[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:19 UTC+1 No.5496249 Report

Meat is the most nutritious food.
It is calorie dense, with much of it being protein; high in vitamins, minerals (especially iron) and is found to be delicious to all peoples and ingrained in all prehistoric cultures.
Humanity was built on the backbone of a meaty diet. Our brain size, our neuron density, our tool use and our slender, swift shape were all because of our hunt - and consumption - of meat.

So why do vegans turn their backs on our genetic mortar?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:20 UTC+1 No.5496250 Report

Sigh. Inb4 230 posts omitted.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:23 UTC+1 No.5496257 Report

>>5496250
>Sigh
is there something wrong with people replying to a thread?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:23 UTC+1 No.5496258 Report

They don't eat meat but they sure like the bone.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:23 UTC+1 No.5496259 Report

You know, there's a really interesting theory that says we actually evolved as scavengers. While we are well suited to persistence hunting, or running something to death, we're also well suited to scavenging the marrow from the bones left by predator kills. We're actually the only animal species that can get at the extremely nutritious marrow with relative ease.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:26 UTC+1 No.5496265 Report

>>5496250
I'm not trying to incite anger; I just want to know the true agenda of vegan dieters.
Is it popularity? That's really the only reason I can see.
All the whining about animal cruelty, saturated fats, "cavemen ate fruits!" and other feet-stamping arguments only serve to collect attention. This, combined with the "holier than thou" attitude that most (but not all) vegans have makes me think that the only end goal a vegan would have is popularity.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:33 UTC+1 No.5496292 Report

>>5496259
I'm suspicious of this theory.
While it's definitly true that sapiens and their forefathers ate marrow (most bones in caves are cracked and split in ways that are unnatural to hunting or combat, and have deep tool marks), scavenging was perhaps not the end goal. It takes a lot more marrow to feed a group than it does one Auroch/Mammoth/Bear's worth of meat, and cave paintings depicting the collection of animal carcass are absent.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:45 UTC+1 No.5496326 Report

>>5496249

Meat is good, but we eat the wrong kind of meat. There's not much good about hamburger or lean slabs of muscle, but organ meat, bone marrow, and similar products are healthful.

If you want to eat meat, eat organs, eat bone marrow, and eat fatty cuts of meat that contain more nutrients.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)18:46 UTC+1 No.5496330 Report

>>5496292
I'm talking about our evolution on the african savanna. Before we lived in caves, mastered fire, made paintings and created tools more complicated than a rock or stick.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:45 UTC+1 No.5496457 Report

>>5496249
>minerals (especially iron)

If you are anemic or close to being anemic, iron is good. If you are not anemic, you don't need any more.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:46 UTC+1 No.5496460 Report

>>5496265
>I'm not trying to incite anger; I just want to know the true agenda of vegan dieters.

They have a very unnatural view of life based on some idealistic idea that doesn't apply in the real world.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:50 UTC+1 No.5496467 Report

>>5496330
>he still believes "out of africa"
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:55 UTC+1 No.5496476 Report

>>5496249

>Humanity was built on the backbone of a meaty diet

*starchy
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:56 UTC+1 No.5496479 Report

Humans also had a lot of cannibalism and human sacrifice in their past. Raping and pillaging was common. Why do you shun these things?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)19:56 UTC+1 No.5496481 Report

>>5496476
thats cleary is a pic showing the starches they ate. weve been eating meat a lot longer than weve been growing grains
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:01 UTC+1 No.5496488 Report

>>5496479
>Humans also had a lot of cannibalism and human sacrifice in their past.

you got any sources that show that it was as widespread and common as eating meat

no?

then quit cherrypicking
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:02 UTC+1 No.5496490 Report

>>5496481

Before cultivated starch (the beginning of civilization as we know it), humans were mainly fruit-eaters, and eventually started eating starchy underground tubers (leading to the develop of extra copies of the amylase gene to better digest starch). Meat consumption was mostly scavenged and supplementary rather than the backbone of the diet. There wasn't an emphasis on meat consumption until the ice age, when better food sources simply weren't available

Thinking humans were eating big slabs of meat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner is some Flintstones shit
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:03 UTC+1 No.5496492 Report

>>5496490
no one said they were eating big slabs of meat every meal but thinking they didnt actively hunt meat is retarded
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:03 UTC+1 No.5496493 Report

>>5496488

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:05 UTC+1 No.5496497 Report

>>5496467
Yes, I do. What do you believe in? Out of Eden?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:06 UTC+1 No.5496502 Report

>>5496497
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:07 UTC+1 No.5496503 Report

>>5496493
a study from 03 that says we MIGHT because of a genetic marker but also says they arent sure. no new evidence to support the claim for over a decade

nice try
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:08 UTC+1 No.5496506 Report

>>5496502
Hm, interesting. Is this consensus now? What's the new theory?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:08 UTC+1 No.5496507 Report

>>5496490
>humans were mainly fruit-eaters
This is wrong, though.
Fruits that existed during the waxing years of humans were small, seedy and bitter. By eating the larger, tastier fruits, they indirectly caused the creation of the fruits we know today. However, to say that humans lived off fruit is like saying that modern humans live off of black pepper; cavemen just didn't eat all that much fruit.

A beast will feed a group for a couple weeks; a large orchard of fruit trees will not stay very large for long.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:10 UTC+1 No.5496511 Report

>>5496503

>that denial
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:12 UTC+1 No.5496516 Report

>>5496502
I'm neither a geneticist or an anthropologist, and I don't have a ton of trust for Russians. Anyone know if this study is legit?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:12 UTC+1 No.5496518 Report

>>5496507

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugivore

I don't know where you got the idea that humans created all the world's fruit from dry, bitter seeds, but other frugivores seemed to do fine on a mainly fruit-based diet. Sure, we've selectively bred some things, but it's not like natural selection doesn't exist and humans created everything on the planet artificially.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:14 UTC+1 No.5496525 Report

>>5496511
accepting articles that repeatedly say, might be, could be, is a possibility that, etc as fact when even the people who wrote it dont accept it as fact
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:15 UTC+1 No.5496528 Report

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:16 UTC+1 No.5496530 Report

>>5496506
Some scientists believe that early humans left Africa far before the "Out of Africa" theory dictates; years of subsequent evolutionary distance produced the different types of sapiens (Cro-Magnon, Neandertal, Idaltu, Denovisan; further on giving Caucasians, Semetics, Mongoloids, Negroids, & cetera). The more isolated you get, the more primitive.

Human evolution is a strange and touchy subject.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:16 UTC+1 No.5496531 Report

>>5496525

It's a science article. If it doesn't say "might", "could be", or "it's possible" then you're reading something biased.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:16 UTC+1 No.5496532 Report

>>5496518
No we weren't mainly fruit eaters year round; there is not plant in Africa that could provide that. We'd eat seasonally sometimes for upwards of a month mainly on fruit during mast years but that's it.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:16 UTC+1 No.5496534 Report

>>5496518
no but it would stand to reason that we would eat the good fruits so their seeds would get carried and spread more than the fruits we didnt touch
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:16 UTC+1 No.5496535 Report

>>5496518
You really think we could sustain ourselves on fruit? Go walk out into the woods and try that. Let me know how it works for you.

And no, even if you were properly trained in wild edible identification, you'd still not be able to pull off a mainly-fruit diet.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:18 UTC+1 No.5496537 Report

>>5496531
thats not true at all there are plenty of science articles that say things are certainly the way they are
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:18 UTC+1 No.5496539 Report

>>5496530
That it is. Researching that paper led me to an annoying number of right-wing bible thumper sites. Their forums are very ... painful to read.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:18 UTC+1 No.5496541 Report

>>5496535

> Go walk out into the woods and try that.

That's some redneck logic
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:19 UTC+1 No.5496544 Report

>>5496530
It has to do with black entititlement. The closer to africa that the bullshit is, the more they can make a case for acting like apes and expecting money from other people, islamics aren't too far behind as the ones that originally made money from black slaves.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:19 UTC+1 No.5496545 Report

>>5496541
You gonna argue with it? Didn't think so.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:19 UTC+1 No.5496546 Report

>>5496534

And other animals hadn't already been doing that? Humans are the only things that can influence the planet in any way?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:20 UTC+1 No.5496547 Report

>>5496516
yes
http://www.academia.edu/1809315/Re-Examining_the_Out_of_Africa_Theory_and_the_Origin_of_Europeoids_Caucasoids_in_Light_of_DNA_Genealogy
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:22 UTC+1 No.5496554 Report

>>5496506
>>5496516
The discovery late last year of early stone tools near Dhofar is another that doesn’t quite fit with the “Out of Africa” model. The tools dated to over 100,000 years old point to the emergence of what could be recognised as early humans in the Arabian Peninsula long before it was thought there were any in the region.
Moreover, the theory that stipulates all humans originated in a single migration from Africa is now being challenged by new genetic discoveries.
In fact reports of discoveries that dispute the prevailing “Out or Africa” theory are coming in from around the world.
Researchers at Australian National University said they had analysed DNA taken from human remains discovered near Lake Mungo in New South Wales. Dating put the remains at between 56,000 and 65,000 years old.
ANU anthropologist Alan Thorne said that neither “Mungo Man’s” completely modern skeleton nor its DNA had any links with human ancestors from Africa found in other parts of the world.

>Neither of them [the skeleton or DNA] show any evidence that they ever were in Africa,” Thorne told Reuters. “There’s modern humans in Australia that have nothing to do with Africa at all.” (ABCNews Jan 9, 2012)
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:22 UTC+1 No.5496555 Report

>>5496544
Nobody's getting violent, so I would prefer that you nip this sort of talk in the bud.

It's true that political correctness and cultural Marxism have prevented frank research on the differences between the human races, but incensed racism does the same.

We know that races are different. Does it change who you know yourself to be?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:26 UTC+1 No.5496558 Report

>>5496554
Thanks.

Something is odd, though. We had to evolve in just one place and migrate from there. It's improbable to the point of inconceivable that we evolved in parallel at multiple points on the planet, but all into the same species. I'll believe in creation before I believe in that.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:27 UTC+1 No.5496561 Report

>>5496545

Imagine we're living in the middle of a large city and you said "the pioneers used to survive by hunting animals for meat" and I said "oh yeah? Go outside right now and try that." That's a stupid thing to say because obviously you're not in the same location or situation as the people we're talking about. Obviously if you move away from the tropical area humans and other primates developed in, you're not going be able to live the same way they do naturally, especially with other changes like the surroundings becoming industrialized and populations increasing greatly. It's just the stupidest thing you could have said, and yet I've heard it before.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:29 UTC+1 No.5496564 Report

>>5496561
thats not even a proper analogy

all he was saying was that humans cant survive on fruit alone and if you believe you can then go try it
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:30 UTC+1 No.5496566 Report

>>5496555
It doesn't matter what I say here on /ck. This belongs on another forum. The fact is, you'll blame the USA and white people for all of your woes and be stupid and wrong. Like fucking planet of the apes.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:32 UTC+1 No.5496570 Report

Just going to say, arguing that we should or shouldn't eat something because our prehistoric ancestors ate it, isn't a good enough argument.
We should eat what keeps us healthy. If we can live healthily without meat, then meat is not necessary.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:33 UTC+1 No.5496571 Report

>>5496547
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4888449/1/
A few anthropologists discussing that study.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:34 UTC+1 No.5496576 Report

>>5496566
I'm white and I frequent /pol/. I consider myself a white nationalist.
Does this change your opinion of my opinions? It shouldn't. This is a discussion about food.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:35 UTC+1 No.5496579 Report

>>5496570
Shut up vegan faggot! We already know your boring agenda, get over it. You know, if you stopped with your boring agenda it would reduce what you owe in carbon credits! You fucking pathetic fuck!
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:35 UTC+1 No.5496581 Report

>>5496564

>thats not even a proper analogy

It's the exact same thing.

>all he was saying was that humans cant survive on fruit alone

In what way? Modern day fruitarians survive on a diet of fruit and veg
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:35 UTC+1 No.5496583 Report

>>5496561
No, I think the stupidest thing I could have said is that people evolved eating fruit.

So, let me get this straight. You think that increasing populations and industrialized surroundings are why it's currently impossible for a human to survive in the wild on a fruit diet, even in tropical areas?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:36 UTC+1 No.5496584 Report

>>5496541
When society falls, rednecks will hunt you down and eat YOUR fruit
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:36 UTC+1 No.5496585 Report

>>5496579

Very intelligent response
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:37 UTC+1 No.5496588 Report

>>5496583
Just let them eat their fruit. They'll die out.

Normal people eat everything.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:38 UTC+1 No.5496591 Report

>>5496558
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:38 UTC+1 No.5496592 Report

>>5496581
>It's the exact same thing
but its not, its much more exaggerated

>In what way? Modern day fruitarians survive on a diet of fruit and veg
>fruit and veg
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:38 UTC+1 No.5496594 Report

>>5496581
>Modern day fruitarians survive on a diet of fruit and veg

Yeah, because they don't have to pick it themselves. Ancient men couldn't go to the farmer's market to pickup some organic peaches lol
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:39 UTC+1 No.5496597 Report

>>5496583

>I think the stupidest thing I could have said is that people evolved eating fruit.

We're apes. We come from a long line of fruit-eaters. Why does that seem so weird and unreasonable to you?

> You think that increasing populations and industrialized surroundings are why it's currently impossible for a human to survive in the wild on a fruit diet, even in tropical areas?

Why does THAT sound weird to you? Forests are cut down and the human population of the planet now exceeds 6 billion. This would cause a change in lifestyle of any species
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:40 UTC+1 No.5496599 Report

>>5496585
Compared to your assertions it certainly was intellegent. How about the real thing, don't have kids.
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:40 UTC+1 No.5496601 Report

>>5496597
but not dietary requirements
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:41 UTC+1 No.5496605 Report

>>5496584
In Soviet Russia, FRUIT EAT YOU!
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:41 UTC+1 No.5496606 Report

>>5496591
Yes, I know what convergent evolution is. However, it does not create the same fucking species at multiple points on the planet from independent genetic material. It's responsible for the fact that birds and bees both can fly. In order to be the same species, though, you have to be able to interbreed. We can all interbreed. That's part of what makes Homo Sapiens one species.

Would you care to try again?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:42 UTC+1 No.5496608 Report

>>5496579
Not a vegan. I use this argument equally for people who bitch endlessly about GMOs, processed foods, and artificial flavorings.
I think the people who think are trying to rebut arguments to not eat should use better arguments than "your great*1000 grandfathers ate meat, so by god you should too!".
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)20:45 UTC+1 No.5496618 Report

>>5496597
Apes do not subsist on a diet of primarily fruit.

And the second thing doesn't sound weird to me, it's very reasonable. I just wanted to make sure I fully understood you. So just out of curiosity, do you possess any evidence of an aboriginal population that subsisted mainly on fruit?
>>
Anonymous 06/06/14(Fri)22:03 UTC+1 No.5496811 Report

>>5496618
not him, and I disagree with the dude's overall point, but most hominids prefer fruit, orangutans and chimps especially
>>
anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)04:15 UTC+1 No.5497828 Report

>>5496566
You're fucking delusional.
>>
Anonymous 06/07/14(Sat)14:00 UTC+1 No.5498883 Report

>>5496570
On the flipside, if we can eat meat now - which we obviously can - then why does it matter whether our ancestors did or not?
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.