Guest guest Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 Interesting one, Jeff. We must always remember that the perception taught in anthropology/paleontology is heavily influenced by our culture. The scientists cannot, for the most part, cannot conceive of humans on a plant-based diet. So they almost universally assume in the opposite direction. In this sense, " science " is not objective at all ... and science actually has a name for this phenomenon. It's called the " observer effect " .... the observer's own conceptions influence, at the very least, his/her interpretation of results, and at the very most, the actual results themselves. Best, Elchanan On Behalf Of Jeff Rogers Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:09 AM Article: Flash in the Pan Interesting combination of human history and raw foods... Flash in the Pan Hot for brains, raw for bodies By: Ari LeVaux Posted: 09/27/2007 http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm? do=article.details & id=42FA95CD-1372-FCBB-8392DBF0042C7ABF The brain of an adult human uses 25% of the total energy expended by the entire organism, much higher than our closest primate relatives, whose brains use about 8% of their energy. The high energy cost of building, using, and maintaining our brains has long presented a riddle to evolutionary theorists. Where did this extra energy come from? One idea is that as our ancestors switched to a meat-heavy diet, our large guts-which were capable of digesting large amounts of vegetative material-shrunk. Since meat generally contains a greater density of protein and calories than vegetables, this digestive shift allowed our ancestors to target a more efficient form of energy, while helping them develop the brainpower to hunt it. Evidence from many corners of the animal kingdom suggests that the meat eaters are smarter. But many scientists believe that the speed with which the human brain evolved suggests that a gradual shift to a meat based diet was too gradual to fully explain this development. " Cooking produces soft, energy-rich foods, " says Richard Wrangham, a primatologist at Harvard. This, he explains, increases the efficiency with which the food's energy is extracted. Fewer calories are spent in digestive efforts, which leaves a higher margin of caloric recovery. ------------------------- Even if it's true that cooked meat may have helped us evolve to where we are, I think it's worth considering that the next dietary breakthrough might come from the opposite culinary corner: raw vegetables! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 Interesting concept, isn't it? Similarly, doctors and nutritionists base their " expertise " on beliefs of what is and has been taught to them, not usually incorporating a broader scope of " truth " , so we may not be taught very important things, simply because it is not within their understanding. As a result we can't make an " informed " decision unless we do our own studying and research. Also, our written history was after the shift to animal products and (?) cooked foods. (I don't have statistics/details on this, but it is something I've noticed.) If science (and society) focusses a lot of attention on what is written, then there is a huge gap of " truth " . Jeff On Sep 29, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Elchanan wrote: > Interesting one, Jeff. We must always remember that the perception > taught in > anthropology/paleontology is heavily influenced by our culture. The > scientists cannot, for the most part, cannot conceive of humans on a > plant-based diet. So they almost universally assume in the opposite > direction. In this sense, " science " is not objective at all ... and > science > actually has a name for this phenomenon. It's called the " observer > effect " > ... the observer's own conceptions influence, at the very least, > his/her > interpretation of results, and at the very most, the actual results > themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 Indeed! On Behalf Of Jeff Rogers Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:49 AM Re: Article: Flash in the Pan Interesting concept, isn't it? Similarly, doctors and nutritionists base their " expertise " on beliefs of what is and has been taught to them, not usually incorporating a broader scope of " truth " , so we may not be taught very important things, simply because it is not within their understanding. As a result we can't make an " informed " decision unless we do our own studying and research. Also, our written history was after the shift to animal products and (?) cooked foods. (I don't have statistics/details on this, but it is something I've noticed.) If science (and society) focusses a lot of attention on what is written, then there is a huge gap of " truth " . Jeff On Sep 29, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Elchanan wrote: > Interesting one, Jeff. We must always remember that the perception > taught in > anthropology/paleontology is heavily influenced by our culture. The > scientists cannot, for the most part, cannot conceive of humans on a > plant-based diet. So they almost universally assume in the opposite > direction. In this sense, " science " is not objective at all ... and > science > actually has a name for this phenomenon. It's called the " observer > effect " > ... the observer's own conceptions influence, at the very least, > his/her > interpretation of results, and at the very most, the actual results > themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.