0

votes

If ruminants utilize the energy from plants by fermentation, wouldn't this work the same for humans?

Commented on March 10, 2014
Created February 10, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Hey this might seem like old news to many but I just learned a few days ago about the fact that ruminants like deer or cows are able to digest plant matter because they ferment it in their stomach.

I had an "aha!" moment and thought well then wouldn't this be the ONLY way for humans to utilize this energy?

Sauerkraut here I come :D

56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on March 10, 2014
at 06:16 PM

Acetic acid is 2.0. The other two are a little higher. They are not like coconut oil (MCT), very close to the 9cal/g of the longer chain fats.

56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on March 10, 2014
at 06:15 PM

Yes, in the Neolithic, at least in Europe, we switched from ruminants to grains, not by choice but by decimation of the great herds. You have probably noticed that european elephants and mammoths are extinct, and buffaloes only survive in one spot in Poland.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 03:05 PM

I was in R&D for a long time so what you're asking isn't totally idiotic, just far-fetched. I've seen people put windows in cow's stomachs to watch them digest wood pulp. Buy some cellulase enzyme and run an experiment on yourself. Just start on something easier than hay. I could give you the rest of the pectin left over from my last N=1 supplement experiment on soluble fiber (result: higher LDL and serious farting).

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on March 10, 2014
at 02:19 PM

Go live off of grass then. The more vegans there are, the cheaper my steak will be, thanks to the law of demand and supply. We need natural selection to weed out the idiots, thank you for volunteering.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 02:15 PM

The only person who has created "an entire situation in your head" is you. Rife with basic flaws in biology, anatomy and biochemistry… Crack open a biology textbook and learn a bit before coming with cracked out theories like 'cows are big and strong and eat nothing but grass, why cant we?', I mean, that's the most retarded thing I've read in quite a while.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 02:10 PM

Ruminants getting scarcer, what?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 02:10 PM

Ruminants getting scarcer, what?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 02:07 PM

That's why paleo dieters often get away with eating less… decreasing the processing decreases the bioavailability of nutrients. You might increase effective calories in plant foods 2-3 times by cooking/processing them, but only increase effective calories in animal foods by 5-30% by cooking/processing.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 02:04 PM

Calorie counts are always high. 2000 calories of food may not be 2000 bioavailable calories (in fact, it rarely is unless you consume nothing but highly processed starch and meat). You get very little energy from microbial action in the large intestine.

In fact, bioavailability of calories easily explains why 2000 calories of one set of foods is not equal to 2000 calories of other foods. Take potato starch… completely resistant to human digestion when raw, but when cooked, it is 100% digestible. Raw food diets are generally difficult to digest, and thus have less bioavailable calories.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 01:24 PM

Cont. here is the cow enzyme itself

http://avenaoriginals.com/cellulase-enzymes

Expensive but do an N=1 and tell us how it works. I'd start with celery or broccoli before moving on to hay.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 12:41 PM

Cont. Enzymes are unruly as a rule. Amylase is an exception, and can very effectively break down purified cornstarch into glucose syrup. But hay and wood are not purified. The enzymes are indiscriminate, so you get methane, carbon dioxide and sugar as products.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 12:41 PM

It's all just ignorance of human biology and evolution. You are not a cow, you aren't even a gorilla, you are a human. Humans do not eat a diet that relies on internal fermentation, heck, we almost require a diet of cooked food! We do a significant amount of digestion outside our bodies, we've externalized digestion to a high degree, something no other animal has done.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 12:29 PM

In Lynden WA cows pass as raindeer. Steaming and farting away in the muck.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 12:21 PM

Cont. Now on to what a cow can do. If you look at grass-fed cowpies, you can see that cows aren't extracting all the energy in the grass, even with a long acidic fermentation. A lot of the grass also turns to methane and carbon dioxide. So to live on this they're macerating huge amounts of hay to a pulp, belching and farting all day long, and pooping the partially digested residue ad libitum. We don't have either the teeth or plumbing for this. Having the cow's enzymes might help extract a slight amount of digestable sugar, but you'd be working on it all day.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 11:55 AM

Cont. On rare occasions we would accidentally dissolve the wood in the digester. This left a black muck of dissolved sugar and lignin fragments. Totally useless to us. However the mono sugars could have been digestable by humans, minus the sulfur and lignin. My point is that these conditions are way beyond what our stomachs can do.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 11:48 AM

Hardthinker I've just retired from a lifetime in celllose digestion. For the last three years I worked in a sulfite pulp mill, whose products were dissolving grade cellulose. We were trying to control product to a narrow molecular weight range, using strong sulfurous acid at 145C for 6 hours to separate the cellulose from the wood, followed by multiple stages of oxidative bleaching and high alkali. The purified cellulose product was still indigestable, but could be dissolved and reprecipitated into indigestable cellulose gums such as CMC and pill binders.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 11:28 AM

i'm curious why you say fermenting alone doesn't work. and what "strong acid at high temperature" are you speaking of? after fermentation, the acids in our gut would be enough. i don't think the acids of ruminants are any stronger than ours, what happens is they first ferment the grass and then it moves to a chamber similar to ours where their hydro. acid works to get the nutrients from it.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 11:04 AM

and one of the major concepts I forgot to point out is maybe it's not sprouting the vegans should aim for, but fermenting! if sprouting is only going to make it more of a "plant" maybe this whole sprouting phase is where the vegans are failing nutrition-wise.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on March 10, 2014
at 10:11 AM

Yeah, well according to "Bretharians" we can live on breath alone. there's plenty of kooky theories out there, usually sprouted by the vegans.

Let's face it, you can be a predator, or you can be prey. Our species is decidedly the apex predator. Attempting to change that through "a more enlightened" thought isn't going to make a difference. We don't have the guts of a gorilla, we can't ferment greens in the same way. Even if we were to adopt some of their bacteria, it wouldn't work - we just don't have the same plumbing.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on March 10, 2014
at 09:02 AM

"The neolithic period can be partly defined as the beginning of cooking" is out by some 1.5 million years. And I'm sure there was more to cooking than just barbecuing and roasting - wrapping tubers in leaves and cooking in a pit under fire for example.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 07:55 AM

and this isn't going to add anything constructive to this whole discussion, but i feel i can say so because i've been through it myself.

at this stage in your eating regimen you feel starches are ok which is why you made the above statement of human efficiency being obtained through meat, fruit, or starch.

the day you decide starches don't work for your body you will change your opinion.

just an interesting observation . .

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 07:53 AM

see you have responded illogically to my question.

i understand plants can be non-digestible. my point was if the animals who do eat plants and seem to thrive are doing so by fermenting, maybe the way to thrive eating veggies is by eating them only fermented. maybe vegans being obsessed with eating everything raw is the wrong answer, they should be obsessed with avoiding raw veggies like the plague, but fermenting them instead.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 10, 2014
at 06:13 AM

SCFA are only 2.5 calories per gram?

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 10, 2014
at 06:04 AM

Do a little reading on the digestive systems of mammals. Compare the digestive systems of cows & humans..... there are substantial differences.

Further, there are differences between humans and plant eating apes.

Fermentation does work but makes more sense from the human point of view, for it to be done outside of the human....especially when it's done by ruminants.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:45 AM

already ready to move on. after this fermentation process the last chamber of the stomach is similar to what we have, pigs have, etc.. that's when the digestive enzymes and hydro. acid work to get the last of the nutrition.

so you wouldn't need to eat sauerkraut and then barf it up.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:44 AM

already ready to move on. this whole concept could actually be totally true. after this fermentation process the last chamber of the stomach is similar to what we have, pigs have, etc.. that's when the digestive enzymes and hydro. acid work to get the last of the nutrition.

so you wouldn't need to eat sauerkraut and then barf it up.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:35 AM

well why don't you contribute something positive and tell me why you are putting your palm into your face and copying the rest of society which was something "funny" like 5 years ago.

there is no facepalm about any of this.

it's a very intelligent idea. we sure as heck went one way with our evolution and learned to live off just meat, i'm sure we can gain back some of our original fermentation abilities.

how embarrassing that you follow the rest of humanity and put your palm into your face when you feel a certain way. why not create your own body gesture?

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:31 AM

like many here, you have created an entire situation in your head and "ran" with it.

i'm not saying live off just grass. if you want to eat meat or not that's irrelevant.

disregarding if you eat meat or not, if you WANT to eat a vegetable maybe fermentation is the better route to go if you are looking to gain nutrition!

and your comment about chewing vomit is not true i don't feel at this stage in my research. they vomit back up the BIGGER pieces that aren't ready to be fermented yet. THEN the fermentation happens along with the fermenting of the smaller pieces that were

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 03:31 AM

So much facepalm.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:26 AM

larger than them. the inuit literally kill whales. why go that high up the food chain? if its the vitamin b12 we need, let's all live off clams and oysters and such and let these animals we can semi-relate to live in peace. now i'm going a bit further than my original intent.

my only concept to throw out there was just as we learned to run our engines off just meat (inuit) i'm sure we could alter our guts to ferment better over time, with practice. maybe fermentation is the only way we can derive energy from plants..

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:23 AM

ddfdfdfdf

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:23 AM

who are big and strong eating just grass, and copy what they do! they graze all day, fermenting the grass.

it's just an interesting concept i wanted to throw out there. i mean it's true. we weren't MEANT to eat anything. we just ended up going different directions. i understand the inuit had NOTHING else, but these are different times.

and i want to continue with the "i mean it's true" part: think about it. the apes we came from weren't carnivorous in the sense the inuit are. they might have ate insects and bugs and who knows maybe rats and such, but they weren't going after animals

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:19 AM

the concept i am trying to "spread" is this: look at it this way: supposedly we were insect and fruit eating gorillas right? some of us went to the icy regions and became inuits. those people basically turned their bodies into carnivore engines, running off just meat (sea mammals).

for those of us who don't admire carnivores, don't look at a lion tearing apart it's prey and thinking that that's COOL or what have you, for those of us who would rather eat farther down food chain, maybe just as inuit altered their insides to consume just meat, maybe we can look to animals like buffalo

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:15 AM

ok i wasn't of the same opinion of you regarding cabbage. i thought our whole dilemma here as humans was that we were trying to figure out how to digest plants and use their energy. i understand there are vegans living til old age, happy, etc. whatever, eating raw and that proves you can survive eating raw plants, my point is fermentation might allow us to gain better energy from this.

regarding your 2nd sentence, my point was they can break it down because they ferment it in their stomachs, no?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 12, 2014
at 12:14 PM

I stand by the original statement. A resistant starch is an undercooked one IMO. While meat was roasted on open hearths and pits from paleo times, the cooking of starches, especially grains, needs more control to avoid incineration. This requires cooking vessels which can hold water. At ca 10,000 BC these were baskets, followed by pottery,and finally metal. I find it interesting that Amerinds used the basket cooking (and storage) techniques extensively, paralleling the practices and patterns used in Neolithic central Turkey.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on February 12, 2014
at 08:42 AM

Read "Catching Fire How cooking made us Human" by Richard Wrangham. Cooking may well go back as far as 2,000,000 years. The Neolithic period began c. 10,000BC.

Also check Resistant Starches.

5661757f5a7ad1d09c44d7b3ce9b533f

on February 12, 2014
at 01:12 AM

The Neolithic period can be defined partly as the beginning of cooking.

Strongly disagree. The neolithic began just after the last ice age, circa 10,000 BC. Cooking is much older than that:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/22/cooking-origins-homo-erectus

Cooking may be 1.9m years old, say scientists Researchers say cooking was commonplace among Homo erectus and probably originated early in their era or earlier

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on February 10, 2014
at 08:05 PM

I agree. Definitely a great idea for hardcore vegans & vegetarians but I would suggest an "opt in" choice for the rest of us.

I would suggest for simplicity perhaps a large intestine transplant from an appropriate primate and a small intestine reduction while he's in there? ;)

56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on February 10, 2014
at 08:02 PM

Yeah, the calorie count can not be trusted to more than -10 or +20%. Your gut has a lot to say about it. Sooner or later SCFA will be recognized as the fourth macronutrient.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 10, 2014
at 06:48 PM

Ha! Can't wait for that genetic mod lol. Imagine the convenience of no longer having to buy delicious food and instead just be able to get down on all fours and eat grass....yumm!

Agreed, paleo is awesome, and being an omnivore is awesome too.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 10, 2014
at 05:29 PM

Cabbage is already digestable without fermentation. Ruminants can break down the beta disaccharide bonds in cellulose. We can't.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 10, 2014
at 04:03 PM

hey, with modern genetic engineering and surgical techniques, we could create a four-stomach human so that we can all be vegetarians and save teh animals (you know, ignoring the basic premiss of Microeconomics).

Paleo Rules!

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

6 Answers

0
275d4b6e89403e4275926ebf05622b57

on February 12, 2014
at 03:04 AM

I fermented a lot when I was a vegetarian, I prefer to let the raindeer do my fermenting for me these days.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 12:29 PM

In Lynden WA cows pass as raindeer. Steaming and farting away in the muck.

0
Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 10, 2014
at 05:44 PM

I'm afraid the answer to cellulose digestion goes WAY beyond paleo. You can completely tear cellulose down to digestable simple sugars using strong acid at high temperature. Microbial and fungal action also work. Simply fermenting your hay doesn't work though.

The Neolithic period can be defined partly as the beginning of cooking. Starch poses a similar problem to grasses. We cannot extract much nutritional value from raw starch unless it's heated above the gel point, which releases easily digestable polysaccharide from the ruptured cellules. Large scale human consumption of tubers, squashes and grains was not possible before we could cook them.

5661757f5a7ad1d09c44d7b3ce9b533f

on February 12, 2014
at 01:12 AM

The Neolithic period can be defined partly as the beginning of cooking.

Strongly disagree. The neolithic began just after the last ice age, circa 10,000 BC. Cooking is much older than that:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/22/cooking-origins-homo-erectus

Cooking may be 1.9m years old, say scientists Researchers say cooking was commonplace among Homo erectus and probably originated early in their era or earlier

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on February 12, 2014
at 08:42 AM

Read "Catching Fire How cooking made us Human" by Richard Wrangham. Cooking may well go back as far as 2,000,000 years. The Neolithic period began c. 10,000BC.

Also check Resistant Starches.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 12, 2014
at 12:14 PM

I stand by the original statement. A resistant starch is an undercooked one IMO. While meat was roasted on open hearths and pits from paleo times, the cooking of starches, especially grains, needs more control to avoid incineration. This requires cooking vessels which can hold water. At ca 10,000 BC these were baskets, followed by pottery,and finally metal. I find it interesting that Amerinds used the basket cooking (and storage) techniques extensively, paralleling the practices and patterns used in Neolithic central Turkey.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 11:48 AM

Hardthinker I've just retired from a lifetime in celllose digestion. For the last three years I worked in a sulfite pulp mill, whose products were dissolving grade cellulose. We were trying to control product to a narrow molecular weight range, using strong sulfurous acid at 145C for 6 hours to separate the cellulose from the wood, followed by multiple stages of oxidative bleaching and high alkali. The purified cellulose product was still indigestable, but could be dissolved and reprecipitated into indigestable cellulose gums such as CMC and pill binders.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 11:28 AM

i'm curious why you say fermenting alone doesn't work. and what "strong acid at high temperature" are you speaking of? after fermentation, the acids in our gut would be enough. i don't think the acids of ruminants are any stronger than ours, what happens is they first ferment the grass and then it moves to a chamber similar to ours where their hydro. acid works to get the nutrients from it.

4e184df9c1ed38f61febc5d6cf031921

(5005)

on March 10, 2014
at 09:02 AM

"The neolithic period can be partly defined as the beginning of cooking" is out by some 1.5 million years. And I'm sure there was more to cooking than just barbecuing and roasting - wrapping tubers in leaves and cooking in a pit under fire for example.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 12:21 PM

Cont. Now on to what a cow can do. If you look at grass-fed cowpies, you can see that cows aren't extracting all the energy in the grass, even with a long acidic fermentation. A lot of the grass also turns to methane and carbon dioxide. So to live on this they're macerating huge amounts of hay to a pulp, belching and farting all day long, and pooping the partially digested residue ad libitum. We don't have either the teeth or plumbing for this. Having the cow's enzymes might help extract a slight amount of digestable sugar, but you'd be working on it all day.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 12:41 PM

Cont. Enzymes are unruly as a rule. Amylase is an exception, and can very effectively break down purified cornstarch into glucose syrup. But hay and wood are not purified. The enzymes are indiscriminate, so you get methane, carbon dioxide and sugar as products.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 01:24 PM

Cont. here is the cow enzyme itself

http://avenaoriginals.com/cellulase-enzymes

Expensive but do an N=1 and tell us how it works. I'd start with celery or broccoli before moving on to hay.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 10, 2014
at 11:55 AM

Cont. On rare occasions we would accidentally dissolve the wood in the digester. This left a black muck of dissolved sugar and lignin fragments. Totally useless to us. However the mono sugars could have been digestable by humans, minus the sulfur and lignin. My point is that these conditions are way beyond what our stomachs can do.

0
576dc803ed0dfa3616509e20f515d070

on February 10, 2014
at 03:34 PM

Good question, i often ponder the same. It is one of the things that makes me question the scientifically accepted calories in, calories out model.

I realize we are not ruminants but as others have said, there are plenty of other mammals such as our closely related cousins the apes, that seem to derive much of there calories from some kind of fermentation in the gut.

That and the fact that i come from a family of farters. I can eat certain foods and i am guaranteed gas production, especially on a paleo diet. If the critters in my guts are seemingly pumping out endless toxic gases, why is this happening? Am i really not absorbing anything from this? Or, is this actually bad for me?

According to "Paleo", our digestive systems evolved to this certain point, where we were no longer adapted to eating lots of vegetation because we started to utilize energy dense meat etc, but then we just stopped at this point and we haven't adapted to grains or dairy etc. I very much doubt it is this simple.

Other points, are things like raw vegans and fruitarians etc. I realize plenty go on about how bad it is for you, but also plenty seem to thrive on these diets with what often seems like such low protein intakes.

The whole gut - bacteria - mind - body - health thing is only going to come up more and more on here. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems when it comes to diet and digestion.

56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on February 10, 2014
at 08:02 PM

Yeah, the calorie count can not be trusted to more than -10 or +20%. Your gut has a lot to say about it. Sooner or later SCFA will be recognized as the fourth macronutrient.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 02:04 PM

Calorie counts are always high. 2000 calories of food may not be 2000 bioavailable calories (in fact, it rarely is unless you consume nothing but highly processed starch and meat). You get very little energy from microbial action in the large intestine.

In fact, bioavailability of calories easily explains why 2000 calories of one set of foods is not equal to 2000 calories of other foods. Take potato starch… completely resistant to human digestion when raw, but when cooked, it is 100% digestible. Raw food diets are generally difficult to digest, and thus have less bioavailable calories.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on March 10, 2014
at 10:11 AM

Yeah, well according to "Bretharians" we can live on breath alone. there's plenty of kooky theories out there, usually sprouted by the vegans.

Let's face it, you can be a predator, or you can be prey. Our species is decidedly the apex predator. Attempting to change that through "a more enlightened" thought isn't going to make a difference. We don't have the guts of a gorilla, we can't ferment greens in the same way. Even if we were to adopt some of their bacteria, it wouldn't work - we just don't have the same plumbing.

0
56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on February 10, 2014
at 02:30 PM

Not just ruminants, but also rabbits, pigs and gorillas ferment much better than we do. Probably the best definition of a human is an ape who lost its large gut (in exchange for a larger brain). Since then we have had trouble getting proper nutrition. We prefer ruminants precisely because they are larger, better fermentation vats (though I should post about rabbits sometime). And in the Neolithic we learned to ferment outside the animal, since ruminants themselves were getting scarcer. As it is, your own puny fermentation vat can give you at best 40-80 grams of short chain fatty acids a day (100-200 Kcal), which are great for a host of biological functions, including preventing inflammation, but not enough to live on. Gorillas get ten times as much.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 10, 2014
at 06:13 AM

SCFA are only 2.5 calories per gram?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 10, 2014
at 02:10 PM

Ruminants getting scarcer, what?

0
Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 10, 2014
at 02:00 PM

You would need four stomachs and you would need to spend most of your day eating grass and chewing your vomit during the night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cud). But just think....what a great social life you'll have!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on February 10, 2014
at 04:03 PM

hey, with modern genetic engineering and surgical techniques, we could create a four-stomach human so that we can all be vegetarians and save teh animals (you know, ignoring the basic premiss of Microeconomics).

Paleo Rules!

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 03:31 AM

like many here, you have created an entire situation in your head and "ran" with it.

i'm not saying live off just grass. if you want to eat meat or not that's irrelevant.

disregarding if you eat meat or not, if you WANT to eat a vegetable maybe fermentation is the better route to go if you are looking to gain nutrition!

and your comment about chewing vomit is not true i don't feel at this stage in my research. they vomit back up the BIGGER pieces that aren't ready to be fermented yet. THEN the fermentation happens along with the fermenting of the smaller pieces that were

0
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on February 10, 2014
at 01:13 PM

There's digestible and indigestible portions of plants, ruminants increase their efficiency by utilizing a large fermenting digestive system. Humans increase their efficiency by eating meat, fruit and starchy foods in place of fiberous plants. Regardless, there's not much nutrient content in grass, so it would take too much to feed humans on the same type of diet, even if we fermented things externally.

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 07:55 AM

and this isn't going to add anything constructive to this whole discussion, but i feel i can say so because i've been through it myself.

at this stage in your eating regimen you feel starches are ok which is why you made the above statement of human efficiency being obtained through meat, fruit, or starch.

the day you decide starches don't work for your body you will change your opinion.

just an interesting observation . .

4bf47833e2e71bbbb6946dcec7dfd5da

on March 10, 2014
at 07:53 AM

see you have responded illogically to my question.

i understand plants can be non-digestible. my point was if the animals who do eat plants and seem to thrive are doing so by fermenting, maybe the way to thrive eating veggies is by eating them only fermented. maybe vegans being obsessed with eating everything raw is the wrong answer, they should be obsessed with avoiding raw veggies like the plague, but fermenting them instead.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!