Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > ink.net... > 8< > >>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". |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > ink.net... > 8< > >>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". |
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Santos" > wrote in message
link.net... 8< > 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 > > [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" > wrote in message
link.net... 8< > 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 > > [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 |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > link.net... > 8< > >>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. > > >>>[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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message news > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > 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. Prevailing wisdom in nutrition is not dogma, it's based on decades of research. There are several > 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 > dogma", i.e. eat just about anything you like "eat just about anything you like" is not the existing wisdom of nutrition. > 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? > Common sense is nothing to do with rational debate. Not when talking to vegans. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Jay Santos" > wrote > 8< > > 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 > > > > [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/m...ivory-1a.shtml http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/g...gumes-1a.shtml The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence of their Evolutionary Discordance |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote
> "Jay Santos" > wrote > 8< > > 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 > > > > [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/m...ivory-1a.shtml http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/g...gumes-1a.shtml The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence of their Evolutionary Discordance |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... 8< > > 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. > Not really, unless you mean "flat earth" theory. Plenty of scientific established ideas have been rejected. > Science tends to progress > incrementally, new developments building upon the existing base of > knowledge. Most of the time, sometimes there are exceptions. > "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. > > 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. > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > > 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/m...ivory-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. > http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/g...gumes-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" > -snip- Intolerably large amount of text to copy/paste into a discussion group John. Is there not a link to that essay? |
|
|||
|
|||
Dutch wrote:
> "John Coleman" > -snip- > > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "John Coleman" > -snip- > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "John Coleman" > -snip- > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>"John Coleman" > -snip- >> >>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 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
>>>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. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote: > "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > ink.net... > 8< > >>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? > > This thread is about Audettes book and his unsupported dogma. > > John > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message m...
> ... > > "Jay Santos" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > 8< > > > >>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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" > wrote
> John Coleman wrote: >> "Jay Santos" > wrote >>>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. > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... 8< > 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 > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "John Coleman" > wrote > >> 4) there is plenty of good scientific evidence of humans being >> herbivores, > Produce it. Actually, the word should be frugivore. >> 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 "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. >> 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... snippage... > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote: > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > 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 > > > Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most apes/primates. > > <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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote >> 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. >> 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 > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote: > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > 8< > > 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. > > > Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most apes/primates. > > There is no scientific definition of "omnivore" There is to the extent there is a scientific definition of "herbivore" and "carnivore", - some anatomists challenge > 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 > 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 > 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 > able to process significant quantities of leaf, fruit and animal matter. Cite? > 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 > eaters, and meat is not essential for our closest relatives the chimp and > bonobo. Relevance? > > 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". > > 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. >From a vegetarian who at least attempts to be honest: 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/...-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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com...
> > John Coleman wrote: > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > 8< > > > 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. ' The abnormal toxins which cause disease when they overload the liver and kidneys and pollute the blood and milieu interieur a .... 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/02/0201...020122ch3.html <..>> I'll cite a few vegetarians for you and I'll emphasize(by use of ***) > the points ..I'll use '###' to emphasise what you missed and ommitted. > >From a vegetarian who at least attempts to be honest: > > 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 ] > [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/...-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.. > 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] <..> ### > 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***. 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]. .....' <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message ups.com... > >>John Coleman wrote: >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>>8< >>> >>>> Humans ARE omnivores. |
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...ne.21stcentury...
Still citing crackpots, I see. Your additional cites from Billing's page do not dispute what I posted. |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com...
> > http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...ne.21stcentury... > > Still citing crackpots, I see. Still unable to refute the evidence, and resorting to ad hominem, we see. > 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 > 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? |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message
ups.com... 8< > > 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. > 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. > 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. > > the concept entirely for primates. > > Cite? DJ Chivers > Cite? "Junk food Monkeys" > 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? > 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. > > able to process significant quantities of leaf, fruit and animal > matter. > > Cite? Chivers > > 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? > Relevance? obvious - meat eating is optional, not essential > 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 > Your comedy act sucks. You are a fraud. No, you are a fraud, you have not answered my point. Just a bunch of evasion. > ***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 > And from one who is entirely honest: > > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml worse than junk > "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 > 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". > 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. > ***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 > 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! > ***Humans are faunivores or frugivores adapted to a diet that includes > significant amounts of animal foods***. faunivores OR frugivores, now what are "significant amounts"? > 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? > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
thanks pearl, yes gut morphology is an inexact science, and so is
comparative anatomy anything to do with biochemistry is far better John |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ups.com... > http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...ne.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 |
|
|||
|
|||
"pearl" > wrote in message ... 8< > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote: > thanks pearl, Do you believe in "inner-earth beings" also? yes gut morphology is an inexact science, and so is > 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. > > John |
|
|||
|
|||
Humans ARE omnivores.
|
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message oups.com... > > John Coleman wrote: > > thanks pearl, > > Do you believe in "inner-earth beings" also? I have no idea what you are talking about. > > > > yes gut morphology is an inexact science, and so is > > 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. I have already published a biography. Your assertions are belief based prejudice. I have read enough of the literature to understand the principles. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > > wrote in message > oups.com... >> >> John Coleman wrote: >> > thanks pearl, >> >> Do you believe in "inner-earth beings" also? > > I have no idea what you are talking about. ================== That's been obvious about everthing you write, so why question it now, killer? > >> >> >> >> yes gut morphology is an inexact science, and so is >> > 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. > > I have already published a biography. Your assertions are belief based > prejudice. I have read enough of the literature to understand the > principles. ================== No, you don't. > > John > > > > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
John Robbins reviews Ray Audette's book "Neander Thin" | Vegan |