Are Humans Meant To Be Herbivores?

[Dre89]

Basically, some research I've come across lately suggests that humans are naturally herbivores, and that meat isn't good for us.

Just to clarify, omnivore doesn't mean 50% animal 50% non-animal foods. Chimpanzees are classified as omnivores, yet 95%-99% of their diet is vegan, and the remaining percent is usually termites.

 

[GwJ]

I've actually heard some statements lately that have suggested the same thing. I haven't done research on it, but it seems plausible.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Might want to link this research.

 

[Dre89]

If you Google it, you'll find a lot of people linking scientific articles that suggest humans are meant to be herbivores.

The reason why I didn't make any arguments in the OP was because there was so many to make that I coudn't be bothered.

There are some in favour of meat-eating though, such as humans having one-chambered stomachs, unlike the four-chambered stomachs that many herbivores have.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Humans eat meat, so they're omnivores. Nature has no intentions.

 

[GwJ]

I think Dre. knows that. The discussion is whether or not humans are more designed to be like chimps where they primarily are herbivores and rarely eat meat. Nature doesn't have intentions, but it does have efficiency.

 

[-Jumpman-]

That's a discussion on different types of diets. Nothing to do with wether humans are herbivores or omnivores. The division between herbivores and omnivores is arbitrary tho. This doesn't seem like a discussion at all. Probably because evolution has no sense of nature anyway.

And humans aren't designed lol.

 

[GwJ]

I'm sure you know what I mean when I say designed, I hope.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I'm sure you know what I mean when I say designed, I hope.

Doesn't make it relevant.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, chimpanzees are labeled as omnivores, and seeing as human beings have a similar DNA structure to chimps, and history has shown humans have hunted wild animals for food, even suggesting that cavemen during the days of the ice age have hunted mammoths for that purpose, it can be agreed that humans are in fact as omnivorous as chimpanzees. If we truly are designed to be herbivores originally, then wouldn't the same hold true for chimps? Also, wouldn't our canine teeth be proof that we are naturally omnivorous?

 

[Dre89]

Humans eat meat, so they're omnivores. Nature has no intentions.

By that logic all cats are omnivores too, seeing as they can digest vegetables.

Humans and chimanzees are also intelligent enough to defy instinct and have culture, which means they do things which aren't always optimal for their health.

95-99% of the chimpanzee diet is vegan, and the rest of the percent usually being termites. They have learned to eat meat rarely, but it's not optimal for their health. Meat also developed social significance in certain chimpanzee cultures as males (females pretty much never kill for meat) would share it with other males for pacts or with females for mating privellages.

We don't have proper canines, ours are small and flat-lined. Chimpanzees, as well as other animals, have much bigger canines, have an almost exclusively vegan diet, and use the canines for defensive purposes.

There's heaps of other facts I could list but there's too many for me to bother at the moment.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, mankind have been eating meat for thousands of year now, so assuming humans were not originally designed for meat consumption, would it not be too much of a stretch to say that maybe we have evolved to be able to digest meat well enough? I'm not entirely sure just how well our digestive systems cope with meat as opposed to vegetables, but if our stomachs can handle meat as well as greens, then wouldn't that make man omnivorous?

 

[Battlecow]

Naturalistic fallacy, yeah?

Give me statistics on how meat is bad for me. I always thought it gave me protein to keep me healthy. Humans aren't "meant" to use antibiotics either, but god damn if they aren't good for us.

 

[global-wolf]

I've never really understood how science is a debatable topic unless you're the one doing the research, I mean whether we are meant to be herbivores or not is already set right? All we can do is uncover evidence.

I remember reading somewhere that colon cancer occurs in the highest frequency in the countries that eat the most amount of meat. I'd say that we are omnivores since we obviously eat both meat and plants, and as Sol said we must be adapted to eating it after all this time. Humans thousands of years ago probably didn't have nearly the amount of meat that some humans do now though, and the additional meat in our diets today probably isn't optimal.

 

[rvkevin]

I remember reading somewhere that colon cancer occurs in the highest frequency in the countries that eat the most amount of meat.

Context. Fiber is what 'clears' you out and leads to healthy digestion. Failing to eat enough fiber can contribute to these sorts of issues that you describe. Considering that meat is very expensive to produce, I would hazard a guess that developed countries are where the most meat is eaten. Developed countries are also where the majority of processed foods are eaten (i.e. the famous Western Diet). Meat doesn't have fiber and processed foods contain significantly less fiber than their healthier counterparts. If you only eat meat or complement that meat with processed foods, you're going to be at a higher risk for these issues. If we ate more fiber like we should, it would rectify this problem easily.

High Fiber Diet Reduces Colorectal Cancer Risk

 

[global-wolf]

Context. Fiber is what 'clears' you out and leads to healthy digestion. Failing to eat enough fiber can contribute to these sorts of issues that you describe. Considering that meat is very expensive to produce, I would hazard a guess that developed countries are where the most meat is eaten. Developed countries are also where the majority of processed foods are eaten (i.e. the famous Western Diet). Meat doesn't have fiber and processed foods contain significantly less fiber than their healthier counterparts. If you only eat meat or complement that meat with processed foods, you're going to be at a higher risk for these issues. If we ate more fiber like we should, it would rectify this problem easily.

High Fiber Diet Reduces Colorectal Cancer Risk

That's pretty interesting. Either way humans are definitely omnivores.

 

[Dre89]

Meat has been linked to a few illnesses.

Also, the Maasai tribe of Kenya, whose diet consists primarily of wild hunted meats have the lowest life expectancy in the world.

Heart problems have also been reversed in some patients by putting them onto vegetarian diets.

With the exception of a one-chambered stomach, our bodies are almost entirely structured to be herbivores as well. I can go into specific facts if need be.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, the first thought that came to mind is the fact that we have canines, which seems telling. But at any rate, upon looking up the subject, there is no evidence to suggest that we are meant for just meat or plants. I see a lot of people saying it is healthier, but that is not directly addressing the question, the question is whether we are herbivores, which I haven't seen properly proven anywhere.

 

[Ussi]

The shape of our teeth are meant to bite, as there is no other purpose to them with that shape of theirs. at the same time out teeth aren't that sharp to be biting flesh easily and blood is dangerous to the human body to ingest so we wouldn't last long like that. In fact raw meat is also bad for us, so there is something pointing to how we can eat meat, but have to take more steps to be able to eat meat without getting ourselves killed for it.

 

[Dre89]

Our canines aren't even true canines. Again, chimpanzees who are almost exclusively vegan have much bigger canines than us. They're used for defensive purposes.

Pretty much everything else about our teeth and jaw gears towards herbivore. For example the pacu fish, who has teeth more similar to ours than a chimpanzee's, are natural herbivores.

 

[ElvenKing]

This discussion is based on a completely flawed premise. The physiological nature of a life from cannot determine that it must be meant for anything. It can certain set limits on what a life form can do and what is required for a life form to survive, but these are merely descriptive: it does not define it is true that a life form is meant to exist in any particular way. For anything to mean anything, there needs to be a truth that the given form of existence is justified and proper.

What sort of teeth humans have doesn't define what humans are meant to eat. The nature of the human digestive system does not define humans are meant to eat in any particular way. That a particular form of food can cause health problems for human does not define anything about what we are meant to eat. The only thing that can define humans are meant to eat anything is a truth that humans are meant to eat it, either in direct form( "It is true humans are meant to eat meat" ) or in indirect form through a truth that we are meant to do something that requires the eating of meat( for example, if you are meant to survive and the only thing available to eat is meat).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

But aren't chimpanzees omnivore? The teeth reflect our history of being omnivores.

Elven, what do you mean a direct truth? Outside of circumstances/availability (indirect), the digestive system, the teeth, or the health of particular types of food do not directly prove it, what does? Or perhaps you just mean that we eat meat and plants, thus we are omnivores, and that anyone who eats wholly plants is a herbivore.

 

[Battlecow]

This discussion is based on a completely flawed premise. The physiological nature of a life from cannot determine that it must be meant for anything. It can certain set limits on what a life form can do and what is required for a life form to survive, but these are merely descriptive: it does not define it is true that a life form is meant to exist in any particular way. For anything to mean anything, there needs to be a truth that the given form of existence is justified and proper.

What sort of teeth humans have doesn't define what humans are meant to eat. The nature of the human digestive system does not define humans are meant to eat in any particular way. That a particular form of food can cause health problems for human does not define anything about what we are meant to eat. The only thing that can define humans are meant to eat anything is a truth that humans are meant to eat it, either in direct form( "It is true humans are meant to eat meat" ) or in indirect form through a truth that we are meant to do something that requires the eating of meat( for example, if you are meant to survive and the only thing available to eat is meat).

thank you not-stupid-person

it's a naturalistic fallacy guyz

 

[rvkevin]

Our canines aren't even true canines. Again, chimpanzees who are almost exclusively vegan have much bigger canines than us. They're used for defensive purposes.

Wikipedia disagrees with you:

When hunting small monkeys such as the red colobus, the chimpanzee hunts where the forest canopy is interrupted or irregular.[28] This allows it to easily corner the monkeys when chasing them in the appropriate direction. Chimps may also hunt as a coordinated team, so that they can corner their prey even in a continuous canopy.[28]-Source

 

[Vinylic.]

Who gets facts from wikipedia?

In all honesty, we're omnivores.
We can decide what to eat though.

Like say, if meat is bad for you, you can either just eat veggies, or not care about how meat is bad and enjoy its fine taste.
It's not necessarily complicated science when it comes to this.

 

[ElvenKing]

Elven, what do you mean a direct truth? Outside of circumstances/availability (indirect), the digestive system, the teeth, or the health of particular types of food do not directly prove it, what does? Or perhaps you just mean that we eat meat and plants, thus we are omnivores, and that anyone who eats wholly plants is a herbivore.

What mean by direct truth and indirect truth is the presence of an ethical truth which actually justifies that a given entity is meant to eat a particular way.

All the elements of which you speak are about describing what an entity does eat and what an entity can digest. It actually says nothing about what the entity is meant to eat. This discussion so far has been committing an "is" as "ought" fallacy. The argument has been that the reason it is true that humans are meant eat a particular way is because their physiology only. This is an incomplete argument. Let's take the example of simply saying it is true that we must eat meat because we have caninies propose. Why? How do we know that the presence of canines mean we must eat meat? How do we know this is true? How can we discount the canines mean we must NOT eat meat?

There are many examples where we deem what "is" the case unacceptable and demand it do be changed. It "is" true that some people kill other randomly, yet we don't consider it justified simply because the world "is" that way. It "is" true that humans get illnesses, yet we don't hold that existence is meant to exist in such away. Why not? Well, we consider it is true that the world is meant to be an alternative way. This must also apply to any instance where we appeal to something which "is" to justify reality in a particular state, else we won't have justified why reality is meant to exist in that particular way. Thus, if the presence of canines means we must eat meat, the reason that is true is not simply because we possess canines; it is true because there is a truth of ethics which demands that a being with canines is meant to eat meat.

 

[Deleted member]

As someone who does Bodybuilding/Weightlifting as a hobby, I'm inclined to disagree with the OP.

Going past the fact that we have Canine teeth that give give us the ability to eat meat, it is a simple fact that Vegans and Vegetarians have a difficult time getting enough (diverse) protein in their diet.

There are 27 different Amino Acids found in protein, and most of them are found in meat. If you limit meat sources from your diet, that all you have left are Soy products, some wheats, and Dairy to fill your daily protein requirements. Dairy products are high in fats, wheats lack many amino acids, and Soy products are high in estrogen, which to put it simply is bad for males (whose dominant and necessary hormone is testosterone).

Let us not for get that Creatine is found only in red meat, and this is very useful when building muscle, now, sure... You could supplement Creatine and the other Amino Acids missing in your diet, but the fact that you have to supplement them proves my point that we're intended to eat meat.

 

[Jon Farron]

Alright, from a Biblical point of view, humans were originally herbivores, as was all life before the Great Flood in Noah's time.

After creating Adam and Eve:
Genesis 1:29-30
Genesis 1
(29) Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

After the flood, man began to eat meat.
Genesis 9:2-3
(2) The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. (3) Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

We have well adapted to eating meat eating after that, but we were originally designed to be herbivores. However, because of this, becoming a vegetarian without certain protein supplements will cause you to lack important things only obtainable from meat, as the guy above me has said.

 

[global-wolf]

How do you suppose herbivores get their protein then, Manlyspirit? And herbivores also have canine teeth. I'm not gonna take a side in this debate though, it's pretty dumb.

 

[Deleted member]

Alright, from a Biblical point of view, humans were originally herbivores, as was all life before the Great Flood in Noah's time.

After creating Adam and Eve:
Genesis 1:29-30
Genesis 1
(29) Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

After the flood, man began to eat meat.
Genesis 9:2-3
(2) The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. (3) Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

We have well adapted to eating meat eating after that, but we were originally designed to be herbivores. However, because of this, becoming a vegetarian without certain protein supplements will cause you to lack important things only obtainable from meat, as the guy above me has said.

Citing the Bible as a valid source is a bit iffy, but I'll bite, after all most of the Old Testament is a compilation of oral legends passed down so there might be some truth in there.

I suppose it's possible and it partially coincides with evolutionary theory. Still, the fact remains that humans today rely on meats to meet their daily protein requirements.

@global-wolf
Well, you're talking about the protein requirements for a different species. It's like asking "how come bear Hibernate, how do they endure Winters without food?" A human being, in order to have a strong and healthy body needs to meet certain daily vitamin and protein requirements. If we talk about survival, then it's a different story, but survival means you're cutting your lifespan short.

 

[GwJ]

White Mage, every time you "argue" by citing the bible in non-religious matters, you're making your already bad reputation here worse. I like you, but stop doing that man.

 

[Dre89]

Manlyspirit- Plenty of championship winning bodybuilders are vegan. Mike Tyson is a vegan.

There are plenty of ways to get the nutrition you need without meat. You can use multivitamins. Some people say that it's not 'natural', but there are ways to 'naturally' obtain those supplements, it's just that they're not socially acceptable anymore.

 

[Jon Farron]

White Mage, every time you "argue" by citing the bible in non-religious matters, you're making your already bag reputation here worse. I like you, but stop doing that man.

I appreciate the criticism, but I look at everything from a biblical perspective because I was raised a Christian. I just thought I'd throw that out there because of the scientific research showing we were once herbivores, which coincides with the Bible's teachings that we once only ate plants.

I'm not trying to preach to anyone, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter based on my beliefs. I wasn't even trying to argue in my post. There are more than one world views you know, and if the only worldview accepted in the Debate Hall is that of an atheist, then I'll just go ahead and leave. But, that would defeat the purpose of the Debate Hall if everyone had the same world view, wouldn't it?

 

[Deleted member]

Manlyspirit- Plenty of championship winning bodybuilders are vegan. Mike Tyson is a vegan.

There are plenty of ways to get the nutrition you need without meat. You can use multivitamins. Some people say that it's not 'natural', but there are ways to 'naturally' obtain those supplements, it's just that they're not socially acceptable anymore.

"Mike Tyson is a Vegan" [citation needed]

Anyway, a lot of championship bodybuilders just stick the needle to get big, a lot don't even lift weights anymore. I'll see if I can find sauce on a testimony from a big shot Bodybuilder admitting that all the Pros are on the Juice just waiting to die.

Most hard-core steroids bypass traditional training methods. Likewise a lot of Natural Vegan Athletes make up for the lack of Meat Protein with Whey Protein and other Dietary supplements, if you have to supplement protein to make up for the lack of Meat in your diet it just proves that you are naturally meant to eat meat.

 

[Kal]

That's a little bit on the crazy-skeptic side there, ManlySpirit.

http://www.urblife.com/the-life/mike-tyson-talks-sobriety-and-vegan-life-with-ellen-degeneres/

 

[Yodery]

There are more than one world views you know, and if the only worldview accepted in the Debate Hall is that of an atheist, then I'll just go ahead and leave.

This whole thing, I just.

You just said there is more than one worldview and you want people to respect that, right?

Then how come you can't respect the worldview of an atheist, it seems?

I hate when Christians try to play the role of the "bullied", or the minority.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

There is a difference between wanting an "atheist" discussion and wanting a "secular" discussion. If the discussion is biblical, then using bible verses is obviously going to be justified. However, any scientific or philosophic discussions won't benefit from quoting it. It isn't because we don't want God-talk here, it's just that God-talk provides nothing to this discussion.

Also, it has been a long time since I've looked in here. It looks almost like Elven's reply to my last post in this thread implies herbivore, omnivore, and carnivore are terms that cannot be applied to anything, for he did not provide a proper explanation as to what makes an animal either of the three because nothing deems that they must eat a certain way, considering he discounted any method of describing how an animal is with food, simply saying it requires a direct or indirect truth without providing an example of how to get one.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

@ManlySpirit

Since when does the fact that eating meat is needed to buid up muscles lead to the conclusion that we are meant to eat meat? From an evolutionary point of view, muscle power was and is not an important attribute needed for the survival of humans and meat consumption does not have any beneficial effects on our life expectancy either. Conversely, there are no known instances of anybody having health problems based on abstaining from meat. And despite your claim that some proteins can only be obtained through meat there are no consequences in regards to life expectancy, health, fertility or anything else that could possibly qualify meat as a necessary part of our diet. So what is it that makes us meant to be omnivores instead of herbivores?

 

[Deleted member]

That's a little bit on the crazy-skeptic side there, ManlySpirit.

http://www.urblife.com/the-life/mike-tyson-talks-sobriety-and-vegan-life-with-ellen-degeneres/

I wasn't being skeptical there, I've just never heard of such news, I also don't keep up with the life of celebrities. Anyway, the way that person wrote their post implied that Tyson was a vegan during his peak years, but after watching your video he claims he's been a vegan for (now) three years, during his post-stardom. Making that entire claim null and void, saying Tyson is a vegan now has as much weight as saying Lindsay Lohan is a vegan. I can guarantee you Mike Tyson ate plenty of meat during his Boxing years, no coach would let him compete if he didn't eat properly.

@ManlySpirit

Since when does the fact that eating meat is needed to buid up muscles lead to the conclusion that we are meant to eat meat? From an evolutionary point of view, muscle power was and is not an important attribute needed for the survival of humans and meat consumption does not have any beneficial effects on our life expectancy either. Conversely, there are no known instances of anybody having health problems based on abstaining from meat. And despite your claim that some proteins can only be obtained through meat there are no consequences in regards to life expectancy, health, fertility or anything else that could possibly qualify meat as a necessary part of our diet. So what is it that makes us meant to be omnivores instead of herbivores?

Evolution, ahh I was hoping someone would pull that card, you've basically dug your own grave with that one.

Ok, so you claim that there are no evolutionary benefits to muscles, now scratching the obvious necessity of needing muscles for motion, I'm going to rephrase what you claimed into, "there are no evolutionary benefits to being muscular", as I assume that is what you meant.

Now this is one of the many arguments I hear against fitness from jealous lazy people on a near daily basis, along side, "muscles are gross," "you can't enjoy life if you wanna stay fit," and many others.

Now, above I have two pictures of two fit men who have muscular, functional, healthy and aesthetic bodies. Using these, I will explain several reason why this claim is severely wrong and very misinformed. Take note that muscular does not necessarily mean BIG, it simply means you have a healthy physique in which our muscles are visible. Also take note that both of those men are trained martial artists and in peak physical condition.

First and foremost, lets look at evolutionary theory and its purpose. Darwin claims that through Natural Selection, only those who are most fit to survive do so, and are able to pass on their genetic information through reproduction. Now reproduction plays a crucial role in all of this, as it is through reproduction that genes are passed on and on to future generations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution).

So now, lets go for the first part: "Those who are most fit to survive do so." Now then, going back to primitive times (6000BC- ~4000BC), you'll note that hunting was a large part of human civilization (at least until animal nursery and herding became options). Now, you tell me, from an evolutionary standpoint who is best fit for Hunting, someone like Brendan Flowers or Bruce Lee weighing in at approx. 180lbs of lean muscles? Or someone built like say.... Johnny Depp with a weak body of about 130lbs? Also, take note that hunting and herding were crucial aspects of human society in its early times. Sure, they farmed and harvested, but they also hunted, and if they didn't they fished. Those civilizations that relied solely on harvest to feed their populations were notorious for malnourishment. If protein and meat weren't key to human survival, then why did our ancestors travel miles and miles of land in pursuit of their prey?

"But, muscles don't play a part in passing your genes. Genetics and evolution go hand in hand, you don't inherit muscles either." Ahh, but you DO inherit the ability to build muscles more easily, bodybuilding, athletics and genetics go hand in hand as well. Not to mention muscles DO play a part in passing your genes. Fit and muscular men make women's panties get moist. Those who disagree are either in denial, or not good genetic candidates themselves. Going back to evolution, the survival of our genetic information is a crucial part of our existence (from an evolutionary standpoint), for this reason, we're psychologically programmed to seek out mates who have the highest chance of producing quality offspring; creating children who will have the best opportunity of survival and thus passing on THEIR genes as well. "But muscular men don't necessarily have the best genes." Once again my friend, you're wrong. Now, muscles alone don't mean you're the best candidate, but having a muscular build shows that you are healthy and have high levels of testosterone in your blood, the MALE hormone. Testosterone (in males) improves all aspects of your life that extend well beyond simply "looking ripped." Having high levels of testosterone make you more aggressive and assertive, meaning you're more likely to achieve your personal goals, it makes you physically stronger, it increases your sex drive, thus enhancing your chances of reproduction (yep, that's right Google: the benefits of high testosterone), and much more. All of these qualities are very attractive to the opposite sex, which in short means, you reproduce and fulfill your evolutionary role. In other words, muscular build=healthier body and higher levels of testosterone=higher sex drive and attraction from opposite sex=reproduction and carrying on your evolutionary role (aka what nature wants you to do).

But there's more. You mentioned how:

meat consumption does not have any beneficial effects on our life expectancy either. Conversely, there are no known instances of anybody having health problems based on abstaining from meat. And despite your claim that some proteins can only be obtained through meat there are no consequences in regards to life expectancy, health, fertility or anything else that could possibly qualify meat as a necessary part of our diet

but you are in fact wrong here. There have been many studies showing the detrimental effects of being a vegan, and it has been reported on several places.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/11183/1/Disadvantages-of-Being-a-Vegetarian.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/482780-disadvantages-of-being-vegan/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_being_a_vegan

Protein is a building block of nutrition, it is a Macronutrient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_macronutrients), (alongside Lipids and Carbohydrates), you MUST eat a daily quantity of Amino Acids in order to sustain your body. Furthermore, you cannot build nor sustain a muscular Physique like the ones picture above without a minimum daily consumption of protein of 1g per lb of bodyweight. Those men worked very hard to get in that shape, they didn't simply stop eating junk food and start doing martial arts. Both of those men ate vast amounts of diverse healthy foods (including red meat, chicken and fish) and lifted heavy weights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lee#Fitness_and_nutrition). Not eating enough protein causes your body to go into a catatonic state and literally EAT the protein from your muscles to feed itself (http://www.dailygarnish.com/2010/09...rotein-a-guest-post-from-no-meat-athlete.html ; http://www.livestrong.com/protein-deficiency). This is a survival mechanism built into our bodies to allow us to survive when in low times of food. Not eating a varied and diverse amount of protein causes this to happen as your body is malnourished and seeks to feed itself (if you supply other nutrients, but eat a less then sufficient amount of protein then it happens more slowly over time, but the fact remains that you're killing yourself).

Vegans and Vegetarians have a difficult time meeting their protein requirements when trying to stay fit, so much so, many give up on their silly diets after some time. If you must supplement your nutrients from another source, then it is clear that you need them and were made to consume them in the first place. You can refuse to accept this, but the fact remains that humans rely on meat and other high protein sources to stay alive, and cannot be herbivores as plants do not supply us with the necessary amount of nutrients to ensure our survival.

I really don't think there is much more to be said, I addressed both sides of your argument, and proved them both to be false with well cited sources.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Now, you tell me, from an evolutionary standpoint who is best fit for Hunting, someone like Brendan Flowers or Bruce Lee weighing in at approx. 180lbs of lean muscles? Or someone built like say.... Johnny Depp with a weak body of about 130lbs?

Do you really think Bruce Lee's bigger muscles would help him hunting? What would he do? Chase after a mammoth and beat it up until it's dead with his amazing powers because his muscles make so much more of a difference? Yeah ...

No.

He couldn't kill a mammoth, no matter how much muscle power he has. He couldn't kill anything with his bare hands and then proceed to eat it because the human doesn't have the body or the tools of a hunter. The human body is not strong, it is not fast and it is not equipped with weapons that would allow us to chase down, kill and eat an animal. Doesn't that say everything already? Bruce Lee would be an equally bad hunter as every other human being would.

What a human body does have though, is extraordinary stamina that exceeds nearly every other terrestial animal's stamina. This allows him to travel a lot more steadily, which is absolutely counterproductive to hunting but very useful to collect plants. What a human also has are very well refined arms with well refined hands. Their total lack of power or claws make it unsuited for hunting but perfect to pluck fruits, roots, grasses and other plants.
And before you think you can lecture me about evolution you should take a quick look at the anatomy of the human body: what we have in common with pure herbivores are the teeth, the saliva, the cheek pouch, the stomach, the gastric acid, the intestine, the urine, the sweat and the fact that our body does not produce vitamine C on its own in addition to the fact that the shape and the constitution of our body is perfectly suited for optaining plants - fruit in particular. What our digestion has in common with that of carnivores or other omnivores is nothing. I don't know how much clearer it could be layed out that we have to body of herbivores.

Oh, and muscle power in no way is a sign that a species belongs to carnivores or omnivores. Gorillas are among the most muscular animals on the earth and they eat almost exclusively bananas and other fruit. Same goes for bisons or other cattle who eat only grass and herbs.

[...]but you are in fact wrong here. There have been many studies showing the detrimental effects of being a vegan, and it has been reported on several places.

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/11183/1/Disadvantages-of-Being-a-Vegetarian.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/482780-disadvantages-of-being-vegan/
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_pros_and_cons_of_being_a_vegan

First of all, not everybody who doesn't eat meat is a vegan. Especially the Vitamin B12 part is a common error. Cow Milk, Soy Sauce, Ginger and most Vegetables still contain Vitamin B12. Nori, Cheese and Yolk even have a higher content of Vitamin B12 than pork does.

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Sources]

Second, despite such claims as "vegans and vegetarians have issues obtaining enough protein, calcium and vitamin B12" there are simply no known instances of this actually happening to a vegetarian due to the lack of his meat input and no case is known of any other health problem based on that. I can't speak for vegans because I'm not one but that's kind of besides the point. The question is about meat, not other products related to animals and it's pretty clear that meat is neither beneficial nor necessary for the human body. It's a stimulant but for our nutrition it's plain superfluous.