The role of starches in human history

[Löwenherz]

Did a Starchy Diet Fuel Gene Copying in Early Humans?

http://scitizen.com/evolution/did-a-starchy-diet-fuel-gene-copying-in-early-humans-_a-27-1263.html

What is YOUR opinion about starchy tubers?

Löwenherz

[goodsamaritan]

I remember the opinion of Guns Germs and Steel book author Jared Diamond.

The tribes who had these starchy tubers had a portable / storeable food source.  This allowed them to conquer other tribes.

[TylerDurden]

This is b*llsh*t. We have already provided info on Wrangham's dodgy tuber-hypothesis re bigger brains being dead wrong. Beyondveg.com pointed out that the average human brain actually decreased in size by 8 percent after the beginning of the Neolithic era, precisely the time when humans ate even higher amounts of starches than ever before. So eating meat, especially raw meat, helps build bigger brains(studies show that cooked meats are less digestible than raw), but eating starches shrivels the brain.

[PaleoPhil]

Scientists invariably focus on cooked tubers, but there are also wild tubers that are edible raw, which H. sapiens, Australopithecines and even chimps have consumed. Very little research has been done on these, probably in part because there is no economic incentive to do any, though they were covered to some extent in the Hadza study on staple food preferences.

[RawZi]

    What about all the people that don't digest starch well, even as children?

[cherimoya_kid]

I don't get all the "did this or that or the other cause larger brains?" nonsense.  Vertebrates have been evolving bigger brains for literally hundreds of millions of years.  Dinosaurs were evolving bigger brains, until they got wiped out.  Mammals have been evolving them as well, culminating in humans.  Who needs some cause for that?  It just happens.  It happened looooooong before humans ever arrived, and needs no special diet, or mysterious magical 'trigger'.  Morons.

[Löwenherz]

..Beyondveg.com pointed out that the average human brain actually decreased in size by 8 percent after the beginning of the Neolithic era, precisely the time when humans ate even higher amounts of starches than ever before.

Hey, that's CHERRY PICKING! Or do you think that beyondveg.com can be taken seriously?

The question is if starches could be helpful BESIDE sufficient amounts of meat from healthy animals.

Could a sweet potatoe be a better side dish than modern fructose laden fruit to fulfil our need for carbs (if there is any).

Löwenherz

[Löwenherz]

...but there are also wild tubers that are edible raw, which H. sapiens, Australopithecines and even chimps have consumed.

Oh, really? Could you show us some of them?

A few years ago I tried raw sweet potatoes. Today I would call this experiment pure stupidity.

Löwenherz

[TheSt0rm]

lol only one I know of is jicama.

Wouldn't grains/beans be better than tubers eaten raw?

And of course sprouted.

[RawZi]

lol only one I know of is jicama.

Wouldn't grains/beans be better than tubers eaten raw?

And of course sprouted.

    I find grains too dangerous. If they don't kill you, go ahead and eat them.

[PaleoPhil]

Oh, really? Could you show us some of them?

I've posted about them before here http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/omnivorous-raw-paleo/raw-yam/msg67355/#msg67355 and elsewhere and I included videos. I've also added a couple images there.

Here's a jicama:

BTW, jicama is not only a tuber, it's a LEGUME tuber, so like the Hadza legume tubers that are edible raw (see the above referenced thread or http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07601616.pdf) it blows away the common assumptions about legumes as well as tubers being all inedible without cooking that a lot of raw Paleos seem to make. Iguana and GoodSamaritan seem to be two of the few people around here besides me who know that there are tubers and legumes that are edible raw. They might be willing and able to add more info, especially Iguana.

I don't personally care much for tubers, legumes or legume tubers that are edible raw as I don't enjoy the taste of any I've tried very much (though soaked raw sweet potatoes weren't bad--they tasted like especially sweet carrots to me) or fare very well on them.

[TheSt0rm]

    I find grains too dangerous. If they don't kill you, go ahead and eat them.

well I think grains like kamut and spelt are definitely better than regular wheat. Obviously you have to pick and choose your grains. Like quinoa, buckwheat, oats, etc. non stored grains. and less of the hybridized kind.... or if you want then the best digestible hybrids if you want to subscribe to the theory of an evolutionary purpose to agriculture and sprouting. But of course if you accept that then you'll have to accept that humans evolved to live in self sustainable communities.

[TylerDurden]

Hey, that's CHERRY PICKING! Or do you think that beyondveg.com can be taken seriously?

The question is if starches could be helpful BESIDE sufficient amounts of meat from healthy animals.

Could a sweet potatoe be a better side dish than modern fructose laden fruit to fulfil our need for carbs (if there is any).

Löwenherz

  Beyondveg.com is biased against raw foods, but it is far more scientific than other anti-raw sites, so that it is willing, here and there, to provide scientific data which debunks their own pro-cooking position.

As regards the smaller brains/more starches links that is NOT cherry-picking. As Paleophil himself pointed out, the Eskimoes are the biggest meat-eaters on the planet(including lots of raw meats) and also have the largest brains. By contrast, vegetarians have the smallest brains.  So, the mor emeat one eats, the bigger the brains.

Cooked starches merely provide more heat-created toxins and are just foods used by HGs to stave off the possibility of famine.