PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:11:26 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (62 lines)
Troy G. wrote:
>No human has a huge gut in comparison to his or her brain size.
>... Actually, the human gut is very small in comparison to
>the size of the human brain. The gorilla's gut is very large in
>comparison to it's brain size.

I think this comparison is rather far-fetched.
Comparing the anatomy of
the two beeings exactely with the *brain* - which is
anatomical extraordinary in humans.

With this method you would  probably find out, that humans
had a much too small
kidney, liver, heart... ansd so on.
Compare it to what else you want: total weight,
spine length, whatever.
Liver size is also a good candidate IMO because it deals with food.

>As indicated by the Expensive
>Tissue Hypothesis, this dissimilarity would seem to explain the
>difference between natural human and gorilla diets, the former
>being composed of a lot of animal protein and fat, the latter
>being primarily vegetarian.
Which "natural human diet" was here assumed?
If you consider the brain as the expensive tissue:
Have you thought about what a big brain of a human needs more,
compared to a small gorilla brain?

Brain fuel is *carbohydrates* (glucose) with the accompanying
B-Vitamins 1 and 2. Human guts (end even salvia) can digest
carbohydrates perfectely (as opposed to cats).

>The Expensive Tissue theory postulates that, based on the
>relatively small size of the human gut (upper and lower
>intestines) in comparison to the human brain, it is reasonable
>to assume that a natural human diet would be composed of
>nutrient-dense foods,  ...
Yes, and exactely food dense in *carbohydrate*.
Meat is not at all dense in glucose yield and as brain food.
For this purpose we have to look after something other,
and this is offered more dense  by roots and partially by nuts.

If gorillas would at once have the chance to live from the meat
of annother species (maybe find a trick to kill gazelles)
they possibly would multiply up to
fully explioting this new food source.
Provided they could *stand* the food. Even if not ideal.

The same applies if they found annother new food source, maybe
by gaining the manual capability to open nuts.

Human hands are such wonderfull versatile tools.
Humans found out many new ways to get food.

regards

Amadeus S.
(just reading Guns Germs and Steel from J.Diamond)

--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net

ATOM RSS1 RSS2