Thu, Jan-06-11, 01:57
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ImOnMyWay
The lady has a point. It is not beneficial to the hunter-gatherer to waste precious time and calories in acquiring plants which have no use. That they ate the plants, rather than use them to weave baskets, create art or clothing, or for some other non-nutritive function, is evidence that they found the plants nourishing, either physically, mentally or spiritually.
There are some who contend that one can acquire all the nutrients the body needs, indefinitely, strictly from animal products. This is not practical in the real world. Even if, say, an elk has everything a body needs, provided the organs are eaten, it still is not possible for a tribe to get all the nutrients it needs from the elk, because there's only so much brain, liver, etc. to go around. A few will get preferred treatment (say, a pregnant woman, or the warrior who kills the elk) and the others will have to be content with the rest. So, the others would have to get whatever vital nutrients are in the choicest parts from another source. It seems likely that that source is in the plants they consistently and persistently seek out.
|
Again with the "evidence that plants are nutritious". There is no such evidence. If there is any evidence, it can be used to support the idea that plants were used for therapeutic purposes and pleasure. Look again at one of the arguments in the original blog post: 7-10 times the vitamin C found in oranges. That's not nutritive level, that's therapeutic level. Then a couple more examples where plants are used as "treats". That's not for nutrition, that's for pleasure.
This is not a discussion about mental or spiritual nourishment.
That's a fine theory. The organs are eaten only in time of famine. One doesn't need to eat the organs to get all the nutrition of animal flesh. The most prized part of the animal is the fat. It seems unlikely that anybody would look for missing nutrition in plants when a complete food can be found in animal flesh. If it's complete, what's missing?
I agree, it's not practical to eat only animal flesh. Not because it can't be done, but because this is a high carb world where plants rule and meat is shunned. Even then, since fat is bad, fat meat is cheap. And fat meat is precisely what meat eaters want. If you're careful enough, you can eat meat every day for a few bucks a day by choosing the fattest parts.
|