>Doug Schwartz writes:
>>What about our dentition, why is it that we have the teeth of
>>herbivores?

Ward:
>Doug, your question seems to imply that teeth can only be
> classified by mutually exclusive categories in either/or fashion.

Ward,

I did not necessarily mean to imply this, & indeed I do think human
teeth function O.K. when eating meat, although tools are probably
pretty helpful when ripping into a carcass.  But don't some of the
other primates have canines much better adapted to meat?
Carnivores, however, are obviously at a great disadvantage when
eating some plant foods.  My cat can't chew (or maybe it is simply
that she gulps them down too fast) certain things such as nuts &
seeds or corn too well, & her stools often contain undigested plant
remains (not that all of our stools don't do this too to some
extent).

Ward:
>How "subordinate" the meat intake was, however, is relative
> to one's idea of what is "a lot" of meat. The Eaton research team,
>based on extensive surveys of recent hunter-gatherer tribes, and
>assuming somewhat similar foraging patterns for our ancestors,
>has arrived at an  estimate of 65%
>plant/ 35% flesh in late Paleolithic times, although it probab
>ly varied greatly depending on the specific habitat.

I'd like to point out that the Paleolithic existed into my lifetime
certainly, depending on which tribe you are talking about, and
indeed in this century some tribes did not even make it into the
Stone Age.

I wrote:
>>Granted that humans (& certainly other primates such as
> chimps)>evolved eating meat.  Does this necessarily mean that
> meat is necessary or even desirable?

Ward wrote:
>If you accept evolution at all, then yes. The very definition
> of evolution is that genetic adaptation falls in line with whatever
> behavior and environment persist over the course of many generations.
> Those of one generation who survive to pass on their genes to the
>fit for the environment and behavior that was engaged in.
> Thus over time, if the behavior and
>environment persist from one generation to the next to the
> next to the next (etc.), evolution ensures an increasingly close
>fit between genetic adaptation and behavior. Within X number of
>generations, only those whose genes are conducive to survival within
>the framework of the environment and behavior that persist will
>remain as descendants.

I addressed this in my response to Bob Avery's post about this one,
but this is only true if you define "good" as what is best for the
survival/reproduction of the species.

>This brings up the prevalent idea that gets bandied about a
> lot within idealist-diet circles that any deviation from some "original"
> state of evolutionary adaptation means an decrease in evoluitionary
> fitness the further we get from our "real" or "true" adaptation "way
> back when." But such ideas show a gross lack of comprehension as
>to how evolution works.There *are* no original states of adaptation
>(unless you want to go all the back to the first bacteria that sprung from
>the muck)--it's all relative.

I certainly do not share the romantic notion of many of some sort of
Garden of Eden thing.  I'm only concerned with what will be best for
me, & if that entails taking synthetic substances such as BHT or
ascorbyl palmitate or whatever, I find nothing wrong with that.
Implicit in Ward's words above is the definition that evolution is
simply adaptation, that environments change & a species either
adapts to these changes or decline.  Let's not forget that humans
are furless mammals, obviously intended to reside in the tropics.
Only our brains allowed us to populate almost the entire,
non-tropical parts of the planet, & in doing so we had to eat
whatever stuff was available to survive.  The question is whether
our brains have gotten ahead of the rest of our bodies and/or if
meat or cooking is necessary or desirable.  [They both may well be
highly useful for survival outside the tropics.]  If the
anthropological record tells us one thing it is that humans have
been able to adapt to environmental extremes by using their
brains, & that the degree of specialization that has built up around
the globe to survive in this or that environmental niche implies
that this took millennia to work out.

In the previous post I neglected to bring up the standard NH
arguments about our G.I. tracts being better suited to veg. than
meat, what with relative lengths & transit times.  Again, I'm not
arguing that we did not evolve to be ABLE to eat some meat, just
that doing so may not necessarily be the best thing to do.

I wrote:
>>I think it would be very, very interesting to take primarily
>>carnivorous animals (such as cats or
>>dogs) and raise them on an entirely vegetarian (preferably raw)
>> diet to see what happens. I believe that many dogs are essentially
>>vegetarians anyway (albeit grain-eaters) from their dog food.

Ward wrote:
>I find this hard to believe given that dogs evolved from
> wolves and weretamed only in roughly the last 10,000 years or so.
>Is this your own speculuation, or can you present some science on
>this we  could go look up?

I'm not sure you understood me correctly.  What I meant was not that
dogs EVOLVED to exist on plants (certainly they evolved to primarily
exist on meat, with some plants [& intestinal contents of their
prey] thrown in but probably only as a very minor % of their diet).
What I meant was that I suspect even carnivores will live longer &
be healthier when increasing the % of plants in their diets.  This
speculation comes from reading many studies on the negative effects
of protein. [see stuff at the end]

>>Sure humans can eat meat, but I would be very surprised if
>> eventually their aging rate is accelerated & diseases such as cancer
> >show a greater & earlier incidence.

>I would like to see some peer-reviewed substantiation of this
>speculation. The closest I know of is T. Colin Campbell's China Study
> which apparentlyshows increases in cancer when meat represents over
> 5-7% of the diet. However, studies of hunter-gatherers eating diets
> approximating what is thought to be the Paleolithic norm with
>substantially more  flesh than that have shown very few signs of
>degenerative diseases. In fact  they are among
>the healthiest peoples known.

I'm not arguing health, I'm arguing longevity, which can be defined
as the delay in the appearance of various diseases.  I previously
posted Eskimo anecdotes, & they clearly went into very early aging
on primarily RAF.  [I'm in the middle of reading an interesting
anthropological book, & sooner or later I'll do a little book
report.  At least one tribe mentioned in the book existed primarily
on dairy products, & this diet did not seem to accelerate aging,
something other anecdotal research caused me to also conlude long
ago.  It may be that the reason is that dairy is no where near as
high in protein as meat.]

>I am not sure cancer was  specifically a
>subject of these studies because at the time many of these
> studies were done, cancer was not the pandemic it is now. But at the time
> the studies were done, rates of other degenerative diseases of concern
> such as diabetes, heart disease, etc., were extremely low.
> Unfortunately these kinds of studies are probably no longer possible
>to re-do and  ask new questions, since there are almost no tribes left
> now who have not been assimilated into modern cultures, or whose
>lifestyles have  not seen drastic changes since "contact" with the
>"modern urban omnivore/ vegan/instincto."
>:-)

The stuff below specifically addresses this, & I purloined it from:
[Prevention and Therapy of Cancer and Other Common Diseases:
Alternative and Traditional Approaches ©1996 Charles L. Sanders]
after consulting with my virtual copyright attorney, a Mr. Bohdi.
(Acutally the chapter it is from is available to everybody online
at:  http://www.owt.com/infomedix  )  I only bothered to copy below
the stuff on protein, but there is loads in there on caloric
restriction too & how both impact on cancer.  I bought the entire
book from him as it is a hell of a resource; lots of good stuff on
veg. & cooked foods is available free online too.  This is just
straight, mainstream science in pedantic detail, everything is
peer-reviewed & the #'s in the stuff below refer to Sanders'
references (all available hypertext linked on his www site).
Granted that the stuff below is probably mostly (if not entirely)
from studies done with cooked foods, the data still have relevance.
Rest assured that this is only the tip of an iceberg, & that if
Sanders has it in his book there is a large corpus of additional
research which supports all this.  The interesting thing is that
this is simply state-of-the-art contemporary cancer/health/nutrition
research, & how it is moving ever closer to that the NH people have
been maintaining for decades.  I have suggested a couple of times
that people go to this www site to read the entire chapter, but
nobody seems to have bothered.  You should, Sanders is the best at
wading through all the journals & compling all this, & it is good
stuff:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Protein Restriction.  Dietary restriction of protein decreases
cellular protein synthesis and can extend lifespan provided a
balanced level of essential amino acids is present in the diet.
mRNA levels for a number of proteins in rat liver were depressed by
about 40 percent after three days on a protein-free diet, with mRNA
levels returning to normal after 3 days of feeding a high protein
diet 5307. Hepatic microsomal mixed function oxidase, epoxide
hydrase and benzo(a)pyrene monooxygenase activities are decreased by
protein restriction 5296,5303,5313, resulting in less metabolite
covalent binding to DNA 5314,5317,5321. Two main vegetable foods -
corn and cassava - are deficient in amino acids.  Corn lacks
tryptophan and cassava methionine.  Restriction of the amino acids
tryptophan or methionine extends the lifespan of rats 5212,5215.

Replacing dietary casein with soy protein improved median lifespan
of rats about 15 percent due to suppression of the progression of
chronic nephropathy 5721. A high protein diet enhanced preneoplastic
lesion development, while a low protein diet caused a disappearance
of the lesions 5203.  Protein restriction exerts its strongest
influence on lesion growth long after the genetic damage had
occurred 5334.  High protein consumption enhanced carcinogen-
induced mammary carcinogenesis 5310-5312. Protein fermentation
products do not play a role in colon cancer promotion 18608.  The
FAO/WHO group 5335 recommended a dietary protein intake of 6-8
percent of calories, while the USDA suggests 14-18% of total energy
intake to be derived from protein 5297-5299.  Nitrogen balance in
rats is achieved with only 4-5 percent protein 5322.  The low
protein content (6-7 percent of calories) of the diet in China may
be associated with a smaller stature and a reduced risk of several
types of cancer, coronary heart disease and several other
degenerative diseases 5304."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't think for a moment that the Bohdster did not pick up on the
nitrogen balance part above, & we should anticipate that he will
momentarily make the obvious connection that any protein above the
levels required to keep us in balance is simply stuff that has to be
eliminated.  Stay tuned.

Pass the protein please.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]