Research-Based Appraisals of
Alternative Diet Lore
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date: Are humans natural frugivores/vegetarians or omnivores/faunivores? The rationale for vegetarianism based on similarities with apes or differences with carnivores has long been a cornerstone of the philosophy for many adherents. However, the supporting arguments have changed little for over 25 years now. Given that scientific study has advanced tremendously during that time, an update has been long overdue. This extensive tour provides an in-depth look at the numerous and intriguing problems involved, including an examination of the much more rigorous analytical techniques of recent comparative studies. Whether or not you're pleased with what the evidence points to, you're sure to come away with fascinating insights into the complex mix of factors involved in determining the diet that the human species is most naturally adapted to.
Covered along the way are numerous ancillary topics, included among those below, relating to the question of omnivorous vs. vegetarian diets, which can be read as separate "sub-articles" of their own. (Or go instead to the extensive table of contents for a complete outline of the article including all the links below.)
Is Cooked Food Poison? Looking at the Science on Raw vs. Cooked Foods. The traditional answers to this question in raw foods are often justified either on the subjective grounds of philosophical naturalism, or by harking back to very old scientific studies that have never been replicated. On the other hand, what modern research is available about the effects of specific substances in raw foods or the biochemistry of cooking has been restricted to very narrowly defined studies scattered widely in the literature.
Bridging this gap between the interests of those exploring alternative diets vs. the often obscure programs of academic research is this comprehensive look at the subject. Here, the many threads of the debate have been pulled together into a single, unified, but multifaceted examination. Thoroughly assessed along the way are numerous perennial issues in raw-foodism, covered in the following selected subsections of note. (Or see instead the complete table of contents for a comprehensive bird's-eye view including all the links below.)
Fruit Is Not Like Mother's Milk: The Nutritional Fallacies of a Popular Fruitarian Myth Exposed. This encyclopedic examination of a beguiling but ultimately bogus theory used to promote fruit diets will tell you everything you wanted to know (and may have been afraid to ask) about the composition of mother's milk. The author--a vegetarian as well as degreed statistician--also performs the necessary regression analyses required to objectively determine just how close in composition to mother's milk fruit actually is, with a fruit + avocado blend and goat milk also getting equal treatment. And if that doesn't do the trick, then the concluding section laying bare typical formula-fed defenses of the "fruit is like mother's milk" theory by its fruitarian promoters should help wean you off the pablum.
Wild vs. Cultivated Fruit Table. The considerable differences between the two are important to the determination of just how natural modern fruit is--an important consideration that those promoting fruit diets based on idealistic models of nature usually have little idea of.
Longevity and Health in Ancient Paleolithic vs. Neolithic Peoples. The former were much more heavily meat-eating, the latter much less so and closer toward the vegetarian end of the continuum. As the transition to Neolithic agriculture and a more settled existence took place after eons of a Paleolithic hunting/gathering existence, the health effects were marked, as this study of "paleopathology" (the determination of health and disease based on fossil bone analysis) shows.
Evolution vs. Creationist Pseudoscience: No contest when you know the facts. This comprehensive posting--which originally appeared on the Raw-Food listgroup debunking a fruitarian's attempt to cast doubt on the validity of evolution--serves as a good education in the tenets of both sides of the evolution vs. creationism debate. Why is the debate important? Because as evolutionary perspectives begin making their way into the mainstream of nutrition and exerting more influence, those whose "original" "natural" diets are refuted by the paleoanthropological evidence will be likely to start attacking evolution itself, as our debunkee here did. Know your facts.
