Some things for all of you to read if you think plants and GRAINS are optimal for humans:
Video that analyzed anatomy of mammals and human diet:
The Bear, perfect example humans are capable of carnivorism :
The Bear's essay on diet:
Vilhjalmur Stefansson's book that shows a carnivorous, zero-carb diet is optimal:
The Fat of the Land:
Humans are Cannibals.
I am online 24/7, so if you need anything. Just send a PM or comment on my profile. and even if not. My secretary will be of assistance, she will help you with anything you need. I designed her to act exactly as I would. She also hold the same amount of knowledge I do. (not much) So when I learn something new, I can update her knowledge telepathically.
we need meat, we eat meat, always have, always will....
i personally do not get vegans, as i go crazy for meat - addict here
but humans are very adoptive species... so, i am sure one can use to not getting certain kind of proteins....
I also prefer a diet high in meat and fat, low in carbs and sugar. Carbs trigger my IBS and makes me feel very sluggish (insulin roller-coaster!!). Animal fats and meat also keep you fuller for longer.
Some people though, struggle with a diet rich in meat and perform better living a vegetarian life style. You just have to find what works for you!
Humans are the planets super predator. We are so super, that we can not kill too. The Human brain is awesome.
Last edited by Malik; 02-18-2013 at 09:29 AM.
Bump, anyone willing to discuss?
id like to think so but i dont know. i know my cat loves corn on the cob green beans and meat. i know i feel better when i eat a apple after devouring steak and padd my system down with raw spinach.
technically we have teeth that are suitible to eat just about anything that wont kill us. how ever i think that the fact that we have such long digestive tracts could mean that eating meat and the process of trying to digest it everyday could be more tiresome and toxic than eating saled every once in a while.
F L O W
"The only significant difference is that our saliva contains amylase, an enzyme that is used to digest starch. However, in common with all carnivores, we have no digestive enzyme that will break down a plant's cell walls to release that starch. Unlike the sheep we also do not possess in our guts bacteria or other micro-organisms to do the job. If we eat a largely plant-based diet, the bacteria in our colons will change the environment in our colons from alkaline to acid, which favours the herbivore-type fermentative bacteria. These will break down plant material but, as no absorption of nutrients these contain takes place in the human colon, this is of no nutritional value. All it does is upset our guts and cause flatulence!"
Last edited by Malik; 02-20-2013 at 05:24 PM.
Bump bump bump
As long as you bless your food, it is good for you!
in saying that, carbohydrate was always there as it existed from fats of plants from the starch and that was actually good for our body in ancient times since we perform so many tasks back then that sports are unthinkable and becoming fat is very hard because of these conditions. Diseases also have always existed since ancient times, people have always been exposed to diseases, although maybe ancient times were cooler and more pristine nature, there were less exposure and!! these things were not properly recorded unless it is significant and yes today there seems to be more diseases, in reality the number have actually reduced in the ratio comparison to the total human population, although these days we are more exposed to information than ever, seemingly more things are seems to be diseased or sick. Though this does not deny the increasing obesity pandemic and a newly evolving virus and other biological agents or organisms that may target humans... so there you go
ohh i almost forgot to mention, meats today are more contaminated than ever and it doesnt make it healthier either to eat meat and not to mention that 1/3 of all pollution in the world revolved around meat produce related activities, and countless meat based diet has been contributed to major health problems in combination with other diets. All these articles can be found everywhere no need to prove it with specific resources. Remember, all health problems are all contributed by multiple factors including environment, psychological, emotional, diet and its origin of exposure for the food, yes gmo's are not all that beneficial but with today's environment... eating meat aren't going to be any better either
Last edited by fred aus indo; 02-27-2013 at 01:22 AM.
Of course their were viral and bacterial infections throughout evolutionary time. I'm talking about the degenerative diseases, and also the fact that sugar actually lowers your immune system. You are gravely if you think meat is responsible for the problems. Yes a diet mid-carb and mid-fat do not go together AT ALL. Because we were made for very little carbohydrates.
Meats are not "contaminated." Fruits and vegetables are contaminated. You can't grow most of the things without use of chemicals. These foods had to be constantly altered for selective breeding to make them edible, while still being filled with pesticides. Wild cabbage is poisonous if I remember correctly. The theory that meat is contaminated with similar things of that nature, no proof. No proof of antibiotics, added hormones, no chemicals unlike plants.
you don't know mad cows disease? you don't know chemicals what the animals are being fed? you don't know those things? believe me, just about everything can be contaminated these days as indicated by countless proofs
http://www.peta.org/living/vegetaria...amination.aspx and below is some preview of the link
sugars were essentials in our life and it has always been for many centuries, the only problem is that today, sugars are everywhere and just like too much exposure to anything, it is bad biologically for us, bacteria and degenerative diseases have always existed as I said, back then these things weren't recorded or accounted properly, today we are much more exposed to information, yes there's the healthy bunch who we also see but you don't see the unhealthy people outside do you? no because they are hidden like it has always been and even more so in the past. No doubt our ancestors were much more fit and stronger because of their lifestyle!! their diets don't matter as much ... but you don't see the degenerative ones!!! they were shunned and rooted out of society and history. Oh by the way, there's a thing called adaptation and our bodies for centuries have been adapting to carbohydrate and it has many benefits including preservation of energy... however today's lifestyle is not a sustainable one both for our body and the environment if unchecked. The article above doesn't suggest they are meat eaters, infact it doesn't contradict my point of how humans have always been omnivoreEating flesh contaminated with bacteria can cause food poisoning, with symptoms ranging from stomach cramps and diarrhea to organ failure and death. Every year in the U.S., there are 75 million cases of food poisoning, and 5,000 of these cases are fatal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that 70 percent of food poisoning is caused by contaminated animal flesh.
To make matters worse, a major 2008 study published in the journal Nature found that a substance found in meat and milk (but not naturally found in the human body) causes humans who eat meat and milk to become more susceptible to dangerous E. coli infections. So eating meat is a double-whammy: It's often laced with dangerous bacteria, and it makes you more likely to become infected by those bacteria.
The antibiotics that we depend on to treat food poisoning and other illnesses are being used to promote rapid growth in animals and to prevent them from dying from the diseases that are rampant on factory farms. This abuse of pharmaceuticals has encouraged the evolution of new strains of antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria.
Studies have found that much of the meat on grocery store shelves today is contaminated with these bacteria, which cannot be killed with conventional antibiotics. That means that if you eat meat tainted with these super-germs and become ill, many antibiotics that doctors rely on to treat infections will be less effective or even useless.
this article also validates your article above http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...mans-took.html
also, analyzing our ancestor's jawline, from this article http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htmWerdelin decided to investigate to discover when the decline began and what types of species went extinct by analyzing the jaws, teeth, snouts, and other anatomy of large and small carnivores. These features reflect the breadth of the animals' diets and the niche they occupied in the community of carnivores—an approach known as community ecology analysis. For example, many meat eaters have teeth that are specialized cutting blades, whereas omnivores that also eat fruit have crushing teeth. After comparing fossils of 78 species of carnivores that lived during five different periods of time between 3.5 million years ago (when large carnivores were at their peak) and 1.5 million years ago, Werdelin found that all but six of 29 species of large carnivores (animals that weighed more than 21.5 kilos) had gone extinct in that time. Moreover, the mass extinction began just before H. erectus appeared in the fossil record 1.9 million years ago. He also found that the community of carnivores alive 2.5 million to 2 million years ago ate a much broader range of food—with species within a community filling a wider range of dietary niches. By 1.5 million years ago, just hypercarnivores that ate only meat, such as lions and leopards, had survived while omnivores that scavenged and ate a wider range of foods, like civets, had disappeared. "Even I was surprised by the dramatic drop," Werdelin says.
Those omnivores that went extinct were in direct competition for scavenged carcasses with hominins. Perhaps hominins could scare away the relatively small civets, for example, by working in groups and throwing stones at them, says Werdelin. The results also suggest that humans were already "great at messing with the environment" by disrupting the wildlife, says Werdelin.
"Lars has applied novel methods of community ecology analysis to the problem, and that's an excellent advance," says paleoanthropologist Richard Potts of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. As a result, he says, "We are coming to a better understanding of how our species has modified the planet."
if they were completely carnivorous, they would develop larger canine and incisors teeth, the majority of early humans have more premolars and molars teeth which is known as the grinding teeth (info about teeth types: http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/abyss/dep1151.htm) which as suggested from the link about the early human analogy also stated
we began eating meat as our species go down the path deeper into the evolution, and that environment forces us to go down that road, this certainly suggested that despite at some stage we become mostly carnivorous, we are truly omnivores. Also what I gathered based on this academic journal from this link states something to think aboutAs the early human cranium, or brain case, began to enlarge in response to increased brain size, the mouth became smaller. In comparison to the australopithecines, the early humans had smaller teeth, especially the molars and premolars. This suggests that they mostly ate softer foods. An analysis of the wear patterns on their teeth indicates that they had diverse diets that included a wide range of plants and meat. As noted previously, the body size of Homo habilis was not significantly larger than the early hominins that preceded them. Likewise, the arms of habilis and their australopithecine ancestors were relatively long compared to ours. The modern human body size and limb proportions began to appear with the next species in our evolution--Homo erectus.
http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee...niePeske.htmlm and here are the few cites of the whole journal and it maybe is from 2001 but so far nothing has been disproven about this article
also based on this article: http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm and this article is more updated which has more information about several theories of our widespread act throughout the world, also suggesting the multiple factors of animal extinctions in the last ice ageRamapithecines were the earliest ancestors of humans (www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html). They lived in subtropical forests that did not provide a year-round supply of food, so consequently they were forced to forage for plant life on the ground. It is also thought that they were vegetarians because of the abundance of wild grasses and cereals during that time period (about eight million years ago). The Austrapithecines, known as the Southern apes, succeeded the Ramapithecines about five million years ago. These were primates that, along with showing bipedalism (walking upright on two feet, a characteristic first seen in Ramapithecines), also developed the hunter-gatherer way of life ("a member of a culture in which food is obtained by hunting, fishing, and foraging rather than by agriculture or animal husbandry" (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)). The Austrapithecines used tools, but their skull was not quite humanlike yet (it was smaller, like an ape skull). It has been suggested that Austrapithecines, "developed bipedalism in order to reach fruits growing on small trees" (www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html)
The next three primate descendants were Homo habilis, (1.6 million years ago), Homo erectus (half a million years ago), and Neanderthal Man (130,000 years ago). Scientists found that these three ancestors evolved into partial meat-eaters. These primate descendants ate a small range of lean meats, beginning by scavenging dead animals that had been previously killed and partially eaten by other creatures. There was a skeleton found from the Homo erectus era that had symptoms of hypervitaminosis (or an excess of Vitamin A), which is most likely caused by eating meat (www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html). It is also thought that Homo habilis was the first omnivorous group of humans because "there is evidence of cut-marks on animal bones, as well as use of hammer stones to smash them for the marrow inside" ("Home Bases and early homonids," 1984). Forty thousand years ago Homo sapiens, modern humans, evolved. These modern hunter-gatherers have very similar eating patterns that resemble those of preagricultural human beings.
There has been evidence of the biological similarities between humans and chimpanzees. The DNA difference between gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans is less than one percent, less than between different species of horse (www.veg.ca/newsletr/novdec96/evolution.html). Dr. Katherine Milton, professor of anthropology at the University of California, has been studying these similarities. She discovered that the complexities of the food niche could have been a factor in increasing the longevity of primates, and that Homo sapiens were better equipped to solve dietary problems from changing environmental conditions. She also has found that dental patterns among fossils of early humans supports evidence of a high quality, plant-based diet, closely related to the ninety-four percent plant and fruit diet of chimpanzees. Finally, Milton’s studies have shown that the chimpanzee’s stomach is extremely similar to the efficiency of the human’s stomach to process fiber. "According to Milton, our digestive tract does not seem to be greatly modified from that of the common ancestor of apes and humans, which was undoubtedly a predominantly herbivorous animal" (www.veg.ca/newsletr.novdec96/evolution.html).
According to Dr. David Ryde, early humans are even more closely related socially and nutritionally to the Bonobo chimpanzee. Bonobo chimps have a high percentage of fruit in their diet (about eighty percent) and also consume fewer insects than the average ape. Bonobo chimps are not only similar to humans in their nutrition, but they are very similar in their sexual relationships. For example, when "arguments" occur between bonobos, sexual engagement afterwards may serve as a way to smooth the incident over and to re-establish normal relations again. These social similarities suggest that our ancestors and chimpanzees’ ancestors are similar, almost identical (http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1c.shtml).
Paleolithic humans had some tools to hunt with, but they were not as useful as tools used by the modern hunter-gatherer. Professor Jared Diamond explains how the diet of early humans depended on their tools. He describes how he was invited on a hunt by a tribe in New Guinea that retained Stone Age "technology" and habits. Surprisingly, after an entire day of hunting, the tribe returned with only two baby birds, a few frogs, and mushrooms.
Although the men of the tribe frequently boasted of the large animals they had killed, when pressed for details, they admitted that large animals were killed only a few times in a hunter’s career. These peoples’ stone tools were far more advanced than the stone tools found on prehistoric sites, so Professor Diamond thinks it unlikely that prehistoric hunters could have enjoyed a much higher success rate than present day hunter-gatherer tribes (www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html).
This suggests that since a modern hunter-gathering group was not very successful, then it was highly unlikely for our ancestors to be able catch even one large prey with their limited equipment. Like the New Guinea tribe, groups such as the Kalahari bushman and the Australian aborigines gather much of their food in the form of roots, fruit, nuts and other nutritious plant products. The proportions by weight of vegetable food and animal food in their diet compared with modern humans are about 81.3% vegetable and 18.7% animal (www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html).
The energy and caloric intake requirements of preagricultural humans compared to modern humans vary considerably. Paleolithic humans were lean, robust, and needed a higher caloric intake than present humans. Researchers explain, "Fruits, roots, legumes, nuts and other noncereals provided sixty-five to seventy-five percent of the average forager substance…which were generally consumed within hours of being gathered" (Eaton, Eaton III, Konner, 1992). These foods were often eaten uncooked; therefore, they still contained a high amount of vitamins and minerals. For some nutrients, the intake required for Paleolithic humans would have now only been received through vitamin supplements, such as folic acid.
In conclusion, there has been an extensive amount of research done on the topic of Paleolithic vegetarians. There also have been various theories about our early ancestors such as theories that the habitat of subtropical forests determined vegetarianism-like diet. Skeletal remains support this contention in both the Austrapithecines and the Austrapithecine Ramidus. Evidence suggests humans became carnivorous only within the Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthal Man stages of evolution. Research also suggests that early humans’ diets are similar to those of the chimpanzee, which subsisted on a mostly plant-based diet. Anthropologists who study human tribes with Stone Age Technology and habits reveal that these humans eat mostly plants and small animals, and only rarely eat large prey. Finally, studies on Paleolithic humans suggest they existed on a moderately low protein and high fiber diet, furthering the argument that prehistoric humans were probably more herbivorous than carnivorous, though certainly this debate requires further research.
by the way, the first video has several noteable flaws, yes animal fats are essential for fats in our brains, but it doesn't really contradict the fact that we become 100% carnivorous, we are always by nature, omnivorous!! and infact, seafood was found to be the boost of our evolution to our brain and that seafood can contribute to as much heart attack cases as meat do due to their rich polysaturated fat and this is proven by facts about finnish diets!! as proven by this link: http://wherefoodcomesfrom.com/articl...e#.US812MqN6SoExpansion Out of the Old World
A consequence of human migrations into new regions of the world has been the extinction of many animal species indigenous to those areas. By 11,000 years ago, human hunters in the New World apparently had played a part in the extermination of 135 species of mammals, including 3/4 of the larger ones (mammoths, mastodons, giant sloths, etc.). Most of these extinctions apparently occurred within a few hundred years. It is likely that the rapidly changing climate at the end of the last ice age was a contributing factor. However, the addition of human hunters with spears to the existing top predators (mostly saber-toothed cats, lions, and dire-wolves) very likely disrupted the equilibrium between large herbivores and their predators. As a consequence there was a major ecosystem disruption resulting in the rapid decline of both non-human carnivores and their prey. Humans were very likely the trigger that set off this "trophic cascade". Unlike most other major predators, people survived by switching their food quest to smaller animals and plants.
Following the arrival of aboriginal people in Australia and Polynesians in New Zealand there were similar dramatic animal extinctions. In both of these cases humans apparently were directly responsible for wiping out easily hunted species. Large vulnerable marsupials were the main victims in Australia. Within 5,000 years following the arrival of humans, approximately 90% of the marsupial species larger than a domesticated cat had become extinct there. In New Zealand, it was mostly large flightless birds that were driven to extinction by human hunters following their arrival in the 10th-13th centuries A.D.
It is sobering to realize that the rate of animal and plant extinction has once again accelerated dramatically. During the last century and a half, the explosion in our global human population and our rapid technological development has allowed us to move into and over-exploit most areas of our planet including the oceans. That exploitation has usually involved cutting down forests, changing the courses of rivers, pushing wild animals and plants out of farm and urban areas, polluting wetlands with pesticides and other man-made chemicals, and industrial-scale hunting of large land animals, whales, and fish. During the early 19th century, there were at least 40,000,000 bison roaming the Great Plains of North America. By the end of that century, there were only a few hundred remaining. They had been hunted to near extinction with guns. The same fate came to the African elephant and rhinoceros during the 20th century. Likewise, commercial fishermen have depleted one species of fish after another during the last half century. Governments have had to step in to try to stem the tide of these human population effects on other species. However, they have been only marginally successful. The World Conservation Union conservatively estimates that 7,266 animal species and 8,323 plant and lichen species are now at risk of extinction primarily due to human caused habitat degradation. The endangered list includes 1/3 of all amphibian species, nearly 1/2 of the turtles and tortoises, 1/4 of the mammals, 1/5 of the sharks and rays, and 1/8 of the birds. This list does not include the many millions of species that are still unknown to science. It is likely that most of them will become extinct before they can be described and studied.
Are we genetically different from our Homo sapiens ancestors who lived 10-20,000 years ago? The answer is almost certainly yes. In fact, it is very likely that the rate of evolution for our species has continuously accelerated since the end of the last ice age, roughly 10,000 years ago. This is mostly due to the fact that our human population has explosively grown and moved into new kinds of environments, including cities, where we have been subject to new natural selection pressures. For instance, our larger and denser populations have made it far easier for contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis, small pox, the plague, and influenza to rapidly spread through communities and wreak havoc. This has exerted strong selection for individuals who were fortunate to have immune systems that allowed them to survive. There also has been a marked change in diet for most people since the end of the last ice age. It is now less varied and predominantly vegetarian around the globe with a heavy dependence on foods made from cereal grains. It is likely that the human species has been able to adapt to these and other new environmental pressures because it has acquired a steadily greater genetic diversity. A larger population naturally has more mutations adding variation to its gene pool simply because there are more people. This happens even if the mutation rate per person remains the same. However, the mutation rate may have actually increased because we have been exposed to new kinds of man-made environmental pollution that can cause additional mutations.
It is not clear what all of the consequences of the environmental and behavioral changes for humans have been. However, it does appear that the average human body size has become somewhat shorter over the last 10,000 years, and we have acquired widespread immunity to the more severe effects of some diseases such as measles and influenza.
Finally, can we say what direction human evolution will take in the future? This is a fascinating question to consider but impossible to answer because of innumerable unknown factors. Though, it is certain that we will continue to evolve until we reach the point of extinction.
sure the finns eat more these types of grain but it doesn't contradict the fact that seafood is not as effective with heart attack. Also, Finland heart attack rates have declined http://www.guardian.co.uk/befit/stor...385645,00.htmlFinnish foods often use wholemeal products (rye, barley, oats) and berries (such as blueberries, lingonberries, cloudberries, and sea buckthorn). Milk and its derivatives like buttermilk are commonly used as food, drink or in various recipes. Various turnips were common in traditional cooking, but were replaced with the potato after its introduction in the 18th century.
According to the statistics, red meat consumption has risen, but still Finns eat less beef than many other nations, and more fish and poultry. This is mainly because of the high cost of meat in Finland.
here's some information about human brains and its historyFinland's success story is all the more impressive for where it has pulled itself up from. "In the 1970s, we held the world record for heart disease, "says Pekka Puska, director of the National Institute of Public Health in Helsinki. The dubious honour was the inevitable consequence of a Finnish culture that embraced just about every risk factor for heart disease there is. "The idea then was that a good life was a sedentary life. Everybody was smoking and eating a lot of fat. Finnish men used to say vegetables were for rabbits, not real men, so people simply did not eat vegetables. The staples were butter on bread, full-fat milk and fatty meat, "he says.
Present-day Finland is a very different place. Topping the league of death shocked the government into a full-blown campaign to dramatically improve peoples'health. And it seems to have worked. The number of men dying from cardiovascular heart disease has dropped by at least 65%, with deaths from lung cancer being slashed by a similar margin. Physical activity has risen and now, Finnish men can expect to live seven years longer and women six years longer than before measures were brought in. Having come so far, Finland now finds itself in the spotlight from health officials across the world who are desperate to find out what it was the Finns got so right.
The story begins in the sparsely populated frontier region of North Karelia in eastern Finland. The only part of the entire province to remain Finnish after the Soviet occupation in the Second World War, North Karelia was the least healthy region of a desperately sick country. In 1972, it became the focus of what was to become the country's path to recovery.
"The biggest innovation was massive community-based intervention. We tried to change entire communities, "says Puska. Instead of a mass campaign telling people what not to do, officials blitzed the population with positive incentives. Villages held "quit and win"competitions for smokers, where those who didn't spark up for a month won prizes. Entire towns were set against each other in cholesterol-cutting showdowns. "We would go in, measure everyone's cholesterol, then go back two months later, "says Puska. The towns that cut cholesterol the most would win a collective prize. "We didn't tell people how to cut cholesterol, they knew that. It wasn't education they needed, it was motivation. They needed to do it for themselves. "
Local competitions were combined with sweeping nationwide changes in legislation. All forms of tobacco advertising were banned outright. Farmers were all but forced to produce low-fat milk or grow a new variety of oilseed rape bred just for the region that would make domestic vegetable oil widely available for the first time. Previously, farmers had been paid for meat and dairy on the basis of the product's fat content. The changes recognised the flaw and linked payment instead to how much protein the produce contained.
Often, moves were attacked for being unpatriotic. Finland was a dairy-rich country and marginalising dairy farmers was viewed with disdain by many. But there were ways around the protests. When officials said the population must start eating fruit, protests poured in that fruit would have to be imported. To placate the farmers, the scheme was revised to encourage the growing of berries that thrive in a Baltic climate. Now Finland has a healthy industry producing all manner of berries, from redcurrants to blackberries.
In time, the Finnish authorities succeeded in forcing down salt intake, a crucial move for cutting blood pressure, and blood cholesterol has fallen along with fat intake and smoking. In 1972, more than half the middle-aged men of North Karelia smoked. Now around 30%do and the country boasts one of the lowest smoking rates in the world, despite having not yet fully imposed its stringent anti-smoking laws.
The early push in North Karelia was largely successful in weaning the population away from its staple diet of fat and fags, but there remained the problem of inactivity. As the measures trialled in North Karelia were duplicated across the country, a new effort to get people moving was kick-started. After diet and smoking, physical activity is arguably the most important contributor to health, with inactive people more likely to suffer from heart disease and various cancers, and have higher risks of developing diabetes and hypertension.
What is striking about the Finnish scheme to get people more physically active is the depth and breadth of its reach and the duration for which it has been sustained. It also hit the right tack from the off, first by selling enjoyable activities to people that happened to require physical activity, and second ensuring exercise was the cheap and easy choice to make.
From the start, the Finnish plans benefited by shifting money away from Helsinki to local authorities and making them responsible for exercise promotion. Obvious outcomes were cheap, clean swimming pools, ball parks, and well-maintained snow parks such as the one in Tampere. But less obvious were what medics might refer to as "unusual interventions ".
B12 is also rather found in bacteria, not animals originally!
and here's also a theory about human brain shrinking and it is not because of our diets!!!
essentially as a species we become more domesticated and docileAnother popular theory attributes the decrease to the advent of agriculture, which, paradoxically, had the initial effect of worsening nutrition. Quite simply, the first farmers were not very successful at eking out a living from the land, and their grain-heavy diet was deficient in protein and vitamins—critical for fueling growth of the body and brain. In response to chronic malnutrition, our body and brain might have shrunk. Many anthropologists are skeptical of that explanation, however. The reason: The agricultural revolution did not arrive in Australia or southern Africa until almost contemporary times, yet brain size has declined since the Stone Age in those places, too.
Just as I begin to absorb these varying interpretations, I am hit with the next surprise in our human evolutionary narrative: After a long, slow retrenchment, human brain size appears to be rising again. When anthropologist Richard Jantz of the University of Tennessee measured the craniums of Americans of European and African descent from colonial times up to the late 20th century, he found that brain volume was once again moving upward.
Since evolution does not happen overnight, one would assume this sudden shift (much like the increase in height and weight) is unrelated to genetic adaptations. Hawks, for instance, says the explanation is “mostly nutrition.” Jantz agrees but still thinks the trend has “an evolutionary component because the forces of natural selection have changed so radically in the last 200 years.” His theory: In earlier periods, when famine was more common, people with unusually large brains would have been at greater peril of starving to death because of gray matter’s prodigious energy requirements. But with the unprecedented abundance of food in more recent times, those selective forces have relaxed, reducing the evolutionary cost of a large brain.
and this is also another article about bigger brains http://www.livescience.com/5899-bigg...s-smarter.html
also an interesting video on this link: http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...r-brain-better (it's not from youtube or vimeo so idk how to upload it)While some increases in brain size do affect an animal's capability for intelligent behavior, many size differences only exist in a specific brain region. This is often seen in animals with highly developed senses, such as sight or hearing, or an ability to make very precise movements.
The authors suggest that "advanced" thinking requires a very limited number of neurons. Computer modeling shows that even consciousness can be generated with tiny neural circuits, which could in theory easily fit into an insect brain, they write.
In fact, these models suggest that counting could be achieved with only a few hundred nerve cells and only a few thousand could be enough to generate consciousness.
and here is some text information from above link
I also would like to comment more about our brain functions, yes gorilla's in captive died faster for other reason than what your link video claimed! http://nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets...0Nutrition.pdfHowStuffWorks
Scientists are divided on whether a bigger brain makes a person more intelligent. Part of the problem is that not every study uses the same criteria to decide how big a person's brain actually is. Some measure the size of the skull cavity the brain fits into, while others use scans of the brain itself. But even when researchers are using the same measurements, they may not analyze them in the same way. One study may factor in the person's overall body size, and another may adjust for age, sex or other factors. Although not everyone agrees, some studies have drawn strong conclusions. Psychologist Michael McDaniel, for example, conducted a study in which he concluded that bigger brains do indeed make smarter people.
There is proof that a man's brain is, on average, slightly bigger than a woman's, and at least one study of intelligence has given men a slight advantage over women, but does this mean that bigger is better when it comes to brains? Not necessarily. First of all, it is possible to argue with the method and findings of the intelligence test (and of intelligence tests in general), and second, overall brain size may not be a useful measure. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds in human history, had a merely average-sized brain. But some parts of Einstein's brain, such as the inferior parietal region (connected with mathematical thinking), were larger than usual. So the size of certain areas of the brain may be of more significance in gauging the potential for intelligence than the overall size of the brain as a whole. Even then, we don't know whether the enlargement of an area causes the intelligence, or if the opposite might be true, as brains develop over time: The more you use your brain (whatever its size), the better it works.
There are many points I can outline but above are just some of the proofs that humans are not carnivore by nature, rather by conditioningHealth Risks Linked to Diet
Captive gorillas can be compared with westernized humans; they are both displaced from theirnatural diet and lifestyle and are thus at risk for specific diseases. Gorillas are vegetarians, consuming no animal products. This may be essential for health, as elevated cholesterol levels (281 to 311
mg/dL, McGuire et al., 1989) have been reported in zoo gorillas, leading to premature cardiovascular
disease. Human subjects with the same values would be considered hypercholesterolemic and at risk
for heart disease. Cardiac arrest associated with a poor diet and lack of exercise has been cited as a
significant cause of adult gorilla deaths in zoos (Cousins, 1979).
Gorillas on relatively low fiber diets may also be prone to ulcerative colitis, an intestinal disorder
(Scott and Kemer, 1975). These intestinal disorders may be prevented by a fiber fatty acid, butyrate, which is a preferred energy substrate for colonic mucosal cells and has been shown to have antineoplastic properties (Roediger, 1982; Weaver et al., 1988). Vegetables, and to some extent, fruits, have many components that may play a major role in the prevention of diseases including dietary fiber, folic acidm antioxidant vitamins (vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids),
flavenoids, and vegetable protein. In terms of coronary heart disease risk reduction, vegetarian dietsand high fiber have been shown to be protective in various human studies. High fiber diets appear to decrease the risk of intestinal disorders such as colon cancer and vegetables are a rich source of
folate, which may also play a role in reducing risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Components
of vegetables and fruits are not mutually exclusive; to achieve full benefit from these foods, whole foods must be consumed rather then simply nutrient supplements.
Do not try and justify from a extremely biased site such a PETA. PETA is filled with ranted lies, and their is not a single source on that first link that proves anything. And they don't want to use real science because they like to do anything and watch anything to keep you from eating animals, and being healthy. They defy man's nature, for animal food.
Sugar are a type of carbohydrate and are not essential, the very small amounts of glucose needed for a small part of the brain can be supplied by gluceoneogenesis.
By the way, Gorillas have large canines and they are mostly herbivorous. Teeth are not a good way to indicate diet. Especially when humans began cooking meat, we didn't need strong jaws and spent less energy chewing to get more energy out of food. Which ultimately led to our bigger brains, smaller guts that no longer produce cellulase to digest fibrous foods. A more acceptable thing to call a human is a carnivore with omnivore adaptabilities that would be useful for times of scarcity. It is absolutely pointless to eat things like spinach or leafy greens of any sort, thinking you'll get all those nutrients. The fiber of spinach is undigestible until it gets to the colon where your alkaline environment in the colon turns acidic to digest it. Bacteria break it down, causing flatunence but since no nutrients can be absorbed in the colon, all the good stuff goes right through you. A much more accurate determination of diet is through digestive analysis.
Short reading on comparison of digestive systems.
Good example also why you don't need large canines to be a carnivore.
Seafood is animal flesh which is meat, it's still meat and it's naive to think all of our ancestors had access to seafood. Somr lived far from a major water source. Also the BS statement that meat apparently causes heart attacks.
and not just meat that is boosted by hormones, vegetables too!
and I bet you have no idea what ecoli is:
also we are inherently omnivore as stated in here, and indeed we have very similar digestion system to carnivores:
in short, carnivores don't just adapt to become omnivore because it is quite impossible initially, if human origins were herbivore, it only make sense they become omnivore before become carnivore, and we are omnivore by nature and can eat as much meat as the carnivore because we are designed to be capable of eating them. However, if it wasn't of our herbivore origins, we cannot eat plants so ergo, we are omnivore! and i know that plants are capable of eating animals too, no doubt!Carnivores
Because meat is easily digested, the gastric system of carnivores is typically short and simple. They are monogastric meaning they have only one stomach (unlike a ruminants’ stomach which has four chambers). Due to the ease at which components required for growth are obtained from food, some carnivores have lost the ability to synthesis them (e.g. cats are unable to synthesis taurine).
The teeth of carnivores are sharp and strong, this makes it easy to rip and tear meat from bones of prey. When possible, the meat is broken down further by the teeth to ensure maximum surface area for digestion by enzymes in the stomach and small intestines. True carnivores do not have digestive enzymes in their saliva.
Due to the lack of salivary enzymes, food spends little time in the mouth of a carnivore, it is shortly swallowed and travels down the oesophagus. The oesophagus is a tube which runs from the pharynx (back of the oral cavity) to the stomach. The walls of the oesophagus are protected from damage by food by stratified squamous epithelium arranged in longitudinal folds, this also allows for expansion as the food travels down to the stomach. Food is passed down the oesophagus by peristalsis which is the contraction and relaxation of longitudinal and circular muscles, pushing food down to the stomach in wave like motion.
Omnivores consume both meat and plant matter; they have a digestive system very similar to carnivores but also have a working caecum (not as well adapted as in herbivores). Due to this flexibility they are able to consume a wide diet, which has also prevented them losing the ability to synthesise certain products in the body (as in carnivores). The process of digestion is extremely similar to carnivores, except a few minor adaptations which allow them to digested plant matter – although not as efficiently as herbivores.
I'm not saying that meat isn't beneficial for growth advancement in our mind but I doubt that we are truly ever carnivore. Meat can be a cause of a heart attack and in combination with other factors and it is a fact that!! meat eaters are generally unhealthy because most of them do not utilise much of their physical body and that most meats in combination . Unless you exercise a lot, or work hard like in the past, meat is not a problem at all to us, but we can get sick for too much eating meat (or anything) obviously in our tastebuds or digestive system 21st century human digestive system has come far from what we use to be and we are adapting to a more sedentary physical necessities. our digestive system is capable of handling meat and vegetables, the main concern is that exist today is the whole organic and non organic matter in food
our ancestors do advance more anywhere that has near large water bodies, it is proven by so many anthropological facts, which means contributing to the idea that humans do also advance more mainly from the benefits of seafood compared to other civilizations that sprung up outside of large water bodies. It is only after that the species migrate! to elsewhere... sure seafood can be classified as meat, but it's a different kind of meat naturally because of different content and benefits and for a fact also!! Finland have succesfully cut down it's heart disease rate because of the reduction of fat based food which are mainly from seafood, dairy products and meat. All the salt level found in those things have been greatly reduced too which is heavily associated with heart disease. It's not a bullshit that heart disease is related because of meat consumption, it is a fact... but due to our overall influence in meat additional flavouring agents like salts, especially with our sedentary lifestyle that is very comfortable, heart attack is more common among meat eaters rather than vegetarians just because vegetable or fruits contains less fat (maybe not potato or some grain based food though)
congratulations, you've proven that pathogens exist in food. And what does that say about meat? Nothing, cook the meat and E. Coli is not a problem.
We have been eating meat for 3,4 million years, Human ancestry dates back to the African plains. Of course there were rivers there, but our ancestors were not morons, the rivers are filled with crocodiles and I'm pretty sure they would notice and they would only have time to take a drink. Of course our ancestry dates before to some form of herbivore, but that was more then 3.4 millions years ago, over 3 million years we transitioned over to meat because it was a dense source of calories and nutrients, which beats grazing on grasses and some fruits by a long shot. It also grew our brains.
you cannot eat plants successfully, sorry to break it to you. Especially leafy greens, they are digested in your colon, you colon has to become acidic to break it down, but once bacteria break it down, it can't be absorbed. We are ABLE to put it down our throats, does not mean we are made to eat that way. It would only be in times of starvation, and even then it would not be for health and nutrition, just enough energy(calories) to last until you get more food. Humans are opportunistic by nature, not omnivorous by nature... And if you were in say... The wilderness, why wouldn't you go and eat some grass or shrub? You would go looking for grubs and bugs and many some wild berries. The berries would just provide some calories from sugar and negligible source of protein. The nutritional content in things like greens and fruits are laughable compared to meat, cows get the most nutrients from the bacteria ON the grass.
We are becoming a sick species because we have gone away from our true diet. The Masai how some of the tallest humans, and the healthiest. What do they eat? Cow meat, cow blood, and cow milk. I'm not sure they eat any plants, they say "that's for cows."
Fish is good food, but ruminants have more fat. And yes for the second time I'm calling total bullshit. Salt does nothing, a higher then average salt intake is less risky then lower then average salt intake. And meat is not even high in sodium, so what's your point? Saturated fat does not cause Heart disease, the lipid hypothesis is extremely false. Best not to keep saying that, some lurker might actually believe it.
A plethora of legit info for you.