I don't know how similar to humans are baboons. They are exactly the kind of omnivores [1] which savanna-inhabiting proto-humans are often described to be. They also hunt in organized groups, sometimes pretty large.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baboon#Habitat_and_prey

Evolved to eat plans as an option, yes, but not as a preference. It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting, and that's with modern, highly selected for plants... My bet would be we evolved to eat animal fats and protein, and that is most of the selection pressure for our big brains too. Hunting while being a rather frail primate takes brains.

There are heaps of people who thrive strictly on plants who aren’t bloated or struggling to digest their food or get calories in.

Yeah, I mean you can even do a keto vegan weight gainer diet if you go fairly processed. It isnt hard at all if you allow carbs. Coconut oil, brown rice protein and pea protein for the keto. Use actual brown rice and legumes for the carb version. But to the point of the GP, I can't tolerate legumes (even fermented) and I don't think very many people at all tolerate brown rice protein, that is why they lowered it so much in soylent.

Some people have different dietary needs. I haven't found a way to get sufficient protein without animal products that doesn't leave me with digestive issues. Even just using broccoli and greens, along with oatmeal ended up being unpleasant. And this is just for normal fda levels of protein, not adding muscle mass after an injury or illness levels of protein.

Maybe so, but protein is a different story. How many professional athletes are true vegans for extended periods outside of Tom Brady, who is kind of psycho to begin with.

That doesn’t say anything though since there are so few vegans to begin with. Protein is also trivial to supplement.

Not hard to google that. There's even a website: https://www.greatveganathletes.com/

I think that's a silly argument anyway, if we're discussing health. Professionals do plenty of stuff that is awful for them to get performance gains. Steroids, exercise routines that are very punishing on the body long-term (plenty of power lifters who can barely even walk after retirement and they aren't that old), etc.. I am not sure you can say it's good for you if professionals do it... maybe good for short term performance, but not "good for you."

It's actually easier to get protein if you like legumes (including tofu and peas, not sure if these are technical legumes), gluten, and/or nuts. All of these have amazing nutrients, are really cheap, and easy to digest for most people. If they aren't for you that's ok - some people can't digest meat either.

Not saying you don't need to take some supplements as a vegan. You probably do, at least b12 and maybe omegas, but you're getting those from "supplements" anyway from meat (it is just fed to the animals first).

I think one exception is that some fish seem to promote health in moderation. I personally don’t find it worth supporting the fishing industry or killing countless animals to get the fish I want, so I’m content without that in my diet. And like you mentioned, supplementing omega is an option (even if it isn’t as effective with vegan options — I’m not sure).

The protein problem is a myth. And what percentage of the population is involved in athleticism that requires significant amounts of protein? This scenario is so uncommon as to be irrelevant to the average person.

I run, dive, lift weights, and rock climb without any issues. If I did it competitively I could easily supplement with plant proteins. Virtually anyone I know who eats meat and trains hard has also supplemented with whey or something similar. There doesn’t appear to be a meaningful difference when eating plants.

> It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely preposterous take. Are you suggesting that the ~80 million vegans and ~1.5 billion vegetarians worldwide are dealing with constant bloating and digestive issues? In fact I'd make the case that a _far_ greater number of people deal with poor digestion due to under-consumption of plants- leading to low intake of dietary fiber- than vice versa.

Also we did not "evolve to eat plants as an option." We evolved from primarily frugivorous apes, so plants were the starting point and the default. And some of the key changes to our biology were to support the consumption of additional plants, not just meat. Relatively large molars, a long GI tract, and enzymes for the digestion of starches.

We are biologically omnivorous, no one should deny that, but to suggest that we evolved primarily as meat eaters is a bit absurd.

That's an interesting theory, but do you have anything to back that up with? Plenty of people throughout the world live quite well on plant-based diets without these problems you mention. I know, because I am one of them.

The quote you used says “food based on plants was the default.” Seems pretty deliberately worded to not claim that most humans never ate meat.

They're directly suggesting that food should have labels to let people know when foods are not wholly plant based. It seems they're really arguing that people should only rarely (if ever) eat non-plant-based foods and should avoid foods with animal products in them, because by default we should be eating plants not non-plants.

We didn't eat plants by default, we ate a mixture of plants and meats and other animal-derived products since we lived in caves.

You are now challenging the statement about plants being the "default" food. (Maybe you are not the original responder; I can't tell on my phone UI)

I think you're going to have to back that up with a citation.

For most of history, ordinary people could afford only plant based food. Meat was occasional. Industrial meat production in the West changed the economics of that.

Vegans are not the only people who care about our unsustainable practices. We all should. We could start by properly accounting for the externalities, ecological footprint, worker exploitation, and yes, the built-in cruelty to animals. I think the OP's suggestion to label animal parts is a step in the right direction.

> For most of history, ordinary people could afford only plant based food.

Most of history predates the idea of money.

That’s not true either. It was only plant based when they couldn’t obtain meat. Supplementing plant foods was the default when there was no prey available is more accurate.

Do you have a source on that? I don't think that's an accurate statement, or at least not one you can claim with confidence.

Evidence? We're talking about agricultural societies, too, not about hunters.

Not sport in the sense of exercise purely for the sake of burning calories, but sport in the sense of fitness display for status, bonding through teamwork and practice for warfare, definitely. The amount of calories and protein that can be achieved from hunting large game is just far too low compared to the same amount of effort and risk expended on trapping, fishing and gathering.

Of course humans were eating meat in prehistory, and more than once agriculture began. But we make art of the ideal and aspirational more than of the everyday.