Don Matesz wrote:
I wrote:
>>Neanderthals ... as long time ice age hunters - they should
>>have had the very best access to ... DHA.
Don:
>No, they did not have "the very best access" to DHA. Only
>animals in the marine food chain have the very best access to
>DHA, but Neanderthals did not eat fish!
>No, land herbivores' brains do not have "all" the DHA required.
>Land herbivores have rather small brains which naturally contain
>only small amounts of DHA. For example a hippo's brain is only
> .59 kg.....
How big that animal brains ever may be- the percentage of DHA in them
is similar, isn't it? About 0.5 percent.
So you just had to eat eat 4 oxes' brains once in your lifetime
to ingest what's necessary to build up even a very very big human
brain. Ok, there is a rate at which EFAs have to be replenished
but the rate should be much lower that to build up the whole thing,
don't you think so?
This is why I still see game hunters (like neanderthals)
as having the very best access to DHA.
But their brain remained similar to cats' (as you describe it).
But I *don't* think that brain eating or DHA eating was essential
to having large and functional brains, IMO not.
Otherwise we would have lost the metabolic capability
to build it up ourselves from precursors, just like cats lost it.
>If you don't replenish the brain with EFAs on an ongoing basis,
>..... This may result in various adult onset
>neurological/behavioral disorders, as is well discussed in The
>Omega Plan by Artemis Simopolous M.D.
The Omega Plan describes disorders by insufficient w-3 fat supply,
which may be precursors or DHA itself.
IMO this is indeed a very justified observation since the common
western diet (including heavy meat and many vegetarian diets)
come short in supplying the essential w-3 and even w-6 fats
(in addition to a seemingly odd ratio).
Cereals and cows muscle *only* lack it.
>>Later,in europe two big different cultures emerged (with
>>agrigulture) megalith and linearband -- the latter without
>>access to coast products. But no difference in brain size or
>>shape is reported.
>Was there trading? Most likely so--the inland people trade for fish
>and sea weeds all over the world. In fact it was essential for
>access to iodine (important for preventing cretinism) and DHA.
Neolithic trading was on long ranges with flintstone for example.
But fish go bad (this means poisonous) in a matter of a few hours.
Drying isn't such easy, especially polyunsaturated fats easily go
rancid. Rancid means danger for the liver.
I think we don't have to think of a neolithic trader, going (on foot)
from France - or over the alps- just to carry a few fish.
>Although there may be no difference in brain size or shape, there
>may be difference in EFA contents of brain tissue and consequent
>differences in intelligence or neurological health.
And there are no indications that Paris or Munich or Prag
areas neolithic inhabitants where of different intelligence than
those of the coastal regions like western France.
Humans are capable to synthesise EFAs from the proper precursors.
Oh, one I know: megalith people built those marvellous beautiful
and impressing megalith sites. Megalith lived near coastlines.
For ex.: http://www.bretagne.com/english/doc/histoire/megalith.htm
But these sites were built shortly after grains and pulses
arrived. Not in thousands of years fishing and hunting before.
Perhaps the rich availability of thiamin (nerve vitamin)
and carbohydrates is the right puzzlestone.
I consider the w-3 fat topic as relevant, especially a hint,
in which way today's *usual* nutrition (SAD) is wrong
and how the true paleolithic nutrition may have been.
But I wouldn't build a whole theory
of encephalization and human origin on this topic.
Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australipethines, Neanderthals.
they all would have had problems to *catch* much fish other than mussles.
Nets and fishooks are a recent invention only about 40kyears old.
regards
Amadeus
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
|
