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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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".
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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".
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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



  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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



  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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




  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Coleman" > -snip-

Intolerably large amount of text to copy/paste into a discussion group John.
Is there not a link to that essay?


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ted Bell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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
>
>

  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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



  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.




  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.



  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Abner Hale
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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].
.....'

<...>


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pearl wrote:

> > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>>John Coleman wrote:
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>>8<
>>>
>>>>


Humans ARE omnivores.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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?





  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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




  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

thanks pearl, yes gut morphology is an inexact science, and so is
comparative anatomy

anything to do with biochemistry is far better

John


  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> 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


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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




  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jay Santos
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Humans ARE omnivores.
  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> 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




  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
John Robbins reviews Ray Audette's book "Neander Thin" Barbara Vegan 23 01-09-2004 07:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"