Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dorothy on November 08, 2011, 05:06:53 am
-
I've been thinking a lot about how something can make you feel good for a short time, but can be deleterious over the long-haul and how to figure out the difference.
Coffee for instance can smell and taste wonderful and can make me feel like a superbeing - for a short time - but long-term it becomes obvious that the damage it creates outweighs the short term enjoyment and good feelings.
Also, so many of the diets and foods that we are experimenting with are new for many of us and how do you figure out what is best long-term instead of temporary benefit? What is even the definition of long term and short term?
Your thoughts?
-
Well, when I was first experimenting with a 100 different diets, , I would find delightful, short-term beneficial effects such as with the raw vegan diet(which cuased me to become slimmer and to avoid getting those nasty stomach-pains I got from eating any cooked animal foods). With raw dairy, I would feel euphoric, like on drugs, for the first half an hour followed by a period of drowsiness - unsurprising since opioids in raw dairy influence the brain like drugs do.
At the time, I would try out a diet for anywhere up to 2 years. If it failed to cure more than 10 percent of my health-problems, I was forced to try something else. Eventually, I tried the raw, palaeolithic diet which sorted something like 50 percent of my health-problems within 4 months, so I stuck with it, and my remaining other health-problems slowly improved over time, too.
-
The difficulty in giving up my veganism was that the raw vegan thing had been healing SO many of my problems. If I had never gone low-fat fruitarian, I might still be vegan, because it was working fairly well for me . However, after reading Dr. Price's book, specifically how the Bantu, who ate mostly plants (lots of fruit and cooked sweet tubers), had 13 times the cavities of the Masai, who ate mostly meat, milk, and blood, I realized that something was seriously wrong with the vegan diet. I myself had terrible teeth problems from the fruit, and reading about the better teeth of the Masai clinched it for me.
I've had no need to look back. The only problems with this diet are cost and social isolation. Sourcing cheaper foods is simply a matter of persistence, and the social isolation can be overcome with persistence as well, and the very occasional partly-cooked meal.
The longer I do it, the healthier I get. I give up foods that aren't working for me, and I try new foods too, if I think they might work well, and/or if people here suggest them, or if I read that traditional peoples eat them.
It's a process. You never stop learning, I think. It's a great big long experiment, at least for me.
-
I went with raw salads/fruit and cooked meat a while ago during martial arts training. It definitely wasn't the best diet for that kind of sport, in that I often felt fatigued in quick,fast bouts but I still see the period (about 6 months) as being one of the best times in my life. I had been failing university, getting depressed and getting drunk way too much, and the feeling of having the self-discipline to get up every morning at 6, have a run, then later on train for a couple of hours etc while eating only what I wanted to eat, and pushing through fatigue in training (despite the fact that I wasn't eating anywhere near enough) was for me something I value so much that I had always thought about it when I went back to eating cooked foods and dropped training.
I don't know if its good for me long-term, because I have only tried it for a short time, but now that I'm doing the (mostly) raw diet thing again, and running again, I have that feeling back. I could go into blood-sugar, insulin, all that stuff but I just feel like I'm back where I belong.
Cheers
-
Well, when I was first experimenting with a 100 different diets, , I would find delightful, short-term beneficial effects such as with the raw vegan diet(which cuased me to become slimmer and to avoid getting those nasty stomach-pains I got from eating any cooked animal foods). With raw dairy, I would feel euphoric, like on drugs, for the first half an hour followed by a period of drowsiness - unsurprising since opioids in raw dairy influence the brain like drugs do.
At the time, I would try out a diet for anywhere up to 2 years. If it failed to cure more than 10 percent of my health-problems, I was forced to try something else. Eventually, I tried the raw, palaeolithic diet which sorted something like 50 percent of my health-problems within 4 months, so I stuck with it, and my remaining other health-problems slowly improved over time, too.
Up to 2 years! That's quite a long time. I like your parameters you set for yourself of 10% of your health concerns. Intelligent approach.
-
The difficulty in giving up my veganism was that the raw vegan thing had been healing SO many of my problems. If I had never gone low-fat fruitarian, I might still be vegan, because it was working fairly well for me . However, after reading Dr. Price's book, specifically how the Bantu, who ate mostly plants (lots of fruit and cooked sweet tubers), had 13 times the cavities of the Masai, who ate mostly meat, milk, and blood, I realized that something was seriously wrong with the vegan diet. I myself had terrible teeth problems from the fruit, and reading about the better teeth of the Masai clinched it for me.
I've had no need to look back. The only problems with this diet are cost and social isolation. Sourcing cheaper foods is simply a matter of persistence, and the social isolation can be overcome with persistence as well, and the very occasional partly-cooked meal.
The longer I do it, the healthier I get. I give up foods that aren't working for me, and I try new foods too, if I think they might work well, and/or if people here suggest them, or if I read that traditional peoples eat them.
It's a process. You never stop learning, I think. It's a great big long experiment, at least for me.
I bet it was the fruits and tubers that contributed the most to the tooth problems. When I was on a raw vegan diet with little fruit and no tubers my teeth healed up and filled themselves in nicely. But thank goodness you heard about the Masai! I had a Masai warrior friend once. Terribly sweet soul.
I'm pretty used to social isolation when it comes to food. But the forum is a great balm for that isolation isn't it?
-
Hey Billy - martial arts huh? What form? Just goes to show the importance of adapting diet to lifestyle and exercise.
-
Ok - so where my thoughts have been going..... 30 years experimenting with raw foods in general and 20 years of vegan and the vegetarian with many different amounts of raw - lots of it almost entirely raw but not quite - I would go to 100% raw and feel truly amazing. But then anywhere between 3 and 6 months there would be a change where I would feel (for the lack of a better word) too sattvic. There has always been that all raw feeling that I long for and yet - something not right long-term. Even just 95% raw was just not the same as 100%. The last couple of years I've included RAF - but haven't been able to go to 100% raw for any appreciable amount of time because of circumstances.
I know people say here that if someone lives even a decade or two feeling great that it could still mean that the diet is not sufficient, complete or good. My perspective on what is health changed radically having those 100% raw times. I didn't get sick or feel bad as a vegetarian or vegan with some cooked foods all those years - but I learned that not being sick was not real health.
So, now, finally, I am coming upon a time when I can try my 100% raw with some raw animal foods included to see if the 100% raw feelings can be kept going and built upon.
But my mind keeps on going back to so many years feeling better than most people around me, having no sicknesses or illness to cure or judge by and i wonder how I will judge what happens.
It's almost scary. I'm dealing with the prospect of having such a long-term dream of being able to live on all raw foods with that kind of energy and health without the yo-yo back and forth - and I wonder if I will be able to evaluate it objectively. It's been a goal to live that way for so many decades now.
Each step of the way there has been so much hope and such big gaps in real understanding or broad knowledge. It's a bit disarming to think that I could be so lacking in such basic information as I was for decades at a time. Now I am doing something that is not only little understood but taboo ON TOP of the raw I've already done.
It makes me wonder 10 years from now what I will be learning about my strange experiments on myself.
-
Hi Dorothy, I was doing Muay Thai, amateur.
My biggest obstacle with the raw food diet is getting enough carbohydrates. Maybe we were supposed to be able to run off fat, but for me there are three problems. First, I don't have energy for quick, fast exercise. Second, I have never felt great in ketosis, maybe it gets better, but I doubt it. I feel calm and satisfied but some kind of `awareness' seems to be missing. Third, it seems to me from my own studies that plants and nuts formed a large part of our diet for many millions of years. For me it is incredibly obvious that we are not supposed to just eat meat, or we would be sentient beasts with claws and fangs and a gut to match.
I liked very much how you said that even if there are no health problems, doesn't mean it is the best diet. I never had any big problems on any diet, except for my teeth. I have had mood problems and drowsiness problems, but little that I could definitively class as a health problem. I have often wondered if the Eskimos or the Bushmen really feel THAT great. I mean, trudging for miles through the kalahari desert, or through endless ice and snow, I'm not sure I would be able to tell whether my aches, pains and mood were a result of diet or not. Humans' biggest asset is our adaptability, but that doesn't mean something is good for us.
Well, I feel best when I eat a LOT of vegetables and small portions of meat and fat with every meal. I don't feel great when I eat a lot of meat, but if I go without, very soon I am craving some. I don't feel good when I eat a lot of fruit. The problem is, how do I get enough carbs to feel good all day? I'm trying to slowly increase my ability to handle fiber, so that I can eat more and more green planty material. If I don't manage to find a balance, I will probably add a little sweet potato or beans here and there (cooked).
Thanks for a great thread.
Cheers
-
Billy, we seem to have some things in common.
You don't do well on fiber then? So salads aren't your thing huh? Many people here say that the protective devices of the plants make toxins that make the plants hard to digest for them. I like salads and vegetables, digest them well and they make me feel good, so I guess I'm pretty lucky there. I also have so many years eating raw vegan that I have hundreds of tricks of the trade in making vegetables taste good and digest well - at least for me. Pates, loafs, burgers, chips, soups etc.
When it comes to fruit I need to combine them with some fat to feel good. Actually - usually the vegetables too I like with fat - actually - in general I need a bunch of fat!
I think that's why I like being able to add the RAFs because I just have to eat sooooo much less and getting the fat I need is sooooooooo much easier. I doubt I could get enough really raw vegan and that might be why I couldn't go very long on it. Cooked vegan it was much easier for me to get more fat. I can't wait to see if RAFs makes a real difference in my being able to start and stay on a 100% raw diet and feel as good as I have before but stay it out for years instead of months.
I won't force myself to eat anything that my body doesn't want (except for my husband's sake) because of some idea - especially now that you have RAFs as an option. I mean - there is so much more to experiment with and all those ideas that we have been taught were the best for us have been debunked here in one way or another. Hanging out here I read amazing things, like people thriving with no fiber at all! This place sometimes feels like someone taking a nutcracker to my skull it opens my mind so much.
How do we know what will really be best for us 10, 20, or 30 years down the line? I think these days that the best we can do is take the options and ideas open to us and see what makes us feel the best now incorporating as much information and logic that we have accumulated. What Tyler did was so logical and straight forward. Without disease though, we can still see what makes us feel better and what makes us feel not as good. Not as clear cut though. I also learned about Instincto here which I can't wait to explore more with the wider and more varied diet choices I will have now going all raw again.
-
Hi Dorothy,
I actually said that I like to eat a lot of vegetables! :)
I never had a problem with fiber but I need to increase slowly to change my bad habits. I mean, I'm trying to eat a gigantic salad with every meal and my gut ecosystem needs to acclimatise.
Life is a learning curve that never ends :D
-
I think I might still be confused Billy. You said that you aren't getting enough carbohydrates and need to increase your fiber right?
Vegetables have carbohydrates and fiber. Fruit of course does have more carbs than veggies. What kind of fiber and carbohydrates are you talking about then? How much do you think you need and why?
-
First, I don't have energy for quick, fast exercise.
For quick fast energy as you call it or anaerobic exercise as I would call it the body needs glycogen. On A ketogenic diet the body uses protein to manufacture glycogen. It is imperative that you eat enough protein on a ketogenic diet. The lower your carb intake the more protein is "wasted" for fuel so the more important this gets.
I tried both cooked and raw ketogenic diets and it works great for burning fat but you have to really monitor your intake. If both fat and prot are high enough I felt reasonable good. However intens anearobic workouts were suffering so I introduced a high carb(lots of low fiber high glycemic fruits) meal a few hours prior to working out. This solved those problems. Fruit is especially good for this since fructose get transformed to glycogen faster than other sugars.
Nowadays I eat a low carb raw diet. What I call low carb anyway. I eat one fruit a day and use some honey and dairy so I get enough carbs to stay out of ketosis.
I think the ability to revert to a ketogenic state, to use ketones to fuel certain tissue's instead of glucose, is an adaptation to lean times. The use of ketones means the body needs les glucose which means is has to cannibalise less protein(muscle). If your interested in this I advice you to read this
http://membres.multimania.fr/robody3/Ebooks/The_Ketogenic_Diet.pdf (http://membres.multimania.fr/robody3/Ebooks/The_Ketogenic_Diet.pdf)
Its about cooked ketogenic diets but the same macro-nutrient rules apply.
-
Hi,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I'm saying is that I feel that I need as much carbohydrates as I can get on a true paleo diet, but that vegetables are the best source for me. Fruit has too much fructose which can't be stored anywhere except the liver, anyway apart from science I never felt good eating so much sugar, and I am looking out for my teeth. Therefore I'm trying to increase my capacity for vegetable fiber, because my guts are not used to it. I'm aiming for at least 100g of fiber a day from veggies, which is what seems to be the hunter-gatherer level. The rest of my nutrition I will try to get from meat and fat.
HIT_it_RAW, I understand that protein can be used for energy, but my own experience in ketosis was not extremely pleasant. I felt calm and not hungry, but lacking some `zing' and with a bit of the underwater feeling, like I'm not quite in contact with my surroundings. Maybe it gets better but I'm not convinced.
Also, I think that turning protein into glucose is an inefficient means of getting energy which places undue stress on the human body. Maybe this is what people refer to when they say that eskimos aged very rapidly. I am not at all well informed on this subject, but my own studies indicate that ageing is a process whereby the body tires itself out, so to speak, from metabolism, fighting disease, dealing with stresses in diet and the environment, etc. Since a protein expends a lot more heat than a carbohydrate in its metabolism, it might wear out the system a lot quicker, not to mention the process of turning it into fuel.
Therefore, my diet is plant-based, but not lacking in meat and fat.
I will study the link you sent me.
Cheers
-
Its not burning protein its converting it to glucose to feed certain tissue's (brain, nervous sytem) that cannot ustilise fat or ketones for fuel. If you eat at least 50 grams of carbs a day the body doesn't need to do this.
I'm aiming for at least 100g of fiber a day from veggies, which is what seems to be the hunter-gatherer level. The rest of my nutrition I will try to get from meat and fat.
Where did you get those figures? During an ice age one wouldn't that much fiber.
-
"In general, the typical thermic effect of protein is 20%–35% of energy consumed and for carbohydrate, this number usually falls between 5% and 15%"
Thermic effect is the energy required for digestion, absorption and disposal. It is more difficult to digest and break down protein, and requires more energy. I know that protein itself cannot be burned, so I'm assuming that the burning of the resultant glucose is another matter. Even if it wasn't, protein still would take twice as much energy.
I understand that the body can run pretty well on just protein and fat, but I don't believe that it is optimal. I haven't yet seen a long-lived person who ate only these, and I have seen information indicating that eskimos do not have a very long lifespan.
About the amount of fiber, I've seen estimates of the Australian aboriginal diet which suggested around 80-120 grams depending on the season. Their type of diet, with lots of raw plants and fiber and small amount of meat, is what I'm trying to copy.
Dorothy had a thread with a vote about whether people were meant to live in the tropics, and I believe that they were, because its an environment most conducive to life. The eskimos were a group of people who managed to survive in some of the harshest conditions, and I don't think their diet was optimal.
Cheers
PS not sure why my whole text became a link, but anyways :)
(http://www.jacn.org/content/23/5/373.full)
-
The ability to withstand ketogenic diets is I think an adaptation to times like ice ages when people were forced to rely on animal products almost exclusively. I agree that it is not an optimal state. Most people seem to do better with a small amount of carbs.
About the amount of fiber, I've seen estimates of the Australian aboriginal diet which suggested around 80-120 grams depending on the season. Their type of diet, with lots of raw plants and fiber and small amount of meat, is what I'm trying to copy.
The australian climate may not be a good role model to use for paleo times.
-
The australian climate may not be a good role model to use for paleo times.
What climate do you think would be a good role model HIR?
-
Billy, the diet you are striving for is what I am naturally leaning towards as well. Eggs will be important for me as I take to them very well. I don't measure things so I won't know how many grams of what I will be eating unless I learn to.... but I bet I'm going to be skewed a good deal towards the carbohydrate/fiber end. Eating too much meat makes me feel exactly as you described. I want that high energy with the stabilization of raw animal foods - but what I am thinking that concentrated fats might be the most important aspect of RAFs for me. When I did an extremely short experiment of only a day or two with no carb, I felt sick for weeks afterward. It was extremely bad for me. I felt like my kidneys were being massively overwhelmed - like if I had eaten a toxin. I have been thinking that I probably did not eat enough fat and did not eat organs or the whole animal. Lex seems to think that is an important aspect to his success. I want to try basically 100% raw vegan with a variety of RAF added in small amounts to see if I can keep up the energy, joy and extreme health that I got short term on a raw vegan for a year or two. Then, if that works, I will probably try Zero carb again but with at least 70% fat and the entire animal as close to how Lex does it as possible.
I am terribly curious if both extremes are just fine if done with enough fat or not, if it is individual, or if there is a certain key that would make both of them work well.
But then we go back to the question of how to know much of anything if I don't do it one way for many decades in a row? Does feeling really great for a couple of years make the case?
At the least I might make a case that at least one person can feel great eating two radically different paleo diets..... or not. Not many people here feel good from mostly plant foods yet I do, so ..... I can't help but to wonder how I would feel doing zero carb - but in the way that someone it does work for does it. First, I will start from the place that I assume will give me the highest chance of feeling the best from based on my previous experience as my first step.
I obviously am planning way ahead! :o
-
I think I had a previous discussion with wodgina, and the upshot of it was that the australian aboriginal diet was found to have some plant foods but to also have a lot of animal foods?
-
What climate do you think would be a good role model HIR?
well obviously that would very much depend on when and where. the last few 100.000 year the world has seen climate changes.
your body is totally tuned to eating raw plant food so I don't find it very surprising that zc didn't work for you. In time when you've become more accustomed to animal products and build the right gutflora things may be very different. Still every one should do what makes him/her feel good.
-
Still every one should do what makes him/her feel good.
Wine, pizzas and macaronis made me feel very good! ;)
-
PS not sure why my whole text became a link, but anyways :)
ROLF... ;D :D You're lucky it didn't become an horrendous small grey alien bound to abduct you :o
-
Wine, pizzas and macaronis made me feel very good! ;)
That's it exactly Iguana! Coffee makes me feel more than good...... at first.
-
your body is totally tuned to eating raw plant food so I don't find it very surprising that zc didn't work for you. In time when you've become more accustomed to animal products and build the right gutflora things may be very different. Still every one should do what makes him/her feel good.
Actually for the last couple of years before landing here I was eating raw eggs, fish and dairy - at times lots. I think that's why I felt almost no change eating raw meat. I ate gads of meat trying to convince hubbie that it wouldn't kill a person. I didn't die or end up in the hospital and now he is buying, preparing and enjoying raw meat. It really suits him.
It was only eating nothing but red meat that made me feel badly and I realize that I did it improperly. I will never know what will really make me feel best long-term unless I keep on experimenting. I've been at this experimenting on myself thing for so long that it feels quite natural. I experiment on myself before even attempting to suggest anything to others. ZC might be exceedingly good for my husband and if it does nothing bad to me (like raw meat) then it might also be a good thing for him to try even if I end up eating more plant foods. Even if it's not the best for me, if it does me no harm, that says something.
I tried out all the cancer cures I gave to my dog and to my mother before giving it to them because I was stronger. Some of them made me too ill to even think about giving to them, but I could bounce back where they might not have been able to.
Just call me the living guinea pig. :)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html (http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/fats.html)
Raw fat was essential for the development and evolution of the human brain.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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:
"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:(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_Pt9I7D1enc/Thhde2b6DbI/AAAAAAAAAMA/ScYjfwNtU3E/s400/Cranial%2Bcapacity%2BFigure%2B3.gif)
(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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Sabertooth, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. I don't see how a cat could not benefit from being smart. Evolution is supposed to favour those who survive, and a cat on top of the food chain, with no known natural predators, and access to an ample supply of food would theoretically be a prime candidate.
I understand what you say about the perfect storm creating man and I do agree.
The article you posted clearly draws a comparison between Neanderthals who ate red meat (which usually carries a higher percentage of fat) and early humans who ate seafood (generally a lot less fat). This is one of the basis for its thread that omega 3 and DHA contributed to the formation of the human brain.
I do say that fat is calorie dense and therefore might have provided an abundance of calories during periods when vegetation was scarce, but I don't think this would apply in the tropics and only for short periods of time (on an evolutionary scale) in mid latitudes.
The human brain (largely composed of fat) does not need high dietary fat in order to grow, because fat can and usually is made from everything that is eaten. The body does not say "well I'm not getting enough dietary fat so sorry, no can do" it makes it from whatever it is given.
Lastly, if our brains evolved on a diet of high fat, why didn't our guts? Why didn't our teeth? Why didn't our bodily secretions and functions and everything else? Carbohydrates are still preferred as an energy source. I don't care what any Stefansson or any scientists say but I feel like hell in ketosis.
Cheers
-
The idea is that a much bigger hominid brain requires a hell of a lot more energy to sustain itself, and fat has far more of that in it than proteins or carbohydrates. Plus, brains are one of the few organs in the body made mostly of fat - marrow and, to a much lesser extent, tongue being the major exceptions. So, teeth etc. are not relevant here.
As far as ketosis is concerned, I agree with you there, I did very badly on it, too(though it took c. 3 weeks to start suffering, in my case). But the idea isn't that our palaeo ancestors ate an all-animal food diet(though some of them must have), they simply prized the brains and marrow above all other foods. The idea being that those organs would have been left behind by predators.
-
Summary: I agree with Billy on some points and disagree on others; I nearly completely agree with Tyler and completely agree with Sabertooth. The key point that no one disputed and is universally accepted by scientists is that increased brain growth provided increased intelligence going from Australopithecines to Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. I haven't seen a good explanation of why we should ignore brain size completely after that point.
I'm surprised I didn't get more backlash. Good to see that political correctness doesn't appear to run amok here.
Details:
Hi PaleoPhil,
Asians are supposed to be the most intelligent race in terms of IQ and they are usually the smallest, skinniest people around.
If you look at the map, you'll see that plenty of Asians, including Chinese, are in the bigger-brained areas. The research up to this point is pretty limited, though, as it's so politically incorrect, so it will be interesting to see what future research finds.
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.
Of course, we can imagine anything. It's putting our speculations to the test that is the important thing, either by finding research to support them or doing our own tests.
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.
Wild elephants may not be as fat as you think and body fat is not correlated with brain fat, AFAIK. More importantly, a key factor for intelligence is brain to body ratio, which is quite low in elephants and much higher in humans.
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.
That's pretty much what I said, except I would say significantly more omega 3, likely sourced from eating brains and marrow of wild animals, fish and shellfish. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt mentioned that 25% of the human brain is omega 3 FA and 65% is saturated FA. We are literally fatheads :) and scientists like Loren Cordain hypothesize that eating brains and other foods rich in omega 3 (and I would add, saturated fat) provided the raw material for the evolution of larger hominin brains.
I don't know if Eskimos are smarter than the general population,
I don't know either, as brain size is not the same thing as intelligence, but the evidence does show correlation (which is not causation, of course).
but perhaps their increased brain size is because of all the omega 3 and DHA that they get from the fish they eat?
and sea mammals and land mammals (as the resource material for the brain), perhaps in combination with the demands on the brain of the Arctic environment (the selective pressure).
Asians (especially Japan) tend to eat a lot of fish too.
Yes, and they've been eating them for thousands of years or more and in the past they were largely wild fish (omega-3 rich). It is a bit surprising that the Japanese and Scandinavians don't rank higher on that skull-size map, given the history of seafood consumption. It looks like the areas where caribou and reindeer were the staple traditional foods have the largest skull sizes.
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.
Quite right. It gets repeated so often that it's taken as gospel.
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 agree.
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.
The evidence is imperfect, so I'm sure there will be plenty more debate in the scientific community on this.
A side note--Seth Roberts, myself and others have reported improved brain function on Paleo and raw Paleo diets. Seth even does his own little intelligence tests and tracks which foods give it a boost. So your own brain function may well have improved. We know that brains can shrink on deficient diets, such as in the vegan and vegetarian brain shrinkage case, so it's not far-fetched to think that some reversal of that shrinkage might be possible via improved diet, as well as improved neural connections and so on.
---
Excellent points, Sabertooth.
---
Sabertooth, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. I don't see how a cat could not benefit from being smart.
Benefits from evolutionary changes, like increased intelligence from larger brains, don't come without a cost. Cats already have sufficient intelligence to hunt and kill prey with their speed, fangs, claws, strength and so on. Brains consume a lot of energy and larger heads could reduce speed, balance, agility, etc. If the energy cost and other costs of a larger brain were more than offset by the intelligence gained, then cats would have evolved larger brains, but it apparently wasn't, so they didn't. Otherwise, all mammals would evolve larger and larger brains and all would have huge heads. LOL
I don't think this would apply in the tropics and only for short periods of time (on an evolutionary scale) in mid latitudes.
The tropics that H. erectus and H. sapiens evolved in were savannahs mixed with forest, lakes, rivers and seasides (the balance of which shifted with each major climactic change) that were teeming with megafauna. It wasn't like the banana forest that vegans dream up, if that's what you're thinking (bananas aren't even native to Africa, BTW).
Lastly, if our brains evolved on a diet of high fat, why didn't our guts? Why didn't our teeth?
Who says they didn't and why? Our guts actually did reduce in size as animal fat and meat intake increased and intake of tough, fibery foods declined, and continued to shrink as cooked foods were introduced and increasingly consumed.
Carbohydrates are still preferred as an energy source. I don't care what any Stefansen or any scientists say but I feel like hell in ketosis.
Carbs are a useful energy source, but that is beside the point, as Tyler pointed out well.
I disagree with Stefansson on some points too, and surprisingly, he actually was OK with including some carbs like potatoes in his recommended diet and he reported witnessing Eskimos eat wild potatoes, which are called Eskimo potatoes, BTW. You won't see zero carbers talk about Eskimo potatoes much, because they don't fit their preconceived notions. Both the notions of the banana jungle paradise and the zero-carb Eskimos are largely based on myth rather than evidence.
The key point that no one disputed is that increased brain growth is universally recognized by scientists as providing increased intelligence going from Australopithecines to Neanderthals and Cro Magnon; it's only the recent bit of the last 30,000 years or so where they start to abandon this view and suddenly say that brain size magically doesn't matter any more. Rather too convenient, I think, and possibly mainly due to towing the line of political correctness so as to stay employed and continue receiving funding, and perhaps because people generally don't like to think that any group of people is born with a significant advantage, especially among committed leftwing ideologues like the recently departed Stephan Jay Gould.
-
Well, things like my concentration/alertness have definitely improved, as has my memory, so I'm sure my brain has benefitted. I doubt my ability to do IQ tests has improved - at least, I did one online IQ test recently, wherein I scored just c. 125 IQ points, whereas other official and unofficial IQ tests in the past, pre-raw diet, had me, usually, at an average 135 IQ points, with variations up to 150 or somewhere below for specific individual IQ tests measuring visuo-spatial intelligence, numerical ability etc.. I doubt that means I am less intelligent due to the diet, as the online test seems less "valid" than the other types of test I performed in the past, I suspect my IQ is still the same.
-
So concentration, alertness and memory have no impact on IQ scores? If so, that's surprising. At any rate, I don't want to get bogged down into a discussion of IQ tests. We seem to agree on the fundamental points.
-
So concentration, alertness and memory have no impact on IQ scores? If so, that's surprising.
I know, it surprised me too.
-
The 10% usage isn't true? I've been hearing that over and over for close to forever. Thanks for putting me straight on that one. I tell ya, things that are accepted as true seem to change so often that it's hard to consider anything true anymore.
So I'll bite Phil:
"The key point that no one disputed is that increased brain growth is universally recognized by scientists as providing increased intelligence going from Australopithecines to Neanderthals and Cro Magnon; it's only the recent bit of the last 30,000 years or so where they start to abandon this view and suddenly say that brain size magically doesn't matter any more."
How do they know that intelligence increased going from Australopithecines to Neanderthals and Cro Magnon? I mean IQ tests don't even count! If use of new technologies count that would prove that having smaller brains increased intelligence moving now into the information age! How does one classify and determine intelligence?
Many scientists consider tool use and advanced language skills to be the best sign of intelligence - but parrots have been proven to use our own language as well being able to count and do other advanced verbal communications with humans. (See anything about Alex the african grey). Crows use tools. But birds have smaller brains in proportion to their body weight than the large predator mammals! (That is unless that is also untrue even though it's what I've heard my whole life).
How we use our brains has changed. Does it really make us less intelligent now than our ancestors if our brains are smaller? Are there tests that were done on the vegans/vegetarians to prove that they were dumber because they had smaller brains? Maybe they became more like parrots when their ancestors did activities more like lions?
How does one prove the correlation between larger brains as higher intelligence across species with totally different kinds of activities? How can one say that the brain being larger in our ancestors who were out hunting and changing environments constantly and using different parts of their brains than we do were more intelligent than we are now?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prove that any diet is better. I just don't see so far with what has been posted here so far (or maybe I missed it) that proves a correlation between brain size and intelligence.
It seems to me similar to the cholesterol myth: cholesterol is present in people that have heart attacks so it must cause them. Brain size was bigger when we think that humans got smarter so that must have made them that way.
-
The idea is that a much bigger hominid brain requires a hell of a lot more energy to sustain itself, and fat has far more of that in it than proteins or carbohydrates.
Brains consume a lot of energy and larger heads could reduce speed, balance, agility, etc.
I don't imagine that the brain uses more than 20% of the total calories required, which for a 2000 calorie diet is 400. If the brain became 1.5 times bigger, the difference is about 200 calories. This is not a great deal by any stretch of the imagination.
We're talking about paleolithic times here!
The kalahari bushmen currently live quite well in the middle of the kalahari desert, where you or me would drop dead in a few hours. They are confined to limited reserves in the hope that they will decide to join the city life. They compete with sports hunters and a very strained, very lean ecosystem, and according to a few sources only need to spend a four-hour week (excluding food preparation) gathering food.
I would say that by comparison, our paleolithic ancestors in the tropics would have been presented with such a buffet that they wouldn't know where to start! 200 calories more would not have been hard to find.
Let me state again my argument:
Dietary fat did NOT result in a bigger brain
Omega 3 likely CONTRIBUTED
Eating more seafood may have contributed to a bigger brain because of the availability of omega 3. But, as Sabertooth's article implied, it had to do with the introduction of seafood, not some kind of explosion in meat-eating in general, because the Neanderthals already ate a lot of red meat, and did not appear to experience any measurable difference. It definitely, in my opinion, had nothing to do with eating more fat as such.
I agree with Paleophil that probably a small difference in brain size equals a small difference in intelligence, but as Dorothy said the current tests are debatable and on the whole this is a very debatable matter. Personally, I think it would have a lot to do with active neurons or something like that. However, if a brain doubled in size, I believe it would be significantly more intelligent.
Lastly, the idea that a big cat already gets enough food and so it will not evolve does not sound right at all to me. If that were the case, if humans started eating a lot of fat, they would cease to evolve, rather than grow a bigger brain.
Cheers
-
Dorothy, the point re crows etc. is correct, but only in the sense that there is no fine dividing line between humans and other animals, merely a series of progressive steps inbetween.
What we see in dogs and wolves is interesting as a comparison. For example, it is well-known that wolves are way more intelligent than dogs, being subject to natural selection etc. But dogs generally do better than wolves at certain typical human-made tasks for pets, simply because they have been imprinted, via inbreeding for certain obedience-related characteristics, and have been trained from birth in a pavlovian manner to do tasks. By contrast, when wolves' intelligence was tested in a neutral fashion, they were found to out-perform dogs:-
http://www.livescience.com/5672-wolves-beat-dogs-logic-test.html (http://www.livescience.com/5672-wolves-beat-dogs-logic-test.html)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-puppy-my-self/201110/the-canine-human-bond-the-real-reason-dogs-are-smarter-chimps (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-puppy-my-self/201110/the-canine-human-bond-the-real-reason-dogs-are-smarter-chimps)
The point, here, is that the standard Palaeolithic caveman is very likely to have been a genius compared to Neolithic or modern man, but the latter two had more complex social systems and technology which, ultimately, made them seem more intelligent. Another comparison would be intelligent criminals, with access to only some forms of technology and a clever plan, faced by millions of (mostly) less intelligent government employees(police etc.) - the latter usually beat the former, not because of high-level thinking, but because they have better access to technology( the general population , for example, is usually banned from buying chemicals for explosives etc.) plus the police etc. have access to information on criminals' usual habits, as well as standard police procedure etc. So, advanced cultural info can make modern man seem more intelligent than a palaeolithic man, even if that isn't the case.
-
Meat is a better explanation than fish for bigger hominid brains. For one thing, the aquatic ape theory is largely discredited re unsuitable evidence. Plus, most humans did not just live right next to the coast or rivers in palaeo times but would keep up with migrating herds across vast distances.
-
There's an interesting SF book by William Golding, "the Inheritors", about Neanderthals having telepathy which meant they never developed language like humans had to, so this is the glib explanation for why Neanderthals died out. I personally wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the Neanderthals were more intelligent than modern humans in actual fact.
-
There's an interesting SF book by William Golding, "the Inheritors", about Neanderthals having telepathy which meant they never developed language like humans had to, so this is the glib explanation for why Neanderthals died out. I personally wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the Neanderthals were more intelligent than modern humans in actual fact.
Sounds like an interesting book. It doesn't sound likely, but then again a lot of people seem to think that our evolution is at an end. It may conceivably have ended a while ago, but technology still came forth as a completion of the expression of our abilities.
I respect science, but I'm aware of the shakiness of the foundations for many of our conclusions.
I think my Dad has it somewhere. I'll definitely look it up.
-
How do they know that intelligence increased going from Australopithecines to Neanderthals and Cro Magnon? I mean IQ tests don't even count!
Not based on IQ tests, as humans have changed since Neanderthal and Cro Magnon days and no group of living people is regarded as truly Neanderthal or Cro Magnon. Scientists look at the overall evidence, including brain size, artifacts, tatoos, animal remains, habitat remains and so on. If you have evidence that human intelligence hasn't progressed since Australopithecines, feel free to share it.
How we use our brains have changed. Does it really make us less intelligent now than our ancestors if our brains are smaller? Are there tests that were done on the vegans/vegetarians to prove that they were dummer because they had smaller brains? Maybe they became more like parrots when their ancestors did activities more like lions?
It seems like you're searching for reasons not to believe the evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prove that any diet is better. I just don't see so far with what has been posted here so far (or maybe I missed it) that proves a correlation between brain size and intelligence.
Science is not about proof, it's about asking questions, searching for evidence, analyzing it, developing hypotheses based on the evidence and putting those to the test.
-
I don't imagine that the brain uses more than 20% of the total calories required, which for a 2000 calorie diet is 400. If the brain became 1.5 times bigger, the difference is about 200 calories.
Again, one can imagine anything one likes, it's the evidence which is key.
Let me state again my argument:
Dietary fat did NOT result in a bigger brain....
Omega 3 likely CONTRIBUTED...
Omega 3 is dietary fat, so fat did contribute to a bigger brain. Whether it came more from seafood or land mammals is not that crucial to my main original points.
I agree with Paleophil that probably a small difference in brain size equals a small difference in intelligence, but as Dorothy said the current tests are debatable and on the whole this is a very debatable matter.
I basically agree.
Lastly, the idea that a big cat already gets enough food and so it will not evolve does not sound right at all to me.
Without selective pressures, why would it evolve a larger brain?
If that were the case, if humans started eating a lot of fat, they would cease to evolve, rather than grow a bigger brain.
Why? What then is your alternative hypothesis about the food(s) that provided the raw material for the evolution of larger hominin brains?
The reason dietary fat, including omega 3 FAs, is so crucial to the brain and overall health is dramatically underscored by a recent blog post, with observational and research evidence thoughtfully supplied within it: Paleo Baby
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2011, http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/paleo-baby.html (http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/paleo-baby.html)
For those who doubt any of this, test it out yourself in the way that Seth Roberts does (The unreasonable effectiveness of my self-experimentation (http://sethroberts.net/articles/2010%20The%20unreasonable%20effectiveness%20of%20my%20self-experimentation.pdf)): try a low fat raw vegan diet and see how your brain fairs on that vs. a raw Paleo diet rich in animal/seafood fat.
-
Not based on IQ tests, as humans have changed since Neanderthal and Cro Magnon days and no group of living people is regarded as truly Neanderthal or Cro Magnon. Scientists look at the overall evidence, including brain size, artifacts, tatoos, animal remains, habitat remains and so on. If you have evidence that human intelligence hasn't progressed since Australopithecines, feel free to share it.
It seems like you're searching for reasons not to believe the evidence.
Science is not about proof, it's about asking questions, searching for evidence, analyzing it, developing hypotheses based on the evidence and putting those to the test.
"overall evidence, including brain size, artifacts, tatoos, animal remains, habitat remains and so on. "
This is so unspecific that I'm surprised you would say such a thing. Brain size is being debated so the thing we are debating itself as evidence? What artifacts? Tatoos- how do we know about tatoos on skin that no longer exist? What about habitat remains? These might say that they had some tools? What???
I'm not looking for ways to not believe evidence - I'm asking how there could be evidence and what you think it is? I don't need to present proof - you were presenting "proof" and I'm asking you what it is and how those conclusions could even be arrived at? You can make hypotheses and gather information that eventually will make you come to conclusions - but what you have presented so far speaks more to wanting a certain outcome and finding things to support your hypotheses even though there are countless holes and little that is substantive that has been shared so far.
Brain size = increased intelligence. Why? How?
Humans can increase their intelligence (according to what I have read) dramatically without increasing their brain size by learning new and varied skills. The more challenge to a brain the more neural pathways that get formed. The environment and activities play a crucial role in evaluating intelligence.
Birds can be more intelligent because they have to evaluate size, shape, color, number when it comes to food sources over large and varied terrain, communicate with each other verbally in elaborate ways including complex mating songs and are extremely social with elaborate and subtle hierarchies structures that are necessary for survival. At least - that's what many believe from what I read and I think it makes sense. They still have small brains though.
And wolves vs. dogs Tyler - I'm not sure the pertinence when it comes to parrots that are not domesticated animals even when pets and that are studied in the wild and I don't think many people keep pet crows. Dogs it is very true have been bred to the point where they are one of the few animals that look into the eyes and faces of humans and can interpret our emotions and understand pointing. They have adapted to pet living and to some, that makes them intelligent in a way that some believe wolves are far behind.
Again - what do you use to evaluate intelligence? If it's about telepathy, then my dogs are unbelievably smart because they respond to my thoughts without me speaking all the time. I can give my beagle a command to sit without saying it or moving and she does it. I can just think about feeding the dogs and they go crazy. Which environment - the wild or living with humans makes for higher intelligence? It depends on what you use as indicators of intelligence.
-
Brain size = increased intelligence. Why? How?
Humans can increase their intelligence (according to what I have read) dramatically without increasing their brain size by learning new and varied skills. The more challenge to a brain the more neural pathways that get formed. The environment and activities play a crucial role in evaluating intelligence.
Science has made an attempt to measure intelligence by brain size. They plotted brain surface area and weight against bodyweight. Spermwhales came in first humans second..
The scientific community has long stated that humans cannot improve intelligence(IQ) one can merely enlarge knowledge. Very recently there has been some proof that it might be possible to improve IQ during teenage years. This is still controversial and very much point of debate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15369851 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15369851)
-
The trouble, D, is that you are confusing training/education with intelligence. The 2 are NOT the same. So, wolves are more intelligent than dogs(I believe they can even respond to human eye contact, given one study I read yesterday) - the difference is, merely, that dogs are better trained, via inbreeding for certain traits, as well as dog-training and, in particular, socialisation, than wolves.
Similiarly, someone might become a bit better at solving puzzles due to training or extra stimulation of some sort helping to thicken some areas of the brain for that period of time(which would boost concentration/attention to detail/memory etc.), but their intelligence would stay the same. In other words, put dogs and wolves in a situation not involving humans, and the wolves would win every time, due to their higher intelligence.
To give a real-life example:- I know of an adult with a mental age of 2 who, through endless education/training/psychological counselling is able to swim, open locks, shake hands, carry heavy buckets down steps and a hundred other more complex tasks - to the point where, at first glance, one would assume that he was like everyone else re intellect.
-
Did you read the link that HIR posted Tyler? They say that the boy mentioned above increased his intelligence based on his IQ score. What other measurement do we have at this point to judge intelligence?
There is something to be said for the training of a brain. Once a new neural pathway is established it is not only a new skill, but a difference in the brain itself. Multiply new neural pathways thousands or millions of times over and you have increased intelligence.... don't you?
My dogs haven't been trained to look at my eyes - it's a form of evolution to survive well in their environment that includes humans and I don't understand why that isn't considered a part of intelligence. Even the youngest puppies make eye contact. Or even if it is just breeding (human intervention for adaptation at greater speeds to be better/smarter at living with us) why wouldn't it count? People with impaired brain function often cannot and do not look other people in the eyes.
I'm not trying to make any point in regard to how important fat is for brain function or the paleo diet. I'm just not convinced that brain size equates necessarily to higher intelligence or whales would never have been hunted nearly to extinction and parrots would be dumber than most mammals. Snark.
And........... Phil enticed (almost dared) me! :P
-
Dorothy, I agree with you.
It's like saying a typewriter is more advanced than an ipod because its bigger. It depends what's inside. Besides the neuron density, the brain has a lot of different components, the relative sizes of which can deeply affect `intelligence' based on individual perceptions of what intelligence is. I mean, a dog can smell a hell of a lot better than a human, and I'm sure it has to do with increased neural activity in some part of the brain. Does that make it more intelligent? Science doesn't really know very much about the human body at all, in my book.
I must say that I do theorize that there is a limit to the capability of a certain size of brain, a limit which can be raised if it is enlargened. However I am not sure.
Paleophil, I know that omega 3 is a fat, but it is a certain type of fat. I am arguing that dietary fat as such is not conducive to human brain evolution or development. Fish has ten times more omega 3 than the richest red meat, and so a few sardines, which overall are very lean, would provide the same omega 3 as a few kilos of beef.
I don't know where this perception came from that brain development requires some gigantic amount of fat and energy. It is a little computer which uses a surprisingly small amount of power. Most of the energy consumed is used in heating and maintaining a very big body, as well as muscular activity. Therefore I would be much more concerned with the type of food I was eating, than the overall quantity. A lot of people believe that if they drown themselves in the vitamins, they will get `superhuman powers'. Luckily for them, the body tightly regulates that sort of thing or they would poison themselves. I believe its the same with fat, except that its not well regulated. Eat too much and you'll probably just get fat, and probably develop a lot of health problems as well.
I don't have any worthwhile theories yet on why the brain evolved, but it didn't have to do with raw energy or simple fat as far as I'm concerned.
I don't want to try vegan at the moment, thanks very much, because I doubt that I would be able to avoid all the problems I have heard others describe. Problems which can be entirely avoided with small amounts of the right kind of meat. Just look at the Okinawans, living healthily to 114. They eat a bit of fish every now and then, and mostly vegetables and rice (not raw though). That's all the proof I need to know that I don't need a lot of fat.
It seems like people have to swing from vegan to carnivore and back again, without stopping to check what's in between.
Cheers
-
Summary:
> Isn't measured brain sizes evidence regarding brain sizes, albeit quite limited by the small amount of evidence available?
> I'm not claiming proof of anything.
> Brain size does not equal increased intelligence, they are merely correlated, and my original point was more regarding brain size than intelligence, as intelligence is much more difficult to measure than brain and skull size.
Details:
"overall evidence, including brain size, artifacts, tatoos, animal remains, habitat remains and so on. "
This is so unspecific that I'm surprised you would say such a thing. Brain size is being debated so the thing we are debating itself as evidence?
Since when is measured brain sizes (based on molding material they put into skulls) not evidence of brain size? Do you have better evidence?
I'm not looking for ways to not believe evidence - I'm asking how there could be evidence and what you think it is? I don't need to present proof - you were presenting "proof"
I don't recall ever claiming to present "proof" on this topic and I try to be careful in general not to claim proof, though I probably don't always succeed. If you see somewhere where I used that term, please let me know so I can correct it out. Suggestive evidence is not proof, though it's better than no evidence at all.
but what you have presented so far speaks more to wanting a certain outcome and finding things to support your hypotheses even though there are countless holes and little that is substantive that has been shared so far.
I just try to follow wherever the evidence, science and logic lead. As I said before, if you have better evidence, please share it.
Brain size = increased intelligence. Why? How?
Brain size doesn't equal intelligence, it is correlated with it. Correlation is not causation, it's only suggestive evidence that can point the way for further research. That equation goes well beyond the evidence. I even was careful to note the following:
(Billy wrote:) "I don't know if Eskimos are smarter than the general population...."
(I replied:) "I don't know either, as brain size is not the same thing as intelligence, but the evidence does show correlation (which is not causation, of course)."
This is a good example of why my standard approach is to try to avoid claiming to have "proved" anything (when I'm paying proper attention to my language) and I try to be careful to use language like "correlation," "the evidence suggests," "it seems that" and so on, rather than "this proves" or "this is absolutely the case" or "this must be...." I even created a thread on this topic where I advocated for not making absolute claims, especially not without evidence. I'm comfortable with uncertainty and open-mindedness. I try to go wherever the evidence leads me. Of course, different people sometimes interpret the same evidence differently, which is fine and which is what scientific discussion and debate is for. I find I'm persuaded more by the evidence that other folks present (which can include anecdotal evidence where appropriate--I'm not an evidence snob) than I am by opinions. You're free to your opinions, of course, just please don't expect me to be swayed much by them, nor do I expect you to be swayed much by mine.
Humans can increase their intelligence (according to what I have read) dramatically without increasing their brain size by learning new and varied skills.
I've never argued that one can't increase one's intelligence. Please note that I suggested the opposite was possible to Tyler above--that an improved diet might increase reverse brain shrinkage and thus increase intelligence--and I've read that doing mental exercises can help maintain mental ability into old age and reduce the damaging effects of Alzheimer's.
Birds can be more intelligent because they have to evaluate size, shape, color, number when it comes to food sources over large and varied terrain, communicate with each other verbally in elaborate ways including complex mating songs and are extremely social with elaborate and subtle hierarchies structures that are necessary for survival.
More intelligent than what, humans?
Thanks for the feedback, Dorothy. I tried to be as clear as possible and I hope I got the message across better this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again and cheerio!
-
PaleoPhil,
I do appreciate the quality of your arguments, even if I don't agree with you on some things. I enjoy `locking horns' with people like you who are articulate and knowledgeable. When I read other forums, the threads that I enjoy the most are those which have people from different points of view creating a lively debate.
Cheers
-
Re comment:- "I mean, a dog can smell a hell of a lot better than a human, and I'm sure it has to do with increased neural activity in some part of the brain" - Well, it's not just an aspect of the dogs' smell-centre in the brain being larger, but they also have far more olfactory receptrors than us in their noses.
But, again, it's an irrelevant point, since intelligence is usually defined by the size of the frontal lobes(and the connections inbetween the 2 lobes) - so if a brain is larger all-round, then that person's frontal lobes will be larger too, likely making them more intelligent - unless, for example, you are suggesting that some humans have, unlike other humans, brains more like dogs with smell-centres in the brain 40 times larger than any other human type?!!
I am dubious re the fish-omega-3 claim: Maybe that's the case with regard to grainfed meats, but grassfed meats, and especially wild meats, should have huge amounts of omega-3s in them. Anyway, it's also irrelevant since most palaeo humans did not only lived on the coast or by rivers all the time, so must have depended largely on meats.
Re Okinawans:- There is some evidence to suggest that they benefit largely from (raw) seafood and caloric restriction:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet)
Most unfortunately for you, it turns out, from the above article, that the Okinawans do indeed go in heavily for fat in their diet, notably pork!!! (cf:- "The Okinawan diet has a generous amount of fat, particularly from pork, which is central part of the diet; additionally, all cooking is done in lard.").
So the message is "eat lots of fat to live longer".
-
D, IQ tests are not really valid tests for intelligence. They determine things like numerical ability, which in all but a few savants, is learnt through education. Simply put, someone can train themselves to think faster or to have a better memory etc., but that is not the same as innate intelligence.
Re dogs:- It doesn’t count because it’s not innate intelligence. Sure, border collies are the most intelligent of dogs but they have zilch chance of survival in the wild compared to wolves. The point is also that the person I mentioned I knew who had the mental age of 2, also used to have trouble with looking into peoples’ eyes, but, I met him just recently after many years, and after a great deal of training in previous months, he was able to look me in the eyes without a problem. Yet, no psychologist would pretend that he had become more intelligent. Sure, this training of his no doubt improved certain mental pathways, but he is still retarded(or do we have to use the more politically-correct word „special“, these days?).
As for whales, we were not talking about brain-size but brain-size to body ratio. It makes sense that a very large mammal, such as a whale, would need a large brain in order to control the rest of its body, but only humans really have an excess brain-size to body ratio, which means parts of the human brain can be used for other things like intellectual thought.
¨Parrots are none too bright. Sure, they can be taught to discern colours or corners and the like, but one can’t suggest that a parrot is a genius just because it can copy its masters voice to the point where it can recite the National Anthem –mimicry has nothing to do with intelligence.
-
Congratulations Tyler on waving around a study it looks like you haven't even read. I'll quote it:
"The Okinawan diet includes small quantities of animal meat, primarily pork, and cooking is sometimes done with lard. However, their overall traditional diet would be considered a very-high-carbohydrate by modern standards, with carbohydrates, protein, and fat providing 85%, 9% and 6% of total calories respectively."
The reason I got arguing on this thread in the first place was about another piece of literature that it looks like no one even bothered to read. Great.
6% is not `generous' or `heavy'.
I'm not here to tell you or anyone what to eat, I don't have any barrow to push, unlike some people here. I am only arguing for the clear-headed acceptance of the truth, no matter what it is. So it is not `unfortunate' for me if you decide not to see it, I can accept that. I just hope you will allow other people to make their own choices, by encouraging the spread of useful and truthful information, which is what I hope this forum is about.
I've said enough. My arguments speak for themselves.
Cheers
-
PaleoPhil,
I do appreciate the quality of your arguments, even if I don't agree with you on some things. I enjoy `locking horns' with people like you who are articulate and knowledgeable. When I read other forums, the threads that I enjoy the most are those which have people from different points of view creating a lively debate.
Cheers
Thanks, Billy. I value the person with an honest, warrior spirit who provides me with useful info and I welcome honorable battle.
-
Well, admittedly, I was rather leery of providing that link because I knew the western reinterpretation of the "Okinawa Diet" was mainly vegetarian-leaning in terms of bias and not really representative of the Okinawans' true diet. I was just too lazy to find a better link.
But there are other totally opposed views of what the Okinawan Diet really is:-
http://www.tendergrassfedmeat.com/2011/03/01/eat-fat-live-long%E2%80%94the-real-food-of-okinawa/ (http://www.tendergrassfedmeat.com/2011/03/01/eat-fat-live-long%E2%80%94the-real-food-of-okinawa/)
It is interesting to find out that the Asians refer to Okinawa as "The Island of Pork" , making it clear that the Western reinterpretation of the traditional Okinawan Diet as being mainly vegetarian is somewhat bogus:-
http://mylastbite.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/shinokinawaizikaya/ (http://mylastbite.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/shinokinawaizikaya/)
Interesting to see, in the first link, how much the Okinawans loved to go in for raw goatmeat and raw fish. Just proves the benefit of a raw, palaeolithic diet.
Not that I discount a high raw plant food, low raw animal food diet as being unhealthy per se. 100 percent raw plant food diets will cause problems in the long-term as plant foods are not complete foods but a few raw animal foods added would sort out any possible deficiencies.
-
Summary:
> Isn't measured brain sizes evidence regarding brain sizes, albeit quite limited by the small amount of evidence available?
> I'm not claiming proof of anything.
> Brain size does not equal increased intelligence, they are merely correlated, and my original point was more regarding brain size than intelligence, as intelligence is much more difficult to measure than brain and skull size.
Details:
Since when is measured brain sizes (based on molding material they put into skulls) not evidence of brain size? Do you have better evidence?
I don't recall ever claiming to present "proof" on this topic and I try to be careful in general not to claim proof, though I probably don't always succeed. If you see somewhere where I used that term, please let me know so I can correct it out. Suggestive evidence is not proof, though it's better than no evidence at all.
I just try to follow wherever the evidence, science and logic lead. As I said before, if you have better evidence, please share it.
Brain size doesn't equal intelligence, it is correlated with it. Correlation is not causation, it's only suggestive evidence that can point the way for further research. That equation goes well beyond the evidence. I even was careful to note the following:
This is a good example of why my standard approach is to try to avoid claiming to have "proved" anything (when I'm paying proper attention to my language) and I try to be careful to use language like "correlation," "the evidence suggests," "it seems that" and so on, rather than "this proves" or "this is absolutely the case" or "this must be...." I even created a thread on this topic where I advocated for not making absolute claims, especially not without evidence. I'm comfortable with uncertainty and open-mindedness. I try to go wherever the evidence leads me. Of course, different people sometimes interpret the same evidence differently, which is fine and which is what scientific discussion and debate is for. I find I'm persuaded more by the evidence that other folks present (which can include anecdotal evidence where appropriate--I'm not an evidence snob) than I am by opinions. You're free to your opinions, of course, just please don't expect me to be swayed much by them, nor do I expect you to be swayed much by mine.
I've never argued that one can't increase one's intelligence. Please note that I suggested the opposite was possible to Tyler above--that an improved diet might increase reverse brain shrinkage and thus increase intelligence--and I've read that doing mental exercises can help maintain mental ability into old age and reduce the damaging effects of Alzheimer's.
More intelligent than what, humans?
Thanks for the feedback, Dorothy. I tried to be as clear as possible and I hope I got the message across better this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again and cheerio!
The first quote was from you saying (at least the way I read it) that brain size, tattoos etc. were evidence of intelligence/brain size issue. You were using brain size to make the same argument again and I didn't understand how any of the other things related to higher intelligence. That was probably just a little communication snafoo.
Ah - Dear Phil - it was YOU that used the word PROOF with ME first! Mine was the rebuttal. I understand you completely and as long as you don't use that nasty word with me I promise not to throw it back at you. :D
But I still don't understand what evidence you are presenting that makes the correlation between brain size and intelligence? Tattoos? Huh? I guess if we were to judge by them and the new fad of tattooing taking off - that would make us have the highest intelligence ever. :)
Birds have higher intelligence (as scientists seem to like it measured that is - including the all important verbal ability that we think makes us better than any other species and the use of tools - which many have said is our claim to human superior intelligence) than the big cats that were being spoken of before and most of the mammals with bigger brains compared to their body weights. Again - this goes to what we use as measures of intelligence. They can talk, count, interact with us in ways that we understand and can measure and solve problems in similar fashions to us. They say that some species of parrots have the human intelligence of a 5 year old.
I think we both agree that Intelligence is a complicated issue, to measure, to understand in general and how it is related to brain size and environmental challenges and diet. If the brain is small or damaged or starved for fat or other necessary nutrients it is going to affect intelligence. I agree that there are some correlations regarding brain size and intelligence - as long as you take into account the exceptions. You certainly can't go beyond the capacity of your brain size.
At least for me - if I can unshrink this brain of mine as much as possible and use as much of it as I can well and more efficiently - that's really the issue. I'm pretty much stuck with my ancestry.... but I can eat more good fats! ;)
-
Tyler - you hit the nail right on the head! If we aren't using IQ what are we using as a determination of intelligence? What is your definition? What are your indicators?
It makes no sense to go on talking about dogs and wolves. I mean - how about the dingo and how it has great survival ability in it's habitat? That conversation doesn't really speak to the issue.
There was for the longest time in science until Alex the parrot came along the broad use of language and tool use as the indicators of our superiority and intelligence being way above that of animals.
Brain size is measured in relationship to body mass equally in birds, humans and whales and other mammals. Birds have smaller brains/to body mass ratios than the big carnivores - yet the big cats don't use tools or talk with their mouths in complex ways - even in the wild. Bird songs, sounds and communications between each other in the wild are very complex. But still - that's not what the scientists were looking at. They were looking at what they thought set us apart from animals and used that as their criteria.
If you say that a bigger brain is correlated to or eeks - "proof" of higher intelligence - how can you say it if you don't have a clear way of measuring intelligence and agree upon what the expressions of intelligence are?
In the studies they use IQ as their criteria for humans. For animals the use of language and tools is very high. What do you use or think that they should use?
-
Thanks, Billy. I value the person with an honest, warrior spirit who provides me with useful info and I welcome honorable battle.
Hey Billy - I like debate and the useful info and truth as the goal part. I'll leave the warrior thang to my friend Phil and you though. ;)
-
Like I said, before, you are seemingly unaware of the difference between training/education/mimicry and actual intelligence. For example, birdsong is generally gained from listening to other birds and then mimicking them and gradually altering from that. I also wince at your suggesting that parrots are equivalent to a 5 year old human child. Reminds me of that ridiculous claim that Koko the gorilla had an IQ of 98, making him supposedly almost as intelligent as half the human race. Goes to show that IQ tests are often dodgy as regards Koko, but that doesn't change the fact that KoKo isn't as bright as humans.
As for IQ, I merely stated that current IQ tests are mostly bunk - I have heard, though, that there are more accurate intelligence tests out there which don't per se test numerical ability or other abstract things which can be learnt.
Re dogs/dingo:wolves:- It makes perfect sense as it involves my whole point that training and breeding for socialisation makes dogs superior to wolves in some cases, despite dogs being inferior in intelligence to wolves.
Dingos are also more intelligent than pet dogs:-
http://www.physorg.com/news195460315.html (http://www.physorg.com/news195460315.html)
As for what sets animals apart from humans , there is a clear difference:- humans have frontal lobes, animals don't, which makes humans more intelligent than animals. So, humans with bigger brains will (usually) also have bigger frontal lobes as well and therefore, likely, a higher intelligence(unless they have some unusual mutation etc. that distorts the size of a particular region of the brain and reduces the size of the frontal lobes or some similiar outlier).
-
Tyler - you don't seem to recognize when I'm agreeing with you. I was talking about how scientists tend to judge intelligence and saying that I did not agree with their ways of determining intelligence either! You get so condescending sometimes it makes me shiver.
So, you are back to the big brain = intelligence theory. Big frontal lobes are how you tell if someone/thing is intelligent or not. No way ever to increase intelligence, just mimicry. So if a human learns from their parents, teachers, extended family etc. to read and gets more excited and uses their brain in new ways and increases their abilities from an early age onward all the way up to becoming one of the greatest "minds" in history, that person would be exactly as intelligent if it were raised by wolves? Or, are you saying that the frontal lobes "grow" with increased challenge?
Now, I know you have a hard time understanding the difference between me making a point and asking a question so I will state that what I asked above was a question indicated by the question mark at the end of the sentences.
-
Re geniuses/raised by wolves etc.:-
I guess what I am stating is that intelligence potential can never change. One cannot turn a retard into an overall genius(idiot savants don't really count as geniuses since they come with severe disadvantages).
Your raised by wolves analogy is not valid, really. A mature human intelligence is assumed to have had a relatively normal upbringing. Obviously, lack of exposure to human language etc. would stifle the potential intelligence of a person. As for the geniuses in question, they would never have reached those academic etc. heights unless they had the potential intelligence already at birth. In other words, excellent training/education cannot turn every human into a genius.
-
Ok, you are talking about potential. We all have different potentials based on the size of our frontal lobes.
All learning is basically mimicry or built upon mimicry was my point. I have to remember never to make analogies with you. They are a poor communication style choice with you - rarely received as they are intended.
Physiological limitations don't necessarily correlate to actual intelligence though. To say that one would have to do a study to find brains with the same size and size/density of their different parts and determine if they had the same level of intelligence.
It's a catch 22. You are saying that the only way to determine intelligence is by the size of the frontal lobe but how do you know that if you have never tested subjects with the same frontal lobe to see if they are intelligent according to other criteria?
And you didn't answer my question if you think frontal lobes can increase or not or if that is set at birth. If intelligence is determined by brain size and size of the frontal lobes alone and is set at birth (except for shrinkage because of dietary deficiencies) and there is no other criteria with which to judge intelligence - then this is a dead conversation with too much circular thinking for me to gain any new insights from.
I have still to read any evidence or support for the idea that brain size correlates directly to the size of the brain or frontal lobes or that intelligence cannot be improved (especially without using IQ scores or any other determination) besides the circular arguments.
So far all we have is intelligence being increased determined via IQ scoring, but if we take that off the table.... are there any indicators beside just stating a theory that big brains/lobes means higher intelligence?
Anyone have anything besides the "it's generally accepted" kind of statements? So many things are generally accepted that have proven to be totally wrong that I don't buy into that argument easily. Btw Tyler - that was last paragraph was more directed at what Phil has said before about anthropologists agreeing based on tattoos and such.
Btw, I never put forth that any arguments on brain size - I just keep on hearing here talk about brain size being larger in paleo times and how that means that we are getting dumber. I just don't see the argument.
Might be true. Might not. Convince me.
I apologize if this post was too long. I don't have time to edit right now or get my thoughts more precisely expressed but didn't want to put off responding. I'll see y'all tomorrow! :-*
-
I am stating that, logically, the skull prevents the frontal lobes from expanding further. All one can achieve is a little bit of thickening of neural connections within the frontal lobes and the rest of the brain, which has nothing to do with intelligence, just a case of experience "rewiring" the brain, but the basic equipment remaining the same.
-
Hi - while working on something else I realized that everyone here doesn't necessarily know Alex. I'll respond to you later Tyler - no time - sorry - but just a quick visit to post a video on Alex - and the researcher who worked with him, that really upset the scientific community and their claims about mimicry and intelligence when it comes to birds.
Alex The Talking Parrot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KvPN_Wt8I#)
That was just a small portion of his abilities and now there are other parrots that have similar abilities that have taken his place. He was not a single case, but just the first to be educated and demonstrates a general intelligence.
-
I've already seen that video before. I am perfectly well aware that animal intelligence has been seriously underrated and that notions that animals can't understand humour etc. are unfounded, but that does not change the fact that education/training does not per se make an animal or a human more intelligent. In this one case, it's clear, for example, that a parrot in the wild would have to be able to understand colour differences(else why would they have colour vision?)
-
I've already seen that video before. I am perfectly well aware that animal intelligence has been seriously underrated and that notions that animals can't understand humour etc. are unfounded, but that does not change the fact that education/training does not per se make an animal or a human more intelligent. In this one case, it's clear, for example, that a parrot in the wild would have to be able to understand colour differences(else why would they have colour vision?)
Parrots in the wild don't count up to 8.
Education is based upon already present skills and those skills get developed upon to create more intelligence when it comes to the parameters for intelligence used by scientists. I have still to hear what you use as a parameter for intelligence. You say that brain size is constrained by skull size and that the development of the frontal lobes would indicate the capacity for intelligence, but besides having opened a bunch of heads, having measured the lobes and used some other parameter with which to compare intelligence, I still don't understand how you propose that lobe size is in an indicator of intelligence. The parameters of intelligence used by scientists do not count for you and you have not indicated anything but frontal lobe size. Nothing much to talk about unless you provide some other parameter.
I will repeat again, if the scientists parameters for intelligence are not accepted by you - what do you propose as a parameter that can be measured?
Oh - and that video wasn't for you Tyler. You might not be the only one reading this conversation and it was presumptuous and not kind of me not to add minimum information on Alex for others instead of making them go and try to find it in order to follow what I have said in the past.
I might add to that video for the benefit of others (if anyone else is reading this) is that what many do not realize is that there is no such thing as a domesticated parrot. Until recently most parrots were caught in the wild for the pet trade. Any single pet parrot is usually only a generation or two away from their wild roots and parrots are notoriously bad pets for most people as parrots have not been bred or have adapted much (if any) to life with humans. Owning a parrot is owning a wild creature - that is why the average parrot has 3 different homes while still at a relatively young age.
-
Well, let's see, you don't like to accept my standards of intelligence. So, you can only prove that parrots are wonderfully intelligent/sentient once they can , for example, a) work out the cube of every number from 1 to 10 without help b) tap out an intelligent conversation on this forum etc.
Domestication is, admittedly, not as effective as years of training......
-
Well, let's see, you don't like to accept my standards of intelligence. So, you can only prove that parrots are wonderfully intelligent/sentient once they can , for example, a) work out the cube of every number from 1 to 10 without help b) tap out an intelligent conversation on this forum etc.
Domestication is, admittedly, not as effective as years of training......
Um - YOU were the one that doesn't want to accept the accepted standards of intelligence! You insist that IQ's don't count. You talk about frontal lobes only and can't defend it - you don't even try.
You don't answer questions that make a point because you seem to hate to admit whenever you can't answer it intelligently and then you resort to avoidance or insults instead of just admitting that you don't have a good answer. You respond to me in the most sarcastic and condescending way I have ever experienced on the internet. Being right seems to be of utmost importance to you. I'd rather understand and change my opinion when presented with other opinions that make more sense because someone else thought of something I didn't or when I learn about data that I didn't know about it.
You seem unwilling to recognize what I was pointing out - that according to people doing research and THEIR parameters of intelligence, birds with smaller brains are smarter than most mammals with larger brains - not humans.
You might be saying that you think that language and math skills (in other words, just left-brain activities) are the only parameters of intelligence - or maybe you are simply being insulting without any point at all. If someone cannot do math or use a computer that to me does not negate all other forms intelligence... but my impression is that you weren't trying to give me a serious answer - just being cutting.
If you aren't going to even have a civil conversation and answer questions about your own remarks with basic civility without turning your own statements back on me - this is a total waste of my time.
-
Hi,
I've been reading about adult stem cells, which from my understanding are cells which have no particular characteristics until the body determines the need for them. Apparently there are a lot of them in areas of the body which experience a lot of regrowth, e.g., fingernails, teeth.
I wonder if the brain doesn't have them too, and can utilise them to form additional growth and extended functions in the brain, if the correct stimulus (e.g. learning) is applied.
Furthermore, if these stem cells can be constantly produced, it would provide the necessary materials and environment for brain evolution, the only stimulus required being learning.
It would go a long way toward explaining evolution, for example. At least in addressing my own questions on the issue.
Cheers
-
Hi,
I've been reading about adult stem cells, which from my understanding are cells which have no particular characteristics until the body determines the need for them. Apparently there are a lot of them in areas of the body which experience a lot of regrowth, e.g., fingernails, teeth.
I wonder if the brain doesn't have them too, and can utilise them to form additional growth and extended functions in the brain, if the correct stimulus (e.g. learning) is applied.
Furthermore, if these stem cells can be constantly produced, it would provide the necessary materials and environment for brain evolution, the only stimulus required being learning.
It would go a long way toward explaining evolution, for example. At least in addressing my own questions on the issue.
Cheers
Hi Billy,
I remember back when I was regrowing my teeth and everyone said it was impossible - but later they discovered that teeth have stem cells. In a way I knew that all the time because I knew that my teeth could (and did) do what stem cells would allow. I don't doubt for a minute that your idea could be true about the brain and stem cells. When a part of the brain is damaged it has a phenomenal redundancy. Other parts that aren't usually used for that purpose often take over. My teeth won't/didn't grow back without the right food. I have felt similar things with my brain with food and stimulus. I wonder if besides the proper stimulus, if proper nutrition is not also a factor.
Thanks - I'm going to keep stem cells in mind when I do my mediation and brain exercises.
-
I have felt similar things with my brain with food and stimulus. I wonder if besides the proper stimulus, if proper nutrition is not also a factor.
What you eat today, walks and talks tomorrow! Its so true.
-
Dorothy could you tell me about how you regrew your teeth? I have a cap from where I snapped my tooth when I was 10y/o so I'm interested.
-
Warning - long post regarding re-growing teeth coming up. If you're not interesting in that subject you might want to skip this post.
Hi Miles - That cap of yours might get in the way. I've felt like my teeth need to be able to "breath" for the lack of a better word to heal. It's like they need for me to be able to care for and feed them properly. If an infection starts because I ate something wrong I can use colloidal silver so they don't have to fight that and I feel like my teeth absorb things they need directly in the mouth.
My teeth when I was regrowing them just had holes from cavities. When I was eating badly after that they broke and were horrifically painful. They no longer hurt me at all now as long as I don't eat anything bad - but I haven't been eating ideally so no regrowth has happened. I hope that can still happen with them more deteriorated than when I did it the last time. It's still amazing to me though how they react so directly to how I eat. My teeth keep my diet at least ok because if I get too far off track they give me a big kick in the teeth to put me straight. ;)
I would say Miles that there is no downside to eating what is ideal and right for you if anything happens with that tooth or not, because the teeth are a barometer for you health in general - especially your stomach and digestion - so whatever you do for them will benefit the rest of you.
I personally wouldn't take that cap off to see if you can regrow the tooth underneath unless you feel it is hurting you in some way. It takes tremendous commitment, self-restraint and delicate fine-tuning of the diet to get to the point where re-growth occurs and if you don't achieve it, the break down makes the upside not always worth the potential of the negatives with the downside of removing fillings or caps. Root canals though - can be very dangerous to one's health. If there is a root canal closed off under that cap - that's a whole different animal. You would have decide what to do after doing lots of research on the subject first. Thank goodness I never got a root canal done.
Glycerin in toothpastes is really bad I have heard. I found one in the store that feels really great for my mouth. It's called Bee Rescue Propolis toothpaste (gluten free). Ingredients: Water, baking soda, xanthan gum, propolis extract, grapefruit oil, clove oil and tea tree oil. It's the only one I could find in a store that didn't have glycerin.
I'm also growing horsetail plant to chew on later. It's supposed to do good things too.
I didn't use either of these when I had success - so don't be too worried if you can't get them. I just think that any extra knowledge from people that have studied natural tooth care and healing can't hurt.
Another trick is acupressure. Stomach 5 and 6 are powerful points to work if you have pain in your mouth. I bet working the stomach meridian would be helpful with healing teeth as well - but I haven't been trying that. When I get serious about regrowing my teeth again, I will use acupressure as it was one of the only things that could help with the tremendous pain when I ate badly and the regrowth broke down. I'm pretty sure now that the stomach meridian being clear is vital to healthy teeth and that is why diet makes or breaks teeth - so I betcha it is also something that could only help the healing process.
-
Very interesting. I have a tooth with an indirect pulp cap, where basically they left some of the decayed tooth over the nerve and put a cap on. I will be avoiding root canal if I can. I eat raw garlic chopped into my salads which hopefully will prevent an infection.
Cheers
-
For those who may be interested (the author covers more than just cavities):
Cure Tooth Decay: Remineralize Teeth and Repair Cavities Naturally
http://www.curetoothdecay.com/ (http://www.curetoothdecay.com/)