pearl wrote:
> "ant and dec" > wrote in message ...
>> Martin Willett wrote:
> <..>
>> If mankind
>>> was herbivorous we'd never have become intelligent and socially
>>> cooperative, we'd just be living like gorillas. Like it or not meat was
>>> a vital part of what has made us human. But of course a was doesn't make
>>> an ought.
>> I agree meat was an important part of out human evolution.
>
> 'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
> in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
> in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
> the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
> strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
> for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
> allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
> provides the basis for such an alternative.
>
> The problem with big game hunting
>
> The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
> lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
> provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
> mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
> own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
> especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first appearance
> of this pattern the fundamental problem in human origins research.
> The common association between stone tools and the bones of
> large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests to many that it
> may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo erectus nearly
> two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).
>
> Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
> skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
> observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
> a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
> with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
> acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
> not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
> could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant foods,
> yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting serves some
> other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship (Hawkes et al. 1991).
> Whatever it is, reliable support for children must come from elsewhere.
>
> The importance of women's foraging and food sharing
>
> Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
> shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
> gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult time
> of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods younger
> children can procure for themselves are unavailable. Mothers respond
> by provisioning youngsters with foods they themselves can procure
> daily and at relatively high rates, but that their children cannot, largely
> because of handling requirements. Tubers, which require substantial
> upper body strength and endurance to collect and the ability to
> control fire in processing, are a good example.
>
> Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
> 1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
> otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
> were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
> assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
> next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
> allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
> status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
> grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
> enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
> effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new infants
> (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to both
> daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship, with
> important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
> ...
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt.../oconnell.html
>
> 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
> been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
> on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not
> least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
> From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
> were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during
> the interglacials. '
> http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm
>
> 'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
> until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago. Current
> calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet
> and, if we are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens,
> we may be consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust
> to by physiologic mechanisms.
>
> The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
> changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
> identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
> Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was
> much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to
> plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
> Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
> calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy
> products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
> ago. Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
> for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had
> a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones.
> As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of
> 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
> thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
> an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17
>
> High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
> high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
> United States.10,11
> ..
> The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
> were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
> activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
> even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
> high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20
> ..'
> http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html
>
> "..... Man appears to be formed to nourish himself chiefly on roots,
> fruits and the succulent parts of vegetables. His hands make it easy
> for him to gather them; the shortness and moderate strength of his
> jaws, the equal length of his canine teeth with the others, and the
> tubular character of his molars, permit him neither to graze, nor to
> devour flesh, unless such food is first prepared by cooking."
> -- Cuvier, Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73
>
> After a careful and exhaustive study into comparative anatomy,
> European scientist, Dr. Richard Lehne came to the conclusion,
>
> "Quite apart from the physiological findings of nutritional science,
> which perpetually alter and are always in an unsettled form,
> comparative anatomy proves - and is supported by the millions-
> of-years-old documents of palaeozoology - that human teeth in
> their ideal form have a purely frugivorous character."
> ..'
> http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...air/asthma.htm
>
>

Thanks for that. Very interesting; of particular personal interest was
the anthropological articles on calcium and osteoporosis.


:-)



The theory I was thinking of was the "brain food theory":


Brain food

Because meat is rich in calories and nutrients, easy-to-digest food,
early Homo lost the need for big intestines like apes and earlier
hominids had. This freed up energy for use by other organs. This surplus
of energy seems to have been diverted to one organ in particular - the
brain. But scavenging meat from under the noses of big cats is a risky
business, so good scavengers needed to be smart. At this stage in our
evolution, a big brain was associated with greater intellect. Big brains
require lots of energy to operate: the human brain uses 20% of the
body's total energy production. But the massive calorific hit provided
by meat kick-started an increase in the brain size of early humans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_...thought1.shtml


Mind you, this was written by Robert Winston who's has sold himself to
the food industry.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/lords...560223,00.html
http://www.omega3.co.uk/omega3/pages/omega_3.php




>