Are we more adapted to certain fruits?

[AnopsStudier]

say like the fig which is long part of our evolutionary history..Chimps, gorillas, bonobos all primarily (when it comes to the fruit part) eat almost all figs.

 Are we more adapted to eating them and benefiting from them as compared to say...
plums, apples, and berries, etc..?  Or does it not work like that?

I love plums, pears and wild blueberries, and, most berries for that matter... but from what I recall I did really enjoy figs unless they were not ripe yet when I ate them... End Rant

Any thoughts on my random thoughts lol? 

[TylerDurden]

We are all different. I, for example, experience some food-intolerance towards tropical fruits. I tried raw coconut oil and experienced the most terrible stomach-aches for hours that I had ever had previously. I far prefer raw berries of various kinds.

[AnopsStudier]

I have a terrible reaction to coconut oil as well Tyler... It gives terrible headaches, almost like a detox symptom.  I use it for "oil pulling" and dental health.  I dont think coconut oil is a natural food..   Decent substitute for cooking oil and moisturizing cream, etc.. but I never understand why people ate it like a super food.

[TylerDurden]

I have a terrible reaction to coconut oil as well Tyler... It gives terrible headaches, almost like a detox symptom.  I use it for "oil pulling" and dental health.  I dont think coconut oil is a natural food..   Decent substitute for cooking oil and moisturizing cream, etc.. but I never understand why people ate it like a super food.

My own genuine  detox symptoms consisted of a mild to moderate hot forehead, lots of extra fatigue, and sometimes some mild to severe diarrhea. When one experiences really nasty symptoms then it is way more likely to not be detox, but something worse, such as an allergy etc. I used to be appalled at the description of a number of  Primal Dieters who would describe appallingly nasty symptoms whenever they consumed raw dairy, and I recognised that this was because of an allergy to raw dairy and that the notion that raw dairy was a special "detoxing" food was nonsense.

[eveheart]

but I never understand why people ate it like a super food.

Coconut oil has a few specific properties that are sought after by biohacking enthusiasts, such as raising LDL and killing off yeasts. Biohackers are fond of fractionated C8 to boost ketosis. The biohacks that I mentioned can be accomplished with coconut oil plus other dietary changes. Coconut oil is produced in countries that welcome commerce with the US, so that's why we probably hear more about the wonders of coconut oil here.

But enough hijacking this thread with talk of nuts and processed nut oils! I usually eat berries when I want fruit. Denser sugary fruits are too inflammatory. I keep inflammation to a minimum by eating foods that agree with me, so I really notice the difference when a food triggers inflammation.

[AnopsStudier]

I just had a random thought that figs might be the healthiest fruit for humans becuase of evolution.. and the facts that bonobos chimps gorillas all eat almost exclusively figs when it comes to fruit

[goodsamaritan]

Seems humans are more varied than chimps and gorillas. 
You need to test what works for you.
In healing people, this is what I do.
The instinctos will tell you to smell and taste what you need.

[A_Tribe_Called_Paleo]

Mangos are the perfect fruit for me, i could eat hundred of them if they were presented to me sweet and ripe haha.

[TylerDurden]

Just speculating, but I am wondering if there is an ethnic difference as regards tolerance of/preference for  certain foods. I recall, for example,  one attempt (by vegans??) to suggest that African Negroes were more suited to a plant-based diet than other ethnic groups. I have also come across claims that the Inuit have larger livers etc.  in order to handle their  former) largely ZC/RZC diet.I don't know, perhaps tubers are more designed for ethnicities from hotter climates etc.etc.

Following on from this, one would expect those from hotter climates to positively thrive on tropical fruits, with those descended from more northerly climes to favour mostly berries, medlars,apples and pears and the like.

[AnopsStudier]

I was wondering if say there is a different in the way humans absorb nutrition from say a piece of kale or a peice of lettuce

or plum or fig? or is all about nutrition?

[AnopsStudier]

Just speculating, but I am wondering if there is an ethnic difference as regards tolerance of/preference for  certain foods. I recall, for example,  one attempt (by vegans??) to suggest that African Negroes were more suited to a plant-based diet than other ethnic groups. I have also come across claims that the Inuit have larger livers etc.  in order to handle their  former) largely ZC/RZC diet.I don't know, perhaps tubers are more designed for ethnicities from hotter climates etc.etc.

Following on from this, one would expect those from hotter climates to positively thrive on tropical fruits, with those descended from more northerly climes to favour mostly berries, medlars,apples and pears and the like.

but when did this prefernces/adaptions take place. because we once were all a tropical species

[TylerDurden]

but when did this prefernces/adaptions take place. because we once were all a tropical species

Not necessarily. I suppose if we were to believe in the Out of Africa theory at its most extreme, then we all supposedly left Africa only c.20,000 years ago, in which case, we might be said to have a preference for tropical plants re digestion/enzymes/bacteria etc. However, nowadays, all but the nuttiest out of africa proponents suggest much older dates than that. Now that we know that the out of africa theory was at least half-wrong, that is, we know that we modern hominids are all the result of interbreeding with Neanderthals or  Denisovans or other so-called "apemen"/hominids, the issue of adaptation to the tropics is no longer credible. I have even come across one guy who quite wrongly claimed that one needed to grow fur in order to adapt to colder climates, for example, but I had pointed out that if  the cold-dwelling Neanderthals had developed a genetic resistance to the cold(eg;- higher average body-temperature etc.) then fur would never have been needed. Similiarly, adaptation to tropical plants would vanish as soon as hominids left Africa since survival would necessitate adaptation. Taking into account admixture with cold-dwelling hominids like the Neanderthals etc., adaption would have been very quick.

It seems obvious to me that any hominid groups  which are better adapted to hotter climates must also be the ones most adapted to eating tropical plants, and those adapted to colder climates must be least adapted to tropical plants.

[JeuneKoq]

I have even come across one guy who quite wrongly claimed that one needed to grow fur in order to adapt to colder climates, for example, but I had pointed out that if  the cold-dwelling Neanderthals had developed a genetic resistance to the cold(eg;- higher average body-temperature etc.) then fur would never have been needed.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this guy happens to be me.

The problem with your arguments supporting your belief that northern hominids were once fully adapted to cold, is that they cannot justify adaptation to long term sub-zero environments, and in a slightly less extent explain the partial adaptations of people such as the Fuegan who live in above-zero temperatures, and still cannot go for too long periods of time without some form of external protection to cold such as fires (hence the name "Tierra de fuego"), animal grease and fur.
Brown fat, bigger or smaller size (the dutch, the mongols), light skin, big nose, flat faces, higher metabolism... Those are the characteristics of a partial adaptation to cold, not a complete one, made easy by the early use of artificial fur (that is, the use of fur from other truly cold-adapted animals) in humanity's conquest of the North.

In general terms, there are two ways for a specie of mammal to protect itself against cold: The aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals wrap themselves around a very thick layer of fat. The land mammals are protected with a coat of fur that enables them to effectively trap body heat. This coat of fur usually gets thicker the colder their natural environment is.
Without a coat of fur or a coat of fat, the energy cost quickly becomes impossible to sustain, and the animals dies out of cold and exhaustion. Needless to say, the cold days are usually the days with the least amount of food available, which adds to the dilemma.

In all logic, a specie of mammal could not possibly thrive, or even survive in such environment if it did not develop at least one or the other mean of protection. Luckily, we humans were smart enough since the beginning to borrow some other beast's outdoor gear for our own care.

IMO, if humans would've completely adapted to northern climes, evolution would've acted in ways similar to other species with an almost fully naked Southern cousin such as the rhino/woolly-rhino or the elephant/mammoth and given humans a nice thick coat of fur. Or at least a mix of fur and grease, so endurance running could still be achievable to some extent, since the lack of thick fur enables us to run for very long distances.

[PaleoPhil]

Speaking of Neanderthals, they are one of the hominins for which there is evidence of fig consumption:

The study of plant remains is helping to correct the “meat fixation” of past subsistence studies (Madella et al. 2002:704). Madella and colleagues examined phytoliths from Amud cave in Israel and determined that Neandertals used plant materials extensively, not only for fuel and bedding but also for food. Palm and Moraceae phytoliths suggested consumption of palm fruits and figs, while the morphology of many herbaceous phytoliths suggested that Neandertals might have gathered wild cereals. Lev et al. (2005) identified carbonized plant remains from Kebara Cave, Israel. They concluded that Neandertals at Kebara were probably consuming a significant amount of legumes. Acorns, pistachios, and fruits may also have constituted a significant part of the diet, at least in the fall. There was no evidence of root plant foods and very little evidence for the use of cereals. Overall, Lev et al. concluded that subsistence at Kebara included broadspectrum plant foraging and that the occupants may have been able to live at the site year round. These analyses of plant remains suggest considerable complexity in Neandertal foraging, including extensive use of a variety of plant materials when these were available.

... The large molar size in Neandertals also suggested that their diet caused more attrition than the Inuit diet, possibly indicating a greater proportion of plant food in the Neandertal diet (Spencer and Demes 1993).

Source: Neandertal Man the Hunter: A History
of Neandertal Subsistence
ELSPETH READY
http://web.stanford.edu/~eready/Ready_2010vav.pdf

[JeuneKoq]

It seems obvious to me that any hominid groups  which are better adapted to hotter climates must also be the ones most adapted to eating tropical plants, and those adapted to colder climates must be least adapted to tropical plants.

One way to demonstrate this would be to, say, take an English person from African origins, who was born in England and has eaten all his life a diet composed only of food (fruit, vegetables, meat,..) from northern regions, versus a native English man with the same dietary background, and observe which one does best on tropical foods.

Seeing that a lot of Caucasian people around me are totally fine with eating bananas, mangoes and pineapple (including me), I believe this idea of people being genetically adapted to food from one or another region is flawed to some extent, and has more to do with being familiarized with food from one region since childhood, and later being suddenly introduced to exotic varieties, which can -with no surprise- cause some slight digestion problems.

For example, it has been shown that people who are introduced to peanuts at an early age are less likely to later develop allergies to them, regardless of their ethnic background.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/offering-kids-peanuts-early-in-life-may-prevent-allergies-study-1.2249881

[TylerDurden]

Speaking of Neanderthals, they are one of the hominins for which there is evidence of fig consumption:

It depends which Neanderthals. Those on the glaciers would not have been likely to have eaten figs and would have been far more cold-resistant, by implication.

[AnopsStudier]

but specifically it isn't likely that as a caucasian with recent european ancestry..

 is more likely adapted to Figs(using figs because it is the fruit I associate with being the most common primate fruit) than say Blueberries from North America.   Does adaptation and evolution work like that specifically?

Take a person who evolved in Asia place them in North America have them eat a wild diet of fruits, greens, nuts and meat (like a healthy native american)  and they will still be just as healthy?


also For some reason I always think that we spent so much time evolving with the other great apes in Africa... but obviously nothing is proven... so then I think we should be benefiting the most from those African rain forest foods. 

[TylerDurden]

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this guy happens to be me.

The problem with your arguments supporting your belief that northern hominids were once fully adapted to cold, is that they cannot justify adaptation to long term sub-zero environments, and in a slightly less extent explain the partial adaptations of people such as the Fuegan who live in above-zero temperatures, and still cannot go for too long periods of time without some form of external protection to cold such as fires (hence the name "Tierra de fuego"), animal grease and fur.
Brown fat, bigger or smaller size (the dutch, the mongols), light skin, big nose, flat faces, higher metabolism... Those are the characteristics of a partial adaptation to cold, not a complete one, made easy by the early use of artificial fur (that is, the use of fur from other truly cold-adapted animals) in humanity's conquest of the North.

In general terms, there are two ways for a specie of mammal to protect itself against cold: The aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals wrap themselves around a very thick layer of fat. The land mammals are protected with a coat of fur that enables them to effectively trap body heat. This coat of fur usually gets thicker the colder their natural environment is.
Without a coat of fur or a coat of fat, the energy cost quickly becomes impossible to sustain, and the animals dies out of cold and exhaustion. Needless to say, the cold days are usually the days with the least amount of food available, which adds to the dilemma.

In all logic, a specie of mammal could not possibly thrive, or even survive in such environment if it did not develop at least one or the other mean of protection. Luckily, we humans were smart enough since the beginning to borrow some other beast's outdoor gear for our own care.

IMO, if humans would've completely adapted to northern climes, evolution would've acted in ways similar to other species with an almost fully naked Southern cousin such as the rhino/woolly-rhino or the elephant/mammoth and given humans a nice thick coat of fur. Or at least a mix of fur and grease, so endurance running could still be achievable to some extent, since the lack of thick fur enables us to run for very long distances.

A flawed conclusion. For one thing, one does not need any "mythical/perfect" adaptation to "the cold" in order to survive in colder climates. One can have many human adaptations such as increased body-temperatures  or smaller limbs in relation to body-size or any number of other physical modifications, and still get about fine in Arctic climes without having to have  a fire within 5 metres at all times.Having fur is merely one evolutionary tactic among many, not the ne plus ultra. Various animals which do use fur also have to use additional extras such as hibernating in winter  in a sheltered  place fully warmed up by the animals' body-heat - by your unrealistic estimation of "perfect adaptation to the cold", not even Arctic-dwelling bears are properly adapted even if they have fur. Plus, one other claim of yours falls flat when one realises that modern humans managed to populate Arctic climes long before they invented the concept of clothing.Advent of clothing= between 83,000 to 170,000 years ago, according to studies done on lice.  Ancient hominids such as the Neanderthals entered arctic climates 100s of thousands of years before the advent of clothing(ie using fur from other animals).

Hmm, I have seen some birds  happily thrive in arctic environments. Also, looking at various arctic mammals  such as the arctic ground squirrel, the arctic hare etc., most such animals depend on a large number of different methods to ward off the cold and do not necessarily depend on much on fur as the main resistor to cold.

[TylerDurden]

but specifically it isn't likely that as a caucasian with recent european ancestry..

 is more likely adapted to Figs(using figs because it is the fruit I associate with being the most common primate fruit) than say Blueberries from North America.   Does adaptation and evolution work like that specifically?

Take a person who evolved in Asia place them in North America have them eat a wild diet of fruits, greens, nuts and meat (like a healthy native american)  and they will still be just as healthy?


also For some reason I always think that we spent so much time evolving with the other great apes in Africa... but obviously nothing is proven... so then I think we should be benefiting the most from those African rain forest foods. 

It's quite simple. For us humans to be all adapted only to African foods, we would also have to be adapted to Africa in other ways, such as by having darker skin-colour, or longer limbs by comparison to the body(a heat-loss mechanism that  Sub-Saharan Negroes take advantage of) etc.etc. We(non-Africans) do not have these characteristics, ergo we are not specially adapted to african foods.

This sort of out-of-africa-like  claim is a bit absurd. It also makes certain likely false assumptions. For example, were our  remote ancestors always in Africa even  30 million years ago? Possibly not. Were our ancestors black african, even at the homo erectus stage or before? Very likely not, either. For example, chimpanzees, our closest animal species,have pale white  skin underneath all that fur, plus the common ancestor of humans and chimps is considered to have similiarly had pale white  skin. Now, it is possible that, like Out-of-Africa theorists claim, that  the subsequent  disappearance of fur and most body-hair from hominids c.1.8 million years ago or so supposedly  led to the development of black skin in all hominids followed by a subsequent differentiation of skin-colour into white, brown, black etc. only happening  c.20,000 to 200,000 years ago , then again, maybe not. For example, Neanderthals have been  shown to have had white skin and Caucasoid  features, and they appeared well before early modern humans, so that disproves the last half of that claim.

[JeuneKoq]

A flawed conclusion. For one thing, one does not need any "mythical/perfect" adaptation to "the cold" in order to survive in colder climates.  Various animals which do use fur also have to use additional extras such as hibernating in winter  in a sheltered  place fully warmed up by the animals' body-heat - by your unrealistic estimation of "perfect adaptation to the cold", not even Arctic-dwelling bears are properly adapted even if they have fur.

It seems that we do not understand the concept of "complete adaptation" in the same way. I'm not talking about an impossible "perfect" adaptation. I was comparing partial/limited adaptation such as humans and long-term sub-zero cold, and complete/advanced adaptation such as snow foxes and the Arctic.

One can have many human adaptations such as increased body-temperatures  or smaller limbs in relation to body-size or any number of other physical modifications, and still get about fine in Arctic climes without having to have  a fire within 5 metres at all times.

That's true.
Being able to live naked 24/7 in Arctic climes isn't.

Come to think of it, why are Germanic people so comparatively tall then, if being smaller is linked to cold adaptation? The answer: artificial adaptation, aka clothes, fire, grease, large quantity of stored food etc...

Having fur is merely one evolutionary tactic among many, not the ne plus ultra. Various animals which do use fur also have to use additional extras such as hibernating in winter  in a sheltered  place fully warmed up by the animals' body-heat -

So fur is not land mammal's best protection against cold, but you still give an example of a type of mammal (the hibernating one) which is almost constantly covered in fur? Name one bare hibernating mammal.

Yes, fur is the nec-plus-ultra of land mammal cold protection, when associated with other characteristics such as higher-metabolism etc..

Plus, one other claim of yours falls flat when one realises that modern humans managed to populate Arctic climes long before they invented the concept of clothing.Advent of clothing= between 83,000 to 170,000 years ago, according to studies done on lice.  Ancient hominids such as the Neanderthals entered arctic climates 100s of thousands of years before the advent of clothing(ie using fur from other animals).

One must use logic and realize that if hominids could (possibly) master fire 500.000 years ago, they could've carved out a fur cape with a sharp silex a lot earlier. Such claims should not be trusted, and we cannot let ourselves pick which loose conclusion from which often inaccurate science fits our views best. Not a valid argument.

Hmm, I have seen some birds  happily thrive in arctic environments. Also, looking at various arctic mammals  such as the arctic ground squirrel, the arctic hare etc., most such animals depend on a large number of different methods to ward off the cold and do not necessarily depend on much on fur as the main resistor to cold.

All miniature mammals with fur or feathers, which work in a very similar way. Aren't winter covers and snow vests regularly stuffed with plumes?

[JeuneKoq]

It's quite simple. For us humans to be all adapted only to African foods, we would also have to be adapted to Africa in other ways, such as by having darker skin-colour, or longer limbs by comparison to the body(a heat-loss mechanism that  Sub-Saharan Negroes take advantage of) etc.etc. We do not have these characteristics, ergo we are not specially adapted to african foods.

So Europeans are not adapted to potatoes and tomatoes, because they don't look like Native Americans?

This sort of out-of-africa-like  claim is a bit absurd. It also makes certain likely false assumptions. For example, were our  remote ancestors always in Africa even  30 million years ago? Possibly not

I really wonder where you get those numbers...

[PaleoPhil]

It depends which Neanderthals. Those on the glaciers would not have been likely to have eaten figs and would have been far more cold-resistant, by implication.

Do you have any evidence to share of sufficient genetic or other differences in more northerly Neanderthals that caused them to lose the ability to tolerate the tropical fruits that the Middle Eastern Neanderthals likely consumed, or is it a hunch?

I had pointed out that if  the cold-dwelling Neanderthals had developed a genetic resistance to the cold(eg;- higher average body-temperature etc.) then fur would never have been needed. Similiarly, adaptation to tropical plants would vanish as soon as hominids left Africa since survival would necessitate adaptation.

So given that, then if your claim is that Europids are quite alike Neanderthals who lived "on the glaciers" and quite different from Negroids, then are you also consistently claiming that the avg. body temperatures of Europids are much higher than for Negroids? A difference of a few degrees wouldn't offset the dramatic differences in temperatures between glacial areas (which can fall below minus 50 C) and tropical areas (which can exceed 40 C).

BTW, the part about "adaptation to tropical plants would vanish" is a non sequitur, as is this and some others you made:

Quote from: TylerDurden on Today at 02:21:23 PM
It's quite simple. For us humans to be all adapted only to African foods, we would also have to be adapted to Africa in other ways, such as by having darker skin-colour, or longer limbs by comparison to the body(a heat-loss mechanism that  Sub-Saharan Negroes take advantage of) etc.etc. We do not have these characteristics, ergo we are not specially adapted to african foods.

Where is the hard evidence? Your believing this so doesn't make it so. I know of no scientists, not even the proponents of the multi-regional model, who claim this.

[TylerDurden]

It seems that we do not understand the concept of "complete adaptation" in the same way. I'm not talking about an impossible "perfect" adaptation. I was comparing partial/limited adaptation such as humans and long-term sub-zero cold, and complete/advanced adaptation such as snow foxes and the Arctic.

Even arctic foxes have other adaptations other than fur. They have a generally rounded body shape to minimize the escape of body heat, and, most importantly, they have to eat vast amounts of food in the autumn so as to gain c.50% extra bodyweight and so survive the winter. Polar bears practise an odd form of "walking hibernation" in order to deal with the fact that winter involves a reduction in the amount of prey, and so on and on. My point was that fur is merely one type of adaptation to cold and many other(non-technological) methods can have allowed ancient  hominids to adapt to the cold without ever needing to grow fur or wear artificial furs.

That's true.
Being able to live naked 24/7 in Arctic climes isn't.

Incorrect. I have already shown a myriad ways in which humans (or other animals) can easily survive in arctic climates without needing to wear  furs or  use any other technological aids such as fire.

Come to think of it, why are Germanic people so comparatively tall then, if being smaller is linked to cold adaptation? The answer: artificial adaptation, aka clothes, fire, grease, large quantity of stored food etc...

You are  falsely assuming that Germanic people originally evolved in a cold environment. In actual fact, East Asians are far better adapted to the cold, having smaller bodies and other cold-adapted characteristics. I recall that Caucasoids have been claimed to have originated in temperate forests, but, strictly speaking, no one is sure of their origins at all.

Name one bare hibernating mammal.

What does that prove, per se?Nothing really. I mean, many small mammals still need to hibernate or go into torpor in winter despite having fur, since the small amount of thin fur they can have is nowhere near enough to allow them to survive the winter:-
http://www.discoverwildlife.com/british-wildlife/how-tell-torpor-hibernation

Yes, fur is the nec-plus-ultra of land mammal cold protection, when associated with other characteristics such as higher-metabolism etc..

Obviously wrong, when other methods such as feathers are at least as good.

One must use logic and realize that if hominids could (possibly) master fire 500.000 years ago, they could've carved out a fur cape with a sharp silex a lot earlier. Such claims should not be trusted, and we cannot let ourselves pick which loose conclusion from which often inaccurate science fits our views best. Not a valid argument.

No, yours is not a valid argument at all. You make a vague supposition that fire (for warmth) was invented c.500,000 years ago. In actual fact, other than kooks like Wrangham(Wrongham), the date for the invention of fire for warmth is set at around c.400,000 years ago, with the use of fire for cooking  occurring  c.250,000 to 300,000 years ago.So, you see, it makes no sense to assume that something happened much earlier without any evidence , especially when the  contrary evidence is solid and shows that clothing  only got started being used from c.  83,000 to 170,000 years ago or so:-
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lice-evolution-tracks-the-invention-of-clothes-123034488/?no-ist

You see, the scientists did not simply assume that the use of animal hides had to mean clothing, they actually checked the evolution of head-lice and body-lice to see when they diverged from their former evolution to become adapted to humans. So, the notion of clothing being invented half a million years or more earlier, is clearly invalid.

All miniature mammals with fur or feathers, which work in a very similar way. Aren't winter covers and snow vests regularly stuffed with plumes?

Some of these animals clearly rely less on furs/feather and more on other practices such as huddling or reducing blood-flow to the extremities etc.etc.

[TylerDurden]

So Europeans are not adapted to potatoes and tomatoes, because they don't look like Native Americans?

Are even Native Americans adapted to potatoes and tomatoes, as they have not been there all that long? But my point is valid:- if adapting to slightly different foods is a big effort, then, logically, many other adaptations will also have happened prior to that food-adaptation occurring.

I really wonder where you get those numbers...

From sources like these:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Early_evolution_of_primates

[TylerDurden]

Do you have any evidence to share of sufficient genetic or other differences in more northerly Neanderthals that caused them to lose the ability to tolerate the tropical fruits that the Middle Eastern Neanderthals likely consumed, or is it a hunch?

A hunch. It seems to me that evolution would have made it  relatively easy for species to adapt to different foods, as continued survival was so important. If it were more difficult, then one would have expected the Neanderthals to spend little time on the glaciers and go migrating to warmer climes.

So given that, then if your claim is that Europids are quite alike Neanderthals who lived "on the glaciers" and quite different from Negroids, then are you also consistently claiming that the avg. body temperatures of Europids are much higher than for Negroids? A difference of a few degrees wouldn't offset the dramatic differences in temperatures between glacial areas (which can fall below minus 50 C) and tropical areas (which can exceed 40 C).

A difference of 1 degree Celsius in their body-temperature  allowed the Tierra del Fuegans to thrive in an environment with an annual average outside temperature of just 5.3 degrees Celsius. The continental subarctic climate of a lot  of Siberia has an annual average outside temperature of -5 degrees Celsius, with Siberia as a whole having an annual average temperature of 0.5 degrees Celsius. Perhaps further physical adaptations, to prevent heat-loss plus an extra degree Celsius of body-temperature would have allowed the Neanderthals to thrive in Arctic climates without needing to wear furs.

I do not claim that Europids, as a whole have a higher body-temperature than Negroids. But perhaps a few Europids have some Neanderthal characteristics which help them to withstand heat more?

BTW, the part about "adaptation to tropical plants would vanish" is a non sequitur, as is this and some others you made:Where is the hard evidence? Your believing this so doesn't make it so. I know of no scientists, not even the proponents of the multi-regional model, who claim this.

it is simple logic. I was pointing out that if it takes such a long, difficult effort to adapt to African or non-African foods or whatever, then other physical changes caused by adaptation to the different climates would have also occurred by then as well.