Discussion:
About Ray Audette?
(too old to reply)
Jay Santos
2004-12-21 15:20:11 UTC
Permalink
"The Paleo Diet" also has no scientific cred. It's rubbish.
YOU have no scientific "cred", Coleman, you goddamned
science-incompetent. You have no training whatever in
science.
John Coleman
2004-12-21 18:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Santos
"The Paleo Diet" also has no scientific cred. It's rubbish.
YOU have no scientific "cred", Coleman, you goddamned
science-incompetent. You have no training whatever in
science.
I am formally trained and qualified in computer science, and self taught on
philosophy of science, biochemistry and evolutionary theory, with a
smattering of microbiology.

No amount of your ad homini nonsense props up paleo diet bunk. Your various
critiques of veganism are puerile rubbish.

The Paleo Diet cult has nothing scientific to credit it, that is why you
post insults and not the necessary facts.

The facts are:
1) paleo peoples had poor longevity - in some examples only to around 25
years
2) there is no evidence that the paleo diet is healthy, no medical records
of paleo people, no way of empirical testing
3) modern hunter gatherers are not healthy and don't live well into old age,
they are very susceptable to infections - 50% die before 40 years of age,
and many in childhood
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being herbivores,
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
5) asserting that humans must have adapted to the paleo diet because they
did it, is fallacious

Of course none of that concerns the party faithfull.

John
rick etter
2004-12-21 19:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Jay Santos
"The Paleo Diet" also has no scientific cred. It's rubbish.
YOU have no scientific "cred", Coleman, you goddamned
science-incompetent. You have no training whatever in
science.
I am formally trained and qualified in computer science, and self taught on
philosophy of science, biochemistry and evolutionary theory, with a
smattering of microbiology.
=======================
Which obviously is time you have wasted.
Post by John Coleman
No amount of your ad homini nonsense props up paleo diet bunk. Your various
critiques of veganism are puerile rubbish.
====================
No, they refute you vegan religion completely as a load of bunk.
Post by John Coleman
The Paleo Diet cult has nothing scientific to credit it, that is why you
post insults and not the necessary facts.
1) paleo peoples had poor longevity - in some examples only to around 25
years
2) there is no evidence that the paleo diet is healthy, no medical records
of paleo people, no way of empirical testing
3) modern hunter gatherers are not healthy and don't live well into old age,
they are very susceptable to infections - 50% die before 40 years of age,
and many in childhood
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being herbivores,
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
5) asserting that humans must have adapted to the paleo diet because they
did it, is fallacious
Of course none of that concerns the party faithfull.
==================
LOL this from the closedminded religious dogma of veganism....
Post by John Coleman
John
Dutch
2004-12-21 21:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being herbivores,
Produce it.
Post by John Coleman
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
People in modern western cultures live longer than ever in history, chiefly
on omnivorous diets, and poor ones at that.
Post by John Coleman
5) asserting that humans must have adapted to the paleo diet because they
did it, is fallacious
Of course none of that concerns the party faithfull.
Are you implying with that ad hominum remark that you are NOT towing the
vegan party line? It certainly appears that you are, which means you are
being hypocritical.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 13:15:21 UTC
Permalink
"Dutch" <***@email.com> wrote in message news:***@news.supernews.com...
8<
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being herbivores,
Produce it.
I am not oblidged to as the thread is about the scientific merit of the
Paleo Diet, the onus is therefore on proponents of that diet to show us
their data. However, here in summary is some of the science that clearly
indicates humans are herbivores:

1) our teeth are all adapted to fruit eating, we do not synthesise vitamin
C, also likely an outcome of herbivorous ancestry

2) humans suffer from the atherogenous diseases as do rabbits, whereas dogs
and cats do not

3) our colons are haustated, an adaptation to digest plant fibres - animal
products contain no plant fibre so they cause constipation (our colons
cannot process them properly)

4) AGP expression
Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1) is a recessive disease in which an
enzyme, alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), is mistargetted from the
peroxisomes where it functions in the glyoxylate pathway, to the mitochondia
(1) where it is inefficient. It can be caused by defects in at least 2
glyoxylate-metabolizing enzymes and leads to excessive urine oxalate
excretion resulting in kidney stones and/or calcification of the kidney
which can occur in childhood or adolescence. Patients used to die on average
at age 36 (2), however vitamin B12 therapy and dietary changes can help to
increase lifespan in certain forms of the disorder.

"One molecular adaptation to diet that is spread widely across Mammalia is
the differential intracellular targeting of the intermediary metabolic
enzyme alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), which tends to be
mitochondrial in carnivores, peroxisomal in herbivores, and both
mitochondrial and peroxisomal in omnivores." (3)

As we have seen, normal humans express the AGT gene effectively in their
peroxisomes, but when AGT is targetted to the mitchondria such as in the PH1
mutation, it cannot operate effectively. We can therefore conclude that
humans evolved through the herbivorous lineage, having evolved peroxisomes,
but not mitochondria, adapted to effective glyoxylate metabolism.

(1) J Nephrol. 1998 Mar-Apr;11 Suppl 1:8-12. The molecular basis of alanine:
glyoxylate aminotransferase mistargeting: the most common single cause of
primary hyperoxaluria type 1. Danpure CJ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9604801&dopt=Abstract

(2) Primary Hyperoxalurias
http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/nephrology/hyperoxaluria.cfm

(3) Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(4):632-646. 2004. Differential Enzyme Targeting As
an
Evolutionary Adaptation to Herbivory in Carnivora. Birdsey GM, Lewin J,
Cunningham AA, Bruford MW and Danpure CJ.
http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/4/632?ct

Some of these points and many more are discussed in Dr McDougalls Newsletter
below*.
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
People in modern western cultures live longer than ever in history, chiefly
on omnivorous diets, and poor ones at that.
But the point is that modern humans eat far less animal products than Paleo
peoples who struggle to make it past 40. In any case, longevity says nothing
about adaptation - modern humans are continuously ill for that long life
from diet related diseases often because of eating animal products.
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
Of course none of that concerns the party faithfull.
Are you implying with that ad hominum remark that you are NOT towing the
vegan party line? It certainly appears that you are, which means you are
being hypocritical.
I am asserting the fact that the existence of extensive scientific evidence
of human herbivory is ignored by the Paleo Diet party faithful (they must
discredit all such claims), and their complete absense of any scientific
facts in their favour is also ignored. All we have from them are some
logical fallacies and unsupported claims.

John

* Meat in the Human Diet - July 2003 The McDougall Newsletter
www.drmcdougall.com

Human beings have been consuming meat as part of their diet for most of
their existence and will likely continue this behavior until the last living
animal is gone from the earth. However, public awareness of meat-associated
health hazards, such as heart attacks, colon cancer, and fatal E. coli
bacterial infections, has caused great concern and shifts in many people's
eating habits. The number of vegetarians has been growing worldwide,
especially among better-educated and younger people. An astonishing
contradiction to this trend is today's most popular weight loss diet - the
Atkins Diet - almost entirely meat. Obviously, there is still much
disagreement and confusion.

There is no more important question to be answered for mankind than, "What
is the proper diet for human beings?" What is the diet that allows us to
look, feel, and function at our best? Not just to survive or lose weight. Is
it vegetarian? Does it contain meat? How much meat? There must be a correct
answer. Just like there is one diet best for horses, one for cats, one for
dogs, and one for each kind of bird - there must be one diet best for
people.

Why have we not discovered this diet? It is certainly not because of lack of
interest.

Russell Henry Chittenden, the father of American biochemistry and professor
of physiological chemistry at Yale Medical School, wrote, a century ago
(1904), "We hear on all sides widely divergent views regarding the needs of
the body, as to the extent and character of food requirements, contradictory
statements as to the relative merits of animal and vegetable foods; indeed,
there is a great lack of agreement regarding many of the fundamental
questions that constantly arise in any consideration of the nutrition of the
human body." You would think that after so many years of investigation using
the latest scientific methods and employing modern technology that this
matter of such grave importance would have been settled beyond a doubt.
Coexistence today of enthusiastic advocates of "all meat" and "no meat"
diets, and everything in between, proves this matter is far from settled.

I Believe, the Less Meat, the Better

Over my past 25 years of medical practice I have taken the position that
meat at most should be considered a delicacy, reserved for consumption on
special occasions by healthy people. The consequence of this belief is my
patients lose excess weight and become healthy - and stay this way for a
long lifetime. Regardless of how much others may argue the merits of their
opinions on the best diet (supported, of course, by all the latest "facts"),
they do not have the same glowing outcomes with their patients - I've seen
the consequences. For me, as a practicing doctor, the bottom line is patient
results. Fortunately, there is an overwhelming amount of undeniable
scientific data and observations clearly supporting my conclusions. I will
share this information with you.

Should We Follow Our Ancestors' Diets?

Many scientists use the diet of our ancestors as the justification for what
we should eat today. That may be a useful approach, but which ancestors are
we to follow? Differences of opinion arise because throughout human history
people have consumed a wide variety of foods. The early ancestors of modern
humans, from at least 4 million years ago, followed diets almost exclusively
of plant-foods. Beginning at least 250,000 years ago, many of the
hunter-gatherer societies consumed meat as a large part of their diet.1
However, more recently, over the past 12,000 years of agricultural
development, people's diets have been mostly based upon starches, like rice
in Asia, corn in North America, potatoes in western parts of South America,
wheat in Europe and Northern Africa. In terms of the time line of evolution,
12,000 years, and even 250,000 years, is only a brief moment.

Out of the Garden of Eden

The Bible story of Adam and Eve's eviction from the Garden of Eden is
closely analogous to the actual shift from early plant-eating humans to
hunter-gatherers.2 While in the Garden God said, "I give you every
seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has
fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." Upon expulsion humans
were instructed by God, "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food."

For the most part hunter-gatherers (i.e., exiles from the Garden) had a
subsistence standard of living, eating foods that extended from one extreme
to the other in proportions of plant vs. animal foods - from the raw flesh
and fat of marine mammals - the Arctic Eskimos - to diets composed largely
of wild plants of the Western Desert - Australian Aborigines.3
Hunter-gatherers took advantage of any dependable sources of food from their
wild local environments. Because of the ease and dependability (compared to
obtaining animals), gathering fruits and vegetables was a primary source of
food for most hunter-gatherer societies - the emphasis on hunting increased
in higher latitudes because of plant scarcity.4

Undoubtedly, all of these diets were adequate to support growth and life to
an age of successful reproduction. To bear and raise offspring you only need
to live for 20 to 30 years, and fortuitously, the average life expectancy
for these people was just that. The few populations of hunter-gatherers
surviving into the 21st Century are confined to the most remote regions of
our planet - like the Arctic and the jungles of South America and Africa -
some of the most challenging places to manage to survive. Their life
expectancy is also limited to 25 to 30 years and infant mortality is 40% to
50%.5 Huntergatherer societies fortunately did survive, but considering
their arduous struggle and short lifespan, I would not rank them among
successful societies.

The Importance of Meat

So why has meat been an important part of the diet of so many of these
hunter-gatherer societies?6 Throughout human history, especially before the
development of agriculture-based living, acquiring food for survival was a
full time job - food scarcity, even starvation, plagued most of these
people, at least some of the time. Meat represented a gold mine of
concentrated calories and nutrients whenever it was obtained. For those
societies who found a plentiful supply, survival on a meat-based diet simply
attests to the resilience and adaptability of the human frame.

Because many hunter-gatherer societies obtained most of their calories from
the fat of meat does not mean meat is the ideal diet for modern people.
Almost every scientist readily admits that the composition of wild game
available to our ancestors was far different from the grain-fed domesticated
high-fat meat people eat these days. Furthermore, even if humans have been
eating meat for centuries, it has not been with the ease that wealthy
Westerners acquire it today.

Without refrigeration and other means of preserving meat in a near fresh
state, consumption was limited to within a few days of the kill - until the
meat spoiled. (With the advent of fire people learned to preserve meat by
smoking it.) During difficult times meat provided more benefits than harms,
but in a society where food is plentiful and life is physically easy, meat
can become a serious health hazard. A traditional Arctic Eskimo, living in a
subfreezing climate, could expend 6000 calories and more a day just to keep
warm and hunt for food. The high-fat animal food sources - fish, walrus,
whale, and seal - from his local environment were the most practical means
of meeting the demands of those rigorous surroundings. Modern Eskimos living
in heated houses and driving around in their climate-controlled SUVs, still
consuming a high-meat diet, have become some of the fattest and sickest
people on earth. Of course, they now use a "green lure" (a $10 bill) to
catch their fish (sandwich).

Our Anatomy and Physiology Provide the Undeniable Evidence3,4,8,9-13

Evolution in the animal kingdom dates back hundreds of millions of years and
the evolution of humans began over 4 million years ago. The ancestors of
modern humans were believed to live primarily on plant foods, eating wild
fruits, leaves, roots, and other high quality plant parts with a few animal
foods in their daily diet. These pre-humans ate like our nearest primate
relatives, the apes of today.3 Now, biologists at Wayne State University
School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that
lineages of chimpanzees and humans diverged so recently that chimps should
be reclassified as members of our genus Homo, along with Neanderthals, and
all other human-like fossil species.7 "We humans appear as only slightly
remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," says the study.

Most apes living today eat essentially as vegetarians - consuming a diet
composed of the fruits, leaves, flowers, and bark, with sporadic consumption
of very small amounts of insect material (like termites) and less commonly,
small animals.8 These meat-eating activities may be purely social in nature
and unrelated to any real nutritional needs.

Behavior can be changed overnight, but our anatomy and physiology only
evolve from selective pressures of the environment over millions of years.
Food is the strongest contact with our environment. Therefore, the present
state of the human body accurately reflects how our kind has eaten during
most of our human and pre-human existence. These indisputable anatomical and
physiological characteristics clearly identify the best diet for people
today.

We Have the Mouth of a Plant-Eater

"Johnny, eat your beef, you have to get your protein." Worried about her
growing child, my mother said this to me at almost every dinnertime. "But
Mother, I can't chew it," I tried to explain. To make her happy I mashed the
bite-size piece of roast beef with my teeth into a leathery lump, still too
big to comfortably swallow. Eventually, jaw tired, wanting to be excused
from the table, I slipped the remains under the edge of my plate.All this
distress could have easily been avoided if my mother had known enough truth
about good nutrition to simply say "Of course you can't chew that meat - you
have the wrong kind of teeth, Johnny - give it to the dog."

Our dentition evolved for processing starches, fruits, and vegetables, not
tearing and masticating flesh. Our oft-cited "canine" teeth are not at all
comparable to the sharp teeth of true carnivores. I lecture to over 10,000
dentists, dental hygienists, and oral specialists every year, and I always
ask them to show me the "canine" teeth in a person's mouth - those that
resemble a cat's or dog's teeth - I am still waiting to be shown the first
example of a sharply pointed canine tooth.

If you have any doubt of the truth of this observation then go look in the
mirror right now - you may have learned to call your 4 corner front teeth,
"canine teeth" - but in no way do they resemble the sharp, jagged, blades of
a true carnivore - your corner teeth are short, blunted, and flat on top (or
slightly rounded at most). Nor do they ever function in the manner of true
canine teeth. Have you ever observed someone purposely favoring these teeth
while tearing off a piece of steak or chewing it? Nor have I. The lower jaw
of a meat-eating animal has very little side-to-side motion - it is fixed to
open and close, which adds strength and stability to its powerful bite. Like
other plant-eating animals our jaw can move forwards and backwards, and
side-to-side, as well as open and close, for biting off pieces of plant
matter, and then grinding them into smaller pieces with our flat molars.

In a failed attempt to chew and swallow pieces of food, usually meat,
approximately 4,000 people die each year in the U.S.14 They choke on
inadequately masticated chunks that become stuck in their throats. The
Heimlich maneuver was specifically designed to save the lives of people
dying from these "café coronaries." 14.

Our Digestive System Assimilates Plant Foods4,8

From our lips to our anus our digestive system has evolved to efficiently
process plant foods. Digestion begins in the mouth with a salivary enzyme,
called alpha-amylase (ptyalin), whose sole purpose is to help digest complex
carbohydrates found in plant foods into simple sugars. There are no
carbohydrates in meats of any kind (except for a smidgen of glycogen), so a
true carnivore has no need for this enzyme - their salivary glands do not
synthesize alpha amylase.

The stomach juices of a meat-eating animal are very concentrated in acid.
The purpose of this acid is to efficiently break down the muscle and bone
materials swallowed in large quantities into the stomachs of meat-eaters.
Digestion of starches, vegetables and fruits is accomplished efficiently
with the much lower concentrations of stomach acid found in the stomachs of
people, and other plant-eaters.

The human intestine is long and coiled, much like that of apes, cows, and
horses. This configuration makes digestion slow, allowing time to break down
and absorb the nutrients from plant food sources. The intestine of a
carnivore, like a cat, is short, straight, and tubular. This allows for very
rapid digestion of flesh and excretion of the remnants quickly before they
putrefy (rot). There are also marked sacculations (many sac-like
enlargements that bulge out along our large intestine), like those found in
all apes, which strongly supports the view that we are primarily
plant-eating animals. Overall, the intestines of meat-eaters are noticeably
simpler than ours.

Cholesterol Overwhelms a Plant-eater's Liver15

Cholesterol is only found in animal foods - no plant contains cholesterol.
The liver and biliary system of a meat-eating animal has an unlimited
capacity to process and excrete cholesterol from its body - it goes out, in
the bile, passing through the bile ducts and gallbladder, into the
intestine, and finally, out with the stool. For example, you can feed a dog
or cat pure egg yolks all day long and they will easily get rid of all of it
and never suffer from a backup of cholesterol. Humans, like other
plant-eating animals, have livers with very limited capacities for
cholesterol removal - they can remove only a little more than they make for
themselves for their own bodies - and as a result, most people have great
difficulty eliminating the extra cholesterol they take in from eating animal
products. This apparent "inefficiency" is because humans have evolved on a
diet of mostly plant foods (containing no cholesterol), and therefore, they
never required a highly efficient cholesterol-eliminating biliary system.
The resulting cholesterol buildup, when people eat meat, causes deposits in
the arteries (atherosclerosis), in the skin under the eyes (xanthelasma),
and in the tendons. Bile supersaturated with cholesterol forms gallstones
(over 90% of gallstones are made of cholesterol). About half of all
middle-aged women who live on the Western diet have cholesterol gallstones.
(See my April and May 2002 Newsletters.)

Our Requirements are for Plant Nutrients4,8

To believe we require the body parts of other animals in our diet for good
health supposes the human body evolved over many millions of years on a diet
predominantly of meat - and deficient in plants. This is not what is seen
when the nutritional requirements of people are examined.

When plants have been for eons a plentiful and reliable part of the diet, an
animal can become dependent upon specific nutrients found in these foods.
For example, ascorbic acid - found preformed and ready to use in plant
foods - is called vitamin C in the diet of people. Insufficient amounts of
this vitamin cause scurvy. Vitamins are essential micronutrients that cannot
be synthesized by the body; and therefore, must be in the food. Because
ascorbic acid has not been reliably available to them, meat-eating animals
have retained the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid from basic raw
materials found in their meat diet - therefore, it is not a vitamin for
them. (In other words it is not "vital" or essential to be preformed in
their food supply.)

Because humans have lived throughout most of their evolution on diets with
very little animal matter, they have had to develop or retain the ability to
synthesize some substances they need that are abundantly found in meat. For
example, humans, and other plant-eating animals, have the ability to make
vitamin A from a precursor found in large quantities in plants, called
beta-carotene. Carnivores cannot utilize beta-carotene as a precursor of
vitamin A. They have no need to; throughout their evolution they have always
had a plentiful supply of preformed vitamin A (Retinol) found in the meat.
Carnivores have also lost the ability to synthesize Niacin, which is
plentiful in meat. Remember, efficiency is necessary for survival of a
species and it is inefficient to keep manufacturing processes in the body
that are useless.

Our Instincts Are for Plants

For most enlightened people in modern Western nations, the idea of chasing
down and killing an animal is revolting; and the thought of consuming that
freshly killed flesh is repulsive. (And to eat decaying flesh, as a vulture
does, would be next to impossible.) Even when meat is cooked, most people
are disgusted by the thought of eating a slice of horse, kangaroo, rat, or
cat. Cows, chickens and pigs are acceptable to most Westerners only because
we have eaten them all of our lives. Yet even then, to make meat palatable,
its true nature must be covered up with a strong flavored sauce made with
salt, sugar, and/or spices - like sweet and sour, marinara, barbecue, or
steak sauce. Few people enjoy boiled beef or chicken.

People do not have a negative reaction to unfamiliar fruits and vegetables.
Consider, I could ask you to try an unfamiliar "star fruit" from the tropics
for the first time and you would eat and enjoy it without hesitation. Why?
Because your natural instincts are to eat fruits and vegetables.

You Should Eat Like You Act

So many human characteristics clearly say we evolved to be primarily
plant-eaters. Do you want to read more? Our hands are made for gathering
plants, not ripping flesh. We cool ourselves by sweating, like most other
plant-eating animals. Carnivores cool their bodies by panting. We drink our
beverages by sipping, not lapping like a dog or cat.

The exhaustive factual comparisons of our body traits with that of other
animals prove we have evolved over eons in an environment of plant-based
foods - the only real contradiction is our behavior. The results of our
aberrant behavior can be catastrophic - let me begin to explain that harm
with one example about macho men.

A Man's Behavior Contradicts His Anatomy

Men traditionally have been the hunters who carry back the slain animals to
feed the village - you know, "they bring home the bacon." Scientific
research confirms meat is viewed as a superior masculine food.16 The acts of
killing, butchering and eating animals are associated with power,
aggression, virility, strength, and passion - attributes desired by most
men - and eating meat has long been associated with aggressive behaviors and
violent personalities. Men say they need more, and they do eat more meat,
especially more red meat, than women. However, based on male anatomy, real
men should be vegetarians.

Human males have seminal vesicles - no other meat-eating animal has these
important collecting-pouches as part of their reproductive anatomy. 17 The
seminal vesicles are paired sacculated pouches connected to the prostate,
located at the base of the bladder. They collect fluids made by the prostate
that nourish and transport the sperm. Ejaculation occurs when the seminal
vesicles and prostate empty into the urethra of the penis. In many ways
ejaculation is the ultimate act of male performance - seminal vesicles are
essential organs for proper male function and therefore, they should tell us
much about his true nature.

His Aberrant Behavior Ruins His Potency

Eating meat diminishes sexual performance and masculinity. The male hormone
testosterone that determines sexual development and interest has been found
to be 13 % higher in vegans (a strict plant diet - no animal products of any
kind) than in meat-eaters.18 Meat-eaters are likely to become impotent
because of damage caused to the artery system that supplies their penis with
the blood that causes an erection.19 Erectile dysfunction is more often seen
in men with elevated cholesterol levels 20 and high levels of LDL "bad"
cholesterol21- both conditions related to habitual meateating.

The greatest threat to a man's virility is from the high levels of
environmental chemicals concentrated in modern meats of all kinds. These
chemicals interfere with the actions of testosterone. Decreased ejaculate
volume, low sperm count, shortened sperm life, poor sperm motility, genetic
damage, and infertility result from eating meat with estrogen-like
environmental chemicals.22 These chemicals in the meat, eaten by his mother,
influence the development of the male fetus, increasing the risk that the
baby boy will be born with a smaller penis and testicles, as well as
deformity of the penis (hypospadia) and an undescended testicle
(cryptorchism). Estimates are 89% to 99% of the chemical intake into our
body is from our food, and most of this is from foods high on the food
chain - meat, poultry, fish, and dairy products.23,24

A Deviant Diet Causes Deadly Diseases

The enlightened diet for humans today is centered around starchy plant foods
with the addition of fruits and vegetables - the use of clean meat is
limited to special occasions - like Thanksgiving and Christmas - and
consumed only by healthy people.25 If your diet deviates too far from that
which you evolved on over eons of time then you will likely suffer serious
consequences - these are the chronic diseases affecting people living on the
Western diet.

Next month I will continue this discussion of the health problems produced
when we attempt to live with meat as a significant part of our diet.


References:

1) Wood B. Human evolution: We are what we ate. Nature 1999;400:219 - 220

2) Bible (New International Version): Genesis 1:29 and 3:19

3) Milton K. Back to basics: why foods of wild primates have relevance for
modern human health. Nutrition. 2000 Jul-

Aug;16(7-8):480-3.

4) Milton K. Hunter-gatherer diets-a different perspective. Am J Clin Nutr.
2000 Mar;71(3):665-7.

5) Nestle M. Animal v. plant foods in human diets and health: is the
historical record unequivocal? Proc Nutr Soc.

1999 May;58(2):211-8.

6) Cordain I. The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based,
yet non-atherogenic. Eur J Clin Nutr.

2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S42-52.

7) Chimpanzees are also in the Homo species:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

8) Milton K. A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human
evolution. Evol Anthropol 1999;8:11-21.

9) W. Collens, "Phylogenetic Aspects of the Cause of Human Atherosclerotic
Disease," Circulation (suppl II) 31-32 (1965): II-7.

10) C. Prosser, Comparative Animal Physiology , 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders, 1961, p. 116

11) E. Nasset, Movements of the small intestine, P. Bard, Medical
Physiology, 11 ed. C. V. Mosby, 1961, St. Louis, p.440

12) What's Wrong with Eating Meat? Ananda Marga Publications, 1977

13) Mills M. The Comparative Anatomy of Eating
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2062/ana.HTML

14) H. Heimlich, "A Life-Saving Maneuver to Prevent Food-Choking," JAMA 234
(1975): 398-401.

15) Dietschy J. Regulation of cholesterol metabolism. 3. N Engl J Med. 1970
May 28;282(22):1241-9.

16) Roos G. Men, masculinity and food: interviews with Finnish carpenters
and engineers. Appetite. 2001

Aug;37(1):47-56.

17) Coffey D. Similarities of prostate and breast cancer: Evolution, diet,
and estrogens. Urology 57(4 Suppl 1):31-8, 2001.

18) Allen NE. Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal
bioavailable androgens in vegan men. Br J Cancer. 2000 Jul;83(1):95-7.

19) Feldman HA. Erectile dysfunction and coronary risk factors: prospective
results from the Massachusetts male aging study. Prev Med. 2000
Apr;30(4):328-38.

20) Bodie J. Laboratory evaluations of erectile dysfunction: an evidence
based approach. J Urol. 2003 Jun;169(6):2262-4.

21) Walczak MK Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in erectile
dysfunction. J Gend Specif Med. 2002 Nov-Dec;5(6):19-24.

22) Rozati R . Role of environmental estrogens in the deterioration of male
factor fertility. Fertil Steril. 2002 Dec;78(6):1187-94.

23) Duarte-Davidson R. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the UK
population: estimated intake, exposure and body burden. Sci Total Environ.
1994 Jul 11;151(2):131-52.

24) Liem AK. Exposure of populations to dioxins and related compounds. Food
Addit Contam. 2000 Apr;17(4):241-59.

25) Segasothy M. Vegetarian diet: panacea for modern lifestyle? Q J Med
92:531-544, 1999.
Laurie
2004-12-27 00:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being herbivores,
Produce it.
Actually, the word should be frugivore.
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
People in modern western cultures live longer than ever in history,
chiefly on omnivorous diets, and poor ones at that.
Dutch, don't you REALLY understand the difference between cultural
practices and genetic processes?? Behaviors (choice of diet) does not
impact the production of genetic diversity, nor the filtering of same by
"natural selection". Your response is totally irrelevant to the statement
re: "adaptation to consuming animal products".
The "live longer" is due to sanitary engineering, refrigeration, and
illusory medical trickery that keeps corpses "alive" by technology.
You also focus on length of life exclusively, thereby intentionally
ignoring quality of life.
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
5) asserting that humans must have adapted to the paleo diet because they
did it, is fallacious
Of course none of that concerns the party faithfull.
Stupid remarks like this do not increase your credibility.

Laurie
Jay Santos
2004-12-22 05:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Jay Santos
"The Paleo Diet" also has no scientific cred. It's rubbish.
YOU have no scientific "cred", Coleman, you goddamned
science-incompetent. You have no training whatever in
science.
I am formally trained and qualified in computer science,
That is not biology or botany or zoology. It isn't
"science" as the word is commonly understood. Cut the
shit.
Post by John Coleman
and self taught on
Haw haw haw haw haw! UNDISICPLINED, is what you mean.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 13:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Santos
Post by John Coleman
Post by Jay Santos
"The Paleo Diet" also has no scientific cred. It's rubbish.
YOU have no scientific "cred", Coleman, you goddamned
science-incompetent. You have no training whatever in
science.
I am formally trained and qualified in computer science,
That is not biology or botany or zoology. It isn't
"science" as the word is commonly understood. Cut the
shit.
All scientific fields incorporate principles of science that are often
transferrable to other fields.
Post by Jay Santos
Post by John Coleman
and self taught on
Haw haw haw haw haw! UNDISICPLINED, is what you mean.
Unqualified perhaps, but I do not need formal qualifications to report the
findings of qualified scientists.

Some of my bibliography is below, perhaps you would share yours so we can
asses your credibility.

This is all your digression though, you have posted no scientific defence of
the Paleo Diet.

John
---

Bibliography
Aiello, L and Dean, C., 1996, An Introduction To Human Evolutionary Anatomy,
Academic Press.

Austad, Steven N., Why We Age , John Wiley & Sonds, Inc., 1997

Angier, Natalie, Woman, An Intimate Geography, Virago Press, 1999

Bacq, Z.M., Fundamendals of Biochemical Pharmacology, Pergamon Press, 1971

Bagemihl, B., Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural
Diversity, St Martin's Press (NY)

Bolander-Gouaille, Christina, Focus on Homocysteine and the Vitamins
Involved in its Metabolism, Springer, 2002

Campbell, Dr. C. A. R., 1925, Bats, Mosquitoes and Dollars, Harvard Medical
Library, Boston USA.

Cannon, G., Food and Health: The Experts Agree, Consumers' Association, 2
Marylebone Road, London NW1 4DF.

Chivers, D. J. et al., 1984, Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates,
Plenum Press, NY.

Chivers, D.J, Langer, P., 1994, The Digestive System In Mammals: Food Form
And Function, Camb. Uni. Press, p.25.

Chalmers, A.F., What is this thing called Science?, Open Uni. Press, 1980

Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Extended Phenotype,
River Out Of Eden, various publishers

Deacon T, 1997, The Symbolic Species, Penguin Books, pp. 165-174.

Dennett, Daniel C., Darwins Dangerous Idea, Penguin Books, 1996

Dressler, D. and Huntingdon Potter, H., Discovering Enzymes, Scientific
American Library, New York, distributed by W H Freeman and Company, 41
Madison Avenue, New York 10010, & 20 Beaumont Street, Oxford OX1 2NQ England
.

Gislason, S. J. MD, Mechanisms of Brain Disturbances The Brain Book,
Environmed Research Inc. 502 -2109 Bellevue Ave., West Vancouver B.C. Canada
V7V 1C2

Gould, S.J., 1992, Life's Grandeur: The spread of excellence from Plato to
Darwin, Vintage

Hamilton/Gropper, The Biochemistry of Human Nutriton, West Publishing Co.,
1987

Horton/Moran/Ochs/Rawn/Scrimgeour Principles of Biochemistry 2nd Ed.,
Prentice-Hall International, Inc.

Hudson, B.J.F. Ed., The Biocheistry of Food Proteins, Elsevier Applied
Science, 1996

Jared Diamond, The Rise And Fallof The Third Chimpanzee, Vintage Science,
1992

Jones, Martin and Pilbeam, 1992, The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human
Evolution, Camb. Uni. Press

Leakey R, 1994, The Origin of Humankind, Phoenix.

Lewin, Roger, 1993, Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction 3rd Ed.,
Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Lewontin, R., 2000, It Ain't Necessarily So, Granta.

MacGregor, G.A. and deWardner, H.E., Salt, Diet 7 Health, Camb. Uni. Press,
1998,/p>

Mervyn, L. B.Sc., PH.D., C.Chem F.R.S.C, Thorsons Complete Guide to Vitamins
& Minerals, Published by Thorsons available via HarperCollins web site.

Murray/Granner/Mayes/Rodwell Harper's Biochemistry 24 Ed., Prentice-Hall
International, Inc.

Ridley, Matt, The Red Queen, Penguin, 2000

Rowe, N., The Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates, Pogonias Press, 1996

Sapolsky, Robert M., Junk Food Monkeys, Headline Book Publishing, 1998

Stevens, C. Edward, Hume, Ian D., Comparative Physiology of The Vertibrate
Digestive System, 2nd Ed., Camb. Uni. Press, 1995

Tattersall, Ian, Becoming Human, Oxford Uni. Press, 2000

Tuttle, R.H., 1986, Apes of the World; Their Social Behaviour Communication,
Mentality and Ecology.

Waal, F. de & Lanting F., Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, University of Calif.
Press.

Walker, M. J, 1994, Dirty Medicine, Slingshot Publications, BM Box 8314,
London, WC1N 3XX.

Widdowson E.M., Whiten, A., Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences,
Vol. 334 p. 159-295, 1270, The Royal Society, 1991

Wilson, Edward O., In Search Of Nature, Penguin Science, 1998
Dutch
2004-12-22 17:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Jay Santos
Haw haw haw haw haw! UNDISICPLINED, is what you mean.
Unqualified perhaps, but I do not need formal qualifications to report the
findings of qualified scientists.
There is nothing about Macdougall's proposed diet that makes me believe it's
anything more than just one more scheme to sell books, cds and "wellness
events". Anyone who claims that all the accumulated common sense and
research of the past must be discarded in favour of a whole new regime is
highly suspect. Paleos, raw food, high carbs, veganism, all fads.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 17:44:52 UTC
Permalink
"Dutch" <***@email.com> wrote in message news:***@news.supernews.com...
8<
Post by Dutch
There is nothing about Macdougall's proposed diet that makes me believe it's
anything more than just one more scheme to sell books, cds and "wellness
events". Anyone who claims that all the accumulated common sense and
research of the past must be discarded in favour of a whole new regime is
highly suspect.
Challenging the exsiting dogma is the method in science. There are several
examples in the history of science where all of the exsiting knowledge was
discarded because of new facts or logic. However, in this case the "existing
dogma", i.e. eat just about anything you like, balanced diet etc... is
nothing like science or even common sense.

Common sense is nothing to do with rational debate.

John
Jay Santos
2004-12-22 17:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Dutch
There is nothing about Macdougall's proposed diet that makes me believe
it's
Post by Dutch
anything more than just one more scheme to sell books, cds and "wellness
events". Anyone who claims that all the accumulated common sense and
research of the past must be discarded in favour of a whole new regime is
highly suspect.
Challenging the exsiting dogma is the method in science.
That's why "veganism" can never be scientific: it IS
nothing but dogma.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 18:34:05 UTC
Permalink
"Jay Santos" <***@philhendrieshow.con> wrote in message news:Tviyd.9998$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
8<
Post by Jay Santos
That's why "veganism" can never be scientific: it IS
nothing but dogma.
This thread is about Audettes book and his unsupported dogma.

John
Jay Santos
2004-12-22 18:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Jay Santos
That's why "veganism" can never be scientific: it IS
nothing but dogma.
This thread is about Audettes book and his unsupported dogma.
It is now ALSO about the unsupported dogma of "veganism".
Beach Runner
2004-12-26 12:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Jay Santos
That's why "veganism" can never be scientific: it IS
nothing but dogma.
It's based on comparative anatomy, and on the chemistry of the human
digestive system.

Name ONE carnivore or mostly carnivore with intestines 10 times the
length of the trunk?
Post by John Coleman
This thread is about Audettes book and his unsupported dogma.
John
pearl
2004-12-26 13:41:13 UTC
Permalink
"Beach Runner" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:u%xzd.177033$***@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
..
Post by Beach Runner
8<
Post by Jay Santos
That's why "veganism" can never be scientific: it IS
nothing but dogma.
It's based on comparative anatomy, and on the chemistry of the human
digestive system.
Name ONE carnivore or mostly carnivore with intestines 10 times the
length of the trunk?
(12.) ...

'Comparative Digestive Physiology

Among the various species throughout nature, the length of their particular
alimentary canals also differs greatly in relation to their natural food. The gut
of the carnivore is 3-6 times the length of their body. They require a short,
smooth, fast-acting gut since their natural flesh diet becomes quite toxic and
cannot be retained within the intestine for long without poisonous putrefaction
taking place. The gut of the herbivore is sacculated for greater surface area,
and is 30 times the length of their body. Its herb and grass diet is coarse and
fibrous, requiring longer digestion to break down cellulose. The length of the
omnivores alimentary canal is generally 6 times its body trunk size. The gut
of the frugivore (like humans) is also sacculated and is 12 times the length
of its body. The length of the adult human alimentary canal is about 30 feet.
The human digestive tract is about four times as long as the carnivores. The
intestine of the carnivore is short and smooth in order to dissolve food rapidly
and pass it quickly out of the system prior to the flesh putrefying. The human
digestive tract is corrugated for the specific purpose of retaining food as long
as possible until all nutriment has been extracted, which is the worst possible
condition for the digestion and processing of flesh foods. Meat moves quickly
through the carnivores digestive tract and is quickly expelled. The human
lengthy intestine cannot handle low-fiber foods including meat and dairy very
quickly at all. As a consequence, animal foods decrease the motility of the
human intestine and putrefaction almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by
foul smelling stools and flatulence), resulting in the release of many poisonous
by-products as the low-fiber food passes through, ever so slowly. In humans,
eventual constipation may develop on a meat-centered diet. Colon cancer is
also common, both of which are rare or non-existent on a high-fiber diet
centered around raw fruits and vegetables.
...'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
usual suspect
2004-12-26 16:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beach Runner
Post by Jay Santos
That's why "veganism" can never be scientific: it IS
nothing but dogma.
It's based on comparative anatomy, and on the chemistry of the human
digestive system.
Veganism is not based on either of those issues. It was started sixty
years ago and human anatomy and physiology weren't considered as
strongly as self-righteous feelings about ending animal exploitation:
In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm

PHILOSOPHY isn't about anatomy and physiology. The founders' concerns
weren't scientific at all.
Dutch
2004-12-26 21:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beach Runner
Post by Jay Santos
That's why "veganism" can never be scientific: it IS
nothing but dogma.
It's based on comparative anatomy, and on the chemistry of the human
digestive system.
No it isn't, the human digestive system is quite well adapted to digesting
meat. Veganism is founded in a misguided attempt to to extend political
ideals into the animal world.
Post by Beach Runner
Name ONE carnivore or mostly carnivore with intestines 10 times the length
of the trunk?
Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most apes/primates.
John Coleman
2004-12-27 00:38:23 UTC
Permalink
"Dutch" <***@email.com> wrote in message news:***@news.supernews.com...
8<
Post by Dutch
No it isn't, the human digestive system is quite well adapted to digesting
meat.
meat eating causes constipation - meat has no plant fibre in it
Post by Dutch
Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most apes/primates.
There is no scientific definition of "omnivore" - some anatomists challenge
the concept entirely for primates. When wild primates consume animal
products that humans eat, they get heart disease. Most primates are either
foli-frugivores (large ones) or fauni-frugivores (smaller), none seems to be
able to process significant quantities of leaf, fruit and animal matter.
Larger primates tend to eat less energy dense foods, because of relatively
lower basal energy requirements.

Wild primates eat raw meat, not toxic cooked meat. Not all primates are meat
eaters, and meat is not essential for our closest relatives the chimp and
bonobo.

Humans do not have the biochemistry typical of so called omnivores - see my
other posts.

Please don't use scientific sounding words if you have so scientific
definition of them.

John
rick etter
2004-12-27 01:01:02 UTC
Permalink
"John Coleman" <***@soalive.biz> wrote in message news:3QIzd.201$***@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...


snippage...
Post by John Coleman
Please don't use scientific sounding words if you have so scientific
definition of them.
=================
ROTFLMAO This from a nut case that doesn't post anything but stupidity and
propaganda.
Abner Hale
2004-12-27 01:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Dutch
No it isn't, the human digestive system is quite well adapted to digesting
meat.
meat eating causes constipation - meat has no plant fibre in it
Post by Dutch
Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most
apes/primates.
Post by John Coleman
<snip>
Please don't use scientific sounding words if you have so scientific
definition of them.
John
Oh, the irony!

You are scientifically illiterate, John. You have ZERO scientific
education and/or knowledge.
Dutch
2004-12-27 06:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Dutch
No it isn't, the human digestive system is quite well adapted to digesting
meat.
meat eating causes constipation - meat has no plant fibre in it
I eat meat and I'm never constipated.
Post by John Coleman
Post by Dutch
Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most apes/primates.
There is no scientific definition of "omnivore"
omnivore
Animal that feeds on both plant and animal material. Omnivores have
digestive adaptations intermediate between those of herbivores and
carnivores, with relatively unspecialized digestive systems and gut
micro-organisms that can digest a variety of foodstuffs. Omnivores include
humans, the chimpanzee, the cockroach, and the ant.


- some anatomists challenge
Post by John Coleman
the concept entirely for primates. When wild primates consume animal
products that humans eat, they get heart disease. Most primates are either
foli-frugivores (large ones) or fauni-frugivores (smaller), none seems to be
able to process significant quantities of leaf, fruit and animal matter.
Larger primates tend to eat less energy dense foods, because of relatively
lower basal energy requirements.
Wild primates eat raw meat, not toxic cooked meat. Not all primates are meat
eaters, and meat is not essential for our closest relatives the chimp and
bonobo.
Humans do not have the biochemistry typical of so called omnivores - see my
other posts.
Please don't use scientific sounding words if you have so scientific
definition of them.
John, your thinking is completely dominated by radical animal rights dogma
and extremist diet theories. Reform yourself or get used to a life of
marginalization.
k***@excite.com
2004-12-27 12:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Dutch
No it isn't, the human digestive system is quite well adapted to digesting
meat.
meat eating causes constipation - meat has no plant fibre in it
Straw man. No one suggested a diet for humans that consists entirely
of meat. Consuming plant fiber as well as meat aids in the digestion
and is the typical feeding method for an omnivore/faunivore.
Post by John Coleman
Post by Dutch
Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most
apes/primates.
Post by John Coleman
There is no scientific definition of "omnivore"
There is to the extent there is a scientific definition of
"herbivore" and "carnivore",


- some anatomists challenge
Post by John Coleman
the concept entirely for primates.
Cite? Most who shy from the word "omnivore" use "faunivore" instead.
This is not the same as challenging the concept. You lied.


When wild primates consume animal
Post by John Coleman
products that humans eat, they get heart disease.
Cite? Even if this is true, who said they had to eat the same animal
products as humans?


Most primates are either
Post by John Coleman
foli-frugivores (large ones) or fauni-frugivores (smaller),
Please provide scientific definitions for "foli-frugivore" or
"fauni-frugivore". If you would stop your desperate semantic bullshit,
you'd realize that "fauni-frugivore" would be synonymous with
"omnivore". You just contradicted yourself.



none seems to be
Post by John Coleman
able to process significant quantities of leaf, fruit and animal matter.
Cite?
Post by John Coleman
Larger primates tend to eat less energy dense foods, because of relatively
lower basal energy requirements.
Wild primates eat raw meat, not toxic cooked meat.
Relevance? How does the fact that non-human primates haven't mastered
the use of fire support your ridiculous position?


Not all primates are meat
Post by John Coleman
eaters, and meat is not essential for our closest relatives the chimp and
bonobo.
Relevance?
Post by John Coleman
Humans do not have the biochemistry typical of so called omnivores - see my
other posts.
We must, otherwise we would not be faunivores or "fauni-frugivores".
Post by John Coleman
Please don't use scientific sounding words if you have so scientific
definition of them.
Your comedy act sucks. You are a fraud.

I'll cite a few vegetarians for you and I'll emphasize(by use of ***)
the points you are too dishonest to address.
http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm

Conclusion
***Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical
traits***. ***There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the
assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet***. For
that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain
ecological, ethical, and health concerns.
[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The
American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a
primatologist.]

And from one who is entirely honest:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml

"Analysis of the human gut data using the coefficient of gut
differentiation (a measure of gut specialization) placed humans in the
frugivore range, ***along the margin with the faunivore category***.
However, analysis of the same data using the index of gut
specialization (yet another measure of gut morphological
specialization) placed humans ***squarely in the faunivore range***."


Recall that all frugivorous primates eat at least some quantities of
animal foods, even if only insects. Thus the result that humans
appeared to be frugivores by one measure and faunivores by another
***suggests a natural diet for humans that includes both animal foods
and fruits***.


***Human GI quotient pattern typical of faunivores***

Human GI quotients are considerably lower than predicted/expected for
all 4 digestive system components measured. Martin et al. report [1985,
p. 72] that:

Calculation of gut quotient values has particular interest in the case
of the four average surface areas of the gut compartments determined
for six Homo sapiens. It can be seen from figs. 1-4 that man has values
of less than one for all four gut compartments, most notably with
respect to the cecum:

GQ = 0.31; IQ = 0.76; CQ = 0.16; LQ = 0.58
[In the above, GQ is the quotient for the stomach, IQ for the small
intestine, CQ for the cecum, and LQ for the colon.]


***This is a pattern shared with a number of animals relying heavily on
animal food*** ["faunivores" (Chivers and Hladik, 1980)].


Meaningful dietary groupings based on statistical analysis of GI
quotients. A dendrogram, or "tree" diagram, based on statistical
analysis of the GI quotients for the different animal species in the
study was derived in order to determine meaningful dietary groupings
according to similarity of GI tracts. The dendrogram for the study can
be found in Figure 11, p. 81 of Martin et al. [1985], and includes Homo
sapiens. Humans fall into group A2 in the dendrogram, about which,
Martin et al. [1985, p. 82] comment:

Group A can be characterized as containing numerous mammalian species
(primates and nonprimates) that ***include at least some animal food in
their diets***. Again, there is a separation into two subcategories
(A1, A2), the second of which contains most of the mammalian carnivores
and only two primate species--Cebus capucinus and Homo sapiens.

Thus the result of the advanced statistical analysis in Martin et al.
[1985] is that ***humans fall into the faunivore--meat-eater--class,
yet again***. Note also that the Capuchin monkey, Cebus capucinus, is
in the same statistical grouping as humans, thereby confirming the
remarks in Milton [1987], discussed earlier in this section, that the
human and Capuchin monkey gut dimensions are similar.

Conclusions. MacLarnon et al. [1986] conclude that:

The use of logarithmic quotients is preferable to the use of
anti-logarithmic quotients in MDS analyses.

MDS analysis techniques are more robust (for the subject data set) than
dendrogram-based clustering techniques.

Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations. From MacLarnon et
al. [1986, p. 297]:

...[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the approach using
logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3 and 5) is particularly
interesting in that it suggests a marked departure of Cebus [Capuchin
monkey] and Homo [humans] from the typical pattern of primates lacking
any special adaptation for folivory...in the ***direction of
faunivorous*** non-primate mammals....
5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering purposes suggests
that Cebus and Homo possess gastrointestinal tracts that have become
adapted in parallel to those of faunivorous mammals, with notable
reduction in size of caecum relative to body size. Nevertheless,
because of the artificiality of most modern human diets, it cannot be
concluded with confidence that the small human sample examined to date
reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet. The
results obtained so far are suggestive but by no means conclusive.


Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests, but is not (by
itself) conclusive proof, ***that the human GI tract is adapted for the
consumption of animal foods***.

...


The basic result appears to be that the ***anatomy of the human GI
tract shows what appear to be adaptations for faunivory (consumption of
animal foods)***, regardless of whether humans fall into the faunivore
or frugivore class.

...


***the sum total of current evidence suggests that humans (and Capuchin
monkeys) are (figuratively) where the faunivore and frugivore classes
"meet.***"

...


***Humans fail on raw, ape-style frugivore diets, but thrive on
faunivore diets***

...


***[human] gut dimensions are those of a faunivore***

...

***Humans are on the inner edge of the faunivore [meat-eater] cluster,
showing the distinctive adaptations of their guts for meat-eating, or
for other rapidly digested foods, in contrast to the frugivorous apes
(and monkeys)***.


...

Section summary and synopsis
Although by comparative anatomy analysis (alone) the issue is not yet
settled, the results of two different statistical analyses of a "large"
data set on gut morphology and diet (i.e., ***the best available
scientific evidence) support the idea that animal foods are a natural
part of the human diet***. That is:


***Humans are faunivores or frugivores adapted to a diet that includes
significant amounts of animal foods***.

The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected
for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore, as claimed by various fruitarian
extremists.

Finally, the simplistic analyses of gut morphology found in the various
comparative proofs of diet are (badly) outdated.


Let's see how you tap-dance around this. Oh, and don't attack the
messenger, Billings was quoting directly from peer-reviewed research.
All you have is unfounded extremism.
pearl
2004-12-27 20:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Dutch
No it isn't, the human digestive system is quite well adapted to
digesting
Post by John Coleman
Post by Dutch
meat.
meat eating causes constipation - meat has no plant fibre in it
Straw man. No one suggested a diet for humans that consists entirely
of meat. Consuming plant fiber as well as meat aids in the digestion
and is the typical feeding method for an omnivore/faunivore.
' The abnormal toxins which cause disease when they overload
the liver and kidneys and pollute the blood and milieu interieur are:
...
Last , and probably the most harmful--various acids and toxins
produced in the colon by bacterial putrefaction of improperly
digested remnants of cooked, high-fat, high-protein food which
enter the bloodstream in the water reabsorbed from the colon
back into the circulation.
..
The most poisonous form of toxemia, however, originates
in the colon (large bowel) because of constipation, which on
the Western diet is unavoidable due to a lack of dietary fiber.
It must be understood that a person can be "as regular as
clockwork" and still be constipated. On a natural diet of
mainly fruit and vegetables (raw), low in protein and fat, the
indigestible cellulose remnants are quickly processed for
elimination on reaching the colon by the normal aerobic
bacteria there and are then readily defecated, having made the
entire transit of the digestive tract in about twenty-four hours.
However, when the undigested remnants of a high-fat,
high-protein diet arrive in the colon they are difficult to break
down further, and the normal aerobic bacteria must change in
form to an anaerobic form which putrefies the remnants and
produces different acids and toxic chemicals. Because meat,
chicken, fish, dairy products and refined carbohydrates are
completely lacking in fiber, the process is slow moving. Thus
the "transit time" of the Western diet is about seventy-two
hours instead of twenty-four, giving the potent toxins ample
time to be absorbed into the body by way of the bile
circulation and to set up the irritation which leads to
appendicitis and bowel cancer. ..'
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020122horne.21stcentury/020122ch3.html

<..>> I'll cite a few vegetarians for you and I'll emphasize(by use of ***)
Post by Dutch
the points ..I'll use '###' to emphasise what you missed and ommitted.
http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm
Conclusion
***Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical
traits***. ***There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the
assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet***. For
that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain
ecological, ethical, and ### health concerns ###.
Why would an 'omnivore' have any meat-eating related health concerns???

[Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.
Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227 ]
Post by Dutch
[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The
American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a
primatologist.]
!
Post by Dutch
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml
"Analysis of the human gut data using the coefficient of gut
differentiation (a measure of gut specialization) placed humans in the
frugivore range, ***along the margin with the faunivore category***.
However, analysis of the same data using the index of gut
specialization (yet another measure of gut morphological
specialization) placed humans ***squarely in the faunivore range***."
Recall that all frugivorous primates eat at least some quantities of
animal foods, even if only insects.
.. even though usually only insects infesting fruits..
Post by Dutch
Thus the result that humans
appeared to be frugivores by one measure and faunivores by another
***suggests a natural diet for humans that includes both animal foods
and fruits***.
From the same page;

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would correspond
to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported by our data (fig. 1).
The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized "frugivores," a flexibility
allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several other populations, present and past, to
feed extensively on animal matter...' From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]

<..>
###
Post by Dutch
because of the artificiality of most modern human diets, it cannot be
concluded with confidence that the small human sample examined to date
reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet. The
results obtained so far are suggestive but by no means conclusive.
###
Post by Dutch
Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests, but is ### not ### (by
itself) conclusive proof, ***that the human GI tract is adapted for the
consumption of animal foods***.
It goes on..

'Some of the reasons for caution regarding the study results are as follows:
..
Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The gut
dimensions of animals can vary significantly between wild and
captive animals (of the same species, of course). Gut dimensions
can change quickly (in captivity or in the wild) in response
to changes in dietary quality. For information on this topic,
consult Hladik [1967] as cited in Chivers and Hladik [1980];
also the following sources cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and
Savory [1975]; Gross, Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation];
Koong et al. [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray,
Tulloch, and Winter [1977].
....'

<...>
Jay Santos
2004-12-27 20:52:43 UTC
Permalink
8<
Humans ARE omnivores.
k***@excite.com
2004-12-27 21:23:40 UTC
Permalink
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020122horne.21stcentury...

Still citing crackpots, I see.

Your additional cites from Billing's page do not dispute what I
posted.
pearl
2004-12-27 21:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@excite.com
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020122horne.21stcentury...
Still citing crackpots, I see.
Still unable to refute the evidence, and resorting to ad hominem, we see.
Post by k***@excite.com
Your additional cites from Billing's page do not dispute what I
posted.
What you yourself posted refuted it..

"> because of the artificiality of most modern human diets, it cannot be
Post by k***@excite.com
concluded with confidence that the small human sample examined to date
reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet. The
results obtained so far are suggestive but by no means conclusive."
add;

'Some of the reasons for caution regarding the study results are as follows:
..
Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The gut
dimensions of animals can vary significantly between wild and
captive animals (of the same species, of course). Gut dimensions
can change quickly (in captivity or in the wild) in response
to changes in dietary quality. For information on this topic,
consult Hladik [1967] as cited in Chivers and Hladik [1980];
also the following sources cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and
Savory [1975]; Gross, Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation];
Koong et al. [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray,
Tulloch, and Winter [1977].

and:

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would correspond
to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported by our data (fig. 1).
The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized "frugivores," a flexibility
allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several other populations, present and past, to
feed extensively on animal matter...' From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]

Now..

Why would an 'omnivore' have any meat-eating related health concerns?
John Coleman
2004-12-27 23:58:07 UTC
Permalink
"pearl" <***@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:cqq0c8$mee$***@kermit.esat.net...
8<
Post by pearl
Why would an 'omnivore' have any meat-eating related health concerns?
... it would not (it's the easy ones that always get them! LOL)

John
Jay Santos
2004-12-28 06:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Humans ARE omnivores.

John Coleman
2004-12-27 23:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@excite.com
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020122horne.21stcentury...
Still citing crackpots, I see.
Your additional cites from Billing's page do not dispute what I
posted.
They do completely. The authors admit their methods don't produce definitive
results.

John
John Coleman
2004-12-27 23:55:35 UTC
Permalink
thanks pearl, yes gut morphology is an inexact science, and so is
comparative anatomy

anything to do with biochemistry is far better

John
k***@excite.com
2004-12-28 06:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
thanks pearl,
Do you believe in "inner-earth beings" also?



yes gut morphology is an inexact science, and so is
Post by John Coleman
comparative anatomy
anything to do with biochemistry is far better
Anything? You are a fraud Coleman. You have ZERO comprehension of
either comparative anatomy or biochemistry.
Post by John Coleman
John
John Coleman
2004-12-27 23:52:36 UTC
Permalink
<***@excite.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
8<
Post by k***@excite.com
Post by John Coleman
meat eating causes constipation - meat has no plant fibre in it
Straw man. No one suggested a diet for humans that consists entirely
of meat.
A dog or bear can eat meal after meal comprised entirely of meat with no
apparant issues.
Post by k***@excite.com
Consuming plant fiber as well as meat aids in the digestion
and is the typical feeding method for an omnivore/faunivore.
No kidding - just why is that? I guess I could crap out a Lego brick if it
had enough grease with it.
Post by k***@excite.com
There is to the extent there is a scientific definition of
"herbivore" and "carnivore",
Herbivores eat almost entirely plant foods, carnivores eat almost entirely
animal foods - at what point between the 2 is an animal a "omnivore"?

There are clear cut adaptations to both herbivore and carnivore diets.
Humans have none of the carnivorous ones.
Post by k***@excite.com
Post by John Coleman
the concept entirely for primates.
Cite?
DJ Chivers
Post by k***@excite.com
Cite?
"Junk food Monkeys"
Post by k***@excite.com
Even if this is true, who said they had to eat the same animal
products as humans?
Just what are you implying? Do you want to eat raw bugs or something?
Post by k***@excite.com
Please provide scientific definitions for "foli-frugivore" or
"fauni-frugivore". If you would stop your desperate semantic bullshit,
you'd realize that "fauni-frugivore" would be synonymous with
"omnivore". You just contradicted yourself.
You just didn't define anything scientifically.
Post by k***@excite.com
Post by John Coleman
able to process significant quantities of leaf, fruit and animal
matter.
Cite?
Chivers
Post by k***@excite.com
Post by John Coleman
Wild primates eat raw meat, not toxic cooked meat.
Relevance? How does the fact that non-human primates haven't mastered
the use of fire support your ridiculous position?
Why don't humans like their meat raw, real "omnivores" do?
Post by k***@excite.com
Relevance?
obvious - meat eating is optional, not essential
Post by k***@excite.com
We must, otherwise we would not be faunivores or "fauni-frugivores".
no we don't, see my other posts, even a cow can digest chicken or fish if it
is cooked up and pelleted
Post by k***@excite.com
Your comedy act sucks. You are a fraud.
No, you are a fraud, you have not answered my point. Just a bunch of
evasion.
Post by k***@excite.com
***Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical
traits***. ***There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the
assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet***. For
that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain
ecological, ethical, and health concerns.
[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The
American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a
primatologist.]
junk
Post by k***@excite.com
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml
worse than junk
Post by k***@excite.com
"Analysis of the human gut data using the coefficient of gut
differentiation (a measure of gut specialization) placed humans in the
frugivore range, ***along the margin with the faunivore category***.
However, analysis of the same data using the index of gut
specialization (yet another measure of gut morphological
specialization) placed humans ***squarely in the faunivore range***."
single observations cannot be the basis of a scientific case, you must judge
based on all known observation data, your selection bias is loading the dice
Post by k***@excite.com
Recall that all frugivorous primates eat at least some quantities of
animal foods, even if only insects.
Cattle eat insects, so do gorillas, they are not called "omnivores".
Post by k***@excite.com
Thus the result that humans
appeared to be frugivores by one measure and faunivores by another
***suggests a natural diet for humans that includes both animal foods
and fruits***.
All humans eat animal matter, even vegans. The question is how much do we
need to eat to be healthy, if any. And the answer to that question seems to
be 0 right now.
Post by k***@excite.com
***Human GI quotient pattern typical of faunivores***
back to single observations again - gut morphology reflect types of foods
eaten, but not strictly with respect to being plant or animal matter, but
rather how they digest
Post by k***@excite.com
Thus the result of the advanced statistical analysis in Martin et al.
[1985] is that ***humans fall into the faunivore--meat-eater--class,
yet again***. Note also that the Capuchin monkey, Cebus capucinus, is
in the same statistical grouping as humans, thereby confirming the
remarks in Milton [1987], discussed earlier in this section, that the
human and Capuchin monkey gut dimensions are similar.
this completely ignores overall size of the primate - duh!
Post by k***@excite.com
***Humans are faunivores or frugivores adapted to a diet that includes
significant amounts of animal foods***.
faunivores OR frugivores, now what are "significant amounts"?
Post by k***@excite.com
The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected
for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore, as claimed by various fruitarian
extremists.
But there are no 100% fruit eating primate species to compare with?
Post by k***@excite.com
Let's see how you tap-dance around this. Oh, and don't attack the
messenger, Billings was quoting directly from peer-reviewed research.
peer reviewed by nodding donkeys and unpublished

John
Dutch
2004-12-22 18:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Dutch
There is nothing about Macdougall's proposed diet that makes me believe
it's
Post by Dutch
anything more than just one more scheme to sell books, cds and "wellness
events". Anyone who claims that all the accumulated common sense and
research of the past must be discarded in favour of a whole new regime is
highly suspect.
Challenging the exsiting dogma is the method in science.
Prevailing wisdom in nutrition is not dogma, it's based on decades of
research.

There are several
Post by John Coleman
examples in the history of science where all of the exsiting knowledge was
discarded because of new facts or logic.
Not really, unless you mean "flat earth" theory. Science tends to progress
incrementally, new developments building upon the existing base of
knowledge.

However, in this case the "existing
Post by John Coleman
dogma", i.e. eat just about anything you like
"eat just about anything you like" is not the existing wisdom of nutrition.
Post by John Coleman
balanced diet etc... is
nothing like science or even common sense.
I note that you use this same sophistry trick of tossing bad ideas in with
ones you are trying to discredit. Do you do that consciously, or is it a
reflex?
Post by John Coleman
Common sense is nothing to do with rational debate.
Not when talking to vegans.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 20:50:50 UTC
Permalink
"Dutch" <***@email.com> wrote in message news:***@news.supernews.com...
8<
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
Challenging the exsiting dogma is the method in science.
Prevailing wisdom in nutrition is not dogma, it's based on decades of
research.
Most sciences have a "central dogma", a core of established ideas that are
stuck to hard that explain some phenomena. Nutrition is nothing at all like
a science, having no central dogma, and explains no natural phenomena. It is
a dogs body of research program findings (some quite useful) and the
concerns of vested interests in the food industry and state, plus a bunch of
irrational beliefs.

Decades of nutritional research has not established what the human diet is,
because they never set out with that intention. It is all about public
policy.
Post by Dutch
Not really, unless you mean "flat earth" theory.
Plenty of scientific established ideas have been rejected.
Post by Dutch
Science tends to progress
incrementally, new developments building upon the existing base of
knowledge.
Most of the time, sometimes there are exceptions.
Post by Dutch
"eat just about anything you like" is not the existing wisdom of nutrition.
It almost is. If you asked me for the natural and healthy diet of any
species other than a human, there would be a list of probably a few similar
items eaten raw by all members of the species in every case. Nutritionists
have reduced food and diet to meeting some designated targets for a few
chemicals that they believe are essential, they do this because they want to
be social engineers rather than do real science. Nutrition completely ignore
that we are evolved from frugivorous primates, they ignore the major
scientific development of Darwin. In so doing they can only invite ridicule
from scientists.
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
balanced diet etc... is
nothing like science or even common sense.
I note that you use this same sophistry trick of tossing bad ideas in with
ones you are trying to discredit. Do you do that consciously, or is it a
reflex?
The "balanced diet" idea is the popular currency of nutritionists, and it is
way too simple, nothing like a science. Foods contain thousands of
biologically active substances, not a few dozen.
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
Common sense is nothing to do with rational debate.
Not when talking to vegans.
Not ever. A rational debate is based on facts and logic, not beliefs such as
common sense. "Common sense" told people that a cannon ball would fall
faster than a pea, and is wrong.

John
usual suspect
2004-12-24 13:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
Challenging the exsiting dogma is the method in science.
Prevailing wisdom in nutrition is not dogma, it's based on decades of
research.
Most sciences have a "central dogma"
You understand neither science nor religion NOR NUTRITION, you
malnourished oaf.
Jay Santos
2004-12-22 05:29:43 UTC
Permalink
John Coleman, untrained in biology, zoology, or any
Post by John Coleman
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being herbivores,
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
Tom Billings CITES THE LITERATURE to show that there is
vast scientific evidence of human adaptation to meat
eating. You, on the other hand, merely blurt your
ideology.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 13:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Santos
John Coleman, untrained in biology, zoology, or any
Post by John Coleman
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being herbivores,
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
Tom Billings CITES THE LITERATURE to show that there is
vast scientific evidence of human adaptation to meat
eating. You, on the other hand, merely blurt your
ideology.
Billings is a statistician, he isn't even trained in computer science.

Please cite a single example of a relivant expert in the field claiming that
humans are adapted to eat meat and also providing the data.

John
Jay Santos
2004-12-22 16:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Jay Santos
John Coleman, untrained in biology, zoology, or any
Post by John Coleman
4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being
herbivores,
Post by Jay Santos
Post by John Coleman
there is none of any adaptation to consuming animal products
Tom Billings CITES THE LITERATURE to show that there is
vast scientific evidence of human adaptation to meat
eating. You, on the other hand, merely blurt your
ideology.
Billings is a statistician, he isn't even trained in computer science.
Statistics is a more rigorous field than computer
science. You know how to code some C++ programs; big
fucking deal.

Billings CITES THE LITERATURE that provides support for
the claim that humans are adapted to eating meat. You
can't cite anything counter to it.

I once wrote to a full professor of biology AND
anthropology at a prestigious university whose work had
been miscited here by that fatuous fuckwit Lesley
('pearl','lilweed' and other nyms), and asked him if it
was true that the consensus among anthropologists and
biologists is that humans evolved as omnivores, and he
replied that it [human omnivory] is a fundamental part
of the consensus of scientific opinion. Unfortunately,
he did not grant permission to quote him.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 17:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Santos
Statistics is a more rigorous field than computer
science. You know how to code some C++ programs; big
fucking deal.
There is more to computer science than programming - didn't you know that?
Post by Jay Santos
I once wrote to a full professor of biology AND
anthropology at a prestigious university whose work had
been miscited here by that fatuous fuckwit Lesley
('pearl','lilweed' and other nyms), and asked him if it
was true that the consensus among anthropologists and
biologists is that humans evolved as omnivores, and he
replied that it [human omnivory] is a fundamental part
of the consensus of scientific opinion. Unfortunately,
he did not grant permission to quote him.
In real sciences like chemistry a category like "metalic elements" is
defined with a crystal clear definition so that we can ascribe any given
element to that category or another. There is no such scientific defintion
of "omnivory" to be able to apply because biologists and anthropologists are
not always doing real science. Human omnivory has been refuted by some
authorities, so that the issue is contentious, most evolutionists contend
that humans evolved from frugivores.

I have posted a great deal of scientific facts with references, all you have
is insults, hearsay, and you refute nothing and post no supporting evidence
AGAIN.

John
Jay Santos
2004-12-22 17:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Jay Santos
Statistics is a more rigorous field than computer
science. You know how to code some C++ programs; big
fucking deal.
There is more to computer science than programming - didn't you know that?
There is no more to YOUR exposure to computer science
than a little bit of programming, or perhaps a little
network administration.
Post by John Coleman
Post by Jay Santos
I once wrote to a full professor of biology AND
anthropology at a prestigious university whose work had
been miscited here by that fatuous fuckwit Lesley
('pearl','lilweed' and other nyms), and asked him if it
was true that the consensus among anthropologists and
biologists is that humans evolved as omnivores, and he
replied that it [human omnivory] is a fundamental part
of the consensus of scientific opinion. Unfortunately,
he did not grant permission to quote him.
[snip handwaving]
The consensus of biologists, zoologists and
anthropologists is that humans evolved as omnivores.
John Coleman
2004-12-22 18:41:17 UTC
Permalink
"Jay Santos" <***@philhendrieshow.con> wrote in message news:BAiyd.10013$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
8<
Post by Jay Santos
There is no more to YOUR exposure to computer science
than a little bit of programming, or perhaps a little
network administration.
rubbish - you are like someone with a crystal ball, you have no knowledge of
my academic background, so you guess
Post by Jay Santos
Post by John Coleman
[snip handwaving]
The consensus of biologists, zoologists and
anthropologists is that humans evolved as omnivores.
I am talking about actual material verifiable adaptations, not just what
humans did. Arguing for something based on tradition is fallacious. Point to
me.

I have identified a series of distinctly herbivorous adaptations, you have
listed no distinctly carnivorous ones. Point to me.

I have asked you to define omnivore scientifically - you failed. Point to
me.

John
Jay Santos
2004-12-22 18:43:30 UTC
Permalink
8<
Post by Jay Santos
There is no more to YOUR exposure to computer science
than a little bit of programming, or perhaps a little
network administration.
rubbish
No, fact.
Post by Jay Santos
Post by John Coleman
[snip handwaving]
The consensus of biologists, zoologists and
anthropologists is that humans evolved as omnivores.
I am talking about actual material verifiable adaptations, not just what
humans did.
So are the biologists and anthropologists talking about
actual "material verifiable" [sic] adaptations.
Dutch
2004-12-22 19:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
8<
Post by Jay Santos
There is no more to YOUR exposure to computer science
than a little bit of programming, or perhaps a little
network administration.
rubbish - you are like someone with a crystal ball, you have no knowledge of
my academic background, so you guess
Post by Jay Santos
Post by John Coleman
[snip handwaving]
The consensus of biologists, zoologists and
anthropologists is that humans evolved as omnivores.
I am talking about actual material verifiable adaptations, not just what
humans did. Arguing for something based on tradition is fallacious. Point to
me.
I have identified a series of distinctly herbivorous adaptations, you have
listed no distinctly carnivorous ones. Point to me.
I have asked you to define omnivore scientifically - you failed. Point to
me.
http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/metab-carn/metabolic-carnivory-1a.shtml

http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml
The Late Role of Grains and Legumes
in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence
of their Evolutionary Discordance
John Coleman
2004-12-22 20:58:13 UTC
Permalink
"Dutch" <***@email.com> wrote in message news:***@news.supernews.com...
8<
Post by Dutch
Post by John Coleman
I have identified a series of distinctly herbivorous adaptations, you have
listed no distinctly carnivorous ones. Point to me.
I have asked you to define omnivore scientifically - you failed. Point to
me.
http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/metab-carn/metabolic-carnivory-1a.shtml
Loren Cordain? What rubbish, he is on the fringes of science, his book is
puerile nonsense, not even your valued nutritonists go along with him.

His findings that some people eating wholely unnatural cultural diets don't
do to well, doesn't support his contention that we are adapted to Paleo
diets.
Post by Dutch
http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml
The Late Role of Grains and Legumes
in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence
of their Evolutionary Discordance
Grain eating is obviously unnatural, again this is not data in favour of the
Paleo diet. No amount of modern diet X doesn't work is the same as prior
diet Y does work. But Cordain doesn't give a hoot about making fallacious
claims as his feeble book proves.

John
John Coleman
2004-12-22 21:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Palaeolithic Nutrition?

Introduction
The Palaeolithic Diet has been popularised primarily because of research by
S.B. Eaton and M. Konner that advocates a hunter-gatherer diet for humans. A
large volume of literature has been produced out of this hypothesis, one of
many which are arising through the logical application of evolutionary
theory to nutrition. The idea is that humans are adapted to the higher
animal product diets that they ate as "cave men" for hundreds of thousands
of years. It quite rationally proposes that humans have not adapted to the
Standard Western Diet (SWD), or indeed to any of the diets that are a
consequence of Neolithic developments - that is, ones including the
consumption of cultivated grains, dairy products, over fatted animal
carcasses, salt and so forth. The traditional Australian aborigines and the
!Kung San peoples of the Kalahari dessert are often suggested as
contemporary models for the diet.

The Weak Hypothesis of Anthropologists
One well known advocate of the diet, Dr. Loren Cordain, author of "The Paleo
Diet" (1) claims that hunter-gatherer populations have much lower incidence
of chronic degenerative diseases than modern Westerners, for example
cardiovascular events are much more rare in contemporary hunter-gatherer
societies than in peoples eating the SWD. The suggestion is that this is a
result of superior nutrition. The Palaeolithic diet was characterised by
wild game which is generally lower in fat than modern commercial meat, and
has preferential fatty acid and vitamin profiles. Palaeolithic wild gathered
fruit and plant matter was suposedly nutritionally superior to modern day
grain type plant foods, and plant foods grown under commerical conditions in
general. The case for this is fairly convincing, although quite how one
properly takes into account the many very different lifestyle factors
between modern humans and Palaeolithic ancestors, is not clear. Indeed, a
general lack of clarity and precision characterises the whole topic of
Palaeolithic nutrition, which is inevitable given the nature of the
available information - i.e. very little. So projecting from the
Palaeolithic experience to modern humans, is fraught with potentially
serious issues of interpretation and extrapolation.

Although we may be lead to believe that the Palaeolithic diet has a
scientific basis, Loren Cordain makes a rather poor case for the diet in his
book. The scientific reader given a "hypothesis" can reasonably expect to be
provided with precise definitions, supporting facts and logic, and an
unbiased approach that appraises all the relevant data and makes well
reasoned assumptions. The opening prose explain the basis of the hypothesis
along the lines that modern humans are clearly not adapted to their modern
diets because of the high prevelence of diet related diseases. However, this
fact does not demonstrate that Palaeolithic peoples were adapted to their
diet. Cordain fails to define what dietary adaptation actually is, and how
we might test for it. He fails to provide any specifics in his hypothesis,
which of course makes it hard to test. He claims that people don't realize
"how healthy Paleolithic ancestors were" and then fails to provide evidence
that they were healthy. Instead he claims they were free from heart disease
and other chronic ailments that plague modern Westerners, but that does not
demonstrate that Palaeolithic people were healthy, anymore than does his
claims that hunter-gatherers look lean and fit in the many photographs that
Cordain has seen. Even modern day world class athletes have competed
successfully with advanced cancer. Cordain cites the Yanomamo Indians for
their low blood pressure, but of all the hunter-gatherers, these perhaps eat
the least animal products and are sometimes said to be close to vegetarian.
The Yanomamo also practice forest gardening, a primitive form of
agriculture. So the intoduction that Cordain gives us to his ill defined
hypothesis is a series of non sequiters and unsupported claims. The book
then follows with one after another of unsupported claims and logical
fallacies. Cordain often displays his own personal prejudices in the
material presented in the book. Cordain does not tell us why humans had to
wait to develop technology before they could eat the diet they were
allegedly "designed" to eat.

Cordain repeats the oft made claim of anthrpologists that meat is "brain
food", and goes even further suggesting that our our ancestors meat habit
somehow lead him to become a scientist. However, scientific philosophy only
arose after the Palaeolithic era, and is not present in any stone age
society, and of course it cannot be so. Science arose along with the
develoment of agriculture, which is almost a science, and the eating of less
meat. So does Cordain demonstrate that the hunter gatherer high meat diet
necessitated the development of agriculture and science? That hunting and
gathering necessarily lead to the development of agriculture is also
questionable, given the existence of hunter-gatherer societies up until
recently. It is possible that the high pressure that over hunting and
gathering places on the environment with a growing population necessitated
agriculture, but that is no case for meat eating, or meat as a brain food.
The need for humans to develop tools in order to process animal foods is
perhaps a rather better theory. While the historical basis of the argument
seems weak (correlation doesn't identify causation), the case for DHA, a
fatty acid, sounds more scientifically plausible. As yet though, DHA is not
recognised as an essential fatty acid, except parhaps in growing children
who may obtain it from breast milk. On the web site Cordain does mention
some studies that show better outcomes when developing children have access
to DHA, but this could be suggestive that a prolonged period of breast
feeding is beneficial, or simply that the standard diet does not promote
sufficient DHA synthesis - and that could be for a variety of other reasons
beyond DHA provision in the diet. In any case, the point simply is not
proven by any of Cordain's works. Furthermore, there is no exploration of
the possible detrimental effects of meat consumption on brain development
and function.

As we shall see later, there is evidence that stone age dieters suffer from
gastric ailments that are common nowadays. However, Cordain believes that a
diet high in animal products is not constipating. If this were true, then
this would be a major blow to the idea that humans were adapted to a
Palaeolithic diet. The case he presents though, is remarkably unconvincing,
and relies on weak evidence and some flawed reasoning. Cordains first piece
of evidence relates an anecdote about Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson
who sometimes lived exclusively on animal products. He had found that
constipated men who had been eaten refined cereal foods were relieved of
their condition when they tried the menu of the "Eskimos". However, this
diet is unusual in that it includes a lot of oily fish and blubber, which
are of course excellent lubricants. Even so, the Innuit are no strangers to
constipation. One of the most powerful spirits in Innu mythology is
Matshishkapeu (translated "fart man"), who can control other spirits by
inflicting deadly bouts of constipation upon them. The Innu people of
Labrador also have herbal remedies for constipation, colds and other
ailments common to more civilised peoples.

In citing Stefansson, Cordain uses a worst case scenario comparison, and of
course this always presents things in a biased fashion. A fair comparison is
not between a person on an entirly unnatural diet of refined cereals such as
a sailor or arctic explorer, but rather, with people eating a diet high in
natural plant fibres who then add meat to their diet. It is common knowledge
that red meat is constipating, for example The Constipation Resource Center
gives the advise to "Limit your consumption of meat" in cases of
constipation. How then is meat a cure for constipation? Clearly it is not.
Perhaps Stefansson and his men could have got the same result if they just
ate grease or oil, or of course some fruit or other source of plant fibre.
To further support his claims, Cordain then reports how Stefansson returned
from his arctic exploration and then repeated his all-meat diet and was
observed by physicians to have "normal" bowel function. (Stefansson died at
age 83 due to stroke.) Furthermore, in the experiment with Stefansson and
his friend, they confirmed that they only had satisfactory bowel function
when they ate a meat only diet including all the fat. They reported that
when they cut the fat out, they had digestive problems. Cordain advocates
removing the fat to cut the risks of atherogenous diseases. The Paleo choice
seems to be constipation or arterial disease.

Cordain also suggests that humans are not intended to eat a plant based diet
because of the evolutionary evidence and the anthropological record. As we
shall see later, human evolution is clearly indicative of a herbivorous
lineage. Using the anthropological record is flawed reasoning ("argumentum
ad antiquitatem"), what was done isn't necessarily what should have been
done. Furthermore, we don't really have any precise evidence of what our
evolution actually was. Instead we have some bone fragments of which rather
subjective, and often changing interpretations are made - what Jared Diamond
referred to as "paleopoetry" (The Rise And Fall of The Third Chimpanzee,
Jared Diamond, p.70, Vintage Science).

While the above is not an exhaustive critique of the ideas presented by
Cordain, it is at least enough to expose his fundamentally unscientific
approach. That Cordain claims to be a scientist, and presents this kind of
clearly prejudicial selection biased evidence, should be reprehensible to
any reasonable person. Cordain could be forgiven for not presenting a blow
by blow account of his research findings in what is austencibly a recipe
book, but the kind of rubbish he does present is hardly worthy of repeating.
Cordain fails to link the reference material in his bibliography to the many
claims he makes in the main text.

The Problem of Uncertainty
We have no medical records (no morbidity data) from the Palaeolithic era, so
no way of telling whether Palaeolithic man was really healthy or not.
Looking at bones and teeth may show that these humans were often well
nourished, but that is all. If they died of cancer, heart disease, gall
bladder complications or other organ pathology, we would not expect to see
evidence of that in the bones. In any case, these diseases tend to kill
outside the expected lifespan of Palaeolithic man, so we could never
discover their real susceptibility, even if we had soft tissues to examine.
Modern humans live longer in a different world, and may require a more
carefully chosen diet in order to remain free from degenerative diseases.
The Palaeolithic diet is akin to a creationist ideology. It is devoid of
robust definitions, a testable hypothesis, and finds its basis in the
personal beliefs and prejudices of its authors. Huge claims are made which
are unsupported by factual evidence, while at the same time facts that crack
the dogma open, are either ignored or papered over.

Human Dietary Adaptations
The Paleo diet rather assumes that we "adapted" to what our alleged
ancestors ate during the Palaeolithic period. What about the prior billions
of years of evolution of eating a totally raw diet without the higher meat
availability from hunting and the related technology? What strong evidence
is there of any adaptations to Palaeolithic eating patterns? A paper by
Caleb E. Finch and Craig B. Stanford, published in the The Quarterly Review
of Biology (2), suggests that humans have indeed made some small biochemical
inroads into adapting to a diet including more meat. They suggest that up to
eight genes in humans allow for greater protection from the degenerative
effects of consuming meat. From this study, we may infer that humans will
suffer less damage from meat eating than they would otherwise, but this is
far away from suggesting that it is beneficial overall for humans to eat
meat, rather the adaptation is alleged to offset degenerative disease
events. The existence of a protective mechanism isn't evidence of benefit
from the chemical insult it protects against. For example, the existence of
a protective mechanism against cyanide in our liver, does not mean we should
ingest cyanide, although it does mean we are "adapted" to cyanide in the
diet. The same principle applies to this meat eating/adaptive hypothesis,
and the researchers make it very clear that these are protective adaptations
in their work.

Above is the best evidence in favour of humans being meat eaters. What is
the evidence against the idea? On page 280 of Harper's Biochemistry 24 Ed.,
a medical students text, we discover that "The rabbit, pig, monkey, and
humans are species in which atherosclerosis can be induced by feeding
cholesterol. The rat, dog and cat are resistant." Therefore, it seems there
is something fundamentally different between human biochemistry and that of
species that naturally consume high amounts of animal products, and of
course, humans do suffer from atherosclerosis. Much of this will be because
of the high intake of saturated fats and a low intake of protective vitamins
in SWD, which would not be such an issue for Palaeolithic humans. However,
without medical evidence that they were free of the disease - what are we to
assume? We don't even have in depth medical studies on the diseases of
contemporary hunter-gatherers, let alone long deceased ones. Although
dietary cholesterol isn't as great a problem it was once thought to be to
most of us, cholesterol oxidises in animal products, and oxidised
cholesterol is still thought to be problematic (3) as well as saturated
fats. Meat also contains small amounts of trans-fats (4) that would raise
LDL cholesterol slightly, thus increasing risk of heart disease. Therefore,
we would expect to find heart disease amongst the hunter-gathereres who eat
the most meat. Cordain however, suggests that the paleo diet improves blood
lipid profiles when compared to a Western diet, because of factors such as
better essential fatty acid intakes, and because in Western diets refined
carbohydrates and high fat intakes both work together to elevate serum
cholesterol. He also suggests that calorific restriction (i.e. lack of
food), as well as greater physical activity helps to lower cholesterol
levels in hunter-gatherer societies. These factors need teasing out in order
to make a case for the diet outside that of the overall lifestyle.

"Although saturated fat is the main dietary culprit that raises LDL, trans
fat and dietary cholesterol also contribute significantly. ... Dietary
cholesterol also raises LDL cholesterol and may contribute to heart disease
even without raising LDL. ... Health experts recommend that you keep your
intake of saturated fat, trans fat, and cholesterol as low as possible while
consuming a nutritionally adequate diet." (4)

The big question is of course, just how good is a hunter-gatherer diet at
lowering cardivascular risk in reality? Does the theory really work? In a
paper called "Diet of Aboriginal hunter-gatherers" Kerin O'Dea (5) reveals
that traditionally fed Aborigines had cholesterol concentrations of about
3.9 mmol/l (about 150 mg/dL vs. 210 mg/dL for an average American) . O'Dea
also reports that traditionally living Aborigines have inappropriately
elevated insulin and tryglyceride levels, and that this is consistent with
insulin resistance. This could be because of iron overload, which is
discused below. However, there was no evidence of diabetes or coronary heart
disease. When cholesterol levels are below 150 mg/dL, then coronary heart
disease is virtually unknown (T.C. Campbell, personal communication). In
this respect Palaeolithic diet seems to be a success. However, it would be
misleading to suggest that it is necessary to follow a Palaeolithic diet to
get these results. Similar results can also be achieved using a low fat,
plant based diet with without or with minimal animal products such as fish
or fish oil or a source of plant omega-3 fats such as flax oil. This program
has been used by Dr. Dean Ornish, and is actually effective in reversing
atherosclerosis without drugs. Cholesterol levels below 150 mg/dL, average
for 130 village 127 ± 15 mg/dL, were also normal in rural Chinese
populations according to a large ecology study (6), and in these
populations, heart disease and other diseases of afluence where the lowest
in the world.

Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 (PH1) is a recessive disease in which an
enzyme, alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), is mistargetted from the
peroxisomes where it functions in the glyoxylate pathway, to the mitochondia
(7) where it is inefficient. It can be caused by defects in at least two
glyoxylate-metabolizing enzymes and leads to excessive urine oxalate
excretion resulting in kidney stones and/or calcification of the kidney
which can occur in childhood or adolescence. Patients used to die on average
at age 36 (8), however modern therapeutics can help to increase lifespan in
certain forms of the disorder. According to Christopher Danpure and
associates, "One molecular adaptation to diet that is spread widely across
Mammalia is the differential intracellular targeting of the intermediary
metabolic enzyme alanine:glyoxylate aminotransferase (AGT), which tends to
be mitochondrial in carnivores, peroxisomal in herbivores, and both
mitochondrial and peroxisomal in omnivores." (9) As humans normally express
this gene effectively in their peroxisomes only, humans are classed along
with herbivores in respect of AGT expression, as are chimpanzees. AGT
assists in the detoxification of glyoxylate, the precursor of which is
thought to be glycolate from plant foods, and hydroxyproline in meat.
Glyoxylate forms in the peroxisomes from glycolate and in the mitochondria
from hydroxyproline. If glyoxylate oxidises, it becomes oxalate which is
prone to crystallise out in the kidneys, where it causes blockages.

Further evidence that humans don't seem to have adapted to meat eating is
the higher prevalence of diabetes and heart disease amongst meat eaters in
modern populations. In modern populations, controlled studies show that
increasing plant foods tends to decrease mortality, whereas increasing
animal foods increases mortality from the common degenerative diseases.
Studies comparing vegetarian and meat eating populations have shown that a
vegetarian diet can lower risk of diabetes (10). One factor linked to the
risk is the type of iron found in red meats, "heme-iron". When the body
builds up excessive stores of this form of iron from red meat, then risk of
diabetes increases (11), particularly when intakes of protective nutrients
are low. The human body is ultra efficient in its preservation of iron
status, and has no natural means of excreting any great excess. Daily losses
of iron are so low, normally around 1 milligram, that it is necessary to
keep meat intakes low in order to avoid excess. This may be less an issue
for Palaeolithic humans, because of intestinal parasites that also take up
dietary heme-iron and even iron directly from the gut of the host (see CDC
discussion below). A 100 gram cut of beef may contain as much as 1.9mg of
iron, much of which is highly absorbable heme-iron, wild game probably
contains more. The heme-iron found in meat is not subject to the tighter
regulatory control that non heme-iron is, through binding proteins and other
control mechanisms. These mechanisms are effective in preventing iron
overload even when large quantities of iron is ingested from plant foods, or
even contaminating soil. However, when red meat is eaten as part of a SWD,
the risk of fatal heart attack rises proportionally (12). The availability
of iron from plant foods can be improved significantly (300-400%) when
vitamin C intake is high, because vitamin C neutralises the inhibitory
effects of polyphenols and phytates found in some plant foods, particulalry
grains. Therefore failure to absorb sufficient iron from plant foods can
indicate inadequate vitamin C OR iron intake. Unfortunately, the practice of
cooking food reduces vitamin C content of foods by between 20-90%.
Palaeolithic humans probably ate more fresh and raw plant foods than typical
modern humans, so ensured a greater intake of protective nutrients such as
vitamin C.

Doesn't the higher absorption capacity of heme-iron in humans suggest that
we are adapted to eat animal products? This hypothesis certainly does not
appear in any credible research literature. However, a very different
explanation is provided by the CDC (13). Each day the digestive system loses
thousands of its surface cells, and the heme-iron in these cells potentially
becomes available as a crucial nutrient for gut pathogens. Effective
absorption of heme-iron in the digestive system is therefore a necessary
part of our immune system, and known as the "iron withholding defence system
". The CDC specifically lists excessive consumption of red meats as a
condition that can compromise iron withholding, and therefore resistance to
invading parasites. This iron withholding system is common to all mammals
(i.e. includes all herbivores), and so is nothing to do with a specific
dietary adaptation.

Longevity
Another issue is longevity. Palaeolithic humans are not thought to have
lived so long as modern humans, but it is hard to know how long Palaeolithic
humans lived. Even eating a SWD, you might expect to live into your 70s, or
rather longer as happens in some Asian populations, who incidentally, eat
very little food of animal origin. The same cannot be said for the lifespans
of hunter-gatherers in the recent past or present. For example, some
estimates suggest a life expectancy of Pleistocene humans as well under 25
years (The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, p. 406). Modern
hunter-gatherer societies may not be realistic models for Palaeolithic
humans either, because of contact with modern culture, and further
development of their own cultures since Palaeolithic times. Modern
hunter-gatherer societies are the result of Palaeolithic developments. If
they are used as models, their average life expectancy and upper life
expectancy compared to modern humans is still rather poor. These differences
might not be so much to do with diet, but then maybe they are?

Diseases of Contemporary Populations Eating Stone Age Diets
While we don't have any good data on the real state of health of
Palaeolithic humans, we do know that contemporary hunter-gatherer peoples
are not healthy. Human cultures seem to have a variety of bizarre healing
systems (a.k.a. "witchcraft", "black magic", "herbalism"), some of which
have useful treatments, but most of which are ineffectual (or highly
dangerous) and based on false beliefs. For example, the Australian
aborigines traditionally live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and have a herbal
medicine (14) that predates Western contact, and is probably quite ancient.
It has treatments for symptoms of colds and flu, gastro-intestinal disorders
(bad diet?), congestion, coughs, generally feeling unwell, sore throat and
so forth. The traditional North American aboriginal medicine also has
remedies for diseases of the digestive systems such as hemorrhoids (see
below), which is now a very common disease in modern populations, yet is
almost non existent in wild animals. This demonstrates that hunter-gatherers
suffer from many of the ailments common to contemporary populations,
including those undoubtedly caused by inappropriate diet, such as
hemorrhoids. As with any other species eating its correct diet, healthy
humans have no need of these complex medical cultures or any of these
remedies. Means of dealing with accidental injuries is all the medical
culture a healthy human society would develop.

"Witch hazel preparations have a long history of traditional use in North
America (Der Marderosian, 1999; Duke, 1985). The aqueous infusion of the
bark was used in aboriginal medicine to treat hemorrhages, inflammations,
and hemorrhoids (Millspaugh, 1974)"
Witch Hazel leaf and bark, herbalgram.org, American Botanical Council
"Sanguinaria canadensis L.
Bloodroot; Papaveraceae
Iroquois Drug (Hemorrhoid Remedy)
Decoction of roots used to push piles back into intestines.
Herrick, James William 1977 Iroquois Medical Botany. State University of New
York, Albany, PhD Thesis (337)"
Native American Ethnobotany Database

What about the !Kung San as a model for hunter-gatherer health? Again the
evidence for health isn't convincing. The !Kung San believe that everyone is
inherently ill, and it is common for a large proportion of tribal members to
be shamanic healers. When you read about the !Kung San, it seems that they
have a culture that is paranoid about illness. This is perhaps not
surprising as survival in the remote and often extremely arid areas they
live in, must be far from easy. These conditions may not model the
Palaeolithic human condition at all well, but whether they do or not, no
evidence of good health has been produced. We simply cannot translate their
experiences into a modern human world.
A more representative picture of how cave men probably lived is given by the
Andamanese peoples as theirs is the most ancient surviving way of life on
earth. For example the Onge tribe of the Andaman Islands, until recently,
lived an almost undisturbed way of life that fits the Palaeloithic model.
The men hunt wild boar, but they also fish, and women gather wild tubers and
burries. They tend to boil their food in large pots, in this respect they
must differ from the earliest Palaeolithic ancestors, however food must be
relatively abundant when compared to other contemporary hunter-gatherer
societies from arid regions. According to a source quoted by The Andaman
Association Switzerland (15), the Andamanese suffered most from "coughs and
cold, ague, fever, and severe headache", and they also mention that diseases
known to have been common in the Andamanese before 1800 were malaria,
catarrh, coughs, rheumatism, tuberculosis, pneumonia, and perhaps most
signifcantly heart disease. Some of these ailments may be a consequence of
outside contact, but not all. The Andamanese seem unaware of good hygiene
practices, so presumably are also like cave men in this regard. Once again,
it is difficult to project these findings into a contemporary situation.
However, it is notable that these peoples suffered from diseases associated
with the Standard Western Diet, and in particular it seems, of high meat
consumption.

Conclusions
The "empirical method" is the hallmark of contemporary science. That is, a
hypothesis such as the Palaeolithic diet needs to be tested experimentally
in controlled conditions in order to develop a convincing theory. At present
there is no empirical evidence to suggest that modern day humans who adopt a
Palaeolithic diet will have good health, or significantly reduce their
chances of degenerative diseases in the same way as hunter-gatherers are
sometimes alleged to have. Modern humans live in very different
environmental conditions to traditional hunter-gatherers, and it simply does
not follow that we can adopt hunter-gatherer nutrition and be healthy.

In summary: 1) no evidence that a Palaeolithic diet is healthy, 2) no real
evidence of adapting properly to a high meat diet, 3) some good evidence
that humans didn't adapt to the diet and 4) are unhealthy on hunter-gatherer
diets, as well as on modern diets including high meat consumption. Taking
these points into account, the "cave man" diet really looks like a
discreditable hypothesis. Perhaps the "Paleo" diet is rather better than a
Standard Western Diet, but there is no case for it being natural, or optimal
for us, by a long way.


References

The Paleo Diet, Loren Cordain
http://www.thepaleodiet.com
The Quarterly Review of Biology, March 2004, Vol. 79, No. 1, Meat-adaptive
Genes And The Evolution Of Slower Aging In Humans, Caleb E. Finch, Craig B.
Stanford
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB/journal/issues/v79n1/790101/brief/790101.abstract.html
Dietary Cholesterol Makes LDL Cholesterol More Radical, Judy McBride, April
4, 2000, USDA Agricultural Research Centre
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000404.htm
Revealing Trans Fats, FDA Consumer magazine, September-October 2003 Issue,
Pub No. FDA03-1329C
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (1991), Diet of Aboriginal hunter-gatherers, K.
O'Dea, p. 74
Chen J, Campbell TC, Li J, Peto, R. 1990. Diet, life-style and mortality in
China. A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties. Oxford, UK;
Ithaca, NY; Beijing, PRC: Oxford University Press; Cornell University Press;
People's Medical Publishing House, 896 pp.
J Nephrol. 1998 Mar-Apr;11 Suppl 1:8-12, The molecular basis of alanine:
glyoxylate aminotransferase mistargeting: the most common single cause of
primary hyperoxaluria type 1, Danpure CJ
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9604801&dopt=Abstract
Primary Hyperoxalurias, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/nephrology/hyperoxaluria.cfm
Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(4):632-646, 2004, Differential Enzyme Targeting As an
Evolutionary Adaptation to Herbivory in Carnivora, Birdsey GM, Lewin J,
Cunningham AA, Bruford MW and Danpure CJ
http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/4/632?ct
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Feb;58(2):312-6, Insulin sensitivity in Chinese
ovo-lactovegetarians compared with omnivores, Kuo CS, Lai NS, Ho LT, Lin CL
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14749752
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jan; 79(1): 70-5, Dietary iron intake and blood
donations in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes in men: a prospective
cohort study, Jiang R, Ma J, Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Hu FB
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14684399
Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Mar 1;149(5):421-8, Dietary iron and risk of myocardial
infarction in the Rotterdam Study, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Grobbee DE, den
Breeijen JH, Boeing H, Hofman A, Witteman JC
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10067901
CDC, Iron Loading and Disease Surveillance, Eugene D, Weinberg, Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no3/weinberg.htm
Traditional Aboriginal Medicine Practice, Dr Dayalan Devanesen AM, MBBS, DPH
(Syd) Grad. Dip MGT, MHP (NSW) FRACMA, FAFPHM, FCHSE
http://www.nt.gov.au/health/comm_health/abhealth_strategy/Traditional%20Aboriginal%20Medicine%20-%20Japan%20Paper.pdf
In Sickness and in Health, Chapter 19, The Andaman Association, Switzerland
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter19/text19.htm
Dutch
2004-12-22 21:28:29 UTC
Permalink
"John Coleman" <***@soalive.biz> -snip-

Intolerably large amount of text to copy/paste into a discussion group John.
Is there not a link to that essay?
Ted Bell
2004-12-22 21:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Intolerably large amount of text to copy/paste into a discussion group John.
Is there not a link to that essay?
He has Lesley disease: If you can't dazzle 'em with
brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
John Coleman
2004-12-23 20:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dutch
Intolerably large amount of text to copy/paste into a discussion group John.
Is there not a link to that essay?
sorry, it was a draft, so not yet

John
Jay Santos
2004-12-23 20:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Coleman
Post by Dutch
Intolerably large amount of text to copy/paste into a discussion group
John.
Post by Dutch
Is there not a link to that essay?
sorry, it was a draft, so not yet
A very rough draft indeed, chock full of misspellings,
dangling participles, and entirely unsupported
assertions by Coleman.

"If they died of cancer, heart disease, gall
bladder complications or other organ pathology, we
would not expect to see evidence of that in the bones."

You don't know that, Coleman. You personally are
UNQUALIFIED to say whether or not we would expect to
see such evidence, and you cannot cite a single
credentialed expert who supports your wild claim.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...