Author Topic: A day in the life of TylerDurden  (Read 336467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #175 on: September 06, 2009, 07:12:52 pm »
I would hardly call Weston Price a 'total fraud'! You've mentioned before that he cherry picked the good looking ones, I don't think they are particularly good looking.
I think they were the best of a bad lot re appearance, with all the others he met being decidedly ill-looking, missing teeth etc. , much as one would expect given the harsh life they led. But there are other concerns such as the fact that Weston Price arbitrarily claimed that all the various tribes were uniformly healthy even when they all had widely different diets, indicating widely different levels of health - that can only mean he either deliberately fudged the evidence or that he was so incompetent or blinded by bias that he chose to ignore any data that he found contradicted his theories.

Quote
I also think that plant based carb diets make us think too much/ smarter. Narrow palates amp up our nervous system, can't relax, always thinking (prone to ADHD) and the plant carbs fuel the brain and set us into overdrive. 
I mentined this before but got cut down pretty quickly! Ha

Hnmm, that's at least a bit more original than the notion that carnivores are supposedly superior to other humans re hunting instincts or whatever. I'm amused that you should consider that carbs make one think too much - well, perhaps the meat-DHA/brain theory is wrong and eating carbs caused our ancestors' brains to grow!

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.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #176 on: September 06, 2009, 07:21:49 pm »
By the way, 1 of the many reasons why I go on about the perils of eating cooked meats is because I endured agonisingly painful stomach-aches while eating cooked animal foods while pre-rawpalaeodiet. These pains disappeared as soon as I turned to eating raw meats, instead. Now I'd had adrenal burnout at the time, and I found out later adrenal burnout sufferers usually eventually go 100% (cooked)vegan as they steadily lose their ability to eat(cooked) animal foods. So, the fact that just switching to 100% raw meant that those pains disappeared forever, means that eating cooked animal food puts an extra stress on the adrenals - now this may not initially matter to people without the adrenal-related issues I had pre-rawpalaeo, but, over the long-term, it sure does matter as the biggest problems for old people on cooked diets are the serious glandular-related health-problems they develop over the decades after c.40, ruining their quality of life. It seems Aajonus was quite right to claim that cooked foods damage the entire glandular system over time.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

William

  • Guest
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #177 on: September 06, 2009, 08:59:05 pm »
I think they were the best of a bad lot re appearance, with all the others he met being decidedly ill-looking, missing teeth etc. , much as one would expect given the harsh life they led. But there are other concerns such as the fact that Weston Price arbitrarily claimed that all the various tribes were uniformly healthy even when they all had widely different diets, indicating widely different levels of health - that can only mean he either deliberately fudged the evidence or that he was so incompetent or blinded by bias that he chose to ignore any data that he found contradicted his theories.

His photographic evidence clearly shows that his proposition is true, to wit: traditional diets result in superior dental  health compared to a diet including bread and jam. High carb is bad.
He also mentions the reports of archaeologists which show the same thing. Irrefutable.



Quote
Harsh life

Does not look harsh; the mountain Swiss and South Pacific islanders were doing much better than their wretched descendants.





Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #178 on: September 07, 2009, 12:31:05 am »
Lots to reply to. Luckily I've already researched much of this stuff in the past and saved some of what I found. I shortened it some by not quoting Tyler much, though this risks some confusion.

Evidence for Increased Malocclusion from Modern Diets over Traditional Diets vs. No Counter-evidence Yet Offerred


Tyler, first you claimed that Price only focused on caries, now you admit he examined occlusion but dismiss his evidence on that. Given that I don't think raw dairy is healthful, I am also suspicious about some of Price's conclusions, but your dismissals without evidence are not of much value to me. To disprove Price, it should be a fairly simple matter of finding rates of malocclusion among hunter-gatherers and other traditional populations equal to those in modern populations. Has anyone done this?

As I pointed out, the WAPF also provides evidence of dramatic single-generation improvements in occlusion through change to more traditional diets (such as a comparison photo of mother and child). I can't find that evidence at present, so I hope you'll take my word for it at present that they presented it. I'm no fan of theirs, so I have no motivation to mislead about this. If you assume that evidence was also selectively chosen it should once again be a fairly simple matter for WAPF critics to show examples of children who were fed much more traditional diets yet fared no better with malocclusion, caries, etc. than their parents. Has anyone done this?

The WAPF also provides this:
Quote
Some pesticides can also react with thyroid hormones and vitamin A receptors.[Rolland, RR. A review of chemically-induced alterations in thyroid and vitamin A status from field studies of wildlife and fish. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 2000, 36(4):15-35.] The disruption of fat-soluble activators and mineral metabolism would explain the bone deformities and malocclusions showing up in the wildlife in the Bitterroot Valley. http://westonaprice.org/envtoxins/clouds.html

And this at http://westonaprice.org/envtoxins/clouds_pictures.html: a photo of a filly foal, with "a 7 mm underbite at 2 days old when this photo was taken. The foal was given Calc. Phos. 6X and Bioplasma 2 times per day, morning and night, from birth" followed by a photo of the "Same filly foal at 13 days old, with perfect bite."

Do you have counter-evidence to this? As I've said before, unsupported claims made with certainty, based solely on one's say-so, raise my suspicion-meter more than anything. Even if we grant that Weston Price was a "total fraud" based solely on your say-so, then what about the similar findings of Jared Diamond, Tanchou, Stefansson, Washburn, Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg, etc. re: the superior health and morphology of people eating more traditional/ancestral diets, including Cordain on malocclusion based on observational evidence and bones and fossils? Do you have evdince to show that all of it worthless?

Here are a couple of examples:

Quote
Sherwood Washburn in 1951 highlighted the importance of evolutionary processes and contexts rather than simply the results of these processes. Washburn discussed evolutionary changes in the lower jaw and suggested that understanding how the facial region has evolved in the human lineage and how it develops in the individual will “open the way to...interpretation of abnormalities abnormalities and malocclusion, and may lead to advances in genetics, anatomy, and medicine” (Washburn 1951, p. 304).

Source: Evolutionary Medicine, Wenda R. Trevathan, http://www.appalachianbioanth.org/trevathan.pdf

Quote
From The Paleo Diet, by Loren Cordain, pp. 42-43 (emphasis mine):

Hello Grains, Hello Health Problems

The archaeological record clearly shows that whenever and wherever ancient humans sowed [cereal grain] seeds (and replaced the old animal-dominated diets), part of the harvest included health problems. One physical ramification of the new diet was immediately obvious: Early farmers were markedly shorter than their ancestors. In Turkey and Greece, for example, preagricultural men stood 5 feet 9 inches tall [on average] and women 5 feet 5 inches. By 3000 B.C., the average man had shrunk to 5 feet 3 inches and the average woman to 5 feet. But getting shorter--not in itself a health problem--was the least of the changes in these early farmers. Studies of their bones and teeth have revealed that these people were basically a mess: They had more infectious diseases than their ancestors, more childhood mortality, and shorter life spans in general. They also had more osteoporosis, rickets, and other bone mineral disorders, thanks to the cereal-based diets. For the first time, humans were plagued with vitamin- and mineral-deficiency diseases--scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, vitamin A and zinc deficiencies, and iron-deficiency anemia. Instead of the well-formed, strong teeth their ancestors had, there were now cavities. Their jaws, which were formerly square and roomy, were suddenly too small for their teeth, which overlapped each other.

I already agreed with you that cooking is a factor in malocclusion. Based on the accumulating evidence, the types of foods eaten appear to be an even more important factor in malocclusion. Sorry, but I find your dismissals of such unconvincing.

Lack of Evidence for Neoteny Contributing to Increased Brain Size & Intelligence

Your suggestion that smaller dogs are less intelligent than larger dogs would appear to also argue against increases in brain size and intelligence from selected neoteny, as "toy" dogs like chihuahuas are reportedly the most severely neotenized of all breeds. As Budiansky reportedly argued: "Toy dogs often display an extreme level of neoteny, resembling not just infant, but fetal wolves." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny, sourcing  Budiansky, Stephen, 1999, The Covenant of the Wild: Why animals chose domestication. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300079931), whereas the Alaskan breeds and large shepherd dogs are considered to be some of the least changed breeds from wild ancestors:

"The Canadian Eskimo Dog is an Arctic breed of dog (Canis lupus familiaris), which is often considered to be North America’s oldest and rarest remaining purebred indigenous domestic canine." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Eskimo_Dog)

Note here how early domesticated dogs, the ancestors of the big dogs that you claim are more intelligent, ate big game that may have provided generous sources of marrow, suet and back fat to their human owners and possibly also to the dogs:

"In shape, the Paleolithic dogs most resemble the Siberian husky, but in size, however, they were somewhat larger, probably comparable to large shepherd dogs," added Germonpré, a paleontologist at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. .... Isotopic analysis of the animals' bones found that the earliest dogs consumed horse, musk ox and reindeer, but not fish or seafood. Since the Aurignacians are believed to have hunted big game and fished at different times of the year, the researchers think the dogs might have enjoyed meaty handouts during certain seasons." ("World's first dog lived 31,700 years ago, ate big: Discovery could push back the date for the earliest dog by 17,700 years, By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery Channel, updated 2:17 p.m. ET, Fri., Oct . 17, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27240370)

Technology and Neoteny

I agree that technology such as hunting weapons likely also contributed to neoteny and the evidence suggests that the causes of brain growth were multifactorial, of which dietary change in types of foods eaten was an important one. I find your dismissals of dietary contributions unconvincing. I find evidence more convincing than opinions.

I don't see increases in the periods of frail childhood dependency on adults as a "good sign" of physical health. It seems more a sign of increasing physical degeneration compensated for by increasingly complex social structures and other adaptations (such as technology). Arguing that the necessity of extended childhood is a "good sign" is like arguing that myopia is a good sign because it inspired ingenuity in the development of vision correction technologies.

Brain/Body Ratio

All the evidence I found said that human brain/body ratio has been pretty steady for the last 10,000 or more years. You will find me relatively open-minded on all topics. So if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in it. As for difficult births (dystocia), they are rare among hunter gatherers, particularly the more carnivorous ones, indicating once again the critical importance of the types of foods eaten:

Quote
A Darwinian View of Obstructed Labor
Robert P. Roy, MD, FRCSC
Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003;101:397-401
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/2/397

"This essay discusses the evolutionary biology of dystocia. From a Darwinian standpoint, the high frequency of dystocia observed today seems evolutionarily untenable. Hunter-gatherers, most notably the Inuit, appear not to suffer from dystocia. ...."
So a more carnivorous diet appears to have not only contributed to the development of larger brains and bodies in humans, but also better enabled the birthing of these larger-brained children than modern diets.

Is Brain Sulsification an Advantage of Neolithic Diets?

If you have evidence of increased sulsification deriving from a Neolithic diet across all ecological environments and geographic regions, please provide it. Are you implying from your remarks on sulsification that the Neolithic diet is superior to the Paleolithic diet with regards to effects on the brain? I've noticed that the vast majority of your posts are positive about the raw aspect of RPD, but rarely the Paleo aspect. Do you believe in the healthiness of Paleo, or just of raw nondairy, nongrain, nonlegume? In other words, do you think that the Paleo diet was overall superior to the Neolithic diet, including Paleo's higher levels of meats and animal fats and lower-glycemic wild plants, or just certain aspects of Paleo (such as no dairy, grain, legumes or additives)?

Brain size and Intelligence

Tyler wrote: "...so that brain-size isn't necessarily the only factor - if it were the sole factor, presumably, the Inuit would be  beating everyone else re Nobel Prizes/Mensa or whatever."

Of course brain size isn't the only factor in intelligence, when evolutionary biologists speak of the increasing intelligence of hominids as brain size increased, that does not mean they are attributing intelligence solely to brain size. As regards the Inuit and other HGs, Jared Diamond actually has argued that HGs like those of Papua New Guinea are probably more intelligent ON AVERAGE than moderners. Whether Diamond is right or wrong about that, moderners will always win any intelligence competition because there are 6+ billion of them vs. 300,000 HGs by the last estimate I saw--so the odds of moderners producing exceptional geniuses are far greater on the basis of sheer volume. The fact that HGs who are still eating their traditional diet don't tend to participate in activities that lead to Nobel Prizes and Mensa memberships is of course another factor revealing the Nobel/Mensa argument to be a nonsensical canard.

More research is needed in this area, but wild animals provide some interesting clues:
    "Domestication of the wolf over time has produced a number of physical changes typical of all domesticated mammals. These include: a reduction in overall size; changes in coat colouration and markings; a shorter jaw initially with crowding of the teeth and, later, with the shrinking in size of the teeth; a reduction in brain size and intelligence and thus in cranial capacity (particularly those areas relating to alertness and sensory processing, necessary in the wild); and the development of a pronounced "stop", or vertical drop in front of the forehead (brachycephaly)." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog)

Quote from: PaleoPhil
Are you arguing that brain size started declining precipitously exactly 35k years ago, whereas plant foods were not a significant part of human diets until at least 30k years ago, therefore making a connection impossible? What change do you posit suddenly occurred 35k years ago that accounts for decreasing brain size since that time and what reason for the critical certainty regarding that precise millenium?

Starting Points of Increased Plant Food Consumption vs. Brain Size Decline in the Upper Paleolithic

Tyler wrote: "First of all, it's pretty clear that Barry Groves just arbitrarily picked that 30,000 figure [for the start of increased plant foods in the diet] out of thin air."

I'm not inclined to believe that accusation based solely on your say-so. It's quite a coincidence that Clive Gamble picked the same figure for the approximate end of the Middle Paleolithic and Carnivore Guild. Apparently I'm expected to believe that he too picked it "out of thin air"? Isn't it more likely that Groves read about it somewhere, as I did, and was just repeating what he read?

Tyler wrote: "So far, there is no reason to assume that plant-eating suddenly expanded around that time, given the available evidence. ... There are plenty of other explanations. One could be that humans were no longer subject to natural selection by that stage, thus not being selected by nature for higher IQ. Another explanation I gave earlier is that some areas(eg:- frontal lobe) may have expanded while other areas contracted much more, being less "essential". Also, the very minor -3% figure is substantially less than the -8% figure so it is much more likely to be due to non-dietary factors than the larger -8% figure."

These speculations are interesting, but I'm not assuming anything is correct without evidence. So which do you propose to be the main factors in brain decline that started at your chosen 35k ya figure, or any other figure you may choose (75k ya was another figure cited in a source I found today), and what evidence do you have to support it?

Do you not find it an interesting coincidence that human brain size reached its peak during the Carnivore Guild and declined most dramatically during the Neolithic? At the very least, it would seem that meat eating does not guarantee brain shrinkage and plant eating does not guarantee avoiding it.

Tyler wrote: "...the main transition to plant-foods only started c.20,000 years ago when the Mesolithic era started in the Middle-East. Granted, it took even longer for plant-foods to be introduced into other regions. But the point is that 30,000(or 40,000 or further) years for plant-foods is way too much, given the scientific data."

Thanks for those specifics, do you have any data to support this? Your more recent figure for transition to more plant foods in the diet would seem to suggest that we may be even less adapted to plants than the 30,000-40,000 figures would suggest, yes?

Here is some more evidence I found that uses your 35,000 ybp figure for brain-size decline and correlates it with decreased animal foods:

Quote
Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism: What was humanity's original, natural diet? A 3-Part Visit with Ward Nicholson
Part 1: Setting the Scientific Record Straight on Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets

(LAST UPDATED 3/24/2000)
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1f.shtml

Human brain size since the late Paleolithic has decreased in tandem with decreasing contribution of animal food to diet. In addition, a recent analysis updating the picture of encephalization (relative brain size) changes in humans during our evolutionary history has revealed that human cranial capacity has decreased by 11% in the last 35,000 years, the bulk of it (8%) in the last 10,000 [Ruff, Trinkaus, and Holliday 1997]. Eaton [1998] notes that this correlates well with decreasing amounts of animal food in the human diet during this timeframe. (Of particular relevance here is that most of this decrease in animal foods correlates with the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago.)

However, here is another source that muddies the waters for both of us, citing peak brain size at 75k ybp and pointing to social changes as well as increased foraging (in other words, increased plant and small-animal foods) to explain it.

Quote
Rambling Road to Humanity: Anthropologists debunk another myth of evolutionary progress
Scientific American
Corey S. Powell and W. Wayt Gibbs, staff writers
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=50889

Hominid brains appear to have remained fairly constant in size for a very long stretch from 1.8 million years ago until about 600,000 years ago--a "period of stasis" whose reality has long been debated by scientists. An abrupt break occurred during the Middle Pleistocene epoch (from 600,000 to 150,000 years before the present), when fossils show that the cranial capacity of our ancestors skyrocketed. This trend peaked roughly 75,000 years ago, when archaic Homo sapiens fossils (a category that includes the well-known Neanderthals) indicate a brain mass of about 1,440 grams. Since then, brain mass has actually drifted downward to the 1,300 grams that is typical today.

Brain size alone does not tell the whole story, of course. Intelligence seems to have less to do with brain size per se than with the brain's proportion to the body it must care for and control (and even that link is rather tenuous). Here, too, the results of the Nature paper are telling. Over the nearly two-million-year span that Ruff and his co-authors examined, ancient hominids were on average about 10 percent more massive than modern humans. Body size peaked about 50,000 years ago: Neanderthals were muscular brutes who weighed upwards of a quarter more than modern humans. Since that time, humans have been marching steadily downhill in both stature and cranial capacity (with the exception of some recent gains due to improved nutrition and reduced disease). The good news is that the steeper decline in body mass over the past 50,000 years has raised our ratio of brain to body above Neanderthal levels, even though total brain mass has dipped.

...

In considering the new reconstructions of Homo over the past 90,000 years, Kappelman is struck less by the roughly constant brain size than by the rapid decrease in body size, which runs quite counter to the earlier steady or upward trends. He suggests that this decrease in overall bulk was favored "by a social structure that relied on more cooperative foraging and better communication skills." At the same time, a better and more reliable food supply could support the metabolic demands of a large brain. "The increase in relative brain size of modern humans may then be, in part, an effect of selection for smaller body mass," Kappelman rather ignominiously concludes.

So this is what it has come to. The favored son of the Garden of Eden has been demoted to the incredible shrinking human.

The following evidence of the deleterious effects of plant foods shows that where Weston Price erred was in underestimating the importance of animal meats/fats and the damage that even somewhat older Neolithic plant foods (and I would add raw dairy) do:

"The following 2 websites go on about the gradual decrease in height of (pre-1769)Maori skeletons, over the centuries, as they turned to eating grains, including a few mentions of frequent stomach-tumours in the Maori population, and the excessive wearing of teeth, especially molars, due to consumption of plant foods. They do have one or two nice things to say about Maori health, but mostly they mention the low rate of life-expectancy(25-30 years), the low fertility, the high susceptibility to disease etc in pre-colonial times:-

http://tinyurl.com/gs5oy

http://tinyurl.com/kk5vu"

--Geoff Purcell
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rawpaleodiet/message/1107
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #179 on: September 07, 2009, 06:01:55 am »
Look, Weston Price was never properly scrutinised re scientific evidence. He just baldly stated his views and claims, and  chose the best photos he had. Here's a link which points out how Price invented a very dubious theory(focal infection theory) which was duly proven to be false(something similiar happened to Stefansson whose Blond Eskimo theory was attacked for being fraudulent and later proven to be wrong):-

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

The fact is Price as shown above ignored such data as the high infant mortality among tribes. Plus he seems to have visited a hell of a lot of tribes(implying very strongly that he didn't stay long enough to actually properly observe each one. Is there any data re how long he actually spent doing his trip? I can't remember.


Quote
Do you have counter-evidence to this? As I've said before, unsupported claims made with certainty, based solely on one's say-so, raise my suspicion-meter more than anything. Even if we grant that Weston Price was a "total fraud" based solely on your say-so, then what about the similar findings of Jared Diamond, Tanchou, Stefansson, Washburn, Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg, etc. re: the superior health and morphology of people eating more traditional/ancestral diets, including Cordain on malocclusion based on observational evidence and bones and fossils? Do you have evdince to show that all of it worthless?

I've already shown that Weston Price is/was viewed as a fraud. As for the others, it's one thing when Cordain and a few others claim SOME health benefits for people on more ancestral diets(but admit that health wasn't necessarily ideal), it's quite another thing when Weston-Price and the WAPF claim universal health for any native tribe  on ancestral diets. Plus, Price never explained the fact that many native tribes died out, not from switching to western diets, but because they suddenly got infections from Westerners re diseases to which their immune-systems were not adapted to - so much for the notion that native diets protect against all or most disease.

Quote
I already agreed with you that cooking is a factor in malocclusion. Based on the accumulating evidence, the types of foods eaten appear to be an even more important factor in malocclusion. Sorry, but I find your dismissals of such unconvincing.

Well, I think we can agree that malocclusion is caused by cooked foods in general, exacerbated by grains etc.
Quote
Your suggestion that smaller dogs are less intelligent than larger dogs would appear to also argue against increases in brain size and intelligence from selected neoteny, as "toy" dogs like chihuahuas are reportedly the most severely neotenized of all breeds. As Budiansky reportedly argued: "Toy dogs often display an extreme level of neoteny, resembling not just infant, but fetal wolves." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny, sourcing  Budiansky, Stephen, 1999, The Covenant of the Wild: Why animals chose domestication. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300079931), whereas the Alaskan breeds and large shepherd dogs are considered to be some of the least changed breeds from wild ancestors:

The problem is this:- tiny dogs/toy dogs are deliberately heavily inbred to acquire certain unnatural characteristics which may even restrict breathing, create permanent headaches etc(read the news on cruft's dog show being forced to tighten breeding laws becasue of this). So, any benefit they got from neoteny would be cancelled out by the increased degree of inbreeding over the millenia, and the (negative) selection of genetic traits which did not favour intelligence.

*Caveat*:- When I related my personal experience, I forgot 1 obvious matter:- Tiny dogs not only have much smaller brains overall than larger dogs(weight for weight), but they might well be more intelligent than might be expected for their size. So, a chihuahua might not be as intelligent as a wolf-like malamute but more intelligent in relation to its brain-weight, if you see what I mean.
Quote
I agree that technology such as hunting weapons likely also contributed to neoteny and the evidence suggests that the causes of brain growth were multifactorial, of which dietary change in types of foods eaten was an important one. I find your dismissals of dietary contributions unconvincing. I find evidence more convincing than opinions.

The evidence in favour of diet(or against diet for that matter) is hardly solid, and still very weak on both sides. I was referring simply to the fact that since wild animals easily gain bigger brains(in proportion to body size) without needing to vastly expand their meat-intake in the diet, that dietary explanations are rather weak, by contrast.

Quote
I don't see increases in the periods of frail childhood dependency on adults as a "good sign" of physical health. It seems more a sign of increasing physical degeneration compensated for by increasingly complex social structures and other adaptations (such as technology). Arguing that the necessity of extended childhood is a "good sign" is like arguing that myopia is a good sign because it inspired ingenuity in the development of vision correction technologies.

There are various benefits:- first of all, being a teenager hardly involves total dependence on parents(most teenagers in tribal cultures are already given work and have adulthood rites around puberty). The point is that being a teenager allowed them more time to learn more complex technology/social practices etc. There's certainly no reason to assume that being a teenager was harmful. The teenage phase seems to have gone hand in hand with the extension of human lifespan, hardly a bad thing. Plus, teenagehood prevented pregnancy to a large extent due to 2 reasons, thus allowing people to learn before starting a family.


Quote
I'd be interested in it. As for difficult births (dystocia), they are rare among hunter gatherers, particularly the more carnivorous ones, indicating once again the critical importance of the types of foods eaten:
So a more carnivorous diet appears to have not only contributed to the development of larger brains and bodies in humans, but also better enabled the birthing of these larger-brained children than modern diets.

Unreferenced. Difficult births occur in all tribes, hardly being insignificant. And Inuit certainly don't have lower rates of difficult births by comparison to others.

Quote
Are you implying from your remarks on sulsification that the Neolithic diet is superior to the Paleolithic diet with regards to effects on the brain? I've noticed that the vast majority of your posts are positive about the raw aspect of RPD, but rarely the Paleo aspect. Do you believe in the healthiness of Paleo, or just of raw nondairy, nongrain, nonlegume? In other words, do you think that the Paleo diet was overall superior to the Neolithic diet, including Paleo's higher levels of meats and animal fats and lower-glycemic wild plants, or just certain aspects of Paleo (such as no dairy, grain, legumes or additives)?

Absolutely. I'm simply stating that even if the Neolithic had some bad effects that it is possible that humans compensated for the negatives with some positives. I mean, we may have consumed grains in the Neolithic, but we still produced Beethoven etc.!



Quote
Of course brain size isn't the only factor in intelligence, when evolutionary biologists speak of the increasing intelligence of hominids as brain size increased, that does not mean they are attributing intelligence solely to brain size. As regards the Inuit and other HGs, Jared Diamond actually has argued that HGs like those of Papua New Guinea are probably more intelligent ON AVERAGE than moderners. Whether Diamond is right or wrong about that, moderners will always win any intelligence competition because there are 6+ billion of them vs. 300,000 HGs by the last estimate I saw--so the odds of moderners producing exceptional geniuses are far greater on the basis of sheer volume. The fact that HGs who are still eating their traditional diet don't tend to participate in activities that lead to Nobel Prizes and Mensa memberships is of course another factor revealing the Nobel/Mensa argument to be a nonsensical canard.

I seriously doubt Jared's absurd claim re NG tribes. One would expect them to have achieved more if their IQ really was higher than anyone else's. Their social restrictions are far less nowadays(I mean Inuit have their own nation, for example, in Canada). So, one can only conclude that if their IQ was indeed higher that it could only be of a very insignificant nature, not like, say, the difference between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon. *added*Anyway, there are so many other flaws in Jared's work that that NG-based theory is also likely to be bonkers.



Quote
Starting Points of Increased Plant Food Consumption vs. Brain Size Decline in the Upper Paleolithic

Tyler wrote: "First of all, it's pretty clear that Barry Groves just arbitrarily picked that 30,000 figure [for the start of increased plant foods in the diet] out of thin air."

I'm not inclined to believe that accusation based solely on your say-so. It's quite a coincidence that Clive Gamble picked the same figure for the approximate end of the Middle Paleolithic and Carnivore Guild. Apparently I'm expected to believe that he too picked it "out of thin air"? Isn't it more likely that Groves read about it somewhere, as I did, and was just repeating what he read?
I guess, but the Groves reference was the first 1 I'd ever heard in all my years of reading about the palaeolithic. Plus, there are rather too many references to large amounts of meat-eating c.23,000 years ago  in many places, for me to give much credence to the theory.

Thanks for those specifics, do you have any data to support this? Your more recent figure for transition to more plant foods in the diet would seem to suggest that we may be even less adapted to plants than the 30,000-40,000 figures would suggest, yes?

Quote
Here is some more evidence I found that uses your 35,000 ybp figure for brain-size decline and correlates it with decreased animal foods:

That above statement is very vague and doesn't seem to take into account the Mesolithic era at all. Given that grain-consumption started c.20,000 years ago in the Near East, the whole of that could be attributable to the decrease in brain-size. Plus, it is pointed out that body-size decreased in tandem with brain-size in that era.  The key to IQ is the ratio of brain- to body size, not just brain-size, so there is no possible claim that cro-magnon were brighter than us. Indeed, it is entirely possible that civilisation vastly improved IQ via sulsification or other methods. Indeed, I sometimes strongly wonder if the decrease in brain-size in the neolithic was not due to neolithic foods but the result of some other compensation(eg:- thickening of the frontal lobes, thus not needing a bigger brain). After all, the Neanderthals had bigger brains than cro-magnon, and didn't survive, despite this.



Quote
The following evidence of the deleterious effects of plant foods shows that where Weston Price erred was in underestimating the importance of animal meats/fats and the damage that even somewhat older Neolithic plant foods (and I would add raw dairy) do

I see you've accepted that Price wasn't too reliable.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2010, 08:15:42 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

William

  • Guest
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #180 on: September 07, 2009, 07:37:54 am »


There are various benefits:- first of all, being a teenager hardly involves total dependence on parents(most teenagers in tribal cultures are already given work and have adulthood rites around puberty). The point is that being a teenager allowed them more time to learn more complex technology/social practices etc. There's certainly no reason to assume that being a teenager was harmful. The teenage phase seems to have gone hand in hand with the extension of human lifespan, hardly a bad thing. Plus, teenagehood prevented pregnancy to a large extent due to 2 reasons, thus allowing people to learn before starting a family.




The English church records show that there were no teenagers before the industrial revolution.
Everyone married at the ripe old age of 13, and first childbirth was at 16.

I haven't seen records from elsewhere, but I would bet  it was the same.

Much better than the present system.

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #181 on: September 07, 2009, 03:18:58 pm »


Hnmm, that's at least a bit more original than the notion that carnivores are supposedly superior to other humans re hunting instincts or whatever. I'm amused that you should consider that carbs make one think too much - well, perhaps the meat-DHA/brain theory is wrong and eating carbs caused our ancestors' brains to grow!

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 still think a carb based diet makes humans over think. I don't see whats so amusing about this idea. I think you just rushed through my post and argued what you felt like arguing about.

I also agree that cooked carb based diets do cause depression etc and I would also include 'thinking too much' as a disorder.

“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #182 on: September 07, 2009, 05:02:08 pm »
The English church records show that there were no teenagers before the industrial revolution.
Everyone married at the ripe old age of 13, and first childbirth was at 16.

I haven't seen records from elsewhere, but I would bet  it was the same.

Much better than the present system.

Nonsense, of course. Physically, they were teenagers, regardless of early marriage. Humans don't mature physically until much later(women at the age of 20 when their hips widen and men c. the age of 18(if one doesn't count very minor growth in the early 20s for some people)).
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #183 on: September 07, 2009, 05:05:07 pm »
I still think a carb based diet makes humans over think. I don't see whats so amusing about this idea. I think you just rushed through my post and argued what you felt like arguing about.

I also agree that cooked carb based diets do cause depression etc and I would also include 'thinking too much' as a disorder.

The depression-issue seems more caused by lack of bacteria than carbs. Bacteria have been directly linked to improvement in moood after all.

As far as "thinking too much", I don't see how that is the same as "depression" - quite a different concept, entirely. Plus, there might be a benefit to the disadvantage (eg:- increased rate of thinking leading to more advanced cultures versus a rise in depression - who knows?)
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #184 on: September 07, 2009, 05:09:35 pm »
I didn't have the time to fully address 1 issue that Paleophil claimed. It's actually well-known that death in childbirth was endemic in the Palaeolithic. In fact, one reason why female average lifespan was 5.4 years lower than the male average lifespan during the Palaeolithic was because of this factor. When one considers that males were prone to deaths during hunting etc., one can see that the number of deaths from childbirth was pretty high. As for claims re ease of childbirth of zero-carb diets, I have yet to see any real evidence of that.

Here's a link with quote:-

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml

"Paleolithic females died younger than males due to the stresses of pregnancy and childbirth while still carrying the burdens of food-collecting and moving camp. "
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

carnivore

  • Guest
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #185 on: September 07, 2009, 06:21:28 pm »
The depression-issue seems more caused by lack of bacteria than carbs. Bacteria have been directly linked to improvement in moood after all.

Interesting. Do you have any reference/links about the relation between bacteria and mood ?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #186 on: September 07, 2009, 06:58:10 pm »
Interesting. Do you have any reference/links about the relation between bacteria and mood ?

Here's a link:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547346/Getting-dirty-could-prevent-depression.html

If you want to read more about the subject, I would suggest you Google under the term "hygiene hypothesis" and you'll find lots more info on the beneficial effects of bacteria re mood-improvement and other matters.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #187 on: September 08, 2009, 04:51:05 am »
I've just read the Wrangham radio link on the NPR channel which was provided for me on the (mainly cooked) paleofoood mailing list. He was advertising his new book and what was not promising was that he mainly just recycled all the stuff he wrote before(ie such ludicrous claims that humans need to chew raw meat for 5.7 to 6.2 hours every day in order to get enough calories/energy. Similiarly he gets away with deliberate distortions such as claiming that a study showed raw foodist women losing their ability to menstruate. Unfortunately, this study focused on raw vegans so the loss of menstruation is far more likely to be due to nutritional deficiencies on a vegan diet(raw or cooked) than due to cooking as a 100% fruit/veg diet cannot supply all the nutrients humans need(they're not "complete" foods).

The 1 good thing is that he very grudgingly acknowledges the existence of Maillard products, the heat-created toxins in cooked foods. He makes an unsupported claim that we must be adapted to them(despite 1000s od studies proving the exact opposite) but at least admits that the large loads of such heat-created toxins in cooked foods far outweigh in amounts the tiny natural trace amounts of AGEs in the human body.He was forced to listen to a caller who pointed out how such Maillard products are heavily implicated in aging. But the main thing is that scientific concensus now accepts that well-cooked foods, especially well-cooked animal foods are harmful to human health(because of those toxins), so that the pro-cooked-food argument is already half-lost.

Oh, and he made the usual dud claim that all health benefits gained on a raw foodist diet are solely down to weight-loss due to supposedly not being able to digest raw foods very well. That is just laughable.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #188 on: September 08, 2009, 05:18:18 am »
Wrangham also makes an unusual admission. While trying to claim that cooked foods are better digested, he claims that the more highly processed/softer a food becomes the easier it gets digested, and so he claims that modern obesity is the result of eating (highly) processed cooked foods which are too easily digested. This is , of course, ridiculous as an idea, and, indeed, there are many reasons as to why the more highly processed a food becomes the LESS digestible it becomes, but I can see why wrangham makes that claim - after all, Wrangham is well aware of the health claims of raw foodists and he (wrongly) assumes that weight-loss is the central main claim of raw vegans, so he tries to explain away the fact that eating cooked foods leads to obesity as people would normally  logically assume that any diet leading to obesity must be unhealthy as well.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline fwadmin

  • Administrator
  • Scavenger
  • *****
  • Posts: 27
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #189 on: September 08, 2009, 09:02:28 am »
Hi Tyler,

Just testing the auto email notification of the forum.

Did you get an auto reply in your mailbox?

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #190 on: September 08, 2009, 11:04:05 am »
Unreferenced. Difficult births occur in all tribes, hardly being insignificant. And Inuit certainly don't have lower rates of difficult births by comparison to others.

Actually, I have accumulated quite a bit of evidence and anecdotal reports of relatively easy childbirths on hunter-gatherer-type diets.

I'll post new threads on this and other topics, so your journal doesn't get too sidetracked.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

carnivore

  • Guest
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #191 on: September 08, 2009, 02:21:18 pm »
Wrangham also makes an unusual admission. While trying to claim that cooked foods are better digested, he claims that the more highly processed/softer a food becomes the easier it gets digested, and so he claims that modern obesity is the result of eating (highly) processed cooked foods which are too easily digested. This is , of course, ridiculous as an idea, and, indeed, there are many reasons as to why the more highly processed a food becomes the LESS digestible it becomes, but I can see why wrangham makes that claim - after all, Wrangham is well aware of the health claims of raw foodists and he (wrongly) assumes that weight-loss is the central main claim of raw vegans, so he tries to explain away the fact that eating cooked foods leads to obesity as people would normally  logically assume that any diet leading to obesity must be unhealthy as well.

And obesity is not caused by too much nutrients. It is more a state of undernourishment, where the body is craving because nutrients in food are all diverted to fat storage (insulin too high).

Wrangram is dead wrong on everything he says. He has probably never eaten raw meat in his life. I am just surprised that intelligent people like the MD on Paleonu believes in these craps.


Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #192 on: September 08, 2009, 04:18:06 pm »
Hi Tyler,

Just testing the auto email notification of the forum.

Did you get an auto reply in your mailbox?

Yup!
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #193 on: September 10, 2009, 03:59:32 am »
I've been thinking . The Inuit tribes are usually described as  only eating 96%-99% animal foods in their diet(some must presumably be eating fermented stomach-contents(ie plant-matter) of caribou etc.. So, perhaps over the generations, they've adapted to at least very small amounts of carbs, whereas people new to ZC diets have greater difficuly adding back carbs. It's just a thought.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #194 on: September 20, 2009, 08:27:22 pm »
One thing I've noticed in recent months is that, for me anyway, eating raw meats with any spices(however raw or organic) invariably results in quicker bowel movements(ie roughly  1 a day) whereas eating raw meats on their own leads to bowel movements only every 2 days or so (every 3 days if whole-day fasting practised).
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Tiger

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #195 on: September 29, 2009, 09:32:42 pm »
Tyler, so what do you conclude from that? I know people are encouraged to drop the spices on other carnivore forums, but I believe that's because spices increases the appetite, I did do that when I wanted to lose weight, but now I don't need to lose any further, so I added spices back.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #196 on: September 30, 2009, 12:18:42 am »
Tyler, so what do you conclude from that? I know people are encouraged to drop the spices on other carnivore forums, but I believe that's because spices increases the appetite, I did do that when I wanted to lose weight, but now I don't need to lose any further, so I added spices back.

Well, my guess would be that the meats I ate along with the spices were less well absorbed than the spice-free meats.

I also agree re appetite. I notice that I polish off much more meat when adding spices.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #197 on: September 30, 2009, 09:56:38 am »
Well, my guess would be that the meats I ate along with the spices were less well absorbed than the spice-free meats.

I also agree re appetite. I notice that I polish off much more meat when adding spices.
I've noticed the same things. When I eat any spices or other plant matter with my meats or cook my meats I absorb the food less efficiently, and spices or light cooking enable me to eat more (so I still sometimes use spices if I'm having trouble finishing off some meat). What is your thinking on the mechanisms behind these phenomena?
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #198 on: September 30, 2009, 04:26:49 pm »
I've noticed the same things. When I eat any spices or other plant matter with my meats or cook my meats I absorb the food less efficiently, and spices or light cooking enable me to eat more (so I still sometimes use spices if I'm having trouble finishing off some meat). What is your thinking on the mechanisms behind these phenomena?

Well, obviously, one shouldn't eat plants at the same time as meats. I tend to believe in food-combining rules such as this as right at the start of this diet, when my digestive system was still ruined by years of eating cooked foods, I would have some slight trouble if I ate fruits and meats at the  same time. I needed c. 30 minutes between eating fruit and then meat(preferably in that order, as fruit is more quickly digested than meats).

As for the appetite issue, I simply reckon that the extra spices interfere with our natural instincts abd appetite-regulation  so that we then overeat(as in Instincto doctrine).
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: A day in the life of TylerDurden
« Reply #199 on: October 14, 2009, 05:58:06 pm »
I recently tried some snuff(dried tobacco powder). I hadn't used it ever since going rawpalaeo, until now, as I no longer felt the need(I'd mainly used snuff in pre-rawpalaeo days to clear excess mucus in the nose). However, I was curious to see if I got any other boosting effect from it. Apparently it didn't work.

The reason I mention this is that  I increasingly find it unpleasant to eat cooked animal food as I often vomit it out  up to 30 minutes later. So, my solution when at gatherings involving such fare etc. is to do some other kind of "cheat" that isn't going to affect me much and doesn't harm me in any immediately noticeable way. So, when among smokers, I would take snuff, when among SAD-eaters I would eat cooked plant foods etc.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk