Originally posted by patch70
I (still) don't agree with these opinions. I would say we are closer to carnivores than herbivores in most respects.
You may not agree but physiology isn't an opinion and human physiology would suggest quite strongly that we are more suited to a low-fat/protein diet.
Throughout the animal kingdom these physiological signs are among those that help scientists to classify and catagorize animals. It's also important to note that most high-fat, (low-carb) diets rely heavily on meat and other animal-based foods.
1. Claws
Meat-eater: Yes
Leaf/grass eater: No
Fruite eater: No
Humans: No
2. Pores on the skin
Meat-eater: No
Leaf/grass eater: Yes
Fruit eater: Yes
Humans: Yes
3. Sharp, pointed front teeth to tear flesh
and hold prey
Meat-eater: Yes
Leaf/grass eater: No
Fruit eater: No
Humans: No,
Our canines and incisors are very blunt compared with those of a carnivore.
4. Size of Salivary glands
Meat eater: Small
Leaf/grass eater: Large, well developed
Fruit eater: Large, well developed
Humans: Large, well developed
5. Enzyme ptyalin present in saliva
Meat eater: No
Leaf/grass eater: Yes
Fruit eater: Yes
Humans: Yes
Ptyalin is predigestive enzyme effective on grains and fruits
6. PH of saliva
Meat eater: Acid
Leaf/grass eater: Alkaline
Fruit eater: Alkaline
Humans: Alkaline
7. Strength of digestive acids
Meat eater: Copious, strong hydrochloric acid
Leaf/grass eater: Stomach acid 20 times less strong than that found in meat eaters
Fruit eater: Stomach acid 20 times less strong than that found in meat eaters
Humans: Stomach acid 20 times less strong than that found in meat eaters
8. Length of digestive tract
Meat eater: Approximately 3 times the body length
Leaf/grass eater: Approximately 10 times the body length
Fruit eater: Approximately 12 times the body length
Humans: Approximately 12 times the body length
Short digestive tracts with smooth walls assure that meat is passed through the body before decay begins to release carcinogenic substances.
Originally posted by patch70
Our 'most traditional' diet is that of the caveman who tended to eat meats and a few fruits or grains. They didn't have refrigerators so they hunted ~daily.
Much has been assumed about what prehistoric man ate. Movies quite popularly show them running about with spears and stone weapons and subsisting primarily on a heavy meat diet. Such is the trend in Hollywood. Actual evidence seems to slowly be revealing the inaccuracies of such a depiction.
http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/
http://www.all-creatures.org/mfz/myths-humans-earlydiet.html
http://www.diet-i.com/diets/caveman-paleolithic-diet.htm
http://members.aol.com/xvxwcxvx/diethistory.html
http://www.viva.org.uk/goingveggie/top20.html
Of course just as many links can be found showing an opposing view but the idea that early man subsisted on a diet based primarily on meat seems to be declining while the idea that eating meat is a more recent development is on the increase.
What recorded history is showing is that meat consumption is on the increase and has been for decades. One might wonder what would cause a species to choose the decline of consumption of animal tissues then at some point, reverse this trend. One might also wonder, assuming that man was at one time more physically suited to hunting and digesting meat, what would have caused him to begin losing that ability if he did indeed continue to consume it. Nature's trend is to adapt, not to evolve counter to continued practices.
Consider for a moment the first man or man-like species, before the development of tools. What would they eat? Even today with camouflage, scents, trucks, ATVs, rifles, scopes, spotting scopes, calls, stands and all other sorts of tools in his arsenal, the average person makes a very poor hunter. Take away all of the tools and tricks and what are the chances that man would not starve if attempting to subsist on a meat-based diet? Does this not suggest that man must have eaten primarily those things easiest to catch, (i.e. plants), before developing tools that would increase his chances of a successful hunt? In nature there is a very clear budget for every creature to follow. The hunter cannot afford to expend more energy than will be obtained from a hunt, if successful. The potential for injury when hunting is certainly much higher than that from gathering. Being injured at a time when sanitation, medicine and basic first aid were unknown could and would often lead to death or permanent debilitation. Simply stated, plants are a safer food source. Of course if you suggest that man hunted daily, surely his skill level would rise. But the daily expenditure of calories, especially in colder climates would mean that man would require a success rate that is, even for today's hunter with the best of tools, unlikely. It would seem that there is a reason that nature did not see fit to endow man with natural hunting tools, (i.e. speed, claws & long, sharp teeth).
Originally posted by patch70
The non-nomadic lifestyle has only been in the last 11,000 years and started in the Indus Valley because that is one area that has grasses that can be cultivated (eg wheat, millet). Most places on earth have little or no cultivatable grasses that are edible for humans.
Roots, tubers, seeds, leaves, (although grass blades are simply a modified leaf), some bark, certain fungus, berries, fruits, melons and squash are all potential sources of nutrition and all can be found growing naturally even today. This doesn't mean it was easy to find a meal, but in many cases, finding one based on plant materials was not only easier but safer than going one on one with a desperate animal.
I'm not big on the Bible, in fact, I find it to be wholey unbelievable for the most part but as Thomas Jefferson is credited to have said, "certain teachings in the Bible are as diamonds in a dung-heap." I find Gensis 1:29 to be worthy, at least, of a moment's read;
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
Originally posted by patch70
Places in the world that are high in heart disease, diabetes etc are places where diets are high in everything, not just protein and fat. They are also places with more sedentary lifestyles.
As many nutritionists are beginning to recognize, the diseases we now face in the developed nations are not diseases of deficiency, but diseases of excess. I believe this is true as you have pointed out. But the point that man not only shows a physiology inconsistent with a high-meat diet but shows a continuing and growing trend toward diseases and disorders linked to such a diet shouldn't be ignored. Nor should people be encouraged to pursue diets which are even higher in what appears from many research results to be the primary culprits in these diseases/disorders.
A short list of diseases which are commonly prevented, consistently improved and sometimes cured by a low-fat, vegetarian diet include; Strokes, Heart disease, Kidney stones, Breast cancer, Prostate cancer, Pancreatic cancer, Cervical cancer, Stomach cancer, Diabetes, Hypoglycemia, Peptic ulcers, Constipation, Hiatal hernias, Diverticulosis, Gallstones, Hypertension, Salmonellosis, Trichinosis, Osteoporosis, Colon cancer, Ovarian cancer, Endometrial cancer, Kidney disease, Hemorrhoids, Obesity, Asthma, and Irritable colon syndrome.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to add the seemingly shocking rise in gastric upsets linked to stomach acids (acid reflux, etc.) to the list. Since true carnivores produce a stomach acid much stronger than non-carnivores it might be suggested that the proper digestion of meat requires stronger acids. It might also then follow that humans, in an involuntary attempt to adapt to their meat-based diet are beginning to produce greater quantities of stronger stomach acids which the protective lining of the gastric tract is incapable of properly guarding the delicate tissues against. Then again, there is always advertising which may be blowing the incidents of these disorders out of proportion.
Colon cancer is a disease that is clearly on the rise in this country, (the United States), and this is quickly and easily linked to the length of the human digestive system as well as the puckered walls of the colon. Meat turns to a waxy putty-like substance in the human digestive system and as such, doesn't move through quickly or readily. This leads to the "five pounds of undigested red-meat" said to be carried in the bowels of the average American male over 50 years of age. A picture of one of these "impacted turds" can be seen at
www.rotten.com. The meat literally rots inside the human body and in doing so produces a number of known carcinogens. The colon utilizes dietary fiber to assist in sweeping contents through the bowels. The sum dietary fiber from meat, eggs, milk, poultry and fish is zero. A friend watched a relative slowly die in the hospital from colon cancer. They witnessed the human fecal matter expelled from the mouth in the latter stages when the duodenum could no longer serve its purpose. Not a pleasant way to die.
Originally posted by patch70
Places with high carb, low protein diets also tend to have higher rates of malnutrition and early deaths from respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases. As their sanitation & vaccination and primary health care improve, their life expectancy also does as does their risk of heart disease etc. Maybe those things are inevitable until you reduce their impact and then start dying from cancers instead? Yes those places may not have much obesity but they also have often inadequate calories and non-sedentary lifestyles.
In the few areas of the world where obtaining sufficient protein is a problem, malnutrition certainly does play a role in premature death. Such is not the case in the U.S. or any other developed nation that I'm aware of. Do you know of anyone who has been diagnosed with kwashiokor? Ever heard of the disease outside of my mention of it on this forum? Kwashiokor is the proper term for the disorder arising from insufficient dietary protein. Chances are, unless you're living without running water and electricity and are never sure where your next meal is coming from or if you will even eat in the next 24 hours, it's not a concern for you.
You can get all the protein you need and more without resorting to high-protein/high-fat diets. In fact, you can eat a diet based on nothing but plant sources, pay no attention to protein intake and still consume more than the necessary dietary protein to maintain good health, even if you're very active or even if you happen to be a professional body-builder.
Here are just a few examples of protein content of non animal-based foods.
Soy bean sprouts: 54%
Lentils: 29%
Garbanzo beans: 23%
Broccoli: 45%
Lettuce: 34%
Onions: 16%
Potatoes: 11%
Wheat (hard red): 17%
Oatmeal: 15%
Brown rice: 8%
Lemons: 16%
Cherries: 8%
Grapes: 8%
Peanuts: 18%
Almonds: 12%
Cashews: 12%
Source: "Diet for a New America" - John Robbins
Consider that studies show the minimum necessary protein to be 2 - 10% for humans and you can see that it's nearly impossible to consume any realistic diet and not ingest sufficient protein.
Any one of these points can be taken aside individually and intelligently and convincingly argued against. When taken as whole, the tool we call denial is perhaps the most effective argument.
Denial isn't always a bad thing. Without it we would draw a conclusion once, then fail to revisit the issues. It is often in these follow-up visits that we find the error of our earlier conclusions.
