Hahahahahahahahahahaha x1000


No.

Does this apply for high quality organic meat and eggs as well?

Again with the broadly stated, completely unsubsubstantiated, statement that we don't readily absorb most plant nutrients.  A) you may be conflating standard absorption with under-absorption.  We absorb some things far *too* readily from meat.  People suffering from heart disease, stroke, erectile dysfunction, and a raft of neurological issues (often mistaken for Alzheimers) are suffering from our bodies being too good at absorbing cholesterol and saturated fat.  Our bodies have no mechanism to get rid of excess cholesterol, as opposed to carnivores and most omnivores which do have an ability to.  People suffering from hemochromatosis (overabundance of iron) almost exclusively are omnivores since our bodies are designed to ramp up the absorption of plant-based iron when we're low, and slow down the absorption of plant-based iron when we have too much.

Most studies on absorption look at a single nutrient in isolation, but that's not how it works in the body.  There are synergistic effects of eating the rainbow (eating vitamin C improves the uptake of iron, eating black pepper increases the absorption of curcumin, etc.).

You seem to believe that we have trouble getting nutrients from plants in general.  The reverse couldn't be true.  And traditionally we largely ate largely fruit (though the fruits were different then, as we've heavily cultivated fruit plants in the millenia since).  This isn't up for debate, you can look at someone's hair and know the kinds of nutrition they were getting during the months/years it took to grow that hair (similarly to how you can look at the rings of a tree to analyze its history).  We're looking at rehydrated fossilized human stool to see what people ate.  We're analyzing their hair.  We're doing this for different populations around the world.  And we do see evidence of heavily plant-based societies, and those that ate more meat, and you're right to say that what they ate was heavily dependent on what was around them.  Where your argument goes off the rails is you then assume that the plant-based populations were the less healthy ones, but in fact they appear to have been the longer-living ones.  And we see that in the modern era with the Okinawans in Asia, the Tarahumara in Central America, and the Adventist vegans in North America.  The longest-living populations ever studied on the planet are the most plant-based.

   I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the first sentence appears to be missing a word, and the lack of punctuation makes your second sentence confusing.  Not trying to be pedantic, I'm genuinely quite confused by what you're trying to get at.

   I'm going to make a guess that you're saying that whether someone is an omnivore, an herbivore, etc., is defined by their behaviour rather than their biology.  I both agree and disagree.  If I were an extraterrestrial studying humans, I might say the average human is biologically best adapted to being either an herbivore or a frugivore, but that the average human is a behavioural omnivore.  That graphic I posted spoke to the biological side of the equation, not the behavioural side of the equation.  As we have have eaten more meat, dairy, eggs, and refined carbohydrates (note that last addition, I am no more fond of refined carbs than I am of animal products) our health has plummeted and our rates of disease have shot up, and there's strong and growing evidence that the disconnect between our biology (best adapted to eating whole plant foods) and our behaviour (increasingly made up of animal products and refined plant foods) is the source of much of our chronic disease.

Cool story bro.

Yes.  The inflammation isn't caused by all the antibiotics, infectious disease, feces and other contamination, etc., from factory farmed animals.  It's caused by the actual digestion of the meat/dairy/eggs.  Plant-protein is actually the purest protein.  Plants take nitrogen out of the air, synthesize amino acids, and combine them into proteins.  Animals eat the plants (or eat animals who ate plants) to get their protein, but in the animal's body that protein is then combined with cholesteral, saturated fat, etc., and when a human eats animal products the processing of that in the body creates problems.  Digesting meat floods the body with endotoxins that harm our gut bacteria, and create systemic inflammation.  Here's a good article on it:  https://nutritionfacts.org/2012/09/20/why-meat-causes-inflammation/  It's actually more the fat than it is the protein, but that's neither here nor there if you're trying to get ripped.  You want to work your body, then you want to recover as fast as possible, and then do another workout.  Eating pure protein from plant sources is best for this, and eating animal products is worst for this.  Both animal and plant protein builds muscle equally well, so the difference is in the recovery rates and this is where plant-based diets have the advantage.  Growing numbers of athletes are switching to plant-based diets for this very reason.

You understood what I meant. I wrote that late at night. Anyway, I was talking about the actual definition of omnivore and humans fit it perfectly. The fact that humans require a daily intake of nutrients from both plants and animals proves that humans are omnivores. We're meant to consume both plant and animal daily. 

I rather be a marathon running omnivore than a sedentary vegan :)

Frozen produce just tastes bland to me, I don't very much like it. It's easier to make something that tastes good with meat in it. This time of year my diet is mostly brocoli, cauliflower and squash when it comes to vegetables, besides the regular onions, mushrooms and garlic on the side. Occosionally a chunky roasted red pepper soup with carrots and peas in chicken broth, and some fresh honey garlic sausages. Frozen yoghurt for desert.

Perhaps if I had a chef that could cook awesome vegan meals I would be willing to try it out for a month, see if I still feel as energized to cycle 130km in a day. Yet I don't have that, and rather play video games instead of planning meals.

Besides what's the prize? Living to be frail at 90+ while shuffling around trying to remember who you are... Actually my grandfather was still in good shape afer 90 while always eating meat. It was not his heart nor cancer that got him in the end, more not being able to do the things he loved anymore, kinda lost interest in staying alive.

Yes.

Yes.