BraddersTheDog

I believe you are correct. However, brain growth and development is not the same as fuelling just like body growth and development is not the same as fuelling. I accept your point, but finding several pounds of beans and peanuts is (or at least was) obviously far more difficult than finding that amount of meat. Therefore we ate meat and fish far more than veggies.

OK, well actually generally speaking meat does contain more protein than veggies and like I said, the fact that it was a more feasible method of supplying the extra calories that were required for brain development means that it's highly likely that it greatly aided this process.

I agree, what is found in meat can be found in plants. It's not only the meat's substance but also its properties (i.e. it's not that meat is 'special', just that it contains higher proportions of substances such as protein which are/were more readily accessible hence helped drive brain development). I find the idea of vegan bodybuilding quite fascinating and that's why I've come to the site. I'm interested to see what results are obtainable without eating meat products (although admittedly I wouldn't ever do this myself).

You're right but that doesn't mean that meat doesn't contain certain properties (eg. protein) more abundantly than veggies, and certainly that it is/was more readily available and as such a more feasible choice for our ancestors. To assume that it is purely veggie based foods that have developed our brains is a hugley naive. To say that it hasn't it a far bigger one and goes against a lot of scientific thinking. Lamarck is irrelevant here, I'm not saying that eating meat meant that a primate's offspring became more intelligent for any reason other than those in line with the standard theory of evolution. By having a diet higher in calories one species was able to use more of it's RMR for brain development. Each primate that developed it's brain (even a fraction) more than others will have been able to outperform it's competitors, and as such pass it's genes on more efficiently; where does Lamarck come into this? Your Lamarckian argument used in this context could just as easily be used to argue that no species should ever evolve at all because it can't pass it's characteristics directly onto it's offspring. Species' do evolve and part of this evolution (be it physical, neural etc.) is a direct result of it's diet.

Yes I suppose you could make an argument that meat hasn't helped develop our brains into what they are but it isn't a particularly rational one. It's a fact that in order for our brains to develop into what they are today we required a much higher intake of calories compared to other primates (who use roughly 8% RMR for brain development as opposed to our own 20-25% RMR). Now, where did these extra calories come from? Did they come from eating a lot more fruit? It would have to have been a LOT more fruit and even if this is the case, it is also fact that we WERE eating meat (but of course, the fruit could have developed the brain and the meat/fish been irrelevant to its evolution [hmmm]). Hunter-gatherer communities are known to have eaten meat, and we are descended from the hunter-gatherer. Science also agrees that in order for our brains to develop into what they are today, dietary changes were necessary; this coincides with the addition of meat to the diet. To ignore this is to be incredibly naive.

I take it he means our twisted modern society's IDEA of proper nutrition. Now he's asking questions about a diet that he's CONvinced is bad. This is a bit strong. To be fair I just read through this thread and there seem to be a couple of issues. One is the fact that the human race as a species would not be where it is today were it not for its diet; it has had a massive impact on all aspects of developing us into what we are. To say that eating meat is an idea thought up by our 'twisted modern society' is just wrong. In particular, eating fish and meat has helped develop our brains. Another is the fact that you assume that jack (or whatever his name is) is convinced a vegan diet is a bad thing. He's asking for information about it, the reason he is not convinced is that the information he has been given - according to him - isn't cutting it. I think if anything HE'S not the one making presumptions. Again I put it to you: If we can just forget about Jack's supposed presumptions and look at this fine example for just one minute we might see something of a contradiction. And before the Bradders-bashing begins; I do go to the gym, I have seen results after eating both meat and drinking protein shakes and I have absolutely no problem with vegans. However, when I read comments like some of these claiming that meat-eaters are narrow minded and poorly educated (nutritionally speaking) it makes me wonder. And lastly: We wouldn't have the brain power to be having this debate if it weren't for taking this 'poison'. So let's at least be fair guys.