[367] in Vegetarian_Support_Group
Re: Length of intestine and what you should eat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (elsiedee@MIT.EDU)
Mon Feb 20 11:38:28 1995
To: vsg@MIT.EDU, seta@MIT.EDU
Cc: ar-talk@cygnus.com, jayscott@wpi.wpi.edu, conti@wpi.wpi.edu
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 11:38:21
From: elsiedee@MIT.EDU
I've seen the point made many times that the length of an animal's
intestine is correlated with whether they are a natural meat-eater or not:
carnivorous animals have short intestines, and human animals and herbivores
have long intestines. In recent years the high incidence of colon cancer in
industrialized Western nations has been shown to be correlated with eating
red meat. The argument has been made that while carnivorous animals are
able to rid themselves of digested meat very rapidly, meat digested
by animals with a longer intestinal tract sits there for days, decomposing
and releasing toxins. That is how I understand the theory.
A recent post said that giant the panda has a short intestinal tract, and
so is naturally a meat-eater, but that because of its large size it can't
catch other animals well, and consequently had to spend up to 8 hours/day
eating bamboo, and then barely got enough calories. Isn't the giant panda
in danger of extinction? I don't know if the giant panda flourished or not
before people invaded its habitat, but it does seem possible that evolution
sometimes makes mistakes. In an ideal world, why would an animal have a
short intestinal tract and the taste for meat, and then not be able to
satisfy its cravings because it has a sloth-like, couch-potato body? Why do
humans appear to have a taste for meat and have a long intestinal tract?
(Though, to paraphrase from Dr. Michael Klaper, _you_ try going out to a
cow field and jump on some cow's back and start gnawing at it. You won't
get very far, and it probably won't taste very good.)
Maybe evolution screwed up.
Laura Dilley
