We are faunivore!

[kurite]

I finally found an article that takes an in depth look at what humans are meant to eat. Instead of just saying that we are vegetarians because we dont have claws, like carnivores.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1b.shtml

This article is quite langthy if you want me to give you a summary just say so.

[goodsamaritan]

go summarize please!

[PaleoPhil]

Some key parts...

"Chivers and Langer [1994, p. 4]; ...:
The concept of omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves... animal matter is swamped in a large gut, and foliage cannot be digested in a small gut. A compromise is not really feasible... Humans are only omnivorous thanks to food processing and cookery; their guts have the dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are characteristic of folivores. Among the so-called omnivores, most eat either mainly fruit and animal matter (if smaller) or fruit and foliage (if larger) but not all three.

Thus we note that Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that includes significant amounts of all three types of foods: fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed inappropriate for mammals. ....

Section summary and synopsis
Although by comparative anatomy analysis (alone) the issue is not yet settled, the results of two different statistical analyses of a "large" data set on gut morphology and diet (i.e., the best available scientific evidence) support the idea that animal foods are a natural part of the human diet. That is:
•   Humans are faunivores or frugivores adapted to a diet that includes significant amounts of animal foods.
•   The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore, as claimed by various fruitarian extremists.
•   Finally, the simplistic analyses of gut morphology found in the various comparative proofs of diet are (badly) outdated."

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml

[kurite]

Sorry it took so long to answer. Yes you got the main concept but what I really liked about the article is it mentions a monkey that is the closest genetically to humans in terms of our digestion system. In nature that certain monkeys diet consists of about 50% meat. Meaning that is probably the closest estimate we can come up with for our diet.

[TylerDurden]

This topic should have been put in the zero-carb forum, I'll do so now. As for comparisons between animals claiming we are carnivores they all sound so very plausible but so are all the animal-comparisons made by vegans/vegetarians. The truth is humans have some adaptations to eating some kinds of plant foods(not leaves) and also some adaptations to eating animal foods.

[kurite]

No this thread is not meant to encourage a low carb diet?

[TylerDurden]

No this thread is not meant to encourage a low carb diet?

  The title of the thread is "we are faunivore" - faunivore means carnivore so belongs in RZC forum.

[ForTheHunt]

So what this article says is eat 50%  animal product and 50% carbs (fruit, grain veg?)

[miles]

'Flora and Fauna'... Flora is plants and Fauna is animals. I didn't read the article, but based on the titles I'd think it's saying to eat 99.99999% animal food.

[kurite]

Faunivore simply means that animal products are included in the diet not that we eat exclusively meat. And the monkey I was referring to does eat 50% meat on a regular bases but at certain times it will eat higher or lower amounts based on what it has on hand (no pun intended). So yes about 50%.
Omnivore simply means that you eat some food on a higher tropic level as well as plant matter, it does not necessarily mean that we include animals in our food, it means that we may eat insects.

[Paleo Donk]

Which monkeys are those?

[PaleoPhil]

 The title of the thread is "we are faunivore" - faunivore means carnivore so belongs in RZC forum.

The definition featured in the article classified a faunivore as any creature with a morphology optimally designed to digest flesh/fish/eggs/insects/grubs/etc. regardless of what it actually eats (so it could also eat plant foods). Whereas ZC is a specific human diet that generally eliminates all plant carbs, and often also meats that contain significant carbs (particularly liver). So the two describe different things. On the other hand, only people following carnivorous or ZC diets tend to be interested in faunivory, so it probably does belong in the carnivore/ZC forum.

The more widely accepted scientific definition of faunivore is any creature within the carnivore and insectivore categories, which are assigned largely on morphology. Only obligate faunivores could be fairly classed as ZCers and even they tend to occasionally eat plant foods for likely medicinal purposes.

Nature is usually not as cut-and-dried as modern humans would like it to be. Where the confusion tends to occur is in mixing up what animals are designed to eat (morphology) with what they actually eat (diet).

[kurite]

Capuchin monkey (Cebus species)

[PaleoPhil]

The tarsier is a primate that reportedly eats 100% fauna (meat, insects, etc.). If forgot about that one when I said that no animal eats 99.9% meats. I haven't found any evidence yet that tarsiers eat grass or any other plant even for medicinal purposes, though I would be surprised if they don't at least occasionally do this.

[kurite]

But are their digestive systems similar to ours???

[PaleoPhil]

Good question. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that much research has been done on tarsiers and they are threatened with extinction, so we may never know. I think tarsiers, along with giant pandas and other bears, are a key species for humans to study for clues to our own morphology/physiology/optimal diet. Not because tarsiers are necessarily most like us, but because they provide an interesting contrast to the more herbivorous and frugivorous primates that get studied much more, and there are some interesting and little-known facts about tarsiers and giant pandas that are clues, I believe. Why is the research so lopsided? Is it because the tarsiers are in Southeast Asia instead of Africa, where most of the research seems to get done?

[TylerDurden]

The definition featured in the article classified a faunivore as any creature with a morphology optimally designed to digest flesh/fish/eggs/insects/grubs/etc. regardless of what it actually eats (so it could also eat plant foods). Whereas ZC is a specific human diet that generally eliminates all plant carbs, and often also meats that contain significant carbs (particularly liver). So the two describe different things. On the other hand, only people following carnivorous or ZC diets tend to be interested in faunivory, so it probably does belong in the carnivore/ZC forum.

Hadn't realised, the term is so rare that I assumed re "fauna" that this meant a carnivorous diet. But it does still belong in the RZC forum more than anywhere else.

[kurite]

Okay what ever works for the forums. And yes I do believe your right about studying herbivores the only problem is a specialized herbivore such as a panda for instance. There diet mainly consists of bamboo so their digestive system might greatly differ from that of other herbivores. Unless your saying that this is why it is so important to study them???

[PaleoPhil]

Okay what ever works for the forums. And yes I do believe your right about studying herbivores the only problem is a specialized herbivore such as a panda for instance. There diet mainly consists of bamboo so their digestive system might greatly differ from that of other herbivores. ....

See, that's the interesting thing. Giant pandas are not herbivores despite eating 99% bamboo--they are classified as facultative faunivores because of their overall faunivorous morphology (they have some minor herbivorous traits like their thumbs and some of their teeth, but overall have very faunivorous morphology). Giant pandas are completely counterintuitive to most people (especially dogmatic vegans/vegetarians), which is one reason why I think they are particularly instructive. They call our assumptions into question.

[redfulcrum]

I think the big thing is fat.  Every animal eats fats.  Herbivores just make it in their guts before it get absorbed into their system.  The only way humans can generate fat is eating excessive carboyhydrates and that happens in our bloodstream, not our guts.  Herbivores can get all their fat solubles by letting things ferment and generating fat to absorb it.  Humans need to eat fat, there is no way around it.  The only useful fementing we do is for farting.  I don't think Al Gore likes that, he's pissed off at cattle farts.  Nonfat eaters are the ones with the most digestive issues, go figure. 

[kurite]

Very odd

[PaleoPhil]

Nature is very odd indeed and quite different than most people assume.

Since the omnivory vs. faunivory/carnivory debate came up again and since there were misunderstandings about what carnivory and faunivory are, I'll try to spend some time in the future discussing it more in this thread. Here's a start with a couple definitions of faunivore and a tidbit on tarsiers:

faunivore: "A broader category than carnivore as it includes insectivores and animals that graze on sessile invertebrates such as sponges." (http://www.wordnik.com/words/faunivore)

faunivore (adj. faunivorous): "a meat-eater; preferred to carnivore, which is best restricted to mammals in the order Carnivora" [to avoid confusion]. (D.J. Chivers, The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human Evolution, Jones, Martin and Pilbeam, Camb. Uni. Press, 1992, p. 462) By meat, Chivers includes insects, fish, eggs, etc.

 Phil, I am interested! And there are others who are interested too. Tarsiers have little hands but are carnivores.

As Hanna pointed out, tarsiers are obligate faunivores despite having tiny hands and lacking big fangs or claws. Humans don't need fangs or claws because we can use numbers, cooperation, brainpower, weapons, endurance, ability to carry water and other advantages to hunt and kill large game. Tarsiers don't need big fangs or claws because they are small and thus eat small prey like "insects, arachnids, and small vertebrates such as snakes and lizards." (John G. Fleagle, Primate Adaptation and Evolution, Academic Press; 2nd edition (September 25, 1998), p. 120)

[yuli]

Tarsiers are just amazing looking, part alien, part human, part...Yoda! Very trippy animals. They have the biggest hands when taken their small body ratio.



The Slow Loris is another monkey that mainly eats insects and small animals or amphibians, it will eat fruits and leaves only if theres no other food. It's metabolic rate is 40% slower so it hunts by creeping up slowly and then quickly striking with the hands.  

They are very awesome looking too:



The Slender Loris is more omnivorous but eats mostly insects too...

[PaleoPhil]

I'm undecided when it comes to whether to classify humans as facultative faunivores or omnivores. Maybe it will turn out that facultative faunivore is a more accurate scientific term, but omnivore probably would be more understandable to most people and be a more practical approach that more of the human population could manage, with variations in ratio of fauna to flora to suit individual needs.

Yes, Yuli, lorids also include at least a couple species that might be considered carnivores/faunivores/insectivores. Tarsiers are obligate carnivores, whereas slow lorises are facultative, as you point out. Based on the following and a study of their physiology, even slender lorises might turn out to be facultative faunivores rather than true omnivores:

Mysore slender loris

K. A. I. Nekaris1 Contact Information and D. Tab Rasmussen1
(1)    Department of Anthropology, Washington University, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, 63110
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m733717t35757824/

Abstract  We studied the feeding ecology of the Mysore slender loris (Loris lydekkerianus lydekkerianus) for 10.5 mo in a dry scrub forest at Ayyalur Interface Forestry Division, Tamil Nadu, South India. We recorded and analyzed 1240 feeding incidents, which indicate that the lorises were almost exclusively faunivorous, with 96% of all feeding events representing animal prey.

And there's this: "a specialised faunivore like the Mysore slender loris" (Foraging behaviour of the slender loris (K.A.I. Nekaris, Loris lydekkerianus lydekkerianus): implications for theories of primate origins)

Instead of using the term facultative carnivore/faunivore, this article classifies the diets of the lesser slow loris and slender loris as "carnivore-omnivore": Molecular Adaptation of Alanine: Glyoxylate Aminotransferase Targeting
in Primates, http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/3/387.full.pdf

I have never seen a vegetarian or vegan bring up the subject of tarsiers or lorids. From their diets, you can see why. Fruit & veggie advocates tend to focus on the most frugivorous and herbivorous primates.

I was planning on covering lorids in my discussion, Yuli, and you beat me to it. Good on ya!

[Hanna]

Thank you, Phil. I would be particularly interested in the anatomical evidence!