The redneck strike again.

[James2014]

The more you look at different sites and the more you find different results.
All the sites that i have looked at say that it is 10 times the body

Enrico, what you are saying does not make sense. The reference you just posted showed that all of the studies after 1900 demonstrate that the intestines are around 5-6 times the length of the body, and that we are therefore omnivores. Did you not read you own reference, or did you just scan for the one line that might back up you argument and post that. If you have any other sources then show them or admit you were wrong.

One thing i would like to ask you.
1) Fruits seem to be the easier digested food for humans.
Does this means that our body is best suited for a frugivore diet or it is just a coincidence?

We digest both meat and fruit perfectly well, and in some cases better as we cannot digest the cellulose in plants. A diet high in meat can cause long term health problems, but it is also a very good source of calories and many important vitamins, such as B12, that pre industrial humans could not synthesise. That is why humans throughout our evolution ate meat, and have adapted to be able to eat meat. Archaeology demonstrates this. Now you may say that early humans only ate meat when they were starving, and that their normal diet was one of plants. Do you have any evidence to support this? No. You argue that B12 can be obtained from soil bacteria. Do you have any evidence to support the idea that this is a reliable source of B12? No

2) I was saying that meat eating animals do not get cardiovascular diseases while humans get it.
Some people here brought the example of a wild dog that get such a disease. This wild dog was kept in captivity.
Do you think it does make sense to take a wild dog kept in captivity to contradict me?

Animals in the wild don't get cardiovascular disease because they die before they are old enough to get this disease. Your argument is just silly but instead of answering the questions others put to you, you divert the argument with nonsense. What does "I rely on your maths to get enlightened" even mean? Are you implying that the simple maths I used to demonstrate you are wrong is in fact incorrect?