Will humans ever evolve to become omnivores or even carnivores?

will humans ever evolve to become omnivores or even carnivores?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PcnH_TOqi3I
youtube.com/watch?v=KTPkmH4hWCs
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
authoritynutrition.com/saturated-fat-good-or-bad/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

already have, next

but we lack physical characteristics to eat meat, not to mention it kills us. This is all according to biologists and anthorpologists. Am i just mistaken?

Tbh slightly. Meat consumption nowadays is 100% a problem and is terrible for our health. Eating meat absolutely every day is not good for humans but no meat is just as bad. If you deny this then you're denying the fact we've been hunting and preparing meat for hundreds of thousands of years. In saying this, eating it everyday is not good for reasons you probably know (the whole vegan arguments etc, i know them too).

Think of it this way if you're of European descent. How did your ancestors survive the harsh winters for hundreds of thousands of years? They hunted and ate meat. They only managed this though once they killed the animal, not running over to the grocery store and buying chicken wings which are probably full of all kinds of shit too. Vegan and non-meat diet can only be maintained thanks to transport. If there is a global catastrophe, you bet we're going to eat meat when we can because who's going to import your bananas?
It's not meat that's the problem it's not eating locally. If you're really worried about your health and eating meat etc, set up your own farm.

isnt that just a fallacy though? saying eating no meat is just as bad for you, why is it? There only thing missing in a vegan diet it vitamin b12 but is it worth killing yourself over? This isnt meant to be a pro vegan post of anything btw

as for how humans survived the harsh winters and i know eating meat is what made humans evolve so "fast" for lack of a better way to put it but thats only because of how calorie dense it is. If we ate the same amount of calories in vegetables we would have evolved just as fast but obviously that wouldn't be possible in them times.

I cant seem to find 1 adaptation humans have made to be able to eat and digest meat properly.

im talking about our brain development when i say how humans evolved btw

Good post

>it kills us
Inuit and other northern peoples were eating almost nothing but meat and fish without much problem.

fish isnt so bad so it still contains saturated fat which undeniably clogs our arteries and kills us. Im not saying we cant survive on meat but have we made evolutionary adaptations to be able digest meat? im yet to see one. Im sure if you feed a hippo meat once in a while it could live a normal life, it might die sometimes like humans but it doesnt change the fact that its a herbivore

It doesn't go against what you say, but I doubt they get really old

Very low quality b8.

how? this is meant to be Veeky Forumsm give me an evolutionary adaptation humans have made to eat and digest meat. We have have the characteristics of a herbivore. All the evidence seems to be pointing in one direction

I dont know everything but if you have some evidence that suggest we are omnivores or carnivores id be more than happy to hear and learn about it

Q: Aren't humans supposed to be purely herbivorous/frugivorous despite our modern omnivorous habits? Aren't we jungle apes albeit highly intelligent and largely furless jungle apes? Most jungle apes eat no meat or very little.
A: No, we really are natural omnivores. Contrary to popular belief, we humans did not evolve in jungles. We actually evolved on open grasslands where fruit-bearing trees are nowhere near as plentiful as in the jungle, where most of our surviving close relatives evolved. Evolving in such a place, we would have always (for as long as we've been humans rather than Australopithecines and other even earlier fossilized genera) had to supplement our diet with meat in addition to plant material. We evolved also eating plant-derived foods to be sure; the Savannah (grassland) has some trees with edible fruit although comparatively few and far between, and grain-bearing grasses are far more plentiful there than any tree. (Some evidence suggests that the first bread and beer were made from these tropical grains long before recorded history.) Even so, the grassland being much less fruit-rich than the jungle caused us to evolve as true metabolic omnivores, not pure herbivores/frugivores.

Cordain, Loren (2007). "Implications of Plio-pleistocene diets for modern humans". In Peter S. Ungar. Evolution of the human diet: the known, the unknown and the unknowable. pp. 264–65. ""Since the evolutionary split between hominins and pongids approximately 7 million years ago, the available evidence shows that all species of hominins ate an omnivorous diet composed of minimally processed, wild-plant, and animal foods."

Haenel H (1989). "Phylogenesis and nutrition". Nahrung. 33 (9): 867–87. PMID 2697806.

NOW PLEASE GO AWAY YOU FUCKING LUDDITES

>We have have the characteristics of a herbivore.
>I dont know everything but if you have some evidence that suggest we are omnivores or carnivores id be more than happy to hear and learn about it
Stop pushing your vegan agenda. Compare the molars of herbivores to those of humans and you'll understand why we aren't part of that group. Fuck your politics.

Fish is very different from mammalian meat.

People are failing to make a distinction between fresh, high quality meat our ancestors would have consumed, and the modern lipopolysaccharide, hormone, pesticide, herbicide, antibiotic laden garbage "meat" people eat modern day. It is not the same. You are not a big masculine hunter gatherer going to the store to buy packaged meat from an animal processed in unsanitary conditions, that's spent most of its life half dead eating subsidized corn and soybean its digestive system isn't capable of handling.

Neu5gc still would have slowly killed us, but we didn't eat much. The problems posed by gram negative bacteria and meat preservation aren't going away. Even treated with carvacrol and thymol, though I don't want them getting any ideas.

Reminder

im not even vegan, the agenda im pushing is science only

I would definitly agree we evolved eating meat but im my head it makes sense that natural herbivores can eat meat to survive. Surly the basis on whether and animal is herbivore or omnivore or carnivore would be our anatomy and biology.

It just doesnt make sense how we are suppose to be natural omnivores when meat is bad for us. If you look at a natural carnivore like a lion, the way it can digest meat in comparison to use it just apples to oranges, it thrives nutrionally eating meat whereas for humans it does the oppersite

Again theres nothing stopping herbivores from eating meat, but does the fact that we eat meat make us omnivores? If a lion was hungry and decided to eat some berrys, would that make it an omnivore? i dont think so

>im not even vegan, the agenda im pushing is science only
Well then use proper scientific facts. Humans are not herbivores. This picture is what herbivore teeth look like.

Don't forget that the domestication of fire predates modern man, dating at least as far as Homo erectus. Humans have evolved with fire, and one might ask why we would need fire in African climates. The most likely explanation is to cook meat so as to breakdown its proteins and digest it quicker.

youtube.com/watch?v=PcnH_TOqi3I
youtube.com/watch?v=KTPkmH4hWCs

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.

Bradford, Alina (January 25, 2016). "Reference: Omnivores: Facts About Flexible Eaters". Livescience.

"Omnivore". National Geographic Education. National Geographic Society.

McArdle, John. "Humans are Omnivores". Vegetarian Resource Group.

>the agenda im pushing is science only
>im my head it makes sense
no you're a retard

In my head x makes sense, that doesnt make an argument wrong

Im open minded and ill happily look at the refrences you posts, thanks. Science is about looking at the evidence at not just calling someone a retard when they have an objection.

The evidence shows meat is bad for you so its reasonable to assume we arnt biologically meant to eat it. If im a retard for coming to that conclusion then ill happily be a retard.

Ill look at the refrences and if the evidence shows we are actually omnivores ill happily agree and change my mindset

>humans aren't omnivorous
when was this ever in question? The fact we even can digest and chew meet should give you some clues.

well humans can digest alot of things we arnt meant to be eating. In terms of meat, carnivores have short intestines that allow meat to go through and digest quickly whereas plant eaters have much longer intestines just us humans

As well as the fact that many primates eat meat, often the flesh of smaller primates.

Thats true, our closest relative the chimpazee is classified as an omnivore despite having a diet which is almost entirely plants. But our 2nd closest relative the gorrila is a herbivore. The orangutan, another very close relative is also completely herbiore.

I dont know if its wise to take these conflicting results into account

We're not carnivores. We're omnivores. there's no example of a primate close enough to a human that is a herbivore to compare intestine size. What defines as a long or short intestine for a primate?

A chimpanzee is classified as an omnivore because it doesn't have a diet of entirety plants.
i really don't know where you're getting your information from.

thats what i said, chimpanzees are classified as omnivores

Well taking close primates such are gorrilas, oranutans, chimpanzees, siamangs and gibbons. They all have relatively close intestine volume despite being a mix of herbivores and omnivores except a humans which is roughly double the volume percentage.

So humans definitly do have a very long intenstine compared to other primapes but im not sure if this holds much value as gorillas have the smallest intenstine volume % out of all the primapes i listed despite being herbivores.

Although we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh – which contains cholesterol and saturated fat – was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.

- Dr William C. Roberts. Master of the american college of cardiology, a leading cardiovascular pathologist, current editor of the american journal of cardiology and the Baylor university medical center proceedings

Many plants contain types of saturated fat, which is actually quite good for you.

Ive heard of Dr William C roberts, ill look into his work more

really? can you give an example of a plant that contains saturated fat so i could research it abit more please?

>was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.
Got a link to a paper or study?

Only thing I can find is that the guy is a cardiovascular pathologist, nothing at all about any anthropology.

Searching for the exact text you pasted just pops some zealot vegan forum shithole.

Humans have hunted and eaten meat since they evolved, so how can they be "natural" herbivores? This is just nonsense.

Theobroma cacao fruit and seeds.
Coconut.
...Most seeds in general.

There's a big one that's on the tip of my mind that I just cannot recall. Is not a legume, fruit, or seed.

Don't forget human milk! I guess breastfeeding is "unnatural" too.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

HAHAH what the fuck is this

>Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.

thats intresting, So i guess if you put together the perfect diet with nothing thats detrimental to your health including coconuts in this case even though there seems to be alot of controversy if the saturated fat in that is good or bad, the diet would seem to be one of only plants

>Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?
>Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.

Notice how he's not answering the actual question. The question is are humans herbivores, carnivores, OR OMNIVORES, yet he answers as if humans can only be carnivorous or herbivorous. Of course humans do not have many features which carnivores have, because they AREN'T carnivores. They're omnivores. All omnivores have features of both herbivores and carnivores. This whole line of argument is incredibly misleading. This guy should know better.

I don't follow. I never invoked the natural / unnatural dichotomy.

The quote being discussed did:

>When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh – which contains cholesterol and saturated fat – was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.

The point being, just because something in some amount is bad for you doesn't make it "unnatural." Humans if anything are natural omnivores.

Wouldnt it be in all amount though? kind of seems like smoking. A couple cigerettes here and then wont kill you just like meat here and there wont kill you. Both undeniably bad for you.

So by your logic is inhaling smoke like that from a cigerette natural?

It's idiotic, but not for getting the wrong answer. The whole way the question is phrased is meaningless.

Humans are omnivores because we eat almost everything and survive just fine. Period. These are the facts. It doesn't matter what shape our teeth or guts are, and there is no place a "should" can enter.

Nature has no classifications, either. "Herbivore", "carnivore" etc. are man-made terms, not absolute natural categories. Many animals blur the lines anyway.

>Both undeniably bad for you.
>Both
>undeniably
Why are you even here if your statements are undeniable?

I really like the last bit about how classifications are man made and many blur the lines. But when you said we survive just fine, do we though? I mean heart disease is the leading killing in the us which is caused by clogged arteries which that is caused by saturated fat and high cholesterol. Meat is by far the number 1 contributer towards that

well are you saying either smoking or eating meat isnt bad for you? its pretty hard to deny they are given the evidence

>Wouldnt it be in all amount though?
Yes, that's what I just said. Practically anything is bad for you if you have too much of it.

>So by your logic is inhaling smoke like that from a cigerette natural?
What? Just... what? Me saying that X does not necessarily imply not Y does not mean that I am arguing X implies Y. Maybe veganism makes your brain unable to think logically.

Meat is not the contributor, eating too much meat is.

The natural and unnatural, natural and artificial, etc dichotomies must be used carefully and in a greater framework where they clearly map to something that means something.

I find it funny, however, that there are people that think there is such a thing as a "naturalness fallacy". It's not a fallacy, it's a heuristic, and much of the time it's demonstrably accurate. It is also humorous that people who complain "just cuz it's natural, doesn't mean it's good" the most, will be the first to use the same line of thought to defend something like water fluoridation. "It's naturally present in water".... just like cadmium, arsenic, uranium, lethal bacteriums, barium, bromine compounds[...].

The important part is intellectual honesty, courage, and self awareness. There are too many people kicking around with disjointed hackjob pick and choose logic that's solely biased around their emotional needs. Natural vs unnatural is a framing tool. It should be discarded when it is in the way, and it should not be how a person natively thinks.

Drinking water is bad for you. This is also undeniable given the evidence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

I don't think anyone argues that fluoridated water is safe because it's naturally occurring, they argue that people who argue water fluoridation is bad are ignoring natural fluoride. It seems like you are just ignoring context and making bad strawmen.

I'm not vegan lol, I compared meat to cigarettes because they are not just bad If you have over a certain quota. Bad in any amount

Meat is not bad in any amount though. Whether or not you are vegan, you are spouting Vegan ideological nonsense.

What is this "meat is bad for you" evidence that you have?

Please post some.

>I don't think anyone argues that fluoridated water is safe because it's naturally occurring
When they start getting desperate user, they do. Unfortunately, they really do.

>It seems like you are just ignoring context
That's exactly correct. I'm more focused on the connections that form in the bigger picture, and don't care if I only tangentially relate to the low level details of this particular topic. Your options are either to get on my wavelength, or stop responding, because I just don't care.

Google:
-neu5g
-lipopolysaccharide
-slaughterhouse conditions
-soybean and corn feed with ruminant digestive systems
-Livestock hormone and antibiotic use

Then research what chronic stress and zero exercise does to an organism, and infer how that relates to meat quality.

Ok but meat contains saturated fat and cholesterol. When I say any amount I don't mean a steak every 3 months and no other meat is bad because that would barely got noticed. but even in very small amounts you would consume that saturated fat and cholesterol which you simply do not want in your body, it's not good for you. I don't mind being wrong and if I am id happily hold my hands up but it just seems like common sense why you wouldn't want that in your body in any quantity

>Yeah I'm dishonest, but I just don't care.
Wow, edgy. You sure showed me with that disaffected attitude.

neu5gc*

I know. Feel dissociated and fluid, yet still solid. I don't feel, and it feels great.

Feels good to be free of the idea that the approach you take in a conversation matters at all, and to put all of the responsibility for how information is used completely on the receiving party.

Your needs and feels are irrelevant to me. What you use me for falls entirely to you.

I'd like a peek into your mind if you got the time, please answer these questions for me:

In your ideal world, how would humanity feed itself and how do animals fit into this world?

Which animals do you tolerate suffering?

Do you dislike industrially farming animals for meat?

How about for their products like milk?

What about insects, do you dislike bee keeping?

Do you consider plants to be alive?

authoritynutrition.com/saturated-fat-good-or-bad/

Please for the love of god read this article and stop spouting bullshit from a decade ago.

>Ok but meat contains saturated fat and cholesterol.
Yes, and?

>When I say any amount I don't mean a steak every 3 months
Neither do I. Why do you have to resort to exaggeration and arguing in bad faith?

> but even in very small amounts you would consume that saturated fat and cholesterol which you simply do not want in your body, it's not good for you.
I don't think it's bad for me in the amount I eat. I have a healthy body and I eat meat almost every day.

>saturated fat and cholesterol
There is nothing wrong with any of those. Dietary cholesterol hardly gets absorbed at all in healthy people, and saturated fat is essential to hormone production and otherwise quite harmless as well.

It seems like you feel the need to write a lot of garbage in order to deflect criticism. I'm not buying it.

Well it's hard to say in my ideal world because I think meat tastes good, it's calorie dense and has a lot of protein, I'm an amateur bodybuilder so I tend to eat a lot of meat. But a perfect world humanity could eaisily feed itself on crops. Animals fit in this world to live along side us, we are all animals after all, my own species takes priority but I don't see a need to cause suffering and death to other animals even though I do because personally I'm selfish

Well I tollerate suffering of animals that I eat but I know it's not right. In an ideal world no animal would needlessly suffer, I don't count predators and prey because that's the circle of life, it has to happen

Of course I dislike industrial farming for meat, it's cruel beyond belif, but I know I'm contributing towards it by buying their products. I eat 8 egg whites everyday from caged chickens so I contribute a lot more than the average joe

I can't see milk being good for you, it's meant to feed a baby cow and not humans. I only drink soy milk but that's because my skin seems to react bad to dairy. Milk is farmed by forcfull impregnating a female cow which is of course not pleasant

I don't mind bee keeping, honey is just bee vomit and I would never eat it but they seem to be living a nice life and it doesn't seem cruel. In terms of insects I killed a spider about 2 hours ago. They don't have the minds to feel suffering like humans do, I'm against pulling a spiders legs off but if it's squished then I don't care, it won't know it's dead just like if I instantly died right now

Yes of course plants are living, they don't have a nervous system of cognitive thinking so I wouldn't be opposed to causing plants suffering if that's even a thing

I'm not sure if you mistakenly took me for a vegan or anything, I'm just trying to get to the truth but to me the truth happens to be vegan

What criticism. If it connected to anything, abstract or otherwise, I would have addressed it.

Here are some of my posts, have at the criticism or whatever you think you want.

It's very simple to move backwards through the chain of replies.

I might have fucked on the plant nervous system, what I was trying to get across is they can't feel pain or have conscious/ cognitive thinking

>Neu5g

That actually make sense, I'll give you that one. Sure red meat is dangerous

>lipopolysaccharide

Okay, you know half of the story. The main issue with that one is gluten, a plant protein not animal. You can fix your gut biome to reduce that in your system and it shouldn't even leak into your blood stream if you don't have LGS which is caused by a lot of shit, but not meat. It exacerbates problems, doesn't create them.

>Slaughterhouse conditions

I'll give you that one sure.

>Soybean and corn feed

I'll have to look further into this one.

>Antibiotics and hormones

This is a major problem.

>Stress and zero exercise

I'll have to research this more as well. I've begun eating healthier after doing a lot of google and running into actual conclusive data so I might cut out red meat entirely but I avoid it for the most part now.

we are omnivores you dumbcunt

This is by far the most reasonable and well thought out argument by an intelligent individual

So you want to discuss fluoride or my disposition in general? As it stands this criticism doesn't really make sense, that there exists a binary divide between people who are aware fluoride compounds are naturally occurring, and people who don't, is both implicit and obvious. It's part of what the commentary is founded on; people not actually caring about truth and therefore being disjointed when it serves their hedonism. That's all trying to shift the conversation in that direction is. It's irrelevant to the action of fluoride.

No, I don't want to discuss you at all. You felt the need to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory

You're underestimating plants.

>and it shouldn't even leak into your blood stream if you don't have LGS
Gram negative bacteria generate LPS, and are abundant on skin and in feces, so meat is readily contaminated. Their metabolic activity is poorly suppressed by refrigeration, and many are resistant to sodium nitrate. So meat doesn't just generate histamine and tyramine as it ages, but LPS as well. The older the meat, and the poorer that processing quality, the faster this occurs. Signs of spoilage sometimes correlate, sometimes not.

It damages the intestinal wall, but will also move across it to a degree even in people with normal intestinal integrity. It isn't removed by first pass processing in the liver either, and blood plasma LPS is elevated after consumption. Least, to my recollection which could be wrong here though. I'll try to find some actual in vivo data on this.

And I still do.

Everyone does. The concentrated compounds in most essential oils blow many modern antibiotics out of the water, with a fraction of the side effects.

>The concentrated compounds in most essential oils blow many modern antibiotics out of the water, with a fraction of the side effects.
I meant in regards to survival response.

Plants are generally made of the same basic machinery the human nervous system uses. They're more clever and dynamic than they get credit for, and contrary to what some people have tried to tell me, many certainly do not desire to be eaten.

I'm still willing to bet that it isn't the meat that is causing LPS from the gram negs to get into the blood stream but the gluten and other inflammatory chemicals that people consume like high fructose corn syrup. Also there are still a healthy levels of those bacteria as well so you shouldn't worry about them existing on foods. Certain strains of E.Coli can produce vitamin K. It's all about balance and the typical western diet is anything but that.

Causing an imbalance in any type of bacteria in your body is the true issue, not the fact the fact that they are present... for the most part.

I wonder if the local vegan hippies realize the selective morality they employ.

"It's ok as long as the entities are alien enough compared to us"

Correction, worry too much about TRACE amounts on foods.

If it's over the safe limits and they cause digestive issues because of a bad e.coli strain then yeah that's no good. But if it's within the limits of your body's immune system then you should ideally be fine. I could be wrong though, I have lots of reading to do. Could you link me your sources?

>Causing an imbalance in any type of bacteria in your body is the true issue, not the fact the fact that they are present... for the most part.
I agree. The best example is the western delusion of "hygiene", ie, multiple hot showers a day using harsh soaps that kill off beneficial organisms on the skin and create an acidic environment where the shit you don't want on ya, will thrive. How clean are you then? Most people's skin and hair ecology is poor at best.

Then you have the prevalence of yeast infections in women, and balanitis in men. The former being caused by douching, use of non-pH balanced soaps (no soap should be used), and use of glycerin and spermicide containing lubricants. Coupled with poor diet, no wonder there's a smell that people believe they need more than warm water for. The latter being caused by much the same. Gets tiresome.

Given that I have SIBO and leaky gut, I know the misery mechanical failure of the intestinal MMC and overgrown bacteria, whether balanced or not, can cause. The nature of a given state of "balance" still has to be weighed relative to the overall system. My gut flora definitely has definitely shaken out into a balance amongst themselves, but they're still killing me.

Yeah I don't know how it all relates and pans out in a given case, or for a given demographic. Elevated levels of gram negative bacteria might well be trivial in physiologic conditions, but I'm inclined to think not. It's likely another source of net poison better removed before it as an opportunity to contribute to the genesis of whatever problem.

I'm not getting cut a check but you should read Brain Maker. It talks all about different mental issues which people also incidentally suffer from gastrointestinal issues as well. Which the author comes to the conclusion along with other doctors that that is probably the start. There's anecdotal evidence in there that autism, ADHD, MS, and other degenerative diseases along with diabetes can be remedied with prebiotics, probiotics, and a change of diet. If those seem to help a bit, the author recommends just going gung ho and getting a probiotic enema or FMT and most of the time people are nearly 100% better after treatments. It could possibly help you too.

Retrospectively it's been a lifelong issue. I've tried a number of things, which started with simple naive food avoidance and iteration to a point where my diet was pretty well engineered. Of course this didn't solve any of the core problems, eventually they returned in full, and thensome. I tried oregano, sweet orange peel, and cinnamon bark essential oil. Briefly helped to a degree, but I suspect they didn't make it far enough into the small intestine. Tried avoiding FODMAPs, GAPS diet, etc. Hard to tell signal from noise there, ceasing to avoid fodmaps actually improved things and many low fodmap foods still caused issues anyway. Probiotics made me very sick, always. I would enter an altered state of consciousness and become disoriented, altered time and spatial perception, etc. Probably either a potent immune response, bacterial translocation, or widespread death of existing bacterial colonies was happening. Don't know, lower doses did the same.

As a child I pretty much had the symptoms of MS, though there was no sign of lesioning after an MRI. Also had bipolar. and arguably schizoaffective symptoms. Luckily my parents are clever and didn't attempt to render me a medicated husk. It is quite clear to me tat many problems, in many cases, probably have their basis in the gut. In my own case my resting heart rate is a constant 110 - 130 bpm now, regardless of if I eat (in contrast to previous experiences). Feels like, as in most other parts of my life, I was just a bit too slow to piece it together and time is up, yet again. Among other things, I'm not quite as durable as I used to be, and don't figure a person could last more than a year or two, assuming a gradual worsening.

I'll read the book you suggested. Maybe in it is the means to make the necessary connections.

How long ago did you try probiotics? You could have been taken the wrong things at the time, within the past like 5 years they've figured out a lot of stuff especially within these 2 years. I have high hopes that your cure, if not consistent relief is in this book.

>lack the physical characteristics
>have canines to slice meat
>less molars than herbivores
>our intestines are medium sized and our stomaches are very different from most herbivores

We are omnivores you fucking treehugger, and all the signs are there.
>b-but muh longevity
natural != optimal, faggot. I wish all of you Reddit hipsters learned the difference.

This is not a good way to think about nutrition but it seems really common. There aren't really foods that are "bad" for you and foods that are "good" for you in the sense that every time you swallow them they either harm you or make you healthier. Food is just a bunch of chemicals which are broken down into various micro and macronutrients and your health is going to relate to the balance of those things you get in your diet overall.

Yes, people these days generally have unhealthy diets and some of that can be put down to eating too much meat, but that doesn't make meat inherently bad for you. It just means that people's diets are out of balance and they're eating more of the constituents that meat is made up of than their bodies are adapted for. The overall balance of what you eat over a long period of time is far more important than the actual foods you eat.

I hate this bait, mostly because nutritional science is a farce of ideologically convenient half-truths, but also because the insidious nature of the current field of research endorses and even encourages the immediate presumption that correlation is causation if it can be worded to support the hypothesis.

Questioning whether meat or saturated fats are really dangerous always leads to the same shitty datasets, and pointing out these poor practices just makes people like you dig in.

...