teeth and hunting

[zaida]

I am sure you have all discussed this at one point and I am still making my way through the old topics but I wanted to get some of your thoughts on a couple things.

I have been looking to find the most natural diet for humans and what we were designed to eat.

Raw definitely makes sense to me wether it be fruit or meat but I am struggling on a few points.

1. Our teeth. Why is it that we were given the teeth structure that we have if we were meant to be carnivores? Compared to a dog or cats teeth ours are vastly different. It seems we are equipped to eat meat however is that we were designed to have as the majority of our diet or should we be consuming something in nature perhaps that is not available in grocery stores? We also seem to have a longer digestive system than most carnivores so would that suggest a diet consisting of some plant mater?

2. The hunt. To hunt a deer or other animal in this day and age is easy. We have gun power, traps and knives. What about at the beginning of humanity? Without those things how would we have been able to take these fast moving creatures down often enough to survive? Or were we scavengers and ate off the remains of carcasses from other animals such as lions and tigers? I know at one point we would have figured out how to make bow and arrows and spears but what about before that? I am not that knowledgeable on history and would love to hear other ideas out there.

thanks in advance for any insight!

[zaida]

I just saw that two topics down it talks about man the scavenger lol. I will have to read that to get some insight as well.

[yon yonson]

most native peoples hunted without long range weapons pretty often. they would get a few guys together and herd deer into traps. they can then corner a few and kill them with clubs or spears. another technique to get bison was to herd them over a cliff. there are many ways to hunt if you have a group of people to hunt with. but yes, it would have been pretty difficult to hunt alone i would think. but then again i've heard of indians hiding in trees and then jumping on to passing deer.

as for the teeth: because humans had tools to cut meat we probably didnt need to adapt a more carnivorous looking set of teeth that could tear and rip apart flesh. the tools did it for us

[invisible]

meat doesn't need to be chewed. Fangs are merely a weapon not part of the digestive process. The structure of our teeth and how to maintain them is the however same as cats and dogs.

the digestive system is longer than a cats but not nearly as long as a herbivore. The digestive system of a human and a cat is virtually the same. A throat, one stomach and intestines. Like carnivores human digestion takes place in the small intestine with the large intestine remaining largely inactive.

[goodsamaritan]

Why is it that we were given the teeth structure that we have if we were meant to be carnivores?

Humans are true omnivores.
Humans can survive on a wide range of food.
Omnivory is partly the reason why humans probably inherited the earth.

[Josh]

Similarly to what invisible said, it seems to me that hands and knives are a replacement for big incisors. Chimps use their hands and tools to cut up their meat.

The hunt - again, we are the tool making species. We have probably had spears since before we were human - Neanderthals have decent stone weapons for example, and chimps use sticks to fight and other tools. And we are cooperative hunters so it's not about one human bringing down one mammoth. Probably just dig a hole and drive the mammoth into it.

[TylerDurden]

Similarly to what invisible said, it seems to me that hands and knives are a replacement for big incisors. Chimps use their hands and tools to cut up their meat.

The hunt - again, we are the tool making species. We have probably had spears since before we were human - Neanderthals have decent stone weapons for example, and chimps use sticks to fight and other tools. And we are cooperative hunters so it's not about one human bringing down one mammoth. Probably just dig a hole and drive the mammoth into it.

Current evidence indicates strongly that nets/traps/bows and arrows and similiar technology only got invented c.60,000 years ago , towards the tail-end of the Palaeolithic era. That seems to imply that the scavenger theory is far more likely than the hunter theory, up till 60,000 years ago, when hunting started to predominate.

Re hands/knives:- Irrelevant, really. Since humans have herbivore teeth as well as carnivore teeth, it becomes clear that hominids were omnivorous, not carnivorous or herbivorous. Same goes for digestive system which is  a mix between carnivorous and herbivorous.

[zaida]

thanks for the info guys, something to really think about. seems as though we as humans were created to adapt to the environment and situations we are in. I remember seeing a old jaw bone picture somewhere on the net and the teeth on it were worn right down and rounded almost, as though they were used for heavy chewing. Would we have chewed on small bones maybe years ago? Cats and dogs do not have flat molars like we do at the backs of our mouths as they only need to rip the meat and swallow. Is it merely connivence that we have the ability to eat a variety of raw foods or is there and underlying reason we have yet to find out. I know that there are some of you that are on a purely carnivores diet here.... do you ever get any cravings for something either than what your eating?

[William]

thanks for the info guys, something to really think about. seems as though we as humans were created to adapt to the environment and situations we are in. I remember seeing a old jaw bone picture somewhere on the net and the teeth on it were worn right down and rounded almost, as though they were used for heavy chewing. Would we have chewed on small bones maybe years ago? Cats and dogs do not have flat molars like we do at the backs of our mouths as they only need to rip the meat and swallow. Is it merely connivence that we have the ability to eat a variety of raw foods or is there and underlying reason we have yet to find out. I know that there are some of you that are on a purely carnivores diet here.... do you ever get any cravings for something either than what your eating?

I would put it the other way: seems as though we as humans were created to adapt  the environment and situations we are in to us.
This is what the big brain and hands are for.

As for the worn teeth, I'm guessing that was neolithic, and also maybe more likely from someone who had no access to the right stone for making cutting/pounding/sawing tools. For instance recent traditional Inuit.

No recent cravings. I have daydreams of the perfect hamburger - the masterpiece of North American cuisine - but I think that's more the artistic urge than appetite.

[SuperInfinity]

thanks for the info guys, something to really think about. seems as though we as humans were created to adapt to the environment and situations we are in. I remember seeing a old jaw bone picture somewhere on the net and the teeth on it were worn right down and rounded almost, as though they were used for heavy chewing. Would we have chewed on small bones maybe years ago? Cats and dogs do not have flat molars like we do at the backs of our mouths as they only need to rip the meat and swallow. Is it merely connivence that we have the ability to eat a variety of raw foods or is there and underlying reason we have yet to find out. I know that there are some of you that are on a purely carnivores diet here.... do you ever get any cravings for something either than what your eating?

Zaida, beware of the people and books proclaiming their diet as being "paleo" and trying to tell you that it doesn't involve mostly carbohydrates. There was hardly a single time in the entirity of human evolution that man was mainly carnivore...
 
Fruit is the food of choice for nearly all primates and it is the most nutritious as well. Luckily fruit has been selected generation upon generation according to human tastebuds.... ie. more healthy. Yes because humans are always drawn to the most healthy food as it's the one that tastes the nicest.... only with cooking and processing does this rule not apply. It's also a myth that modern fruit has more sugar than wild fruit... the fruit I like best doesn't have the most sugar... nobody picks their fruit like that. Just like our eyes evolved to give us sight, our taste evolved to give us the healthiest things to eat. Ever wonder why you're attracted to the darkest fruit for ones such as grapes or plums? Because it's sweetest right? Right, and the most nutritious by far, but it does NOT have more sugar.

[van]

You'll have to find out for yourself.  Many have learned how addictive sugar in any form can be, and when consuming in even moderate quantities, how difficult it becomes for your body to become a fat burner, or a body that can efficiently use fat for fuel.   Something someone said onetime online was, that fruit eaters, (not just an occasional fruit eater, as in a piece of fruit like one would have a piece of candy for desert) would rather fail in health than give up their fruit.  I was that way, and then I read that line and it hit right in the face.  He was talking about me.  That's when I gave it up.  Now it tastes sooo sweet, so artificial.  I am not saying that my experience is truth for everyone.  But when I did give it up, I practically laid on the couch for several days until my body could start producing energy from fat sources. Most will never go the distance to find out what it trully feels like to burn fat instead of sugar for energy.   When we're young we can take the rise and fall of blood sugar and insulin responses over and over.  But a little bit of reading will enlighten one on the aging effects of excessive insulin exposure. There is a lot of emerging research daily.  And then we can read all about the benefits of fruit, it's antioxidents etc.... and feel good about continuing eating it.  But for me,  I only really knew when I put the stake in the ground and said 'I am going to see if what others are writing about is true".  And for the me my body stays so much more in balance by not giving it the swings that good amounts of fruit and or sugar put it through.

[SuperInfinity]

Van please don't think I'm attempting to pick apart your post or anything when I quote you multiple times. It's only because I think it's an intelligent post that I'm replying to it in a lengthy way.

You'll have to find out for yourself.

I agree, the best way each person can find his/her best diet is by experimentation and sticking with what they like.

Many have learned how addictive sugar in any form can be,

err... but fish/eggs/peanuts are just as if not MORE addictive. There's nothing inherently wrong with being addictive anyway.

and when consuming in even moderate quantities, how difficult it becomes for your body to become a fat burner, or a body that can efficiently use fat for fuel. 

I don't want to burn fat, I'm at my ideal weight. Hilariously, if I ever want to add a few cheap calories... I eat lots of peanuts or fish. Fat and protein are not natural fuels, that's why the body hates using them for energy and tries to avoid it as much as possible. Honestly guys, I don't know what you "very little carb" guys are doing to yourselves, but it could range from disasterous long-term ruination of your health or perhaps you will end up about the same as SAD diet.

Something someone said onetime online was, that fruit eaters, (not just an occasional fruit eater, as in a piece of fruit like one would have a piece of candy for desert) would rather fail in health than give up their fruit. 

If it feels good then it's good for you. The only thing that obfuscates this is processed food.

I was that way, and then I read that line and it hit right in the face.  He was talking about me.  That's when I gave it up.  Now it tastes sooo sweet, so artificial.  I am not saying that my experience is truth for everyone.  But when I did give it up, I practically laid on the couch for several days until my body could start producing energy from fat sources. Most will never go the distance to find out what it trully feels like to burn fat instead of sugar for energy.   When we're young we can take the rise and fall of blood sugar and insulin responses over and over. 

Frankly, I very much doubt that you were high fruitarian for very long. I bet it was the chocolate chip cookies and ice-cream etc. that you ate along with your banana that made you fat. Otherwise you wouldn't be fat. Let me go on record as saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be fat if you eat nothing but fresh fruit. I can't say I'm 60 years old and been pure fruitarian for the past 20 years and I'm in wonderful health, but there are some who can say things similar to that.

But a little bit of reading will enlighten one

Read up on evolution, NOT the latest faddist nonsense to come out of a lab. Do you realise that the more they hypothesize, the more "breakthroughs" they're said to have found the more money and eminence they gain? Nutritional science in a lab is basically a religion these days, not everyone buys into it.

The whole point of this board is "raw paleo forum".... ie. what PALEO man ate, NOT some clinical findings in a lab. 

on the aging effects of excessive insulin exposure. There is a lot of emerging research daily.  And then we can read all about the benefits of fruit, it's antioxidents etc.... and feel good about continuing eating it.  But for me,  I only really knew when I put the stake in the ground and said 'I am going to see if what others are writing about is true".  And for the me my body stays so much more in balance by not giving it the swings that good amounts of fruit and or sugar put it through.

Okay fine. Let me just throw you a thought though. And you might find this a strange idea at first, but please give it a chance: When I first heard of the idea of "metabolic syndrome", my first thought was the same as most others "yeah, they're probably eating too much and not exercising and had a lower metabolism to begin with, sucks". Now I absolutely believe that it is a biochemical transformation that occurs at earliest in your 30s or 40s and is as a result of constant abuse of insulin over and over when the person was younger. NOT little pulses of insulin, but extreme insulin load many times what it would ever rise to with fruit. Sort of like diabetes-lite.... a horrible disease that you get that limits the amount of sugar you can take. Maybe you have that, hell maybe a very high protein diet could be necessary for a while to try to reverse it or maybe there is no reversing. So maybe the diet really is best for YOU, but a person eating fruit their whole lives isn't going to get into the territory of eating 20 times the fruit they're eating, which would be what was necessary to get that horrible condition or diabetes. That's what could also cause such a high-protein phenomenon, have a think about that and if you don't like the idea fine, but just remember that it's definitely not rawpaleo to eat 90%+ non-fruit.... and that's what this particular forum is supposed to be for.

[zaida]

I think no matter what everyone should have their own diet that is best for their body and we must all journey and search to find what works best for us as and individual.

 Van- I find sugar to be very addictive, I notice it most the next day as well. Also when eating sugar contained foods I find I can keep eating even past the point of being full which feels very unnatural. I still am eating fruit at them moment and don't think I will ever completely cut it out but I would like to lower the amount greatly in the next year. I tried to be on a mainly raw fruit and veg diet and found I was never satisfied.

SuperInfinity- Its always great to hear other opinions and thoughts. One thing I do wonder about though is if the fruit we eat in our generation and age can be considered Paleo. A Paleo man would have eaten fruit that was wild and pure. Looking at the fruits available in cities today I do not beleive that it mimics the fruit a Paleo man would have eaten at all. We are mass producing them in fields time and time again. These fields cannot hold the minerals and nutrients that the wild would have long ago where Paleo man would have been getting his fruit. Most wild berries are sour and tart rather than sweet. As well as wild fruit tends to be smaller which means you would have to eat a lot more to get your fill. If you were a larger group this would be very hard unless you were living in the right terrain.

As far as being able to survive without carbs what about the eskimos? They do not have readily available fruits to eat but they seem to survive just fine - with stunningly white teeth

I never really though of fish as a fattening protein. I would think beef or lamb would be better but I am not certain on this.

I think when van was talking about using being a fat burner he was trying to describe more the way the body takes the fat we consume and turn it into energy therefor using it as fuel and not to burn your own fat on your body. At least that is what I think he meant.

To say that no carb guys may end up the same as if on a SAD diet is a bit harsh.

I have read many testimonials on this site about people being on pure fruitarian diets and not feeling well or healthy on them at all and when switching to raw meats and fats felt a lot better. If you are wanting to discuss pure fruit diets you may be better off finding a forum that is actually about that. I think we should look at history and what Paleo man has eaten but also we must look at the present and use technology to try and better understand human digestion and health. What comes out of this technology and science may not all be perfectly correct but we should really always keep an open mind and be ready for new ideas. Now that we are more advance than ever I would think we would be able to learn more about nutrition. I think the main thing however that scientist are missing and will end up leading them to improper results is the fact that our foods should be taken raw. To do a study on cooked meat and cooked fat will give results no where near to what you would get with raw meats and raw fats. Unfortunately the majority (almost all!) of the world eats cooked fats and cooked meats so that is what they will run their test and get their facts on.

[goodsamaritan]

Most of today's "research" needs a funding mechanism.
raw paleo diet has no funding mechanism.
So we are roughly on our own.

[invisible]

I don't know what you "very little carb" guys are doing to yourselves, but it could range from disasterous long-term ruination of your health or perhaps you will end up about the same as SAD diet.

i
Unfortunactely you have no evidence to bak this up. Yet plenty supports no negatives from doing it.

[invisible]

Fat and protein are not natural fuels, that's why the body hates using them for energy and tries to avoid it as much as possible.

The body stores excess energy regardless of where it comes from as fat, it does not avoid using fat. It chooses to have most of its energy reserves as fat so how did you draw such a conclusion?

The body burns the least important things for fuel first i.e. Sugar. Then turns to fat, muscle and finally organs.

A lion will burn sugar for energy before fat if it eats carbohydrates (which it of course can, in fact cats fed carbohydrate based diets such as pets, suffer all the health problems that plague humans eating SAD - no coincidence)

[Josh]

Current evidence indicates strongly that nets/traps/bows and arrows and similiar technology only got invented c.60,000 years ago , towards the tail-end of the Palaeolithic era. That seems to imply that the scavenger theory is far more likely than the hunter theory, up till 60,000 years ago, when hunting started to predominate.

Hi Tyler.

I don't know the details of the scavenger vs hunter theory, but to me it doesn't seem to follow that because there were no nets/traps/bows and arrows that hunting didn't take place. Some aborigines didn't have these things, but they could bring down kangaroos with a spear. It doesn't have to be exclusively scavenging or hunting does it?

In fact, do you not think that neanderthals hunted large game? They didn't have advanced technology. Ok, they were bigger than us, but not that bigger. This study found that Nea and modern human hunting tactics were similar.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/250525/neanderthal_hunting_practices_pg2.html?cat=37

Would a pit for hunting mammoths leave evidence?

Regarding teeth, I think you've taken my point the wrong way. This thread seems to have become meat vs fruitarian or something, whereas I took the OP to mean 'how could we eat a lot of meat if we have no fangs' and I was saying that we could use tools or hands rather than tearing with big incisors.

I'm sure you're right that we have omnivorous teeth...I think it's hard to know exactly what the balance was as there are no paleo humans and would be very hard to prove anything with studies.

[TylerDurden]

Neanderthals were, until recently, supposed to have only hunted large gamewhich was cited as a reason for their extinction when big game became scarce), but recent studies have shown their diet was much wider including plant food small mammals and even seafood and probably fowl. Like humans, Neanderthals didn't have the luxury of plentiful food-supplies so had to just take whatever food they found.

1 problem with large mammals is that they are more dangerous, being able to kill hunters quite easily so that smaller mammals are an easier option for prey.

[Josh]

Cool. That is food for thought. I have to say that when I first started this, the idea of chicken, rabbits etc was quite repellent, but now I quite fancy it. I might try some from the market.

I suppose it's easy to create a 'just so' story to fit any of our own prejudices. In the end, none of us really know we can only say what's working for us. I don't see myself being able to eat as much fruit as some people, but maybe that could change.

[PaleoPhil]

I think no matter what everyone should have their own diet that is best for their body and we must all journey and search to find what works best for us as and individual.  ....

Brilliant post Zaida! You are wise to think and investigate yourself rather than adhere to the dogma of any diet guru or group.

Regarding your questions...

TEETH

The physiology of human teeth is actually one of the best arguments for NOT following vegetarianism. As I've posted elsewhere, the carnivorous aspects of our omnivorous teeth tend to be ignored by vegetarians. The teeth of all carnivores and of humans consist of canine and brachydont (low-crowned) teeth. Brachydont teeth erupt once and do not grow or get replaced and they have a continuous, fairly uniform enamel that coats the external surface of the crown of brachydont teeth.

Herbivores' teeth tend to have rough surfaces spiked with ridges of enamel (lophs), better enabling grinding. Strict herbivores have aradicular (without roots) hypsodont (high-crowned) molars that grow continuously, which prevents their disappearance as they are worn down by the frequent grinding. Most of the enamel in hypsodont teeth lies beneath a layer of cementum. Even omnivores whose diets are plant-heavy, such as rodents, have hypsodont teeth, whereas we have none.

If humans are really designed to be 100% plant eaters, why do humans have none of the hypsodont teeth that herbivores and omnivores with plant-heavy diets have?

HUNTING

Regarding hunting, big game hunting is not the only kind of hunting. Unless we are to believe that small animals like insects, lizards, fish, birds and small mammals are plants, then ALL primates hunt, and of course all primates eat at least some nonplant foods. On this subject of hunting and consumption of fauna by primates I devoted a thread and supplied much evidence.

Check out my avatar--it shows a chimp who fashioned his own small spear and used it to hunt bushbabies with vigorous, killing stabs and eat them. Are we really to believe that chimps can hunt but early humans could not?

Besides, as regards the question of whether humans should become 100% vegetarians and whether our physiology is that of a 100% herbivore or frugivore, as many fanatical vegetarians and fruitarians claim, what difference does it make whether humans scavenged or hunted their meat? Either way they ate some meat and their physiology apparently enabled this.

Here is an excellent counter to the ridiculous claims that early humans were 100% plant eaters or maybe just did a little scavenging on the side: "Excerpts from The Protein Power Lifeplan by Drs. Michael & Mary Eades."

[William]

I'm sure you're right that we have omnivorous teeth...I think it's hard to know exactly what the balance was as there are no paleo humans and would be very hard to prove anything with studies.

How about Gary Taubes' GCBC, where he presents studies that show that zero carb or very low carb is the way to health, and there is the experience of members here.
Humans are paleo by design, so the studies are relevant.

[Dan]

Thanks for the info on teeth!  I always thought teeth didn't do much to explain how we evolved, but that helped.

I noticed people asking about weapons, hunting, and such.  These are just my thoughts on the subject.  First, I've noticed if a place gets little enough human contact, some animals won't really recognize us as predators.  Also, you don't need bows, atl-atls, or traps to hunt.  With a little sneakiness, you can get within spear range of even some large game (did this 3 nights ago to some sleeping deer, I live in the boonies), or they can be ran down.

Also, most people assume group hunting.  Has anyone done any research on this?  My best hunting has always been alone or with one other person, and large groups always seem as worthless as their clumsiest, stupidest member.  I also think I'd rather share my kill with mate/children first, not a group. 

I've never really thought of us as scavengers, because that means the best parts of the animal are gone, but it would make the job easier, and in the absence of wolves or lions, I can see this being a good survival strategy.  Plus, there's a lot less work to do.

[zaida]

Thanks for the info everyone. As for our teeth I feel as though they are versatile but mainly made for meat. We have a jaw action of both up and down as well as sideways while herbivores I believe only have a side to side action (e.g horse) and carnivores tend to have a up and down action (e.g alligator). Don't quote me on that though as those are just my thoughts and may not be fact. As far as fruit and teeth I would think that if fruit were to be eaten by humans in large quantity it wouldn't have the harming effect that they do on our teeth such as causing more sensitive teeth and wearing off the enamel from the acids in fruit. I have heard of strawberries to whiten teeth but you end up weakening your teeth and causing them to be more sensitive. Never tried it though.

As far as hunting I feel we hunted from the beginning. Wether we did it with nets, holes or spears I do not know but one way or another I do believe we were intelligent enough to figure out that we can get more energy out of eating animals than plants. As far as eating any plants at all I am still not certain of this however when the time is right I will experiment with it and listen to what my body tells me. Maybe plants are just meant to be eaten occasionally by themselves as a cleanse? I have read about juices being a cleanse well one idea could be every so often humans would gorge on plants to clean out their digestive systems?

I feel we need to try and emulate what our ancestors at but just because they did eat something doesn't mean that we should eat it as well as just because they didn't eat it doesn't meant that we shouldn't. Just because they lived long ago in good health doesn't mean they had the 'perfect' diet however I think they were a lot closer to it that most of the world nowadays will ever be.

Another thought is how did they store their meat once they caught a large animal? They didn't have fridges or freezers back then. Would they just allow their meat to age naturally or would they process it in some way or store specially?
Few ideas I had were:
burying in the ground to get it at colder temp
smoking (if their was fire)
dehydrating.... not sure how they would have accomplished this though.

When meat is left out flies tend to swarm it and lay their eggs. We all know the result of this however is the meat considered unfit when there are maggots on it? I know my cats wont eat it but my dogs are always more than willing. I understand that maggots are a source of protein as well however the quality of it I am unsure. Do any of you ever leave their meat out in the open air for more than a hour or so?

[SuperInfinity]

As for our teeth I feel as though they are versatile but mainly made for meat.

Noooo... no no, you're not right there. Teeth made mainly for meat are shaped totally differently. Now you may have quibbles with the practical implications of MODERN teeth and FRUIT, but not vegetable eating. I do think it's worth looking more at the shape than the alleged implications because noone can really prove the implications or what their real cause is from. From the shape human teeth are mainly herbivore, with the slightest of canines as seen on omnivorous but mostly herbivore teeth.

To the guy who said that commercial fruit is so different: it is not. As I have tirelessly explained before the fruit you buy in the stores is NOT selected by higher sugar, higher sugar fruit is NOT more appealing to humans, the sweetest fruit is NOT from the highest sugar it is from the most nutritious. Fruit has been artificially selected to give the most nutritious fruit possible while unhealthy apples etc. are thrown away. Our taste evolved over millions of years to be drawn towards the most NUTRITIOUS foods, just like our eyes evolved.... yes it may be hard for us to imagine such a complex thing at first. It has NOTHING to do with the sugar in a fruit. Please stop being blind and think about things for a change, think about whether the fruit you like most has more sugar or not... look up what fruit online has the most sugar. It has ZERO to do with how good it tastes and has EVERYTHING to do with bitter and twisted and deranged fat sugar-haters who fall back on bad foods and get fat(ter) over and over again. Open your eyes and see for yourself instead of just reading someone else's word.
  

The physiology of human teeth is actually one of the best arguments for NOT following vegetarianism.

Definitely, it is the best argument. But PaleoPhil, our teeth may be ruined by early food exposure and never have developed properly.

As I've posted elsewhere, the carnivorous aspects of our omnivorous teeth tend to be ignored by vegetarians. The teeth of all carnivores and of humans consist of canine and brachydont (low-crowned) teeth. Brachydont teeth erupt once and do not grow or get replaced and they have a continuous, fairly uniform enamel that coats the external surface of the crown of brachydont teeth.

So what if "the teeth of all carnivores and of humans consist of canine and low-crowned teeth"? You can equally say the teeth of all herbivores and of humans consist of wisdom teeth and incisors. Omnivores can have them both.

Herbivores' teeth tend to have rough surfaces spiked with ridges of enamel (lophs), better enabling grinding. Strict herbivores have aradicular (without roots) hypsodont (high-crowned) molars that grow continuously, which prevents their disappearance as they are worn down by the frequent grinding. Most of the enamel in hypsodont teeth lies beneath a layer of cementum. Even omnivores whose diets are plant-heavy, such as rodents, have hypsodont teeth, whereas we have none.

If humans are really designed to be 100% plant eaters, why do humans have none of the hypsodont teeth that herbivores and omnivores with plant-heavy diets have?

You mention rodents... well rodents have no canines and yet are sometimes carnivorous and YET their incisors are continually growing right throughout their lives, and I'm sure there are other examples as well.

I could just as equally say: If humans are really designed to be 100% meat eaters then why do humans have no growing canine/incisors teeth that many carnivores have. And remember, I'm NOT saying that we're designed to be 100% vegetarians!!!! I have never stated that.  

HUNTING

Regarding hunting, big game hunting is not the only kind of hunting. Unless we are to believe that small animals like insects, lizards, fish, birds and small mammals are plants, then ALL primates hunt, and of course all primates eat at least some nonplant foods. On this subject of hunting and consumption of fauna by primates I devoted a thread and supplied much evidence.

Nice try PaleoPhil, trying to sort of merge "hunting" in with all kinds of gathering of animal protein. I suggest you look the word "hunting" up in a dictionary.   You RAFists are so taken with the romantic idea of man going out hunting it's ridiculous. Only in very recent history has man really taken to hunting and even then... most modern tribes, the vast majority get the most of their food by far from meat.
 
The old fables and fairytales of people's living on animal blood and cow's milk are clearly made-up exaggerated nonsense. People always tell lies and exaggerate. Considering some of those tribes will tell you of how the village founder fought off twenty lions and four pythons to save a baby there, and kill you and eat you for disrespecting one of their Gods... I wouldn't believe everything they say. Maybe the Inuit can exist well on a NEARLY all RAF diet... Inuit look hugely different from us, so much that you might say they're a subspecies.... you have to accept that they are more developed for RAF than we are... otherwise you're creating a contradiction because they only split from us a short time ago and yet we are supposed to have evolved to have a high RAF a short time ago..... ANYWAY....).

You know how in those nature documentaries there are lions that guilefully and skillfully and tactfully come in for the kill? Oh how majestic they are in hunting their prey, how beautifully they track down and hunt their prey... really, I'm serious they are! A beauty and wonder of nature to behold... then the camera pans out a little and you see a couple of sneaky, surreptitious, weasely-looking, lamer couple of hyenas and vultures around waiting for the the lions to have their fill so they can move in on the remains... now it's not that I'm not saying the humans are in the latter group.... not at all. The humans, when times were bad and they were very hungry, were actually out of the picture behind the hyenas and vultures! The scavengers of scavengers.... as hyenas and vulutures could rip a human apart no problem. A little before they resorted to eating dirt/bark etc. the humans would be waiting for THOSE guys to have their fill and THEN after all of that move in for their little bits of meat.

Look at this place. You start off as a forager, move on to egg-poacher or whatever.... it's a JOKE! The smartest, most skillful, most brainy humans were the FORAGERS!!!! Those who regard hunting as being somehow "superior" are making a big mistake. You're very possibly ruining your health over a kind of religion or imagery of hunters as being such great indviduals.... perhaps they were with regards to RANK, after all hunting shows off prowess but NOT with regard to HEALTHY EATING! Why would it take more brains to hunt than to forage??? It doesn't! That's why Orangutans, who are basically frugivores are the second smartest species on the planet.... they need to know the locations and behaviour of all nuts, fruit, etc. all around them. What are good to eat and when etc.

[William]

Another thought is how did they store their meat once they caught a large animal? They didn't have fridges or freezers back then. Would they just allow their meat to age naturally or would they process it in some way or store specially?
Few ideas I had were:
burying in the ground to get it at colder temp
smoking (if their was fire)
dehydrating.... not sure how they would have accomplished this though.

When meat is left out flies tend to swarm it and lay their eggs. We all know the result of this however is the meat considered unfit when there are maggots on it? I know my cats wont eat it but my dogs are always more than willing. I understand that maggots are a source of protein as well however the quality of it I am unsure. Do any of you ever leave their meat out in the open air for more than a hour or so?

They dried it, mostly, and a smudge fire keeps the flies away. That's all the smoke was for.

Tastes better than raw to me.
I bet they made pemmican.