Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post - Claims of the primal diet: Eat meat and avoid vegetables and grains

Joeschmoe · 03-01-2008, 05:30 PM

Jenni, you are wrong and right. You can actually feed a dog only vegetation for a very long time (long enough to reproduce). The classification of carnivores/herbivore/omnivore/frugivore has nothing to do with what is actually eaten, but everything to do with physiology (I really could be wrong about this, someone please correct me if this is wrong). We are physiologically Frugivorous. Other frugivores, chimps, bonobos, gibbons all eat some animal, usually less than %5 of calories. So, no in human development, I don't think there is any question that meat played a part. However, it probably played a very small part until human ancestors set out from jungles and started using their brains to find food. We haven't changed much since then, we stopped adapting to our environment and started adapting our environment to us.

Thank goodness that happened, it means that the homo genus moved all over the word were fruits and vegetables weren't readily available. And thank goodness for grain agriculture, because it was the root of civilization. This doesn't mean that we have changed. We changed the food to suit our herbivorous(frugivorous) anatomy. Anything that is not fruit or vegetable we pre-process. We use our hands with tools to remove flesh and even cook it entirely because we are not adapted to use meat as a main food source, we have adapted meat to suit us. Same with grains, they need much more pre-processing, we have adapted them to meat our physiology.

Yes meat and even grains have played a huge part of human development, but not of our physical development. They played a huge part in allowing us to conquer the world.

If you get 5% of your calories from meat sources and 95% from plant you are probably where you are supposed to be. If you get 0% from animals, you are a lot closer to where you should be than someone who gets nearly 100%. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that the ability to survive and thrive on a diet like that is entirely man-made, not how we are built.

More comparative anaotmy

Omnivores

Bear

Racoon

Notice that sharp teeth for grasping and tearing flesh.

Frugivores

Chimpanzee

Chapuchin (A new world monkey, so relatively unrelated to humans)

Human

And for comparison this is a non primate frugivore. A fruit bat.

03-01-2008, 05:30 PM	#18 (permalink)
Joeschmoe Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 443	Jenni, you are wrong and right. You can actually feed a dog only vegetation for a very long time (long enough to reproduce). The classification of carnivores/herbivore/omnivore/frugivore has nothing to do with what is actually eaten, but everything to do with physiology (I really could be wrong about this, someone please correct me if this is wrong). We are physiologically Frugivorous. Other frugivores, chimps, bonobos, gibbons all eat some animal, usually less than %5 of calories. So, no in human development, I don't think there is any question that meat played a part. However, it probably played a very small part until human ancestors set out from jungles and started using their brains to find food. We haven't changed much since then, we stopped adapting to our environment and started adapting our environment to us. Thank goodness that happened, it means that the homo genus moved all over the word were fruits and vegetables weren't readily available. And thank goodness for grain agriculture, because it was the root of civilization. This doesn't mean that we have changed. We changed the food to suit our herbivorous(frugivorous) anatomy. Anything that is not fruit or vegetable we pre-process. We use our hands with tools to remove flesh and even cook it entirely because we are not adapted to use meat as a main food source, we have adapted meat to suit us. Same with grains, they need much more pre-processing, we have adapted them to meat our physiology. Yes meat and even grains have played a huge part of human development, but not of our physical development. They played a huge part in allowing us to conquer the world. If you get 5% of your calories from meat sources and 95% from plant you are probably where you are supposed to be. If you get 0% from animals, you are a lot closer to where you should be than someone who gets nearly 100%. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that the ability to survive and thrive on a diet like that is entirely man-made, not how we are built. More comparative anaotmy Omnivores Bear Racoon Notice that sharp teeth for grasping and tearing flesh. Frugivores Chimpanzee Chapuchin (A new world monkey, so relatively unrelated to humans) Human And for comparison this is a non primate frugivore. A fruit bat. Last edited by Joeschmoe; 03-01-2008 at 05:53 PM.