Humans are herbivores(?) Who would have thought!
[Internal]
Humans are herbivores.Ā I didn’t know. š Now, this is my opinion, but I am going with this:Ā Humans are herbivores. Hunter-and-gatherers, canines, not designed to eat meat…Ā and herbivores. I didn’t have a clue. Nadda. Zip.Ā I had no idea.
So, it looks like behavioral omnivores quite time now, but our biology make us herbivores.
Elephants (they’re the land-based biggest, strongest animals on the planet), gorillas, rhinos, moose, etc. are land mammals. So, why did I think we were omnivores? I don’t know. But somehow is fixed in my head.
And… my Ivy league, tech titans (oh yeah, the top of show) did so, too.Ā I was one of them. All of them still think humans that are omnivores. I had massive shift during my stroke (groundbreaking?), I still would have believe it.
I would definite put this in “soft sciences” (social science), especially this “(carnivore), omnivores vs. herbivores” debate. Although I am “hard science” (natural science) pseudo-person, I still think they are only “hard science” people – physics, biology, chemistry, etc. They think that ‘on the basis of scientific investigations to establish strictly measurable criteria’, and not “soft science” – archaeology, anthropology, psychology, etc. where it is almost impossible to recreate ‘experiment with exactitude’.
> What Is the Difference Between Hard Science and Soft Science? / Dictionary: Hard Science/Dictionary: Soft Science<
It did not hurt I am a “whole food plant-based diet’…er. Doesn’t hurt. š
Here are two things that the omnivore’s group had to say:
- General and “Hunter-and-Gatherers”
- Canine teeth and forward face eyes.
That’s what I am going on now.
Humans are herbivores!
Human are herbivores… with science!!
(Mic looks at Nathaniel Dominy, PhD, Biological anthropologist at Dartmouth… he is good.)
How humans and non-human primates discern and acquire food resources, and how the act of acquiring those food resources may have exerted a selective pressure on their anatomy in particular.
…
But anatomically I would say we’re not adapted to meat at all.
…
A mix of plant foods with a large amounts of starch coming from tubers and seeds, that’s the fundamental component of the human diet.
Dr. Milton Mills
“Our anatomy and physiology is a completely different than that of meat-eater. So, there’s is really nothing to supports of the idea that human being should be consuming animal tissue.”
Human has very small, “canine” over time small and rounded and function like accessories incisors.
“They utterly useless for trying to rip and tear anything other than an envelope. They are useless for eating animal tissues.”
I picked one from 2010, just to show that it was possible (and he is the doctor and born in 1932. Ha!).
and young one, Sofia Pineda Ochoa, M.D. (and she is a doctor) and she goes over a lot.
Human canines are meant for meat? Wrong.
Teeth (dentition)
One of the most distinguishing features between mammals with different diets are their teeth (Fig. 1). The dentition of a species has adapted to process a particular, preferred diet.
Carnivores, for example, have very prominent, sharpĀ canine teethĀ used to apprehend, kill, and butcher their prey. Another set of characteristic carnivore teeth are theĀ carnassials, which are the lower first molar and the upper fourth premolar. These sharp, blade-like teeth shear against one another like a pair of scissors and are used to slice off chunks of flesh [1].
CarnivoranĀ incisorsĀ are relatively small compared to the rest of the dentition, with pointed, close-packed crowns that form a comb-like structure which the animals use to groom their fur [1].
Omnivores, such as bears, generally have a similar dentition to that of carnivores, with sharp, well-developed canines and small, pointed incisors (Fig. 1). However, their carnassial teeth are not as well-developed as those of strict carnivores [1]. Their teeth are not suited to process tough, fibrous plant foods [2], which is why they tend to either swallow their food in large, bite-sized chunks or crushed, but not thoroughly ground and chewed.
An excellent example of dentition adaptation to diet within the same genus is that of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). The polar bear is thought to have evolved between 700,000 and 150,000 years ago ā which, in evolutionary terms, is rather recent ā from coastal populations of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) [3]. However, while the brown bear is omnivorous, only occasionally eating meat, the polar bear is a strict carnivore, living on a diet of mainly seal flesh and blubber. As a result, the polar bear has reduced molars and premolars compared to omnivorous bears, since he does not require them to grind fibrous plant foods [4]. However, he also does not have the sharp, well-developed carnassials of a true carnivore [4].
Fig. 1:Ā Ā Upper and lower permanent dentitions of a typical carnivore (dog), omnivore (bear), herbivore (deer), and a human [1].
Here is a graph to showĀ incisor territory dispute, for mates or central for social communication.
Territorial disputes
Herbivores generally do not have prominent canine teeth. Exceptions are species that have large canines that they use for sexual display or agonistic behaviour. Such is the case with gorillas or male musk deer (Fig. 2), for example.
Unlike carnivores, herbivores have broad, rather flatĀ premolar and molar teeth, which close in perfect occlusion and which they use to thoroughly grind their food in a mortar-and-pestle fashion [5]. Plant matter requires extensive chewing in order to break down tough cellulose cell walls.
Fig. 3:Ā Ā Schematic of the dentition of a dog and a human (redrawn after [6]).
What about humans?
Unlike carnivores, humans have spatulate incisors and reduced, rather blunt canines (Fig. 3). The canines are similar in size to the adjacent incisors and premolars. Our premolars and molars are broad and close in perfect occlusion ā ideal for grinding and chewing those fruits, vegetables, and grains.
All in all, our dentition has more characteristics in common with that of an herbivore.
REFERENCES:
[1] Hillson, Simon.Ā Teeth. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[2]Ā Feldhamer, George A.Ā Mammalogy: adaptation, diversity, ecology. JHU Press, 2007.
[3] Slater, Graham J., et al. “Biomechanical consequences of rapid evolution in the polar bear lineage.”Ā PloS oneĀ 5.11 (2010): e13870.
[4] Sacco, Tyson, and Blaire Van Valkenburgh. “Ecomorphological indicators of feeding behaviour in the bears (Carnivora: Ursidae).”Ā Journal of ZoologyĀ 263.1 (2004): 41ā54.
[5] Hiiemae, Karen M. āFeeding in Mammalsā. In: Schwenk, Kurt, ed.Ā Feeding: form, function and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates. Academic Press, 2000.
[6]Ā Collins, A.Ā Animal Kingdom: Comparative Anatomy.Ā www.slideshare.net/veterinaria_urp/animal-kingdom-comparative-anatomy
Humans are scavengers?Ā In fact, we are much like a scavenger. Hmm… scavenger? Ah, maan, herbivores or scavenger. My head hurts!!Ā (And scavenger? I’ll look into to it.)
(Carnivore? Herbivore? Omnivore? — Scavenger.)<— Hmmm, interesting article.
Eh, but omnivore… no. I don’t like mysteries from the past (well, one’s can we can’t solve), omnivores or herbivores. We can say that we are NOT carnivores. That much is clear (I say, it’s clear!).Ā I say that we are behaviorally omnivores, but biology we are herbivores.
Professor of Anthropologist of Dartmouth College (Ivy League), Nathaniel Dominy, and evolution of the human diet:
Well, all this time, I thought we were omnivores.Ā Who knew?
HERBIVORES!!!
(or scavengers), not omnivores.
Daam, there goes my “Hunter-and-Gatherer” theory.Ā (I’ll pick up “Hunter-and-gatherers” in another post. š )
Here is my others ones:
