Wait, Didn’t Our Ancestors Eat Red Meat? // Food myths (video)

[Panich52]

Discovery News

Wait, Didn’t Our Ancestors Eat Red Meat?

Red meat may cause cancer, a study reported this week. But didn’t we evolve to eat it?

READ MORE
http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/didnt-our-ancestors-eat-red-meat-151026.htm?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dnewsnewsletter


WATCH VIDEO:
4 Common Diet Myths Debunked

We take a hard look at several diet myths and try to decipher them.

http://news.discovery.com/videos/4-common-diet-myths-debunked.htm?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dnewsnewsletter

[daleanime]

1. Would it be a bad thing for us to eat less meat, especially red meat?

No.

[msongs]

3. going meatless will save a ton of $$ - cost of meat, cost of cleaning animal fat, time spent cooking

plus health benefits of eating less other crap that goes with meat, like 72 oz sodas and fries

[daleanime]

7. And it's good for the planet....

and it could help end hunger.

[former9thward]

39. It will not help the planet.

And it will not help hunger.

[G_j]

55. Care

to back that up??

[former9thward]

64. Humans evolved to eat meat.

If you don't know that you are hopeless.

[G_j]

65. informative answer!

not...

[JanMichael]

70. and you are qualified to say evolution has stopped in this regard?

i doubt it.

[former9thward]

71. The idea that meat is "bad" for a human body that was deigned to eat it

is ridiculous and so anti-science to be beyond the pale.

[JanMichael]

72. you can eat any style and probably be ok up to 65.

if you do not die of childhood diseases or accidents (ie "warch this" and physical labor) before 35 years old you will odds on pass 65-70 and this has been the case since 1850 according to actuarial tables. you can be a fat glutton and it still happens odds wise. post 65 is where the rubber meets the road...you rarely see fat 90 plus year old people with the exception of drug life extension.

7th day adventists typically trend vegetarian less the carson type regressives and their life expectency is almost 10 years better than average. they also stay away from alcohol and tobacco but if we include those variables they still win.

personally the london study that showed 50% lower heart related premature death for standing v sitting transportation and mail service employees means more than diet to me but - i feel better, look better, and keep body fat under control better now than 10 years ago when i ate meat. plus i do not participate as deeply in the nasty animal food and product industries. yes leather may weasel itself into a car i drive or i may be travelling and have a tortured chickens egg but i do not actively seek animal products out.

by doing that am i a better person now than before? absolutely. do i probably contribute less to environmental devesation than most americans? probably. i am even trying oat and hemp and others "milk" because almond and soy are being over sold in the world and almonds suck up california water as much or more than nestle.

i have very few murdered last moments of cows and chickens on my conscience. that is commonly called a bad death. i appalled at how badly animals and people are treated in this world.

[former9thward]

74. I think genetics is at least 90% of it.

If you have a family history of early death from heart disease you will probably get it too no matter what. Some families have histories of certain types of cancer like stomach or colon. On the other hand you have people like Churchill who lived to 90, was certainly overweight, drank liquor and smoked cigars during every waking hour according to biographies I have read, and had all the stresses of WW II.

[JanMichael]

75. give or take a few points yes. toss in the reduction of pre-35yrold death causers the end is still

about 70ish. per longitudinal studies of mortality. with little variation in world geography.

anomalies like the foul mouthed and well off churchie are exactly that. odd outs. the people having their lifes extended by genetic therapy and other drugs are also out if the nirm of centuries of development.

the london study shows that sedentary or sitting lifestyles kill sooner in the same statistical body than more vertical lifes do. fact. matter if fact i have used standing work spaces since the late 2000's and back problems have decreased and my weight is controlled.

if not eating meat saves me a nasty self incurred malady then yippee. that may or not happen. what i do know is that physically i have been positively impacted by good genes, good diet, exercise and not sitting at work too much.

and again not part of our goulish and violent animal misuse culture. this is a quality of life issue for me.

[former9thward]

82. Agreed on standing work stations.

I had mine converted when I briefed someone in the Pentagon who had no furniture at all in his office. Just a standing desk. No chairs even for himself. Very good for the body.

[yeoman6987]

77. There is no way I'd want to live to 90

Especially the way things are headed. 75 Max for me. I am 46 and 75 seems the max people should live. The expense on living another 15 years is draining our country and not worth it.

[JanMichael]

79. if i could be a healthy 80 or 90 fine.

a lump on a chair? no absolutely no.

if i am lucky enough to to not have any genetic predispositions to nasty conditions then again fine. but loss of senses or movement is a terrible end.

then again we could be invaded by aliens and all is pointless. if that does not happen, knock on wood, then a healthy retirement should be goal. no cyanide at 75 if in good health and spirits.

as to the draining comment...do you believe people should work full time to 70 or 75 then fuck off and die because they will consume instead of produce?

[yeoman6987]

80. Well I think retirement should be 65 and give retirees 10 years to enjoy themselves

I know the stupid republicans and democratic parties screwed us in 1986 with raising the age to 67. I think that should be revoked.

[former9thward]

81. Agreed and it should be full SS at 62 or even 60.

It could easily be paid for with reductions in our insane "Defense" budget.

[Rond Vidar]

23. I'm sure it would be good for my health...but I *really* like meat.

Mmmm....bacon.....

[daleanime]

29. Then enjoy it.....

just a little less of it, and a little less often.

[Rond Vidar]

33. Why? I fully acknowledge the health risks involved.

Something is going to eventually kill me. Why not enjoy eating meat whenever I feel like it?

[Panich52]

46. Just about everything causes cancer if overdone.

I'd pay more attn to '___ causes cancer if they focused on things that caused it in small doses.

[bklyncowgirl]

2. Ancient humans ate anything they could get their hands on.

What people ate depended on what was available coupled with cultural taboos and restrictions. Even for those who were primarily meat eaters there's a big difference between stalking and killing an animal with primitive weapons and driving down to a burger joint for a big hunk of grain fed beef. As mentioned in the article life spans were shorter. Most people didn't live long enough to get cancer.

[hunter]

4. Bad neighbors: The other white meat.

We've all got ancestors who saw the world like that in tough times.

[leftyladyfrommo]

63. And wild caught meat is different than

What we eat today.

Most primitive people ate meat when they could get it but it takes a lot of calories to hunt down game.

They also ate whatever plants and nuts and berries they could gather.

In some areas like the Arctic and Tibet there aren't any plants to eat and those people lived on animal meat, fat ans milk and they adjusted to that diet.

[shrike]

66. Yep. They even ate grubs

If you think about it, it makes sense. Animals with legs and hooves, you have to chase and catch them. With grubs, you just turn over a log, and there's dinner.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Yes, our ancestors ate red meat, but not much of it

two things, essentially, led to the evolution of human intelligence (and the big brains that enable it); hunting (meat is higher in protein and concentrated calories than most plants, and humans lack the ability to digest cellulose) and cooking (which enabled our proto-human ancestors to extract more nutrients from food). See here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hunting-was-a-driving-force-in-human-evolution/

[HereSince1628]

73. Our physiology isn't very consistent with grazing

at all, we aren't set up to digest cellulose or host symbionts who can do it for us.

Chimps are also omnivores, although they are rather more insectivorous, and like us tend to be frugivorous or seed/nut eaters between feeding on meats.

As omnivores we have a number of things that aren't too obvious that lead toward thinking we are even more adapted to meat-eating than chimps

Most of us, certainly our ancient predecessors, pay no attention to chemical requirements of diet. Animal products in our diet are the natural source of our vitamin B12, we don't thrive without it. Life in higher latitudes likely contributed to reliance on animal products.

If we aren't taking supplements to be sure we get it, we probably don't need significant entres of it everyday... but many of us by choice and preference do eat some sort of eggs, meat, etc everyday. Our interest in the tastyness of animal products is at least in part an evolved capacity that with the current convenient over-availability helps guide us into bad habits.

Humans tend to eat meals rather than constantly feeding throughout the day, that's true across cultures and cultural development.

Episodic, sometimes binge, eating on meats followed by long periods of not eating is a common life-style feature of carnivores and scavengers.

[edhopper]

6. You mean the ones who barely lived passed their twenties?

Well before any cancer from their diet would appear, and therefore not be weeded out by evolution?

Those ancestors?

[former9thward]

40. False.

If you lived past the childhood diseases you lived to about the ages we die at. People were not dying at 30 years old.

[edhopper]

44. I am talking about first humans,

50,000 to 100,000 years ago. When most died younger. Not saying they couldn't live longer, just old age was rarer.

But either way, dying of cancer in old age does not prevent reproduction, so no evolutionary advantage there.

Plus, much of cancer is environmentally causes, usually because of things we have done to the environment or ourse3lves.

So again, evolution would not come into play as far as cancer. And the advantages of eating meat would improve species survival.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. They were also exposed to sunlight, which also causes cancer

There are evolutionary balances in all kinds of things in our lifestyle, both ancient and modern. And, as pointed out above, something that might increase your chances of cancer after most people have raised their children doesn't have so much of an evolutionary effect.

[Eleanors38]

9. Some of the reporting on this issue is less than clear...

The gyst of it seems to be that "processed" meat is the main culprit, and processing usually = hot dogs, baloney, bacon, salami, and other meats. Little was said about red meats except in one instance a nutritionist (on NPR) said you could eat red meat once a week, and processed meats once every few weeks, indicating some kind of difference. Little mention is made of chicken, and of course none at all of game meat (which constitutes most of my red meat intake).

One has to keep in mind that herding cattle and other large animals is the only practical way some people can eat (far S. American continent, far Nordic areas, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc.). Not much in the way of sustainable agriculture in these and other areas.

And keep in mind that some vegetable crops suck a lot of water, too. These include but are not limited to broccoli, cauliflower, and alfalfa. According to the August 12, 2012 edition of Treehugger, good low water crops include legumes such as chickpea, cowpea, some limas; okra and peppers. Much of Europe depends on water-hungry vegetables grown in the Iberian Peninsula, and water for agriculture is under a lot of pressure there.

[Oneironaut]

10. If you're probably going to die before your 35th birthday,

cancer probably wouldn't be what would get you. Interesting article.

[Shankapotomus]

11. maybe we should be eating it raw

Perhaps it's charring it that is bad?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

12. "Perhaps it's charring it that is bad?" ... Horrifying!!

[Shankapotomus]

13. I'm not about to eat raw red meat

If that's is what is repulsing you. I'm just saying maybe where there's fire, maybe there's cancer. Certainly, it is so with tobacco.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

17. Me niether! The mere thought of not charring my meat is horrifying! A brisket without the...

...burnt ends?? THE HELL YOU SAY!



Think that looks delish? Check this out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=burnt+ends&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI-_ebvPPlyAIVE9pjCh0dJQzf&biw=1227&bih=588#imgrc=_

[Shankapotomus]

19. i get it now

Like John Belushi in Animal House when the bottle of booze broke. ; )

[ChisolmTrailDem]

22. Yea, like that...

[Humanist_Activist]

41. As far as we know, homo sapiens never ate red meat raw...

as part of any widespread practice. To be frank, its an easy way to end up ill or dead from food poisoning and parasites.

Now, it need not be burned on a fire, but please bear in mind that ususally the charring left behind is some carbon, and that's about it. As long as the smoke isn't inhaled, causing irritation in the lungs, I don't see whether smoking meat to eat is a health risk in itself. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Panich52]

48. Rather sure we did

One theory is that meat, specifically breaking bones f/ marrow, aided in evolving larger brain. Eating raw meat would have been common. Cooking might've been a happy coincidence that led us to prefer that flavor and cooked meat would have been longer preserved.

[Humanist_Activist]

51. The fact is that Homo Erectus most likely were the ones who started widespread use of fire for...

cooking, which means that Homo Sapiens, the descendant species of them, quite literally evolved on cooked meat rather than raw meat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans

[SoCalDem]

14. For ancient man, it was not essy to find/track/kill/butcher/store/prepare meat

Once in a while they might get lucky and everyone would feast, but most of the time, I suspect they did not eat much meat..

and of course, they probably did not live very long anyway, so any incipient cancers would have been the least of their worries..

[FLPanhandle]

15. We evolved as omnivores

Meaning we ate whatever we could get our hands on.

Frankly, who cares what our ancient ancestors ate anyway. They didn't drink single barrel bourbon, they didn't have chocolate souffle, they didn't have a nicely grilled bone in rib-eye with a bottle of cabernet sauvignon.

Who wants to go back to eating grubs, small animals, pre-agricultural grains?

I'll take the 0.8% increase in cancer risk to enjoy life now. Besides, the drive to/from the farmers market has more risk of death.

[laundry_queen]

38. HA!

That's so true about the drive. Perspective, for sure.

[FSogol]

16. We evolved to eat processed meat?

My ancient ancestors must have hunted feral hot dogs, wild salami, and free range bacon strips in the Irish bogs.


Who knew?

[Shankapotomus]

18. Duzy

[yellowcanine]

21. Yes, not to mention pop tarts, Pringles and high fructose corn syrup.

[TheSarcastinator]

20. Wow, what sloppy thinking

Selective adaptation doesn't work that way -- "we evolved to eat it" does not mean the practice is without hazard. This is like claiming that because we evolved to walk upright, falling, tripping or stumbling is not a concern that can result in injury or that because we breathe air we cannot be poisoned by gas. To claim that meat-eating is peachy-keen because our ancestors did it and it may have influenced our evolution as a result is in no way, shape or form a confirmation that meat-eating is proper, healthy, or moral.

[chervilant]

24. Meat du jour

is laden with antibiotics, hormones, and a potpourri of chemicals about which our ancestors did not have to worry. I grew up on a farm where we processed our own meat, and the texture, taste and quality was markedly better than meat available in today's market.

That said, I chose a vegan lifestyle over two years ago, primarily for health reasons. After much research, including watching "Food, Inc." and "Forks Over Knives," I found the common conclusion is that the over-consumption of animal products is directly linked to heart disease, stroke, osteoporosis, diabetes and obesity.

I've learned that I can live without animal products. I feel much better these days.

[betterdemsonly]

25. This is the vegan version of young earth creationism.

They ate meat, but would not have eaten process meat, nor would they have eaten as much meat as we do.

Excessive carbs aren't good for you either, but no-one claims our ancestors weren't omnivores.

Fact is without meat or eggs and dairy, our ancestors would have died of b12 deficiency.

[Kip Humphrey]

26. not sure they ate meat pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones.

[justiceischeap]

67. That's what I was thinking while reading the geadline

Hell, even 70 years ago it was fairly common for people to have their own chickens and gardens. So eating any type of meat was better compared to now.

[applegrove]

27. And old age was 35 years old.

[bluedigger]

28. Sure, but they are all dead now.

So how did that work out?

[spanone]

30. did they process it?

What is processed meat?

So what is processed meat?

Processed meat has been modified to either extend its shelf life or change the taste and the main methods are smoking, curing, or adding salt or preservatives.

Simply putting beef through a mincer does not mean the resulting mince is "processed" unless it is modified further.

Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces.

Red meat is a darker colour than white meat and includes beef, lamb and pork because of higher levels of proteins that bind to oxygen, haemoglobin and myoglobin in

blood and muscle.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34620617

[wildbilln864]

31. don't think it had sodium nitrite in it back then. n/t

[Demonaut]

32. and they're all dead

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Aren't there cave paintings that are thousands of years old depicting animals being chased with

arrows and spears?

[Silent3]

35. Most humans didn't live long enough for a small bump in the risk of colon cancer...

...to be a significant evolutionary pressure. But within what was a more typical lifespan in our evolutionary past, the nutrition provided by red meat was a big plus.

[ananda]

36. A lot has to do with the way it's cooked.

Overcooked meat is very bad for you, and
a lot also depends what it's been treated
with, sauces, seasoning, quality, anf fat
cintent.

Plain lean red meat that is cooked rare to
medium is actually beneficial for many people.

[laundry_queen]

37. My anthropology/human prehistory classes would disagree with this article

First of all, humans ate a lot of animal products but depending on where they lived, there may be red meat, or fish, or whale blubber or prairie chickens or whatever. There may or may not have been a variety. Each population was quite different.

Also, studies of hunter-gatherer populations show them to be larger, stronger, healthier and more lean than their agricultural revolution counterparts. If they had short lifespans it was due to injuries, not illnesses. It was the opposite for those after the agricultural revolution.

Now I get in this article everyone is trying to conflate processed meats with red meats with organic, grass fed or wild meats as if they are all the same. They are not.

One thing mentioned in the article was the cooking method - this is true...before the days of meat tenderizing methods meats had to be cooked on low heat for long periods of time to be edible, and with liquid so they didn't dry out. This is the method that produces the least amount of carcinogens. The meats were often lean, because they were not bred specifically for fat content like cows were. Even if they did hold some meat over the fire, there was probably less fat to char, and thus less carcinogens.

This article does a poor job of trying to make its case based on science. I could go on rebutting point by point, but...no. I didn't watch the video because it wouldn't load for me.

[Panich52]

49. This reply gets a 'Rec'. :)

[ladyVet]

42. It's not the meat. It's the crap you ingest with the meat.

Growth hormones. Antibiotics. Preservatives. Petrochemical fertilizers on the stuff the meat sources eat. Food colors, flavor enhancers, brine solutions, all manner of crappy chemicals that "make things better".

[Silent3]

43. "So despite what you may hear, it isn’t about the quality of the meat...

...or whether it’s from the local butcher or your supermarket. The evidence so far suggests that it’s probably the processing of the meat, or chemicals naturally present within it, that increases cancer risk." (Emphasis mine.)

From this article:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/26/processed-meat-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/

First of all, it should be pointed out that the risk being talked about, while fairly definitive for processed meat, is low. 18% higher than a low risk is still a low risk.

This is like having a 20% higher chance of dying in a car accident when you drive 6 miles compared to driving 5 miles.

The risk for red meat is less definitive, and we're still taking about a low risk.

I see many people in this thread are incredibly eager to cram this news story into their own "natural = good, artificial = bad" narrative about the world, a world where we apparently were gave up a cancer-free paradise of wholesome, healthy foods until modern civilization and evil corporations came along and messed things up.

As far as the probable small risk from non-processed red meat, there's nothing in the research that bears out that narrative in this case.

As for "processed meat", this includes meat that has been "cured, salted, smoked, or otherwise preserved". Well, are good olde-fashioned methods of curing, salting, or smoking meat (with all-natural woods!), things we've done for hundreds of years, "natural" or "artificial"?

There's absolutely nothing in the evidence here that (whatever other problems may stem from modern meat production) that those issues have any bearing on the particular issue of this low increase in cancer risk.

Let's also not forget, as a people who mostly live amid an abundance of food, who seldom starve even when impoverished, that the processing of meat has also saved lives by keeping people from getting sick from eating spoiled meat, or starving by losing meat to spoilage.

[ryan_cats]

45. It

It would be ever so helpful if people who are tut tutting us infidel meat eaters, would mention whether they are also vegetarians or vegans?

I know I'm deliberately destroying the planet, causing global warming and will probably cause our sun to go into a red giant phase destroying this planet but I would like to know if people's concerns are because they want to save the planet or whether it furthers their agenda of forcing everyone into a vegan lifestyle.

[yewberry]

52. Nobobdy's tut-tutting meat eaters.

Part of that poor, persecuted majority, are you?

I hardly think that Discovery News has some "agenda of forcing everyone into a vegan lifestyle."

[frogmarch]

47. Yes, our early human ancestors

ate it, but even when the lion whose kill they were scavenging didn't kill them too, they probably died before they were 30 from eating the meat.

[Nye Bevan]

50. Whether or not brontosaurus burgers were considered "red meat",

most cavemen were probably eaten by T Rexes well before any signs of cancer would appear.

[Mendocino]

53. So man

and dinosaurs coexisted?

I wonder if they serve Brontoburgers at the Creation Museum Cafe?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

54. Nah, Alley Oop woulda popped that T-Rex in the snout.

Proof? Look around. Lotsa people, zero dinosaurs. We won.

For now...

[Z_California]

56. What did man eat for a hundred thousand years?

Meat, fruits, vegetables, nuts

What have we just recently started eating?

Processed refined grains, sugar, artificial oils, food additives.

One can believe whatever "observational" study the press happens to be trumping up, but I guarantee I can find another "observational" study that shows opposite results. Because "observational" studies don't prove causation, just correlation in the group they happen to be studying. And most people, including reporters, just don't understand that.

Meat eaters in these studies tend to have more unhealthy habits (they eat more sugar, exercise less, smoke more, take the elevator instead of the stairs, watch TV instead of taking a walk, etc. etc.). So is it the meat that's causing SLIGHTLY more cancer? We won't know until there is a CONTROLLED study. You know....science.

https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2009/03/24/meat-and-mortality/

[KT2000]

57. the red meat our ancestors ate

did not have the fat soluble chemicals in their fat tissue such as pesticides, plastic chemicals etc. that animals (and us) have now. When studies are done on red meat they really need to analyze the red meat.
My neighbors raise organic grass fed cattle which when analyzed is much different that factory farm meat and fats. Their fat content is more like salmon.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. So extremely high in mercury? Sorry, had to point that out, heavy metal contamination is worldwide..

and persists in the food chain, it sucks, but that's what you get for burning billions of pounds of coal over a century and a half.

[KT2000]

61. Dioxin too nt

[hunter]

58. Most of the meat I ate as a kid was fish my dad caught off Los Angeles...

... back when the sewage wasn't wasn't much treated before they dumped it in the ocean, including a lot of toxic industrial waste.

I'm still alive, but perhaps I acquired some mutant superpowers.

Nurse Spex: The kids who get bit by radioactive insects or fall into a vat of toxic waste, their powers usually show up the next day. Or - they die.

Alas, I'm merely a sidekick still.

[hobbit709]

59. They ate red meat, white meat, and even green meat when they were hungry.

not many veggies in the frozen tundra of the ice ages.

[Quixote1818]

62. So there is a slightly higher risk of cancer? Driving a car raises your risk of death too. nt

[DirkGently]

68. I generally interpret these meat / salt / sugar / fat reports as follows:

1. Meat, salt, sugar, and fat are all useful nutritionally, but were hard to come by as our species evolved.

2. Now people in wealthy industrialized countries can have all they want, but retain some ancient "EAT MORE OF THIS" triggers.

3. We essentially do best eating more plant matter and less meat, salt, sugar, and fat than we might be naturally inclined to do.

4. Unless we are native people living in northern latitudes eating large proportions of seal and whale meat, which seems to work fine for those people.


I've been reading these headlines my entire life, and the bottom line has never really changed. Our ideal diet is high in plant matter, with meat as a high-value supplement. In this country at least, we get so much salt, fat, and sugar so easily that we need to actively avoid over-consuming them.

And as I recall, this report concluded first that processed meats are the worst. Again, nothing new here.

BREAKING: 24 /7 SAUSAGE DIET NOT YOUR BEST BET!

[NickB79]

69. Our ancestors didn't live long enough to develop colon cancer from their diet

Red meat is linked specifically to colon cancer. While it can occur in younger individuals, the average age a person develops such a cancer is in their later years, between 45-65 yr old. Even with modern lifespans into the 70's and beyond, the incidence rate with our current level of meat consumption is measured in single digits.

And while there were the occasional clan elders that may have made it to an advanced age, the vast majority of our ancestors were dying off before their diets would have caused any kind of cancers to develop. The incidence rate of colon cancer in ancient man would likely incredibly low.

[MisterP]

76. I'd add that a lot of the lifespan estimations are at birth, skewing the numbers

(thank you so bloody much, folate)

[Warpy]

78. Our ancestors mostly died of old age in their 40s

We didn't evolve to eat red meat. Fire made it possible, denaturing the protein so our teeth could handle it.

I have to laugh at the Paleo people. Real paleolithic people were much like South African bushmen, much of their protein coming from insects and grubs, especially termites. Otherwise, they ate anything that wouldn't poison them outright and some of the stuff that did, leaves, bark and grasses included, especially the seeds those grasses produced like--you know--wheat and oats.