Current Events > Your girlfriend: 'Due to the shortage let's try an alternate meat source.'

(+) Yeah! (+)

UnfairRepresent posted...

Find me a scientific study that claims a cup of coffee is a beverage. Find me a scientific study that says underpants are an undergarment that cover the lower part of the torso and have two holes for the legs.

"carnivore" is a scientific classification. "coffee" is not. Still waiting for the source buddy boy.

---

Youre being an idiot, TC.

---

Technically humans would fall under obligate carnivores, or omnivores, and we certainly aren't carnivores in the way that "carnivore" is usually interpreted (like cats). One look at our teeth would show we don't really qualify as carnivores like other species do. Because we need to eat things other than meat, we aren't carnivores.

Our ancestors would fall under frugivores (maybe) due to our teeth, and that's the diets of our current closest ancestors.

You could argue that we don't fall under carnivores, because carnivores require meat to survive, while humans don't, but that would cut out the importance of meat to human development as a whole, considering our growth to eat meat is one of the major reasons why human populations (and our relatives) were able to grow in the first place.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

You did not. Now tell me, what is the difference between a herbivore and a carnivore? Because my cat eats grass and if a carnivore is anything that eats meat, a herbivore is anything that eats plants. My cat has done both so by your logic he's a herbivore, carnivore, and possibly an omnivore all at once. Address this point directly or you admit you're a cuck

A carnivore is something that only eats meat. Your cat can technically eat grass, but its not supposed to and certainly doesn't need to. My cat gets sick, without fail, every time it eats grass. a Herbivore is something that only eats plants, and an omnivore is something that regularly eats both. Your cat is a carnivore because it eats meat. If you feed your cat a vegan diet, it will die. If you eat a vegan diet, you can do fine (or even live better than you were before because the standard diet is real bad for us)

Tl:dr: We aren't carnivores, but TC is right-er in this argument.

Frolex posted...

"carnivore" is a scientific classification

https://i.imgur.com/bfKCxON.png
https://i.imgur.com/lwo45mh.png

Frolex posted...

Still waiting for the source buddy boy.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222553115_The_Agricultural_Revolution_as_Environmental_ Catastrophe_Implications_for_Health_and_Lifestyle_in_the_Holocene
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16990
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/5/1285/4596742
https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22717188/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12323085
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6386/310
https://escholarship.org/uc/jevohealth?article=1068&context=journal
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/134/12/3319/4688623
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12918012
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221769
https://escholarship.org/uc/jevohealth?article=1096&context=journal
---

Thats curious... pet food stores sell grass for cats. All three of my cats *love* that shit and it never makes them sick.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

https://i.imgur.com/bfKCxON.png
https://i.imgur.com/lwo45mh.png

Since you keep posting these screen caps, I think its worth noting that humans are in the order Primates, not Carnivora So the dictionary definition isn't even applicable here.

Proto_Spark posted...

humans would fall under carnivores
TC is right

Yes

However all I did was quote the dictionary so it's hardly a surprise.

I'm not even making a claim lol.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"Oh it was cat." she replies causally.

"Wow, those [is it Chinese people that eat cats? I feel like there's at least a stereotype of chinese resturants doing it, just throw whichever one is right here.] have been on to something honey. That was great." And then I have to go trap feral cats in places they're a problem.
---

The Oxford dictionary is not a scientific source. Try again.

---

meralonne posted...

Thats curious... pet food stores sell grass for cats. All three of my cats *love* that shit and it never makes them sick.

Feeding a carnivore some vegatables doesn't make it a no longer a carnivore.

You can feed a rabbit meat if you really wanted too.

You just shouldn't.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes

However all I did was quote the dictionary so it's hardly a surprise.

I'm not even making a claim lol.

I said you were right-er. Saying Humans are carnivores is technically wrong, because we would much more correctly fall under omnivores or frugivores or obligate carnivores. But we do eat meat thats correct.

And I already posted about how the dumb dictionary post is wrong.

And you can't be a herbivore, and an omnivore, and a carnivore at the same time, animals are one of them, and that doesn't change. ex. Cats are carnivores. Just because one eats grass doesn't make it a herbivore.

Hey if you want to join the others in a crusade against the dictionary go ahead.

But you're a hypocrite if you call anyone else a contrarian for not joining your weird crusade.

I'm going to use the word to mean what the majority of the English speaking population uses it to mean and what dictionaries define the word as.

And I'm going to be correct as usual
---

Frolex posted...

I mean all you had to say when I asked if you had a source was "no". It's okay to be wrong sometimes.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Hey if you want to join the others in a crusade against the dictionary go ahead.

It's not a crusade against the dictionary, you're using the word incorrectly. It says carnivores belong in the order Carnivora and humans are in the order Primates

This isn't a crusade against dictionary standards or whatever, you're literally using the word wrong.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Hey if you want to join the others in a crusade against the dictionary go ahead.

But you're a hypocrite if you call anyone else a contrarian for not joining your weird crusade.

I'm going to use the word to mean what the majority of the English speaking population uses it to mean and what dictionaries define the word as.

And I'm going to be correct as usual

Did you ever answer me om defining omnivore?

---

the big issue here is we are lumping herbivore and carnivore into extreme categories, where one ONLY eats plants and the other ONLY eats meat.

When the truth is, no animal eats only one. Animals(humans included) have a preference towards one or the other, but they don't stick to just one exclusively.

Anyone had a dog? They eat grass when they get sick, yet dogs are basically carnivores. Even though yes, if you look at the average pet dog's food, you'll see pet food is rarely meat, and a large chunk of pet dogs get fed "human" food and eat any and everything. It doesn't mean that a dog isn't a carnivore. Cats the same thing.

Many animals we think of as herbivores like rabbits for example, will cannibalize each other when the opportunity arises.

Humans, while we can eat every and anything, have a system that is much closer to that of your wild animal carnivore. Meat contains many essential nutrients and fatty acids that simply cannot be acquired from eating plants(at least not with our digestive system). This doesn't mean, we can't eat plants, but it does mean, meat should be our de facto food source when available. Sure pizza is amazing, and cake and ice cream are awesome and during the black plague potatoes were life savers, but it doesn't mean that in terms of nutrient value for food eaten, that meat shouldn't when the option is there, be the de facto choice or at least shouldn't be a big source of your calories. Cow farming really is a modern miracle food as Cow can provide most of what we need to live.

Contrary to popular opinion the vegan diet is not good or sustainable for healthy living. Many vegans can live a long time but I'd seriously question the quality of life. The bio availability in the food eaten is the key here and plants are not overall very bio available in terms of nutrients for humans. Contrast that to meat, that is very easily digested.

One tell tale sign is a carnivore digestive track tends to be shorter, a herbivore digestive track tends to be longer. Rabbits, have a shorter digestive track, but they have to eat their own poop to get the full nutrients from their plant meals, so you know.

It is then my theory that carnivore really should mean "animal that eats mostly meat or needs mostly meat to survive". Herbivore "Animals that eats most plants or needs mostly plants to survive".

People will probably ignore this, the all or nothing approach is where I think it's breaking down here.

Proto_Spark posted...

It's not a crusade against the dictionary, you're using the word incorrectly. It says carnivores belong in the order Carnivora and humans are in the order Primates

This isn't a crusade against dictionary standards or whatever, you're literally using the word wrong.

Nope.

Notice how it says "An animal" not "A carnivora mamal that eats meat."

The Carnivora shit is a seperate defintion as secondary meaning under zoology.

It's brought up because all Carnivora mamals can be refered too as carnivores under the language even though some of them don't eat meat.

A panda for example is a carnivora mamal.

A meat eater outside of that clade is still a carnivore.
---

kayoticdreamz posted...

the big issue here is we are lumping herbivore and carnivore into extreme categories, where one ONLY eats plants and the other ONLY eats meat.

When the truth is, no animal eats only one. Animals(humans included) have a preference towards one or the other, but they don't stick to just one exclusively.

Anyone had a dog? They eat grass when they get sick, yet dogs are basically carnivores. Even though yes, if you look at the average pet dog's food, you'll see pet food is rarely meat, and a large chunk of pet dogs get fed "human" food and eat any and everything. It doesn't mean that a dog isn't a carnivore. Cats the same thing.

Many animals we think of as herbivores like rabbits for example, will cannibalize each other when the opportunity arises.

Humans, while we can eat every and anything, have a system that is much closer to that of your wild animal carnivore. Meat contains many essential nutrients and fatty acids that simply cannot be acquired from eating plants(at least not with our digestive system). This doesn't mean, we can't eat plants, but it does mean, meat should be our de facto food source when available. Sure pizza is amazing, and cake and ice cream are awesome and during the black plague potatoes were life savers, but it doesn't mean that in terms of nutrient value for food eaten, that meat shouldn't when the option is there, be the de facto choice or at least shouldn't be a big source of your calories. Cow farming really is a modern miracle food as Cow can provide most of what we need to live.

Contrary to popular opinion the vegan diet is not good or sustainable for healthy living. Many vegans can live a long time but I'd seriously question the quality of life. The bio availability in the food eaten is the key here and plants are not overall very bio available in terms of nutrients for humans. Contrast that to meat, that is very easily digested.

One tell tale sign is a carnivore digestive track tends to be shorter, a herbivore digestive track tends to be longer. Rabbits, have a shorter digestive track, but they have to eat their own poop to get the full nutrients from their plant meals, so you know.

It is then my theory that carnivore really should mean "animal that eats mostly meat or needs mostly meat to survive". Herbivore "Animals that eats most plants or needs mostly plants to survive".

People will probably ignore this, the all or nothing approach is where I think it's breaking down here.

This is all exactly correct, and really the argument should stop here. But its kind of gotten down to arguing semantics so I don't think the fact that this explanation is here will do much.

Vegan diets are on average fairly healthy in comparison to regular diets, but one could argue that this relative increase is rather a result of the average (western) diet being very poor. and of course, eating a vegan diet doesn't mean you'll eat a healthy vegan diet. Most food guides do however suggest that we eat too much meat, and it shouldn't be the focal point of most meals like it is now, but this is still up for debate, and a lot of research into modern diets is at least somewhat untrustworthy due to corporate influence.

kayoticdreamz posted...

Anyone had a dog? They eat grass when they get sick, yet dogs are basically carnivores. Even though yes, if you look at the average pet dog's food, you'll see pet food is rarely meat, and a large chunk of pet dogs get fed "human" food and eat any and everything. It doesn't mean that a dog isn't a carnivore

Not trying to argue with the rest of your post just wanted to say I have the theory that dogs have adapted to be "scavenger" animals. Aka will eat any food thats easily obtained. Dogs have been domesticated to the point they suck at hunting for food. At least based on dogs ive seen/been around.

Mines pretty good at catching opposum though but ive never given her the chance to see if shed actually eat it or just kill it and be done with it. Im thinking the latter though cause she doesnt go for a kill. Ive seen a pitbull kill this. one just acts like they are chew toys and chews on them without drawing any blood.

Wonder if she was trained to hunt cause sometimes she just comes to me with thr thing hanging out of her mouth like she wants me to be proud of her fpr catching it.

---

Proto_Spark posted...

But its kind of gotten down to arguing semantics

The whole "Argument" was a dude called hypocritically calling me contrarian for using a dictionary definition.

Then 50 posts of people digging a hole looking for reasons to call the English language incorrect rather than admitting minor fault.

It was a dumb argument from the get go and your in the same boat as them for not admitting fault either.

It's so silly.
---

Was the cat raised as livestock or a random cat she stole from the street?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

The whole "Argument" was a dude called hypocritically calling me contrarian for using a dictionary definition.

Then 50 posts of people digging a hole looking for reasons to call the English language incorrect rather than admitting minor fault.

It was a dumb argument from the get go and your in the same boat as them for not admitting fault either.

It's so silly.

You still never defined omnivore. Just saying I feel its a more fitting label for how humans eat. I can't think of any human that eats only meat or 90% of their diet is meat. Most of us eat plant life on a regular basis.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

The whole "Argument" was a dude called hypocritically calling me contrarian for using a dictionary definition.

Then 50 posts of people digging a hole looking for reasons to call the English language incorrect rather than admitting minor fault.

It was a dumb argument from the get go and your in the same boat as them for not admitting fault either.

It's so silly.

What's silly is defining carnivores as anything that eats meat. The corollary to this is that a herbivore is anything that eats plants. By these definitions, humans are herbivores, carnivores, and presumably omnivores, all at the same time. You see how these definitions water themselves down? Virtually every animal is just whatever. I saw a video of a deer catching and eating a bird; by your definition, deer are carnivores. Now you may be satisfied operating at this level of reasoning but I just am not

And lol, just lol@ you implying that I abused my cat by force feeding it grass lmao, everyone knows that cats and dogs will sometimes eat grass. Wild cats do the same thing

---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

by the dictionary's definition

Fixed that for you.

You seem to have trouble understanding that. I think because you're not mature enough to admit to being wrong or being a hypocrite.

If you're "not satisfied by that" whatever the fuck that means, then you're being contrarian. Which is fine but hilarious hypoticial projection considering you hurled it at me.

But by all means, continue your crusade against the English language, it's no skin off my nose.
---

Proto_Spark posted...

This is all exactly correct,

No. Humans have at least as much in common with herbivores (frugivores), so that's wrong (mostly grinding teeth, sideways jaw movement, long winding intestines, need fiber in diet in order to pass waste, need vitamin C in diet, tiny canines (that are actually blunt on a lot of people), etc) and vegans can be perfectly healthy while carnivores can not unless maybe they happen to be inuit. Also if easily digested = ideal food, pasta is all anyone should ever need.

Not sure how the conclusion when humans need plants in their diet but do not need meat in their diet is that humans should mostly eat meat, but whatever

---

UR, you still have yet to describe the difference between an omnivore and a carnivore like that guy asked. Because so far it looks like you don't believe there is one.

Also Merriam webster is the top dog as far as dictionaries go and their definition differs from the one you're operating with

---

LOL

"I'm not wrong! I'm not wrong about anything ever! T-t-those dictionaries just don't count!"

Okiedokie.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

https://i.imgur.com/0RaRppk.png

If she looks like that, she can cook what she wants. But no rat. And no human.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Feeding a carnivore some vegatables doesn't make it a no longer a carnivore.

You can feed a rabbit meat if you really wanted too.

You just shouldn't.

Cats do, in fact, ingest things other than meat. Some carnivores ingest plant matter as a supplement to their primarily meat diet.

Im not about to take sides in the semantics going on in this topic. I was simply surprised that the poster I quoted had cats that couldnt handle a little kitty grass.

---

Eating cats is a dealbreaker, sorry.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

https://i.imgur.com/0RaRppk.png

If she looks like that, she can cook what she wants.

Well you say that

You can't even see her bottom half.

What if she has a giant spider body down there like in DnD?
---

Honestly i dont see how she could take my cat out in the first place. The question would be how do i ensure they dont put walter down?

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Well you say that

You can't even see her bottom half.

What if she has a giant spider body down there like in DnD?

I loved DnD and only stopped because it was getting hard to find people willing to spend time on it. That said, the beautiful spider woman is Evil (capital E), so maybe dating wouldnt work.

---

If that's my gf I will let her cook me bat. Or rat. Or even wombat.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

. That said, the beautiful spider woman is Evil (capital E),

Depends on the story
---

Shotgunnova posted...

Eating cats is a dealbreaker, sorry.

the infallible gamefaqs mods have spoken. It's been fun boys but it's settled now

dont debate unfair, its a waste of time. he digs his heels in on the dumbest of shit then he'll follow you here repeating it for weeks afterwards.

---

The only issue would be on how she acquired the cat. I'd hate it if we ate someone's pet.

---

Mareen posted...

The only issue would be on how she acquired the cat. I'd hate it if we ate someone's pet.

if you let your cat out to roam the neighborhood then it becomes the neighborhoods cat.

---

Ive never paid attention to the unfair guy before this topic but lol

---

That was incredible. Idk how you guys engage so seriously with an obvious gimmick lol

---

monkmith posted...

dont debate unfair, its a waste of time. he digs his heels in on the dumbest of shit then he'll follow you here repeating it for weeks afterwards.

they're not debating me, they are debating the dictionary

But it says it all that you're too scared to even realize that
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

they're not debating me, they are debating the dictionary

But it says it all that you're too scared to even realize that

---

"Ad hominem's are okay if someone famous did them!"

Doubly funny that you're so bad at arguing you're claiming you don't need to debate the dictionary because the dictionary is stupid.

On par with anti-vaxxers and evolution deniers.
---

Going vegetarian in the face of a meat shortage isnt a big fucking deal at all

---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

vegans can be perfectly healthy while carnivores can not unless maybe they happen to be inuit. Also if easily digested = ideal food, pasta is all anyone should ever need.

lmfao, none of this true. literally none of it.

mooreandrew58 posted...

Not trying to argue with the rest of your post just wanted to say I have the theory that dogs have adapted to be "scavenger" animals. Aka will eat any food thats easily obtained. Dogs have been domesticated to the point they suck at hunting for food. At least based on dogs ive seen/been around.

yeah that's probably true. Though I do think they probably still have a meat preference, but yeah your average dog now is so tame, it's a scavenger. Though wild dogs are still shown to be carnivores.

Proto_Spark posted...

This is all exactly correct, and really the argument should stop here. But its kind of gotten down to arguing semantics so I don't think the fact that this explanation is here will do much.

Thanks, but it is gamefaqs, no arguments here do anyone any good. It's an addiction at this point

Proto_Spark posted...

Vegan diets are on average fairly healthy in comparison to regular diets, but one could argue that this relative increase is rather a result of the average (western) diet being very poor. and of course, eating a vegan diet doesn't mean you'll eat a healthy vegan diet. Most food guides do however suggest that we eat too much meat, and it shouldn't be the focal point of most meals like it is now, but this is still up for debate, and a lot of research into modern diets is at least somewhat untrustworthy due to corporate influence.

Breaking this down, the standard american diet aka SAD, is just that, SAD. Many vegans feel healthier initially by not being on the SAD diet and suddenly becoming health conscious, often including exercise. This then leads to the fatal flaw, that the vegan diet is by default healthy.

Many of the studies that say red meat is bad for example, are self reported surveys and don't take into account genetics, or lifestyle choices like smoking and exercise.

These studies also ignore human historical fact, which is, when given the choice, by and large our human ancestors would eat meat if it was available. More historical facts that these studies love to ignore is that many modern fruits and vegetables are genetically modified to be more suited to our tastes, fruits generally being made sweeter. Whereas if these same plants were found in the wild, they would undigestable to us. An example of this ignorance of human history is vegans will cite I think it is in the Hindus, can't remember which group off the top of my head, as vegans, however when that same group came to the UK in the 1900s, and tried their same vegan diet, they got sick and had to quit. Turns out these "vegans" in their home land ate the bugs found on the vegetation and due to modern sanitation standards, fruits and vegetables are not sold with bugs.

Vegans also ignore that 84% of them quit within the first year due to health issues.

A successful vegan diet is a statistical outlier. We just don't know every nutrient we need, and a vegan diet already has to supplement(and don't get me started on the questionable supplements industry). Which creates a very very difficult diet to actually do correctly. It's made worse by the fact many do it for moral reasons(they've seen cowspiracy or what the health or some other documentary). Due to a lack of nutrients I think this genuinely impairs their cognitive abilities and they then just keep going.

Even famous vegans like Ghandi found he had to have milk. And this gets into the vegan versus vegetarian debate. Vegetarians, while I would argue that isn't the healthiest diet either, they at least eat meat and as such tend to avoid some of the more severe health problems vegans run into and could probably in theory be healthy, or at least healthy enough.

It can be hard to track this though, because vegans don't run into health problems at the same rate, and many self report feeling fine, but in the many many vegan youtube videos you can track a clear visible decline in appearance and health despite their screams of "I feel great". Though the first warning sign should be the massive bloating, gas, and shits that are pretty universal. Humans just were not designed to be or evolved to be whichever you prefer, to be vegans. It just isn't in our biological make up. We cannot extract all the nutrients we need from plants.

All this to say, the studies that say, we need less meat, are dangerously flawed and ignore proper context, and historical human fact and history and biology.True we some similarities to herbivores, but our digestive tract is much closer to a carnivore and that's really the most important part. You need certain acids and bacteria to break down plants that have natural defense mechanisms to prevent them from being eaten as they are stationary lifeforms. Animals don't have such defense mechanisms as we have legs and can move. Most herbivore animals have much stronger stomach acid than we do, and the case of cows for example, they have 4 stomachs. Heck a baby Koala has to eat mom's poop for a while before it's stomach is strong enough to eat it's natural diet of leaves.

So all that means is we are carnivores, defined as a species with a preference towards meat. We prefer meat, and need it. However we can eat non-meat better than animals like lions or other cats, and we can even live for long periods on a vegan diet(though quality of life will suffer), and even live okay enough as a vegetarian, but for ideal optimal health, meat should be a primary focus. Though, when I say meat, the big fatty cuts are best.

Okay done ranting lol

The great wall of brain rot from too many anti-vegan youtube videos and fitness bloggers.

---

such an outstanding reply! I am not convinced. Long live the vegan lifestyle!

kayoticdreamz posted...

hese studies also ignore human historical fact, which is, when given the choice, by and large our human ancestors would eat meat if it was available. More historical facts that these studies love to ignore is that many modern fruits and vegetables are genetically modified to be more suited to our tastes, fruits generally being made sweeter. Whereas if these same plants were found in the wild, they would undigestable to us. An example of this ignorance of human history is vegans will cite I think it is in the Hindus, can't remember which group off the top of my head, as vegans, however when that same group came to the UK in the 1900s, and tried their same vegan diet, they got sick and had to quit. Turns out these "vegans" in their home land ate the bugs found on the vegetation and due to modern sanitation standards, fruits and vegetables are not sold with bugs.

While I see the point your making, I think its also worth bringing up that the reason that across human history we would eat so much meat is because meat is a very dense food loaded with fats, proteins, and calories, which was very helpful back when future meals was nowhere close to as readily available or reliably present as it is today, so that need for all of that meat isn't really present today. that's not to say your point is invalid, but in todays world where basically any food you could want is readily available, this argument doesn't really hold much weight.

kayoticdreamz posted...

A successful vegan diet is a statistical outlier. We just don't know every nutrient we need, and a vegan diet already has to supplement(and don't get me started on the questionable supplements industry). Which creates a very very difficult diet to actually do correctly. It's made worse by the fact many do it for moral reasons(they've seen cowspiracy or what the health or some other documentary). Due to a lack of nutrients I think this genuinely impairs their cognitive abilities and they then just keep going.

This one also isn't necessarily true. The only nutrient we know isn't available from a purely vegan/vegetarian diets is B12, and you need very little of that to function. But there is the problem of many people who go vegan don't know how to do it in a healthy way, but thats a different conversation. The only nutrients we really get from meat are protein and fats, both of which can be obtained from lots of plant sources (albeit not as dense).
kayoticdreamz posted...

It can be hard to track this though, because vegans don't run into health problems at the same rate, and many self report feeling fine, but in the many many vegan youtube videos you can track a clear visible decline in appearance and health despite their screams of "I feel great". Though the first warning sign should be the massive bloating, gas, and s***s that are pretty universal. Humans just were not designed to be or evolved to be whichever you prefer, to be vegans. It just isn't in our biological make up. We cannot extract all the nutrients we need from plants.

Personally, I would say that this again falls under "a good vegan diet is tougher than a good non-vegan diet" but not impossible, and especially in the case of like youtubers, vegan can lead to lots of like pseudoscience jargon that has vastly less research into it.

kayoticdreamz posted...

So all that means is we are carnivores, defined as a species with a preference towards meat. We prefer meat, and need it. However we can eat non-meat better than animals like lions or other cats, and we can even live for long periods on a vegan diet(though quality of life will suffer), and even live okay enough as a vegetarian, but for ideal optimal health, meat should be a primary focus. Though, when I say meat, the big fatty cuts are best.

This harkens back to the main argument earlier in the topic, but the main reason that humans aren't considered carnivores is that there is a better term to describe us aside from herbivore/carnivore. Because we eat a solid mix of both meat and plants we would fall under omnivores instead.

kayoticdreamz posted...

True we some similarities to herbivores, but our digestive tract is much closer to a carnivore and that's really the most important part. You need certain acids and bacteria to break down plants that have natural defense mechanisms to prevent them from being eaten as they are stationary lifeforms. Animals don't have such defense mechanisms as we have legs and can move. Most herbivore animals have much stronger stomach acid than we do, and the case of cows for example, they have 4 stomachs.

I think this similarly only works if we assume the only two options for people are "carnivore" and "herbivore". There are definitely herbivores like Ruminiants that have significantly different physiology than us (placing us closer to carnivores) we are also very different from carnivores as well. One of the biggest factors here is the fact that we have to cook our meat, because we don't have the same gut bacteria that carnivores do that can handle uncooked meat. There are also molars (which take up about the back 1/2 of our mouths) are designed for breaking down plants, and we have significantly fewer canines than other carnivores.

If we compare humans to a more closely related animal, like primates that we share the most dental, physical, and physiological characteristics with, none of them are carnivores anywhere close to the level of actual carnivores. The common diet for these animals is omnivorous, predominantly eating fruit and other plants, and who's meat intake is very small, limited to insects and bugs in the area.

I appreciate you actually replied intelligently to what I said, a rarity on gamefaqs.

Proto_Spark posted...

While I see the point your making, I think its also worth bringing up that the reason that across human history we would eat so much meat is because meat is a very dense food loaded with fats, proteins, and calories, which was very helpful back when future meals was nowhere close to as readily available or reliably present as it is today, so that need for all of that meat isn't really present today. that's not to say your point is invalid, but in todays world where basically any food you could want is readily available, this argument doesn't really hold much weight.

I get what you mean, but yes and no.

Part of the need for meat is brain development. Those fatty cuts of meat high in cholesterol help develop our brains which is basically a giant sack of fat and cholesterol. It's also arguably we ate those things, because back then we weren't considered with some "fad diet" but rather, just what was around and most desirable and that happened to be meat if we could get our hands on it. We must remember, we are a predator and predators do hunt. There is no such thing as a vegan predator. I think one thing is the modern human of today has lost touch with his animal ancestor past. Our ancestors of 200 years ago seemed to have a better sense of what food was/is. Today we are so far removed from the hunting part of food, that I think it affects our judgment as to what is proper food and what is not proper food. I think this has lead to the vegan movement for example.

Proto_Spark posted...

The only nutrient we know isn't available from a purely vegan/vegetarian diets is B12,

Not true. the problem is bio availability of what you are eating. There are many nutrients that are very bio available in plants. A great example of this is carrots. If you want the A in carrots, you need to couple that with something is fatty or you will not get it. And this speaks to another problem with the vegan diet, you've got to have a PHD in food pairing or you'll be eating a lot of empty calories. Even then when compared to a steak, you will digest the steak 1000x easier. We must remember digestion takes a lot of energy, the less energy we spend on eating large amounts of hard to digest food, the better.

We also don't know the full extent of all every nutrient the human body needs, meaning vegans cannot possibly get it right.

Proto_Spark posted...

Personally, I would say that this again falls under "a good vegan diet is tougher than a good non-vegan diet" but not impossible,

Call it what you want, but if it has an 84% failure rate in the first year, that is a statistical outlier if it does succeed.

Proto_Spark posted...

This harkens back to the main argument earlier in the topic, but the main reason that humans aren't considered carnivores is that there is a better term to describe us aside from herbivore/carnivore. Because we eat a solid mix of both meat and plants we would fall under omnivores instead.

This is fair, but that's why I say, nothing is truly 100% one or the other, but yes that's not how it's defined usually. So that is fair.

Proto_Spark posted...

One of the biggest factors here is the fact that we have to cook our meat, because we don't have the same gut bacteria that carnivores do that can handle uncooked meat.

We can handle raw meat, so this statement isn't true. In fact there are many meals specifically centered around raw meat. We must realize, that the human body is capable if it has to, to survive in a world without the microwave and that world would mean at times, raw meat. Sushi and steak tartare exist among other things. Heck people eat raw steaks. I know I like my steak nice and red.

Proto_Spark posted...

If we compare humans to a more closely related animal, like primates that we share the most dental, physical, and physiological characteristics with, none of them are carnivores anywhere close to the level of actual carnivores. The common diet for these animals is omnivorous, predominantly eating fruit and other plants, and who's meat intake is very small, limited to insects and bugs in the area.

However as I said in the other part of this message, our brains are largely fat and cholesterol and you get that mostly from meat. These other primates do not have our cognitive abilities. One of the things I have noticed when I've looked at vegan forums and videos is a marked decrease in cognitive abilities and a high tendency to have low energy or brain fog. Our brains are wonderful things, but they take roughly 1/4 of everything we eat(the next nearest primate I think does 1/10). And that 1/4 needs to contain it's fair share of fat and cholesterol, the two things are brain is made of. Heck as far as our species goes, we start off as carnivores, as breast milk is an animal product and that's all a baby should have for quite a while, which could lead into the nonsense of vegan parents raising vegan kids.

I do get what you are saying and it is a fair comparison to compare us to other primates, as we do share things in common, so I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I just tend to notice that we need more meat than we are told we need. and that the trend to eat more plants isn't compatible with our biology. I admit I don't know why other primates seem to be more herbivore than anything else, and aren't really predators. However humans are predators and our brains need animal products to survive on. The evidence really is the lack of a human vegan civilization.