# Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [November 22, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531 "2010-11-22T09:26:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/61 "2010-11-23T03:36:42Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Actually there are some similarities in the incisors, but you can also compare those to horse teeth just as easily, which lack the tell tale giant canines. However I don’t think tooth pattern is a great argument Our closest relative the chimp, is also very telling. Either they developed those chompers independently when our species broke lines, or we had them at some point and they shrunk. Chimps are omnivores though, and their teeth hold up to that. It’s the male chimps that have the highly developed canines, not the females. It’s not uncommon for male mammals to have better developed/larger canines than the females - this can been seen even in such obligate herbivores as lamas and horses where males may grow vestigial canines and the females don’t. In other words, large canines can be a secondary sexual characteristic. > [@](#): > > Humans you have to concede, don’t have that marked pattern we are seeing. Which I nave NO information on as to why, but would make a great bit of evolutionary research. They incisors seem common to Most primates, including the herbivore gorilla. Gorillas and many other primates also have a sharper sexual dimorphism than humans do - will you then argue that humans don’t have males and females because the two sexes don’t have as great a size difference as, say, gorillas or orangutans? Human teeth are smaller in proportion to their skulls than the other great apes - maybe because our lineage started using sharp bits of rock to help cut up our food even before _H. sapiens_ evolved. So instead of building large teeth we built large brains or something. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/62 "2010-11-23T03:39:35Z")
Initially published in 1990, the data in the China Study is the basis of ongoing research, but the overall implications are stunning: plant-based food is healthy; animal-based food is harmful. This becomes even more striking from the book’s survey of diet-related studies of all the “diseases of affluence.” The authors show that the same pattern can be found in all these diseases — cardiovascular; obesity; Type 2 (adult) diabetes; breast, colorectal and prostate cancer; autoimmune diseases, especially Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes and multiple sclerosis; osteoporosis; kidney stones; macular degeneration and cataracts; and Alzheimer’s and cognitive impairment disease. In every case the incidence and severity of the disease is linked to animal-based food, while plant-based diets prevent and in many cases reverse the disease. > **[Forget the meat! Why an animal-based diet is hazardous to your health](https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/forget-the-meat-why-an-animal-based-diet-is-hazardous-to-your-health/)** > > Slowly the truth is emerging that diet is decisive to health. Out of a fog of deliberate confusion and fierce resistance put up by the food and pharmaceutical industries and their allies in government, academia and big medicine, the idea is winning... ``` So no one is really disputing it's harmful, correct. Here is some evidence that an omnivore diet is detrimental to our digestive process. I argue nature seeks to eventually balance a species to it diet. At this stage an omnivore diet has not been well selected for, despite our ability to cook around the first issue that would make meat inaccessible. Maybe further technology will solve these issues as well, but we are unlikely to spontaneously biologically adapt. ``` These medical effects indicate the body has trouble over time fully processing animal based foods, resulting in conditions we would not see if we had been selectively optimized over millions of years to eat animal foods. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/63 "2010-11-23T03:41:03Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > I’ve never read the book but heard studies along those lines, does the author take into account that cooking also make raw carrots and bean sprouts far more digestible as well. > I just want to make sure the whole picture is presented. I mentioned this already in a previous post. > > Simply put we cant extract as much nutrition from raw plants, cooked on the other hand. Well I’m not pressing this statement as being strong one way or the other, simply pointing out the other side of the coin. The argument was that we could extract more _calories_, which isn’t quite the same as _nutrition_. As fat unquestionably has more calories than either protein or carbs on a per unit basis, an adaption that allows a creature to eat fat will provide more calories than would otherwise be available. For most of human history getting sufficient calories was a major preoccupation, and failure to do so followed by death was a real possibility. It’s only today, with plentiful food available year round, that we have become concerned with not getting too many calories. It’s an aberration when you view the entirety of hominid history. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/64 "2010-11-23T03:45:13Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Human teeth are smaller in proportion to their skulls than the other great apes - maybe because our lineage started using sharp bits of rock to help cut up our food even before _H. sapiens_ evolved. So instead of building large teeth we built large brains or something. Makes sense to me. I’ll take that as neutralizing the teeth argument. Nothing strong conclusive either way. Fair? Another interesting but obscure point, which is of limited value is people are arguably attracted to strait teeth. Western society has issue with that, many people needing braces. I think the chewing action would some how be related to strait teeth, most western food is pretty soft, so they just sorta grow in however. Not really a point either way. Sorta a blurb. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/65 "2010-11-23T03:45:50Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > So no one is really disputing it’s harmful, correct. Incorrect. I’m disputing it for one. For starters, the bit you referenced blames all kinds of unrelated problems on an ‘animal based diet’. This is generally a sign of quackdom. I’ll read the article, but I doubt it has the scientifically sound methodology and reputable cites I demand of my studies. ETA The linked article is a book review. It makes numerous assertions without backing them up. It does not remotely approach the level I demand from my cites. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/66 "2010-11-23T03:49:08Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > It’s the male chimps that have the highly developed canines, not the females. It’s not uncommon for male mammals to have better developed/larger canines than the females - this can been seen even in such obligate herbivores as lamas and horses where males may grow vestigial canines and the females don’t. In other words, large canines can be a secondary sexual characteristic. > Gorillas and many other primates also have a sharper sexual dimorphism than humans do - will you then argue that humans don’t have males and females because the two sexes don’t have as great a size difference as, say, gorillas or orangutans? > > Human teeth are smaller in proportion to their skulls than the other great apes - maybe because our lineage started using sharp bits of rock to help cut up our food even before _H. sapiens_ evolved. So instead of building large teeth we built large brains or something. > [@Broomstick](#): > > The argument was that we could extract more _calories_, which isn’t quite the same as _nutrition_. As fat unquestionably has more calories than either protein or carbs on a per unit basis, an adaption that allows a creature to eat fat will provide more calories than would otherwise be available. > > For most of human history getting sufficient calories was a major preoccupation, and failure to do so followed by death was a real possibility. It’s only today, with plentiful food available year round, that we have become concerned with not getting too many calories. It’s an aberration when you view the entirety of hominid history. Calories are an interesting point. Whatever they are, my understanding is the easiest source of usable calories for human beings is starch. Converting protein/fat to useable energy is in my understanding a sub-optimal process. I’m not as sound on this as other points, and quote open to some sourced debunking. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/67 "2010-11-23T03:49:52Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > You might ask yourself how you would feel about eating freshly killed raw gazelle meat, over several bananas, if both were presented and you were starving. When I was a kid I ate raw meat and bone marrow without a problem. I loved the stuff. I don’t do it now because I am concerned about possible food contamination. Well, I _usually_ don’t. I do eat sashimi from time to time, which is raw fish as I’m sure most people know, although in my area such fare is usually deep frozen for a period of time to kill possible pathogens. Fact is, I really DO like the taste and texture of raw animal flesh. So… let’s see, fresh raw gazelle or bananas… I’d probably eat both. But I suspect I’d eat the gazelle steaks first. Because I really like meat. And if I was starving, well, I’ll risk parasites down the line to prevent imminent death from lack of food now. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/68 "2010-11-23T03:52:31Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > I therefore submit, that meat eating is a learned, or cultural behavior, that seems somewhat contrary to our biological make up. Hm. How about this one – Living long enough to suffer the consequences of excessive consumption of meat is a learned, or cultural behavior, that seems somewhat contrary to our biological make up. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/69 "2010-11-23T03:52:55Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Another interesting but obscure point, which is of limited value is people are arguably attracted to strait teeth. Western society has issue with that, many people needing braces. I think the chewing action would some how be related to strait teeth, most western food is pretty soft, so they just sorta grow in however. Not really a point either way. Sorta a blurb. Well, I must be a throw-back or something, because not only do I have teeth that are naturally straight without ever needing braces, I also have sufficient room on my jaw for all of my third molars or “wisdom teeth” without crowding. Either that, or I have a big mouth. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/70 "2010-11-23T03:54:58Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Makes sense to me. I’ll take that as neutralizing the teeth argument. Nothing strong conclusive either way. Fair? Not fair. I don’t see this as remotely neutralizing the dentition argument. Yes, as we evolved tool use and bigger brains, our teeth got smaller. But their types remained largely unchanged. They are still the teeth of an omnivore. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/71 "2010-11-23T04:03:05Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Incorrect. I’m disputing it for one. > > For starters, the bit you referenced blames all kinds of unrelated problems on an ‘animal based diet’. This is generally a sign of quackdom. I’ll read the article, but I doubt it has the scientifically sound methodology and reputable cites I demand of my studies. > > ETA > > The linked article is a book review. It makes numerous assertions without backing them up. It does not remotely approach the level I demand from my cites. Fair. [http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/1/140](http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/1/140) [http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/37/2/111.abstract](http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/37/2/111.abstract) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3018342](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3018342) [http://www.springerlink.com/content/y00x368340054240/](http://www.springerlink.com/content/y00x368340054240/) A few studies. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/72 "2010-11-23T04:05:52Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Not fair. > > I don’t see this as remotely neutralizing the dentition argument. Yes, as we evolved tool use and bigger brains, our teeth got smaller. But their types remained largely unchanged. They are still the teeth of an omnivore. I’d assumed you’d read the lucy article? If you look at her teeth, and the diet they are suggesting. There may be issue there. Check it out. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/73 "2010-11-23T04:08:02Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Initially published in 1990, the data in the China Study is the basis of ongoing research, but the overall implications are stunning: plant-based food is healthy; animal-based food is harmful. This becomes even more striking from the book’s survey of diet-related studies of all the “diseases of affluence.” The authors show that the same pattern can be found in all these diseases — cardiovascular; obesity; Type 2 (adult) diabetes; breast, colorectal and prostate cancer; autoimmune diseases, especially Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes and multiple sclerosis; osteoporosis; kidney stones; macular degeneration and cataracts; and Alzheimer’s and cognitive impairment disease. In every case the incidence and severity of the disease is linked to animal-based food, while plant-based diets prevent and in many cases reverse the disease. Cardiovascular disease is more strongly associated with a lack of exercise than meat and fat - as noted, arctic peoples often have diets 90% or more animal flesh, yet, when they pursue a traditional lifestyle they don’t have unusual rates of heart disease - it’s when they start using snowmobiles and give up hunting for mail ordering stuff, do less stuff and get fat that they start having cardiovascular problems. Type 2 diabetes is associated with excess weight - NOT eating meat. It is entirely possible to be vegetarian AND diabetic, I’ve known a few folks from India who lived their entire lives on a vegetarian diet who were diabetics. It is less likely because vegetarians _usually_ consume fewer calories and thus are less likely to gain excessive weight, but it’s possible. I am unaware of any connection between multiple sclerosis and eating meat/animal fat so I must ask you for a cite. Osteoporosis is associated with inadequate vitamin D intake, insufficient calcium intake, lack of exercise, and being Caucasian. Please provide a cite that shows that eating animal flesh is a greater risk that those listed in the prior sentence. Kidney stones come in more than one variety. Oxalate stones come from eating oxalate-rich foods such as star fruit (carambola), black pepper, parsley, poppy seed, amaranth, spinach, chard, beets, cocoa, chocolate, most nuts, most berries, fishtail palms, New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides) and beans - _all of which are plants_, please note. **Very clearly oxalate kdney stones are associated with PLANT foods in the diet** Kidney stones can also be associated with dehydration Excessive protein can also be a risk factor, however, it’s _protein_ that’s the culprit, not specifically animal protein. Which gets back to the issue of _eating too much_ which seems to be the root of many chronic ills, and not so what _what_ is eaten to excess. Please provide cite that Type 1 autoimmune diabetes is associated with animal flesh in the diet. Please provide cite that autoimmune disorders are associated with animal flesh in the diet. Macular degeneration and Alzheimer’s are associated with AGE, not animal flesh in the diet. The greatest risk factor for cataracts is expose to UV light - not diet. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/74 "2010-11-23T04:13:36Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Calories are an interesting point. Whatever they are, my understanding is the easiest source of usable calories for human beings is starch. Converting protein/fat to useable energy is in my understanding a sub-optimal process. I’m not as sound on this as other points, and quote open to some sourced debunking. 😕 You don’t know what _calories_ are? :rolleyes: Calories are a measure of energy derived from a unit of food. Protein and carbs both provide 4 calories per gram. Fat provides 9 calories per gram. In other words, per unit, fat provides _more than twice_ the energy of either protein or carbs. This is why arctic people favor high fat diets - in addition to using energy for moving around and doing stuff they also need it to provide body heat. With pre-industrial levels of activity they actually _burn the fat for fuel_ rather than store it. In fact, before European contact with North American artctic natives _starvation_ was a frequent cause of death. That is, they didn’t get _enough food of any sort_. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/75 "2010-11-23T04:18:12Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Cardiovascular disease is more strongly associated with a lack of exercise than meat and fat - as noted, arctic peoples often have diets 90% or more animal flesh, yet, when they pursue a traditional lifestyle they don’t have unusual rates of heart disease - it’s when they start using snowmobiles and give up hunting for mail ordering stuff, do less stuff and get fat that they start having cardiovascular problems. > > Type 2 diabetes is associated with excess weight - NOT eating meat. It is entirely possible to be vegetarian AND diabetic, I’ve known a few folks from India who lived their entire lives on a vegetarian diet who were diabetics. It is less likely because vegetarians _usually_ consume fewer calories and thus are less likely to gain excessive weight, but it’s possible. > > I am unaware of any connection between multiple sclerosis and eating meat/animal fat so I must ask you for a cite. > > Osteoporosis is associated with inadequate vitamin D intake, insufficient calcium intake, lack of exercise, and being Caucasian. Please provide a cite that shows that eating animal flesh is a greater risk that those listed in the prior sentence. > > Kidney stones come in more than one variety. Oxalate stones come from eating oxalate-rich foods such as star fruit (carambola), black pepper, parsley, poppy seed, amaranth, spinach, chard, beets, cocoa, chocolate, most nuts, most berries, fishtail palms, New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides) and beans - _all of which are plants_, please note. **Very clearly oxalate kdney stones are associated with PLANT foods in the diet** > > Kidney stones can also be associated with dehydration > > Excessive protein can also be a risk factor, however, it’s _protein_ that’s the culprit, not specifically animal protein. Which gets back to the issue of _eating too much_ which seems to be the root of many chronic ills, and not so what _what_ is eaten to excess. > > Please provide cite that Type 1 autoimmune diabetes is associated with animal flesh in the diet. > > Please provide cite that autoimmune disorders are associated with animal flesh in the diet. > > Macular degeneration and Alzheimer’s are associated with AGE, not animal flesh in the diet. > > The greatest risk factor for cataracts is expose to UV light - not diet. Flub, I posted some decent sources just a moment ago. Alzheimers is interesting, as it and “mad cow” have some interesting similarities. [http://current.com/green/89114038\_mad-cow-disease-is-being-misdiagnosed-as-alzheimers.htm](http://current.com/green/89114038_mad-cow-disease-is-being-misdiagnosed-as-alzheimers.htm) Osteoporosis > **[Eating less meat may help reduce osteoporosis risk, studies show | Cornell...](https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1996/11/eating-less-meat-may-help-reduce-osteoporosis-risk)** > > Want to reduce the risk of osteoporosis? Eat less meat, Cornell researchers say. In fact, they say, reducing the amount of meat in the diet may do more to reduce the risk of osteoporosis than increasing calcium intake. As I recall the process of turning animal protein, or protein in-general into usable energy requires leeching calcium from the bones. Which is why I keep calling it non-optimal. As for the others, maybe the book cites them better. I don’t own the book. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/76 "2010-11-23T04:19:48Z")
The first study (on kidney stones and uric acid) looks solid. The second says in its title it has only found a _correlation_. Correlation is not causation. I read the Lucy article. I see no evidence one way or the other. Chimps sometimes hunt for meat (cite Goodall, In The Shadow Of Man). But they don’t do it often because it takes a great deal of effort and cooperation. Kill a bunch of chimps and you likely won’t find game animals in their stomachs. But they remain omnivores. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/77 "2010-11-23T04:20:25Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 😕 > > You don’t know what _calories_ are? :rolleyes: > > Calories are a measure of energy derived from a unit of food. > > Protein and carbs both provide 4 calories per gram. > > Fat provides 9 calories per gram. > > In other words, per unit, fat provides _more than twice_ the energy of either protein or carbs. > > This is why arctic people favor high fat diets - in addition to using energy for moving around and doing stuff they also need it to provide body heat. With pre-industrial levels of activity they actually _burn the fat for fuel_ rather than store it. In fact, before European contact with North American artctic natives _starvation_ was a frequent cause of death. That is, they didn’t get _enough food of any sort_. Sure I do, it’s a measure of energy, not necessarily food. Petroleum for example can be measured in calories, though I would not recommend eating it. There is still a conversion process. Meaning making X into calories we can use. Plant foods are the easiest route. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/78 "2010-11-23T04:29:48Z")
The third study ends with “but this relationship needs to be studied further.”. Their results may also be attributed to lack of fiber rather than high animal protein. The fourth study includes “Some high-fat/processed-meat products (i.e., sausage, salami, bacon), but not all (i.e., beef, pork, or poultry hot dogs), also were positively associated with risk. An inverse association was noted for greater chicken/turkey consumption (OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–1.0)” In other words, eating a lot of chicken and turkey actually decreased the risk of pancreatic cancer. Eating “beef, pork, or poultry hot dogs” caused no increase in risk. The study did show that sausage, salami and bacon\* DID increase the risk of pancreatic cancer. \*Salami, sausage, and bacon are all (last time I checked) heavily processed with nitrites and salt. How were the researchers sure that it was animal fat and protein that increased risk and not nitrites and salt? ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/79 "2010-11-23T04:30:20Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > The first study (on kidney stones and uric acid) looks solid. > > The second says in its title it has only found a _correlation_. Correlation is not causation. > > I read the Lucy article. I see no evidence one way or the other. Chimps sometimes hunt for meat (cite Goodall, In The Shadow Of Man). But they don’t do it often because it takes a great deal of effort and cooperation. Kill a bunch of chimps and you likely won’t find game animals in their stomachs. But they remain omnivores. I dig, and don’t dispute. But is this behavior common to all chimps, or select groups which have passed the behavior along. Maybe there is a biological imperative that forces them all to hunt for some monthly nutrient they need. Did lucy hunt or scavenge, would help this question along quite a bit. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/80 "2010-11-23T04:31:31Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Plant foods are the easiest route. You have a cite for that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531.md?page=5)