Shellfish (& meat); From an evolutionary point

About (not) consuming fresh raw fish and fresh raw egg yolks
spring
Posts: 128
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Shellfish (& meat); From an evolutionary point

Post by spring »

From an evolutionary point of view aren't we supposed to be eating things like shellfish - mussels and oysters and scallops rather than fish like salmon or mackerel?

Primitive man lived near rivers and the ocean and fishing implements and boats were a later invention. So I would presume primitive man spent a lot of time gathering shellfish and eaten more of them than fish.

How come then that our bodies can't handle the high zinc levels in shellfish? From an evolutionary POV shellfish should be a perfect food for us.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Evolutionary speaking we should be eating insects and small mammals.
benzapp
Moderator
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon 17 Oct 2005 00:01
Location: Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Shellfish

Post by benzapp »

spring wrote:From an evolutionary point of view aren't we supposed to be eating things like shellfish - mussels and oysters and scallops rather than fish like salmon or mackerel?

Primitive man lived near rivers and the ocean and fishing implements and boats were a later invention. So I would presume primitive man spent a lot of time gathering shellfish and eaten more of them than fish.

How come then that our bodies can't handle the high zinc levels in shellfish? From an evolutionary POV shellfish should be a perfect food for us.
I don't know about the rivers near you, but the ones in this part of the world have lots of fish. That said, Jamaica Bay here in New York City is estimated to have had the largest oyster bed in the world until the 20th century... pollution killed them all. Salmon can still be found in rivers all over the northeast however. Shellfish, it's a bit more difficult.

Don't forget that shellfish contain many nutrients, but relatively few calories. I have no way of determining this specifically - but even a dozen or two oysters hardly satisfies me as much as a good kilogram of salmon!
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Shellfish

Post by spring »

benzapp wrote:
spring wrote:From an evolutionary point of view aren't we supposed to be eating things like shellfish - mussels and oysters and scallops rather than fish like salmon or mackerel?

Primitive man lived near rivers and the ocean and fishing implements and boats were a later invention. So I would presume primitive man spent a lot of time gathering shellfish and eaten more of them than fish.

How come then that our bodies can't handle the high zinc levels in shellfish? From an evolutionary POV shellfish should be a perfect food for us.
I don't know about the rivers near you, but the ones in this part of the world have lots of fish. That said, Jamaica Bay here in New York City is estimated to have had the largest oyster bed in the world until the 20th century... pollution killed them all. Salmon can still be found in rivers all over the northeast however. Shellfish, it's a bit more difficult.

Don't forget that shellfish contain many nutrients, but relatively few calories. I have no way of determining this specifically - but even a dozen or two oysters hardly satisfies me as much as a good kilogram of salmon!
Even if the salmon is plentiful or other fish it would be hard to catch them except spawning time for salmon. You would need the ability to swim, spear and even a boat. A net. These are all things that primitive man probably didn't have - just rough-hewn stone tools.

On the other hand, it's easy to catch a crab walking on the beach, an octopus in a rockpool by the beach and digging for clams, abalone, oysters and so on is relatively easy. People pick for shellfish even now when they go to a beach. And you can eat stuff like periwinkles and oysters and mussels raw.

As for small mammals, when I see a mouse, I don't think "yum - food" and try and catch it. I would feel revolted about eating any small mammal and would have a hard time catching one to boot. They move very fast or live high in trees like possums. There is no small mammal I have any desire to eat raw and I don't feel like a predator animal like a dog or cat that likes to catch things or chase them or pounce on them and tear them apart with my teeth and eat them raw.

Insects and larvae - I could eat a grub raw if starving. Same with a cricket . But it wouldn't be my first desire - like my last. Cooked crickets and larvae may be a little tastier but raw - not very much. And the same as for small mammals - I don't think "FOOD!" when I see a cricket or centipede. But I think "Food!! yummy!!!" when I see raw oysters or mussels or clams. Even raw octopus spells "Food" for me.

And I heard that primitive man lived near water. That would make sense - they would need access to fresh drinking water as no wells, pumps invented then. It would make sense they would turn to the seashore or riverbank for food. Also maybe we are meant to eat sea laver - raw. That's edible and not too untasty. It would have provided us with iodine in our diets, would it not?

I don't think "Food!" when I see raw fish either. I can eat it, but it's not my natural inclination to think "FOOD!!" when I see fish swimming in a pond. I don't think I want to fish it out and eat it raw unlike say a cat. I think it looks slimey and swims much too fast. If I was a non-swimmer, I would not want to go into deeper water to catch the fish and probably drown. It would be too hard to catch fish with my hands anyway - slides out and I wouldn't like the feel of a slippery fish in my hands. The guts also turns me off but with an oyster I can eat it whole. Nothing unappealing about it.

I also would not feel I would want to catch small reptiles for food. In fact, I feel revolted when I even SEE one. I want to run away screaming if I saw a lizard or a snake.
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

Don't forget that shellfish contain many nutrients, but relatively few calories. I have no way of determining this specifically - but even a dozen or two oysters hardly satisfies me as much as a good kilogram of salmon!
But don't forget we only need 18 grams of protein on this diet. A handful of clams or oysters would easily give us this much protein. That is another reason why shellfish might be our ideal food and the one we evolved to eat because we ate a lot of it as primitive man.

I see a salmon lying on a bench, I don't think "YUM!" I can't wait to eat it raw. I think I want to remove the skin, the head, the guts, the bones before I can even think of eating it raw.

Shellfish doesn't require so much preparation before it looks appetizing. Just prise open the shell and suck the oyster or clam into one's mouth - either chew it or swallow it whole.

Can't do that with salmon or mackerel. They should be scaled as I heard there are some bad substances in the scales - maybe an old wive's tale? And people can choke on fish bones.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

That YOU don't think insects and small mammals are appetizing, I can imagine. You aren't living in the evolutionary past, though. You're not born and raised being used to eating them. There are quite a number of people on this world who do, however.
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

Oscar wrote:That YOU don't think insects and small mammals are appetizing, I can imagine. You aren't living in the evolutionary past, though. You're not born and raised being used to eating them. There are quite a number of people on this world who do, however.
As cooked food. And I don't mind some cooked grubs and insects. we aren't made to chase small animals. It's hard to crouch close to the ground and scramble after them. We are supposed to be walking upright or occasionally stooping to gather. Do you mean other people look at a small possum or squirrel and think I can't wait to eat that raw? I doubt it. Cooked - yes, but raw? No.

OF course if I was starving anything would look edible but that's not a normal situation.
benzapp
Moderator
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon 17 Oct 2005 00:01
Location: Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by benzapp »

spring wrote:
Oscar wrote:That YOU don't think insects and small mammals are appetizing, I can imagine. You aren't living in the evolutionary past, though. You're not born and raised being used to eating them. There are quite a number of people on this world who do, however.
As cooked food. And I don't mind some cooked grubs and insects. we aren't made to chase small animals. It's hard to crouch close to the ground and scramble after them. We are supposed to be walking upright or occasionally stooping to gather. Do you mean other people look at a small possum or squirrel and think I can't wait to eat that raw? I doubt it. Cooked - yes, but raw? No.

OF course if I was starving anything would look edible but that's not a normal situation.
I think all of your posts here are very solipsistic. Your personal views are ultimately irrelevant. People can and do eat these animals you find objectionable. Many other primates are known to eat them as well, with even the large gorilla going after insects now and then.

It is impossible to know exactly what our ancestors ate originally, but we can make only one assumption: that the omnivorous diet that led to the evolution of modern humans predated the discovery of fire. Which animals early humans ate is certainly up for debate, but whether or not they were eaten raw is not.

So, in light of this, what is your point exactly? Do you want to restrict your animal food consumption to shellfish? If you want to do that, please post in the "other viewpoints" forum... Oysters and clams will not provide you with sufficient cholesterol, and the mineral content is dangerously high. If you eat shellfish every day instead of egg yolks or raw fish, you aren't following the Wai diet. It's that simple.
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

Oscar wrote:
Evolutionary speaking we should be eating insects and small mammals.
You're both right me thinks. But there's that whole theory of why our Brains grew in size- ehh living near water eating seafood. The monkeys and chimps who remained in the jungle eating ants and such well, are still there eating ants and other monkeys maybe.

benzapp wrote:
Don't forget that shellfish contain many nutrients, but relatively few calories.
Don't forget that most likely back then it was 'find and eat' mentality. Or, try and eat. They weren't thinking calories and food pyramids.

Spring has some good points, however...

Spring wrote:
I think "Food!! yummy!!!" when I see raw oysters or mussels or clams.


I do too! but my Sister doesn't. My Brother doesn't. This aspect I think is conditioning and the ability to break conditioning. Some will say no. Some will say I'll try it. I've never eaten snails. I really don't find the idea apetising, but, I want to try them at some point for I have heard of their delicasey.
And I heard that primitive man lived near water.
Some did and some didn't. The intersting thing is that the ones who lived near water as I mentioned above are the ones thought to have developed larger brains and left the others behind in the evolution scheme of things. Fish when able, clams oysters when found and so on.

From a common sense perspective Spring has some valid logic. We most likely, at first anyway, sought the easiest food. It makes sense. Later as we developed our hunting skills and tools things changed. The question is in what order did all this happen? Insects and small animals and fruits first, then those who left the Garden found the sea and quite possibly unknowingly altered the entire course of Humanity by eating seafood. Maybe.
we aren't made to chase small animals.
I think you're right. But we found another way to catch them. And we did and do to this day.

benzapp wrote:
I think all of your posts here are very solpsistic. Your personal views are ultimately irrelevant. People can and do eat these animals you find objectionable.
That's a little harsh isn't it? Some, people do eat these animals. Some people however, will never ever eat a raw egg.
It is impossible to know exactly what our ancestors ate originally
I don't believe this is true anymore. I've read plenty of information on ancient teeth striations. Google it and you'll see. Also bone fragment composition tests have come a long way.

It's clear that Spring is posing the question of our true food. Should we be eating more/only crab, clam, oysters etc.? Rather than fish? The Wai team has mentioned we're not Cows and shouldn't eat grass. Maybe we're not Fish and shouldn't eat other Fish.

Hey you! Keep out of the water. Hey, maybe that's what sharks are for DOHHH!!!

Just because Spring poses a question doesn't mean there is anarchy afoot.

benzapp wrote:
If you eat shellfish every day instead of egg yolks or raw fish, you aren't following the Wai diet. It's that simple.
Not that simple. She may not be following the 100% Sample Diet you mean.
Even then, lighten up. More importantly, how is Spring's acne, weight cellulite?

I don't drink juice with sugar and oil, and may add a munch food here and there, but I follow Wai approach just the same.

Best wishes,
Avalon :D
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

P.S.

There have been many people on this forum who for one reason or another left nuts out completely, yolks out completely, even fish out completely. Maybe their reasons were physical in nature and not train of thought as Spring proposes...

But not irrelevant.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

There are quite a number of people who eat raw and/or cooked insects, and all kinds of small mammals. article here

I'm not saying our ancestors went on a daily hunt for small mammals. I think our food was mainly fruit, some insects (worms in fruit for instance), and the occasional small mammal or maybe fish, depending on possibilities.

Benzapp is right that your views are irrelevant, in the sense that what we find appetizing now most probably won't be the same as what we found appetizing a million years ago.

Research on ancient teeth striations is interesting, but far from conclusive.
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

Hi Oscar, you wrote:
Research on ancient teeth striations is interesting, but far from conclusive.
Define far from conclusive :arrow:

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=110106-1
benzapp
Moderator
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon 17 Oct 2005 00:01
Location: Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Post by benzapp »

avalon wrote:
I think all of your posts here are very solpsistic. Your personal views are ultimately irrelevant. People can and do eat these animals you find objectionable.
That's a little harsh isn't it? Some, people do eat these animals. Some people however, will never ever eat a raw egg.
Not really. One unique aspect of the wai diet is to "listen" to your body - but this does not mean this diet is solipsism. It is not logical to state that because you personally find eating raw meat and eggs objectionable this diet is fundamentally flawed.
avalon wrote:
If you eat shellfish every day instead of egg yolks or raw fish, you aren't following the Wai diet. It's that simple.
Not that simple. She may not be following the 100% Sample Diet you mean.
Even then, lighten up. More importantly, how is Spring's acne, weight cellulite?
No, while oysters occasionally are probably fine, daily consumption is risky. Shellfish contain far too many minerals which can be harmful. Crabs and such are simply dangerous to eat raw. There are risks.

But ultimately, it must be understood that raw fish and egg yolks have been selected because they are the most easily accessible and have the fewest risks.
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

benzapp wrote:
spring wrote:
Oscar wrote:That YOU don't think insects and small mammals are appetizing, I can imagine. You aren't living in the evolutionary past, though. You're not born and raised being used to eating them. There are quite a number of people on this world who do, however.
As cooked food. And I don't mind some cooked grubs and insects. we aren't made to chase small animals. It's hard to crouch close to the ground and scramble after them. We are supposed to be walking upright or occasionally stooping to gather. Do you mean other people look at a small possum or squirrel and think I can't wait to eat that raw? I doubt it. Cooked - yes, but raw? No.

OF course if I was starving anything would look edible but that's not a normal situation.
I think all of your posts here are very solipsistic. Your personal views are ultimately irrelevant. People can and do eat these animals you find objectionable. Many other primates are known to eat them as well, with even the large gorilla going after insects now and then.

It is impossible to know exactly what our ancestors ate originally, but we can make only one assumption: that the omnivorous diet that led to the evolution of modern humans predated the discovery of fire. Which animals early humans ate is certainly up for debate, but whether or not they were eaten raw is not.

So, in light of this, what is your point exactly? Do you want to restrict your animal food consumption to shellfish? If you want to do that, please post in the "other viewpoints" forum... Oysters and clams will not provide you with sufficient cholesterol, and the mineral content is dangerously high. If you eat shellfish every day instead of egg yolks or raw fish, you aren't following the Wai diet. It's that simple.

Nope. Not solipsistic. You are making an assumption that people eat small mammals raw as a normal part of their culture - in the past and maybe some people now; and that is our natural inclination to do so.

I have never come across a person who looks at a small mammal and goes "yummmm, I'd like to eat that animal raw."

You are getting mixed up with cooked small mammals and raw small mammals. That is where you are going wrong.
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

I know primates eat lice and termites(?) and that kind of insect/larvae, and most of the insects eaten are eaten in their COOKED state. I am working in Asia and they sell cooked insects here - but they are all cooked. There might be the raw kind sold but I have never seen them. I would say 98-100% of insects are eaten cooked.

As I emphasize I am talking about RAW food: RAW INSECTS AND RAW SMALL MAMMALS. As I said, I don't think people from ANY culture want to chase after a small mammal and tear it apart and eat it RAW. A cat does this. A cat has claws and the type of teeth that rip flesh well. A cat is made to chase after small mammals, hunt and eat them raw. They are predator animals - I have never heard of anyone in any culture doing this - unless they are really hungry - except for the Mongols who ate rabbits raw but that was when they were on horseback going from battle to battle. And the flesh was "cooked" to a certain extent as the rabbit flesh was kept under the saddle and rubbed continuously as the rider rode on his horse.

So apart from that, I haven't heard of people hunting small mammals and eating them raw. They might do but it would be very rare.

As for shellfish, I would say there would be a small percentage of the population who can't eat it but I would say the majority would eat shellfish and enjoy it. RAW. In fact it is one of the few flesh foods that are eaten raw with any frequency (apart from sashimi). And many people prefer to eat shellfish raw - compare fresh raw oysters - expensive vs smoked tinned oysters - inexpensive.
Locked