"How did we become the smartest ?" from the book

About (not) consuming fresh raw fish and fresh raw egg yolks
Post Reply
Ducky
Posts: 163
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Tue 22 Jul 2008 15:56

"How did we become the smartest ?" from the book

Post by Ducky »

"How did we become the smartest ?

Eating vegetable foods only, approximately 5 million years ago, we were not smarter than other primates. Only when we started combining fruits with animal foods, between 3 and 2 million years ago, the size of our brains rapidly increased."

I found this part interesting so i googled a bit and found this that supports your theory.

"Because meat offers more caloric bang for the buck than plants do, our ancestors could consume more calories more easily. These were better calories too, that converted more readily than those from plants into human protein—which meant that our ancestors’ rising meat intake was paralleled by an increase in body size. Whereas Australopithecus was just four feet tall, Erectus stood six feet and was much stronger. Also, Erectus’ skull was a third larger, and its brain vastly more developed—an adaptation, according most experts, also related to the meatier diet: Brains thrive on the long chain fatty acids, Omega 3 and Omega 6, that are abundant in animal fats and soft tissues."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... s_like_us/

Im still wondering though: apparently it takes more than meat to make a change otherwise the carnivore animals would be the smartest and rule the planet.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: "How did we become the smartest ?" from the bo

Post by RRM »

Ducky wrote:Im still wondering though: apparently it takes more than meat to make a change otherwise the carnivore animals would be the smartest and rule the planet.
Well, it does take more than just meat.
We wrote: "the combination of fruits and animal foods".
So, its not just omega-3 fats, protein and cholesterol, but specifically the combination with readily available sugars, from fruits.
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

eggs; fish

Post by summerwave »

It has always seemed preferable to me too to eat eggs and fish as 'animal'-source foods too because they are so easy to 'get into' and consume raw on the spot (no hair on the fish; eggshells and bones easily broken; fish skin is not tough).

I've often felt that the onerousness of preparing other animal flesh for eating is what started humans down the wrong path of cooking/processing.

This is perhaps specious reasoning; it just seems right that humans should eat things that are not only raw, but fairly easy to gather and consume raw, right when they are procured. That's why it seems a world of difference between a small fish or some shellfish and, say perhaps, venison or beef.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: eggs; fish

Post by RRM »

summerwave wrote:it just seems right that humans should eat things that are not only raw, but fairly easy to gather and consume raw, right when they are procured. That's why it seems a world of difference between a small fish or some shellfish and, say perhaps, venison or beef.
Yes, but its very hard to tell what hunting tactics / techniques our ancestors used, and what was readily available for them; maybe some species were abundantly present at that time...
summerwave
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat 13 Sep 2008 22:47

hominids

Post by summerwave »

I was thinking of the very earliest humans-- the ones I felt were posited in your basic theories-- and picturing them perhaps grabbing or entrapping aquatic creatures in shallow water... including shellfish. It would seem to be easier; more accessible than killing or scavenging larger prey, but you are right; we simply don't know.
Post Reply