Did Biological Evolution Turn Humans Into Omnivores?

For about 60 million years our early, arboreal ancestors fed exclusively on a diet of fresh fruit, nuts, plant shoots, and some fleshy leaves. By doing so they followed Nature’s laws of nutrition, which specify that, in order to remain in optimum health,  all living creatures, from the tiniest to the largest, need to eat in strict accordance with their anatomical and physiological characteristics. At this point I can just hear the inevitable question: “Where would we get our protein and calcium if we become vegans?” I will dedicate a whole chapter to answer this question in details, but for now I shall answer it with another question: “Where do gorillas, horses, elephants, camels, water buffaloes, oxen, mules, and other strictly vegetarian animals obtain their protein and calcium from?” Indeed, from where do these animals get their strong internal organs, big muscles and bones, which give them superhuman strength and power to withstand hardship? Do they stuff themselves with meat, gulp down cow's milk and spend hours training in their animal gym?  The silverback gorilla, which physiologically is very similar to us, wouldn’t find it problematic to pick up an eighty-kilogram man and throw him across the street! Likewise, the strongest living animal in the world  -  the elephant  -  as well as the other powerful, high-endurance animals listed above, take exclusively plant-based nourishment, be it grass, leaves, fruits, nuts, vegetables, shoots, roots, tubers, and/or seeds. Briefly put, the above-listed animals, both living and extinct feed, (and fed) exclusively on plant-based material!    Indeed, even the largest animals to have ever lived on land were colossal vegetarians known as ‘sauropods’, which included the massive Apatosaurus (once known as Brontosaurus). Strong evidence reveals these herbivores may have reached up to about 40 meters in length and 110 tons in weight, and some reliable data shows they might have grown even larger! (Incidentally, even the largest aquatic animal   -  the blue whale  -  doesn’t eat meat or fish, but small oceanic crustaceans, which generally measure only 1-2 centimetres. And last, but certainly not least, as a rule, these big herbivore animals live much longer than their carnivore and omnivore counterparts! (So much for the alleged necessity of eating meat!) But what about energy ?  We need to  consume a lot of meat, eggs, and cow's milk to keep our energy levels up  -  right? No! Wrong! In fact, energy comes from carbohydrates and fats found in fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. This is why, for example, the world’s top boxers and other athletes now refrain from eating meat for several days before a big fight or other important athletic events, since it has been discovered by sports nutritionists that fruit and vegetables juices helps them to perform much better. This is understandable because the digestion, absorption, and assimilation of these juices require only a fraction of the energy necessary to break down animal proteins  -  and athletes need all the energy they can get. Other foods spend about one and a half to four hours in the stomach, whereas all fruit (with the exception of bananas and dates) are in the stomach for a very short time, thus saving a lot of the energy used during the digestive process. Anyway, a daily consumption of animal-based product is very likely to give us a heart attack, not energy! (More will be said later on this subject.) Here, to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that protein is an essential nutrient, and the same can be said about calcium. However, the former should be obtained ‘first hand’ from plant-based foods, not ‘second hand’ from animal flesh, which is loaded with uric acid, adrenalin, and  dangerous preserving chemicals.  As for the calcium found in processed cow's milk and other dairy products, pasteurization turns it into an inorganic mineral, thus making it  difficult to be absorbed. The only organic, easily absorbed calcium is obtainable from a variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds.  (Protein and calcium will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.)

Many anthropologists, biochemists, nutritionists, and so-called health experts, tell us that “yes, millions of years ago humans were frugivores, but they have since evolved into omnivores; therefore, the killing and eating of animals is a natural, necessary, and nutritionally healthy thing to do”. This of course, is sheer nonsense, and a poor attempt to justify the cruelty and horrors of the slaughter house. In fact, while the human brain has certainly evolved (and often in the wrong direction), human physiology and internal anatomy have remained pretty much the same. The only thing which has drastically changed is our taste preferences. (That is, our taste buds have decreed we live to eat, instead of eating to live!) But the size, shape, volume, weight, and biological function of our internal organs are still those of the Australopithecus. Nor have our teeth and nails turned into fangs and claws.   In other words, we haven’t changed into werewolf-like creatures. To be sure, humans have undergone some external anatomic and cosmetic changes since they came down from the trees. However, those important physiological and anatomical traits and functions, which set us apart from the true carnivores and omnivores, have remained the same. To be sure, there is another thing   the evolutionary process gave the human race:  a tremendous power of adaptability; this is why, short of eating cement and drinking petrol, many people can survive up to the biblical three score years and ten, and in some cases even longer than that. (Here, I purposely used the verb ‘to survive’, not ‘to thrive’.) It can be said that humans acquired a taste for animal flesh   -   but this happened accidentally, and has little to do with the evolutionary process! Furthermore, if primitive man was meant to eat meat, it would have eaten it raw. And there is no proof that this ever occurred under normal circumstances.  Although we cannot be certain, what is most likely to have happened is that, soon after a large natural fire, a group of primitive humans came across the roasted carcasses of some  large animals and  started eating the roasted flesh, and overcome by hunger, they found it palatable enough to spread the word to other men and women. Having said all that, it is possible that if fire had never existed, humans would have kept their plant-based diet.

Those “nutritionists” who are on the payroll of the food industry  (especially  meat and dairy) will say that there is no link between our daily diet and disease. In other words, they are saying it doesn’t really matter what we eat and drink!  Of course, this is about as stupid as saying that a diesel engine will also work on petrol or gas. That is, they think there is no correlation between car engines and the type of fuel they are designed to run on. (The great philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was right when he wrote:  “Wisdom has limits, but stupidity has none.”) To be sure, in some cases the human body possesses an astonishing power of adaptation; but, more often than not, this power comes at the expense of health and longevity. Adaptation as such isn’t a bad thing, when it comes to adapting to different geographical localities and climates, for example, but it can be a very unhealthy undertaking when trying to adapt ourselves to unnatural diets and lifestyles. And the same applies, not only to humans, but to some other members of the Animal Kingdom as well. (For example, when in an U.S. experiment, some new born calves where fed pasteurized cow's milk, they all died within about six months!)

If we really wish to find out whether we were meant to eat animal flesh or plant-based foods, we need to seriously consider the major anatomical and physiological differences between humans and the true carnivore or omnivore animals. In other words, we need to undertake some comparative anatomy and physiology, and the main question we should ask ourselves is:  Are our anatomical and physiological characteristics an indisputable indication that we are biologically adapted to feed on animal-based foods or plant-based foods?  However, before engaging in anatomical and physiological comparisons, let’s see how the medical dictionary defines the words  ‘anatomy’ and ‘physiology’. The former is defined as the ‘science dealing with the form and structure of living organisms’; while the definition of the latter word is:  ‘the branch of biology that deals with the functions of the living organism and its parts, and of the physical and chemical factors and processes involved’. These definitions are important because it is only by biologically, biochemically, anatomically and physiologically comparing carnivore, herbivore, frugivore, and omnivore animals with humans that we can determine conclusively  our natural daily diet. At this point I think  it would help if we asked ourselves the following questions: 

1. Are we natural carnivores (just like, for example, lions and tigers) who feed on raw flesh, internal organs, blood, bones, and other parts of the animal they have just killed and torn apart?  

2. Are we natural herbivores  who thrive on various types of herbs, grasses, and foliage? And, more importantly, can our stomachs process large amounts of cellulose as do cattle, goats, sheep, and giraffes, and other ruminants?   

3. Are we true granivores  who feed on raw seeds and grains as do ‘hard-beaked’ birds?   

4. Are we natural omnivores (like, for example, hedgehogs, bears, and rats) who thrive on both raw plant and animal-based nutrients?    

5. Are we true frugivores who can truly thrive on a diet of raw fruits, juicy fruit-like vegetables, shoots, nuts, and some seeds, just like our cousin the orangutan and other primates?

Of course, there is only one correct answer to the above five questions. And no, it isn’t  ‘omnivores’! As you may have noticed, the said questions contain the adjectives ‘true’, ‘raw’, and  ‘natural’. The animals mentioned above were classified in accordance with the raw and unprocessed food they eat in their natural environment  -  not what they are given to eat in captivity! A chimpanzee, for example, is biologically adapted to primarily a diet of fruits; therefore, this primate is a ‘frugivore’, not  an ‘omnivore’, as stated in most articles and books on animal biology. When these animals are kept in captivity, they are fed various sorts of foods, as happens with zoo’s animals and those kept as pets. Of course, humans are also classified as ‘omnivores’, as they eat many of the foods that carnivore, omnivore, and granivore animals eat regularly. Worse still, the great majority of people worldwide keep ruining their health by eating heavily processed and/or cooked  “foods”, which no true carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore animal  -  in its original habitat  -  would ever eat! (Human beings are the only members  of the Animal Kingdom, who have perverted the nutritional laws of Nature, by totally disregarding their biological, biochemical, anatomical, and physiological characteristics. By doing so, they have managed to reduce their average life-span from about 120 - 140 years to around 70 - 75 years!)  The carefully concealed biological truth is that the modern scientific methods of classifying plants and animals, classify humans not as carnivores, not as omnivores, not as  omnivores, not even as herbivores, but as frugivores.  Certainly humankind has acquired a taste for animal-based foods, but anatomically and physiologically,  has always been and still is, an herbivore/frugivore species! Determining the natural daily diet which best suits us isn’t a matter of taste, tradition, and/or belief, but a purely scientific one.

I sincerely hope what follows will answer all the above questions as conclusively and satisfactorily as possible. Below is a detailed comparison between some key anatomical and physiological human features and those of real carnivore, omnivore, herbivore, and frugivore animals. Sometimes even carnivores feed on grasses, and other plant-based substances, while omnivores eat both animal products and vegetarian ones. Also, wild herbivores eat mainly grasses (narrow-leaved green herbage), both green and dry. They thrive on this diet because they are capable of deriving all the nutrients they ever need from it. This happens thanks to the herbivores’  ability to secrete the enzyme ‘cellulase’, which breaks down the sugar molecule ‘cellulose’. We cannot regurgitate and chew our food as do cows, horses, sheep, etc. Therefore, strictly speaking, we are not fully fledged herbivores either, but ‘frugivores’. That is, just like `gorillas, chimpanzees, orang-utans, etc., we were meant to feed on raw fruit, fruit-like vegetables, shoots, nuts, some roots, tubers, and certain seeds. Our early ancestors (the ones who lived on trees) ate nothing but a variety of fruits. So  - given the fact our internal organs and anatomy are still very similar to theirs  -  why do we need to complement a purely frugivorous diet with other types of plant-based foods?  The  answer to this question is very simple:  our ancestors lived in a pristine natural environment, while we live in a very polluted one! That is, today’s fruit and vegetables are significantly lower in essential nutrients than those  produced 50 years ago -  let alone the plant-based foods our early ancestors ate! Things are so bad that now we need approximately 10 serving of vegetables and fruits to obtain the nutritional equivalent of 1 serving from 50 years ago! Also, the long storage and shipping time between harvest and market degrades the nutrient content further. Worse still, the use of pesticides and other chemical additives in a non-organic farming yield not only nutritional deficient  -  but potentially poisonous produce. We are primates, and other primates like, for example, the orangutans, who live in the forests of Borneo and Sumatra, thrive on a primarily diet of bananas, durians, mangos, mangosteens, jackfruits, water, passion fruit, water apples, rambutans, papayas, etc. Yes, if I had access to this great variety of fresh fruits, I would thrive on it too!

Having said all the above, I am starting this anatomical and physiological comparison, by listing the following five groups. Note that for the purpose of this work, I am considering animals of the Mammal Class only.

Carnivores:       Cats, dogs, lions, tigers, wolves, panthers, hyenas, pumas, etc.

Omnivores:       Wild pigs, bears, rats, hedgehogs, opossums, skunks, sloths, squirrels, racoons, etc.

Herbivores:       Elephants, water buffalos, cattle, horses, sheep, rabbits, gazelles, giraffes, etc.         

Frugivores:       Gorillas, chimpanzees, some monkeys, orang-utans, etc.

Here, I wish to make it very clear that when I am referring to cats, pigs, orangutans, and chimpanzees, for example, I mean wild cats, pigs, etc., not held  in captivity in zoos or domesticated ones. Also, in my animal to human comparison, I am referring to primitive humans, not to modern ones. That is, I am not really interested in the kind of unnatural food the overwhelming majority of people ingests daily,  but only in what Nature intended them to feed on. That is, humans are still wrongly classified as ‘omnivores’ when, in fact, they are frugivores. To be sure, humans did acquire a taste for cooked animal flesh. However, this nutritional aberration has nothing to do with their biological evolution, but a great deal to do with the discovery of fire! Processed and/or cooked food has absolutely no place in comparisons between the diets of animals and humans. When I say humans classify as frugivores, I am referring to their physiological and anatomical features and RAW diet. Likewise, when I compare the daily diet of a tiger with that of a gazelle, for example, I am talking about their different types of RAW food they feed on in their natural habitat.

Mainstream  "nutritionists” and those who are on the payroll of the meat and dairy industries, maintain that humans have marked carnivorous tendencies  -  and in an attempt to give credibility to their unscientific idea that humans are natural animal-flesh eaters, refer to  our incisor teeth as "fangs". The truth, however, is that when comparing the anatomy of carnivores with our own clearly illustrates we were never meant to feed on any kind of animal flesh  -  be it red meat, poultry,  fish, game, etc. Starting at the beginning of the digestive tract, our teeth, nails, and jaw structure clearly indicate that Nature intended for humans to eat a plant-based diet in general, and a large variety of fruits in particular. We have short, thin fingernails and relatively small “canine” teeth and mouths.  In contrast, natural carnivores are all equipped with sharp claws and large canine teeth capable of killing their prey, tearing their flesh and crushing their bones. The only prey some people may be physically able to crush in their mouths are small mice, similar in size to those caught by domestic cats. But then, our comparatively weak jaws, mouths and teeth weren’t meant to perform such revolting and gruesome deeds! The jaws of carnivores move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey and swallow it whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from side to side  -   a movement that allows us to grind up most kinds of fruits and vegetables with our back teeth. Those molars are flat and allow the grinding of fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars; they also swallow their food whole, relying on their extremely acidic stomach juices to do most of the digestive work and to kill the micro-organisms that would otherwise sicken or kill them. Unlike carnivores and omnivores, humans and other herbivores/frugivores have digestive enzymes in their saliva, and their stomach acids are much weaker.

Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through it relatively quickly, before it has a chance to rot and cause illness. Humans, like other herbivores, have intestinal tracts that are much longer than comparably-sized carnivores, allowing the body more time to break down fibre and absorb the nutrients from a plant-based diet. Our long human intestinal tract actually makes it dangerous for us to eat meat, since bacteria has extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system as the meat begins to rot. In addition to being anatomically ill-equipped to digest meat in the short-term, the long-term damage that a meat-based diet wreaks on the human body confirms that we’re not meant to eat flesh. The saturated fat and cholesterol in meat can cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strokes, or obesity in humans, as well as in carnivore animals, if they are fed cooked and/or processed animal flesh.

If we consider  the various species in the Animal Kingdom, each is equipped with teeth that are ideally suited to chewing certain types of food. Herbivores such as, for example, cows, have 24 molars, eight jagged incisors in the lower jaw and a horny palate in the upper jaw. Also, unlike carnivores, their jaws move vertically, laterally, forward, and backward, enabling them to tear and grind coarse grasses. Regarding the jaw types, carnivores and omnivores have a non-expanded angle, while herbivores and humans have an expanded angle. Carnivore and omnivore jaws show a minimal side-to-side motion, while herbivore  and human jaws move side-to-side and front-to-back quite easily. Also, the location of the carnivore and omnivores carnivores and omnivores jaw joint is on the side of their molar teeth, while location of the herbivores and humans, jaw joint is found above the plane of the molars. Another difference between flesh-eaters and plant-eaters are their facial muscles. That is, carnivores and omnivores’ facial muscles are reduced to allow wide mouth gape, while herbivore and humans have well-developed facial muscles. There are also differences between the major jaw muscles of the carnivores/omnivores (called ‘temporalis’)  and those of the herbivores/humans (called ‘masseters’ and ‘pterygoids’). When we consider mouth opening vs. head size, we can see that carnivores and omnivores have rather large mouths, while herbivores and humans have small ones. Another important difference is that while carnivores and omnivores swallow their food without chewing it, in the case of herbivores, frugivores, and humans, extensive mastication is necessary. In any case, we wouldn’t be able to swallow whole chunks of food   -  be it animal or plant-based,  as our oesophagus passage is quite narrow. The mandibular joint is flattened by a cartilaginous plate and is located well above the plane of the teeth. The temporalis  muscle is reduced The characteristic “square jaw” of adult males reflects the expanded angular process of the mandible and the enlarged masseter/pterygoid  muscle-group. The human mandible can move forward to engage the incisors, and side-to-side to crush and grind. Human teeth are also similar to those found in other herbivores with the exception of the canines (the canines of some of the apes are elongated and are thought to be used for display and/or defence). Our teeth are rather large and usually abut against one another. The incisors are flat and spade-like, useful for peeling, snipping and biting relatively soft materials. The canines are neither serrated nor conical, but are flattened, blunt and small and function like incisors. The premolars and molars are squarish, flattened and nodular, and used for crushing, grinding and pulping non-coarse foods.

Natural omnivores (like the hedgehog) have the right type of canines for digging up roots. Primate frugivores  -  like the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan, for example, have four types of teeth: incisors, canines, premolars and molars. Incisors are like tiny shovels or spatulas that cut food. Canines are generally pointed, stabbing teeth that can serve as weapons in most primates; as none of these animals are carnivores, their powerful canines are primarily used in self-defence.) Premolars and molars have large crown surfaces that grind and crush food during mastication.  Animal primates have a total of 32 teeth, just like us. The canines are adapted for cracking nuts, hard seeds, etc. The uniform  articulation of the primates’ teeth suits their primarily frugivorous  nature. On the other hand, true carnivores (like tigers and lions, for example) have markedly developed canines that are long, sharp, cylindrical, pointed, and set apart from the other teeth. Carnivores (with the exception of some birds) have these types of teeth, which they need to penetrate, kill, rip, tear, and crush other animals flesh and bones.  The powerful jaws of the carnivore are ideal for ripping and tearing flesh that is practically swallowed whole!  Carnivores at all suitable for tearing flesh like the teeth of the lion, wolf or cat, but rather compare closely with the teeth of fruit-eating animals, such as the gorilla, orangutan, and other frugivores. The complete absence of spaces between human teeth characterizes us as the original frugivore. The  so-called canine teeth of humans are short, stout, and slightly triangular. (In fact, it is ludicrous to refer to these teeth as ‘canine’!) Human “canines” bear little resemblance to the long, round, slender canines of the true carnivore. Human teeth are neither curved and sharp like the wolves or tigers, nor are they wide and flat like the grass and grain-eating species. In fact, they are like the fruit-eating monkeys. Briefly put, carnivore and omnivore animals have short and pointed incisors, while herbivores and humans are equipped with broad, flattened and spade-shape teeth. Regarding the ‘canines’, carnivores and omnivores have long, sharp, and curved ones. But herbivores  have dull and short or long (for defence) or none. As for humans, they have short and blunted canine teeth. Finally, when it comes to ‘molar’ teeth, carnivores have sharp, jagged and blade shaped ones; omnivores have sharp blades and/or flattened teeth, while those of the herbivores are flattened with cusps. Humans’ teeth are also flattened but with modular cusps. The human mouth is ideally suited for eating fruits and succulent vegetables. The process of chewing is very important to vegetarians and vegans; this is because the digestion of plant-based foods  starts in the mouth. True carnivores swallow food whole, while herbivores, like cows, for example, undergo a rather laborious digestive process in which they regurgitate and re-chew their food.

If Nature meant humans to feed on animal flesh, such as meat, fish, poultry, etc., it would have equipped them anatomical and physiological attributes similar to those of the true carnivores, or even omnivores. In fact, it would be almost impossible for humans to eat raw flesh without the aid of forks and knives. This alone should be enough for a person of normal intelligence to understand that humans were never meant to eat any kind of animal flesh. But, when it comes to nutritional matters, the great majority of people worldwide tend to think and reason with their ’taste buds’, not with their brains. That is, people eat dead food (like meat, for example) only after it has been spiked with chemical additives, roasted or fried, salted, and drowned in sauces or other types of spicy condiments. This is another indication  that if we cannot bear to eat a certain type of food in its original raw and unprocessed state, it wasn’t meant for human consumption.

Through the process of evolution, Nature gave carnivores the anatomical equipment with which to catch, kill, and tear their prey apart. Dogs, lions, and tigers, for example, have powerful jaws that inflict fatal wounds to their victims. But humans have neither sharp claws for tearing flesh nor pointed, strong fangs for slashing. Also, our eyes and olfactory senses aren’t suitable for hunting. In any case, the human body cannot   run fast enough to capture prey. Furthermore, unlike cats, dogs, lions, tigers, and wolves, we cannot catch and hold animals with our mouths.  Humans do, however, have fingers, thumbs, and limbs for reaching, climbing and grabbing, just like orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. In fact, our natural food-gathering capacity is very similar to that of these primates. Fruitarians of the primate order, just like humans, have revolving joints in their shoulders, wrists and elbows, which allow for free movement in every direction. Like us, they have soft, pliable, hands and fingers with opposable thumbs and flat nails that are perfect for grasping, gathering, holding, and pealing fruit. Regarding the extremities of the other species, herbivores possess hooves, with which they walk on grassy soil. As for visual power and versatility, tree-dwellers fruit-gatherers have stereoscopic binocular vision that greatly helps them to best locate three limbs and other objects. All plant-eating animals have abundant sweat glands, while the sweat glands of the carnivores are not effective. Cats, dogs, lions, tigers, and other carnivores don’t sweat like vegetarian animals do because they need to avoid sweating in order to prevent a large fluid loss that would result in a substantial amount of nitrogenous wastes, caused by flesh-eating in the first place. The lack of sweat glands is the reason why dogs pant instead of sweating like people and other herbivores and frugivores. This explains the reason why meat-eaters feel the heat in summer much more than vegetarians do.

The length of the alimentary canals of carnivores  differs greatly in accordance with what they feed on. The colon in both herbivore animals and humans is long and complex, while the colon of the carnivores is short and simple, just like the omnivores’ colon. The same can be said about the length and shape of the small intestine. The average length of the carnivores’ intestines is three to six times the length of their bodies,  which is very similar to the length of the intestines of the omnivores. On the other hand, the intestines of both herbivores and humans are about ten to twelve times the length of their bodies. Because of the long, convoluting intestines, dead animal flesh decays at body temperature for at least twenty-four hours, causing considerable putrefaction in the large intestine; toxins are then absorbed into the blood stream and circulated throughout the body. Much worldwide scientific research has confirmed that we are anatomically and physiologically very poorly equipped to digest animal flesh. The long-term damage that a meat-based diet wreaks on the human body is just a further confirmation that humans were never (and are not) meant to eat any kind of animal flesh, including fish and other sea foods. Reputable statistics have repeatedly shown that  there is a positive correlation between the daily consumption of meat and other animal products, and the incidence of cancer, especially breast, uterine, cervix, ovarian, colon, prostate, stomach, rectum, bladder, and other cancers! As terrible as cancer is, an ongoing  animal-based diet has also been linked to cardiovascular diseases, osteoporosis, arthritis, obesity, liver and kidney problems, Alzheimer’s, and other degenerative illnesses. (Here, it is important to note that, while carnivorous animals in their natural habitat aren’t known to contract these kinds of diseases, they certainly do in captivity. For example, cats, dogs, and monkeys, whose owners have been feeding them cooked and otherwise processed foods, are very likely to get ill, just like people do.

The carnivores’ bowel is only 3 times the length of their body. (The body length is measured from the neck to the anus.) That is, both carnivores and omnivores require a short, smooth, fast-acting bowel, because their natural flesh diet becomes highly toxic and cannot be retained within the intestine for long without poisonous putrefaction taking place. The alimentary trait of the herbivore is sacculated for a larger surface area, and is 30 times the length of their body. Its herb and grass diet is coarse and fibrous, requiring longer digestion to break down cellulose. Likewise, the length of the omnivores alimentary canal is generally 10 times its body trunk size. The gut of the frugivore (like humans) is also sacculated and is 12 times the length of its body. The length of the adult human alimentary canal is about 10 metres. The human digestive tract is about four times as long as the carnivores. By comparison, carnivores’ intestines are much shorter and smoother in order to dissolve food rapidly and pass it quickly out of the system before the starting of the putrefaction process. The human digestive tract is corrugated for the specific purpose of retaining food as long as possible until all nutriment has been extracted and the fibre has been broken down, which is the worst possible condition for the digestion and processing of flesh foods. Digesting animal flesh moves quickly through the carnivores digestive tract and is quickly expelled. The human lengthy intestine cannot handle low-fibre foods (especially meat and dairy products) quickly enough. As a consequence, animal foods decrease the gastro-intestinal movement of the human intestine, and putrefaction almost invariably occurs (as foul smelling stools and flatulence attest), resulting in the release of many poisonous by-products as the low-fibre food passes through slowly. In humans, eventual constipation is very likely to develop on a typical meat, milk, and eggs diet. Colorectal cancer is also common, both of which are quite rare or non-existent on a high-fibre diet centred around raw fruits and vegetables. According to the latest statistics on colorectal cancer, the people of the so-called advanced countries are about three times more likely to contract this type of cancer, as well as other colon-related illnesses, than their counterparts in Asian and African countries.

Anatomically speaking, the form and size of the stomach vary from species to species. That is, carnivores have a relatively small stomach, shaped like a round sac, which is meant to dissolve flesh and pass it on as quickly as possible before it starts to putrefy.  But, in plant eaters (especially ruminants), stomachs are complicated, convoluted  adjacent sacks.  The frugivore stomach (including the human one) is oblong and is characterized by folds which have the purpose to retain food for a longer time. The human stomach is single-chambered and only moderately acidic; its capacity, in both  carnivores and omnivores, is 60% to 70% of the total volume of the digestive tract, while in herbivores it  is less than 30%. Humans have a stomach capacity of 21% to 27%  of the total volume of the digestive tract liquefying ingested foods and regulating their passage into the small intestine. Stomach acidity of herbivores and humans is pH 4 to 5 with food in the stomach, while  carnivores and omnivores have a stomach acidity of  less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach. This organ functions as a mixing and storage chamber, mixing and. The length of the small intestine is 3 to 6 times the body length of carnivores, and 4 to 6 times the body length of the omnivores. Herbivores’ small intestines length is about 10 to more than 12 times their body length, and humans 10 to 11 times the body length. Other   organs sizes of various species also vary. The liver and kidneys in the carnivore are much larger than in vegetarian animals. A lion’s kidney is twice the size of a bull’s, and not much smaller than the elephant’s. This allows the lion to handle large amounts of protein and nitrogenous waste products contained in its natural flesh diet. The carnivores huge liver secretes larger amounts of bile into the small intestine than does the herbivores liver. The amount of bile secreted by this organ is directly proportional to the quantity of meat ingested. Eating meat, therefore, places a strain on our relatively-small liver, which eventually will impair its many functions. When humans follow a diet for which they are not naturally adapted, they put unnatural stress on the organs of elimination, especially the kidneys and the digestive system. The unpalatable truth is that humans have never really adapted to a full carnivorous diet, and it is very doubtful they ever will! As the human liver is much smaller than the carnivores, we cannot detoxify the poisonous products inherent within animal foods such as uric acid and adrenaline.  Also, the liver of carnivores and omnivores can detoxify vitamin A, but herbivores and frugivores (including us) cannot.  Our kidneys are also smaller and, therefore, likely to become diseased from overwork as the result of high animal protein intake. The two main functions of these organs are to filter the blood and secrete urine. And this secretion is highly concentrated in carnivores and omnivores, but only moderately concentrated in herbivores and humans. The kidneys are organs of elimination of liquid excreta, and the work they do is truly amazing. When considering the large daily amount of coffee, tea, soda alcohol, salt, sugar  -   all of which must be excreted by the kidneys   -   it isn’t surprising so many people, especially in the industrialized countries, die annually from kidney failure, or are wired to a dialysis machine.

When it comes to finding out the natural diet of various species, a determinant factor is its hydrochloric acid concentrations. Carnivores gastric juice is highly acidic; this is because it has to prevent putrefaction during the digestive process of animal flesh. Herbivores and frugivores, however, secrete a much less concentrated and smaller quantity of hydrochloric acid that does not restrict the decomposition of flesh. (Incidentally, the process of decomposition begins soon after the animal dies. This is why a large quantity of chemicals are pumped into meat to make it look and smell “nice”. As meat is rotting flesh, without these chemicals it would soon stink to high heaven! What animal-flesh eaters are really ingesting is decaying flesh loaded with chemical additive, uric acid, and adrenaline. (More will be said later on this subject). Animal flesh  -  be it meat, poultry, fish, etc.  -  is digested in an acid medium within the stomach. Humans secrete a much weaker  concentration of hydrochloric acid than do  true carnivores, and a small amount of the protein-splitting enzyme ‘pepsin’. Carnivorous animals have densities of these flesh-digesting secretions which are more than 1000%  greater than humans have. Because of his large and strong jaws and teeth a lion, for example, is capable of biting off and swallowing a human hand whole and digesting it as easily as we might digest an apple!  About 5% of the volume of flesh of all  animals consists of ‘uric acid’ waste that is normally eliminated by the kidneys. Uric acid, which is a compound of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen,  is formed in the body naturally as the result of muscle activity. This acid is harmful to the human body, especially to the kidneys.  Regular meat-eaters, are not only loaded with this acid, but with ‘adrenalin’ as well.  Adrenalin, which is a catecholamine secreted by the ‘adrenal medulla’, mainly in response to fear and/or anger, is another harmful substance. When a hapless, terrified animal is led to be slaughtered, its adrenal glands pour out so much adrenalin that its body became saturated with it. According to statistics, the overwhelming majority of Westerners  are affected by some form of osteoporosis, which is primarily due to the acidic end-products of meat and grain-eating, as well as processed cow's milk and other dairy products.  (More on this subject in an other chapter.) Unlike herbivores and frugivores (humans included), natural carnivores don’t have this problem because they  secrete the enzyme ‘uricase’, which breaks down uric acid so that it can be easily eliminated by the body. We don’t  generate this enzyme, and worse still, we absorb uric acid and adrenalin whenever we eat meat  -  and by doing so we predispose ourselves, not only to osteoporosis, but also to arthritis, gout, rheumatism, bursitis, and lower back pain. This occurs because , as the result of eating uric acid-riddled meat, calcium-urate crystals form and concentrate in joints, hands, feet, and the lower back. This is yet another indication that humans are physiologically unsuited to feed on any type of meat, be it raw or cooked.   True carnivores swallow lumps of meat almost unchewed, and the flesh is digested in the stomach as a routine matter. But, were we to do the same we would digest very little of it before putrefaction set in and caused illness. Here, the carefully omitted truth is that humans were never meant to eat red meat, poultry, fish or any other animal-based foods. Worse still, whenever such foods are processed in any way, including cooking, they become much more harmful, not only to our own health, but also to our carnivorous pets, and other unfortunate animals kept in captivity!

Our oesophagus is narrow and suited to small, soft balls of thoroughly chewed food. Eating quickly, attempting to swallow a large amount of food or swallowing fibrous and/or poorly chewed food (meat is the most frequent culprit) often results in choking in humans. The Human stomach is single-chambered, but only moderately acidic. Clinically, a person presenting with a gastric pH less than 4-5 when there is food in the stomach is cause for concern. The human colon demonstrates the pouched structure peculiar to herbivores. The distensible large intestine is larger in cross section than the small intestine, and is relatively long. The human colon is responsible for water and electrolyte absorption and vitamin production and absorption. There is also extensive bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials, with the production and absorption of significant amounts of food energy (volatile short-chain fatty acids) depending upon the fibre content of the-diet. The extent to which the fermentation and absorption of metabolites takes place in the human colon has only recently begun-to-be investigated.

For those who don’t know, the ‘pH’ (potential of Hydrogen) is the logarithm of the reciprocal of hydrogen-ion concentration in gram atoms per litre, which provides a measure on a scale from 0 to 14 of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution  -  where 7 is neutral and greater than 7 is more basic and less than 7 is more acidic. As we have already seen above, stomach acidity varies from pH 1 for carnivores and omnivores to  pH 4.5 for Herbivores and humans. Likewise, the saliva pH varies from species to species of animals, and is another causal factor of their natural diet. The saliva of carnivores and omnivores contains no digestive enzymes, while our saliva, and that of herbivores/frugivores, does contain the carbohydrate-digesting enzymes. The enzyme salivary amylase ‘ptyalin’, found in human saliva, helps to convert starch to sugar enzyme, and plays the major role in starch digestion. In carnivores, their saliva glands are small and secrete an acid saliva having little or no effect on starch; this is because animal flesh is virtually starch-free. Omnivores (like pigs for example) are equipped with large salivary glands that secrete ample quantities of starch-splitting enzymes; but humans only have the starch-splitting enzyme ptyalin, already mentioned above. However, our ptyalin is in short supply, and this is a sure indication we aren’t true ‘granivores’ starch-eaters. Frugivores  (including humans) have salivary glands that secrete alkaline saliva, containing only moderate amounts of ptyalin, which initiates starch digestion. This tells us that humans and other frugivores can easily digest the small amount of starch contained in fresh fruits, nuts, and leafy greens, and that humans are not intended to subsist on a diet of highly starchy grain foods as too many people (especially children) currently are doing. Nature has given us a vast amount of latitude and tolerance; however, when this tolerance limit has been reached we have two choices: changing our diet and lifestyle, or succumbing to disease. Eating primarily a large amount of refined sugars, as well as starches (that is, whole grains and legumes) can lead to Diabetes and/or other degenerative diseases.

We see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a “committed” frugivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind’s gastrointestinal tract is designed for a plant-food diet in general, and a fruit diet in particular. To be more precise, the position that humans occupy in the animal kingdom is that of the Primate Order, which means that, from an anthropological point of view, our closest animal relatives are the anthropoid apes. This species includes gorillas, monkeys, and chimpanzees, all of whom are classified as frugivores. In fact, the tarsier -  a small nocturnal animal who lives in the Philippines and Indonesia  -   is the only primate that spurns all plants material as food, living entirely on insects and small vertebrates. From a physiological perspective, our human biology and digestion most closely resemble the orangutan. Even our DNA genetic material is over 95% identical. Humans developed on fruits just as monkeys and some other primates. Therefore, it isn’t at all surprising that some anthropologists and biologists have classified humans as fruitarians. At this point, some readers may wonder why, if the above is scientifically true, it has not been taught in schools and universities all over the world. Well, I don’t think one has to be a genius  to find out the real reason why this important truth about our ancestors’ diet and way of life has been concealed from the masses. As Art M. Baker MA, NHE, put it:  “The establishment reinforces dietary error that people like to make, and convince the public that it doesn’t matter what they eat. Any processed, denatured, fragmented, and chemicalized “food” will meet the body’s needs as long as we take vitamins, minerals, antacids, headache and allergy remedies, and other drugs.” By doing so, the government delights both the food industry and pharmaceutical companies. Regrettably, these days nutrition science has little to do with scientific truth, just like mainstream, textbook, and make-believe history has little to do with true history.

Above we have examined the anatomical and physiological reasons why humans have never been, and are not, meant to feed on any kind of animal flesh and related substances. But, even psychologically, we don’t fit in the carnivore category. Don’t get me wrong, humans can be killers, as the world’s history of the past two thousand years has proven again and again, and the news of the world prove every day. But, when it comes to killing for food, I don’t think the great majority of people would enjoy watching  carnivorous animals pouncing on their hapless prey, sinking their fangs into their flesh, crushing their bones, ripping them to shreds, and gulping down blood-dripping hunks of flesh. Would they? Nor could any normal person enjoy eating raw animal flesh, guts, bones, skin, and internal organs. Also, I cannot help wondering how much higher the world’s number of vegetarians would be if, when people craved a steak, for example, they had to club a defenceless cow to death, cut it open, and slice out any part/s they wanted to eat. Likewise, I am quite certain that, if people were made to witness the unspeakable horrors of the slaughter house, most of them would give up their acquired animal-flesh eating habit for good! Looking at the above from another angle, how many of these people would be prepared to eat red meat, poultry, game, and/or fish in their original, raw, unprocessed, and unflavoured natural state? Not many, I dare say. Then why do the great majority of people keep eating animal flesh?  There are a few answers to this question  -  habit and conditioning are two of them; near total ignorance of human physiology is another one. Also, people’s taste for cooked animal flesh has become a worldwide custom, and without asking whether this unnatural practice is beneficial or harmful to their health, and that of their children, they continue to eat it even if it kills the  -  and more often than not, it does!

The terms  carnivores, herbivores, frugivores, insectivores, granivores, or folivores   -   preceded  by the adjective  ‘natural’ or ‘true’  -   refer to those members of the Animal Kingdom who are biologically adapted to feed on animal flesh, grasses and other plant-based substances, fruits and fruit-like vegetables, insects, grains and seeds, or leaves, respectively. Natural omnivores, of course, feed on all kinds of raw animal and vegetables substances. Here, the adjective ‘natural’  or ‘true’ is needed in order to separate real carnivores, herbivores, etc., from the pseudo varieties. For example, in its natural habitat the chimpanzee is classified as a ‘frugivore’;  however, the same animal, in captivity, is erroneously referred to as an ‘omnivore’. Sure enough, the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the chimpanzee are those of a frugivore, as it is biologically adapted to feed primarily on many types of fruit, and fruit-like vegetables. But, in captivity, this animal is often fed the same kind of unhealthy foods most people eat   -   no wonder these unfortunate animals never look healthy nor manage to live long. (Personally, l think a chimpanzee is not more a natural omnivore than a male transvestite is a woman.) It is high time people understood that all the members of the Animal Kingdom are biologically  classified in accordance with their anatomical and physiological characteristics, as well as by what type of raw food they feed on in their natural environment, certainly not by what they are fed in captivity! But (and this is a big  ‘but’) this only applies to raw and unprocessed food. In other words, if we find it necessary to use taste-enhancing processes, such as cooking and seasoning, then the food wasn’t meant for us. In a nutshell, if we cannot bear to eat any food in its original, raw state, we should not attempt to eat it. But the overwhelming majority of people worldwide keep roasting, frying, grilling, steaming, and boiling all kinds of animal flesh without realizing they are actually ingesting burnt dead flesh, which has no correlation with live food!  What people don’t realize is that they are not eating proteins but amino acids which, in order to be assimilated, need to be broken down in the simple atoms and molecules that compose them. However, in cooked foods these amino acids are damaged or destroyed, thus becoming unusable and toxic. In other words, any kind of animal flesh would have to be eaten raw in order for the amino acids to be of any real value to the body. Likewise, plant-based foods need also to be eaten in their original raw state. As I have already said, Nature made no allowance for stoves, microwaves, toasters, pots and pans and other cooking paraphernalia being furnished at birth as part of our natural equipment. (I will be dealing with amino acids, as well as with raw and cooked food, in chapter three.)

Strangely enough, many anthropologists still insist in classifying   humans as omnivores, just like pigs, hedgehogs, and the scavengers. Humans do indeed eat almost everything. And if something is too large to pass through their rather narrow oesophagus, they cut it into small chunks. And if, for example, their raw  meat, fish, or other animal flesh tastes and looks revolting they cook and/or spice it with sauces and other food enhancers, until it becomes both palatable and  acceptable to the eye. As  I have already said above, a true omnivore (animal or human animal) feeds on a variety of ‘raw’ and ‘unrefined’ animal-based and plant-based nutrients. Here, it is significant to note that without the adjectives ‘raw’ and ‘unrefined’, our ‘true’ human omnivore (for example)  becomes a  ‘fake’  omnivore! For example, tigers in the wild are true carnivores, while the overwhelming majority of people who live in an urban environment are ‘fake’ (make-believe or pseudo) omnivores  -   the kind of omnivores which, when mentioned in writing, need  double inverted commas at each end of the word.

Having carefully read the above, any intelligent and rational person will come to the conclusion that we are not natural carnivores (like cats, dogs, tigers, lions, etc.) or omnivores, like pigs, hedgehogs, rats, bears, etc. Far from it! Therefore, the title question of this section, Did Biological Evolution Turn Humans Into Omnivores?  must be answered with a resounding NO! If Nature meant us to kill and eat any kind of animal flesh, it would have given us all the necessary physical attributes and killing equipment to do so. All  animals in the wild eat raw food   -   and this is exactly what we were meant to eat too! They also drink pure water and breathe fresh air. Unfortunately for our health, we have polluted our water and air, we eat unnatural foods, drink all kinds of harmful beverages and, more often than not, we conduct unhealthy lifestyles.

Apart from all the biological evidence against feeding on an animal-based diet, we should also consider other aspects of this matter. For example, while carnivores and omnivores appear to take pleasure in killing  other animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands, and dug into the raw corpse, would be considered deranged to say the least. Carnivorous animals are aroused by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most people, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of raw flesh and cannot stand hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to any truly civilized person  -  and this should be viewed as yet another proof that Nature never meant humans to eat any kind of animal flesh, be it meat, poultry, game, or fish! Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. We not only survive, but thrive on a meat-free diet. (I consider myself a living proof of this fact  -  and my greatest regret is that I wasn’t clever and wise enough to discover this truth much earlier than I did!)  I think it is high time we trample under our feet the irrational belief, motivated by financial gain and ignorance, that humans are meant to eat meat, before it does further harm to both us, the animals, and the  natural environment!

Science Confirms Humans Frugivorous Status

The carefully concealed (and very unpalatable to many) truth is that humans (that’s us) are ‘frugivores’. That is, our biological, biochemical, anatomical, and physiological features are a clear indication of this scientific fact. Therefore, we should eat fruit as a dietary staple, not as a ‘bit on the side’. In other words, fruit is perfect for humans! But, let’s now find out what eminent men of science have to say about this topic.

Recent research by anthropologists shows our early ancestors were tree dwellers and depended upon products of the tree, and later upon the fruits of stem and vine for their sustenance. Dr. Alan Walker, a paleoanthropologist  of John Hopkins University in Maryland, has done much research showing that early humans were once exclusively fruit eaters. By careful examination of fossil teeth and fossilized human remains with electron microscopes and other sophisticated tools, Dr. Walker and his colleagues are absolutely certain that early humans, until relatively recently, were total fruitarians. These findings were reported in depth in the ‘New York Times’, May. 1979. Here is a small excerpt from that report :  “Dr Alan Walker and his associates, paleoanthropologists at John Hopkins University, using the most modern electronic microscopic equipment, state: “Preliminary studies of fossil teeth have led to the startling suggestion that our early human ancestors (Australopithecus) were not predominantly meat-eaters or even eaters of seeds, shoots, leaves or grasses, nor were they omnivorous. Instead they appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit. Every tooth examined from the hominids of the 12 million year period leading up to Homo Erectus appeared to be that of a fruit-eater. No exception has been found in this examination.” 

In 1979, Dr  A. Walker and his team of scientists shocked the scientific world, when they dropped the bombshell on all the conventional nutritionists, dieticians, and anthropologists who were almost totally ignorant of the immense importance of fruit in people’s daily diets! Here, we are talking about so-called nutritionists who were convinced proponents of the erroneous ‘four-food-group’ myth. A widespread myth which has little or no scientific value, and is the ‘darling’ of ‘Big Pharma’ and the world’s food industry. As was to be fully expected in our up-side-down world, Dr Walker’s findings were given little or no media coverage, nor were they taught in school or universities; but, fortunately, they managed to survive and to pop-up here and there. These great findings prove that our early human ancestors were not predominantly flesh-eaters  (as is the case now, 2013), neither were they eaters of seeds, grasses, shoots, or leaves, as do  omnivores. In fact, it would appear they thrived on a diet of fruit. How did Dr Walker and his team manage to come to such an extraordinary and unexpected  conclusion? Well, they invented a very ingenious way of determining the human dietary trend of those pre-historical time by examining and studying striations and marking on teeth. Apparently, different foods leave distinctly different marks on teeth.

The essence of Walker's research is that even though humans (in their lack of knowledge of their own anatomy and physiology) have switched to omnivorous and carnivorous eating practices, our anatomy and physiology have not changed. Humans were (and still are) a species of fruit eaters. The human digestive system, which has been biologically adapted to a diet of fruits and vegetables for tens of millions of years of development, is not going to be affected by  a few thousand years of unnatural eating, nor will it change our dietary requirements for optimum health. The position that humans occupy in the animal kingdom is that of the Primate order, which means that, anthropologically speaking, our closest animal relatives are the anthropoid apes (anthropoid means ‘resembling man’ or ‘man-like’). This species includes gorillas, urangutans, and chimpanzees, all of whom are classified as frugivores. From a physiological point of view, our human biology and digestion most closely resemble our closest ‘cousin’ -  the orangutan. Even our DNA genetic material is well over 95% identical. Humans thrived on fruits just as lemurs and other primates. This is why some anthropologists and biologists have classified humans as frugivores, to the great dismay of the meat, dairy, grains, foodservice, and pharmaceutical industries.

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), famous French naturalist and zoologist, wrote: “The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking.”

The great taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), a Swedish naturalist, physician,  botanist and zoologist, who established the modern scientific method of classifying plants and animals, classified humans not as carnivores, not as omnivores, nor even as herbivores, but as frugivores. Linnaeus wrote: “Man's structure, internal and external compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables are his natural food. To say that humans have the anatomical structure of an omnivore is an egregiously inaccurate statement”.

American professor of anthropology at Los Angeles University, Jared Diamond, commented:  “The notion of man the hunter is a romantic myth: big-game hunting added little to our food intake until after we had evolved fully modern anatomy and behaviour. Instead, our earliest ancestors lived on the wild fruit, nuts, seeds and tubers that they gathered”. Professor Diamond puts it succinctly:  “I doubt the usual view that hunting was the driving force behind our uniquely human brain. For most of our history, we were not mighty hunters but rather sophisticated baboons. And what food makes up the bulk of baboon diet? Fruit, of course; so for most of their history, humans were fruitarians.”

One of America’s greatest authorities on natural health and nutrition, Dr  Herbert M. Shelton, ND (1895-1985), was well aware of the very strong link between a plant-based daily diet and human health. He wrote: “I do not intend to enter into any lengthy discussion of comparative anatomy and physiology at this stage, but will content myself with saying that every anatomical, physiological and embryo-logical feature of man definitely places him in the ‘frugivore’ class. The number and structure of his teeth, the length and structure of his digestive tract, the position of his eyes, the character of his nails, the functions of his skin, the character of his saliva, the relative size of his liver, the number and position of the milk glands, the position and structure of the sexual organs, the character of the human placenta and many other factors all bear witness to the fact that man is constitutionally a frugivore. As there are no pure frugivores  -   all frugivores eating freely of green leaves and other plant parts  -  man may  also partake of them, as they possess certain advantages, which fruits are deficient of. Actual tests have shown that the addition of green vegetables to the fruit and nut diet improves the diet”.

Australian Dr David Collison, MB., BS., PhD., author of three books on clinical ecology, health and optimum nutrition, is an authority on health and its correlation with diet and lifestyle. He is also well aware of the importance of respecting the nutritional laws of Nature. In one of his books, How To Stop Feeling So Awful, he wrote:  “Our lives are governed by natural laws. If we step out of a window on the tenth floor of a building, we will obey the law of gravity  -  we will accelerate to the ground and, in the space of a few seconds, we will then obey the law of deceleration. If we brake the law of gravity, we will pay the penalty. If we brake the law of nutrition, i.e., do not eat the correct foods in the correct form that our bodies were made to receive, in due course there will be a penalty ...”.  In his book How To Live To 100 + Years,  Dr Collison wrote:  “Fruit is the basis of a healthy diet. The more fruit consumed, balanced with vegetables and the restricted amounts of protein-rich and natural fat-rich foods, the healthier we will be, the less disease we will develop, and the longer we will live. Fresh fruit and vegetable juice should be a vital part of the diet of any one who is serious about using natural foods to build a healthy body and an immune system capable of preventing or curing disease”. (The two words in italisc are mine.)

Dr. Norman W. Walker, D.Sc., Ph.D., (1875-1984),  is the longest-lived, widely-known raw-foodist of the modern era. Thousands upon thousands of people credit Dr. Walker's live-vegetable-juice therapy for healing them of "incurable" diseases, including Jay Kordich, known to the world as "The Juiceman." When Jay Kordich had cancer, he met and was tremendously inspired by Dr. Walker. After healing himself of bladder cancer through juice therapy, Jay worked with Dr. Walker, beginning in the 1940s up until Dr. Walker's death in 1984 at an age of 109. Dr Walker was  living proof that a longer, healthier life can be achieved by eating according to our anatomical and physiological characteristics. In one of his seven books, he wrote:  “The Laws of Nature are very simple. Eat mostly food in its raw state, preferably grown organically without chemical fertilizers or poison sprays”. He strongly recommended drinking fruit and vegetable juices regularly, because, as he put it:  “The juices extracted from fresh-raw vegetables and fruits are the means by which we can furnish all the cells and tissues of the body with the elements and the nutritional enzymes they need in the manner they can be most readily digested and assimilated.” When it comes to nutritional and health matters, Dr Walker was the exact opposite of Dr Robert Atkins and company, who advocated a diet rich in beef, pork, chicken, turkey, duck, butter, lard, cheese, cow's milk, eggs, and any other fatty foods we want. The little problem here is that he dropped dead of chronic congestive heart failure at only 72 (and it is a miracle how he manage to reach this age), while Dr Walker passed away in his own bed at 109 years of age! The former died of unnatural causes, while the latter ‘died healthy’ of old age. (Incidentally, people who die of degenerative diseases, don’t die of ‘natural’ causes, but of ‘unnatural’ ones.) Dr Atkins -  -  the ‘darling’ of the meat, dairy, and pharmaceutical industry  -  wrote many books on nutrition (or more correctly, malnutrition). Now, I am asking myself the question, how can any person with an IQ higher than 70 even pick up, let alone read, any of his books?)

In the past thirty years or so, there have been quite a few studies and research on health and nutrition, which have conclusively proved we certainly are not omnivores, but plant-eaters in general, and fruit-eaters in particular. To date, the biggest and longest-lasting nutrition and health research ever undertaken is the so-Called China Study, also known as the China Project (CP). This research clearly associates faulty diet with cancer and other degenerative diseases, and was developed by Professor T. Colin Campbell and Dr Chen Junshi (two eminent medical scientists and researchers), during 1983-1984, and again in 1989-1990. Referring to the CP, Professor Campbell wrote:  “This survey is referred to as an ecological or correlation study design, meaning that we are comparing diet, lifestyle and disease characteristics of a number of sample populations, in this case the  sixty-five Chinese counties, involving 6500 people.

We determine how these characteristics, as country averages, correlate or associate with each other. For example, how does dietary fat relate to coronary cancer rates? Or how does blood cholesterol relate to coronary heart disease? How does a certain kind of fatty acid in red blood cells relate to rice consumption? We could also compare blood testosterone levels or oestrogen with breast cancer risk. We did thousands of different comparisons of this type.” One of the conclusions reached in this colossal research is that ‘humans are still very much a vegetarian species, and only in the last few thousand years have meat and other animal products become staples of the Western diet.’ And according to Dr Campbell, ‘it is not nearly enough for humans to evolve new mechanisms to give them protection from these kinds of foods.’

Various studies conducted in Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and other countries, show that vegetarians have lower cancer mortality rates than meat-eaters. For example, one British study of six thousand vegetarians found that vegetarians were only half as likely to die from cancer than omnivores. And when compared with a group of people who had similar lifestyles  -  except for diet  -  the vegetarians were still 40 percent less likely to contract cancer, which indicates that diet is the most important factor. (Here, it should be noticed that the people who took part in the above studies were just standard vegetarians, not vegans, or raw-foodists. I don’t doubt that, had they been strict vegans, the above    percentage would have been higher.) Regarding cardiovascular diseases, one of the most important studies was led by Dr Dean Ornish of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr Ornish showed that a very low-fat vegetarian diet produced a 25% reduction in cholesterol levels. The most important factor about this research was that the said diet reduced the amount of plaque in the arteries, thus reversing heart disease, while in the past, only drugs or surgery could have performed such a feat.

Art Baker, MA, NHE, is a natural health educator, publisher, author, and former Dean of Students at Life Science Institute, Austin, Texas. The following excerpts taken from his writings are a clear indication of his vast knowledge of  human anatomy and physiology, as well as nutrition and health matters:

 “The only authority you should rely on when it comes to determining what foods are best to eat is the human body. It is anatomy and physiology that decrees whether food is ‘acceptable’ or ‘harmful’. Determining our natural diet is not a matter of belief: its basis lies in scientific fact regarding our biological, biochemical, anatomical, and physiological features.”

 “Fruits contain all the nutrients we need: vitamins, minerals, proteins (in the form of amino acids), fats, and carbohydrates.”

 “Genetically and structurally, modern man’s body is the same as early man, yet what we eat is radically different. In modern society, suffering from preventable illness and chronic disease is considered the “norm”. Half of all Westerners die from totally avoidable heart disease, and the majority of the remainder die of cancer.”

 “Today we are still programmed to thrive on a diet of fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts. Instead we subsist on a diet of fats, sugar, and low fibre foods alien to our body.”

 “Fruit is the food of our biological adaptation. No food could be more natural for us, as it appeals to our visual, olfactory, and gustatory senses. Our natural diet should consist primarily of fruits, nuts, and green vegetables.”

 “The more foods to which we are adapted we consume, the more nutrients we derive. Foods that we are biologically equipped to efficiently handle are readily digested and their nutrients swiftly absorbed. Fresh fruits and vegetables fit this bill ideally.”

S. Boyd Eaton, M.D. author of The Paleolithic Prescription, and adjunct associate professor of anthropology at Emery University in Atlanta, says:  “For millions of years our ancestors evolved on diets of plant and very lean wild game.”

William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, wrote:  “When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh was never intended for human beings.”  Also, Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President of the Physician Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington D.C., stated:  “The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of ‘real food’ for ‘real people’, you’d better live close to a real good hospital.” Contrary to what misguided people all around the world have been brainwashed into believing, the daily consumption of animal flesh (especially red meat) is one of the main causes of most of the degenerative illnesses that are so common, especially in Western societies. As Dr Walter Willet, director of one of the studies that have found a close correlation between red meat consumption and colon cancer, concluded:  “If you step back and look at the data, the optimum amount of red meat you eat should be zero.”

Here, I would like to add it isn’t only red meat that is harmful to humans, but also all kinds of animal flesh, including fish. The very fact that raw and unprocessed animal flesh is repulsive to any normal human being is enough proof that we should leave it well alone! Under normal conditions, all species in the Animal Kingdom eat only those foods that taste good to them. For example, raw meat appeals to carnivores; raw grass tastes great to herbivores; raw fruit is very appetizing to frugivores;  and certain raw leaves are all folivores want to eat! But here it is significant to note that, apart from humans, no other species of animals would ever attempt to feed on cooked or processed animal flesh, grass, fruit, or leaves, respectively! In a nutshell, the best way to determine what we are really meant to eat is to do some comparative anatomy and physiology.  That is:  a) to learn all about our bodily characteristics and functions;  and  b) to observe what the animals anatomically and physiologically closer to us, feed on in their original habitats. It is really as simple as that!

Link To The Next Chapter
Chapter 3: The Sun, Vitamin-D, and Sunscreens