frugivore diet 
allthebest
14 y
6,280
Feel Like The Wind!
Be light and breezy now!
End Constipation Now
Let oxygen remove old, impacted fecal matter as it detoxifies and...
hi hv, I've become increasingly interested in the frugivore diet for it's supposed history in being the primary diet for prehistoric man in our natural habitat (tropics), it's relatively fast-moving action through our digestive system, and the amount of healthy water such food contains. when I say frugivore however I don't mean purely fruitarian but rather one containing tender leafy vegetables, fruits from vegetables, and fruits in all its subclasses such as berries, however minimizing citrus fruits and pineapple due to the stripping action on the teeth, minimizing nuts, seeds, and fatty fruits like avocado, and minimizing hard to masticate or hard to digest vegetables.
Primarily my staple foods would be:
burro bananas
lettuce
celery
cucumber
tomato
orange or red bell peppers
miscellaneous fruits and vegetables like strawberries, etc
from what I can tell this type of diet will provide enough fiber, water, and nutrition to live well. what I don't know for sure though is if I would be getting everything I need. While you have propogated eating a variety is key I can't help but look at animals in nature and see many of them are specialized herbivores, carnivores, frugivores, as well as omnivores. I can't believe that we are omnivores, however, just because we can eat meat, many domestic animals have also perverted their ways to eating foods not in their niche such as dogs eating dogfood, or domestic chimps eating meat, or salmon grown on that toxic feed you always speak of, or chickens grown with hormones, it is apparent to me that just because an animal can live off something doesn't make it right, and since we have no talons, beaks, or fangs I don't believe we were adapted to eat meat at all except perhaps as a chimps do for social reasons, but not optimal dietary reasons.
To further emphasize this for others, imagine being a prehistoric human before tools allowed us to pervert natures way that our bodies had adapted to for so many years. Our teeth aren't much for gripping onto some furry animal and ripping out it's meat, neither are our fingers with relatively unsharp nails good at digging into furry animals for meat, or even just animals themselves. We have strong anti-killing instincts, for instance try killing an animal with your bare hands, not that in prehistoric nature you could ever get your hands on one, except one that died naturally, occasionally, or remnants of a carnivores kill left over, however I challenge you to go the highway and eat some old roadkill and see how long the scavenger-meat-eating-idea holds true for you. Furthermore our digestive system tends to putrefy meat unless aiding with tons of fiber or flushing water in order to break it down, and if rushed out not much is absorbed any way. Our intestinal lengths also match frugivores more closely than carnivores or omnivores, and our stomach acid levels with the presence of food in them also is in ratio to frugivores not carnivores or omnivores, which have pH of 1 in the stomach when food is present, lions for example being able to readily digest a human hand bitten off and eaten whole, while a human has a natural pH of 4 to 5 in the same situation, and a rabbits paw would certainly not do our stomachs much good as pepsin is also excreted in lower amounts than in carnivores/omnivores. The most fundamental thing to remember however is that a spear or a rifle making meat readily available to us, and fire making it more palatable and available to the body, does not make it an ideal or natural food, it only allows us to move away from our environmental niche even further, as all unnatural foods do and the reason for which they were introduced into our diet thousands of years ago.
I also have started to believe we weren't meant to drink as much water as we do these days, but rather get it from the fruits and vegetables we eat as they contain so much healthy water, and our noses would be in the way of getting down on all fours and drinking out of a water basin. As our ancient ancestors were tree dwellers, we must have derived most of our food and water from the fruits growing on the trees. Any way, despite all this speculation, the main problem is the nutrition deficiency in supermarket fruits today, laden with pesticides, and picked unripe and hard to time so as not to starve to eat when ripe that scares me. Also it isn't as practical for colder climates, as it isn't as freshly available, and the body would be under constant thermal stresses from eating a low calorie fruit diet and struggle to keep warm. For this I am going to try merino wool baselayer clothing, imitating a fur covering seen in animals to withstand the cold. Other concerns that arise are omega 3 fatty acids, EPA/DHA, which I'm not very familiar with, however ancient humans in the tropics must have gotten by somehow, do you have any ideas what their sources for these things might have been? Also, do you know of any reliable sources of food composition data that would show me the differences in fruit nutrient composition?
More
- Re: frugivore diet mingus
14 y
5,854
This is a reply to # 1,608,689Ancient humans probably had a lifespan of less than 20-25 years. So many nutritional deficiencies may not have mattered as much. Assuming they only ate fruit, berries, nuts, seeds, etc.
It was not much longer than a hundred years ago that most people only lived to around 50 or so.
There may be a lot of evidence that we are not meant to be meat eaters, but i've yet to see a cave painting that depicts pre-historics eating fruit rather than hunting.
Perhaps our longer than ideal digestive system length is a result of genetic mutations?
I find the whole frutarian thing seductive, but I believe it is very misleading. In the short run, it is probably beneficial. As a race, we eat too many animal products. In the long run, I do not believe most people will be able to thrive off of this diet. And if you do, that is your life trying to figure out ways to get all the nutrients you need while you shrink down to anorexia and your hair and teeth fall out. But not really thriving though.
I read an interesting thought on the difference between a person with anorexia and a frutarian months back. An anorexic will not eat a piece of bread because it will make them fat. A fruitarian will not eat a piece of bread because it will cause mucous formation, the source of all disease.
For the sake of argument, say we were designed to only eat fruit. Well, that was thousands of years ago and obviously we fell off of that path. So that means there has been thousands of years of eating animal products and thousands of years of evolution adapting to that type of nourishment. Our bodies need some amount of animal products.
At least mine does.
More
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
9,462
Feel Like The Wind!
Be light and breezy now!
End Constipation Now
Let oxygen remove old, impacted fecal matter as it detoxifies and...
This is a reply to # 1,609,054Ancient humans probably had a lifespan of less than 20-25 years. So many nutritional deficiencies may not have mattered as much. Assuming they only ate fruit, berries, nuts, seeds, etc.
There is no way to really know this, since many factors come into play. However, some food for thought, gorillas in the wild live to be about 35, while ones in captivity live to be 50, it isn't neccesarily that ones in captivity or humans in captivity get better quality of food than ones in the wild, but rather they are less overly stressed (somethings going to attack me while I'm sleeping kind of thing), less stressed about food needs (the humans are going to feed them in captivity) and generally get more sleep, when they get old and can't move as quickly in captivity they are still fed, etc, etc. So lifespan in ancient wild times compared to modern safer times doesn't correlate a more optimal diet, a correlation between modern lifespan of a frugivore dieted human and a omnivore dieted human, over many humans as a study would show this, but none such studies exist that I know of. Another thing important to thing to remember is that the term frugivore is not fruitarian, frugivores eat primarily fruits, including berries, nuts, seeds, all which are parts of fruits, but also tender green vegetables. If you really think ancient humans lived to be only 25 because of a diet of fruits and vegetables, and not other factors such as lack of food, stress, being killed, or diseases transferred by insects or some such, or lower sanitation, then you're out of your mind.
It was not much longer than a hundred years ago that most people only lived to around 50 or so.And also weren't frugivorous in thier dietary habits.
There may be a lot of evidence that we are not meant to be meat eaters, but i've yet to see a cave painting that depicts pre-historics eating fruit rather than hunting.
I've yet to see many tree-dwelling animals, such as ancient humans, live in a cave in thier natural habitat, the trees of the tropics. I reason that as ancient humans became intelligent with tools, weapons, and fire, they were able to move away from their niche in the environment, the tropics, to colder, or warmer even, or fruitless, areas, and therefore live off cooked meat, and even later, grains, etc. This however, doesn't mean it is ideal or natural for our still ancient bodies.
Perhaps our longer than ideal digestive system length is a result of genetic mutations?I'm sure it is since the theory of evolution doesn't suggest humans appeared oneday in wholesome form without evolving to what they are now, however for hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions, they evolved to get that digestive system, even if it began with genetic mutations, and that genetic mutations don't spread throughout the entire population especially when spread out as humans were after tools and fire came into play, which is too recent for evolution to take place on that kind of scale anyway, so this is unsound.
I find the whole frutarian thing seductive, but I believe it is very misleading. In the short run, it is probably beneficial. As a race, we eat too many animal products. In the long run, I do not believe most people will be able to thrive off of this diet. And if you do, that is your life trying to figure out ways to get all the nutrients you need while you shrink down to anorexia and your hair and teeth fall out. But not really thriving though.
Again, I'm proposing the "frugivore" thing, not fruitarian. Frugivores eat fruits as well as green vegetables. Most people won't be able to thrive off this diet because of social and environmental factors not because the food is to blame, the frugivore diet itself is our ideal in our ideal environment, or one where we can maintain our temperature and use the relatively low calorie diet efficiently. And yes, many animals, such as mountain gorillas which can be bigger and stronger than us have built muscle, body tissue, tons of hair, and good teeth from frugivore diets. They are "thriving", just as humans would on their natural diet in thier natural temperature levels, sunlight levels, sleep levels, etc.
I read an interesting thought on the difference between a person with anorexia and a frutarian months back. An anorexic will not eat a piece of bread because it will make them fat. A fruitarian will not eat a piece of bread because it will cause mucous formation, the source of all disease.I don't know hardly anything about "fruitarians" but frugivores don't eat bread because it wasn't made for them, and I'm talking about wild frugivores not concious ones dowsed in habitual bread-eating. For instance try and feed a wild lion some fruit or vegetable, who isn't completely starving. Or try and feed a mountain gorilla some meat, that isn't completely starving, or try and feed a wild lion some bread, that isn't completely starving, etc, now because these animals deny these foods you think they are afraid of mucus or getting fat? Or maybe it's just not meant for them, like it isn't meant for humans?
For the sake of argument, say we were designed to only eat fruit. Well, that was thousands of years ago and obviously we fell off of that path. So that means there has been thousands of years of eating animal products and thousands of years of evolution adapting to that type of nourishment. Our bodies need some amount of animal products.
Evolution to this degree does not come anywhere close to happening in 'thousands' of years, firemaking wasn't made practical by humans until about 7,000 BC, which is an extremely short amount of time for genetic mutation evolution, and as we can see it did not even happen, our digestive tracts still match in ratio with frugivores and herbivores more than carnivores and omnivores by a longshot, our stomach acid with food present same scenario, we have no fangs, beaks, talons, or real speed to catch animals. Unfortunately the memory and ability to use a spear to kill some game doesn't pass down to your child so that they won't need those fruits anymore, just a genetic mutation of maybe a higher acidic stomach or shorter digestive tract might make this possible, but this takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to spread to all humans much less change us to carnivores/omnivores.
At least mine does.
No this is your mind not your body you're speaking of.
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
9,462
- Re: frugivore diet Hveragerthi
14 y
5,930
Feel Like The Wind!
Be light and breezy now!
End Constipation Now
Let oxygen remove old, impacted fecal matter as it detoxifies and...
This is a reply to # 1,608,689I actually disagree with the diet. I don't care for strict diets of any type. We are actually designed to eat a variety of foods. We have canines and sharper bladed teeth up front, which work really well for flesh. And the flatter teeth for grinding down plant and animal material. Look at chimpanzees that have the same tooth structure. They also have the same type of digestive tract. What do they eat? They are omnivores.
Other concerns that arise are omega 3 fatty acids, EPA/DHA, which I'm not very familiar with, however ancient humans in the tropics must have gotten by somehow, do you have any ideas what their sources for these things might have been?
The body has a limited ability to generate EPA from ALA then DHA from EPA. Algaes and purslane are also sources.
Also, do you know of any reliable sources of food composition data that would show me the differences in fruit nutrient composition?
Not really. And the composition will vary greatly with a number of circumstances such as soil and weather, ripeness, water availability, etc.
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,777
This is a reply to # 1,609,299
while I respect your opinion above any other sole persons hv, please reconsider and deep think with that mind of yours in light of this logic (excerpts from browsing):
"Chimp hunting and flesh-eating is rare, ~1.4% of their diet, not practiced among all adults, as would be required by a true nutritional need, and is clearly cultural, since flesh is used to gain sexual favors --humorously-similar to human dating."Lions, when hungry enough will eat vegetation or grass, but they are still carnivores, not omnivores, correct?
Another fallacy is that because we are capable of something it defines us or is in our best interest. For instance because we are capable of eating cooked meat, that makes us omnivores, because our teeth are capable of chewing cooked meat, that makes us omnivores? because we have scuba suits to swim underwater long periods of time, or submarines, that makes us fish? because we have planes and are capable of flying with gliders that makes us birds? humans are capable of tunneling through earth, so we are earthworms or moles? afterall we use tools to fly, go deep underwater, cook meat, tunnel.. kill prey.. it's all tools. When's the last time you chased down that wild animal with your biological equipment, ripped it apart with those natural teeth, no dentist now, once you lose a tooth you cant go get some synthetic ones here. I imagine tearing through fur, feathers, etc, if you could Even catch them, would be quite more 'stressful' of a diet than a 'strict' natural diet. Just because technology advanced that allows us to eat grains, meat, fly, go deep underwater, to outerspace, etc, doesn't make us an outerspace dwelling animal, a fish, a bird, carinvore, or omnivore. Also, frugivore, by definition, is mostly fruit with some greens, something in the diet that is only 1.4% prevalant in the race and only taken part by some of the race is not considered part of their diet but a cultural habit. However, despite all of this logic, let's look at our whole body, not just our teeth, since that is how the medical industry works, extracting a standardized substance and saying it will work, ignoring the subtlety and itricacies of nature in her infinite wisdom by ignoring the entirety of a thing.
"humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do! In fact, I have challenged people who adamantly claim that they are "omnivores" for over 35 years to prove they are natural "omnivores" by simply killing and eating raw a small animal with their natural equipment, and none has ever done so to actually test their irrational belief. Not one!"
this further becomes apparent when one considers how Easy it is to eat a fruit or tender vegetable Raw in the Wild compared to doing the above to an animal in the same scenario using only your body.
" Humans are clearly not natural "omnivores". Some are cultural "omnivores", and indeed must rely on cultural artifacts to raise, kill, butcher, cook, disguise with seasonings, cut up, and finally consume their animal prey."
"Goodall points out in her section, Eating Meat, "Chimpanzees tear off chunks of meat with their teeth and hands, sometimes using their feet too when strength is required for dividing up the carcass. Almost always each morsel is chewed up together with a wadge of leaves, sometimes dead ones. These wadges, although they may be swallowed, are usually discarded along with any unwanted portion of the meat, such as pieces of bone or skin." Thus, it seems the chimps are not eating the meat, as is commonly assumed, but extracting the juice, and thus very little protein or fat is actually swallowed or available for nutritional purposes; far less that the amount implied from the feeding times in the above table!! Other individuals "also chew the leaf-meat wadges that have been discarded by their luckier companions.", clearly a monkey-see-monkey-do process of pure imitation and not related to any real nutritional needs. "Begging ... is the way most chimps try to get some meat for themselves. Their success depends on a variety of factors, such as the amount of meat involved, the amount the possessor has already consumed, and the relative age, rank, and relationship of the two individuals." If meat was a necessary or meaningful source for nutritional input, it would be consumed by all adults on a regular and consistent basis; it simply is not."
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,921
This is a reply to # 1,609,313
One would expect an omnivore to show anatomical features which equip it to eat both animal and plant foods. According to evolutionary theory, carnivore gut structure is more primitive than herbivorous adaptations. Thus, an omnivore might be expected to be a carnivore which shows some gastrointestinal tract adaptations to an herbivorous diet.
This is exactly the situation we find in the Bear, Raccoon and certain members of the Canine families. (This discussion will be limited to bears because they are, in general, representative of the anatomical omnivores.) Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores. Although they eat some animal foods, bears are primarily herbivorous with 70-80% of their diet comprised of plant foods. (The one exception is the Polar bear which lives in the frozen, vegetation poor arctic and feeds primarily on seal blubber.) Bears cannot digest fibrous vegetation well, and therefore, are highly selective feeders. Their diet is dominated by primarily succulent lent herbage, tubers and berries. Many scientists believe the reason bears hibernate is because their chief food (succulent vegetation) not available in the cold northern winters. (Interestingly, Polar bears hibernate during the summer months when seals are unavailable.)
In general, bears exhibit anatomical features consistent with a carnivorous diet. The jaw joint of bears is in the same plane as the molar teeth. The temporalis muscle is massive, and the angle of the mandible is small corresponding to the limited role the pterygoid and masseter muscles play in operating the jaw. The small intestine is short ( less than five times body length) like that of the pure carnivores, and the colon is simple, smooth and short. The most prominent adaptation to an herbivorous diet in bears (and other "anatomical" omnivores) is the modification of their dentition. Bears retain the peg-like incisors, large canines and shearing premolars of a carnivore; but the molars have become squared with rounded cusps for crushing and grinding. Bears have not, however, adopted the flattened, blunt nails seen in most herbivores and retain the elongated, pointed claws of a carnivore.
An animal which captures, kills and eats prey must have the physical equipment which makes predation practical and efficient. Since bears include significant amounts of meat in their diet, they must retain the anatomical features that permit them to capture and kill prey animals. Hence, bears have a jaw structure, musculature and dentition which enable them to develop and apply the forces necessary to kill and dismember prey even though the majority of their diet is comprised of plant foods. Although an herbivore-style jaw joint (above the plane of the teeth) is a far more efficient joint for crushing and grinding vegetation and would potentially allow bears to exploit a wider range of plant foods in their diet, it is a much weaker joint than the hinge-style carnivore joint. The herbivore-style jaw joint is relatively easily dislocated and would not hold up well under the stresses of subduing struggling prey and/or crushing bones (nor would it allow the wide gape carnivores need). In the wild, an animal with a dislocated jaw would either soon starve to death or be eaten by something else and would, therefore, be selected against. A given species cannot adopt the weaker but more mobile and efficient herbivore-style joint until it has committed to an essentially plant-food diet test it risk jaw dislocation, death and ultimately, extinction.
What About Me?
The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications consistent with an herbivorous diet. Humans have muscular lips and a small opening into the oral cavity. Many of the so-called "muscles of expression" are actually the muscles used in chewing. The muscular and agile tongue essential for eating, has adapted to use in speech and other things. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis muscle is reduced. The characteristic "square jaw" of adult males reflects the expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged masseter/pterygoid muscle group. The human mandible can move forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind.
Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defense). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function Like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and pulping noncoarse foods.
Human saliva contains the carbohydrate-digesting enzyme, salivary amylase. This enzyme is responsible for the majority of starch digestion. The esophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in choking in humans.
Man's stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. (Clinically, a person presenting with a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern.) The stomach volume represents about 21-27% of the total volume of the human GI tract. The stomach serves as a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and liquefying ingested foodstuffs and regulating their entry into the small intestine. The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized individuals.)
The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large intestine is larger in cross-section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. Man's colon is responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fiber content of the diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place in the human colon has only recently begun to be investigated.
In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a "committed" herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
Summary
Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HUMAN: Well-developed
Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large HERBIVORE: Small OMNIVORE: Large HUMAN:
Small
Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted
Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
OMNIVORE: Simple
HUMAN: Simple
Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated
Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine
Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails- Re: frugivore diet Hveragerthi
14 y
5,835
This is a reply to # 1,609,315
Actually this comparison is rather misleading since it fails to take in to account a very simple fact. Animals are adapted to the foods they eat. But, animals have different means of catching prey. A lion for example will have sharper canines than humans and stronger jaws. This is because unlike humans they are reliant on their mouth to capture prey. Humans have hands that help them to capture prey. So comparing the jaws of bears to humans is like comparing a bicycle to a car.
But the teeth of humans are relatively the same as omnivores, just a little less defined since we do not use out mouth as a primary means of capturing prey.
As for the digestive system they left out that we also produce pepsin to digest proteins such as in meat, not just amylase for starches. And if we were designed to eat plants only then why don't we have stronger jaws, flatter teeth and four stomachs like a cow? Again our teeth are designed to eat both plant and animal material. Our digestive system is designed to handle both plant and animal material. In fact the longer intestine lends more evidence to meats being a part of human diets. Animal proteins are rather difficult to digest, which is why carnivores have a longer intestine to allow time for breakdown and absorption. The fermentation of plant fibers on the other hand primarily occurs in the shorter large intestine, which is why most of the flora are found here.
By the way wolves are considered carnivores yet they will eat plants. My ex-business partner had a pet wolf that kept eating all my garden pants. In nature when they make a kill one of the first areas they go for is the intestines to get the plant material fermenting in the body so the material is already being broken down. So defining carnivore, herbivore and omnivore is not really as clear cut as we think.
One last note since your post also brought up stomach acid. Non-cellulose and hemicellulose plant material is broken down by enzymes, such as amylase, that are really independent of stomach acid. The cellulose and hemicellulose are partially broken down by bacterial fermentation in the large intestine. So if the majority of plant material is broken down by enzymes like amylase, which is not acid dependent then why do we produce so much stomach acid? Yet the enzyme pepsin needed to break down high protein, such as animal flesh, is acid dependent. Our digestive system is clearly designed to handle both animal flesh and plant material.
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,772
This is a reply to # 1,609,865
Actually this comparison is rather misleading since it fails to take in to account a very simple fact. Animals are adapted to the foods they eat. But, animals have different means of catching prey. A lion for example will have sharper canines than humans and stronger jaws. This is because unlike humans they are reliant on their mouth to capture prey. Humans have hands that help them to capture prey. So comparing the jaws of bears to humans is like comparing a bicycle to a car.
Ok fine, let's compare the claws of bears to the claws of humans. Wait, we missed ONE SIMPLE FACT: humans have extremely flimsy looking hands for "capture" where are my freaking claws, hv? I want them. I need them, so I can hold onto that squirming prey, so I can dig into it and kill it instead of wasting my time suffocating it after running so hard on two legs, since I can't run well on FOUR LEGS LIKE A BEAR TO CATCH THE PREY. I also can't fly like a bird and oversee the ground to catch alot of worms. Jesus christ you'd think I was talking to someone besides hv. Also we missed ANOTHER SIMPLE FACT. Comparing the flat, flimsy nails of a human to the sharp claws of the PRIMARILY EATING VEGETATION bear (it only hunts 15% of it's diet or something) is like comparing a bizycle to a car. Quit ignoring the whole picture.
Do you honestly believe humans are capable of hunting down prey on a consistent basis in the environment so as not to be weeded out in harsh times because our biological equipment, including hands, is completely unadapted to capturing prey?
But the teeth of humans are relatively the same as omnivores, just a little less defined since we do not use out mouth as a primary means of capturing prey.
As for the digestive system they left out that we also produce pepsin to digest proteins such as in meat, not just amylase for starches. And if we were designed to eat plants only then why don't we have stronger jaws, flatter teeth and four stomachs like a cow? Again our teeth are designed to eat both plant and animal material. Our digestive system is designed to handle both plant and animal material. In fact the longer intestine lends more evidence to meats being a part of human diets. Animal proteins are rather difficult to digest, which is why carnivores have a longer intestine to allow time for breakdown and absorption. The fermentation of plant fibers on the other hand primarily occurs in the shorter large intestine, which is why most of the flora are found here.
Really, so the pepsin couldn't be for proteins in fruits, vegetables, nuts, etc?
Hmm, I don't know hv, let's go look at our closest relatives, the great apes, lets count how many stomachs they have each, let's count how much grass they eat compared to fruits and vegetables, let's count how much they eat of meat (less than 1.5%, and not all of them, just SOME, and primarily males). Let's match their intestine ratio to our own, and we find the most symmetrical animal to ourselves. Keep in mind bonobos and chimps are our closest relatives not the gorilla or orangutang.
"Carnivore, Omnivore, Frugivore
Now, having taken a comprehensive look at the anatomy and physiology of the human stomach, let’s continue our comparison of intestinal tracts.
Carnivore And Omnivores
We can group these two sets of animals together, since the differences between the stomachs of the two are minimal. For both groups, the majority of digestion occurs in the stomach (which, as you can see from the lion's stomach on the left, is rounder and more sack-shaped than the human stomach and has a much higher concentration of acid for digesting not only animal tissue, but also bone – as anyone who has seen the movie Snatch knows). In fact, the stomachs of carnivores and omnivores secrete powerful digestive enzymes and digestive juices with about 10 times the levels of hydrochloric acid found in a human stomach. To be precise, the pH in carnivores and omnivores with food in their stomachs is less than or equal to about 1.0. For humans, on the other hand, pH ranges from 2.0-4.5 with food in the stomach. This is a huge difference.
Another difference is that food usually remains for days at a time in a carnivore’s stomach while it is digested (to a large extent) by enzymes present in the raw meat itself (a process called autolytic digestion). It is only after autolytic digestion that the highly concentrated HCL makes its appearance to break down the bone and gristle consumed with the meal. In addition, carnivores are adapted to process huge amounts of food at a time (up to 25 percent of their body weight or more) then eat nothing for days at a time. This doesn’t sound very much like the human digestive process (except on all-you-can-eat nights at the Troff N Brew Restaurant)
Frugivore
And, as might be expected, the human stomach is remarkably similar to the chimpanzee’s stomach, both in terms of shape and gastric juice content. Using that as a guide, we once again are looking at a diet that consists largely of fruits and nuts, with a maximum of about 3% meat. Again, as explained two newsletters ago, the human digestive system is remarkably adaptable – but there are consequences when it is forced to adapt."
By the way wolves are considered carnivores yet they will eat plants. My ex-business partner had a pet wolf that kept eating all my garden pants. In nature when they make a kill one of the first areas they go for is the intestines to get the plant material fermenting in the body so the material is already being broken down. So defining carnivore, herbivore and omnivore is not really as clear cut as we think.
One last note since your post also brought up stomach acid. Non-cellulose and hemicellulose plant material is broken down by enzymes, such as amylase, that are really independent of stomach acid. The cellulose and hemicellulose are partially broken down by bacterial fermentation in the large intestine. So if the majority of plant material is broken down by enzymes like amylase, which is not acid dependent then why do we produce so much stomach acid? Yet the enzyme pepsin needed to break down high protein, such as animal flesh, is acid dependent. Our digestive system is clearly designed to handle both animal flesh and plant material.
Could it not be that we have stomach acid levels most symmetrical to the chimps/bonobos because we Need pepsin for Protein, Not Large amounts of protein and Not Animal protein? Otherwise, the question can be answered the same way as - why do chimps, most of which don't eat meat, have the same stomach acid levels as us if they don't eat meat but ~1.4% of their diet? Do you really think they evolved pepsin and stomach acid to break down that occasional monkey-kill, that only some of them eat? Or maybe it's for the protein in fruits and vegetables, that they Primarily live off of, and have energy and adequate muscles from. Oh the simplicity.
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,772
- Re: frugivore diet Hveragerthi
14 y
5,835
- Re: frugivore diet Hveragerthi
14 y
5,739
This is a reply to # 1,609,313
while I respect your opinion above any other sole persons hv, please reconsider and deep think with that mind of yours in light of this logic (excerpts from browsing):
"Chimp hunting and flesh-eating is rare, ~1.4% of their diet, not practiced among all adults, as would be required by a true nutritional need, and is clearly cultural, since flesh is used to gain sexual favors --humorously-similar to human dating."Chimps have been videotaped using twigs to collect ants for a food source. Ants are not plants. They have also been shown to hunt animals such as species of monkeys strictly for food. So yes, they are true omnivores.
"humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do!
Many birds can be considered omnivores. The will eat plant material such as seeds as well as animals such as insects and worms. Humans also eat plant material and animals they are able to easily catch including various insects, snakes, lizards, worms, sloths, turtles, etc. Because some people choose not to hunt for animal sources of food does not mean this is still not a natural food source.
In fact, I have challenged people who adamantly claim that they are "omnivores" for over 35 years to prove they are natural "omnivores" by simply killing and eating raw a small animal with their natural equipment, and none has ever done so to actually test their irrational belief. Not one!"
This is hardly proof as to whether a particular animal is an omnivore. Using your same reasoning above most people buy their produce in the market rather than "hunting" the plants in the wild. Since they don't go out in to the wild and "hunt" this food source they are obviously not vegetarians either using the same rational. So what are they if they are no carnivores, omnivores or herbivores?
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,773
This is a reply to # 1,609,861
Chimps have been videotaped using twigs to collect ants for a food source. Ants are not plants. They have also been shown to hunt animals such as species of monkeys strictly for food. So yes, they are true omnivores.
unfortunately this ignores what I stated, that not all adult chimps do this CULTURAL behaviour, and they do it primarily to court the females, as the females largely don't participate. Chimps have actually been documented to eating termites more often than ants, and these are usually only in the winter when their natural food is scarce and termites are easier to catch and they do this opportunistically, meaning they don't go out and search for termite reserves or ant hills, they only do it when they stumble upon them. This is still a miniscule part of the diet, and it is unfathomable that anyone would consider such tiny amounts of meat like insects to be akin to being able to digest whole small animals as carnivores and omnivores do. Clearly insect eating doesn't require canines, or highly acidic stomachs to break down the large amounts of tough meat. This is all very simple and Hv if you were open minded to this at all I don't think I'd have to tell you.Many birds can be considered omnivores. The will eat plant material such as seeds as well as animals such as insects and worms. Humans also eat plant material and animals they are able to easily catch including various insects, snakes, lizards, worms, sloths, turtles, etc. Because some people choose not to hunt for animal sources of food does not mean this is still not a natural food source.
Technically, yes, but even if you make the gross perversion of definitions of insect and worm eating to mean that birds can be omnivores, and omnivores can handle animals, and animals in the animal kingdom are insects, worms, and rabbits, bears, etc you've gone too far. You're playing with words, obviously frugivores, herbivores, etc can handle tiny insects just as just about anything could, this does not make them 'true' omnivores in laymans terms of eating small animals or large animals. Again it's a perversion to win an argument and not rational thinking. Yes, birds can fly around and find insects quickly from above and efficiently hunt them, humans are better at picking fruits, even though they can eat insects too, just as they can also eat meat, or eat arsenic, or poisonous plants, they are capable of a lot of things and SOME chimps do things culutrally at levels below 1.5% of thier diet, this doesn't make it their diet.
I doubt prehistoric man without his advanced tools 'easily' caught snakes, and probably stayed away from them largely due to the poisonous ones in the tropics. You still can't 'easily' catch wild snakes as they are relatively hidden, can't be hunted without using tools like traps, and few humans today would lunge forward for snakemeat with their bare hands. Lizards also would've been unreliable, could've carried diseases in the ancient past, among other problems such as being poisonous, it just wasn't what we adapted to and are meant for, same with the others, opportunistic cultural eating or starvation hunting perhaps, but not our natural diet, which is the only thing in question here. Any carnivore Could eat vegetation, and DO in times of starvation, for instance lions have been known to eat grass, this doesn't make them omnivores, even though technically they are capable of it, and do it from time to time, this kind of definition-slapping and perversing is unefficient and childish.
This is hardly proof as to whether a particular animal is an omnivore. Using your same reasoning above most people buy their produce in the market rather than "hunting" the plants in the wild. Since they don't go out in to the wild and "hunt" this food source they are obviously not vegetarians either using the same rational. So what are they if they are no carnivores, omnivores or herbivores?
If you were to issue the same challenge to me, to go out and pick wild produce by simply reaching up to a tree or climbing it or what-have-you, with my natural biological equipment, I could do it, and have done it before actually, many times. This is the difference. And any other healthy human could too. (Because it's our natural way). As to the last question, we are frugivores.
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,773
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,921
- Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,777
- Re: frugivore diet - serafina -
14 y
5,744
This is a reply to # 1,608,689I like the image of you all wrapped in merino wool munching lettuce and bananas, so if you're inclined to this type of things, make a blog with many pics and post the link.
-
Re: frugivore diet allthebest
14 y
5,843
This is a reply to # 1,609,330doing that right now actually, and most ironically, i ate bananas and lettuce only in the past 8 hours.. lol. and all the time, was in my only pair of merino wool boxers (test pair) but that's all i have of merino wool so far, it was a test subject (: works very well too, I won't take a picture of them as that would be kindof naughty, but you can see them here:
http://www.minus33.com/media/largehtml/702.html
as you can see, they are normal looking and sociable, as are bananas and lettuce (;
but if you must have a better visual, this is basically what i'd look like except this is an orange instead of a banana
- where's the pic? - serafina -
14 y
5,655
This is a reply to # 1,609,340I don't see anything
the panties look beautiful but very technical, I'm disappointed
I was hoping for something really fluffy, like the angora sweater that Johnny Depp wears in Ed Wood but more natural.
I think you should hire some grandma to knit you something more adequate. I'm not joking! a few years ago in Copenhagen they sold incredibly cute panties in natural wool knitted by hand for babies. My baby had them too.
So is today your day one?- Re: where's the pic? allthebest
14 y
5,573
This is a reply to # 1,609,424
http://image02.webshots.com/2/7/39/59/46573959JwFlUS_ph.jpg
I think you should hire some grandma to knit you something more adequate. I'm not joking! a few years ago in Copenhagen they sold incredibly cute panties in natural wool knitted by hand for babies. My baby had them too.
So is today your day one?The idea is that it has to fit snug against the skin to move sweat to the outer layers and keep you dry, or something. When covered in an entire baselayer, skin-fitting leggings, top, even headlayers, they effectively become a thermal wool layer, which can help in cold areas as well as relatively 'warm' areas such as below 80 degrees. When I work in them indoors they just move the sweat to the outside 'down there' helping the bodies natural mechanism as it would if I were nude which is what nature intended. Unfortunately my jeans on the outside in this case stop the sweat from completely escaping, however the boxers are naturally anti-microbial and since the sweat isn't sitting against my skin there isn't that bad odor, also going to be helped by eating better in the long run though. This is day two I've only cheated with chocolate, it's a stimulant so probably not helping much but I ran out of it so the real day one starts now I guess haha.
For those interested, veteran frugivore dieters tell me once on a frugivore diet you need more sleep, sleep you needed anyway but your body was able to ignore due to the all the stimulants in a typical diet, however overtime the benefit of this is having more energy during the day, of course, to do tasks more effectively than a coffee addict sloth for example. You'll also need adequate exposure to sunlight, sleep in a dark room, free of disturbances such as alarm lights, etc, as this diet tends to make you more sensitive to your lifestyle, however this is not to be mistaken for weakness.
Solutions I'm working on right now are full spectrum lights, for when I can't get enough sunlight, no see um window screens (I hate bugs) for my windows so I can get fresh air, I've been told that outside air, even if contaminated with country-side pollutants somewhat, is better than indoor air, which can be stale, or polluted with inhome toxins from walls or fragrance products etc etc (I live by a highway - but not right next to it, and there's about 85 trees between us and tons of plants).
The most challenging solution needed however is having enough fruit on hand that is ripe and ready to eat, being of adequate nutrient value, etc. I have a feeling I'm going to need to relocate to an agricultural area that meets these needs, as there is not even a trader joes here or similiar, just wal-mart.
- Re: where's the pic? - serafina -
14 y
5,836
This is a reply to # 1,609,459yeah, tuaregs and Babiryes in Sahara are all dressed in wool. Whenever you can, put the wool stuff in the sun, it makes a world of difference, because you know wool doesn't like to be washed too much.
I wouldn't relocate before testing this diet, maybe it seems all dandy in theory but we've all been in the situation where parts of us absolutely don't wanna go where the mind thinks we should be going, so it's all to prove that being frugivore is the deal for you. If it was me, I would last 2 days, I have real aversion for cutting out foods, it takes out something very primitive and childish, like I get totally angry. Besides, Hv might be right and your body might not be so happy after all, no matter what all the other frugivores say. You can't know until you try. I'm a bit worried about the brain, because gorillas well who cares, but for a human it's important, I don't see it thriving that well with that diet, but what do I know. That you say that they sleep a lot sounds suspect. But by all means I don't wanna discourage you because I'm all for following one's passion, and it sounds like something you love. Maybe eating avocados every now and then is enough for the brain.
- Re: where's the pic? - serafina -
14 y
5,836
-
- where's the pic? - serafina -
14 y
5,655
-
- Dream On! #123972
14 y
5,551
This is a reply to # 1,608,689Are there lot's of beautiful island girls, carrying baskets of fruit in your dream?
Seriously. Look at the people/cultures currently with the longest lifespan for guidance on what is best to eat and it is not fruit with lettuce! Japan, Iceland, Sardinia. Good balance of natural non-processed foods.- Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,776
This is a reply to # 1,609,685anyway, what that statistics about life expectancy seems to show is that healthy Diet isn't too determinant, if not Cuba wouldn't be at the top, not to talk of Norway, wonderful countries that I love, but yick the food... cubans make love and Norwegians go walking in the forest, that's their secret.
The healthiest guy I've ever met, who's now in his 80's and looks like he's 50 and in shape but with a face a bit tired, as straight on his spine as when he was young, has always eaten really everything, but he was - and still is - always always hiking or running or doing yoga or skiing or swimming or playing tennis etc. He worked in a bank and used every minute out of the bank having fun with his body. Never competitive, he couldn't care less because in youth he got a golden olympic medal with rowing so he's beyond, totally relaxed, tanned, simple and happy. The last of his enterprises was to take blind people hiking which made me think oh god maybe he's lost it, but so far no-one has fallen down the ravines, that I know.- Re: Sardegna? allthebest
14 y
5,637
This is a reply to # 1,609,688Bonobos also make love, similiar to the kama sutra stuff humans do, they even have a lot of female to female sexual stuff called GG rubbing, basically vagina to vagina I think. Interestingly bonobo males prefer getting oral from women, bonobo women prefer getting intercourse from men, much like in humans. They are also only 1.8% off from our dna where the chimp is 1.9% off. Bonobo women are also the more dominant ones, the men are primarily used for reproduction and protection. When I first came across this I felt entirely dissapointed in the worlds scientists, how did they fail to make this connection that a 10 year old could.
- Re: Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,738
This is a reply to # 1,609,884are you hinting that you will be making love like Cubans while being a frugivore? I hope so! if not screw the frugivore
- Re: Sardegna? Hveragerthi
14 y
5,526
This is a reply to # 1,609,884
Bonobos also make love, similiar to the kama sutra stuff humans do, they even have a lot of female to female sexual stuff called GG rubbing, basically vagina to vagina I think. Interestingly bonobo males prefer getting oral from women, bonobo women prefer getting intercourse from men, much like in humans. They are also only 1.8% off from our dna where the chimp is 1.9% off. Bonobo women are also the more dominant ones, the men are primarily used for reproduction and protection. When I first came across this I felt entirely dissapointed in the worlds scientists, how did they fail to make this connection that a 10 year old could.
Bonobos are also known for group and gay sex. Basically they are the equivalent of the 60s "Love Children" on steroids
- Re: Sardegna? allthebest
14 y
5,558
This is a reply to # 1,609,904and the purpose of it all is stress release outside of reproduction (male to female). something you advocate I believe (;
- Re: Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,824
- Re: Sardegna? Hveragerthi
14 y
5,513
This is a reply to # 1,609,920
can animals be stressed?
Like these cats?
http://stressfish.com/stress_cats.htm
- Re: Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,754
This is a reply to # 1,609,924oh yes I forgot!
I have many memories with stressed cats, they are so funny
- Re: Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,754
- Re: Sardegna? Hveragerthi
14 y
5,513
- Re: Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,824
- Re: Sardegna?
- Re: Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,738
- Re: Sardegna? allthebest
14 y
5,637
- Re: Dream On! allthebest
14 y
5,564
This is a reply to # 1,609,685
Are there lot's of beautiful island girls, carrying baskets of fruit in your dream?
Sorry, what dream? There's beautiful girls in my dreams, but I'm not an obsese american and mix beautiful food with my beautiful women fantasies. Lol.
Seriously. Look at the people/cultures currently with the longest lifespan for guidance on what is best to eat and it is not fruit with lettuce! Japan, Iceland, Sardinia. Good balance of natural non-processed foods.Seriously. Look at all the other factors in these people/cultures, the pure water from glaciers of the hunza people, or the pure mountain air, etc. Going to entire different civilizations doesn't show lifespan-to-diet comparisons, it shows civilization lifespan to civilization lifespan, there is absolutely no reason to thnik that japan dwellers, iceland dwellers, and sardinia dwellers wouldnt live even longer on their natural frugivore diet. (Seriously).
- Re: Dream On! #123972
14 y
5,426
This is a reply to # 1,609,881OK go be a frugivore. If you are convinced get on that frugivore diet and enjoy life. (Seriously). If you believe your ancestors were monkeys then maybe being a frugivore will work for you.
I am more into the hunter / gather thing and believe my ancestors were not monkeys but probably ate a few monkeys. (Seriously)- Re: Dream On! allthebest
14 y
5,356
This is a reply to # 1,611,320the difference is my beliefs are backed up by logic while yours are just fantasies. (Seriously)
- Prove it #123972
14 y
5,476
This is a reply to # 1,611,392You have an opinion. I have an opinion. Go be a frugivore if that floats your boat. I'll have a nice thick steak-rare! And by the way, in remote areas people still eat monkeys, even though they have access to fruit.
- Re: Prove it allthebest
14 y
5,389
This is a reply to # 1,612,104I guess you can't read - all opinions are not equal, it would be like a 5 year old that just learned how to speak said the earth looked flat and an educated 80 year old said no it's round due to logic and reasoning, obviously they both have an opinion, just because the boy denies the facts that logic and reasoning outweigh wild fantasies doesn't mean he can go out and fall off the edge of the earth if he walks long enough or that his natural diet is cooked rare steak for crying out loud.
There is no way to absolutely, scientifically "prove" anything for sure, we could all just be a hologram or vibrating energy and there could be no mass itself at all we could all be anything really, the tools we use to understand the world in an efficient way in order to get the most out of it are logic and reasoning, not ignorance and fantasizing for our own pleasure. Go ahead and keep believing that rare steak is the most efficient fuel for your body, but don't try and call it an equal opinion to one backed up by reason.
- Re: Prove it allthebest
14 y
5,389
- Prove it #123972
14 y
5,476
- Re: Dream On! allthebest
14 y
5,356
- Re: Dream On! #123972
14 y
5,426
- Sardegna? - serafina -
14 y
5,776
- Re: frugivore diet mingus
14 y
5,854
