The only way to produce atherosclerosis in carnivores is to take out the thyroid gland;

[strongvirtue]

Twenty questions on atherosclerosis

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Very interesting read, but what catched my attention the most, was the beginning.

Is atherosclerosis a disease affecting all animals or only certain animals?

Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.

Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?

Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.

 

[xeliex]

Fascinating!

Although the latter part could be contested and argued. Our intestinal length is closer to a carnivore than an herbivore. We might just be true omnivores.

Many of Earth's carnivores don't necessarily match these traits. Here is a fun list https://animalia.bio/carnivore

 

[Candeias]

What is the difference between the fat intake/composition of a herbivore and a carnivore?

 

[Jennifer]

Although the latter part could be contested and argued. Our intestinal length is closer to a carnivore than an herbivore. We might just be true omnivores.

Yeah, it seems we may fall into the faunivore or frugivore category. The site Beyond Veg has a good write-up on gut morphology:

A footnote on Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984]: Human gut morphology

Sussman [1987] describes the analysis of the gut of 6 human cadavers using the measures defined in Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984]. Analysis of the human gut data using the coefficient of gut differentiation (a measure of gut specialization) placed humans in the frugivore range, along the margin with the faunivore category. However, analysis of the same data using the index of gut specialization (yet another measure of gut morphological specialization) placed humans squarely in the faunivore range.

Note that the frugivore classification above came from using the coefficient of gut differentiation, which is an intermediate result in Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984], hence presumably less desirable (from a certain analytical viewpoint) than the (faunivore) classification achieved using the end result of Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984], i.e., the index of gut specialization. Also recall that the term frugivore does not mean or imply that a diet of nearly 100% sweet fruit (as advocated by some fruitarians) is appropriate. Recall that all frugivorous primates eat at least some quantities of animal foods, even if only insects. Thus the result that humans appeared to be frugivores by one measure and faunivores by another suggests a natural diet for humans that includes both animal foods and fruits.

We have presented the results of these papers in some detail here, so the reader can get a feel for the overall thrust of the analyses. The basic result appears to be that the anatomy of the human GI tract shows what appear to be adaptations for faunivory (consumption of animal foods), regardless of whether humans fall into the faunivore or frugivore class. This leads us to the next paper on gut morphology to be discussed here.

Overview of Digestive System Morphology in Primates and Humans

Some vegetarian advocates claim the human digestive system is like that of apes in its most essential aspects. Is this claim true?

www.beyondveg.com

 

[Blaze]

Twenty questions on atherosclerosis

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Very interesting read, but what catched my attention the most, was the beginning.

Is atherosclerosis a disease affecting all animals or only certain animals?

Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.

Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?

Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.

Good post, thank you for sharing it, though I am pretty certain they are wrong about 1 thing, you can cause those issues in dogs or cats without removing the thyroid , just simply add some omnivore foods like carbs or sugar...........................

Their premise only holds true on a strict carnivore diet for dogs and tigers. Add other foods that are not natural for them or remove their thyroid which is not natural for them either and presto ------- pathology!

Herbivores, add foods that are unatural for them thus saturating their tissues with fat and cholesterol --------- no surprise , they get sick too.

Hard to compare apples with oranges or herbivores with carnivores that are being given the exact same diet and draw an accurate conclusions.
Give them each different diets and all comparisons become meaningless.

The one thing in that study that is interesting and valid is the surprising finding that a carnivore without a thyroid on it's natural diet gets atherosclerosis.

 

[A-Tim]

Yeah, it seems we may fall into the faunivore or frugivore category. The site Beyond Veg has a good write-up on gut morphology:

A footnote on Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984]: Human gut morphology

Sussman [1987] describes the analysis of the gut of 6 human cadavers using the measures defined in Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984]. Analysis of the human gut data using the coefficient of gut differentiation (a measure of gut specialization) placed humans in the frugivore range, along the margin with the faunivore category. However, analysis of the same data using the index of gut specialization (yet another measure of gut morphological specialization) placed humans squarely in the faunivore range.

Note that the frugivore classification above came from using the coefficient of gut differentiation, which is an intermediate result in Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984], hence presumably less desirable (from a certain analytical viewpoint) than the (faunivore) classification achieved using the end result of Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984], i.e., the index of gut specialization. Also recall that the term frugivore does not mean or imply that a diet of nearly 100% sweet fruit (as advocated by some fruitarians) is appropriate. Recall that all frugivorous primates eat at least some quantities of animal foods, even if only insects. Thus the result that humans appeared to be frugivores by one measure and faunivores by another suggests a natural diet for humans that includes both animal foods and fruits.

We have presented the results of these papers in some detail here, so the reader can get a feel for the overall thrust of the analyses. The basic result appears to be that the anatomy of the human GI tract shows what appear to be adaptations for faunivory (consumption of animal foods), regardless of whether humans fall into the faunivore or frugivore class. This leads us to the next paper on gut morphology to be discussed here.

Overview of Digestive System Morphology in Primates and Humans

Some vegetarian advocates claim the human digestive system is like that of apes in its most essential aspects. Is this claim true?

www.beyondveg.com

That's really interesting, thanks!

Are carnivore and faunivore synonyms Jen, or do they differ in a particular way?

 

[Jennifer]

You’re welcome, @A-Tim. :)

If I’m understanding correctly, a faunivore can fall into the category of carnivore (both hypercarnivore and mesocarnivore) and even omnivore because the definition of a faunivore is any animal who eats other animals.

 

[philalethes]

Sussman [1987] describes the analysis of the gut of 6 human cadavers using the measures defined in Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984]. Analysis of the human gut data using the coefficient of gut differentiation (a measure of gut specialization) placed humans in the frugivore range, along the margin with the faunivore category. However, analysis of the same data using the index of gut specialization (yet another measure of gut morphological specialization) placed humans squarely in the faunivore range.

Could you provide a reference to where the latter conclusion is found? Everything I've read from Chivers and Hladik places humans right in the middle, as frugivores, and not really at the margin of either folivores or faunivores. Also, virtually all indices of gut specialization I've seen require a far smaller area of absorption in general for faunivores than is observed in humans; when accounting for the common mistake of measuring humans from feet to head instead of torso length as with all other animals, humans have far longer intestines than faunivorous animals.

To me it's practically unthinkable that humans are faunivorous animals, it makes absolutely zero sense from the perspective based on everything I know about evolutionary biology and primatology. We diverged from the more insectivorous tarsiers ~60 million years ago (and even longer ago from the order Carnivora, ~80 million years ago, which includes the vast majority of common examples of both omnivorous and carnivorous animals, including dogs and cats), and for tens of millions of years after that we became more and more frugivorous.

All evidence I've seen from primatology, including from Katharine Milton, who is arguably the world's foremost expert on primate nutrition and a quite humble and open-minded person who reminds me of Ray Peat in many ways, and who also indicates that the most frugivorous primates tend to be the most intelligent and big-brained, with Milton particularly noting over and over again in her work the playful intelligence of the highly frugivorous spider monkeys over the relatively dull and lazy folivorous howler monkeys. There are also studies demonstrating a clear correlation between brain size and degree of frugivory, such as this one. My own personal understanding of biochemistry has also led me to conclude that the human brain is literally primarily made out of sugar, with all its cholesterol being synthesized de novo in situ independently of any exogenous cholesterol consumption (which was practically nonexistent for most of human evolution) or circulatory cholesterol originating from the liver or other tissues.

In contrast humans didn't really start consuming significant amounts of animal-derived matter until extremely recently in terms of an evolutionary context, far too recently to overturn the tens of millions of years of selection for frugivorous traits (in parallel it took 80 million years for carnivorans to do the same for their respective physiologies). In fact, even for the human species which left the rainforest before us (distant cousin species) there's scarce evidence for more than some scavenging and bone marrow extraction, and this could very well primarily have been out of desperation due to finding themselves in an environment completely different from what they'd been immersed in for all those tens of millions of years. For anatomically modern humans (us), we don't really have evidence for large-scale consumption of animals until efficient projectile hunting as recently as ~50,000 years ago, ~70,000-80,000 years ago if you really stretch it, an almost negligible blip of time in the broader context of evolutionary biology.

This is just some of the information (but by no means all of it) I've accumulated over the years that strongly indicates to me that humans most definitely are still frugivorous great apes physiologically speaking, and that the consumption of animals (and even more recently, certain animal products like bovine and ovine/caprine breast milk) is more of a culturally acquired habit we've adopted out of past desperation due to finding ourselves in less fertile environments rather than anything else, and whose effects on human physiology are not necessarily particularly benign.

 

[Jennifer]

Could you provide a reference to where the latter conclusion is found?

That quote comes from the link I provided at the end of my post:

Overview of Digestive System Morphology in Primates and Humans

Some vegetarian advocates claim the human digestive system is like that of apes in its most essential aspects. Is this claim true?

www.beyondveg.com

I’m not sure if the rest of your post was directed at me, but thank you for your detailed response. Having spent over 20 years in the fruitarian community, I’m familiar with much of the information you mention. :)

 

[philalethes]

That quote comes from the link I provided at the end of my post:

Overview of Digestive System Morphology in Primates and Humans

Some vegetarian advocates claim the human digestive system is like that of apes in its most essential aspects. Is this claim true?

www.beyondveg.com

I’m not sure if the rest of your post was directed at me, but thank you for your detailed response. Having spent over 20 years in the fruitarian community, I’m familiar with much of the information you mention. :)

I can't find any reference to neither it nor the work where the claim originates on that page. Also, from my experience with that page it's run by someone who does not actually seem that concerned about the actual physiological facts, but more with promoting their own biased views on the matter. You can e.g. see a blatant error right in the figure on the middle of the page, the exact error I highlighted earlier, namely to consider human body length from head to toe when discussing intestinal to body length ratios; this is primarily done either to willfully minimize this ratio and make it falsely appear that humans have more faunivorous guts, or simply out of woeful ignorance of standard methods of measurement (the correct measurement being the length of the torso, as is used for the other apes as well; as a small note global average human height is also closer to ~170 cm than 180 cm, but that's not ultimately that relevant). The point about the ratio of smaller intestine to larger intestine is a valid one, but that only seems to indicate that humans indeed have evolutionarily specialized for the highest-quality foods, i.e. for primarily fresh and ripe tropical fruits (although by no means exclusively).

As for your personal experience with the matter, I'm not going to argue whether or not you know what you're talking about based on that or not, but fact is that I know of countless people who have embraced similar ideologies and lifestyles for even longer than that, and still don't have a very good grasp of e.g. human physiology, paleoanthropology, evolutionary biology, and biochemistry, so it ultimately doesn't tell me much; we can really only discuss the facts of the matter. The post was directed both at OP and the thread in general, since that seemed apt for the topic at hand, but also at you, since you seemed to indicate that there was evidence for humans being physiologically faunivorous, a claim which I've found virtually no good evidence for over the years, and a lot of strong evidence against.

 

[Jennifer]

I can't find any reference to neither it nor the work where the claim originates on that page. Also, from my experience with that page it's run by someone who does not actually seem that concerned about the actual physiological facts, but more with promoting their own biased views on the matter. You can e.g. see a blatant error right in the figure on the middle of the page, the exact error I highlighted earlier, namely to consider human body length from head to toe when discussing intestinal to body length ratios; this is primarily done either to willfully minimize this ratio and make it falsely appear that humans have more faunivorous guts, or simply out of woeful ignorance of standard methods of measurement (the correct measurement being the length of the torso, as is used for the other apes as well; as a small note global average human height is also closer to ~170 cm than 180 cm, but that's not ultimately that relevant). The point about the ratio of smaller intestine to larger intestine is a valid one, but that only seems to indicate that humans indeed have evolutionarily specialized for the highest-quality foods, i.e. for primarily fresh and ripe tropical fruits (although by no means exclusively).

I agree that we have evolutionarily specialized for the highest-quality food, and I appreciate you acknowledging that doesn’t mean fresh and ripe tropical fruit exclusively. Do you know what percentage of animal protein comprises the diet of a faunivore? The only definition I could find stated that a faunivore is any animal who eats other animals, which to me could mean carnivores, omnivores and even frugivores. I think even herbivores have been known to eat animals.

As for your personal experience with the matter, I'm not going to argue whether or not you know what you're talking about based on that or not, but fact is that I know of countless people who have embraced similar ideologies and lifestyles for even longer than that, and still don't have a very good grasp of e.g. human physiology, paleoanthropology, evolutionary biology, and biochemistry, so it ultimately doesn't tell me much; we can really only discuss the facts of the matter.

I’m not sure what you would have to argue against when all I wrote was that I was aware of the information you mentioned and that it seems we may fall into the category of faunivores or frugivores. I’m only interested in the facts of the matter, also, and the fact remains that my spine collapsed on a frugivore diet and I have since reversed the condition, among other things, with ample amounts of animal protein so as much as I respect all the time and effort you must have put into your research, there would be no point in you arguing with me that we’re frugivores when a hard learned lesson taught me I am not my primate cousins no matter how many theories say I am. I was fruit-based half my life so my diet is not one of cultural habit, but biological need.

 

[philalethes]

Do you know what percentage of animal protein comprises the diet of a faunivore? The only definition I could find stated that a faunivore is any animal who eats other animals, which to me could mean carnivores, omnivores and even frugivores. I think even herbivores have been known to eat animals.

As you mentioned above, which I agree with, is that there are various types of faunivores which have different typical intakes of animal proteins and animal matter in general. There's naturally going to be a significant difference between e.g. a dog and a polar bear.

The exact definition is indeed somewhat nebulous, because as you say, many herbivores do consume animals occasionally, whether that be on purpose or not; if you include the fact that many herbivores not only occasionally consume small vertebrates, but will tend to eat a lot of insects and other small organisms that might be present in grass and other foliage, then you'd suddenly have to reclassify them as such too, which becomes nonsensical (which is also one of my objections to frequent claims about great ape insectivory making them faunivores, since that's very limited, and in certain populations hardly observed at all). Hence the work to achieve some sort of sensible classification system based on general gut morphology.

This also makes it somewhat arbitrary what exact range of animal matter we'd be talking about, but I'd say that an animal should be physiologically adapted to consume at least 30% of its diet as animal matter, and generally significantly more, to count as faunivorous; perhaps there exists objections to this and better formulations, but given how it's more of a classification based on the physiology of the gut it's not that simple.

I’m not sure what you would have to argue against when all I wrote was that I was aware of the information you mentioned and that it seems we may fall into the category of faunivores or frugivores. I’m only interested in the facts of the matter, also, and the fact remains that my spine collapsed on a frugivore diet and I have since reversed the condition, among other things, with ample amounts of animal protein so as much as I respect all the time and effort you must have put into your research, there would be no point in you arguing with me that we’re frugivores when a hard learned lesson taught me I am not my primate cousins no matter how many theories say I am. I was fruit-based half my life so my diet is not one of cultural habit, but biological need.

Well, my point was rather that it's not possible for me to know exactly what level of knowledge you have based on how long you've considered yourself something or other, since I've come across people who have done the same for as long or longer, and still struggle with some basic scientific knowledge (I'm not suggesting that that's you at all, you seem more knowledgeable in general than such types), and also come across others who have hardly done anything like it before at all, and yet are very informed and reasonable.

As for your spine collapsing, I'm naturally sorry to hear that happened to you, but my mind naturally cannot help but wander to explanations like, "they must certainly have been doing something quite wrong or unreasonable, and are now mistaking a quick fix that will lead to long-term problems for a solution"; that's simply honesty on my part, and even if you strongly disagree I assume you can understand where I'm coming from. The reason "they didn't do it right" is such a prevalent mindset is because people do tend to do a lot of things wrong not just when it comes to diet, but in all walks of life.

I certainly don't agree with the notion that you as a human have any biological need for animal protein to be healthy, and I would contend that you could easily have restored your health without it as well with certain changes (not that I know the specifics of the situation and exactly what changes that would be, of course); but that's just my opinion.

 

[Jennifer]

As you mentioned above, which I agree with, is that there are various types of faunivores which have different typical intakes of animal proteins and animal matter in general. There's naturally going to be a significant difference between e.g. a dog and a polar bear.

The exact definition is indeed somewhat nebulous, because as you say, many herbivores do consume animals occasionally, whether that be on purpose or not; if you include the fact that many herbivores not only occasionally consume small vertebrates, but will tend to eat a lot of insects and other small organisms that might be present in grass and other foliage, then you'd suddenly have to reclassify them as such too, which becomes nonsensical (which is also one of my objections to frequent claims about great ape insectivory making them faunivores, since that's very limited, and in certain populations hardly observed at all). Hence the work to achieve some sort of sensible classification system based on general gut morphology.

This also makes it somewhat arbitrary what exact range of animal matter we'd be talking about, but I'd say that an animal should be physiologically adapted to consume at least 30% of its diet as animal matter, and generally significantly more, to count as faunivorous; perhaps there exists objections to this and better formulations, but given how it's more of a classification based on the physiology of the gut it's not that simple.



Well, my point was rather that it's not possible for me to know exactly what level of knowledge you have based on how long you've considered yourself something or other, since I've come across people who have done the same for as long or longer, and still struggle with some basic scientific knowledge (I'm not suggesting that that's you at all, you seem more knowledgeable in general than such types), and also come across others who have hardly done anything like it before at all, and yet are very informed and reasonable.

As for your spine collapsing, I'm naturally sorry to hear that happened to you, but my mind naturally cannot help but wander to explanations like, "they must certainly have been doing something quite wrong or unreasonable, and are now mistaking a quick fix that will lead to long-term problems for a solution"; that's simply honesty on my part, and even if you strongly disagree I assume you can understand where I'm coming from. The reason "they didn't do it right" is such a prevalent mindset is because people do tend to do a lot of things wrong not just when it comes to diet, but in all walks of life.

I certainly don't agree with the notion that you as a human have any biological need for animal protein to be healthy, and I would contend that you could easily have restored your health without it as well with certain changes (not that I know the specifics of the situation and exactly what changes that would be, of course); but that's just my opinion.

Yep, I saw the “you did the diet wrong” coming a mile away. Of course I can understand where you’re coming from, but not for the reason you think. Good day.

 

[philalethes]

Yep, I saw the “you did the diet wrong” coming a mile away. Of course I can understand where you’re coming from, but not for the reason you think. Good day.

I think I understand fairly well where you think I'm coming from, but naturally we'll be disagreeing on the matter. I think you don't quite understand exactly what you did wrong, while you think I'm likely to make or be making similar mistakes or at least not fully understand your personal situation and/or experience (presumably, correct me if I'm wrong). Hence why I was making the point earlier about how it's probably better to stick with discussions about the known scientific facts and evidence for the most part rather than more personal discussions, but that's not to say the latter should be entirely avoided either whenever appropriate, personal experience is obviously relevant; and in the end we can only make our own actions based on what we think is right and best.

My contention ultimately still remains, as per the second question posted in the OP, that based on the scientific evidence about our physiology, biochemistry, and evolutionary history, there's nothing to suggest that humans have evolved to need any amount of animal matter to be perfectly healthy, and quite a bit of evidence to suggest that such could in fact be detrimental to human health in a variety of ways relative to foods that are more suitable. That is my opinion, and you and anyone else are of course free to disagree and make counterarguments with evidence indicating otherwise.

 

[Jennifer]

I think I understand fairly well where you think I'm coming from, but naturally we'll be disagreeing on the matter. I think you don't quite understand exactly what you did wrong, while you think I'm likely to make or be making similar mistakes or at least not fully understand your personal situation and/or experience (presumably, correct me if I'm wrong).

No, you clearly don’t understand where it is I think you’re coming from, but that’s okay. :)

 

[philalethes]

No, you clearly don’t understand where it is I think you’re coming from, but that’s okay. :)

Well, as I mentioned above, I'm coming from the perspective of suspecting that you didn't quite know what you were doing at the time, and that you've misattributed what caused your problems and what's a good solution to them to the wrong things. I understand that you naturally disagree with this assessment, probably quite strongly, but that's simply honesty on my part.

 

[GreekDemiGod]

We’re definitely not predominantly herbivore, plant foods are in general more allergenic to humans than animal food. That’s the only argument you need.

 

[Jennifer]

Well, as I mentioned above, I'm coming from the perspective of suspecting that you didn't quite know what you were doing at the time, and that you've misattributed what caused your problems and what's a good solution to them to the wrong things. I understand that you naturally disagree with this assessment, probably quite strongly, but that's simply honesty on my part.

It’s not your perspective I’m referring to. It’s your strong attachment to theory, and why that is that I’m referring to. It’s why I think you’re satisfied with your assumptions, while simultaneously trying to support your position with facts and evidence, and why you say I didn’t quite know what I was doing, while also saying that it's not possible for you to know exactly what level of knowledge I have. What you have shared in this thread is nothing new to me, both the information and suspicion, and it’s clear to me that when you say that personal experience is obviously relevant, you don’t actually believe it, unless by personal experience, you mean only yours and the experiences of others that fit your theory? There really is no point in continuing this conversation, since I have no desire to hold the basket while you pick cherries. There are no hard feelings on my part, but this is clearly a waste of time. Take care!

 

[philalethes]

It’s not your perspective I’m referring to. It’s your strong attachment to theory, and why that is that I’m referring to.

I have a lot of personal experience as well, and the personal experience of many others; I'm not basing what I'm saying entirely on a theoretical construct at all, but due to how easily it is for people to misinterpret their experience it's necessary to look at the sum total of objective scientific evidence as well.

To take a common case as an example (note, I'm not saying this is you at all), let's say someone decides to try to subsist on fruits exclusively for many years. They end up weakening and worsening, and developing severe health problems; after many years they e.g. go on a "carnivore diet" or add a lot of animal matter back into their diets in general, and suddenly their condition appears to drastically improve. In such cases it's extremely common for people to draw completely wrong conclusions based on their experiences, both because what led to their health problems in the first place rarely actually was what they thought or think it was, and because they have yet to experience potential long-term problems that might develop from the changes they've made. I use this as an example because it's a story I've heard countless times, not just with a fruit-based diet to an animal-based diet, but with any change to a long-term diet that hasn't been working.

It’s why I think you’re satisfied with your assumptions, while simultaneously trying to support your position with facts and evidence, and why you say I didn’t quite know what I was doing, while also saying that it's not possible for you to know exactly what level of knowledge I have.

The reason for those latter assumptions on my part is simply because due to what I describe above, i.e. how my experience is that people often fail to realize the actual causes of their problems or potential problems with their solutions, it's ultimately more reasonable for me to assume that someone has drawn erroneous conclusions despite not knowing exactly what they have and haven't tried and what they know and don't know, than it is for me to assume that everything I personally know is false. That's not to say that I couldn't potentially be wrong, but I don't believe I am, hence the disagreement.

What you have shared in this thread is nothing new to me, both the information and suspicion, and it’s clear to me that when you say that personal experience is obviously relevant, you don’t actually believe it, unless by personal experience, you mean only yours and the experiences of others that fit your theory?

Of course I realize that this type of mentality is nothing new; it's not new to anyone, virtually everyone will have heard it in various forms throughout their lives. That doesn't mean it's fallacious, because as described above people will often have attributed the wrong causes to their problems, and applied solutions that might lead to new unforeseen consequences in the future; but conversely it could also be wrong, it could be that I'm wrong and that you've correctly identified the causes of your problems and found the best solutions, I simply don't think that's the case here.

And yes, I absolutely do strongly believe personal experience is relevant, but again, as I describe above, it's very easy to draw false conclusions from personal experience. I'm naturally not doubting the experience itself, I'm obviously not saying that I think you're fantasizing or hallucinating.

Just as a brief example to illustrate what I mean, let's say there's an animal that is in pain due to a broken ankle; by some circumstance this animal comes across some pain-relieving pills, possibly strong opiates, and ends up ingesting one of them. Now, this animal, not understanding that pain-relieving drugs work by "hacking" the opioid system, will associate ingesting the pill with less pain, which under natural circumstances is a signal that something is good. It will also start to apply more pressure on the broken ankle due to not feeling nearly as much pain, thinking that its leg is fine again; sadly, it is not, and doing this actually breaks the ankle even worse and prevents it from healing. Once the analgesic wears off, the pain returns, but now much worse than before, and the damage much greater. The dog might now try to seek out more painkillers due to its previous experience, since it doesn't have a good understanding of what it's doing and how it's being affected. This can also be seen in humans addicted to opiates, where more or less exactly that process can lead to a destructive spiral.

I hope that serves as an analogy to better illustrate what my point is.

There really is no point in continuing this conversation, since I have no desire to hold the basket while you pick cherries. There are no hard feelings on my part, but this is clearly a waste of time. Take care!

You are naturally free to stop responding whenever you wish, but I definitely haven't been cherry-picking during this exchange at all, so that accusation seems out of place.

 

[Limon9]

Ray Peat seemed more and more to see the need for animal products as a concession to life in a sub-optimal environment, which for him meant not just culture, or nuclear radiation, but fundamental ecological factors like oxygen pressure and temperature. For instance the increased muscular mitochondrial density at altitude or at a higher atmospheric CO2 concentration would help to compensate for a skinnier, non-muscular frame. Either there was - or there will be - a world where this is possible without our spines collapsing.