![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
wrote: Rodney Long wrote: The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and "butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,, some say 50,000 years Such is the pretentiousness of our species. If we were meant to eat meat, then perhaps we wouldn't need tools for killing. Like primates, we have learned to mimick carnivorous animals when required for survival. However, modern packaging and shipping methods have eliminated the need to eat meat for survival. The high protein of meat is what made our brains develop to what they are today, 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy. Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature, previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose, body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our species history and origins. With advances in dating methods, including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously, anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions" (The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that they will persist in making them. Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food. This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of fats and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw animal food. The reality is that through natural selection, the environmental factors our species have been exposed to selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet. The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is also noted. ... Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not, and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans. ... What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One, at least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by Olav T. Oftedal who says: "Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270 One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk, we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later, during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating breast milk. .... According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8% lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%) of all the species of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their research in order to allow other primatologists to construct artificial milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is to be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on human infants. Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive lower protein requirements of humans. [see link] Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans and other mammals must have system wide implications for our metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may restrict other species from choosing them. Never the less, many nutritional authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double (12% of calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although it is accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple those of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the issue since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly eating foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as meat, are massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the body might manage to deal with this excess without suffering immediate problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial adaptation. It also needs to be pointed out that berries, such as raspberries, may yield up to 21% of their calorific value from protein, but are not regarded as 'good sources' of protein by nutritional authorites. There are millions of fruits available to wild animals, and blanked generalisations about the qualities of certain food groups, need to be examined carefully, due to some misconceptions arising from the limited commercial fruits which we experience in the domestic state. The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive' peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage. However, what we do know of the consequences is that it reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products, is pathogenic. Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists. This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in the final sections of the article. .....' http://tinyurl.com/dahps 'BBC - Test The Nation - Results [IQ] Studio groups ------------------------------- Vegetarians 113 Public Schools 111 Butchers 105 Celebrities 105 Estate Agents 104 Footballers' Wives 101 UK Average - 109.25 http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/i...ts/index.shtml 'VEGGIE CHAMPIONS!!! The Vegetarians win BBC's Test the Nation IQ battle. Vegetarianism. the intelligent choice! We are THRILLED to announce that the 40-strong team of vegetarians came out top as the studio team winners of Saturday night's hugely popular BBC National IQ contest. And, proving that vegetarianism is clearly an intelligent choice, the individual contestant with the highest overall IQ was a vegetarian too! Wearing green t-shirts, the vegetarians competed against six other teams including butchers, estate agents, public school pupils, state school pupils, footballers' wives and celebrities. The veggie team was made up of vegetarians and Society members from around the UK, including five members of VegSoc staff. As the results were announced, the veggie team was consistently in the top three but not the obvious victors. However, when the final scores were tallied, including IQ variations for age differences, we were delighted to be declared the winners - with an overall IQ of 113. Interestingly, The Butchers came joint fourth! For a full break-down of the scores please go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/i.../results.shtml Top-scoring contestant Marie Bidmead, 68, a mother-of-five from Churcham, Gloucester said: "It was great fun. The veggie team was so united and jolly, regardless of winning. We all went along for a bit of fun and were up against these highflying students and stars. I was in absolute shock when I got the top score! I failed my 11-plus and I've never considered myself to be a brain-box. I think it shows that we veggies are good 'thinkers' - we think about what we eat with intelligence for a start!" September 2006 http://www.vegsoc.org/news/2006/testnation.html if we had never eating meat, we would still be swinging from the trees. 'We' left the trees about seven million years ago, without meat. Now chimps have started eating meat, in a couple hundred thousand years, they will come out of the trees See other post. Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat ? :-) That's the point. Meat was necessary for survival when winter frost prevented crops from growing. It kept people from starving, although it wasn't necessarily healthy. The top medical people are now saying some "meat" is necessary in "many" people's diets, true some can live without it, but the majority need "some" for proper health . 'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three: * The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown nutrient needs. * Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based food. * The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit. http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html "China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was first published in an 896-page monograph (1990) and resulted in more than 50 scientific publications." "Planned since 1987, China Study II was designed to resurvey the same mainland Chinese population as China Study I, in addition to a few new sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties in Taiwan. China Study II was directed by the three collaborators in the first study and by Dr. Winharn Pan" .. "Both surveys afford an opportunity to investigate the effect of dietary change from the typical plant-based diet of rural China to a Western-style diet that includes more animal-based foods, as consumed in urban China and in Taiwan. "Even small increases in the consumption of animal-based foods was associated with increased disease risk," Campbell told a symposium at the epidemiology congress, pointing to several statistically significant correlations from the China studies:" .....' http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html There are finally some real research that has been done, since vegetarian diets, by enough people to study, have only been done for half of the last century 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc. This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association: 'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.' ....' http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html Now that we can ship vegetables in from warmer locations and eat them from a can, there is really no point to eating meat. For one reason, I like it 'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize one species from another. Without it, we may end up with just a bland, general meaty taste. ' http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm 'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S. and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders. Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals' ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated by addictive drugs such as cocaine. ... According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said. ... Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective "in-health" model of addiction. " ...' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm "The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain," Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin (search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine." ...' http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale | Rodney Long | General Discussion | 71 | November 24th, 2006 11:54 AM |
Blackfin Tuna | Kevin Hynes | Saltwater Fishing | 2 | September 2nd, 2004 01:08 PM |
TUNA! | Wolfgang | Fly Fishing | 138 | April 6th, 2004 07:32 AM |
Canned Tuna in UK | TchWrtrMcf | UK Coarse Fishing | 3 | January 31st, 2004 07:46 PM |
ALBACORE TUNA | John Lindsey | Fly Fishing | 3 | January 24th, 2004 12:23 AM |