Not getting into the science side of things, because I'm just not that interested, but a little case study. My mum is vegetarian. Give or take, she's not as strict as some, and does eat the occasional bit of fish. She's consistently tired, works less per day than I do, and works harder on balancing her meals (Thanks, vegetarianism!) than I do. She never had this issue before she switched to vegetarianism, about a year ago. Personally, on the omnivore/herbivore/carnivore thing. I genuinely think that it's just a case of a reasonably balanced diet. I love steak, I adore it, especially when rare - But I won't be eating that every night. Body needs give and take, you can do it without meat, but it is a lot simpler to balance an omnivores diet than a herbivores diet.
There are some days like that. Especially before my surgery. I was subsisting on vitamins, milk, orange juice and pudding. It's hard to talk about any kind of morality when it's your life or someone else's beliefs. And that's where the rubber hits the road. Otis, you're in a mighty privileged position. My doctor literally laughed at me when I suggested what you said. I should throw in that he's not just a GP, either. He's a specialist at the Kirklin Clinic, a world-recognized medical think tank. He's a literal leader in his field. If your lifestyle is deemed safe by YOUR doctor, for YOU (I subbed me for you with my doc, before you think I'm assaulting you) then pursue it if it makes you sleep easier. It is not my duty, role or even right in life to judge that. But what you propose would literally kill many people. Outright kill. Not even a neutral let them die, kill. For me, I cannot (and I do mean physical impossibility) live on a plant-only diet. I'm not set up for that with my digestive system or my genetic disease. So I would die of starvation. So would lots of other people. The people that weren't killed by that might be killed by things like the ceasing of spraying for mosquitoes, or the stopping of vaccines-let me let you in on something-the world would destroy humanity if it didn't push back. Eating meat is part of it. Otis, I don't seek to antagonize, but I do think you should be disabused of the idea that it is the right choice for all people no matter what. If you choose to live that way, cool. Though I would suggest you go read malfoleo's links. The links are things like World Health Organization, and not the radical and sometimes dubiously reasoned stuff I found on the sites you posted. Yes. I read every single word of both. Being handicapped I can do so. Spec, I'm not sure I can come up with an argument that would dissuade you because of the difference in where we draw our line of personhood. And of course, I am bound and beholden to eat meat because of my illness. But, if there was anyone who would have had a chance of converting me, it would be you. I'm going to call it a draw. Neither converted the other, but you sure made me think. Next topic?
I want to rather quickly quell the idea that the species Homo Sapiens cannot eat raw meat. Though I do have to ask: where did this idea come from anyway? The simple answer is that we're conditioned to think that way so as to avoid potentially harmful food-sources. This is culture, not nature. As a simple demonstration of this I would ask of you to outline how a nation several billion strong eats a dish called sushimi if we are not conditioned to eat raw meat. Go ahead, I can wait... Actually that's a rather silly idea, as this is sort of a one way dialogue at the moment, and I don't feel like awaiting an answer (mainly because I'm somewhat tired after a long and stressful day, but that is besides the point). OK, so for those of you who don't enjoy on a regular basis the absolutely wondrous dish that is sushimi I'll give a brief summary: very lightly kill a fish, run it through one of those slicers for sandwich meat (or utilize the hands of a highly skilled chef), and wrap it in rice and garnish, making sure to throw a veg or two in for good measure. Rather simplistic view, but there you go. This one example says nothing to the tribes of people still living out in the jungles of the world that do still eat raw meat on a (near) daily basis. Or how about even some members of our western world? Trust me on this one, there are still a very certain constituent of people out there that do eat raw meat. But all of this is anecdotal at best, and therefore useless in the bigger picture. Lets look at the facts and outline the reasons as to why it is healthier and better to cook meat, but not specifically a requirement of digestion. If you wish to break away and do some reading from an independent source rather than reading through my post, I won't blame you. The WHO has a good read on food safety and why we cook what we do. First off we must ask the question of what benefits does cooking meat give us? Primarily it tastes better. Beyond this is irrelevant, as this would be more than reason enough. Through cooking we draw out the natural juices present within the meat, subject those juices (along with other properties of the meat itself) to rather high temperatures, and cause a bit of a molecular change. Not much of one, but enough to change the flavour, and somewhat the texture. However, the more important factor is pathogen content within the meat itself. There are two different factors at work here: first of all the meat is rather opportune to bacteria and viruses for the same reasons that it is to us: it's just damn tasty (and healthy). The second pathway that pathogens tend to enter meat is through the organism that the meat was once a part of. This is particularly true of certain types of detritivores (crabs, lobsters, shrimp, sucker-fish, ect) and a good portion of the Avian family. These fun little bugs tend not to let go of their healthy home easily, and can best be neutralized though rapid and thorough heating. One caveat: most of these pathogens are rather innocuous, and a certain amount of antibodies can be built up within the human immune system to better combat them to reduce risk by these pests. Another important point of cooking, and one of the driving reasons it saw adoption across humanity is preservation. Raw meat will spoil really rather quickly, and must be eaten the same day it was killed (or there abouts). Cooked meat on the other hand, can be kept for a number of days (dependant upon cooking methods used, and storage), thus limiting the number of animals required to kill, and reducing the energy output of those early humans. Same thing is true for us today, only less so due to our refrigeration methods. I would like to point out at this point that there are a great number of ways to preserve meat for the long term, but I don't feel like outlining every last one of them here, so I've included them within the umbrella term "cooking" for ease of reading (and to reduce the length of my already well too long post). So we've seen three rather large benefits to cooking and the downsides of their raw-meatist counterparts. Any one of the three is a very good reason for cooking indeed, but they all play a role in why we cook. There is also a very strong argument that raw meat is comparatively "harder" to digest, but I cannot find any good evidence one way or the other of this, so I won't explore that facet. But as it is anecdotal evidence that most people seem to enjoy most, and will listen to, I present to you the modern raw-meat movement (which is actually worryingly strong) as captured by one Karl Loren. This is not a small movement by any means. What have we learned? Well, it is just as easy to survive on a plant-only diet as it is on a raw-food only diet (including raw-meat), but neither is advisable. Scientific research has proven as such, and is continuing to prove that a balanced diet with all the food groups in moderation is necessary along side exercise for a long and healthy life. To say otherwise is to miss the point and ignore the facts. I'm going to use an analogy on the anecdotal viewpoint in all this: Vox Populi, Vox Dei - "The voice of the people is the voice of god". Popularity has no connection to truth.* *This analogy is not an assault on the concept of god in how you see it, it is simply stating that what is popular isn't always right. God just happens to be a good example. He may or may not be real, but that is not determined by popular vote.
Wow this thread is going on some divergent paths! So has anyone decided yet? I think when it comes down to it vegetarians will defend their diet as the best and so will omnivores. Yes science is saying recently that a balanced diet is healthier, after all the human species has evolved to take advantage of anything it possibly can to survive, so it makes sense that something more varied, nowadays, may be more benefitial for our health. In fact scientists have mentioned recently that people should stop eating meat and convert to insects! This isn't for the benefit of health but for the environment as it is much more environmentally friendly to farm insects than it is to cut down thousands of acres of forest for livestock, it is also said that insects have a higher protein content, by weight, than meat and the human digestive system can absorb that protein more efficiently. The only problem is the thought of eating insects, so in the UK they have just released a insect patte uuuummm lovely!
@Malfoleo " want to rather quickly quell the idea that the species Homo Sapiens cannot eat raw meat." the point isn't that you cant survive on Raw meat but that it is less efficient not because "Primarily it tastes better." for on impact of a purely raw diet look up amenorrhoea "There is also a very strong argument that raw meat is comparatively "harder" to digest, but I cannot find any good evidence one way or the other of this, so I won't explore that facet. " read this http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2a.shtml regarding the sushi argument - well some meats are more digestible than others.... however the japanese diet is not purely 'raw' further consider the increase in height as the traditional diet has fallen away.
I thought it was because its safer and easier for humans to digest properly, getting the most out of the meat.
You may want to read "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" by Richard Wrangham http://vimeo.com/10325384 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6837386.ece
or Aiello LC , Wheeler P (1995) so does this http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0100-84551997000100023&script=sci_arttext infer that veggies are thick?
Memeroot: if your desire is to challenge my argument with a scientific one, please make sure to include some science, or at the very least link to an article that is relevant in any way whatsoever. Your propagandist, biased, vegetarian-oriented website is unwelcome and offensive to the intelligence of those reading. The absolute only argument that can be levied to the idea of raw meat being "harder" to digest is due to a potential increased workload on the liver. Unfortunately this has not been found to be true in any particular study that I've viewed, and therefore is dubious at best. It is a commonly held belief, but once again Vox Populi, Vox Dei. The website you provided lists very specific downsides as well as upsides to cooking starch, only very briefly touching on animal protein. Rather, the only real comment it raises about meat is that animal protein is less digestible after cooking, citing rather old studies. Thanks for proving your argument wrong without me.
@Malfoleo okies http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1254788/pdf/biochemj01123-0140.pdf Raw meat is digested in vitro much more slowly than cooked meat. Over-cooked meat is very slowly digested as compared with underdone meat. The maximum rate of digestion is obtained with underdone roast meat.- Re-warming underdone meat does not diminish its digestive rate. Reheating with consequent over-cooking diminishes the rate of digestion. The rate of digestion of meat (raw or cooked) is the same whether trypsin alone be used or pepsin followed by trypsin. "The absolute only argument that can be levied to the idea of raw meat being "harder" to digest is due to a potential increased workload on the liver." or from this blog (ok not a great source) but it nicely explains the reasons why overcooked meat is harder to digest than uncooked which in turn is harder to digest than 'undercooked' meat. http://shkrobius.blogspot.com/ The two groups of protein in meat both denature but they display the opposite tendencies in their reaction to heat: muscle proteins coagulate and cross link becoming LESS soluble whereas collagen breaks down becoming more soluble. It is this latter process that makes cooked meat more digestible, as the muscle protein is enveloped by connective protein shielding it; breaking down poorly digestible collagen makes meat protein fibers more accessible to our proteases. Myosin is a motor protein operating in water: the mucle cells contain 75% water. By contrast, the collagen binds very little water. At about 50 C, heat drives the water out and water-loving myosin partially uncoils and coagulates. At 60 C this coagulant shrinks, and at 70 C it gels. The fibrils are still rigid and dry in this gel, but at least these become chaotic, and this is the best one can do with meat. Overcooking transforms this gel into a 3D network of stiff fibers. Cooking is all about protein folding and self-organization. The best temperature range for cooking meat is 50-70 C. Boiling water is well above this temperature.
Er, no. It is damn tasty and healthy to those bugs because they have evolved to exploit that food source. To herbivorous bugs meat is decidedly untasty and unhealthy. Similarly we like meat because we've evolved to be omnivores --when you're a clawless, fangless small ape you learn to eat what you can get your hands on. We like meat a lot because it used to be hard to get your hands on, so you didn't want to waste the opportunity. For this reason we also have a fondness for other high-nutrition but naturally rare food types such as sugars and fats. The key words here are: naturally rare. We like meat a lot because it was relatively rare. Or natural diet is to eat meat in small doses. We are not set up to be big meat eaters any more than we are set up to eat grass. Too much red meat causes digestive problems, and a diet of rabbit would cause us to die of malnutrition (which is what a lot of fur hunting settlers did in the new Americas) as we cannot get all the necessary vitamins and minerals from it.
^All things in moderation. Seems like everything is good for you if you eat just the right amount, and its all bad for you too if you eat/drink too much or don't prepare it properly ( the black bits on overcooked meat give you cancer, over cooked veg loses it's nutrients, small amount of certain colour wines is healthy but the wrong type will give you gut rot etc etc etc ). A healthy balanced diet that incorporates plenty of fruit and veg and lean cooked meat is morally justifiable; a diet of McDonald's and fry-ups will leave you unhealthy & unhappy/ lethargic. Now, Im going to go cook my dinner; noodles & sauce
For anyone that's interested I recommend Peter Singer (lots of stuff on youtube), the Australian philosopher that made animal welfare famous back in the 70's I think it was.
i dont know if gold or plutonium are desirable for nutrition simply because theyre rare.... though as above rare meat is desirable as its digestable because its rare ;-)
