To be fair, it should also be pointed out that some of those presenting comparative studies openly admit that such studies do not provide hard proof of the natural human diet, but instead merely contribute evidence in favor of the particular diet they advocate.

Along the way, this paper will address many of the claims made in:

• The Comparative Anatomy of Eating, by Milton R. Mills, date unknown (a popular comparative "proof" on the Internet among the raw/vegetarian communities).

• Fit Food For Humanity, no author cited, 1982, Natural Hygiene Press. This appears to be an update of Fit Food for Man, by Arthur Andrews, 1970.

• In addition, some of the claims made in What Might Be the "Natural" Diet for Human Beings, by Ted Altar, are briefly discussed here as well.

Citations for these claims are not given, as in some cases the sources are, in my opinion, extremists (often fruitarians); and citing such works by author's name may needlessly inflame and detract from a focus on the issues themselves, or might merely incite personal attacks by hostile but allegedly "compassionate" extremists. The approach taken here will be to paraphrase the latter claims, trusting that readers will be able to recognize such claims and their proponents should they subsequently run across them elsewhere.

The Logic and Structure of Comparative "Proofs"

The basic argument underlying comparative anatomy/physiology "proofs" is that comparing humans with other species--via a list of anatomical and/or physiological features--somehow "proves" that humans have a particular, often quite specific/narrow, diet. This conclusion is allegedly reached if sufficient features match in the comparison list.

Subjective nature of traditional "proofs." However, examination of the various "proofs" reveals considerable variation in length of lists used for the comparisons, in the level of detail in each list, and in the number of supposedly matching features provided as "proof." In addition to the question of whether the method is logically valid to "prove" the human diet is restricted to a narrow range, one immediately observes that there appears to be considerable subjectivity in determining the level of detail in the comparison list. And, for that matter, just how many "matches" are required for "proof," anyway? (And what validation is there for such a "magic" number of matches?)

What do comparative "proofs" actually show? As we will see later, comparative anatomy and physiology are not so precise as to give definitive, narrow answers to the question of what is the natural diet of humanity. Instead, comparative anatomy and physiology provide evidence of associations and possibilities. We will also see that those who present simplistic comparisons, and claim they absolutely "prove" humans naturally must follow a narrow, restricted diet (e.g., fruitarianism, for example) are not telling you the whole story. Unfortunately, this pattern--giving you only a small part of the information available (in figurative terms, half-truths)--is common in the raw and vegan movements at present (in my opinion).

Comparative Anatomy and Physiology are Legitimate Tools

It should be emphasized, and very clear to readers, that comparative anatomy and comparative physiology are legitimate, useful, and important tools for scientific inquiry and research. In particular, the following are relevant:

• Comparative anatomy and physiology are used, legitimately, in biology, paleoanthropology, and other fields.

• It is not the intent of this paper to criticize, minimize, or denigrate the valuable (and important) disciplines of comparative anatomy and physiology.

• The intent of this paper is to analyze whether the simplistic comparative studies presented by dietary advocates actually prove that the "natural" human diet is as specific as claimed by the dietary advocates. This paper will look at some of the limitations of such comparative analyses. Further, it will provide background information for some of the topics covered in comparative studies, so you can understand just how simplistic the "proofs" provided by dietary advocates usually are.

Emphasis on Primates

Modern human beings, species Homo sapiens, are classified as belonging to the primates. Accordingly, as this paper focuses on comparisons, the non-human primates will often be used for comparison. Humanity's prehistoric ancestors--extinct primates, including both human and non-human species--are also discussed as appropriate. When necessary, non-primate species are discussed as well, but most attention here is on primates.

Helpful Notes for the Reader, and Special Terminology

• This paper uses the shorthand notation "veg*n" as an inclusive abbreviation for "vegan and/or vegetarian" (where "vegan" means no foods of animal origin whatsoever, and "vegetarian" means dairy and/or eggs may be consumed). This notation is coming into use in some sectors of the online (Internet) vegan/vegetarian community, and is used here to avoid needless repetition and cumbersome phraseology.

• The abbreviations "SAD" (for "standard American diet") and "SWD" (standard Western diet) are also used extensively throughout this paper to describe the by now well-known unhealthful standard diets consumed by the majority of the populace in most economically well-off countries. Such diets are typically high in overall fats, particularly saturated fats; high in hydrogenated oils ("trans" fats); high in refined sweeteners and denatured (highly processed) foods; low in essential polyunsaturated fats of the omega-3 variety; and low in fruits and vegetables, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables.

• Readers should be aware that this writer is a long-time vegetarian (since 1970). My personal motivations for being a vegetarian are spiritual, rather than "scientific" or "philosophical naturalism."

• Intended audience. This paper is written for both the conventional and raw veg*n communities. In particular, some of the information here contradicts and discredits the claims of certain extremists, many (but not all) of whom are raw fruitarians. If you are part of the large majority of conventional veg*ns who in fact are not extremists, then I hope that the references made herein to fruitarian extremists will be educational. They provide what I hope you will find to be interesting insights into the strange crank-science claims and phony naturalistic philosophy that, unfortunately, are often a part of the basis for vegan fruitarianism. Also, quite a number of the claims are often utilized as underpinnings for conventional veganism itself, at least for those who are more extreme in their thinking about it; thus this information should be of interest to the wider vegetarian community as well.

  Also, as fruitarian extremists will be mentioned here, please note that some fruitarians are moderates and are not extremists. The fanaticism promoted by certain extremist fruitarians does not reflect the more moderate beliefs and practices of at least some mainstream fruitarians.

• Defining Fruitarianism. Inasmuch as the term fruitarian has significantly different meanings when used by different people, it is appropriate to specify the definition used here:

  A diet that is 75+% raw fruit (where fruit has the common definition) by weight, with the remaining foods eaten being raw and vegan. A common rather than botanical definition for fruit is used--i.e., the reproductive parts of a plant that includes the seed and a juicy pulp. This definition includes sweet juicy fruit, oily fruit like avocados and olives, so-called "vegetable fruits" like cucumbers and tomatoes, but excludes nuts, grains, legumes (all of which are "fruits" per the more general botanical definition, but not as used here). Note that most fruitarians eat other raw foods to comprise the non-fruit part of their diet; such foods may include (by individual choice) raw vegetables, nuts, sprouted grains, legumes, seeds, and so on.

  The definition used here is somewhat strict, but it does match closely the idealistic and puritanical diets advocated by the more extreme fruitarians. Some individuals use a different definition; when discussing diet with a fruitarian, the first thing to determine is what the diet actually is, as it can vary substantially from one individual to another.

GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE

(Ape Diets: Myths, Realities, and Rationalizations)

Return to beginning of article

SEE REFERENCE LIST

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR:
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6 PART 7 PART 8 PART 9

---

GO TO PART 1 - Brief Overview: What is the Relevance of Comparative Anatomical and Physiological "Proofs"?

GO TO PART 2 - Looking at Ape Diets: Myths, Realities, and Rationalizations

GO TO PART 3 - The Fossil-Record Evidence about Human Diet

GO TO PART 4 - Intelligence, Evolution of the Human Brain, and Diet

GO TO PART 5 - Limitations on Comparative Dietary Proofs

GO TO PART 6 - What Comparative Anatomy Does and Doesn't Tell Us about Human Diet

GO TO PART 7 - Insights about Human Nutrition & Digestion from Comparative Physiology

GO TO PART 8 - Further Issues in the Debate over Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diets

GO TO PART 9 - Conclusions: The End, or The Beginning of a New Approach to Your Diet?

Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore