Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Humans Have Been Eating Meat For 2.6M Years

apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 7:39:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We've been eating meat since before we were human. Most primates are omnivorous; the bulk of their diet is vegetation, while fruit, meat and bird eggs are occasional food sources.

The "ideal" human diet would break down like this:

Primary food sources: fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains.

Secondary food sources: meat, fish, eggs, dairy.

Tertiary food sources: anything processed or caffeinated.

We're supposed to build our diets from primary to tertiary. Instead, most people build from tertiary to primary, and then wonder why they have health problems. They could also do with more water and exercise.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 7:04:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 7:39:43 PM, apb4y wrote:
We've been eating meat since before we were human. Most primates are omnivorous; the bulk of their diet is vegetation, while fruit, meat and bird eggs are occasional food sources.

The "ideal" human diet would break down like this:

Primary food sources: fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains.

Secondary food sources: meat, fish, eggs, dairy.

Tertiary food sources: anything processed or caffeinated.

We're supposed to build our diets from primary to tertiary. Instead, most people build from tertiary to primary, and then wonder why they have health problems. They could also do with more water and exercise.

Indeed. I got that order totaly wrong!
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 12:22:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 7:39:43 PM, apb4y wrote:
We've been eating meat since before we were human. Most primates are omnivorous; the bulk of their diet is vegetation, while fruit, meat and bird eggs are occasional food sources.

The "ideal" human diet would break down like this:

Primary food sources: fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains.

Secondary food sources: meat, fish, eggs, dairy.

Tertiary food sources: anything processed or caffeinated.

We're supposed to build our diets from primary to tertiary. Instead, most people build from tertiary to primary, and then wonder why they have health problems. They could also do with more water and exercise.

But, then how am I supposed to get big? Adonis was not a vegetarian, clearly.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:48:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 7:39:43 PM, apb4y wrote:
We've been eating meat since before we were human. Most primates are omnivorous; the bulk of their diet is vegetation, while fruit, meat and bird eggs are occasional food sources.

The "ideal" human diet would break down like this:

Primary food sources: fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains.

Secondary food sources: meat, fish, eggs, dairy.
...

I don't think that's accepted scientifically any more. Studies of prehistoric human diet shows it to be high in animal proteins and fats. That's believed to be an evolutionary adaptation consistent with highly mobile human tribes surviving in non-tropical environments. However, being omnivorous allows humans to adapt to widely varying circumstances, so it isn't clear that there is any one "best" diet. Eskimos and some African tribes have nearly all meat diets. It turns out that raw seal blubber is good for you.

Claims that diets low in saturated fats are healthy began with a paper published by a guy named Keys c. 1960. It turns out that he faked the data. Attempts to verify the theory have been ongoing for 50 years. Last year Cambridge University published a meta-study, a compilation of all the studies on saturated fat and cholesterol. It turns out that saturated fat is not bad for you and the carb-based food pyramid is just plain wrong. There are a number of books on this subject. One good one is "The Big Fat Surprise." It's an interesting story of screwed up science.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 3:51:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:48:19 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 7:39:43 PM, apb4y wrote:
We've been eating meat since before we were human. Most primates are omnivorous; the bulk of their diet is vegetation, while fruit, meat and bird eggs are occasional food sources.

The "ideal" human diet would break down like this:

Primary food sources: fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains.

Secondary food sources: meat, fish, eggs, dairy.
...

I don't think that's accepted scientifically any more. Studies of prehistoric human diet shows it to be high in animal proteins and fats. That's believed to be an evolutionary adaptation consistent with highly mobile human tribes surviving in non-tropical environments. However, being omnivorous allows humans to adapt to widely varying circumstances, so it isn't clear that there is any one "best" diet. Eskimos and some African tribes have nearly all meat diets. It turns out that raw seal blubber is good for you.

Obviously the composition of a specific group's diet depends on what is available, hence why I put "ideal" in quotation marks.

Foraging is more reliable than hunting, and would have been the primary food source. Hunting involved risk, and was often unsuccessful, so it would have been more of a booster than a staple.

Claims that diets low in saturated fats are healthy began with a paper published by a guy named Keys c. 1960. It turns out that he faked the data. Attempts to verify the theory have been ongoing for 50 years. Last year Cambridge University published a meta-study, a compilation of all the studies on saturated fat and cholesterol. It turns out that saturated fat is not bad for you and the carb-based food pyramid is just plain wrong. There are a number of books on this subject. One good one is "The Big Fat Surprise." It's an interesting story of screwed up science.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 12:23:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 3:51:02 AM, apb4y wrote:
Foraging is more reliable than hunting, and would have been the primary food source. Hunting involved risk, and was often unsuccessful, so it would have been more of a booster than a staple.

That's a theory unsupported by data. Some places it's true, but generally not. One of the nearly-all-meat-diet societies is on the plains of Africa. Lots of grass and meat, nothing much else. In temperate and cold zones there almost nothing to forage in winter.

Claims that diets low in saturated fats are healthy began with a paper published by a guy named Keys c. 1960. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia is accurate on many things, but their article on saturated fats is just wrong. They rely on cherry picking data and quoting authorities who are recommending what they have always recommended, even though the science behind it has disappeared. "Cambridge University academic have looked over previous studies on saturated fat and discovered there is no link to heart disease." http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The Cambridge study looked at all the scientific literature as scientists attempted to confirm the Keys result. Keys collected data from 21 European countries, then he threw away more than half the countries, all the ones that didn't support his theory. Countries like Switzerland and Iceland had high consumption of saturated fat, but low rates of heart disease. So he didn't include those.

There is book that summarizes each paper in the scientific literature, "Low Cholesterol Leads to an Early Death: Evidence from 101 Scientific Papers" by David Evans. There are about six or eight books written by physicians that go into the subject in depth.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 11:21:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 12:23:28 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:51:02 AM, apb4y wrote:
Foraging is more reliable than hunting, and would have been the primary food source. Hunting involved risk, and was often unsuccessful, so it would have been more of a booster than a staple.

That's a theory unsupported by data. Some places it's true, but generally not. One of the nearly-all-meat-diet societies is on the plains of Africa. Lots of grass and meat, nothing much else. In temperate and cold zones there almost nothing to forage in winter.

So basically we have yet another made up story to add to the evo library. I guess I'm getting old - I've started to notice how flat out sophomoric stories like this nature article really are. I mean, there are shreds of actual data in there, but claiming any of this has anything whatsoever to do with evolution is pure story telling. But people hear these kinds of stories told repeatedly by those anointed by various universities as scientists, and they start to think there's a body of science where there really isn't.

You get published for telling stories, so that's what people do. If you're really good at it, nobody can find any flaws in your story. But it's still just a made up story, really more akin to Greek stories about the gods than real science.
This space for rent.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 12:07:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 7:02:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

The agricultural revolution actually made us stop eating meat (or at least, drastically decreased the amount of meat we ate) for a while, and the life expectancy of people dropped. Meat is good for you.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 12:41:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 11:21:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
...
You get published for telling stories, so that's what people do. If you're really good at it, nobody can find any flaws in your story. But it's still just a made up story, really more akin to Greek stories about the gods than real science.

I don't have a problem with scientists hypothesizing. Before something can be proved or disproved, it has to be proposed as an hypothesis. The hypothesis should agree with most of what is accepted as fact to be plausible. It plausible that humans evolved to eat mainly vegetarian diets. But then scientists have to put the theory to the test, and many fail. Paleontologists excavating ancient dwellings discovered that the diets were primarily meat, so the the vegetarian hypothesis fails. It's nonetheless plausible that saturated fat causes heart disease, because evolution occurred when life expectancy was very short, so a disease that strikes after age 50 is not going to be a strong player in early evolution. But testing the saturated fat hypothesis shows it fails.

Scientists can properly be blamed for clinging to theories in the fact of new facts, but they really have to start with "stories" to be tested.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 2:44:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 12:41:43 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/22/2014 11:21:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
...
You get published for telling stories, so that's what people do. If you're really good at it, nobody can find any flaws in your story. But it's still just a made up story, really more akin to Greek stories about the gods than real science.

I don't have a problem with scientists hypothesizing. Before something can be proved or disproved, it has to be proposed as an hypothesis. The hypothesis should agree with most of what is accepted as fact to be plausible. It plausible that humans evolved to eat mainly vegetarian diets.

And why is evolution plausible? Because so many stories have been told about evolution. It's not plausible because anybody has demonstrated that such evolution did in fact occur or is even possible.

But then scientists have to put the theory to the test, and many fail. Paleontologists excavating ancient dwellings discovered that the diets were primarily meat, so the the vegetarian hypothesis fails.

That's fine, but has nothing to do with evolution. The evolution part is just a tacked on storyline, is what I'm pointing out here.

It's nonetheless plausible that saturated fat causes heart disease, because evolution occurred when life expectancy was very short,

There you go, exactly what I'm talking about. "Evolution occurred when life expectancy was very short". What evolution? It's just a story. Just cross out every reference to evolution and you have the exact same data. But because evolution is included in every story of human history, you start to feel like it's plausible.


Scientists can properly be blamed for clinging to theories in the fact of new facts, but they really have to start with "stories" to be tested.

Right, so test them. Actually test the evolution story the way the unsaturated fat story has been tested. And found wanting.
This space for rent.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 6:19:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 12:23:28 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/21/2014 3:51:02 AM, apb4y wrote:
Foraging is more reliable than hunting, and would have been the primary food source. Hunting involved risk, and was often unsuccessful, so it would have been more of a booster than a staple.

That's a theory unsupported by data. Some places it's true, but generally not. One of the nearly-all-meat-diet societies is on the plains of Africa. Lots of grass and meat, nothing much else. In temperate and cold zones there almost nothing to forage in winter.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

When plants are available, all tribes (including the Inuit) forage for plants. When plants are abundant, they form the majority of the diet.

It should be noted that the Inuit have evolved to suit an Arctic environment, and their metabolism is different from that of Westerners or African hunter-gatherers.

Claims that diets low in saturated fats are healthy began with a paper published by a guy named Keys c. 1960. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia is accurate on many things, but their article on saturated fats is just wrong. They rely on cherry picking data and quoting authorities who are recommending what they have always recommended, even though the science behind it has disappeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Try that one. It's got more stuff in it.

"Cambridge University academic have looked over previous studies on saturated fat and discovered there is no link to heart disease." http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The Telegraph? Seriously?

The Cambridge study looked at all the scientific literature as scientists attempted to confirm the Keys result. Keys collected data from 21 European countries, then he threw away more than half the countries, all the ones that didn't support his theory. Countries like Switzerland and Iceland had high consumption of saturated fat, but low rates of heart disease. So he didn't include those.

There is book that summarizes each paper in the scientific literature, "Low Cholesterol Leads to an Early Death: Evidence from 101 Scientific Papers" by David Evans. There are about six or eight books written by physicians that go into the subject in depth.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 7:59:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 6:19:15 PM, apb4y wrote:

Don't give me a bunch of pointless reading assignments. Can I tell you to go read the Watchtower and come back when you are a Jehovah's Witness? It is undoubtedly true humans are omnivorous and humans will eat whatever they can. It's undeniable that humans will try to get vitamins, minerals, protein, and all the components of a diet needed to survive. That is not evidence that there is a "best" diet or that the best diet is carb-based,

When plants are available, all tribes (including the Inuit) forage for plants. When plants are abundant, they form the majority of the diet.

So when both plants and meat or fish are abundant, as on tropical islands, do people stop eating meat and fish? Do they eat very little meat and fish. No.

Many societies get by on beans and rice, because that's what is cheap and available. When the society prospers, they eat more animal protein. That's what is happening right now as the developing world is becoming more prosperous and they want better food.

It should be noted that the Inuit have evolved to suit an Arctic environment, and their metabolism is different from that of Westerners or African hunter-gatherers.

That may be true, but it's doubtful. Evolution generally works on a much longer time scale. Australian aborigines are not particularly well suited to the desert, for example. It's not plausible that the metabolism of Inuits and Africans is no different as to have a completely different response to saturated fat.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Try that one. It's got more stuff in it.

The papers cited show no effect of saturated fats or at most a 14% effect, and they are still cherry picking to get even the tiny positive correlation.

"Cambridge University academic have looked over previous studies on saturated fat and discovered there is no link to heart disease." http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The Telegraph? Seriously?

So if the Telegraph quotes NASA as saying the earth is round, we can then safely conclude the earth is flat, because if the Telegraph quotes it, we should know it's wrong.. Good grief, the authority is not The Telegraph, it is Cambridge University. Wikipedia loves to cling to outdated science. Are they still citing all the learned opinion that homosexuality is a form of mental illness?

Wikipedia isn't wrong because it's Wikipedia. If you go down the list of papers they reference, every one shows either a small correlation of saturated fat to heart disease, or no correlation, And they cite only a small number of papers, leaving out the disconfirming evidence. If the theory is true, there should be all sorts of clear evidence, and it just does not exist.

The Cambridge study looked at all the scientific literature as scientists attempted to confirm the Keys result. Keys collected data from 21 European countries, then he threw away more than half the countries, all the ones that didn't support his theory. Countries like Switzerland and Iceland had high consumption of saturated fat, but low rates of heart disease. So they didn't include those.

There is book that summarizes each paper in the scientific literature, "Low Cholesterol Leads to an Early Death: Evidence from 101 Scientific Papers" by David Evans. There are about six or eight books written by physicians that go into the subject in depth.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2014 10:20:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 7:59:25 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:19:15 PM, apb4y wrote:

Don't give me a bunch of pointless reading assignments.

Hey, fvck you. I read your links.

Can I tell you to go read the Watchtower and come back when you are a Jehovah's Witness?

Relevance?

That is not evidence that there is a "best" diet or that the best diet is carb-based,

Hence why I put the word "ideal" in quote marks. If I hear this stupid point again, I'm gonna call you some really rude names.

When plants are available, all tribes (including the Inuit) forage for plants. When plants are abundant, they form the majority of the diet.

So when both plants and meat or fish are abundant, as on tropical islands, do people stop eating meat and fish? Do they eat very little meat and fish. No.

That is a strawman fallacy. Shame on you.

What I said was that plants make up the majority of the diet, not that they make up the entirety of the diet.

Many societies get by on beans and rice, because that's what is cheap and available. When the society prospers, they eat more animal protein.

Because meat is hard to come by, which is exactly why plants are the primary food source for most civilizations throughout history. Also, notice that people who eat lots of meat and don't burn it off exercising tend to become fat.

It should be noted that the Inuit have evolved to suit an Arctic environment, and their metabolism is different from that of Westerners or African hunter-gatherers.

That may be true, but it's doubtful. Evolution generally works on a much longer time scale. Australian aborigines are not particularly well suited to the desert, for example. It's not plausible that the metabolism of Inuits and Africans is no different as to have a completely different response to saturated fat.

Firstly, Evolution happens as fast or as slow as Nature demands. HIV has only been around since the 1930s, but we're already evolving resistance to it.

Secondly, had you actually read the article I linked instead of dismissing it, you would know that Inuit have larger livers than Westerners to cope with the increased fat breakdown. Also, Inuit have stocky builds, and we all know that's a common adaptation among Arctic animals because it helps to conserve body heat.

The papers cited show no effect of saturated fats or at most a 14% effect, and they are still cherry picking to get even the tiny positive correlation.

14% is significant.

So if the Telegraph quotes NASA as saying the earth is round, we can then safely conclude the earth is flat, because if the Telegraph quotes it, we should know it's wrong.

If they'd been reported it 2,000 years ago, before the roundness of the Earth was confirmed by actual scientists, then I would be sceptical and rightfully so.

Also, strawman fallacy. I was criticizing the source, not the claims.

Good grief, the authority is not The Telegraph, it is Cambridge University.

They didn't even link to the study.

Wikipedia loves to cling to outdated science. Are they still citing all the learned opinion that homosexuality is a form of mental illness?

1. No they're not.

2. Don't be a dick.

3. You're gonna have to link some examples that aren't related to saturated fat before I'll even consider your claim.

Wikipedia isn't wrong because it's Wikipedia. If you go down the list of papers they reference, every one shows either a small correlation of saturated fat to heart disease, or no correlation, And they cite only a small number of papers, leaving out the disconfirming evidence. If the theory is true, there should be all sorts of clear evidence, and it just does not exist.

Then why don't you edit the page to include all that evidence?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:46:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/22/2014 10:20:54 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:59:25 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:19:15 PM, apb4y wrote:

Don't give me a bunch of pointless reading assignments.

Hey, fvck you. I read your links.

You apparently don't understand the idea of making an argument and then giving a source, versus linking something that is supposed to be making the argument. For example, I claim that the body of scientific literature since Keys does not support a link between saturated fat and heart disease. I cite as sources the Cambridge University meta-study of 71 (or whatever it was) published works and a book that discussed each of a hundred published papers on the subject. One of the principles at work is that if the initial argument is agreed to, there is no need to read the sources at all. If the claim is not agreed to, then you have to find the error in the sources or better source. You gave four links with no claim. I have no idea what it was supposed to prove. You are giving me the assignment to read the stuff and figure out what you are claiming. Don't do that.

That is not evidence that there is a "best" diet or that the best diet is carb-based,

Hence why I put the word "ideal" in quote marks. If I hear this stupid point again, I'm gonna call you some really rude names.

There is no need to call me really rude names, you can just close your DDO account directly rather than get banned. The threat was about a carb-based diet being better that an animal protein diet. If you concede it isn't better, then what are you claiming?

When plants are available, all tribes (including the Inuit) forage for plants. When plants are abundant, they form the majority of the diet.

So when both plants and meat or fish are abundant, as on tropical islands, do people stop eating meat and fish? Do they eat very little meat and fish. No.

That is a strawman fallacy. Shame on you.

Say why it is straw man. What point were you trying to make from which it is a distraction. I thought your point was that a vegetablebased diet is naturally preferred by people, and is therefore probably better for people. My response was that it isn't naturally preferred because people seek animal protein whenever they can afford to get it, as witnessed by the strong trend in developing countries. Explain the straw man.

Because meat is hard to come by, which is exactly why plants are the primary food source for most civilizations throughout history. Also, notice that people who eat lots of meat and don't burn it off exercising tend to become fat.

Agriculture began less than 10,000 years ago. That made plants easier to come by. In the millions of years of pre-history, people only lived where they could get food by hunting or foraging. In most places hunting provides more calories with less work than foraging. That's because animals convert grass other such plant matter indigestible to humans into useful food. But it isn't a theory. Palentologists have established that caveman diets were primarily animal protein.

"A caveman would never eat a food that would make him hungrier, especially since there was not always food around to eat during his time. This would be the equivalent of self-torture. Consequently, the caveman ate large amounts of protein, mostly from animal sources1-3. He ate much more protein than the average American eats nowadays.
http://www.cavemandoctor.com...

Secondly, had you actually read the article I linked instead of dismissing it, you would know that Inuit have larger livers than Westerners to cope with the increased fat breakdown. Also, Inuit have stocky builds, and we all know that's a common adaptation among Arctic animals because it helps to conserve body heat.

Having a larger liver is not a consequence of evolution, it's a response to environment. The South American people who live at high altitudes have larger hearts. Makes sense.

The papers cited show no effect of saturated fats or at most a 14% effect, and they are still cherry picking to get even the tiny positive correlation.

14% is significant.

That's the most extreme result of the studies. Overall, for the cherry-picked papers, the effect is about nothing or barely positive. Yet the whole world of nutrition for fifty years has been built around high carb low protein low fat diets. Other studies not in the Wikipedia article show benefits of the opposite type of diet. I'm saying that when the best case that the prosecution can make is that it's barely significant, we know the case is weak.

Also, strawman fallacy. I was criticizing the source, not the claims.

So having nothing to say about the claims, you decided that attacking the newspaper was a good idea. That is exactly what a strawman fallacy is, a distraction fro the point. finding the original study is trivial. The summary in the news story was accurate and easier to understand than the journal article itself.

2. Don't be a dick.

Cut that out. All you have to do is learn civilized debate.

3. You're gonna have to link some examples that aren't related to saturated fat before I'll even consider your claim.

What claim? My claim is that a diet high in animal protein and fat is as good or better than the low fat low protein diet erroneously pushed for the past fifty years. the proof is that the original study starting the diet theory was falsified and that studies done since then have disproved the theory. The result is reasonable given the scientific papers showing that early man had a predominately animal diet. So what of this do you say is wrong?

Then why don't you edit the page to include all that evidence?

Because on topics involving some form of political correctness, it's immediately put back to it's original form. Most of the topics in Wikipedia don't have this problem, because most topics are not relevant to PC.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:42:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:46:36 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/22/2014 10:20:54 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/22/2014 7:59:25 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/22/2014 6:19:15 PM, apb4y wrote:

Don't give me a bunch of pointless reading assignments.

Hey, fvck you. I read your links.

You apparently don't understand the idea of making an argument and then giving a source, versus linking something that is supposed to be making the argument. For example, I claim that the body of scientific literature since Keys does not support a link between saturated fat and heart disease. I cite as sources the Cambridge University meta-study of 71 (or whatever it was) published works and a book that discussed each of a hundred published papers on the subject. One of the principles at work is that if the initial argument is agreed to, there is no need to read the sources at all. If the claim is not agreed to, then you have to find the error in the sources or better source. You gave four links with no claim. I have no idea what it was supposed to prove. You are giving me the assignment to read the stuff and figure out what you are claiming. Don't do that.

I made a claim. You just ignored it.

That is not evidence that there is a "best" diet or that the best diet is carb-based,

Hence why I put the word "ideal" in quote marks. If I hear this stupid point again, I'm gonna call you some really rude names.

There is no need to call me really rude names, you can just close your DDO account directly rather than get banned. The threat was about a carb-based diet being better that an animal protein diet. If you concede it isn't better, then what are you claiming?

When plants are available, all tribes (including the Inuit) forage for plants. When plants are abundant, they form the majority of the diet.

So when both plants and meat or fish are abundant, as on tropical islands, do people stop eating meat and fish? Do they eat very little meat and fish. No.

That is a strawman fallacy. Shame on you.

Say why it is straw man. What point were you trying to make from which it is a distraction. I thought your point was that a vegetablebased diet is naturally preferred by people, and is therefore probably better for people. My response was that it isn't naturally preferred because people seek animal protein whenever they can afford to get it, as witnessed by the strong trend in developing countries. Explain the straw man.

You misunderstood my point then. Plants are easier to eat than animals, because they don't move around. Therefore, they usually make up the majority of the human diet, and this has affected our nutritional/vitamin requirements over the course of our evolution. Animal meat is either a top-up when hunting is good, or the only thing available when foraging isn't.

I've said that in plain English, so it's your fault if you still don't understand my point.

Because meat is hard to come by, which is exactly why plants are the primary food source for most civilizations throughout history. Also, notice that people who eat lots of meat and don't burn it off exercising tend to become fat.

Agriculture began less than 10,000 years ago. That made plants easier to come by. In the millions of years of pre-history, people only lived where they could get food by hunting or foraging. In most places hunting provides more calories with less work than foraging. That's because animals convert grass other such plant matter indigestible to humans into useful food. But it isn't a theory. Palentologists have established that caveman diets were primarily animal protein.

"A caveman would never eat a food that would make him hungrier, especially since there was not always food around to eat during his time. This would be the equivalent of self-torture. Consequently, the caveman ate large amounts of protein, mostly from animal sources1-3. He ate much more protein than the average American eats nowadays.
http://www.cavemandoctor.com...

The "paleo-diet" craze is based on pseudoscience. Also, "caveman doctor" is not a credible source.

Secondly, had you actually read the article I linked instead of dismissing it, you would know that Inuit have larger livers than Westerners to cope with the increased fat breakdown. Also, Inuit have stocky builds, and we all know that's a common adaptation among Arctic animals because it helps to conserve body heat.

Having a larger liver is not a consequence of evolution, it's a response to environment. The South American people who live at high altitudes have larger hearts. Makes sense.

Environment determines Evolution. That is the entire point. Your statement reflects a blatant ignorance about how Evolution works.

The papers cited show no effect of saturated fats or at most a 14% effect, and they are still cherry picking to get even the tiny positive correlation.

14% is significant.

That's the most extreme result of the studies. Overall, for the cherry-picked papers, the effect is about nothing or barely positive. Yet the whole world of nutrition for fifty years has been built around high carb low protein low fat diets. Other studies not in the Wikipedia article show benefits of the opposite type of diet. I'm saying that when the best case that the prosecution can make is that it's barely significant, we know the case is weak.

Given the shiit you just linked me, it's more likely that they were excluded for being bogus.

Also, strawman fallacy. I was criticizing the source, not the claims.

So having nothing to say about the claims, you decided that attacking the newspaper was a good idea. That is exactly what a strawman fallacy is, a distraction fro the point. finding the original study is trivial. The summary in the news story was accurate and easier to understand than the journal article itself.

2. Don't be a dick.

Cut that out. All you have to do is learn civilized debate.

Civilized? Okay.

Please rectify your behaviour so as not to give the impression that you possess the intelligence and temperament of a phallus.

3. You're gonna have to link some examples that aren't related to saturated fat before I'll even consider your claim.

What claim? My claim is that a diet high in animal protein and fat is as good or better than the low fat low protein diet erroneously pushed for the past fifty years. the proof is that the original study starting the diet theory was falsified and that studies done since then have disproved the theory. The result is reasonable given the scientific papers showing that early man had a predominately animal diet. So what of this do you say is wrong?

Reasonable.

Scientific.

Papers.

Then why don't you edit the page to include all that evidence?

Because on topics involving some form of political correctness, it's immediately put back to it's original form. Most of the topics in Wikipedia don't have this problem, because most topics are not relevant to PC.

That is a cop-out answer. Seriously.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:50:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 7:02:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Except humans didn't exist 2.6 million years ago.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 3:19:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:50:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/17/2014 7:02:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Except humans didn't exist 2.6 million years ago.

The OP is talking about humans (Homo) not modern humans (Homo sapiens). Most studies situate the emergence of the Homo genus from 3.5 to 2.5 million years old.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 3:43:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:48:19 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/17/2014 7:39:43 PM, apb4y wrote:
We've been eating meat since before we were human. Most primates are omnivorous; the bulk of their diet is vegetation, while fruit, meat and bird eggs are occasional food sources.

The "ideal" human diet would break down like this:

Primary food sources: fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains.

Secondary food sources: meat, fish, eggs, dairy.
...

I don't think that's accepted scientifically any more. Studies of prehistoric human diet shows it to be high in animal proteins and fats. That's believed to be an evolutionary adaptation consistent with highly mobile human tribes surviving in non-tropical environments. However, being omnivorous allows humans to adapt to widely varying circumstances, so it isn't clear that there is any one "best" diet. Eskimos and some African tribes have nearly all meat diets. It turns out that raw seal blubber is good for you.

Claims that diets low in saturated fats are healthy began with a paper published by a guy named Keys c. 1960. It turns out that he faked the data. Attempts to verify the theory have been ongoing for 50 years. Last year Cambridge University published a meta-study, a compilation of all the studies on saturated fat and cholesterol. It turns out that saturated fat is not bad for you and the carb-based food pyramid is just plain wrong. There are a number of books on this subject. One good one is "The Big Fat Surprise." It's an interesting story of screwed up science.

I agree that a high energy diet (fats, etc) was key to humans' evolution. In fact, I've read a lot of anthropologists that point out that one of the greatest achievements in the creation of stone tools, was that it allowed early men to break animal bones and eat the marrow, which is made up of 90% fat, and is considered hypercaloric. Eating this is obviously very useful when you live in nature and you are not sure whether you'll eat tomorrow or not. However, I guess we can agree that, overall, yearly intake of saturated fat by prehistoric men was generally very low, since I assume that they could not afford to eat meat and marrow daily (animals were not so abundant and easy to hunt those days).

What I would bring to conclusion, is that saturated fats and high-calorie foods may be beneficial if consumed with moderation, as after all, are essential for building cell membranes and other important life functions. The problem today is that we are no longer in a natural environment where we eat fat in small doses, we are now in an artificial environment with a supermarket full of stuff packed in boxes of attractive colors, the food inside with 10 times more fat than the marrow, and so tasty that we can not help but eating it every day. Is this healthy?

Finaly, the food pyramid does not say "do no take saturated fats!", just points out that you should eat them in small proportion if compared to other groups of aliments.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 5:14:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 3:19:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:50:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/17/2014 7:02:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Except humans didn't exist 2.6 million years ago.

The OP is talking about humans (Homo) not modern humans (Homo sapiens). Most studies situate the emergence of the Homo genus from 3.5 to 2.5 million years old.

The Homo genus didn't emerge anywhere close to 3.5 MYA, it's more like 2.4 MYA, and it's pretty misleading to call anything prior to H. Erectus (less than 2 MYA) a "human" anyway.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 8:39:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 5:14:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/4/2014 3:19:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:50:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/17/2014 7:02:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Except humans didn't exist 2.6 million years ago.

The OP is talking about humans (Homo) not modern humans (Homo sapiens). Most studies situate the emergence of the Homo genus from 3.5 to 2.5 million years old.

The Homo genus didn't emerge anywhere close to 3.5 MYA, it's more like 2.4 MYA, and it's pretty misleading to call anything prior to H. Erectus (less than 2 MYA) a "human" anyway.

If you consider only the fossils of Homo, then yes, the genus emerged near to 2.4 million years ago, however, we have found stone tools that are dated in 3.5M years old, and is generally accepted that stone tool manufacturing is exclusively a human's skill.

But I'm curious, why would you say H.erectus is the first human?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 7:04:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 8:39:41 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/4/2014 5:14:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/4/2014 3:19:24 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:50:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/17/2014 7:02:48 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
http://www.nature.com...

Except humans didn't exist 2.6 million years ago.

The OP is talking about humans (Homo) not modern humans (Homo sapiens). Most studies situate the emergence of the Homo genus from 3.5 to 2.5 million years old.

The Homo genus didn't emerge anywhere close to 3.5 MYA, it's more like 2.4 MYA, and it's pretty misleading to call anything prior to H. Erectus (less than 2 MYA) a "human" anyway.

If you consider only the fossils of Homo, then yes, the genus emerged near to 2.4 million years ago, however, we have found stone tools that are dated in 3.5M years old, and is generally accepted that stone tool manufacturing is exclusively a human's skill.

But I'm curious, why would you say H.erectus is the first human?

I think the genus is a pretty conventional demark point, hardly anyone ever refers to the Australopiths as human. Erectus demonstrates a clear break with its antecedents in terms of modern human like qualities. He was so much bigger, so much smarter, and so much closer in primary body proportions, adapted to life on the ground, and the first to adapt to such a wide range of habitats. Erectus" ability to survive as long as they did, and in such a wide range of environments, indicates human like behavior and abilities, there"s no precise line to cross, but the reason so many refer to Erectus as human like and almost nobody refers to the Australopiths that way is that Erectus has so many similar qualities.

There's quite a large range of tool use in species way outside of the human sphere even today, I don't see how that can be a demark point.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater