SCIENTIFIC PROOF that HUMANS are NATURAL HERBIVORES
In the PICTURE:
1 – Human, 2 – Cow, 3 – Cat, 4 – Dog, 5 – Horse
Why humans are primarily plant-eaters by designhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc2HfsdVvjo
Early man was NOT a hunter-gatherer (VIDEO) - http://www.vegsource.com/news/2011/06/early-man-was-not-a-hunter-gatherer-video.html
The human "omnivore" - a mythological beast
http://ecologos.org/omni.htm
The definition of HERBIVORE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore
http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
http://www.vegantraveler.com/2009/07/herbivore-or-carnivore/
Comparative Anatomy of Eatinghttp://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/comparative.html
Ancient 'Nutcracker Man' challenges ideas on evolution of human diethttp://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=111457&org=NSF
Did God Designed Man to be Plant Eater?
http://www.powerattunements.com/article118.html
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q&feature=related
Frugivore vs carnivorehttp://www.michelleaslan.com/Frugivore_vs_Carnivore.html
“To awaken from the cultural trance of omnivorism we need only remember
who we are.
We have neither the psychology nor the physiology for predation and
killing, but due to the culturally indoctrinated mentality required by
our daily meals, we eat like predators. We become desensitized,
exclusivist and materialistic, forgetting that we are essentially
consciousness manifesting in time and space. As consciousness, we are
eternal, free, and benevolent.”
who we are.
We have neither the psychology nor the physiology for predation and
killing, but due to the culturally indoctrinated mentality required by
our daily meals, we eat like predators. We become desensitized,
exclusivist and materialistic, forgetting that we are essentially
consciousness manifesting in time and space. As consciousness, we are
eternal, free, and benevolent.”
May all beings be free and at peace, Will Tuttle (World Peace Diet)
While this proves that we are capable and designed to eat plants, it totally ignores the physiological proof that meat is a requirement. The body's requirement of B12, heme iron, and long chain fatty acids is conclusive proof that meat is required in our diets. To be truly scientific you must apply ALL DATA to your analysis. When you do, the only conclusion is omnivory. Sorry, but the truth hurts.
RăspundețiȘtergereComparative physiology (metabolism)
Intestinal receptors for heme iron. The existence of intestinal receptors for the specific absorption of heme iron is strong evidence of adaptation to animal foods in the diet, as heme iron is found in nutritionally significant amounts only in animal foods (fauna).
B-12 an essential nutrient. Similarly, the requirement for vitamin B-12 in human nutrition, and the lack of reliable (year-round) plant sources suggests evolutionary adaptation to animal foods in the human diet.
Plant foods are poor sources of EFAs. In general, the EFAs in plant foods are in the "wrong" ratio (with the exception of a very few exotic, expensive oils), and the low synthesis rates of EPA, DHA, and other long-chain fatty acids from plant precursors point to plant foods as an "inferior" source of EFAs. This strongly suggests adaptation to foods that include preformed long-chain fatty acids, i.e., fauna.
Taurine synthesis rate. The low rate of taurine synthesis in humans, compared to that in herbivorous animals, suggests human adaptation to food sources of taurine (fauna) in the human diet.
Slow conversion of beta-carotene. The sluggish conversion rate of beta-carotene to vitamin A, especially when compared to the conversion rate in herbivorous animals, suggests adaptation to dietary sources of preformed vitamin A (i.e., a diet that includes fauna).
Plant foods available in evolution were poor zinc and iron sources. The plant foods available during evolution (fruits, vegetative plant parts, nuts, but no grains or legumes) generally provide low amounts of zinc and iron, two essential minerals. These minerals are provided by grains, but grains are products of agriculture (i.e., were not available during evolution), and contain many antinutrients that inhibit mineral absorption. This suggests that the nutritional requirements for iron and zinc were primarily met via animal foods during human evolution.
Bitter taste threshold as a trophic marker. An analysis of the human bitter taste threshold, when compared to the threshold of other mammals, suggests that our sensitivity to the bitter taste is comparable to that of carnivores/omnivores.
There is no such thing as a veg*n gatherer tribe. And there are no records to indicate that any such tribes ever existed; also no evidence of any vegan societies either.
The actual diets of all the great apes includes some fauna--animal foods. Even the great apes that are closest to being completely vegetarian, gorillas, deliberately consume insects when available. Chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives, hunt and kill vertebrates and eat occasional meat.
Many of the ancillary claims made in comparative "proofs" of veg*n diets are logical fallacies:
The misinterpretation of animal studies using domesticated or feedlot meats to condemn all omnivore diets.
The misinterpretation of clinical studies showing negative results for the SAD/SWD as indicating negative results for all omnivore diets.
The misinterpretation of the results of the China Project to claim it "proves" vegan diets are best and all omnivore diets are bad.
John McArdle, Ph.D., an anatomist and primatologist, a vegetarian, and scientific advisor to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, summarizes the situation clearly [McArdle 1996, p. 174]:
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.
Jman, you have been misinformed...if you go over all this blog's links you'll discover why...to give you an easier route idea, start with VEGAN NUTRITION link where you'll find plant based B12 sources and all other sources of vital nutrients from plant based sources...also check out VEGAN BABIES link...these kids have been born off VEGAN pregnancies and live happy, healthy and with pink rosy chubby cheeks with no animal foods...also check out BREATHARIANISM to see how many humans live off CHI for many years and they are healthy and with normal weight...the scientifical proof is overwhelming that we have never been designed for physiological omnivorism...sorry this truth hurts your perhaps dependency and addiction to animal foods but someday you too shall awaken from the MEATrix. Good luck:)
RăspundețiȘtergereHe basically copied and pasted from this link:
RăspundețiȘtergerehttp://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-9a.shtml
...citing a 17 year old study.
The study is generally correct on a factual level, but still quite flawed. Plenty of new information has since become available.
He is bang on about our biology and evolution. Historically we have been omnivores by choice (for how long, however, continues to be debated), so our bodies are armed for it. But that doesn't mean we are biologically designed that way nor immune to change or evolution. That is what evolution is - an ever-changing process, not a static one. Hence the word "evolve" :-)
Every organism that has ever existed aims to survive, and the overwhelming majority have been limited to only that binary decision making process - sink or swim. However, we, unlike most, are armed with self-realization and the ability to make choices for various reasons. Just because we have traditionally found certain nutrients in animal products doesn't mean we are biologically incapable of seeking alternatives - alternatives that could be (and, as we are beginning to learn, ARE) more healthy for us in the long run).
Milk substitutes did not exist on a grand scale in 1996 (however they do date back to the middle ages, and were seen as preferable since cow's milk didn't last long in the days before the refrigerator), so we can forgive him for not realizing how healthy they are. The same goes for meat substitutes. They have come a long way in the past couple decades.
Defaulting to our biological history is no different from defaulting to the bible. It is the same mentality of "doing what once worked, antiquity for antiquity's sake, so therefore it must also work despite new ideas and possibilities." Veganism is a movement to change what has been easy and comfortable, and it continues to be open to change as new possibilities present themselves.
So in the light of people who insist that vegetarian and vegan diets are somehow dogmatic (purely on the basis that they are outside of generally accepted norms), I would argue that the omnivore diet is the dogmatic one because it refuses to change despite the emergence of new information and possibilities.
He basically copied and pasted from this link:
RăspundețiȘtergerehttp://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-9a.shtml
...citing a 17 year old study.
The study is generally correct on a factual level, but still quite flawed. Plenty of new information has since become available.
He is bang on about our biology and evolution. Historically we have been omnivores by choice (for how long, however, continues to be debated), so our bodies are armed for it. But that doesn't mean we are biologically designed that way nor immune to change or evolution. That is what evolution is - an ever-changing process, not a static one. Hence the word "evolve" :-)
Every organism that has ever existed aims to survive, and the overwhelming majority have been limited to only that binary decision making process - sink or swim. However, we, unlike most, are armed with self-realization and the ability to make choices for various reasons. Just because we have traditionally found certain nutrients in animal products doesn't mean we are biologically incapable of seeking alternatives - alternatives that could be (and, as we are beginning to learn, ARE) more healthy for us in the long run).
Milk substitutes did not exist on a grand scale in 1996 (however they do date back to the middle ages, and were seen as preferable since cow's milk didn't last long in the days before the refrigerator), so we can forgive him for not realizing how healthy they are. The same goes for meat substitutes. They have come a long way in the past couple decades.
Defaulting to our biological history is no different from defaulting to the bible. It is the same mentality of "doing what once worked, antiquity for antiquity's sake, so therefore it must also work despite new ideas and possibilities." Veganism is a movement to change what has been easy and comfortable, and it continues to be open to change as new possibilities present themselves.
So in the light of people who insist that vegetarian and vegan diets are somehow dogmatic (purely on the basis that they are outside of generally accepted norms), I would argue that the omnivore diet is the dogmatic one because it refuses to change despite the emergence of new information and possibilities.
He basically copied and pasted from this link:
RăspundețiȘtergerehttp://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-9a.shtml
...citing a 17 year old study.
The study is generally correct on a factual level, but still quite flawed. Plenty of new information has since become available.
He is bang on about our biology and evolution. Historically we have been omnivores by choice (for how long, however, continues to be debated), so our bodies are armed for it. But that doesn't mean we are biologically designed that way nor immune to change or evolution. That is what evolution is - an ever-changing process, not a static one. Hence the word "evolve" :-)
Every organism that has ever existed aims to survive, and the overwhelming majority have been limited to only that binary decision making process - sink or swim. However, we, unlike most, are armed with self-realization and the ability to make choices for various reasons. Just because we have traditionally found certain nutrients in animal products doesn't mean we are biologically incapable of seeking alternatives - alternatives that could be (and, as we are beginning to learn, ARE) more healthy for us in the long run).
Milk substitutes did not exist on a grand scale in 1996 (however they do date back to the middle ages, and were seen as preferable since cow's milk didn't last long in the days before the refrigerator), so we can forgive him for not realizing how healthy they are. The same goes for meat substitutes. They have come a long way in the past couple decades.
Defaulting to our biological history is no different from defaulting to the bible. It is the same mentality of "doing what once worked, antiquity for antiquity's sake, so therefore it must also work despite new ideas and possibilities." Veganism is a movement to change what has been easy and comfortable, and it continues to be open to change as new possibilities present themselves.
So in the light of people who insist that vegetarian and vegan diets are somehow dogmatic (purely on the basis that they are outside of generally accepted norms), I would argue that the omnivore diet is the dogmatic one because it refuses to change despite the emergence of new information and possibilities.