Herbivores (grazers and browsers - bison, rabbits, horses, sheep, deer, goats, giraffes, etc. ) are equipped to handle an exclusive raw leaf/grass diet. Granivores (primarily birds) thrive mostly on the raw grains of various grasses. Carnivores (cats, lions, tigers, wolves, etc.) eat raw meat, but even they cannot thrive on an all meat diet. Frugivores (apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys, orangutans etc.) thrive mostly on raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots, shoots, nuts and seeds. Omnivores (hogs, brown bears, raccoons, etc.) are "everything eaters" who thrive on nearly all raw foods. Insectivores (ant-eaters, amphibians, other insects) thrive on raw insects. Those foods and influences to which a species is biologically adapted are those deemed "natural" to its disposition as derived by the sum total of their biological heritage from millions of years of evolution. Cumulative adaptations in each species over eons of time determines their natural dietary needs. For instance: The koala bear of Australia is adapted to eating a variety of gum leaves. The giraffe's long neck allows it to feed on the foliage of trees. The lion's fangs and claws allow it to kill and render animals for food. The eagle's keen eyesight and powerful claws make it a formidable predator of ground rodents and small game. Carnivores have become adapted to eating other animals. Non-carnivorous animals have adapted to eating vegetable matter as food. Dietary adaptations more than anything else determine the features and characteristics of all creatures.

Humans Are Not an Exception

It is a basic premise of Natural Hygiene that humans, like all other creatures in nature are provided with all the materials and conditions required to maintain health. Species throughout nature intuitively restrict themselves to a limited variety of foods to which they are specifically adapted. We must conclude that humans are also intended to partake only of those foods to which we are physiologically adapted in order to live healthfully. Humans should be studied as a member of the whole biological community, and compared anatomically and physiologically with other species to ascertain our true dietary requirements. When considering the character of human anatomy and physiology relative to our natural diet we must do so within the context of nature, rather than in the artificial environment of modern life. In this way, we consider our natural foods as those that are consonant with our physiological faculties, rather than those that we have "acquired a taste for".

Determining Our Natural Diet is Not a Matter of Belief.

Tradition and popularity are the poorest ways to determine a proper diet. Recent changes in our external environment do not alter our biological adaptations, our internal makeup, or our natural needs in order to establish optimum well being. Biological adaptations have been spurred on by stress over eons of time and by the need to adapt. They are slow to develop requiring extremely long periods of time to evolve. Our highly industrialized environment involves more social adaptations or accommodations, and not physical or anatomical changes. By living according to our natural adaptations we can actually withstand the stress of modern life far better than if we transgress our biological needs.

The only authority you should rely on when it comes to determining what foods are best to eat is the human body. It is anatomy and physiology that decrees whether food is "acceptable" or "harmful". Determining our natural diet is not a matter of belief: its basis lies in scientific fact regarding our biological, biochemical, anatomical, and physiological features.
.
Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest

We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery, or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades, the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay, Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods, Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few. The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet, Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies.  Hello? Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and appointed members of government influenced by political contributions make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated.

Misleading, Deceitful Food Labeling and Deceptively Low RDA's

In a recent nationwide survey, just 9% polled had eaten at least three vegetable servings and two fruit servings the previous day. Even if the public did follow the USDA diet recommendations of the new food pyramid, their diet would still be inadequate in fresh produce needed for antioxidant protection. The new guidelines are too high in fat and protein, and too low in fiber and plant based nutrients. Plant based diets are loaded in phytochemicals, vitamins, mineral and fiber. On a diet centered on fresh produce for instance, 1,500 mg of vitamin C will be consumed daily, as well as additional bioflavonoids. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin C is 60 mg, ridiculously low, as are most RDA's of other plant-based nutrients. Low RDA's are maintained so processed food products do not appear as deficient as they actually are. Most commercial nutritional information and food labeling is similarly misleading or outright deceptive. Processed food and fast food producers use portion size and weight to calculate information, presenting a lie to unsuspecting consumers. Is whole milk 4% fat, for example? Do the math. Milk contains 4 grams of fat per 100 grams of milk. But each 100 grams contains 70 calories. Milk carries 9 calories per gram of fat, so whole milk actually contains 50% of calories from fat (4 x 9/70). Even "low-fat" dairy products are high-fat foods. By manipulating "nutritional data" in terms of weight, fat content is camouflaged. The meat and fast food industry plays the same numbers game. McDonald's 91% fat free burger contains 45% of calories from fat. In spite of this misinformation however, forthright nutritional truths are now reaching the public since more people are looking for answers to their ills. The fact remains, if animal foods are the center of your diet its impossible to live in accord with the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding true human health. The establishment reinforces dietary errors that people prefer to make, and convinces the public that it doesn't matter what they eat. Any processed, denatured, fragmented, chemicalized "food" will meet the body's needs as long as we take vitamins, minerals, antacids, headache and allergy remedies, and other drugs (see: Junk Food Disguised as Health Food, and No Need For Supplements). The message conveyed to the public is: "it's OK to continue your present diet so long as you take supplements and pharmaceuticals". This lie is attractive, since its what people want to believe. Rather than nutritional deficiencies however, the vast majority of illness in the United States is the result of dietary excess of biologically improper foods. Americans ARE deficient in certain nutrients, but NOT because of lack of availability of whole natural foods. Deficiencies are caused by nutrient antagonists, and consuming a devitalized overly processed diet that we are not designed for in the first place. Nutrient antagonists rob the body of its vital nutrient reserves, and contribute to disease.
.
Scientific Nutrition vs. Commercial Nutrition

The first question in forming a scientific, rather than commercial approach to human nutrition is this: Of what biological disposition is the human organism? What is our natural food? Are we true carnivores who secure their nutrient needs not only from raw flesh, but also from raw blood, bones, gristle, and offal from the fresh raw kill? Are we true herbivores who thrive on lettuce, grasses, raw grains, celery, etc., as do horses, cows and sheep? Are we granivores like birds who thrive mostly on raw seeds of grasses and grains? Are we natural omnivores who *thrive* in health regardless of the foodstuffs consumed? Or are we frugivores who can thrive on a diet of raw fresh bananas, grapes, apples, oranges, or melons meal after meal?

The human digestive system and physiology determines our optimum diet. By understanding the physiological processes that accompany food digestion and absorption, proper dietary habits can be scientifically determined. The major physical processes of digestion are basically the same for all human beings regardless of race, culture and geographic location. These processes should be studied in relation to human health in order to develop an accurate science of our true nutritional and dietary needs. A wealth of information exists about the physiology of food digestion and absorption. Unfortunately, however, "modern" nutritional science has often depended upon experiments on rats and artificially induced deficiencies in erroneous attempts to determine human dietary needs. A more reasonable approach to ascertain our actual dietary nature is to study human anatomy and physiology. In this way, characteristics of our proper diet can be deduced that are in accordance with the inherent nature and anatomical makeup of humankind. This approach does not depend on contrived animal experiments, nor is it biased by commercial processed food interests (including the meat, dairy, grain, and junk food industries) who have dictated for decades our traditional diet. Profit is not the motive of this investigation: health is. Human physiological capabilities and biological pre-dispositions are the proper basis in determining our actual dietary requirements.

Cooked vs. Raw Food: What's the Difference?

Today's "nutritionists" are subservient to the "basic four food groups" and "food group pyramid" concepts as perpetuated by big industry in this country. According to these nutritionists, humans do not have a fixed diet as other animals in nature. Rather, we are omnivorous creatures that are supposed to partake of numerous cooked foods at virtually every meal in order to satisfy our nutritional requirements. Of the 80 millions species on earth, all thrive on raw fresh food. Only humans cook their food. Cooking equates to fire. Fire burns and destroys living tissue including nutrients, turning them into toxic substances. (For further detail see: The Magic of Fresh Produce). It is no coincidence that cancer, heart attacks, stroke, diabetes and chronic disease kill humans at half their potential life span. Species in nature live on average, seven times past their age of maturity. Humans mature in their late teens to early twenties. Do the math. The average life span in robust health for humans is actually well over 100-140 years when we live each day according to the Essentials of Health. Lethargic lifestyles and far too many toxic "empty" calories from food that we are not biologically adapted to, kills us at midlife.

Are We Natural Meat-Eaters or Are We Natural Vegetarians?
Sink Your Teeth into This!

Most "nutritionists" assert that we have definite carnivorous leanings, and some have even termed our incisor teeth "fangs" in defense of their erroneous position that humans are natural meat-eaters! If you look at the various species in the animal kingdom, each is equipped with teeth that are ideally suited to masticate a particular type of food. Herbivores (like the cow) have 24 molars, eight jagged incisors in the lower jaw and a horny palate in the upper jaw. Their jaws move vertically, laterally, forward, and backward, enabling the herbivore to tear and grind coarse grasses.

Omnivores (like the hog) can have tusk-like canines allowing them to dig up roots. >

wild boar

Frugivores (like the chimpanzee) have 32 teeth: sixteen in each jaw including four incisors, two cuspids, four bicuspids, and six molars. The cuspids are adapted for cracking nuts, and the uniform articulation of the teeth enables the frugivore to mash and grind fruits.

On the contrary, carnivores (like the cat family) have markedly developed canines that are long, sharp, cylindrical, pointed, and set apart from the other teeth. Fangs and sharp pointed teeth that penetrate and kill, that rip and tear flesh, are a feature of all true carnivores (except certain birds). The powerful jaws of the carnivore move only vertically, and are ideal for ripping and tearing flesh that is swallowed virtually whole and then acted upon by extremely potent gastric juices.

Human teeth are not designed for tearing flesh as in the lion, wolf or dog, but rather compare closely with other fruit-eating animals.

Human teeth correspond almost identically to the chimpanzees and other frugivores. The complete absence of spaces between human teeth characterizes us as the archetype frugivore. The "canine" teeth of humans are short, stout, and slightly triangular. They are less pronounced and developed than the orangutans, who rarely kills and eats raw flesh in its natural environment. Human canines  in no way resemble the long, round, slender canines of the true carnivore. Human teeth are not curved  or sharp like the wolves or tigers, nor are they wide and flat like the grass and grain-eating species.  Human teeth are actually like the fruit-eating monkeys, and the human mouth is best suited for eating  succulent fruits and vegetables.  It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the aid of fork and knife. To term our incisor teeth "fangs" or even to liken them as such is outrageous.
.
..
   ..              .....
                       Wolf                                                                                       Human

Comparative Anatomy

Natural carnivores have the inherent anatomical equipment provided as their birthright with which to apprehend, capture, kill, and rend their quarry. Dogs have powerful jaws that inflict fatal wounds to their prey. Humans however, have no sharp claws for tearing; no sharply pointed fangs for slashing; nor are our eyes or olfactory senses well developed for hunting. Nor is the human body designed to run fast enough to capture prey. Humans cannot grab animals in their mouth as do dogs, coyotes, wolves, jackals, lions, tigers, or cats. We instead inflict more damage with our hands and brute strength. Humans do however, have marvelous fingers, thumbs, and limbs for reaching, climbing and grabbing. Our natural food gathering capacity is very similar to the chimpanzees. Fruitarians of the primate order also have revolving joints in their shoulder, wrist, and elbow joints that allow for free movement in all directions. Frugivores have soft pliable, sensitive hands and fingers with opposable thumbs and flat nails that are perfect for grasping and gathering fruit.
.
.
.......... ........................ 
                     Tiger                                                       .....          ..                   Human

Regarding the extremities of the other species, herbivores possess hooves allowing them to walk easily about grassy plains, and carnivores possess sharp claws allowing them to violently attack their prey. Tree-dwellers and fruit-gatherers also have stereoscopic binocular vision that makes vision precise enough to ascertain the position of tree limbs and objects.

Another anatomical comparison among species in the animal kingdom involves the structure of the skin. All vegetarian animals have abundant sweat glands. In carnivores, their sweat glands are atrophied and inactive. They are exempt from profuse sweating in order to prevent a large fluid loss that would cause concentrated precipitation of nitrogenous wastes (from flesh-eating). This explains why meat-eaters suffer in hot weather while vegetarians remain relatively comfortable.

Comparative Digestive Physiology

Among the various species throughout nature, the length of their particular alimentary canals also differs greatly in relation to their natural food. The gut of the carnivore is 3-6 times the length of their body. They require a short, smooth, fast-acting gut since their natural flesh diet becomes quite toxic and cannot be retained within the intestine for long without poisonous putrefaction taking place. The gut of the herbivore is sacculated for greater surface area, and is 30 times the length of their body. Its herb and grass diet is coarse and fibrous, requiring longer digestion to break down cellulose. The length of the omnivore's alimentary canal is generally 6 times its body trunk size. The gut of the frugivore (like humans) is also sacculated and is 12 times the length of its body. The length of the adult human alimentary canal is about 30 feet. The human digestive tract is about four times as long as the carnivores. The intestine of the carnivore is short and smooth in order to dissolve food rapidly and pass it quickly out of the system prior to the flesh putrefying. The human digestive tract is corrugated for the specific purpose of retaining food as long as possible until all nutriment has been extracted, which is the worst possible condition for the digestion and processing of flesh foods. Meat moves quickly through the carnivore's digestive tract and is quickly expelled. The human lengthy intestine cannot handle low-fiber foods including meat and dairy very quickly at all. As a consequence, animal foods decrease the motility of the human intestine and putrefaction almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by foul smelling stools and flatulence), resulting in the release of many poisonous by-products as the low-fiber food passes through, ever so slowly. In humans, eventual constipation may develop on a meat-centered diet. Colon cancer is also common, both of which are rare or non-existent on a high-fiber diet centered around raw fruits and vegetables.

Stomach This!

Stomach form and size among various species also vary markedly. In the carnivore the stomach is a small, round sack designed to dissolve flesh quickly and then pass it on for removal.  In plant eaters (particularly ruminants) stomachs are complicated adjoining sacks with ring-like convolutions. The frugivore stomach (including in humans) is oblong and is characterized by folds called rugae which serve to retain food for relatively long periods.

Organ sizes of various species also markedly vary. The liver and kidneys in the carnivore are much larger than in vegetarian animals. A lions kidney is twice the size of a bulls, and not much smaller than the elephants. This allows the lion to handle large amounts of protein and nitrogenous waste products contained in its natural flesh diet. The carnivores huge liver secretes larger amounts of bile into the small intestine than does the herbivores liver. There is a direct relation between the quantity of meat eaten and the amount of bile secreted. Meat-eating therefore, places a strain on the small liver of humans which impairs the organ's function over a long period of time.

When you place humans on a diet for which they are NOT naturally adapted, this places unnatural stress on the organs of elimination. Humans have never adapted to the carnivorous diet that is high in animal products. The human liver is smaller than the carnivores and as a result, we cannot detoxify the poisonous products inherent within animal foods such as uric acid (discussed below). Our kidneys are also smaller and become diseased from overwork caused by a diet high in animal protein.

Comparative Digestive Enzymes

The hydrochloric acid concentrations of various species are an additional determinant of their natural diet. A carnivores gastric juice is highly acidic, serving to prevent putrefaction while flesh undergoes digestion. Plant-eaters however, secrete a much less concentrated and less abundant quantity of hydrochloric acid that does not curtail the bacterial decomposition of flesh: a process that begins at the animals moment of death. Flesh is digested in an acid medium within the stomach. Humans secrete a very weak concentration of hydrochloric acid relative to the carnivore, and little of the protein-splitting enzyme pepsinogen. Carnivorous animals have concentrations of these flesh-digesting secretions 1100% greater than do humans. Lions can rip off and swallow your hand whole and quite readily digest it.

Uric Acid: Toxic Component of Meat to Humans

About 5% of the flesh volume of all animals consists of waste material called uric acid that is normally eliminated by the kidneys. Uric acid is a poison to humans because it is toxic and non-metabolizable. Nearly 100% of Americans suffer some form of osteoporosis which is due in large part, to the acidic end-products of meat (and grain) eating. All carnivorous animals however, secrete the enzyme uricase that breaks down uric acid so it can be readily eliminated. Humans do not generate this enzyme. Instead, we ABSORB uric acid when meat is eaten. As a result, calcium-urate crystals form and concentrate in joints, feet, and in the lower back. These deposits lead to arthritis, gout, rheumatism, bursitis, and lower back pain. Humans are physiologically unsuited to utilizing meat as food. Natural carnivores swallow hunks of carrion almost unchewed, and the flesh is digested in the stomach with ease and facility. If humans were to do the same, we would digest very little of it before putrefaction set in and illness ensued. For humans, meat is a pathogenic and nutritionally deficient food.

Saliva pH Varies Widely Among Species

The saliva pH of various species is another determinant of their natural diet.  In carnivores, their saliva glands are small and secrete an acid saliva having little or no effect on starch, which makes sense since flesh is virtually starch-free. Omnivores (like pigs) have tremendous salivary glands that secrete copious quantities of starch-splitting enzymes. Humans only have one starch-splitting enzyme, versus a multitude of them in omnivores and other natural starch-eating animals. Our ptyalin is very limited. This rules us out as being true granivores (starch-eaters) which includes grains and cereals. Frugivores have salivary glands that secrete alkaline saliva, containing only moderate amounts of ptyalin, which initiates starch digestion. This tells us that humans and other frugivores can easily digest the small amount of starch contained in fresh fruits, nuts, and leafy greens, and that humans are not intended to subsist on a diet of highly starchy grain foods as many currently do.  (Diabetes mellitus is largely the result of consuming large amounts of refined sugars and starches. Even eating predominantly of whole grains and natural legumes as dietary staples can be injurious because of the need for excessive starch digestion).

Beef: It's Not What's For Dinner

In summary, meat is not a suitable item of diet for humans for the following physiological reasons:
1. Flesh eating animals have a short intestine and bowel enabling them to rapidly expel the putrefactive flesh, while humans have a long, complicated alimentary canal which enables plant nutrients to be slowly absorbed and assimilated; 2. Flesh eaters have a different type of intestinal bacterial flora than non-meat eaters (including humans); 3. Flesh eaters have long sharp teeth, whereas humans have the teeth of frugivores; 4. Humans can grind their jaw, but flesh-eaters cannot: their jaws move vertically only; 5. Humans sweat through their skin (as do other non meat-eaters such as horses, cows, monkeys, antelopes etc.) whereas flesh-eaters sweat through their tongues; 6. Humans suck their liquids, whereas carnivores lap their liquids; 7. Human saliva contains ptyalin (to commence starch digestion), whereas flesh-eaters have no ptyalin; 8. Flesh-eaters secrete 10 times the quantity of hydrochloric acid in to the stomach than does a human (at a concentration much greater as well). This enables carnivores to cope with ingested bone, flesh, feathers, sinews, etc. True meat-eaters take nourishment from practically the whole prey not just muscle and selected organ meat as do humans; 9. Carnivores have large livers to aid in detoxifying the blood, and to generate massive bile secretion, but humans have a comparatively small liver; 10. Carnivores generate the enzyme uricase to metabolize uric acid, a naturally occurring waste product in meat. Humans do not generate nor metabolize uricase. As a result, uric acid is absorbed, which leads to age-related disease. When humans started eating meat they did not over a period of thousands of years, develop fangs, claws, the ability to secrete uricase, or the concentrated hydrochloric acid solution which characterizes true carnivores. You need but examine the Eskimos who, perhaps, have eaten meat the longest to confirm this. Species adapt very slowly to changed environmental conditions. According to a continuous dietary study of 6,500 Chinese (see: The China Study) that began in 1983, nutritional biochemist T. Colin Campbell of Cornell University who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that humans are still a vegetarian species, and that only in the last few thousand years have meat and animal products become staples of the western diet. According to Dr. Campbell, "That's not nearly enough time to evolve new mechanisms to give us protection from these kinds of foods".

Psyched Out Yet?

Even psychologically, we are not true carnivores. Natural meat-eaters stalk and pounce their prey after overtaking it with blinding bursts of speed. Carnivorous animals sink their fangs deeply into its flesh, crushing and killing it. The dead bloody prey is then ripped to shreds, the gory chunks swallowed with little mastication. Humans are not natural killers and do not psychologically savor these images, nor can they relish eating raw the animals blood, guts, bones, and organs. Humans instead cook their meat, which literally means they are eating burnt dead flesh because fire actually destroys living tissue. (For detail see: The Magic of Fresh Produce). Cooked meat has no relation to live food or to the living flesh of a freshly slaughtered animal. Live plants however, retain their form when picked for many days after. When they wilt, we do not eat them. Our mental disposition matches our true dietary disposition. Our aesthetic standards attribute beauty to colorful fruit and shady trees, not to bleeding, dying animals. Contrary to acquired perversions we do not naturally enjoy eating dead animals, bloody flesh, live insects, or raw woody grasses (grains).  We savor fruit. In ascertaining our natural dietary equipment, you must envision us in a state of nature (rather than skyscrapers, freeways, and burger stands) where we once functioned totally with our natural provisions to acquire and eat foods. Stoves, microwaves, toasters, pots and pans were not furnished at birth as part of our natural equipment.

Are We Natural Vegetarians?

The biological equipment of humans is such that the body is most capable of obtaining complete and optimal nutrition from plant foods. Actually however, we are NOT true vegetarians either. Many natural herbivores (horses, cows, sheep, etc.) that subsist on green leaves and grasses (ruminants) have four stomachs containing special enzymes including cellulase that can digest the carbohydrate cellulose, which is totally undigestible by humans. Leafy greens that make-up your salad are actually high calorie foods. Yet salad is a diet food that aids in weight loss. Most of the calories of vegetables are bound within cellulose, whose fuel value is largely unobtainable to our system (except for extremely valuable mineral matter from which our body does derive great benefit). True herbivores however, are fully capable of attaining energy from herbs and grasses since they secrete the enzyme cellulase, which breaks down and liberates the energy within the sugar molecule cellulose. Unlike purely natural vegetarians in nature then, the human stomach can not process large amounts of cellulose. Man cannot regurgitate and re chew his food as does the cow. Nor can the human stomach efficiently digest a mixture of all different types of foods as do true omnivores. Though nearly anything can be put into the human stomach and virtually has, our physiology is such that only foods that we are biologically adapted to can effectively be digested when eaten in compatible combinations according to the natural limitations of digestive chemistry (see: Food Combining).

Science Verifies That Humans' Ancestors Were Frugivores

Recent research by anthropologists shows that we had an arboreal past. Our genetic ancestors were once tree dwellers. At that time, our genetic ancestors depended upon products of the tree, and later upon the fruits of stalk and vine for our sustenance. Dr. Alan Walker, an anthropologist of John Hopkins University in Maryland, has done research showing that early humans were once exclusively fruit eaters. By careful examination of fossil teeth and fossilized human remains with electron microscopes and other sophisticated tools, Dr. Walker and his colleagues are absolutely certain that early humans until relatively recently, were total fruitarians. These findings were reported in depth in the May 15, 1979 issue of the New York Times.

The essence of Walker's research is that even though humans have adopted omnivorous and carnivorous eating practices, our anatomy and physiology have not changed. We remain biologically a species of fruit eaters. The human digestive system has been adapted to a diet of fruits and vegetables for more than 60 million years of development. A few thousand years of aberrant eating will not change our dietary requirements for optimum health. The position that humans occupy in the animal kingdom is that of the Primate order, which means that, from the point of view of anthropology, our closest animal relatives are the anthropoid apes (anthropoid means "resembling man" or "man-like"). This species includes gorillas, monkeys and chimps all of whom are classified as frugivores. From the perspective of physiology, our human biology and digestion most closely resemble our closest cousin in the animal kingdom, the orangutan. Even our DNA genetic material is well over 95% identical. Humans developed on fruits just as simians and other primates in nature. In consequence, some anthropologists and biologists have classified humans as frugivores.

Scientists Confirm Our Biological Adaptations

"For millions of years our ancestors evolved on diets of plants and very lean wild game" says S. Boyd Eaton, M.D. author of The Paleolithic Prescription, and adjunct associate professor of anthropology at Emery University in Atlanta.

"Our ancestors also consumed three or more times the amount of plant foods we do, about nine daily servings of fruits and vegetables versus the average American of three or four" says Susan Krebs-Smith, Ph.D., research nutritionist at the National Cancer Institute in Bethusda Maryland. Dennis Burkitt M.D. world renowned researcher on human nutrition, explains that western diets have changed more through the processed food industry over the last few generations, than through the entire history of mankind.

".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000 years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .."- The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34 Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts of  fat in arctic mammals.  From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the interglacials.  http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/naturalhistory/devensian.htm "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such times" (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lope Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions:Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270    New book further supports controversial theory of 'Man the Hunted' August 20, 2008 Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution. Credit: Robert W. Sussman Despite popular theories to the contrary, early humans evolved not as aggressive hunters, but as prey of many predators. "Humans are no more born to be hunters than to be gardeners," argues Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, in the newly-updated version of the controversial book "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution." The soft cover book, released in July by Westview Press, includes a new chapter aimed at quieting critics and responding to new evidence that has appeared since the book's original publication in 2005. In the original volume, Sussman poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man. The book won the 2006 W.W. Howells Award for the best book in biological anthropology written for a wide audience. Both versions are co-authored by Donna L. Hart, Ph.D., a member of the faculty of Pierre Laclede Honors College and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The controversial ideas proposed by the original "Man the Hunted" raised many eyebrows in the academic community and beyond. "We wrote this update to answer some of the criticisms and to provide more evidence for our view of early man as prey," Sussman says. The book's new chapter addresses such topics as evidence of additional predators found in the fossil record since the first book's publication, evidence of predation by eagles, cannibalism, cut and tooth marks, scavenging and cooperation. "One major alternative theory that has gained more attention since we wrote the original book is that early man was not a hunter, but was a scavenger instead," Sussman says. "We have found that while early man may have done some scavenging, it was opportunistic. Very little of early human's diet came from meat." Sussman and Hart argue that early man did not have the capacity to detoxify rotting meat nor the ability to chase off competing animal scavengers. "Not one of the more than 250 living primate species is a scavenger," says Sussman. "They are not scavengers because they avoid decomposing food." Sussman and Hart also address the topic of cannibalism, which they claim is "beyond rare," and atypical, strange human behavior. "It just hardly ever happens," Sussman says. The philosophical question of how a new scientific paradigm gets accepted is also discussed. "Once a paradigm becomes established within a scientific community, most practitioners become technicians working within the parameters of the theory but rarely questioning the validity of the theory itself," Sussman writes.  Changing the currently popular Man the Hunter theory is difficult for that reason. Though Sussman realizes there will still be critics of the Man the Hunted theory, he believes the book's new version will help to quiet some of that. Early man may have hunted, but was not a hunter. He may have scavenged, but was not a scavenger. Humans evolved mainly as a plant-eating species that ate some animal protein collected opportunistically, Sussman and Hart claim. "We are not saying that our theory is absolutely correct and will never be disproven," he says "But we are saying that the evidence we have today best fits the theory of Man the Hunted than of Man the Hunter." Background on the original 'Man the Hunted. ' Sussman's book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution," poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man. He co-authored the book with Donna L. Hart, Ph.D., a member of the faculty of Pierre Laclede Honors College and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The book is scheduled to be released in late February. Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart the predator, says Sussman. Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes, which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago, many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were hunters and possessed a killer instinct. Through his research and writing, Sussman has worked for years to debunk that theory. An expert in the ecology and social structure of primates, Sussman does extensive fieldwork in primate behavior and ecology in Costa Rica, Guyana, Madagascar and Mauritius. He is the author and editor of several books, including "The Origins and Nature of Sociality," "Primate Ecology and Social Structure," and "The Biological Basis of Human Behavior: A Critical Review." The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, who served as past editor of American Anthropologist and is currently editor of the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case." And examine the evidence they did. Sussman and Hart's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory. We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls, bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them." Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied, Sussman and Hart decided to focus their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half million years ago and is one of the better known early human species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the fossil record. "Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5 feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters. But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?" It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible. Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says. "Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species," adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators," Sussman argues. The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors. Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs." Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well. Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman. "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact, all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living. In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to being preyed upon."   Source: Washington University in St. Louis http://www.physorg.com/news138462747.html         . . . . . . . . . . . . .   . 'In summary it appears that underground roots and tubers would make an important nutritional addition to the diet of Australopithecus, who might have been able to live exclusively on roots and tubers during short periods of above-ground food scarcity. Furthermore, the dental and microwear patterns exhibited by Australopithecus are compatible with the additions of roots to a chimpanzee-like diet (Hatley and Kappelman, 1980; Grine and Kay, 1988). They would not have needed additional protein supplement to top-up their protein intake to safe levels. In addition, the lower fiber values would improve the quality of their diet. This does not imply that a need to decrease fiber in the diet was a driving force in the evolution of the hominid diet. ...' http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html   Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts Patrick Pasquet Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France Claude-Marcel Hladik Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, France .. Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift. ... The adaptive biological significance of meat eating was summarized by Milton (1999),who came to the conclusion that "the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution", otherwise the arid and seasonal environment likely to have been the cradle of hominids would not have provided enough protein. The link between a high quality diet (including animal matter) and the enlargement of the brain (characterizing hominization) has been highlighted by several authors (Martin, 1983; Foley and Lee, 1991; Leonard and Robertson, 1997).   In their most quoted paper, the argument of Aiello and Wheeler (1995) supports this view, proposing the "expensive-tissue hypothesis", related to the evolutionary forces implied in the increase of hominid brain size. They focus on the shift to a high-quality diet and corresponding gut adaptation. A reduced intestinal mass would considerably lower the relative energy cost and permit disposal of sufficient energy to cover the extra-expenditure of a larger brain. The main point of Aiello and Wheeler is based on the relationship between body mass and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the Kleiber line characterizing the relationship between BMR and body size is identical for all mammals, including humans. Since maintenance of gut tissue is as expensive as that of brain tissue, Aiello and Wheeler proposed that gut reduction compensated for brain increase.   Henneberg et al. (1998), following this point of view, developed further arguments on the role of meat eating in human evolution. For these authors, the "quantitative similarity of human gut morphology to guts of carnivorous mammals" is a strong argument for a human status of "well evolved meat eater". In fact, one should ask if there is actual evidence of human gut adaptation to meat eating in the past that would have permitted a characteristic swing towards carnivorousness. ... Thus, in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999).  ..   Returning to the issue of relating increase in brain size to dietary adaptation, there is obviously no direct relationship. Similarly, Martin (1983) in his allometric analysis of the evolution of the mammal brain identified four separate "grades" of relative brain size (Fig. 2) characterized by the slope of the major axis of the relationship between cranial capacity and body weight.   Fig.2 Allometric relationships between cranial capacity and body weight in different categories of primates and insectivorous mammals  SOURCE: R. D. Martin, 1983.   Since each of these "grades" includes species with different diets (folivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous), there is no clear-cut relationship between brain size and dietary adaptation. It is thus likely that a compensatory energetic reduction that allows the functioning of the large brain of Homo (with respect to Kleiber's law) may affect all body parts, rather than being exclusively focused on gut tissue.   DISCUSSION: DIET AND HOMINIZATION   Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves, or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various categories of food items available in different habitats throughout the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).   Considering the unspecialised frugivorous-type human gut anatomy, the dietary history of the genus Homo is likely to display a wide range of variation. During various historical periods, depending on availability and the nutrient content of food resources, our human ancestors would mostly have consumed either vegetable or animal matter (Isaac et al., 1981; Gordon, 1987; Couplan, 1997). The present consensual picture of our past feeding behaviour includes three major phases: (1) After the late Miocene climate shift, hominid feeding behaviour in changing environments progressively shifted from a mainly vegetarian diet to a diet including more and more animal matter, either from hunting and/or from scavenging; (2) the hunter- gatherer way of life and the resulting diet characterized the mid-Pleistocene period, but in the late Pleistocene, during the ice-ages, hominids had to specialize in large game; (3) these successive phases, as described by Gordon (1987), were followed by progressive control of animal and vegetable resources through domestication and cultivation, allowing some human groups to eat more vegetable matter than during previous periods.   'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton Jones N.G.4 Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43, Number 6, December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42) Abstract: Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has been disputed on two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations on modern foragers show that although hunting may contribute a large fraction of the overall diet, it is an unreliable day-to-day food source, pursued more for status than subsistence; (2) archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, not hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields results consistent with these critiques: (1) early humans acquired large-bodied ungulates primarily by aggressive scavenging, not hunting; (2) meat was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not at home bases, as the hunting hypothesis requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of completeness, making meat from big game an even less reliable food source than it is among modern foragers. Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large carcasses were taken not for purposes of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male displays. Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology indicates, its consumption cannot account for the significant changes in life history now seen to distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. The coincidence between the earliest dates for Homo ergaster and an increase in the archaeological visibility of meat eating that many find so provocative instead reflects: (1) changes in the structure of the environment that concentrated scavenging opportunities in space, making evidence of their pursuit more obvious to archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size (itself a consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at interference competition. .. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00604   Meat was consumed, but it is unlikely that animal flesh (especially lean meat) was a staple for long periods. As highlighted by Speth (1989, 1991), fat and fatty meat provide energy for meat eaters, and lean meat can rapidly become unhealthy if used as an only food. During "lean periods", meat must be complemented with vegetable matter as an energy source, especially to provide the necessary energy for reproduction.   The high quality foods needed to provide enough energy for the incipient hominids could have been drawn from alternative sources rather than the fat meat of large game. Wrangham et al. (1999) have provided a new and very exciting hypothesis on the possible process of hominization, made possible by the early use of fire for cooking. As far back as 1.9 My (Plio-Pleistocene), the first Homo Erectus tended towards a large body (and brain size), for both sexes, with a reduction of teeth. This was possible by (and likely to be selected for) a shift to a high caloric diet that did not require much mastication. Either a cooked fatty meat or a cooked wild tuber may have provided this type of diet.  Cooking in embers considerably improves the taste and texture of both kinds of food and may explain why it could have been rapidly adopted by hominids able to master the technique of fire (with brain increase obviously related to technical skills). However, the best efficiency for obtaining calories would be with cooked starchy tubers (50% more energy from starch after cooking). Furthermore, most wild yam species are non-toxic and available in large quantities throughout African forests and savannas (A. Hladik and Dounias, 1993). Although clearly identified long- lasting hearth locations have never been found by archaeologists before the mid-Pleistocene, the evidence of early utilisation of fire based on charcoal residue fragments mentioned by Wrangham et al. would be quite a convincing argument for anyone who has recently visited an abandoned Pygmy forest settlement, and searched for tiny pieces of charcoal. After a few months, no obvious trace of a hearth is visible, although meat and tubers,wrapped in large leaves, have been cooked in the embers by the Pygmies.   Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted adaptation to various diets. Taking into account the allometric factors in the comparative study of primate gut anatomy, there is no evidence to support theories such as a change in gut anatomy that allowed carnivorousness and a simultaneous increase in brain size. Alternatively, the early cooking of gathered foods - and the nutritional, behavioural and social consequences of this pattern - could have been a major milestone in the hominization process.   http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf     'At Klasies River, traces of burned vegetation suggest that the ancient hunter-gatherers may have figured out that by clearing land, they could encourage quicker growth of edible roots and tubers.  . ..' http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/human-migration.html?c=y&page=3     'Multiple lines of evidence now indicate that the ability to digest large quantities of starch may have been a crucial adaptation in human evolution -- providing the calories needed to grow large, cognitively-sophisticated brains capable of complex language and social cooperation. This idea is a serious departure from the leading hypothesis that carnivory (via hunting) was the dietary shift needed to support large brains in early humans.   The breakthrough study, lead by George Perry of Arizona State University and Nathaniel Dominy of UC Santa Cruz http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n10/abs/ng2123.html , first demonstrates that individuals with more copies of the AMY1 gene tend to have higher levels of amylase in their saliva. The researchers then sampled a suite of high- and low-starch populations spanning cultures world-wide-- Hadza hunter-gathers who survive primarily on roots and tubers, and two agricultural populations (Japanese and European Americans) comprised the high-starch sample. Low-starch populations, of which there are considerably few, included rainforest hunter-gatherers (Biaka and Mbuti) and pastoralists (Datog and Yakut). In line with expectations, mean AMY1 copy number was greater in the high-starch compared to low-starch populations.   Notably, there was no geographic pattern in AMY1 copy number to suggest that populations closer to one another have more similar AMY1 copy numbers than populations that are further apart-- this pattern would be expected if variation in AMY1 is driven largely by neutral genetic changes (genetic drift). Instead, the results suggest that variation in AMY1 is related to ecological adaptations in diet. Perry and Dominy hypothesize that natural selection is driving differences in AMY1 copy number. Their results do provide some compelling evidence for natural selection at the AMY1 locus, but the authors cautiously note that the jury is still out on this question-- pending additional data of course.   Shedding some light on the evolutionary history of AMY1, Perry and Dominy also looked at AMY1 variation in chimps and bonobos, our close genetic relatives. Their primary diet-- ripe fruit-- contains very little starch, leading the researchers to predict low numbers of AMY1 in these apes. Indeed, the data indicate that chimps and bonobos have, at most, 2 functional copies of AMY1. The researchers report that humans have 3 times more AMY1 copies compared to chimps, on average-- and bonobos may not have any functional AMY1 copies at all. These findings support the conclusion that elevated AMY1 copy numbers arose in the human lineage, not before it.   If this doesn't convince you, Dominy and colleagues have also found evidence that Homo erectus, an early human progenitor, specialized on eating high-starch corms and tubers. In this sister study, Dominy used stable isotope analysis, a common method to assess diet composition. In a nutshell, the stable isotope signatures of consumers will resemble the stable isotope signatures of their food sources-- after some corrections for fractionation. As it turns out, Homo erectus has a stable isotope signature that is consistent with a high-starch diet, and decidedly not consistent with a carnivorous one.   All of these lines of evidence suggest that having many copies of AMY1 is likely to have evolved early in the human lineage-- indeed it may have been critical to launching humans on our own immensely successful, starch-filled, evolutionary path.   http://thexvials.blogspot.com/     'A corm is a short, vertical, swollen underground plant stem that serves as a storage organ used by some plants to survive winter or other adverse conditions such as summer drought and heat (estivation). .. Internally a corm is mostly made of starch-containing parenchyma cells above a circular basal node that grows roots.   Taro corms for sale in a Reunion market .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corm   'Taro (from Tahitian or other Polynesian languages), more rarely kalo (from Hawaiian) and gabi in The Philippines, is a tropical plant grown primarily as a vegetable food for its edible corm, and secondarily as a leaf vegetable. It is considered a staple in oceanic cultures. It is believed to be one of the earliest cultivated plants.[1]   Taro was probably first native to the lowland wetlands of Malaysia (taloes). Estimates are that taro was in cultivation in wet tropical India before 5000 B.C., presumably coming from Malaysia, and from India further transported westward to ancient Egypt, where it was described by Greek and Roman historians as an important crop. .. In Kenya, taro root is referred to as arrow root, or by the Kikuyu or Kamba word nduma. In South Africa, it referred to by the Zulu word amaDumbe[5] or the anglicised madumbi[6]. In some Caribbean countries, it is sometimes known as dasheen, a name said to be derived from the French de Chine which means from China and evokes the plant's Asian origins. The leaves are used to make a soup popular in the West Indies, called kallaloo soup. In Cyprus it is known as kolokassi, which is similar to the name the Romans used: colocasia. Taro is also known as dalo In the Fijian Islands and in Japan as satoimo. Eddoe is another name for taro, although this one seems to be preferentially used to designate small corm varieties. ..' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taro

Genetically and structurally, modern man's body is the same as early man, yet what we eat is radically different. In modern society, suffering from preventable illness and chronic disease is considered the "norm". Half of all westerners die from totally avoidable heart disease, and the majority of the remainder die of cancer. Humans are not designed for processed or high-protein foods. Our ancestors consumed a much wider variety of natural plant foods than we do, some 50,000 to 100,000 edible plants, of which only 600 have been cultivated by modern agriculture. Despite the absence of dairy products, osteoporosis was rare in pre-agricultural humans primarily because of dark green leafy vegetables in their diet that supplied about 1,900 milligrams of calcium, versus just 600 milligrams that most women consume today. In addition, three times the vitamin B-12 was consumed by our ancestors, two times more folic acid, eight times more vitamin C, five times more fiber, and a whopping 10 grams of beta carotene daily, versus just one or two milligrams consumed today. Learn to eat and live in balance with your evolutionary make-up. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the body to adapt to even small modifications in the environment. Despite drastic changes in culture, food and lifestyle, our biochemistry and physiology are still fine-tuned to diets and activity levels that existed over 100,000 years ago.

Comparing the 500 generations since agriculture and farming has developed, to the 10 generations since the Industrial Age and the single generation since computers, there have been major changes in how we live and eat in a very short period of time. Today, we are still genetically programmed to thrive on a diet of nuts, seeds, fruits and vegetables. Instead, we subsist on a diet of fat, sugar and low fiber foods alien to our body. We consume a fraction of the antioxidants, calcium, iron and other minerals our ancestors ate everyday. Its no wonder we experience epidemic rates of heart disease, osteoporosis, cancer and diabetes: all related to poor nutrition and inadequate physical activity. Humans are equipped with identical digestive apparatus as the great apes. We are not well equipped to handle concentrated fats and proteins. Monkeys in captivity decline in health on high protein diets, and improve physically and emotionally when their natural fresh produce carbohydrate diet is resumed. We are designed like other large primates to consume low amounts of protein. Oddly, many anthropologists still classify humans as an omnivore, meaning an "everything eater" like pigs, hogs, and the scavengers. Humans indeed do eat everything. But if we compare the human anatomy and digestive system to the primates who are natural frugivores, we find they are virtually identical: the intestines are both 12 times the length of the body trunk; the large intestine (colon) is convoluted, slowing the passage of food; the teeth of both man and the primates are the same; saliva is alkaline; and our skin has pores to aid in the elimination of wastes. Our human structure attests that we are frugivores, as confirmed by the functions of the human body. Every alimentary function is geared to our fruitarian dietary. Specifically, the biological, biochemical, anatomical, and physiological features of humans place us in the class of frugivore as indicated by: our dental formula and structure of our teeth, the length and structure of our digestive system, the relative size of our liver and kidneys, the bio-chemistry of our saliva and other digestive secretions, the function of our skin, the number and position of the mammary glands, the position of our eyes, the function of our sweat pores, the character of our hands and nails, the position of our reproductive organs, the character of the human placenta, and our method of physical transportation. Only man has the intelligence to plant and harvest. Regarding food, man is most adept at gardening and being a caretaker of plants and orchards. All of these factors define our biological heritage as an archetype frugivore.

Vegan Organic Network

http://www.veganorganic.net/