Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Nicola on December 31, 2009, 09:42:43 pm
-
Just an interesting read - the thread on "Bananas" made me dig this up...
http://www.livescience.com/animals/091215-humans-outlive-apes.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/30/0909606106.full.pdf
I hope "New topic" is the right place to post this - if not Tyler will doubtless move it >:
Nicola
-
Interesting, thanks for posting this.
I was just thinking the other day (an aside) that humans should be living a lot longer than we do. I think one of the reasons we don't is because we hadn't learned to eat the best when we were very young.
-
I hope "New topic" is the right place to post this - if not Tyler will doubtless move it >:
Nicola
I'm afraid so, it's now been moved to the Hot Topics thread. ;)
I'd already read the article a few days ago but decided not to post the thread for a number of reasons. First of all, there are other studies I've mentioned before, showing a very large increase in lifespan occurring c.30,000 years ago(with the teenaged phase not appearing before that point) so the above article is highly misleading. Secondly, I don't believe that single genes can have such a powerful effect on lifespan, it has to be due to a combination of factors and at least dozens/thousands of other genes as well.
Then there's the claim re parasites and inflammation. It's vaguely possible but parasites were around long before 250,000 years ago, and the hygiene hypothesis theory suggests that parasites might actually help the body fight inflammation and prevent allergies/astham etc.. Now genes to ward off inflammation might ensue because cooked foods causes major amounts of inflammation through heat-created toxins such as AGEs, and it is interesting that the gene mentioned appeared 250,000 years ago when cooking got started.But if there were indeed a link between cooked foods and a higher lifespan due to genetic countering of inflammation, it doesn't explain why AGEs(advanced glycation end products) and similiar heat-created toxins caused by cooked foods, speed up the rate of aging in humans in terms of causing more age-related health problems - and then there's the multiple anecdotal reports from middle-aged RVAFers who frequently mention how they look c.10 years younger than their cooked-food-eating contemporaries. So, I didn't think this article was scientifically valid enough to be mentioned.
-
I don't know about all the scientific studies, but eating cooked meat is a lot easier to tear apart than raw. I'm talking about physically, not taste. You can get to everything raw too, but boy is it physically demanding. Sometimes I just want to stop working on the good stuff because it's so demanding. If you cook it, I can see how you can get more nutrients because it's easier to eat. That would explain the shrinking of our jaws and teeth.
-
... Sometimes I just want to stop working on the good stuff because it's so demanding. If you cook it, I can see how you can get more nutrients because it's easier to eat. That would explain the shrinking of our jaws and teeth.
When I eat raw meat, the energy feels so good in my mouth and between my teeth. No wonder my jaw can grow. Eating cooked meat I might as well have been chewing a stone. It would have done me more good too possibly AFAIC.
-
It' not valid to suggest that eating cooked meat is easier than eating raw meat. It is self-evident that the opposite is true - after all, cooking food takes far longer than eating raw food re preparation as people need to first skin and cut up the meats then they have to boil the food, previously make containers to boil the food in, wait until the cooking is finished while constantly monitoring the cooking process to ensure the food's nutrients aren't cooked until they're charcoal - then there's the inevitable spices that are routinely added to cooked foods in order to enhance the taste as cooked foods are so much blander in taste than raw foods.
By contrast, all raw foodists have to do after killing the animal is to tear chunks off it either with their teeth or knifes and remove the skin, beforehand. Case closed, raw-food diets waste far less time than cooked diets.
-
I don't know about all the scientific studies, but eating cooked meat is a lot easier to tear apart than raw. I'm talking about physically, not taste. You can get to everything raw too, but boy is it physically demanding. Sometimes I just want to stop working on the good stuff because it's so demanding. If you cook it, I can see how you can get more nutrients because it's easier to eat. That would explain the shrinking of our jaws and teeth.
I used to think this way when I was new to raw paleo diet. But now after 2 years it is apparent that is so much easier and faster to eat raw meat than cooked meat. Cooking is such a hassle. Digestion times on raw meat is faster. Biting off soft fleshy parts like strip loin beef is easy. Eating with scissors I currently find easiest. Having the raw meat age a little makes it even easier.
-
That would explain the shrinking of our jaws and teeth.
Two points:
1. Teeth have not actually shrunk, only jaws
2. The shrinking of the jaw is an individual thing, tied directly to nutrition. Dr. Price pointed out that when traditional groups with normal (Paleo-sized) jaws switched to refined foods, their children had much smaller jaws, resulting in crooked teeth. Take at look at Dr. Price's book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. He certainly wasn't right about everything, but he was the first person to note that shrunken jaws and crooked teeth cacn be reversed in 1 generation, and can happen in one generation, and are 100% the result of poor nutrition. His book is online at journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html (http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html). Take a look, mainly at chapters 18 and 19, but also chapters 15-17.
-
Well, actually, jaw and tooth size declined over the Palaeolithic, and even into the Neolithic era, in the case of teeth:-
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/4_3RecentHumanDentitionEvolution.txt.htm
I find it interesting that they claim that Australian Aborigines have a higher tooth-size to body-ratio than other ethnic groups, given that the explanation thereof is that they were supposedly introduced to cooking at a much later date than any other group.
I do think that Price has some claim to the notion that diet can affect jaw-size, but only to a moderate extent. Who knows, perhaps if we continue RPD diets for another 50 generations, maybe our descendents will have not only larger brains but larger jaws/teeth.
-
Well, actually, jaw and tooth size declined over the Palaeolithic, and even into the Neolithic era, in the case of teeth:-
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/4_3RecentHumanDentitionEvolution.txt.htm
I do think that Price has some claim to the notion that diet can affect jaw-size, but only to a moderate extent. Who knows, perhaps if we continue RPD diets for another 50 generations, maybe our descendents will have not only larger brains but larger jaws/teeth.
Let me get some clarity. You do or do not agree with the hypothesis that crooked teeth are mostly the result of poor nutrition, and that the problem can be corrected in the very next generation by good nutrition?
I find it interesting that the first scientist to note the influence of nutrition on crookedness of teeth was a Canadian, living in the US.
He certainly wasn't a European, was he now? LOL
-
Let me get some clarity. You do or do not agree with the hypothesis that crooked teeth are mostly the result of poor nutrition, and that the problem can be corrected in the very next generation by good nutrition?
I think it's possible to improve crooked teeth with better nutrition, but not in all cases, just some or most.
-
It' not valid to suggest that eating cooked meat is easier than eating raw meat. It is self-evident that the opposite is true - after all, cooking food takes far longer than eating raw food re preparation as people need to first skin and cut up the meats then they have to boil the food, previously make containers to boil the food in, wait until the cooking is finished while constantly monitoring the cooking process to ensure the food's nutrients aren't cooked until they're charcoal - then there's the inevitable spices that are routinely added to cooked foods in order to enhance the taste as cooked foods are so much blander in taste than raw foods.
By contrast, all raw foodists have to do after killing the animal is to tear chunks off it either with their teeth or knifes and remove the skin, beforehand. Case closed, raw-food diets waste far less time than cooked diets.
For tender cuts of meat and ground meat, yes. But for tough cuts of meat, the low-and-slow method of cooking does make them much easier to eat. I think this is why cooking of meats got started--they probably started cooking the toughest portions of meat first (or the liver, if they used poisoned arrows, as traditional Bushmen do). I've eaten some tougher cuts of meat. After a while I gave up on one such cut and cooked it so I could eat it faster. Ground beef is definitely easier to eat and digest raw.
-
Vegans/vegetarians are fond of pointing out that chimps are extremely similar, genetically, to humans. This article raised an interesting question: given this close genetic similarity that vegans/vegeatarians often tout, why do chimps have much shorter lifespans when compared to "people living in high mortality hunter-forager lifestyles," who "still have twice the life expectancy at birth as wild chimpanzees do"? What's your alternative hypothesis, Tyler?
-
some believe that we're here, our lifespan is determined by how much time is needed to effectively to create the next offspring. With chimps, they probably mate earlier and are also prone to being eaten as they get older. Hence genetically there bodies are eliminated after a certain point. Pure speculation
-
Vegans/vegetarians are fond of pointing out that chimps are extremely similar, genetically, to humans. This article raised an interesting question: given this close genetic similarity that vegans/vegeatarians often tout, why do chimps have much shorter lifespans when compared to "people living in high mortality hunter-forager lifestyles," who "still have twice the life expectancy at birth as wild chimpanzees do"? What's your alternative hypothesis, Tyler?
Given that average human lifespan increased dramatically at a time when there was no significant change in diet, one can safely assume that lifespan isn't correlated to diet directly(though, indirectly via health-problems). I agree with van's point, I reckon that caring by grandparents., delayed maturity etc. favoured a drive towards increased age.
-
... But for tough cuts of meat, the low-and-slow method of cooking does make them much easier to eat. I think this is why cooking of meats got started--they probably started cooking the toughest portions of meat first (or the liver, if they used poisoned arrows, as traditional Bushmen do). I've eaten some tougher cuts of meat. ...
The tough cuts of meat are fine for me, as long as I have a sharp knife. I tried chewing instead of cutting on the very fibrous leg tendons, but it made me nauseous. I have tried cooking them, to get the bone building amino acids. It's just too hard boiling for three days, just to have someone knock over the pot after that several times. I don't think it's really necessary anyway. Dogs love chewing bones. If we can find dogs to give these to, that would be best.
I won't imagine the cooked liver. Raw liver is good, but in the past I have gotten too sick from cooked liver.
-
For tender cuts of meat and ground meat, yes. But for tough cuts of meat, the low-and-slow method of cooking does make them much easier to eat. I think this is why cooking of meats got started--they probably started cooking the toughest portions of meat first (or the liver, if they used poisoned arrows, as traditional Bushmen do). I've eaten some tougher cuts of meat. After a while I gave up on one such cut and cooked it so I could eat it faster. Ground beef is definitely easier to eat and digest raw.
*Only exception I can think of are those irremovable minor thread-like connective tissue on raw leg of lamb/leg of mutton. Can't imagine anyone going to the trouble of cooking just for that microscopic part of the body.
The above is such rubbish that I'm just glad that this is in the hot topics forum. First of all, not everyone finds raw ground meat easier to digest, I'm one of those who found it much more difficult to digest by comparison to chunks of non-ground raw meats(indeed, there is a widespread anecdotal claim in the RPD world that it is easier to digest chunks of non-ground raw meats(after bolting meat down like a dog) than it is to eat ground raw meat(see past threads in the 2 forums on chewing or the lack of need for it on a RPD diet).
Secondly, raw meats are by no means tough. I've eaten a wide variety of raw meats, soft and tough, and it's no big deal to tear off chunks with my teeth and swallow them with minimal chewing. Sure, if one is a very finicky kind of guy, and insists on artificially using knives at ALL times and chewing all the time, I'd imagine that cutting and eating certain pieces of raw meat with a knife is a bit of a hassle compared to cutting through and eating denatured cooked meat , but that's it.
In short, the explanation given above for why cooking was invented is unfounded.
-
The above is such rubbish that I'm just glad that this is in the hot topics forum. First of all, not everyone finds raw ground meat easier to digest,
I meant easier to chew, not easier to digest. I think raw meats are easier to digest, as I have said many times in the past. Using a knife was mentioned, which is true, but with tenderizing via low-and-slow cooking or fermenting or marinating, a knife is not needed for even tough cuts of meat.
I'm one of those who found it much more difficult to digest by comparison to chunks of non-ground raw meats(indeed, there is a widespread anecdotal claim in the RPD world that it is easier to digest chunks of non-ground raw meats(after bolting meat down like a dog) than it is to eat ground raw meat(see past threads in the 2 forums on chewing or the lack of need for it on a RPD diet).
That makes less sense to me than what I wrote. Grinding meats is basically partially pre-digesting them.
I'm glad you mentioned the bolting method again. This is a carnivore method of eating. I know you don't view humans as carnivores, so why do you think humans are adapted to bolting?
Secondly, raw meats are by no means tough.
I specified tough (raw) meats. If it's not tough, it's not what I was talking about. Not long ago I was eating a tough cut of raw meat and it was taking far, far longer to eat it than ground raw meat, because I had to cut it up in small bits. My time was limited that night and the next day, so I quit and the next day I low-and-slow cooked the remainder and was able to finish it at a far more rapid pace. It was way too chewy when raw. I doubt anything I say or show you will change your mind, so you are free to disagree. I'm just reporting my experience. Maybe it was a fluke piece of raw meat, but I guarantee it was tough.
I've eaten a wide variety of raw meats, soft and tough, and it's no big deal to tear off chunks with my teeth and swallow them with minimal chewing.
1) I prefer not to use your bolting method, 2) this meat was too tough for me to tear and not worth the risk of potentially damaging some of my still-somewhat-fragile lower teeth, 3) I was eating with my parents who would likely have thought me insane if I used your tear-and-bolt method with a big, bloody piece of raw meat--just eating raw meat in front of them was probably about the max shock they could handle at the time, and 4) my parents ate their cooked meat much faster than I was eating my raw meat (until I later low-cooked mine), so they weren't impressed, unfortunately. Next time I'll use ground raw meat, which I can eat much faster with a spoon or fork than I can tough meat with a knife.
Sure, if one is a very finicky kind of guy, and insists on artificially using knives at ALL times and chewing all the time, ...
I don't consider RawZi necessarily "a very finicky kind of" person just because she used a knife. Nor do I consider people who chew their food to necessarily be very finicky. I do consider calling people very finicky for such minor, strange reasons to be insulting.
I'd imagine that cutting and eating certain pieces of raw meat with a knife is a bit of a hassle compared to cutting through and eating denatured cooked meat , but that's it.
Yes, that's the essence of my original point. I was using a knife at the time. A standard stainless steel steak knife wasn't even able to cut the meat, so I had to switch to a very sharp knife.
-
I got brisket once out of curiousity and tried to eat it raw. I have strong teeth (imo) and it was virtually impossible for me to eat it raw. Even after some cooking it was very hard to eat. I ended up throwing most of it away.
-
Paleoman always had a stone knife, which is much sharper than any modern metal knife, so cutting small bite-size pieces would have been no problem.
Ground beef is not just ground beef - it is beef mixed with white stuff, probably tendons and ligaments and who knows what. I think that that stuff is what gives me a stop, while it makes RawZi nauseous.
It's also legal to add other stuff to ground beef, such as sodium nitrite.
-
Paleoman always had a stone knife, which is much sharper than any modern metal knife, so cutting small bite-size pieces would have been no problem.
No problem, but time consuming. We already know that people started cooking meat at some point. The only question is why. Like I said, my guess is that plant foods were what really inspired cooking, since cooking is not as useful with meat, but all traditional societies cook some of their meats today, including even the Nenets. We know it's not essential, so the question again is, why?
Ground beef is not just ground beef - it is beef mixed with white stuff, probably tendons and ligaments and who knows what. I think that that stuff is what gives me a stop, while it makes RawZi nauseous.
It's also legal to add other stuff to ground beef, such as sodium nitrite.
I have good meat sources that don't add preservatives or anything else to the grassfed raw ground flesh they sell.
-
Paleoman always had a stone knife, which is much sharper than any modern metal knife, so cutting small bite-size pieces would have been no problem.
... tendons and ligaments and who knows what. I think that that stuff is what gives me a stop, while it makes RawZi nauseous.
...
I'm not sure raw tendons in and of themselves have made me nauseous. I'm thinking maybe the chewing got enzymes forming/flowing in me that just didn't go with raw meat for me. It could be I still have work to do on my gall bladder or something. I have eaten raw tendons that I cut up, but just bolted them down, and it seems I digested them fully that way those times without a problem. I do have a blister on my finger right not from cutting tendons off the bone without a cutting board and with a knife that could have been sharper if I would have sharpened it, and the knife pressing on my finger while doing that cutting.
True, in pre-chopped meat bought from a store, I too would not trust that I know exactly what they might have added or whether it was handled best.
-
I have good meat sources that don't add preservatives or anything else to the grassfed raw ground flesh they sell.
I still don't like finding scraps of bone or getting weird feelings from the meat. I may just be over sensitive, but that's how I am, and I accept that I am this way. I'd rather run the cut through my own grinder if I want it that way, and not having it sit at all after grinding. I think I digest best when it's not ground though.
-
I meant easier to chew, not easier to digest. I think raw meats are easier to digest, as I have said many times in the past. Using a knife was mentioned, which is true, but with tenderizing via low-and-slow cooking or fermenting or marinating, a knife is not needed for even tough cuts of meat.
The point being that rawists don't need to chew. I mean, I might quickly chew once as a reflex before bolting a bit of raw meat down and that's it. And rawists don't really need knives, that's purely for social reasons or convenience.
That makes less sense to me than what I wrote. Grinding meats is basically partially pre-digesting them.
I disagree. Grinding isn't the same as improving digestion - if that were true, then many highly-refined/processed foods would be much easier to digest than raw, whole ones, which isn't the case. That's why I'm highly sceptical of dodgy pemmican/easier digestion claims. At any rate, this point re easier digestion with bolting rather than chewing is widely reported in RVAF circles. Also the fact that carnivores don't bother chewing and just bolt meats down does indicate the lack of need to do so on a raw diet.Though, given the lack of enzymes in cooked meats, it's obviously essential to chew those for better digestion.
I'm glad you mentioned the bolting method again. This is a carnivore method of eating. I know you don't view humans as carnivores, so why do you think humans are adapted to bolting?
Omnivores such as bears are also adapted to bolting. It doesn't mean a thing, therefore.
I specified tough (raw) meats. If it's not tough, it's not what I was talking about. Not long ago I was eating a tough cut of raw meat and it was taking far, far longer to eat it than ground raw meat, because I had to cut it up in small bits. My time was limited that night and the next day, so I quit and the next day I low-and-slow cooked the remainder and was able to finish it at a far more rapid pace. It was way too chewy when raw. I doubt anything I say or show you will change your mind, so you are free to disagree. I'm just reporting my experience. Maybe it was a fluke piece of raw meat, but I guarantee it was tough.
Precisely my point. It's not natural to chew raw meats, just tear off bite-sized chunks and bolt it down. That's what I did, in the past with raw lung which is full of cartilage. As for claims re toughness of raw muscle-meat, I've never come across anything too tough that had to be cooked. Unless you count those irremovable left-over connective tissues left connected to the bone on leg of lamb/mutton, but those are so tiny they are not worth bothering with.
1) I prefer not to use your bolting method, 2) this meat was too tough for me to tear and not worth the risk of potentially damaging some of my still-somewhat-fragile lower teeth, 3) I was eating with my parents who would likely have thought me insane if I used your tear-and-bolt method with a big, bloody piece of raw meat--just eating raw meat in front of them was probably about the max shock they could handle at the time, and 4) my parents ate their cooked meat much faster than I was eating my raw meat (until I later low-cooked mine), so they weren't impressed, unfortunately. Next time I'll use ground raw meat, which I can eat much faster with a spoon or fork than I can tough meat with a knife.
It's sad that when eating a natural diet that people feel the need to avoid more natural methods of eating that same food. In my own case, I often just tear off with my teeth and bolt when by myself, but, of course, in public, I just select raw animal foods that don't require that method such as scallops or raw oysters.
I should mention that when I first started rawpalaeo, my teeth were practically about to fall off, so that I was absolutely terrified of chewing any raw muscle-meats in case my teeth came off. The result was that I was willing to age raw meats/organs for several days so as to soften them, plus I was more willing to eat the softer organs or softer raw animal food such as raw seafood, and I was forced to bolt down my raw foods without chewing.Once my teeth became really strong with this diet, I had no problems with chewing but didn't go back to it as I didn't feel the need any more.
I don't consider RawZi necessarily "a very finicky kind of" person just because she used a knife. Nor do I consider people who chew their food to necessarily be very finicky. I do consider calling people very finicky for such minor, strange reasons to be insulting.
That's just absurd. "Finicky" is not a terribly wounding word, it just suggests that people who use knives/chew a lot are wasting their time, nothing more, and I wasn't singling our RawZi in particular, just you.Yes, that's the essence of my original point. I was using a knife at the time. A standard stainless steel steak knife wasn't even able to cut the meat, so I had to switch to a very sharp knife.
Well, if you feel you have to use a knife then fine,but it's then not accurate to suggest that raw meat is more difficult to eat, in a general sense.
-
That's just absurd. "Finicky" is not a terribly wounding word, it just suggests that people who use knives/chew a lot are wasting their time, nothing more, and I wasn't singling our RawZi in particular, just you.
I've eaten both ways.
I chew my food as I get to enjoy the flavor of the raw meat more this way, even if it does take a bit longer. :)
-
I've eaten both ways.
I chew my food as I get to enjoy the flavor of the raw meat more this way, even if it does take a bit longer. :)
I guess you're "finicky" too then, djr. LOL.
-
I've eaten both ways.
I chew my food as I get to enjoy the flavor of the raw meat more this way, even if it does take a bit longer. :)
I used to chew the (raw) meat, and get the flavor; because I thought it was healthier that way. I just swallow it now. I could care less about the flavor, and just feel good eating the raw meat. If I go too long (several days) without (raw) meat, I feel it. I feel much better eating it.
-
Do you take a drink with each bite, to help it get down?
-
...Omnivores such as bears are also adapted to bolting. It doesn't mean a thing, therefore....
-\ Oh boy, I hestitate to get into this, but maybe I'll learn something. This one is pretty interesting. It turns out that, just like Giant Pandas, despite having an omnivorous diet, all members of the bear (Ursidae) family are physiologically carnivores and are classified as such, as reported here, for example:
"Bears are mammals of the family Ursidae. Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans....
The Ursidae family belongs to the order Carnivora and is one of nine families in the suborder Caniformia, or "doglike" carnivorans." ("Bear," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear)
So while they eat omnivorous foods, their digestive system is apparently carnivorous. So bears do not at all prove that bolting is not a carnivorous eating style. Besides, don't even true omnivores tend to have some carnivorous-type features and habits?
If you're comparing humans to bears, then this would seem to argue that humans are facultative (opportunistic) carnivores/faunivores. The fact that most of us chew our food seems to be one of the best arguments for humans being physiologically omnivores. I feel strange taking the pro-omnivore position with you and seeing you go farther in the carnivorous direction than I'm ready to do. ;D If it turns out that humans digest better by bolting, I may try to adapt to it. I tried it out yesterday and didn't do too well with it. :'(
-
Do you take a drink with each bite, to help it get down?
Never. I don't eat and drink at the same time. I wait approx an hour before and after liquids. I did eat and drink (as much) liquids (as possible) together but with cooked meat instead of raw as a kid, but chewed and chewed and chewed ... it didn't work out well, and I was trying to eat as little as I was permitted. I hated food most of the time. This is me though. Eat how it works out well for you.
-
Bears like humans have teeth designed to eat plants, so have clearly adapted to omnivorous diets:- "The premolars and molars of modern bears are modified to grind vegetable matter. " taken from:-
http://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/index.php?page=493.172
As for omnivores, there are plenty of examples of omnivorous species that bolt down food instead of chewing. The most obvious example are omnivorous birds, so it's clear that chewing raw meat is not necessary and that bolting is the more natural method.
-
Bears are nonetheless still regarded as carnivores overall physiologically. Do you deny that? Remember, species classification is based mostly on physiology--not what they eat (remember the giant panda?). As for omnivores, as I pointed out, most if not all omnivores have some carnivore traits. Birds? You expect me to bolt meat so as to imitate birds? That's one of the funniest arguments I've come across in a non-vegan diet forum yet. You criticize people for citing hunter-gatherer studies (while nonetheless using HG studies yourself when it serves your needs) yet you point to birds as an example to imitate? At least hunter-gatherers are human.
Instead of engaging in bird imitation, let's look at this a bit more rationally. Bears are a pretty good example, because they're facultative carnivores who eat a lot of plant foods, so that comes pretty close to us. I could see that maybe humans are more physiologically carnivorous than I realized--more like the bears. If we don't need to chew our meat, that would argue more strongly in that direction, but I'm not convinced of that yet and still hold open the possibility that we might be physiologically omnivores who happen to eat a lot of meat (and our molars and chewing of meats are some of the best points in that direction). That might argue for at least trying bolting meats. It's something to consider and I have tried it once so far, though with poor results. Is it an acquired habit that requires practice? My grandmother used to have trouble swallowing any meats in her elder years, even when finely minced (eventually they had to be blended), because of a narrowing throat. Could it have been more narrow than avg to begin with and I inherited that?
Another obviously logical grouping of animals to examine would be our fellow primates. Do any of the primates bolt their meat/fauna, like tarsiers, say? I know chimps don't. They do the opposite--they eat their meat with leaves and chew and suck on it slowly. I've seen a couple of anthropologists claim that this is so they can savor the meat by soaking up the meat juices with the leaves and then sucking and chewing on the leaves.
We should also examine human beings, of course. The traditional Inuit were known for very powerful jaws and teeth, with the greatest crushing force ever measured in human jaws. Scientists hypothesize that they got that way because of lots of chewing.
-
Or maybe the Inuit got great teeth merely because they ate an all-meat diet, not because of any chewing. Incidentally, never heard of that claim, any articles you can link to?
As for bears, there is a danger of playing fast and loose with definitions. Technically, the only bear that HAS to eat raw meat is the polar bear which is an obligate carnivore. All other bears , except for the giant panda, are quite adapted to their mostly plant-filled diets(given the fact that their molars and pre-molars are modified to grind vegetation). As for humans, given our descent from fruit-/veg-eating ancestors, a far stronger case can be made for humans being facultative herbivores who just happen to eat meat rather than facultative carnivores.
As for the example of birds not chewing, it is an excellent example and you've quite missed the point. I was suggesting that if chewing was biologically necessary in order to properly digest raw meats, then birds would have evolved teeth etc. designed for chewing. Instead, meat-eating birds appear to do quite well without chewing their food.
As for citing hunter-gatherers, that is almost always a bad example(though there are sometimes unique cases where there are the only example, given lack of data for the Palaeolithic era). HGs have long adopted Neolithic-era practices so cannot really be considered natural. Wild animals are still subject to natural selection, so are a better example to follow.
-
Or maybe the Inuit got great teeth merely because they ate an all-meat diet, not because of any chewing. Incidentally, never heard of that claim, any articles you can link to?
As for bears, there is a danger of playing fast and loose with definitions. Technically, the only bear that HAS to eat raw meat is the polar bear which is an obligate carnivore. All other bears , except for the giant panda, are quite adapted to their mostly plant-filled diets(given the fact that their molars and pre-molars are modified to grind vegetation). As for humans, given our descent from fruit-/veg-eating ancestors, a far stronger case can be made for humans being facultative herbivores who just happen to eat meat rather than facultative carnivores.
As for the example of birds not chewing, it is an excellent example and you've quite missed the point. I was suggesting that if chewing was biologically necessary in order to properly digest raw meats, then birds would have evolved teeth etc. designed for chewing. Instead, meat-eating birds appear to do quite well without chewing their food.
As for citing hunter-gatherers, that is almost always a bad example(though there are sometimes unique cases where there are the only example, given lack of data for the Palaeolithic era). HGs have long adopted Neolithic-era practices so cannot really be considered natural. Wild animals are still subject to natural selection, so are a better example to follow.
Doesnt the fact that we thrive on Raw Meat, prove that our descent from fruit-/veg-eating ancestors is false?
Or did we somehow evolve from fruit & veg, to raw meat, which doesnt make sense, as in a jungle habitat, like the amazon, there simply is evolutionary no need to switch from fruit/veg to meat ...
-
Doesnt the fact that we thrive on Raw Meat, prove that our descent from fruit-/veg-eating ancestors is false?
Or did we somehow evolve from fruit & veg, to raw meat, which doesnt make sense, as in a jungle habitat, like the amazon, there simply is evolutionary no need to switch from fruit/veg to meat ...
From the data we seem to have adapted to a raw omnivorous diet, including both raw meat and raw fruit/veg.
-
Doesnt the fact that we thrive on Raw Meat, prove that our descent from fruit-/veg-eating ancestors is false?
Or did we somehow evolve from fruit & veg, to raw meat, which doesnt make sense, as in a jungle habitat, like the amazon, there simply is evolutionary no need to switch from fruit/veg to meat ...
Or maybe we never did evolve, and those who ate carbohydrates devolved. Lots of evidence for that. :D
-
From the data we seem to have adapted to a raw omnivorous diet, including both raw meat and raw fruit/veg.
Adapting to something doesnt prove an origin lol
I'm one of those people who reasons before he accepts any facts lol
Facts never helped me recover from colitis or chronic fatigue, screw em lol
Contrasts of a lack of scarcity of foods for natural selection, in hominids in a jungle setting, could be used to disprove the descended from herbivores - we could then go onto disprove we were never descended from fish, as we never ate sushi lol
-
The archaeological data supports the fact that we descended from insectivores, then herbivores then frugivores to subsequent raw omnivores. No raw zero-carb evidence of any solidity exists.
-
Or maybe we never did evolve, and those who ate carbohydrates devolved. Lots of evidence for that. :D
What does devolve mean?
-
Devolve means reverse evolution.
First, believe evolution, then postulate a common ancestor with the great apes, then compare this postulate with Neolithic man.
-
Evolution does not specify a direction. Any change is evolution, whether YOU deem it forwards or backwards. The only direction that it specifies is time. Personally I wouldn't put myself in the position of deciding which genetic changes are a move forwards and which a move backwards, it's a bit egotistical.
-
Or maybe the Inuit got great teeth merely because they ate an all-meat diet, not because of any chewing. Incidentally, never heard of that claim, any articles you can link to?
<<The degree to which muscle function affects craniofacial form is a complex topic. There is a large range of variations in human skull morphology, which is multifactorial. Hypermuscularity may be one factor involved. According to Collins’ "hard chewing hypothesis", the distinctive shape of the Inuit (i.e., Eskimo) skull is related to vigorous chewing. The Inuit skull is adapted to produce and dissipate large vertical and biting forces [Hylander, 1977. The adaptive significance of Eskimo craniofacial morphology. In: Orofacial growth and development. Dahlberg AA, Graber TM, editors. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter Inc., pp. 129–169.]. The Inuit skull is characterized by a large mandible, larger muscle attachments, and palatal and mandibular tori. The masseter muscles are also positioned more anteriorly, which may help generate larger forces.>>
(Craniofacial Morphology in Myostatin-deficient Mice,
http://jdr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/86/11/1068?ck=nck)
This is interesting in that it suggests that it wasn't so much the nutrients in meat/fat that promoted the development of unusually large jaw muscles and large, unusually-shaped craniums in the Inuit as it was the chewiness. It's only one source, of course, so I'm not saying this is conclusive. Plus, I think it was reported in this forum that others have contrarily hypothesized that it was actually the reduction in food chewiness that led to the development of larger craniums and brains in humans vs. other primates (such as by Wrangham, I think—though both you and I generally find his hypotheses to be suspect and worse).
Here are some more sources:
"According to the Guiness [sic] book of world records, one man achieved a bite force of 975 pounds for two seconds once - he was of inuit (eskimo) [sic] descent." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_hard_can_a_man_bite
"The average biting force of an adult male human (male because, in general, we lugs are bigger and have proportionately thicker masseter muscles than females) varies between 45 and 68 kg — although forces as great as 159 kg have been recorded for Inuit males" http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/r_bites.htm
"The French cranium measurers ran into serious problems in Greenland. They were working from the theory that there was a linear relation between a person's intelligence and the size of his skull. They discovered that the [Inuit] Greenlanders, whom they regarded as a transitional form of ape, had the largest skulls in the world." --Peter Hoeg, Smilla's Sense of Snow, pp. 17-18
If it were just the nutrients of the diet, and nothing to do with chewing, I don't think we'd get the result of smaller Inuit with no greater bone density still having more powerful jaws and larger skulls:
“Andersen et al. reported average differences of 10 kg in body weight and 12 cm in height in the smaller Inuit compared to Caucasian women living in Greenland. After adjustment for body size, the bone density of the Inuit women was the same as in the Caucasian women (1). Even with height and weight controlled however, there is not universal agreement that adjustment of BMD for these variables equalizes values in different ethnic groups. Actually, Finkelstein et al. found higher bone density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck in African-American, Japanese and Chinese women than in Caucasian women after adjusting for covariates of age, height and weight (2). Russell-Aulet et al. also found higher BMD in premenopausal Asian than white women when factors known to influence bone mass (height, weight, steroid use, and smoking) were controlled (3). More frequently, however, bone density is reported to be lower in Asians than Caucasians.” ("Bone Density same in Inuit Women as Caucasian after adjusting for Body Size," http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2144915/)
On the other hand, the study authors say "there is not universal agreement that adjustment of BMD for these variables equalizes values in different ethnic groups" and the data was taken from a study was published in 2005, so modern foods may have affected the Inuit data.
As for bears, there is a danger of playing fast and loose with definitions. Technically, the only bear that HAS to eat raw meat is the polar bear which is an obligate carnivore. All other bears , except for the giant panda, are quite adapted to their mostly plant-filled diets(given the fact that their molars and pre-molars are modified to grind vegetation).
You're intermixing two different concepts here: carnivorous physiology and carnivorous diet. Giant pandas eat 99% bamboo yet are nonetheless physiologically classified as carnivores. What any animal, including humans, actually eat or have the capability to eat does not necessarily determine what the scientific classification of their physiology is (else giant pandas would be categorized as herbivores), nor does it necessarily fully indicate what combination of foods is optimal for them.
As for humans, given our descent from fruit-/veg-eating ancestors, a far stronger case can be made for humans being facultative herbivores who just happen to eat meat rather than facultative carnivores.
And some of the best evidence I have seen yet is the less-carnivorous nature of our teeth and chewing habits as compared to bears and other facultative carnivores, so yes, I'm still on the fence on this and was leaning back toward omnivore until you expounded on this bolting business. If humans are meant to bolt meat that would tilt me back again in the facultative faunivore direction, for bolting seems to be found only among carnivores like canids, bears and carnivorous birds and perhaps meat-eating omnivores, and not among animals that eat little or no meat. In other words, bolting appears to be associated with meat eating. The only exception I can think of is birds that swallow seeds, but they have an adaptation in which they swallow sand or stones to grind the seeds in their gizzards. We don’t do that. Plus, even those birds tend to eat worms and insects too, and we are quite different from birds anyway.
Do any primates bolt meat? Primates would seem to be more relevant examples as regards human eating techniques than birds, bears, or canids. Granted, our digestive physiology is similar to that of canids and bears, but if bolting is natural for humans, then why do I never hear of people anywhere doing it? Not even HG tribes. Do you know of any human societies in the past or present that bolted their food?
I was suggesting that if chewing was biologically necessary in order to properly digest raw meats, then birds would have evolved teeth etc. designed for chewing. Instead, meat-eating birds appear to do quite well without chewing their food.
OK, so carnivorous birds don’t need teeth to digest meat, but that doesn't necessarily mean that humans shouldn't use the teeth they have to assist in digesting meats.
As for citing hunter-gatherers, that is almost always a bad example(though there are sometimes unique cases where there are the only example, given lack of data for the Palaeolithic era). HGs have long adopted Neolithic-era practices so cannot really be considered natural. Wild animals are still subject to natural selection, so are a better example to follow.
Devil's Dictionary definition of "unique cases": those that support Tyler's points. ;)
-
.
Do any primates bolt meat? Primates would seem to be more relevant examples as regards human eating techniques than birds, bears, or canids. Granted, our digestive physiology is similar to that of canids and bears, but if bolting is natural for humans, then why do I never hear of people anywhere doing it? Not even HG tribes. Do you know of any human societies in the past or present that bolted their food?
The point RPDers make is that chewing is only necessary with cooked foods. Since HG tribes don't eat all-raw diets, it's natural that they would chew not bolt down meats, out of habit. Wild animals, like I said, are a far better example.
-
The point RPDers make is that chewing is only necessary with cooked foods. Since HG tribes don't eat all-raw diets, it's natural that they would chew not bolt down meats, out of habit. Wild animals, like I said, are a far better example.
aajonus & basic biology support this, its actually better to swallow most types of foods, apart form carbs & starches to make them biologically available
-
...Wild animals, like I said, are a far better example.
OK, so do any other wild primates bolt their meat? Maybe tarsiers?
How many RPDers and PDers bolt their meat? I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before I came to this forum, and people don't even talk much about it here. Is it considered too controversial to discuss much still? Please forgive my ignorance.
Also, why do I have trouble swallowing even raw meats without chewing? My grandmother had trouble swallowing meat in her elder years, so I'm wondering if my throat is smaller than avg to start with, or if it takes practice or what. I forget if that one was answered already or not. I guess if I can try eating rotted meat I can give this some more tries. If you asked me just a couple years ago if I would ever try eating rotted meat or bolting meat I would have laughed. :D
-
Well, I can only go by what long-termers say which is that they generally just chew once and then bolt it down. No idea re primates as I'm sure the subject is too vague for scientists to focus on. At any rate, Wrangham's claim re chimpanzees needing to chew raw meats for 5.7 to 6.2 hours a day to get enough calories is clearly fraudulent. That's the main thing.I'm not so bothered if rawists want to chew or not, it's up to them.
-
OK, so do any other wild primates bolt their meat? Maybe tarsiers?
How many RPDers and PDers bolt their meat? I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it before I came to this forum, and people don't even talk much about it here. Is it considered too controversial to discuss much still? Please forgive my ignorance.
Also, why do I have trouble swallowing even raw meats without chewing? My grandmother had trouble swallowing meat in her elder years, so I'm wondering if my throat is smaller than avg to start with, or if it takes practice or what. I forget if that one was answered already or not. I guess if I can try eating rotted meat I can give this some more tries. If you asked me just a couple years ago if I would ever try eating rotted meat or bolting meat I would have laughed. :D
Mainly because your throat isnt conditioned & too constricted, use cream or butter & cut the meat into small swallowable chunks, till your throat adjusts
-
its actually better to swallow most types of foods, apart form carbs & starches to make them biologically available
Raw foods, as I'm sure you like I don't call food food if it isn't raw. Cooked meat needs to be chewed, I think. I don't really know though. I chewed cooked meat as a kid, but I never digested it, it seems. I was pathetically thin.
use cream or butter & cut the meat into small swallowable chunks, till your throat adjusts
Culture the butter and cream. Butter and cream uncultured has too many carbs oftentimes for many of us here on forum, including for me.
-
Raw foods, as I'm sure you like I don't call food food if it isn't raw. Cooked meat needs to be chewed, I think. I don't really know though. I chewed cooked meat as a kid, but I never digested it, it seems. I was pathetically thin.
Culture the butter and cream. Butter and cream uncultured has too many carbs oftentimes for many of us here on forum, including for me.
kwl, how do you culture the butter & cream?
-
kwl, how do you culture the butter & cream?
http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/215434-post4.html (http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/215434-post4.html)
Add 1/3 cup of cultured buttermilk, yogurt, creme fraiche, cream fresa, etc., to a quart of the richest cream you can get. (Note, it's the bacteria in the cultured starter that's important, not its fat content. The non-cream will get a second life as buttermilk.)
Let the cream sit for between 8 and 12 hours at a temperature between 75F and 85F. The cream is cultured when it has noticeably thickened and tastes (yes!) like creme fraiche -- which, btw, it is.
Cool the cultured cream to between 50F and 60F degrees. Beat it in a stand mixer with the paddle until the butter solidifies. Separate the buttermilk and reserve for other purposes (which can include keeping refrigerated as a butter starter).
Knead the butter in ice water. Pour off the water, and continue adding ice water and kneading until the water stays clear. Form, wrap and store.
-
...No idea re primates as I'm sure the subject is too vague for scientists to focus on.
I don't quite understand what you mean here, unfortunately. Could you expand on that, please?
I'm not so bothered if rawists want to chew or not, it's up to them.
Any idea what % of rawists don't chew or chew only once?
-
I don't quite understand what you mean here, unfortunately. Could you expand on that, please?
Obviously, few scientists investigate how a wild animal chews its food. The only exception to this would be studies done on domesticated species, most of which would be herbivores.
Any idea what % of rawists don't chew or chew only once?
I presume most inadvertently chew the raw meat quickly once as it passes through.
-
http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/215434-post4.html (http://www.cheftalk.com/forums/215434-post4.html)
hi,
thnx for that, can i use curds to culture cream?
Also i think humans outlive apes, is because the jurassic environment is no longer there to support apes, as theyre more dependant on the quality of their environment