People argue that meat is our ancestral food, that we evolved while eating meat (for at least 2.5 million years) and are accustomed to it, whereas bread is too new for us to be able to properly handle (only 10,000 years or so).

These same people fail to argue that fruit is our ancestral food (65 million years!) that mammals and angiosperms evolved this partnership where the plants produced fruit for us while we spread their seeds for them. And fruit is the primary component of chimpanzee and bonobo diets, our closest living relatives.

But because fruits contain fructose and in general carbohydrate, the people arguing for meat argue against fruit! Even though the evolutionary argument for fruit as the food we are most evolved to eat is FAR stronger.

So put that in your thinking cap and spin the propeller.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

It’s also reasonable to assume that early versions of humans ate wild berries much earlier than when they learned to hunt. I don’t buy the whole vegetable / fruit = bad for you argument.

i ate apples and chicken soup all week, lost five pounds so i dunno

Your argument isn't better. Humans eating something early on doesn't mean that it is therefore healthy for us. Something may have life sustaining nutrients but that doesn't mean it won't lead to disease or earlier death.

We look for cancers on PET scans by sending a sugar (Fluorodeoxyglucose) throughout the body for cancers to metabolize and light up on the imaging. It stands to reason (in my mind) that getting your nutrients from something not full of sugar/carbs (cancer food) is probably a smart choice.

So yeah, early humans probably at a lot of things, but we have something called science now that can allow us to optimize what we eat based on biological processes. So not live just long enough to reproduce and die.

Yeah, I don't think these evolutionary arguments are good, because of multiple flaws such as the fact that evolution selects for reproduction not longevity.

But I've heard several centarians who, when interviewed about what they eat, were massive fruit lovers. Of course it is a selection bias. But maybe something else that is in the fruit protects them from the cancer feeding effect of fructose. I dunno.

You can get everything in fruit from other foods without the sugar though. I love cigars. I know of a dude who made it over 100 smoking like 8 per day. I'm still going to limit my consumption because I know that risk percentage is what really matters, not individual results. Biology has so many factors that it's essentially a lottery. At least you realize the bias though. And I love to have fruit sometimes, and pizza. But I do so knowing that it's not the best source of nutrients. I just don't like that we push the antioxidant and nutrients of fruit without also stating that you can get all of that without the sugar and high carbs.

Did you know that African hunter-gatherers get about half of their caloric intake from honey? Talk about sugar and high carbs!

My point is only to throw shade on the dumb argument that meat is healthy because it is our ancesteral food. Fruit and honey, LOTS Of honey, also were our ancesteral foods.

So maybe meat ain't that hot. Believing religiously that meat must be a perfect food is... just religion.

Yes. And you probably haven't traveled around the world? Because in every country around the world there are lots of these kinda cults around weird diet theories, going against this or that ingredient... it's pathetic.

I see them all going crazy in different directions and I'm like, bruh, just give me pasta and good beef and shut up.

I don't care what you or anyone else eats around the world. I care when people push bullshit arguments simply because they like a food. You can like pasta all you want. I like pizza. That doesn't mean it's good for me and doesn't increase the risk of disease.

who pissed in you cheerios mate?

Expressing a fact or opinion doesn't mean someone has pissed in my Cheerios. I just tend to be direct with what I think or how I feel. I don't mean anything bad by it, and people should probably do it more often instead of beating around.

I don't fold simply because someone else is afraid to tell the truth, which in this case is that they want to consume something that isn't great for them while hiding behind bullshit arguments.

I smoke cigars and eat pizza. lol But I'm not going to beat around about it, and it seems you don't either with pasta. I'll just tell people to fuck off and light my cigar.

But going on about prehistoric humans eating berries to justify a liking of sweet fruit annoys me. I just like the taste of berries and know very well that there are better foods with the same benefits. Protein and fats are better for us than carbs and sugar. The evidence of that is very clear to me.

I just want people to be honest. Enjoy your pasta.

I like ketogenic diet, but I'm not fanatical about it.

People on the internet get very fanatical about literally anything.

Opinions!

Yes, I'm gonna enjoy my pasta, and Nutella dessert after that, accompanied by good coffee of course. ☕

I'm also not convinced that every human should have the same diet. For example, I'm of European decent and pretty white. Dairy was important for my ancestors. Most Asians would be harmed by my diet. So it isn't quite as simple as some people make it.

Yeah I doubt early humans died of cancer from sugar-filled berries 😆

It’s more likely they were malnutritioned due to lack of variety of food.

You can doubt whatever you want. I never said they did, for the record, only that your argument was nonsense. Everything I've said is known fact. You're speculating about something we dont even know for sure as an argument supporting a particular food. That isn't evidence that something is good for humans. People have historically done lots of things that weren't good.

Your replies are really rude. Go away.

It's okay that you like berries. So do I. But that doesn't mean it's the best source of the nutrients in them. Sugar is bad for us. Carbs are bad for us. You can moderate them and reduce the odds of complication, great. But that doesn't mean that early human diets are necessarily good, and not every group of humans would necessarily benefit. Cancers feed on excess sugar. That's their food. They don't really like fats and protein. This isn't a huge jump in logic. They are eating what we eat.

I like fruit. Dried fruits too, I should dehydrate my own fruit so I can save it for later 🤔

What's your opinion on Oops All Berries?

Brilliant!

I am actually for carbs, I just don't think they should be the most abundant macronutrient in a diet, but they are definitely essential. I focus mainly on meat whenever I eat but I also incorporate raw milk, eggs(which have carbs), organic fruit and organic rice/potatoes. I am against bread because of the highly processed nature of flour and the fact that most off shelf bread in my country tends to include seed oils. my main gripe with any food is if it is highly refined.

which carbs are essential?

Im for the natural way of eating fruits all day 🫡 when we blend or juice fruit, we're breaking down the plant cell walls and exposing the natural sugars within so what you thought only had x amount of sugar actually has tons more

alsooo liquid (or semi-liquid) calories are less filling, which may lead to increased calorie consumption

I'm with you on that Sleepy.

I agree with everything you said too!

I think fruits are for dessert, fattening yourself up, or both! Blender produced anything is a nightmare for your body.

There should probably be a healthy balance of fruits in everyone’s meals throughout the day but our culture only sees them as snacks or desserts not as add ons to meals, but tf do I know I’m a frog at the end of the day 🤣

I think fruits really have minuscule nutritional value. Antioxidants are a marketing shot in the dark IMO. No problem eating bugs then eh? lol.

bugs all day for me

If this is your argument, then you have to add the seasonality of the fruits and only the fruits that are specific to your geography/ethnicity.

I think tropical rain forests have fruit year round. Mammals didn't evolve where I live. They evolved in tropical rainforest and later we moved to the savannahs and then to places that don't have year-round fruit.

But it is not my argument. It is a counterpoint to the paleo argument.

I find it interesting that the meat-eating muscleman neaderthal is glorified as the epitomy of masculinity, but the vegetarian yogi with complete mastery of the mind and powers over nature doesn't get much attention.

Both archetypes are valuable and valid, but the recent emphasis on identification of the former seems a little out of balance with other expressions.

humans have always ate multiple things: fruits / vegetables available to consume on the spot that would vary along the seasons and geography, and also meat from hunting / fishing. a good diet is based on diversity, nothing good comes out of limiting your options to a single thing. decentralised diet.

Great point, but I am under the impression that the fruit of the past was vastly different from the fruit we eat today. We manipulated them to change to suit our preferences. They didn't have anywhere near the same sugar contents and were likely much smaller.

True

Nope.

We don't have the internal organs required to properly process plants into fatty acids.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Kjp902gYspI?si=TgR5FlHkHHCfskfD

Check the Anthony Chaffee's talk "Plants are trying to kill you". He explains it there. The short vetsion is that fruit coevolved with various animals and some is deadly poisonous to us so it's quite possible other fruit is also harmful we just don't notice it immediately.