Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

"Okay, you obviously don't get it. Let me try a different approach: Define the physiological differences between an omnivore and a herbivore. Then define the physiological differences between an omnivore and a carnivore. Now when you finally decide that you cannot do this, then think about why. OMNIVORES ARE NOT A PHYSIOLOGICAL CATEGORY."

Wow. You just removed an entire category from the animal kingdom.

No, it is not a category. Let me ask you again, and I will keep asking you. If there is a physiological category called OMNIVORE, define it PHYSIOLOGICALLY. LIke I did with herbivores and carnavores. Tell me what physiological traits do Omnivores have that are different from both herbivores and carnavores. This question is not going to go away as long as you persist in claiming that omnivore is a physiological category, I want specific traits like I gave. Describe Omnivore dentition, intestines, mandible, etc.

What is wrong with supplements? What is good in small amounts might be harmful in larger amounts.
How do you know there won't be unintended consequences on gene regulation in humans? What if methylation of a certain gene mutes the expression of one that's beneficial?

I don't know about unintended consequences of too much B12, but I doubt it would shut down any genes, since you can apparently take 1000 times too much B12 without any problem, i.e., without the kind of stress that would cause adding of a methyl group to a gene.



Not even thinking about your claim that dietary cholesterol and saturated fats are killing us.
Done with this thread.

Adios! Enjoy your diet and thank God Canada has free chemotherapy.

Let us all bow in silence for all that plants that have died today. A very sensitive MFP has entered the room. (Gregorian chanting, optional).

What is wrong with supplements? What is good in small amounts might be harmful in larger amounts.

Very true. Many people believe if some is good, more is better. So they supplement away even though in most cases they get plenty of whatever it is in their food. At best, this is a waste of money. At worst, toxicity could result or a negative reaction with a medication that you are currently taking.

Also, note that the FDA does not regulate dietary supplements in the same way that it regulates medicine. A dietary supplement can be sold without research on how well it works, and the process by which they are made is not standardized. So it's always good to check out the supplement through a reliable source before using it. Some have lots of detailed research while others have none to back up their claims.

Of course, some people do well on supplements. It's something you should decide WITH your doctor and dietitian, for your safety and your pocketbook. In general, you're going to get more benefits through consuming nutrients from the food that contains them than through supplements.

"Okay, you obviously don't get it. Let me try a different approach: Define the physiological differences between an omnivore and a herbivore. Then define the physiological differences between an omnivore and a carnivore. Now when you finally decide that you cannot do this, then think about why. OMNIVORES ARE NOT A PHYSIOLOGICAL CATEGORY."

Wow. You just removed an entire category from the animal kingdom.

No, it is not a category. Let me ask you again, and I will keep asking you. If there is a physiological category called OMNIVORE, define it PHYSIOLOGICALLY. LIke I did with herbivores and carnavores. Tell me what physiological traits do Omnivores have that are different from both herbivores and carnavores. This question is not going to go away as long as you persist in claiming that omnivore is a physiological category, I want specific traits like I gave. Describe Omnivore dentition, intestines, mandible, etc.

Why must there be such a black and white 'physiological category'? The very concept of an omnivore suggests a crossover between carnivore and herbivore. Humans are not herbivores. I'll just say that again. And rather than write out some other stuff I'll just post what John Macardle says. He's a respected scientist too. And a vegetarian:

Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet

Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.

Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.

Omnivorism

The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

"Okay, you obviously don't get it. Let me try a different approach: Define the physiological differences between an omnivore and a herbivore. Then define the physiological differences between an omnivore and a carnivore. Now when you finally decide that you cannot do this, then think about why. OMNIVORES ARE NOT A PHYSIOLOGICAL CATEGORY."

Wow. You just removed an entire category from the animal kingdom.

No, it is not a category. Let me ask you again, and I will keep asking you. If there is a physiological category called OMNIVORE, define it PHYSIOLOGICALLY. LIke I did with herbivores and carnavores. Tell me what physiological traits do Omnivores have that are different from both herbivores and carnavores. This question is not going to go away as long as you persist in claiming that omnivore is a physiological category, I want specific traits like I gave. Describe Omnivore dentition, intestines, mandible, etc.

Why must there be such a black and white 'physiological category'? The very concept of an omnivore suggests a crossover between carnivore and herbivore. Humans are not herbivores.

Well, then it is quite shocking that the Editor of the American Journal of Cardiology thinks we are. After all that medical training and all those operations, you would think he would know better!


I'll just say that again. And rather than write out some other stuff I'll just post what John Macardle says. He's a respected scientist too. And a vegetarian:

Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet

Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.

Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.

Omnivorism

The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

First of all, MacCardle is ancient history. He published that article in 1991. Second of all it has been ripped apart and he has been shown, frankly not understand the basics of his own field.


http://www.ecologos.org/mcardle.htm

Actually, all is says is that at some point in our evolution we were herbivores and that there wasn't sufficient selection pressure to cause our jaws to change.

*******************

Yes, mutt, I think you are starting to get it. AT SOME POINT IN OUR EVOLUTION WE WERE HERBIVORES AND THERE WASN'T SUFFICIENT PRESSURE TO CHANGE. Now think about the logical conclusion to that statement -- Wait, wait I think I've got it:. If we started as herbivores, and there was no pressure to change, then guess what? WE STILL ARE HERBIVORES!
See, Mutt, even you have come to the right conclusion.
*******************

There was no selection pressure to modify our jaws, that doesn't mean there wasn't selection pressure to modify other parts of our anatomy. Serious Veggie, it gets to a certain point in the debate where you start getting just a little obnoxious. "Mutt, even you have come to the right conclusion". Give me a break dude... lol Really poor form.

What about the B12 issue?

B12 was not a problem when we pulled up roots and ate them with little or no thought for hygene. The super clean veggies we eat now make it a problem. That is probably the simplest answer.



Yeah, the soil bacteria. So I take it you supplement B12 instead of eating dirty veggies? Animals are still a better source from what I understand, but it's true we don't need much.

**********************
No, and despite common belief there are vegetarian sources: bacteria,(oh, yeah that's what you said.) which was the same source as we used to utilize with dirty vegetables. So what is wrong with supplements? We are living in the 21st century.
*********************

You're being defensive, I was just clarifying.

Perhaps you are right, Mutt. But sometimes you go off on tangets that make no sense. For example you just said that even though there was no pressure to change out dentition and mandible structure, there was pressure to change other things, which of course you do not specify. Please refer back to the table I posted showing the different characteristics of herbivores and carnivores. Apparently there was no pressure to change anything that made us resemble herbivores. But since you have taken that position, please tell me what herbivore characteristics did we have that were changed to carnivore characteristics? Be specific. I want physiological characteristics, not vague generalizations, like "the ability to digest meat," which almost all herbivores have.

I just read an interesting study on how hunter-gatherers burn about the same number of calories as Westerners do. You would think all that physically-demanding food gathering over the course of the day would burn tons of calories, but it apparently doesn't. What do you think? Are the laws of thermodynamics more complicated than we think?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200304.htm

"Well, then it is quite shocking that the Editor of the American Journal of Cardiology thinks we are (herbivores) After all that medical training and all those operations, you would think he would know better! "

Actually I wouldn't. Roberts is a physician and pathologist. He's not a specialist in anatomy, diet or paleopathology. So why would he be the expert on the matter.

I quoted Macardle out of laziness. There are plenty of others. Let's go back to rats for a moment. Humour me. Is a rat a carnivore or a herbivore? Only it appears to have evolved nicely to eat pretty much anything. Like humans. Which can stand because they have evolve to hunt. Which have bigger brains due to more consumption of protein. Which learnt to cook almost simultaneously with learning to farm and therefore were able to process the grains and digest them. Physiology is only part of the story, and there are traits we share with carnivores, in the same way we share traits with herbivores.

As I said earlier, neither dietary cholesterol nor saturated fat has been proven to have a direct link to disease in the human body. And we are not herbivores. I'm out. I am not going to try and argue with someone who simply reiterates rubbish without considering the simple basic facts - that humans eat meat and have done so for millennia quite happily.

The B12 I take comes from bacteria, which is the natural source of B12 for humans.

And seeing as humans didn't use to have access to supplements or fortified foods, where did they get this B12 containing bacteria?

I just read an interesting study on how hunter-gatherers burn about the same number of calories as Westerners do. You would think all that physically-demanding food gathering over the course of the day would burn tons of calories, but it apparently doesn't. What do you think? Are the laws of thermodynamics more complicated than we think?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200304.htm

Hi, I am an Anthropology major. From what I have learned of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is that they spent maybe an hour or two looking for food etc. (obviously possibly longer for some groups and often longer for the hunters) and then they got to relax for the rest of the day. Not sure if that helps but thats what I my favorite Anthro professor taught me!