Replies

My point was, We are omnivores. And a few certain things from fruits and vegetables help us digest and make the best of the meat intake. If not our life span would only be 40 years as it once was when we were primarily meat eaters.

Now of course some anthropological backgrounds like the Inuits resources and even the Mongolians who can live on almost nothing but horse milk were adapted over thousands of years. I am myself Native American and can survive on extremely sparse combinations and fasting is actually beneficial. Early man’s survival was dependent on hunting and gathering. Sometimes it was two or three days in between successful kills and they had to then gorge while they could because fasting until the next kill was just a reality.

But they also had to take advantage of edible plants when in season or they would have went extinct. We are rooted in a fine line of profit and loss with calories, vitamins, and mineral intake or we would not have survived as a species. It took everything we could get before we expended what we had consumed prior. Both meat and plants. Just like a Bear...

” If not our life span would only be 40 years as it once was when we were primarily meat eaters.”

Oh no, not that old canard again. First there is no way you could know the life span of primary meat eaters, which is just wild guestimates based on a whole lot of unknowns, like hunting death, child mortality, wars, natural disasters... Second, we DO have anthropological remains of these meat eaters, especially in France or in the Mediterranean regions. We know they were meat eaters because they were from the ice age more than 10,000 years ago, when there were no agriculture and all edible plants were some sparse berries. And guess what, their bones and skulls show they were disease free, much taller and more brainiacs than the modern man who had physically regressed with agriculture and the introduction of grains. This is an undeniable fact, not a speculation like life span.

Ok, I get that you want to make the point that we are omnivores. But if your point was valid, why is it shot with so many demonstrably false claims? It’s just as if you want to scuttle it with inconsistencies, that makes no sense.