Cooking made us human
arc...@scfas.com
comments?
Richard Wrangham
'Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human'
In part:
Raw-foodists report a sense of well-being, better physical
functioning,
less pain, more vitality, and improved emotional and social
performance. Researchers have found improved serum cholesterol and
triglyceride values. Raw foodists, unlike people who cook their food,
also don't need to be concerned about the Maillard reaction, which we
know as advanced end products (AGEs).
On the other hand, raw diets cause health problems. They include low
bone mass in the back and hips, low levels of vitamin B12, low levels
of the good HDL cholesterol and high levels of homocysteine, which
may
cause heart disease.
Those side effects don't show up right away. But others do. Eating
nothing but raw food can make you pee a lot. The participants in
studies of raw food diets were constantly hungry. Still, the basic
problem with a raw food diet is that it doesn't give us enough
energy,
Dr. Wrangham concludes.
All of us can appreciate how cooking makes our food safer, improves
the
taste of our food, and reduces spoilage. It lets us open, cut, or
mash
tough foods. But few of us appreciate the key benefit, that cooking
increases how much energy we get from food.
Other animals don't need cooked food. We do.
In the past anthropologists differentiated humans from other animals
by
calling us "Man the Tool-Maker," "Man the Hunter," and "Man the Meat
Eater." Dr. Wrangham says the evidence suggests that "Man (and Woman)
the Cook" came first.
Our bodies started to change about 1.8 to 1.9 million years ago.
That's
when Homo erectus emerged from its australopithecine ancestors and
began to master fire and started to cook much of its food.
"After our ancestors starting eating cooked food every day,"
Dr. Wrangham writes, "natural selection favored those with small
guts,
because they were able to digest their food well, but at a lower cost
than before. The result was increased energetic efficiency."
While we have smaller intestines than any other primates near in size
to us, this is hardly all. We also have small mouths, small lips,
weak
jaws, small teeth, and small stomachs. Unlike the apes, we don't need
these large body parts.
The energy trade off of a smaller digestive system means that we can
have something that requires a disproportionate amount of energy,
our
big brains. All this and more because our ancestors learned to cook
our
food.
arc...@scfas.com
please:
http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/0465013627
Nicolas
arc...@scfas.com
in that small part that is original and not a restatement of the article
to which it referes.
To properly reply as in science one would have to give up the rant and
point by point show in the evidence at hand where the authors were in
error, or at least an alternative view could be taken.
Not so, only a politics of food rant is provided which is only
tangentially attempted to be applied to the material it supposes to
address.
No number of "not so" unsupported claims will serve.
crisology
> I saw this in a book review and thought some might find it of interest:,
There’s nothing new…
> Richard Wrangham
> 'Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human'
> Raw-foodists report a sense of well-being, better physical
> functioning,
> less pain, more vitality, and improved emotional and social
> performance. Researchers have found improved serum cholesterol and
> triglyceride values. Raw foodists, unlike people who cook their food,
> also don't need to be concerned about the Maillard reaction, which we
> know as advanced end products (AGEs).
True. And raw foodists are likely to be healthier in many other ways
as we’ll see…
> On the other hand, raw diets cause health problems. They include low
> bone mass in the back and hips,
Well if raw diets include meat and cow dairy, then they may cause
'health problems'...
But...
"CONCLUSION: A RF [raw food] vegetarian diet is associated with low
bone mass at clinically important skeletal regions but is without
evidence of increased bone turnover or impaired vitamin D status."
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Mar 28;165(6):684-9.
So eating raw may not be enough, it depends on whether the diet is
plant-based for humans.
No alleged 'health problems' were actually identified, much less
explained... Recently, I suggested searching for raw data from primary
sources instead of (or at least in addition to) popular press articles
when possible...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan.science/browse_thread/thread/42869483fbe27be9/a5f35af4e3fa424a#a5f35af4e3fa424a
You'll often find the opposite of what is being claimed in
sensationalized, popular press articles...
[Effects of a low calorie vegan diet on disease activity and general
conditions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis]
There is little objective information about diet therapy for
rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Japan. We studied 14 patients with RA who
stayed in the Koda hospital for 55 days. They basically took a 1200
kcal vegan diet consisting of unpolished rice gruel, juice of raw
vegetables, soya bean curd and sesame seeds, and undertook a 3-5-day
fast three times. During the 55-day stay, average body weight
decreased by 5.1kg. Lansbury index and ESR decreased whereas CRP did
not change. WBC decreased and the differential cell counts showed a
decrease of neutrophils, eosinophils and monocytes without a change in
lymphocytes or basophils. RBC, hemoglobin and MCV increased. LDL-C
decreased, while HDL-C increased. There was no change in total protein
or albumin. These data suggest that this combination of a low calorie
vegan diet and fasting may contribute to improve RA with little
undesirable effects on the patient's general conditions. Rinsho Byori.
1999 Jun;47(6):554-60.
Rheumatoid arthritis treated with vegetarian diets.
The notion that dietary factors may influence rheumatoid arthritis
(RA) has been a part of the folklore of the disease, but scientific
support for this has been sparse. In a controlled, single-blind trial
we tested the effect of fasting for 7-10 d, then consuming an
individually adjusted, gluten-free, vegan diet for 3.5 mo, and then
consuming an individually adjusted lactovegetarian diet for 9 mo on
patients with RA. For all clinical variables and most laboratory
variables measured, the 27 patients in the fasting and vegetarian diet
groups improved significantly compared with the 26 patients in the
control group who followed their usual omnivorous diet throughout the
study period. One year after the patients completed the trial, they
were reexamined. Compared with baseline, the improvements measured
were significantly greater in the vegetarians who previously benefited
from the diet (diet responders) than in diet nonresponders and
omnivores. The beneficial effect could not be explained by patients'
psychologic characteristics, antibody activity against food antigens,
or changes in concentrations of prostaglandin and leukotriene
precursors. However, the fecal flora differed significantly between
samples collected at time points at which there was substantial
clinical improvement and time points at which there were no or only
minor improvements. In summary, the results show that some patients
with RA can benefit from a fasting period followed by a vegetarian
diet. Thus, dietary treatment may be a valuable adjunct to the
ordinary therapeutic armamentarium for RA. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;70
(3 Suppl):594S-600S.
low levels of vitamin B12,
Are solved by eating unprocessed plants from rich soil, or if out of
ecological niche, just take a B12 pill = problem solved. But cooking
kills B12… Vitamin B12 is generally stable and is minimally destroyed
with normal methods of cooking and processing. However, up to a third
of this vitamin can be destroyed if cooking time is prolonged. -
Northwestern Nutrition Fact Sheet: Vitamin B12
low levels
> of the good HDL cholesterol and high levels of homocysteine, which
> may
> cause heart disease.
"increases tHcy (homocysteine) concentrations due to vitamin B-12
deficiency."J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2372-8.
And cooking destroys B12… Please explain what sense it makes to
advocate destroying B12 through cooking if you’re concerned of ‘high
levels of homocysteine’ (which B12 would reduce).
> participants in studies of raw food diets were constantly hungry.
It takes some time to adjust to small, more frequent meals to restore
intestinal tone after years of feeding on denatured protein/fat, low
fiber foods that were cooked.
J Nutr 1975 Jul;105(7):878-84
"results support the fact that diet plays a modifying role on the
composition of intestinal microflora, bile acids, and neutral
sterols."
Without any reference or even qualitative data supporting your claim,
I don’t know how experienced the ‘participants in studies of raw food
diets’ were but plant foods are digested better with experience on raw
plant diets.
“The parameters indicated that resected rats fed EDF (elemental diet +
fiber) fared better than resected rats fed ED. Mucosal villous height
in the residual jejunum, similar in all the resected groups after 1
week, was significantly increased in the resected rats fed chow or EDF
after 3 weeks.. Changes in the number of villous epithelial cells and
villous width were also examined [with fiber diet]… Luminal nutrients
were significantly associated with the adaptive changes in the mucosa
of the residual intestine, and mucosal morphology was also
considerably influenced by dietary change. Surgery Today, Volume 18,
Number 3 / May, 1988
The results show that certain dietary fiber components may modify
intestinal architecture and indicate that these structural changes may
be correlated with altered functional characteristics.
Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, Vol 246, Issue 1 34-G39
Morphological changes also occur in other plant-eating animals such as
wallabies. Australian Wildlife Research 17(6) 623 – 632.
The type and content of dietary carbohydrate, such as corn starch,
glucose or sucrose and of fiber have been reported to alter weight and
length of the intestine. Moinuddin, J. F. & Wing-Tsit Lee, H. (1959)
Possible associations of dietary residues with growth of the large
gut. Am. J. Physiol. 197, 903-911.
Fiber in the diet seemed to have a growth enhancing effect on the
small intestine…, the growth of the small intestine and specially that
of the colon and weight of feces seem to be significantly affected by
fiber in the diet. Other factors in a more natural mixed diet such as
the degradative or fermentative products (volatile fattty acids) of
carbohydrates, and lipids and the mineral content may also have growth
enhancing effect on the gastrointestinal tract. p. 349. J. Nutr. 108:
341-350, 1978.
Pectin fed rats had significantly increased relative tunica muscularis
area (37.2±2.2 mm2) in ileum cross sections when compared to control..
We conclude that fiber supplementation leads to morphological changes
in the rat intestine including changes in length and tunica muscularis
volume. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, Volume 40, Number 5 / May,
1995.
Colonic diverticula.
Diverticula are a herniation through the wall of the sigmoid colon and
are likely to be a consequence of a weakness in the colonic wall or
prolonged exposure to increased intracolonic pressure consequent on a
low dietary fibre intake. Adult Africans living in Africa eat a high-
fibre diet and are free from diverticulosis. Their colons are
stronger, wider and thinner than those Scottish adults of the same
age. Proc Nutr Soc. 2003 Feb;62(1):31-6.
In his 1980 book, The Health Revolution, Horne writes, "Cooked protein
is difficult to digest, and when incompletely digested protein enters
the colon it putrefies and ammonia is formed." Horne quotes Dr.
Willard Visek, Professor of Clinical Sciences at the University of
Illinois Medical School as saying, "In the digestion of proteins, we
are constantly exposed to large amounts of ammonia in our intestinal
tract. Ammonia behaves like chemicals that cause cancer or promote its
growth. It kills cells, it increases virus infection, it affects the
rate at which cells divide, and it increases the mass of the lining of
the intestines. http://www.all-creatures.org/cb/a-protein.html
It seems digestion is best when including fiber, that would be
destroyed or absent from cooking.
> problem with a raw food diet is that it doesn't give us enough energy,
Well, how much energy is “us” (your variant) lacking? I’ve felt more
energy as I incorporate more raw food into my diet…
> cooking makes our food safer,
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jun;89(6):1884-94.
lung carcinoma was associated with intake of well-/very-well-done meat
(HR(T3vsT1): 1.20; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.35; P for trend = 0.002) Heme iron
intake increased the risk of lung carcinoma in both men (HR(Q5vsQ1):
1.25; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.45; P for trend = 0.02) and women
We observed a moderate association between meat consumption and lung
carcinoma, which might be explained by heme iron intake, high-
temperature cooking, and associated mutagens.
Research leading to the discovery of a series of mutagenic and
carcinogenic heterocyclic amines (HCAs) was inspired by the idea that
smoke produced during cooking of food, especially meat or fish, might
be carcinogenic. More than ten kinds of HCAs, actually produced by
cooking or heating of meat or fish, have now been isolated and their
structures determined, most being previously unregistered compounds
HCAs have now been chemically synthesized in quantity and subjected to
long-term animal testing. When HCAs were fed in the diet, rodents
developed cancers in many organs, including the colon, breast and
prostate, and one HCA produced hepatomas in monkeys. The lesions
exhibited alteration in genes. Cancer Sci. 2004 Apr;95(4):290-9.
Some nitrosocompounds that are formed during food preservation, as
well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and heterocyclic amines
(HA) formed during cooking, may have carcinogenic activity. An
accurate assessment of dietary intake of such compounds is difficult,
mainly because they are not naturally present in foods, and they are
not included in standard food composition tables. The American Society
for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 134:2011-2014, August 2004.
'Studies are being conducted to assess the amount of HCAs in the
average American diet, but at present the maximum daily intake of HCAs
in food has not been established, no Federal agency monitors HCA
content of cooked meats, there is no good measure of how much HCAs
would have to be eaten to increase cancer risk, and there are no
guidelines concerning consumption of foods with HCAs. Further research
is needed before such recommendations can be made -NCI
Just feed babies meat anyway?
The mean estimated dietary intake of the sum of the 16 PAHs was as
follows: male adults, 8.4 microg/day; adolescents, 8.2 microg/day;
children, 7.4 microg/day; seniors, 6.3 microg/day; female adults, 6.3
microg/day. The calculated daily intake of PAHs would be associated
with a 5/106 increase in the risk for the development of cancer in a
male adult with a body weight of 70 kg. J Food Prot2003 Dec;66(12):
2325-31.
And cancer is the second leading cause of death in developed nations…
How can cooking food (especially meat) be safer than eating raw food?
Total PAH concentrations in smoked meat products ranged from 2.6
micrograms/kg in a cooked ham sample to 29.8 micrograms/kg in grilled
pork chops, while those in fish products ranged from 9.3 micrograms/kg
in smoked shrimp to 86.6 micrograms/kg in smoked salmon.
Food Addit Contam. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):503-21.
The effect of airborne frying-meat emission particulate (FMEP) on
metabolism of 17beta-estradiol (E(2)) to potentially toxic catechol
estrogens 2- and 4-hydroxyestradiol (2- and 4-OH-E(2)) was determined
using human lung adenocarcinoma CL5 cells treated with organic
extracts of beef FMEP. E(2) was incubated with microsomes prepared
from untreated CL5 cells or cells treated with 200 microg/ml FMEP
The present finding demonstrates that FMEP can increase formation of 2-
OH-E(2) and 4-OH-E(2) by human lung cells, and induction of CYP1A1 and
CYP1B1 is a potential mechanism underlying increased E(2) metabolism.
The toxicological significance of FMEP and estrogen interaction
warrants further investigation. J Toxicology Environmental Health2003
Jun 27;66(12):1175-88.
Pharm Res. 2008 Jul 15
"5-10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects..The
evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25-30%
are due to tobacco, as many as 30-35% are linked to diet, about 15-20%
are due to infections..cancer prevention requires smoking cessation,
increased ingestion of fruits and vegetables, moderate use of alcohol,
caloric restriction, exercise, avoidance of direct exposure to
sunlight, minimal meat consumption, etc
improves
> the taste of our food, and reduces spoilage.
Just eat fresh food to avoid spoilage and improve flavor…
It lets us open, cut, or
> mash tough foods.
[yawns]
> But few of us appreciate the key benefit, that cooking increases how much energy we get from food.
Count me in!
> Other animals don't need cooked food.
Really!?
> We do.
But if H. sapiens members don’t want to join ‘we’??
> In the past anthropologists differentiated humans from other animals
> by
> calling us "Man the Tool-Maker," "Man the Hunter," and "Man the Meat Eater."
*UPDATE! What about man the gatherer/provider?
Dr. Wrangham says the evidence suggests that "Man (and Woman) the
Cook" came first.
dr wrangham is claiming ancestors cooked before gathering plants?!
> Our bodies started to change about 1.8 to 1.9 million years ago.
False. Direct lineage ‘started to change’ much earlier. In fact, most
of the human genome was established before diverging from chimps, so
how can initial changes be correlated with cooking?? Very little has
changed biochemically, since branching from the more aggressive
chimps.
Did you see the show about 'Ardi' - the new Lucy on Discovery Channel?
The skeleton was recently put together and with computer animation,
expert drawings, etc an updated view of Ardipithecus prevails. Some
groundbreaking news includes 1. Ardi remained bipedal while living in
woodland areas, NOT in savannas (as meat minions want to imagine).
That came much later but the savanna life was not directly related to
bipedality as imagined by those under the influence of meat. Even more
significant is the fact that Ardi had a grasping toe as prominent as
chimps yet could walk upright very well and probably did for
‘reproductive advantage’ retrieving plants from greater distances
through the forest to females. So much for hittin the ground runnin
after cows in savannas when plant food is available.. The further Ardi
could branch out on foot, the better the mating chances. With the
grasping toe Ardi was still a good tree climber so no fruit was out of
range. Ardi is 4.4 million yrs old, compared to 3.3 million for Lucy.
Older bones are being found now too.
Frugivorous chimps and even herbivorous gorillas living in what
remains of Miocene forests are now seen as more aggressive offshoots
of the main hominoid lineage, compared to more peaceful hominoids with
smaller canines, not competing as aggressively for sex. The canines
are all about fighting for sex and displaying for defense. Nothing
points to any micro-evolution that would allow tolerance of meat for
these primitive ancestors either (surprise..). If anything, humans are
less physiologically and psychologically susceptible to consume meat
even if chimps have less biochemical tolerance for the cholesterol.
Humans naturally require less protein than chimps too. Either way,
both the seizing and digestive attempts of meat for all species of
hominoids continue to reflect compromised/aberrant diet for the
biological superfamily.
Also, could the differences between Ardi, peacefully walking upright
with human-like hands, etc. mean that distinct splits from common
ancestors of chimps may be more distant in time or there potentially
were more intermediate species separating chimps from direct human
lineage?
Basically, if you don't enjoy listening to screams of beasts being
slain and consuming the writhing bloody corpses when there are ripe
figs nearby, this may reflect a more peaceful psychological state of
humans unscarred by crowded conditions and depleted habitat.
Big canines are a sign of intense competition between males, honed
into sharp daggers used in battles for territory and mating. Male
chimps compete to mate, but don’t help with kids. Humans have stubby
canines and form long-term bonds with fathers helping mothers compared
to other species. Hominids shifted away from ape social structure
early in ancestry while still living a very ape-like life, suggesting
technology did not trigger the evolution of nice hominid guys'
> Homo erectus emerged from its australopithecine ancestors and began to master fire
Created heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic hydrocarbons… How did you
adapt to that? Humans still digest raw food best. Cooking denatures
protein and the body has to go back and unfold, then refold amino
acids to regain the native function of the amino acids. Cooked food is
not easily digested.
> we have smaller intestines than any other primates near in size to us,
Human intestines are 10.5xs the body length. Most herbivores have
intestines 10xs the body length or more. The human intestines are long
enough to digest fruit best.
> We also have small mouths, small lips
Nothing about the size of human mouths and lips prevents humans from
digesting raw fruit better than any other new class of foods.
> weak jaws, small teeth,
Why would u need powerful jaws or large teeth to chew figs?
> and small stomachs.
Perfect!
> Unlike the apes,
Humans are apes…
> we don't need these large body parts.
What species are you?
> we can have something that requires a disproportionate amount of energy, our big brains.
'Our big brains' can determine what healthy food is. "0.6 grams of
daily brain growth, we can see that in terms of nutrient makeup, this
would consist of 0.47 grams of water, 0.059 grams of protein, 0.056
grams of fat, and 0.0084 grams of ash. This trivial nutrient
requirement is, of course, easily met by human breast milk during the
period of maximum growth rate"-Debunking A Popular Meat Eating Theory
by J S Coleman
Read how humans synthesize DHA & EPA. AJCN, Vol. 82,(2), 327-334, 2005
"Brain-starved" ppl may now resume natural diets.
> All this and more because our ancestors learned to cook our food.
Sounds like a game show host...
Some of 'All this and more' that was left out of your popular press
article includes:
Bioavailability and kinetics of sulforaphane in humans after
consumption of cooked versus raw broccoli.
The aim of this study was to determine the bioavailability and
kinetics of the supposed anticarcinogen sulforaphane, the hydrolysis
product of glucoraphanin, from raw and cooked broccoli. Eight men
consumed 200 g of crushed broccoli, raw or cooked, with a warm meal in
a randomized, free-living, open cross-over trial. Higher amounts of
sulforaphane were found in the blood and urine when broccoli was eaten
raw (bioavailability of 37%) versus cooked (3.4%, p ) 0.002).
Absorption of sulforaphane was delayed when cooked broccoli was
consumed (peak plasma time ) 6 h) versus raw broccoli (1.6 h, p )
0.001). Excretion half-lives were comparable, 2.6 and 2.4 h on
average, for raw and cooked broccoli, respectively (p ) 0.5). This
study gives complete kinetic data and shows that consumption of raw
broccoli results in faster absorption, higher bioavailability, and
higher peak plasma amounts of sulforaphane, compared to cooked
broccoli. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Nov 26;56(22):10505-9.
On Nov 19, 7:53 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> To properly reply as in science one would have to give up the rant and
> point by point show in the evidence at hand where the authors were in error, or at least an alternative view could be taken.
Now that that has been done, could you defend the claims made within
the sensationalized article? The article, which is the topic of this
thread is not ‘science’ to begin with. The available scientific
research does not support it.
Chris
crisology
> An unfinished critique by Forti:
>
> http://www.ecologos.org/wrangham.htm
Thanks Nicolas. So far, it's another unrefutable masterpiece in the
making, it seems.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
address the subject line as to diet and human evolution. Humans and
those creatures preceeding them have been eating animal products for
millions of years, period.
Also:
"> http://www.ecologos.org/wrangham.htm
Thanks Nicolas. So far, it's another unrefutable masterpiece in the
making, it seems."
Or is itwhistling past the graveyard working backwards to make a certain
food theology fit the record of human evolution?
The article was a rant about which the author was most bothered indeed.
Science
was missing as would be accepted in an academic context, for
which purposes it will remain for ever "unmade".
crisology
> But all your info, without considering it for its own sake, does not
> address the subject line as to diet and human evolution.
What would u have 'addressed'? There is NO information to support
humans evolving to digest a new food class. Info provided addressed
the fact that humans STILL digest raw plants best. Nothing to the
contrary was revealed in your cheer leading.
> those creatures preceeding them have been eating animal products for
> millions of years, period.
And still haven't evolved to digest cooked food, much less cooked
animal products. You can't digest cooked animals, you can't metabolize
cooked animals and you can't even excrete cooked animal remains.
> ">http://www.ecologos.org/wrangham.htm
>
> Thanks Nicolas. So far, it's another unrefutable masterpiece in the
> making, it seems."
>
> Or is itwhistling past the graveyard working backwards to make a certain
> food theology fit the record of human evolution?
Quite the opposite- your diet supplements of cooked animal products
have been tried and your products impede digestion and contribute to
the diseases you failed to address, above. You advocated cooking B12,
then complained about inadequate B12 levels. You complained about your
mouth being small then failed to address the fact that the small mouth
of humans does NOT mean humans adapted to cooked meat. You abandoned
EVERY point you tried to make with your popular press/religious
article. Back up your claims above, please (with science).
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
> address the subject line as to diet and human evolution.
"What would u have 'addressed'? There is NO information to support
humans evolving to digest a new food class. Info provided addressed the
fact that humans STILL digest raw plants best. Nothing to the contrary
was revealed in your cheer leading."
"Best", not relevant to the subject line, even if one accepts it for
purposes of discussion only. The original article describing the
research supporting it is the topic. The rant provided by another
poster does not serve.
> those creatures preceeding them have been eating animal products for
> millions of years, period.
"And still haven't evolved to digest cooked food, much less cooked
animal products. You can't digest cooked animals, you can't metabolize
cooked animals and you can't even excrete cooked animal remains."
Unless you shit cooked foods of all kinds unmodified in their original
amounts, this is the kind of nonsense on which such food theology is
based.
> Or is itwhistling past the graveyard working backwards to make a
certain
> food theology fit the record of human evolution?
"Quite the opposite- your diet supplements of cooked animal products
have been tried and your products impede digestion and contribute to the
diseases you failed to address, above. You advocated cooking B12, then
complained about inadequate B12 levels. You complained about your mouth
being small then failed to address the fact that the small mouth of
humans does NOT mean humans adapted to cooked meat. You abandoned EVERY
point you tried to make with your popular press/religious article. Back
up your claims above, please (with science)."
Oh dear, whom are you addressing? None of the above is mine to support.
I need not address nor have failed to support elements not relevant to
the subject line you have introduced. We have at least 2 million years
of evidence in human and pre-human evolution in the direction of eating
just about anything humans can get their hands on. Since the last
500000 or more years humans and those preceeding them have occupide all
parts of the globe based on these changes.
The evidence of success in the nose count and the environments occupied
alone is evidence enough. Any critter of human like form has not come
even close by not cooking and not eating animal products, period.
Such are the hard facts of how biology sees both evidence and success.
crisology
> But all your info, without considering it for its own sake, does not
> address the subject line as to diet and human evolution.
Info provided addressed the fact that humans STILL digest raw plants
best.
> "Best", not relevant to the subject line
Nothing in the popular press article you promoted was relevant or
supports the sensationalized ‘subject line’. Humans and all species
digest raw food best, precisely because humans (like all animals)
never adapted to digest cooked food without disease risks. Human
culturists are no more adapted to cooked food than are rats.
Human risk assessment of exposure to 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo
[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) through the diet may be improved by conducting
biomonitoring studies comparing metabolism in humans and rodents.
Eleven volunteers ingested a meal of cooked chicken containing 4 -OH-
PhIP and PhIP in amounts of 0.6 and 0.8microg/kg, respectively and
urine was collected for the next 16h. The large number of PhIP
metabolites was by treatment of the urine samples with hydrazine
hydrate and hydrolytic enzymes reduced to three substances, 4'-OH-
PhIP, PhIP and 5-OH-PhIP of which the first is a biomarker for
detoxification and the last a biomarker for activation. The eleven
volunteers eliminated large amounts of 4'-OH-PhIP in the urine. The
majority of which could be accounted for by the presence of 4'-OH-PhIP
in the fried chicken, showing that PhIP only to a small extent (11%)
was metabolised to 4'-OH-PhIP. A larger fraction of the PhIP exposure,
38%, was recovered as PhIP and the largest fraction (51%) was
recovered as 5-OH-PhIP suggesting that PhIP in humans to a large
extent is metabolised to reactive substances. In rats, less than 1% of
the dose of PhIP was eliminated as 5-OH-PhIP, suggesting that human
cancer risk from exposure to PhIP is considerable higher than risk
estimations based on extrapolation from rodent bioassays.http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18692111?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) is the major
heterocyclic amine generated from cooking meats at high temperatures,
and dietary exposures have been shown to induce prostate cancer in
rats. PhIP derives its carcinogenic potential through the formation of
PhIP-DNA adducts. The purpose of this study was to examine whether
self-reported consumption and preparation doneness of grilled meats
were associated with PhIP-DNA adduct levels in prostate epithelial
cells. The study population consisted of 268 African-American and
Caucasian men who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
PhIP-DNA adducts in tumor and adjacent nontumor cells were measured
using immunohistochemical methods, and dietary meat intake information
was based on food frequency questionnaires. Data were analyzed using
multivariate linear regression models. After adjusting for age at
prostatectomy and race, grilled meat consumption (P = 0.002) was
significantly associated with higher adduct levels in tumor cells, but
this association seemed to be primarily due to consumption of grilled
red meats (P = 0.001) as opposed to grilled white meat consumption (P
= 0.15). Among the specific food items, grilled hamburger consumption
had the most significant association with adduct level in tumor cells
(P = 0.002). Similar trends in positive associations with grilled meat
consumption and adduct levels were observed in nontumor cells, but
none of these associations reached statistical significance. Our
results suggest that dietary interventions targeted at lower
consumption of grilled red meats may reduce prostate cancer risk via
the PhIP prostate carcinogenic pathway. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev 2007;16(4):803–8)
> The original article describing the Research supporting it is the topic
Since no details/numbers ‘describing the research supporting it’ were
provided and it’s been established that cooking food (especially meat)
is not digested best and does cause cancer, how can socialites assume
they evolved as humans to digest that which causes cancer to this day?
> those creatures preceeding them have been eating animal products for
> millions of years, period.
And still haven't evolved to digest cooked food period.
you can't even excrete cooked animal remains.
“Unless you shit cooked foods “
Let’s take a closer look at the actual research of the cremains of the
cooked animal products promoted, to assess how or if the human body
adapted to eliminate such processed carrion…
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the more popular diseases among the
numerous diseases associated w/animal consumption and especially
cooked animal parts. “Estimated new cases and deaths from colon and
rectal cancer in USA in 2009: New cases: 106,100 (colon); 40,870
(rectal) Deaths: 49,920 (colon and rectal combined)” -NCI
“About 5% of people who develop colorectal cancer have an inherited
genetic susceptibility to the disease.” -American Cancer Society.
Like other forms of cancer, CRC is mostly preventable. Taking animal
products (especially cooked) increases CRC risk, while plant diets
naturally decrease risks of such disease fashions.
Realize-
‘Vegetable, fruit and meat consumption and potential risk modifying
genes in relation to colorectal cancer’ Fruit and vegetable
consumption were both found to protect against colorectal cancer,
while overall meat and red meat consumption were found to increase
risk. Int J Cancer. 2004 Nov 1;112(2):259-64.
So something other than natural digestion of biochemically compatible
food seems to be ocurring in those who are consuming cooked animal
products to increase their risks of diseases…
Heme of consumed red meat can act as a catalyst of oxidative damage
and could initiate colon, breast and prostate cancers, heart disease
and other diseases.
Dietary epidemiological studies indicate correlations between the
consumption of red meat and/or processed meat and cancer of the colon,
rectum, stomach, pancreas, bladder, endometrium and ovaries, prostate,
breast and lung, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes
and Alzheimer's disease. The correlation of all these major diseases
with dietary red meat indicates the presence of factors in red meat
that damage biological components. This hypothesis will focus on the
biochemistry of heme compounds and their oxidative processes. Raw red
meat contains high levels of oxymyoglobin and deoxymyoglobin and
oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin and cytochromes in muscle and other
tissues. Cooked and processed meat contain hemichromes and
hemochromes. After being eaten heme proteins are hydrolyzed to amino
acids and peptides and the heme group which is coordinated with strong
ligands. The iron of heme coordinates to the sulfur, nitrogen or
oxygen of amino acids and peptides and other biological components.
The coordinated heme groups are absorbed and transported by the blood
to every organ and tissue. Free and coordinated heme preferentially
catalyze oxidative reactions. Heme catalyzed oxidations can damage
lipids, proteins, DNA and other nucleic acids and various components
of biological systems. Heme catalysis with hydroperoxide intermediates
can initiate further oxidations some of which would result in
oxidative chain reactions. Biochemical and tissue free radical damage
caused by heme catalyzed oxidations is similar to that resulting from
ionizing radiation. Oxidative biochemical damage is widespread in
diseases. It is apparent that decreasing the amount of dietary red
meat will limit the level of oxidative catalysts in the tissues of the
body. Increasing consumption of vegetables and fruits elevates the
levels of antioxidative components, for example, selenium, vitamin E,
vitamin C, lycopene, cysteine-glutathione and various
phytochemicals.Med Hypotheses. 2007;68(3):562-4.
It is estimated that most colon cancers can be attributed to diet. To
validate, we compared colonic contents of high and low risk
populations, Native Africans (cancer incidence <1:100,000), African
Americans (65:100,000).. Americans tend to consume high-animal protein
and fat diet.. Colonic evacuants were analyzed..results support
microbiota mediates the effect diet has on colon cancer risk by
generation of butyrate, folate and biotin, regulating epithelial
proliferation.J Nutr. 2009 Nov;139(11):2044-8.
'Why do African Americans get more colon cancer than Native Africans?
..higher CRC risk and mucosal proliferation rates in AAs than in NAs
were associated with higher dietary intakes of animal products and
higher colonic populations of potentially toxic hydrogen and secondary
bile-salt-producing bacteria. This supports our hypothesis that CRC
risk is determined by interactions between the external (dietary) and
internal (bacterial) environments.J Nutr. 2007 Jan;137(1 Suppl):
175S-182S.
In comparison with Native Africans, African Americans consumed more
protein (94 +/- 9.3 vs. 58 +/- 4.1 g/d) and fat (114 +/- 11.2 vs. 38
+/- 3.0 g/d), meat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. And fecal colony
counts of 7-alpha dehydroxylating bacteria were higher and of
Lactobacilli were lower. Colonic crypt cell proliferation rates were
dramatically higher in AAs (21.8 +/- 1.1% vs. 3.2 +/- 0.8%. Nutr. 2007
Jan;137(1 Suppl):175S-182S.
So, during the slow transit time, 7-alpha dehydroxylating bacteriua
accumulate and provides environments for colon cancer to develop. Most
cases of colon cancer and other types of cancer are diet related with
animal products contributing.
Mechanism for the transit-induced increase in colonic deoxycholic acid
formation in cholesterol cholelithiasis.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many patients with cholesterol gallbladder stones
(GBS) have a high percentage of deoxycholic acid (DCA) in gallbladder
bile (all of which are in the conjugated form), probably as a result
of prolonged large bowel transit times (LBTT).
RESULTS: Compared with controls, GBS patients had longer LBTT (mean
23.1 +/- SEM 2.8 h vs. 36.5 +/- 3.3 h; P < 0.01); more total (2.7 +/-
0.6 x 10(9) vs. 5.9 +/- 1.5 x 10(9) cfu/mL) and Gram-positive (9.5 +/-
3.1 x 10(8) vs. 18.0 +/- 4.1 x 10(8) cfu/mL; P < 0.05) anaerobes; and
greater 7alpha-dehydroxylating (7alpha-DH) activity (3.39 +/- 0.59 vs.
10.37 +/- 1.15 x 10(-4) U/mg protein) in the cecal aspirates. They
also had increased percentages of DCA in fasting serum (13.4% +/-
1.52% vs. 21.8% +/- 2. 19%; P < 0.005). Results of univariate and
multivariate analyses confirmed that LBTT was critical in determining
the percentage of DCA in serum and showed that 7alpha-DH activity and
apparent distal colonic pH were also significant independent
variables. CONCLUSIONS: Slow colonic transit (more time), increased
Gram-positive anaerobes (more bacteria), and greater 7alpha-DH
activity (more enzyme) favor enhanced DCA formation; transit-induced
increases in distal colonic luminal pH favor enhanced DCA
solubilization/bioavailability; and increases in LBTT (more time)
again favor DCA absorption. Gastroenterology. 2000 Sep;119(3):806-15.
Diet, fecal water, and colon cancer--development of a biomarker.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer incidence
worldwide. Lifestyle factors, especially dietary intake, affect the
risk of CRC development. Suitable risk biomarkers are required in
order to assess the effect that specific dietary components have on
CRC risk. The relationship between dietary intake and indicators of
fecal water activity has been assessed using cell and animal models as
well as human studies. This review summarizes the literature on fecal
water and dietary components with a view to establishing further the
potential role of fecal water as a source of CRC risk biomarkers. The
literature indicates that fecal water activity markers are affected by
specific dietary components linked with CRC risk: red meat, saturated
fats, bile acids, and fatty acids are associated with an increase in
fecal water toxicity, while the converse appears to be true for
calcium, probiotics, and prebiotics. However, it must be acknowledged
that the study of fecal water is still in its infancy and a number of
issues need to be addressed before its usefulness can be truly gauged.
Nutr Rev. 2009 Sep;67(9):509-26.
Back up your claims above, please (with science)."
> None of the above is mine to support.
And none of the entertaining article you posted is supportable with
science from the author or anyone else.
> humans and those preceeding them have occupide all parts of the globe.
So have cows. Humans can fly to the moon too and still risk diseases
from cooked food.
> evidence of success in the nose count
A vote for digesting cooked food?
> Any critter of human like form has not come even close by not cooking and not eating animal products, > period.
While it is true no other ‘critter of human like form’ has come as
close to acquiring as much colon cancer (and other diseases) from
cooked meat, this does not mean humans evolved to eat cooked food.
Chris
Nicolas
http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/blog/?p=283
Lengthy post. The conclusion:
"I do not believe that the research presented in the book Catching
Fire really goes against the low-fat, fruit-based raw diet. However,
it does show you how unsustainable most other low-calorie, high-fat
raw-diets are, and how many of their claims are not based in solid
science."
Many people in the raw food "movement" make the mistake of going for a
high-greens high-fat diet, and many of those add in things that aren't
really raw, or at least not whole-foods.
arc...@scfas.com
about some reaction or another to a given food does not serve.
The measure in biology of evolutionary success is a simple nose count of
expanding population over time and the number of niches it can occupy.
Humans measur high on both counts and have done so based in part on the
eat every thing they get their hands on dietary approach. This was the
pattern starting some 2 million years ago.
Some humans do succeed on a mainly raw diet. The eskimos eat mostly raw
meat in the traditional diet. There are no other cultures known to me
that eat raw foods at such high levels.
arc...@scfas.com
http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/blog/?p=283
So I spent the time reading the 300 page book, initially with some
skepticism. I expected another meat-eating scientist trying to
rationalize their habits by some unsubstantiated arguments. Instead, I
found the book "Catching Fire" to be quite fascinating, bringing light
to a lot of controversies that raw-foodists will definitely find
interesting.
It also destroys the foundation of many common raw-food myths (that I
didn't believe in anyway), but surprisingly, the basic conclusions of
Mr. Wrangham's research partially support the low-fat, fruit-based
diet that I recommend.
Also, for an interview with the author of the book in question, over a
veggie lunch:
Nicolas
are myths, something widely known by raw-fooders that have actually
gotten into the science of the diet, does not invalidate the diet
itself. And, as the blog post continues, it would seem that the book
is mostly of value to raw-fooders who just can't figure out why their
version of the diet isn't working that well (although I'd just direct
them to 'The 80-10-10 Diet', for a "how-to" on that).*** There are
plenty of raw-fooders with with tons of energy (more than enough for
athletic pursuits), and these would be the high-fruit low-fat ones.
That said, there are objections I would raise to these writings of my
fellow high-fruiter, Patenaude, but unlike Forti, I just don't have it
in me to make point-by-point criticism/commentary of such a lengthy
text, nor the desire to spend the time doing it. Plus, I haven't even
read Wrangham's book, so I can't tell if Patenaude might've missed
something of importance in regard to how Wrangham came to certain
conclusions.
*** From the blog:
"Wrangham goes on:
"The energy consequences of forgoing cooked food lead to a consistent
reaction, illustrated by journalist Jodi Mardesich when she became a
raw-foodist. “I’m hungry. These days, I’m almost always hungry,” she
wrote. A typical day began at 7 A.M. when she cut and juiced two
ounces of wheat grass. At 8:30 A.M. she had a bowl of “energy soup,”
which she describes as a “room-temperature concoction made of
sunflower greens, which are the tiny first shoots of a sunflower
plant, and rejuvelac, a fermented wheat drink that tastes a lot like
bad lemonade.” She added a couple of spoonfuls of blended papaya for
interest. Lunch was a salad of sunflower greens, sprouted fenugreek
seeds, sprouted broccoli seeds, fermented cabbage, and a loaf made of
sprouted sunflower seeds, dehydrated seaweed, and some vegetables."
"Dinner was more sprouts, avocado chunks, pineapple, red onion, olive
oil, raw vinegar, and sea salt. An hour later she was hungry again. In
photographs she looks distinctly thin, but she was happy. She
described herself as feeling energized, mentally sharper, and more
serene. Nevertheless, after six months, during which she lost 18
pounds (8.2 kilograms), she could not resist slipping out for a pizza.
Mardesich was not alone in finding a wholly raw diet a challenge. The
Giessen Raw Food study found that 82 percent of long-term raw-foodists
included some cooked food in their diets."
My comments: The raw diet described above is typical of many people
trying to eat raw. Unfortunately, this diet doesn't work. It obviously
is very low in calories (energy) while being high in fat.
Unfortunately, that's the way a lot of raw-foodists try to eat, and it
just isn't sustainable. That's why I recommend to get sufficient
calories from fruit, while keeping your overall diet low in fat."
I can see that she might be happier than before, having gone off
processed and cooked junk, but really, I wouldn't want to eat like
that, and I'm a raw-fooder. If this were the best raw-fooders Wrangham
could find to represent the diet and its variations, then he really
didn't do such a good job. He should check out some of the members of
www.30bananasaday.com (note: there are also some sick people there,
many of which are aided in their recovery by a raw food diet high in
fruit / by abstaining from feeding their bodies sub-optimal foods --
Like one of the more famous proponents of a high-fruit diet says;
there are two kinds of people who adopt this kind of diet, those who
are very intelligent, and those who are very sick.)
Nicolas
raw
meat in the traditional diet. There are no other cultures known to me
that eat raw foods at such high levels."
There's evidence that the Inuit never really did that well on their
own, traditional diet, osteoporosis being one of the issues. You can
watch 'The Perils of Dairy' on YouTube for some of it. Can't remember
how far into the video it was.
Yes, the Inuit may be fit, but you can appear outwardly fit on just
about any diet, be it all-meat or all-fruit.
arc...@scfas.com
raw meat in the traditional diet. There are no other cultures known to
me that eat raw foods at such high levels."
"There's evidence that the Inuit never really did that well on their
own, traditional diet, osteoporosis being one of the issues. You can
watch 'The Perils of Dairy' on YouTube for some of it. Can't remember
how far into the video it was."
I have seen only positive things about it. One study in canada found
that the closer one got to the traditional diet among inuit, the far
better the health status. The familiar problems which are diet related
appeared the more one used a western diet.
Recall that the whole fish oil thing got started when it was found they
have profoundly low heart disease and stroke levels.
Any osteoporosis would seem unlikely because vit d and calcium are
readily available in the diet, as is strenuous exercise a normal part of
the lifestyle . I don't have access to youtube, any other info much
appreciated.
crisology
> A response by a high-fruit low-fat raw vegan who has read the book:
>
> http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/blog/?p=283
>
The problem is there is a lack of raw data or primary sources of
scientific information to support the myth that humans or any animal
evolved into a new species by eating cooked food or evolved to eat
cooked food. In fact, the human body reacts strongly to cooked food.
In contrast, and despite those in revolt, there is no shortage of
research describing the health risks of cooking. If humans evolved as
humans in order to eat cooked meat or if humans are humans because
they cooked meat, there would not be the widespread disease risks
associated, it would be natural and safe (to be human and eat as
humans). Sure, the cooked food conveniently makes you feel full but
the human genome doesn't seem to be embracing the denatured food.
Formation of protein adducts of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]
pyridine in cooked foods. Results suggest that food-borne protein
adducts of HCAs may influence human HCA exposure and carcinogenic
risk. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009 Dec 3. [Epub ahead of print]
Some nitrosocompounds that are formed during food preservation, as
well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and heterocyclic amines
(HA) formed during cooking, may have carcinogenic activity. An
accurate assessment of dietary intake of such compounds is difficult,
mainly because they are not naturally present in foods, and they are
not included in standard food composition tables. The American Society
for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 134:2011-2014, August 2004
The mean estimated dietary intake of the sum of the 16 PAHs was as
follows: male adults, 8.4 microg/day; adolescents, 8.2 microg/day;
children, 7.4 microg/day; seniors, 6.3 microg/day; female adults, 6.3
microg/day. The calculated daily intake of PAHs would be associated
with a 5/106 increase in the risk for the development of cancer in a
male adult with a body weight of 70 kg. J Food Prot2003 Dec;66(12):
2325-31.
Note: Total PAH concentrations in smoked meat products ranged from 2.6
micrograms/kg in a cooked ham sample to 29.8 micrograms/kg in grilled
pork chops, while those in fish products ranged from 9.3 micrograms/kg
in smoked shrimp to 86.6 micrograms/kg in smoked salmon.
Food Addit Contam. 1993 Sep-Oct;10(5):503-21.
One million people worldwide are affected by colorectal cancer (CRC)
every year, resulting in 500,000 deaths. An estimated 60% drop of all
CRC cases could be obtained provided eating habits are modified, since
these seem to be the main cause of incidence variations. Systematic
literature review, updated in 2007, established that processed meat
increase the risk of CRC. Bull Cancer. 2009 May 20.
Systematic review of the prospective cohort studies on meat
consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analytical approach...
results indicate that a daily increase of 100 g of all meat or red
meat is associated with a significant 12-17% increased risk of CRC. A
significant 49% increased risk was found for a daily increase of 25 g
of processed meat...the overall association between meat consumption
and risk of CRC appears to be positive.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev. 2001 May;10(5):439-46.
Several biological mechanisms may explain the positive association
between red meat intake and hormone receptor--positive breast cancer
risk," Known cancer-causing compounds in cooked or processed red meat
increase mammary tumors in animals and have been suspected of causing
breast cancer in humans. In addition, cattle in the US are treated
with hormones to promote growth, which could also influence breast
cancer risk. The type of iron available in red meat also may enhance
tumor formation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113180252.htm
> "I do not believe that the research presented in the book Catching
> Fire really goes against the low-fat, fruit-based raw diet.
I don't believe it does either.
> it does show you how unsustainable most other low-calorie, high-fat
> raw-diets are
I see.
Chris
crisology
> No, you avoid the subject of this thread.
I quoted and responded with in-line comments using research that
refuted the safety of even consuming cooked meat, much less evolving
as a new species by cooking it, which was advocated in the popular
press article you promoted.
> Posting cherry picked
Do a search on a scientific database for "HCAs cooked meat", there is
no need to 'cherry pick'... There is no shortage of research showing
the health risks of consuming cooked meat.
> bits about some reaction or another to a given food does not serve.
Doesn't serve sensationalism. The 'given food' is cooked and the
'reaction' was based on the overwhelming research detecting the health
risks with that which you claim '..made us human'. An incongruity
exists there.
> The measure in biology of evolutionary success is a simple nose count of
> expanding population over time and the number of niches it can occupy.
So by virtue of the fact humans improved protection from elements and
carnivores, improved sanitation, hygiene and medical procedures,
tools, herbs and medications, etc, there exists a higher 'nose count
of expanding population'.
> Humans measur high on both counts and have done so based in part on the
> eat every thing they get their hands on dietary approach.
Circular reasoning...
Humans evolved mostly before more frequent/recent food compromises and
expanded populations in spite of food compromises recently made.
Consuming cooked candy, dairy, refined grains, consuming other humans
or animal products, is not the formula for the optimal human diet and
certainly isn't the reason humans evolved as humans. You haven't even
adapted to breathing in the fumes from cooked meat, much less
digesting them.
The effect of airborne frying-meat emission particulate (FMEP) on
metabolism of 17beta-estradiol (E(2)) to potentially toxic catechol
estrogens 2- and 4-hydroxyestradiol (2- and 4-OH-E(2)) was determined
using human lung adenocarcinoma CL5 cells treated with organic
extracts of beef FMEP. E(2) was incubated with microsomes prepared
from untreated CL5 cells or cells treated with 200 microg/ml FMEP
The present finding demonstrates that FMEP can increase formation of 2-
OH-E(2) and 4-OH-E(2) by human lung cells, and induction of CYP1A1 and
CYP1B1 is a potential mechanism underlying increased E(2) metabolism.
The toxicological significance of FMEP and estrogen interaction
warrants further investigation. J Toxicology Environmental Health2003
Jun 27;66(12):1175-88.
Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrpcarbons (PAHs) in some
seafoods... The most frequently detected PAHs in the tested samples
were indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene followed by benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)
anthracene, and benzo(b)fluoranthene which are characterized as
carcinogenic compounds. Int J Inviron Health Res. 2002 Mar;12(1):83-91
> starting some 2 million years ago.
The digestive system, eyes, etc- were already mostly established by 2
million yrs ago.. To this day, humans still can't digest animals,
especially cooked animal products.
> The eskimos eat mostly raw meat in the traditional diet.
It's not enough to just eat raw, the type of food is also important.
Consuming animal products instead of fruit (digested best because it
is biochemically compatible for the human species) has its risks...
It is a common notion that coronary heart disease (CHD) is rare among
Inuit, possibly due to a high intake of omega-3-fatty acids. The
scientific evidence for this is weak and to some extent based on
uncertain mortality statistic. The overall prevalence of CHD (AP+self-
reported MI+ECG defined MI) was 10.8% in men and 10.2% in women. The
highest prevalence was observed in the least westernized areas in
Greenland. Atherosclerosis. 2008 Feb;196(2):772-8.
Inuit infants throughout the Arctic experience higher mortality and
poorer health than their non-Inuit counterparts, and suffer
disproportionately from bacterial and viral infections.
"Neonatal hypertyrosinemia and evidence for deficiency of ascorbic
acid in Arctic and subarctic peoples.
Deficiency of ascorbic acid in pregnant women is probably the cause of
the unusual prevalence of neonatal hypertyrosinemia among the native
Arctic and subarctic peoples" Can Med Assoc J. 1975 Oct 4;113(7):
624-6.
MAIN RESULTS: In 1991, life expectancy at birth in the Inuit-inhabited
areas was about 68 years, which was 10 years lower than for Canada
overall. From 1991 to 2001, life expectancy in the Inuit-inhabited
areas did not increase, although it rose by about two years for Canada
as a whole. As a result, the gap widened to more than 12 years. Health
Rep. 2008 Mar;19(1):7-19.
The health of the Inuit has undergone substantial changes over the
past five centuries, as a result of social, cultural, and economic
changes brought about by interactions with Europeans. This process was
accelerated considerably in the second half of the twentieth century.
The incidence of infectious diseases has declined considerably but is
still high compared with Western societies... Before the introduction
of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines, rates of
invasive H. influenzae disease among indigenous people of the North
American Arctic were among the highest in the world. Scand J. Public
Health 2004;32(5):390-5.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
refuted the safety of even consuming cooked meat, much less evolving as
a new species by cooking it, which was advocated in the popular press
article you promoted."
But that is not the topic. The topic is what role cooking might have
played in human evolution. All your "research" then rendered instantly
irrelevant because you are not paying attention. The source of the info
provided equally irrelevant, it was the ideas presented regardless of
source.
crisology
> The topic is what role cooking might have played in human evolution.
The topic and title (which isn't supported by any of the information
in the popular press article) is: "Cooking made us human"
But the exact opposite is the case. Cooking didn’t make humans. Humans
made cooking. Humans created fires and recipes, then medication and
chemotherapy, etc to treat the symptoms of breathing the fumes of
cooked meat or consuming the food and meat that is cooked.
> you are not paying attention. The source of the info
> provided equally irrelevant, it was the ideas presented regardless of
> source.
The article did not support any of the claims regarding risks of raw
food i.e. the claims that raw diet results in lower B12 or more bone
problems or the popular myth that fire somehow makes meat softer. In
most cases cooking meat over an open flame does just the opposite (it
makes meat tougher). The consensus now is that millions of years prior
to fire kindling, the direct lineage of humans already possessed much
smaller teeth and jaws than the more aggressive chimps, regardless of
cooked food. And that the lineage of humans stopped using teeth to
display for defense and courting. This is in direct contrast to the
unsupported myths promoted in the popular press article, which do not
explain why or how humans would adapt to something they created
(fire). Humans adapted to cooked meat about as well as they adapted to
candy, soda, grains and cow dairy.
“Dr. Wrangham concludes…Other animals don't need cooked food. We do."
Non sequitur. The conclusion is unsupported by any evidence provided
in the sensationalized article. I relayed research to the contrary-
that neither other animals nor humans adapted to cooked food.
Human risk assessment of exposure to 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo
[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) through the diet may be improved by conducting
biomonitoring studies comparing metabolism in humans and rodents.
Eleven volunteers ingested a meal of cooked chicken containing 4 -OH-
PhIP and PhIP in amounts of 0.6 and 0.8microg/kg, respectively and
urine was collected for the next 16h. The large number of PhIP
metabolites was by treatment of the urine samples with hydrazine
hydrate and hydrolytic enzymes reduced to three substances, 4'-OH-
PhIP, PhIP and 5-OH-PhIP of which the first is a biomarker for
detoxification and the last a biomarker for activation. The eleven
volunteers eliminated large amounts of 4'-OH-PhIP in the urine. The
majority of which could be accounted for by the presence of 4'-OH-PhIP
in the fried chicken, showing that PhIP only to a small extent (11%)
was metabolised to 4'-OH-PhIP. A larger fraction of the PhIP exposure,
38%, was recovered as PhIP and the largest fraction (51%) was
recovered as 5-OH-PhIP suggesting that PhIP in humans to a large
extent is metabolised to reactive substances. In rats, less than 1% of
the dose of PhIP was eliminated as 5-OH-PhIP, suggesting that human
cancer risk from exposure to PhIP is considerable higher than risk
estimations based on extrapolation from rodent bioassays.http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18692111?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem...
And because humans (like all animals) don’t need cooked food, humans
haven’t adapted to cooked food.
On Dec 30, 9:48 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> This was the pattern starting some 2 million years ago.
The pattern has been one in which Ardipithicus (over 4.4 million years
ago) already had smaller jaws and canines than the more aggressive
offshoots of the direct human lineage.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
The topic and title (which isn't supported by any of the information in
the popular press article) is: "Cooking made us human"
But the exact opposite is the case. Cooking didn=92t make humans. Humans
made cooking. Humans created fires and recipes, then medication and
chemotherapy, etc to treat the symptoms of breathing the fumes of cooked
meat or consuming the food and meat that is cooked."
What a hoot, it is obvious you did not read the entire original post of
the original article. The author makes the distinction between modern
humans and pre-humans based on many widely accepted changes that
happened about 100000 years ago that clearly marked them from those
going before.
It is an observation and model of a systemic change, not a direct cause
and effect chain of events.
The author has his own scientific publications if you don't think the
author of this reporting did him justice. Popular press does not mean
incorrect press as his scientific work is offered for popular
consumption.
As for the food theology that ends your remarks, what can one say anbout
such self fullfilling monday morning quarterb acking and invention of
this "just so story".
crisology
Cooking didn't make humans. Humans made cooking. Humans created fires
and recipes, then medication and
chemotherapy, etc to treat the symptoms of breathing the fumes of
cooked
On Jan 1, 4:40 pm, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> you did not read the entire original post
I read the popular press article and the anti-scientific article that
it was based upon. Neither supported any reason to risk cancer or
other diseases by consuming cooked 'food', especially cooked animals.
I categorically refuted each claim in the sensationalized article,
which you promoted without apparent reason. One could only reasonably
assume you are being paid by the meat, dairy or grain industry to spam
this board with popular press articles that can't be supported by
science. Whatever pays the bills... Regardless of your motives, humans
invented cooking, cooking didn't invent humans. Disease risks of your
socio-ill-ogical cooking customs are revealed above/unrefuted.
> many widely accepted changes that happened about 100000 years ago
Were unrelated to any claims of adaptation to cooking food. This was
explained above. You chose not to defend your stance.
> It is an observation
Of primary process thinking.
> not a direct cause and effect chain of events.
Yeah, I suspected there wasn't a cause and effect chain of events of
cooking and evolution.
> The author has his own scientific publications
I wonder if anyone could provide those 'scientific' reasons. I know I
searched for some. So far all that has been revealed is sensationalism
with nobody willing to explain how cooking was 'observed' to 'make us
human'.
> Popular press does not mean incorrect press
Well sometimes popular press has accurate information- just definitely
not in this case but don't tell me, you're the one refusing to defend
the 'cooking made us human' claims and unwilling to support your
sensationalized article with any scientific research. You're free to
provide explanations for the stories in the popular press article if
you want. I'm well aware of the fact that popular press may contain
more accurate information than could potentially be found on a topic
in a scholarly article. But in this case, the popular press article
you promote is just not supported by real science and isn't even a
good science fiction story, which is why it isn't supported by
research, I suppose.
On Dec 29 2009, 9:57 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> None of the above is mine to support. I need not address..."
I understand...
> his scientific work is offered for popular consumption.
Not here and not by you.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
I read the popular press article and the anti-scientific article that
it was based upon. "
Ah, clear evidence for my point. The article was about the book, not
another article.
Please do review for us the primary points the author of the book makes
and his logic. If you don't/cann't, then you are only doing a silly fit
of hand waving and foot stomping.
I'm not asking you to agree, just to show us you grasp his points in the
first instance. How can they be discussed when you clearly show you
don't know them?
Just the points please, this is not a request for you to go off into
your food theology absent them. If you can, and only then if you can,
make a real connection to his points and your theology is it worth
discussing the latter.
crisology
book was based upon.
> The article was about the book, not another article.
This was covered. I read and responded to the promotion of the book,
then I asked for some scientific support for the claims made
(according to the popular press article). I refuted each claim made in
the popular press article. Nobody was able to back up the claims made
in the popular press article or the book. I then went to a source of
the science fiction book (a science fiction article I found in an
anthropology journal publication) and it too was lacking scientific
evidence for the claims in the science fiction book.
Back to the popular press article/book review... This is the beginning
of the message that you failed to respond to and you even went as far
as to say you wouldn't defend it:
On Dec 29 2009, 9:57 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> "None of the above is mine to support... I need not address"
Now you're asking me to address it again...You asked to reconsider
what the topic was while avoiding the specific claims made in the book
(according to your popular press article). My response to the book
review is above (the first comment I made in this thread) and was
unrefuted. It began: On Dec 27 2009, 2:19 am, crisology
<crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:07 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
>
> > I saw this in a book review and thought some might find it of interest:,
>
> There’s nothing new…
>
> > Richard Wrangham
> > 'Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human'
> > Raw-foodists report a sense of well-being, better physical
> > functioning,
> > less pain, more vitality, and improved emotional and social
> > performance. Researchers have found improved serum cholesterol and
> > triglyceride values. Raw foodists, unlike people who cook their food,
> > also don't need to be concerned about the Maillard reaction, which we
> > know as advanced end products (AGEs).
>
> True. And raw foodists are likely to be healthier in many other ways
> as we’ll see…
So, I went on to address specific claims that were apparently made in
the book. Scroll to catch up.
Then, after you couldn't defend the science fiction article after I
categorically refuted the issues in it, you switched topics:
On Dec 29 2009, 9:57 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> > address the subject line as to diet and human evolution.
And so I did... I addressed the subject line: "cooking made us human"
and explained how humans made cooking, instead. This was unrefuted
too.
> Please do review for us the primary points
I've reviewed this for the meat industry ("us"). See my first comment
in this thread. It's appearing on my screen.
> and his logic.
Was addressed:
On Jan 2, 2:14 am, crisology <crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
> ...humans invented cooking, cooking didn't invent humans. Disease risks of your
> socio-ill-ogical cooking customs are revealed above/unrefuted.
> show us
I showed all of you. See above.
> make a real connection to his points and your theology is it worth
> discussing the latter.
"denaturing of proteins" J Hum Evol. 2009 Oct;57(4):379-91. The
energetic significance of cooking.
Carmody RN, Wrangham RW.
Going further beyond the unsubstantiated claims made in the popular
press article regarding the book and the articles the book was based
upon, it is clear that denatured proteins are a health risk and humans
didn't evolve to eat proteins already denatured. Consuming denatured
food was mentioned but was unaddressed in both the anthropology
article from the same author that just mentions the issue without
explaining how humans adapted to denatured food.
Various stresses, which impair ER (endoplasmic reticulum) function,
lead to an accumulation of unfolded or misfolded proteins. ER stress
triggers many rescuer responses, including a UPR (unfolded protein
response). Increasing evidence has suggested that ER stress is
involved in neurodegenerative diseases Alzheimer's, Parkinson's
disease and cerebral ischaemic insults, cancer, obesity and
diabetes.Clin Sci (Lond). 2009 Sep 28;118(1):19-29.
Cell death and endoplasmic reticulum stress: disease relevance and
therapeutic opportunities.
The accumulation of unfolded proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum
(ER) represents a cellular stress induced by multiple stimuli and
pathological conditions. These include hypoxia, oxidative injury, high-
fat diet, hypoglycaemia, protein inclusion bodies and viral
infection..Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008 Dec;7(12):1013-30.
In summary- nobody has defended any of the claims in the popular press
article, the book or the 'scientific publications' in other articles
from the same author regarding the topic of any of roles cooking had
in 'making us human'.
There is not one main point made in the popular press article about
the book that was not addressed in this thread. To prove it- state a
main point made in the article, regarding how it may have been assumed
'cooking made us human" and I'll point out where I responded to the
issue. All stones have been turned here and no animal has adapted to
cooked food as cooked food risks diseases (some of which were covered
here).
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
advances them in the fashion he does, not your strawman version .
We need confirmation still that not only did you read the original
article to the depth to be able to do that, we need something but hand
waving and foot stomping about which to discuss.
At this point you need not provide any input of your own in response,
just recite his ideas.
If you can not grasp them as he presents them, further discussion is
pointless.
crisology
> Provide us the main points of the book
I provided culturists with a rebuttal to the main points and the
'subject line' as announced in your popular press article. The
unrefuted post begins: On Dec 27 2009, 2:19 am, crisology
<crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:07 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
>
> > I saw this in a book review and thought some might find it of interest:,
>
> There’s nothing new…
It is clear, no animal has adapted to cooked food. If humans adapted
to cooked food, it wouldn't cause diseases to consume cooked food.
> and the reason the author
The author didn't use 'reason', as I explained.
> advances them in the fashion he does
For social acquisition. Reason has nothing to do with the fact the
author completely avoided the lack of adaptation humans made to digest
cooked food and especially cooked meat.
Men showed significant 50% increased risks for the highest tertile of
grilled/barbecued and broiled meat and significant doubling of risk
for the highest quintile of overall meat-mutagenic activity (P trends
< 0.01).These findings support the hypothesis that meat intake,
particularly meat cooked at high temperatures and associated mutagens,
may play a role in pancreatic cancer development.Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Dec;16(12):2664-75.
> We need confirmation
High intake of meat, particularly red and processed meat, has been
associated with an increased risk of a number of common cancers such
as breast, colorectum, and prostate in many epidemiological studies.
Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are a group of mutagenic compounds found in
cooked meats, particularly well-done meats. HCAs are some of most
potent mutagens detected using the Ames/salmonella tests and have been
clearly shown to induce tumors in experimental animal models. Over the
past 10 years, an increasing number of epidemiological studies have
evaluated the association of well-done meat intake and meat carcinogen
exposure with cancer risk. The majority of these studies have shown
that high intake of well-done meat and high exposure to meat
carcinogens, particularly HCAs, may increase the risk of human
cancer.Nutr Cancer. 2009;61(4):437-46.
> we need something but hand waving
Diets containing red or preserved meat may increase risk of various
cancers due to a combination of factors i.e. content of fat, protein,
iron, and/or meat preparation (e.g., cooking or preserving methods).
Colon cancer is associated with N-nitroso compound exposure, which is
dose-dependently related to the amount of red meat intake. Lab results
detect meat cooked at high temperatures contain other mutagens in the
form of HCAs and PAHs.Environ Mol Mutagen. 2004;44(1):44-55.
> At this point you need not provide any input of your own
According to Encyclopedia Brittanica: Denaturation: in biology,
process modifying the molecular structure of a protein. Denaturation
involves the breaking of many of the weak linkages, or bonds (e.g.,
hydrogen bonds), within a protein molecule that are responsible for
the highly ordered structure of the protein in its natural (native)
state. Denatured proteins have a looser, more random structure; most
are insoluble. Denaturation can be brought about in various ways—e.g.,
by heating, by treatment with alkali, acid, urea, or detergents, and
by vigorous shaking.
The original structure of some proteins can be regenerated upon
removal of the denaturing agent and restoration of conditions
favouring the native state. Proteins subject to this process, called
renaturation, include serum albumin from blood, hemoglobin (the oxygen-
carrying pigment of red blood cells), and the enzyme ribonuclease. The
denaturation of many proteins, such as egg white, is irreversible. A
common consequence of denaturation is loss of biological activity
(e.g., loss of the catalytic ability of an enzyme).
Cells react to physical (e.g., heat) or chemical (e.g., anoxia, low
pH) stressors, mounting a stress (heat-shock) response. Int J Clin Lab
Res. 1995;25(2):59-70.
Heat shock (stress) proteins and autoimmunity in rheumatic diseases.
The rheumatic diseases (RDs) are characterized by acute and chronic
inflammation, and autoimmunity plays a major role in their
pathogenesis. evidence indicates that heat shock or stress proteins
(HSPs) may have an important role in the etiology/pathogenesis of
RDs.Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1993 Jun;22(6):357-74.
Accumulation of damaged proteins is causally related to many age-
related diseases. FASEB J. 2006 Apr;20(6):741-3.
Proteotoxic stresses increase the fraction of proteins in an unfolded
state, thereby enhancing the probability of the formation of
intracellular aggregates. These aggregates, if not disposed, can lead
to cell death.Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2006;(172):1-42.
The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the site of synthesis and folding of
secretory and membrane bound proteins. The capacity of the ER to
process proteins is limited and the accumulation of unfolded and
misfolded proteins can lead to ER stress which has been associated
with a wide range of diseases including cancer.
We review the evidence suggesting that the ER stress response could be
important for the growth and development of tumors under stressful
growth conditions such as hypoxia or glucose deprivation, which are
commonly encountered by most solid tumors.
.Eur J Pharmacol. 2009 Dec 25;625(1-3):234-46.
> just recite his ideas.
That's been your job...
> If you can not grasp them as he presents them, further discussion is pointless.
'[H]is ideas' were grasped and refuted above. Scroll to catch up.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
author's points and why he comes to them, we are left still with only a
recitation of the sermon flowing from the food theology.
One can only conclude that as suspected that sermon is done absent
knowing what the author is saying.
These posts are then only a platform for launching into the sermon.
No thanks, a waste of time if the original points are not the basis for
discussion.
crisology
supported. Relatively recent ancestors created cooking recipes.
Cooking recipes didn't 'make us human'. Merely reciting cherished
beliefs of somehow/unexplainably adapting to digest thermally damaged
proteins, regardless of how fascinating the stories may be, doesn't
make it so. Obviously, conflicting Manifest Destiny-type philosophies,
rites of passage, business ventures and all sorts of cultural
conditioning can create great resistance to considering the cold, hard
facts of natural, healthy digestion. If humans can't digest it (cooked
food) without the widespread disease risks, humans didn't really adapt
to it.
Human diseases characterized by insoluble extracellular deposits of
proteins have been recognized for almost two centuries..many different
proteins can misfold and form extracellular or intracellular
aggregates that initiate profound cellular dysfunction..examples occur
in the post-mitotic environment of the neuron and include Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's diseases. Understanding some of the principles of
protein folding has helped to explain how such diseases arise. Nature
426, 900-904 18 Dec 2003.
"processes of production, gender transformation, kinship, and
cosmology create value.. symbolic and social analysis of the
production, consumption, and circulation of meat..value of these foods
derives not just from labour, but also from cultural notions of desire
and cosmology..modeled on a complex, multi-stranded theory of
kinship." The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Volume
10, Number 4, December 2004 , pp. 883-902(20)
Chris
Nicolas
A post on the subject of Wrangham's book by www.30bananasday.com 's
resident Dr mathematician:
------------------------------------------------
The trouble with most books on empirical sciences is that as soon as
they are printed, the information in them may become outdated. This is
why reading most recent papers in (internationally-recognized)
scientific journals is a more accurate way of learning about the
current state of science.
Wrangham argues that human ancestors learned to tame fire and cook
food 1.9 million years ago [1], which changed our appearance (small
jaw etc) and made us human. His book was published in May 2009.
However, in October 2009, the scientists announced the discovery of
Ardi, the humanoid and our ancestor from 4.4mln years ago, well before
the invention of cooking, that already had the human-like features,
including the ability to walk upright, small face and small canines
[2, 3].
When browsing through those recent papers on Ardi, it is evident that
the scientists still speculate about the details and there is a number
of various hypotheses, which is the standard feature of empirical
sciences in which hard-core proofs do not exist. Nevertheless, some
conclusions emerge, such as the raw diet consisting of less hardy
matter. This makes sense, for example, bonobo have less prominent jaw
when compared to common chimpanzees, and their diet, besides the soft
fruit, consists of much softer green matter than the tough vegetable
matter present in the diet of common chimpanzees. Also, bonobo are
also far less aggressive than common chimpanzees [4].
It is worth mentioning here that an interesting theory explains the
evolution of human brain through the lenses of our frugivorous origin
[5].
(A minor note, as far as the mathematically flawed calorie model, its
inaccuracy has been explained extensively at other posts on this
forum.)
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catching_Fire:_How_Cooking_Made_Us_Human
2. “Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids”, Tim
D. White et al, VOL 326 SCIENCE, 2 October 2009, page 64
3. “The Ardipithecus ramidus Skull and Its Implications for Hominid
Origins”, Gen Suwa et al, VOL 326 SCIENCE, 2 October 2009, page 68
4. “The Social Behavior of Chimpanzees and Bonobos: Empirical Evidence
and Shifting Assumptions”, Craig B. Stanford, Current Anthropology,
Vol. 39, No. 4 (Aug. - Oct., 1998), pp. 399-420
5. http://www.kaleidos.org.uk/
------------------------------------------------
Also, something a bit more tangental, from her blog:
------------------------------------------------
Anthropoids, including all great apes, take most of their diet from
plants, and there is general consensus that humans come from a
strongly herbivorous ancestry” [7]. Bonobos, “humans’ closest
relatives in the animal kingdom” [10], “eat mainly ripe fruit,
supplemented with herbaceous terrestrial plants” [11]. “Humans and
apes are remarkably similar biologically. In the wild, apes and
monkeys consume diets composed largely of plant foods, primarily the
fruits and leaves of tropical forest trees and vines. Considerable
evidence indicates that the ancestral line giving rise to humans (Homo
spp.) was likewise strongly herbivorous (plant-eating)” [6]. In fact,
“Humans are ancestrally derived from frugivorous primates” [3]. “Study
of the diet of frugivorous human ancestors is accordingly of relevance
to understanding the nutritional requirements of modern humans” [8]. A
frugivorous dietary heritage of humans is frequently posited [1][2][3]
[4]. The molar morphology of the earliest hominins implies “a fairly
frugivorous diet” [5]. “Comparative data suggests that human nutrient
requirements and most features of human digestive morphology and
physiology are conservative in nature and probably were little
affected by the hunter-gatherer phase of human existence” [6]. “We
were not biologically selected by the evolution process to eat the way
we do today” [9]. “The widespread prevalence of diet-related health
problems, particularly in highly industrialized nations, suggests that
many humans are not eating in a manner compatible with their biology.”
Consumption of “more fresh fruits and vegetables in greater variety”
is recommended [7].
[1] “Fruits, fingers, and fermentation: The sensory cues available to
foraging primates”, Dominy NJ, Integrative and Comparative Biol, 44
(4): 295-303, 2004.
[2] “Ferment in the family tree: Does a frugivorous dietary heritage
influence contemporary patterns of human ethanol use?”, Milton K,
Integrative and Comparative Biol, 44 (4): 304-314, 2004.
[3] “Ethanol, fruit ripening, and the historical origins of human
alcoholism in primate frugivory”, Dadley R, Integrative and
Comparative Biol, 44 (4): 315-323, 2004.
[4] “Evolutionary origins of human alcoholism in primate frugivory”,
Dadley R, Q Rev Biol, 75(1):3-15, 2000.
[5] “Origin of Human Bipedalism: The Knuckle-Walking Hypothesis
Revisited”, Richmond BG, Begun DR, Strait DS; Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology, 44:70-105, 2001.
[6] “Back to basics: why foods of wild primates have relevance for
modern human health”, Milton K, Nutrition, 16(7):480-483, 2000.
[7] “Nutritional characteristics of wild primate foods: do the diets
of our closest living relatives have lessons for us?”, Milton K,
Nutrition, 15(6):488-498, 1999.
[8] “The Comparative Biology of Ethanol Consumption: An Introduction
to the Symposium”, Dudley R, Dickinson M, Integrative and Comparative
Biology, 44(4):267-268, 2004.
[9] “Similarities of prostate and breast cancer: Evolution, diet, and
estrogens”, Coffey DS, Urology, 57(4 Suppl 1):31-8, 2001.
[10] “Divergence of T2R chemosensory receptor families in humans,
bonobos, and chimpanzees”, Parry CM, Erkner A, le Coutre J,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 101 (41): 14830-14834 OCT 12 2004.
[11] “The social behavior of chimpanzees and bonobos - empirical
evidence and shifting assumptions”, Stanford CB, Current Anthropology,
39 (4): 399-420 AUG-OCT 1998.
arc...@scfas.com
version.
We must first establish, which clearly you do not, exactly what his view
is and why so. Then we can consider if the sermon material is relevant
except as a theme on the fringes of what he proposes or perhaps more
important, despite the sermon.
You don't know what he proposes more then what you now guess from the
book title.
arc...@scfas.com
1.9 million years ago [1], which changed our appearance (small jaw etc)
and made us human. His book was published in May 2009."
This was of course not the only point he proposed of a system of
interrelated points. To be human was more then one change in one
physical feature. Jaw size had changed in the human line before, even
split into two size groups during one period.
"However, in October 2009, the scientists announced the discovery of
Ardi, the humanoid and our ancestor from 4.4mln years ago, well before
the invention of cooking, that already had the human-like features,
including the ability to walk upright, small face and small canines [2,
3].
When browsing through those recent papers on Ardi, it is evident that
the scientists still speculate about the details and there is a number
of various hypotheses, which is the standard feature of empirical
sciences in which hard-core proofs do not exist. "
As mentioned, there is much disagreement about this example. That it
had a small jaw could mean that as some say it was a side branch of the
human line. Many primates have small jaws. The size of jaws is perhaps
more of an adjustment from time to time and place to place as what is
required of it changes. Otherwise known as adaptive evolution. Jaws
can increase in size also.
I see the author's point as something of a strawman argument.
crisology
> I see the author's point as something of a strawman argument.
The 'strawman argument'/science fiction/mythology/lies of any species
adapting to cooked food (especially the claims humans adapted to
cooked meat) were made very clear, numerous times, in a variety of
ways, even before this thread began here. Now, isn't life in reality
boring? There's nothing new here...
C.
arc...@scfas.com
"The 'strawman argument'/science fiction/mythology/lies of any species
adapting to cooked food (especially the claims humans adapted to cooked
meat) were made very clear, numerous times, in a variety of ways, even
before this thread began here. Now, isn't life in reality boring?
There's nothing new here..."
Smile, not knowing what the author has as points allows this conclusion.
It is the kind of conclusion ignorance allows, with no reference one is
at liberty to conclude anything.
But with food theology in hand, it must be in error because the theology
says so. Who needs to bother with the points as the author develops
them, ignorance is the great liberating position.
Did the author indeed say humans adapted to cooked food or did he say
that assumingcooking of food led to changes in human anatomy and social
formations? Pre-humans were fully capable of using cooked food without
any "adaptation" as far as making use of it goes. My pets do it every
day because pet foods are cooked. No adaptation is required.
So the above is in itself a good bit of a strawman argument also.
One can only answer the above question if one has in hand his points and
evidence related to them. This the reason that having those bits of
info in hand before discussion proceed is so important. But some would
have the bliss of ignorance and the comfort blanket of the theology.
crisology
> not knowing what the author has as points...
I responded to each point in the first post I made in this thread. If
there are additional mystery 'points' you want to try to make, feel
free... Otherwise, tell the points-keeper in the sky about how you
were made by cooked pigs without ever having adapted to eat or breathe
the cremains safely.
>with no reference one is at liberty to conclude anything.
I provided references and conclusions based on research. See above.
> Who needs to bother with the points as the author develops
No points were 'developed' to support any claims of the author. Points
were refuted though... Take for instance the author's 'point'/lie
about how raw foodists risk bone 'problems' by not cooking food...
On Nov 3, 8:07 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> raw diets cause health problems. They include low bone mass
"CONCLUSION: A RF [raw food] vegetarian diet is associated with low
bone mass at clinically important skeletal regions but is without
evidence of increased bone turnover or impaired vitamin D status."
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Mar 28;165(6):684-9.
Perhaps the opposite is closer to being true and raw food diets could
actually make bones stronger/more compact somehow, while at the same
time carrying less weight/stress on the bones?
Heat shock (stress) proteins and autoimmunity in rheumatic diseases.
The rheumatic diseases (RDs) are characterized by acute and chronic
inflammation, and autoimmunity plays a major role in their
pathogenesis. evidence indicates that heat shock or stress proteins
(HSPs) may have an important role in the etiology/pathogenesis of
RDs.Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1993 Jun;22(6):357-74.
But there was enough information already available about Ardi that
would discourage a reasonable person from buying/promoting such a
science fiction book before the Ardi show aired last year, even if you
thought cooking didn't decrease nutrient content or increase cancer
risk.
> Did the author indeed say humans adapted to cooked food or did he say
> that assumingcooking of food led to changes in human anatomy and social
> formations?
I agree and did not challenge the belief that cooking of food may lead
to changes in social formations. One may choose to assume cooking led
to changes in human anatomy without convincing evidence but even if
some micro-evolution assumptions were partially/potentially possible
by such a process (a relatively recent process), what is known
according to the available research regarding cooked food is that no
human (or rat) can safely digest denatured proteins.
> Pre-humans were fully capable of using cooked food
And modern man is fully capable of using medications to help treat
symptoms of those using cooked food.
> without any "adaptation" as far as making use of it goes.
Without any adaptation 'as far as making use of it goes', cooked meat
still causes cancer. If it causes cancer, who cares about 'social
formations' maintaining cooked food rituals?
> My pets do it every day because pet foods are cooked.
And your pets don't have an increased risk of certain diseases (like
the increased cancer risk detected in the human and rat studies from
cooked meat/mentioned above)?
> No adaptation is required.
If no adaptation is required to safely consume cooked meat, are you
suggesting that cooking made your pets with 'no adaptation' too? And
are you experimenting with the same types of cooked foods as your
pets?
> So the above is in itself a good bit of a strawman argument also.
There was no strawman argument presented by myself, just a
clarification that humans haven't adapted to cooked food. This bared
mentioning since, if humans never really adapted to cooked food, it
comes as no surprise that humans still get sick consuming it. It
wasn't really an argument at all though since no support was provided
on your part for the claims regarding cooking making us human.
> One can only answer the above question if one has in hand his points and
> evidence related to them.
I'm not refuting the social formation points related to cooking
customs that you promoted. The point is that without adapting to
cooked food, humans (and rats) still increase their risks of cancer by
consuming the denatured proteins. Evidence was provided above, to
explain how cooking didn't make it safe to consume or even breathe in
the fumes from cooking, much less 'make us humans'. If humans haven't
adapted to cooked food, how can cooked food 'make us human', unless
you are suggesting a form of creationism in which cooked pigs are
believed to be making you human?
> bits of info in hand
Back up your claims after you show your hand instead of trying to hide
your hand.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
status. The entire of his points otherwise are not addressed. In fact
the bone bit is really a side comment and not central to his
interlocking system of points. We have here a strawman by ommission of
the core while dwelling on a side comment not related to the core. And
the posters conclusion about bone can be fully contested, but such is
irrelevant.
Without foundation based on the core is there reason to continue this?
It grows tiring to have to redirect the discussion where it belongs.
That is not to provide a platform for launching into the food theology
from which working backwards the author is declared in error for his
model.
Humans changed in anatomy and social structure from before homo erectus
and after with the coming of modern humans. What accounts for this?
One outstanding feature HE had that none before had was control of fire
and evry reason to think that the origin of cooking.
Now any model which is to be offered as an alternative must account for
the brief outline above and explain how it relates to the fact that
starting with He humans could occupy all parts of the earth and in every
known culture cooking is common to the adaptation to all parts of the
world.
No number of references to current research on nutrition is really
relevant to the question. That is not even to mention that every bit of
research referenced here can not be contested fully, and it can.
What benefit any diet of today might suggest, it is irrelevant to the
history as above in that humans have had success and had it cooking and
using most of what ever they ate and that just about anything they got
their hands on. That is the reality that any model must include.
crisology
> In the most recent post the only bit from the author used is about bone status.
After the second time refuting the claim raw food causes 'bone
problems' and asking for research to back the author’s ‘points’, it is
simply ignored, along with the other interlocking lies quoted from the
science fiction story. I could have also re-mentioned that the author
discourages consuming B12 raw too, or any number of lies that were
already addressed yet ignored by culturists promoting cooked food.
> The entire of his points otherwise are not addressed.
False. The 'points' were covered in the first post I made in this
thread, many of which were also addressed before you re-introduced the
cooked topic again here.
> the bone bit is really a side comment
Side comments/side lies, 'main points' and 'subject line' have all
been covered repeatedly. If you have any new info, feel free to share
it.
> not central to his interlocking system of points.
The interlocking system of ‘central’ and ‘side comment’ lies have been
exposed.
> ommission of the core
The core of lies was addressed. If humans really were created by
cooked food, they wouldn't get sick consuming it. There is an
incongruity in that. Who cannot recognize it?
> is there reason to continue this?
You’re asking me why you have to get the last and first word, with no
science in between on your part?
> It grows tiring to have to redirect the discussion
Tell it to the point-master in the sky.
> humans could occupy all parts of the earth
And acquire cancer in new ways/locations, as opposed to eating food in
its natural/raw state.
> in every known culture cooking is common to the adaptation
On Jan 5, 6:41 pm, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
foods are cooked. No adaptation is required.
> No number of references to current research on nutrition is really relevant
When you are trying to suppress natural/healthy diets, relevant data
becomes irrelevant to the secondary motives.
History doesn’t dictate natural diets. If a diet is really natural, it
is biochemically compatible and there is no question about whether it
is healthy because of course it does not cause diseases, it is
suitable and digested as natural food. Real food doesn't cause
disease, real food prevents disease. But if you can’t even digest a
food without disease risk, who cares about the history? I don’t care
about who or how long people have customarily been smoking or cooking
meat.
> What benefit any diet of today might suggest, it is irrelevant to the history
Who is arguing against cooking history? History is irrelevant to
digestion/health science today and during the Paleolithic era. Looking
back in history, humans also smoked. Its obvious cooked food isn't the
only custom that humans did not adapt to.
> humans have had success
In spite of diseases caused by cooking food.
> and had it cooking
Congratulations, you successfully learned to flip a burger. No doubt,
there are intense social-formation pressures operating that compel
culturists to minimize, lie and distort the truth about biochemically
compatible/healthy food. If you are habituated to the taste of cooked
food then enjoy it but don’t create unnecessary stories to try to
influence others that humans were somehow made by cooked food.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
has not been addressed other then in a flip off manner.
We see the record of changes in human anatomy and social behaviors over
time. We see humans coming from a narrow niche of occupation to being
able to occupy all parts of the globe. The author offers a model to
account for the details of what is known about that change.
Any manner nor amount of mucking about in a particular take on preferred
and dearly held food theology about "nutrition" habits does not address
his model.
If one wants to suggest another model which accounts for the same set of
details, let it be so. But so far in this discussion, if it can be
called that, no such model has been presented.
Sermonizing about that dearly held theology of preferred dietary habits
is not a model of that kine.
Seeking every oppertunity to launch into that sermonizing does not
serve, it is only so much diversion and noise to obscure the fact that
the theology does not account for the details of the changes seen in
humans.
Let us see if we can rescue this from this continued failure. Let us
take it one point at a time. What model of change in anatomy as
observed can be offered different then the one the author offers which
also accounts for the details?
crisology
> the core idea of the author has not been addressed
The ‘core idea’ among others was addressed long before you advertised
the popular press book here.
First you demanded point by point response to the lies you posted
about cooked food:
On Nov 19 2009, 7:53 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> point by point show in the evidence at hand where the authors were in error
And as referenced by another, Forti already did this most succinctly:
http://www.ecologos.org/wrangham.htm
And again the lies about raw diet diseases and false health claims of
cooked food were also addressed here On Dec 27 2009, 2:19 am:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan.science/browse_thread/thread/6724b5a5d6a7330f?hl=en#
After the entireties of the claims made about humans cooking food were
addressed, you suddenly pled to narrowly focus on 'the subject line'
of the post.
On Dec 28 2009, 6:13 pm, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> address the subject line as to diet and human evolution.
On Jan 1, 4:26 am, crisology <crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
> The topic and title (which isn't supported by any of the information
> in the popular press article) is: "Cooking made us human"
> But cooking didn’t make humans. Humans made cooking.
After that was covered, you then complained about 'main points'
needing to be addressed and dismissing responses as only addressing
‘side comments’ which you claimed as part of an ‘interlocking system
of points’ (flowless chart of lies) that you promoted, nonetheless.
On Jan 7, 8:46 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> the bone bit is really a side comment
Of course none of the side comments in the article were ever supported
to begin with and they were categorically refuted very early. Now you
want some philosophical 'core idea' to be addressed too…
The core ‘idea’ of cooking food to occupy areas outside human
ecological niche was addressed many times here as the psychological
expression of secondary motives. But secondary motives of human
explorers to consume cooked food for urban sprawl did not allow humans
to adapt to cooked food.
> We see the record of changes in human anatomy and social behaviors over time.
Yet socialites still haven’t adapted to cooked food and cooked food
still causes cancer.
> We see humans coming from a narrow niche of occupation to being able to occupy all parts of the globe.
Yet no matter where humans go, their inability to digest cooked food
remains.
> The author offers a model to account for the details of what is known about that change.
Your author offered an unsupportable flowless chart that directly
conflicts with new and old information across disciplines
(anthropology/health science).
> If one wants to suggest another model
It was done. National Geographic aired it last year.
"Males would be far more successful food-providers if they had their
hands free to carry home loads of fruits and tubers—which would favor
walking on two legs. Females would come to prefer good, steady
providers with smaller canines over the big fierce-toothed ones who
left as soon as they spot another fertile female. The results, says
Lovejoy, are visible in Ardipithecus, which had small canines even in
males and walked upright."http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/
2009/10/091001-ardipithecus-ramidus-ardi-oldest-human-fossils-sex.html
So the model was provided and all points were addressed here but while
you sat on your hands and demanded more evidence to refute, you had
none to support the popular press article you tried to promote.
On Dec 29 2009, 9:57 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> None of the above is mine to support. I need not address..."
> Sermonizing
Airborne mutagens produced by frying beef, pork and a soy-based food.
Airborne cooking by-products from frying beef, pork and soybean-based
food were collected, extracted, tested for mutagenicity and chemically
analysed. The fumes generated by frying pork and beef were mutagenic,
with 4900 and 1300 revertants/g of food cooked, respectively. Bacon
fried to a well-done but non-charred state was 8 times more mutagenic
in a microsuspension Ames/Salmonella test (TA98 with S-9) than
hamburgers and about 350 times more mutagenic than tempeh. Well-done,
non-charred, bacon had almost 15-fold more mass (109.5 ng/g) than that
of the beef. 2-Amino-l-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP)
was the most abundant HCA, followed by 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-
f]quinoxaline (MeIQx) and 2-amino-3,4,8trimethylimidazo[4,5 f ]
quinoxaline (DiMelQx).
The total amounts of HCAs in the smoke condensates were 3 ng/g from
fried bacon, 0.37 ng/g from fried beef and 0.177ng/g from fried soy.
This study indicates that cooks are potentially exposed to relatively
high levels of airborne mutagens and carcinogens and that long-term
sampling inside restaurants and kitchens may be warranted in order to
assess the potential risk of prolonged exposure. Food and Chemical
Toxicology V 33, 10, Oct 1995, 821-828.
Some culturists may find this data ego-dystonic or 'irrelevant' to
book sales.
On Jan 7, 8:46 am, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> No number of references to current research on nutrition is really relevant to the question.
It is a requirement that nutritional data be ignored to adopt the
customs of cooking meat.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
seen from the time of Homo Erectus to modern humans? The author has a
model in which the adoption of fire as a tool plays a role. What other
models account for the change?
crisology
> The question pending is how do we account for the changes in anatomy
> seen from the time of Homo Erectus to modern humans?
Which change of anatomy and how do they relate to health or nutrition?
Scroll to read about what was already covered, then respond to any
point you disagree.
> The author has a model
Which was addressed (see above).
> the adoption of fire
Is not a biological adaptation to promote digestion or nutrition of
food. It was established above that cooking actually increases disease
risks.
> as a tool plays a role.
What 'role' are you specifically claiming based upon the popular press
article you promote? Your claim is not clear. The changes established
from cooking food are changes that impede digestion and promote
disease.
> What other models account for the change?
It depends on the specific 'change' you're alluding to/imagining. One
can guess about what you may be imagining regarding your assumptions
that fire caused you to change in some way that wasn't addressed. But
you have shirked from being clear about how fire relates to relevant
changes and what changes you are even imagining, instead demanding a
new 'model of change' from others to replace one cooked-up/popular
press model that was never scientifically established, to begin
with...
The model of Ardi, which aired on Discovery Channel recently,
addressed potential of relaxed selective pressure for large jaws and
teeth that the more aggressive primate relatives retained long before
and after H. erectus evolved. By the time Ardipithecus ramidus entered
the picture, the canines were already greatly reduced. So the large
differences in dentition that were previously/erroneously attributed
to distinctions of later species in the hominid lineage are now known
to have already existed millions of years earlier (well before fire
kindling)…
The surprise with A. ramidus is that her upper canines are not the
long, sharp pointy ones that are seen in male chimpanzees and related
species, but rather blunt stubby teeth more like modern humans.
Suwa, Gen, et al. 2009 Paleobiological Implications of the
Ardipithecus ramidus Dentition. Science 32:694-99.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol326/issue5949/images/data/74/DC1/326_74_Fa.jpg
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5949/74/DC1
The new analysis suggests our predecessors lacked tusk-like canines to
brawl with, or hand-like feet to swing from trees, dashing the popular
image of a chimp-like start for Homo sapiens. "We're going to have to
rewrite the textbooks on human origins," Lovejoy says. The 47-member
team published 11 reports on this fossil and on parts of at least 36
related ones found in Ethiopia's Afar Rift over 17 years.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091002/1ahumanancestor02_st.art.htm
The male teeth turn out to be surprisingly blunted. This result
suggests that hominids shifted away from a typical ape social
structure early in our ancestry. If this was a result of males forming
long-term bonds with females and helping raise young, this shift was
able to occur while hominids were still living a very ape-like life.
Ardipithecus existed about 2 million years before the oldest evidence
of stone tools, suggesting that technology was not the trigger for the
evolution of nice hominid guys.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/10/01/ardipithecus-we-meet-at-last/
So male ancestors carried plant food long distances on foot, engaged
in less aggressive courting rituals and females didn't advertise
swelling while monogamous relationships were necessary within the
direct hominid lineage. Fire kindling was unrelated to digestion and
nutrition and comes much later, partly for protection and to keep warm
after leaving ecological niche of the tropics.
Chris
arc...@scfas.com
> seen from the time of Homo Erectus to modern humans?
"Which change of anatomy and how do they relate to health or nutrition?"
Oh, that is your's to present, as you would have us think you have in
hand fully the author's modle upon which to comment. Health and
nutrition are your factors to show relevant in the model; indeed that
they play any inportant role whatsoever in it.
We are breaking the question into bits so you can deal with smaller
parts one at a time. Now you want us to think you don't even know this
small part of the author's model? On what basis then do you go on and
on with out addressing the model if you can not even address this part?
Should we break the question into even smaller parts until we find one
you can really address, based on your grasp of the model of course and
leaving aside irrelevant flights of fancy.
crisology
> > how do we account for the changes in anatomy
> > seen from the time of Homo Erectus to modern humans?
Some slight mutations and fallacies of positive instances are
addressed in a previous post, with references:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.vegan.science/msg/66e4d73c7dfa927d?hl=en&
> you would have us think
Apparantly, I'm no longer part of the 'in-group'. Regardless of how
closely synchronized in-group behavior patterns are coordinated, I'm
leery of consistent polarizing ('us-them'/'we-they' references) that
reflect commitments to social roles of in-group recruiters. Emphasis
of in-group appeal and attempts to polarize others reflect a
contrasting, marked disinterest in really experiencing (first-hand) or
examining (through unbiased research) the effects of plant-based diets
compared to animal consumption.
> you have in
> hand fully the author's modle upon which to comment.
Actually, I'm convinced something is missing from 'the author's
modle'...
> Health and
> nutrition are your factors to show relevant in the model; indeed that
> they play any inportant role whatsoever in it.
You suggested in the first post of this thread that there is something
in cooked animal products that prevents 'bone problems', for example.
I responded. Then you minimized the original claims as suddenly not
being relevant anymore...
On Jan 7, 11:46 pm, arch...@scfas.com wrote:
> bit from the author used is about bone
> status. The entire of his points otherwise are not addressed.. dwelling on a side comment not related to the core.
Could it be that without the false 'side comments' there is no
scientific 'core' to the assumption that humans adapted to cooked
meat?
If humans still get sick from meat, why assume humans ever adapted to
eat meat previously? Since humans still get sick (cancer,
diverticulitis, diabetes, obesity, hemorrhoids, CHD, Alzheimer's, etc)
from meat consumption, how are humans any better adapted to consume
meat as opposed to grains, cow milk, coke or candy?
> Now you want us to think
Not particularly.
> you don't even know this small part of the author's model?
Large and 'small part[s]' have been addressed (see above).
> Should we...
Coordinate your behavior however and with whoever you want to be
affiliated with.
> break the question into even smaller parts until we
The fully incongruent parts of the cooked up story don't make sense
and the whole of the cooked up ideas don't make sense together
either.
Chris