Back in the roaring 20s, a “Lost Generation” of writers and artist inhabited the Parisian Left Bank; amongst these were Ernest Hemingway and Irish writing God James Joyce. Joyce was frail and wore thick glasses whereas Hemingway was athletic, a good amateur boxer and weighed 230 + pounds. On occasion Joyce and Hemingway would go bar hoping and Joyce would often insult some bar fly with vicious barbs and verbal taunts that only a master writer can spontaneously construct…after starting a fist fight, the diminutive Joyce would leap behind the hulking Hemingway and yell, “Thrash him Hemingway! Trash him!” After being taken to task by Donnie, I asked Dr. Hardy to construct retort and while doing so, I thought, “Thrash him Chris! Thrash him!” Here is Mr. Hamlett’s original email (exactly as written) and Dr. Chris’ well-thought out response to Mr. Donnie.
Donnie’s email:
“Dear Dragon Door Editor,
I associate Dragon Door with quality and cutting edge health related information. In my humble opinion I would suggest a better effort to make sure that an authors views do not appear to be views of Dragon Door. I say that because Marty Gallagher article on diet is a little lacking in substance. I am sure he is a great performance athalete, but his article relative to diet clearly demonstrates that he is not well versed in biology or history.
If you look at Man’s digetstive tract it has greater similarities to a vegeterian than a carnivore and the same applies to man’s teeth and mans saliva. We lack biological equipment to kill large and small animals, that could supply a significant amout of meat for a meal. What do I mean by that, well we dont have claws like a lion or bear, we lack the teeth and the jaw power to use our teeth to kill and we also lack the speed and strength. However, because we have big brains, we figured out how to use tools to make it possible for us to hunt, kill, slaughter and eat animals. In fact we deped on fire to properly breakdown the proteins in meat so we can digest them properly. I have never seen a lion (natural predators), use tools to hunt, or take their prey to a bbq so the could eat them. Man is a ominovore who is biased towards being a vegeterian, because berries and nuts dont require the same time energy and effort to hunt as e.g. reindeer. Let’s go back to our teeth, we only have two canine teeth to rip meat (and they are not very big or sharp at all, which is why most people need steak knives), but the rest of our teeth are better suited for nuts and berries. In fact when we look at what the biggest issue with man’s civilized diet the issue is clearly an overabundance of grains, which by the way were quite necessary for civilization because it enabled us to spend more time on other pursuits other than gathering and occassional hunting. Most of our health issues today are directly related to an over consumption of high glycemic grain based foods like, bread, donuts, cookies, potato chips etc.. It is misleading and unscientific to say that man is biased towards and performs best on a carnivorous diet, there is absolutely nothing biologically or historically that supports this, but controversy does sell books and magazines. I would stronlgy reccomend that readers interested in diet look at Dr. Sears pioneering work with the Zone Diet as well as the China Study by Campbell T. Colin.”
Thanks,
Donnie Hamlett
Dr. Chris’ response:
Donnie,
Thank you for your email regarding our article. I usually really enjoy scientific discourse, but your correspondence certainly does not qualify. First, you attack Marty as “not well versed in biology or history”. Have you ever spoken to Marty Gallagher? He is one of the most well-read and literate persons that I have ever met, and extremely well-versed in myriad subjects (even science!). He is associated with Dragon Door for a reason. Let’s get into your email:
1.”….Man’s digestive tract has greater similarities to a vegetarian…..”
This is factually inaccurate: when you look at the ratio of digestive tract to body length, obligate carnivores have ratios of 3:1 (cats) and 3.5:1 (dogs.) Obligate herbivores are 20:1 (cows) and 12:1 (horses). The human ratio is 8:1. As omnivores, we need to eat nutrient dense food (meats, fat) to support the energy needs of our much larger brains. Care and feeding of our brain requires an expenditure of no less than 25% of our Basal Metabolic Rate. An herbivore-like digestive tract would be considerably longer than the 8:1 ratio found in humans and consume much more energy in the process of digestion. Our brain size necessitates a shorter digestive tract from an energy distribution standpoint. Conversely, ape brains require 10% of their BMR and apes eat far less energy dense animal matter. And guess what, they have a higher ratio of digestive tract to body length. Interesting how that all works out…..
How do you scientifically justify saying that we have greater similarities to a vegetarian (herbivore) when we don’t have dedicated organs for breaking down cellulose? Humans don’t have multi-compartmented stomachs or rabbit-like cecums – so perhaps you could expand on that point using some science and biology…
2. You state that “Man is an omnivore who is biased towards being a vegetarian, because berries and nuts don’t require the same time energy and effort to hunt as reindeer.”
Agreed, man IS an omnivore, but is not biased toward vegetarianism (please see the digestive tract argument) – do you have any idea how many berries you would have to gather to equate to a paltry 3 ounce serving of reindeer meat, fat or organs? How long would it take to gather a pound of berries? Your argument is an unsubstantiated statement not based in anything factual. Fruits and berries contain little protein, fat or fat soluble vitamins such as A and D, requisite for a healthy life-span.
3. Your “teeth argument” is equally weak.
Have you even looked at the canines on a gorilla? They are hardly carnivores yet have these impressive teeth that are far more “carnivorous-looking” than humans. Where did you get the information? How did you come to the inaccurate conclusion that you must cook meat to properly break down protein? That makes absolutely no sense and flies in the face of biochemical or physiologic reality. We have all of the requisite enzymes to do that job without the help of fire. Meat certainly tastes better to me after cooking it a bit, but it isn’t necessary to use it as fuel. Ever had raw fish?
4. “Unscientific to say that man is biased towards and performs best on a carnivorous diet, there is absolutely nothing biologically or historically that supports this”
Man is an omnivore that evolved eating a significant amount of meat and is not biased to vegetarianism as discussed above. Man wasn’t a priori designed to eat meat; we EVOLVED eating meat. There is plenty of science to back this up which leads me to your next statement.
5. “I would strongly recommend that readers interested in diet look at Dr. Sears pioneering work with the Zone Diet as well as the China Study by Campbell T. Colin.”
I am not going to bash any of the fine gentlemen you “strongly recommend” and I assume you mean Dr. T. Colin Campbell (rather than Campbell T. Colin).
His China Study is what we call in epidemiology, an observational study. Observational studies are used for forming hypotheses and certainly NOT causality. I don’t have time to go into the details, but I “strongly recommend” that you take a look at Chris Masterjohn’s (WPF) very scientific review of the China Study:
Also, I “strongly recommend” reading “The Protein Debate” between Dr. Loren Cordain and Dr. Campbell, originally posted in Robb Wolf and Greg Everett’s excellent “Performance Menu.” This is an example of excellent scientific discourse between to scientists who vehemently disagree with each other, yet exhibit professional decorum without veiled personal attacks.
6. “Most of our health issues today are directly related to an over consumption of high glycemic grain based foods like, bread, donuts, cookies, potato chips etc”
I agree with you on this one Donnie! I recently wrote an article on grains you may enjoy.
In summary, I certainly like and encourage dissenting view-points, as I learn something every time I am challenged, but the tone of your email does not encourage civil discourse, and the content of it seems to be lacking in actual scientific understanding. Quoting other people’s approaches as gospel without actually reading and understanding opposing viewpoints is not helpful in scientific discourse. No person is infallible. Nor can we know everything. I consider myself a life-long student of nutrition and find the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know and have yet to learn. A little humility when discussing complex systems is important in all fields of endeavor. As a contributor to Marty’s article, I am surely biased, but I believe it more than holds up to the high standards always exemplified by Dragon Door.
Respectfully, Chris Hardy, D.O. MPH CSCS