COMPARATIVE ANATOMY

Comparative anatomy works on the simple and demonstrable fact that the biological form usually
defines function. Individual features, or species may break the rules, but a look at many factors will
reveal a species true biological role. Science provides us with an indicator of human nutrition which
was not established by culture, but is certainly that of a herbivore or frugivore and not a carnivore or
omnivore.

Table of Contents: CHART: HUMAN: CARNIVORE OR HERBIVORE?

THE COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF EATING
ARE HUMANS CARNIVORES OR HERBIVORES?
THE OPPORTUNISTIC FEEDER THEORY
THE NATURAL HUMAN DIET

See also:

Books: Sunfood Diet Success System by David Wolfe

Conscious Eating by Gabriel Cousens, M.D.
Diet for a New America and The Food Revolution by Robbins
Mad Cowboy by Howard Lyman
Beyond Beef by Jeremy Rifkin
The Ethics of Diet by Howard Williams

Articles:

Websites:

Publications:

Organizations:

People:

Live Food Nutrition:

Conventional:

Terms: opportunistic feeder theory

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 1

Comparative Anatomy
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 2
Comparative Anatomy
THE COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF EATING
Source: Milton R. Mills, M.D., http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

Humans are most often described as “omnivores.” This classification is based on the “observation”
that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and
training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, “observation” is
not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most “natural” diet for humans. While most
humans are clearly “behavioral” omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are
anatomically suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods.

A better and more objective technique is to look at human anatomy and physiology. Mammals are
anatomically and physiologically adapted to procure and consume particular kinds of diets. (It is
common practice when examining fossils of extinct mammals to examine anatomical features to
deduce the animal's probable diet.) Therefore, we can look at mammalian carnivores, herbivores
(plant-eaters) and omnivores to see which anatomical and physiological features are associated with
each kind of diet. Then we can look at human anatomy and physiology to see in which group we
belong.

Oral Cavity

Carnivores have a wide mouth opening in relation to their head size. This
confers obvious advantages in developing the forces used in seizing,
killing and dismembering prey. Facial musculature is reduced since these
muscles would hinder a wide gape, and play no part in the animal's
preparation of food for swallowing. In all mammalian carnivores, the jaw
joint is a simple hinge joint lying in the same plane as the teeth. This
type of joint is extremely stable and acts as the pivot point for the “lever
arms” formed by the upper and lower jaws. The primary muscle used for
operating the jaw in carnivores is the temporalis muscle. This muscle is
so massive in carnivores that it accounts for most of the bulk of the sides
of the head (when you pet a dog, you are petting its temporalis
muscles). The “angle” of the mandible (lower jaw) in carnivores is small.
This is because the muscles (masseter and pterygoids) that attach there
are of minor importance in these animals. The lower jaw of carnivores cannot move forward, and
has very limited side-to-side motion. When the jaw of a carnivore closes, the blade-shaped cheek
molars slide past each other to give a slicing motion that is very effective for shearing meat off
bone.

The teeth of a carnivore are discretely spaced so as not to trap stringy debris. The incisors are short,
pointed and prong-like and are used for grasping and shredding. The canines are greatly elongated
and dagger-like for stabbing, tearing and killing prey. The molars (carnassials) are flattened and
triangular with jagged edges such that they function like serrated-edged blades. Because of the
hinge-type joint, when a carnivore closes its jaw, the cheek teeth come together in a back-to-front
fashion giving a smooth cutting motion like the blades on a pair of shears.

The saliva of carnivorous animals does not contain digestive enzymes. When eating, a mammalian
carnivore gorges itself rapidly and does not chew its food. Since proteolytic (protein-digesting)
enzymes cannot be liberated in the mouth due to the danger of autodigestion (damaging the oral
cavity), carnivores do not need to mix their food with saliva; they simply bite off huge chunks of
meat and swallow them whole.

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 3

Comparative Anatomy
According to evolutionary theory, the anatomical features consistent with an herbivorous diet
represent a more recently derived condition than that of the carnivore. Herbivorous mammals have
well-developed facial musculature, fleshy lips, a relatively small opening into the oral cavity and a
thickened, muscular tongue. The lips aid in the movement of food into the mouth and, along with
the facial (cheek) musculature and tongue, assist in the chewing of food. In herbivores, the jaw joint
has moved to position above the plane of the teeth. Although this type of joint is less stable than the
hinge-type joint of the carnivore, it is much more mobile and allows the complex jaw motions
needed when chewing plant foods. Additionally, this type of jaw joint allows the upper and lower
cheek teeth to come together along the length of the jaw more or less at once when the mouth is
closed in order to form grinding platforms. (This type of joint is so important to a plant-eating
animal, that it is believed to have evolved at least 15 different times in various plant-eating
mammalian species.) The angle of the mandible has expanded to provide a broad area of
attachment for the well-developed masseter and pterygoid muscles (these are the major muscles of
chewing in plant-eating animals). The temporalis muscle is small and of minor importance. The
masseter and pterygoid muscles hold the mandible in a sling-like arrangement and swing the jaw
from side-to-side. Accordingly, the lower jaw of plant-eating mammals has a pronounced sideways
motion when eating. This lateral movement is necessary for the grinding motion of chewing.

The dentition of herbivores is quite varied depending on the kind of vegetation a particular species is
adapted to eat. Although these animals differ in the types and numbers of teeth they posses, the
various kinds of teeth when present, share common structural features. The incisors are broad,
flattened and spade-like. Canines may be small as in horses, prominent as in hippos, pigs and some
primates (these are thought to be used for defense) or absent altogether. The molars, in general,
are squared and flattened on top to provide a grinding surface. The molars cannot vertically slide
past one another in a shearing/slicing motion, but they do horizontally slide across one another to
crush and grind. The surface features of the molars vary depending on the type of plant material the
animal eats. The teeth of herbivorous animals are closely grouped so that the incisors form an
efficient cropping/biting mechanism, and the upper and lower molars form extended platforms for
crushing and grinding. The “walled-in” oral cavity has a lot of potential space that is realized during
eating.

These animals carefully and methodically chew their food, pushing the food back and forth into the
grinding teeth with the tongue and cheek muscles. This thorough process is necessary to
mechanically disrupt plant cell walls in order to release the digestible intracellular contents and
ensure thorough mixing of this material with their saliva. This is important because the saliva of
plant-eating mammals often contains carbohydrate-digesting enzymes which begin breaking down
food molecules while the food is still in the mouth.

Stomach and Small Intestine

Striking differences between carnivores and herbivores are seen in these organs. Carnivores have a
capacious simple (single-chambered) stomach. The stomach volume of a carnivore represents 60-
70% of the total capacity of the digestive system. Because meat is relatively easily digested, their
small intestines (where absorption of food molecules takes place) are short&151;about three to five
or six times the body length. Since these animals average a kill only
about once a week, a large stomach volume is advantageous because it
allows the animals to quickly gorge themselves when eating, taking in as
much meat as possible at one time which can then be digested later
while resting. Additionally, the ability of the carnivore stomach to secrete
hydrochloric acid is exceptional. Carnivores are able to keep their gastric
pH down around 1-2 even with food present. This is necessary to
facilitate protein breakdown and to kill the abundant dangerous bacteria
often found in decaying flesh foods.

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 4

Comparative Anatomy
Because of the relative difficulty with which various kinds of plant foods are broken down (due to
large amounts of indigestible fibers), herbivores have significantly longer and in some cases, far
more elaborate guts than carnivores. Herbivorous animals that consume plants containing a high
proportion of cellulose must “ferment” (digest by bacterial enzyme action) their food to obtain the
nutrient value. They are classified as either “ruminants” (foregut fermenters) or hindgut fermenters.
The ruminants are the plant-eating animals with the celebrated multiple-chambered stomachs.
Herbivorous animals that eat a diet of relatively soft vegetation do not need a multiple-chambered
stomach. They typically have a simple stomach, and a long small intestine. These animals ferment
the difficult-to-digest fibrous portions of their diets in their hindguts (colons). Many of these
herbivores increase the sophistication and efficiency of their GI tracts by including carbohydrate-
digesting enzymes in their saliva. A multiple-stomach fermentation process in an animal which
consumed a diet of soft, pulpy vegetation would be energetically wasteful. Nutrients and calories
would be consumed by the fermenting bacteria and protozoa before reaching the small intestine for
absorption. The small intestine of plant-eating animals tends to be very long (greater than 10 times
body length) to allow adequate time and space for absorption of the nutrients.

Colon

The large intestine (colon) of carnivores is simple and very short, as its only purposes are to absorb
salt and water. It is approximately the same diameter as the small intestine and, consequently, has
a limited capacity to function as a reservoir. The colon is short and non-pouched. The muscle is
distributed throughout the wall, giving the colon a smooth cylindrical appearance. Although a
bacterial population is present in the colon of carnivores, its activities are essentially putrefactive.

In herbivorous animals, the large intestine tends to be a highly specialized organ involved in water
and electrolyte absorption, vitamin production and absorption, and/or fermentation of fibrous plant
materials. The colons of herbivores are usually wider than their small intestine and are relatively
long. In some plant-eating mammals, the colon has a pouched appearance due to the arrangement
of the muscle fibers in the intestinal wall. Additionally, in some herbivores the cecum (the first
section of the colon) is quite large and serves as the primary or accessory fermentation site.

What About Omnivores?

One would expect an omnivore to show anatomical features which equip it to eat both animal and
plant foods. According to evolutionary theory, carnivore gut structure is more primitive than
herbivorous adaptations. Thus, an omnivore might be expected to be a carnivore which shows some
gastrointestinal tract adaptations to an herbivorous diet.

This is exactly the situation we find in the Bear, Raccoon and certain members of the Canine
families. (This discussion will be limited to bears because they are, in general, representative of the
anatomical omnivores.) Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores.
Although they eat some animal foods, bears are primarily herbivorous with 70-80% of their diet
comprised of plant foods. (The one exception is the Polar bear which lives in the frozen, vegetation
poor arctic and feeds primarily on seal blubber.) Bears cannot digest fibrous vegetation well, and
therefore, are highly selective feeders. Their diet is dominated by primarily succulent lent herbage,
tubers and berries. Many scientists believe the reason bears hibernate is because their chief food
(succulent vegetation) not available in the cold northern winters. (Interestingly, Polar bears
hibernate during the summer months when seals are unavailable.)

In general, bears exhibit anatomical features consistent with a carnivorous diet. The jaw joint of
bears is in the same plane as the molar teeth. The temporalis muscle is massive, and the angle of
the mandible is small corresponding to the limited role the pterygoid and masseter muscles play in
operating the jaw. The small intestine is short (less than five times body length) like that of the pure

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 5

Comparative Anatomy
carnivores, and the colon is simple, smooth and short. The most prominent adaptation to an
herbivorous diet in bears (and other “anatomical” omnivores) is the modification of their dentition.
Bears retain the peg-like incisors, large canines and shearing premolars of a carnivore; but the
molars have become squared with rounded cusps for crushing and grinding. Bears have not,
however, adopted the flattened, blunt nails seen in most herbivores and retain the elongated,
pointed claws of a carnivore.

An animal which captures, kills and eats prey must have the physical equipment which makes
predation practical and efficient. Since bears include significant amounts of meat in their diet, they
must retain the anatomical features that permit them to capture and kill prey animals. Hence, bears
have a jaw structure, musculature and dentition which enable them to develop and apply the forces
necessary to kill and dismember prey even though the majority of their diet is comprised of plant
foods. Although an herbivore-style jaw joint (above the plane of the teeth) is a far more efficient
joint for crushing and grinding vegetation and would potentially allow bears to exploit a wider range
of plant foods in their diet, it is a much weaker joint than the hinge-style carnivore joint. The
herbivore-style jaw joint is relatively easily dislocated and would not hold up well under the stresses
of subduing struggling prey and/or crushing bones (nor would it allow the wide gape carnivores
need). In the wild, an animal with a dislocated jaw would either soon starve to death or be eaten by
something else and would, therefore, be selected against. A given species cannot adopt the weaker
but more mobile and efficient herbivore-style joint until it has committed to an essentially plant-food
diet test it risk jaw dislocation, death and ultimately, extinction.

What About Me?

The human gastrointestinal tract features the anatomical modifications

consistent with an herbivorous diet. Humans have muscular lips and a
small opening into the oral cavity. Many of the so-called “muscles of
expression” are actually the muscles used in chewing. The muscular and
agile tongue essential for eating, has adapted to use in speech and other
things. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is
located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis muscle is
reduced. The characteristic “square jaw” of adult males reflects the
expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged
masseter/pterygoid muscle group. The human mandible can move
forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind.

Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the
exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used
for display and/or defense). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The
incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The
canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function Like incisors.
The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and
pulping noncoarse foods.

Human saliva contains the carbohydrate-digesting enzyme, salivary amylase. This enzyme is
responsible for the majority of starch digestion. The esophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft
balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or
swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in
choking in humans.

Man's stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. (Clinically, a person presenting with
a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern.) The stomach
volume represents about 21-27% of the total volume of the human GI tract. The stomach serves as
a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and liquefying ingested foodstuffs and regulating their entry
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 6
Comparative Anatomy
into the small intestine. The human small intestine is long, averaging from 10 to 11 times the body
length. (Our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the
top of the head to end of the spine and averages between two to three feet in length in normal-sized
individuals.)

The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large
intestine is larger in cross-section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. Man's colon is
responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also
extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of
significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fiber
content of the diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place
in the human colon has only recently begun to be investigated.

In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a
“committed” herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one
expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from
comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and
omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food
diet.

SUMMARY

FACIAL MUSCLES
Carnivore - Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Herbivore - Well-developed
Omnivore - Reduced
Human - Well-developed

JAW TYPE
Carnivore - Angle not expanded
Herbivore - Expanded angle
Omnivore - Angle not expanded
Human - Expanded angle

JAW JOINT LOCATION

Carnivore - On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivore - Above the plane of the molars
Omnivore - On same plane as molar teeth
Human - Above the plane of the molars

JAW MOTION
Carnivore - Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore - No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Omnivore - Shearing; minimal side-to-side
Human - No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

MAJOR JAW MUSCLES

Carnivore - Temporalis
Herbivore - Masseter and pterygoids
Omnivore - Temporalis
Human - Masseter and pterygoids

MOUTH OPENING VS. HEAD SIZE

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 7
Comparative Anatomy
Carnivore - Large
Herbivore - Small
Omnivore - Large
Human - Small

TEETH (INCISORS)
Carnivore - Short and pointed
Herbivore - Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Omnivore - Short and pointed
Human - Broad, flattened and spade shaped

TEETH (CANINES)
Carnivore - Long, sharp and curved
Herbivore - Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Omnivore - Long, sharp and curved
Human - Short and blunted

TEETH (MOLARS)
Carnivore - Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Herbivore - Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Omnivore - Sharp blades and/or flattened
Human - Flattened with nodular cusps

CHEWING
Carnivore - None; swallows food whole
Herbivore - Extensive chewing necessary
Omnivore - Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Human - Extensive chewing necessary

SALIVA
Carnivore - No digestive enzymes
Herbivore - Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Omnivore - No digestive enzymes
Human - Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

STOMACH TYPE
Carnivore - Simple
Herbivore - Simple or multiple chambers
Omnivore - Simple
Human - Simple

STOMACH ACIDITY
Carnivore - Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore - pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Omnivore - Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Human - pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

STOMACH CAPACITY
Carnivore - 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivore - Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Omnivore - 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Human - 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

LENGTH OF SMALL INTESTINE

Carnivore - 3 to 6 times body length
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 8
Comparative Anatomy
Herbivore - 10 to more than 12 times body length
Omnivore - 4 to 6 times body length
Human - 10 to 11 times body length

COLON
Carnivore - Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore - Long, complex; may be sacculated
Omnivore - Simple, short and smooth
Human - Long, sacculated

LIVER
Carnivore - Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivore - Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Omnivore - Can detoxify vitamin A
Human - Cannot detoxify vitamin A

KIDNEY
Carnivore - Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore - Moderately concentrated urine
Omnivore - Extremely concentrated urine
Human - Moderately concentrated urine

NAILS
Carnivore - Sharp claws
Herbivore - Flattened nails or hooves
Omnivore – Sharp Claws
Human – Flattened Nails

ARE HUMANS CARNIVORES OR HERBIVORES?

Source: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores-2/

Are human beings anatomically more similar to natural carnivores or to natural herbivores? Let’s find
out….

• 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

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 9

Comparative Anatomy
 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.

But aren’t humans anatomically suited to be omnivores?

Nope. We don’t anatomically match up with omnivorous animals anymore than we do with
carnivorous ones. Omnivores are more similar to carnivores than they are to herbivores. For a more
detailed summary table that compares the properties of carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores side
by side, see this page:

Comparative Anatomy & Taxonomy

The link above also debunks the opportunistic feeder theory, which states that because humans
can eat like omnivores, that we must therefore be omnivores. And this is of course false because
mere behavior doesn’t indicate suitability. There are plenty of things we can do as a species that
would threaten our survival if we all considered them suitable default behavior, such as shooting
each other, lobbing hand grenades, or sending spam.

Feature Carnivore Herbivore Omnivore Human

Facial Muscles Reduced to allow Well-developed Reduced Well-developed
wide mouth gape
Jaw Type Angle not expanded Expanded angle Angle not expanded Expanded angle
Jaw Joint On same plane as Above the plane of On same plane as Above the plane
Location molar teeth the molars molar teeth of the molars
Jaw Motion Shearing; No shear; Shearing; No shear;
minimal side-to-side good side-to-side, minimal side-to-side good side-to-side,
motion front-to-back front-to-back
Major Jaw Temporalis Masseter and Temporalis Masseter and
Muscles pterygoids pterygoids
Mouth Opening Large Small Large Small
vs. Head Size
Teeth: Incisors Short and pointed Broad, flattened Short and pointed Broad, flattened
and spade shaped and spade shaped
Teeth: Canines Long, sharp and Dull and short or Long, sharp and Short and blunted
curved long (for defense), curved
or none
Teeth: Molars Sharp, jagged and Flattened with Sharp blades and/or Flattened with
blade shaped cusps vs complex flattened nodular cusps

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 10

Comparative Anatomy
 surface
Chewing None; swallows food Extensive chewing Swallows food whole Extensive chewing
whole necessary and/or simple necessary
crushing
Saliva No digestive Carbohydrate No digestive Carbohydrate
enzymes digesting enzymes enzymes digesting enzymes
Stomach Type Simple Simple or multiple Simple Simple
chambers
Stomach Less than or equal to pH 4 to 5 with Less than or equal to pH 4 to 5 with
Acidity pH 1 with food in food in stomach pH 1 with food in food in stomach
stomach stomach
Stomach 60% to 70% of total Less than 30% of 60% to 70% of total 21% to 27% of
Capacity volume of digestive total volume of volume of digestive total volume of
tract digestive tract tract digestive tract
Length of Small 3 to 6 times body 10 to more than 4 to 6 times body 10 to 11 times
Intestine length 12 times body length body length
length
Colon Simple, short and Long, complex; Simple, short and Long, sacculated,
smooth, may be smooth, may ferment
no fermentation sacculated, may no fermentation
ferment
Liver Can detoxify vitamin Cannot detoxify Can detoxify vitamin Cannot detoxify
A vitamin A A vitamin A
Kidney Extremely Moderately Extremely Moderately
concentrated urine concentrated urine concentrated urine concentrated
urine
Nails Sharp claws Flattened nails or Sharp claws Flattened nails
blunt hooves
Thermostasis Hyperventilation Perspiration Hyperventilation Perspiration

Adapted from The Comparative Anatomy of Eating by Milton R. Mills, M.D., formerly at
http://www.newveg.av.org/anatomy.htm (broken link)

THE OPPORTUNISTIC FEEDER THEORY

Source: http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html

Various folk promote the opportunistic feeder theory which suggests that because man can or has
fed on meat, eggs, insects and other animal matter, then man is an opportunistic omnivore. This
theory also counters the conclusions of taxonomy presented above, suggesting it is misleading and
that species have individual feeding habits and cannot be pigeonholed as taxonomy suggests. The
basis of this argument is that animal behaviour and adaptability indicates dietary suitability.

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 11

Comparative Anatomy
This theory is false and unscientific. Of course tradition is not scientific, and the practice of humans
eating meat is old, but has nothing to do with what we are biologicaly equipped to feed upon. We
ate meat to survive, now we eat it out of habit and not need.

Another quasi-scientific theory is associated with the opportunistic feeder theory. This can be called
the biochemical individuality theory which is often seen in far eastern "medicines" such as Traditional
Chinese Medicine, and the Ayurvedic systems. This theory suggests that since we are biochemically
individual we should all eat individual diets suited to our moods, illnesses and other contrived
indicators.

The logic behind biochemical individuality theory is fallacious, for although we are all unique
biochemical beings, we are predominantly the same biochemical system, with low level variations. At
the molecular level we differ, at the system level we are alike. If anyone imagines they can adjust
their diet according to these individual metabolic variations, they are fooling themselves.

By picking only the low level system differences to indicate information about dietary choices, or
moods, yin and yang and so forth, and extrapolating to the whole, we produce a gross
misrepresentation of the facts. As far as we know, all cattle graze, all lions eat raw flesh, all chimps
eat a diet of mainly raw fruit and vegetation and all chickens peck for grubs and grains. No animal
on earth, that we know of, cooks its food before eating it, except humans. Only human behaviour
breaks the taxonomic definition that that science defines for it. Humans prefer culture and
technology over nature, and since our natural role is as a raw food herbivore, and because our
bodies are only suited to that role, any significant perversion of it must, and does, lead to ill health.
One cannot choose what to eat healthily, based on cultural imperitives since one will most likely
present the wrong kind and quantity of precursor molecules, as well as introducing poisons to the
body. A healthy human body cannot be operated on the wrong chemical inputs. "Garbage in equals
garbage out"!

Our anatomy is clearly unsuited to deal with animal matter in the diet, however our digestive
chemistry can deal with animal tissues and obtain some nutrition. But this does not indicate
biological suitability or desirability. Cattle, which are herbivorous ruminents may eat many insects
while they feed, chimps may occassionally kill and eat a small monkey. A pet cat may eat bread and
margarine. So what? Are cattle to be defined as insectivores or omnivores, or opportunistic feeders?
Is the pet cat an opportunistic feeder? Certainly, and the chimp an opportunistic feeder? Why not.
None of this distorts taxonomy or suprises the biologist. All herbivores will be able to process animal
protein to some degree or other since all protein is biochemically related. It is possible with modern
processing methods to produce a "cat food" derived solely from plant material and non-animal
matter that will keep a cat alive. Is this a herbivorous cat? No, it is a domestic animal eating an
industrial diet. Higher lifeforms display a broader range of behaviours, and feeding behaviour simply
reflects this, but does not reflect our true biological feeding requirements.

The opportunistic feeder theory is based on circular logic, "I do therefore I am" and is hard to
falsify*, since at a molecular level, food is chemically similar, because all animal tissues are made
up of broken down plant tissues.

The fact that opportunistic feeding theory is circular and hard to falsify make it unscientific, and
useless in any discussion of what humans should eat. Taxonomy is accurate, logical but not exact.
Since there are exceptions it is falsifiable.

THE NATURAL HUMAN DIET

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 12
Comparative Anatomy
Source: http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history,
humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat.

Unlike natural carnivores, we are physically and psychologically unable to rip animals limb from limb
and eat and digest their raw flesh. Even cooked meat is likely to cause human beings, but not
natural carnivores, to suffer from food poisoning, heart disease, and other ailments.

People who pride themselves on being part of the human hunter tradition should take a second look
at the story of human evolution. Prehistoric evidence indicates that humans developed hunting skills
relatively recently and that most of our short, meat-eating past was spent scavenging and eating
almost anything in order to survive; even then, meat was a tiny part of our caloric intake.

Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill
animals and devour their raw carcasses. Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the
road, are you tempted to stop for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you
daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to all
of these questions, congratulations—you're a normal human herbivore—like it or not. Humans were
simply not designed to eat meat.

HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY

Although many modern humans eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the
honorary title of "omnivore," we are anatomically herbivorous. Biologists have established that
animals who share physical characteristics also share a common diet. Comparing the anatomy of
carnivores with our own clearly illustrates that we were not designed to eat meat.

Teeth and Nails

To contrast human physiology with that of carnivores, start at the beginning of the digestive tract.
Teeth, nails, and jaw structure indicate that nature intended for people to eat a plant-based diet.
They have much shorter and softer fingernails than animals and pathetically small "canine" teeth
(they're canine in name only). In contrast, carnivores all have sharp claws and large canine teeth
capable of tearing flesh.

The jaws of carnivores move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their
prey and swallow it whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from
side to side, a movement that allows them to grind up fruit and vegetables with their back teeth.
Like other herbivores, human back molars are flat and allow the grinding of fibrous plant foods.
Carnivores lack these flat molars. If humans had been meant to eat meat, they would have the
sharp teeth and claws of carnivores. Instead, their jaw structure, flat molars, and lack of claws
indicate that they are best suited for a plant-based diet.

Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, "You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't
tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large
canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that require those large
canines."

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 13

Comparative Anatomy
Stomach Acidity

After using their sharp claws and teeth to capture and kill their prey, carnivores swallow their food
whole, relying on their extremely acidic stomach juices to do most of the digestive work. The
stomach acid of carnivores actually plays a dual role-besides breaking down flesh, the acid also kills
the dangerous bacteria that would otherwise sicken or kill the meat-eater.

As illustrated in the chart below, our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison because strong
acids aren't needed to digest pre-chewed fruits and vegetables. In comparing the stomach acidity of
carnivores and herbivores, it is obvious that humans fall into the latter category. We can cook meat
to kill some of the bacteria and make it easier to chew, but it's clear that humans, unlike all natural
carnivores, are not designed to easily digest meat.

Intestinal Length

Evidence of our herbivorous nature is also found in the length of our intestines. Carnivores have
short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through it relatively quickly, before it has a
chance to rot and cause illness. Humans, on the other hand, have intestinal tracts that are much
longer than carnivores of comparable size. Like other herbivores, longer intestines allow the body
more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from a plant-based diet.

The long human intestinal tract actually makes it dangerous for people to eat meat. The bacteria in
meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, and meat
actually begins to rot while it makes its way through the intestines. Many studies have also shown
that meat can cause colon cancer in humans.

Comparing our anatomies clearly illustrates the fact that the human body is built to run on a
vegetarian diet. Humans have absolutely none of the distinguishing anatomical characteristics that
either carnivores or even natural omnivores have. Read author John Robbins' discussion of the
anatomical differences between humans and carnivores.

Here is a chart from "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating" by Dr. Milton Mills that compares the
typical anatomical features of carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, and humans.2 Notice how closely
human physical characteristics match those of herbivores. Review Dr. Mills' entire article on the
topic.

MEAT: DELICIOUS OR DISGUSTING?

While carnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an
animal with his or her bare hands and dug into the raw corpse would be considered deranged.
Carnivorous animals are aroused by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on
the other hand, are revolted by the sight of raw flesh and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of
animals being ripped apart and killed. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us,
more proof that we were not designed to eat meat.

Ask yourself: When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop
for a snack? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing
cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered "no" to all of these questions,
congratulations—you're a normal human herbivore—like it or not. Humans were simply not designed
to eat meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives
them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 14
Comparative Anatomy
If we were meant to eat meat, why is it killing us?

In addition to being anatomically ill equipped to digest meat in the short-term, the long-term
damage that a meat-based diet wreaks on the human body confirms that we were not meant to eat
flesh. Natural carnivores never suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strokes, or obesity,
ailments that are caused in humans by the consumption of the saturated fat and cholesterol in meat.

Dr. William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of the authoritative American Journal of Cardiology, sums it up
this way: "[A]lthough we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not
natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh,
which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural
herbivores."

Studies have shown that even when fed 200 times the amount of animal fat and cholesterol that the
average human consumes each day, carnivores do not develop the hardening of the arteries that
leads to heart disease and strokes in humans.1 Indeed, researchers have found that it is impossible
for carnivores to develop hardening of the arteries, no matter how much animal fat they consume.2

Carnivores are capable of metabolizing all the fat and cholesterol in meat, but humans are a
different story: Our bodies were not designed to process animal flesh, so all the excess fat and
cholesterol from a meat-based diet makes us sick. Heart disease, for example, is the number one
cause of death in America according to the American Heart Association, and medical experts agree
that this ailment is the result of the consumption of animal products.3 In fact, meat-eaters have a 50
percent higher risk of developing heart disease than vegetarians, and a low-fat, completely
vegetarian diet has been repeatedly used to unclog the arteries of heart disease patients—it not only
prevents but also treats the disease.4 Learn more about animal products and heart disease.

In addition to pointing out the damage done by saturated fat and

cholesterol, scientists have also shown that eating animal protein can be
harmful to human health. We consume twice as much protein as we need
when we eat a meat-based diet, and this leads to osteoporosis and kidney
stones.5 Animal protein raises the acid level in human blood, causing
calcium to be excreted from the bones to restore the blood's natural pH
balance. This calcium depletion leads to osteoporosis, and the excreted
calcium ends up in the kidneys, where it can form kidney stones. The
strain of processing all the excess animal protein from meat can also
trigger kidney disease in meat-eaters.

The consumption of animal protein has also been linked to cancer of the colon, breast, prostate, and
pancreas. In fact, according to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the director of the Cornell-China-Oxford
Project on Nutrition, Health, and the Environment, "In the next ten years, one of the things you're
bound to hear is that animal protein … is one of the most toxic nutrients of all that can be
considered."

Eating meat can also have negative consequences for stamina and sexual potency. One Danish
study indicated that "Men peddling on a stationary bicycle until muscle failure lasted an average of

1
William C. Roberts, M.D., "Twenty Questions on Atherosclerosis," Baylor University Medical Center
Proceedings, Apr. 2000.
2
Ibid.
3
Reuters Health, "Heart Disease Still Number-One Killer in U.S.," Cardiovascular News Center, 1
Jan. 2002.
4
Elizabeth Somer, "Eating Meat: A Little Doesn't Hurt," WebMD, 1999.
5
University of Iowa Health Care Center, "Protein: How Much Is Enough?" 1999.
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 15
Comparative Anatomy
114 minutes on a mixed meat and vegetable diet, 57 minutes on a high-meat diet, and a whopping
167 minutes on a strict vegetarian diet.”6 Besides having increased physical endurance, vegans are
also less likely to suffer from impotence.

Since we don't have strong stomach acids like carnivores to kill all the bacteria in meat, dining on
animal flesh can also give us food poisoning. In fact, according to the USDA, meat is the cause of 70
percent of foodborne illnesses in the United States because it's often contaminated with dangerous
bacteria like E. coli, listeria, and campylobacter.7 Every year in the United States alone, food
poisoning sickens over 75 million people and kills more than 5,000.8 While carnivores can process all
the saturated fat, protein, and bacteria in animal flesh, a meat-based diet can send humans to an
early grave. Clearly, people were not intended to eat meat. Learn more about how meat affects
human health.

EARLY HUMAN EVOLUTION

If it's so unhealthy and unnatural for humans to eat meat, why did our ancestors turn to animal
flesh for sustenance?

During most of our evolutionary history, we were largely vegetarian.9 You could probably figure this
out by noting that all the great apes, our closest living relatives, are also predominantly herbivorous.
Like apes, our bodies evolved to eat fruits, nuts, and vegetables.10

Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham and his colleagues first explained that root vegetables—
and the ability to cook them—prompted the evolution of large brains, smaller teeth, modern limb
proportions, and even male-female bonding.11 Plant foods like potatoes made up the bulk of our
ancestors' diet and spurred our advancement as a species.

The addition of modest amounts of meat to the early human diet came with the invention of fire,
which allowed us to eat meat without being killed by it (usually). This practice did not turn our
ancestors into carnivores but rather supplemented their traditional plant foods and allowed early
humans to survive in periods when plant foods were unavailable.

Anthropologists believe that early humans started to consume small amounts of meat when climate
changes made plant foods scarce. During this period, starting a little over a million years ago,
humans began to hunt animals for sustenance in the ever-changing landscapes they encountered
during their migrations.12

Modern Humans

Fully modern human beings (Homo sapiens) evolved about 150,000 years ago in Africa and soon
spread across the globe.13 With the advent of agriculture, about 23,000 years ago, humans began to

6
John Robbins, M.D., Diet for a New America, Walpole, New Hampshire: Stillpoint Publishing, 1987,
pp. 156-58.
7
Amy Ellis Nutt, "In Soil, Water, Food, Air," The Star Ledger, 8 Dec. 2003.
8
Reuters, "CSPI: Seafood, Eggs Biggest Causes of Food Poisoning in U.S.," CNN.com, 7 Aug. 2000.
9
Christine Haran, "Want to Dodge Heart Disease With Diet? Eat Like an Ape," 22 Aug. 2003.
10
United Press International, "Ape Diet Good at Reducing Cholesterol," 23 Jul. 2003.
11
Elizabeth Pennisi, "Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Bigger Brains?" Science, 26 Mar.
1999.
12
James Q. Jacobs, "Reflections on the Origins of Scavenging and Hunting in Early Hominids," 4 Jul.
2000.
13
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Homo Sapiens," 14 Dec. 2004.
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 16
Comparative Anatomy
gather seeds and cultivate crops to provide a more consistent food supply.14 Our ancestors
occasionally killed animals for their flesh, but they still received most of their nutrition from plant
sources. Until recently, only the wealthiest people could afford to feed, raise, and slaughter animals
for their flesh. Consequently, prior to the 20th century, only the rich died from diseases like heart
disease, obesity, and strokes.

HUMANS INVENT FACTORY FARMING

During the past 50 years, traditional small-scale farms have

been replaced by massive, mechanized agricultural operations.
Technological advances have allowed factory farmers to
produce huge quantities of food and ship it anywhere in the
world, and agribusiness entrepreneurs soon bought out and
consolidated smaller agrarian operations. When America was
founded, roughly 90 percent of Americans lived on farms.15

Today, the percentage of Americans who farm for a living has

fallen to less than 2 percent.16 The "family farm" is now
practically extinct.

The industrialization of animal production has led to huge factory farms that raise thousands of
animals in cramped, filthy warehouses. This crowding, combined with other cost-cutting practices
(like grinding up the scraps from dead animals and feeding them back to the survivors) and huge
agricultural subsidies (corporate welfare) has made meat cheap and readily available. In addition,
our natural aversion to killing animals for food is bypassed by the modern farming system-
immigrants and poor, rural Americans do the dangerous dirty work in the slaughterhouses, and the
rest of us are never confronted with the task of killing the animals ourselves (or even having to
watch it happen). Read more about factory farming.

Since 1950, the per capita consumption of meat has almost doubled; now that animal flesh has
become relatively cheap and easily available, deadly ailments like heart disease, strokes, cancer,
and obesity have spread to people across the socio-economic spectrum.17 And as the Western
lifestyle spills over into less developed areas in Asia and Africa, they, too, have started to die from
the diseases associated with meat-based diets.

A HEALTHY HUMAN DIET

"T. Colin Campbell, the former senior science advisor to the

American Institute for Cancer Research, is outspoken on the
diet/disease connection. He says, 'The vast majority of all
cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of
degenerative illness can be prevented simply by adopting a
plant-based diet.'”18 In Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating, he
states, "I now consider veganism to be the ideal diet. A vegan
diet—particularly one that is low in fat—will substantially reduce

14
BBC News, "Farming Origins Gain 10,000 Years," BBC News Online, 23 Jun. 2004.
15
Education Orchard, "Challenges and Changes in Education," 1997.
16
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, "Extension," 3 Nov. 2004.
17
Jim Motavalli, "The Trouble With Meat," E Magazine, May/Jun. 1998.
18
Robbins, p. 39.
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 17
Comparative Anatomy
disease risks. Plus, we've seen no disadvantages from veganism. In every respect, vegans appear to
enjoy equal or better health in comparison to both vegetarians and non-vegetarians.”19

William Castelli, M.D. says: "A low-fat, plant-based diet would not only lower the heart attack rate
about 85 percent, but would lower the cancer rate 60 percent.”20

Our anatomy reveals that we are herbivores, as does our natural aversion to meat and the fact that
it is harmful to our health. Meat-eaters are out of step with our evolutionary past. Our closest living
relatives—the great apes—and ancestral human populations are and have been predominately
vegetarian. They may eat the occasional rodent and some raw bugs, but the vast majority of their
caloric intake is herbivorous. The key to human health lies in adopting a diet that is consistent with
their anatomy and evolutionary history.

JOHN ROBBINS RESPONDS TO RAY AUDETTE'S

"NEANDERTHIN" AND OTHER "PALEOLITHIC" DIETS
Source: http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet.asp

Dear John,

What is your response to Ray Audette's "NeanderThin" and other "Paleolithic" diets? Such programs
claim that the appropriate diet for humans includes only those foods available to Paleolithic man
(meat and wild fruits, nuts and veggies). They claim that grains and beans are not natural foods for
humans and that consumption of these foods causes diabetes, cancer, obesity, heart disease, etc..
The author claims to have cured himself of arthritis and diabetes on such a diet. If you have already
answered this or a similar question, or can recommend another forum where I may find the answer,
please let me know.

Jamie

Dear Jamie,

Thanks for your question.

My sense of Ray Audette is that he is a well-meaning and intelligent man who writes well, and who is
almost completely ignorant of what has been learned in medical research regarding diet and health.
His book has no footnotes, so there is no way to verify or substantiate the research that he says
provides supporting documentation.

Central to Audette's views is his belief that we are natural meat-eaters. If you think there
is validity to his argument, then I would ask you to consider a simple experiment. The
next time you see a deer or wildebeest, see if you can run it down, jump up on its back,
and dig your teeth into its hide. I think that you would discover several things. You'd
probably find out that you don't have a lot of desire to do this. Even if you tried, though,
you'd probably find that you can't run fast enough or jump high enough to manage the
task. And even if you could, you'd find that your mouth doesn't open very wide, and your

19
Erik Marcus, Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating, McBooks Press: Ithaca, NY, 2000, p. 30.
20
Robbins, p. 47.
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 18
Comparative Anatomy
canine teeth aren't very long or very sharp or very hard. And even if you could bite off a
piece, I think you'd find yourself quite displeased with the result.

I believe you'd find that you really aren't anatomically equipped to hunt down and eat raw meat. In
this regard I think you'd find yourself decidedly inferior to the natural carnivores. For instance, the
cat.

Have you ever seen a cat yawn? Have you noticed how wide their mouths can open? And how long
and sharp are their canine (or feline?) teeth? Cats are designed for hunting and they are true
carnivores. Our teeth and jaws, in contrast, are much more like those of rabbits, deer, or horses.
Our canine teeth are vestigial and are hardly longer than our molars.

Here's another test, to see if you are a natural meat-eater. Can you move your lower jaw forward
and back? Can you slide your lower teeth in front of your upper teeth, and then back? And can you
move your lower jaw left and right, side to side? Because if you can perform these movements, then
you are not a carnivore. There is not a true carnivore on the planet that can do either of those
movements. Dogs can't, cats can't, hyenas can't, minks can't, etc.. Their jaws are simple hinges and
can only move up and down. They are designed to rip off hunks of flesh, and then to swallow them
more or less whole (ever noticed how fast a dog or cat eats?). Their teeth are far harder, longer and
sharper than ours. In contrast, the jaws and teeth of herbivores (horses, cows, rabbits, etc.) are
designed for grinding plant matter. Carnivores devour, herbivores graze.

Human beings, obviously, are omnivorous, but I believe that when it comes to eating we
have far more anatomical characteristics in common with herbivores than with carnivores.
Do you feel better when you wolf down your food, or when you eat leisurely and with relaxation?
Which is more appealing and inviting to you, a slaughterhouse or a fruit orchard?

The stomachs of natural meat eaters secrete levels of hydrochloric acid that are capable of dissolving
raw meat and bone. The levels of hydrochloric acid in the human stomach are miniscule in
comparison. If you were to swallow a capsule containing the digestive secretions of a cat, the
contents of that capsule would be so acidic that they would almost instantly ulcerate the lining of
your stomach.

Audette and other advocates of "Paleolithic diets" say that our ancestors
were heavy meat eaters. Is this true? Not according to paleontologist
Richard Leakey, who is widely acknowledged as one of the world's
foremost experts on the evolution of the human diet. Leakey points out,
"You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior
teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine
teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that
required those large canines."

In fact, says Leakey, even if cavemen had large canine teeth, they still almost certainly would only
rarely have eaten meat. Their diet would have been similar to that of our closest genetic relative -
the chimpanzee.

Molecular biologists and geneticists have compared proteins, DNA, and the whole spectrum of
biological features, and have established convincingly that humans are closer to chimpanzees than
horses are to donkeys. This is remarkable, because horses and donkeys can mate and reproduce,
although their offspring, mules, are sterile. A significant difference between humans and
chimpanzees, though, is that chimpanzees have large canine teeth that can tear apart their prey,
and they have more strength and speed than humans. Still, even with these traits, which would be
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 19
Comparative Anatomy
advantages for a meat-eater, chimpanzees, like other primates, eat a mainly vegetarian diet. Dr.
Jane Goodall, whose work with chimpanzees represents the longest continuous field study of any
living creature in science history, says chimpanzees often go months without eating any meat
whatsoever. Indeed, she says, "The total amount of meat consumed by a chimpanzee during a given
year will represent only a very small percentage of the overall diet."

I am reminded of something Harvey Diamond once said: "You put a baby in a crib with an
apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car."

Audette's desire to eat more naturally is admirable. He is certainly correct that modern food
technology has created some truly unnatural foods that undermine the health of people who
consume them. He is absolutely right that modern food technology has refined, processed, and
adulterated natural foods to the point of contributing to many degenerative diseases. His
appreciation of the dangers of dairy products and sugar, and of refined carbohydrates such as white
flour, is commendable. The dangers of technologically tampering with our food supply need to be far
more widely understood.

But these basic and valid insights are intermixed in Audette's theories with a host of ideas that are
far more dubious, and some of which are outright bizarre. For example, his fundamental premise, to
which he returns over and again, is that you should not eat anything that you could not eat "naked
and with a sharp stick on the African savanna… To see how this primeval grassland (African
savannas) appeared all we need to do is look at any lawn of golf course." So much for the complex
ecological realities of African savannas.

Audette's diet is heavily meat based. This emphasis on meat, he says, is natural. "My definition of
nature," he says, "is the absence of technology… I eat only those foods that would be available to
me if I were naked of all technology save that of a convenient sharp stick or stone." Accordingly, he
believes that ideally one would eat all one's food raw. At the same time, however, he acknowledges
that "meats, poultry, eggs and seafood are prone to contamination and should be cooked enough to
sterilize them." This puts Audette in a bind. He sees that animal products carry extremely dangerous
pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7, salmonella, trichinosis, Listeria, and campylobacter. How to
resolve this dilemma with his ideal of eating everything raw? Audette's answer is remarkable,
coming as it does from an author whose entire program is based squarely upon eating only those
foods that don't require technology for their production, preparation, or consumption.

"Irradiated foods," he says "will eliminate this risk and make steak tartar and raw eggs much more
possible."

When it comes to grasping the functioning of the human intestinal tract seems, some of the things
Audette says are, frankly, out to lunch. "The hunter-gatherer's miracle food, pemmican (equal parts
raw, dehydrated, powdered red meat and tallow - rendered animal fat), makes practicing the
NeanderThin program easy," he writes. "If eaten exclusively, a small amount per day will sustain
you indefinitely without vitamin or mineral deficiencies…. It produces no waste… Pemmican is almost
totally absorbed by the body. Very little waste remains from its digestion. As such pemmican is an
excellent first solid food for infants, and a good choice for anyone suffering from a gastrointestinal
disorder." Actually, exclusive dependence on such a food would create gross deficiencies in vitamin C
and many other essential nutrients. And a food that "is almost totally absorbed by the body" and
"produces no waste" would be a good choice for anyone wishing to experience constipation.

Audette's understanding of obesity issues similarly seems to be missing in action. "Overweight

people," he says, "eat significantly less than lean persons do…. Fat is good for you."

Audette says that you should never eat grains, beans, or potatoes. In fact, his admonition never to
Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 20
Comparative Anatomy
eat these foods is fundamental to what he calls his "Ten Commandments." Calling his advice by such
a Biblical term may provide the appearance of grandeur and importance, but it does not make his
counsel any more valid or healthful. He says repeatedly that human beings are not designed to eat
grains, beans, or potatoes. But these foods have been the primary source of food energy for the
human race for many centuries. Today they account for the satisfaction of 70% of our species'
energy needs. On the other hand, the meats he is saying to eat are (along with dairy products) the
chief sources of saturated fat and cholesterol in the human diet, the principal causes of heart
disease, and the primary carriers of food-borne disease.

Modern meat is a far cry from the flesh of Paleolithic animals. For example, chickens raised for meat
traditionally took twenty-one weeks to reach 4-pound market weight. But today, with the birds
having been systematically bred for rapid weight gain, it takes only seven weeks for them to reach
the same weight. One not-so-slight problem with this is that those chickens who are used for
breeding must be kept under severe food restriction - otherwise they rapidly become too obese to
reproduce.

Loren Cordain, author of The Paleo Diet, recommends that more than half your diet should
be meat and fish, and then goes on to say "the mainstays of the Paleo Diet are the lean
meats, organ meats, and fish and seafood that are available at your local supermarket…
Turkey breast is one of the best and cheapest sources of very lean meat…and fortunately,
it's available almost everywhere."

Well, yes, turkey breasts are available at almost every supermarket, and yes their breasts
are low in fat, but it is hard for me to grasp how authors recommending that we go back
to eating the way they say our ancestors did can recommend such a product.

Turkeys today are far from the wild birds of yore. For one thing, thanks to a host of technological
manipulations, they grow so fast that they literally find it impossible to mate naturally. By the time
they reach reproductive age they are literally so obese that they simply cannot get close enough to
physically manage. As a result, all 300 million turkeys born annually in the United States every year
are the result of an act of artificial insemination.

(How, you may wonder, is this done? Suffice it to say that there are people who have become adept
at handling male turkeys in just the right way. The procedure is called-with delicacy but without
anatomical accuracy-"abdominal massage." After the semen is thus collected, and then mixed with a
myriad of chemicals, there are other "experts" whose job it is to inject the material into the females,
using an implement that looks, rather ironically, remarkably like a turkey baster.)

Each year at Thanksgiving, the U.S. president and vice president pardon a turkey and a vice turkey.
This is a nice gesture, but after the turkeys are sent to a small farm, within a few months they die
from heart attacks or lung collapse because their hearts and lungs can't support the ever increasing
bulk. A farm journal noted that "If a seven-pound human baby grew at the same rate that today's
turkeys grow, when the baby reached 18 weeks of age it would weigh 1,500 pounds."

There may be some individuals who - by dint of their unique biochemical individuality - do well on a
diet that avoids grains, beans and/or potatoes. If you want to experiment by not eating these foods
for a time to see what happens and how you feel, all power to you. But I believe it is the rare person
who will find that cereal grains and legumes are the health disaster they are said to be by the
authors of these diet books.

For the vast majority of people, I am afraid that diets which are so very heavy on animal protein will
lead to constipation, increased risks for heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, and many other
diseases.

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 21

Comparative Anatomy
We are always learning,
John Robbins, www.foodrevolution.org

Printed: November 4, 2008 www.JuiceFeasting.com 22

Comparative Anatomy