• angrystego@lemmy.world
      12·
      28 days ago

      Let’s add that even though milk contains a lot of calcium, it’s not very helpful in getting it to your bones. Proteins in milk act as acid and to buffer that, your body releases calcium from your bones. You gain some but lose more.

    • Draconic NEO@pawb.social
      73·
      29 days ago

      An even better source for calcium is, believe it or not, bones. They have way more calcium than leafy vegetables, and for us carnivores they’re definitely the better option because most of us can’t fully digest plants, and thus don’t get any benefit from them besides fiber. Not sure if that’ll benefit him though, might be harder for him to get the calcium into his bones no matter where he gets it from.

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee
        102·
        29 days ago

        Humans aren’t carnivores, we’re omnivores and we can digest plants just fine

        • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          71·
          29 days ago

          Just fine is pushing it, we are capable but not particularly good.
          We need specific plant parts grown on purpose to be consumable (fruit, nuts, …), or we need cooking.
          There is a good number of plant stuff like grass, certain bark, and most parts of medium sized plants which a lot of animals can consume but we cannot.
          If you go out and eat random plants you will die you won’t be able to digest almost any of that.

          I would argue there are loosely two levels of plant digestion ability above ours.
          The first being what most mamals have, which allows to consume leafs and most small and medium plants minus the thicker stalks. My example would be deer.
          Then there are ruminants who can digest grass more efficiently and tend to deal with stalks better, main difference being more things being worth digesting vs. just being digestible. Classic example is cows.

          • WldFyre@lemm.ee
            22·
            28 days ago

            Just fine is pushing it, we are capable but not particularly good.
            We need specific plant parts grown on purpose to be consumable (fruit, nuts, …), or we need cooking.

            And what wild animals can we eat raw and uncooked better than plants?

            • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              5·
              28 days ago

              I never claimed calling us omnivores was incorrect. Our meat digestion ability sucks too, compared to most carnivores.

      • angrystego@lemmy.world
        32·
        28 days ago

        We get way more from plants than just fiber. Proteins, fats, sacharids, vitamins, antioxidants, minerals including calcium. Our ability to digest vast diversity of plants and their different parts is rather astonishing. Maybe you mean our inability to digest grass (and also cellulose in general). We’re really not good at that, unlike e.g. cows or sheep, who have specialised digestive tracts with symbiotic bacteria that help them, so they can feed on grass alone.