30 Bananas a Day!

How a raw food diet kept primates stupid! A friend sent me this , Hase anyone a good responge?

Gathered around a blazing fire, our ancient ancestors probably huddled to pass the archaic kebab, munching cooked meat and figuring out how they might share it and plan to get more of it. Eating cooked food allowed these early hominids to spend less time gnawing on raw material and digesting it, providing time and energy to do other things instead, like s...

ocialize. The strenuous cognitive demands of communicating and socializing forced human ancestors to develop more powerful brains, which required more calories - calories that cooked food provided. Cooking, in other words, allowed us to become human. A new paper examines the metabolic restrictions of a raw diet, and suggests that our primate cousins are limited by their inability to heat their dinners. It bolsters the cooking hypothesis of Richard Wrangham, a primatologist and professor of biological anthropology at Harvard who believes cooking is our legacy. Brazilian biomedical scientists Karina Fonseca-Azevedo and Suzana Herculano-Houzel note that the largest primates do not have the largest brains, a perplexing question. Encephalization (a larger brain size per body size than you'd expect) has long been thought to be a key feature setting humans apart from other primates, and mammals as a whole, but there is no consensus on how or why this happened. “We consider this disparity to be a clue that, in primate evolution, developing a very large body and a very large brain have been mutually excluding strategies, probably because of metabolic reasons,” the authors write. They’re the first to try and quantify these limits. “You would think, ‘Surely people have thought about this stuff before,’” Wrangham said in an interview. “But nobody has ever thought about the fact that cooking gives you more energy.” This is a central thesis of Wrangham's 2009 book, "Catching Fire." He argues that the control of fire allowed early hominids to not only cook their food, but obtain warmth, allowing them to shed body hair and in turn run faster without overheating; to develop calmer personalities, enabling social structures around the hearth; and even to form relationships among men and women--in short, to become human. “My day job is studying chimpanzees in the wild, and I have often studied feeding behavior. I have tried to survive on what chimps eat,” he said. Really? “If I don’t have any food with me, I just eat what they eat. And that told me that what they eat is totally unsatisfying,” he continued. “I thought about what would happen if humans had to live like chimps. And that took me very rapidly to the conclusion, within a few minutes, that as long as we’ve been human, it’s hard to imagine how we could live on raw food.” Wrangham’s ideas follow the expensive-tissue hypothesis. That concept predicts an inverse relationship between brain size and gut size--to accommodate a large, human-sized brain, our guts shrank relative to our primate cousins. Imagine the pot belly of a gorilla, Wrangham notes. This paper doesn’t even address gut size, just the requirements of our hungry brains. “In order to be able to apply a sufficient number of calories to the brain, you have to be able to cook your food,” Wrangham said. “You can only afford to have a brain if you can supply a lot of energy to it.” The idea is that raw food just doesn’t provide enough calories. You have to get out more than you put in, and raw food takes a lot more work (meaning calories) for your muscles and organs to chew and digest, resulting in a net decrease in the amount of calories available for the rest of your cells. But you can only spend so many hours of the day eating--there must be time to sleep, forage and procreate, too. This limits the amount of calories you can get per day, and it turns out this is directly related to how many neurons you can grow, according to Fonseca-Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel. The duo crunched numbers to figure out the metabolic costs of a human-sized brain, which is the third most energy-expensive organ in the human body, ranking below only skeletal muscle and the liver in terms of metabolic needs. The more neurons the brain has, the more energy it needs. If we ate an only-raw diet, to maintain the body size we humans possess, as well as the number of neurons our brains possess, people would have to eat for more than 9 hours per day, they found. Cooked food allowed Homo erectus to overcome these limitations, they conclude. Like Wrangham, the authors also see a feedback loop in the history of feeding. Along with increasing the efficiency of our food intake and eliminating limits on growth, eating cooked food would have increased the time humans could spend around the fire, time spent together. Socializing, along with other “cognitively demanding” activities--like developing speech, social structure and civilization--would have required more brain power. And humans could afford to develop these more powerful brains, thanks to their improved, cooked diet. This positive feedback drove the rapid increase in neurons that took place in human evolution, the authors say. It makes perfect sense, if you think about it. Cooking does some of the work of digestion for us, as Wrangham puts it. “Molecules are moving faster under the influence of heat; they are breaking up or shaking apart from each other, and that’s essentially what happens in digestion, the denaturating of proteins,” he said. “They lose their structure, and become more accessible.” As an example, he and others have investigated the effects of cooking on starch molecules and humans’ ability to digest cooked versus raw grains. Simply cooking starchy foods increases the net energy gain by 30 percent, he said. “The grains themselves represent long chains of glucose, which are very difficult to digest until they have been gelatinized; you are opening up these chains,” he said. Take, for example, a simple white sauce of flour and butter. You have to stir constantly over even heat, letting the water in the butter invade the starch molecules in the grain. “Then you get this change in consistency, where the whole thing becomes a continuous colloid, and the starch grains have become gelatinized. The result is that it will be easier to digest,” Wrangham said. “Our body pays fewer calories for the digestion.” Although this paper doesn’t address the raw foodist culture directly, Wrangham does, arguing that humans are not adapted to eating raw food. Subsisting on raw foods is a hugely effective way to lose weight, which in and of itself suggests that it’s not enough for healthy development. Your body needs more calories than it is consuming, so it starts consuming your fat reserves as a supplement. “If you want to lose weight, a raw food diet is the best thing you can do--it’s very well-balanced in vitamins, and well mixed in terms of macro nutrients. But you have to be careful ... the evidence is pretty strong that it would be really dangerous to bring a child up on a raw diet,” he said. “Partly for that reason, I’m delighted to see this paper that emphasizes the importance of cooking for the evolution of the brain. I hope it will deter people who are overly enthusiastic about their raw food diets.”

Views: 1363

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A misleading graphic in my view. It doesn't specify which "raw foods" are eaten. If I was trying to get 3000 calories per day from spinach then yeah I'd probably need over 10 hours to do it (if I could do it at all). 3000 calories from dates I could comfortably do that in an hour, no problems!

Actually, the writer is working from the premise that raw fooders eat like chimps! Lol. A pointless exercise.

You mean dehydrated nut-pies and salads doused in bragg's amino acids? :D

have those scientists ever looked at fruit? or just veggies and leafy greens????????? and why does cooked food give you more energy? and why do our bodies need fewer energy for digesting cooked food when it sits in your guts for days? so confusing!

Well this clearly shows that humans should be rounding up other primates and feeding them cooked food in order to speed up their evolution so they can have "our" level of thinking...We owe it to them!


If i do remember well, there are some studies showing that monkeys in captivity, being fed with processed/cooked food develop degenerative symptoms similar to those of  SAD-humans.....

We know that cooking results in a decrease in micronutrients and significant damage to the macronutrients available to us. Heat = chemistry. Heated fats, proteins and carbs in fact DULL brain/nerve function, as anyone can confirm by simply bringing their consumption of cooked food to a halt, ten reintroducing it. How can "foods" of an inferior nutritional quality possibly cause a brain growth spurt? By this theory, shouldn't other animals fed cooked foods also experience an increase in brain size or some supernatural behaviors? Instead we see them suffer from many of the same diseases that we, as cooked food eating humans, suffer. This is incomplete and even contradictory: it's "well-balanced and well-mixed" in terms of micro/macronutrients yet is unsuitable for a child? Weight loss automatically suggests a diet is unhealthy? Huh? I wonder if they are aware that you can lose weight on ANY food substance if one doesn't consume enough calories? it also seems to indirectly suggest that we should see a correlation between fatter humans (taking in more cals than they're expending), and healthier bodies + more "intelligent" individuals. Not the case at all...

This is true to an extent.  It does explain why so many people have to eat loads of calories on this diet.  But sweet, ripe fruit is very easy to digest and absorb so I think it is comparable to cooked food.

Corporations selling processed foods and drugs to keep you from dying from processed foods pump out tons of BS like this. hahahah  Lets ignore Mother Nature 

I was just wandering how was possible to discover cooked food if they were still eating raw so they were still dumb? I think these theories just prove that we shouldn't trust scientist so much not to mention evolution!!

Professor Wrongham is a cooked food proponent whose obvious bias drips from every word he utters. The mere fact that people thrive on a raw diet blows his whole argument to hades. 

Where do they actually take the average human body weight from, certainly not from western industrialized countries...and to compare a sedentary human with a gorilla aka pure muscle mass is amusing too.



TheBananaGirl created this Ning Network.

30BaD Search

Latest Activity

luke left a comment for Mean Vegan Girl
luke and Mean Vegan Girl are now friends
Melissa Grace left a comment for Raisa
OrganicMark posted a status
"Covid911 INSURGENCY #evolution #awakening #peace #truth #love #light https://j.mp/2YKEZ1O"
Jul 1
OrganicMark posted a status
"!! DANGER !!Test Shows Oxygen Levels Drop into the DANGER ZONE FIVE SECONDS After Putting on a Mask. #truth #light https://j.mp/2ZeLBog"
Jun 29
Lucas mcclaren's photo was featured
Jun 29
Eunice Su-Ai joined Marina's group
Jun 28
TheBananaGirl replied to Raini Pachak's discussion Oh, hey.
Jun 25
Zeus Lopez Perez posted a discussion
Jun 25
OrganicMark posted a status
"Bayer Pays $10BN To Settle Thousands Of Monsanto Glyphosate Lawsuits #organic #fruits #vegetables #health #longevity https://j.mp/317rw5S"
Jun 23
Rus Talis replied to pradtf's discussion great site with nutritional research information
Jun 14
Rus Talis commented on ednshell's video
Jun 13
ednshell commented on ednshell's video
Jun 10
ednshell posted a video

Lies, Coverups, Google, Censorship, and the Whistleblower of the Year: Zach Vorhies (Part 1)

Charlene interviews the Whistleblower of the year, Zach Vorhies! Zach has done what few others have dared to do, tell the truth about Google and Big Tech and...
Jun 10
Lucas mcclaren posted a photo
Jun 10
Profile IconSean, Magdalena, George Gagnon and 2 more joined 30 Bananas a Day!
Jun 9

© 2020   Created by TheBananaGirl.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service