Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why do all wild lions look the same? Are their bodies not complex like ours?

Fasting is followed by animals too. When they fall sick they fast. Deliberate fasting in humans is a necessity because humans eat unnatural food.



Oh dear, it's not entirely clear where to even start with this.

Let's begin with the fact that we're not lions. We're not even carnivores. And there's some research evidence that in omnivores, short-term fasting leads to increased acidification in the stomach, while it doesn't for carnivores - that's a rather substantial difference.

Then, we come to the magic of "unnatural" food. We'll leave out the fact that such a thing doesn't exist and assume you mean processed food. What exactly is the proposed mechanism here where fasting is beneficial? And why can't that same mechanism be achieved via less processed food? And which processing are we even talking about?

Also:

> Why do all wild lions look the same?

Have you actually seen wild lions? They look roughly the same in the sense that "all white people look the same". I.e. not at all.


> Let's begin with the fact that we're not lions. We're not even carnivores.

It is evident we are not lions. It is also evident that we are not carnivores. Are you sure we are omnivores?

Fasting has been recommended in Eastern cultures for thousands of years. If they were bad, we would have known.

> Then, we come to the magic of "unnatural" food. We'll leave out the fact that such a thing doesn't exist and assume you mean processed food.

Processed food is unnatural. We were not designed to eat such crap. The diseases we have to endure are the evidence. Try feeding your dog or cat the same crap and they get sick too. What more proof is needed?

> Have you actually seen wild lions? They look roughly the same in the sense that "all white people look the same". I.e. not at all.

What I meant is that they look lean and mean. Not one obese lion will you find in the wild.


> Are you sure we are omnivores?

Yup. We have evolved to consume meat, as well has plant matter. You can argue this point down the rabbithole, but it's irrelevant to the broader point. If you want to say we're herbivores, fine. Lets not get lost in that debate.

> Fasting has been recommended in Eastern cultures for thousands of years. If they were bad, we would have known.

So has circumcision. I say that as someone not categorically opposed to it - but to say that just because something has been done a lot, doesn't mean it's not harmful.

> Processed food is unnatural....

Processed food is not harmful on account of being processed. It's can be harmful for what it contains. Most food is processed.

I assume you're talking about weird nasty foods. I don't have a proper label to define them by. Things with a ton of Hydrogenated Oils, or whatever is inside "Cheez Wiz"

> Try feeding your dog or cat the same crap and they get sick too.

For your very broad statement of processed food, this isn't true. I mean, dog food itself is processed. For food that the animal should not be eating, yes. That'll make them sick. Dogs can't eat all human food. Humans can't eat cow food. A dog will get sick if it eats chocolate. A human will get sick if they eat nothing but grass.

> What I meant is that they look lean and mean. Not one obese lion will you find in the wild.

That's caused by external factors, not because a wild antelope isn't "processed" or "unnatural". You can feed a lion antelope meat until it is obese. But it has evolved to be in a healthy balance when it exercises through hunting, and its intake is limited by the available prey.


> We have evolved to consume meat, as well has plant matter

OK. Let us not argue this point.

> So has circumcision. I say that as someone not categorically opposed to it - but to say that just because something has been done a lot, doesn't mean it's not harmful.

This assumes that ancient cultures were naive and we are too evolved to even bother about our ancestors.

> Processed food is not harmful on account of being processed.

I would recommend you to read the WHO report that puts all processed meat under category 1 carcinogen. Processed wheat, rice, oil... everything has been proven to be harmful.

> I mean, dog food itself is processed

That is because we are involved. It does not have to be. Raw meat is available and is natural for them. Dogs and cats raised in urban world are obese and have health complications like humans. Diabetes, heart diseases are common.

> You can feed a lion antelope meat until it is obese.

Sure. Good food and no exercise is a bad combination. Bad food and good exercise is also not a good combination.


Cooking explicitly does not count as processing, so no need to eat raw.

And raw red meat is a category 2a carcinogen.


> And raw red meat is a category 2a carcinogen

That makes it safe to consume?


> Are you sure we are omnivores?

Yes, you can look at our digestive system and teeth to see clear omnivore adaptations. Both are closer to say bears than either cows or lions.

What's really interesting is lions for example can't grind their teeth.


I am not so sure. A mouse does not cook flesh, we do. They eat rotten flesh too. The day humans can eat uncooked\rotten flesh and not fall sick, I will consider us to be omnivores.


Stake tartare is raw beef: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak_tartare

'dry-aged beef' is still rather sought after. "The process of dry-aging usually also promotes growth of certain fungal (mold) species on the external surface of the meat. This does not cause spoilage, but rather forms an external "crust" on the meat's surface, which is trimmed off when the meat is prepared for cooking." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef_aging

https://honest-food.net/on-hanging-pheasants-2/

I could go on, but people can digest uncooked or well aged meat. It does have a higher risks, but that's more about how meat is raised and prepared not necessarily simply being old and uncooked.


Stake tartare is a dish. Ground raw flesh mixed with other ingredients. Cannot count this.

> 'dry-aged beef' is still rather sought after. "The process of dry-aging

"The process of dry-aging"... Processed. Cannot count this too.

We do not have protein receptors in our tongue. We cannot taste flesh the way carnivores and omnivores can. They do not need to cook, add spices, process flesh. Raw meat can kill us.


> mixed with other ingredients

such as the dreaded raw egg. The only thing making this easier to digest is the grinding part.

Unprocessed entire raw and often living fish are regularly consumed as part of fraternity initiations and bets. It does not cause problems.

Cooking increases food safety, but it's really not required for digestion.

PS: To use a slightly older tradition. People used to do something similar in Europe. Hang birds up by the neck, when it fell down it was 'ready'. Calling that processed is ridiculous.


People have done and do stupid stuff. What's your point?


The point is that you brought up rotten meat. And then proceed to call any rotten meat we still consume "processed". That's intellectually dishonest.


You might want to look up "Stinkheads". Dry-aged beef. "Haut gout". "Hákarl"

But that's not even germane to a discussion. Omnivores are not necessarily scavengers, nor does it mean that they eat literally everything. It means they eat meats, and plants. (Look e.g. at the maned wolf for another example of an omnivore that pretty much avoids rotten meat. They get 50% of their diet from - fresh - prey, and 50% from plants. That makes them an omnivore)


Most omnivorous and carnivorous animals can get sick from uncooked flesh too.


Animals also eat their own throw-up, that doesn't mean we should too.


Lion diets haven't changed since lions became a distinct species. Human diets have changed drastically in the last 10k years. And there are well known examples of humans evolving adaptations to changing diets (lactase persistence in Northern Europeans being the most obvious). It would be crazy to think that other, less obvious adaptations to diet haven't occurred in basically every other region with a distinct diet.


Also look at osteoporosis rates in Western cultures. Lactose tolerance\intolerance is the term. I can smoke 20 cigarettes a day and my body tolerates that. Does not mean it is good for me.


Lactase persistence is the name of the trait that makes a person tolerant of lactose:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

And I’m not sure what you thought I said, but I’m not arguing that milk consumption is great. Well, not in the post you responded to; I do think milk is pretty amazing. All I was saying is that it is an example of humans evolving adaptations to their diets.

But on the topic of milk consumption: there may be drawbacks, but the gene for lactase persistence is one of the fastest spreading genes in recent history. Consuming milk was an utter (there’s a pun to be made here, but I will exercise restraint) game changer for Northern Europeans. Even today, milk is an amazing source of well-balanced nutrition. It’s cheap, easy to consume, and pretty tasty at room temperature.

If it doesn’t cause explosive things to happen to your intestines, that is.


My point is that body will adapt to all situations. Smoke your first cigarette and body revolts. It becomes progressively easy. Body adapted. Is it good?

Same with milk, meat, sugar...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: