Are humans really herbivores?
Voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Aliquam bibendum lacus quis nulla dignissim faucibus. Sed mauris enim, bibendum at purus aliquet, maximus molestie tortor. Sed faucibus et tellus eu sollicitudin. Sed fringilla malesuada luctus.
Before I begin, I should be honest and say that there is no study that confirms the title, but believe it or not, there is no study that has proven that humans are omnivores. The reason why it has not been confirmed that humans are herbivores does not lie in the fact that they might not be, but simply in the fact that no study has been done on the subject, so that both omnivory in humans and herbivory are reduced to hypotheses. Some experts and scientists advocate the thesis that humans are omnivores, but you would be surprised how many experts and scientists nowadays reject this thesis.
So let's start with some facts.
I'll start with a quote from the PMC site: "Although most of us spend our lives as omnivores, because we eat meat, vegetables and fruits, human beings have the characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores. The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; the intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times the length of the body); the body of carnivores is cooled by panting by tapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores make their own vitamin C, while herbivores get it from their diet.
What did our distant ancestors think about diet?
Most vegans today, as an argument in defense of their principles, often mistakenly cite chimpanzees as our closest relatives who are herbivores. Chimpanzees are indeed herbivores, but opponents of veganism often make such statements based on the fact that chimpanzees sometimes eat ants or even hunt. First of all, it should be said that the non-vegetarian diet in chimpanzees makes up only 5%. Chimpanzees as herbivores are of course not perfect and experts believe that chimpanzees, like humans, have their own preferences for pleasure, therefore termites as food for chimpanzees come as a treat. Chimpanzees on other killed monkey species eat only the brain, which actually proves that the chimpanzee eats meat not out of necessity but for pleasure. People have their unhealthy habits and treats in the form of ice cream and other sweets, which absolutely does not mean that ice cream is our natural food. However, I would not refer to chimpanzees, because nowadays even closer relatives of humans than ordinary chimpanzees have been discovered, so gorillas and bonobos (dwarf chimpanzees) are even more similar to humans than ordinary chimpanzees, and they are exclusively frugivores, i.e. fruit eaters, with the fact that gorillas also eats leaves.
As for our distant ancestors, let's take it for granted if they were at all, it is a complete paradox to believe that our distant ancestors like Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Homo Erectus and the rest of the team were omnivores. That's a total lie that you won't find in any study! As for the direct predecessors of the genus Homo, Australopithecus were mostly frugivores or herbivores. The dental and jaw morphology of Australopithecus afarensis indicate a diet of harder brittle food, however analysis of tooth wear from some specimens supports a diet of tough grasses and leaves. This is supported by stable carbon isotopic evidence indicating consumption of plants found along river banks and under tree cover. Homo Naledi also fed on nuts and seeds, and this is confirmed by the findings of tooth enamel fractures, which are mostly small and are located on the surfaces between the molars. Homohabilis is considered to be the first species of the genus Homo in which some features were found that indicate the first consumption of meat, however, this does not exclude the fact and evidence confirming that, despite this, plant-based nutrition in Homohabilis still made up the incomparable bulk of the diet. Homo Erectus, like Homo Habilis, occasionally consumed meat, but plant-based food was also extremely dominant in Homo Erectus, and carbon isotopic studies from bones show that meat in Homo Erectus was more the exception than the rule, and a very rare exception, so rare that Homo Erectus could boast of greater vegetarianism than some so-called *vegetarians today. Homo Floresiensis could boast of even greater veganism than, say, Homo Erectus, because in the majority of this genus Homo, no evidence was found in the bones that would indicate the consumption of meat, although in some examples this was also found, but I must note that the environment and climate played a role in of each genus Homo. The eating habits of, for example, Homo Erectus from equatorial Africa, where it is warm all year round and fruits are abundant, were certainly not the same as those of Erectus who inhabited the north of Africa, where the climate was colder. Homo Neandertalis is the only species from the Homo family in which the meat diet was unquestionable and relatively dominant, although there are still some studies that show that Neanderthals ate much more plant food than we think, but all in all it should be noted that Homo Neandertalis is not the same species like Homo Sapiens, even their digestive system was slightly different from ours, i.e. it was more omnivorous.
There is evidence that some of the species I mentioned above lived even at the same time as Homo Sapiens, so the question arises whether Homo Sapiens can even be compared to their supposed "ancestors". But that is a completely different story because I believe that Homo Sapiens are older than people think. It's on the edge of science, so I won't go into it too much, so as not to compromise the entire post for your opinion on something quite ten.
LJUDSKA ANATOMIJA
Now the famous herbivorous human anatomy. I have to refer back to an article just on fitness.com that I read a few months ago that said humans don't have claws because their intelligence evolved to be able to hunt animals with weapons. Unfortunately, intelligence is not always for the purpose of human survival and sustenance, as you know, it is more than misused, so this same intelligence created atomic weapons and various weapons to kill people. This does not mean that we have adapted to a more sophisticated way of killing people, but that we have simply misused our own intelligence. No species from the genus Homo had claws, so what kind of evolution of claws or nails with intelligence are we talking about?
As for the stomach acid of humans, it is quite strong, but still a little weaker than the stomach acid of carnivores, but when we talk about the digestion of, say, meat, it is not the strength of the stomach acid that matters, but its concentration. Humans have a much lower concentration and ability to secrete stomach acid than omnivores such as pigs, bears and certain types of dogs. That's what it's about, not what the pH of that stomach acid is.
When we talk about human intestines. Human intestines are smaller than the intestines of, for example, herbivorous ruminants, such as cows, which have approximately 20 times the length of the intestine, in humans, this length is 9 times greater than the length of the trunk, and this is where geniuses find alleged arguments for omnivores. Well, it is clear that ruminants have much longer intestines than us because they are ruminants, so their intestines are adapted for the digestion of cellulose, but ruminants are not the only herbivores, there are also frugivores, i.e. fruit eaters, which include humans. For example, omnivores have the length of the intestine 3 times longer than the length of the trunk, and carnivores from 1.5 to 3. So omnivores still have much shorter intestines than us humans. The reason why omnivores and carnivores have shorter intestines than us is to limit the time for rotting meat in the intestines to be as short as possible, so the meat in the intestines of carnivores and omnivores rots from 24 hours to a maximum of 36 hours, while with us humans it rots for up to 72 hours, which is a lot problem because this is why they recommend probiotics to encourage the growth of good bacteria in the intestines. The large intestine in herbivores is a highly specialized organ that participates in the absorption of water and electrolytes, in the production of vitamins, and in the absorption and/or fermentation of plant fibrous tissue. The huge large intestine in carnivores is very short and simple because its only function is to absorb (absorb) water and salt.
When it comes to human saliva, omnivores and carnivores do not have enzymes in their saliva to digest carbohydrates, so they literally swallow food without chewing. Their saliva is acidic and ours is alkaline. Due to the lack of enzymes for digesting carbohydrates and because of food that is not rich in fiber, carnivores and omnivores do not have the ability to move their jaw left and right and to literally chew food, but these are the characteristics of exclusively herbivores.
I immediately follow up on the teeth because the molars are used to crush food. Many geniuses often cite fangs as an example of an adaptation to a meat diet as their trump card for the omnivore argument. To me, that is the funniest "argument" of all genius arguments, because try crushing a bone or tearing the meat off the thigh of, say, cattle with that "fang". That "fang" is about to break like a toothpick! Namely, that famous "canine" is actually not a real canine because according to the definition of a canine, a canine must be at least 2 times longer than the length of an incisor. You will often hear "false canines" in dentistry, so they are not actually canines. Not to mention that most people don't even have pronounced "fangs", they are almost like incisors flat and blunt, at the same height. They serve as a support for the incisors when we tear off part of, say, an apple. Gorillas, which are completely herbivorous, also have fangs, so much so that most purebred carnivores on the planet would envy them. But those fangs in gorillas are used for fighting, because gorillas bite each other in battle, and they also serve as a means of deterring enemies.
Carnivores and omnivores sweat through their tongues, while herbivores and humans sweat through the pores of their skin to cool themselves. Another small but important feature.
The human hand is perfectly adapted for picking fruits, not holding a spear.
ATHEROSCLEROSIS - A DISEASE OF HERBIVORS
Now the most interesting part for me. Dr. William C. Roberts has five decades of experience in the field of cardiology, has written over 1,300 scientific publications, a dozen cardiology textbooks, and was editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology for a quarter of a century. He is certainly one of the most respected cardiologists in the world today. William C. Roberts wrote about Atherosclerosis: ""Atherosclerosis is easily produced in non-human herbivores (eg, rabbits, monkeys) by feeding them high cholesterol (eg, egg yolks) or high saturated fat (eg, animal fats)… And atherosclerosis did not occur in a smaller number of rats that were fed that way than it was produced in 100 percent of the animals! Indeed, atherosclerosis is one of the easiest diseases to produce experimentally, but the experimental animal must be a herbivore. It is not possible to produce atherosclerosis in carnivorous animals." In the 1990s, he states: "It is almost impossible, for example, to create atherosclerosis in a dog even when 100 grams of cholesterol and 120 grams of fat are added to their meat meal". America every day).
"Since people get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease of only herbivores, man must also be a herbivore."
Proponents of an omnivorous diet also found a "problem" in this argument. Namely, they claim that atherosclerosis is possible in herbivores even without the intake of trans fat and cholesterol, so they say that it is enough for herbivores to eat the wrong food, plant food rich in starch and sugar, which can also cause cardiovascular diseases. Total nonsense. Atherosclerosis is possible as a consequence only in the case of diabetes, and diabetes is certainly not caused by a plant-based diet based on starch and sugar, which probably means grains, especially if they are whole. Herbivores certainly don't eat Cornflakes etc. for breakfast.
Another counter-argument is that meat-eaters can get atherosclerosis if they are fed plant-based foods rich in carbohydrates. A total fabrication. I'll quote PMC : "Atherosclerosis only affects herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol and not develop atherosclerotic plaques. The only way to create atherosclerosis in carnivores is to remove the thyroid; then for some reason the saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores."
BRAIN DEVELOPMENT AND INTELLIGENCE?
Moram se osvrnuti na citat jednog članka s ove stranice, kaže ovako : „Ljudi nemaju kandže i zube kojima mogu ubiti životinje.“ - Ni ne trebamo ih imati. Evoluirali smo tako da nam naša inteligencija omogućava korištenje raznih alata."
Hajdemo sad zamisliti da smo evolucija. Pa imali smisla da se evolucija odlučila pobrinuti isključivo samo za jednu vrstu na planeti zemlji da joj omogući inteligenciju kako bi sofisticiranije lovila, radila koplja, sjekire itd., i to nama "svejedima", a mesojede kojima je meso puno potrebnije nego svejedima uopće nije nagradila inteligencijom nego su eto ostali s kandžama i velikim zubima. Pa to je vrijeđanje ljudske inteligencije. Da nas je evolucija odlučila nagraditi nekakvom prilagodbom onda bi nas prije inteligencije valjda obradila konačno premda velikim zubima i probavnim organima za meso. Razvoj inteligencije u čovjeka je posljedica isključivo migracije na sjever. Teška, hladna i surova klima je ljude natjerala da brže razmišljaju, da se brže prilagođavaju novim okolnostima.
E sad meni najdraža provala. Ljudski mozak se kažu razvio zahvaljujući prehrani na mesu. Po toj logici bi mesojedi danas trebali imati najrazvijeniji mozak, no eto ipak nije tako.
Suprotno lažima koje šire pristrani znanstvenici za meso, mlijeko i jaja, meso nije odgovorno za razvoj mozga kod ljudi. Bio je to biljni škrob, tako objašnjava profesor sveučilišta Dartmouth Nathaniel Dominy. Odlomak sa stranice 21. rujna / listopada. Izdanje Science Illustrateda iz 2008. godine, također podržavaju gore spomenutu činjenicu: „Ljudska sposobnost probaviti škrob vjerojatno je bila glavni čimbenik u razvoju naših velikih mozgova, prema istraživanju sa Sveučilišta California-Santa Cruz i Državnog sveučilišta Arizona. U usporedbi s drugim primatima, imamo znatno više kopija gena AMY1 odgovornog za enzim amilaze slinovnice, koji pomaže razgraditi škrob. To je omogućilo ranim ljudima učinkovitiju probavu škrobne hrane poput krumpira i kukuruza. Vremenom je poboljšani pristup ugljikohidratima, koji potiču mozak, možda pomogao ljudima dati moždani poticaj potreban da bismo se odvojili od ostalih primata. "
Neki pak spominju životinjske proteine koji su utjecali na razvoj ljudskog mozga. Totalan apsurd ! Nisu proteini gradivni elementi u organizmu nego aminokiseline koje tvore protein. Najkompletnije aminokiseline pri tom najprobavljivije u prirodnom obliku dolaze isključivo iz biljne prehrane.