Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat

[Inger]

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.

Jeune you seem to have missed the whole point I try to make again and again. It is a broader view.

Fruits (carbs) are very bad eaten out of context, and I suggest even cultivated fruits are bad for most of us (the broken ones) eaten in season too

No animal in the wild ever eats imported fruits from the other end of the world, sorry
If they eat the fruit that grow in their natural habitat, it of course will not harm them.

Did I make my point clear enough...?

[JeuneKoq]

No Inger you are the one that got confused on the point I was making.
Before making assumptions, which in this case is quite understandable knowing the fact that I support the instinctive "dietary" method, you should closely read my post(s) before making me say what I haven't said (or wrote). Of course I meant fruits -and other plants- that are native to and present in the animal's natural environment; I did not say "wolves in Sweden eat imported papayas and mangoes for breakfast" !

If they eat the fruit that grow in their natural habitat, it of course will not harm them.

^that is exactly what I meant.

When you posted those claims re fruits being harmful and dangerous I thought you meant every fruit in any context. Reading your last comment it seems that I was wrong on that and did miss the point you were trying to make after all..

[Inger]

ok.. lol. Must be you haven't read my posts much then Look I absolutely think wild fruits and berries in season are fine! But I also know quite a bit about wild fruits and wild edibles and they are pretty far from what most people eat.

I have had wild durian (very hard to come by, BTW) and it was nothing like the durian's you get in a shop normally. Very little flesh on it and very concentrated. The highly cultivated fruits we normally eat are just... sugar.

[AnopsStudier]

Jeune you seem to have missed the whole point I try to make again and again. It is a broader view.

Fruits (carbs) are very bad eaten out of context, and I suggest even cultivated fruits are bad for most of us (the broken ones) eaten in season too

No animal in the wild ever eats imported fruits from the other end of the world, sorry
If they eat the fruit that grow in their natural habitat, it of course will not harm them.

Did I make my point clear enough...?

then what is humans natural habitat!?

[Inger]

It can differ a lot... but it will be what you have adapted to. Like, for me Africa would not be that.. I probably would get some issues if moving there. Like my skin is not made to live there etc.

I think we adapt pretty fast.... and if going to live somewhere far from where your parents and grandparents and grand grand parents (and so on) have lived, you would have good chances of surviving if you live in and from the nature where you are. But there are risks, parasites we are not used to etc. So I would never do this if I can avoid it.

Humans natural habitat is Nature for sure. Not the modern world with its technology and circadian disruptions and unnatural foods. We can tolerate it - some more some less... but most of us pay a high price for our comfort.

I also believe Humans natural habitat is close to water. As the human brain needs seafood to not de evolve.

[PaleoPhil]

(emphases mine)

The separation of our lineage in two, with on one side the homo lineage and on the other the great ape family, is due to the formation of the Great Rift Valley some 8-9 million years ago -according to a book co-published by famous palaeontologist Yves Coppens-. Pre-humans evolved on the East side of the Rift Valley, where forest started to rapidly disappear due to the drying-out of the region, being then replaced by something similar to our present day savannah; Great apes evolved on the West side, in the vast humid tropical forests of Africa. ...

In an interesting coincidence, Mark Sisson just published an article about the Rift Valley region today:

...make no mistake: we may not know the day-to-day eating habits of our ancestors, but we know some things. And we can use what we know, drawing on several lines of evidence, to make some educated estimates.

The best place to start is, well, the place where it all started: East Africa, the cradle of human evolution. More specifically, let’s look at the Lake Turkana, Rift Valley, Omo River part of Ethiopia and Tanzania, which is where the oldest known remains of modern homo sapiens – dating back 200,000 years – were found. It’s a beautiful place. I mean just look at it. No wonder we hunkered down there for thousands of years." Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-did-our-ancient-ancestors-actually-eat/#ixzz2wSjKXcdN

I know that not everyone here will agree with him, yet, make of it what you will, it's still an interesting coincidence of timing.

And in the same article, Mark also wrote some more about RS and prebiotics in general:

Tubers
Important parts of early human diets, tubers likely acted as fallback foods for when the hunt was poor or fish were scarce. It’s crucial to understand that these were wild, fibrous tubers, though – not the creamy, smooth russet potatoes that make the best darn mash you’ve ever tasted. An analysis of wild tubers currently present in this area and utilized by the Hadza (the modern hunter gatherers who live on the same ancestral Tanzanian lands) found that they contain only between 19 and 26 grams of starch per 100 grams of tuber, along with a ton of prebiotic fiber (PDF). Some of that starch was likely resistant as well, boosting the prebiotic count even higher and lowering the amount of digestible starch.

East African wild tubers therefore provide a moderate bolus of digestible starch with a sizable portion of prebiotic substrate, resulting in moderate glucose loads and improved glucose tolerance from the fermentation of prebiotic fiber.

Takeaway: Tubers were important foods for early humans, but not necessarily for the glucose they provided. The primary feature of wild East African tubers that set them apart from modern cultivated tubers was the indigestible portion, the prebiotic fiber and resistant starch that fed, nurtured, and cultivated the hugely crucial microbiome living inside our guts.

[JeuneKoq]

ok.. lol. Must be you haven't read my posts much then Look I absolutely think wild fruits and berries in season are fine! But I also know quite a bit about wild fruits and wild edibles and they are pretty far from what most people eat.

I have had wild durian (very hard to come by, BTW) and it was nothing like the durian's you get in a shop normally. Very little flesh on it and very concentrated. The highly cultivated fruits we normally eat are just... sugar.

Inger I actually enjoy reading your posts! I'm all for getting in contact with the surrounding nature, and eating wild untransformed food. For instance my usual "workout session" is usually going to the forest and make use of the environment, like climbing trees, crawling under branches, balancing on wooden poles,... A lot more fun than the usual push-ups and crunches during crossfit classes.
I started doing those kind of exercises in the open again after taking part in a two-day movnat workshop, which is all about natural movement.
Anyway it's just that I thought your stance on sweet fruits was getting a bit more...extreme lately. Glad to see I was wrong

[JeuneKoq]

Haha PaleoPhil we might call it a double -or triple- coincidence ;  Here's Anopstudier's comment that followed the one you quoted:

Yes Yes, I was just talking about the Great Rift Valley with a past science teacher today!

Interesting article, Phil.

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, and a confluence of things were reminding me of the Great Rift Valley region and pointing me in that direction in recent months, and I seem to have benefited from what I learned, so I guess it's a quadruple coincidence. LOL Maybe I'll get into it some more later.

It was part of what inspired me to try drinking more sparkling mineral water, which I posted about back on January 30: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/paleophil's-journal/msg118727/#msg118727

In particular, it led me to search for what would seem to be the ideal drinking water, based on what I had learned about what might have been some of the healthful, life-promoting properties of waters of the ancient Rift Valley and deep sea volcanic vents and research on cellular respiration. I had Googled this and found that the one that best matched was called Gerolsteiner. Since then I saw a health news report in which Gerolsteiner was called "the cadillac of mineral waters."

[PaleoPhil]

The claim that Neanderthals almost wholly ate meat has been debunked by recent scientific findings that showed that they actually ate a lot of plant foods as well. Palaeoarchaeology, is, after all, in its infancy still. ...

Indeed, and the list of plant foods that Neanderthals reportedly ate keeps growing:
 

The Real Caveman Diet: Did people eat fruits and vegetables in prehistoric times?
 
"paleoanthropologists found bits of date stuck in the teeth of a 40,000-year-old Neanderthal"
 
"Ancient man also ate plants that you can’t find at a grocery store, like ferns and cattails."

Here is that study:-

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-neanderthals-diet.html
...

Thanks for the link to that interesting article about the study that produced quite different findings from the early evidence on Neanderthal diets. In it is this about the foods that Neanderthals ate:

"We know that this individual ate a variety of plants, including grass seeds, more commonly called grains" [such as wild barley] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-neanderthals-diet_2.html

[Cristaraw]

Part of the reason Humans have been so successful is that we're highly adaptable to different environments. I doubt there is an "optimal" habitat for humans, but, with the majority of vacationers always heading to tropical locations (not too mention all of the tropical wallpapers, screen-savers etc) it makes me think that perhaps that is the ideal for most Humans.

[panacea]

So, using the least common denominator here and logical deduction, who else believes that we were relatively naked scavengers in very cold climates, and adapted to that lifestyle over hundreds of thousands of years without developing a much thicker coat of fur, being one of the naked above-ground mammals with subcutaneous fat (attached to our skin) like seals and other aquatic/semiaquatic life? Sometimes the idiocy of self-appointed know-it-alls on the internet is exhausting.

We all know that nature, like a river, goes against the simplest path. Why would a river flow down the easiest path of a landscape and why would a human develop thick fur to conserve energy in a cold environment when we can expand nostrils and increase metabolism like no-other-animal-on-the-planet-ever-did without developing thick fur as well?

[goodsamaritan]

Lately I've stumbled onto the "humans were engineered" into existence (see my thread somewhere here)... I tend to believe that is the most probable human origin... but most of my raw paleo friends dislike that idea so much.

Aajonus did not dwell too much on a mythical paleo past, he experimented with what works today.

[panacea]

Tylerdurden: We are are one of the most naked land mammals that doesn't live underground, yet your idiotic theory is that we are better adapted to cold weather than many animals which actually have furs. There is no reasoning with such a moronic view. It is one thing to stand outside in snow in still air, and a whole other thing to get blasted by wind chill, among countless other common sense facts against your delirious theory. Our sweating mechanism gives us one of the most rapid cooling mechanisms of all mammals our size when out in the heat, but yeah, we totally evolved in cold climates. Many people here don't have research under their belt so I can't label them idiotic, just ignorant, but you're actually an idiot - unable to reason despite reading a lot.

[TylerDurden]

Tylerdurden: We are are one of the most naked land mammals that doesn't live underground, yet your idiotic theory is that we are better adapted to cold weather than many animals which actually have furs. There is no reasoning with such a moronic view. It is one thing to stand outside in snow in still air, and a whole other thing to get blasted by wind chill, among countless other common sense facts against your delirious theory. Our sweating mechanism gives us one of the most rapid cooling mechanisms of all mammals our size when out in the heat, but yeah, we totally evolved in cold climates. Many people here don't have research under their belt so I can't label them idiotic, just ignorant, but you're actually an idiot - unable to reason despite reading a lot.

*sigh* you are truly a moron and a hypocrite. I have already pointed out how others, such as the Neanderthals managed to adapt to truly cold climates, all without needing "furs" or "blubber". And, needless to say, it is not even "my" theory, but one started  by several eminent scientists.

[van]

I really want both of you to stop this name calling.   It is really bad news for this forum. 

[panacea]

Tyler I'm curious, when you talk about humans being adapted to cold, do you envision newborns, or in your perverted mind is the human race populated only with healthy adults that might be able to last a trivial time in high wind cold weather without clothes/technology?

[eveheart]

Here are the forum guidelines found at http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/welcoming-commitee/welcome-new-members!-please-read/.

That thread says (in its entirety, emphasis mine):

Welcome to Raw Paleo Forum!  We are a laid-back, tolerant group of friends who follow or are planning to follow some sort of raw food diet that contains raw animal foods (RAF).  We encourage support, debate, and humor alternative viewpoints that fit into the Raw Paleo Diet (RPD) paradigm.  A 100% RPD is certainly not required, as we are all on our own path to health.  In fact, within the RPD movement, there are many subgroups that exist and are welcome here.

While we do welcome disagreement with any idea, due to past experiences here, we must ask that if your sole purpose in participation is to disparage this diet or the people who follow it, that you not bother joining (In other words, trolls will not be tolerated for long here).  Also, please refrain from personal attacks and other speech that is not constructive in nature to an RPD lifestyle.  It is understandable that heated exchanges can occur.  But please keep any fowl language or other pointed remarks at the ideas themselves and not the individuals who make them.  Continual disregard of these basic common guidelines will result in warnings and possible removal from the group.

Please do participate in whatever ways you feel comfortable.  It does help if you would enter your gender in your profile when you join.  This is a close-knit community and we are happy you have chosen to join us.

Thank You,
The Raw Paleo Forum Team

Often, the phrase "I disagree ... " can be used to introduce a completely opposite fact or opinion, allowing the discussion to proceed without the use of invectives. The use of name-calling, while it might be acceptable in some cultures, is not universally acceptable, as demonstrated in the guidelines quoted above.

[goodsamaritan]

Let's stop all the name calling.  Just saying "I disagree" works well.

Tylerdurden: We are are one of the most naked land mammals that doesn't live underground, yet your idiotic theory is that we are better adapted to cold weather than many animals which actually have furs. There is no reasoning with such a moronic view. It is one thing to stand outside in snow in still air, and a whole other thing to get blasted by wind chill, among countless other common sense facts against your delirious theory. Our sweating mechanism gives us one of the most rapid cooling mechanisms of all mammals our size when out in the heat, but yeah, we totally evolved in cold climates. Many people here don't have research under their belt so I can't label them idiotic, just ignorant, but you're actually an idiot - unable to reason despite reading a lot.

I actually agree with this logic. It may be rephrased to remove the mention of idiotic and idiot.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler I'm curious, when you talk about humans being adapted to cold, do you envision newborns, or in your perverted mind is the human race populated only with healthy adults that might be able to last a trivial time in high wind cold weather without clothes/technology?

One of the interesting tidbits of info  re raising polar bears in zoos was that scientists, much like you, foolishly assumed that because  adult polar bears  had fur  and could handle the cold, more or less, that their newborns also could do so. This  of course meant that polar bears were unable to breed in  any zoos for many years,  until a bright spark thought of the idea of using warm burrows like polar bears use in the wild for raising their offspring. Then cubs started to appear in ever larger numbers in zoos.

[panacea]

thank you for that unrelated and abstract polar bear reference which doesn't have anything to do with humans, lol.

fact: human babies naturally hold their breath underwater, an evolutionary adaptation due to human babies being in water
fact: human babies will die in cold climates when they go for a swim and/or emerge drenched in water
obvious conclusion: naked babies don't keep behaviors having to do with swimming when they're living in a cold climate
obvious conclusion: your theory is shown to be completely bogus, without having to rely on polar bear references

ignoring infants, your theory is still invalid however, as young children are not going to huddle up all day in a burrow to survive and stay warm, and evolve that way over tens of thousands of years. you clearly know nothing about the behavior of these nearly naked (no armpit hair, genital hair, and very little body hair) young children which in nature run around and walk around to stay healthy, rather than huddle up in a shelter for 3/4 or 1/2 the year.

the fact that you cannot see that virtually all great apes have trouble with cold climates without technology is the underlying fundamental foolish ignorant belief on your part, you need to open your mind to other ideas rather than keep listening to your own delusions

[van]

that's exactly ( huddle together) what Inuit tribes do including young, and the american Indians.  And I imagine all tribes of the European north countries of old before heated homes were created.  I am not saying that is ideal.  But the human race ( the northern peoples of the earth) certainly didn't die out because of the cold.    Why interject anything about babies,  for there are very few species that can survive without the aid of one of the parents in some form or other, warm or cold environments.      It's obvious that our brains/intelligence has allowed us to thrive in cold environments,, and not the amount of arm pit hair.

[panacea]

um no, inuit tribes / american indians in cold climates use technology, we are talking about natural habitats here, without technology, pure naked human skin against the elements. we are also assuming that these humans didn't try to survive in colder climates than was comfortable for them, because why would they? wild animals simply don't migrate to colder climates than they would prefer to start making/raising young (without genetic adaptations) yet you can compare the northern human evolution to the equatorial human evolution and the only dramatic difference is skin color, which makes sense given the sun changes, but there is no evolutionary difference which shows cold adaptations.

what people did after technology is a completely different story as we had/have all kinds of stupid ideas like chopping human heads off for sacrifice to the gods or talking about theories that naked apes natural habitat is a cold climate when it goes against all reasoning that many children and all reasonable people who aren't deluded by gods, fairytales, and the validity of their own abstract daydreams can see.

in short, the argument is what is the natural habitat for humans, how did it get so far off base from choosing between warm climates? because there are people who have been staring at a computer screen, the walls of their heated home, draped in clothing, totally oblivious to what a cold climate feels like on a naked body 24 hours in a row, day and night, that's how. It simply can't be done over a span of 10,000 years with our current bodies. We are talking about thriving here, animals don't last as long as we have by "barely hanging on by a thread" in climates that constantly torment them (they evolve dramatic genetic changes if they are forced with extended stays).

[van]

 I don't know if you got what I said.   The Inuits, American Indians, tribes or northern Russia, Tibet, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia....  one to two hundred years ago did not have technology, i.e., heated homes.   But they existed and thrived.  And they cradled their babies close to the breast from warmth and food.    Doesn't prove we're meant to exist in cold climates.   But it does obviously evidence that we can adapt, via intelligence, without so called technology.  I'm not really into this thread, seems like it will go nowhere, but did want to state the obvious.

[goodsamaritan]

I'm enjoying this discussion.  I was born and raised in this tropical country and have no idea what it is like in your 4 weather or even very cold scandinavian countries.