Don Matesz wrote:

about
>Ingrid Bauer wrote:



>>in refutation to the  argument about brain building requirements
>>for humans
>>presented by Don, this argument have been presented:


>><we actually develop bigger brains by growing them for longer
>> (not faster),
>><and most or all of the growth is completed during lactation


Don:

>I don't know what qualifications Ingrid has, but Dr. Michael
>Crawford, a
>renowned biochemist, is probably the world's leading expert on EFAs
>and brain development.  According to professor Crawford,
>"The brain is the
>earliest organ to develop. Seventy percent of the total maximum

>number of
>brain cells that anyone ever has were built inside the mother
>during fetal life. ...
>contrary to her claim, most
>actual formation of brain tissue actually occurs before lactation

jean-claudes reference cites: "completed during lactation"
which is perfect in line with that prof (70% developed earlier).
It just completes during lactation.
Btw human babies heads are so big - because of the big brain
that they come 2-3 monther earlier than
otherwise necessary.
Even though brain formation isn't comleted - it completes in the
first 3 months.
But otherwise babies wouldn' fit through the rather small birth
channel of women.



>If Ingrid is on track, then why is it that the placenta selects

>IN addition, If Ingrid's view is correct, then several things beg

>explanation:



>1)  WHY ARE HUMANS THE EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT OMNIVORES
>AND
>CARNIVORES HAVE MORE SOPHISTICATED NERVOUS SYSTEMS THAN HERBIVORES?


And crocodiles (eating all and predators) are more sophisticated
than elephants? Lions have a  more sophisticated nervous system
than gazelles?


>2)  Why do studies show that vegetarian moms have milk with lower
>DHA levels than omnivores?
I repeat my question of
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9811&L=paleofood&P=7302

>British vegetarian mothers' babies seem to have about the
>same DHA (2%) as American omnivores' babies (3%).
>(British omnivores babies have 6% DHA)

>There must be a factor that is much more relevant than beeing

>vegetarian - and this factor can be found between british and

>american nutrition.
which?



>3)  Why is it that carnivorous dolphins are the only animals with a
>brain  near human size (in relation to body mass)
Dolphins eat fish, not meat. You seem to suggest that DHA
availability *causes* big brains (despite crocodiles).
Humanity didn't have access to sardines or other cold water fish in
paleo-africa, did they?

>5)  Why is it that cross cultural studies show that (carnivorous)
>Japanese children are on average scoring significantly higher
>on IQ tests than non-Japanese?   Why is it that Japan is

>scientifically and technologically
>so much more innovative and economically potent than even the U.S.?

I bet U.S. citicen  eat much more meat than Japanese.
Probably less fish - certainly less rice. Hmm

So, paleofish? innovative-rice? technology-sushi?

Or could it be that there are some more correlation factors to IQ
than DHA in the food (cultural)?

regards
Amadeus






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