Evolution and Diet

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
Thomas
Posts: 130
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Sun 30 Oct 2005 00:01

Evolution and Diet

Post by Thomas »

I have a question regarding fruit consumption and evolution.

Humans originated on the savannahs of Tanzania and Kenya. In these areas there would readily be available large amounts of protein and fat from game, insects, and fish, however, it seems unlikely there would be large amounts of carbohydrate available.
Have any of you seen the savanah? There is not a whole lot of fruit out there. I am sure we would have collected occasional fruits and tubers, but it appears that the bulk of the diet would have been in the form of protein and fat.
Also, I doubt there would have been enough fruit available to eat small frequent meals throughout the day.

RRM, and others, what is your opinion on this?


Thomas
dionysus
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2006 21:54
Location: Unknown

Post by dionysus »

Was the savannahs of Tanzania/Kenya always a savannah?
Negativity is the cult of the weak
Biev
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue 27 Nov 2007 16:13
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

Post by Biev »

I vaguely remember being taught in school that the answer to that question is no... ^.^;;

But even if it was, how would we know that their diet was the optimal one? Sure they survived, but so do we, and we don't seem to be doing much worse than them ;o) And I assume we've changed enough over 130,000 years or so, that our needs must have as well?

That's assuming we're even tracing the origin of humans to the first homo sapiens, and not the different species that preceded them... which probably should be taken into consideration, if you want to follow the theory that humans "originated" in an absolute ideal environment, since obviously the homo sapiens didn't just pop out of the blue one morning... But then it's all a bit irrelevant, because why would another species' diet be our optimal one?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

My main objection against the theory of our natural diet consisting mainly of animal protein (and fat), is that our digestive tract (including teeth) does not reflect this.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Oscar wrote:My main objection against the theory of our natural diet consisting mainly of animal protein (and fat), is that our digestive tract (including teeth) does not reflect this.
I wonder about this. I can eat a large amount of raw beef and digest it just fine or at least it appears that way, I mean there are no obvious problems I can feel. I also feel good when I eat a high fat moderate protein meal.

When I eat low carb it is easier for me to eat. I mean, I don't have to eat every 30 minutes and don't have to mix fat with fruit. I know this doesn't indicate that I am suited to eat meat, but if I have to mix fruit with fat, that makes me think I'm not suited to eat a high fruit diet.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Since we're omnivores, we should be able to cope with all kinds of food, especially if the food we're talking about is all on the diet anyway.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

so eating more animal fat/protein and less fruit/sugar/carbs might be better for some?

keep in mind I'm not dealing with acne, just trying to be healthy and feel good
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:so eating more animal fat/protein and less fruit/sugar/carbs might be better for some?
Why "better"?
If no fruits are at hand, then eating something else would be better, indeed.
I dont think we are constricted to certain ratios. I think that most of us can perfectly deal with rather different ratios of our basic foods. (if acne plays no role)
Last edited by RRM on Wed 09 Jan 2008 20:39, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

"Being able to cope with" and "might be better" aren't the same... ;)
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I mean if you had been in the cold for many generations and had seen changes in my body like the ability to not lose circulation when exposed to cold. Maybe I also would be more adapted to do better with more fat and protein and less fruit.
Thomas
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun 30 Oct 2005 00:01

Post by Thomas »

Oscar wrote:My main objection against the theory of our natural diet consisting mainly of animal protein (and fat), is that our digestive tract (including teeth) does not reflect this.
Our teeth do not need to be like carnivores because of stone tools. Stone tools did the work of tearing up a carcass that large canine teeth would normally do. Interestingly enough, around the time we started using stone tools, the human brain began to expand.



Regarding the digestive tract "substantial biochemical evidence suggests that, during the past 2.6 million years, we have made a significant evolutionary shift that has brought us closer to a meat-based diet than to a plant-based diet. (Loren Cordain, Colorado State University."

One example is long chain fatty acids. Carnivores have lost the ability to convert 18 carbon to 20 carbon fatty acids because they can get abundant 20 carbon fatty acids from their meat-based diet, however herbivores have the ability to synthesize 20 carbon fatty acids in the liver from plant-based 18 carbon fatty acids. 20 carbon fatty acids are not found in plant food.
Humans have very inefficient pathways to convert 18 carbon to 20 carbon fatty acids.
Thomas
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun 30 Oct 2005 00:01

Post by Thomas »

dionysus wrote:Was the savannahs of Tanzania/Kenya always a savannah?
We know we originiated in a savannah environment and not a jungle because we are bipedal.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Thomas wrote:Have any of you seen the savanah?
What makes you think that that savanah was the same savanah of millions of years ago?
Thomas wrote:Our teeth do not need to be like carnivores because of stone tools.
I eat raw meat occasionally, and afterwards its always quite some work to get all the meat-remainders from between my teeth.
If we would eat a lot of raw meat (for millions of years), our teeth would have adapted to accordingly, to prevent the early decay due to meat stuck between our teeth.
Humans have very inefficient pathways to convert 18 carbon to 20 carbon fatty acids.
We are not herbivores, but omnivores.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I have the same problem with fruit getting stuck in my teeth, but meat doesn't (or is really easy to get out).

Wouldn't fruit damage your teeth more than meat if stuck in your teeth? I thought sugar fed bacteria that produced some damaging substances.
Thomas
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun 30 Oct 2005 00:01

Post by Thomas »

RRM,
How much carbohydrate do you think would have been available to us?


Also, Weston Price proved that primitive tribes that had a large percentage of meat and fish in their diets had perfect teeth. They had an almost complete absence of gum disease and cavities. This was in contrast to modernized cultures where gum disease is rampant.


The Savanah would not have been much different from the present savanah because we are bipedal. This was an adaptation to an open, hot environment.
Post Reply