Dog on the menu for Chinese astronauts

[Eagle]

Eh. The conversation has moved to this. Well its worth saying there is are evolutionary reasons NOT to be a cannibal. Think for a second of the situations where you would eat a member of the same species either: a) you killed them, or b) they died from an external reason.

The first leads to move violent behavior, and its kind of hard to mate and raise offspring when you're on each others menu.

The second is carrion eating. Eating diseased or rotted meat is dangerous unless your strongly adapted for eating carrion. There's not much sense in acquiring the same disease that killed your meal.

 

[T.Neo]

Just ask a doctor or the next nutritionist. They'll guess to eat less red meat (like I said maybe 1 or 2 times a week is enough), and better poultry instead. Just like smoking, alcohol and fat, meat-rich cost is one of the basic risk factors of bowel cancer due to its bad digestive properties. Daily consumption of red meat is expected by some studies to increase the risk of bowel cancer by up to 50%.

No- the cause of red meat induced bowel cancer has been attributed to hemoglobin and myoglobin, ingestion of which can lead to the formation of carcinogens. Cooked red meat can also have heterocyclic amines, which are carcinogenic and formed during the cooking process- but these are also found in poultry and fish. In any case red meat is not nearly as harmful as cigarettes or alchohol.

I would not say 1 to 2 times a week, but balance is important and limiting one's diet to any particular food can be harmful.

 

[AirSimming]

Well, the most important risk beside intestinal polyps and the age, is malnourishment which I think is obvious. Smoking is a less concern than alcohol. Regular and much alcohol consumption increases the risk about equal to regular red meat consumption (50% to 60% regarding some sources).

That red meat is hard to digest, especially raw one, actually is quite known. Of course you don't feel it. You also don't feel what animal fat does to your body especially if you eat enough and regularly. But you might feel the sequelae...

Although I really like meat, there would be enough cons to actually become a vegetarian. But since I eat meat not more than about 1 to 2 times a week, it's not a problem. It's mostly poultry anyway. Otherwise I love fish and seafood in general.

---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

Eh. The conversation has moved to this. Well its worth saying there is are evolutionary reasons NOT to be a cannibal. Think for a second of the situations where you would eat a member of the same species either: a) you killed them, or b) they died from an external reason.

The first leads to move violent behavior, and its kind of hard to mate and raise offspring when you're on each others menu.

The second is carrion eating. Eating diseased or rotted meat is dangerous unless your strongly adapted for eating carrion. There's not much sense in acquiring the same disease that killed your meal.

True. On the other hand, cannibalism is not necessarily uncommon in the animal world. The evolution seems to make exceptions. Thinking about lions just as one example, they even eat weak and ill fellow species in case they starve, which is almost the same thing even seamen and other people did with his weak and ill mates in certain situations.

 

[T.Neo]

That red meat is hard to digest, especially raw one, actually is quite known.

Yes, raw meat can be tough to digest. This is why we cook meat. And unless you can find a reputable source for meat being hard to digest, I will not believe it.

Although I really like meat, there would be enough cons to actually become a vegetarian.

No. Meat is not, despite your belief, some toxic substance that should be avoided at all costs.

But again, a proper dietary balance is essential- something we both agree on, to an extent.

 

[AirSimming]

I do not believe that meat is some toxic substance, nor do and did I say so. But on the other hand, now that you have mentioned the word "toxic", in certain circumstances and quantities almost anything can become toxic to your body, which I guess you know.

Anyway, cooking meat makes it better to digest than raw one, but in comparison to many other foods it still remains dense food that is harder to digest (it has higher levels of protein and saturated fats). There is a general consensus, well in industrial countries at least, that especially red meat should be eaten occasionally, not regularly. You could just go to a university hospital and ask the doctors there or just phone them or nutrition consultation (as it might be a better source than the internet). But also a family doctor says so whenever there is talk about nutrition and healthy lifestyle. It's a general advice to eat less meat. Just as Urwumpe said, we don't have a digestion system for only digesting meat. The focus indeed is more on vegetables and fruits.

Regarding vegetarian: that's basically a matter of taste and ethics, but also health concerns. I personally like meat, as I said more than one time, and I have no problems at all eating it occasionally. But I am very well aware, just as most people these days, that it should not be my daily basic food. One could also eat fish and seafood for example and perfectly live without any meat consumption. Eating meat is not a necessity at all, especially if you have the choice.

 

[computerex]

Eating plants and fungi is also eating life/beings. Indeed, eating cheese is eating life/beings, imagine all the bacteria that are being killed...

Ya, but plants/microbes don't have nervous systems

Eating meat is not a necessity at all, especially if you have the choice.

Correct, now a days a lot can be synthesized and taken in "artificially". But meat (red while blue, whatever) is still a required part of your diet because of what it contains, and is probably the easiest way of attaining the said nutrients (iron being a biggy).

 

[bwog]

Like a meet and eat?

Wouldn't that make them mad at us? Imagine a life form no one has seen before coming up to the president and eating him...

 

[T.Neo]

Ya, but plants/microbes don't have nervous systems

Thus I can eat Palm People from Delta Pavonis? They don't have nervous systems either. The fact that they have an interplanetary civilisation is a minor detail. :lol:

But meat (red while blue, whatever) is still a required part of your diet because of what it contains, and is probably the easiest way of attaining the said nutrients (iron being a biggy).

Indeed. Things like iron can be gained from supplements, but actually eating it from a natural source can be advantageous and is, as you said, easier.

I don't particularly care what people eat though, as long as they enjoy it (and as long as it did not come from a human). But if someone annoying I will return the favor if I please.

 

[AirSimming]

Correct, now a days a lot can be synthesized and taken in "artificially". But meat (red while blue, whatever) is still a required part of your diet because of what it contains, and is probably the easiest way of attaining the said nutrients (iron being a biggy).

That humans are carnivore, or need to eat meat to maintain a certain ratio of nutrients, is an old myth. Humans are omnivore. They can eat and digest meat, but they don't have to. Carnivore have more muriatic acid and a shorter intestinal than humans, to egest the offal faster. They don't have molars than we have to shred plant components. Herbivore have a longer intestinal than humans and partly more than one stomach since green stuff is less energy-rich.

Vegetarians and vegans are a perfect example since it is a myth that they suffer from iron and/or protein and another deficiency due to meatless diet. I don't know about other countries, but regarding the German Society for nutrition, the majority of vegetarians is even closer to the recommended ratio of nutrients. And regarding the German Cancer Research Center, vegetarians live considerably longer than the average "meat-eating" population (the study lasted more than 20 years). Compared to persons who eat meat in small quantities (one to two times a week, just as any doctor and nutritionist recommends), vegetarians don't make a difference regarding cancer.

Nobody needs to artificially take in certain nutrients in case of a meatless diet.

 

[computerex]

You have an interesting way of looking at it (I suppose you can guess what 'interesting' means in this context, this word is far too overused in political correctness mumbo jumbo). I still maintain that one should have a balanced diet, with meat being part of the diet.

If eating meat did not have its benefits, and eating it was actually harmful to you (you said the study showed that the average person who ate meat had a significantly greater risk of developing cancer) you would have naturally seen a decline in its consumption. In any case, if natural selection selects for the vegans in the next couple million years, we'd know you were right.

I would like to see the study you refer to. A relationship between cancer and the consumption of meat sounds fascinating. It'd be an interesting read.

 

[AirSimming]

I still maintain that one should have a balanced diet, with meat being part of the diet.

A meat-less diet is not a non-balanced diet

If eating meat did not have its benefits, and eating it was actually harmful to you (you said the study showed that the average person who ate meat had a significantly greater risk of developing cancer) you would have naturally seen a decline in its consumption. In any case, if natural selection selects for the vegans in the next couple million years, we'd know you were right.

There are known correlations between meat-consumption and the usual widespread diseases and cancer. I'm surprised that to some people it seems to be news.

I would like to see the study you refer to. A relationship between cancer and the consumption of meat sounds fascinating. It'd be an interesting read.

It's a German study (i.e. German language). But you should be able to find extensive English studies.

I never looked deep into it since it's widely known and I actually trust on what the majority of doctors and nutritionists recommend. Due to lack of time, this is all I can offer at the moment:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102859.php

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health...or_cancer_research_aicr_clarifying/index.html

http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Health_risks

 

[T.Neo]

They can eat and digest meat, but they don't have to.

Yes. And being omnivorous means we can also eat and digest plant matter, but we don't have to.

Vegetarians and vegans are a perfect example since it is a myth that they suffer from iron and/or protein and another deficiency due to meatless diet.

Nobody needs to artificially take in certain nutrients in case of a meatless diet.

No. Protein is easily obtained from plant sources. Iron can be more troublesome to obtain, and supplements are sometimes desired. There are other concerns such as vitamin B12 and certain fatty acids.

And there can be problems relating to levels of Vitamin B and calcium, but these can be obtained from plant sources.

And regarding the German Cancer Research Center, vegetarians live considerably longer than the average "meat-eating" population (the study lasted more than 20 years)

Other studies have had differing results. I would also not be surprised if an increase in life expectancy could be due to other variables, such as vegetarians generally avoiding things like alchohol.

And as you said, there is no difference between a vegetarian and a balanced diet in terms of increasing life expectancy.

A meat-less diet is not a non-balanced diet

That is arguable...

I never looked deep into it

Perhaps you should. Knowledge is power.

If eating meat did not have its benefits, and eating it was actually harmful to you (you said the study showed that the average person who ate meat had a significantly greater risk of developing cancer) you would have naturally seen a decline in its consumption. In any case, if natural selection selects for the vegans in the next couple million years, we'd know you were right.

The concept that meat consumption is something that is unnatural in humans, or that we are not evolved to digest it is easily refuted by the existence of hunting behaviour in chimpanzees- our closest living relatives. Chimpanzees eat meat whenever it is available, and even make tools for hunting. And the fossil record clearly shows that meat consumption was important for multiple species of human. While regular meat consumption may not be good for increasing lifespan, it is an advantageous food and can be nutritionally and psychologically important for subsistance peoples.

 

[computerex]

A meat-less diet is not a non-balanced diet

When I said "balanced" I meant a diet in which meat is a part of. After all, it is present even on the food pyramid! When you have been made to look at thing half your life, .

There are known correlations between meat-consumption and the usual widespread diseases and cancer. I'm surprised that to some people it seems to be news.

Hm. I hear a lot of things, but only bother to research further in less then ten percent of cases .

In any case, excellent links. From a cursory scan it seems the research blames heterocyclic amines in cooked food for the increased risk of developing cancer....I suppose we are OK if we eat the meat raw

 

[T.Neo]

I suppose we are OK if we eat the meat raw

Indeed.

 

[AirSimming]

No, being omnivorous does not mean that we don't have to eat and digest plant matter. We do not have to eat meat because it is absolutely dispensable for our body. Whilst the contrary case, eating meat and animal products only and no fruits and plants at all, is something our body is not able to handle well at all. Meat is an option, but no requirement. Whilst fruits and plants, roughage, is a requirement. By the way, interesting: we are the only species who drinks milk from another species, and not because of breastfeed. Also something we don't need.

Chimpanzees also are omnivores who do not have to eat meat. They feed on plants for the predominant part. Baiscally fruits and nuts just like humans did during the Stone Age. It is assumed that to hunt small mammals is a primary function of control hierarchy among chimpanzees, rather than to cover the food requirement.

As for alcohol and smoking: that has been researched as well. You can guess. People who don't drink and smoke, but eat meat regularly and/or basically, live averagely shorter and with more issues than vegetarians who don't drink and smoke either. I've often heard people complain: "I know people who did not drink and smoke but died early nevertheless." Not smoking and not drinking does not mean to generally live healthy. Diet and lifestyle (stress, less or no sports at all) has the biggest impact on the widespread diseases and cancer.

 

[tl8]

If I die because I eat steak, ahh well, at least it was a good steak

 

[AirSimming]

If I die because I eat steak, ahh well, at least it was a good steak

:lol:

I think the message just should be to not make steak your basic food

 

[computerex]

I have lost all taste for red/brown/green/orange meat. Haven't had a steak in my life xD Only eat chicken now a days, chicken and fish. Sometimes dog as a delicacy (joking)

 

[T.Neo]

No, being omnivorous does not mean that we don't have to eat and digest plant matter.

Yes, it does. It may not be particularly healthy, but it can be done.

By the way, interesting: we are the only species who drinks milk from another species, and not because of breastfeed. Also something we don't need.

Yes. We are also the only known species to build Voyager probes. Aren't we odd?

Milk is a rich source of calcium btw. It is very advantageous.

Chimpanzees also are omnivores who do not have to eat meat. They feed on plants for the predominant part.

Yes. But they eat meat whenever it is available. They enjoy it.

Baiscally fruits and nuts just like humans did during the Stone Age.

Do you know anything about human prehistory? If we were eating only fruits and nuts, there would be no need for such stone tools.

It is assumed that to hunt small mammals is a primary function of control hierarchy among chimpanzees, rather than to cover the food requirement.

I am sure that hierarchy has some role, but the fact remains that such behavior would not occur if it were not nutritionally advantageous.

As for alcohol and smoking: that has been researched as well. You can guess. People who don't drink and smoke, but eat meat regularly and/or basically, live averagely shorter and with more issues than vegetarians who don't drink and smoke either. I've often heard people complain: "I know people who did not drink and smoke but died early nevertheless." Not smoking and not drinking does not mean to generally live healthy. Diet and lifestyle (stress, less or no sports at all) has the biggest impact on the widespread diseases and cancer.

There are still far too many variables in the equation. Could you provide a reliable study?

If I die because I eat steak, ahh well, at least it was a good steak

Amen.

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem with the simple correlation between meat and cancer, is, that it ignores how the meat was prepared: If you grill it until it is forming diamonds on the outside, you can be sure that you have also produce a lot of toxic substances in the meat, which are really directly linked to cancer. But you can have the same with vegetables, if you just prepare it the same way. You might like grilled beef, fries and chips for watching Superbowl, but in reality you are likely eating poison in more or less large doses.

That doesn't rule out a good medium steak. Such kind of meat had been found to be actually healthier than many alternatives.

And alcohol is also not automatically deadly... small doses of it can actually be healthy, and we all know since medieval times, 5 beer replace one meal. (Of course, this beer had far less alcohol back then than modern beers and was closer to malt beer)