Is dietary orientation and/or classification; e.g. vegetarian and omnivore, a nature or a choice?

[Nous]

I'm giving up on this whole thing, because from my perspective you're very blatantly denying the most basic of scientific understanding of human evolution and anatomy.

I haven't denied any scientific or anatomical fact. You haven't noted any such fact that I have denied here.

No one here has been able to name a biological adaptation that is characteristic of omnivorous mammals that humans have, and/or that distinguishes humans from our closest living hominid relatives whose diet consists of 0-10% animal matter, mostly insects.

Humans obviously do not “thrive” on a meat-based diet. The more animal flesh a human consumes as a percentage of his/her diet, the less healthy s/he is, ceteris paribus, the more likely s/he is to develop a variety of cancers and heart disease and have a higher rate of mortality.

Plant foods, not animal flesh, were our ancestors' fall-back foods, which are the foods for which animals generally develop biological adaptations. This fact is overtly illustrated in hominids' loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C, which humans have never recovered.

During the many years I have discussed and debated this topic (in other forums), I have often noted that it is highly unlikely that the biology (including biochemical synthesis) of animals corresponds with humans' mundane classifications of “herbivore,” “carnivore” and “omnivore”--in the same way and for similar reasons that animals do not abide by human classifications of “species”. After all, classifying animals according to the various -vore terms is just an extension of classifications of species. Obviously, if we cannot define the term “species” (which we can't), we cannot claim that one species is an omnivore but not a herbivore. Many fish and marine animals eat only other animals, yet it is quite unlikely that there is a set of biological adaptations related to diet that is common to octopi, cats and owls. What would be the diet-related biological traits shared by cows and hummingbirds? What could possibly be the biological traits that humans share with hedgehogs and which distinguish us from those hominids and primates whose diet consists of essentially 0% animal matter?

In the absence of biological definitions of the various -vores, the only coherent way to define those terms is by behavior. Doing so makes the claim that “humans are omnivores” false. Definitely not all humans are omnivorous.

 

[Pudding]

Vegetarian
A person who does not eat meat or fish, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons.

Dictionary definition for Omnivore
An animal or person that eats a variety of food of both plant and animal origin.

Wiki explanation for Omnivore
Omnivore is a consumption classification for animals that have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin. Often, omnivores also have the ability to incorporate food sources such as algae, fungi, and bacteria into their diet as well.

Hello guys.

As per the title, is it or is it not?

Nature
The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

According to the wiki explanation for omnivore, omnivore have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin.

I will say that omnivore and the capability mention above is nature, an inherent features of majority of human animals.

Although naturally majority of humans is omnivore, but there're also human who can survival with the diet of vegetarian.
Their action to become vegetarian is a choice, it is also nature, an inherent features of human animals.

Is calling a human a vegetarian semantically/logically correct? Does it or does is not make sense?

It is semantically and logically correct to call/label an individual human "vegetarian" if that individual human does not eat meat or fish, and sometimes other animal products.

Like, accordingly can a human be omnivore and another vegetarian?

Yes it can, as explain in the example below.

Human A is omnivore, s/he eats a variety of food of both plant and animal origin.

Human B is vegetarian, s/he does not eat meat, fish and other animal products.

Does feeding a bear, for example, plants only in isolation make it vegetarian?

Vegetarian is a label for human, not for non-human animal.

Wouldn't just saying "I don't eat meat" be the right thing to say instead of "I'm vegetarian"?

Doesn't eat meat is a definition for vegetarian.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Vegetarian
A person who does not eat meat or fish, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons.

Dictionary definition for Omnivore
An animal or person that eats a variety of food of both plant and animal origin.

Wiki explanation for Omnivore
Omnivore is a consumption classification for animals that have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin. Often, omnivores also have the ability to incorporate food sources such as algae, fungi, and bacteria into their diet as well.

Nature
The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

According to the wiki explanation for omnivore, omnivore have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin.

I will say that omnivore and the capability mention above is nature, an inherent features of majority of human animals.

Although naturally majority of humans is omnivore, but there're also human who can survival with the diet of vegetarian.
Their action to become vegetarian is a choice, it is also nature, an inherent features of human animals.


It is semantically and logically correct to call/label an individual human "vegetarian" if that individual human does not eat meat or fish, and sometimes other animal products.


Yes it can, as explain in the example below.

Human A is omnivore, s/he eats a variety of food of both plant and animal origin.

Human B is vegetarian, s/he does not eat meat, fish and other animal products.


Vegetarian is a label for human, not for non-human animal.


Doesn't eat meat is a definition for vegetarian.

Now that's a well educated response!

 

[metis]

Humans can obviously rely on being either a omnivore or a herbivore. From an anthropological perspective, many of us hypothesize that we went from being mostly herbivore to omnivores because of our ability to hunt, plus the fact that brain development is enhanced by eating food-stuffs with more protein in it. The brain relies on enormous amounts of energy and amino acids as compared to most other body parts.

However, today there's another issue, and that is the well-being of the planet we live on as massive corporate.livestock farming is very destructive to land, our waterways, and the issue of climate change. Methane gas has roughly 20 times more heat retention power per unit than does CO2. If anyone here has been in or near one of these farms, they well know what some of the problems are.

Einstein felt that excessive reliance on eating meat was a greater danger to our planet than any other single factor.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I suppose it does... but he is not likely to survive the experience. Bears IIRC are true carnivores and can't live on a vegetarian diet at all.

I know you posted this a while ago but I wanted to point out that bears are a varied group in diet. Although they are in the carnivoria family, most bears are true omnivores (black, brown, Kodiak, grizzley). The closest to true carnivore is polar bears, but they aren't obligate carnivores and can still live in an omnivorous diet, they just typically don't in the wild.
Pandas are, of course, mostly herbivorous with some insect supplement sometimes.

 

[JerryL]

Our closes't relative: Diet | Chimp Behaviour | About Chimpanzees | Chimpanzees | the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada

Our bodies are adapted to eat almost anything edible. Biologically: we are omnivores.

We can survive without meat. We can survive without vegetables. We can make the choice to exclude or select foods as we see fit.

 

[Nous]

Wiki explanation for Omnivore
Omnivore is a consumption classification for animals that have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin.

Yes, I noticed that definition of "omnivore" in the Wikipedia. It means that cats are not carnivores but omnivores, and that cows and deer are not herbivores but omnivores. Practically every mammal would be an omnivore according to that definition. It also implies that being an "omnivore" according to that definition is unrelated to the the type of diet that a species or genus normally consumes.

In other words, that definition makes the term "omnivore" a meaningless classification.

 

[Nous]

We can survive without vegetables.

But not very long.

 

[JerryL]

But not very long.

At most 125 years.

 

[Nous]

At most 125 years.

Then it is "at most" longer for vegans and vegetarians.

We combined data from 5 prospective studies to compare the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles. A summary of these results was reported previously; we report here more details of the findings. Data for 76172 men and women were available. Vegetarians were those who did not eat any meat or fish (n = 27808). Death rate ratios at ages 16–89 y were calculated by Poisson regression and all results were adjusted for age, sex, and smoking status. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates of effect for all studies combined. There were 8330 deaths after a mean of 10.6 y of follow-up. Mortality from ischemic heart disease was 24% lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (death rate ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.94; P < 0.01). The lower mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was greater at younger ages and was restricted to those who had followed their current diet for >5 y. Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans.​

Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies

I haven't heard anyone explain how it is that, if that humans were biologically adapted as meat-eaters, then why do human meat-eaters have a higher mortality rate than vegetarians?

 

[JerryL]

Then it is "at most" longer for vegans and vegetarians.

Nope. The cause of the limitation has naught to do with diet. About 125 is where the cells can no longer replicate because of telomeres.

Of course: *most* people die well before that age.

[snip: something that has nothing to do with max age (PS: even your average assertions is far from an established causation (Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?))]

​

I haven't heard anyone explain how it is that, if that humans were biologically adapted as meat-eaters, then why do human meat-eaters have a higher mortality rate than vegetarians?

Because one has nothing to do with the other. I'm not quite sure why you think that our status as omnivores means that there must be no diets with advantages to longevity.

Men are adapted for fighting as well; but it's not exactly a healthy activity.

 

[allfoak]

Hello guys.

As per the title, is it or is it not? Is calling a human a vegetarian semantically/logically correct? Does it or does is not make sense? Like, accordingly can a human be omnivore and another vegetarian? Does feeding a bear, for example, plants only in isolation make it vegetarian? Wouldn't just saying "I don't eat meat" be the right thing to say instead of "I'm vegetarian"?

Am I confusing terminologies here?

Please advise.

I think you understand correctly.
If we understood the purpose of food we would be aware of how we are affected by what we eat and eat appropriately.
A nutritionally dense, clean diet is what is best.
If it is necessary for someone to eat meat then they should eat organic. One should stay away from processed foods, white sugar and GMO's as much as possible. Drink good quality water. Lots of it!
The idea is to keep the inside as clean as the outside.

 

[Nous]

Then it is "at most" longer for vegans and vegetarians.

Nope. The cause of the limitation has naught to do with diet.

Prove it.

[snip: something that has nothing to do with max age (PS: even your average assertions is far from an established causation (Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?))]

Here is what these researchers concluded:

Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity.​

Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?

Meat-eating humans survive less long on their diet than vegetarian/vegans survive on their diet. That is due to the fact that humans are not biologically adapted to a diet of eating other animals.

I haven't heard anyone explain how it is that, if that humans were biologically adapted as meat-eaters, then why do human meat-eaters have a higher mortality rate than vegetarians?

Because one has nothing to do with the other.

Prove it.

Your claim of no relationship between longevity and diet obviously isn't what the authors of the study you linked to concluded. Just the contrary.

I'm not quite sure why you think that our status as omnivores . . .

Nothing I've said has even vaguely implied that humans have a "status as omniovres". I've repeatedly noted the meaninglessness of that term.

. . . means that there must be no diets with advantages to longevity.

Nothing I have said has even vaguely implied that "there must be no diets with advantages to longevity". I have stated just the opposite, and, just as you have done, I have linked to the published studies that demonstrate the "longevity advantage" of a plant diet for humans.

 

[JerryL]

Prove it.

Evidence for a limit to human lifespan : Nature

Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity.​

Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?

It is possible.

Meat-eating humans survive less long on their diet than vegetarian/vegans survive on their diet. That is due to the fact that humans are not biologically adapted to a diet of eating other animals.

Your second sentence is unsupported. Indeed: it's non-sensical.

Prove it.

Prove hot air baloons have nothing to do with the color of dog poop.

You can't prove a negative.

Your claim of no relationship between longevity and diet obviously isn't what the authors of the study you linked to concluded. Just the contrary.

Your claim of my claim of longevity is not what I claimed.

Have you failed to comprehend what I have said: Or are you hacking a straw-man on purpose.

Nothing I've said has even vaguely implied that humans have a "status as omniovres". I've repeatedly noted the meaninglessness of that term.

And yet your notations do not make something true.

Nothing I have said has even vaguely implied that "there must be no diets with advantages to longevity". I have stated just the opposite, and, just as you have done, I have linked to the published studies that demonstrate the "longevity advantage" of a plant diet for humans.

Which has no bearing on the original question you asked: whether we had adapted to eat meat. We have, as proven by our ability to consume and metastasize meat.

You could contrast this with say, sunlight; which we have not adapted to eat (notice: we gain no calories from sunlight).

You could also contrast this with plastic; which we may be able to consume, but from which we gain no sustenance.

 

[allfoak]

[SPOILER="Why do vegans and vegetarians die at the same rate as meat eaters?" 11:50min.]

[/SPOILER]

 

[Twilight Hue]

Tooo many flaws in logic; first that is suggesting we evolved, we'd need to prove that first....

Next if we did evolve, why haven't we gotten faster, sharper teeth, claws, anything to have the ability to now catch, and eat these animals raw, like we've evolved to?....

Or even cooked like we've evolved to?.... Yet instead what is modern nutrition realizing?

We're not physically capable of digesting meat properly, it causes numerous illnesses, and has the same risk of causing cancer, as smoking does.

So we've evolved to do something, that biologically doesn't work with us in the slightest, that sounds a good basis for using science in the argument.

We don't really need those evoultionary adaptations as our developed brains enabled the procurement and consumption of meats and vegetables as we see today.

 

[Nous]

Evidence for a limit to human lifespan : Nature

That letter doesn't cite any study that tested any hypothesis about diet and longevity or mortality rate.

It is possible.

The conclusion of the study you linked to-- that "Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity"--directly contradicts your claim that mortality rate has nothing to do with diet. If it were true that mortality rate has nothing to do with diet, then there would not exist the possibility that "a lifestyle patter that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity".

Your second sentence is unsupported.

My claim that "humans are not biologically adapted to a diet of eating other animals" is supported by the information on this thread, where no one has been able to name a single biological adaptation that distinguishes humans from herbivorous mammals.

Prove hot air baloons have nothing to do with the color of dog poop.

I will when I make that claim.

Obviously you are unable to substantiate your claim that mortality rate has nothing to do with diet. The only study you have presented directly refutes your claim.

You can't prove a negative.

Anyone who can use logic can easily deduce a negative proposition. The rule of inference known as modus tollens, for instance, does just that. If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.

Your claim of my claim of longevity is not what I claimed.

Then state your claim and demonstrate that it is deduced from the evidence.

And yet your notations do not make something true.

The definition of "omnivore" given in the Wikipedia is meaningless in that it fails to distinguish carnivores from omnivores and herbivore from omnivores. The definition implies that felines are omnivores and cows and deer are omnivores.

Which has no bearing on the original question you asked: whether we had adapted to eat meat. We have, as proven by our ability to consume and metastasize meat.

Wow.

Metastasize:

1. Pathology. (of malignant cells or disease-producing organisms) to spread to other parts of the body by way of the blood or lymphatic vessels or membranous surfaces.

2. to spread injuriously:

Street gangs have metastasized in our city.

3. to transform, especially into a dangerous form:

The KGB metastasized after the fall of the Soviet Union. Truth metastasized into lurid fantasy.​

the definition of metastasize

Obviously if humans "metastasize meat" that they have consumed, then humans are not biologically adapted to a diet of meat-eating.

You could contrast this with say, sunlight; which we have not adapted to eat (notice: we gain no calories from sunlight).

You could also contrast this with plastic; which we may be able to consume, but from which we gain no sustenance.

Which animal do you claim does obtain calories from sunlight or plastic?

It seems you might not be catching on very fast to this fact: the ability to extract calories and nutrients from animal flesh does not distinguish herbivores from omnivores, just as the ability to extract calories from plant foods does not distinguish carnivores from omnivores.

 

[Nous]

Spoiler: Why do vegans and vegetarians die at the same rate as meat eaters?" 11:50min.][MEDIA=youtube]tP_LIY8cjf4[/MEDIA][/SPOILER][/QUOTE]The fact that vegans were not separated from animal-product-consuming vegetarians was not the only problem with that study. The authors note some of the limitations of their methodology, besides the fact that it is one study whose findings are contradicted by dozens: [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4691673/

Mortality in vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians in the United Kingdom[/URL]

 

[JerryL]

That letter doesn't cite any study that tested any hypothesis about diet and longevity or mortality rate.

Correct. There's also no study on the effect of smoking in fish; because neither of those is the question being addressed.

If it were true that mortality rate has nothing to do with diet, then there would not exist the possibility that "a lifestyle patter that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity".

I don't know whether to point out that you've completely changed the use of "possability" here; or that no one has argued that mortality has nothing to do with diet.

So I guess I appreciate your (loigically invalid) statement; but as it's not related to the conversation: it's uninteresting.

My claim that "humans are not biologically adapted to a diet of eating other animals" is supported by the information on this thread, where no one has been able to name a single biological adaptation that distinguishes humans from herbivorous mammals.

Canines come to mind.

I will when I make that claim.

Obviously you are unable to substantiate your claim that mortality rate has nothing to do with diet.

I will when I make that claim.

The irony of your post is thick.

Anyone who can use logic can easily deduce a negative proposition. The rule of inference known as modus tollens, for instance, does just that. If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.

The Burden of Proof

Then state your claim and demonstrate that it is deduced from the evidence.

Humans are adapted to digest meat.

The evidence is that humans are observed digesting meat and gaining sustenance from doing so.

I mean: There's a lot more about teeth shape and behavior of relative and nominal macrofauna, etc... but mostly it boils down to "I assert that we can because we have been observed to successfully".

The definition of "omnivore" given in the Wikipedia is meaningless in that it fails to distinguish carnivores from omnivores and herbivore from omnivores. The definition implies that felines are omnivores and cows and deer are omnivores.

I'm using English. If you were using your own special definitions of words, perhaps you should try a forum that's in your language.

Metastasize:

Try "metabolize".

Which animal do you claim does obtain calories from sunlight or plastic?

None

It seems you might not be catching on very fast to this fact: the ability to extract calories and nutrients from animal flesh does not distinguish herbivores from omnivores, just as the ability to extract calories from plant foods does not distinguish carnivores from omnivores.

No. It distinguishes things *adapted* to be carnivores, omnivores, etc.

In particular: when we see traits tailored to one or another (canines for meat); we can see adaptation.

What establishes what something *is* is its behavior. Vegans are herbivores.
(though I believe the norm is to allow for some deviation... cats eat grass occasionally, but not for the purpose of a significant caloric intake; so are considered carnivorous. Similarly: we see a lack of adaptation (grinding teeth, for example) to a herbivorous diet)

 

[allfoak]

@Nous

Your link doesn't work.