Why do “we” eat so much fatty red meat?

Men have hunted animals since cave days, but does that make human consumption of fatty red meat “natural?”   We’ve known for years that eating red meat is bad for us, and now there’s staggering evidence supporting this knowledge showing that consumption of processed and unprocessed red meat is linked to premature death , including by heart disease and cancer. I realize that the entire question as to whether eating red meat is “natural” is a completely unanswerable question…but here’s what the physiological evidence indicates:   LINK Health warnings about the dangers of eating fatty red meat have played a role in beef’s decline ( CHART ) in the US since the 1970s, but we Americans (and you Australians) still eat more fatty red meat than anyone else in the world. It’s interesting how cultural norms have shaped the Standard American Diet today.   Almost two centuries ago meat was one reason why immigrants found America so amazing.   When the Irish came in the 1840s, for example, they write letters back saying 'I eat meat every day, and they get letters back saying, 'You must be kidding. It can't be true.'   Eating meat became an economic status symbol because back in Europe the growing of livestock was organized and regulated in a way that funneled meat straight to the wealthy, landed aristocracy.   If you were a wealthy person in New York in the 1880s, you put a roast on the table when guests came over.   Today, your guests might think you were trying to kill them if you did that…!     edit:  had to fix one of the links Post Edited (Casey59) : 10/17/2012 5:38:54 PM (GMT-6)

Just got home from work and I can smell that my neighbor grilled some steaks for dinner.D@m does that smell good;(

Not surprising; your senses have been conditioned.  A slab of meat dripping with fat was a status symbol...it "must" be good.

In hunter gathering communities, where men hunted and women gathered, the majority of protein was generated by the gathering. Gathering was also far more predictable than hunting. Hunting served other purposes, including social ones related to status. But this isn't a social scientific forum looking for the anthropological answer to this question.

Although it is an interesting topic. I took many graduate level classes in various anthropology courses when I was in college and grad school.

"Despite evolving from mainly vegetarian ancestors and having a digestive system which is more like that of a herbivore, hominins gained some of the benefits available to carnivores by regularly adding meat to their diet (Milton 1999). This may have given them the necessary advantage to further enlarge their brains and increase their intelligence. However, as capturing animals for food is a relatively difficult activity, especially for an animal without the evolutionary capabilities of a specialised carnivore, it is likely that hominins became better hunters after their brains and intelligence grew, allowing more complex use of tools and cooperation in hunting."

However, bottom line? A steak, a burger, a nice osso in buco, cotoletta a la milanese taste darn good. There is no doubt about it. Even a cheap $5 buger at Five Guys is a nice treat from time to time.

Cured Italian meats? Don't get me started. Procsciutto di Parma or San Daniele is a bloody delicacy.

"As our hominin ancestors spread out around the world, their unique flexibility and ability to survive on different food sources allowed them to thrive in otherwise hostile environments. There is extensive archaeological evidence of their lives from diverse parts of the world. As they travelled further from the equator, and encountered more extreme environments, the importance of meat in the diet became greater due to the seasonal and less extensive nature of wild plant foods."


"Kaplan et al (2000) identify four key characteristics that distinguish humans from other species: long life-span; long juvenile dependency period; social support from older group members and male support through food-provisioning. They theorise that these characteristics and our advanced intelligence are “co-evolved responses to a dietary shift toward high-quality, nutrient-dense, and difficult-to-acquire food resources” (Kaplan et al. 2000). Their research goes on to demonstrate the extraordinary level of skill and learning that is required for traditional human hunting strategies. By analysing modern hunter-gatherers, they found that men’s hunting skills did not peak until they reached their 30s, well into adulthood. Due to the considerable nutritional pay-off hunting provides, in most of the studies it was found that adult male hunters were the greatest providers of food energy in their communities. Females concentrated on gathering, plant foods especially, an activity that is easier to achieve while child-rearing."

"Various studies such as Richards et al (2000) have analysed hominin bones in Europe for the stable isotope (δ13C and δ15N) ratios which can indicate the proportion of animal to plant food in their diet (Richards et al. 2000). These studies suggest that European Neanderthal and later hunter-gather diets were almost completely carnivorous. Further research such as done by Richards (2003) find a sudden shift in British diet at the beginning of the Neolithic period, around 5000 years ago. Again analysis of the stable isotopes in bone remains show an almost complete abandonment of seafood in the diet for land-based foods. This shift would have occurred around the time that agricultural and animal husbandry techniques arrived in the area."


but bottom line The Reverend Horton Heat has it right. Just look here www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQynViAF6Ds

i have to admit that i brought home a smallish chuck roast from safeway and i'm going to throw it in the crockpot with mexican seasonings and make chili colorado.  of course i will skim the grease off the top and eat small portions !

ed

 

Billy Mac - I go to India often. One thing I always hear there is their complaints about how Indians have never excelled in sports and how Americans have. The always blame it on the lack of meat consumption in India and how it puts them at a physical disadvantage vis-a-vis sports.

My ancestors didn't spend all that time working their way up the food chain for me to suddenly start grazing like a cow.

If my guests think I am trying to kill them by offering them what food I have, be it meat or not, they do not need to be my guests.

Ya well - exercise and a lot LESS of the evils of the world is even better

But, I always eat red meat.

Peter, that makes me feel much better about the 450 lbs. dressed, flash frozen organic, grass fed steer I put into my freezer last fall. My brother (the farmer) raises one and we split it every other year. We had it cut and trimmed to remove much of the fat, and it makes for outstanding roasts and steaks, plus some of the best tasting hamburger I have ever eaten. I much rather eat this than the frozen, then thawed to sell, Walmart Nebraska factory beef.

Let's imagine a researcher from the future found a fossilized human cadaver and wanted to determine how that person lived - and ate. They look at many critical characteristics and compare that with what we know about other animals in nature and how they behave.

Let's start at the head and work down.

In general it is easy to tell whether a creature is a predator or a prey animal.
Prey animals usually have eyes on opposite sides of the head so they can see a full 360 degrees and watch for attacks from others. Their vision is sensitive to change and they have very good close focus capability. Think of a pigeon, deer, or a rabbit.
Predators have both eyes in front with excellent depth perception so they can gauge the distance to a target and make a successful attack. They have powerful far field vision, limited peripheral vision and near field vision is generally poor. Think lion, eagles, cats...
Last time I looked in the mirror my eyes are in front and the ophthalmologist recommended I get glasses to reduce the effect of my farsightedness and improve my near field vision. Conclusion: Most likely predator. Continue study.

Now lets look at teeth. The shape and wear patterns tell you what the animal ate. Animals that eat only vegetation, herbivores, have many strong molars to crush the food. They have limited incisors to cut grass or branches but rely upon banks of molars to grind and crush the vegetation. Think horses, and cows. Predator animals, carnivores, have incisors to cut and tear their prey. The canine teeth help grab and pin their prey. Think cats, lions saber tooth tigers. Look at our own teeth. Smile. What do you see? Incisors and canines. Interestingly, it is those very teeth that we often find so attractive in a female's smile. We have molars but they are hidden in the back. In fact our species seems to be evolving to eliminate the 3rd molars, wisdom teeth. Conclusion : Most likely carnivore but capable of consuming vegetation.

Let's go down to the stomach and food processing. Animals that eat only vegetation usually have multiple stomachs to aid in digestion of lignin and cellulose from the vegetable matter. The animals graze, continuously taking in nutrients and transferring the processed material to the next stomach. They have limited capacity to store food in any one stomach. Think horses and ruminants like cows, deer, sheep, goats. Their stomachs acids and chemicals dissolve and process fiber well.
Predators have stomachs that can stretch and contain large meal. The stomach can readily hold a full day's worth of food with one feeding. Humans have one stomach with a series of intestines to draw out nutrients. Fiber passes through virtually unchanged.
Conclusion: Predator with some herbivore capabilities.
---Full disclosure I have a company that makes food for animals from specially grown hay and processes it into 2500 and 5000 calorie bricks for horses , cows, small animals .
Eating a 2500 calorie brick in a day would give a human 15-25 times the recommended daily fiber intake causing serious problems. This is why the food is clearly labelled "not for human consumption."---

We can look at muscle mass, aerobic capacity, brain case size in similar details .
Conclusion: The creature has characteristics of predatory carnivores while retaining some digestive traits of herbivores. It does not exhibit prey characteristics. It appears capable of being both an opportunistic carnivore and herbivore. I would call it an Omnivore.

I'd feed it a balanced diet in proportion to its size and activity level and avoid any chemicals it has not had time to evolve to accept and process.

I will be sure the next hamburger I eat (once every 2-3 weeks) will have lettuce and tomato on it.

--------------------
If the future researchers studied me as a representative of the species would I leave them wondering about how we managed to reproduce?

Jeff

Tried red meat years ago as a youngster and never liked the looks of it or the gamey smell of it. I'm the only one ordering fish in a steak house.

Despite not eating red meat all my life, exercising, never smoking or drinking, eating organic and no family history of cancer, I still developed cancer. Guess its environmental. I can't figure it out.

Zimac