Forks Over Knives

I think if you research that a bit, you'll find humans are not "biologically" designed to be omnivores. We don't have the sharp teeth carnivorous animals have, our digestion doesn't work like theirs does etc.

SYNOPSIS OF THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE (CONCLUSIONS)
Humans can be regarded as natural omnivores, so long as one uses the common definition of the term: a natural diet that includes significant amounts of both plant and animal foods. (Humans might not qualify as omnivores if one uses the definition of omnivore as advocated by D.J. Chivers and associates, and discussed in earlier sections herein.)

To use terms that are linked to gut morphology, humans are either faunivores [meat-eaters] or frugivores with specific (evolutionary) adaptations for the consumption of animal foods. This, of course, means that humans are not natural vegetarians. A short summary of some of the evidence supporting this follows (the material below was discussed in depth in earlier sections of this paper).

The fossil record. Approximately 2.5 million years of human omnivory/faunivory are apparent in the record, with genetic adaptation to that diet the inevitable and inescapable outcome of evolution. The supporting evidence here includes isotope analysis of fossils, providing further evidence of consumption of animal foods.

Comparative anatomy of the human gut. The best scientific evidence available to date on gut morphology--analyzed using two different statistical approaches--shows evidence of adaptations for which the best explanation is the practice of faunivory. (Faunivory as an explanation is also supported by optimal foraging theory in hunter-gatherer tribes.) Further, the human gut morphology is not what might be expected for a strict vegetarian/fruit diet.

Comparative 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 concern

I wouldn't just jump into a vegan diet just because you saw it in a movie. Now, if you are truly interested in veganism, I would do a lot of research and planning to make sure that is what you really want.

Agreed. Humans are omnivores and biologically are not designed to eat this way.

I think if you research that a bit, you'll find humans are not "biologically" designed to be omnivores. We don't have the sharp teeth carnivorous animals have, our digestion doesn't work like theirs does etc.

And to the original poster: check out healthyeatingstartshere.com - Heather is a vegan holistic nutritionist and I've found her website and YouTube videos super useful. I've been vegetarian for years and have recently started the transition to a plant based whole foods diet.

You need to re-read the post,
Omnivores (from Latin: omni, meaning "all, everything"; vorare, "to devour")
We are adapted to eat everything
We have gripping teeth (canine), just like a wolf
We have cutting teeth (incisor) like a dog
We are evolved to eat most things, including meat vegetables fish grains and pulses. To deny this is to deny our nature. It would be the same as feeding a cat only vegetarian food, damaging and ultimately unhealthy.
Only in ‘unnaturally societies’ out of touch with their nature do you find aberrations of diet. Be it vegans, vegetarians or even adult milk drinker.

I wouldn't just jump into a vegan diet just because you saw it in a movie. Now, if you are truly interested in veganism, I would do a lot of research and planning to make sure that is what you really want.

Agreed. Humans are omnivores and biologically are not designed to eat this way.

I think if you research that a bit, you'll find humans are not "biologically" designed to be omnivores. We don't have the sharp teeth carnivorous animals have, our digestion doesn't work like theirs does etc.

And to the original poster: check out healthyeatingstartshere.com - Heather is a vegan holistic nutritionist and I've found her website and YouTube videos super useful. I've been vegetarian for years and have recently started the transition to a plant based whole foods diet.

You need to re-read the post,
Omnivores (from Latin: omni, meaning "all, everything"; vorare, "to devour")
We are adapted to eat everything
We have gripping teeth (canine), just like a wolf
We have cutting teeth (incisor) like a dog
We are evolved to eat most things, including meat vegetables fish grains and pulses. To deny this is to deny our nature. It would be the same as feeding a cat only vegetarian food, damaging and ultimately unhealthy.
Only in ‘unnaturally societies’ out of touch with their nature do you find aberrations of diet. Be it vegans, vegetarians or even adult milk drinker.

I am sorry, but both of these arguements are pretty ridiculous. We can, and have adapted to be able to survive on a vegetarian and an omnivorous diet (veganism is a little harder to argue because of the lack of B12 that is not available without supplements). We are not biologically designed to be either one, more, we are designed to be one, the other, or a mix thereof, otherwise we would not be able to survive on them.

And BTW, who cares what the latin name means or whether our incisors are cutting or not. Look at the teeth of a gorilla and tell me how that arguement works.

And BTW, who cares what the latin name means or whether our incisors are cutting or not. Look at the teeth of a gorilla and tell me how that arguement works.

I wouldn't just jump into a vegan diet just because you saw it in a movie. Now, if you are truly interested in veganism, I would do a lot of research and planning to make sure that is what you really want.

It's difficult to respond to this unless you've seen it. If you have seen it, you would not have made that response. You might have said something else, but not that.

LOL. I know that gorillas eat small animals on occasion and forage on insects (which, I do not think they exactly need their incisors for). You are totally missing the point I was trying to make by focussing on pedantic arguements.

Your argument is what? Teeth are not only for eating.

LOL. I know that gorillas eat small animals on occasion and forage on insects (which, I do not think they exactly need their incisors for). You are totally missing the point I was trying to make by focussing on pedantic arguements.

Your argument is what? Teeth are not only for eating.

LOL. So missing the point.

So explain it then, if the point is so easy to miss you're not making it very well. as a teacher you fail.