scrapking said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the first sentence appears to be missing a word, and the lack of punctuation makes your second sentence confusing. Not trying to be pedantic, I'm genuinely quite confused by what you're trying to get at. I'm going to make a guess that you're saying that whether someone is an omnivore, an herbivore, etc., is defined by their behaviour rather than their biology. I both agree and disagree. If I were an extraterrestrial studying humans, I might say the average human is biologically best adapted to being either an herbivore or a frugivore, but that the average human is a behavioural omnivore. That graphic I posted spoke to the biological side of the equation, not the behavioural side of the equation. As we have have eaten more meat, dairy, eggs, and refined carbohydrates (note that last addition, I am no more fond of refined carbs than I am of animal products) our health has plummeted and our rates of disease have shot up, and there's strong and growing evidence that the disconnect between our biology (best adapted to eating whole plant foods) and our behaviour (increasingly made up of animal products and refined plant foods) is the source of much of our chronic disease. |
You understood what I meant. I wrote that late at night. Anyway, I was talking about the actual definition of omnivore and humans fit it perfectly. The fact that humans require a daily intake of nutrients from both plants and animals proves that humans are omnivores. We're meant to consume both plant and animal daily.
