A day in the life of TylerDurden

[TylerDurden]

Yes, it does look like that.
TD, have you considered whether gallbladder/liver function might be different for you? The recent discussion on paleofood list makes me think of this. Apparently someone reacted very badly to cooked fat/butter.
Symptoms vary enough that it's hard to be sure, for instance my symptoms of appendicitis were not the usual ones, made life difficult for a time.

My liver/gall-bladder etc. are fine.Never had an issue with that area.

[TylerDurden]

No, I'm not in minority, as I do better with raw animal protein and fat, but on the other hand I do digest cooked ones quite well, without any stomach aches; but I definitely do better with low-carb than high-carb, and, as I see, most of the people on this forum made major improvements after switching even to cooked low-carb

I've joined many RVAF forums in the past  and can tell you that most reported only very slight improvement to their health-problems while on cooked low-carb diets, like palaeo, before eventually trying raw. That's the unfortunate essential characteristic of a raw-animal-and-vegetable-food diet - people only try it as an absolute  last resort after trying(and failing) with all other diet-combinations, raw or cooked. Still, it does mean that once they get even bigger improvements to their health, that they're more likely to stick with it in the long-term.


*One thing I always remember is being told by a poster who frequently visits people at gatherings for  various diets, especially raw-animal-food-related. He told members that the Instincto(high-raw-plant-food-consumers) were actually the healthiest of those he visited.So, I'm extremely dubious about high-carb being an issue for most people.

[Josh]

It's not cold processed.  I have called the processing company.  they won't tell me what temps it has seen, but will tell you heat has been used.

That's not good! Aiieee! I'd always thought, previously, that Dr Mercola-recommended products of this sort were A-OK.

If it made you feel good, maybe it's not as bad as all that...it's only a spoon or so of oil right?

[wodgina]

That's not good! Aiieee! I'd always thought, previously, that Dr Mercola-recommended products of this sort were A-OK.

Oils/fats go off very quickly unless rendered. All these VCO'c that last more than a day must be heated.

[TylerDurden]

Oils/fats go off very quickly unless rendered. All these VCO'c that last more than a day must be heated.

The Blue Ice cod liver oil I get is definitely 100% raw(no additional anti-oxidants). It used to have an antioxidant or two(artificial vitamin E and rosemary extract, I think), but pressure from the raw food community forced them to abandon those preservatives. Because the cod-liver oil is fermented, its shelf-life is greatly enhanced, anyway.


You see, this is the sort of thing I was going on about, re creating a RVAF community. If we can become big enough to persuade farmers and companies to start some more raw-friendly practices, we all benefit.

[TylerDurden]

If it made you feel good, maybe it's not as bad as all that...it's only a spoon or so of oil right?

Well, I did sometimes get a vague placebo-like effect from taking (processed)supplements pre-raw diet, but this effect is much bigger than those sensations and lasts longer. I suspect they wouldn't heat it too much. I'll have to check, myself, if I have the time. Anyway, I can always fall back on the raw cod liver oil.

[TylerDurden]

By the way, I should mention that, while I do eat lots of raw oysters(20 large ones every 2 weeks) and raw mussels(when in season), they are a nightmare to deal with. You need an oyster-knife for the raw  oysters and a metal walnut-cracker for the raw mussels and it's incredibly easy to cut yourself if you slip the knife or fingers on the shell. I've just opened up my left hand(fortunately not deep enough for any significant blood) as I was opening a raw oyster, and have tiny minor cuts elsewhere on the hands. It doesn't bother me much, personally, but I can imagine it could be a nuisance for others.

[TylerDurden]

The krill-oil does state "cold-extraction" so it sounds as though, if any heat is applied, that the krill oil would still be heated below 40 degrees celsius. On the other hand, I don't like the mention of the lack of "fishy after-taste" as it sounds as though they must process it via heat or whatever.

[PaleoPhil]

By definition, most people turn to raw diets precisely because they do worse on cooked foods than on raw, so you're in a minority. I'll accept a sizeable proportion of raw, zero-carbers given the palaeo nature of this forum, but , taking all raw diets into account(the ones with raw animal foods in them), you'll find, inevitably, that most do OK or fine on raw carbs(if not eaten in truly vast amounts) but do much worse on cooked foods.

Since most of the raw forums are plant-oriented (and I understand that you came from a plant-oriented raw diet, yes?) and since some members also have philosophical reasons for eating mostly or all plants, of course they're going to say bad things about cooked animal foods.

I traversed many low-carb forums and the majority of the people in those forums do better on lightly cooked meats than on raw plant foods, so I'm not so sure who's in the minority and don't really care that much, as the only person's experience that directly affects me is my own. Other people's experiences can provide clues, but the real nitty gritty comes in putting it to the test on myself. That's why I don't suggest you eat pure ZC, because you did not do well on that. I technically don't even do pure ZC myself, since there are some carbs in liver, mussels, etc. (which is why I now term my diet a carnivorous one, to reduce confusion).

Perhaps we should focus less on who's in the minority and more on sharing experience and new information?

[TylerDurden]

Since most of the raw forums are plant-oriented (and I understand that you came from a plant-oriented raw diet, yes?) and since some members also have philosophical reasons for eating mostly or all plants, of course they're going to say bad things about cooked animal foods.

I was specifically referring to raw animal and vegetable diets, not ALL raw diets, so my remark was directly appropriate - most people on RVAF diets(such as the meat-heavy Primal Diet) find cooked foods to be very harmful and only initially  turn to raw animal foods as an absolute last resort because they developed serious health-problems on diets full of cooked animal foods(however lightly cooked) and only going raw solved their health problems fully.  You'll find, again and again, that almost all RVAFers turn to raw animal food diets solely out of health-reasons, not because they have a specific prejudice in favour of raw plant foods(especially since eating raw meat causes social restrictions). They couldn't care less about animal or plant foods they just do what works re getting rid of cancer or whatever. By contrast, when one looks at the accounts of cooked low-carb-dieters, the main motivation isn't so much health-related but  primarily due to a desire to lose weight.

As regards my former Raw Vegan and Fruitarian experiences, they were actually pretty bad so you can't possibly claim I have any special plant-based prejudice therefrom. Indeed, until I became a rawpalaeodieter, I had a strong bias in favour of cooked palaeolithic diets partly because I previously had an absurd romantic notion re the ideal ancestral diet(and no other diet was related to human evolution) and partly because, although I did better on raw vegan diets due to not getting my usual stomach-aches after eating any cooked animal foods, I still was deeply concerned/phobic re getting possible long-term nutritional deficiencies so that I forcibly became a fanatic for supplements to correct any such deficiency. In the end, the only reason why I abandoned the notion of lightly-cooked palaeo/grassfed meats as being ideal for me was because of the health-problems I got from eating such fare, so that I was forced to go raw vegan, initially, despite my misgivings re PETA etc etc.

There is another reason, though, why I am convinced of the great harm of cooked animal foods as opposed to raw carbs:- when one looks at the general health-descriptions of the various Dr.Price-inspired native tribes, one finds that their general health isn't considerably different from each other(and hardly spectacular when one takes exercise/caloric restriction etc. into account), despite the fact that some ate much higher levels of carbs than others. So, my reading is that human health must have been even higher in pre-advent-of-fire days, and that the issue of raw is the most important factor.

[PaleoPhil]

...By contrast, when one looks at the accounts of cooked low-carb-dieters, the main motivation isn't so much health-related but  primarily due to a desire to lose weight.

Yes, and I think that's one reason why some end up making the mistake of sticking with dairy and cooked foods, because they lose some weight on it and just assume it's healthy because of that.

There are also many exceptions to doing LC to lose weight, such as Taubes, Ray Audette, Lex, Vonderplanitz (who went raw first and then VLC and was actually trying to gain weight) and myself.

As regards my former Raw Vegan and Fruitarian experiences, they were actually pretty bad so you can't possibly claim I have any special plant-based prejudice therefrom.

I didn't mean you, I meant the forums you were referring to--but you explained that you specifically meant the ones that eat flesh--thanks for that clarification.

There is another reason, though, why I am convinced of the great harm of cooked animal foods as opposed to raw carbs:- when one looks at the general health-descriptions of the various Dr.Price-inspired native tribes, one finds that their general health isn't considerably different from each other(and hardly spectacular when one takes exercise/caloric rerstriction etc. into account), despite the fact that some ate much higher levels of carbs than others. So, my reading is that human health must have been even higher in pre-advent-of-fire days, and that the issue of raw is the most important factor.

Interesting hypothesis. So you think that even the %30 or less of the Inuit diet that was allegedly cooked by the Inuit during the last century is probably enough to seriously affect their health? At what % of cooking do you think the harm becomes substantial?

If your hypothesis is correct, then we should see serious deleterious changes in human health and morphology begin in the paleoanthropological record around when cooking began, and the decline should be much more drastic than that of the onset of the neolithic, yes? Have you searched for the evidence yet?

[TylerDurden]

There are also many exceptions to doing LC to lose weight, such as Taubes, Ray Audette, Lex, Vonderplanitz (who went raw first and then VLC and was actually trying to gain weight) and myself.

I don't think one can cite Aajonus as LC. He advocates a diet of 5% raw fruit and 25% raw vegetable juices(oh, and he also recommends a few raw nuts and lots and lots of raw honey as well).

Interesting hypothesis. So you think that even the %30 or less of the Inuit diet that was allegedly cooked by the Inuit during the last century is probably enough to seriously affect their health? At what % of cooking do you think the harm becomes substantial?

If your hypothesis is correct, then we should see serious deleterious changes in human health and morphology begin in the paleoanthropological record around when cooking began, and the decline should be much more drastic than that of the onset of the neolithic, yes? Have you searched for the evidence yet?

Where did you get the 30% cooked figure for the Inuit? I'm curious as I never once read a specifically mentioned figure, just an assertion that the Inuit diet was partially raw(I assumed 50% raw/50% cooked, or maybe a little less raw).

Re percentage of cooking:-I'd agree that 30% of the diet cooked would not be healthy but  it's difficult to say as to what the minimum percentage is re serious harm. I mean, AGEs in the body in any amount, however small, cause a slight amount of damage re inflammation, however tiny. The body seems to have an ability to deal with the tiny, natural traces of AGEs in the body, but there's no evidence, as yet, to show that the human body can handle significantly higher amounts.

Re studies done on harm done by cooking:- There is, unsurprising little data on the subject. Indeed Wrangham and a very few other scientists have been desperately trying to prove the opposite. But there is 1 study which shows at least a sign of the overall damage. Here's the study showing that human teeth were ruined by cooking(with the assertion that eventually we'll be reduced to drinking from straws or some such in a hundred thousand years or whatever):-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7035-human-dental-chaos-linked-to-evolution-of-cooking.html

It's interesting to note in the article  that wild animals don't have the malocclusion we (and our Palaeo) ancestors had. It also shows that cooking, over time, can impact on us DNA-wise(for example , AGEs are known to damage DNA). There are also links made between heterocyclic amines(present in smoke and cooked foods) and schizophrenia, among other mental illnesses such as Alzheimer's etc.(eg:-

http://journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/Abstract/1995/01000/Schizophrenia,_smoking,_and_smog.11.aspx

)

There is a claim re cooked foods among the raw crowd, that most of the damage from cooking comes during ones' lifetime such as the notion that we have a supply of enzymes until c.27, after which we start getting issues with digestion if we go on with a cooked diet; and, of course, the build up of AGEs only starts from conception, so that most of the damage re cooking comes usually in later years after a buildup of AGEs(though, as I said, I strongly suspect that the seemingly high rate of birth defects in humans may well be due to cooked food consumption).
By the way, it seems you were right re the wild game animals hunted in mid-palaeolithic era, judging from GS's article. Interesting.

* Another thing - you did relatively recently quote an assertion by Barry Groves a while back re an increase in plant-foods c.30,000 years ago. While I seriously doubt Barry re that claim, I suddenly recalled another article re current scientific evidence clearly indicating a substantial increase in human longevity at around that time:-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040706082820.htm

*1 other thing. I have noted that Eskimos have the largest brains/skulls of all humans. While their all-meat diet has been cited, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that their (until recent) significant quantities of raw meats had more to do with this effect.

[William]

There is a claim re cooked foods among the raw crowd, that most of the damage from cooking comes during ones' lifetime such as the notion that we have a supply of enzymes until c.27, after which we start getting issues with digestion if we go on with a cooked diet; and, of course, the build up of AGEs only starts from conception, so that most of the damage re cooking comes usually in later years after a buildup of AGEs(though, as I said, I strongly suspect that the seemingly high rate of birth defects in humans may well be due to cooked food consumption).

I'm not aware of a date when buildup of AGEs starts, but from the description of the process, which requires the absence of an enzyme, it would be sometime after the body stops making all the enzymes needed.
This time would be at the end of physical growth, usually dated around 30.

The high rate of birth defects in humans would the be due to the recent fashion of late marriage, as old mothers are known to be at greater risk of producing defective  babies. Lack of enzymes, again due to both the body not making all of them and absence in the (cooked) diet.

[TylerDurden]

I'm not aware of a date when buildup of AGEs starts, but from the description of the process, which requires the absence of an enzyme, it would be sometime after the body stops making all the enzymes needed.
This time would be at the end of physical growth, usually dated around 30.

The high rate of birth defects in humans would the be due to the recent fashion of late marriage, as old mothers are known to be at greater risk of producing defective  babies. Lack of enzymes, again due to both the body not making all of them and absence in the (cooked) diet.

AGEs do NOT require the presence or absence of an  enzyme to start damaging the body. This is scientific fact. All one needs is protein and then either carbohydrates or fats. Either will do to start AGE-production.

[William]

AGEs do NOT require an enzyme to start damaging the body.

Correct - it's the lack of the enzyme that is the problem.
When the needed enzyme is present, the sugar and protein combine in a harmless way.

[PaleoPhil]

I was talking about his early days before he added vegetable juice. But even with his vegetable juice, his % of total calories comes out to 11.2% or less of calories, depending on how many calories he eats a day, based on this interview of him

Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant what Aajonus claims as his Primal Diet is 30% raw carbs(not counting raw nuts and raw honey). He recommends a Primal Diet which is very high in raw carbs. Besides, I tend to doubt anything he claims, given that he makes such outrageous statements every so often.

So what is 'low-carb'?

SAD = 49-55% of total calories

Low carb
The Zone low carb diet = 40% of total calories (about 200 grams of carbs)

I'm surprised that this Zone diet can be called low-carb. The usual interpretation is that anything in the 30s or above is "high", not "low". And VLC is anywhere between 0-5 %.

Yes, I know, which is why you'll have a hard time proving it to anyone.

There's already plenty of scientific evidence backing the notion that coooked foods are harmful to human health. The evolution issue will require further scientific research and improved technology, though it's heartening that there are already some studies done on the link between cooked food and the rise of schizophrenia in human evolution etc.. Mind you, it's taken many decades for scientists to work out that dairy is harmful to human health and the reasons why, so give it another 50 to 100 years before we get more data on this.

Although nonhuman primates that eat lots of raw fruits do get significant rates of caries, as was reported multiple times in this forum. In contrast, the caries rates among tarsiers, wolves and big cats is much lower.

Dental caries is quite a different thing from malocclusion and while the former may be carb-related, the latter is clearly cooking-related.

[

Perhaps, but that's also when brain size started shrinking. Longevity is one of the most misleading of health metrics, in my view, and is often pointed to by people promoting awful diets, like vegetarians, raw vegans, the USDA food pyramid, etc. If someone promotes their diet based on longevity, you can almost be assured it is sub-optimal. These folks tend to try to have their cake and eat it too: claiming that longevity is a sign of good health, but that the chronic diseases that accompany it on a modern diet should be ignored. So unless we think that smaller-brained elderly people riddled with chronic disease are healthier than people with bigger brains and denser bones who were free of these diseases even past the age of 60, then we have to look at 30k ybp as a time of significant decline in morphology, increased neoteny, and worsening health, and all these changes accelerated rapidly with the dawn of agriculture about 10k ybp.

Well, a lot of people view increased neoteny as a good sign indicating an increased rate of evolution(re bigger brains to body ratio like infants have etc.) As regards the brain-decline it  occurred somewhat earlier , c.35,000 years ago, not 30,000 years ago, and  it was only -3% then, anyway, by comparison to the -8% found in the Neolithic era. Plus, I have yet to come across any sizeable claims(other than Groves) by palaeoanthropologists etc. claiming a drop in human health before the Mesolithic era.

As regards the longevity issue, the sudden rise in longevity 30,000 years ago  wasn't just a question of living longer, but of including a teenaged- phase(which other primates don't have), so it was a key phase in evolution and somewhat unlikely to have been harmful.Indeed, scientists view it as a key factor behind ensuing Neolithic civilisation etc.

[TylerDurden]

Correct - it's the lack of the enzyme that is the problem.
When the needed enzyme is present, the sugar and protein combine in a harmless way.

This is false. AGEs are harmful regardless of whether enzymes are present or not. Anyway, the whole point is that cooked foods not only contain toxic AGEs but also have their enzymes destroyed as a result of cooking.

[TylerDurden]

Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant what Aajonus claims as his Primal Diet is 30% raw carbs(not counting raw nuts and raw honey). He recommends a Primal Diet which is very high in raw carbs. Besides, I tend to doubt anything he claims, given that he makes such outrageous statements every so often.
I'm surprised that this Zone diet can be called low-carb. The usual interpretation is that anything in the 30s or above is "high", not "low". And VLC is anywhere between 0-5 %.



There's already plenty of scientific evidence backing the notion that cooked foods are harmful to human health. The evolution issue will require further scientific research and improved technology, though it's heartening that there are already some studies done on the link between cooked food and the rise of schizophrenia in human evolution and the collapse in dental health as well . Mind you, it's taken many decades for scientists to work out that dairy is harmful to human health and the reasons why, so give it another 50 to 100 years before we get more data on this.
Dental caries is quite a different thing from malocclusion and while the former may be carb-related, the latter is clearly cooking-related.



Well, a lot of people view increased neoteny as a good sign indicating an increased rate of evolution(re bigger brains to body ratio like infants have etc.) As regards the brain-decline it  occurred somewhat earlier , c.35,000 years ago, not 30,000 years ago, and  it was only -3% then, anyway, by comparison to the -8% found in the Neolithic era. Plus, I have yet to come across any sizeable claims(other than Groves) by palaeoanthropologists etc. claiming a drop in human health before the Mesolithic era.

As regards the longevity issue, the sudden rise in longevity 30,000 years ago  wasn't just a question of living longer, but of including a teenaged- phase(which other primates don't have), so it was a key phase in evolution and somewhat unlikely to have been harmful.Indeed, scientists view it as a key factor behind ensuing Neolithic civilisation etc.

[TylerDurden]

Sorry, Palaeophil, I was trying to modify your previous post because when I clicked the quote button it would only accept part of your answer(due to your entire post being quoted etc.) Anyway, I then started making my full post, and without thinking I clicked the submit button. I should, of course have cut and pasted it into  my next answer. Really sorry about that.

[PaleoPhil]

I'm surprised that this Zone diet can be called low-carb. The usual interpretation is that anything in the 30s or above is "high", not "low". And VLC is anywhere between 0-5 %.

Yeah, it is a bit surprising, but anything below the 49-55% levels of carbs in the SAD tends to get called a low-carb diet, which is why the Zone diet tends to get put in that category. I think Sears claims it's LC too, but I could be wrong on that. For me, Vonderplanitz is not all that LC, but to most people he is extremely so. So it all depends on one's perspective.

There's already plenty of scientific evidence backing the notion that coooked foods are harmful to human health. The evolution issue will require further scientific research and improved technology, though it's heartening that there are already some studies done on the link between cooked food and the rise of schizophrenia in human evolution and the collapse in dental health as well . Mind you, it's taken many decades for scientists to work out that dairy is harmful to human health and the reasons why, so give it another 50 to 100 years before we get more data on this.

Yes, I agree that there is a need for MASSIVE amounts of more research. I'm happy to find another science lover.

Dental caries is quite a different thing from malocclusion and while the former may be carb-related, the latter is clearly cooking-related.

So cooking contributes to malocclusion, but not caries? If we could find a mechanism behind that it might reveal some interesting info, but raw meats seem to actually CLEAN my teeth, whereas cooked meats seem basically neutral to dental cleanliness. So I still suspect that raw meats help with caries as well as occlusion and that carbs (especially grains) contribute to both caries and malocclusion (Weston Price's evidence certainly suggests that).

Well, a lot of people view increased neoteny as a good sign indicating an increased rate of evolution(re bigger brains to body ratio like infants have etc.)

Sorry, but if they think that neoteny is purely good, then they're either ignorant or nuts. Bigger brains is not a sign of neoteny. Show me where anyone says that it is, please. Neoteny means youthful traits in adults. Brains are bigger in adults than youths, so it makes no sense to call that neoteny. Bigger brains is the opposite of neoteny.

As regards the brain-decline it  occurred somewhat earlier , c.35,000 years ago, not 30,000 years ago,

Good grief, I was rounding. Now you're just picking nits.

and  it was only -3% then, anyway, by comparison to the -8% found in the Neolithic era.

Is this supposed to be a disagreement with me? I said that the difference became much more pronounced beginning with the Neolithic, so we agree on this. What say let's not pick fights where we agree?

Plus, I have yet to come across any sizeable claims(other than Groves) by palaeoanthropologists etc. claiming a drop in human health before the Mesolithic era.

That's a good point. We certainly need more data. Right now the focus is on the Neolithic transition around 9-12 thousand years ago. We need more data on the Cro-Magnon transition around 30-35k years ago.

As regards the longevity issue, the sudden rise in longevity 30,000 years ago  wasn't just a question of living longer, but of including a teenaged- phase(which other primates don't have), so it was a key phase in evolution and somewhat unlikely to have been harmful.Indeed, scientists view it as a key factor behind ensuing Neolithic civilisation etc.

As I've stated before, I basically agree with Jared Diamond that the Neolithic adoption of monoagriculture was likely the greatest catastrophe in human history. Maybe it's a bit hyperbolic, but it rings true for me. So trying to convince me that something is good because it resulted in the Neolithic age is like bashing me on the head with a 2x4 and expecting me to like it.

Sorry, Palaeophil, I was trying to modify your previous post because when I clicked the quote button it would only accept part of your answer(due to your entire post being quoted etc.) Anyway, I then started making my full post, and without thinking I clicked the submit button. I should, of course have cut and pasted it into  my next answer. Really sorry about that.

No prob. I tend to get rather sloppy with quotes. My bad.

And thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts. I enjoy scientific debate and exploration to an unnatural degree.

[TylerDurden]

So cooking contributes to malocclusion, but not caries? If we could find a mechanism behind that it might reveal some interesting info, but raw meats seem to actually CLEAN my teeth, whereas cooked meats seem basically neutral to dental cleanliness. So I still suspect that raw meats help with caries as well as occlusion and that carbs (especially grains) contribute to both caries and malocclusion (Weston Price's evidence certainly suggests that).

As far as I'm aware, Dr Price only focused on dental caries, not malocclusion. And the fact that malocclusion existed in (post-cooking) hominids in the Palaeolithic, but does not exist in wild animals is clearly strongly indicative.Another consideration, as shown in the article, is that eating cooked foods, which are softer, leads, on a genetic level, to smaller jaws(but still the same number of teeth) as larger jaws are no longer as needed. So, cooked food either damages teeth over a long period re malocclusion and/or does so via genetics(ie smaller jaws).

Sorry, but if they think that neoteny is purely good, then they're either ignorant or nuts. Bigger brains is not a sign of neoteny. Show me where anyone says that it is, please. Neoteny means youthful traits in adults. Brains are bigger in adults than youths, so it makes no sense to call that neoteny. Bigger brains is the opposite of neoteny.

I'm afraid you're dead wrong re this. Neoteny is indeed referring to youthful traits, but also on a ratio-basis by comparison to overall body-size. So, for example, human babies have a much bigger brain to body size RATIO than adult humans(or other animals) do, so that a bigger brain to body size ratio for an adult is indeed a neotenous trait. Here's a couple of links:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5743.full

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=being-more-infantile

Good grief, I was rounding. Now you're just picking nits.

"Rounding" by as much as 5,000 years(in the more recent Upper Palaeolithic era, no less) is rather extreme, by any standards, LOL! Especially when I've never heard of this supposed carb-increase in diet c.30,000 years ago(except Barry Groves who is somewhat unreliable, to say the least). Now if Barry had made a claim of 20,000 years(for some not all humans), he would at least have a point, otherwise not.Either way, the 5,000 year-difference between a supposed change in diet and a decrease in human brain-size means there is no real link.

[PaleoPhil]

As far as I'm aware, Dr Price only focused on dental caries, not malocclusion.

He examined both. Just look at the photos he took and you'll see plenty of examples of malocclusion on modern diets vs. perfectly straight teeth on traditional diets within the same ethnic groups.

And the fact that malocclusion existed in (post-cooking) hominids in the Palaeolithic, but does not exist in wild animals is clearly strongly indicative.

Thanks for this info. That is suggestive evidence, although there are other possible explanations in addition to, or instead of cooking (though I suspect that cooking is part of the equation): "human hybridization under civilized systems of mating might have adverse effects on occlusion"--in other words, neoteny through sexual selection [source: Malocclusion and civilization], which some of your sources also point to as a factor in brain development.

Well, a lot of people view increased neoteny as a good sign indicating an increased rate of evolution(re bigger brains to body ratio like infants have etc.)

Sorry, but if they think that neoteny is purely good, then they're either ignorant or nuts. Bigger brains is not a sign of neoteny. ....

I'm afraid you're dead wrong re this. Neoteny is indeed referring to youthful traits, but also on a ratio-basis by comparison to overall body-size. So, for example, human babies have a much bigger brain to body size RATIO than adult humans(or other animals) do, so that a bigger brain to body size ratio for an adult is indeed a neotenous trait. Here's a couple of links:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/14/5743.full

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=being-more-infantile

OK, I understand now where you're coming from on the ratio-basis (thanks for the references), and I'll grant that it makes some superficial sense given that smaller dog breeds apparently tend to be more intelligent, but it still doesn't explain everything, given that domesticated (neotenized) dogs have smaller brains than wild dogs and wolves and human neoteny accelerated during the last approx. 35k years at the same time that absolute brain size decreased and the brain/body ratio did not increase (see "The Relationship of Dietary Quality and Gut Efficiency to Brain Size," from "Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date, Are Humans Natural Frugivores/Vegetarians, or Omnivores/Faunivores?" http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4b.shtml). We are more neotenized now (less hair, softer and finer hair, less muscle, finer bones, smaller jaws, flatter faces, more childlike features, longer lactose persistence, longer persistance of lighter-colored eyes such as blue eyes, etc.) than at any time in human history, yet our brains are smaller than Cro Magnon's and proportionately no larger. On my more important and broader initial point, that neoteny is not a purely "good sign," increased brain size is the only improvement you've pointed to, whereas less hair, smaller jaws, less muscle, and finer bones could be seen as negative, so I remain unconvinced of the proposition that neoteny is only "a good sign."

"since neoteny means an extended childhood, you have this greater chance for the brain to develop” --http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=being-more-infantile

Childhood is more extended now than at any point in human history, yet brain size is not rapidly increasing in absolute terms and not dramatically in proportionate terms.

Attributing neoteny solely to selection of behavioral traits and childhood extension and disregarding diet would ignore the fact that rewilding the diet results in reversal of some neotenized traits in humans (and without any reports of reduction in brain size). For example, the Weston Price Foundation has documented dramatic reverals of neoteny in the offspring of highly neotenized adults within a single generation (and on a personal note, when I switched to a Paleo diet, hair started growing on my chest). The children fed more traditional diets than their parents experience less malocclusion, broader and flatter palates, broader jaws and faces, etc. Jared Diamond has even argued in Guns, Germs and Steel that New Guinea hunter gatherers are "genetically superior" in "mental ability" to modern folk. It is a controversial hypothesis, in part because it could be misused to support misguided racist ideology, but given the effects of modern foods on the brain and the benefits on the brain of rewilding the diet (such as elimination of "brain fog"), it is plausible.

"Rounding" by as much as 5,000 years(in the more recent Upper Palaeolithic era, no less) is rather extreme, by any standards, LOL! Especially when I've never heard of this supposed carb-increase in diet c.30,000 years ago(except Barry Groves who is somewhat unreliable, to say the least). Now if Barry had made a claim of 20,000 years(for some not all humans), he would at least have a point, otherwise not.Either way, the 5,000 year-difference between a supposed change in diet and a decrease in human brain-size means there is no real link.

5000 years of rounding in the 2.5 million plus years of human history is the mere blink of an eye. I already granted you the 35k ybp date for approximate initiation of brain size decline, so let's not beat a dead horse over such details unless there is a critical reason for doing so. Are you arguing that brain size started declining 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?

My main sources were Clive Gamble (The Paleolithic Societies of Europe) and Ward Nicholson ("Longevity & health in ancient Paleolithic vs. Neolithic peoples: Not what you may have been told," http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml). I didn't know that Groves also connects the decline in brain size to diet, but thanks for providing another confirming reference. Gamble calls the Middle Paleolithic period the "Carnivore Guild," claiming that human carnivory reached its peak during this period. He roughly estimates this period to have covered around 300,000 to 30,000 years ago (other scientists use different ranges, such as 200,000 to 40,000 years ago, illustrating the rough nature of naming such periods). Part of the reason these figures are rough is that changes occurred in different parts of Europe at different times. To claim that every area of Europe changed dramatically in exactly the same millenium 35k years ago would not be taken seriously by paleoanthropologists, so I'm surprised that you seem to be suggesting that. Please clarify.

[TylerDurden]

He examined both. Just look at the photos he took and you'll see plenty of examples of malocclusion on modern diets vs. perfectly straight teeth on traditional diets within the same ethnic groups.

I strongly suspect Dr Price chose to photograph only those natives who fitted in with his notion of healthy teeth and diet. Any natives with missing teeth etc. were undoubtedly just quietly ignored. And, like I said, malocclusion is also a feature of smaller human jaws vis-a-vis the number of human teeth, so cooking certainly did harm human jaws.

OK, I understand now where you're coming from on the ratio-basis (thanks for the references), and I'll grant that it makes some superficial sense given that smaller dog breeds apparently tend to be more intelligent, but it still doesn't explain everything, given that domesticated (neotenized) dogs have smaller brains than wild dogs and wolves and human neoteny accelerated during the last approx. 35k years at the same time that absolute brain size decreased and the brain/body ratio did not increase

I rather doubt that smaller dogs are more intelligent. I've lived for years around people with dogs of all kinds, and the stupidest ones tended to be the most artificially-bred like boxers, and certainly the really tiny dogs like chihuahuas were at or very near the bottom of the IQ scale, for sure. On the other hand, I was deeply impressed by the IQ of Alaskan Malamutes/Caucasian Shepherd dog/St Bernards etc. which are very large dogs.

We are more neotenized now (less hair, softer and finer hair, less muscle, finer bones, smaller jaws, flatter faces, more childlike features, longer lactose persistence, longer persistance of lighter-colored eyes such as blue eyes, etc.) than at any time in human history, yet our brains are smaller than Cro Magnon's and proportionately no larger.

On my more important and broader initial point, that neoteny is not a purely "good sign," increased brain size is the only improvement you've pointed to, whereas less hair, smaller jaws, less muscle, and finer bones could be seen as negative, so I remain unconvinced of the proposition that neoteny is only "a good sign."

Weaker muscles/bones meant greater dependence on technology(eg:- flints/spears) for hunting etc. which most certainly helped lead to human civilisation, later on. Plus, I already mentioned the extended childhood as a benefit(re providing grandparents to care for offspring. Less hair means better adaptation to water re swimming.

Childhood is more extended now than at any point in human history, yet brain size is not rapidly increasing in either absolute or proportionate terms.

I would disagree. It's already well-known that human births are much more difficult than animal births given the large skulls of human infants passing through the birth-canal. So, it is extremely unlikely that human brains could develop past a certain point(the Cro-Magnon) without problems occurring(ie gigantic head on spindly body like those mutants featured in 1950s science fiction books). So, instead of brain-size being a factor, people are being educated for longer which compensates for the lack of increase in the former. Plus, I've heard vaguely of the issue of "sulsification", which means that the brain can have more surface-area due to fissuring, and various smaller areas of the brain(frontal lobes) might be more concentrated/enlarged in Neolithic man despite smaller overall brain-size, say,  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.

Attributing neoteny solely to selection of behavioral traits and childhood extension and disregarding diet would ignore the fact that rewilding the diet results in reversal of some neotenized traits in humans (and without any reports of reduction in brain size). For example, the Weston Price Foundation has documented dramatic reverals of neoteny in the offspring of highly neotenized adults within a single generation (and on a personal note, when I switched to a Paleo diet, hair started growing on my chest). The children fed more traditional diets than their parents experience less malocclusion, broader and flatter palates, broader jaws and faces, etc. Jared Diamond has even argued in Guns, Germs and Steel that New Guinea hunter gatherers are "genetically superior" in "mental ability" to modern folk. It is a controversial hypothesis, in part because it could be misused to support misguided racist ideology, but given the effects of modern foods on the brain and the benefits on the brain of rewilding the diet (such as elimination of "brain fog"), it is plausible.

 I seriously doubt most of Weston-Price's claims. He was a total fraud who cherry-picked his data to make sure no "inconvenient" statistics entered into his report. And, I also have good reason for seriously doubting the influence of diet on the brain. For one thing, many animals have developed larger brains(IQ not just brain-size) via evolution without ever requiring a meat-based diet. A far more likely explanation is the idea that tool-use gradually expanded the size of the hominid brain over time. But there are so many theories re this issue.

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?

First of all, it's pretty clear that Barry Groves just arbitrarily picked that 30,000 figure out of thin air. So far, there is no reason to assume that plant-eating suddenly expanded around that time, given the available evidence.Secondly, there is far more scientific scrutiny of the Upper Palaeolithic period(well up to 40,000 years), re more precise dating techniques etc.,  than there is of earlier periods, so that being 5,000 years out is a bit much(especially when one considers that a great deal more happened to mankind in the last 60,000 years than in previous millenia).

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.

To claim that every area of Europe changed dramatically in exactly the same millenium 35k years ago would not be taken seriously by paleoanthropologists, so I'm surprised that you seem to be suggesting that. Please clarify.

  I'm perfectly well aware that there are different rates of transition. For example, it's known that many tribes in Northern Europe didn't even switch to Neolithic diets until many thousands of years into the Neolithic era. The point is, though, that 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.

[TylerDurden]

Finally managed to get a great source of suet, marrow and tongue(despite being told by the previous stall-holder that they didn't have any such items). Thank God.

[wodgina]

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 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