What do some of our closest ansestors eat...

[RAINRA]

Whmm no McDonalds burger in their hands that is for sure... Whmm where does the gorilla get his protein....

DOCUMENTARY ON SILVER BACK GORILLAS 98.6% like humans.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/82014/explore-gorillas-986-human

 

Funny thing is animals are selective when they choose their food. I was looking my two friends the guinea pigs and if I drop several veggies in their home they actually figure out if they like that or they liked what they were eating before...

[Zack]

Comparing humans to gorilla's for dietary purposes is a bit asinine..Chimps is a bit more reasonable.

[RAINRA]

Is it? I don't think so. They are very very close genetically. I think people are so detached from nature that they try to justify their processed foods as what humans should eat... Check it greens are what keep us healthy. If you think that is bogus prove it to me that greens are not suppose to be the majority of the diet. Everyone knows you must have plants for food. Not your vegan burger. On a seperate case my sis even went to a board certified nutritonist who recommended her plate be at least 70% greens. Her symptoms cleared up. She got off it after she finished her sessions and here skin issues came back. I live for nutrition I find it fascinating. All the evidence I read leads back to eating more greens. Can we eat other things ... well of course but what is optimal? Greens are alkaline.... there are not to many other foods out there that are really as alkaline for supporting healthy immune system, bones and preventing degenerative diseases.

 

We eat a variety of foods but eating greens is the key to optimal health. Are we gorrilas... well of course not but how similar are we to them 98.6 percent. You believe that nature intended for us to be almost exactly like gorrillas but we were instead suppose to chow down a big bowl of spaghetti... I am tellin you yeah chimps are similar as well I agree with you there.

Edited July 30, 2009 by RAINRA

[Zack]

Is it? I don't think so. They are very very close genetically. I think people are so detached from nature that they try to justify their processed foods as what humans should eat... come on now. Check it greens are what keep us healthy. If you think that is bogus prove it to me that greens are not suppose to be the majority of the diet. Everyone knows you must have plants for food. Not your vegan burger. On a seperate case my sis even went to a board certified nutritonist who recommended her plate be at least 70% greens. Her symptoms cleared up. She got off it after she finished her sessions and here skin issues came back. I live for nutrition I find it fascinating. All the evidence I read leads back to eating more greens. Can we eat other things ... well of course but what is optimal? Greens are alkaline.... there are not to many other foods out there that are really as alkaline for supporting healthy immune system, bones and degenerative diseases.

 

We eat a variety of foods but eating greens is the key to optimal health. Are we gorrilas... well of course not but how similar are we to them 98.6 percent. You believe that nature intended for us to be almost exactly like gorrillas but we were instead suppose to chow down a big bowl of spaghetti... I am tellin you yeah chimps are similar as well I agree with you there.

 

 

Gorillas can digest cellulose. Humans cannot. A diet of greens is actually viable if you can, but as we cannot, doesn't really work out too well.

[RAINRA]

cellulose is still hard for gorillas to digest that is why they eat a lot of it. Still the human body is able to absorb nutrients from greens. And Cellulose plant cell walls is fiber.

 

herbivorous animals that do not ruminate (re-chew their food as part of the digestive process) rely solely on the microbes (microscopic bacteria) living in their colon. The bacteria function to breakdown the indigestible plant cellulose and turn it into valuable digestible carbohydrates through the fermentation process.

 

some sources to explain why greens are good for you and how yes we do digest nutrients.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=38

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/foods/cruciferous/

http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=377:cruciferous-vegetables&catid=75:healthy-eating&Itemid=123

Edited July 30, 2009 by RAINRA

[Zack]

cellulose is still hard for gorillas to digest that is why they eat a lot of it. Still the human body is able to absorb nutrients from greens.

 

herbivorous animals that do not ruminate (re-chew their food as part of the digestive process) rely solely on the microbes (microscopic bacteria) living in their colon. The bacteria function to breakdown the indigestible plant cellulose and turn it into valuable digestible carbohydrates through the fermentation process.

 

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=38

 

Let's use your example and say 70% of our diet was made up of greens...Caloric intake for the day would be very low. I'm not denying the health benefits of greens, and I do agree that they are the best foods you can be eating, but it's not really possible to make it the majority of your diet. You're using kind of extreme examples too with the pasta and vegan burgers, I assume most people know that's not health food.

[RAINRA]

ok well I mean in more rational terms yes caloric value of just greens would not be enough if you ate a little. Gorrillas spend a good part of their day eating in which our society does not ..well I mean at the level gorillas do. They also eat much slower than us for the most part and spend good time resting and relaxing as seen in the video. I was just messing around when I used donut examples and vegan burger but that is what a good portion of the vegans out there consume. They are not so keen on eating good amounts of whole foods. I was suprised when I went to a vegan meet up and found to see how much pastries vegans were eating including pasta and noodles and white flower. I was like in complete shock. Here I was on VBB and seeing people talk about eating healthier and that was my impression of Veganism and then when I saw that food provided I was like no wonder people think vegans are unhealthy... All I am am saying is greens play a powerful role in our diet and I believe to no surprise. I will be honest I still don't know exaclty how we actually breakdown all the nutrients from plants but somehow between stomach acid, saliva, pancreatic enzymes, and bacteria maybe together it works symbiotically unlike in some animals it may just be the bacteria or re-chewing the food.

[Couture547]

Yep we're not made to eat that much greens, plus we'd have to eat all day to get are calorie needs, probably the reason we started cooked food (calorie dense)

[Vegan Joe]

Did I hear anyone say nuts and seeds? Which are in season much longer than greens.

[Couture547]

Did I hear anyone say nuts and seeds? Which are in season much longer than greens.

 

 

There in season about 2 months out of the year. All primates have a diet high in carbs, the only way that is happening for humans is either a ton of fruit or cooked starches

[Vegan Joe]

Did I hear anyone say nuts and seeds? Which are in season much longer than greens.

 

 

There in season about 2 months out of the year. All primates have a diet high in carbs, the only way that is happening for humans is either a ton of fruit or cooked starches

 

Nuts and seed are much more calorie dense than fruits, due to the fat content. and easier to collect and store, not to mention they store better. Cooking has little to due with caloric values.

[Couture547]

Did I hear anyone say nuts and seeds? Which are in season much longer than greens.

 

 

There in season about 2 months out of the year. All primates have a diet high in carbs, the only way that is happening for humans is either a ton of fruit or cooked starches

 

Nuts and seed are much more calorie dense than fruits, due to the fat content. and easier to collect and store, not to mention they store better. Cooking has little to due with caloric values.

 

 

I know and that is the issue with nuts and seeds, great in moderation but not good for a main calorie staple becasue it thoughs are ideal macro ratios out the window

[Vegan Joe]

I know and that is the issue with nuts and seeds, great in moderation but not good for a main calorie staple becasue it thoughs are ideal macro ratios out the window

I'm sure our ancestors had little issue with too much food over the 4 seasons, nor did macro ratios have any weight when it came to filling their bellies.

[Couture547]

I know and that is the issue with nuts and seeds, great in moderation but not good for a main calorie staple becasue it thoughs are ideal macro ratios out the window

I'm sure our ancestors had little issue with too much food over the 4 seasons, nor did macro ratios have any weight when it came to filling their bellies.

 

 

that's why they were eatting diets in High in carbs, it's the easiest to find and grow. you can grow potatoes on the side of a cliff pretty much. carbs are the most abundant macro nutrient there is. but yeah they didn't worry about a percent, they didn't even know what nutrition was but it just happened that way

[Vegan Joe]

that's why they were eatting diets in High in carbs, it's the easiest to find and grow. you can grow potatoes on the side of a cliff pretty much. carbs are the most abundant macro nutrient there is. but yeah they didn't worry about a percent, they didn't even know what nutrition was but it just happened that way

I don't think it worked out that way at all and many of our ancestors survived on poor nnutrient diets, as has been proven by examinations of ancestral bones, and the diseases of. once we moved out of the so called garden of Eden and experience different climate changes and different diets that became available health was a greater variable, as could probably be proved by the average age of our ancestors.

[Couture547]

that's why they were eatting diets in High in carbs, it's the easiest to find and grow. you can grow potatoes on the side of a cliff pretty much. carbs are the most abundant macro nutrient there is. but yeah they didn't worry about a percent, they didn't even know what nutrition was but it just happened that way

I don't think it worked out that way at all and many of our ancestors survived on poor nnutrient diets, as has been proven by examinations of ancestral bones, and the diseases of. once we moved out of the so called garden of Eden and experience different climate changes and different diets that became available health was a greater variable, as could probably be proved by the average age of our ancestors.

 

 

Are you refering to ancesters from 100,000 years ago? who knows what they did. i think it's better to look at what people have been doing more recently. what has worked and what hasn't. every culture has been on high carb/ moderate protein/ mod fat pretty much without exception except like the eskimos who are obese and have a short life ex. they are allso used to this diet with generation after generation doing it not something we can't say about most of are ancesters

[Vegan Joe]

except like the eskimos who are obese and have a short life ex.

 

I take exception to your misinformation about Eskimos. Obese Eskimos might be more akin to the present, with the influx of the western diet. But fifty years ago obese Eskimos would have never survived the harsh physically demanding enviornment. (PS My wife father 100% Eskimo, living his whole life above the artic circle, died at age 94) I would also venture to say that any coastal dwelling communities had plenty of protein in their diets. Not every culture has had the same ratio.

[Couture547]

except like the eskimos who are obese and have a short life ex.

 

I take exception to your misinformation about Eskimos. Obese Eskimos might be more akin to the present, with the influx of the western diet. But fifty years ago obese Eskimos would have never survived the harsh physically demanding enviornment. (PS My wife father 100% Eskimo, living his whole life above the artic circle, died at age 94) I would also venture to say that any coastal dwelling communities had plenty of protein in their diets. Not every culture has had the same ratio.

 

 

They have a shorter life ex then most cultures. and i'd imgaine if you put someone on that diet that hasn't had his parents and grandparents on that diet they wouldn't do all that well. better then the sad diet though. yeah every culture has different ratios but the most sucessful ones are majority carbs

[Vegan Joe]

except like the eskimos who are obese and have a short life ex.

 

I take exception to your misinformation about Eskimos. Obese Eskimos might be more akin to the present, with the influx of the western diet. But fifty years ago obese Eskimos would have never survived the harsh physically demanding enviornment. (PS My wife father 100% Eskimo, living his whole life above the artic circle, died at age 94) I would also venture to say that any coastal dwelling communities had plenty of protein in their diets. Not every culture has had the same ratio.

 

 

They have a shorter life ex then most cultures. and i'd imgaine if you put someone on that diet that hasn't had his parents and grandparents on that diet they wouldn't do all that well. better then the sad diet though. yeah every culture has different ratios but the most sucessful ones are majority carbs

I don't know were you get your Eskimo data from , and life span may well be true nowadays due to the cultural destruction from the west. But in the past Eskimos were a very healthy culture with very little disease. Also what must be figured into the equation is the harsh enviornment which takes lives every year. It's a very dangerous place to live.

[Couture547]

Couple places that i've checked have them averaging in the 60's. Haven't looked too much into and don't really care two since i'm a vegan and would like to continue as one. I think vegan or omni the most important factor is weather a diet is processed or not and next comes the macro/ micro ratio's. The problem with people considering a lower carb diet like the eskimo diet as a vegan is the diet is all processed fake foods like mock meats/ protein powders ect. Even if one lived on nothing but seeds/ nuts that's still 15 percent carbs or so. on a diet of mostly animal products you can eat un processed food and still keep the carbs as low as you want which would be healthier

 

BTW i checked out the video and i really liked it

[Vegan Joe]

Couple places that i've checked have them averaging in the 60's. Haven't looked too much into and don't really care two since i'm a vegan

But yet you are going to tell people how it is, when it comes to Eskimos.

[Couture547]

Couple places that i've checked have them averaging in the 60's. Haven't looked too much into and don't really care two since i'm a vegan

But yet you are going to tell people how it is, when it comes to Eskimos.

 

I was using them as a rare example of a culture that doesn't use primary carbs becasue there isn't many at all. probably more then them, but that comes to mind. If someone wants to follow there diet so be it

[blabbate]

Couple places that i've checked have them averaging in the 60's. Haven't looked too much into and don't really care two since i'm a vegan

But yet you are going to tell people how it is, when it comes to Eskimos.

You know the Eskimos have over 200 words for "inaccurate stereotype."

[trying2bvegan]

Hey All,

 

I find this topic very interesting, as I am a biologist and geneticist by trade. I've asked myself the same question (i.e., what do some of our closest ancestors eat?), and in seeking out some answers I've spoken with individuals much more knowledgeable than myself in the fields of comparative physiology, genetics, evo-devo (the study of evolution as it pertains to developmental biology), and the like. They've made some very interesting points which I think need to be part of this discussion. I'm curious as to what you all think.

 

1. "Be wary of percentages". Pick any organism in the plant/animal kingdom and you will find we share a surprising amount of DNA in common. For example, while we share 98%(+) with certain primate species, we also share 95% with most species of mice, 60-70% with most species of flies, and a documented ~50% with bananas (yes, bananas). It does not necessarily follow that because an organism shares more DNA in common with us that its dietary habits more closely resemble our own (or that we should look to their diet as a model). There are a few reasons for this. For starters, overall % of DNA in common is not nearly as relevant as how much of specific types of DNA we have in common: namely, those genes that dictate the anatomical and biochemical characteristics of the digestive tract. Species that share considerable amount of overall DNA can have profound differences in these genes. What's more, even among individual species (e.g., chimpanzees), dietary habits can vary considerably from one sub-population to the next. This is not even counting drastic differences in diets when these animals are forced into captivity. Anytime you see an overall percentage sited as a reason to eat like a certain animal, please be cautious.

 

2. Evo-Devo considerations: While one might think that an animal we more recently diverged from in the evolutionary tree must share more of our overall characteristics and therefore serve as a model to us, there is considerable mutation to and away from certain features (i.e., genetic "toggling" between types of digestion/digestive capabilities, modes of locomotion, etc.). For example, many species in our overall genetic lineage CANNOT digest cellulose, but punctuated in between these species are animals that CAN (e.g., gorillas). Humans arise after cellulose-digesting primates, only to lose the ability to digest cellulose. What that means is that there very well may be a species prior to our most recent ancestor that shares more similar digestive characteristics with humans.

 

After speaking at length with a mentor of mine, a 70-year old comparitive digestive physiologist (DVM/MD/PhD) who worked at Harvard and Cornell for the better part of a half-century, I am convinced that modeling our diet after primates is a fools errand. He cautions me against such narrow interpretations, but if you really want to go down the road of genetics, consider this: looking specifically at the genes that dictate digestive physiology (i.e., anatomy AND the all-important biochemistry), we actually have a system that most closely resembles North American bear species. I am not advocating modeling after a bear, nor do I consider this factoid super relevant, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

 

As a last point, I know that people often cite dentition as an indicator of appropriate diet, but please also take caution here. We have retained the dentition of cellulose-digesting species, while seemingly losing all biochemical capability of adapt to such a diet. Translation? Evolution isn't perfect.

 

I have no answers here, only words of caution. What do you all think?

 

Best,

Steve

[blabbate]

Hey All,

 

I find this topic very interesting, as I am a biologist and geneticist by trade. I've asked myself the same question (i.e., what do some of our closest ancestors eat?), and in seeking out some answers I've spoken with individuals much more knowledgeable than myself in the fields of comparative physiology, genetics, evo-devo (the study of evolution as it pertains to developmental biology), and the like. They've made some very interesting points which I think need to be part of this discussion. I'm curious as to what you all think.

 

1. "Be wary of percentages". Pick any organism in the plant/animal kingdom and you will find we share a surprising amount of DNA in common. For example, while we share 98%(+) with certain primate species, we also share 95% with most species of mice, 60-70% with most species of flies, and a documented ~50% with bananas (yes, bananas). It does not necessarily follow that because an organism shares more DNA in common with us that its dietary habits more closely resemble our own (or that we should look to their diet as a model). There are a few reasons for this. For starters, overall % of DNA in common is not nearly as relevant as how much of specific types of DNA we have in common: namely, those genes that dictate the anatomical and biochemical characteristics of the digestive tract. Species that share considerable amount of overall DNA can have profound differences in these genes. What's more, even among individual species (e.g., chimpanzees), dietary habits can vary considerably from one sub-population to the next. This is not even counting drastic differences in diets when these animals are forced into captivity. Anytime you see an overall percentage sited as a reason to eat like a certain animal, please be cautious.

 

2. Evo-Devo considerations: While one might think that an animal we more recently diverged from in the evolutionary tree must share more of our overall characteristics and therefore serve as a model to us, there is considerable mutation to and away from certain features (i.e., genetic "toggling" between types of digestion/digestive capabilities, modes of locomotion, etc.). For example, many species in our overall genetic lineage CANNOT digest cellulose, but punctuated in between these species are animals that CAN (e.g., gorillas). Humans arise after cellulose-digesting primates, only to lose the ability to digest cellulose. What that means is that there very well may be a species prior to our most recent ancestor that shares more similar digestive characteristics with humans.

 

After speaking at length with a mentor of mine, a 70-year old comparitive digestive physiologist (DVM/MD/PhD) who worked at Harvard and Cornell for the better part of a half-century, I am convinced that modeling our diet after primates is a fools errand. He cautions me against such narrow interpretations, but if you really want to go down the road of genetics, consider this: looking specifically at the genes that dictate digestive physiology (i.e., anatomy AND the all-important biochemistry), we actually have a system that most closely resembles North American bear species. I am not advocating modeling after a bear, nor do I consider this factoid super relevant, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

 

As a last point, I know that people often cite dentition as an indicator of appropriate diet, but please also take caution here. We have retained the dentition of cellulose-digesting species, while seemingly losing all biochemical capability of adapt to such a diet. Translation? Evolution isn't perfect.

 

I have no answers here, only words of caution. What do you all think?

 

Best,

Steve

I think +1, that's what. I wish this meant people would stop citing the DNA similarities between us and other primates, but I'm not that hopeful. Great post, though.