After nearly half a century in family practice, I have written a book outlining a rationale for identifying the human animal as essentially carnivorous.  I have lectured to small groups suggesting that many of the ills of man could be traced to dietary indiscretion as he deviated from his genetically programmed feeding habits.  That many were impressed by my discussions served my vanity well but, most importantly, suggested that there could be a need for a concept with broad appeal in the lay community and could even stimulate some interest in academia.  I found supportive evidence for my views and conceived the idea that I could present to the public a feeding program which would, as closely as possible, be consistent with the feeding practices of our ancestors.  My interest in nutrition actually antedated my training in medicine when, as a student, I came upon the writings of Vilhjalmur Stefansson who preached carnivorosity, Roger Williams who espoused the concept of biochemical individuality, Marvin Harris who described the feeding behavior of the human in rational terms, and Reay Tannahill who explored the history of the feeding habits of humans.  

The major focus of the book is that we might avoid the "modern" diseases of degeneration, such as diabetes, arteriosclerosis, osteoporosis, arthritis, mental retardation and deterioration, obesity and other eating disorders, hyperlipidemia, anemia, vitamin deficiencies, and possibly tumors in general, by excluding certain dietary elements, so that we can grow old in the best of health.  Essentially I have indicated that it is my view, however "revolutionary," that dairy foods and grass seeds (grain) are to be avoided if it is possible for the human animal to feed otherwise.  I have attempted to compare feeding customs in our society to those of our primitive contemporaries, to those of our recent ancestors, and to those of our more remote ancestors.  With some exceptions, I have taken up the human as he existed after the last glacier, some ten to twelve-thousand years ago, and have followed him to the present.  The key elements of my discussion are:  genetic influences, carnivorosity, excessive consumption, and inappropriate choices.

Though I have mentioned some disorders specifically and others more generally, I have not made therapeutic recommendations directed toward particular diseases as others have done.  The book is therefore not intended to be a treatment manual.  I have provided no recipes, as others have done, so my book is not a cookbook.  I recognize that other books touch on many of the subjects I discuss, but none of these proposes that carnivorosity may be the ideal and that the use of other foods is a compromise at best.

The information presented has come from hundreds of sources, published over a period of at least a century in a wide variety of publications.  I list as "recommended reading" major sources of information which have served me well and may further enlighten the interested reader. I include a glossary of terms since, in many instances, my language may include terms unfamiliar to the average layman.  The book is primarily intended for the lay public but may also be of interest to students and practitioners of nutrition and will hopefully further their interest in the genetic origins of our nutritional requirements.  The following subjects are discussed:  

* Biochemical Individuality  * Our Primitive Ancestors * Contemporary Primitive Societies * Genetics & Ancestry * Nutrition, Malnutrition & Starvation * Food in General * Meat * Milk & Dairy Products * Breast Milk & Infant Feeding * Vegetarianism * Excess Consumption * Obesity * Diet & Disease * Particular Requirements * Activity & Exercise * Feeding the Brain * Health Foods, Junk Foods & Food Allergies * Adaptation, Ethnic Influences & Biblical Admonitions  * Carbohydrates * Fats * Proteins * Micro-nutrients * What To Do

Human evolution and the development of culture, especially in foodways, cannot be separated from natural phenomena and the flora and fauna of man's habitat.  The food supply available to him as he developed was a major, if not the most important, factor governing not only his ability to survive but also his social, cultural, psychological, and physical characteristics.  Contemporary food preferences as well as social and cultural practices are dependent upon food supply.  It is obvious that man chose to remain in, or migrate to, areas which, by their flora and fauna, could provide adequate, if not ideal, nutritional elements.  The natural habitat was able to support plant life upon which herbivores could subsist and sufficient animal life upon which humans and other carnivores could feed.  However, as the population increased or when natural catastrophes occurred the adequacy of the food supply diminished.  Man then was required to exercise one of several options.  He could migrate and seek a new habitat, he could follow the migrations of the animals upon which he fed, he could choose to feed upon his human neighbors, he could breed down in size, or, as a last resort, he could feed in the vegetable kingdom.  Some learned to combine foods to satisfy their basic needs.  The particular foodways of some of our contemporaries, unique to each, are a reflection of the success of their improvisation.  

An inadequate intake of essential nutrients, though short of producing extinction, may sustain a population in poor health for many generations, as may be the case in the United States today considering the incidence of dental caries, arteriosclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, and other disorders.  In primitive and underdeveloped societies there are millions whose diet is poor in proteins and micro-nutrients.  In the absence of adequate sources of vitamins, disorders such as rickets, scurvy, and blindness are still found.  There is no doubt that the skills we have developed in processing and manipulating our food supply have made it possible for us to guarantee, for many of us, freedom from hunger.  In the process, however, we have all but eliminated the need to expend energy in the search for food.  We have exchanged adequacy of content and consideration of nutritional value for ease of acquisition and palatability.  We have permitted social, cultural, and commercial influences to blunt our instincts in the use of food.  What natural phenomena have done to the millions who are malnourished we are in danger of doing to ourselves.  

POINTS TO PONDER:

* Unless we view the human as a carnivorous animal in nature we cannot effectively define his place in the food chain.  Unless we consider feeding in nature as a means to an end and define that end as perpetuation of our species we are likely to hasten our ultimate demise, individually, if not collectively.

* Offering food as a token of love or affection perverts its function so that it becomes a medium of expression rather than a source of nourishment.  Feeding to provide pleasure rather than sustenance belittles the reason we feed in the first place.

* Terms such as "Out to dinner," "Meet for lunch,", "Go for coffee," "Breakfast meeting," and similar expressions should be extirpated from our common usage.

* There is no need for foreign milks or preparations derived from foreign milk in the diet of the human animal.

* Be aware of the difference between hunger and appetite.  Hunger is an indication that nourishment is required and can be satisfied only by an appropriate feeding.  It will not respond to subterfuge.  A drink of water, a high carbohydrate confection, or a bulk-forming feeding permits hunger to persist.  Only appetite can be controlled by such mechanisms since appetite does not refl

After nearly half a century in family practice, I have written a book outlining a rationale for identifying the human animal as essentially carnivorous.  I have lectured to small groups suggesting that many of the ills of man could be traced to dietary indiscretion as he deviated from his genetically programmed feeding habits.  That many were impressed by my discussions served my vanity well but, most importantly, suggested that there could be a need for a concept with broad appeal in the lay community and could even stimulate some interest in academia.  I found supportive evidence for my views and conceived the idea that I could present to the public a feeding program which would, as closely as possible, be consistent with the feeding practices of our ancestors.  My interest in nutrition actually antedated my training in medicine when, as a student, I came upon the writings of Vilhjalmur Stefansson who preached carnivorosity, Roger Williams who espoused the concept of biochemical individuality, Marvin Harris who described the feeding behavior of the human in rational terms, and Reay Tannahill who explored the history of the feeding habits of humans.  

The major focus of the book is that we might avoid the "modern" diseases of degeneration, such as diabetes, arteriosclerosis, osteoporosis, arthritis, mental retardation and deterioration, obesity and other eating disorders, hyperlipidemia, anemia, vitamin deficiencies, and possibly tumors in general, by excluding certain dietary elements, so that we can grow old in the best of health.  Essentially I have indicated that it is my view, however "revolutionary," that dairy foods and grass seeds (grain) are to be avoided if it is possible for the human animal to feed otherwise.  I have attempted to compare feeding customs in our society to those of our primitive contemporaries, to those of our recent ancestors, and to those of our more remote ancestors.  With some exceptions, I have taken up the human as he existed after the last glacier, some ten to twelve-thousand years ago, and have followed him to the present.  The key elements of my discussion are:  genetic influences, carnivorosity, excessive consumption, and inappropriate choices.

Though I have mentioned some disorders specifically and others more generally, I have not made therapeutic recommendations directed toward particular diseases as others have done.  The book is therefore not intended to be a treatment manual.  I have provided no recipes, as others have done, so my book is not a cookbook.  I recognize that other books touch on many of the subjects I discuss, but none of these proposes that carnivorosity may be the ideal and that the use of other foods is a compromise at best.

The information presented has come from hundreds of sources, published over a period of at least a century in a wide variety of publications.  I list as "recommended reading" major sources of information which have served me well and may further enlighten the interested reader. I include a glossary of terms since, in many instances, my language may include terms unfamiliar to the average layman.  The book is primarily intended for the lay public but may also be of interest to students and practitioners of nutrition and will hopefully further their interest in the genetic origins of our nutritional requirements.  The following subjects are discussed:  

* Biochemical Individuality  * Our Primitive Ancestors * Contemporary Primitive Societies * Genetics & Ancestry * Nutrition, Malnutrition & Starvation * Food in General * Meat * Milk & Dairy Products * Breast Milk & Infant Feeding * Vegetarianism * Excess Consumption * Obesity * Diet & Disease * Particular Requirements * Activity & Exercise * Feeding the Brain * Health Foods, Junk Foods & Food Allergies * Adaptation, Ethnic Influences & Biblical Admonitions  * Carbohydrates * Fats * Proteins * Micro-nutrients * What To Do

Human evolution and the development of culture, especially in foodways, cannot be separated from natural phenomena and the flora and fauna of man's habitat.  The food supply available to him as he developed was a major, if not the most important, factor governing not only his ability to survive but also his social, cultural, psychological, and physical characteristics.  Contemporary food preferences as well as social and cultural practices are dependent upon food supply.  It is obvious that man chose to remain in, or migrate to, areas which, by their flora and fauna, could provide adequate, if not ideal, nutritional elements.  The natural habitat was able to support plant life upon which herbivores could subsist and sufficient animal life upon which humans and other carnivores could feed.  However, as the population increased or when natural catastrophes occurred the adequacy of the food supply diminished.  Man then was required to exercise one of several options.  He could migrate and seek a new habitat, he could follow the migrations of the animals upon which he fed, he could choose to feed upon his human neighbors, he could breed down in size, or, as a last resort, he could feed in the vegetable kingdom.  Some learned to combine foods to satisfy their basic needs.  The particular foodways of some of our contemporaries, unique to each, are a reflection of the success of their improvisation.  

An inadequate intake of essential nutrients, though short of producing extinction, may sustain a population in poor health for many generations, as may be the case in the United States today considering the incidence of dental caries, arteriosclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, and other disorders.  In primitive and underdeveloped societies there are millions whose diet is poor in proteins and micro-nutrients.  In the absence of adequate sources of vitamins, disorders such as rickets, scurvy, and blindness are still found.  There is no doubt that the skills we have developed in processing and manipulating our food supply have made it possible for us to guarantee, for many of us, freedom from hunger.  In the process, however, we have all but eliminated the need to expend energy in the search for food.  We have exchanged adequacy of content and consideration of nutritional value for ease of acquisition and palatability.  We have permitted social, cultural, and commercial influences to blunt our instincts in the use of food.  What natural phenomena have done to the millions who are malnourished we are in danger of doing to ourselves.  

POINTS TO PONDER:

* Unless we view the human as a carnivorous animal in nature we cannot effectively define his place in the food chain.  Unless we consider feeding in nature as a means to an end and define that end as perpetuation of our species we are likely to hasten our ultimate demise, individually, if not collectively.

* Offering food as a token of love or affection perverts its function so that it becomes a medium of expression rather than a source of nourishment.  Feeding to provide pleasure rather than sustenance belittles the reason we feed in the first place.

* Terms such as "Out to dinner," "Meet for lunch,", "Go for coffee," "Breakfast meeting," and similar expressions should be extirpated from our common usage.

* There is no need for foreign milks or preparations derived from foreign milk in the diet of the human animal.

* Be aware of the difference between hunger and appetite.  Hunger is an indication that nourishment is required and can be satisfied only by an appropriate feeding.  It will not respond to subterfuge.  A drink of water, a high carbohydrate confection, or a bulk-forming feeding permits hunger to persist.  Only appetite can be controlled by such mechanisms since appetite does not refl

Choose your foods like your life depends on them makes you to start taking food seriously. You examine the relationship between the food you eat and the symptoms you manifest.

This book gives you a challenge along with redemption: Forget everything you ate until today, and start over. The choice is between a set of foods that will nourish you and enhance your longevity on the one hand and the foods that tear you down subtly and gradually on the other.

More importantly, that choice is always in front of you. You can turn around bad habits, bad choices and the resulting bad symptoms at any time. Do it now, because you’re better off preserving the health you have than letting it deteriorate. Do it now, because living longer and healthier sure beats the other alternatives.

Excerpt from the chapter Food as Medicine: We eat our way into our symptoms, and we can eat our way back out:

We live at a strange crossroads in history. Over the last few decades, the human species has been hypnotized by the temptations offered by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. The 1950’s ushered in the “better living through chemicals” age. And we believed, and we bought and swallowed and injected and are still consuming them in massive amounts, and, most recklessly, injecting such chemicals as ethylene glycol (antifreeze), aluminum and formaldehyde into our babies as part of vaccines, without any prior safety testing.

But now with massive chronic disease plaguing our most industrialized populations, autism closely following children’s shots, and more pathology coincident with concentrated chemicals, we are beginning to wake up from our long post-World War II slumber. Now begins the next era when synthetic chemicals are starting to be seen as, however useful in many applications, best kept at a distance from our bodies, our homes, public spaces and wilderness.

The old era of unthinking reliance on a synthetic existence is showing severe disadvantages, just as the urgency to forge new relationships with nature is becoming apparent. Plants and other whole foods are coming into their own new era as naturopathic physicians and other well-informed health practitioners rely on them for their central role in healing. Within our lifetimes, natural substances will eclipse pharmaceuticals in medical practice, as the general public awakens to its far superior healing capacity.

But the pharmaceutical industry will be the slowest to catch on, just as most physicians and druggists of the early 20th century refused to believe that absence of certain nutrients could bring on such horrible diseases as scurvy, pellagra and beriberi. Then as now, allopaths were eager to lay blame for these diseases on microbes, until . . . oops! limes cured the “limey” British sailors of their scurvy, and we saw that Vitamin B3 prevented pellagra, while Vitamin B1 prevented beriberi and Vitamin D prevented rickets. As usual, conventional medicine corrects itself long after the natural physicians are already healing patients. In fact, evidence now shows that even bubonic plague, which allopathy still attributes exclusively to bacteria known as Yersinia pestis, was more likely to strike those with low Vitamin C intakes and those who did not eat garlic.

What would possess a person to think that food could possibly be medicine? Our first clue is the structure of our intestines. Whatever comes into the mouth later travels through miles of efficient tubing that extracts certain molecules from the food we eat, then converts them to one common molecule, Acetyl Co-A, from which the building blocks of the body are then made: protein, glucose and (healthy-type) fats. The intestines are great little machines, but not omnipotent. That is, they can convert food molecules to Acetyl Co-A, because food has familiar and malleable combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. But it cannot do that with bizarre substances that the body is unfamiliar with, such as petrochemical products and synthetic substances used in pharmaceuticals. The body has no experience with many of these substances, has little clue what to do with them, and often excretes them, which may explain why placebos so often equal or surpass drugs in clinical trials. More often, though, as the body tries to either detoxify or wall off the offending invader drug, it creates new metabolites, which have multiple pharmaceutical effects, some of which may be quite harmful.

Food, on the other hand, is right at home in the body, since our species has always processed it, and we have become quite efficient eating machines as a result. Therefore, we easily break down ingested protein to its component amino acids. These then in turn get rearranged into the proteins that our genes tell us to make, all of the busy construction that takes place in the womb, and for the rest of us: replacement of lost skin and membrane cells, slightly longer fingernails, hair, scabs over wounds, etc. Carbohydrates and dietary fat get broken down to Acetyl Co-A and rearranged to form the molecules our body needs to function, because this is how our bodies have been handling things for all of our existence as a species. How would the body be able to do that from a pharmaceutical? It can’t. It’s like trying to make your car run on orange juice.

Except for the last century in industrialized society, both humans and animals have almost exclusively relied on plants for their medicine. In fact, it is instructive that, as wild animals are still known to seek plants that are appropriate treatments for whatever illness may be present, rather than also having access to our pharmaceuticals, animals observed in the wild are still free of chronic disease, even when living all the way to their maximum lifespan. Our veterinary and zoo populations, on the other hand, present a very different picture: cancers, heart disease and epilepsy are seen quite commonly among people’s well-loved pets who are subject to a highly processed diet as well as synthetic pharmaceuticals by us, their well-intentioned owners and the pet food industry.

Whether we were created or evolved, we have been so intimately connected to plants for all of our existence as a species that we cannot live without them. We connect with plants and exchange with plants down to our very cells and our smallest molecules. That is why they heal us like nothing else can. Our historical reliance on plants has been an integral part of every human society. Plants and humans resonate on levels that are still beyond our comprehension, including biochemical and physiological levels, and some would say aesthetic and emotional as well. How could humans and plants so closely have shared this earth, one with the other, and not had complementary, multi-faceted relationships with each other? Hippocrates said, “Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food.” Medicine is what you get when the most appropriate plant is given to an ill person. The plant kingdom does play the major role of all foods in this wonderfully beneficial relationship for us.

Quality whole foods are the currency of life

Whether you believe in creation, or evolution or are undecided, most of us would agree that our bodies (that is our anatomy and biochemistry, our metabolism of food) is substantially the same as that of our recent ancestors. What happens when we substitute factory chemicals such as synthetic food and pharmaceuticals for the water and many different nutrients that our cells and our children’s cells and internal organs need simply to function well? In fact, the very sad consequences of the latest generations’ food and medication choices is becoming more apparent everyday as we are now seeing chronic diseases such as dia