Vegetarian anatomy

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Wisdom_Seeker, May 23, 2011.

  1. CLAYTONR Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    That's kind of what I was thinking, that there's a certain irony to vegetarians substituting plants for things normally made of meat.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    if being a vegan or veg was healthier for you wouldnt all the elite athletes be? or olympians. Fact is there are Very few out there because taking meat out of your diet doesnt hurt anyone but yourself. reguardless of what people think ur just holding your body back from its maximum potential of muscle/mass physically fit. without taking a ton of replacement supliments
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,297
    ?? Healthy does not equal winning a competition. Indeed, sugar and caffeine are often good things for athletes but not really healthy for you.

    Having a very high (maximum) muscle mass is not very healthy. Most Americans eat far too much meat, fat and refined sugar, and thus a diet that reduces these is, in general, healthier.

    For supplements all you really need is B12.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
  8. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Chimpkin

    That has not been shown to be true for humans, just some animals.

    Humans already live a very long time. I suspect that evolution has already used up the easy pathways to long life. Thus, something as simple as limiting calories or protein will have less benefit to a human than it would be to a short lived animal.

    In addition, we have the fact that many human societies eat far fewer calories, or far less protein. And in none have we found any society with longevity greater than that of wealthy westerners. Note that the wealthy, on average, have lifespans 2 to 5 years longer than middle class people.

    The greater lifespan of wealthy people does not come from limited calories or protein. It comes from the fact that they look after themselves with good balanced diets, well planned exercise programs, and lots of good medical care.
     
  9. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    You have pretty much stated the case, Skeptical.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Moderation in all things, (including moderation on occasion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) seems to be the key. Balanced caloric intake/output, minimize stress, and a certain amount of good luck to not get caught up in the prop-wash of events beyond one's control would seem to be the key.
     
  10. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    And a lot less stress.
    Poverty is really the "oh $h!t of the month" club, let me tell you.
    Feces are always hitting the fan, and nobody ever, ever turns it off.
    I'm just relatively poor by American standards, but it still sucks. Constant juggling act.

    Here is a human study that indicates protein restriction is linked with a reduction in Insulin-like Growth Factor 1.

    http://www.musclemagfitness.com/nut...n-diets-may-not-extend-life-for-everyone.html

    A reduction in the amount of that growth factor has been linked in mice to a longer life in caloric restriction studies.
    Again, not conclusive. But I don't really feel like getting in another marathon argument, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
     
  11. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    I agree with the stress factor. There are many factors influencing longevity. Too many for a short discussion.
     
  12. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Many North Americans likely eat far more protein, fat and simple carbohydrates than they require, based on the number of persons who are observably overweight by any standard and neither fit not healthy.

    Based on that observation alone, most persons would benefit from a reduction of caloric intake and an increase in physical activity, even moderate, which logically should contribute to increased quality of life and potentially, increased longevity.

    As for studies, there are many of them.

    My favorite was when eggs were absolutely lethal.

    Then a few years later, most people are advised to eat 4 eggs a week, some persons even an egg a day because they are quite a complete protein and a number of amino acids contained therein etc., etc.

    It has long been said that "One man's meat is another man's poison."

    We have differing blood types and body chemistry and depending on where our ancestors came from, we may be lactose intolerant etc.

    There is no single diet that seems to satisfy the needs of all, save we all require clean water and fresh air, and the planet will contribute plant and animal matter to round out the equation. Apparently insects and grubs are a good source of protein, something we may have to contemplate at a point in the future if other options become scarce. I hear that roasted grasshoppers are kinda crunchy and taste somewhat like peanut butter.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    We often hear claims that the Okinawans show the way, with their average longevity of 84 years - the longest average life of any nation on planet Earth. Claims that this relates to less meat, or more veges, or less calories in the diet.

    But in my country (New Zealand) where the average longevity is 80 (82 for women), tertiary graduates average 85, more than Okinawans. And they eat heaps of meat, lots of calories, and rich food. The reason they live so long is because they are smart. Being smart means a good balanced diet, exercise, medical care, managed stress, good self image, good social relationships etc.

    I have yet to see any credible evidence that caloric restriction, protein restriction, or other limitations on diet, translate into longer lives for humans.

    Incidentally, it is reasonable to expect that this longevity applies in all countries. So if you are a tertiary graduate, or financially successful, your life expectancy will be some years more than the average for your country.
     
  14. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    Not to mention the fact that red meat is associated with a higher risk of many types of cancer.
     
  15. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    That's odd.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Do you have any gastrointestinal bleeding (like from an ulcer) or have you had chemo?

    Leafy green vegetables would probably benefit you, as they are high in folic acid and iron.
     
  16. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    You're messed up if you think it's healthy to give yourself a barium enema willy-nilly.

    There are only a few reasons one needs an enema of any type in the first place. And there's certainly no reason one would need a *barium* enema unless they were getting a diagnostic test from the doctor. It's a contrast dye that you are infusing yourself with. Who told you to do that?
     
  17. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    Why do you weirdos come to science websites?
     
  18. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555

    Fraggle... seriously, it is known on this website that you have some bizarre fascination with the idea of humanity consuming meat, because of all the times you have appeared in threads like this to ruminate, over and over again, about how splendorous you think it is that man has benefited from meat. Do you get a hard-on from talking about this? Give it a rest.
     
  19. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    To Willnever

    While you have an antipathy to meat.

    Sure there is an association between eating lots of meat and some kinds of cancer, but the association is small. It is not as if eating meat is guaranteed to cause cancer. It is not. Even eating lots and lots of meat will most probably do you no harm at all, as long as you cut off most of the fat first.

    Fraggle is quite correct in saying that meat eating is a part of what made humanity successful.

    My own view is that balance is the key. That balance requires some of every food group.
     
  20. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    If you've been reading my posts that assiduously then you must also know that I am fascinated by our species's ability to transcend nature. Both external nature, such as inventing tools, taming fire, building roofs over our heads, growing our own food and damming rivers; and our own internal nature, such as overcoming our pack-social instinct to live more-or-less in harmony and cooperation with millions of anonymous strangers.

    The desire and ability to transcend nature and adapt it to suit us rather than vice versa is, arguably, the one unique attribute that truly defines our humanity.

    Overcoming our carnivorous physiology and psychology--another aspect of our nature--and reverting to the herbivorous diet of our ancient ancestral species, out of a sense of morality, is a testament to that humanity.

    I'm sure that in the future humans won't eat meat, at least not the flesh of other vertebrates with a forebrain that allows them to contemplate death, slavery and other moral issues at some rudimentary level. Perhaps we'll have Star Trek replicators that can build artificial meat tissue; perhaps we'll decide that it's okay to eat worms and other animals with no brain to contemplate morality; perhaps we'll all be eating a balance of grain and nut/seed protein. (Although if it's tofu I'll emigrate to the Klingon homeworld.)

    What I object to is vegetarians claiming that morality has nothing to do with it and insisting instead that a meatless diet is better for us.

    I'm not proud of the fact that I do eat animals and in fact if I had to kill my own I might not be able to do it. But I was raised on meat and eating meat is one of my life's greatest pleasures. I insist, rationally, that we are programmed to take pleasure in the taste of meat, the act of eating it, and perhaps even the act of acquiring it, because our entire metabolism has evolved into that of a predator and our psychology had to evolve with it or the species would not have survived, much less taken over the planet.

    What's wrong with being proud of the fact that you don't want to kill animals and eat them? What's wrong with telling the rest of us that we should be ashamed of enslaving animals for food? I detect a strong sense of confusion over your motivation--if not outright dishonesty although I hasten to add that that applies more to some of your vegetarian pals than to you personally. And I react with some over-the-top commentary which is based on the reality of our anatomical and cultural evolution. Maybe I'm just being silly in the face of illogical argument, or maybe I'm trying to goad you all into thinking about the real reason you don't eat meat.

    The vegans are a special case. They don't seem to think it's okay to even employ animals to do the job of laying eggs or giving milk. Is it okay to employ them to guard our houses, pull our wagons, entertain our children, plow our fields, tell us they love us when it seems that no one of our own species does? Then why can't we employ them to manufacture food?

    I don't understand vegans. It's terribly difficult to put together a healthy, balanced vegan diet--much less a tasty one! Most people couldn't possibly muster the discipline to pull it off.

    So, no offense is intended. Yet at the same time I wonder at the real reason for your taking offense. Why are you railing at me for being one of the billions of people who love meat because of my human programming--for being true to my nature--instead of railing at me for using helpless, trusting animals for food--for not transcending my nature?

    Why do I have to make your case for you???
     
  21. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Plants, meat.....it's really not a difference at the most fundamental level.....save that we perceive a difference at the entry level.

    How many plants are fed fish fertilizer, bonemeal and calcium? How is this derived? Nature has used this system since inception, so in a very simple observation, even plants 'eat' meat, once it has decomposed to it's basic constituents.

    I have farmed and hunted small game, and hence killed my own meat, trading rabbit for partridge with a lady who raised the birds.

    All life supports other life, and when one takes a life for food, one always offers respect and thanks to the universe for one's existence and the means which supports all.

    I get stressed when I have to thin my plants, lol.....having raised each from a seed. They are all 'my babies' though in truth I did nothing but provide the conditions for them to germinate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,297
    I don't see us doing much "overcoming" of those instincts. We're social animals, which means we have a drive to form family and social units and defend those units from threats. And throughout history we've seen this in action - families becoming tribes becoming fiefdoms becoming kingdoms becoming countries, all the while our instincts cooperate by supporting the sort of allegiance/patriotism/nationalism that such social organizations require.

    At the same time our violent and greedy streaks are regularly expressed through war and conflict, and indeed we've gotten quite good at killing in very large numbers.

    To be sure we have developed technology that removes the need for much of those conflicts, and indeed more of the world is at peace than has been in the past. But I am fairly certain that once those pressures return (i.e. we run out of oil, or we have food shortages) that "my family/town/country first" will rule the day, and we'll kill whoever we think might eat our food or burn our oil.

    As has been amply demonstrated, our "carnivorous" physiology is a very recent (and very spotty) adaptation, allowing us some capacity to eat meat. While that does serve a purpose in terms of keeping us alive during times of famine, we're also seeing the very large downsides now - death by choking since our teeth/jaws/throats are not adapted to it, sickness due to contamination since our stomachs are not acidic enough to kill pathogens common in meat, and early death due to obesity, heart disease and circulatory problems since our metabolism is not well adapted to a meat-heavy diet.

    Many people _like_ meat, because we're programmed to like things with a lot of calories. This in and of itself is a poor argument for eating meat; one can defend cocaine usage with the same sort of logic. (i.e. "it's natural and I love it; it must be good for me.")

    As has also been amply demonstrated, a vegetarian diet IS better for us from an overall health perspective, at least compared to the diet of most Americans, and assuming a long and healthy life is your goal.

    Personally I think people can eat whatever they like. But many people have realized that being true to their natures - whether that nature includes cravings for meat, sugar, fat, cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, whatever - is not always the best choice if one's goal is a long and healthy life. (Of course it should be noted that that doesn't have to be a goal; a smoker is perfectly within his rights to give up some of his life to enjoy something that's important to him.)

    Too often these arguments devolve to people trying to fabricate scientific arguments to support their preferences, and that leads to some slightly silly science. A better approach, IMO, is to let the science stand on its own, and then append "but I prefer X."
     
  23. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    That's a rather refreshing attitude....to respect that others have the right to make their own choices, even if they may not be in the interests of longevity. Also recognizing that longevity may not be the first priority of some individuals.

    Historically, much of the conflict arises when the personal choice of one impinges upon the well-being of another. The marketplace has been responding to the request for organic produce and meat as example, and the prices are coming down in many cases as more suppliers come forward. Low fat and low salt variants are expanding options continually and while 'junk food' seems unlikely to ever be truly healthy, it is at least becoming somewhat less harmful, IMO.

    Perhaps one of the greater challenges lies in our demographics of an aging population and insufficient skilled workers to fill the ranks of retiring medical professionals, as this is the system that I see as being the most impacted by our choices of diet.

    As to which is the best diet? It really depends on your genetics, your ideology and the availability of various food groups.

    May you all have enough to satisfy your hunger, and may what you eat nourish your body and mind to greater understanding of this wonderful opportunity we share, called life.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page