Jordan Peterson's all-meat diet

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Why We Sould Be Eating More Meat ( 15 min )

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Do you have a tl;dw summary?

Who is this person making this claim?

What does he mean “more meat” when he does know how much I eat already?

Why should we be eating more meat?

Does his claim support Jordan Peterson’s “all meat” diet?

[Skeptical Greg]

Summary: Why We Should Be Eating More Meat

Should be suitable for all ages and the work environment.

It only takes 15 minutes to watch.. No text to copy and paste..

You might learn something, or you may have some serious rebuttal for the ideas put forth.

I don't care if you watch it or not.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do you have a tl;dw summary?

OK

He claims we should be eating more meat than we are now because we evolved to do so.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Who is this person making this claim?

Brian Sanders. Former mechanical engineer turned health guru.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

What does he mean “more meat” when he does know how much I eat already?

He is addressing the population as a whole, not any specific individual.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Why should we be eating more meat?

Because over the last 50 years, the proportion of meat to veg has steadily moved away from meat towards veg. This is unnatural for the human species.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Does his claim support Jordan Peterson’s “all meat” diet?

He mentions it in passing without fully endorsing it. He might.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Summary: Why We Should Be Eating More Meat

Should be suitable for all ages and the work environment.

It only takes 15 minutes to watch.. No text to copy and paste..

You might learn something, or you may have some serious rebuttal for the ideas put forth.

I don't care if you watch it or not.

I don't know about Sorba, but I have a serious rebuttal Greg.

I believe this is a false dichotomy he set up. The meat we get nowadays in the west does not resemble much the meat we evolved to eat because of the factory farming production model.

There are countless studies showing this!

Here are just a few I have bookmarked.

De La Torre, A., D. Gruffat, D. Durand, D. Micol, A. Peyron, V. Scislowski, and D. Bauchart. 2006. Factors influencing proportion and composition of CLA in beef. Journal of Meat Science 73:258-268.

Dikeman, M.E. 2007. Effects of metabolic modifiers on carcass traits and meat quality. Journal of Meat Science 77:121-135.

Enser, M., K.G. Hallett, B. Hewett, G.A.J. Fursey, J.D. Wood, and G. Harrington. 1998. Fatty Acid Content and Composition of UK Beef and Lamb Muscle in Relation to Production System and Implications for Human Nutrition. Journal of Meat Science 49:329-341.

Enser, M., R.I. Richardson, J.D. Wood, B.P. Gill and P.R. Sheard. 2000. Feeding linseed to increase the n-3 PUFA of pork: fatty acid composition of muscle, adipose tissue, liver and sausages. Journal of Meat Science 55:201-212.

Enser, M., N. Scollan, S. Gulati, I. Richardson, G. Nute and J. Wood. 2001. The effects of ruminally-protected dietary lipid on the lipid conmposoition and quality of beef muscle. Proceedings of the 47th international Congress of Meat Science and Technology 1:12-13.

Frencha, P.,E.G. O’Riordan, F.J. Monahan, P.J. Caffrey, and A.P. Moloney. 2003. Fatty acid composition of intra-muscular triacylglycerols of steers fed autumn grass and concentrates. Journal of Livestock Production Science 81:307-317.

Garcia, P.T., N.A. Pensel, A.M. Sancho, N.J. Latimori, A.M. Kloster, M.A. Amigone, and J.J. Casal. 2008. Beef lipids in relation to animal breed and nutrition in Argentina. Journal of Meat Science 79:500-508.

Kraft, J., J.K.G. Kramer, F. Schoene, J.R. Chambers, and G. Jahreis. 2008. Extensive Analysis of Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids, CLA, trans-18:1 Isomers, and Plasmalogenic Lipids in Different Retail Beef types. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 56:4775-4782.

Leskanich, C.O., K.R. Matthews, CC Warkup, RC Noble and M. Hazzledine. 1997. The effect of dietary oil containing n-3 fatty acids on the fatty acids, physiochemical and organoleptic charactersitics of pigmeat and fat. Journal of Animal Science 75:673-683.

Lorenzen, C.L., J.W. Golden, F.A. Martz, I.U. Grun, M.R. Ellersieck, J.R. Gerrish, and K.C. Moore. 2007. Conjugated linoleic acid content of beef differs by feeding regime and muscle. Journal of Meat Science 75:159-167.

Marmer, W.N., R.J. Maxwell, and J.E. Williams. 1984. Effects of dietary regimen and tissue site on bovine fatty acid profiles. Eastern Regional Research Center, Philadelphia, PA.

Mercier, Y., P. Gatellier, and M. Renerre. 2004. Lipid and protein oxidation in vitro, and antioxidant potential in meat from Charolais cows finished on pasture or mixed diet. Journal of Meat Science 66:467-473.

Moreno, T., M.G. Keane, F. Noci, and A.P. Moloney. 2008. Fatty acid composition of M. Longissimus dorsi from Holstein–Friesian steers of New Zealand and European/American descent and from Belgian Blue x Holstein–Friesian steers, slaughtered at two weights/ages. Journal of Meat Science 78:157-169.

Noci, F., P. O'Kiely, F.J. Monahan, C. Stanton, and A.P. Moloney. 2005. Conjugated linoleic acid concentration in M. Longissimus dorsi from heifers offered sunflower oil-based concentrates and conserved forages. Journal of Meat Science 69:509-518.

Nuernberg, K., D. Dannenberger, G. Nuernberg, K. Ender, J. Voigt, N.D. Scollan, J.D. Wood, G.R. Nute, and R.I. Richardson. 2005. Effect of grass-based and a concentrate feeding system on meat quality characteristics and fatty acid composition of longissimus muscle in different cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science 94:137-147.

Padre, R.G., J.A. Aricetti, S.M. Gomes, R.H. Goes, F.B. Moreira, I.N. Prado, J.V. Visentainer, N.E. Souza, and M. Matsushita. 2007. Analysis of fatty acids in Longissimus muscle of steers of different genetic breeds finished in pasture systems. Journal of Livestock Science 110:57-63.

Padre, R.G., J.A. Aricetti, F.B. Moreira, I.Y. Mizubitu, I.N. Prado, J. Visentainer, N.E. Souza, and M. Matsushita. 2006. Fatty acid profile, and chemical composition of Longissimus muscle of bovine steers and bulls finished in pasture system. Journal of Meat Science 74:242-248.

Poulsona, C.S., T.R. Dhimana, A.L. Urea, D. Cornforthb, and K.C. Olsona. 2004. Conjugated linoleic acid content of beef from cattle fed diets containing high grain, CLA, or raised on forages. Journal of Livestock Production Science 91:117-128.

Raes, K., S. De Smet, and D. Demeyer. 2004. Effect of dietary fatty acids on incorporation of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid in lamb, beef and pork meat: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 113:199-211.

Realinia, C.E., S.K. Ducketta, G.W. Britob, M. Dalla Rizzab, and D. De Mattos. 2004. Effect of pasture vs. concentrate feeding with or without antioxidants on carcass characteristics, fatty acid composition, and quality of Uruguayan beef. Journal of Meat Science 66:567-577.

Sanudo, C., M. Enser, M.M. Campo, G.R. Nute, G. Maria, I. Sierra and J.D. Wood. 2000. Fatty acid composition and fatty acid characteristics of lamb carcasses from Britain and Spain. Journal of Meat Science 54:339-346.

Scollan, N.D., N.J. Choi, E. Kurt, A.V. Fisher, M. Enser and J.D. Wood. 2001. Manipulating the fatty acid composition of muscle and adipose tissue in beef cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 85:115-124.

Shen, X., K. Nuernberg, G. Nuernberg, R. Zhao, N. Scollan, K. Ender, and D. Dannenberger. 2007. Vaccenic Acid and cis-9,trans-11 CLA in the Rumen and Tissues of Pasture- and Concentrate-Fed Beef Cattle. Lipids 42:1093–1103.

Yang, A., M.J. Brewster, M.C. Lanari, and R.K. Tume. 2002. Effect of vitamin E supplementation on a-tocopherol and b-carotene concentrations in tissues from pasture- and grain-fed cattle. Journal of Meat Science 60:35-40.

He makes a strong case that certain health issues started when we changed our diets to more grains and sugar. But he failed to note that the exact same correlation can be made to the time we changed production models for meat and its quality is vastly inferior as well.

Oh and also veggies quality is less too.

So since his correlation is not properly controlled....his whole argument fails.

He might be right, but there is no way to know based on the scant evidence he supplies.

However, there is a far more likely cause. The thing that explains both the studies he proposes and also supports the studies the Vegetarians support, and even supports the balanced diet crowd.....

It's the overall deterioration of our food supply, both animal and vegetable that is causing these issues, and that all links back to the soil health.

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't disagree that soil health is a problem or that the quality of some animal sourced products. It doesn't mean we should keep eating a lot of stuff that clearly causes health issues.

However, you would be hard pressed to show that humans did not evolve on a a primarily animal sourced diet. Not just evolve, but survived for hundreds of thousands of years before agriculture arrived on the scene.

You would need to address the speaker's points about the bio availability of plant based nutrients vs the same nutrients found in animal sourced foods.

What you see in the produce department , and in the cereal ( animal feed ) boxes of store shelves did not exist in their current form, nor were they available, even a hundred years ago.

Our recommended diet has been corrupted by bad science and the interests of big ' food ' producers..

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I don't disagree that soil health is a problem.

yes

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

However, you would be hard pressed to show that humans did not evolve on a a primarily animal sourced diet. Not just evolve, but survived for hundreds of thousands of years before agriculture arrived on the scene.

why would I? That's not my point at all. My point was the meat typically found at the market today doesn't resemble much that meat we evolved on either.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

You would need to address the speakers points about the bio availability of plant based nutrients.

why?

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

What you see in the produce department , and in the cereal ( animal feed ) boxes of store shelves did not exist, even a hundred years ago.

yes

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Our recommended diet has been corrupted by bad science and the interests of big ' food ' interests..

yes

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

You would need to address the speakers points about the bio availability of plant based nutrients.

Quote:

why?

Maybe you wouldn't, but I think the pushers of more fruits and vegetables, and less animal products would.

It appears we are on the same page in many regards.

I think the speaker makes some good points in a very short time. Many are going to say ' Where is the science ? '..

It's out there if you look, but a lot of people will dismiss the speaker instead of looking for themselves.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Do you have a tl;dw summary?

Who is this person making this claim?

What does he mean “more meat” when he does know how much I eat already?

Why should we be eating more meat?

Does his claim support Jordan Peterson’s “all meat” diet?

Brian Sanders. It's basically an outline for his movie Food Lies. I think his pic says he is all meat. Looks it too. So yeah, supports J.P.'s diet.

There is a massive body of work out there that rebuts much of what we have been told about nutrition for the last 60 years. Starting with the cholesterol theory that startled with tests on rabbits. Rabbits don't eat cholesterol, can't handle it, clog up if force fed it. Then Ancel Keys with his cherry picked 7 nations claims. He picked 7 nations from data on umm 80. Next, the food pyramid, laid out by the aide to a senator. Can you say Big Ag? Then all the cholesterol/heart attack studies that were sponsored by- guess who? the Statin manufacturers.

But go ahead and follow the Vegan faith. No need to be skeptical when it comes to nutritional advice.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Maybe you wouldn't, but I think the pushers of more fruits and vegetables, and less animal products would.

It appears we are on the same page in many regards.

I think the speaker makes some good points in a very short time. Many are going to say ' Where is the science ? '..

It's out there if you look, but a lot of people will dismiss the speaker instead of looking for themselves.

Sure. He blasted through a 15 minute presentation. There was not scope to present citations.

Nevertheless, he presents plenty elsewhere. Peer reviewed and all that jazz. One cannot expect everything to be neatly packaged in 15 minutes, so it does require at least some effort to read up.

For me, he makes some good points. But he also makes some stupid ones.

As usual, caveat emptor.

[bigred]

Originally Posted by casebro

There is a massive body of work out there that rebuts much of what we have been told about nutrition for the last 60 years.

Please do point us to it.

Quote:

Starting with the cholesterol theory that startled with tests on rabbits.

Even if true, it hardly ended there.

Quote:

Next, the food pyramid, laid out by the aide to a senator. Can you say Big Ag?

Yes, but I'd rather say "can you back your conspiracy claims up?"

This thread is hilarious. People act like the only studies that have been done on this were scams pushed by "big ag" (the "big pharm" conspiracy junkies would be so proud). So are you all going to a high beef diet now and dismissing those nasty ol vegetables with all those nasty vitamins and fiber n stuff? PS I am far from a vegetarian. I prefer a balance of foods. Funny that way.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Russia isn't communist any more. Now it is a reactionary, nationalist authoritarian state. Perfect place for Jordan. Shame he didn't stay there.

Except for reactionary, it's new boss same as the old boss in Russia.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by bigred

Please do point us to it.

Even if true, it hardly ended there.

Yes, but I'd rather say "can you back your conspiracy claims up?"

This thread is hilarious. People act like the only studies that have been done on this were scams pushed by "big ag" (the "big pharm" conspiracy junkies would be so proud). So are you all going to a high beef diet now and dismissing those nasty ol vegetables with all those nasty vitamins and fiber n stuff? PS I am far from a vegetarian. I prefer a balance of foods. Funny that way.

Considering I am actually the only one on the thread who did indeed provide copious amounts of peer reviewed studies, I suspect you may need to add some nuance to your pronouns such as "People" and "you all".

PS I actually am a vegetable farmer....small scale.. road side stand.... you get the idea. So assuming I too would even potentially be dismissing "nasty ol vegetables" when there never was a vegetable I didn't like...is way way out there.

I provided studies showing the meat supply is highly degraded quality-wise, because meat was the topic of the thread. I could just as easily have provided evidence the vegetable quality of the food supply is also highly degraded by industrialized ag.


1. Crinnion, Walter J. "Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer." Alternative Medicine Review, vol. 15, no. 1, Apr. 2010, p. 4+

2. Barański et al, "Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses." Br J Nutr. 2014 Sep 14

3. Duncan Hunter et al "Evaluation of the Micronutrient Composition of Plant Foods Produced by Organic and Conventional Agricultural Methods", Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition Volume 51, 2011 - Issue 6


And of course I put some reviews up here because if I included every study the list would be even longer that the last post I made! There is one hell of a lot more domestic vegetables than domestic animals!

So lets just cut the crap with the BS "conspiracy theory" dismissal or the strawman we are all "high beef diet" advocates.

The factual evidence is across the board the entire food system is generally much lower quality than it could or should be, and human health is suffering for this reason.

There are of course minor exceptions, but they do not amount to much and generally are expensive as hell and/or nearly impossible to find unless you produce it yourself.

That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact Jack.

Edit to add: If you or anyone else on this thread actually wants to learn something about food and health, I highly recommend

Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease
(The Soil and Health)
by Sir Albert Howard C.I.E., M.A.

Get it, read it and change your life.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

However, you would be hard pressed to show that humans did not evolve on a a primarily animal sourced diet.

You'd be hard-pressed to show that they did. There are no firm conclusions either way, but there's certainly evidence that early humans had a primarily vegetarian diet.

This article talks about evidence for plant material consumption in our ancestors, and how it supports the idea that meat was more rarely consumed. This article goes into how complicated a question it actually is, but again broadly falls down on the side of early human diets likely having been mostly plant-based with more occasional meat.

Meat was important in our development (at least, that is the currently accepted theory), but the evidence leans towards our ancestors' diets primarily consisting of plant material with meat being eaten less frequently. It seems likely that the common modern situation of eating meat every day - even at every meal, for some people - is unusual in our species' evolutionary history.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by abaddon

OK

He claims we should be eating more meat than we are now because we evolved to do so.

Brian Sanders. Former mechanical engineer turned health guru.

He is addressing the population as a whole, not any specific individual.

Because over the last 50 years, the proportion of meat to veg has steadily moved away from meat towards veg. This is unnatural for the human species.

He mentions it in passing without fully endorsing it. He might.

If his whole argument is that we evolved, and therefore it is unnatural to do X, then the argument is pretty terrible.

The guy is doing a TED talk. That is unnatural for the human species. We did not evolve to do it. So what?

Also, I would prefer someone to have better credentials than "health guru".

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by casebro

Brian Sanders. It's basically an outline for his movie Food Lies. I think his pic says he is all meat. Looks it too. So yeah, supports J.P.'s diet.

There is a massive body of work out there that rebuts much of what we have been told about nutrition for the last 60 years. Starting with the cholesterol theory that startled with tests on rabbits. Rabbits don't eat cholesterol, can't handle it, clog up if force fed it. Then Ancel Keys with his cherry picked 7 nations claims. He picked 7 nations from data on umm 80. Next, the food pyramid, laid out by the aide to a senator. Can you say Big Ag? Then all the cholesterol/heart attack studies that were sponsored by- guess who? the Statin manufacturers.

But go ahead and follow the Vegan faith. No need to be skeptical when it comes to nutritional advice.

I have no problem with "Food nutrition has been wrong in the past", but setting up some retarded conclusion of "therefore we should go all meat", or "it's either all meat, or no meat!" is, well...retarded.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Except for reactionary, it's new boss same as the old boss in Russia.

Oh yeah, animal farm never actually got better.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You'd be hard-pressed to show that they did.

Not really.

Evidence for Meat-Eating by Early Humans


A lot to digest there, but here is a start.

Quote:

While butchered bones have been found near A. garhi fossils (de Heinzelin et al. 1999), it's only in the Homo lineage, especially in Homo erectus, that we see biological features often linked to meat-eating, such as a decrease in tooth and gut size and an increase in body and brain size (e.g., McHenry 1992; Aiello and Wheeler 1995; Antón 2003; Braun et al. 2010).

Meat eating contributed to an increase in brain and body size.

Quote:

Why did hominins start eating more meat and marrow?
"Why" questions are notoriously difficult to answer about the past, but we can examine some of the benefits that meat and marrow provide. Meat and marrow are calorie-dense resources with essential amino acids and micronutrients (Milton 1999), and aquatic fauna offer resources rich in nutrients needed for brain growth (e.g., Broadhurst et al. 2002). Increasing the consumption of animal foods could have allowed hominins to increase their body size without losing mobility, agility, or sociality (Milton 1999). But what was the frequency and quantity of nutrients obtained by hominins from animal tissues versus other foods?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by angrysoba;13013385...

Also, I would prefer someone to have better credentials than "health guru".

How about Dr. Georgia Ede MD and psychiatrist.

Quote:

Meat is the only nutritionally complete food
Animal foods (particularly when organ meats are included) contain all of the protein, fat, vitamins and minerals that humans need to function. They contain absolutely everything we need in just the right proportions. That makes sense, because for most of human history, these would have been the only foods available just about everywhere on the planet in all seasons.

Below you can see that animal products are superior sources of most essential vitamins and minerals, including 4 that do not exist in plant foods at all:

Just to be clear, I do not personally advocate an all meat ( animal product sourced ) diet. However, I think such foods have been unduly stigmatized and neglected in favor of a diet that has driven a world obesity epidemic.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How about Dr. Georgia Ede MD and psychiatrist.




Just to be clear, I do not personally advocate an all meat ( animal product sourced ) diet. However, I think such foods have been unduly stigmatized and neglected in favor of a diet that has driven a world obesity epidemic.

1. A psychiatrist? Why are you relying on people with no relevant credentials?

2. Again, “meat is good for you” is not a claim that is being disputed here. What is at issue is the suggestion that an “all meat” diet is the way forward.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

1. A psychiatrist? Why are you relying on people with no relevant credentials?

...

Moving the goal post?

I'm not relying on anyone.. You are the one with requirements. Who do you rely on?

Dr. Eade is an MD, and psychiatrist ( a medical specialty ) who specializes in eating disorders.

Do you realize that all MDs ( in the US anyway ) get very minimal nutrition training in college or medical school, and little if no board certification requirements in nutrition unless they specialize in nutritional medicine?

Very few states have any requirements for a person to set up a shop and claim to be a nutritionist..

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Evidence for Meat-Eating by Early Humans

A lot to digest there, but here is a start.

ISWYDT.

[Skeptical Greg]

[Skeptical Greg]

Nice lecture from Dr. Ede

What's it about? Nutrition.

Brainwashed — The Mainstreaming of Nutritional Mythology

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Moving the goal post?

I'm not relying on anyone.. You are the one with requirements. Who do you rely on?

Dr. Eade is an MD, and psychiatrist ( a medical specialty ) who specializes in eating disorders.

Do you realize that all MDs ( in the US anyway ) get very minimal nutrition training in college or medical school, and little if no board certification requirements in nutrition unless they specialize in nutritional medicine?

Very few states have any requirements for a person to set up a shop and claim to be a nutritionist..

Yeah. Why not also post some opinions of dentists (medical specialist after all!) or those of carpenters, because why not?

When I said “better credentials” I didn’t mean psychiatrists. Jesus! How is it “moving the goal posts”?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yeah. Why not also post some opinions of dentists (medical specialist after all!) or those of carpenters, because why not?

When I said “better credentials” I didn’t mean psychiatrists. Jesus! How is it “moving the goal posts”?

If you weren't trolling us you would simply google <cholesterol debunk< or <vegetarianism debunk> or <china study debunk> or <seven nations study debunk> or or or

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yeah. Why not also post some opinions of dentists (medical specialist after all!) or those of carpenters, because why not?

When I said “better credentials” I didn’t mean psychiatrists. Jesus! How is it “moving the goal posts”?

What kind of credentials did you have in mind?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

What kind of credentials did you have in mind?

Aw, you know, like NP, DC, anything from the Mahareeshi Kihindi University...

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You'd be hard-pressed to show that they did. There are no firm conclusions either way, but there's certainly evidence that early humans had a primarily vegetarian diet.

This article talks about evidence for plant material consumption in our ancestors, and how it supports the idea that meat was more rarely consumed. This article goes into how complicated a question it actually is, but again broadly falls down on the side of early human diets likely having been mostly plant-based with more occasional meat.

Meat was important in our development (at least, that is the currently accepted theory), but the evidence leans towards our ancestors' diets primarily consisting of plant material with meat being eaten less frequently. It seems likely that the common modern situation of eating meat every day - even at every meal, for some people - is unusual in our species' evolutionary history.

That's odd given that the majority of hunter-gatherers get most of their calories from animal products:

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/71/3/682/4729121

Quote:

Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45–65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (≥56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (≥56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22–40% of energy).

[Cheetah]

Meat has been very important in our evolution, but then so has carbs.

Humans have spread all over the planet and they have always eaten what was available and most convenient. Evolution and adaptation came later, local populations adapting to local diets.
I think before Homo erectus our ancestors ate a lot of meat and had a much less varied diet. Erectus invented cooking, opening up a lot of options and enabling it to spread all over Europe and Asia.
Neandethals also had very varied diets depending on local availability, probably Denisovans as well. When it was available they definitely ate a lot of meat.

We are better at digesting cooked starches though, much better. I think all Homo have the AMY1 gene that codes for amylase, but Sapiens is the only species where the gene is duplicated multiple times. This duplication happens easily and quickly in human populations if any selection pressure is present, like skin colour.
There seems to be a direct and strong correlation between your AMY1 copy number and the diet of your ancestors. Populations with an very high meat and fat, low carb diet have very low AMY1 copy numbers, the reverse for mostly vegetarian populations.

I find this very interesting. Why is there this correlation? It seems obvious how more copies of the gene are an advantage eating a mostly starch diet, but why is the copy number low in carnivorous populations? There must be a distinct disadvantage in having more copies when eating a lot of meat.
Would be cool if there were some other gene coding for an enzyme involved in protein digestion that has a copy number inversely related to the AMY1 copy number.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Meat eating contributed to an increase in brain and body size.

Yes, I literally said that in my post.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

That's odd given that the majority of hunter-gatherers get most of their calories from animal products:

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/71/3/682/4729121

As I said, it's a complicated question.

Bear in mind that I'm not arguing that our ancestors existed on a primarily vegetarian diet. I'm arguing that it's difficult to prove that they existed on a primarily meat-based diet.

Another issue that's not been brought up so far by anybody is that "meat" or "animal-based" in this particular context almost certainly includes a fair proportion of insects, yet few people advocate for eating more of those.

WRT that specific paper, the limitations section suggests that this is more a "more study required" situation than a "this is likely to be true" situation, given the problems noted - including one that demonstrates that there is "considerable room for error" in their figures.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

You'd be hard-pressed to show that they did. There are no firm conclusions either way, but there's certainly evidence that early humans had a primarily vegetarian diet.



This article talks about evidence for plant material consumption in our ancestors, and how it supports the idea that meat was more rarely consumed. This article goes into how complicated a question it actually is, but again broadly falls down on the side of early human diets likely having been mostly plant-based with more occasional meat.



Meat was important in our development (at least, that is the currently accepted theory), but the evidence leans towards our ancestors' diets primarily consisting of plant material with meat being eaten less frequently. It seems likely that the common modern situation of eating meat every day - even at every meal, for some people - is unusual in our species' evolutionary history.

We still have a few hunter gatherers societies and they eat a small proportion of meat compared to everything else.

Plus even just 50 years ago meat was for most people very expensive so it was always bulked out with vegetable and grains. Go back a 100 years and unless you were very wealthy or lived "on the land" meat was incredibly expensive, the smallest amount would be bulked up, all our traditional stews such as lobbie and scouse show this.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Not really.



Evidence for Meat-Eating by Early Humans





A lot to digest there, but here is a start.







Meat eating contributed to an increase in brain and body size.

Why would the same environmental factors not have resulted in more creatures like us from all the carnivores if it was simple a matter of our ancestors starting to eat more meat?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why would the same environmental factors not have resulted in more creatures like us from all the carnivores if it was simple a matter of our ancestors starting to eat more meat?

Start with opposable thumbs.like the second smartest, chimpanzees, who are also meat eaters.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Darat

We still have a few hunter gatherers societies and they eat a small proportion of meat compared to everything else.

There's a general warning from anthropologists about using modern hunter gatherers as a model for our ancestors. Meaning, they've learned that we just can't use them as a model this way. They are as advanced as we are, and not representative.

Having said that, there *are* good ways to identify what our ancestors ate. Methods include excavation of their tools, tooth conditions of their remains, middens, and even coprolites (fossilized scat).


Turns out the variation is so huge that there's no such thing as an ancestral diet. People ate X, then the conditions changed and their descendants ate Y for awhile, then the conditions changed and they ate Z for awhile...

Given we're in a technologically advanced civilization with lots of options unavailable to our ancestors, including greater food security and longer lifespans, we can learn more about what diet is appropriate from contemporary population studies than we can from ancestry.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

If his whole argument is that we evolved, and therefore it is unnatural to do X, then the argument is pretty terrible.

The guy is doing a TED talk. That is unnatural for the human species. We did not evolve to do it. So what?

Also, I would prefer someone to have better credentials than "health guru".

Hands off for me. You asked what was in the video because you had no 15 minutes to spare. I told you what was in the video.

Somehow, you think I therefore endorsed all of it.

Good lick with that or any further requests to sumarise a video which you cannot be bothered to watch.

You had your shot and you blew it. Not my problem.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Hands off for me. You asked what was in the video because you had no 15 minutes to spare. I told you what was in the video.

Somehow, you think I therefore endorsed all of it.

Good lick with that or any further requests to sumarise a video which you cannot be bothered to watch.

You had your shot and you blew it. Not my problem.

Sorry, I should have thanked you for the summary. I apologize for not doing so.

Also, I didn't say that you endorsed what was said.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by casebro

If you weren't trolling us you would simply google <cholesterol debunk< or <vegetarianism debunk> or <china study debunk> or <seven nations study debunk> or or or

I don't know how this relates to what I have been saying. I'm not denying that there is misinformation about nutrition going around. The question for me is whether the "all-meat diet" is misinformation. Whether vegetarianism or anything else is debunked is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

What kind of credentials did you have in mind?

Perhaps a registered dietician? The problem is that a lot of people tout their "Dr" credentials while having a doctorate in an unrelated field or some chiropractic university. Just because someone says, "I'm a nutritionist and I have a doctorate!" doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Originally Posted by casebro

Aw, you know, like NP, DC, anything from the Mahareeshi Kihindi University...

I have no idea what this is. Maybe you have some axes you like to grind and they are irrelevant to the question of whether the all-meat diet is a good thing.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Darat

We still have a few hunter gatherers societies and they eat a small proportion of meat compared to everything else.

I just posted a study the suggests the exact opposite, that the majority of modern hunter-gatherer societies get most of their energy from animal products.

I'm happy to be proved wrong. I actually found that study because I read Skeptical Greg's claim, thought he was wrong, and was looking for confirmation of a fact I thought I remembered, that hunter-gatherers get the majority of their calories from plants. It seems I was wrong.

If it turns out my change of opinion was wrong, that's cool too, I'd appreciate you posting the citation though.

One other issue though is that I suspect our ancestors in general ate more meat that modern hunter gatherers. That's because modern hunter gatherers live on the bits of land that no one else wanted. The most productive places have been claimed by agricultural societies who pushed the hunter-gatherers to the margins. Also, over the past 10,000 years the number of large animals that have gone extinct is quite large. The amount of wild game available to our ancestors, in every habitat, was much larger than today. For these reasons I'd expect the diets of our ancestors to have been richer than today. We can of course just look at what direct evidence we have of their diets, but I think at present that evidence is sketchy and not all that definitive.

Quote:

Plus even just 50 years ago meat was for most people very expensive so it was always bulked out with vegetable and grains. Go back a 100 years and unless you were very wealthy or lived "on the land" meat was incredibly expensive, the smallest amount would be bulked up, all our traditional stews such as lobbie and scouse show this.

The diets of people in agricultural societies have been of lower quality than those of hunter-gatherers until very recently. But most of our evolutionary history took place as hunter-gatherers.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by blutoski

There's a general warning from anthropologists about using modern hunter gatherers as a model for our ancestors. Meaning, they've learned that we just can't use them as a model this way. They are as advanced as we are, and not representative.

Having said that, there *are* good ways to identify what our ancestors ate. Methods include excavation of their tools, tooth conditions of their remains, middens, and even coprolites (fossilized scat).


Turns out the variation is so huge that there's no such thing as an ancestral diet. People ate X, then the conditions changed and their descendants ate Y for awhile, then the conditions changed and they ate Z for awhile...

Given we're in a technologically advanced civilization with lots of options unavailable to our ancestors, including greater food security and longer lifespans, we can learn more about what diet is appropriate from contemporary population studies than we can from ancestry.

I don't think it's valid to claim that because there was a lot of variety over time and across space that there's nothing to learn about or from ancestral diets, or that there were no long term selection pressures that apply. For instance, within all that variation there are still some commonalities. Our ancestors, prior to the agricultural revolution, never had diets as high in sugar as the average modern American diet, for example.