Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet to Suit You => Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach => Topic started by: kurite on January 28, 2010, 07:45:56 am
-
I finally found an article that takes an in depth look at what humans are meant to eat. Instead of just saying that we are vegetarians because we dont have claws, like carnivores.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1b.shtml
This article is quite langthy if you want me to give you a summary just say so.
-
go summarize please!
-
Some key parts...
"Chivers and Langer [1994, p. 4]; ...:
The concept of omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves... animal matter is swamped in a large gut, and foliage cannot be digested in a small gut. A compromise is not really feasible... Humans are only omnivorous thanks to food processing and cookery; their guts have the dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are characteristic of folivores. Among the so-called omnivores, most eat either mainly fruit and animal matter (if smaller) or fruit and foliage (if larger) but not all three.
Thus we note that Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that includes significant amounts of all three types of foods: fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed inappropriate for mammals. ....
Section summary and synopsis
Although by comparative anatomy analysis (alone) the issue is not yet settled, the results of two different statistical analyses of a "large" data set on gut morphology and diet (i.e., the best available scientific evidence) support the idea that animal foods are a natural part of the human diet. That is:
• Humans are faunivores or frugivores adapted to a diet that includes significant amounts of animal foods.
• The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore, as claimed by various fruitarian extremists.
• Finally, the simplistic analyses of gut morphology found in the various comparative proofs of diet are (badly) outdated."
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml
-
Sorry it took so long to answer. Yes you got the main concept but what I really liked about the article is it mentions a monkey that is the closest genetically to humans in terms of our digestion system. In nature that certain monkeys diet consists of about 50% meat. Meaning that is probably the closest estimate we can come up with for our diet.
-
This topic should have been put in the zero-carb forum, I'll do so now. As for comparisons between animals claiming we are carnivores they all sound so very plausible but so are all the animal-comparisons made by vegans/vegetarians. The truth is humans have some adaptations to eating some kinds of plant foods(not leaves) and also some adaptations to eating animal foods.
-
No this thread is not meant to encourage a low carb diet?
-
No this thread is not meant to encourage a low carb diet?
The title of the thread is "we are faunivore" - faunivore means carnivore so belongs in RZC forum.
-
So what this article says is eat 50% animal product and 50% carbs (fruit, grain veg?)
-
'Flora and Fauna'... Flora is plants and Fauna is animals. I didn't read the article, but based on the titles I'd think it's saying to eat 99.99999% animal food.
-
Faunivore simply means that animal products are included in the diet not that we eat exclusively meat. And the monkey I was referring to does eat 50% meat on a regular bases but at certain times it will eat higher or lower amounts based on what it has on hand (no pun intended). So yes about 50%.
Omnivore simply means that you eat some food on a higher tropic level as well as plant matter, it does not necessarily mean that we include animals in our food, it means that we may eat insects.
-
Which monkeys are those?
-
The title of the thread is "we are faunivore" - faunivore means carnivore so belongs in RZC forum.
The definition featured in the article classified a faunivore as any creature with a morphology optimally designed to digest flesh/fish/eggs/insects/grubs/etc. regardless of what it actually eats (so it could also eat plant foods). Whereas ZC is a specific human diet that generally eliminates all plant carbs, and often also meats that contain significant carbs (particularly liver). So the two describe different things. On the other hand, only people following carnivorous or ZC diets tend to be interested in faunivory, so it probably does belong in the carnivore/ZC forum.
The more widely accepted scientific definition of faunivore is any creature within the carnivore and insectivore categories, which are assigned largely on morphology. Only obligate faunivores could be fairly classed as ZCers and even they tend to occasionally eat plant foods for likely medicinal purposes.
Nature is usually not as cut-and-dried as modern humans would like it to be. Where the confusion tends to occur is in mixing up what animals are designed to eat (morphology) with what they actually eat (diet).
-
Capuchin monkey (Cebus species)
-
The tarsier is a primate that reportedly eats 100% fauna (meat, insects, etc.). If forgot about that one when I said that no animal eats 99.9% meats. I haven't found any evidence yet that tarsiers eat grass or any other plant even for medicinal purposes, though I would be surprised if they don't at least occasionally do this.
-
But are their digestive systems similar to ours???
-
Good question. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that much research has been done on tarsiers and they are threatened with extinction, so we may never know. I think tarsiers, along with giant pandas and other bears, are a key species for humans to study for clues to our own morphology/physiology/optimal diet. Not because tarsiers are necessarily most like us, but because they provide an interesting contrast to the more herbivorous and frugivorous primates that get studied much more, and there are some interesting and little-known facts about tarsiers and giant pandas that are clues, I believe. Why is the research so lopsided? Is it because the tarsiers are in Southeast Asia instead of Africa, where most of the research seems to get done?
-
The definition featured in the article classified a faunivore as any creature with a morphology optimally designed to digest flesh/fish/eggs/insects/grubs/etc. regardless of what it actually eats (so it could also eat plant foods). Whereas ZC is a specific human diet that generally eliminates all plant carbs, and often also meats that contain significant carbs (particularly liver). So the two describe different things. On the other hand, only people following carnivorous or ZC diets tend to be interested in faunivory, so it probably does belong in the carnivore/ZC forum.
Hadn't realised, the term is so rare that I assumed re "fauna" that this meant a carnivorous diet. But it does still belong in the RZC forum more than anywhere else.
-
Okay what ever works for the forums. And yes I do believe your right about studying herbivores the only problem is a specialized herbivore such as a panda for instance. There diet mainly consists of bamboo so their digestive system might greatly differ from that of other herbivores. Unless your saying that this is why it is so important to study them???
-
Okay what ever works for the forums. And yes I do believe your right about studying herbivores the only problem is a specialized herbivore such as a panda for instance. There diet mainly consists of bamboo so their digestive system might greatly differ from that of other herbivores. ....
See, that's the interesting thing. Giant pandas are not herbivores despite eating 99% bamboo--they are classified as facultative faunivores because of their overall faunivorous morphology (they have some minor herbivorous traits like their thumbs and some of their teeth, but overall have very faunivorous morphology). Giant pandas are completely counterintuitive to most people (especially dogmatic vegans/vegetarians), which is one reason why I think they are particularly instructive. They call our assumptions into question.
-
I think the big thing is fat. Every animal eats fats. Herbivores just make it in their guts before it get absorbed into their system. The only way humans can generate fat is eating excessive carboyhydrates and that happens in our bloodstream, not our guts. Herbivores can get all their fat solubles by letting things ferment and generating fat to absorb it. Humans need to eat fat, there is no way around it. The only useful fementing we do is for farting. I don't think Al Gore likes that, he's pissed off at cattle farts. Nonfat eaters are the ones with the most digestive issues, go figure.
-
Very odd
-
Nature is very odd indeed and quite different than most people assume.
Since the omnivory vs. faunivory/carnivory debate came up again and since there were misunderstandings about what carnivory and faunivory are, I'll try to spend some time in the future discussing it more in this thread. Here's a start with a couple definitions of faunivore and a tidbit on tarsiers:
faunivore: "A broader category than carnivore as it includes insectivores and animals that graze on sessile invertebrates such as sponges." (http://www.wordnik.com/words/faunivore)
faunivore (adj. faunivorous): "a meat-eater; preferred to carnivore, which is best restricted to mammals in the order Carnivora" [to avoid confusion]. (D.J. Chivers, The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human Evolution, Jones, Martin and Pilbeam, Camb. Uni. Press, 1992, p. 462) By meat, Chivers includes insects, fish, eggs, etc.
Phil, I am interested! And there are others who are interested too. Tarsiers have little hands but are carnivores.
As Hanna pointed out, tarsiers are obligate faunivores despite having tiny hands and lacking big fangs or claws. Humans don't need fangs or claws because we can use numbers, cooperation, brainpower, weapons, endurance, ability to carry water and other advantages to hunt and kill large game. Tarsiers don't need big fangs or claws because they are small and thus eat small prey like "insects, arachnids, and small vertebrates such as snakes and lizards." (John G. Fleagle, Primate Adaptation and Evolution, Academic Press; 2nd edition (September 25, 1998), p. 120)
-
Tarsiers are just amazing looking, part alien, part human, part...Yoda! Very trippy animals. They have the biggest hands when taken their small body ratio.
(http://c0021553.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/94626257_30d7e7076a.jpg)
The Slow Loris is another monkey that mainly eats insects and small animals or amphibians, it will eat fruits and leaves only if theres no other food. It's metabolic rate is 40% slower so it hunts by creeping up slowly and then quickly striking with the hands. :P
They are very awesome looking too:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Hbo7Ung0Hbg/TL5Xp3iWUGI/AAAAAAAABc8/sDnook9iq1w/s1600/slowloris.jpg)
The Slender Loris is more omnivorous but eats mostly insects too...
(http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/loris-500x281.jpg)
-
I'm undecided when it comes to whether to classify humans as facultative faunivores or omnivores. Maybe it will turn out that facultative faunivore is a more accurate scientific term, but omnivore probably would be more understandable to most people and be a more practical approach that more of the human population could manage, with variations in ratio of fauna to flora to suit individual needs.
Yes, Yuli, lorids also include at least a couple species that might be considered carnivores/faunivores/insectivores. Tarsiers are obligate carnivores, whereas slow lorises are facultative, as you point out. Based on the following and a study of their physiology, even slender lorises might turn out to be facultative faunivores rather than true omnivores:
Mysore slender loris
K. A. I. Nekaris1 Contact Information and D. Tab Rasmussen1
(1) Department of Anthropology, Washington University, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, 63110
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m733717t35757824/
Abstract We studied the feeding ecology of the Mysore slender loris (Loris lydekkerianus lydekkerianus) for 10.5 mo in a dry scrub forest at Ayyalur Interface Forestry Division, Tamil Nadu, South India. We recorded and analyzed 1240 feeding incidents, which indicate that the lorises were almost exclusively faunivorous, with 96% of all feeding events representing animal prey.
And there's this: "a specialised faunivore like the Mysore slender loris" (Foraging behaviour of the slender loris (K.A.I. Nekaris, Loris lydekkerianus lydekkerianus): implications for theories of primate origins (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-4GFCSW2-2&_user=10&_coverDate=09/30/2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1574036342&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=851eb16d9f5302d677b72b9fffddfcf8&searchtype=a))
Instead of using the term facultative carnivore/faunivore, this article classifies the diets of the lesser slow loris and slender loris as "carnivore-omnivore": Molecular Adaptation of Alanine: Glyoxylate Aminotransferase Targeting
in Primates, http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/3/387.full.pdf
I have never seen a vegetarian or vegan bring up the subject of tarsiers or lorids. From their diets, you can see why. ;D Fruit & veggie advocates tend to focus on the most frugivorous and herbivorous primates.
I was planning on covering lorids in my discussion, Yuli, and you beat me to it. Good on ya! :)
-
Thank you, Phil. I would be particularly interested in the anatomical evidence!
-
[Edit: Please note - none of the following is meant to imply that Barry Groves is an RPDer nor that I'm advocating cooking. I'm only quoting these fellows as regards carnivory, not because their diets include some cooked foods. I only noted Groves' nod to RPD in passing because it's interesting and might be somewhat pleasing to RPDers to see something positive written about us. I left Groves' pro-cooking remarks about veggies in only because they are part of his rationale for arguing that humans are carnivores, not to promote cooking. Nothing here from Billings or Groves is meant to spark a conversation about raw vs. cooked in general except as specifically relates to faunivory/carnivory. Anything on debating raw vs. cooked in general that doesn't relate to faunivory/carnivory vs. omnivory/frugivory should go into an on-topic thread to avoid derailing this one. Thanks.]
You're welcome, Hanna. Below are three who have argued that humans are or at least could be classified as carnivores/faunivores. I don't necessarily agree with all their opinions, but I will present their views and links here without my opinions so folks can make up their own minds:
Walter Voegtlin, MD
Author of the Stone Age Diet
Comparative Anatomy Man Dog Sheep
Table 1: Functional And Structural Comparison Of Man's Digestive Tract With That Of The Dog And Sheep. (From Walter Voegtlin, The Stone Age Diet, 1976, http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison4.html)
Voegtlin pointed out the greater number of similarities between the physiology of humans and facultatively carnivorous dogs as versus herbivorous sheep.
Barry Groves
"Researcher and author"
"The totality of evidence demonstrates that the human digestive tract is extremely inefficient when coping with foods of vegetable origin. With no bacteria and no enzymes capable of breaking down the cell walls to release the small amounts of nutrients inside, we can only eat many of these foods after they have been cooked. As Nature must have intended that all foods should be eaten raw, they cannot have formed a significant part of our diet during our evolution." (Comparison Between the Digestive Tracts of a Carnivore, a Herbivore and Man, http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison5.html)
Should all animals eat a high-fat, low-carb diet?
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/should-all-animals-eat-a-high-fat-low-carb-diet.html
Afteranalyzing macronutrients based on what is actually "absorbed into the body to be used as a source of energy" instead of intakes, Groves came to the following conclusion:
"If we look at the various natural diets of all mammals, we find the same pattern: All of the diets are high in fat, and most of that fat is saturated as, apart from the saturated fats found in meat, all the short chain fatty acids produced by fermentative bacteria are 100% saturated. Also, all mammals' natural diets are very low in carbohydrate in the case of herbivores, and practically carbohydrate free in the case of carnivores.
There is no reason to suppose that we 'civilised' humans should eat any differently."
Interestingly, Barry argues, like Ray Audette, that meat would be optimally eaten raw if it were not for pathogenic microbiota and he even gives a nod to raw Paleo here--one of the few positive remarks about RPDers or the RPD that I have come across from a public figure (Denise Minger has written some positive remarks and KGH has written both positive and critical remarks):
The implications of cooking foods and methods used
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cooking-2.html
If ... meat is subjected for any length of time to the temperature of boiling water (100C, or 212F), all its protein becomes changed into the insoluble form, and its ease of digestion is consequently diminished. This was confirmed by several experiments in which meat, raw or cooked in various ways, was withdrawn by means of a stomach pump after the lapse of varying times, so that the rapidity of digestion could be seen and measured. The different kinds of meat were all taken on an empty stomach, so that the presence of other foods would not confuse the readings. These were the results:
Raw Beef digested in 2 hours.
Boiled Beef (half done) digested in 2½ hours
Boiled Beef (well done) digested in 3 hours
Roasted Beef (half done) digested in 3 hours
Roasted Beef (well done) digested in 4 hours
Raw Mutton digested in 2 hours
Raw Veal digested in 2 ½ hours
Raw Pork digested in 3 hours
This shows that the more thoroughly meat is cooked, the longer is the time required for its digestion. Raw or half-raw meat is therefore preferable to well done meat. But then there arises the risk of being supplied with meat containing the eggs of intestinal worms, which thorough cooking would render harmless.
Vegetables. Most vegetable foods, however, need to be well cooked for their digestion. The cellulose which envelops starch grains and of which vegetable cell walls are made, is not soluble in the digestive fluids. It is only by the process of cooking that it is ruptured, and the contents of the cellulose envelope are allowed to come into contact with the digestive enzymes. Even such processes as juicing, are only about 50% efficient in this regard.
....
Conclusions
There are several conclusions we can draw from this paper:
1. From the above it is clear that cooking has both benefits and adverse effects. People eating a raw paleolithic diet will agree; those eating the processed food of modern industrialised societies, thinking [cooking] is 'healthy' may have different thoughts.
2. Cooking meat and foods of animal origin is generally harmful; but vegetables must be well cooked to extract the maximum nutrition from them.
3. For frying, the use of non-stick pans and spray oils to minimise fat intake is exactly the wrong thing to do.
4. The American habit of cooking bacon so that it is so crisp that it shatters, destroys as a food. This may be why such 'foods' have been linked to intestinal cancers.
Healthy food: Should we be eating more fat?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3230846/Healthy-food-Should-we-be-eating-more-fat.html
“We’re a carnivorous species – our gut is identical to that of a big cat [Yet he does eat some plant foods, such as apples, pears, lettuce and tomatoes]. Yet we’re encouraged to eat foods that have been padded out with modified starch and vegetable oils, and complex carbohydrates such as bread, pasta and rice, which have all been labelled healthy – but not the fatty meat that our body actually recognises.”
Tom Billings
Creator of BeyondVeg.com
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml
Billings argues that humans can be classed as either facultative faunivores (faunivores includes carnivores plus insectivores and sponges, although sometimes carnivore is used with the same meaning as faunivore), facultative frugivores or omnivores, depending on the criteria you choose:
"Humans are faunivores or frugivores adapted to a diet that includes significant amounts of animal foods. The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore, as claimed by various fruitarian extremists." (Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date: Are Humans Natural Frugivores/Vegetarians, or Omnivores/Faunivores? http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml
Billings reports that there are three dietary categories in nature and that they are not strict:
o Herbivores (folivores)
o Carnivores [faunivores, insectivores, piscivores]
o Frugivores
In other words, most animals are facultative members of these categories, not obligate and they will sometimes switch between categories depending on the season. For this reason some scientists claim that most animals are omnivores, whereas others consider the term unscientific and instead speak of facultative herbivores, carnivores and frugivores. Those that use the term "omnivores" tend to focus on diet, whereas those who use "facultative" tend to focus on physiology, morphology and taxonomy.
Sometimes the main categories are further simplified into herbivores vs. carnivores and frugivores are grouped under herbivores along with these other sub-categories:
Feeding Strategy - Diet
Nectarivores - Nectar
Granivores - Seeds
Palynivores - Pollen
Mucivores - Plant fluids, i.e. sap
Xylophages - Wood
-
Thanks for the links and info, very interesting, even though I already knew most of it this organizes it nicely in my brain.
The anatomical comparison tables just about sums up about any speculations about our major dietary group.
Next time some vegan tells me we are herbivores instead of wasting my breath I'll hand them a printout of the table -X
The second article is a good way to tell people that if they think its ok and paleo to eat bags of sweet apples smothered in honey, they should rethink it, not very natural or even possible for many mammals in nature. If we were like bees or hummingbirds then I guess it would be ok, but can anyone see any resemblance?
The third one about cooking implications is interesting...I am surprised to see that cooked meat takes only an additional 1/3 or less time to digest, but only because of the dumb claims that cooked meat digests in your stomach for 24 hours, yeah, right...
-
http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/articles/anti-raw-bias-on-beyondveg-com-website-debunked/
-
I haven't read much of beyong veg. - didn't know they were ANTI-raw, I knew they were anti-vegan...
I always find it silly the wars between cooking and not-cooking meat, you don't have to be anti-RAW because raw meat and animal products are so highly nutritious, but at the same time I see no reason to be anti-cooked meat either, the longer I stick with paleo and not eating grains and other neo-crap the more efficient I am eating both cooked and raw meat and animal products, on a healthy diet I think we would have to eat a lot of well done meat to accelerate aging and deterioration by any significant amount l)
-
I haven't read much of beyong veg. - didn't know they were ANTI-raw, I knew they were anti-vegan...
I always find it silly the wars between cooking and not-cooking meat, you don't have to be anti-RAW because raw meat and animal products are so highly nutritious, but at the same time I see no reason to be anti-cooked meat either, the longer I stick with paleo and not eating grains and other neo-crap the more efficient I am eating both cooked and raw meat and animal products, on a healthy diet I think we would have to eat a lot of well done meat to accelerate aging and deterioration by any significant amount l)
unfortunately, the mass of studies showing numerous health-problems in old age from eating diets high in cooked animal foods, full of heat-created toxins, rather disproves your assertion.
-
Please don't derail the thread into a raw vs. cooked topic, Tyler. This thread's topic is faunivory. Thanks.
I don't think I included any of Tom Billing's advocacy of cooking in my post. The only stuff re: cooking and raw from Groves that I included was either related to his arguments favoring his hypothesis of humans as carnivores or to an interesting nod to the RPD. None of it was meant to advocate cooking. I'll even add an edit to make this more clear.
-
Please don't derail the thread into a raw vs. cooked topic, Tyler. This thread's topic is faunivory. Thanks.
I don't think I included any of Tom Billing's advocacy of cooking in my post. The only stuff re: cooking and raw from Groves that I included was either related to his arguments favoring his hypothesis of humans as carnivores or to an interesting nod to the RPD. None of it was meant to advocate cooking. I'll even add an edit to make this more clear.
I merely mentioned the website debunking beyondveg.com's anti-raw claims because you had cited beyondveg.com as a supposedly reliable source re your other points, and people might easily make a mistake and falsely assume, as a result, that Billings was right on other aspects of his website.
Come to think of it, your claim re Barry Groves being pro-raw is completely wrong. I and other members got so sick and tired with Barry Groves' endless foolish assertions, on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group a long while back, that cooking was not a problem as long it involved cooked meat, that he was challenged by another member to provide some data to debunk endless previous posts on heat-created toxins in cooking- and Barry Groves, being humiliated, made a very feeble excuse because he couldn't think of anything, and left the forum in question.
-
OK, please specify in the future when you're just trying to undercut the credibility of the source, to avoid giving the impression that you're trying to hijack the thread with a raw vs. cooked debate. You've already managed to get Yuli debating you on that. Further debate on it will be moved to a more appropriate thread to avoid sidetracking this one.
I did NOT claim that Groves is completely pro-raw. I merely quoted him and mentioned that he gave a nod to RPD. I already know that he isn't a pure rawist. Please try not to rant about Groves too much in this thread except to refute his points, as I know he's one of your pet peeves and you can easily get sidetracked on that, and please stick to the actual topic that you can debate if you wish. Why not propose anti-carnivory/faunivory arguments if you like?
-
I don't want to argue about cooked meat either, not necessary, people have lots of studies and info to figure out their answers, I do support the eating of raw meat and enjoy everything about it, despite my difference in thinking that eating part of your meat cooked is ok if you are healthy and does not contribute to aging in any significant way, I have no problem people eating all raw meat and in a way admire it greatly :D
PS. I didn't mean to derail the thread either sry....We have enough of those threads, the discussion of anatomy, diet and our classification in the animal kingdom is more interesting and useful. Everyone here already is either pure rawist or in support of including a large portion of raw foods in order to thrive (moi), so whatever food/diet we discuss it should be assumed that we are consuming it raw or trying to!
-
Thanks Yuli.
BTW, Voegtlin wrote some stuff that was quite bogus in my view. So his credibility is also somewhat undermined by that, although it's maybe a little understandable since Voegtlin was writing decades ago and he didn't have access to the advances in knowledge since then, nor to the Internet. Rather than get into criticizing these authors I figured I would just present their views and let folks decide for themselves. Besides, I figured that Tyler and others would point out the flaws in their points anyway, which saves me some work. :)
As far as I'm concerned, all sources are questionable. I try to maintain a theoretical approach of accepting nothing on faith and questioning everything, though for practical purposes to enable discussion and everyday living I accept some things as givens. So just because I quote some dude doesn't mean I'm claiming he's 100% credible, nor does it even necessarily mean that I agree with him.
-
Thank you Phil for the overview!
Can chimps / monkeys digest plants better than we can?
-
Google found this:
http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2009/06/are-ape-diets-suited-to-humans.html
According to Katharine Milton, an expert in primate physiology:
"In humans, more than half (>56%) of total gut volume is found in the small intestine, whereas all apes have by far the greatest total gut volume (>45%) in the colon."
"In addition, the size of the total human GI tract in relation to body size is small in comparison to those of apes."
- Katharine Milton, Nutritional Characteristics of Wild Primate Foods: Do The Diets Of Our Closest Living Relatives Have Lessons For Us?
So apes have more total intestine, and a larger relative colon. Considering that:
The small intestine is the place where most chemical digestion and absorption take place.
The large intestine is the place where undigested material is fed upon by bacteria, and where water is absorbed prior to feces exit.
You might say that humans evolved to eat more processed foods or as Dr. Milton says, "predigested" foods:
"The proportions of the modern human gut appear to reflect the fact that many foods are "predigested" by technology in one way or another before they even enter the human digestive tract."
- Katharine Milton, Hunter-Gatherer Diets - A Different Perspective
So perhaps we are not carnivores, but adapted to processed foods?
-
And another point: I read on different websites that carnivores´ stomach acid is at least 10 times stronger than humans´ stomach acid. E.g. http://www.waoy.org/26.html
-
Hanna you suck, no joke.
-
So perhaps we are not carnivores, but adapted to processed foods?
it's the other way around, we are carnivores, but adapted to plant food to some degree.
same as dogs, mostly carnivorous in the wild, but can live long time on mixed animal/plant diet. dogs can survive on pant only diet, just not long term.
-
But our weak stomach acid is a clear indication that we are NOT carnivores, or at least not adapted to large amounts of RAW meat, isn´t it?
-
Yo Hanna dog, we're smaller than lions(although I suppose they may just affect the quantity of acid). Also, it doesn't seem to me that we are adapted to plant foods any more than dogs/cats. We can adapt plant food to us though, to some degree.
-
Hmm lets see,
I eat a large meal of raw meat....I wait....I take a crap....I feel good....I am alive....yup we're adapted to eat it.
But we can also handle eating a huge amount of other foods too.
I don't think our stomach acids are naturally weak, or supposed to be.
Ever threw up a bit after eating the wrong food or drinking too much? What comes out is some pretty fukkin strong acid, that why it burns.
-
Hanna overlooks a rather vital point:- sure, the human stomach-acid is weaker than with carnivores but we have a longer gut than carnivores to compensate for that.So we are more omnivorous than otherwise. As for the processed food theory, that falls flat when one realises that there are studies showing that we still digest almost all rawpalaeo foods far better when they are raw than when they are cooked(I'm thinking of the study by Oste I showed a long while back re raw meat being better digested if raw etc.). And to be remotely adapted to cooked, we would have to be largely immune to heat-created toxins in cooked foods, and that is not the case as many health-problems directly linked to levels of heat-created toxins in the human body are still widely present in the human population, re diabetes etc.
-
....or at least not adapted to large amounts of RAW meat, isn´t it?
Also how can we not be adapted to raw meat?
First of all raw meat is EASIER to digest then cooked meat, so if you think we are not adapted just say we're not adapted to any meat, because how can we not be adapted to eat raw meat but be adapted to eat cooked meat, it doesn't make sense.
The fact there are groups of people like the Inuit who have survived almost on only raw meat should be a clear answer anyway.
-
Hanna is a dirty vegan.
-
I ate vegan food only for decades. Eventually my digestive power was used up. Now I eat raw meat. It gives me energy the plant food didn't, AND I can digest it fine. I never could digest cooked meat, and still can't. Lions eat it raw. Have they been raised on cooked?
-
Thank you Phil for the overview!
Can chimps / monkeys digest plants better than we can?
Their physiology is better geared toward digesting plants than ours. Whether anyone has tested it, I don't know. I doubt that anyone doubts that chimps/monkeys digest plants better than us other than some vegans/vegetarians/fruitarians.
But our weak stomach acid is a clear indication that we are NOT carnivores, or at least not adapted to large amounts of RAW meat, isn´t it?
Are you so sure based on just that single datum, given the other evidence pointing the other way, including what was provided in this thread and other threads and Lex's apparent thriving on a meat/fat/organ-only diet for years? It doesn't seem like a completely settled question to me, but maybe you're aware of something more that I'm not?
-
It looks like Art De Vany (http://www.arthurdevany.com), one of the Paleo diet pioneers, also regards humans as facultative carnivores. This is from the book he just published, with my notes in brackets:
"Dental isotopes of Neanderthals [Tyler has pointed out that this evidence is inconclusive] show them to be just below the wolf in their carnivory [bear in mind that wolves are facultative carnivores that can eat some plant foods like berries]; they passed from the scene 35,000 years ago [not completely--some of their genes were passed on]. But Cro-Magnon (Homo sapies) dentition reveals that they were only slightly less carnivorous. And they are the predecessors to us all." (The New Evolution Diet: What Our Paleolithic Ancestors Can Teach Us about Weight Loss, Fitness, and Aging, p. 51)
From http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-new-evolution-diet/#comment-690003:
Q: Art can one follow your plan on a veg/vegan diet?
Art De Vany: You could live AS a vegan, but you can never BE one. It is not in your genes or your metabolism to be other than a omnivorous carnivore because meat is where the dense nutrients and energy were trapped on the savanna. Anything else is merely a choice. I concede you may have reasons to make that choice, or give it up as many have done, most recently Angelina Jolie (she said it nearly killed her —I secretly get all my diet advice from the movie magazines).
Cro Magnon homo sapiens were just about the wolf in nitrogen intake — they were hunters-fishers who moved above the wolf on the trophic chain because of their fish consumption. So, consider fish as an alternative. You may have to consume fish oil to manage your lipids; is consuming fish or krill oil eating part of a fish? Your call.
Do begin with Mark’s post that he put on my site years ago and which he has now reposted here on his site, “Escape from Vegan Island.” I gave it that whimsical title because I imagined that I might have been trapped on that island surrounded by vegans. I would have to find a way out.
Here is some more evidence I happened upon today that points toward a meat-rich dietary background for humans:
Another Way Eating Meat Makes Us Smarter
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2010/12/another-way-eating-meat-makes-us.html
A study found that vegetarians that supplemented with creatine, which is best sourced from animal foods, displayed better memory
Choline, not found in plants, is now classed as an essential nutrient: "Because of endogenous synthesis, the Institute of Medicine did not classify choline among the essential nutrients until 1998."
The Latest Uh-Oh for Vegetarians and Vegans: Carnosine
http://primalmuse.blogspot.com/2010/12/latest-uh-oh-for-vegetarians-and-vegans.html
-
I was referring to the raw, unprocessed meat of freshly slaughtered mammals, not to aged meat, dried meat, frozen meat, processed meat, smoked meat etc.
The meat we usually buy and eat is aged, i. e. predigested by enzymes and bacteria. Humans usually do not like the meat of freshly killed animals (see also http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/hunting-anyone/msg56611/#msg56611). But in paleo times, there were no coolers (or fans) to properly age and preserve the meat. Therefore, ageing meat was not always and not everywhere possible. A true, raw-eating carnivore should like the meat of freshly killed animals. So either we are not true carnivores or we are not designed to eat everything raw, fresh and unprocessed. I guess that both is true.
Thanks Phil for you interesting informations, also regarding squashes etc. ;)
-
Hello Hanna,
there are many true carnivore animals that let their food rot before they eat it, like the krokodile.
That in fact do not make them less carnivorous.
I do not understand your point?
I myself believe that human can digest some plantfood fine, like wild berries etc.
But I don`t believe we are designed to digest much plantmatter though.
This is my own experience.
Another point:
I believe we are also organs/marrow-eaters.. :) these you can very well eat from freshly killed animals BTW.
Inger
-
I was referring to the raw, unprocessed meat of freshly slaughtered mammals, not to aged meat, dried meat, frozen meat, processed meat, smoked meat etc.
The meat we usually buy and eat is aged, i. e. predigested by enzymes and bacteria. Humans usually do not like the meat of freshly killed animals (see also http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/hunting-anyone/msg56611/#msg56611). But in paleo times, there were no coolers (or fans) to properly age and preserve the meat. Therefore, ageing meat was not always and not everywhere possible. A true, raw-eating carnivore should like the meat of freshly killed animals. So either we are not true carnivores or we are not designed to eat everything raw, fresh and unprocessed. I guess that both is true.
Thanks Phil for you interesting informations, also regarding squashes etc. ;)
..... I like the taste of fresh meat, the meat I usually buy is fresh, I ate 2kg fresh and bloody beef roasting joint yesterday and loved it, just ate with my hands and mouth... I've seen plenty of snow-living people on tv eating fresh raw reindeer/caribou meat and enjoying it, people eat sashimi which is fresh meat/fish and clearly enjoy it...
-
..... I like the taste of fresh meat, the meat I usually buy is fresh, I ate 2kg fresh and bloody beef roasting joint yesterday and loved it, just ate with my hands and mouth... I've seen plenty of snow-living people on tv eating fresh raw reindeer/caribou meat and enjoying it, people eat sashimi which is fresh meat/fish and clearly enjoy it...
I would love to have access to more fresh meat as would prefer to eat it over aged meat even if the taste isn't as nice. Mainly because I believe that a lot of the goodness is lost when we eat aged meats. I eat more lamb than beef these days due to the fact lamb isn't aged (or atleast I dont believe it is ???)
What meat do you usually buy fresh Miles as seeing as you're in the UK I should be able to get the same?
-
What meat do you usually buy fresh Miles as seeing as you're in the UK I should be able to get the same?
Go to Morrisons butcher now and they have vacuum-packed beef roasting joints £4/kilo. Otherwise they always have fresh meat anyway.
-
Go to Morrisons butcher now and they have vacuum-packed beef roasting joints £4/kilo. Otherwise they always have fresh meat anyway.
But I always thought that UK beef was hung for around 3 weeks regardless of the cut? Hmm. May have to have a look at Morrisons then. Thanks.
-
But I always thought that UK beef was hung for around 3 weeks regardless of the cut? Hmm. May have to have a look at Morrisons then. Thanks.
Avoid ALL supermarkets. They always provide low-quality foods and supporting them reduces the availability of high-quality raw foods, over time, as they get more money to squeeze out competitors.
-
Avoid ALL supermarkets. They always provide low-quality foods and supporting them reduces the availability of high-quality raw foods, over time, as they get more money to squeeze out competitors.
I agree Tyler. At the moment I buy all my meat from the local butcher and the only reason I was going to look into Morrisons is because I think I misinterpreted miles' comments in that I thought 'fresh' meat in his posts was meat that hadn't been hung for 3 weeks and had pretty much come straight off the animal and hence had more nutrition in it due to it not being bled out. -\
-
UK beef was(is) hung for around 3 weeks regardless of the cut?
I don't think that's true(though I don't know). Where did you get this from? What is hung? the whole carcass or what? If it was hung long how would it still be so bloody, strong and red?
"And when we prepare the meat, we know how to get the best flavour. We hang it in our butchery for the time it needs to make it tender, and to ‘taste like meat used to’. That’s one week for lamb, pork and poultry, and three weeks for beef. Then we butcher our meat by hand, using traditional skills and tools, producing a variety of interesting and useful cuts. You can tell the quality just by looking at them."
This is from the 'Well Hung Meat Company'.
And... I don't think Morrisons beef and lamb is poor quality at all..
-
Is morrisons beef and lamb grass-fed? And if it isn't organic it will have been treated with antibiotics surely?
-
No antibiotics afaik. The lamb is grass-fed freerange, and the beef is grass-fed but with grain in the winter. It's not officially organic. I did ask all these questions a while ago and find out exactly, including the actual farms the animals comes from and I remember I was satisfied, and spoke to the Morrisons buyers.
-
AFAIK meat is usually wet-aged.
Wet aging occurs when meat and its own juices are vacuum packed in plastic and boxed for distribution. Because the plastic packaging does not allow loss of moisture, the meat may absorb more moisture which results in an increase in juiciness and tenderness.
http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/aging_meat.html
-
I don't think that's true(though I don't know). Where did you get this from? What is hung? the whole carcass or what? If it was hung long how would it still be so bloody, strong and red?
I'm not 100% if its true either but it was my butcher that mentioned it when I first started enquiring about raw beef mince to make steak tartare as I was heading in the raw food direction. He said that they hang it (the whole carcass) for a period of between 21 and 28 days as the longer its hung the more tender the meat becomes as it ages.
I also understand that the beef in France that is used for steak tartare is usually only hung for 7-10 days to keep its freshness but again i'm not 100% on this. Maybe Francois might know more.
I'll ask my butcher next time I speak to him.
The last thing I did hear on the grapevine was that supermarket meat tended to be fresher (hung for less time) as it was more cost effective for them to get the meat into packets and on to the shelves rather than taking up storage space and adding to their costs. Seems to make sense I suppose but still not convinced on the quality of supermarket meats over high quality butchers.
-
Supermarkets always focus on quantity rather than quality, so it's hardly likely that their products are as they state. Waitrose is a bit better as they focus more on the organic side of things, but they're still pretty bad.
-
I just searched and found this about the Eskimos:
Stefansson's book "The Fat of the Land" (...)
He gets into the Eskimos and raw food on pages 104-05 and elsewhere.
"It was not true, as implied by the usual northern movie and by some writers, that Eskimos preferred to eat their food raw. A few things were preferred raw, among them seal liver;
but most were preferred boiled or roasted, and if they were
eaten raw it was usually for convenience. Still it is true that
the Eskimos ate wholly uncooked meats more frequently
than we do."
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/stefansson's-book-online-t925/?wap2
And this about the Nenets:
The women’s role primarily is to prepare and cook the staples of meat and fish (...) Women’s work, connected to heating and cooking, takes place mostly at the stove.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/tribes/nenets/index.shtml
From what I have read, all snow people cooked quite a bit and there must be a reason for that. A reason could be, for example, that we are not designed to eat large amounts of raw, fresh, unprocessed red muscle meat. l) Fish can be eaten fresher than red muscle meat; it has less connective tissue and is more easily digestible. BTW, doesn´t meat freeze very quickly in the arctis? Thawed meat ages faster than meat that has not been frozen and even frozen meat ages, although slowly, of course.
-
The above is, of course, biased nonsense from Stefansson. He was trying at the time to promote his all-meat-and-dairy diet and realised that if he used the only example he could think of, namely the Inuit, he would thereby be inadvertently suggesting that a raw-meat diet was healthy - he realised that, given millenia of social conditioning re raw-meat-phobias,people would be much less likely to adopt his diet if they thought that raw meat was part of the diet, so he lied when he claimed that the Inuit didn't eat much of their meats raw. Other people who visited the Eskimoes, such as Weston-Price and other anthropologists, all noted a high intake of raw meats in the Inuit, thus debunking Stefansson's claims.
(Stefansson, by the way, was notorious for his promotion of the "Blond Eskimo" theory, which prompted a number of scientists to accuse him of outright fraud, due to the dodgy evidence presented by him).
As for frozen meats, the Inuit are known to have loved eating frozen "high"-fish - it was their favourite dish, apparently.
-
Tyler is correct about the facts (whether he's correct about what Stefansson's thoughts and motivations were, there's no way of knowing, though they are at least plausible guesses). The vast majority of observers have reported that the Inuit and other Arctic cultures ate more raw foods (and organs and plant foods) than Stefansson reported. More importantly, the Inuit and other Arctic peoples themselves tell a different story and demonstrate a different experience than what Stefansson reported. Even today many Inuit still eat raw red meats/organs/fats, such as these Inuit that ate nearly an entire seal raw with Anthony Bourdain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGVdYiM5IXw
Stefansson's reports were an interesting and valuable contribution overall, but imperfect. They should be taken in the context of the whole of the information on Arctic cultures and now that we have good contact with most of them (especially since the fall of the Iron Curtain opened Siberia to the world), I think it's particularly important to listen to what the Arctic people themselves have to say, as they have been frequently misrepresented and misunderstood for many years.
A side note: the downplaying and even ridiculing of the importance of organ meats like liver and eating animal foods raw or low-cooked by some of the ZIOH folks is particularly bizarre given that one of their most frequently cited sources, Stefansson, acknowledged that Eskimos not only ate seal liver (and fish liver), but preferred it raw. It seems to require a certain amount of cognitive dissonance to not see the contradictions.
-
Eskimo people eat nowhere near as much fat as many people here seem to think.
-
Eskimo people eat nowhere near as much fat as many people here seem to think.
What caused you to bring that up, Miles--just the mention of Inuit and their consumption of raw animal foods? Are there any specific posts where claims were made about Eskimo fat consumption that you had in mind? I recall William (a former member who was banned) claiming that they ate a certain percentage of fat, but I don't recall anyone else making the claim. I think Lex has even repeatedly said that Stefansson miscalculated the Eskimo macronutrient ratio he used in making his pemmican and that he doesn't think there's any specific magical macronutrient ratio that applies to everyone (which I agree with). How much fat do you think some or all of the Eskimo cultures consumed?
-
The Eskimoes did eat a lot of raw blubber - on the other hand, I think I read somewhere that the actual seal meats have far less fat-content in them than is usual, as the fat goes instead to the blubber(?).
-
I was referring to the raw, unprocessed meat of freshly slaughtered mammals, not to aged meat, dried meat, frozen meat, processed meat, smoked meat etc.
The meat we usually buy and eat is aged, i. e. predigested by enzymes and bacteria. Humans usually do not like the meat of freshly killed animals ....
Thanks Phil for you interesting informations, also regarding squashes etc. ;)
You're welcome, Hannah. I prefer aged meat myself but I also like fresh meat. Lions seem to prefer aged meat to fresh too and they are obligate carnivores, so liking aged meats wouldn't prove that anyone wasn't a facultative carnivore. I've seen a video of two lions guarding a maggot-ridden rotting zebra corpse, with the lions frequently roaring to keep away other animals from their precious prize. I wish I could find that again.
-
I found the video in which two lions loudly and repeatedly announce ownership of a carcass steaming with maggots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJBjsHEi1w.
Carcasses apparently eventually rot to a point where they're no longer desired by most large predators. This video shows that all the large predators except the civet lost interest in a carcass once it became thoroughly rotted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOln4WCotuk. The civet eats some of the maggots and even the rotten meat broth the maggots create.
-
I'm confused after reading the topic.
What are we supposed to eat?
1) 100% fauna aka animals and no plants or fruits?
2) 50%+ fauna aka animals and no plants and some fruit
3) Or 50%+ fauna aka animals no fruit and some plants
4) Plants and fruit and animals?
etc?
-
Confusion may be the right state, as nature is pretty complex and there seems to be fairly wide variation between individuals. It seems like most carnivores/faunivores are facultative and eat at least a little plant food now and then. For example, coyotes will eat berries and fruit drops and there's even a video of wolves eating berries. The difference between facultative carnivore and true omnivore is fuzzy, as omnivore has never been defined in precise scientific terms. Most people are more familiar with the term omnivore, so that may be the more understandable and therefore practical term, even if it's not particularly scientific.
The ethnographic atlas shows a wide range in plant intakes among hunter gatherers. My guess is that Stone Agers ate higher levels of animal foods before the mass megafauna extinctions. How much more, I don't know.
With all the individual variation, figuring out the right ratio for you probably comes down largely to self experimentation. One thing that is clear is that 100% of animal or plant foods has no historical precedent. However, Lex has done fairly well on a near-100% animal food diet. I suspect it's important that he includes organ meats as staple foods.