Posted by:
SL Cabbie
(
)
Date: October 27, 2019 09:00PM
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273/>>By at least 2.6 million years ago, a remarkable expansion in this diet started to occur; some hominins began incorporating meat and marrow from small to very large animals into their diet. Let's explore the evidence for this dramatic shift using the 5 "W" questions: When, Where, Who, What, Why (and How).
When and where did hominin carnivory first occur?
>>The strongest evidence for meat and marrow eating are butchery marks found on bones. Slicing meat off a bone with a sharp-edged tool can leave cut marks (Figure 1). Pounding a bone with a large stone to break it open and extract the marrow inside can leave percussion marks. Cut and percussion marks, which together are called butchery marks, may be the result of skinning, disarticulation, and bone breakage for dietary and non-dietary reasons (Blumenschine & Pobiner 2006). Scientists began to recognize these butchery marks on Early Stone Age fossil assemblages in the 1980s (extensively footnoted).
More...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-meat-study-experts-question-studies-on-the-impact-of-eating-red-meat-more/>>The studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine conclude there's little to no effects from eating meat on illnesses like heart disease, cancer or diabetes. The controversial study also recommends consumers who eat as much as four servings a week can continue to do so.
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/the-truth-about-red-meat#3>>“People don’t need to give up red meat,” says Christine Rosenbloom, PhD, RD, a nutrition professor at Georgia State University. “They need to make better selections in the type of meat they eat and the portions.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the-real-truth-about-that-confusing-red-meat-study>>But now, according to headlines from across the world, all of that has changed. A controversial new study has proven that actually there's no evidence that eating red meat is bad for us, and that we can go ahead and gorge on steak and burgers once again.
>>On the other hand, headlines have hit out saying that this new research is nonsense, and that it could be deadly if people start eating more meat. This seems like a contradiction - either red meat is or isn't good for us, surely?
>>The answer, as you might have guessed, is very complicated, but it boils down to a simple fact: nutrition science is far harder than most people assume.
https://nationalpost.com/health/diet-fitness/no-beef-isnt-bad-for-you-scientists-conclude-there-is-no-need-to-eat-less-red-or-processed-meat>>Any health benefits from staying away from meat are uncertain, and, if they exist at all, are very small
>>"It's a form of patriarchy if we just tell people they should eliminate or reduce their meat consumption," said Bradley Johnston, the lead study author. "We don't believe that there should be broad public health recommendations, almost like scare tactics, for the population as a whole."
Patriarchy? Goodness, isn't that word associated with LDS, Inc?