Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat

[Iguana]

Thanks for you comprehensive answer. I could answer once again because I still disagree on many points, but I feel both of us have rather exhaustively explained our respective views and we are dragged into an endless loop argument. For example, I mentioned the Fuegians in this post, on the 1st page of this topic:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/humans-naturaloptimal-habitat/msg117274/#msg117274

[TylerDurden]

The info I read on the Fuegians was that they wore little to no clothing at all.  In other words, some wore no clothing at all, while others may have worn tiny amounts.

[panacea]

TylerDurden:

Bodies of water can provide shelter from rain and high winds by cooling your body at a lesser rate than the colder rain/colder wind. A rate your body can keep up with. Just because the air outside of our bodies may be 72 degrees fahrenheit, and our internal temperatures are around 98.6 degrees fahrenheit, doesn't mean that 72 degree weather will kill us. Use thorough reasoning, it appears you are grasping at every straw you can to sustain a stubborn position with ideas you like.

A simple search on google reveals that the Yaghans did not just simply adapt to the colder climate through depositing more body fat (every human can do this, and they can also use a special type of body fat called brown fat which generates much more heat). What they also did is build frequent fires, build rock shelters, and cover themselves in animal grease which they killed by using technology not their body fat. Logical errors abound in your posts. Your words are not to be trusted.

There is a reason almost all medium-large mammals have fur and that the ones who don't typically have other means of shelter like going underground. It is extremely rare to be as naked as we are and not be underground-dwelling. It is extremely rare for any land mammal to have subcutaneous body fat. It is extremely common for aquatic/semiaquatic life to have subcutaneous (attached to the skin) body fat. Wake up.

[TylerDurden]

The aquatic ape theory has, I'm afraid, been  thorughly debunked a long , long time ago:--


http://www.aquaticape.org/

I had also mentioned that the Fuegans had a highr metabolic rate which easily explained adaptation to the cold. Frequent fires, shelters and grease are hardly too effective against the cold by comparison to a higher mtabolic rate.
  At any rate,  I have demonstrated that cold adaption can easily occur without the need for fur.

[JeuneKoq]

I'm just going to correct the things said that particularly bother me:

The above claim isn't quite true. For example, the Gauls in ancient France were well known to  routinely fight stark naked in battles.

That's an example of humans standing the cold for a short period of time. They fought for a few hours max naked, then came back to their clothes, fire and houses/shelters. Unless, of course, they were still pumped-up from Panoramix' magic potion 

  Then there is the issue of all those immigrants from the 3rd world looking for a better life, but, interestingly, always seeking out colder climates when possible.

I think it's safe to suggest that colder climates is not what these people are looking for, when coming to the -wealthy- northern regions of the world, such as Europe and USA.

What weakens his argument re the Ethiopian highlands is that clothes are not really suited to the generally warm  African climate. But clothes are admittedly more likely to have been used for much colder climates outside Africa.

Africa, just like any other continents on this planet, minus perhaps the two poles, is home to various type of climates: desert, steppe, savanna, tropical rain-forest, mediterranean...all not equally warm, or dry, or moist...

Wikipedia on Ethiopia's not-so-warm climate:
"The predominant climate type is tropical monsoon, with wide topographic-induced variation. The Ethiopian Highlands cover most of the country and have a climate which is generally considerably cooler than other regions at similar proximity to the Equator.(...)The average annual temperature in Addis Ababa is 16 °C (60.8 °F), with daily maximum temperatures averaging 20–25 °C (68.0–77.0 °F) throughout the year, and overnight lows averaging 5–10 °C (41.0–50.0 °F). Most major cities and tourist sites in Ethiopia lie at a similar elevation to Addis Ababa and have a comparable climate."
Not to state the colder temperatures in the more elevated parts of the country.
In such conditions wearing clothes might've been a necessity.


I think that in the end no faulty historical science, no uncertain arguments and no personal convictions (I'm also including myself when I say this) can truly decide what is one individual's optimal living place. It is everyone's responsibility to find the place where they can live the best with the least need to rely on "unnatural", accessory means. There is obviously more than one Garden of Eden on this Earth. The key is to experiment, see if you can manage every aspect of a certain environment, be it the climate, the terrain, the edibles, their level of access depending on the season....
If you can manage all those aspects in the colder regions -Not only the climate-, it's all very fine. If not, it's all right, back out a bit in more comfortable environments and let time eventually decide when it may be right to move forth, if it ever is.
Personally I am more attracted to the idea of going back to warmer regions, but if I do this it would be in a very progressive way, like for instance moving to a more southern European country such as Spain, gradually adjusting to an already less familiar environment. But that's just my own suggestion to myself.

 It's every person's task to find their own optimal habitat, be it Siberia, India, East Africa or New Zealand, and to live more in tune with it.

[TylerDurden]

I'm just going to correct the things said that particularly bother me:That's an example of humans standing the cold for a short period of time. They fought for a few hours max naked, then came back to their clothes, fire and houses/shelters. Unless, of course, they were still pumped-up from Panoramix' magic potion 

  I would suspect that Gaulish warriors on major  campaigns would hardly have gone back to wearing clothes inbetween battles.

I think it's safe to suggest that colder climates is not what these people are looking for, when coming to the -wealthy- northern regions of the world, such as Europe and USA.

You are missing the point, again. They are going to these much colder climes despite there being other  wealthy countries in  much warmer climes.

Africa, just like any other continents on this planet, minus perhaps the two poles, is home to various type of climates: desert, steppe, savanna, tropical rain-forest, mediterranean...all not equally warm, or dry, or moist...

Wikipedia on Ethiopia's not-so-warm climate:
"The predominant climate type is tropical monsoon, with wide topographic-induced variation. The Ethiopian Highlands cover most of the country and have a climate which is generally considerably cooler than other regions at similar proximity to the Equator.(...)The average annual temperature in Addis Ababa is 16 °C (60.8 °F), with daily maximum temperatures averaging 20–25 °C (68.0–77.0 °F) throughout the year, and overnight lows averaging 5–10 °C (41.0–50.0 °F). Most major cities and tourist sites in Ethiopia lie at a similar elevation to Addis Ababa and have a comparable climate."
Not to state the colder temperatures in the more elevated parts of the country.
In such conditions wearing clothes might've been a necessity.

You have missed the point once again. Africa is not known for its cold climates.  About the best it can manage is snow on the top of some mountains like Mt Kilimanjaro, that's about it. So, the Ethiopian highlands remark was absurd and a clearly desperate one. The figures you cite do NOT suggest a cold climate but a temperate one, easily dealt with by someone without clothes.

It's every person's task to find their own optimal habitat, be it Siberia, India, East Africa or New Zealand, and to live more in tune with it.

Easy to say, NOT easy to practise. I would state that my own ideal temperature right now  would, at most,  be never more than +10 degrees Celsius, at the present time,  while wearing perhaps shorts and T-shirt. Perhaps 12-13 degrees Celsius if always naked. After set periods of time, this would improve, year on year,  so that I could progressively handle even  lower temperatures. However, long before I reached that stage I would have become permanently locked up for indecent exposure.

[Iguana]

Do you recognize him?

[Projectile Vomit]

A friend once snapped a photograph of me wading out of Lake Champlain in February when the water was ~0 Centigrade (barely over 32 Fahrenheit). I looked through the folders I keep images in and can't seem to find it. Guess I'll have to get someone to take another once the lake thaws.

[cherimoya_kid]

Do you recognize him?

GCB's youngest son, right?

[Iguana]

  Right !

[Inger]

I am very sure humans are capable of adapting to cold - everyone is! And this is a super easy N=1 to do. The colder you have it the more you will get used to it, the warmer you have it around you the colder you will be when facing cold. Easy 

[Inger]

The rawfooders that eat fruits year round that I have come to know often dream about moving south.

Maybe it is their body telling them about the mismatch... and they not feeling 100% well in the environment they live in because they eat foods not belonging there at all.

So for  the sugar not to harm their bodies they need SUN... SUN and more SUN what they do not get... hence always dreaming about sunnier and warmer climates 

[AnopsStudier]

I am very sure humans are capable of adapting to cold - everyone is! And this is a super easy N=1 to do. The colder you have it the more you will get used to it, the warmer you have it around you the colder you will be when facing cold. Easy 

Yes of course but I guess I am wondering if adapting and living in cold climates is beneficial or good for a person... or it is healthier to just be living in a place where you constantly have a warmer temperature.

[panacea]

Tylerdurden:

The anti-aquaticapetheory website you posted is just that, a view against it, what matters is if the website has any substantial claims (claims having logical validity). When I first viewed the website, long, long ago, I didn't find any. That's why when arguing, I prefer to use actual logical claims, rather than tell you to reference all of wikipedia or google in order to correct every flaw in your reasoning.

By using the childish act of merely posting an entire website to support your stance for or against something, you outline your inability to critically think for yourself.

Furthermore, what the aquaticape.org website does is single out every aspect of aquatic/semiaquatic ape theory and its variants and give alternative reasons/circumstances besides aquatic ones in which our adaptations could have happened/could have been caused by. If you single out every aspect of something like this on any topic, you miss the big picture and cannot connect the dots to see a relational model presenting the conclusion right under your nose. If there was only one feature that suggested aquatic history, then it would be far fetched. If there are a lot of features suggesting aquatic history, yet only a few people believe it, then it's not far fetched, just unpopular, as all non-far fetched ideas which challenge orthodox strongholds are in their infancy.

Similarly, there is no such thing as absolute proof in our world outside of imaginative constructs like math - that is what that website and all other websites which have the weakest possible defense to an idea relies on - since absolute proof doesn't exist, or you can't absolutely prove something to be right or wrong, then as long as I can divide and conquer each aspect of your theories then no one should give it a second thought. And thus goes the weak minded stance of bias, rather than deduction.

---
About cold adaptation without fur, you have not demonstrated that we can survive for long periods (thousands of years) in a quantifiably cold/harsh environment without relying on technology, which is all that I'm getting at. Without the aid of fire, or products of animals (whether it be grease or their furs), or other technological thinking, then we could not survive those environments. You have not shown, nor will you ever (since they don't exist) a people which have lived in these environments as anything more than a temporary necessity without the aid of technology.

All mammals have a natural habitat. No mammal can withstand every range of temperature or climate. All mammals can adapt to their climate over time, but what our body is currently and was most recently adapted to is not climates like the arctic or the desert (without technology), or in frequently freezing temperatures and wet climates without natural shelters (and without technology). The fact is, that we had to evolve on land somewhere without the help of technology in the beginning. Our bodies are still adapted to a climate such as a tropical savanna (with bodies of water) or similar, which means that if we did adapt to colder climates, it was after the use of technology rather than bodily adaptations.

Higher metabolisms are not the magical answer to everything you seem to think they are. If they were, every animal would just "increase metabolism" to combat everything. The problem is we live in a world where energy is costly, so you can't just "use super high metabolisms all day" without paying a high price in energy - which is why it makes absolutely no sense and if you lived somewhere as a species for a lengthy time (tens of thousands of years) you would adapt by making the energy expenditure much less with fur or feathers or something besides high metabolism, unless of course you had tools which allowed you to eat much more than is natural due to having unique advantages of killing/processing/cooking large amounts of food (or growing it). I would just love to see you chase down an animal to exhaustion without the use of tools, animal grease or fur or any clothing or technological aid, in the cold of winter, in a harsly cold environment, routinely, to feed your increased metabolism. By the way good luck outlasting a furred mammal when you're chasing it in the cold, and good luck exhausting it without weapons.

[eveheart]

So what is it about the blue zones then?   Areas in the world where people live the longest and healthiest..
What do they all have in common?
    Okinawa, Japan
    Sardinia, Italy
    Loma Linda, California
    Nicoya, Costa Rica
    Ikaria, Greece
They are all coastal towns.   With spectacular ocean and land views. 

LOL... nice try, but Loma Linda, California, is smack dab in the middle of the San Bernardino Valley desert, and about a three-days' walk to the coast.

Blue Zones, a work on long life and happiness, has its own conclusions, called the Power 9, which does not include optimal climate. The Power 9 are http://www.bluezones.com/live-longer/power-9/:

1. Move Naturally ?The world’s longest-lived people don’t pump iron, run marathons or join gyms. Instead, they live in environments that constantly nudge them into moving without thinking about it. They grow gardens and don’t have mechanical conveniences for house and yard work.

2. Purpose. The Okinawans call it “Ikigai” and the Nicoyans call it “plan de vida;” for both it translates to “why I wake up in the morning.” Knowing your sense of purpose is worth up to seven years of extra life expectancy

3. Down Shift? Even people in the Blue Zones experience stress. Stress leads to chronic inflammation, associated with every major age-related disease. What the world’s longest-lived people have that we don’t are routines to shed that stress. Okinawans take a few moments each day to remember their ancestors, Adventists pray, Ikarians take a nap and Sardinians do happy hour.

4. 80% Rule?  “Hara hachi bu”  – the Okinawan, 2500-year old Confucian mantra said before meals reminds them to stop eating when their stomachs are 80 percent full. The 20% gap between not being hungry and feeling full could be the difference between losing weight or gaining it. People in the Blue Zones eat their smallest meal in the late afternoon or early evening and then they don’t eat any more the rest of the day.

5. Plant Slant?  Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the cornerstone of most centenarian diets. Meat—mostly pork—is eaten on average only five times per month.  Serving sizes are 3-4 oz., about the size of deck or cards.

6. Wine @ 5? People in all Blue Zones (except Adventists) drink alcohol moderately and regularly.  Moderate drinkers outlive non-drinkers. The trick is to drink 1-2 glasses per day (preferably Sardinian Cannonau wine), with friends and/or with food. And no, you can’t save up all weekend and have 14 drinks on Saturday.

7. Belong? All but five of the 263 centenarians we interviewed belonged to some faith-based community.  Denomination doesn’t seem to matter. Research shows that attending faith-based services four times per month will add 4-14 years of life expectancy.

8. Loved Ones First ?Successful centenarians in the Blue Zones put their families first. This means keeping aging parents and grandparents nearby or in the home (It lowers disease and mortality rates of children in the home too.). They commit to a life partner (which can add up to 3 years of life expectancy) and invest in their children with time and love (They’ll be more likely to care for you when the time comes).

9. Right Tribe ?The world’s longest lived people chose–or were born into–social circles that supported healthy behaviors, Okinawans created ”moais”–groups of five friends that committed to each other for life. Research from the Framingham Studies shows that smoking, obesity, happiness, and even loneliness are contagious. So the social networks of long-lived people have favorably shaped their health behaviors.

[TylerDurden]

Tylerdurden:

The anti-aquaticapetheory website you posted is just that, a view against it, what matters is if the website has any substantial claims (claims having logical validity). When I first viewed the website, long, long ago, I didn't find any. That's why when arguing, I prefer to use actual logical claims, rather than tell you to reference all of wikipedia or google in order to correct every flaw in your reasoning.

I simply pointed out that ref because it showed that there were better, simpler explanations than the Aquatic Ape theory.  There is plenty more anti-Aquatic Ape-theory info online that you could check if you really wanted to, but you have a closed mind.

About cold adaptation without fur, you have not demonstrated that we can survive for long periods (thousands of years) in a quantifiably cold/harsh environment without relying on technology, which is all that I'm getting at. Without the aid of fire, or products of animals (whether it be grease or their furs), or other technological thinking, then we could not survive those environments. You have not shown, nor will you ever (since they don't exist) a people which have lived in these environments as anything more than a temporary necessity without the aid of technology.

All mammals have a natural habitat. No mammal can withstand every range of temperature or climate. All mammals can adapt to their climate over time, but what our body is currently and was most recently adapted to is not climates like the arctic or the desert (without technology), or in frequently freezing temperatures and wet climates without natural shelters (and without technology). The fact is, that we had to evolve on land somewhere without the help of technology in the beginning. Our bodies are still adapted to a climate such as a tropical savanna (with bodies of water) or similar, which means that if we did adapt to colder climates, it was after the use of technology rather than bodily adaptations.

Higher metabolisms are not the magical answer to everything you seem to think they are. If they were, every animal would just "increase metabolism" to combat everything. The problem is we live in a world where energy is costly, so you can't just "use super high metabolisms all day" without paying a high price in energy - which is why it makes absolutely no sense and if you lived somewhere as a species for a lengthy time (tens of thousands of years) you would adapt by making the energy expenditure much less with fur or feathers or something besides high metabolism, unless of course you had tools which allowed you to eat much more than is natural due to having unique advantages of killing/processing/cooking large amounts of food (or growing it).

  I have actually  shown, conclusively, that ancient hominids, with minimal difference from us modern humans re DNA,  have been able to a) survive in cold climates without clothes and without fire, since the advent of clothes and advent of fire happened ages afterwards. Given the minimal difference in DNA, it would be very easy for modern humans to adapt to cold climates over time without the need for technology, therefore. At worst a few generations, and maybe just one or two, given the evidence of the Fuegans. Plus, I have also shown that some modern humans, such as Inuit and Caucasians, are definitely NOT adapted to warmer climates, at the very least.

I would just love to see you chase down an animal to exhaustion without the use of tools, animal grease or fur or any clothing or technological aid, in the cold of winter, in a harsly cold environment, routinely, to feed your increased metabolism. By the way good luck outlasting a furred mammal when you're chasing it in the cold, and good luck exhausting it without weapons.

*sigh*. Our hominid ancestors easily managed to hunt without the use of traps or tools like spears and  bows and arrows(those only appeared c.60,000 years ago!), so this is a silly claim. Also, there is a theory you obviously haven't heard of which is that palaeo man was largely a scavenger, not a hunter, until c.60,000 years ago. Then there is the fact that clothes were invented only c.170,000 years ago so could not have been used by earlier hominids.

I can safely state, from the above evidence I posted in this thread, that Caucasians and Inuit are certainly NOT adapted to warmer climes but at least to temperate ones and that many ancient hominids were able to handle very cold climates without the need for clothes  or fire, since neither had been invented when they were around. Modern humans  might need a few generations to adapt to  truly arctic conditions, as opposed to just cold, temperate climes.

[TylerDurden]

By the way, I like the photo of GCB's son on the snow! So many people assume that one has to have clothes and shoes  at all times just in order to  survive a little snow. Our ancestors would weep to find us so wimpy  and unadaptable.

[Inger]

Yes of course but I guess I am wondering if adapting and living in cold climates is beneficial or good for a person... or it is healthier to just be living in a place where you constantly have a warmer temperature.

I think it all depends on how you do it.
If you live inside with fake light all winter long and eat fruit - it will hurt you.

If you explore darkness and cold.. and eat what is natural to where you live ( a ketogenic diet) it will be very beneficial.
I have done this to some extent, not 100% for sure but even the little I have done have given me quite some benefits!

I think cold is very refreshing and I think illnesses can heal in a very nice way during a winter if you dive into it - especially if you tan all summer long when the summer is there. You need to let you body feel all the seasons to make it optimal.

[JeuneKoq]

Whats up with all that "fruity" hostility? You do know that at least 20 percent of mammals, including northern indigenous ones such as foxes, wild boars, deers, horses, wolfs eat fruit as a part of their diet? Fruit ain't drugs, not more than the meat and fat you eat, Inger.

[TylerDurden]

Whats up with all that "fruity" hostility? You do know that at least 20 percent of mammals, including northern indigenous ones such as foxes, wild boars, deers, horses, wolfs eat fruit as a part of their diet? Fruit ain't drugs, not more than the meat and fat you eat, Inger.

I have seen photos of wolves eating berries but this is supposed to be a rare part of their diet, not a regular item.

[JeuneKoq]

True. Also I mistaken the common wolf with the South American maned wolf, which is quite an important fruit eater, apparently.
A lot of very interesting info regarding frugivores on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugivore

[AnopsStudier]

Question.. DId humans most likely ever have an "optimal habitat" for a long period of time?  Or did they always have to deal with constant climate change?

anyways

not one single human being on earth can survive a cold winter with no clothing , or human shelter.   Now if we didnt start wearing clothes would we have grown a ton of hair or have kept more hair to survive bitter temperatures?  Maybe.. but the majority of us are pretty  hairless.... So we havent really "adapted" to cold weather.. IMO we are meant to live somewhere where we can maintain a pretty constant body temperature between 60-85 degrees.  I know we can live anywhere by "adapting" but.. what makes it optimal?  Im talking about longevity and being healthy all the time....

If you lived in Alaska of course your going to be eating what grows there... If you live in South America you eat what grows there... but is there a difference in health?  Or maybe humans are meant to explore and travel the world and eat anything.. Idk just some foggy questions and statements I had.

[TylerDurden]

I have already pointed out that there are many other ways to adapt to the cold such as raising one's metabolic rate etc.

[Iguana]

Sorry, but I didn’t find you answer to that argument of Panacea convincing.

Higher metabolisms are not the magical answer to everything you seem to think they are. If they were, every animal would just "increase metabolism" to combat everything. The problem is we live in a world where energy is costly, so you can't just "use super high metabolisms all day" without paying a high price in energy - which is why it makes absolutely no sense and if you lived somewhere as a species for a lengthy time (tens of thousands of years) you would adapt by making the energy expenditure much less with fur or feathers or something besides high metabolism, unless of course you had tools which allowed you to eat much more than is natural due to having unique advantages of killing/processing/cooking large amounts of food (or growing it).

[TylerDurden]

Well, actually there are cases of wild animals who have gone in for a much higher metabolism. Oftentimes, this merely means that they have to eat much more than they would have had to with a much lower metabolic rate. Hummingbirds are an example. They go into torpor at night or when they are relaxing or when they are starving, which reduces their metabolic rate to way below normal.

I did not, incidentally, cite only a higher metabolism as a way of combatting the cold. Other methods include reshaping size of nasal passages, due to genetics, different overall body shape, colour of skin etc.