Post by h***@indero.com1. humans have been consuming meat for about 2 million years
'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton Jones
N.G.4 Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43, Number 6,
December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42) Publisher: Academic Press
Abstract:
Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea
that big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly
through its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has
been disputed on two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations
on modern foragers show that although hunting may contribute
a large fraction of the overall diet, it is an unreliable day-to-day
food source, pursued more for status than subsistence; (2)
archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident
with the emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield
scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields
results consistent with these critiques: (1) early humans acquired
large-bodied ungulates primarily by aggressive scavenging, not
hunting; (2) meat was consumed at or near the point of
acquisition, not at home bases, as the hunting hypothesis
requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable rates and
in varying degrees of completeness, making meat from big game
an even less reliable food source than it is among modern
foragers.Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and
assemblage composition are consistent with the hypothesis
that large carcasses were taken *not* for purposes of
provisioning, but in the context of competitive male displays.
Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology
indicates, its consumption cannot account for the significant
changes in life history now seen to distinguish early humans
from ancestral australopiths. The coincidence between the
earliest dates for Homo ergaster and an increase in the
archaeological visibility of meat eating that many find so
provocative instead reflects:(1) changes in the structure of
the environment that concentrated scavenging opportunities
in space, making evidence of their pursuit more obvious to
archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size (itself a
consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at
interference competition.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2002.0604
Affiliations: 1: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,
270 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
2: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 South
1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
3: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington, 99164, U.S.A. 4: Departments of
Anthropology and Psychiatry, and Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095, U.S.A.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
.... And then H. erectus' "basically raw vegetarian diet", .... "
"In short, the diet overwhelmingly consisted of plant foods.
The above does not contridict but confirms my point, read it again. Your
information confirms another point, humans eat meat to the degree they can
get it. In early times this was thought to be the meat of animals killed
by predators and those who died otherwise. Not mentioned is the obvious
smaller sorurces of meat such as small animals and eggs etc. that they
could use without evidence in the archeology record. With the advance in
hunting technology tools hunting as a more direct way to get meat is seen
increasingly in the record. By the times of moderm humans,ie. 100 k years
ago, the technology and meat butchering evidence was clear in the record.
This article does not represent however in its interpretation the
concensus of scholars of why there was the addition of meat to the diet.
It is a minority view and illustrates the picking and choosing done by
those holding an agenda into which information is chosen to fit to the
exclusion of the broader knowledge base.
Post by h***@indero.comand have made the changes in biology of digestion and metabolism to do
it very effectively.
"So explain this...?"
What is to explain, it does not address my point, again. Many vegie alone
people want to say humans are not adapted to eating meat, it is obvious
they are. As to your colon cancer study you fail to mention the broader
conclusion of the paper that it is a complex question as to why meat
consumption is related to colon cancer. It is inversely related to bean
consumption for example. While they touch on it only, beans and other
sources contain soluble fiber which is fermented in the colon by bacteria
producing short chain fatty acids as a waste product. These acids interupt
the metabolic cascade that leads to colon cancer of the kind that eating
large amounts of meat are thought to promote in some. Total vegitarians get
colon cancer too but at lower rates. Half an explanation is worse then no
explanation at all.
'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
..
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white
meat and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed
low levels of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations
remained evident after further categorization of the red meat
(relative to no red meat intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1
time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/
week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99; and RR for >4 times/
week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89 and white meat (relative
to no white meat intake): RR for >0-<1 time/week = 1.55,
95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week = 3.37,
95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
..'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf
Post by h***@indero.com2. chimps ourclosest primate relative hunts and consumes meat, including
the infants of other chimp groups on a regular basis even though they
mostly eat fruits.
A great deal of emphasis has been put on Jane Goodall's observations, but
Gombe National Park covers a relatively small area, and competition is
high. Earlier studies actually reveal that hunting of vertebrates by
chimpanzees is a rare phenomenon. Back when habitat was far less
fragmented.
Since jane g. first reported the hunting and eating of meat by chimps it
has been observed by others in other places and on a larger scale then she
first observed.
Post by h***@indero.com3. humans have historically eaten meat in proportion to it being
available. In areas with little animal sources they ate little, in
areas where it is abundant and easy to hunt they ate very much more.
"It's the other way round. - Humans have historically eaten
meat in proportion to availability and quality of plant foods."
I'm sorry, this can not be supported by the ethnographic record. Humans
eat whatever they can get their hands on and that is a function of what is
in the environment. If you consult the 'ethnographic atlas' by g. murdoch
for the several hundreds of cultures recorded there meat consumption as a
ratio of total consumption clearly shows it relates to overall level of
meat available and as a function of seasonality of all food sources and the
technology of obtaining food from all sources.
Post by h***@indero.comIn
high latitudes where vegetable sources are few they ate mostly all meat.
".. Like that."
Indeed, a perfect example of that mentioned above and of the broader point
humans eat what they can get their hands on.
Post by h***@indero.com4. for each bit of information you posted suggesting vegetable as
having some advantage over meat one can easily post several with an
oppisite view. It alldepends on what medical and/or nutritional qustion
one is asking.
"I'm not interested in views. If you have research - post it!"
Research about what? As said, answers are a function of questions asked.
Post by h***@indero.com5. there are groups claiming vegetable sources are superior and those
claiming the oppisite, sites on the internet ffor both can be provided.
"Ditto."
And your point is exactly what? As mentioned before, both are guilty of
sloppy and dishonest science.
Post by h***@indero.com6. the flaw with each is they pick and choose their research to the
exclusion of the broad range of same that exists in the scientific
community. That is not honest science, that is propaganda.
"Ditto! Let's see you post some honest science refuting 'mine'."
First you must make it clear just what you are supporting. So far we mostly see the picking and choosing mentioned above.
Post by h***@indero.com7. The one area with the world's longest lifespan is parts of japan and
its island of okinawa in particular. They eat a great deal of seafood,
some poultry, and pork for special events among other animal sources.
The average life expectancy in fish-eating Okinawa is 81.2 years.
For vegetarian (lacto/ovo) Seventh-day Adventists, the average
life expectancy is 85.7 years for women, and 83.3 years for men.
My example is about longest lifespan and eating traditions have changed in
the parts of japan discussed so qualification must be made as you did for
the adventists as to which exact group is considered. As in the cancer
example the variables are many. Where in either life expectancy or
lifespan would the tamils fall compared to either group; to make the point?
Post by h***@indero.comI'm interested in science and to follow the direction research leads
about human biology and history and nutrition. I do not have an agenda
rooted in a non-scientific ground for answering questions in those areas
which makes one free to go where the evidence leads.
Sadly the nutrition agenda people are not so free and this is clearly
seen in the question and answers they allow themselves and the methods
and directions chosen. Too much of it is working backwards to fit
information into the box of the agenda with which they began.
"'The BBC is failing in its supposed role as a public service
broadcaster, says the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation (VVF),
after giving widespread publicity to a seriously flawed,
unscientific piece of propaganda claiming that vegan children
risk damaging their health by excluding meat. The claim, made
by Lindsay Allen of the US Agricultural Research Service, was
given prominent billing by BBC News on-line and featured on
the Jeremy Vine show and Ken Bruce shows on BBC Radio 2.
It concerned Paul McCartney so much that he made a rare
phone-in to the Jeremy Vine show.
"One meaningless study on 544 malnourished children raised
chiefly on a starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean diet has no
relevance to children in the West" says Tony Wardle,
Associate Director of the VVF. "Yet it commands major media
coverage with almost no counterview, despite having been
made by the organization which supports and promotes the
mass factory farming of animals. This is not good journalism
and it is extremely bad public service broadcasting.
"The VVF reports regularly on the growing volume of science
showing the link between animal products and the collapsing
health of our children and is largely ignored. Sensationalism is
clearly more news-worthy than science. The truth is that meat,
dairy are junk foods are destroying our children's health. The
facts are":
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are
appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.
Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain
diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease,
strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
This is the view of the world's most prestigious health
advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature. It is
backed up by the British Medical Association:
'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart
disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders,
cancers and gall stones.'
The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with
increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other
animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.' ...'
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html"
And your point is exactly what? As before you go on muchlyy about points I
did not make, otherwise known as strawmen arguments. We need to qualify the
above more recently. S. asia now has the highest rate of diabetes and
heart disease and related metabolic disorders which are strongly related to
dietary habits among other things.