Daniel Vitalis on cooked meat

[RawZi]

Now, of course, cooked foods do not kill instantly, but that does not per se imply adaptation, just that cooked foods are only toxic to a limited extent, nothing more.

    I don't think I started out adapted to cooked meat at all.  I was such a skinny bones before I became veg ... then again I remember getting a vaccine when I was about one year of age and who knows what else made me completely ill adapted to cooked meat.  I've seen other babies that could not tolerate meat (cooked) when their siblings could, but I'm sure they were vaccinated too.

[PaleoPhil]

This is just quibbling re wordage. The fact is that tubers are known to be rather tasteless,  often require some form of processing in order to make them properly edible, such as with cassavas etc., and are used to ward off famine when nothing better is available.

Nonsense. "Loathsome" is not the same thing as least preferred/fallback of five staple foods by any stretch of the imagination. Calling it quibbling is a weak copout revealing your lack of evidence.  Do you really believe that the Hadza would only eat tubers if they were starving instead of if they were just hungry and nothing better was available? Regardless of your opinion of tubers and other USOs, the ones that are edible raw have been consumed for millions of years, so you need to come up with some better evidence than your extreme opinions. We agree that they aren't a primary food, as I believed from the start (and I used to suspect that tubers, at least the ones that require cooking, were even more of a problem than I do now, partly due to the influence of Ray Audette's very negative opinion about them), but to call them loathsome and tasteless goes unnecessarily overboard and undercuts your credibility. Luckily, I know that you have a tendency toward hyperbole, so maybe you're just exaggerating to try to scare people off tubers in an effort to help others? You are intelligent enough to know full well that hominins never would have started eating tubers if they were truly "loathsome." Give me a break.

Besides, if you really believe that there's only a semantic difference, then you should have no problem ending your use of "loathsome" and "tasteless" and converting to using "fallback," as I and the study do.

[TylerDurden]

Pure hyperbole and quibbling on your part, I'm afraid, as usual.

Anyway, what I said was correct, the Hadzas did not consume tubers for fun, but solely because nothing else was available, so that they would starve otherwise. The quoted passages from the article re using tubers re prevention of wasting etc. prove my point.

[Raw Kyle]

  The trouble is that the environment the dogs live in is the same, regardless. The human input which keeps them alive is not part of the natural environment, per se

Yes it is. There is no such thing as "natural." Every "unnatural" thing ever devised by humans or any other species came from their brain which came from "nature." Anything around you, part of your diet or the air you breath, the different kind of radiation in the atmosphere, the gravity of the planet you live on, these are all the "environment." And how they interact with your genes in terms of you reproducing, which is the only part of the equation not considered the "environment" is your fitness.

Maybe dogs would resemble wolves, although I think some dog lineages are not directly from wolves. Certainly the dogs that could survive in the wild hunting down animals would be more like wolves than poodles.

Just to be quite clear just because you consider something "unnatural" doesn't mean it isn't part of the environment. "Natural" is a purely subjective term that has no use in discussing adaptation.

[TylerDurden]

The biophysical environment is further divided into 2 quite separate  categories, the natural environment and the built environment:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)

As far as adaptation is concerned, it's rather pointless to suggest that one is automatically adapted to everything in an environment. I mean neither wolves nor humans can survive, unaided, underwater for more than a few minutes or so. The fact that humans can survive longer underwater due to extra technology such as scuba-diving gear, does not change the fact that humans are not adapted to breathing water.

[PaleoPhil]

Pure hyperbole and quibbling on your part, I'm afraid, as usual.

Weak excuses for lack of evidence to support your hyperbole, as usual.

Anyway, what I said was correct, the Hadzas did not consume tubers for fun, but solely because nothing else was available, so that they would starve otherwise. The quoted passages from the article re using tubers re prevention of wasting etc. prove my point.

Who said anything about consuming tubers for fun? Still more hyperbole.

I think the term you're looking for is hunger, not starvation, which is hyperbole at best. They don't wait until they're starving before they'll eat tubers, they eat them if they're hungry and nothing else is available. Hunger is not starvation (see definitions below, feel free to present other sources), unless you've changed the definition or something. A food that is "taken when more preferred foods are not available in sufficient quantities" is not the same thing as a food eaten only when starving. Surely even you don't regard the difference between the two as quibbling. They also were found to prefer honey over meat and fruit. You're not going to argue that that study means that meat and fruit were semi-starvation foods, are you? The quoted passages prove my point, as usual, not yours.

Tubers are fallback foods for the Hadza, not starvation foods. It looks like we're still in disagreement on this one and shall have to agree to disagree to avoid further tangent. If you want to discuss it further, perhaps we should move the discussion to the tuber thread (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/non-mutant-fruits-and-vegetables/msg61970/#msg61970).

Starvation: suffering or death caused by hunger:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/starvation?region=us

Starvation is a severe reduction in vitamin, nutrient and energy intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation

starve   [stahrv]  Show IPA verb, starved, starv·ing.
verb (used without object)
1. to die or perish from lack of food or nourishment.
2. to be in the process of perishing or suffering severely from hunger.
3. to suffer from extreme poverty and need.
4. to feel a strong need or desire: The child was starving for affection.
5. Chiefly British Dialect . to perish or suffer extremely from cold.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/starve

[TylerDurden]

Such above waffle means nothing whatsoever, just less than chaff in the breeze, given that the excerpt I quoted from the study specifically stated that tubers were the least preferred foods, being seen as a way to ward of wasting/famine. No mention was made that honey was a starvation food, just tubers.

[PaleoPhil]

Still more of the same tiresome hyperbole. "Least preferred" food does not mean starvation/famine food. No mention was made in that study that any food was a starvation food, just fallback food. Again, fallback food does not equal starvation food. There's no need to change the study's use of the term "fallback food" to the misleading hyperbole of "starvation food" or "loathesome food." You failed to show where the report used those terms and it was those misleading terms that I took issue with. We agree that the study found tubers to be fallback foods for the Hadza. You take that a ridiculous step further into calling them starvation foods, which is where we shall have to disagree.

[Raw Kyle]

The biophysical environment is further divided into 2 quite separate  categories, the natural environment and the built environment:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_(biophysical)

As far as adaptation is concerned, it's rather pointless to suggest that one is automatically adapted to everything in an environment. I mean neither wolves nor humans can survive, unaided, underwater for more than a few minutes or so. The fact that humans can survive longer underwater due to extra technology such as scuba-diving gear, does not change the fact that humans are not adapted to breathing water.

That's right humans and wolves are not adapted to living underwater. But some animals are, or are close to it. Dolphins cannot breathe underwater but are adapted to spending their entire life cycle living in water and or that time a good chunk is underwater. So there's a case of not being able to breathe water but being adapted to living underwater, at least for the majority of their lives.

If an organism is reproducing in an environment then by definition it is automatically considered adapted to all of the pieces of that environment. That wikipedia distinction is somebodies made up construct. It's important to point out that adaptation is also a made up construct, just like your use of the word "natural" and "healthy." These are all made up constructs to represent ideas and the only issue here is you're using a construct that has a pretty well defined definition in biology (adaptation) and using to mean more than it does mean. Individual organisms do not adapt, species adapt. Giraffes didn't grow long necks to get to high tree leaves, the giraffes with longer necks already by chance mutation had access to more varied food sources and out bred the smaller necked ones. If there had been no random variability in neck length in giraffes then they wouldn't have adapted in that way. If the short necked giraffes were able to survive in their environment then they were already adapted, but the longer necked ones were better adapted and out competed them. This competition is purely summed up in birth rate, the only thing that matters is at the end of the day (or thousands of years) who is still around and in what numbers. How you got there is not contained within the word adaptation, it's simply that you did get there.

[miles]

Cro-magnon is the name of some place in France where 'they' found ancient remnants of modern man - homo sapiens. So cro-magnon is just a term for the early homo sapiens in Europe. i.e. Cro-magnon = Homo sapiens.

Neanderthals, or Homo Neanderthalensis are the homonids who colonised Europe prior to the cro-magnon. Homo sapiens evolved in Africa through a genetic bottleneck due to extreme drought. These homo sapiens then existed there for 10s of thousands of years with little advancement, until there was an explosion in technology despite no actual physical changes occurring - most commonly attributed to development of complex language.

Prior to this explosion there is evidence of homo sapiens moving towards Europe through the middle east but falling back to Africa. The explosion in technology allowed homo sapiens to survive and thrive in Europe, where previously only the hardy Neanderthals were able to survive. It's thought that the Neanderthals were then out-competed and out-bred by the homo sapiens but likely contributed some DNA through interbreeding.

[miles]

And Tyler, in your 'conversation' with PaleoPhil you sound like a moron.

[TylerDurden]

Drivel, as usual, PP, and can't you at least reduce your posts 'length, instead of that longwinded b*ll?

An excerpt from that study proves your point wrong as usual - *¨sigh:-

"Natural selection should favor exploitation of low-quality foods when they minimize wasting and starvation during hard times."

[TylerDurden]

And Tyler, in your 'conversation' with PaleoPhil you sound like a moron.

Not in the slightest.

[TylerDurden]

That's right humans and wolves are not adapted to living underwater. But some animals are, or are close to it. Dolphins cannot breathe underwater but are adapted to spending their entire life cycle living in water and or that time a good chunk is underwater. So there's a case of not being able to breathe water but being adapted to living underwater, at least for the majority of their lives.

If an organism is reproducing in an environment then by definition it is automatically considered adapted to all of the pieces of that environment.

  The point is that only some types of animals are adapted to breathing water. Dolphins, for example, have some disadvantages, anyway, since they need to surface in order to breathe, so they are most certainly not fully adapted to their particular environment. Their ability to breed does not change their inability to adapt to get oxygen from water.

Also, you have not really addressed my point which was that technology allows humans to survive even when they are maladapted to their environment. Take away all that technology, and most humans today would die like flies.

As for the giraffe comment, I am more and more convinced that major evolutionary changes are driven by epigenetics rather than just random fluctuations in genes combined with natural selection.

[sabertooth]

Giraffes didn't grow long necks to get to high tree leaves, the giraffes with longer necks already by chance mutation had access to more varied food sources and out bred the smaller necked ones. If there had been no random variability in neck length in giraffes then they wouldn't have adapted in that way. If the short necked giraffes were able to survive in their environment then they were already adapted, but the longer necked ones were better adapted and out competed them. This competition is purely summed up in birth rate, the only thing that matters is at the end of the day (or thousands of years) who is still around and in what numbers. How you got there is not contained within the word adaptation, it's simply that you did get there.

I still contend that there is more at play in the process of adaption than random mutation and natural selection. This of course is only one of my insane theories that I have no evidence to back up , but please contemplate with me the possibility.

Take the Giraffes for example. Their shorter necked ancestors must of had lived under famished circumstances in which they had to struggle to reach enough food to survive. They may of had to stretch and strain their entire lives in order obtain enough food to barley survive. Those ancestors who lived on the brink of starvation my have developed epigenetic adaptions triggered by some genetic determinism survival mechanism, and those changes may be the catalyst of what people think is random mutation followed by natural selection, but in reality it is a much more intelligently crafted genetic adaption that was engineered to better the chances of the future generations survival. Of course natural selection still plays its role in weeding out those adaptions that are sub-adequate or even detrimental. All I am saying is that there are epigenetic changes that are triggered by some survival mechanism inherent within the genetic program that is the main catalyst behind proactive genetic change(or what we call adaption) Its far more complex than random mutation.

Cro-magnon is the name of some place in France where 'they' found ancient remnants of modern man - homo sapiens. So cro-magnon is just a term for the early homo sapiens in Europe. i.e. Cro-magnon = Homo sapiens.

Neanderthals, or Homo Neanderthalensis are the hominids who colonised Europe prior to the cro-magnon. Homo sapiens evolved in Africa through a genetic bottleneck due to extreme drought. These homo sapiens then existed there for 10s of thousands of years with little advancement, until there was an explosion in technology despite no actual physical changes occurring - most commonly attributed to development of complex language.

Prior to this explosion there is evidence of homo sapiens moving towards Europe through the middle east but falling back to Africa. The explosion in technology allowed homo sapiens to survive and thrive in Europe, where previously only the hardy Neanderthals were able to survive. It's thought that the Neanderthals were then attempted and out-bred by the homo sapiens but likely contributed some DNA through interbreeding.

I basically agree with this.

Originally I only mentioned Cro=magnon in the context of the kind of adaptions I outlayed in the paragraph above. Our Cro magnon?/ mutt mixed breed ancestors were forced to adapt to changes in environment and those changes are responsible for smaller frames, smaller brains, the ability to survive off of a more plant rich diet, and even possible brain structure changes that allowed for the evolution of language and thus civilization. (all real and relevant subject matter to the discussion Paleo Phil.) Without understanding how adaption works how could you possibly understand how we have adapted to cooked foods? It may seem off topic  but its relevant to my own understanding and I only wish to add an extra dynamic to the debate.

Of course TD loves to jump on people for trivial errors and ignored what I was at heart attempting to express, when he pointed out that Cro magnons were our direct ancestors, which led to my digressing from the main subject in order to explain to him that cro magnon was just a blanket term that covered many types of homo sapiens that were the precursors to modern humans. The information that I have read was too vague and ambiguous  for my own curiosity to be satisfied so I made a simple request for more information. Of course I was rebutted with another vague article which did little to satisfy my curiosity, and to add insult to injury , I was rebuked for a spelling error and told that I was guilty of going off topic.( Which I rebuke )

[TylerDurden]

Didn't GS vastly improve the spell-check recently? In which case, people really ought to double-check their posts. People are no doubt annoyed with me routinely editing posts in order to improve the spelling in them, but I just think it vastly improves a forum's credibility/readability if the spelling is accurate.

Minor point re Cro-Magnon:- the stance of modern anthropologists is, simply, that cro-magnon were  in fact "modern man", not a separate species or whatever,with the term usually being applied to those modern humans in europe from c.40,000 to c.20,000 years ago, but sometimes used to describe remains from that era from the rest of the world(though, more usually "early modern man" is used  as a term, in preference).

[KD]

That's right humans and wolves are not adapted to living underwater. But some animals are, or are close to it. Dolphins cannot breathe underwater but are adapted to spending their entire life cycle living in water and or that time a good chunk is underwater. So there's a case of not being able to breathe water but being adapted to living underwater, at least for the majority of their lives.

If an organism is reproducing in an environment then by definition it is automatically considered adapted to all of the pieces of that environment. That wikipedia distinction is somebodies made up construct. It's important to point out that adaptation is also a made up construct, just like your use of the word "natural" and "healthy." These are all made up constructs to represent ideas and the only issue here is you're using a construct that has a pretty well defined definition in biology (adaptation) and using to mean more than it does mean. Individual organisms do not adapt, species adapt. Giraffes didn't grow long necks to get to high tree leaves, the giraffes with longer necks already by chance mutation had access to more varied food sources and out bred the smaller necked ones. If there had been no random variability in neck length in giraffes then they wouldn't have adapted in that way. If the short necked giraffes were able to survive in their environment then they were already adapted, but the longer necked ones were better adapted and out competed them. This competition is purely summed up in birth rate, the only thing that matters is at the end of the day (or thousands of years) who is still around and in what numbers. How you got there is not contained within the word adaptation, it's simply that you did get there.

good posts.

Although I think at least the mainstream view of evolution is sorta opposite to what you are saying here. You said in this thread http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/new-daniel-vitalis-interview-about-raw-food-evolution/msg64260/#msg64260 (which seems to contain lots of these same arguments in case one is interested) that you objected to DV's stance against evolution. Although I can't speak for other people, I think many of the counter-evolutionary ideas that aren't motivated by religion sing a similar tune to acknowledging that things change..but not due to some kind of constraint or adversity causing the adaptation itself.
 
I'm never found anything coherent in regards to how extreme raw ideologies and evolutionary ideas of any kind reconcile themselves. All evolutionary scientists (as well as technicians and scientists behind any study on cooked foods) would have surely been raw paleo dieters if they believed such a thing had so much importance.  (ok ok..please do not obsess over this TD and others.  )
 
Despite there being no real satisfying examples (don't care to hear otherwise right now) of things 'evolving' due to pressing factors we generally DO have examples of something that would satisfy Tyler or others, the idea that  things 'adapt' to something by scratching some aspect of health. Say the old panda thing that gets thrown around here eating bamboo for however many years.

With me I can strike a compromise and agree that perhaps the adaptions people point out in Asians with soy or something or some whites with milk or even cooked food may  infact not be net positive gains for the human race. I still think these generally take a back seat if one can compare the levels of success and health these peoples had in comparison to all the other kinds of factors and the 'diets' people can come up with today raw or not. One doesn't have to glamorize HGs to realize they had a certain superiority to many of our gurus and outspoken proponents of perfect diets.
 
I don't think one can resolve such things in this format but to me Daniels idea of 'surthival' (which I admit is a bit hokey) seems to be the perfect reaction against the so called 'purity' of raw foodists. This claim that diet can give some abstract idea of health divorced of adapting to be healthy and thrive in modern environments. This means not being sensitive to EMF, or constantly having detoxes, or accepting being underweight or  whatever because there isn't enough healthy types of foods. I could probably come up with more examples but basically any other ideas people present which contrast reality. I think the tone of this site is a lot better compared to others regarding that, but it seems that  message alone is  worthwhile to be promoting to a wide array of raw or even 'paleo' ideologues.
 

[Raw Kyle]

Take away all that technology, and most humans today would die like flies.

What's the difference, from life's perspective, between human (or other animals) technology and their teeth or claws or eyesight? Technology comes from use of a real organ called the brain that is built based on your organisms genetic code. This then allows you to perform behaviors, just like a bird that knows where to fly at changing seasons and anteaters that know how to dig for ants, which allow you to survive and reproduce.

You have made up definitions for words like "natural" and "adaptation" that aren't objective but subjective to you. Technology came from humans who came from what you call the "natural" world. Tell me Tyler, at what point exactly did human behavior become "unnatural?" What exactly is the tipping point, tell me what that word means.

[TylerDurden]

Obviously, the tipping point came when fire was invented. Fire greatly reduced the forces of natural selection by allowing hominids to ward off predators as the latter are afraid of fire.

I would not consider humans as being "natural". I mean we have birth-control pills, we have cars which make us walk less which explains our modern-day obesity epidemic, we have lights at night which disrupts our natural sleeping-cycles so that many people take sleeping-pills etc. etc.

[Raw Kyle]

Obviously, the tipping point came when fire was invented. Fire greatly reduced the forces of natural selection by allowing hominids to ward off predators as the latter are afraid of fire.

I don't find the tipping point so obvious. It's hard for me to imagine looking at a bunch of humans, thinking they're "natural," and then all of a sudden one of them is rubbing sticks together and makes a fire and I go "yep there it is, of course they're "unnatural" now." If another species used fire would they automatically become "unnatural?" Some species of pine trees cannot seed unless they are burned by a forest fire. How is the ability for an organisms brain to figure out how to control something like fire different than a dolphins' brains' ability to figure out how to control the sonic energy they can produce to heard fish? Or when apes use sticks to get at insects. How is your brain not a part of natural selection? Would you not have been selected out of the gene pool if you were not smart enough to use fire to ward off predators? Is that "unnatural" selection?

I would not consider humans as being "natural". I mean we have birth-control pills, we have cars which make us walk less which explains our modern-day obesity epidemic, we have lights at night which disrupts our natural sleeping-cycles so that many people take sleeping-pills etc. etc.

I'm still waiting for a definition of the word "natural." So sleeping pills are "unnatural," is chewing valerian root to fall asleep "unnatural?" What if the sleeping pills are extracts of that root? At what point is it "unnatural?"

As for walking less explaining the modern day obesity epidemic I'm flabbergasted that you would suggest and/or believe that. Are you claiming you can treat obesity by prescribing walking? Has that study not been done many times with a failure rate of 100%?

[TylerDurden]

I meant simply that the obesity epidemic is largely explained by not doing enough exercise in general. In the past, we had no access to cars or planes so we had to slog our way for miles. If one goes further back before roads were built, it was even tougher so that one either was physically fit or died at a much younger age. Look at how slim the modern masai are, even though they are living on grain-filled diets, for example.

The issue is not "making use of" natural fires but creating fires artificially, something no other species has done. This gives an enormous boost in survival re warding off predators as animals are terrified of fires, thus reducing natural selection heavily, plus fires give warmth thus saving humans from exposure to cold.

Passing on the knowledge of how to start and make use of a fire is a question of Culture, not intelligence - intelligence is needed to discover/invent artificial fires in the first place, but the teaching of its use is pretty straightforward. Virtually any low-IQ human can be taught to do simple tasks. I personally know of one adult in particular, with a mental age of 2, who can do all sorts of  tasks such as carrying buckets loaded with sand down steps, unlock gates etc., simply because he was constantly trained like one of Pavlov's dogs.

As for the definition of "natural", that is obvious:- behaviours/habits routinely practised by wild animals. Some things like using valerian root are natural since other animals use herbs too, while taking processed pills isn't since wild animals do not make them at all. 

[Raw Kyle]

Passing on the knowledge of how to start and make use of a fire is a question of Culture, not intelligence - intelligence is needed to discover/invent artificial fires in the first place, but the teaching of its use is pretty straightforward.

That's why every animal can be taught how to do it...

[PaleoPhil]

Sorry Tyler, a good friend of mine of more than three decades just died suddenly of rapidly-progressing cancer and other friends are sick with cancer (I've reached the middle-aged period where it starts to become somewhat common among people near my age--one of the downsides of eating healthy is surviving to see many of the people around you suffer and die from the curses of modern civilization), so I'm not in the mood to debate right now, but I'll try to remember to respond. I don't share your interpretation of the quote you cited, but maybe we can discuss that in the future. For now we can agree to disagree, if that's OK with you. I don't expect I'll change your mind, which I'm not trying to do anyway (I'm not big on that; I just try to explain and explore my views and learn about other views, which I find debating helps with at times).

Sabertooth, if any of your comments were directed to me, I hope you didn't take any offense at anything I wrote. I was only trying to help with the spelling info. Your success story is motivating. Have you heard anything more about the potential TV show you were interviewed for?

[Raw Kyle]

I meant simply that the obesity epidemic is largely explained by not doing enough exercise in general.

If that is so then putting study subjects on an exercise plan would cause significant long term weight loss, correct? Would you care to show me evidence of that happening?

[KD]

I actually didn't think there was anyone left in this crazy alternative diet world that thinks people are fat due to inactivity. Generally almost everyone other than exercise freaks have more or less the same level oflow activity. Some being the most extreme just walking to a car or rolling around on a cart but with many millions of others having all kinds of body types doing very little or any exercise.

Its theoretically possible for some people to lose weight merely by adjusting their activity, with others not losing at all, or just temporarily. Things like removing carbs or going on other restrictive raw or extreme low fat diets generally results in weight loss without exercise for many.

Going with the general subject, Its pretty accepted if one reads all the 'paleo' blogs and such that poorly constructed diets (and the genetics inherited by such) as well as environmental and food related toxins lead to diseased conditions, destroyed metabolisms and stored fat. Ironically because HGs needed to acquire and process their food and be active, the range what they ate was entirely realistic to surviving their environment and sustainable for both it and their bodies. Most people on raw diets have a health, fitness level and relationship to their environment that is totally unrealistic, being unable to actually acquire their food year round or even at all because of this physical discrepancy and in many cases can't even create sustainable health.