Author Topic: Are humans carnivores, omnivores, or just adaptive?  (Read 13801 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Löwenherz

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Are humans carnivores, omnivores, or just adaptive?
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2011, 02:07:23 am »
Fiber behaves differently depending on whether its fermentable or not.  Your assumption that all fiber irritates the digestive system and causes stress isn't really backed up by anything.  I don't think theirs even evidence that non-fermentable fiber behaves the way you think it does.

What's about water-soluble fiber and non-soluble fiber? Could this be the factor?

From my own experience I can say that some fiber, for example from nuts (mature coconut etc.) cause immense stress in my gi tract. Fiber from leafy greens and fruits not at all... In so far I think that the "all fiber is harmful" - approach is not accurate.

After my short Atkins diet many years ago with lots of cooked animal fats I wasn't able to handle ANY fiber any more. Cooked animal fats seem to destroy our ability to handle fiber. Somehow they clog the whole body, IMO.

Löwenherz

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Are humans carnivores, omnivores, or just adaptive?
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2011, 11:04:27 pm »
Because of the weaknesses in both the carnivore and omnivore terms (as I understand it, carnivores don't tend to eat underground storage organs, even those which are edible raw, or nuts, whereas our ancient ancestors did and most human cultures have, plus omnivore is a vague term that tends to be used as an excuse to eat whatever someone wants and seems to give people the impression that humans can quickly adapt to novel foods), so currently I'm using the term "adaptivore." It accounts for more of the foods that humans and proto-humans ate than facultative carnivore and it gives more of a sense that it can take a long time to adapt to novel foods and that there are differences in adaptation between different human populations (Inuit vs. Japanese, for example). So I'm leaning to "adaptive" as the answer to the question in the thread title.

Here's an example of what I mean about the misuse of the term "omnivore" to justify biologically inappropriate diets:
Quote
"Dogs are classified in the order Carnivora, but, unlike cats (a topic for another day) they have evolved biologically as omnivores, meaning their systems can derive nutrients from a wide variety of sources, including fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes and animal products." http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/03/10/vegan.dog.diet/index.html?hpt=C2
Note: dogs are facultative carnivores, not omnivores, but ignorant humans have come to misapply the moniker "omnivore" to any creature that eats any plant food, and then justify "plant-based" diets on that skimpy basis.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 01:41:54 am by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk