"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. Patiņo 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.' Patiņo 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.
Patiņo 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