I do know 'the first thing' about biology, but the things you name, Kreb's cycle and all that, aren't what matter in this discussion, you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Yeah, humans and deer share bio-chemical pathways, but we're still not build the same. Humans are not build to live on a herbivore diet, we never were herbivores, that's a simple fact.thethingthatlurks said:You obviously don't know the first thing about chemistry or biology, so let me try this again: obtaining nutrients is never a problem, obtaining the means of getting them into the bio-available state is. I may not find lemons and spinach growing together, but there are always other options. See, evolution has this nice side-effect: all animals will have similar metabolisms (especially the Kreb's cycle, and glycolysis), ergo I'd be able to find enough nutrients anywhere on earth. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
And humans don't selectively grow for nutrients (usually), but for flavor and appearance. This generally doesn't diminish their nutrient content, although it may artificially inflate calories due to added sweetness.
Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?
As good as I could with plants, it's the same story there. Good luck picking the right berries, as they're pretty much all brightly coloured.Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?
Well now I have to ask what that meant:SsilverR said:read carefully before answering
I hope it doesn't meant that your local grocery shop provides you with fresh supply of vegetables every day -.-SsilverR said:society that gives me the option to live whatever lifestyle i want
Uhm, same metabolic cycles imply similar nutrient needs, the closer related to another species we are, the more overlap there is. Not only are humans perfectly able to live a herbivore diet, our entire digestive system is better suited for that than for an carnivore diet. Now that's a simple fact. You're right though, humans were never 100% herbivore, which is why we have the rather limited ability to digest meat (limited when compared to true carnivores).Cowabungaa said:I do know 'the first thing' about biology, but the things you name, Kreb's cycle and all that, aren't what matter in this discussion, you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Yeah, humans and deer share bio-chemical pathways, but we're still not build the same. Humans are not build to live on a herbivore diet, we never were herbivores, that's a simple fact.thethingthatlurks said:You obviously don't know the first thing about chemistry or biology, so let me try this again: obtaining nutrients is never a problem, obtaining the means of getting them into the bio-available state is. I may not find lemons and spinach growing together, but there are always other options. See, evolution has this nice side-effect: all animals will have similar metabolisms (especially the Kreb's cycle, and glycolysis), ergo I'd be able to find enough nutrients anywhere on earth. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
And humans don't selectively grow for nutrients (usually), but for flavor and appearance. This generally doesn't diminish their nutrient content, although it may artificially inflate calories due to added sweetness.
Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?
You say you can do something Homo Sapiens has never done, not even when their bodies were a lot more attuned to eating things we couldn't bare to digest, when they actually lived on a natural, gathering diet. You say you can do something your body simply isn't made for. It makes no sense whatsoever.
As good as I could with plants, it's the same story there. Good luck picking the right berries, as they're pretty much all brightly coloured.
ok i'm sure buddy knows that a human is not a carnivore it's an obviouse fact what he's saying is that our bodies are meant for an OMNIVOROUS diet since we can get nutrients from meat and since many humans like the taste why should we throw it out it would be like removing windows from your house and replacing it with clear plastic wrap you can do it but it would be pointless and more troublesome.thethingthatlurks said:Uhm, same metabolic cycles imply similar nutrient needs, the closer related to another species we are, the more overlap there is. Not only are humans perfectly able to live a herbivore diet, our entire digestive system is better suited for that than for an carnivore diet. Now that's a simple fact. You're right though, humans were never 100% herbivore, which is why we have the rather limited ability to digest meat (limited when compared to true carnivores).Cowabungaa said:I do know 'the first thing' about biology, but the things you name, Kreb's cycle and all that, aren't what matter in this discussion, you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Yeah, humans and deer share bio-chemical pathways, but we're still not build the same. Humans are not build to live on a herbivore diet, we never were herbivores, that's a simple fact.thethingthatlurks said:You obviously don't know the first thing about chemistry or biology, so let me try this again: obtaining nutrients is never a problem, obtaining the means of getting them into the bio-available state is. I may not find lemons and spinach growing together, but there are always other options. See, evolution has this nice side-effect: all animals will have similar metabolisms (especially the Kreb's cycle, and glycolysis), ergo I'd be able to find enough nutrients anywhere on earth. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
And humans don't selectively grow for nutrients (usually), but for flavor and appearance. This generally doesn't diminish their nutrient content, although it may artificially inflate calories due to added sweetness.
Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?
You say you can do something Homo Sapiens has never done, not even when their bodies were a lot more attuned to eating things we couldn't bare to digest, when they actually lived on a natural, gathering diet. You say you can do something your body simply isn't made for. It makes no sense whatsoever.
As good as I could with plants, it's the same story there. Good luck picking the right berries, as they're pretty much all brightly coloured.
And why pray tell is my body not suited for living an herbivore diet? Show me some evidence, scientific papers, text books, etc.
Wait, you think I would go by color to distinguish between edible and toxic? Fat chance, I've learned to ignore that over the course of my chemistry education. For example, two compounds I've come across recently are both blue, the same shade even. The difference is, one compound will kill you in a about a minute, while the other is essentially harmless.
No, I'd observe which animals eat what, and take it from there with a small sample at once to minimize risk.
lol thanks you just lightened my mood by (whips out a calculator) 9.5% of my maximum happiness which is roughly the equivalent of a well told joke. fancy thatVarrdy said:If I became a vegan I would be dead within around...*counts on fingers*...erm...*does some mental arithmetic (which is most likely wrong)*...tomorrow!
Wardy
Because human physiology isn't made for it. We don't have a digestive tract made for a herbivore diet either, it's way too short to properly extract all the energy you can get from it. It's all nice from a bio-chemical point of view, and yeah bio-chemically we work around the same, but there are stark differences in physiology. Look at a gorilla, a herbivore primate. Look at his gut. We don't have that. We're suited for an omnivoric hunter-scavenger-gathering diet, that's what our natural shtick is. Again, you're approaching this from the wrong angle, there's a lot more to diet than bio-chemistry, you seem to forget that.thethingthatlurks said:Uhm, same metabolic cycles imply similar nutrient needs, the closer related to another species we are, the more overlap there is. Not only are humans perfectly able to live a herbivore diet, our entire digestive system is better suited for that than for an carnivore diet. Now that's a simple fact. You're right though, humans were never 100% herbivore, which is why we have the rather limited ability to digest meat (limited when compared to true carnivores).
And why pray tell is my body not suited for living an herbivore diet? Show me some evidence, scientific papers, text books, etc.
Doesn't work all that well. Lots of herbivores eat plants humans can't digest properly. We can do fuck-all with cellulose.Wait, you think I would go by color to distinguish between edible and toxic? Fat chance, I've learned to ignore that over the course of my chemistry education. For example, two compounds I've come across recently are both blue, the same shade even. The difference is, one compound will kill you in a about a minute, while the other is essentially harmless.
No, I'd observe which animals eat what, and take it from there with a small sample at once to minimize risk.