Human ancestors like Australopithecus – which lived around 3.5 million years ago in southern Africa – ate very little to no meat, according to new research published in the scientific journal Science. This conclusion comes from an analysis of nitrogen isotope isotopes in the fossilized tooth enamel of seven Australopithecus individuals. The data revealed that these early hominins primarily relied on plant-based diets, with little to no evidence of meat consumption.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EtnaAtsume@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Someone tell the carnists!

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We know! Look at that hockey stick in the last 2 million years!

[–] AntiThesis@leminal.space 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Learning to use fire also opened up a lot more nutrients from plants including legumes and tubers that are inedible or less nutritious without cooking.
Increased brain size is beneficial for many things other than hunting, including cooperating to outcompete rival clans and other hominids like neanderthals.
The carnist argument in question, when applied to argue against the efficacy of plant-based diets, is essentially an appeal to nature fallacy. Learning what happened in history is interesting, but does not tell us what is beneficial to do now. If what we care about is empirical health outcomes, we should look at health outcomes data rather than trying to replicate what our ancestors did in situations that were vastly different to the ones that we find ourselves in now. And the preponderance of evidence supports equal if not better outcomes for diets that are mostly if not completely whole foods plant-based, and shows increased risk of heart disease and cancer with increased red meat and processed meat consumption.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

1,2 totally agreed

when applied to argue against the efficacy of plant-based diets

I'm not making that claim

If what we care about is empirical health outcomes, we should look at health outcomes data rather than trying to replicate what our ancestors did in situations that were vastly different to the ones that we find ourselves in now.

100%

shows increased risk of heart disease and cancer with increased red meat and processed meat consumption.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/skeptical-doctors#cancer

The science against meat is inconclusive

Personally I don't have a opinion about what a adult should eat. Every person is navigating their own journey through health and life and needs to find what works for them. I only take issue with trying to limit people's options on none causal observational data.

[–] AntiThesis@leminal.space 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

When consumed in moderation it doesn't always make the hugest difference, but the the claim that "science against meat is inconclusive" is overselling it. Decades of studies show that reducing meat, particularly red and processed meat, in favor of plant-based proteins consistently leads to better health outcomes.

Health Outcomes: Cohort studies like Zhong et al. (2018) found that diets lower in red meat significantly reduce cardiovascular and mortality risks (DOI), while Kim et al. (2016)*linked animal protein to increased cardiovascular mortality and plant protein to lower all-cause mortality. (DOI) Similarly, the BMJ (2020) systematic review showed plant protein is associated with reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. (DOI)

Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease: An umbrella review in PLOS ONE found plant-based diets are systematically linked to lower risks of heart disease and cancer. (DOI)

RCT Support: Controlled trials also confirm these findings. For example, Zeraatkar et al. (2023) found replacing animal protein with plant-based protein improves cardiovascular markers. (DOI) Twin-pair studies further showed improved metabolic health with plant-based diets. (DOI)

Nutritional Adequacy: Plant-based diets provide complete nutrition when planned well. Protein blends match whey in muscle synthesis (pubmed), while legumes and grains promote longevity (DOI, DOI).

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

claim that “science against meat is inconclusive” is overselling it.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/skeptical-doctors#cancer

In brief, the data linking fat to cancer risk are inconsistent, incomplete, and unreliable.

The most consistent (albeit weak) associations between cancer risk and fat have been found over the years in observational studies looking at red meat and the risk of colorectal cancer. However, two more recent, important papers published in Annals of Internal Medicine make the case that available evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies does not support recommendations to lower red meat intake for prevention of cancer or heart disease.

Strong Evidence - Effect of Lower Versus Higher Red Meat Intake on Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Weak Observational - Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat#cancer

While the epidemiological studies reviewed by the committee suggest an association, other studies question the strength of the association.

large reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, researchers have found inconsistent results. One very large meta-analysis found that the absolute effects of red meat on cancer risk are extremely low, with the certainty of evidence being low to very low.While some have shown no association of red meat and cancer risk, others have shown a positive association with gastric, esophageal, breast, and prostate cancer. Weak Protective 1 Weak Protective 2 Weak Positive 3 Weak Protective 4 Weak Protective 5

For those that did show an association, the hazard ratios were quite small, in the range of 1.06 to 1.4. In comparison, cigarette smoking has a hazard ratio greater than 20 for being associated with cancer. Therefore, although these observational studies can suggest an association between red meat and cancer, the very low hazard ratios weaken the assertion that red meat causes cancer.

I'm happy you have found a diet that works for you, I have not seen compelling non-observational evidence that ASF is dangerous, ESPECIALLY in the context of a low carbohydrate diet. I'm not trying to change your mind, but I wanted to illustrate that different reasonable people reading the literature can come to different conclusions.

[–] HylicManoeuvre@sh.itjust.works -3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Does the "us" in the graph imply that carnists lost a significant amt of brain size?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 20 hours ago

Better graph. The only data I've seen on modern brain size differences would be due to vitamin deficiencies.