Active Low-Carber Forums - View Single Post - The real human diet is a totally carnivorous one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theBear

I never said we had 'carnivore' teeth- if you define that as the dentition of cats and dogs. I also did not say we had 'insectivore' teeth like bats etc. I noted that the primate lineage was insectivorous in deep antiquity and our dentition was derivative of that origin. Our mouth shape and jaw motion is specialised for speech, not chewing or grinding food. Our teeth changed with the development of both speech and the use of knives. Our teeth have absolutely no relationship, in either structure or durability to the teeth of herbivores and fully evolved omnivores like the rodenta.

Sorry, I am not trying to show you as less than you are, but the tooth shape and description I found on your references did nothing to detract from my stand on this, thus the comment on comprehension- I think you selectively choose to observe only the aspects of dentition which serve your viewpoint of us as omnivores.

Unfortunately the human mixed or omnivorous diet in 'recent' times- i.e., prior to today's dentistry- meant that virtually no-one had any teeth left in their head by the age of thirty. Many people, indeed most- died from abscessed teeth. Compare that to the animals whose diet is either herbivorous or omnivorous, who do not have access to dentistry- they live a full lifespan without serious problems from their dentition. Say what you like, you cannot change truth into falsehood nor fables into reality: If we eat no carbs, our teeth will outlast us- no matter how long we live.

You stated that we had classically carnivorous teeth, which I read to mean like cats, dogs and polar bears. Classic carnivores. The primate lineage started approximately 60-65 million years ago if you count proto-primates, and while dentition are evolutionarily conservative, they have changed since then. However, some primates, like lemurs, do have more insectivorous dentition than apes do (and I do consider us apes). Our mouth shape and jaw motion are the way they are for several reasons, not just speech. To look at it that way is more reductionistic than I am comfortable with. Facial reduction which in turn affected jaw shape and basocranial shape was more due to the inclusion of higher amounts of meat in our diet which in turn allowed for brain expansion, which allowed for the evolution and development of Wernke’s and Brocca’s areas which allowed for speech.

I did not select just studies that supported my arguments. To do that would be scientifically unethical. Which I try really hard not to be. I chose studies that either had diagrams and pictures to help illustrate my points, from researchers that I know to be tops in that particular area of study or those that came from peer reviewed journals. Again, I am perfectly comfortable to be proven wrong. As a scientist, I feel that I should test and question what I “know”. Science is self correcting, which is one of the coolest things about it.

We started on our ominiverous diet (and I am defining that as a mix of significant amounts of meat with vegetable material) around 2 or 2.5 million years ago. I am not sure what point you are making about life spans, but most animals with the kind of dentition you are referring to don’t have long lifespans anyway. Of course their teeth last throughout their life when it is only 10-20 years at best. I do agree that the inclusion of grain based carbs due to the invention of agriculture actually increased the amount of caries and tooth loss. Mostly due to the bacteria that then infiltrated our mouths that feed on that kind of stuff. Actually, when we became agriculturalists, there were a WHOLE bunch of health problems that went along with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theBear

I am not attacking anyone, just asking a couple of reasonable questions based on observed behaviour, both of which have been on my mind for a while now:

Just WHAT is meant by 'Vegetarian Atkins?', other than, of course, an oxymoron?

Does 'Depraved Superhero' mean that you feel you must attempt to show all others as having 'ordinary, non-hero' status... if you can?

Or is this just your way of exhibiting an odd sense of humour on a basically egalitarian and meat-oriented dietary thread?

It means that I follow mostly an Atkins plan, but I substitute meat alternatives instead of meat. No biggie. I am not a vegetarian for moral, health or animal rights reasons. I have a whole different set of reasons. If you want to know them you can PM me. I actually don’t care if people eat meat, it just isn’t for me right now. That may change in the future.

The Superhero thing is a joke. As in I have a twisted sense of humor. I hang out a lot in the Single Low Carbers thread and it came from there as a part of a long running joke. Since I am short with flat feet and wear contacts or glasses, I am pretty sure I am not a superhero in real life. Too bad. I certainly did not put that under my name because of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theBear

I have collected many papers over a long period of time that support my contentions. However I live on a very large, only partially developed rural property, which is basically somewhat unorganised and still takes a disproportionate amount of my time to manage.

I have not handled those papers for over 15 years, and it is going to take a bit more time for me to ferret them out from wherever they have gotten to over the years. I am working on it- trust me, I want very much to put all this contention to bed.

[font=&quot]I would love to see them. I am always interested in learning something new. I don't like contention, either. [/font]