long period then the digestive tract reverts to its normal state and cannot produce adapted enzymes. This is why the vegetarian mentioned earlier dumped pure meat after consuming this when he was hungry. If I ate meat it would make me ill.

jimmy's bezza.. early man? I take it by the context you put it in that you mean civilisations which are capable of producing cave art and farming - 5 - 10 thousand years ago? When I am referring to early man I mean a species that has only just made it over the boundary into homo sapiens from whatever hominid they were before. I am descibing a human of probably about 500,000 years ago. This is important because evolutionary time is slow, far slower than civlilsation dates by a large magnitude. Hunting, even in antiquity, doesnt make us biologically omnivores.

I cant accept that we are herbivores either. We can cope with root vegetables and fruit. This isnt the same by any means as being herbivores. As mammals we can cope with lactose of certain types (we may have problems with lactose from other species) so cheese, milk and yoghurt are digestible.

If you was to read a biology textbook it will tell you that humans are omnivores. Having to be weaned onto meat is a red herring. All mammals have to be weaned onto solid foods and that includes herbivores, frugivores, insectivores, omnivores and carnivores.

The ad-hominem attacks on Bugsy by me are fueled by anger. Bugsy is basically calling every biological scientist on the planet as either dishonest or incompetent (maybe both) and doing so without evidence. Yes, that makes me angry.

[Bugsy]

If you was to read a biology textbook it will tell you that humans are omnivores. Having to be weaned onto meat is a red herring. All mammals have to be weaned onto solid foods and that includes herbivores, frugivores, insectivores, omnivores and carnivores.

The ad-hominem attacks on Bugsy by me are fueled by anger. Bugsy is basically calling every biological scientist on the planet as either dishonest or incompetent (maybe both) and doing so without evidence. Yes, that makes me angry.

What a feeble excuse, StickyEnd. You're "anger" has its foundation in your personality, it's nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. But let's run with your story for a while. A question: why ever would it make you, personally, angry if I really had "basically called every biological scientist on the planet either dishonest or incompetent"?

And please point out where I've called anybody at all (including you) either dishonest or incompetent. All I've ever said is that the evidence presented to date for the case that human beings are omnivores, and not herbivores, doesn't convince me, even if it convinces you.

Why are you so determined to put such a negative spin on whatever I say?

MsG

[Tiger-Monkey2]

How about answering my simple question Bugsy?

[Bugsy]

How about answering my simple question Bugsy?

My apologies, I didn't see the question. Yes, I consider myself a herbivore.

MsG

[StickyEnd]

If you was to read a biology textbook it will tell you that humans are omnivores. Having to be weaned onto meat is a red herring. All mammals have to be weaned onto solid foods and that includes herbivores, frugivores, insectivores, omnivores and carnivores.

The ad-hominem attacks on Bugsy by me are fueled by anger. Bugsy is basically calling every biological scientist on the planet as either dishonest or incompetent (maybe both) and doing so without evidence. Yes, that makes me angry.

What a feeble excuse, StickyEnd. You're "anger" has its foundation in your personality, it's nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. But let's run with your story for a while. A question: why ever would it make you, personally, angry if I really had "basically called every biological scientist on the planet either dishonest or incompetent"?

And please point out where I've called anybody at all (including you) either dishonest or incompetent. All I've ever said is that the evidence presented to date for the case that human beings are omnivores, and not herbivores, doesn't convince me, even if it convinces you.

Why are you so determined to put such a negative spin on whatever I say?

MsG

Oh FFS!

Humans being omnivores is stated in all university level biology books. For that to be wrong needs lots of evidence from you or people agreeing with you.

Please research the F-Kin subject that you post about.

[Bugsy]

What a feeble excuse, StickyEnd. You're "anger" has its foundation in your personality, it's nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. But let's run with your story for a while. A question: why ever would it make you, personally, angry if I really had "basically called every biological scientist on the planet either dishonest or incompetent"?

And please point out where I've called anybody at all (including you) either dishonest or incompetent. All I've ever said is that the evidence presented to date for the case that human beings are omnivores, and not herbivores, doesn't convince me, even if it convinces you.

Why are you so determined to put such a negative spin on whatever I say?

MsG

Oh FFS!

Humans being omnivores is stated in all university level biology books. For that to be wrong needs lots of evidence from you or people agreeing with you.

Please research the F-Kin subject that you post about.

University-level biology books also used to state, until about ten years ago, that there are categorically no anaerobic bacteria. Then they found anaerobic bacteria. There are any number of "facts" to be found in old text-books that have proved to be wrong. Just because they're there, doesn't necessarily mean that they're valid. If you want to believe them, fine. But they don't convince me.

However, what you also seem to be saying is that because you believe them, and I don't, it must be because I'm ... whatever. That's a strange and rather intolerant attitude to adopt, don't you think?

MsG