Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using our teeth to determine the percentages of what to eat.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Using our teeth to determine the percentages of what to eat.


    The teeth configuration in humans is symmetrical so if we take the upper right half of the human jaw we have from front to back:

    Insissors 2 : For biting into fruits vegetables => 1F , 1V
    Canine 1 : For shredding fish & meat => 0.5M, 0.5F
    Premolars & Molars 5 : For crushing veggies, fruits, nuts seeds => 1.25V, 1.25F, 1.25N, 1.25S

    Total:
    2.25F (28 %) should be Fruit
    2.25V (28 %) should be veggies
    1.25N (16 %) should be Nuts
    1.25S (16%) should be seeds
    0.5M (6%) should be meat
    0.5F (6%) should be fish
    Total 8 (100%):

    It is most likely that our teeth configuration is based on our primal diet. We only have 2 canines per jaw the rest are for chewing plant based foods.


  • #2
    You can't do this. Because maybe an incisor is more efficent at doing its job than a molar. Maybe for a diet that is 50% fruits, veggies, nuts, etc and 50% meat requires the ratio of molars to incisors to canines that you have given. I don't know of any information, or any reason to believe, that the ratio of teeth types correlates 1:1 with ratios of food types.

    Comment


    • #3
      The dentition - and gut - of humans are said to closest to those of carnivores. From that point of view, what would suit us, it would seem, would be an all-meat diet.

      However, by cooking, fermenting, etc., plant foods it's possible to some extent to break down vegetable foods so they're more assimilable. You might say the technology of cooking allows us to be omnivorous - and, therefore, exploit more food sources.

      Comment


      • #4
        That's stupid reasoning. Thumbs are only 20% of our digits but their value is at least 50%. A 'presence percentage' is not the same thing as a 'value percentage'.

        Probably fairly obvious I never took stats. ;-/
        Because if you didn't know, of that is life made: only of moments; Don't lose the now.
        ~Borges

        Comment


        • #5
          sigh.....this crap is useless. 6%meat? good luck with that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lmyers04 View Post
            sigh.....this crap is useless. 6%meat? good luck with that.
            I split meat and fish evenly. You can have 12% meat and 0% fish.


            Early humans probably ate more plant based foods than meat based foods. It's a lot easier to eat foods that can't run away from you or turn around and gore you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Incisors, for biting into meat.

              You have a way to eat meat using only your canines?

              Dogs have incisors. Are they using them only for fruits and vegetables?

              Comment


              • #8
                I have two hands, yet only one penis.
                You lousy kids! Get off my savannah!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Depends if Grok used utensils or not. I've seen footage from the 1940's of Inuit people biting into raw fish so yes, then the incisors would increase the fish/meat percentages.

                  Counting incisors for biting into pieces of meat & fish we have:
                  Fruit & Veggies: 33.33 %
                  Seeds & Nuts: 20.83 %
                  Meat & Fish: 45.83 %

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Primalchild View Post
                    I have two hands, yet only one penis.
                    But women have two breasts. ;-)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'll just echo what others have been saying because I'm bored and want some more attention. You use all of your teeth to eat meat, even your molars. We have to grind up the meat with them because our omnivorous digestive tract is not as suited to processing chunks of flesh as a pure carrnivore's is.
                      You lousy kids! Get off my savannah!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Acteon View Post
                        I split meat and fish evenly. You can have 12% meat and 0% fish.


                        Early humans probably ate more plant based foods than meat based foods. It's a lot easier to eat foods that can't run away from you or turn around and gore you.
                        actually, early humans were probably VERY SKILLED at hunting animals, and preferred to do as such because it afforded them massive amounts of calories for themesevles and their young in the form of protein and fat. gathering up edible leaves and digging up tubers was NOT the caloric bulk of the diet, even though these foods, as you put it "cant run away from you", yet to gather enough for, lets say 1000 calories (maybe 30% of early human's needs?) would take a looooooooooong time, and actually end up costing early man quite a bit of calories in the meantime. Not to mention plants actually CAN avoid human consumption through events like drought, when plant food is effectively destroyed. Although hunting requires energy as well, the reward for a succesful kill vastly outweighed this, and any fantasies of early man eating 12% protein is dillusional, as Mark's research, and others, support. And, not to mention, the fact that all ancient and paleolithic peoples were ROAMING NOMADIC TRIBES that followed the animal herds. If they only needed 12% of their calories to come from protein, how can you explain this? They just followed the herds for fun?

                        so I think ill stick to shit loads of protein and more muscle, and better health.
                        Last edited by lmyers04; 07-26-2010, 10:15 AM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X