Denis:
>>HOwever, I would point out that studies on adaptation
>>physiology concur in saying that a small stature is an advantage when
>>living in the tropical/equatorial zone (the more skin surface the higher the
>>evapo-perspiration...).
Jean-Louis Tu:
>I have never read about those studies, but the fact that a small stature
>is an advantage does not seem obvious to me.
Kirt:
It is not obvious to me either. If I was as strong and healthy as the
traditional Masai were, I would consider it a blessing, dairy or not! That
the Masai are so tall as a result of dairy is not an unreasonable
hypothesis to me, but whether that is a drawback, even a minor one, is not
clear. Tall people are often at an advantage socially, and humans, whatever
else they are, are social animals. (I remember mentioning to Melisa that
Ombodhi was 6'2"--I think I remember something like that--and she said,
"Really? Well, that changes my idea of him all around." Or: look at the
personal ads and see how many women list "tall" as a qualifier of what they
are looking for in a mate. Or: anthropologically-speaking, physical size is
(only) one factor in the ability to scare away a competitor, sexual or
otherwise, or even a _predator_...)
>And even if a high stature was a drawback in the tropical/equatorial zone,
>the Masai example seems to show that the arguments against raw milk may
>not be so serious. I know some babies show intolerances to cow's milk,
>and there is the story about Burger's infection.
Could you share this story with us?
>Maybe there are as many
>differences between cow's milk and woman's milk as between a cow and a
>woman, but we instinctos eat animals that are very different from those
>in the original African biotope. Tomatoes, avocadoes and many other fruits
>originate from the New World, and are very different from the Old World's
>fruits.
Interesting and valid points to my ears. I look at it like this: our
capacity for taste-changes should operate reasonably well with any thing in
the "original molecular set" (defined as prefire) including ocean water and
clay. Mammalian milk is clearly in this set, regardless of whether our
ancestors were dairy farming (they _weren't_). A deep sea fish like a large
tuna (or even a small cod) might be included in your list of foods our
ancestors weren't eating, but our taste buds seem quite able to tell us
useful things about whether we should eat it or not. Surely, our taste is
not fool-proof, but it is still the major tool we have in raw food
selection...Now, whether, raw yogurt or butter or cream will exhibit a
useful taste-change might be an open question--one for personal
experimentation, not for decree by nutritional experts, GC Burger, or
anyone else.
>Experience also shows that instinct does not always work. A friend of mine,
>although she likes pollen and used to absorb huge quantities of it, now has
>an acute stomach pain each time she eats even a tiny portion. Of course,
>one could object that pollen is not an "original" food, but I also
>personally know cases of allergy to seafood and to strawberries.
These are great examples, Jean-Louis Tu. They are the kind of stuff so
often glubbed over when instincto is touted as the perfect dietary.
Clearly, instincto practice will evolve over time, but only if it takes
into account such experiences. It is all too easy to say, "well, then they
are not using their 'instinct' properly like I do" or "it is just a detox
reaction", but such retorts can become a useless catch-all, especially if
the details of such ideas are not offered as part of the feedback.
Cheers,
Kirt
|
