Author Topic: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results  (Read 23930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline balancing-act

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2011, 05:58:34 am »
We're all living guinea pigs. I'm still loving tons of fruit. I can't possibly fathom zero carb. Fruit is incredibly delicious for a reason, as I see it. Persimmons are currently in season.

Dorothy, so you're doing more of a variety than red meat now? What are your staples? I've been doing mostly red meat- been thinking it's time to mix in some variety. I don't like chicken or really eggs either, though. I like pork. Fish I'll do at some point... fish doesn't last very long in the fridge, though, does it? It's kind of a logistical difficulty for me, as I live way out in the country, far from a market.
Interested in deep political matters? www.rigorousintuition.ca

Offline billy4184

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2011, 11:09:19 am »
Dorothy, I will be trying a lot of things out too! I don't however believe that humans were meant to eat a LOT of meat (and consequently fat) because then we would have been given the means to obtain and utilise this kind of fuel (razor sharp claws, big muscles for bringing down prey, fangs, and a very short gut, to name a few). Since we share something like 99% genes with the chimp, which eats a LOT of plants and fishes for ants and bugs, and does occasionally capture larger prey, this seems about right to me.
HIT_it_RAW  there is precious little information on hunter-gatherers of any kind, but Australia and Africa are pretty close to the tropics. The Bushmen and the Aboriginals both eat a lot of plants and fibre. I also don't think an ice age diet is an optimal one, but as I said earlier, the human body can run pretty well on a variety of diets.
Tyler, I think that if you counted useable calories, meat might account for a sizeable part of the diet. I think the Aboriginals ate a lot of very fibrous, low calorie plants and did get around 100g per day. Nuts were also a big source of energy especially for the Bushmen but I don't want all the phytic acid when I'm trying to fix up my teeth.
Balancing_Act I really like fruit. My breakfast is mainly fruit, but after that I keep it to a minimum because of my teeth and the fact that all the sugar doesn't make me feel so good.

Eating raw plants has NEVER made me feel sluggish, but I had some spaghetti yesterday and I felt like I had a big ball of indigestible goo inside me. Yuck! Won't be doing that again!

Cheers
"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell." Buddha

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2011, 03:36:10 pm »
Wine, pizzas and macaronis made me feel very good!  ;)
that is a very strange post coming from you. You're 20+ years raw instincto with no cheating right? You instinctly feel what's good and what's bad for you and still even though you supposedly haven't had any in decades pizza makes you feel good? I'm sorry iquana but this really makes me doubt your sincerity. I'm nowhere near as in touch with my instinct as you and wine pizza etc make me feel bad! I get some pleasure from eating it but it makes me feel bad without a doubt. If I eat a pizza and feel bad the next day or so I know not to eat that. RPD makes me feel good so I do that very simple. You of all persons should be able to relate to that.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 04:34:35 pm by TylerDurden »
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2011, 03:54:13 pm »
I also don't think an ice age diet is an optimal one, but as I said earlier, the human body can run pretty well on a variety of diets.

I think an ice age diet is pretty much a survival diet. I fully agree with your above post and I also eat fruits most of the days for my first meal, at lunch time. I never had the idea that ripe fruits are bad for the teeth (but probably too much acid ones are) as industrial white sugar (99.9% pure saccharose - C6H22O11) is because it’s a dead stuff supplying calories without bringing the necessary associated minerals.
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2011, 03:59:55 pm »
 
that is a very strange post coming from you.

I spoke about the times (more than 25 years ago, still in my memory!) when I used to eat cooked food. Of course, now that body has lost its habituation, I guess I would feel very bad after eating a pizza.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 04:33:50 pm by TylerDurden »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline billy4184

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2011, 06:32:36 pm »
Hi Iguana,
my experience is that cooked starch is the worst, and I think its because it sticks to the teeth like clay and there's constant damage going on as the amalyse in spit turns it to sugar. I'm not so sure about the effect of sugar, because it gets dissolved and washed away easily, but its obviously better to eat fruit that has a ton of nutrients rather than pure sugar. That being said, the sugar in fruit might still have a damaging effect.
One of the main reasons I'm starting this diet is to heal my teeth which are already pretty damaged, and Im trying to create the best environment possible. I've changed so many factors in my diet that I'm not really sure which one is doing what, I just hope it all works out!
Cheers
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 07:10:56 pm by TylerDurden »
"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell." Buddha

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2011, 10:00:48 pm »
I guess I would feel very bad after eating a pizza.
Count on it! I tried eating a pizza recently as part of a social occasion, made me feel terrible. Somehow that was disappointing cos I used to love pizza and was looking forward to it.. But in the end I was happy about it no more reasons to cheat!
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 10:17:49 pm by TylerDurden »
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2011, 11:09:33 pm »
Perhaps pizza is not really the best example HIR - you have a point. There are lots of more drug-like substances though that can affect the brain and energy systems in such a way that they will make you feel great at first and do much harm later. There are plants that have hallucinogenic and seratonin affects for instance. I might even add something like fruit to the list which can make me feel really great in the small amounts and taste so good that I am tempted to over-do it and the ill effects can take some time to become apparent.


Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2011, 11:38:00 pm »
We're all living guinea pigs. I'm still loving tons of fruit. I can't possibly fathom zero carb. Fruit is incredibly delicious for a reason, as I see it. Persimmons are currently in season.

Dorothy, so you're doing more of a variety than red meat now? What are your staples? I've been doing mostly red meat- been thinking it's time to mix in some variety. I don't like chicken or really eggs either, though. I like pork. Fish I'll do at some point... fish doesn't last very long in the fridge, though, does it? It's kind of a logistical difficulty for me, as I live way out in the country, far from a market.

Persimmons - oh yes - yum. I had some yesterday. I want to plant trees so saved the seeds!

Here's a longish post about our staples which can be avoided if anyone is not interested:

Our staples include the only grass-fed organic ground meat I can find consistently - I have no idea if it was frozen or not but it tastes better than any I get from the farmer's market. I have a good source of lamb - but they just ran out. I get bison for hubbie but I hate the stuff. Now that hubbie is convinced I don't have to eat as much so only eat the ground beef once every week or two. He seasons it which is nice - but it's not necessary. I take just a tiny bit and eat it with two egg yolks. He eats big hamburgers with egg yolks on top - slightly cooked - around 4 times a week. Since hubbie only likes ground we don't get other cuts but I like all the other cuts if I slice them super thin and I liked chewing on the fat on those cuts especially. What I want is the fat. I ordered suet and marrow bones that will arrive next week and am hoping that the store will have some marrow tomorrow as I can't wait. I can eat that every day. Maybe that will stop too - who knows. Fish is a real staple. Hubbie eats a pound most days. We buy high-grade sushi-grade frozen salmon and tuna keeping a load in our freezer and put a package to defrost every day in the fridge. I used to share it equally but now all I want is a few pieces and hubbie eats the vast majority. As he increases his raw meat I am decreasing it.  We put avocado and seaweed and sauces on it. We eat nut pie crust creamy mash that I make and put berries on in the morning. Salads, raw soups, juices and plant munchables - always with fat added - are the rest of our diet these days which I eat as my staples. My goal now is to figure out ways to make clams and scallops appealing to hubbie and hoping that we can include those. I like a small amount of scallops but I never had raw clams. The order I have coming this week is going to include ground meat with organs in it - and I hope that will become a new staple. I like to keep around cold-smoked lox for when I just want a small piece of fish. I feel really good from the brand I get. It's the only one I've been able to find that doesn't have sugar or colorings. As of yet we have not figured out a way to get and eat high enough quality white meat in a form we can handle. Getting truly free range fowl raised that aren't fed some kind of garbage is really hard and I can't deal with a whole bird. I'm still quite squeamish. There is one guy that had guineas that ran on his ranch available but they weren't processed at all. I'm not up to that yet.

I've eaten raw eggs, fish and dairy for years but meat is new and raw meat is new to my husband. Raw egg yolks is also new for him. He ate all these things cooked before.

I seem to need very little protein but I've always craved fat. I keep on looking for new ways to get my concentrated raw fats... especially now that we aren't eating dairy any more. I used to eat at least 2 avocados a day and lots of oils - never really feeling like I got quite enough. Raw animal fats are much easier.

That might be more than you wanted to know. Sorry if it was too detailed.

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2011, 11:46:27 pm »

One of the main reasons I'm starting this diet is to heal my teeth which are already pretty damaged, and Im trying to create the best environment possible.

I healed up my teeth - filling in holes - when I was eating an all raw diet that was right for me - and that happened to be vegan at the time. I think it's more about finding what your stomach can handle as the stomach meridian runs right along the teeth. I went off my diet and my teeth went downhill very fast. I'm also now working on getting my teeth back. As long as I eat right there is no pain and no infection. Eat something bad for me and all hell breaks loose in there. Not bad is not necessarily ideal. Eating not bad makes it so they don't go down hill, but only eating ideal seems to really heal them. Ideal I'm pretty sure would be different from person to person.

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2011, 11:54:05 pm »
Dorothy, I will be trying a lot of things out too! I don't however believe that humans were meant to eat a LOT of meat (and consequently fat) because then we would have been given the means to obtain and utilise this kind of fuel (razor sharp claws, big muscles for bringing down prey, fangs, and a very short gut, to name a few). Since we share something like 99% genes with the chimp, which eats a LOT of plants and fishes for ants and bugs, and does occasionally capture larger prey, this seems about right to me.

I'm not sure your logic holds up here. Our brains might have developed to where they are because we had some mutations of intelligence that allowed us to scavenge the parts of animals that other animals left - like the brains and bone marrow. Using our hands to pick up rocks and smash and the like. We might not need the meat but I wouldn't be surprised at all if our brains really needed the fat and still do. I betcha all that good fat is what allowed our brains and intelligence to grow as it did. The part of my body I intuitively sense needs animal foods is my brain. I wonder if we use so little of our brains now is because we eat so little good fats. Why would we have developed something that we use only 10% of if that's all we used when we developed it? The extreme development of our brains must have served some survival purpose at some time because our brains take so much of our resources. I think that maybe we now use less of our brains because we eat too little good raw fat. If we keep it up I betcha that our brains will continue to shrink.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 12:02:31 am by Dorothy »

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,092
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2011, 12:03:13 am »
http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html

Raw fat was essential for the development and evolution of the human brain.
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2011, 01:09:51 am »
Thanks Sabertooth- great article from beginning to end. I learned a lot.

The premise that humans gained intelligence from eating seafood (omega 3's and dha).

This makes my mind wander..... Shellfish didn't necessitate high intelligence to gather and eat but increased our intelligence by eating them which probably allowed us then to spread and get our fats in ways that could only be done using higher intelligence.

Perhaps eating raw fats is not necessary in this day and age to survive and reproduce........ only to be (and stay) smart and not get dementia and other mental problems.  ;)

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2011, 02:06:17 am »
They are necessary. PP provided data showing that vegans had smaller brains. The Inuit have been shown to have the largest brains, on average, due to their consumption of so much meats, especially raw meats.
"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 Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2011, 02:27:22 am »
They are necessary. PP provided data showing that vegans had smaller brains. The Inuit have been shown to have the largest brains, on average, due to their consumption of so much meats, especially raw meats.

You mean vegans that do not eat lots of raw fats right?. Few do - but some vegans (like I was) don't scoff at fat and eat as much raw fat as they can - or at least I highly doubt that I have been the only one who has ever eaten a vegan diet that way - but I bet they weren't tested (I know I wasn't) ;). The inuit however eat lots of RAW fat if I'm not mistaken. But your point is well taken that the vegans that ate low raw fat diets and/or diets filled with dangerous vegetable oils had smaller brains. Most vegan and vegetarian diets are very low in good raw fats. They don't have to be though! Like most people in our modern industrial world they believe the same brain-washing that fat is bad and if you are going to eat it then you should eat frankenstein fats like canola.

Offline HIT_it_RAW

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2011, 05:34:58 am »
Like most people in our modern industrial world they believe the same brain-washing that fat is bad and if you are going to eat it then you should eat frankenstein fats like canola.
you're so right! frankensteinfat i like that. you know there are people that eat cottonseedoil.

you say vegan with enough fat is possible but what fats did you eat i suppose avocado's, coconut(oil), nuts and maybe some veggie oils? Those are not the high quality fat you get from animal products. you think you could get enough healthy fat on raw vegan?
“A man should be able to build a house, butcher a hog, tan the hide,
preserve the meat, deliver a baby, nurture the sick and reassure the dying, fight a war … specialization is for insects.”

Offline billy4184

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2011, 07:02:49 am »
Good article Sabertooth.
As Dorothy pointed out, it is the omega 3 and DHA which has been linked to a bigger brain, not raw animal fat as such. To quote the article:

"The results suggest that Neanderthals ate mostly red meat from the larger animals that roamed Europe at that time.
In contrast, the bones of early modern humans found in Britain, Russia, and the Czech Republic (dated 20,000 to 28,000 years ago), showed that fish and seafood accounted for 10 - 50% of their dietary protein."

Since the body is perfectly able to synthesize fat from just about any source, as can be seen from people scoffing down doughnuts and coke, I don't think this means that I should be chugging down animal fats. It DOES mean that I should probably be eating some seafood. I eat sardines often in my salads because they are cheap and have plenty of calcium for my teeth. Omega 3 is another bonus.

I would hesitate before saying something like animal fat causes some kind of evolutionary leap, or carnivorous predators would not only be at the top of the food chain but doing maths as well. Also, it seems like omega 3 and DHA did contribute to the evolution of the brain, but I would suggest that it was a far more complicated process with MANY other factors involved.
Cheers
"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell." Buddha

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2011, 08:44:35 am »
Executive summary for those who don't like long posts: the Inuit and Arctic Siberians were found to have larger skulls and therefore brains than average. The complex interplay of a challenging Arctic environment with a rich brain resource--fats of land and sea creatures--may have resulted in larger human brains.

------

Tyler originally tipped me off about Inuit skull/brain size and I found a confirmation here:
Quote
"The French cranium measurers ran into serious problems in Greenland. They were working from the theory that there was a linear relation between a person's intelligence and the size of his skull. They discovered that the [Inuit] Greenlanders, whom they regarded as a transitional form of ape, had the largest skulls in the world." --Peter Hoeg, Smilla's Sense of Snow, pp. 17-18
I would add that Siberians also tend to have larger than average skull/brain sizes, as this map shows:
(the darker an area, the larger the average skull size). Note: there were some graphical extrapolations used in creating the map, so it's mainly useful in giving an overall rough impression rather than details.

Meat/fat also tends to be a major part of the diet in Siberia, and there are other hypothesized factors for skull/brain growth, such as greater diversity of environments requiring more foresight and wider dispersal of foods requiring larger brain maps. Many phenomena in nature are complex and multifactorial. This could be the case with evolution of larger human brains. It could involve an interplay between environmental pressures and raw material food sources. Perhaps the greater challenges of Arctic environments applied selective pressure for larger brains and fat from land and sea mammals and fish was the fuel that enabled the brain growth (as human brains, like all mammal brains, are composed largely of fat). Meat and fat are probably also easier to chew and digest than heavily fibrous foods like the wild legume tubers and nuts of Africa (there are tubers and other underground storage organs in the Arctic too, but they probably provided a smaller proportion of the diet than in tropical areas), which may also have contributed to downsizing of jaw and gut and upsizing of skull/brain. I'm just speculating, of course, but the information we do have suggests that excluding all animal foods from the diet is a risky proposition. Here are a couple sources:

> Northerners' brains are bigger, scientists find - Good news for our readers from the north: you are likely to have a bigger brain than your southern counterparts. By Nick Collins, Science Correspondent, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8662850/Northerners-brains-are-bigger-scientists-find.html (thanks to Tyler for this link)
> Beals, K.L., C.L. Smith, and S.M. Dodd (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines, Current Anthropology, 25, 301–330 (via Brain size and latitude: Why the correlation? http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/07/brain-size-and-latitude-why-correlation.html).

It's not politically correct, I know, to say that some peoples brains are larger than others, but I've never given a shit about political correctness. As David Brudnoy, a politically incorrect host of a Boston talk radio show of the recent past, once said, politically correct usually means incorrect in any other context. Granted, he had a few incidents where he splurted out racist whoppers, so that was perhaps a bit self-serving, but nonetheless on the mark.  If a fact happens to be politically correct, so be it, but I'm not going to ignore facts merely because they're unpalatable.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 08:51:31 am by PaleoPhil »
>"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 Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2011, 08:53:02 am »
you're so right! frankensteinfat i like that. you know there are people that eat cottonseedoil.

you say vegan with enough fat is possible but what fats did you eat i suppose avocado's, coconut(oil), nuts and maybe some veggie oils? Those are not the high quality fat you get from animal products. you think you could get enough healthy fat on raw vegan?

Most potato chips are made with cottonseed oil - OUTRAGEOUS!

I got oils shipped from a company that may not even be in business any more that used special processes for their oils to keep them raw and pure. I used to get corn oil from them a long time ago and then they stopped selling it because people were saying it wasn't "good for you". I knew that wasn't true for me at that time and it really got my goat. I used it to create foods with a buttery flavor - and I could not get raw butter so a bunch of my recipes and sauces went bye bye - as well as some good omega 6's that as a vegan I really needed. Back then there were no gmo's. When nuts and seeds said raw they really were - they sprouted. Irradiation wasn't the norm either. I ate lots of seed and nuts and their oils - no vegetable oils. I got walnut oil, almond oil, flax oil, sunflower seed oil, sesame oil, macadamia and others. The coconut oil craze is very new so I couldn't get that if I tried. Everyone thought that if you ate a little coconut oil you would drop dead of a heart attack instantly. ;) I could get really good coconuts though. I ate avocados pretty much every day - it was my favorite food. I soaked and dehydrated my nuts and seeds and ground them up to make tasty treats - still do. That reminds me that I have some sesame seeds ready for halivah.

I'm not sure if it's really possible to get as much fat as is ideal from a raw vegan diet though because I only would go about 6 months purely on that diet at a time. I'm realizing now that eating cooked vegan I got more fats because I would pour the raw oils all over my food and I would eat more quantity of food in general. It also with the dietary czars it now is so much harder and (exponentially more and more expensive) to get get the nuts and seeds necessary and I'm not sure I could even get the oils needed any more - but I haven't looked into it.  I've been more and more interested in finding and eating the whole sources of the fats rather than the oils. When not vegan the oils aren't as necessary. Still tasty though. :D 

It also was a great deal of work to get what I did and it takes a lot of food to get the levels even to decent levels (at least for me). Raw animal foods are infinitely easier and I don't need much of them to feel my brain needs being satisfied.


Offline Dorothy

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,595
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2011, 09:00:46 am »
It's not politically correct, I know, to say that some peoples brains are larger than others, but I've never given a shit about political correctness. As David Brudnoy, a politically incorrect host of a Boston talk radio show of the recent past, once said, politically correct usually means incorrect in any other context. Granted, he had a few incidents where he splurted out racist whoppers, so that was perhaps a bit self-serving, but nonetheless on the mark.  If a fact happens to be politically correct, so be it, but I'm not going to ignore facts merely because they're unpalatable.

You are not insulting anyone because we only use 10% of our brains anyway so someone could conceivably have a much smaller brain yet use more of it or use it differently and be smarter. Or..... even the area of the brain for higher functions could be more developed.

Who knows?

Oh - I posted something in Tyler's journal Phil that if you didn't notice that might be of interest to you about the mutation of the gene that caused our jaws to be smaller so that our brains could become bigger. I won't repeat it here - but it seems pertinent to why/how our jaws got smaller - mutation.

Your point about the weak jaw correlating with weak brain is important. If there was a mutation that resulted in a weaker jaw so that those humans were only able to eat the soft seafood (which feeds the brain so well) then those two factors might be parallel influences. 

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2011, 09:34:35 am »
You are not insulting anyone because we only use 10% of our brains anyway so someone could conceivably have a much smaller brain yet use more of it or use it differently and be smarter. Or..... even the area of the brain for higher functions could be more developed.
One could imagine that, but larger brain sizes have been found to be correlated with higher intelligence (Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence, Intelligence, Volume 33, Issue 4, July-August 2005, Pages 337-346 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289604001357). Of course, correlation is not causation, but we have more reason than not to believe that general intelligence is related in part to brain size. It's odd that scientists accept that the larger brains in Cro Magnons and Neanderthals provided greater intelligence than the smaller brains of Australopithecines, but politically correct scientists and lay people do not see this as applying to larger vs. smaller brained living human beings. Why the exception? I'm open to plausible reasons for this exception, but I haven't seen any posited.

I don't think we should dismiss such evidence just because we think it's unpalatable, and it's only insulting if we choose to see it that way. Nature doesn't see larger-brained or more intelligent beings as "better" than others, only humans do that. This is probably where those inclined to political correctness will begin to lash out at me, if past is prologue, but so be it.

Quote
Oh - I posted something in Tyler's journal Phil that if you didn't notice that might be of interest to you about the mutation of the gene that caused our jaws to be smaller so that our brains could become bigger. I won't repeat it here - but it seems pertinent to why/how our jaws got smaller - mutation.
Right, but why did the mutation survive and thrive. I don't push the jaw shrinkage thing too far, though, because there's the confounding factor of physical degeneration that is impossible to separate out completely from whatever beneficial impact on brain growth jaw shrinkage might have had that Wrangham's crowd don't seem to take sufficiently into account. Also, as I pointed out before, early-contact Inuits had larger and stronger jaws as well as larger-than-average brains. As a matter of fact, I read one report somewhere that said that the Inuit had the most powerful human jaws ever measured, so I suspect that any benefit to brain growth from jaw shrinkage might have been limited to early on during the transition from Australopithecines to H. erectus, if at all.
>"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 billy4184

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2011, 02:19:47 pm »
Hi PaleoPhil,
Asians are supposed to be the most intelligent race in terms of IQ and they are usually the smallest, skinniest people around. Science would otherwise probably be dramatically drawing conclusions that they have been retarded due to lack of food in the course of their evolution or something like that. I'm not necessarily refuting the information you put forward, but it may well be something like, for example, the skull grew so that there could be more fat to keep the brain warm.
Like I said before, fat can be made from any of the macronutrients including carbs and protein. I haven't seen an animal fatter than an elephant and it doesn't eat meat. I would suspect that the evolution of the human brain was something which involved a lot of different factors, a lot of them seemingly very small and insignificant, such as the inclusion of slightly more omega 3 than usual. That and the adaptability of the human organism as a catalyst. But that's just my theory.

I don't know if Eskimos are smarter than the general population, but perhaps their increased brain size is because of all the omega 3 and DHA that they get from the fish they eat?
Asians (especially Japan) tend to eat a lot of fish too. Dorothy, that we use 10% of our brains is news to me! Maybe higher levels of fishy nutrients improve this ability?
Cheers
"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell." Buddha

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2011, 02:27:00 pm »
I'm afraid that the 10 percent of the brain idea is just an urban myth. It started early in the past century but, since then, scientists have worked out that all parts of the brain are used.

As for intelligence,  I would concede that larger brain-size is a little indicative re intelligence(that is people with larger brains will, presumably, usually have above-average intelligence, though not necessarily genius-level). However, I am convinced that cultural behaviour, among other things, also plays a part in intelligence. I mean, if the Inuit were so much more intelligent than any other ethnic group, one would expect them to consistently outperform others on every non-physical level, whether academically or technologically etc.. I have yet to see evidence of that.

Also, I'm a sceptic of the accuracy of IQ tests, since I found that I started doing better on  IQ tests in general, after doing 1 or 2 of them.
"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 billy4184

  • Trapper
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2011, 03:40:05 pm »
Hi Tyler
You're right, I am not so sure about the IQ test myself and probably shouldn't have used it as an example, but I was simply trying to point out the lack of definite correlation between brain size and intelligence (I wonder if there is really any useful intelligence test?)
I also very much agree with you regarding cultural influences.
I doubt that we use the full capacity of our brains on an everyday basis, the same way that we can do superhuman physical feats only when under extreme stress and under high levels of adrenaline. Perhaps we use only use a certain percentage of the `strength' of our brains, though we utilise all of its parts.
I believe that `we are what we eat' and diet has a profound influence on everything about us including our brains. I do not however believe that a simple excess of dietary fat resulted in a larger brain size, or certain large cats would be running the world right now.
Cheers
"It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell." Buddha

Offline sabertooth

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,092
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2011, 10:27:31 pm »
Larger brains would have been a hindrance to predators like lions who had to depend more on strength and speed to obtain enough food to keep from starving. Larger brains and smaller jaws wouldn't give them the same benefits that it would give our hunter gatherer hominid ancestors.

The perfect storm of events came together to make man, access to large amounts of dietary fat was the catalyst that gave our Genetic template the raw materials from which it constructed the marvel of the human brain.

There is a new way of looking at the function and processes of DNA, adaption, and evolution in which there is a will to thrive and develop the most optimal being possible given the materials and environment. More fat in our diets must've at least partly prompted some type of genetic change that resulted in our magnificent brains.

In fact our brain size was most likely limited by natural selection to what could fit through the birth canal.

I personally wouldn't have lived without a c section, as my infant skull was too big to fit into the birth canal.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 11:54:13 pm by TylerDurden »
A man who makes a beast of himself, forgets the pain of being a man.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk