I just posted an article about this topic on my blog at www.NoMoreVetBills.com. Feel free to visit and leave a comment.
Nora
Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
rawnora wrote:I just posted an article about this topic on my blog at http://www.NoMoreVetBills.com. Feel free to visit and leave a comment.
Nora
Not commented there but will comment here
and with every kindness.I challenge the observation that humans are primarily fruit-eaters. In many countries there is little or no fruit at all (Inuits cope quite nicely without it) and in most countries fruit is only available for a very short time each year. Many modern humans eat little or no fresh fruit or vegetation - they live for years. Maybe not at optimum health, but for long enough to breed and raise their young. Nutritionally we are far closer to pigs than primates.
I challenge the observation about vegetation for dogs. Indigestible material is also known as 'roughage' and as such is very useful nutritionally. Whole-carcase eaters also get roughage from bones and hides.
Observationally, dogs that are allowed to choose will eat vegetation and fruit as it suits them. I find personally (therefore anecdotally)
that the more vegetation I give my dogs, the less they graze on wild herbs and grasses. Conversely, if I feed them purely meat and bones, they graze extensively.Back to the question - are dogs omnivores or carnivores? They have carnivore teeth: we have omnivore teeth. They have a short carnivore gut: we have a long omnivore gut. They can eat high meat with no ill effect - most of us would be very ill indeed. They can digest some bone material - we cannot.
Dogs can survive long enough to breed on all sorts of rubbish food - so can we.
Let the discussion roll..........
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
It takes a great deal of objective re-thinking of all that we've been taught to arrive at the truth, and that's where most people stumble. There is literally a mountain of evidence that a person has to not be aware of in order to claim that humans are omnivores. If you look with an open mind, you will find it. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my article, this same bias also afflicts the raw feeding leaders, thus they make incorrect assumptions about the natural diets of dogs. What wolves eat in the wild tells the true story, just as what you would eat if you found yourself in pristine nature does (would you chase the nearest rabbit, or would you reach up for the sweet mango?). Humans are a tropical species, by biological adaptation. Our natural foods grow year around in our natural homeland. Our migration away from the tropics necessitated us learning how to feed ourselves in other ways (hunting, agriculture, etc.), but did not change our still intact frugivorous anatomy & physiology.
Thanks for reading.
Nora
Thanks for reading.
Nora
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
I haven't read the article but to comment on the human aspect, there has been a small movement of folks who are out to prove that a plant-based diet is best for humans (prevents diseases like diabetes, even cancer). While I haven't the discipline to do this, I do attempt to "veganize" my meals whenever possible. Feels better, IMO.
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
It is not proven from where we originated, nor what the climate was like at that time. (for instance, modern Egypt lacks rainfall, but the Sphinx shows evidence of having been exposed to heavy rain over centuries). Climates change. So do theories. So do scientific findings.
It is only assumption and, dare I say it, propaganda, that tries to make us into fruit eaters or vegetarians. We, I believe (theory ) ate what there was. Shore-dwellers ate more fish....we were hunters long before we were farmers, and there are no cave-paintings of fruit. We do not have the ability to metabolise protein from vegetable sources, and herbivorous animals have evolved some pretty odd digestive anatomy and behaviour in order to do so. (chewing cud, faecal re-ingestion, yards of guts and stomachs like fermentation vats).
Humans do not remain healthy without animal protein. Until we became farmers, that was meat and fish. These proteins are available all year round but fruit is not. Any human attempting to survive solely on fruit will die of malnutrition (no protein, no fat except from nuts, and nuts are seasonal and extremely difficult for a human to metabolise). Any human attempting to survive solely on fruit and vegetables will die of malnutrition. No protein, only fat from nuts, as above. Humans attempting to survive solely on meat and fish will eventually suffer from lack of vitamin C and trace elements, but they will have the option of eating the stomach contents of prey species, the way wild canids do - and tame ones that have the chance (ever seen a dog eat green tripe?). But eventually they will suffer from malnutrition too.
But if we eat meat and fish and fruit and vegetables - we've got the lot. Everything we need. So if we take the term 'omnivore' to mean 'eats everything', to me that is what we are and that is what we need to survive in optimum health.
As for a plant-based diet preventing disease - baloney propaganda again. We all die of something, and as many vegans die as vegetarians as omnivores. But if the individual feels better on a this or that based diet - we feed ourselves as individuals. That's what counts.
It is only assumption and, dare I say it, propaganda, that tries to make us into fruit eaters or vegetarians. We, I believe (theory
) ate what there was. Shore-dwellers ate more fish....we were hunters long before we were farmers, and there are no cave-paintings of fruit. We do not have the ability to metabolise protein from vegetable sources, and herbivorous animals have evolved some pretty odd digestive anatomy and behaviour in order to do so. (chewing cud, faecal re-ingestion, yards of guts and stomachs like fermentation vats).Humans do not remain healthy without animal protein. Until we became farmers, that was meat and fish. These proteins are available all year round but fruit is not. Any human attempting to survive solely on fruit will die of malnutrition (no protein, no fat except from nuts, and nuts are seasonal and extremely difficult for a human to metabolise). Any human attempting to survive solely on fruit and vegetables will die of malnutrition. No protein, only fat from nuts, as above. Humans attempting to survive solely on meat and fish will eventually suffer from lack of vitamin C and trace elements, but they will have the option of eating the stomach contents of prey species, the way wild canids do - and tame ones that have the chance (ever seen a dog eat green tripe?). But eventually they will suffer from malnutrition too.
But if we eat meat and fish and fruit and vegetables - we've got the lot. Everything we need. So if we take the term 'omnivore' to mean 'eats everything', to me that is what we are and that is what we need to survive in optimum health.
As for a plant-based diet preventing disease - baloney propaganda again. We all die of something, and as many vegans die as vegetarians as omnivores. But if the individual feels better on a this or that based diet - we feed ourselves as individuals. That's what counts.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
As I intimated, the evidence doesn't do any good if you won't look at it.
If what you say about needing to eat meat to survive was true, I would be dead. I've not eaten animal products for 23 years and have eaten only raw fruits, vegetables and nuts for the last 10 years. I even gave up nuts two years ago, because, as you say, they are very difficult to digest (it is this reason why they make a fine bridge for people wanting to transition from cooked to raw). Claims such as the ones you make are all based on belief (as opposed to knowledge), wishful thinking, pre-historical revisionism and propaganda.
Nobody has any financial incentive to "prove" that humans are naturally tropical and frugivorous, so it can truthfully be said that it hasn't been "proven". But some things are too obvious to require "proof" (or what passes for it in modern times). For example, if we were meant to live in climates like the one I live in (Seattle), we'd have fur on our bodies. If we were adapted to eat animals, we'd be able to acquire and dispatch them without weapons. This is the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and even that's enough to get any objective person's attention. By the time people were migrating northward and painting on cave walls, our biological adaptations were already firmly in place, having been formed by the millions of years our species spent in our tropical homeland. Ignoring these truths keeps our hospitals and morgues in business, not to mention all the ancillary industries that have a huge investment in perpetuating the very ideas you're buying into.
If you don't believe it's possible to thrive on a diet of raw fruits and vegetables, feel free to check out the after photos on my website: www.RawSchool.com.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this important topic!
Best wishes,
Nora
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
If what you say about needing to eat meat to survive was true, I would be dead. I've not eaten animal products for 23 years and have eaten only raw fruits, vegetables and nuts for the last 10 years. I even gave up nuts two years ago, because, as you say, they are very difficult to digest (it is this reason why they make a fine bridge for people wanting to transition from cooked to raw). Claims such as the ones you make are all based on belief (as opposed to knowledge), wishful thinking, pre-historical revisionism and propaganda.
Nobody has any financial incentive to "prove" that humans are naturally tropical and frugivorous, so it can truthfully be said that it hasn't been "proven". But some things are too obvious to require "proof" (or what passes for it in modern times). For example, if we were meant to live in climates like the one I live in (Seattle), we'd have fur on our bodies. If we were adapted to eat animals, we'd be able to acquire and dispatch them without weapons. This is the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and even that's enough to get any objective person's attention. By the time people were migrating northward and painting on cave walls, our biological adaptations were already firmly in place, having been formed by the millions of years our species spent in our tropical homeland. Ignoring these truths keeps our hospitals and morgues in business, not to mention all the ancillary industries that have a huge investment in perpetuating the very ideas you're buying into.
If you don't believe it's possible to thrive on a diet of raw fruits and vegetables, feel free to check out the after photos on my website: www.RawSchool.com.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this important topic!
Best wishes,
Nora
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
So where exactly do you source your proteins and fats? And what about your fat-soluble vitamins and your trace elements? I know a fair few vegans and was vegan myself for two years. I was never so well as when I went back to an omnivorous diet! We can choose to eat whatever we want and think whatever we want, but we have to expect challenge when we make extreme statements.
Do you remember all that fluffy stuff about chimpanzees being peaceful vegetarians? Then the Jane Goodall team found they hunted down and ate other animals whenever they could. They don't have those massive canine teeth for decoration and nor do we. The roots of our upper canines are just below our noses - some teeth.
We cannot be ideal fruit-eaters because fruit isn't available all year round. Simple as that.
Good debate, Nora.
We can choose to eat whatever we want and think whatever we want, but we have to expect challenge when we make extreme statements. Do you remember all that fluffy stuff about chimpanzees being peaceful vegetarians? Then the Jane Goodall team found they hunted down and ate other animals whenever they could. They don't have those massive canine teeth for decoration and nor do we. The roots of our upper canines are just below our noses - some teeth.
We cannot be ideal fruit-eaters because fruit isn't available all year round. Simple as that.
Good debate, Nora.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
"So where exactly do you source your proteins and fats? "
The standard "requirements" you're assuming are true come from government, which looks out for industry, not our health. Obviously if humans needed to track their nutrients and micro-analyze their foods in order to survive, I'd be dead, because I don't do this. I use only my senses to choose my foods (and eat foods only as they are presented in nature), as our ancestors did. They did quite well without modern nutritional pseudo-science. If they hadn't, they'd never have survived to migrate northward many millions of years later, and begin the downhill spiral to the disease-ridden mess we find ourselves in today.
"I know a fair few vegans and was vegan myself for two years. I was never so well as when I went back to an omnivorous diet!"
Cooked veganism is typically a very unhealthy diet. It's usually based on grains, meat analogues and starches, all of which are as disastrous for the human body as meats and other animal products. I wasn't sick when I was a cooked vegan but I was fat and didn't feel great (as I do now). If your vegan diet was an improvement over your old diet, you may have experienced some detoxification, which would end if you went back to your old way of eating. It wouldn't necessarily mean you'd been doing anything wrong, and it wouldn't mean that what you went back to was better. Not saying that's what happened, of course, because I don't know the particulars.
Many vegans are finding their way to natural hygiene and the raw food diet, as I did. It's as good a guarantee as you can get that you won't have to patronize the vivisection industry.
(Chimps) "don't have those massive canine teeth for decoration and nor do we."
I wouldn't call our canine teeth "massive". Lol. Ever look inside a wild boar's mouth, or a bear's? That's a real omnivore. The chimp argument is a straw man. They eat very little meat. Even if they did, it means next to nothing because we are not chimps. While we share a large percentage of our DNA with them, there are still huge differences, including their strength which is exponentially greater than ours.
"We cannot be ideal fruit-eaters because fruit isn't available all year round. Simple as that."
It isn't productive to recycle arguments that have already been logically countered. As I pointed out previously, fruit is available year 'round in the tropics, which is where humans adapted and still belong.
Keep the myths coming. I'll be happy to keep shooting them down.
Nora
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
The standard "requirements" you're assuming are true come from government, which looks out for industry, not our health. Obviously if humans needed to track their nutrients and micro-analyze their foods in order to survive, I'd be dead, because I don't do this. I use only my senses to choose my foods (and eat foods only as they are presented in nature), as our ancestors did. They did quite well without modern nutritional pseudo-science. If they hadn't, they'd never have survived to migrate northward many millions of years later, and begin the downhill spiral to the disease-ridden mess we find ourselves in today.
"I know a fair few vegans and was vegan myself for two years. I was never so well as when I went back to an omnivorous diet!"
Cooked veganism is typically a very unhealthy diet. It's usually based on grains, meat analogues and starches, all of which are as disastrous for the human body as meats and other animal products. I wasn't sick when I was a cooked vegan but I was fat and didn't feel great (as I do now). If your vegan diet was an improvement over your old diet, you may have experienced some detoxification, which would end if you went back to your old way of eating. It wouldn't necessarily mean you'd been doing anything wrong, and it wouldn't mean that what you went back to was better. Not saying that's what happened, of course, because I don't know the particulars.
Many vegans are finding their way to natural hygiene and the raw food diet, as I did. It's as good a guarantee as you can get that you won't have to patronize the vivisection industry.
(Chimps) "don't have those massive canine teeth for decoration and nor do we."
I wouldn't call our canine teeth "massive". Lol. Ever look inside a wild boar's mouth, or a bear's? That's a real omnivore. The chimp argument is a straw man. They eat very little meat. Even if they did, it means next to nothing because we are not chimps. While we share a large percentage of our DNA with them, there are still huge differences, including their strength which is exponentially greater than ours.
"We cannot be ideal fruit-eaters because fruit isn't available all year round. Simple as that."
It isn't productive to recycle arguments that have already been logically countered. As I pointed out previously, fruit is available year 'round in the tropics, which is where humans adapted and still belong.
Keep the myths coming. I'll be happy to keep shooting them down.
Nora
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
-
nightsrainfall
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:08 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
I find this interesting, but cannot quite add to the conversation at this time, some of the articles I am finding as I am personally researching this are beyond my current understanding.
I personally believe (without any true background information) that dogs are more on the carnivore side, however I suspect that the years of being domesticated has allowed small enough changes to occur that not only can be an omnivore, consuming some of the non-meat items (very dependent upon what they are) may be helpful. There are large differences between wolves and dogs to allow them to easily be identified as separate species, however they are the same genius even still. I believe the dogs teeth has evolved far differently from the wolf, so to me, I would wonder if the digestion tract abilities would as well solely because of how we domesticated it and then we would probably feed it more non-meats than the wolves would get...
With humans, I would guess this is the opposite. We started as herbivores, and then with changing climates, areas, etc, we developed towards being an omnivore, so we can eat meat and for some it may be better to have a meat-included diet (depending on what they are eating / where they are located).
I'm totally throwing ideas in the air though. I probably can't even say I hypothesize anything with my lack of knowledge and understanding on this topic, but I do think it's interesting and hope to read more on it.
I personally believe (without any true background information) that dogs are more on the carnivore side, however I suspect that the years of being domesticated has allowed small enough changes to occur that not only can be an omnivore, consuming some of the non-meat items (very dependent upon what they are) may be helpful. There are large differences between wolves and dogs to allow them to easily be identified as separate species, however they are the same genius even still. I believe the dogs teeth has evolved far differently from the wolf, so to me, I would wonder if the digestion tract abilities would as well solely because of how we domesticated it and then we would probably feed it more non-meats than the wolves would get...
With humans, I would guess this is the opposite. We started as herbivores, and then with changing climates, areas, etc, we developed towards being an omnivore, so we can eat meat and for some it may be better to have a meat-included diet (depending on what they are eating / where they are located).
I'm totally throwing ideas in the air though. I probably can't even say I hypothesize anything with my lack of knowledge and understanding on this topic, but I do think it's interesting and hope to read more on it.
- Anna
"Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole."
~ Roger A. Caras
"Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole."
~ Roger A. Caras
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
I'm not using pseudo-science - I'm using real science, common sense and experience. I am aware that science is continually shifting, so its input will always need to be taken with a pinch of salt (is that good for us or bad for us 
depends on the science of the day. Common sense however, while not all that common, is always a powerful advocate.
You/we are at liberty to eat exactly what we like - but if you come here asking for comment, you are going to get it, you are going to get some of it from people who know their stuff, and you aren't going to like some of it.
I notice you are unable to answer a very simple easy question about where a human can source nutritionally available protein and fat from a fresh raw fruit and vegetable diet. So in the interests of the debate, I'll ask that again, and please favour me with an answer rather than paragraphs of avoidance and mild insult of intelligence - which latter I'm sure you didn't mean.
I notice you dodge the irrefutable evidence of chimpanzees being omnivorous.
I notice you keep trotting out that we really ought to have stayed in the tropics where somehow we can get protein and fat out of fruit.
I notice you seem unaware of how many millenia western Europe has been populated, yet there is only fruit available for a few weeks each year.
I also take issue over your claim (backed by - what? I'm ready to hear) that domestic dogs don't do well on a diet of fresh raw domestic animals. They actually do very well on them. Wild canids and rural humans still fall out over this too, because wild canids will eat domestic livestock in preference to wild meat where they can. Some of this is undoubtedly due to domestic livestock being easier to kill - but where there is no noticable difference, wild canids will still choose domestic livestock to eat. There is nothing wrong nutritionally with properly-reared meat.
One other cogent fact about obligate herbivores - their teeth keep growing. Ours don't.
I notice you haven't shot down a single myth. Or a single truth. I am beginning to suspect you are quoting from leaflets
I am aware that science is continually shifting, so its input will always need to be taken with a pinch of salt (is that good for us or bad for us depends on the science of the day. Common sense however, while not all that common, is always a powerful advocate.You/we are at liberty to eat exactly what we like - but if you come here asking for comment, you are going to get it, you are going to get some of it from people who know their stuff, and you aren't going to like some of it.
I notice you are unable to answer a very simple easy question about where a human can source nutritionally available protein and fat from a fresh raw fruit and vegetable diet. So in the interests of the debate, I'll ask that again, and please favour me with an answer rather than paragraphs of avoidance and mild insult of intelligence - which latter I'm sure you didn't mean.
I notice you dodge the irrefutable evidence of chimpanzees being omnivorous.
I notice you keep trotting out that we really ought to have stayed in the tropics where somehow we can get protein and fat out of fruit.
I notice you seem unaware of how many millenia western Europe has been populated, yet there is only fruit available for a few weeks each year.
I also take issue over your claim (backed by - what? I'm ready to hear) that domestic dogs don't do well on a diet of fresh raw domestic animals. They actually do very well on them. Wild canids and rural humans still fall out over this too, because wild canids will eat domestic livestock in preference to wild meat where they can. Some of this is undoubtedly due to domestic livestock being easier to kill - but where there is no noticable difference, wild canids will still choose domestic livestock to eat. There is nothing wrong nutritionally with properly-reared meat.
One other cogent fact about obligate herbivores - their teeth keep growing. Ours don't.
I notice you haven't shot down a single myth. Or a single truth. I am beginning to suspect you are quoting from leaflets
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
Nettles, thanks for jumping in here.
I haven't studied any of these issues simply because they haven't been all that pressing to me. However, I do have a family member that jumps on these type diet/nutritional "bandwagons". There always seemed to be a conspiracy aspect, questionable logic and a lot of claims about "the way things were thousands and thousands of years ago". And over the years I have noticed that there seem to be two consistent themes. First, the claim that you can eliminate/cure illness by this one particular diet. which seems odd because there are at any give time VERY different diets out there making the same claim. When one of these diet fails to fulfill it's claims, it was on to the next The second theme is the continual removal of more and more food from the "acceptable" list.
And if you dig deep enough there is often a profit motive or ideology motive behind it and even an almost cult aspect to some of these "extreme" diets.
If you want to be healthy, reason supports the idea of eating/having a healthy and varied diet lots of fresh foods verse processed. However, soon as I see/hear wild claims regarding a diet that has very extravagant claims, throws in some sort of conspiracy theory about modern medicine, the government, the food industry and advocates a very narrow diet I get VERY suspicious.
out of curiosity, do any vegetables or fruits provide cholesterol? or assist the body in producing it? there is more to this question, but I will hold off for the moment.
I haven't studied any of these issues simply because they haven't been all that pressing to me. However, I do have a family member that jumps on these type diet/nutritional "bandwagons". There always seemed to be a conspiracy aspect, questionable logic and a lot of claims about "the way things were thousands and thousands of years ago". And over the years I have noticed that there seem to be two consistent themes. First, the claim that you can eliminate/cure illness by this one particular diet. which seems odd because there are at any give time VERY different diets out there making the same claim. When one of these diet fails to fulfill it's claims, it was on to the next The second theme is the continual removal of more and more food from the "acceptable" list.
And if you dig deep enough there is often a profit motive or ideology motive behind it and even an almost cult aspect to some of these "extreme" diets.
If you want to be healthy, reason supports the idea of eating/having a healthy and varied diet lots of fresh foods verse processed. However, soon as I see/hear wild claims regarding a diet that has very extravagant claims, throws in some sort of conspiracy theory about modern medicine, the government, the food industry and advocates a very narrow diet I get VERY suspicious.
out of curiosity, do any vegetables or fruits provide cholesterol? or assist the body in producing it? there is more to this question, but I will hold off for the moment.
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
“I'm not using pseudo-science - I'm using real science.”
**Real science must always align with nature, and it must always work. If the kind of “real science” you’re quoting was used to build bridges and buildings, there’d be as many people dying from injuries as are now dying from the belief systems that pose as “science” in the fields of medicine & nutrition. It is not science, it is belief. (A belief being defined as an idea that is not supported by evidence.)
“…common sense…”
**Common sense demands that you account for how humans managed to survive for millions of years without nutritional “science”, and that all other species on earth to this day still choose their foods as they are presented directly from nature, using ONLY their senses and NO knowledge about their nutritional “needs”.
“…and experience. “
**I explained how you could have been mistaken about your assumptions that the vegan diet you were on was somehow “deficient”, etc. If you felt worse after you improved your diet (if indeed it was an improvement, as I said, I don’t know that), detoxification often causes this.
Since you did not counter my counter-point but insisted on making yours again, I could call this “dodging”, if I was inclined to, which I'm not.
“…you are going to get it … and you aren't going to like some of it.”
**I haven’t said I don’t “like” what you’re saying. On the contrary, I do like it when my ideas are challenged.
“I notice you are unable to answer a very simple easy question about where a human can source nutritionally available protein and fat from a fresh raw fruit and vegetable diet.”
**Your assumption is incorrect. I made the point that we needn’t concern ourselves with any of that. It doesn't mean I'm "unable" to answer the question. I understand that people sometimes make a hobby out of becoming “experts” on "nutrition" and can't accept that things really can be that simple. The truth is, fruits and vegetables have everything that humans need. Protein is in everything. Human mother’s milk is only 2-6% protein, depending on the infant’s stage of development. What that means is that when our weights are doubling every year (that never happens again in our lifespans), nature gives us food which has only 2-6% protein in it. All fruits contain at least 2% protein, and most have much more. Vegetables, of course, have much more than that. Even you must concede that there are an awful lot of powerful and rich industries that have become so because they’ve managed to convince people that they need all that protein (fat, calcium, et al). It amazes me with all that has been written about the undue influence that these industries have had over our education and media systems that it could have escaped you. There are literally hundreds of books about this on the market, but here’s a free resource for you: www.RawFoodExplained.com. If you’ll click on “The Science of Raw Food”, you’ll find chapters that explain how these myths have come to be so entrenched in conventional nutritional 'wisdom'.
“I notice you dodge the irrefutable evidence of chimpanzees being omnivorous.”
**This erroneous idea afflicts many who make their living as “scientists”, so you could no doubt find plenty of citations to quote. That doesn’t make it true. Almost everyone in our culture, even scientists, has a huge personal and emotional investment in the idea that we can eat anything that fits in our mouths. However, there are some who have studied the issue objectively. The following is a blurb about Dr. Alan Walker, one such scientist.
“Dr. Alan Walker and his associates, anthropologists at John Hopkins University, using the most modern electronic microscopic equipment, state: "Preliminary studies of fossil teeth have led to the startling suggestion that our early human ancestors (Australopithecus) were not predominantly meat-eaters or even eaters of seeds, shoots, leaves or grasses, nor were they omnivorous. Instead they appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit. Every tooth examined from the hominids of the 12 million year period leading up to Homo Erectus appeared to be that of a fruit-eater." - NY Times, May 1979. 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.”
In addition, have you read Mogen Eliasens’ book about using the wolf diet as a basis for determining what to feed domestic dogs? He makes many references to humans being fruit-eaters, which is a solid indication that he’s willing to examine the evidence objectively. I highly recommend the book.
“I notice you keep trotting out that we really ought to have stayed in the tropics where somehow we can get protein and fat out of fruit.”
**The tropics is our biological home, but we can get sufficient fat and protein out of fruit anywhere on the globe, as long as we can get the fruit transported to us, or grow it locally.
“I notice you seem unaware of how many millenia western Europe has been populated, yet there is only fruit available for a few weeks each year.”
**There are better examples than Western Europe of humans living in inappropriate climes. What about the very far north where no fruit grows at all? This proves nothing, except that all organisms can accommodate deviation from their natural diets when it is necessary. Accommodation should not be confused with biological adaptation, however. Adaptation is a process that takes millions of years. There are very high costs associated with accommodation, one of which is sickness on the scale that we experience it today.
“I also take issue over your claim (backed by - what? I'm ready to hear) that domestic dogs don't do well on a diet of fresh raw domestic animals. They actually do very well on them. “
**I didn’t say that. I said that when they are OVERFED on domestic meats, the consequence is disease.
“…wild canids will eat domestic livestock in preference to wild meat where they can. “
**It’s easier to catch fish in a barrel, too. It does not prove dietary preference.
“There is nothing wrong nutritionally with properly-reared meat.”
**I don’t think you can honestly call the way domestic animals are raised “proper”. Producers are too interested in doing things cheaply. Wild prey animals choose their own foods and eat only what is biologically appropriate for them. That’s why their flesh is cleaner and healthier for consumption by animals whose biological adaptations necessitate consuming meat. Overfeeding is one issue, but when we’re talking about overfeeding with meats that contain all the wastes and toxic by products in modern domestic food animals, it becomes doubly disastrous.
Best wishes,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
\
**Real science must always align with nature, and it must always work. If the kind of “real science” you’re quoting was used to build bridges and buildings, there’d be as many people dying from injuries as are now dying from the belief systems that pose as “science” in the fields of medicine & nutrition. It is not science, it is belief. (A belief being defined as an idea that is not supported by evidence.)
“…common sense…”
**Common sense demands that you account for how humans managed to survive for millions of years without nutritional “science”, and that all other species on earth to this day still choose their foods as they are presented directly from nature, using ONLY their senses and NO knowledge about their nutritional “needs”.
“…and experience. “
**I explained how you could have been mistaken about your assumptions that the vegan diet you were on was somehow “deficient”, etc. If you felt worse after you improved your diet (if indeed it was an improvement, as I said, I don’t know that), detoxification often causes this.
Since you did not counter my counter-point but insisted on making yours again, I could call this “dodging”, if I was inclined to, which I'm not.
“…you are going to get it … and you aren't going to like some of it.”
**I haven’t said I don’t “like” what you’re saying. On the contrary, I do like it when my ideas are challenged.
“I notice you are unable to answer a very simple easy question about where a human can source nutritionally available protein and fat from a fresh raw fruit and vegetable diet.”
**Your assumption is incorrect. I made the point that we needn’t concern ourselves with any of that. It doesn't mean I'm "unable" to answer the question. I understand that people sometimes make a hobby out of becoming “experts” on "nutrition" and can't accept that things really can be that simple. The truth is, fruits and vegetables have everything that humans need. Protein is in everything. Human mother’s milk is only 2-6% protein, depending on the infant’s stage of development. What that means is that when our weights are doubling every year (that never happens again in our lifespans), nature gives us food which has only 2-6% protein in it. All fruits contain at least 2% protein, and most have much more. Vegetables, of course, have much more than that. Even you must concede that there are an awful lot of powerful and rich industries that have become so because they’ve managed to convince people that they need all that protein (fat, calcium, et al). It amazes me with all that has been written about the undue influence that these industries have had over our education and media systems that it could have escaped you. There are literally hundreds of books about this on the market, but here’s a free resource for you: www.RawFoodExplained.com. If you’ll click on “The Science of Raw Food”, you’ll find chapters that explain how these myths have come to be so entrenched in conventional nutritional 'wisdom'.
“I notice you dodge the irrefutable evidence of chimpanzees being omnivorous.”
**This erroneous idea afflicts many who make their living as “scientists”, so you could no doubt find plenty of citations to quote. That doesn’t make it true. Almost everyone in our culture, even scientists, has a huge personal and emotional investment in the idea that we can eat anything that fits in our mouths. However, there are some who have studied the issue objectively. The following is a blurb about Dr. Alan Walker, one such scientist.
“Dr. Alan Walker and his associates, anthropologists at John Hopkins University, using the most modern electronic microscopic equipment, state: "Preliminary studies of fossil teeth have led to the startling suggestion that our early human ancestors (Australopithecus) were not predominantly meat-eaters or even eaters of seeds, shoots, leaves or grasses, nor were they omnivorous. Instead they appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit. Every tooth examined from the hominids of the 12 million year period leading up to Homo Erectus appeared to be that of a fruit-eater." - NY Times, May 1979. 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.”
In addition, have you read Mogen Eliasens’ book about using the wolf diet as a basis for determining what to feed domestic dogs? He makes many references to humans being fruit-eaters, which is a solid indication that he’s willing to examine the evidence objectively. I highly recommend the book.
“I notice you keep trotting out that we really ought to have stayed in the tropics where somehow we can get protein and fat out of fruit.”
**The tropics is our biological home, but we can get sufficient fat and protein out of fruit anywhere on the globe, as long as we can get the fruit transported to us, or grow it locally.
“I notice you seem unaware of how many millenia western Europe has been populated, yet there is only fruit available for a few weeks each year.”
**There are better examples than Western Europe of humans living in inappropriate climes. What about the very far north where no fruit grows at all? This proves nothing, except that all organisms can accommodate deviation from their natural diets when it is necessary. Accommodation should not be confused with biological adaptation, however. Adaptation is a process that takes millions of years. There are very high costs associated with accommodation, one of which is sickness on the scale that we experience it today.
“I also take issue over your claim (backed by - what? I'm ready to hear) that domestic dogs don't do well on a diet of fresh raw domestic animals. They actually do very well on them. “
**I didn’t say that. I said that when they are OVERFED on domestic meats, the consequence is disease.
“…wild canids will eat domestic livestock in preference to wild meat where they can. “
**It’s easier to catch fish in a barrel, too. It does not prove dietary preference.
“There is nothing wrong nutritionally with properly-reared meat.”
**I don’t think you can honestly call the way domestic animals are raised “proper”. Producers are too interested in doing things cheaply. Wild prey animals choose their own foods and eat only what is biologically appropriate for them. That’s why their flesh is cleaner and healthier for consumption by animals whose biological adaptations necessitate consuming meat. Overfeeding is one issue, but when we’re talking about overfeeding with meats that contain all the wastes and toxic by products in modern domestic food animals, it becomes doubly disastrous.
Best wishes,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
\
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
Right - whilst I appreciate a good debate and fully believe debating things is a GOOD thing...
In the interests of clarity can we quote our sources please, or if we don't have a direct source make that clear and refrain from ridiculing or generally being rude (not that anyone IS yet..... but!)
S'also worth remembering folks that evolution/ environmental adaptation/selection for one variation over another, in any species is NOT necessarily a process that takes millennia to occur, it CAN happen quite quickly too depending on the environmental pressures and the rate of reproduction. (Look up Peppered Moths and the Clean Air Acts circa 1950's!)
Its also worth bearing in mind that a lot of wild animals (and humans) survive and subsist on their 'natural' diets, which is a BIG difference to that which the pet owner seeks (or should seek) which is for an animal to thrive and be eating the very BEST possible diet achievable.
In the interests of clarity can we quote our sources please, or if we don't have a direct source make that clear and refrain from ridiculing or generally being rude (not that anyone IS yet..... but!)
S'also worth remembering folks that evolution/ environmental adaptation/selection for one variation over another, in any species is NOT necessarily a process that takes millennia to occur, it CAN happen quite quickly too depending on the environmental pressures and the rate of reproduction. (Look up Peppered Moths and the Clean Air Acts circa 1950's!)
Its also worth bearing in mind that a lot of wild animals (and humans) survive and subsist on their 'natural' diets, which is a BIG difference to that which the pet owner seeks (or should seek) which is for an animal to thrive and be eating the very BEST possible diet achievable.
West Midlands based 1-2-1 Training & Behaviour Canine Consultant
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
I'm waiting for a straight answer to a straight question, but nothing yet. I shall therefore refrain from commentaing further unless or until OP produces proper references and answers my questions. Because we can't have a debate until we get rid of the cant.
Meanwhile - I'm just feeding my dogs some nice raw green tripe - meat with a side dish of greeeeens
Tripe exists to show how much we love our dogs!
Meanwhile - I'm just feeding my dogs some nice raw green tripe - meat with a side dish of greeeeens
Tripe exists to show how much we love our dogs!A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
"If you’ll click on “The Science of Raw Food”, you’ll find chapters that explain how these myths have come to be so entrenched in conventional nutritional 'wisdom'."
The reference above (at www.RawFoodExplained) is a source of scholarly information that will tell you precisely how the (fundamentally erroneous) RDAs (for all micro- and macronutrients) can easily be met on a diet solely of raw fruits and vegetables. I'm assuming this is the question you're waiting for an answer to. There's not much I can do besides that, unless you'd like me to rewrite the entire book (2,600 pages) in my own words. I suppose I could cut & paste the relevant info here, but I didn't think that would be necessary. It's only a few mouse clicks away.
If that's not the question you're referring to, perhaps it would help if you told me exactly what it is. It seems to me that perpetually claiming that I'm not answering your questions is a good way to avoid having to counter the points I'm making, however, so I won't hold my breath.
Best wishes,
Nora
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
www.RawSchool.com
The reference above (at www.RawFoodExplained) is a source of scholarly information that will tell you precisely how the (fundamentally erroneous) RDAs (for all micro- and macronutrients) can easily be met on a diet solely of raw fruits and vegetables. I'm assuming this is the question you're waiting for an answer to. There's not much I can do besides that, unless you'd like me to rewrite the entire book (2,600 pages) in my own words. I suppose I could cut & paste the relevant info here, but I didn't think that would be necessary. It's only a few mouse clicks away.
If that's not the question you're referring to, perhaps it would help if you told me exactly what it is. It seems to me that perpetually claiming that I'm not answering your questions is a good way to avoid having to counter the points I'm making, however, so I won't hold my breath.
Best wishes,
Nora
www.NoMoreVetBills.com
www.RawSchool.com
