Humans Are Herbivores

[Coggeh]

Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.
Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.
Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.Also , we don't match up with omivores as their alot like carnivores so ...Why do humans need meat ?

[chegitz guevara]

Human intestinal length is 8X our body length. This is squarely in the middle of carnivores and herbivores. Furthermore, we lack the specialized gastro-intestinal features of purely herbivorous animals, such as the ability to digest celulouse. That's why beans are musical fruit. In addition, we need to cook our veggies for maximum nutrient absorption. While raw veggies may have more nutrients, our inability to digest cell walls prevents us from getting the nutrients out of any cell we didn't physically damage in chewing.

Human stomach acidity is pH 1.0. This is consistent with carnivorous animals, not herbivores.

Human saliva has a normal pH of 6.0 to 6.5 . . . that's acidic, not alkaline. If your saliva is alkaline, you should see a doctor.

We have teeth both suited for chopping and mashing and tearing and ripping. We share with other primates a lack of claws or elongated canines, and yet chimps (our closest evolutionary relatives) as well as numerous other primates, have an omnivorous diet. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

Both our eyes are in front, like a predator, though this likely has more to do with our arboreal ancestors.

As for fiber, many carnivorous animals actually do eat plants just for that purpose. Cats eat grass.

Cholesterol, interestingly enough, seems to come from diets high in meat and carbohydrates. Peer reviewed studies have shown that on high fat, high meat diets that are low in carbs, the level of cholesterol in the body drops.

The reality is, animals eat what they want to eat. If humans weren't adapted to eating meat, we wouldn't want to eat it and we'd get sick from doing so, immediately, not after 40 trips around the Sun, an age most humans in nature wouldn't have made it to see. There are good reasons for going vegitarian, but the OP was just BS.

[Unicorn]

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores
Archeological Record

As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.
Cell Types

Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.
Fermenting Vats

Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.
Jaws

Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.

The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.
Salivary Glands

These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
Intestines

Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm#evidence

[Coggeh]

Human intestinal length is 8X our body length. This is squarely in the middle of carnivores and herbivores. Furthermore, we lack the specialized gastro-intestinal features of purely herbivorous animals, such as the ability to digest celulouse. That's why beans are musical fruit. In addition, we need to cook our veggies for maximum nutrient absorption. While raw veggies may have more nutrients, our inability to digest cell walls prevents us from getting the nutrients out of any cell we didn't physically damage in chewing.

Human stomach acidity is pH 1.0. This is consistent with carnivorous animals, not herbivores.

Human saliva has a normal pH of 6.0 to 6.5 . . . that's acidic, not alkaline. If your saliva is alkaline, you should see a doctor.

We have teeth both suited for chopping and mashing and tearing and ripping. We share with other primates a lack of claws or elongated canines, and yet chimps (our closest evolutionary relatives) as well as numerous other primates, have an omnivorous diet. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html (http://www-rcf.usc.edu/%7Estanford/chimphunt.html)

Both our eyes are in front, like a predator, though this likely has more to do with our arboreal ancestors.

As for fiber, many carnivorous animals actually do eat plants just for that purpose. Cats eat grass.

Cholesterol, interestingly enough, seems to come from diets high in meat and carbohydrates. Peer reviewed studies have shown that on high fat, high meat diets that are low in carbs, the level of cholesterol in the body drops.

The reality is, animals eat what they want to eat. If humans weren't adapted to eating meat, we wouldn't want to eat it and we'd get sick from doing so, immediately, not after 40 trips around the Sun, an age most humans in nature wouldn't have made it to see. There are good reasons for going vegitarian, but the OP was just BS.

Our salvia is (while not always) in most cases Alkaline it varies depending on before or after eating, its actually perfectly healthy to have it that way so hold out on the doctor .

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy
Link compares herbivores , carnivores , omnivores and humans .

[cappin]

There are good reasons for going vegitarian, but the OP was just BS.
It was eye-catching.

If humans were herbivores, we would only eat vegetation. Where's the evidence for that?

[Cencus]

If humans were herbivores, we would only eat vegetation. Where's the evidence for that?

The evidence that humans were once herbivores is the presence of the appendix, which basic does nothing except kill a few unlucky buggers, which is in probability the evolutionary remains of a ceacum[sp?] an organ found only in plant eaters.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

We're... actually debating this.

The human being has been hunting ever since it gained the capacity of doing so in our evolutionary history. We eat meat and plants, and you call us herbivores. Herbivores can't stomach meat, and Carnivores can't stomach plants, but we can eat both. If we can eat both, we are natural omnivores.

How can you argue this?

[Lord Testicles]

Also , we don't match up with omivores as their alot like carnivores so ...Why do humans need meat ?

It's not about needing meat, it's about wanting it.

[Bluetongue]

Herbivores don't eat meat because they can't catch it...
[link I'm not allowed to post]

Carnivores eat plants for fiber. "'Vore-ness" is about general tendencies, not absolutes.

Humans are also evolved for cannibalism:

[another link I'm not allowed to post]

Thus, by the OP's logic, we vegetarians should go ahead and become humanitarians....

[Module]

Here's an argument against human beings being herbivores: We eat meat.
Even if the presense of the appendix indicates that our distant ancestors may have been, it's quite obvious that this is no longer the case.

[BobKKKindle$]

Even if we assume for argument's sake that humans are not suited to eating meat, why does this matter? We probably don't need to eat meat to survive, as there are vegetables which can provide us with the necessary nutrients, but people enjoy eating meat, and meat is an accepted part of our culture, and so there is no reason to stop eating because it is allegedly not part of our "natural" behaviour. This is another expression of the fallacious idea that because something may not be "natural" is must be bad or unnecessary.

Humans don't "need" to play computer games or read books - but no serious person would suggest we should discard these activities, given that so many people enjoy them.

[RedAnarchist]

Herbivores don't eat meat because they can't catch it...
[link I'm not allowed to post]

Carnivores eat plants for fiber. "'Vore-ness" is about general tendencies, not absolutes.

Humans are also evolved for cannibalism:

[another link I'm not allowed to post]

Thus, by the OP's logic, we vegetarians should go ahead and become humanitarians....

You have to have 25 posts in order to post a link.

[Cencus]

Just to clear up what I said earlier.

The appendix shows that while we were plant munchers in our distant evolutionary past, the fact there isn't a caecum[or however the hell ya spell it] attached shows we had moved from being pure herbivores long ago, and found a new scource of energy namely dead animals.

This move in diet is also regarded by some scientists as the reason for humans increase in brain size, eg the increased energy gained allowed us to fuel these new big brains. This is only one of several theories floating about so not solid fact.

[Tower of Bebel]

It's not about needing meat, it's about wanting it.

Meat made our brains grow.

[TC]

In material terms there are no discreet taxonomic categories; these categories are just convenient ways for biologists to make useful descriptions they have no empirical reality (beyond the fact that cat that eats meat is by definition a carnivore and a cow that eats plants is by definition a herbivore, if this were in practice not the case as it is in fact in domestic settings then the categories would be revealed to be dependent on diet in practice not biology).

Remember, your sunday school teacher is wrong: animals weren't designed and as such their body parts don't have design function.

[Vanguard1917]

The evidence that humans were once herbivores is the presence of the appendix, which basic does nothing except kill a few unlucky buggers, which is in probability the evolutionary remains of a ceacum[sp?] an organ found only in plant eaters.


Early human beings also used to run around bare-foot and with no clothes and they used to live in caves. That doesn't mean that this is the way human being ought to live.

So even if human beings once only ate plants... so what?

[Lector Malibu]

Early human beings also used to run around bare-foot and with no clothes and they used to live in caves. That doesn't mean that this is the way human being ought to live.


So even if human beings once only ate plants... so what?There are still several tribes of people who live like that. The Mek tribe for instance.

On the subject though, humans can eat both and are designed to eat both.
But a popular myth is that humans need animal products to survive.

Actually they don't. It is possible to live animal free, so it's more of a choice.

Everything you need for nourishment can be obtained from vegetation

You just have to now how to make sure you get the right nutrients.

[Forward Union]

I can eat meat and it benefits me...

I don't see how the shape of my teeth or stomach acidity matter. I can eat meat and it benefits me!

[Awful Reality]

Yay! You've discovered what an omnivore is!

[superiority]

Omnivority is a fairly recent development (not more than a few million years, no?) in hominids. Stands to reason there would be vestiges of our herbivorous past.

[chegitz guevara]

Our salvia is (while not always) in most cases Alkaline it varies depending on before or after eating, its actually perfectly healthy to have it that way so hold out on the doctor .

http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy
Link compares herbivores , carnivores , omnivores and humans .

If it was alkaline, the pH would be over 7. It is below seven, therefore it is acidic.

The info in your like is BS too. Humans DO NOT have an intestine that is 10x-11x our height. That would give us 60-66 feet of intestine, whereas the average human's intestine is about 42 feet. (small intestine 36' + colon 6'), or only 7x body length. That's just one example.

[chegitz guevara]

The evidence that humans were once herbivores is the presence of the appendix, which basic does nothing except kill a few unlucky buggers, which is in probability the evolutionary remains of a ceacum[sp?] an organ found only in plant eaters.

We have a tail bone. That doesn't mean we have tails. Our long distant ancestors may have been herbivores, but by the time homo erectus is running around, they're eating meat in addition to veggies and nuts. If our species were not adapted to eating meat, we wouldn't want to eat meat. If you put a pork chop in front of a cow, it doesn't eat it.

[Cencus]

We have a tail bone. That doesn't mean we have tails. Our long distant ancestors may have been herbivores, but by the time homo erectus is running around, they're eating meat in addition to veggies and nuts. If our species were not adapted to eating meat, we wouldn't want to eat meat. If you put a pork chop in front of a cow, it doesn't eat it.


Dude, I'm not agruing that we are herbivores just the opposite in fact. The appendix proves that at some point in our evolutionary past we were herbivores but since there is nothing attatched the appendix we have evolved away from that state, and that we are now omnivores.