Wrangham's previous theory re cooked tubers being the main reason behind
the growth of the human brain and human evolution has already been largely
discredited:-
"Recent tuber-based hypothesis for evolutionary brain expansion fails to
address key issues such as DHA and the recent fossil record. As a case in
point, there has been one tentative alternative hypothesis put forward
recently by primatologist Richard Wrangham et al. [1999] suggesting that
perhaps cooked tubers (primarily a starch-based food) provided additional
calories/energy that might have supported brain expansion during human
evolution.
However, this idea suffers from some serious, apparently fatal flaws, in
that the paper failed to mention or address critical pieces of key evidence
regarding brain expansion that contradict the thesis. For instance, it
overlooks the crucial DHA and/or DHA-substrate adequacy issue just discussed
above, which is central to brain development and perhaps the most gaping of
the holes. It's further contradicted by the evidence of 8% decrease in human
brain size during the last 10,000 years, despite massive increases in starch
consumption since the Neolithic revolution which began at about that time.
(Whether the starch is from grain or tubers does not essentially matter in
this context.) Meat and therefore presumed DHA consumption levels, both
positive *and* negative-trending over human evolution, track relatively well
not simply with the observed brain size increases during human evolution,
but with the Neolithic-era decrease as well, on the other hand. [Eaton 1998]
These holes, among others in the hypothesis, will undoubtedly be drawing
comment from paleo researchers in future papers, and hopefully there will be
a writeup on Beyond Veg as more is published in the peer-review journals in
response to the idea. At this point, however, it does not appear to be a
serious contender in plausibly accounting for all the known evidence."
As for the issue of increased size/height/weight etc., I've been reading a
number of scientific papers, over the years, suggesting that too high a
rate of growth and size is bad for you - some cite this as a case of
nutritional deficiency, in the same way as being too short is due to the
same reasons. Here's a study indicating lower mortality and lower rate of
diet-related diseases for shorter people:-
http://tinyurl.com/2ht94d
So, if cooking greatly increases the size of the body, that may well not
be necessarily a good thing.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:24:24 -0500
>From: Tom Bri <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: iron deficiency
>
>http://yannklimentidis.blogspot.com/
>
>This is a nice web site with several current posts list members may find
>interesting. One on Iron deficiency, one on Wrangham and cooking.
>
>Interesting that cooking reduces energy spent on digestion. Mice and
>pythons
>(!) fed cooked meat, raw, ground and whole.
>
>The mice fed cooked meat grew larger.
>
>Some pretty significant differences in the number of calories gleaned by
>cooking. Lose weight by eating raw?
>
>I tend to eat lightly cooked meat, pink and bloody inside. Or, well cooked
>and smoked meat.
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of PALEOFOOD Digest - 1 Jul 2007 to 2 Jul 2007 (#2007-214)
>**************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
|
