Their lack of understanding of nutrition (and not much they could do about it anyway) seems like a good argument against the idea that the Paleolithic diet is an ideal which we should strive for.
I myself like to follow what has proven to lead to a healthier life… using statistics instead of imagination. It seems like regular exercise is more important than what you eat.
-k
I read Cecil’s article shortly after discovering straightdope so I knew how you guys would feel about it. That’s why I never posted this question before. Pretty much I am a bit dis-enchanted by Cecil’s smug self-righteousness regarding this issue (and a lot of issues). We are not apes. We have evolved. (Further, if you are a Christian who believes the Bible you pretty much have to agree that humans are naturally herbivores since Genesis say’s so.)
Anybody care to discuss the merits or the appropriateness of the “proof” Milton R. Mills has that we are herbivores? This seems pretty good evidence to me. How do you explain the physiological differences between us humans and omnivores? This is what the OP is about really, right?
Regarding our fearless leader’s take on this. I’m starting to get the impression that he is just a bit too smart for his own good. It appeares to me that he assumes all the necessary knowledge is already contained within his extensive cranium. He seemed to have made up his mind before he researching this discussion, if he researched it at all. Dr. Mills obviously did a tremendous amount of research (or at least study) to support his claims. Given two sides of a particular argument, which would you agree with, one that is based on conjecture and popular opinion, or one based on solid facts and research.
There are two popular arguments we use when we say humans are herbivores: 1) Humans vs. primates. 2) Humans vs. a generic herbivores. The first argument doesn’t work. Most if not all apes, monkeys, chimps, orangutans, etc. are indeed omnivores. But this fact is useless. We aren’t apes. We have evolved. You might want to say “but we are 99.4% similar to chimps”. So what? This includes junk DNA, which many researchers estimate is about 95%. How much of that 99.4% similarity is junk DNA? How much is left over when you remove the junk DNA? It seems reasonable to assume that if you remove the junk DNA the genetic similarity between humans and chimps would drop significantly. 'Nuff said. We aren’t chimps. They might be our closest relative in the animal kingdom, but there are quite enough differences to negate this argument.
So what about the other argument? This is the argument that Milton R. Mills discusses. Some of his points are irrelevent, like the size of the human jaw. We prepare our meat so we don’t need to cram our prey down our throats. We aren’t the classical omnivore any more than we are the classical herbivore. We have an enormous brain. We use tools and expertise to hunt (or gather - gather cows), not our bite or claws. Still, much of his argument is very valid.
Dr. Mills claims that we measure human body from the top of the head to the base of the spine. I’m sure we can all agree that this length is inappropriate. For one, the head doesn’t belong and another, a good portion of the digestive tract is below the spine. Nevertheless his human body length is fairly accurate. Removing the length of the head would even further his claim. But let’s just use the torso. Cecil used the distance from the mouth to anus. A reasonable measurement, but on smaller people this distance has to be less. I would say that the appropriate length of a human torso (sans head) is 2’-0" to 3’-0". Pessimistically in a smaller human the small intestine is 22’ long. A large human’s intestine is up to 30’ long. So… 22’/2’ = 11:1 and 30’/3’-0" = 10:1. Seems pretty long to me. Cecil just asssigned a generic and seemingly arbitrary intestine length to all humans, small and large. I seriously doubt a 7’ tall 350 pound man has a 23’ long small intestine. It would be nice to see some factual numbers here.
Cecil says that cellulose is the primary ingredient in plant matter. Dr. Mills discusses this as well, and in fact uses it as further proof that we are indeed herbivores. And if you read carefully, Cecil’s discussion about this cellulose argument doesn’t disprove that humans are herbivores at all. He first mentions ruminants (cud eaters) then says another option (but not the only other option) to break down the cellulose is an enlarged cecum. He doesn’t speak about the other methods by which certain other herbivores break down the cellulose. Mills does. Read his article and you will see.
Both discuss teeth. Cecil’s is only two sentences, concluding that “We’re equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.” All-purpose hardly… Conclusion without evidence is what that is. Cecil should have backed up his statement as Dr. Mills does his. We don’t have true canine teeth. We don’t have the jaw strength to break bones. Read more of Dr. Mills article to understand more about how our teeth are different from omnivores’.
Personally I think we used to be herbivores but since we added meat to our diet we are in the process of evolving to an omnivore. So IMHO we are pseudo-omnivores, but still more herbivore than omnivore. We can eat both plant and animal, but we don’t need meat to survive, as true omnivores do. A lot of people point to the little critters living in our digestive tract and say “see? They digest animal matter better than plant matter. Their presence proves that we are omnivores.” I hope you guys can see how a supremely terribly very awful ILlogical argument that is, though I’m sure many of you believe it. The little critters evolve at an extremely high rate. MUCH faster than humans. They are effected by what we eat. They don’t control what we eat. They are not there just in case we eat the “proper” food. If we don’t feed them the food they need, they die. So, since they are there, it only proves that we have been eating meat. It doesn’t prove that we were designed to eat meat.
You raise a good point. However, with a few delicacy exceptions, we humans necessarily have to cook (most of) our meat. If we don’t we could very likely get very ill, possibly resulting in death. And our system finds uncooked meat difficult to digest. And cooking is unnatural. This supports my theory that we are evolving to suit the food we choose to eat. Our bodies are evolving to digest cooked meat.
I challenge you to do the same. Get away from Jain assumptions and open your mind to the possibility that we are herbivores. I have done this about omnivores and remain convinced that we are herbivores. Just imagine it for a bit. Then examine the evidence from that point of view. Read Dr. Mill’s article from the perspective that we are herbivores. Keep an open mind. I’m positive that if you can imagine it while you examine the evidence, you will easily convince yourself that we are truly herbivores, even after you stop imagining it. Prove me wrong. Keep an open mind. This isn’t some difficult argument like “does God exist” or “is a fetus a child.” This is something that we can back up with scientific evidence. Dr. Mills gave his. Cecil did a bad job of giving his. Anyone care to try to outdo Cecil?
As far as I can tell (the last 100 years notwithstanding), people learn to eat according to availability and convenience. One example is India. You’ll see that a lot of people in the south of India eat primarily vegetarian meals. However, people in the north are more likely to eat meat. Perhaps it is easier in the north to harvest meat (keep chickens and other animals) because there are more grasslands that would feed livestock and fewer really temperate and/or wet areas that would encourage more farming; however, in the south, it’s much wetter, so maybe it’s just easier to harvest vegetables and it makes more sense to eat those rather than meat, because perhaps raising livestock is just less convenient. The same goes for the types of vegetables eaten in certain countries. Corn is native to central America. So people historically grew and ate a lot of corn-based products like tortillas. I’m sure they hunted and had livestock, too, but a lot of Central American cultures were primarily agricultural. However, the Native Americans of the Great Plains hunted bison on a regular basis and usually foraged, as opposed to growing, their plant food, probably because the Great Plains wouldn’t have supported a really thriving agricultural community, whereas the grasses of the plains would have supported a lot of bison.
Anyway, to say that humans are “naturally herbivores” is ridiculous. Nowadays we just eat too much of the wrong stuff and don’t get enough physical activity. It’s not like we have to chase down our food anymore or pull it out of the ground ourselves, yet even though we need fewer calories, we eat more, so of course we’re getting fat. It has absolutely nothing to do with the practice of eating meat.
How is it that the fact that humans don’t digest cellulose is proof that we are herbivores? :dubious:
Read Marvin Harris and you’ll also see that people learn to eat what is ecologically sustainable. That’s the reason that Jews and Muslims shun pork and why Hindus avoid eating beef. It’s because the populations that did raise those animals for food in those localities became ecologically eliminated.
Pretty funny
Are you talking about Cain?
What are you talking about?
IOW, CITE PLEASE.
First off, “natural” is a load of bullshit.
To use it in this context is to assume that somehow Mankind is “unnatural.” Which we aren’t.
We’re as natural as any other critter scranmbling over the face of the planet.
Making fire is natural for humans. Cooking food is natural for humans. Culture is natural for humans. Writing is etc
Building nuclear bombs is natural for humans. Building space vehicles and eating trans-fats in them while playing video games is natural for humans.
The argument from what’s “natural” is a big fat crock of unexamined BS.
SUVs and nuclear power plants are just as natural as a beehives and bird’s nests.
Humans are a part of nature. Our actiuons are natural.
Is there some specialized definition of “natural” you’d care to explain?
You seem to have a complete misunderstanding (like Dr. Mills) of evolution and of biology. Humans are in fact apes by modern standards of classification; we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to orangs. And that means if chimps and orangs are both apes, then we are too. However much we have evolved, our digestive systems are still very similar to other apes.
Of course you can cite the Bible to support any kind of nonsense you wish.
I am a professional biologist with extensive knowledge of vertebrate biology and anatomy. Mills has done an extremely superficial job, and has grossly misinterpreted or misstated many of his supposed “facts.” Mills’ “analysis” is ludicrous. He makes absurd over-generalizations about the supposed characteristics of carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores, and he distorts and misclassifies human characteristics to make them fit the characters he assigns to herbivores. If one did an authentic analysis, humans would come out closer to omnivores than to either herbivores or carnivores.
How the hell do you know how much research Cecil did on this? Cecil frequently does substantial fact checking and consults experts in field in the preparation of his columns. His facts in this case are accurate. Some of Mills’ individual facts are correct, and some are not, but overall they are presented in such a ridiculously biased and distorted way as to constitute a blatant lie.
You really don’t have the remotest clue about what you are talking about. Our digestive systems are very similar to that of a chimp. What specific differences in our digestive systems indicate to you that humans are more herbivorous than chimps are?
Pretty much all of his points are irrelevant.
Look, what’s significant here is the proportional length. If you are going to disallow the head, then you have to exclude the head from the length of a cow or dog or whatever as well. Whether the ratio happens to be 8:1, 10:1 or 11:1 is not important - it’s still a much lower ratio than that of a true herbivore (Cecil gives the example of a cow with a ratio of 20:1.) Unless you are going to contend that the human intestine measures 60 ft., you don’t have a case.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Cecil is correct in stating that we lack the digestive specializations found in true herbivores, including stomach specialization in fore-gut fermenters (such as artiodactyls) and cecae in most other herbivores. We have some limited ability to conduct hind-gut fermentation, but not anywhere to the extent of true herbivores.
Cecil was writing a relatively brief column, not trying to give an exhaustive dissertation on the subject. Mills’ information on teeth is as distorted and inaccurate as the rest of his screed.
We do need meat to survive, at least without taking a great deal of effort to secure B vitamins and other nutrients that are not generally found in plants.
You seem to completely misunderstand the nature and function of the intestinal flora. I don’t even know where to start here, so I’m not even going to try.
Utter nonsense. The Inuit habitually eat raw meat without ill effect.
As I said before, Cecil gave a very brief summary. There has already been a very good and very extensive job done in this thread. If you are incapable of reading and understanding the information presented here so far, there may not be much chance of convincing you with more.
I think you’re a bit overreaching in your definition of natural. By your definition what isn’t natural? What makes it a word unique from stuff?
“Natural”, as it is being used here, seems to have to do with species’ behavior in their usual habitat. The usual habitat of a human includes the tools and heat sources that are necessary to capture and cook meat.
So it’s “natural” for humans to cook and eat meat, but it wouldn’t be “natural” for say, deer to do the same. Of course, this is an overgeneralization since some cultures eat raw meat or no meat at all, but it would be “unnatural” for people to eat grass all day long.
more or less what cityboy916 said.
I was less precise in my post than I should’ve been.
apologies for the unecessarily strong language
Those few HG societies that we know of in any detail all ate raw meat in varying quantiies. And I am not talking about delicacies here, I am talking about everyday food such as shellfish, grubs and even the fat off freshly slaughtered animals and the marrow form bones. I don’t know where you got the idea that humans need to cook most of our meat but it isn’t supported by any evidence so we can ignore it completely.
Never heard of steak tartare? Know where the name comes from?
If we ignore chronic parasite infections, which people are always infected with anyway, then there is aboslutely no reason why a person would get ill from eating fresh, raw meat. Food posioning can only result after the meat has had time to putrefy. The flesh of a freshly killed animal will be very close to sterile.
Our digestive system finds cooked meats of some types marginally more digestible.Other meats are harder to digest when cooked. However the salient point is that our susyem finds it far easier to digest raw meats than raw vegetables. Even foods such as wheat and potatoes are quite indegestible unless they are cooked. A completely frugivorous diet for early humans is ridiculous. Such foods were simply not available in sfficient wuantities on the savannas. But unless you want to try to argue for such a diet then this digestibility issue is just more proof that humans must be naturally carnivorous. Either we had fire, and so could cook meat, or else we didn’t have fire and had to eat meat because we couldn’t eat vegetables.
Absolute twaddle. Our species has always been able to use fire. Fire is as natural for us as any tool used by any animal.
What doesa that even mean? It’s a nonsense statement.
Is it supposed to mean that whatever people eat is ecologically sustainable? If so then I can prove that is nonsense with one word: moa.
Is it supposed to mean that after awhile people learn to adapt their diet to the environment? If so then I can prove that is nonsense with two words: chaco canyon.
That statement sounds profound, but when analysed it becomes so much nonsense.
How about this? Unless people learn to eat what is ecologically sustainable, they won’t eat it for long epochs, because their food source will vanish. Thus, ecologically sustainable approaches to nutrition become long-standing traditions.
Oh, and processed trans fats aren’t in their natural state. Neither is a hamburger. Calling everything “natural” makes the term meaningless, when in fact it should be relative to a thing’s innate development.
Bauxite - natural
Sheet aluminum - unnatural
Oxen eating grass (& aphids) - natural
Oxen eating ground up sheep - unnatural (& it turns out, unhealthy)
Soybeans - natural
Tofu - unnatural
Human beings eating grubs - natural
Human beings eating raw soybeans - arguably natural, but unhealthy
Human beings eating tofu - arguably unnatural, but healthy
vegetarians have to make do with tofurmites, and I can tell you, they are a poor substitute.
foolsguinea. We have a rule about opening threads that have been dead for about 3 months. It’s easy to overlook the last posting date sometimes. I’ve had it happen.
The proper thing to do is open a new thread to discuss the old one, and link to the old thread.
Thanks.
samclem GQ moderator