I believe humans are frugivores not omnivores

[Guest guest]

Hi Roger

I'll remember to trim this email..LOL

 

We clearly stand in different fields with respect to a few things,

but thats what makes the world go around.

I must admit I am an evolutionist, and have conducted research into

the evolution of mitochondrial DNA in human populations. I have spent

much time in association with anthropologists, evolutionists,

anatomists and geneticists. Without doubt my lean is toward a

scientific one, as I enjoy structured arguments that have sound logic

behind them.

 

<<If you take any kind of serious look at our physical structure

you'll see we don't have characteristics in common with omnivores. We

are actually the closest to gorillas or chimpanzees in most of our

features.>>

Yes we are closest genetically to chimpanzees and physically the

closest to Orangutans. Chimpanzees eat meat quite frequently. They

kill other monkey species and consume the brains. You have to

remember that this isnt a reason for us to eat or not eat meat. There

is an enormous amount of time between human-chimp common ancestor and

present day Homo.

 

<< Just ask yourself this? Do you feel the desire to hunt down a wild

deer and rip into it with your teeth and hands? Do you then desire to

eat it raw with all the blood and bones? >>

 

Many populations of people all around the world still hunt in

traditional ways by killing animals. Australian Aboriginals date back

at least 60K years in Oz and still use the Boomerang and Woomera to

kill prey items. Kangaroo, emu, goanna, snake, all kinds of

invertebrates. These people and other Aboriginal people such as

Kalahari Bushmen still hunt as they have done so for many thousands

of years. I'm an Australian and have studied Aboriginal history,

which is fascinating. We know of many Aboriginal sites that date

between 15 and 20 thousand years, where fire was used to cook food.

Aboriginals were no stranger to fire. They regularly burnt the land

to drive out game. One fellow at the university where I studied has

completed a PhD on Aboriginal paleodiet. He can tell from bone and

teeth chemistry what foods these people ate, and also what the

climate was like (paleoclimate). Red kangaroo is high on the list,

and is common in Aussie restaurants too ;-).

To say that humans are not meat eaters is to disregard valid

scientific evidence that has been shown time and time again. The

reason we dont have big teeth and large claws etc, is that we

developed weapons to kill prey. We used our ever increasing

intelligence to do the work for us rather than the usual physical

behaviour of most killers. You could liken this to specialised

predators which have evolved mechanisms for capturing prey where

large teeth etc are not called for. Take for instance poisonous

snakes, or constrictors. Intelligent design in place of claws etc.

Because our ancestors at some stage turned to cooking food over a

fire the food was easier to consume changing our physical makeup over

time. This of course takes a long time and didnt occur simultaneously

throughout all populations. Meat became very important during times

when food was scarce and climates changed. Meat is a very high

quality food, just ask the Saber toothed tigers that took so many of

our ancestors. This high quality food could be cooked and carried

over long distances sustaining people that needed to move to new

lands. Vegetation was not always available and did not contain enough

protein for maintaining people over long exhausting trips.

As to whether cooking is always good or bad is something I'm not

skilled in understanding, I'm not a biochemist.

 

I snipped the rest out... :-)

 

Cheers (from an Aussie)

Mark

[Guest guest]

Dear Roger,

 

I find it interesting that you don't believe in Evolution. I do think

though, you now have an obligation to rewrite Biology.

 

I do think, though, that your ambition to become British is admirable

in the light of the undeniable facts that we colonized you for one

hundred and fifty years and then burnt down the White House.

 

Generally speaking, you say 'cheers' when you lift your glass

and 'cheerio' when you say good-bye.

 

Cheerio,

Victor.

[Guest guest]

Roger,

 

Dare I lob in the speculation that when either Abraham or whoever gave

the order to " go forth and multiply " , those who went boldly north found

out that warm clothing was a necessity and that the poverty of fresh

food in winter lead to some very harsh times.

 

A way of dealing with the fodder for winter could have been to stoke up

on cooked food in the summer which would produce fat for the winter.

Thus we were lead to fat women with fat babies living in cold climates

and those who failed to worship this culture were selected out at the

annual freeze out. We know that cooked vegetables pack in concentrated

carbohydrates and meat even more so. The line is easy to follow but it

also helps to explain why it is so difficult to break the mind set that

without cooked food life ain't life.

 

Returning to the issues of gut length and digestion time. If carnivores

have short guts, do they have short digestion times to go with them? I

suppose not as meat in humans seems to take even days to digest. When I

think of cattle with their several stomachs with just grass on the menu,

I start to get confused. Is the long digestion of meat in humans due to

other elements which are different in carnivores? I guess such lines of

enquiry could lead to some convincing arguments for dispelling the myths

that prevail in the world at large

 

Peter

 

 

 

Roger Haeske [roger]

Sunday, May 19, 2002 8:54 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] I believe humans are frugivores not omnivores

 

<<It also gives an in-depth discussion proving that humans are

natural frugivores.>>

 

Humans are omnivores. We are quite capable of consuming meat and

vegetation. I dont prefer to eat meat over vegetation, but I dont

argue that our ancestors didnt eat meat, as we know they did. Since

the advent of mans use of fire we know that humans began cooking

their food. This meant changes in the gut, jaw and teeth primarily.

Because we cooked our food, we have developed a set of teeth

conditioned to chewing pre-prepared food. Analysis of teeth of

ancient human remains tells us the secret of paleodiets. A reduction

in thickness of enamel, shrinking of canine size and shortening of

the gut all add up to omnivores that often cooked their food. It has

to be remembered that much food was also eaten raw. Generally, meat

was cooked in later stages of human histroy.

 

Ok Mark, on this point I'll have to disagree. Much of our disagreement

will come down to the interpretation of facts and of which facts someone

believes are more important.

 

For one thing I don't believe in the theory of evolution. For me this is

a complete turnaround. Something which I have recently come to believe.

But this affects the argument on whether or not we have evolved to eat

meat. I believe we have not evolved to eat meat.

 

If you take any kind of serious look at our physical structure you'll

see we don't have characteristics in common with omnivores. We are

actually the closest to gorillas or chimpanzees in most of our features.

 

 

Just ask yourself this? Do you feel the desire to hunt down a wild deer

and rip into it with your teeth and hands? Do you then desire to eat it

raw with all the blood and bones? Since it is fairly obvious that

cooking meat is bad for us then we should desire to eat it raw. Most

people don't relish this option.

 

Heck it's just been proven that frying just about any kind of food

produces very high amounts of the likely carcinogenic substance

acrylamide. I'll post a recent article on that issue for everyone else

to see.

 

Back to the omnivore or frugivores debate. I have debated someone who

knew a lot on this topic.

 

We as humans could not have survived very well when we first arrived on

this planet by hunting. We would have at least needed tools since we are

not natural hunters. I simply don't think that we have evolved to eat

meat. Since it is known that early man was a strict frugivore by the

striations marks left on the teeth.

 

I do think our bodies adapt as best as possible to our eating

transgressions, but we will not have great health if we do not eat what

we were designed to eat as humans. Adaptation being different from

evolution.

 

We don't have claws, we don't have sharp teeth to rip into pray. We

don't have the speed to hunt down most animals. Yes we do have a brain

that eventually allowed us to do this. But if you look at our design, we

were designed to pick fruits and vegetables, not to hunt down animals.

To me it's just common sense after I looked at the facts.

 

Just because at some point down the line, man decided to hunt meat and

cook his food does not necessarily mean that it was the optimal thing

for them to be eating.

 

Human gut is about 10 times the length of our bodies. This is the same

as in the primates who are frugivores. Omnivores guts are only 10 times

the length of their bodies. A carnivore's gut is only 3 times the length

of their body and that of a herbivore is 30 times the length of its

body. So it seems we are closest in that respect to the frugivores the

anthropoid apes.

 

Baker's book literally has at least a hundred different reasons why we

are frugivores and not omnivores or even carnivores. Again it is not my

field of specialization but that argument is extremely convincing to me.

 

Of course then someone will come up with the B12 argument. The bacteria

in our bodies produce B12 for us. Also it has been found that 95% of

people with B12 deficiency happen to be meat eaters. Our current forms

of inorganic farming reduce the natural amounts of B12 that should be

found in foods. According to Dr. Graham the United States is having a

B12 deficiency crisis for meat eaters and vegetarians.

 

Dr. Graham spoke extensively on this issue at one of his lectures that I

attended. He recommended eating organic foods and not washing them off.

Somehow the dirt on lettuce for instance would have the B12 on it.

However, I don't think that is important since the body can produce its

own B12 with the help of our bacteria friends.

 

Cheers, Roger

 

(Is Cheers a British kind of thing to say? I like it.)

 

 

P.S. Would you like to Discover the Easiest and Most Powerful Peak

Performance Program on the planet? This program will quickly improve all

areas of your life, is customized to your personality and circumstances,

and effortlessly overcomes previous negative beliefs and conditioning.

Go to http://www.superbeing.com/magicquestions.htm for your free report.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Peter Gardiner [petergardiner]

Monday, May 20, 2002 12:27 PM

rawfood

RE: [Raw Food] I believe humans are frugivores not omnivores

 

Roger,

 

Dare I lob in the speculation that when either Abraham or whoever gave

the order to " go forth and multiply " , those who went boldly north found

out that warm clothing was a necessity and that the poverty of fresh

food in winter lead to some very harsh times.

 

 

Yes if you don't have access to fresh fruit you have to do whatever you

can to survive. I suppose we were intended to live in tropical climates

originally since we have no fur. Maybe in the past we were much more

resistant to cold weather when we lived out in nature and ate our

natural diets. I believe all the improper eating has made us quite weak.

It may take 4 or 5 generations of eating raw to see what a real human is

really capable of.

 

From what I understand, early man was a tree dweller. Though I don't

think, we could compete with chimps and monkees in their climbing

prowess.

 

 

A way of dealing with the fodder for winter could have been to stoke up

on cooked food in the summer which would produce fat for the winter.

Thus we were lead to fat women with fat babies living in cold climates

and those who failed to worship this culture were selected out at the

annual freeze out. We know that cooked vegetables pack in concentrated

carbohydrates and meat even more so. The line is easy to follow but it

also helps to explain why it is so difficult to break the mind set that

without cooked food life ain't life.

 

Returning to the issues of gut length and digestion time. If carnivores

have short guts, do they have short digestion times to go with them?

 

Yes the carnivores have a much shorter digestion time. Otherwise the

meat would putrify in the digestive track. Also they have much higher

levels of hydrochloric acid in their stomachs to digest their food. They

also have the enzyme Uricase to digest uric acid. This is something that

humans don't have and which makes meat more of a toxin for us.

I

suppose not as meat in humans seems to take even days to digest.

 

Because of our longer digestive track meat stays a long time in our

bodies and putrefies.

 

Mark commented in a previous post of some chimps eating meat. I've seen

info on this and some species of chimp do hunt, but it isn't their

staple food. In fact the chimps may have learned how to hunt by copying

man or some other animal for that matter. They are very smart and their

intelligence may be betraying them as well. As far as I understand there

are only select groups of chimps that hunt, not all do this.

 

When I

think of cattle with their several stomachs with just grass on the menu,

I start to get confused.

 

Cattle can get most of their nutrients from grass because of their

digestive track, four stomachs etc. That is why we are not suited to

eating grass.

 

We also have very little enzymes in our bodies to digest starch. I think

we only have ptyalin that is released in our alkaline saliva. Omnivores

and other starch eating animals have much more starch digesting ability.

 

 

Carnivores have a very acidic saliva. The more you look into it the more

you realize that we are not adapted to eating an omnivorous or

carnivorous diet.

 

Is the long digestion of meat in humans due to

other elements which are different in carnivores?

 

It may also have to do with the convoluted shape of our intestines. This

will slow down the elimination of foods. We have to have food in there

quite a while to get the most nutrients out.

 

I guess such lines of

enquiry could lead to some convincing arguments for dispelling the myths

that prevail in the world at large

 

Peter

 

 

..

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The story of the Vikings in Greenland is a good example of people not

being well adapted to their environment.

From this url...

http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Vikings_.htm

 

<<The Vikings went in all directions. They discovered Iceland in 860,

and began colonizing it in 874. Their descendants are still there.

Greenland was discovered in 982, and colonized in 1000. Shortly

thereafter, North America was also discovered, but settlements did

not last long. While iceland was supporting some 50,000 people by

1000, Greenland's population never rose above 3,000 and the North

American venture never panned out, the few settlers being largely

drawn from the Iceland and Greenland settlements. When the Northern

hemisphere's climate turned cold again beginning around 1300, the

Greenland colony lost touch with the motherland and graducally died

out. Only the Eskimos could survive in the arctic conditions which

prevailed there, as the Vikings needed a longer warm season for their

grain crops. >>

 

The eskimos were very good hunters. Can you imagine living in

Greenland on berries alone!!! Animal fat meant survival in such an

environment. The Vikings didnt learn from the Eskimos or they may

still be there today.

 

<<When I think of cattle with their several stomachs with just grass

on the menu, I start to get confused.>>

 

Anything that eats pure veg seems to have a long digestion time. This

is necessary as the only organism capable of breaking down the

cellulose walls of plant cells are certain bacteria. The same

situation exists within us as our gut symbionts do the digestion.

Animals which are obligate meat eaters have short guts as they dont

consume veg., and hence dont require the long winded bacterial

breakdown process. Animals which are capable of consuming both veg

and meat (omnivores) still require long intestines to deal with the

slow process of veg digestion. There is no by-pass for meat, it all

takes the same route, and hence will still appear relatively slow in

comparison to an obligate carnivore.

Our stomach deals with the meat by producing large amounts of

hydrochloric acid, necessary to kill off microrganisms. Its important

for meat to remain in the stomach for quite some time before it's

passed to the small intestine. Herbivores pass the food from the

stomach to the small intestine relatively quickly as the acid

treatment does little. Carniviores require to neutralise toxins, kill

bacteria etc before entering the gut where these potentially

dangerous constituents could be absorbed into the bloodstream.

Obligate veg eaters have very small stomaches cf. carnivores, so the

veg spends little time in the stomach.

 

From an evolutionists point of view I would have to say that human

ancestors spent a far greater duration through time as vegetarian

gatherers than meat eaters. From this regard I would say we are

better adapted to deal with vegetation. The choice to eat meat I

think came about as climate changes took place forcing people to

consume a higher energy food source for survival. Humans have

survived many ice ages, as the archeological record clearly shows in

Europe, the movement of people into and out of the north as climates

changed. Vegetative food sources would become rare and hence meat was

consumed more frequently as an alternative. Weapons developed for

killng prey, less time could be spent gathering and more time for

leisure. The habit of eating meat remained in our history thereafter

regardless of how good or bad it was for us. This is well reflected

as I stated before in the large number of indigenous peoples

throughout the world that kill prey items as a normal part of their

diet.

Certainly the human transition to meat eating is an interesting

phenomenon.

 

Cheers

Mark Newton

 

 

 

 

rawfood, " Peter Gardiner " <petergardiner@e...> wrote:

> Roger,

>

> Dare I lob in the speculation that when either Abraham or whoever

gave

> the order to " go forth and multiply " , those who went boldly north

found

> out that warm clothing was a necessity and that the poverty of fresh

> food in winter lead to some very harsh times.

>

> A way of dealing with the fodder for winter could have been to

stoke up

> on cooked food in the summer which would produce fat for the winter.

> Thus we were lead to fat women with fat babies living in cold

climates

> and those who failed to worship this culture were selected out at

the

> annual freeze out. We know that cooked vegetables pack in

concentrated

> carbohydrates and meat even more so. The line is easy to follow but

it

> also helps to explain why it is so difficult to break the mind set

that

> without cooked food life ain't life.

>

> Returning to the issues of gut length and digestion time. If

carnivores

> have short guts, do they have short digestion times to go with

them? I

> suppose not as meat in humans seems to take even days to digest.

When I

> think of cattle with their several stomachs with just grass on the

menu,

> I start to get confused. Is the long digestion of meat in humans

due to

> other elements which are different in carnivores? I guess such

lines of

> enquiry could lead to some convincing arguments for dispelling the

myths

> that prevail in the world at large

>

> Peter

>

>

[Guest guest]

Great off subject reading. Concise and accurate PG

 

The story of the Vikings in Greenland is a good example of people not

being well adapted to their environment.

From this url...

http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Vikings_.htm

[Guest guest]

Thanks Roger,

 

That gives me a good handle on important elements

 

Peter