Roots and tubers
Possibly, but on the other hand didn't Tyler write this re: tubers:
The point was made that tubers usually need to be processed quite heavily in order to get rid of (some of)the antinutrients in them. So they are often pretty useless even when raw. ....
This was discussed a great while back on the Paleofood list, and it was pointed out that tubers were mostly not useful when raw, whether in terms of antinutrient-levels or general palatability. A generous 1 percent was once suggested as a suitable percentage of tubers which were edible raw, without any issues, as I vaguely recall.
Unfortunately, I didn't notice Tyler providing any research to support his claims, whereas there is this research:
> "
Starch, the predominant carbohydrate in modern Western diets, is only present in small amounts in wild edible plants with one category of exception: underground storage organs (roots, corms, bulbs, tubers). It has been suggested that these became important staple foods for Australopithecus and early Homo, who were able to use tools for procurement and fire for cooking, the latter in order to increase starch digestibility and detoxify phytochemicals (Wrangham et al., 1999, Lucas et al., 2006). In addition, humans have a particularly high activity of salivary amylase, an enzyme for starch digestion which most animals mainly have in the form of pancreatic amylase Samuelson et al, Amylase gene structures in primates: retroposon insertions and promoter evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 1996 and Perry et al, Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation, Nature Genetics, 2007). Apparently, human populations with a recent history of high starch consumption have, compared with other human populations, a slightly higher copy number of the gene coding for salivary amylase, a number which explains about 35% of the variation of salviary amylase concentration (Perry et al, 2007). Although this suggests some degree of ongoing positive selection,
the fact that 'low-starch' human populations have an almost threefold higher copy number [of the gene coding for salivary amylase] than chimpanzees indicates significant adaptation to high-starch root vegetables among hominins, rather than post-agricultural selection among humans." (The Evolution of Hominin Diets: Integrating Approaches to the Study of Palaeolithic Subsistence - Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, By Jean-Jacques Hublin)
> "John Novembre et. al. reported in the October 1, 2007 issue of Nature Genetics that human saliva has significantly more of the enzyme amylase compared to chimpanzees. Amylase breaks down starches into glucose which can be readily used by the cells of the body. With more amylase, humans get more useable calories from starchy vegetable foods such as
tubers, corms, and bulbs. The authors suggest that this would have been a distinct advantage for early humans because
these foods are readily available. They believe that natural selection favored additional copies of the gene responsible for amylase production (AMY1) in our early hominin ancestors but not in apes." (Analysis of Early Hominins, anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm; original report at Adaptive drool in the gene pool,
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n10/full/ng1007-1188.html)
I read somewhere that chimps chew USOs and spit out much of the fiber. If hominins like Australopithecines did this and ate much more raw tubers than chimps did, then this could account for much of the greatly increased salivary amilase in humans.
but just because we developed a way to digest such things such as lactase for dairy doesn't make that food optimal.
Correct. Surely Tyler will agree that we of European descent are not optimally adapted to dairy and tubers even if we have lactase and amylase enzymes, especially considering that he doesn't even appear to agree with scientists that tubers formed a significant part of Australopithecine diets.
When you combine Tyler's dismissal of tubers with his claim that the bolting meat is natural for humans, plus his own relatively low intake range for carbs (which he reported at around 5-25% of total calories,
http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/journals/a-day-in-the-life-of-tylerdurden/msg23165/#msg23165), it's puzzling why he so casually dismisses human facultative carnivory as a possibility. Interestingly, the 5-25% carb range is almost precisely the range that Loren Cordain cited as "Atkins-type diets" in The Paleo Diet (and Gary Taubes says he follows an Atkins-type diet, incidentally). The carb content of the "low carb" diets of Ron Rosedale and Michael Eades also fit within this range.
That said, with so many folks misconstruing "carnivore" to mean "eats no plant foods" (despite the fact that it has been shown multiple times in this forum that wolves and other facultative carnivores do eat plant foods like berries), the "omnivore" term may remain dominant, despite the fact that it is more a colloquial term than a scientific one.
Topic: Are humans carnivores, omnivores, or just adaptive? (Read 17577 times)