Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Humans are Omnivores

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Rob

unread,
Apr 1, 2006, 11:53:14 AM4/1/06
to
Here's at least one vegetarian that isn't delusional about his diet:

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Rob

Dr. Zarkov

unread,
Apr 1, 2006, 5:05:47 PM4/1/06
to
Rob wrote:
> Here's at least one vegetarian that isn't delusional about his diet:
> http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm


It's basically a straw man: The argument for vegetarianism is not at all
based on what diet humans evolved on; what matters is what diet is most
beneficial for us now. The noted gerontologist Roy Walford (as well as
others) addressed this point a long time ago:

From _Maximum Life Span_ Roy Walford, MD. New York: WW Norton,1983.
<begin quote>
The fact is, however, that both Pritikin's and Atkin's arguments
relating to "evolutionary" man are largely irrelevant since evolutionary
pressure tends to decline in late middle and old age. Some may remain,
as suggested by the fact that the leader of an elephant herd is
typically a post-reproductive female. Where there is a long period of
childhood dependency and a low reproductive rate, as in elephants and
man, there may have occurred a degree of evolution of post-reproductive
survival. For the most part, however, the strategy of evolution ahs
been to postpone inherited disease susceptibilities until beyond the
childbearing age, thus neutralizing their genetic influence. The major
degenerative diseases occur in late life because they've been postponed
to that period. People with the genetic tendency to get cancer at age
25, say, are likely to be weeded out early and no longer contribute to
the genetic pool. Therefore, this particular age-specific trait tends
not to be passed on but to be eliminated by the natural selective forces
of evolution. But the susceptibility to develop cancer at age 65 will
not be eliminated from the genetic pool because the afflicted person
will generally already have accomplished all his or her potential
procreation.

Since primitive man had a far shorter 50 percent survival than modern
man, except for rare individuals, he would not have lived long enough to
develop degenerative diseases. The best possible diet for early man
would have depended on what was evolutionarily best to ensure his
survival under prehistoric conditions. I suppose that would have been
to be bigger, swifter, stronger, and as soon as possible--precisely what
modern nutritionists generally do not tend to strive for in their
dietary recommendations. These goals may have been fine for primitive
man's situation, but as we've seen the food intake that leads to them is
suboptimal for maximizing life span and minimizing late-life diseases.
(pp 112-113)

The basic conflict is whether food can serve as more than simple
nourishment, whether desired reactions can be reinforced by unnatural
alimentary means....At the center of the conflict is our old question of
optimization. Nutritionists have taken it for granted that what a good
diet should supply is just what we needed when we were back in the
forests and cases, where the optimum was to be big and strong and
fast--and quickly so....Today we want to optimize intelligence, life
span, and perhaps other things...and these could require a different
food orientation than would make you the top slayer of mastodons in Los
Angeles.
(pp 137-138)
<end quote>
--_Maximum Life Span_ Roy Walford, MD. New York: WW Norton,1983.

BTW, Roy Walford, a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee
on Aging, was probably best known for his work on life span extension by
caloric restriction. It's still the only known method of extending
maximum life span in mammals.
http://www.walford.com/


Rob

unread,
Apr 1, 2006, 7:36:46 PM4/1/06
to

Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > Here's at least one vegetarian that isn't delusional about his diet:
> > http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm
>
>
> It's basically a straw man: The argument for vegetarianism is not at all
> based on what diet humans evolved on; what matters is what diet is most
> beneficial for us now. The noted gerontologist Roy Walford (as well as
> others) addressed this point a long time ago:
>

I was not presenting an argument against vegetarianism so I guess you
missed the point. The point of the article was that humans are in fact
omnivores and not herbivores as would many vegan religionists would
have us believe. That *was* my point. Period.

Now, if you want to argue over *that* point, by all means do so.

BTW, what diet is the most beneficial for us now and what is the goal
of the human species? To procreate and further the species perhaps?
Hmmmm, doesn't sound like our goal has changed much in 2.5 million
years does it?

Rob

M Dunne

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 5:35:47 PM4/2/06
to
"Rob" <rud...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1143938206.575209.41950@g10g2000cwb.

>
> BTW, what diet is the most beneficial for us now and what is the goal
> of the human species? To procreate and further the species perhaps?
> Hmmmm, doesn't sound like our goal has changed much in 2.5 million
> years does it?

'Further the species'?!? Actually it 'sounds' more like *you* are an idiotic
believer in a fantasized 'group selectionism'. Try and wise up, sonny: the
*individual* is the 'unit of selection'; the *gene* is the 'unit of
inheritance'. The 'species' -- whatever necessarily inadequate means you use
to try and define what that is -- doesn't figure *anywhere*...

Enjoy your day.

M.


Rob

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 8:32:02 PM4/2/06
to

Wise up yourself, jerk! You sound like like some dumbassed vegan
religionist or I could be wrong. You could simply be an asshole, you
asshole.

> Enjoy your day.

I did!

Rob

dorsy1943

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 8:50:43 AM4/3/06
to
I agree that humans are omnivores, but that includes eating insects
which are about 3 to 4 percent fat (roughly the same fat content as
game) except for some insects like termites which are about 23 per cent
fat.

Certainly our ancestors did not eat hormone and antibiotic stuffed cows
and chickens. Nor were ancient animals castrated, kept in crowded
confinement and fed "scientific" diets specifically intended to fatten.

So for atkins or anyone else to say that our ancestors were primarily
meat eaters, even if true, does not have any relevence for practical
purposes for people who buy (not hunt) their meat in supermarkets. It
is even hard to find fish that is wild caught and not farmed.

I have seen pictures of african kids turning over a log and grabbing a
fat tasty wriggling grub for lunch. I wonder if this isn't a more
healthful food than a modern manufactured cow.

Even Pritikin and Ornish rely on vegetables grown in artificially
fertilized soils, sprayed with chemicals, picked unripe and shipped
over long distances and stored for long periods.

So I agree. What is healthful,available, affordable and appeals to our
taste now is what we have to choose from.

TC

unread,
Apr 3, 2006, 12:12:52 PM4/3/06
to

dorsy1943 wrote:
> I agree that humans are omnivores, but that includes eating insects
> which are about 3 to 4 percent fat (roughly the same fat content as
> game) except for some insects like termites which are about 23 per cent
> fat.

The most favoured insects are the higher fat ones.

>
> Certainly our ancestors did not eat hormone and antibiotic stuffed cows
> and chickens. Nor were ancient animals castrated, kept in crowded
> confinement and fed "scientific" diets specifically intended to fatten.

Nor did they eat anything other than very small amounts of grains.

>
> So for atkins or anyone else to say that our ancestors were primarily
> meat eaters, even if true, does not have any relevence for practical
> purposes for people who buy (not hunt) their meat in supermarkets. It
> is even hard to find fish that is wild caught and not farmed.

Some of us get our meat right from small operators who know how to
raise animals properly for food. And some of us get our fish right out
of the water thru-out the year.

>
> I have seen pictures of african kids turning over a log and grabbing a
> fat tasty wriggling grub for lunch. I wonder if this isn't a more
> healthful food than a modern manufactured cow.

It most certainly is.

>
> Even Pritikin and Ornish rely on vegetables grown in artificially
> fertilized soils, sprayed with chemicals, picked unripe and shipped
> over long distances and stored for long periods.

Gives us good reason to raise our own produce or get it from organic
farmers at the farmers markets.

>
> So I agree. What is healthful,available, affordable and appeals to our
> taste now is what we have to choose from.

But you can refrain from consuming the more egregious examples of fake
and manufactured foods, like RTE cereals, hfcs, dried pastas, white
bread, high temp pasteurized milk, etc.

Eat the freshest organically grown produce and the best organic meat
you can find.

And remember, soy and grains are not real human foods.

TC

dorsy1943

unread,
Apr 4, 2006, 9:16:22 AM4/4/06
to
Asian populations who ate traditional diets consumed lots and lots of
soy and grains and according to many studies are among the longest
lived people. However, I agree that it is most healthful to eat
organically grown produce and meat and wild caught fish.

On the other hand, I wouldn't know where to get many of these things
and as someone on a limited income, I could not afford even the organic
procuce I see in the supermarkets and health food stores. Wild caught
salmon is 15.95 per pound in my super market. What is the cost of a
pound of meat from a ranch that raises cows the old fashioned way? And
I don't have a bunch of kids to feed.

Besides this I wonder how organic is organic food. I understand that
sprays from non organic farms contaminate about 15 per cent of the
crops on an organic farm. And fish is only as wholesome as the water
it is swimming in, so even if you catch it yourself it is still
susceptible to its environment.

You are perfectly right and everyone wants to eat as you suggest, but
those of us living in city or suburban apartments who don't fish or
hunt are stuck with what is in the supermarket.

TC

unread,
Apr 6, 2006, 10:54:40 PM4/6/06
to
Asians NEVER ate "lots and lots" of soy.

TC

0 new messages