It’s the male chimps that have the highly developed canines, not the females. It’s not uncommon for male mammals to have better developed/larger canines than the females - this can been seen even in such obligate herbivores as lamas and horses where males may grow vestigial canines and the females don’t. In other words, large canines can be a secondary sexual characteristic.
Gorillas and many other primates also have a sharper sexual dimorphism than humans do - will you then argue that humans don’t have males and females because the two sexes don’t have as great a size difference as, say, gorillas or orangutans?
Human teeth are smaller in proportion to their skulls than the other great apes - maybe because our lineage started using sharp bits of rock to help cut up our food even before H. sapiens evolved. So instead of building large teeth we built large brains or something.
Initially published in 1990, the data in the China Study is the basis of ongoing research, but the overall implications are stunning: plant-based food is healthy; animal-based food is harmful. This becomes even more striking from the book’s survey of diet-related studies of all the “diseases of affluence.” The authors show that the same pattern can be found in all these diseases — cardiovascular; obesity; Type 2 (adult) diabetes; breast, colorectal and prostate cancer; autoimmune diseases, especially Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes and multiple sclerosis; osteoporosis; kidney stones; macular degeneration and cataracts; and Alzheimer’s and cognitive impairment disease. In every case the incidence and severity of the disease is linked to animal-based food, while plant-based diets prevent and in many cases reverse the disease.
So no one is really disputing it's harmful, correct. Here is some evidence that an omnivore diet is detrimental to our digestive process. I argue nature seeks to eventually balance a species to it diet. At this stage an omnivore diet has not been well selected for, despite our ability to cook around the first issue that would make meat inaccessible. Maybe further technology will solve these issues as well, but we are unlikely to spontaneously biologically adapt.
These medical effects indicate the body has trouble over time fully processing animal based foods, resulting in conditions we would not see if we had been selectively optimized over millions of years to eat animal foods.
The argument was that we could extract more calories, which isn’t quite the same as nutrition. As fat unquestionably has more calories than either protein or carbs on a per unit basis, an adaption that allows a creature to eat fat will provide more calories than would otherwise be available.
For most of human history getting sufficient calories was a major preoccupation, and failure to do so followed by death was a real possibility. It’s only today, with plentiful food available year round, that we have become concerned with not getting too many calories. It’s an aberration when you view the entirety of hominid history.
Makes sense to me. I’ll take that as neutralizing the teeth argument. Nothing strong conclusive either way. Fair?
Another interesting but obscure point, which is of limited value is people are arguably attracted to strait teeth. Western society has issue with that, many people needing braces. I think the chewing action would some how be related to strait teeth, most western food is pretty soft, so they just sorta grow in however. Not really a point either way. Sorta a blurb.
For starters, the bit you referenced blames all kinds of unrelated problems on an ‘animal based diet’. This is generally a sign of quackdom. I’ll read the article, but I doubt it has the scientifically sound methodology and reputable cites I demand of my studies.
ETA
The linked article is a book review. It makes numerous assertions without backing them up. It does not remotely approach the level I demand from my cites.
Calories are an interesting point. Whatever they are, my understanding is the easiest source of usable calories for human beings is starch. Converting protein/fat to useable energy is in my understanding a sub-optimal process. I’m not as sound on this as other points, and quote open to some sourced debunking.
When I was a kid I ate raw meat and bone marrow without a problem. I loved the stuff.
I don’t do it now because I am concerned about possible food contamination. Well, I usually don’t. I do eat sashimi from time to time, which is raw fish as I’m sure most people know, although in my area such fare is usually deep frozen for a period of time to kill possible pathogens.
Fact is, I really DO like the taste and texture of raw animal flesh.
So… let’s see, fresh raw gazelle or bananas… I’d probably eat both. But I suspect I’d eat the gazelle steaks first. Because I really like meat. And if I was starving, well, I’ll risk parasites down the line to prevent imminent death from lack of food now.
Hm. How about this one – Living long enough to suffer the consequences of excessive consumption of meat is a learned, or cultural behavior, that seems somewhat contrary to our biological make up.
Well, I must be a throw-back or something, because not only do I have teeth that are naturally straight without ever needing braces, I also have sufficient room on my jaw for all of my third molars or “wisdom teeth” without crowding.
I don’t see this as remotely neutralizing the dentition argument. Yes, as we evolved tool use and bigger brains, our teeth got smaller. But their types remained largely unchanged. They are still the teeth of an omnivore.
Cardiovascular disease is more strongly associated with a lack of exercise than meat and fat - as noted, arctic peoples often have diets 90% or more animal flesh, yet, when they pursue a traditional lifestyle they don’t have unusual rates of heart disease - it’s when they start using snowmobiles and give up hunting for mail ordering stuff, do less stuff and get fat that they start having cardiovascular problems.
Type 2 diabetes is associated with excess weight - NOT eating meat. It is entirely possible to be vegetarian AND diabetic, I’ve known a few folks from India who lived their entire lives on a vegetarian diet who were diabetics. It is less likely because vegetarians usually consume fewer calories and thus are less likely to gain excessive weight, but it’s possible.
I am unaware of any connection between multiple sclerosis and eating meat/animal fat so I must ask you for a cite.
Osteoporosis is associated with inadequate vitamin D intake, insufficient calcium intake, lack of exercise, and being Caucasian. Please provide a cite that shows that eating animal flesh is a greater risk that those listed in the prior sentence.
Kidney stones come in more than one variety. Oxalate stones come from eating oxalate-rich foods such as star fruit (carambola), black pepper, parsley, poppy seed, amaranth, spinach, chard, beets, cocoa, chocolate, most nuts, most berries, fishtail palms, New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides) and beans - all of which are plants, please note. Very clearly oxalate kdney stones are associated with PLANT foods in the diet
Kidney stones can also be associated with dehydration
Excessive protein can also be a risk factor, however, it’s protein that’s the culprit, not specifically animal protein. Which gets back to the issue of eating too much which seems to be the root of many chronic ills, and not so what what is eaten to excess.
Please provide cite that Type 1 autoimmune diabetes is associated with animal flesh in the diet.
Please provide cite that autoimmune disorders are associated with animal flesh in the diet.
Macular degeneration and Alzheimer’s are associated with AGE, not animal flesh in the diet.
The greatest risk factor for cataracts is expose to UV light - not diet.
Calories are a measure of energy derived from a unit of food.
Protein and carbs both provide 4 calories per gram.
Fat provides 9 calories per gram.
In other words, per unit, fat provides more than twice the energy of either protein or carbs.
This is why arctic people favor high fat diets - in addition to using energy for moving around and doing stuff they also need it to provide body heat. With pre-industrial levels of activity they actually burn the fat for fuel rather than store it. In fact, before European contact with North American artctic natives starvation was a frequent cause of death. That is, they didn’t get enough food of any sort.
As I recall the process of turning animal protein, or protein in-general into usable energy requires leeching calcium from the bones. Which is why I keep calling it non-optimal.
As for the others, maybe the book cites them better. I don’t own the book.
The first study (on kidney stones and uric acid) looks solid.
The second says in its title it has only found a correlation. Correlation is not causation.
I read the Lucy article. I see no evidence one way or the other. Chimps sometimes hunt for meat (cite Goodall, In The Shadow Of Man). But they don’t do it often because it takes a great deal of effort and cooperation. Kill a bunch of chimps and you likely won’t find game animals in their stomachs. But they remain omnivores.
The third study ends with “but this relationship needs to be studied further.”. Their results may also be attributed to lack of fiber rather than high animal protein.
The fourth study includes “Some high-fat/processed-meat products (i.e., sausage, salami, bacon), but not all (i.e., beef, pork, or poultry hot dogs), also were positively associated with risk. An inverse association was noted for greater chicken/turkey consumption (OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5–1.0)”
In other words, eating a lot of chicken and turkey actually decreased the risk of pancreatic cancer. Eating “beef, pork, or poultry hot dogs” caused no increase in risk. The study did show that sausage, salami and bacon* DID increase the risk of pancreatic cancer.
*Salami, sausage, and bacon are all (last time I checked) heavily processed with nitrites and salt. How were the researchers sure that it was animal fat and protein that increased risk and not nitrites and salt?
I dig, and don’t dispute. But is this behavior common to all chimps, or select groups which have passed the behavior along. Maybe there is a biological imperative that forces them all to hunt for some monthly nutrient they need.
Did lucy hunt or scavenge, would help this question along quite a bit.
