For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study • Hacker News Board

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#51

Post by danr4 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

atarian wrote: post #32

danr4 wrote: post #17

In 2019, age 30, I ate only red meat (and a little fish) for about 8 months. It was by far the peak of my physical condition. Better sleep, stronger workouts, no mid-day grogginess. Blood test results were as best as one could hope for, apart for the debatable "high cholesterol". Unfortunately a couple of trips abroad (damn Italy) and I got back to a more standard diet. Have put on 15kg since. I've been longing to re…

That seems so counterintuitive to what I've been told about a good diet. Any resources you recommend where one can learn more about this?

I first heard about it on Joe Rogan - Jordan Peterson episode and then Shawn Baker - I'd suggest to hear the latter as he is a an orthopedic surgeon, weight lifter, and is 52 years old. Kinda gives it more credit.

The diet is pretty easy depending on how you want to approach. - it's only animal based food (meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese). I'd be careful with people who try to sell you something, search around on different ways to start.

I went cold turkey straight to only meat. It's hard, and it takes a few weeks for your stomach to get used to it. But I did it because previously I never managed to keep a straight diet because there were so many choices, so I kept slipping into the occasional sauces, stews, and FODMAPS. It was much simpler to go "okay i can only eat meat"

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#52

Post by imagine99 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

moosey wrote: post #12

Google234 wrote: post #4

This must be devastating news to the vegans and vegetarians they insist that meat is not natural.

I'm a vegan and I could give a crap how we ate 100k years ago. It has no bearing on building a contemporary diet conducive to health optimal health and pollution related outcomes. Given trophic levels, meat takes far more energy, land, and clean water to produce. Population studies repeatedly show that large amount of meat consumption leads to individual and population health issues. The same is true of sugar and alc…

> There is no amount of persuasion that could make me go back

I don't really eat meat myself but I don't believe you, sorry. What about "if you ate meat you could increase your brain capacity by 500 cc and live a longer, healthier life". Would that make you go back? I bet it would. Even if it wouldn't, it would probably make the majority of people go back for sure.

You cannot seriously make an argument that we as humans should potentially accept any diminished quality of life in regards to our mental capacity and health to "reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon".

Again, as I said, I don't really eat meat and I'm all for saving the environment but arguments like that are the reason why it's so hard to convince "ordinary people" of the importance of sustainability and long-term thinking. The only alternative is only presented with these radical, self-destructive requirements.

Why not pour the all the efforts of vegan evangelism into sustainable lab-grown meat? If it works, all problems solved, everybody can eat as much meat as they want (or not), the environment is saved and a lot of (potentially increased) brain capacity freed for other human improvement.

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#53

Post by 1experience » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

mft_ wrote: post #22

VoodooJuJu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not eating meat and you're not eating grain, where are you getting all of your energy from?

Legumes, vegetables, and fruit?

Legumes to me are healthy, but i can't see them as 100% peak human food, you have to soak them for hours and many people get bloated, then there are also certain amounts of anti-nutrients.

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#54

Post by mrkstu » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

nish1500 wrote: post #16

Google234 wrote: post #4

This must be devastating news to the vegans and vegetarians they insist that meat is not natural.

Stone age humans are hardly the standard we should be aspiring for. The biggest two arguments for veganism are: 1. The horrific practises of the animal agriculture industry, which looks nothing like a chiseled hunter holding a bow 2. The devastating impact of the above on the environment Cavemen had neither of these issues.

Cavemen certainly had the second issue. Large mammals have been going extinct at the hand of man for a loooooong time.

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#55

Post by bluGill » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

maw wrote: post #5

My 2¢: in however many decades from now, we'll be about equally horrified by animal cruelty and by all the grain we used to eat.

Those are religious issues, and there is no objective standard to what we will be horrified by. The only safe bet is that humans will be different in different cultures, and thus different people will find different things bad.

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#56

Post by mkoubaa » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

moosey wrote: post #12

Google234 wrote: post #4

This must be devastating news to the vegans and vegetarians they insist that meat is not natural.

I'm a vegan and I could give a crap how we ate 100k years ago. It has no bearing on building a contemporary diet conducive to health optimal health and pollution related outcomes. Given trophic levels, meat takes far more energy, land, and clean water to produce. Population studies repeatedly show that large amount of meat consumption leads to individual and population health issues. The same is true of sugar and alc…

There are seaweed eating sheep in Scotland who do not produce methane (due to their diet) and live on beaches (so no land use). My point is that your statement "meat takes far more energy, land, and clean water" while more or less true for most meat today is not settled fact.

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#57

Post by whiskyant » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #47

Some strange comments in this thread- but this headline doesn’t make sense. Humans (homosapiens) first appeared about 300k years ago, so no we haven’t been eating only meat for 2 million years.

Probably implied that it extends to the ancestors of humans.

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#58

Post by PurpleFoxy » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

imagine99 wrote: post #36

submeta wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It‘s not about eating animals being un/natural. That’s not the (main) argument. It‘s about cruelty towards animals and about sustainability. Besides: Even if you claim us humans were carnivores for thousands of years, what does that prove? First off, humans are omnivores. And secondly, with this kind of argumentation we could say that for hundreds of years we had kingdoms (or slavery), so why have democracies (or uni…

> It‘s about cruelty towards animals and about sustainability. I think that should play absolutely no role in determining whether or not eating meat is better for you than a plant-based diet. It either is or isn't but animal cruelty and sustainability has nothing to do with that. IF we determine that more meat is better, we can totally focus and increase our efforts towards growing sustainable meat. This can be from…

How is it not reasonable to give up some things for the environment? Your health isn’t going to be doing so well if you don’t have a livable environment

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#59

Post by throwawayboise » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #47

Some strange comments in this thread- but this headline doesn’t make sense. Humans (homosapiens) first appeared about 300k years ago, so no we haven’t been eating only meat for 2 million years.

Presumably they are including predecessor hominids.

Re: For 2M years, humans ate meat and little else: study

#60

Post by rusk » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

maw wrote: post #29

VoodooJuJu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not eating meat and you're not eating grain, where are you getting all of your energy from?

My hope is that various forms of artificial meat become viable and generally affordable. I think this is realistic, in spite of the opposition we can expect from both Big Ag and Big Fake Yoga.

Big Fake Yoga?!??