Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Paleo Donk on February 27, 2010, 05:59:28 am
-
I just came across this excellent article from Cordain, "Fatty Acid Composition and Energy Density of Foods Available to African Hominids".
Heres the conclusion
AA is arachidonic acid and DHA is docosahexaenoic acid, both polyunsaturated (20:4w6 and 22:6w3) that are apparently very important in brain growth and development.
Our analysis demonstrated that muscle tissue would have been a relatively good source of AA, but not of DHA or energy. Scavenged marrow would have likely been the most frequently obtainable concentrated energy (fat) source for early hominids, except that it would have been devoid of DHA and AA. Subcutaneous fat contained trace amounts of DHA and moderate amounts of AA, however, this fat was unlikely to have been frequently encountered and therefore would have provided little energy or FA needed for encephalization. The scavenged
brain tissue of ruminants would have provided a moderate energy source
for encephalization and a rich source of both DHA and AA. Fish would have provided a rich source of DHA and AA, but not energy, and the fossil evidence provides scant evidence for their consumption. Plant foods generally are of a low energetic density and contain little or no DHA and AA. Because early hominids were probably not successful in hunting large ruminants, the scavenged skulls(containing brain) likely provided the greatest DHA and AA sources, and long bones (containing marrow) likely provided the concentrated energy source necessary
for the evolution of a large, metabolically active brain in ancestral humans.
This all makes such perfect sense to me. The paper goes on to say that herbivores are essentially limited to a certain brain size because they cannot synthesize enough DHA and AA, the two predimoniant fats in all animal brain matter, with enough efficiency from their food sources for bigger brains. DHA and AA make up 22 and 16 percent of all polyunsaturated fats in the brain. It is metabolicaly expensive for the liver to desaturate and elongate an 18 carbon omega 6 (linoleic acid) fatty acid into AA and likewise the omega three version (alpha-linoleic-acid) into DHA.
Seeing that muscle meats and fats are pretty much devoid of DHA, the most important polyunsaturated building block for the brain, it seems that it would be vitally important for us to get this from diet. Why make the body work to produce it? Fish is a good source but brain seems like it would be optimal.
What ya'll think?
-
Makes perfect sence to me. It also explains why in the last tens of thousands of years our cranium size has decreased because sad diets are very low in all sorts of healthy fats. Also explains why its impossible for humans to be vegans without probelms...
-
Now, where do I find them in the US? Slankers doesnt sell them. Maybe ethnic food stores?
Also forgot to mention that egg yolks are relatively high in DHA.
-
So would eating oysters and egg yolks be enough to not bother with brains? They are slimy and not very appealing and taste bland. I'm guessing ox liver contains DHA in small amounts.
-
... not bother with brains? They are slimy and not very appealing and taste bland. ...
I don't like the toughish stringy lining, but otherwise I wish brain was easier to find.
I have tried brain as a child, so I assume my ancestors always ate it. I would say yes that ethnic places are the best to look for it.
SADists/SUKDists are too scared of their own shadows. You'll likely never find it in a regular store. They'd rather their brains shrink.
-
so you guys are fine with getting a non-grassfed brain at an ethnic shop? i'd think brain is one of the organs you would want to be sure was grass fed...
i can't find it locally, but i will keep trying. i would think i could probably find it at an ethnic market but im skeptical of grain fed brains. the only other option i have now is buying a live grassfed goat/sheep and slaughtering it myself or hunting for a deer. i really want to get some brains though. i've never had it before, but it sounds very tasty
-
... fine with getting a non-grassfed brain at an ethnic shop? i'd think brain is one of the organs you would want to be sure was grass fed...
i can't find it locally, but i will keep trying. i would think i could probably find it at an ethnic market but im skeptical of grain fed brains. the only other option i have now is buying a live grassfed goat/sheep and slaughtering it myself or hunting for a deer. ...
I've gotten it at two ethnic shops. They told me it was grassfed. I can't guarantee they really were. One of the shops was highly recommended to me for grassfed.
-
While brains are certainly paleo, their use as food is doubtful both because of the carbohydrate content and paleoman's need for clothing.
See here:http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/off-topic/brains/
-
William, how would paleoman know of the carb contain of food?
When you're desperate for food, you eat anything you can get your hands on.
I can understand your anti vegetal food crusade but anti carbs? That's pretty strange since we all know there are carbs in everything. Why do you focus on carb content instead of plant vs animal food which would make more sense.
-
so, right after i made my last post, i searched for some local ethnic meat markets. bingo! i found a halal meat market! i read some reviews and apparently their goat is from local ranchers and organic! i can't be sure it's 100% grass fed (probably not) but it's safe to say it's at least partially pastured as evidenced by what most goat ranchers do around here. so, i went to the market and they had goat brain, tripe, and lots of other organs (i wasn't even sure what they were actually, ha). anyways, i bought 6 brains (they're pretty small)! im really excited about them. but i won't be eating them for a few days because i've already got a lot of stuff that's thawed out. i will definitely give you guys a rundown when i try them though. maybe some pics too!
on a related note, i picked up some free grass fed suet at whole foods and when i got home i found that they had accidentally included half a pancreas! pretty good luck i guess. anyways, that's part of the reason im not gonna thaw the brains tonight, gotta finish that pancreas.
anyways, i recommend that if you want brains, check to see if there's a halal meat market nearby. apparently they almost always have organic and most likely local animals. good luck. i'll keep yall posted
-
William, how would paleoman know of the carb contain of food?
By eating it.
When you're desperate for food, you eat anything you can get your hands on.
A mere 15 million people in a planet crawling with food cannot be considered to be desperate. Unless you believe Tyler's proposition that our large-brained ancestors were too stupid to be competent hunters, and starved in the midst of plenty.
I can understand your anti vegetal food crusade but anti carbs?
It is a truth crusade.
If you actually try eating paleo fruit & veg, you will find that they all taste like medicine. Almost certainly they were used as medicine; not as food.
Why do you focus on carb content instead of plant vs animal food which would make more sense.
It is not I who obsesses about plant food, and there isn't any vs, as I don't do combat.
BTW do you know what the essential nutrients are?
-
While brains are certainly paleo, their use as food is doubtful both because of the carbohydrate content and paleoman's need for clothing.
See here:http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/off-topic/brains/
while it is true that brains were occasionally used to tan hides, it's ridiculous to state that "their use as food is doubtful." leather lasts a very long time. after everyone in the group (maybe 30-40 people?) had clothing and shelter, they wouldn't keep tanning every single deer or buffalo hide. also, scavenged brains from carcasses were probably not used for tanning as the hides would have been unusable. there are also many other ways to tan hides with tannins (from bark, acorns, etc). this method renders the hides waterproof if you oil it which makes it a preferable method in many cases. brain tanning makes leather like cotton and is not waterproof at all. here's a very good description of bark tanning: http://goingferal.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/bark-tan-leather-primitive-waterproof-technology/ (http://goingferal.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/bark-tan-leather-primitive-waterproof-technology/)
also, to condemn brains, liver, or any other animal food for containing carbs is really pretty silly and i think you know it. you are aware that all obligate carnivores eat liver first right? and if they could get to the brain, i would damn well bet they'd eat that too.
-
you are aware that all obligate carnivores eat liver first right? and if they could get to the brain, i would damn well bet they'd eat that too.
Have you noticed that those of us doing RZC are obligate fativores? And what does a fativore eat when he can't get enough fat? Well, liver and/or brain. If not those, then plant carbs are necessary.
Insults are not appreciated.
-
wasn't trying to be insulting. but following your logic of them eating liver or brain when they can't get fat: why do they go for liver first when they could eat the fat? is it because they're addicted to carbs? (haha, okay, that was meant to be a jab at you, but we're all friends, right?)
-
William I too think it's bad logic and then silly to believe they'd leave the brain behind because of carbs, as well as berries or honey or any easy picking. I've eaten brains, there's little carb rush at all. Same for liver. The brain has the highest concentration of Dha fats. Their instinct would guide them to eat them just like mine does and with liver. Different parts of animals bodies nourish different parts of ours. None of us really know what we need to live a long life on zc or close to it. Keep it flexible, that is, our opinions
-
William I too think it's bad logic and then silly to believe they'd leave the brain behind because of carbs, as well as berries or honey or any easy picking. I've eaten brains, there's little carb rush at all. Same for liver. The brain has the highest concentration of Dha fats. Their instinct would guide them to eat them just like mine does and with liver. Different parts of animals bodies nourish different parts of ours. None of us really know what we need to live a long life on zc or close to it. Keep it flexible, that is, our opinions
My point is that they would never leave brains behind. They probably needed them for making clothing.
As to how often they ate them, that's not known.
Necessary for a healthy brain? Our brain-eating farming ancestors as of three or four generations ago don't seem to have been much different than us.
-
And how long ago did we invent clothing? (answer this please) Before clothing, there would be no argument for brains as tanning.
If you read the paper, the author believes we would have been poor hunters for most of the time we evolved in the last 2 million years and so scavenging would have been our best option. Scavengers are mainly left with bones and so we figured a way to get to the marrow and the brains. Eating these brains high in DHA and AA were a likely reason we developed big brains. There seems to be a bottleneck for brainsize when animals limit their intake of DHA and AA. One of the reasons carnivores generally have bigger brains than herbivores is that there are trace amounts of DHA and AA in the flesh and the fats they do eat are easier for the body to process into DHA and AA. Fish is high in DHA and AA - could this explain why whales have such big brains? Similarly sized carnivorous dinosaurs had very small brains - perhaps because of a lack of DHA, AA.The inuit also reportedly have bigger brains and also ate the most marine life, high in these essential fatty acids. Brain size shrunk around 10% I believe in the last 25-10k years. All of this makes me think that consuming foods rich in DHA and AA would be a smart thing to do.
Since the body can manufacture its own DHA and AA from poor sources like linoleic acid found in plants, its still possible to have a very healthy functioning brain even as a vegan. The body might make sure the brain fatty acids are produced first before anything else. But, then again vegans brains do shrink over time according to some posts I've seen here.
Also from the USDA nutrient database cow brains are 1% carb by weight. For pig and lamb they actually list 0, so your carb argument seems to not hold any weght. It would be nice to see you retract it. You eat lots of raw egg yolk which is 3.6% carb by weight.
-
And how long ago did we invent clothing? (answer this please) Before clothing, there would be no argument for brains as tanning.
I leave the fiction to Tyler.
If you read the paper, the author believes
The author is an idiot. Another word for belief based on nothing.
Also from the USDA nutrient database cow brains are 1% carb by weight. For pig and lamb they actually list 0, so your carb argument seems to not hold any weght. It would be nice to see you retract it. You eat lots of raw egg yolk which is 3.6% carb by weight.
/my bad. Fooled by a carb addict.
-
There seems to be a bottleneck for brainsize when animals limit their intake of DHA and AA. One of the reasons carnivores generally have bigger brains than herbivores is that there are trace amounts of DHA and AA in the flesh and the fats they do eat are easier for the body to process into DHA and AA.
I'm no ZCer like William, or at least not consistently so, but I've got to call b*llshit. Gorillas and chimps are not carnivores, nor anywhere close, but they have the largest brain-to-body-size ratio of any land-dwelling animals except humans. They have a bigger brain-to-body ratio than lions, tigers, etc.
-
Did you not see the word generally? I feel a bit disapointed when you globally label a statement as bullshit instead of see it for what it is.
Your point that gorillas and chimps have bigger ratios further validates the ideas I have presented here. They have likely, for whatever reason, evolved relatively big brains for their body size. Perhaps they are at a bottleneck themselves because of the lack of available DHA and AA. Humans broke away from the smartest of the animals and thus more easily were able to become intelligent.
-
... Perhaps they are at a bottleneck themselves because of the lack of available DHA and AA. Humans broke away from the smartest of the animals and thus more easily were able to become intelligent.
Interesting thought.
-
Did you not see the word generally? I feel a bit disapointed when you globally label a statement as bullshit instead of see it for what it is.
Your point that gorillas and chimps have bigger ratios further validates the ideas I have presented here. They have likely, for whatever reason, evolved relatively big brains for their body size. Perhaps they are at a bottleneck themselves because of the lack of available DHA and AA. Humans broke away from the smartest of the animals and thus more easily were able to become intelligent.
I still don't think you've supported your point thoroughly. I'm not saying that carnivory doesn't help support increases in brain size...I still think it might. However, I think it's only a smaller part of a much bigger picture. Much bigger picture. Else, why didn't intelligent tool-using carnivorous dinosaurs develop? Why no intelligent tool-using canids or felines?
-
I leave the fiction to Tyler.
Given your previous, entirely fictional justifications of Creationism etc., that is simple pure hypocrisy,as usual. Don't mind him folks, William is just our resident troll.
As for other claims, Cherimoya does have a good point.
. If meat_eating was the sole reason for gaining greater intelligence, one would have expected creatures like polar bears to be close to human in IQ.
As for remarks re extinction of megafauna in the Palaeolithic, these are primarily attributed to human predation on such creatures. Citing endless fictional Velikovskian events such as earthquakes/planetary collisions as the primary cause would be ridiculous.
-
I still don't think you've supported your point thoroughly. I'm not saying that carnivory doesn't help support increases in brain size...I still think it might. However, I think it's only a smaller part of a much bigger picture. Much bigger picture. Else, why didn't intelligent tool-using carnivorous dinosaurs develop? Why no intelligent tool-using canids or felines?
Like I stated previously, it is the DHA and AA (these are highest pecentage make-up of polyunsaturated fats found in all mamalian brain tissue) which are believed to be important for big brains, not muscle meat or non-brain fats. I'll say it again - DHA is found only in trace amounts in non-brain tissue and not in vegetation. AA is available I think in organ meats but not in muscle meat or in plants.
Since DHA is only found in brains, a food hominids exploited during their scavenging days, this is the reason the paper is pointing to increased brain encephelization. So, this points to there being a bottleneck for all mammals consuming limited amounts of DHA and AA. Land carnivores get very limited amonts of DHA, just trace amounts more than herbivores, so all their meat eating would not lead to bigger brains.
Dinosaurs are reptiles, a completely different type of organism than mammals and evolved with very small brains, for whatever reason. They do however possess other abilities not associated with brain size that do help them seem more intelligent. Other highly developed sensory mechanisms elsewhere in the reptile body evolved other than the brain that were not in mammals. Brain size is not all there is for a large creature being successful.
Fish do contain good amounts of DHA and AA, another possible reason why whales (carnivorous mammals), grow such large brains. For whatever reason, mammals might have the ability to grow large brains while reptiles do not. At the same time, mammals might not ever be able to evolve to develop those sensory mechanisms that dinosaurs possessed. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for much longer than mammals, so whatever they had going for them worked pretty well.
-
Whales are a poor example as, not being limited by gravity due to living in the ocean, then can grow any body-part to huge sizes with few or no consequences.
As for the issue of DHA in marrow and brains, do bear in mind that birds like vultures can easily get at the stuff inside the bones as they routinely drop the bones/skulls from very great heights. Yet they aren't as intelligent as humans by any means.
-
As for the issue of DHA in marrow and brains, do bear in mind that birds like vultures can easily get at the stuff inside the bones as they routinely drop the bones/skulls from very great heights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxj9YO4Qtx0
-
Whales are a poor example as, not being limited by gravity due to living in the ocean, then can grow any body-part to huge sizes with few or no consequences.
Great white sharks have very small brains, 34g according to the site below. Great whites average about 900kg. Sperm whales average 41,000 kg and have brains that are 7800g. The sperm whales are about 45 times bigger yet have brains that are well over 200 times as large. The sperm whales also have significantly more blubber so their brain size to lean weight ratio is going to be even bigger. But of course brain size is just one factor that can determine the successfulness of a species. For whatever reason, mammals seem to be able to develop large brains. Fish and reptiles do not. An alligator's brain is a mere 8g, yet they do just fine and like I said previously have much better sensory mechanisms than mammals which probably make up for the small brain.
Dolphins also have one of the highest brain to body weight ratios as well.
As for the issue of DHA in marrow and brains, do bear in mind that birds like vultures can easily get at the stuff inside the bones as they routinely drop the bones/skulls from very great heights. Yet they aren't as intelligent as humans by any means.
Marrow is devoid of DHA and AA. On land, DHA is only found in significant quantities in brain and egg yolk. Birds again are not mammals. Birds are closely related to dinosaurs with many of the same traits. Birds are also extremely light weight and though they have small brains, their ratio of brain to body weight is relatively large. Larger brained birds could have difficulty flying.
Mammals seem to have an advantage with respects to obtaining larger brains. The reptilian brain is the oldest of all and still present in all of us and all mammals. The mammalian brain was next to evolve after the dinosaurs left the earth.
-
just to interject...
i ate that goat brain yesterday! it's really some good stuff. i would describe it as having the consistency of pancreas, but it tastes really creamy and fatty. if you have ever had beef or lamb neck and found the spinal fluid, it's very similar in taste and texture. also, i noticed it smelled a little fishy (not in a bad way) and thought that was pretty interesting seeing as how DHA is high in both fish and brain. maybe that smell is DHA?
anyways, i think goat or lamb brain is pretty common at halal meat markets and it's usually relatively good quality meat. i would recommend it. i bought 6 goat brains for around $8.50 at $7.99/lb
i will say though, i still prefer marrow over brain. but i suspect that after a few more brains, i might prefer it over marrow. it's pretty damn good and i just might not be well acquainted enough with it.
-
Hmm, in the UK, halal or kosher would normally be considered low-quality by RPDers, because they don't seem to care at all where their meat comes from re organic/grassfed sources.At least that's what I've experienced. Plus, I've heard that letting out the blood makes the meat lose its taste to some extent.
-
Great white sharks have very small brains, 34g according to the site below. Great whites average about 900kg. Sperm whales average 41,000 kg and have brains that are 7800g. The sperm whales are about 45 times bigger yet have brains that are well over 200 times as large. The sperm whales also have significantly more blubber so their brain size to lean weight ratio is going to be even bigger. But of course brain size is just one factor that can determine the successfulness of a species. For whatever reason, mammals seem to be able to develop large brains. Fish and reptiles do not. An alligator's brain is a mere 8g, yet they do just fine and like I said previously have much better sensory mechanisms than mammals which probably make up for the small brain.
Dolphins also have one of the highest brain to body weight ratios as well.
Dolphins, like whales, are a very poor example. For instance, it was pointed out some years ago, that dolphins need large brains for quite different reasons than intelligence(for example 1 half of the brain sleeps while the other half is always awake so as to be able to go up to the surface for air. plus it was found that a huge proportion of the dolphin's brain is involved with sonar, not IQ). I'm pretty sure the same holds for whales and other marine mammals.
Marrow is devoid of DHA and AA. On land, DHA is only found in significant quantities in brain and egg yolk. Birds again are not mammals. Birds are closely related to dinosaurs with many of the same traits. Birds are also extremely light weight and though they have small brains, their ratio of brain to body weight is relatively large. Larger brained birds could have difficulty flying.
Mammals seem to have an advantage with respects to obtaining larger brains. The reptilian brain is the oldest of all and still present in all of us and all mammals. The mammalian brain was next to evolve after the dinosaurs left the earth.
Long´chain fatty acids in marrow are cited, along with those in brains, as contributing to larger brain-size, according to Cordain et al.
But, realistically speaking, the whole argument falls apart when one considers mamalian carnivores who routinely eat and digest their prey whole along with the brains, as they should be as intelligent as humans therefore, what with all the DHA-intake. And there is no proof that ancient hominids only ate brains and marrow, it is extremely unlikely that they would have focused on just 2 organ-meats for their survival.
-
my toddler's eating fresh grassfed brain regularly. i just give him and i don't have enough to share with him. i guess i'm following mother's instinct...
-
But, realistically speaking, the whole argument falls apart when one considers mamalian carnivores who routinely eat and digest their prey whole along with the brains, as they should be as intelligent as humans therefore, what with all the DHA-intake. And thee is no proof that ancient hominids only ate brains and marrow, it is extremely unlikely that they would have focused on just 2 organ-meats for their survival.
None of this argument falls apart by what you've written. Thanks for bringing up these points, it gives me a chance to further clarify my position.
I believe you are assuming that a big brain is the ultimate key to a species success. This is far from reality as dinosaurs, being a great example, ruled the earth with walnut-sized brains for 160 million years. There are clearly much more important factors to consider when evolving than a big brain. Mammalian carnivores likewise had other more pressing matters to do with their energy intake than use it to develop a large brain. Given their body-type, they had to focus on staying strong and mobile. If they used their energy intake to build large brains they would have had to have sacrificed something else - probably muscle tissue. Animals cannot simultaneously evolve top-notch specialized systems at the same time. There is a reason they don't have big brains. They would have failed as a species.
Humans seem to have sacrificed muscle strength and mobility for larger brains as well as and more importantly a larger gut. But, fortunately we are blessed with something that carnivores don't have and that is extraordinarily good limb dexterity and opposable thumbs which enable us to more easily exploit our environment and utilize our intelligence. Its very hard to imagine an intelligent lion trying to figure out how to make a spear or set a trap. They can easily kill their prey with their extremely coordinated attack system built within them. Humans are very weak compared to other apes. Similarly sized chimps are much stronger than the strongest human and would destroy even our best much heavier fighters no problem.
Also, the paper does not state that humans only ate brains and marrow. I never implied that. A species can probably develop a larger brain without eating brain but the addition of brain probably did help. The main point I was trying to make was that it seems that eating foods with only trace amounts of DHA would likely not be optimal for the human diet. We might not need much of it but why not add it in?
There is a reason no "super-creature" has evolved that is both intelligent and a non-tool using ferocious predator in the 4 billion years or so that life has been on earth.
-
Actually theres no reason that a species couldn't simultanously evolve two important systems at once but it is very unlikely.
-
The main reason that species don't simulataneously evolve to have both superior intellenge and superior predatory skills is because it is not an evolutionary stable strategy. In essence if the species were to become so powerful it would quickly extinguish its natural food supply and thus go extinct itself quite fast, unless it was intelligent enough to find alternative means of fuel in the universe. Humans might be coming to this crossroad fairly soon.
-
The main reason that species don't simulataneously evolve to have both superior intellenge and superior predatory skills is because it is not an evolutionary stable strategy. In essence if the species were to become so powerful it would quickly extinguish its natural food supply and thus go extinct itself quite fast, unless it was intelligent enough to find alternative means of fuel in the universe.
That's a good point. I never thought of that.
-
The main reason that species don't simulataneously evolve to have both superior intellenge and superior predatory skills is because it is not an evolutionary stable strategy. In essence if the species were to become so powerful it would quickly extinguish its natural food supply and thus go extinct itself quite fast, unless it was intelligent enough to find alternative means of fuel in the universe. Humans might be coming to this crossroad fairly soon.
It is called devolutionary strategy.
Humans with both superior intellenge and superior predatory skills maintained a stable ecosystem for hundreds of thousands of years, then they devolved into modern man, with the results we see around us.
-
I would agree that something unnatural that humans did was the reason for bigger brains. Tool-use, is a classic one to consider, as humans in apeman days were still far more advanced with tools than other species. I doubt, though, that eating dha-rich foods in a big way helped all that much. Perhaps eating a very minimal amount is necessary though to maintain human brains at optimum size.
-
Perhaps eating a very minimal amount is necessary though to maintain human brains at optimum size.
People have been eating a minimal amount of brain for the last 10,000 years while their brains shrank 11%.
Tyler, get a grip.
-
People have been eating a minimal amount of brain for the last 10,000 years while their brains shrank 11%.
Tyler, get a grip.
Given that body-size shrank in tandem with the decline in brain-size, there may have been no difference in IQ whatsoever. After all, one of the key points made is that humans are more intelligent that other animals, not because of bigger brains as such , but because they have a much higher brain-to-body size than other animals. In other words, brain-growth/decline in the Neolithic may well be totally irrelevant.
-
so there's no AA or DHA in regular fat? do you know what types of fat are in regular animal fat then?
-
Brains! BRAINS!!!? Where can I acquire ZEE brains?!! :D /zombie
Seriously I can't find any cow/lamb/w/e grassfed brains/spinal cords cause of mad cow worry sources?
-
Gary Taubes in his chapter on triglycerides and cholesterol analyses out red meat fat from a typical porterhouse steak:
[Fifty-one percent of the fat is monounsaturated, of which 90 percent is oleic acid. Saturated fat constitutes 45 percent of the total fat , but a third of that is stearic acid, ... The remaining 4% of the fat is polyunsaturated,...]