Re: human vs. carnivore stomach acidity

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Wasn't it to this list that someone posted studies showing human stomach pH

>was even lower than dogs (ie; more acidic)?

I posted a study about beagles and humans just this month, I think, and it

showed that human stomach pH was sometimes even more acidic.

> In any case, I've looked into

>this in regards to dogs, who are descended from carnivores and who many of

>us consider to be carnivores.

Since it was recently discovered that dogs are still, for all intent and

purpose, wolves, genetically speaking, I think it's safe to call them

carnivores, though in the wild, wolves do sometimes consume the

partially-digested contents of prey animal stomachs along with the meat of

their kills.

>I think I read somewhere where

>they *may* have more stomach acid, but it was just something I read in

>passing and don't know if it's true.

I've read similar assertions, but only on vegetarian propaganda sites, and

never supported by any kind of science.

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Suze-

>

> >Wasn't it to this list that someone posted studies showing human

stomach pH

> >was even lower than dogs (ie; more acidic)?

>

> I posted a study about beagles and humans just this month, I think,

and it

> showed that human stomach pH was sometimes even more acidic.

>

> > In any case, I've looked into

> >this in regards to dogs, who are descended from carnivores and who

many of

> >us consider to be carnivores.

>

> Since it was recently discovered that dogs are still, for all

intent and

> purpose, wolves, genetically speaking, I think it's safe to call

them

> carnivores, though in the wild, wolves do sometimes consume the

> partially-digested contents of prey animal stomachs along with the

meat of

> their kills.

>

> >I think I read somewhere where

> >they *may* have more stomach acid, but it was just something I

read in

> >passing and don't know if it's true.

>

> I've read similar assertions, but only on vegetarian propaganda

sites, and

> never supported by any kind of science.

>

>

>

>

> -

Hi,

I'm listening but still don't get it. My fault. Do you mean to say

that, physiologically at least, men are closer to beagles, wolves and

dogs than to apes? And accordingly should feed themselves like the

carnivore?

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure what a comparison of acidity is really a measure of.

Human pepsin requires a certain pH. Pepsin is necessary for the

digestion of protein, and it is pepsin that catalyzes the reaction

between the protein and water-- the H+ is not involved except to

regulate the shape and functionality of pepsin.

So strength of acidity is not a measure of " destiny to digest

protein. " If our stomachs were MORE acidic than they are now, that

would not lead to greater efficacy in protein digestion. What leads

to high efficacy in protein digestion is for the acidity to be within

the proper range for maximum pepsin functionality-- which happens to

be very acidic, but still within a very specific range. I'm quite

sure that pepsin at pH 1 would be less functional than pepsin at pH 2.

So the debate seems irrelevant.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

-

>Do you mean to say

>that, physiologically at least, men are closer to beagles, wolves and

>dogs than to apes? And accordingly should feed themselves like the

>carnivore?

Not exactly. Obviously we share many more genes with chimpanzees

specifically and primates generally than we do with dogs and wolves. But

our digestive system is much more oriented towards meat-eating, and in that

respect we're much more like wolves than gorillas.

-

[Guest guest]

,

thank you. I can see that you never leave a message unanswered, even if

you will need some time before you can reply. That has a name:

heedfulness and organization.

If what you're saying [below] is correct, it should be no longer a

surprise when you hear that man is a paradox (isn't he?). Or perhaps

you are now able to confirm the old adage: you can't tell a book by its

cover.

Cheers to you,

JC

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >Do you mean to say

> >that, physiologically at least, men are closer to beagles, wolves and

> >dogs than to apes? And accordingly should feed themselves like the

> >carnivore?

>

> Not exactly. Obviously we share many more genes with chimpanzees

> specifically and primates generally than we do with dogs and wolves.

But

> our digestive system is much more oriented towards meat-eating, and

in that

> respect we're much more like wolves than gorillas.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

>thank you. I can see that you never leave a message unanswered, even if

>you will need some time before you can reply. That has a name:

>heedfulness and organization.

Well, I try, anyway, but some always slip through for good. But thanks for

the kind words!

>If what you're saying [below] is correct, it should be no longer a

>surprise when you hear that man is a paradox (isn't he?). Or perhaps

>you are now able to confirm the old adage: you can't tell a book by its

>cover.

I don't really think available science supports the notion that we're a

paradox. Plenty of primates eat meat. Heck, here's a quote from the

Vegetarian Resource Group!

>>The Great Apes

>>

>>There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and

>>primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters

>>(gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and

>>ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans

>>are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.

>>

>>Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit.

>>Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship

>>between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups).

>>The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species

>>(which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in

>>vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect

>>the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative

>>availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest

>>relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically,

>>behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and

>>eat other mammals (including other primates).

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

And another from the same page:

>>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.

So while we may be furthest along the line towards carnivory among our

closest relatives, we're hardly unique.

-

[Guest guest]

First here's something I've always wanted to ask you, but I'm afraid

it's completely off-topic. I'm curious about the origin of your

surname Idol. I don't know why, but am under the impression that this

name was adopted by an immigrant arriving in America, probably not

coming from an English-speaking area, because it quite ressembled his

original name. I say this, because this often happened in Brazil with

immigrants from Italy and Germany. They changed their names so that

they were easier to pronounce and in many stances chose names that

sounded like their original names. Do you know if that was the case

for Idol in your name?

The paradox I had in mind was: Man looks rather like a gorilla, but

should feed himself more like a wolf. So appearances can be

deceiving, can't they?

In another group I heard someone classify man as a semi-carnivore. At

first I found the term a little strange, but now, having heard a lot

more about the issue, it makes more sense to me. Maybe man is really

a semi-carnivore, halfway between the pure carnivore and the omnivore.

However, modern man doesn't possess all features of carnivores: for

the most part, we don't have a hairy body like theirs and our denture

isn't specific to tearing meat. Also, we lack claws, don't we?

Cheers,

JC

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >thank you. I can see that you never leave a message unanswered,

even if

> >you will need some time before you can reply. That has a name:

> >heedfulness and organization.

>

> Well, I try, anyway, but some always slip through for good. But

thanks for

> the kind words!

>

> >If what you're saying [below] is correct, it should be no longer a

> >surprise when you hear that man is a paradox (isn't he?). Or

perhaps

> >you are now able to confirm the old adage: you can't tell a book

by its

> >cover.

>

> I don't really think available science supports the notion that

we're a

> paradox. Plenty of primates eat meat. Heck, here's a quote from

the

> Vegetarian Resource Group!

>

> >>The Great Apes

> >>

> >>There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and

> >>primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly

fruit eaters

> >>(gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral

and

> >>ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation.

Orangutans

> >>are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.

> >>

> >>Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on

fruit.

> >>Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the

relationship

> >>between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal

groups).

> >>The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small

species

> >>(which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which

specialize in

> >>vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences

reflect

> >>the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative

> >>availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest

> >>relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically,

> >>behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently

kill and

> >>eat other mammals (including other primates).

>

> http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

>

> And another from the same page:

>

> >>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.

>

> So while we may be furthest along the line towards carnivory among

our

> closest relatives, we're hardly unique.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

>First here's something I've always wanted to ask you, but I'm afraid

>it's completely off-topic. I'm curious about the origin of your

>surname Idol. I don't know why, but am under the impression that this

>name was adopted by an immigrant arriving in America, probably not

>coming from an English-speaking area, because it quite ressembled his

>original name. I say this, because this often happened in Brazil with

>immigrants from Italy and Germany. They changed their names so that

>they were easier to pronounce and in many stances chose names that

>sounded like their original names. Do you know if that was the case

>for Idol in your name?

Actually, my name evidently dates back to medieval England. I believe the

Idols were some sort of very minor nobility.

So that's LORD Idol to all you list peons! ;->

>The paradox I had in mind was: Man looks rather like a gorilla, but

>should feed himself more like a wolf. So appearances can be

>deceiving, can't they?

Hmm, I think we look much more like chimps than gorillas, actually.

Here's a picture of a

gorilla: http://www.bristolzoo.org.uk/resources/images/Gorilla%20medium.jpg

And a chimp:

http://www.primate.or.kr/gallery/Chimpanzee%20Dines%20at%20a%20Table.jpg

OK, admittedly I stacked the deck there, but our builds are much more

chimp-like than gorilla-like. Gorillas, being herbivores, need huge

guts. Chimps, being omnivorous meat eaters, are slender.

>In another group I heard someone classify man as a semi-carnivore. At

>first I found the term a little strange, but now, having heard a lot

>more about the issue, it makes more sense to me. Maybe man is really

>a semi-carnivore, halfway between the pure carnivore and the omnivore.

I think semi-carnivore is probably a very accurate description. Obviously

we are omnivorous, but we have to heavily pre-process most plant foods, and

I think it's pretty clear that we do best with an emphasis on quality

animal foods.

>However, modern man doesn't possess all features of carnivores: for

>the most part, we don't have a hairy body like theirs and our denture

>isn't specific to tearing meat. Also, we lack claws, don't we?

I don't know that a hairy body is really an attribute of carnivores, per

se. Most mammals are furry, whether they're herbivores, omnivores,

insectivores, carnivores, or what have you.

Our denture isn't really meat-specific, but it's not non-meat-specific

either, if you know what I mean. We do have sharp teeth for tearing into

meat, and we have molars for chewing tough tissues. But you could argue

either way on that. Vegetarians often say that our molars are meant for

masticating plant matter, and herbivorous gorillas have more dramatic

canines than we do.

Here's what that same site has to say on the subject:

>>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.

It is true that we don't have claws, but the greatest evolutionary

expansion of our brains appears to have occurred after the development of

tool-based hunting. Homo Erectus, IIRC, is believed to have used

fire-hardened spears to bring down various megafauna, for example,

-

[Guest guest]

But, you know, , Idol could as well come from German Eitel...

Lord. Do you know that the word Lord is connected to loaf? Lord - the

loaf keeper. Loaf - probably something you don't usually eat in your

present *incarnation*, sir.

Yes, my mistake about the fur. Many mammals have fur, don't they?

whether they eat meat or not. In the beginning man was probably

hairier on the body, but I can't think of what made him lose it. The

same with the tail. Had man a tail in the beginning?

As for teeth, yes, the Britannica says that man's teeth are

unspecialized. A carnivore's jaw, by the way, is very powerful, but

can only move vertically.

Interesting talk I had with you. It seems there's still so much to

learn about.

Thank you and best wishes.

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >First here's something I've always wanted to ask you, but I'm

afraid

> >it's completely off-topic. I'm curious about the origin of your

> >surname Idol. I don't know why, but am under the impression that

this

> >name was adopted by an immigrant arriving in America, probably not

> >coming from an English-speaking area, because it quite ressembled

his

> >original name. I say this, because this often happened in Brazil

with

> >immigrants from Italy and Germany. They changed their names so that

> >they were easier to pronounce and in many stances chose names that

> >sounded like their original names. Do you know if that was the case

> >for Idol in your name?

>

> Actually, my name evidently dates back to medieval England. I

believe the

> Idols were some sort of very minor nobility.

>

> So that's LORD Idol to all you list peons! ;->

>

> >The paradox I had in mind was: Man looks rather like a gorilla, but

> >should feed himself more like a wolf. So appearances can be

> >deceiving, can't they?

>

> Hmm, I think we look much more like chimps than gorillas, actually.

>

> Here's a picture of a

> gorilla: http://www.bristolzoo.org.uk/resources/images/Gorilla%

20medium.jpg

>

> And a chimp:

> http://www.primate.or.kr/gallery/Chimpanzee%20Dines%20at%20a%

20Table.jpg

>

> OK, admittedly I stacked the deck there, but our builds are much

more

> chimp-like than gorilla-like. Gorillas, being herbivores, need

huge

> guts. Chimps, being omnivorous meat eaters, are slender.

>

> >In another group I heard someone classify man as a semi-carnivore.

At

> >first I found the term a little strange, but now, having heard a

lot

> >more about the issue, it makes more sense to me. Maybe man is

really

> >a semi-carnivore, halfway between the pure carnivore and the

omnivore.

>

> I think semi-carnivore is probably a very accurate description.

Obviously

> we are omnivorous, but we have to heavily pre-process most plant

foods, and

> I think it's pretty clear that we do best with an emphasis on

quality

> animal foods.

>

> >However, modern man doesn't possess all features of carnivores: for

> >the most part, we don't have a hairy body like theirs and our

denture

> >isn't specific to tearing meat. Also, we lack claws, don't we?

>

> I don't know that a hairy body is really an attribute of

carnivores, per

> se. Most mammals are furry, whether they're herbivores, omnivores,

> insectivores, carnivores, or what have you.

>

> Our denture isn't really meat-specific, but it's not non-meat-

specific

> either, if you know what I mean. We do have sharp teeth for

tearing into

> meat, and we have molars for chewing tough tissues. But you could

argue

> either way on that. Vegetarians often say that our molars are

meant for

> masticating plant matter, and herbivorous gorillas have more

dramatic

> canines than we do.

>

> Here's what that same site has to say on the subject:

>

> >>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.

>

> It is true that we don't have claws, but the greatest evolutionary

> expansion of our brains appears to have occurred after the

development of

> tool-based hunting. Homo Erectus, IIRC, is believed to have used

> fire-hardened spears to bring down various megafauna, for example,

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

>But, you know, , Idol could as well come from German Eitel...

It could, but in my case, my father's side of the family is from Great

Britain. At least half and possibly all of it came from England, and some

might be from Ireland. I can't inquire further, though, as my parents

split up before I was a year old, and I only ever met my father once, when

I was six or seven.

>Lord. Do you know that the word Lord is connected to loaf? Lord - the

>loaf keeper. Loaf - probably something you don't usually eat in your

>present *incarnation*, sir.

LOL! I definitely don't eat my daily bread!

>Thank you and best wishes.

And to you too!

-