Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: xylothrill on May 22, 2008, 10:10:37 pm
-
Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals -- the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.
The multistep spearmaking practice, documented by researchers in Senegal who spent years gaining the chimpanzees' trust, adds credence to the idea that human forebears fashioned similar tools millions of years ago.
The landmark observation also supports the long-debated proposition that females -- the main makers and users of spears among the Senegalese chimps -- tend to be the innovators and creative problem solvers in primate culture.
Using their hands and teeth, the chimpanzees were repeatedly seen tearing the side branches off long, straight sticks, peeling back the bark and sharpening one end. Then, grasping the weapons in a "power grip," they jabbed them into tree-branch hollows where bush babies -- small, monkeylike mammals -- sleep during the day.
In one case, after repeated stabs, a chimpanzee removed the injured or dead animal and ate it, the researchers reported in yesterday's online issue of the journal Current Biology.
"It was really alarming how forceful it was," said lead researcher Jill D. Pruetz of Iowa State University, adding that it reminded her of the murderous shower scene in the Alfred Hitchcock movie "Psycho." "It was kind of scary."
The new observations are "stunning," said Craig Stanford, a primatologist and professor of anthropology at the University of Southern California. "Really fashioning a weapon to get food -- I'd say that's a first for any nonhuman animal."
Scientists have documented tool use among chimpanzees for decades, but the tools have been simple and used to extract food rather than to kill it. Some chimpanzees slide thin sticks or leaf blades into termite mounds, for example, to fish for the crawling morsels. Others crumple leaves and use them as sponges to sop drinking water from tree hollows.
But while a few chimpanzees have been observed throwing rocks -- perhaps with the goal of knocking prey unconscious, but perhaps simply as an expression of excitement -- and a few others have been known to swing simple clubs, only people have been known to craft tools expressly to hunt prey.
Pruetz and Paco Bertolani of the University of Cambridge made the observations near Kedougou in southeastern Senegal. Unlike other chimpanzee sites currently under study, which are forested, this site is mostly open savannah. That environment is very much like the one in which early humans evolved and is different enough from other sites to expect differences in chimpanzee behaviors.
Pruetz recalled the first time she saw a member of the 35-member troop trimming leaves and side branches off a branch it had broken off a tree.
"I just knew right away that she was making a tool," Pruetz said, adding that she suspected -- with some horror -- what it was for. But in that instance she was unable to follow the chimpanzee to see what she did with it. Eventually the researchers documented 22 instances of spearmaking and use, two-thirds of them involving females.
In a typical sequence, the animal first discovered a deep tree hollow suitable for bush babies, which are nocturnal and weigh about half a pound. Then the chimp would break off a branch -- on average about two feet long, but up to twice that length -- trim it, sharpen it with its teeth, and poke it repeatedly into the hollow at a rate of about one or two jabs per second.
After every few jabs, the chimpanzee would sniff or lick the branch's tip, as though testing to see if it had caught anything.
In only one of the 22 observations did a chimp get a bush baby. But that is reasonably efficient, Pruetz said, compared with standard chimpanzee hunting, which involves chasing a monkey or other prey, grabbing it by the tail and slamming its head against the ground.
In the successful bush-baby case, the chimpanzee, after using its sharpened stick, jumped on the hollow branch in the tree until it broke, exposing the limp bush baby, which the chimp then extracted. Whether the animal was dead or alive at that point was unclear, but it did not move or make any sound.
Chimpanzees are believed to offer a window on early human behavior, and many researchers have hoped that the animals -- humans' closest genetic cousins -- might reveal something about the earliest use of wooden tools.
Many suspect that the use of wooden tools far predates the use of stone tools -- remnants of which have been found dating from 2 1/2 million years ago. But because wood does not preserve well, the most ancient wooden spears ever found are only about 400,000 years old, leaving open the question of when such tools first came into use.
The discovery that some chimps today make wooden weapons supports the idea that early humans did too -- perhaps as much as 5 million years ago -- Stanford said.
Adrienne Zihlman, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said the work supports other evidence that female chimps are more likely than males to use tools, are more proficient at it and are crucial to passing that cultural knowledge to others.
"Females are the teachers," Zihlman said, noting that juvenile chimps in Senegal were repeatedly seen watching their mothers make and hunt with spears.
Females "are efficient and innovative, they are problem solvers, they are curious," Zihlman said. And that makes sense, she added.
"They are pregnant or lactating or carrying a kid for most of their life," she said. "And they're supposed to be running around in the trees chasing prey?"
Frans B.M. de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University, said aggressive tool use is only the latest "uniquely human" behavior to be found to be less than unique.
"Such claims are getting old," he said. "With the present pace of discovery, they last a few decades at most."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201007.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022201007.html)
-
So much for the claims of the infamous Sussman, who argued in Man the Hunted that "early man was not an aggressive killer" and did not develop "a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago." So Sussman thinks that humans didn't know how to hunt effectively and weren't even aggressive enough to hunt for millions of years, whereas chimps hunt with great relish. LOL Sussman, outsmarted by chimps!
-
I saw this on PBS recently. 'Tis crazy. I suppose the chimps are evolving?
-
Intelligence seems common.
Some scientists only profess their own ignorance.
-
goodsamaritan is right. It's the scientists' knowledge that's evolving, not the chimps'.
Chimp and Orang-utan hunting and fishing is natural, rather than crazy, and the evidence suggests that their use of hunting and fishing weapons is more than mere mimicry. It only seems strange to us because vegetarian and PC propaganda and arrogant scientists convinced the masses that all nonhuman primates are 100% vegan pacifists who don't know how to use tools (they essentially infantalized chimps). Jane Goodall had to withstand years of ridicule before she convinced many people of the truth.
If you read the articles on the subject you'll see that scientists reported evidence in 2007 of chimps using stones as tools over 4,000 years ago and they think tool use may have PREDATED CHIMPS for Pete's sake! (See http://news.softpedia.com/news/Humans-and-Chimpanzees-Learned-to-Use-Tools-From-a-Common-Ancestor-46941.shtml) Where has this guy Sussman been? His book was obsolete before it was even published in 2005. I couldn't believe anyone was taking it seriously when it came out, because I had read about the tool-using and organized-hunting and warring exploits of chimps long before his book hit the presses.
-
I had no idea
-
I had no idea
FYI: I hope my frustration didn't seem pointed at you--it was aimed at Sussman and his ilk, who seem to adopt a political agenda and then seek out information to confirm it.
-
FYI: I hope my frustration didn't seem pointed at you--it was aimed at Sussman and his ilk, who seem to adopt a political agenda and then seek out information to confirm it.
I should point out that Sussman is not practicing science if he is guilty of seeking info only to confirm what he wants to believe.
Science proper is exactly what humans (and chimps) were doing when we first started making tools.
-
FYI: I hope my frustration didn't seem pointed at you--it was aimed at Sussman and his ilk, who seem to adopt a political agenda and then seek out information to confirm it.
Oh, I'm sure it wasn't. I just meant it like "Wow, that's new info for me" I love this forum, I've learned so much new stuff! Makes me wonder more and more at the status of our culture today. It almost seems like the so called 'experts' are purposely there to make us dumb. ???
-
So much for the claims of the infamous Sussman, who argued in Man the Hunted that "early man was not an aggressive killer" and did not develop "a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago." So Sussman thinks that humans didn't know how to hunt effectively and weren't even aggressive enough to hunt for millions of years, whereas chimps hunt with great relish. LOL Sussman, outsmarted by chimps!
What are you blithering on about now PaleoPhil?
Everyone knows chimpanzees fish and go hunting. They hunt in bands to catch monkey meat, they do it for fun, not dissimilar from raids in World of Warcraft... 100% serious. They often THROW AWAY!!!!! fine pieces of meat they catch!!!!
It is NEVER a strategy for getting food. The energy expenditure vs energy getback is ludicrously tiny compared to foraging in any types of weather.
I like to hear of chimps etc. hunting and catching meat like this because it means I have the ability to consume fish and meat with not too much damage done to me. Humans aren't developed predators unlike chimps though, so I wouldn't exactly bank on it.
Honestly Paleophil, that was really a trolling and totally ignorant thing to say. The meat chimps eat is still only 1 or 2 percent of their diet!!! Gorilla eat NO meat!!!
Also, I'd be extremely, extremely surprised if this were the first time, in fact I'm positive this is wrong. They've long been known to sharpen sticks etc. to go hunting.
-
SuperInfinity, you have a reading assignment (Dr. Price's book) that you promised to do. How about doing more reading, and less calling people ignorant?
-
I'm reading What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee, it's easy to read (and yet highly interesting and stimulating), so I should be done with it fairly soon. I'll read it then definitely and say what I think.
-
You don't add enough value to this forum to get away with calling people names, calling them ignorant, etc.
-
Meh, I'm done responding to your harangues for now SuperInfinity. You served my purposes of helping me organize my thoughts and polish up some of my responses to questions and concerns of friends, relatives and constructive people about raw and low carb Paleo. I've watched the health of my nephews and other relatives and friends improve dramatically as a result of the information I provided them. It's the most satisfying accomplishment of my life. Your rantings can't take that away from me.
Thanks for serving as my willing foil. You are welcome to all the fruit and peanuts you want. Just save some wild fish for me, please. ;D
And if you buy the Vibram shoes, let us know how you like them.
-
Gorilla eat NO meat!!!
Don't they eat termites? That's meat.
Don't they eat ants? That's meat too.
-
Don't they eat termites? That's meat.
Don't they eat ants? That's meat too.
Yes they do, goodsamaritan, and insects certainly aren't plants. LOL! ;D The notion that gorillas "eat NO meat" is a misguided one that has been used in vegetarian propaganda for years.
There is increasing recognition of the importance of insects in the gorilla diet. The gorillas who eat them have been observed to do so with intention and regularity. There may even be a medicinal benefit from some of the insects:
"gorillas select soil-feeding termites high in iron and ash with possible anti-diarrhoeal characteristics. Termite eating in western lowland gorillas might therefore be a high quality alternative for geophagy" --from: "How Insectivorous are Gorillas?" Gorilla Journal 33, December 2006 http://www.berggorilla.org/english/gjournal/texte/33insect.html
As I've said before, no primate on earth eats only plant foods. But there is one grouping of primates that chooses foods exclusively from one side of the plant/animal dichotomy: the four species of tarsier primates which eat only animal prey (see http://www.bohol.ph/article15.html). In other words, the tarsier is an obligate carnivore. So much for the dogma that "Fruit is the food of choice for all primates (http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/fruitarianismvegan-is-closer-to-a-paleo-diet-than-%27zero-carb%27/msg13685/#msg13685)." :'(
We've already learned that some wild primates suffer tooth decay from eating particularly fruit-heavy diets. It also turns out that plant-heavy gorilla diets are deficient in B12 and other nutrients that are abundant in meats, which may be why gorillas eat their own feces (see http://www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia#Coprophagia_in_animals). Perhaps that is what vegetarians and near-vegetarians are referring to when they say we should eat more like gorillas (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/main-lowcarb-lobby/545036-dr-oz-oprah-today-2.html). They seem to be full of the stuff. l) But I kid the vegheads. As I've said before, they are my greatest allies--they eat s**t and suffer so that I can eat meats and reap the benefits. They sacrifice their health for me! Aw, shucks. Thanks vegheads! :)
There's a more startling possibility that vegetarians also ignore: scientists have reported the possibility of gorilla cannibalism! (http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/67979/1/ASM_1_69.pdf) Even Dian Fossey [Gorillas in the Mist, pp. 77-78] admits to the possibility:
"I was chilled at the implications of cannibalism among gorillas, though such behavior has been recorded among free-living chimpanzees.
…it could not be concluded conclusively that Banjo [an infant gorilla] had been a victim of cannibalism. I still do not discount the possibility."
So, since there is NO 100% vegetarian primate, but there are 100% carnivorous primates, where does the ridiculous fiction of pure vegetarian primates come from? It invariably comes from human vegetarians and near-vegetarians who wish to distort animals into their own image to advance their own human politically correct (but naturally wrong) agendas.
Humans who buy into the vegetarian delusion of pacific, cuddly, infantilized, neotenized, 100% vegetarian primates and adopt a vegetarian or near-vegetarian diet tend to suffer the same pernicious effects that occur in nonhuman primates who who eat too much fruits and do not get enough animal nutrients from insects, grubs, worms, lizards, small animals, feces or other sources: vitamin and mineral deficiencies, tooth decay, and other afflictions. The fruit of their ignorance of nature is suffering. Vegetarianism is clearly the diet of masochists.
-
Don't they eat ants? That's meat too.
I was attracted to eating ants as a kid. It was fun :)
Humans who buy into the vegetarian delusion of pacific, cuddly, infantilized, neotenized, 100% vegetarian primates and adopt a vegetarian or near-vegetarian diet tend to suffer the same pernicious effects that occur in nonhuman primates who who eat too much fruits and do not get enough animal nutrients from insects, grubs, worms, lizards, small animals, feces or other sources: vitamin and mineral deficiencies, tooth decay, and other afflictions. The fruit of their ignorance of nature is suffering. Vegetarianism is clearly the diet of masochists.
I know!!
-
There's a more startling possibility that vegetarians also ignore: scientists have reported the possibility of gorilla cannibalism! (http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/67979/1/ASM_1_69.pdf) Even Dian Fossey [Gorillas in the Mist, pp. 77-78] admits to the possibility:
"I was chilled at the implications of cannibalism among gorillas, though such behavior has been recorded among free-living chimpanzees.
…it could not be concluded conclusively that Banjo [an infant gorilla] had been a victim of cannibalism. I still do not discount the possibility."
Paleophil, your ranting smacks of stuff you just found out yesterday, or are just looking up on the instant and then posting it. I already knew all of that, so I don't know why you're treating it like it's some kind of new thing. I knew about the Tarsiers who are very distant relatives, that's why I said "nearly all"... I usually try not to forget the "nearly" but the Tarsiers are very distant. They are only MOSTLY carnivorous anyway, none is a complete carnivore I think.
That possibility is far more startling and cruel than the regular going around and murdering of babies and juveniles that goes on among the majority of higher primates isn't it?!
-
The claim re orang utangs and spear fishing are not necessarily to be taken at face value. I remember that report ages back re orang utangs trying to fish with sticks in the river. Turned out they were just copying local fishermen. As regards the hunting, it does seem rather more likely that ancient apemen went in for a combination of hunting(smaller animals, probably) and scavenging(larger animals' carcasses most likely).
-
The claim re orang utangs and spear fishing are not necessarily to be taken at face value. I remember that report ages back re orang utangs trying to fish with sticks in the river. Turned out they were just copying local fishermen. As regards the hunting, it does seem rather more likely that ancient apemen went in for a combination of hunting(smaller animals, probably) and scavenging(larger animals' carcasses most likely).
They were just imitating them with no goal in mind or they were trying to catch the fish after copying the fishermen?
-
They were just imitating them with no goal in mind or they were trying to catch the fish after copying the fishermen?
Well for once I have to agree with SuperInfinity. All the reports said the orang learned how to fish with a spear by observing fisherman, rather than just blindly mimicked them for no reason. Also, One of the orangs who had not seen fisherman fishing reportedly grabbed a stick and smacked a fish, stunning it, then he grabbed it and ate it.
An even better example is my avatar of a chimp who fashioned his own spear and excitedly stabbed into holes in trees with it, with killing force, hunting for bushbabies. The chimps smell or taste the spear after some vigorous thrusting, to see if they succeeded in a kill, as illustrated by my avatar. The chimp might be saying to himself, "Mmmm, I taste bushbaby blood!" ;D
So the idea that early humans could not have had the brains to use these and other hunting and fishing techniques is simply preposterous. Like ALL primates, early humans hunted. Even gorillas purposefully hunt insects. The myth of 100% vegetarian primates was dispelled by Jane Goodall and others long ago. No primates are pure vegetarian--none!
-
What are you blithering on about now PaleoPhil?
Everyone knows chimpanzees fish and go hunting. They hunt in bands to catch monkey meat, they do it for fun, not dissimilar from raids in World of Warcraft... 100% serious. They often THROW AWAY!!!!! fine pieces of meat they catch!!!!
It is NEVER a strategy for getting food. The energy expenditure vs energy getback is ludicrously tiny compared to foraging in any types of weather.
I like to hear of chimps etc. hunting and catching meat like this because it means I have the ability to consume fish and meat with not too much damage done to me. Humans aren't developed predators unlike chimps though, so I wouldn't exactly bank on it.
Honestly Paleophil, that was really a trolling and totally ignorant thing to say. The meat chimps eat is still only 1 or 2 percent of their diet!!! Gorilla eat NO meat!!!
Also, I'd be extremely, extremely surprised if this were the first time, in fact I'm positive this is wrong. They've long been known to sharpen sticks etc. to go hunting.
LOL I'm lpaying WOW right now, raiding the alliance for fun, hmmm I didn't think to eat them though.
-
Heh, SuperInfinity often made up the stuff he wrote. I don't think he cared what the truth was and just seemed to enjoy contradicting people and trying to piss the off.
-
Ya but he eats a lot of sugars so he's mentally frantic, we can only feel sorry for him.
-
Yes, I have noticed a correlation between high carb consumption and frantic behavior--a high-carb personality, if you will. It is reminiscent of the skittish behavior of plant-eating prey animals.
-
Yes, I have noticed a correlation between high carb consumption and frantic behavior--a high-carb personality, if you will. It is reminiscent of the skittish behavior of plant-eating prey animals.
Err, I think you're going a bit too far here, re stereotyping. I mean, there are plenty of extremely placid herbivores.
This reminds me of a comment made by 1 scientist about another non-diet-related study. The latter study involved studying different political attitudes and it tried to show that Conservative-rightwing-minded people were more rigid/narrow-minded than Leftwing/Liberal people. As the other scientist pointed out, the study was hopelessly biased given the scientist involved, and that he wouldn't be at all surprised if some similiar study in the near future would eventually come out supposedly "proving" that Conservative-minded males all had much smaller genitalia!
-
Everyone knows chimpanzees fish and go hunting. They hunt in bands to catch monkey meat, they do it for fun, not dissimilar from raids in World of Warcraft... 100% serious. They often THROW AWAY!!!!! fine pieces of meat they catch!!!!
LOL did you play WoW? What server? ThVeCo. ftw?
-
Miles, FYI, SuperInfinity was banned, so you won't get any responses from him.
Err, I think you're going a bit too far here, re stereotyping. I mean, there are plenty of extremely placid herbivores.
This reminds me of a comment made by 1 scientist about another non-diet-related study. The latter study involved studying different political attitudes and it tried to show that Conservative-rightwing-minded people were more rigid/narrow-minded than Leftwing/Liberal people. As the other scientist pointed out, the study was hopelessly biased given the scientist involved, and that he wouldn't be at all surprised if some similiar study in the near future would eventually come out supposedly "proving" that Conservative-minded males all had much smaller genitalia!
Tyler, I don't appreciate those comments, especially given that today you yourself proposed links between "mental issues" and consumption of cooked foods at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg16654/#msg16654:
What I find interesting is that it's cooked foods that are increasingly being linked to depression, schizophrenia, alzheimer's and other mental issues. This is because cooking creates opioids which act on the brain like drugs, causing all sorts of problems re mood etc.
I would be interested in any references you can provide on cooking and opioids, as I agree with you about the harmful nature of cooking (just not to the same degree as you) and would like them for my files. The evidence is even stronger for links between mental issues and certain carby foods like cereal grains, milk, and foods high in fructose, whether raw or cooked/pasteurized (though not many people eat raw grains, obviously). Call it stereotyping or whatever you like, I'm not going to lie about what I have personally observed and found in my research just to make it PC, nor do I expect you to lie about cooking just to make your own posts PC.
Consumption of cereals and milk also puts opioids into the bloodstream which act on the brain like drugs and there is more evidence of mental issues from these foods then there is from cooking:
"This genetic maladaptation between human nutrient requirements and those nutrients found in cereal grains manifests itself as vitamin and mineral deficiencies and other nutritionally related disorders, particularly when cereal grains are consumed in excessive quantity. More disturbing is the ability of cereal grain proteins (protease inhibitors, lectins, opioids and storage peptides) to interact with and alter human physiology. These interactions likely occur because of physiological similarities (resultant from phylogenetic commonalities) shared between humans and many herbivores which have traditionally preyed upon the gramineae family. The secondary compounds (antinutrients) occurring in cereal grains (gramineae family), were shaped by eons of selective pressure and were designed to prevent predation from traditional predators (insects, birds and ungulates) of this family of plants. Because primates and hominids evolved in the tropical forest, wherein dicotyledonous plants prevailed, the human physiology has virtually no evolutionary experience with monocotyledonous cereal grains, and hence very little adaptive response to a food group which now represents the staple food for many of the world's peoples." --Loren Cordain, "Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double-Edged Sword," 1999, www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal%20article.pdf
Opioids In The Food Supply
http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p18.htm#3
Here Karl Loren provides some evidence and discussion of opioids in grains and dairy. Beta-casomorphin-7, the dairy opioid, is present in all dairy products, both raw and pasteurized, but is most concentrated in the lowest-fat, highest-casein dairy products like lowfat milk and cottage cheese, since casomorphin is a protein peptide produced by digesting casein (see http://www.childrensmn.org/Manuals/PFS/Nutr/126098.pdf for a list of casein-containing foods). There is also mention of harmful opioids possibly being in blood, but no evidence is provided and Loren warns that the information comes from a vegetarian whose opinions on meat are suspect.
Wadley and Martin hypothesize that the drug-like properties of exorphin opioids produced by the consumption of cereal grains and dairy products "may have been the incentive for the initial adoption of agriculture" (Greg Wadley and Angus Martin, "The Origins of Agriculture: a biological perspective and a new hypothesis," Australian Biologist, June 1993, http://www.andrewdurham.com/origins.htm).
Dealing With Anxiety Attacks
http://www.treelight.com/health/healing/Anxiety.html
<<Cut Carbs
Perhaps the most important principle of all, though, is to limit carbohydrate intake. I have been on different dietary programs a couple of times, and each one virtually eliminated anxiety as a problem. One was the food-combining diet that Harvey and Marilyn Diamond popularized in their book, Fit for Life. Another was the diet in Enter the Zone, by Barry Sears.
What these diets have in common is a lot more fruits and vegetables, and protein, and a lot less cake, cookies, or bread. The lack of insulin-producing carbohydrate in the form of sugar and refined flour had a profound effect on anxiety levels.
Recently, I read the clearest explanation yet of why that is so. The explanation comes from Rob Faigin's book, Natural Hormonal Enhancement. (The book has a wealth of useful information. Unfortunately, it's not that readable. Michael Colgan's book, Hormonal Health, is a much better read -- but it doesn't cover this particular subject in as much detail.)
On page 101, Rob Faigin writes:
"insulin...blocks fat burning and directs the body to use sugar for energy instead. So insulin remains in circulation after its purpose, to lower blood sugar, has been accomplished; and all this time insulin limits access to fat stores. The other fuel source, glucose, is not readily available either, because insulin escorted it out of the blood stream. At this point, the sugar burner is likely to experience unpleasant symptoms including any combination of the following: anxiety, bad mood, light-headedness, poor concentration, cognitive impairment, or "tense tiredness". Starving for sugar, the brain sends a resounding message to the body: EAT...">>
Sugar linked with mental problems in Norway study
2006
http://www.anxietyinsights.info/sugar_linked_with_mental_problems_in_norway_study.htm
"Oslo teens who drank the most sugary soft drinks also had more mental health problems such as hyperactivity and distress, Norwegian researchers reported...."
Fructose malabsorption is associated with early signs of mental depression.
1998
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9620891
Depression, Anxiety and Carb Malabsorption
http://www.paratuberculosis.net/90miscellaneous/depression_anxiety_and_carb_malabsorption/
Studies linking carbohydrate malabsorption to anxiety and depression
Panic Attacks and Anxiety
by Ronald Hoffman, M.D.
May 1999 | The Holistic M.D.
http://www.consciouschoice.com/1999/cc1205/hmd1205.html
"Anxiety disorder is a modern phenomenon, and it may be related to the tremendous jarring stress of modern life and perhaps to some of our common but powerful dietary stresses, such as excess sugar and excess caffeine, which are often combined, as in cola beverages."
Opioid-dependent anticipatory negative contrast and binge-like eating in rats with limited access to highly preferred food.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443124?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Rats fed a sucrose-rich chow "showed increased anxiety-like behavior in relation to their propensity to binge...."
Motivation for sucrose in sated rats is predicted by low anxiety-like behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19429082?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
In contrast to the carby and opioid-producing foods, animal fats have been shown to have beneficial, rather than negative, effects on mental health:
Fish Oils and Mental Health/Depression
http://www.oilofpisces.com/depression.html
Studies have found benefit from fish oils in treating:
Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia
Depression/Anger
Post-partum Depression
Schizophrenia
Bipolar Disorder (Manic-depressive Illness)
Lesperance F et al. The efficacy of eicosapentaenoic acid for major depression: Results of the OMEGA-3D trial. 9th World Congress of Biological Psychiatry: Abstract FC-25-005. Presented July 1, 2009. Accessed at http://www.wfsbp-congress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/WFSBP_Final_Programme_090625.pdf
Inverse association of high-fat diet preference and anxiety-like behavior: a putative role for urocortin 2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19077174?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
-
Tyler, I don't appreciate those comments, especially given that today you yourself proposed links between "mental issues" and consumption of cooked foods at http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg16654/#msg16654:
In my defence, I did actually refer to scientific studies I'd mentioned either in that post or just before that. And I certainly didn't mean to suggest that ALL cooked-food eaters had schizophrenia or whatever, merely a small proportion of them. As regards the generalisations re carb-consumers since the forum started, I referred to them as I've previously come across many similiar claims from Primal Dieters/Raw Vegans or what have you, making claims that their diet makes them more intelligent, more moral etc. by comparison to other diets. And I have come across too many exceptions that certainly don't prove the rule, such as very placid vegetarians or very immoral vegans etc. You have every right to make a statement of what you believe re personal accounts, I'm just pointing out my concern.
I would be interested in any references you can provide on cooking and opioids, as I agree with you about the harmful nature of cooking (just not to the same degree as you) and would like them for my files. The evidence is even stronger for links between mental issues and certain carby foods like cereal grains, milk, and foods high in fructose, whether raw or cooked/pasteurized (though not many people eat raw grains, obviously).
Actually, there's plenty of scientific evidence of cooking linked to opioids. It's not much different in amount by comparison to studies done on milk/grains it's just that it's largely ignored. Here's a couple of links with scientific references at the bottom:-
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/cooking.htm
http://www.youngerthanyourage.com/13/artific.htm
The 2nd link provides proof that cooking creates trans-fats, albeit at a low level(re heating non-hydrogenated oils to produce trans-fats).This should give pause for thought re claims that cooking is healthy.
Another point raised by others is that most studies done on fructose are totally flawed as they study REFINED fructose, which is, of course, useless,(similiarly, studies done just on refined sucrose are as erroneous as some studies damning all meats but only focusing on cooked highly processed meats) - in other words, fructose-containing raw foods are fine. Lastly, I do find that many ZCers lump all carbs together. Yet, while there's plenty of evidence against some carbs like grains, the evidence against fruit, for example, is very weak indeed. After all, fruit was eaten for ages in the Palaeolithic, unlike grains or dairy.
-
As regards the generalisations re carb-consumers since the forum started, I referred to them as I've previously come across many similiar claims from Primal Dieters/Raw Vegans or what have you, making claims that their diet makes them more intelligent, more moral etc. by comparison to other diets.
I think I see what you're trying to avoid--the turning of this forum into a negative complain-moan-and-insult session about eaters of cooked or high-carb foods. I've seen that tendency in a couple of veggie boards I perused (I like to challenge my assumptions and get the broadest possible perspectives) and it was definitely a turnoff for me (of course, I was among the crowd they were making fun of, so maybe that's why). I'll try to keep your goal in mind.
Yes, morality is a touchy area and claims of improved morals is a slippery slope. I suppose that doesn't make inquiry off limits (nothing is off limits to true science), but my own inclination would be to not tread that ground much.
My brain fog disappeared and I noticed my performance rapidly improved some on a computer chess game when I eliminated gluten, but I don't know whether that means I would score higher on an IQ test or some such measure and don't really care about that anyway.
And I have come across too many exceptions that certainly don't prove the rule, such as very placid vegetarians or very immoral vegans etc. You have every right to make a statement of what you believe re personal accounts, I'm just pointing out my concern.
Yes, I actually studied Mahatma Gandhi. I only meant I noticed a correlation, not an absolute. Being a fan of science and learning, I'm not generally fond of absolutes.
Thanks for the links. That Wai site seems even more eccentric than the BibleLife site, but it also has some interesting info.
Another point raised by others is that most studies done on fructose are totally flawed as they study REFINED fructose, which is, of course, useless.
You could make that same sort of excuse re: the nonhydrogenated fat study--it used cottonseed oil, so I could say I don't use plant oils and only heat grassfed suet at low temps, writing the study off as useless in the same manner.
More importantly, the studies are not limited to refined fructose. Fruit juice and fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) and honey and dried fruits like raisins and cranberries have also been linked to heart disease risk, increased uric acid and gout risk.
Soft drinks, fructose consumption, and the risk of gout in men: prospective cohort study
Hyon K Choi, associate professor of medicine1, Gary Curhan, associate professor of medicine2
BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39449.819271.BE, (Published 31 January 2008)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/bmj.39449.819271.BEv1
".... Other major contributors to fructose intake such as total fruit juice or fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) were also associated with a higher risk of gout (P values for trend <0.05).
Conclusions: Prospective data suggest that consumption of sugar sweetened soft drinks and fructose is strongly associated with an increased risk of gout in men. Furthermore, fructose rich fruits and fruit juices may also increase the risk. Diet soft drinks were not associated with the risk of gout."
Despite the data of their own study, notice how the authors offered homage to the dietary dogma by still claiming that people should eat modern apples and oranges anyway--this is where science ends and unquestioning superstition begins: "Foods such as apples and oranges, the authors stress, contain higher fructose levels but also help prevent chronic disorders such as high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer, thus their findings should be balanced against these benefits." Soda Increases Risk of Gout, http://www.arthritistoday.org/conditions/other-conditions/gout/soda-and-gout.php
Fructose is a coronary risk factor
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/fructose-is-coronary-risk-factor.html
As discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, Say Goodbye to Fructose, a carefully-conducted University of California study demonstrated that, compared to glucose, fructose induces:
1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation
2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol, doubled Apoprotein B
3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, 3-fold more than glucose
4) Increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.
Other studies have shown that fructose:
--Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease.
--Induces insulin resistance, the situation that creates diabetes
--Increases glycation (fructose linked to proteins) and protein cross-linking, processes that underlie atherosclerosis, liver disease, and cataracts.
Make no mistake: Fructose is a powerful coronary risk factor.
There is no doubt whatsoever that a diet rich in fructose from fruit drinks, honey, raisins and other dried fruit like cranberries, sucrose (table sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup is a high-risk path to heart disease.
Also note that many foods labeled "heart healthy" because of low-fat, low saturated fat, addition of sterol esters, or fiber, also contain fructose sources, especially high-fructose corn syrup.
Calorie Restricted Monkeys Part II
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 4:10PM
http://www.paleonu.com/
"...why don’t the monkeys get CAD, despite our successful efforts to give them the metabolic syndrome that correlates so closely with CAD risk in humans?
My shoot-from-the-hip speculation is that Homo Sapiens, during two million years of evolution since H.Habilis, lost what little tolerance for excess fructose we started with at the same time we acquired our metabolic preference for exploiting the fat stores of other mammals and became more tolerant of saturated fat than fructose.
Sugar is just more poisonous to humans, and that is why you have to try so hard to give CAD to monkeys, even if you are stimulating inflammation with gobs of linoleic acid. CAD may depend on not tolerating fructose. That would explain a lot and we should keep that in mind when reading animal studies.
So among the Neolithic agents, excess industrial oils are probably bad for most mammals, but sugar may be peculiarly bad for humans. Step one of PaNu stays step one."
[/quote] Lastly, I do find that many ZCers lump all carbs together. Yet, while there's plenty of evidence against some carbs like grains, the evidence against fruit, for example, is very weak indeed. After all, fruit was eaten for ages in the Palaeolithic, unlike grains or dairy.
[/quote]
Not me. While I find that all carbs appear to do me some harm, some have far more severe effects on me than others. Wheat seems to be my worst, then I would probably say other grains, milk lactose, and sweeteners. The ill effects of nightshades, squashes, fruits and nuts were more subtle. Except for sugars, one could argue that other elements in each of these foods was the real problem for me, but for whatever reason, only animal body carb foods don't seem to have ill effects on me.
While fruits were eaten in the Paleolithic, I am not aware of any evidence that they were a staple anywhere close to the degree that animal flesh was for the period around 500k ybp to 40k ybp, during which our last two species changes (to homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens) occurred. This period is known as the "Carnivore Guild" for a reason, and it doesn't involve lots of sweet fruits.
The evidence against fruit is preliminary, but not "weak" and there is not much Paleolithic evidence showing precedent for heavy consumption of sugary fruits like modern apples, oranges, bananas and dried fruits. Todays staple fruits bear little resemblance to Paleo fruits and their year-round availability is likely mostly a neolithic innovation. I understand that this news that the fruits most people eat today are not healthy after all, despite the dogma they have been fed by the diet dictocrats. I was misled by that dogma myself. The more I investigate it, the less substance I find underlying it.
-
Thanks for the links. That Wai site seems even more eccentric than the BibleLife site, but it also has some interesting info.
On the contrary, the bibleife.org site is far more "eccentric" given its biblical emphasis(trying desperately to argue that low carb diets were exclusively eaten in the Bible) and then there's the anti-gay stuff, such as claiming absurdly that gays are all vegetarians and that's why they're gay! By contrast, the wai diet is only a little eccentric in its unusual focus on curing acne.
[qYou could make that same sort of excuse re: the nonhydrogenated fat study--it used cottonseed oil, so I could say I don't use plant oils and only heat grassfed suet at low temps, writing the study off as useless in the same manner. [/quote]
Not at all useless. It establishes that cooking is a harmful process. And claiming that "only" lightly cooking suet would be OK is meaningless. Once one has to accept(as all have to do eventually) that cooking harms food in numerous ways, it becomes increasingly impossible to argue convincingly that cooking is a beneficial process.At best, one is forced on the defensive, to make a vague unsupoorted claim that cooking "doesn't really do that much harm".
More importantly, the studies are not limited to refined fructose. Fruit juice and fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) and honey and dried fruits like raisins and cranberries have also been linked to heart disease risk, increased uric acid and gout risk.
Fruit juice is a heavily processed food, involving added artificial vitamin C, heated/pasteurised to abnormally high temperatures to kill off potential bacteria and soft drinks are hardlt healthy carbs. Similiarly, dried fruits contain artificial levels of sulphur and other preservatives, hardly healthy or natural. Cranberries have been shown to be beneficial in fighting bacterial infections in the urinary system and have been shown to protect against cancer and kidney stones:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17360173 (cranberries used in the study)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14616463
http://www.umaine.edu/umext/cranberries/Health%20Benefits%20-%20Keep%20Doctor%20&%20Dentist%20Away.htm
As for gout, that is routinely linked by scientists to consumption of (cooked) meats with fruit actually helping reduce gout symptoms(gout is linked to purines present in protein-foods especially organ-meats):-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15014182
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-foods-that-cause-gout.htm
Plus, of course, the scientific concensus, nowadays, is that fruit and veg consumption PROTECTS against heart-disease:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1196255.stm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12081821
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11412050
and so on....
Despite the data of their own study, notice how the authors offered homage to the dietary dogma by still claiming that people should eat modern apples and oranges anyway--this is where science ends and unquestioning superstition begins: "Foods such as apples and oranges, the authors stress, contain higher fructose levels but also help prevent chronic disorders such as high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer, thus their findings should be balanced against these benefits." Soda Increases Risk of Gout, http://www.arthritistoday.org/conditions/other-conditions/gout/soda-and-gout.php
It is far more likely that the scientists simply recognised that their data conflicted somewhat with the findings of 1000s of other studies proving helath benefits for fruits, so that they made a qualifying statement so as not to look too foolish, in case their evidence was later on proved wrong. Like I said before, science is always on the side of the big battalions, so that if 1 scientific study claims 1 conclusion while 100s or 1000s of others claim something enitrely different or the exact opposite, then , probability-wise, it is far more likely that the 1 study is dead wrong than that absolutely all the others are wrong. Similiarly, there are now so many definitive studies done on the great harm of heat-created toxins on human health that it is now scientifically implausible to argue that well-cooked foods(especially well-cooked animal foods) are remotely healthy for humans - which means, of course, that rawists have already won half the battle already, on a scientific basis.
--Increases glycation (fructose linked to proteins) and protein cross-linking, processes that underlie atherosclerosis, liver disease, and cataracts.
The above statement is very misleading. AGEs/advanced glycation end products(which are behind atherosclerosis/cataracts etc.) are not just formed in the presence of carbs but of fats as well(cooked animal fats in particular, as AGE-levels are much, much higher in coooked animal fats than any other food).
Also note that many foods labeled "heart healthy" because of low-fat, low saturated fat, addition of sterol esters, or fiber, also contain fructose sources, especially high-fructose corn syrup.
This is precisely my point. Corn syrup is avoided by healthy-minded vegetarians and is not considered by anyone to be a healthy carb.
While fruits were eaten in the Paleolithic, I am not aware of any evidence that they were a staple anywhere close to the degree that animal flesh was for the period around 500k ybp to 40k ybp, during which our last two species changes (to homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens) occurred. This period is known as the "Carnivore Guild" for a reason, and it doesn't involve lots of sweet fruits.
I'm not claiming that palaeo diets in Arctic areas were high in fruit, but as one goes further towards the equator, the proportion of plant foods in the diet becomes ever larger, strongly indicating that palaeo tribes were no different(2nd link that is, 1st link shows actual plant consumption in the middle palaeolithic):-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH8-4F83PG9-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1003043096&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ca797ef849cfaf4fb531260cf7af98c7
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u386383180288602/
(20-25% of diet, by calorie) judging from the text.
Re brain-size/meat conundrum:- "Here's a pertinent quote from an article re this issue which shows that dietary explanations re increased hominid brain-size are questionable at best:-
"The above arguments, that the morphological changes in hominid crania can be explained by the increased consumption of animal foods through time, is strongly contested by researchers such as Nestle (1999) and Milton (1993, 2000). They argue, by analogy, that the majority of living primates are largely vegetarian, and that we, as primates, are best adapted to a mainly vegetarian diet. Milton (1993) writes that mandible size decreased due to the increased consumption of energy-rich plant foods such as fruits, and not necessarily meat. The complex skills required to harvest these energy-rich plants would also result in a selection for more intelligent hominids, with resulting increased brain size through time. This alternative hypothesis highlights the inadequacy of the use of analogy with living primates as a means to understand hominid subsistence, as the same lines of evidence can be used to support two opposing views. Clearly, additional lines of evidence are needed to resolve these two alternative explanations."
Todays staple fruits bear little resemblance to Paleo fruits and their year-round availability is likely mostly a neolithic innovation.
You can claim that modern fruits are higher in sugar etc. than palaeo-equivalents. But it actually defeats your point as if such fruits were lower in sugars, palaeo tribesmen would have been able to eat much larger amounts of wild fruit and still avoid issues. As for fruit being available all year round, that depends on location and was not restricted to the Neolithic era. As GS has pointed out from his own experience, wild fruits are available all year round in quantity as a staple in the tropics, so the same must have applied in Palaeo times(in those equatorial regions).