02-24-06, 08:28 PM #1
natural diets of humans
A cat catches a mouse and have all the nutrients it needs to live long and prosper. Listening, reading, seeing all kinds of food peddling, nutrition "gurus", etc. one gets an impression that humans must consume dozens and dozens kinds of fruits and vegetables, meats, grains, milk products, fish... to have a balanced diet. Common sense suggests that such a variety is a huge disadvantage in the battle for survival. Even today, only the top 1% richest humans can afford to eat according all that nutrition science. Could be nature so cruel to humans? What is the diet was meant for humans? Humans are omnivores, but even omnivores could not live according to the nutrition science in the wild.
02-24-06, 08:36 PM #2
Originally Posted by dixonmassey
02-24-06, 08:51 PM #3
Part of why we need such varied diets is because we're all lazy good for nothing couch potatoes, and because we live longer than in the wild.
The diet they tell you to have is in part that way to keep you thin and in good shape, to lower the risk of cancer, blah blah blah. Things people "in the wild" don't have to worry about. They get more than enough exercise as it is, and they die before they get a chance to develop cancer and all the other stuff. lol... that sounds evil.
02-25-06, 04:45 PM #4
As recently as a hundred years ago, only about half the population reached the age of forty. Those who did had an average life expectancy of twenty more years. Nutrition wasn't a big issue because, as Wolf says, people were too busy dying of influenza, smallpox, heart attacks, polio, cancer, work-related accidents, war, and exposure to the elements. I haven't found the statistics but I'm sure that the only nutrition-related cause of death in the top ten was plain old starvation.
Today people in the prosperous Western nations who are forty can expect to live to be eighty or more. Nutrition is a big factor in that and it's been turned upside down. The biggest nutritional problem among America's poor is obesity. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in that age group and heart disease is primarily an issue of nutrition. But general robustness and resistance to illness is also heavily impacted by nutrition.
Some nutritional concerns are indeed the result of our more sedentary lifestyle, as Wolf states. Obesity correlates negatively with life expectancy and it's not easy for an office worker to maintain a stable, healthy weight when his maintenance diet is less than 2,000 calories but he still has the instincts of his migratory, hunter-gatherer ancestors who ate more than 3,000 calories.
But others are simply the result of food technology. The dawn of agriculture eight to ten thousand years ago converted us to a grain-based diet that doomed our bodies to an eternal battle to retain minerals. "Natural food" junkies, vegetarians, vegans, everyone except the most obsessive simulators of a Mesolithic diet need to either eat food that has added minerals or to take mineral supplements. Fresh produce is expensive, prohibitively so for many people if it's available to them at all; canned or otherwise preserved fruits and vegetables have lost many of their vitamins, so most of us need to take vitamin supplements also, or else eat vitamin-enriched cereal which is probably more expensive than real food and still not as rich in nutrients.
The processed food that many of us take for granted is loaded with preservatives which have long-term health effects. Great strides have been made in mitigation over the past couple of decades, but partial hydrogenation of fat remains one of the most widely practiced ways to make food that is cheap, retains flavor, doesn't require refrigeration, and has a long shelf life, and the trans-fatty acids created in the partial hydrogenation process have lately been targeted as the leading cause of heart disease.
The reasons we need to plan our diets are complex and varied, but in general they are the results of civilization. Personally I think the tradeoff is a no-brainer. I'd much rather read the ingredients on everything I buy and do exercises to work off the extra calories than live a survival-obsessed Stone Age life.
02-25-06, 04:54 PM #5
What you need to eat depends on your metabolism, lifestyle, gender, age, etc.
It's all very complicated, you need basic things such as proteins, various vitamins etc. There is a craze at the moment for people to get omega 3 and 6, which improves memory functions as it helps stimulate neurone connections in the brain, along with improving the joints.
There are so many restrictions in our ideal diet because half of the things we have access to now we wouldn't have had originally, so we haven't evolved to be able to cope with them, for example, you can't feed a dog cow's milk because it just isn't designed to be able to digest the different molecular structure. That was a bit off track, but the point is "nothing in moderation is harmful".
You can't say there's an ideal diet and generalise it to everyone, you have to make a specialised diet for each individual. You're athletes require more carbs, although that depends on if they're endurance or sprint athletes, and the list just goes on.
02-25-06, 09:44 PM #6
Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
What facts are really known? If possible give journal references, definitely not Healthfood store promotional handouts etc.
02-26-06, 11:30 AM #7
The following table exsplains the nessacary amounts of food that should be consumed by a human,( this is calculated based on the hydrogen atom, much simular a atomic clock). The food quanity needed to be comsumed per person per day are exspressed in dry weight,The amount food nessacy in natural weight meaning with water content could be many time heavier as some foods are as much as 90% water, where a quanity of 6 pounds dry weight would then result in a weight of 60 pound of food to be consumed by a person, being that 90% of that weight is water. Hard for some to imagine that such quanity of food is the natural consumption rate of humans, how ever when we look at animals of the same size (bear ect..)or simular to humans such as gorillas ect... we find they consume within this range, even animals not simular consume such relavant quanites in comparison to body weight.
Food in the wild is eatten in groups, such a person in the wild would find 10 pounds of berries in one pasture, and in another 7 pounds of potatos or roots and in another 40 pounds of fish, usally eating there fill in a matter of a few hours and then eatting again the same food source within several hours. in general the liver proccess about 9 to 12 pounds of food a day dry weight(after digestion of the stomach) so 60 pounds of wet food is not out of the human range of digestion and bodly use.
Consider as well that some animals do not drink water so readily as they get the water they need from the food source being that it is 90% water,(Raw Food).
Modern humans have devised what is called the balanced diet, for various reason, caloric,digestive absorbtion ect......
The Table is not based on caloric intake.
Table and notes from a pervious topic discussion,but may add some insight to the effects of human diet,socially and or indiviually considered.
ASIAN MEN.....................Body weight.............Nessacary daily dry Height............................Low/ Normal........... food consumption
5 ft. 1 inch [154.9 cm].....126lbs/ 141lbs [63.45kg].....4.23lbs [1.9035kg]
5 ft. 2 inch [157.5 cm].....129lbs/ 144lbs [64.80kg].....4.32lbs [1.9440kg]
5 ft. 3 inch [160.0 cm].....132lbs/ 148lbs [66.60kg].....4.44lbs [1.9980kg]
5 ft. 4 inch [162.6 cm].....135lbs/ 152lbs [68.40kg].....4.56lbs [2.0520kg]
5 ft. 5 inch [165.1 cm].....138lbs/ 156lbs [70.20kg].....4.68lbs [2.1060kg]
5 ft. 6 inch [167.6 cm].....142lbs/ 161lbs [72.45kg].....4.83lbs [2.1735kg]
5 ft. 7 inch [170.2 cm].....147lbs/ 166lbs [74.70kg].....4.98lbs [2.2410kg]
5 ft. 8 inch [172.7 cm].....151lbs/ 170lbs [76.50kg].....5.10lbs [2.2950kg]
5 ft. 9 inch [175.3 cm].....155lbs/ 174lbs [78.30kg].....5.22lbs [2.3490kg]
5 ft 10 inch [177.8 cm].....159lbs/ 179lbs [80.55kg].....5.37lbs [2.4165kg]
5 ft 11 inch [180.3 cm].....164lbs/ 184lbs [82.80kg].....5.52lbs [2.4840kg]
6 ft. 0 inch [182.9 cm].....168lbs/ 189lbs [85.05kg].....5.67lbs [2.5515kg]
6 ft. 1 inch [185.4 cm].....173lbs/ 194lbs [87.30kg].....5.82lbs [2.6190kg]
6 ft. 2 inch [188.0 cm].....178lbs/ 199lbs [89.55kg].....5.97lbs [2.6865kg]
6 ft. 3 inch [190.5 cm].....182lbs/ 204lbs [91.80kg].....6.12lbs [2.7540kg]
6 ft. 4 inch [193.4 cm].....186lbs/ 209lbs [94.05kg].....6.27lbs [2.8215kg]
Scale 1 pound(lbs) = 0.45 kg
ASIAN FEMALE.....................Body weight.......................Nessacary dry Height..............................Low / Normal....................food consumption
4 ft. 8 inch [142.2 cm].....104 lbs/ 119 lbs [53.55kg].....3.57lbs [1.6065kg]
4 ft. 9 inch [144.7 cm].....106 lbs/ 122 lbs [54.90kg].....3.66lbs [1.6470kg]
4 ft 10inch [147.3 cm].....109 lbs/ 125 lbs [56.25kg].....3.75lbs [1.6875kg]
4 ft 11inch [149.8 cm].....112 lbs/ 128 lbs [57.60kg].....3.84lbs [1.7280kg]
5 ft. 0 inch [152.4 cm].....115 lbs/ 131 lbs [58.95kg].....3.93lbs [1.7685kg]
5 ft. 1 inch [154.9 cm].....118 lbs/ 134 lbs [60.30kg].....4.02lbs [1.8090kg]
5 ft. 2 inch [157.5 cm].....121 lbs/ 138 lbs [62.10kg].....4.14lbs [1.8630kg]
5 ft. 3 inch [160.0 cm].....125 lbs/ 142 lbs [63.90kg].....4.26lbs [1.9170kg]
5 ft. 4 inch [162.6 cm].....129 lbs/ 146 lbs [65.70kg].....4.38lbs [1.9710kg]
5 ft. 5 inch [165.1 cm].....133 lbs/ 150 lbs [67.50kg].....4.50lbs [2.0250kg]
5 ft. 6 inch [167.6 cm].....137 lbs/ 154 lbs [69.30kg].....4.62lbs [2.0790kg]
5 ft. 7 inch [170.2 cm].....141 lbs/ 158 lbs [71.10kg].....4.74lbs [2.1330kg]
5 ft. 8 inch [172.7 cm].....145 lbs/ 163 lbs [73.35kg].....4.89lbs [2.2005kg]
5 ft. 9 inch [175.3 cm].....149 lbs/ 168 lbs [75.60kg].....5.04lbs [2.2680kg]
5 ft 10inch [177.8 cm].....153 lbs/ 173 lbs [77.85kg].....5.19lbs [2.3355kg]
5 ft 11inch [180.3 cm].....157 lbs/ 178 lbs [80.10kg].....5.34lbs [2.4030kg]
6 ft. 0 inch [182.9 cm].....161 lbs/ 183 lbs [82.35kg].....5.49lbs [2.4705kg]
Scale 1 pound(lbs) = 0.45 kg
The above table defines the healthy body weight for asian people assorted by height it also provides the dry weight of food that needs to be consumed by the asian person.
From my observation i see that many asian appear to be under the appropiate weight for there group, this is a sure sign of the lack of food consumption by asians, as i said before is seems that rice as a staple fools the eatter into beliving that they have ate enough food when thay have not eatten enough.
This can be damageing in the long term exspecially so for males.
example and compare:
6 pounds of rice gives about 9,600 calories, the average human uses about 2,000 calories just walking around the house. sleeping, lazy activity this would require the consumtion of just over 1 pound of rice per day(1 pound rice = 1,600 calories). A active male under medium labor would use about 5,000 calories per day( 6,000 to 7,000 on the upper end of medium labor). A male under heavy labor such as mover, landscaper,weight lifter, will burn as much as 10,000 calories per day.
The issue becomes more complicated as the humans being beings to shead protien and calories from the urien and bowels roughly about the consumption of 4,000 to 5,000 calories. this means that a man preforming heavy labor burning 9,000 calories is out of fuel for half of the day, if he ate a 5,000 calorie meal which was the previous days dinner and the morning break feast, the mans body then must find a source of energy, that source of energy is the mans own body.
Such a circumstance can be damaging under exstended time frames, if the population is alrerady underweight, and not getting a sufficent amout of food source in density it can effect the progenery of the population.
I see this as a problem in asia, due to the use of rice as a staple, asian must learn to eat more rice.(more food)
02-26-06, 12:10 PM #8
REASEARCH has shown... a 30% reduced calorie diet... results in a much thinner animal... and much heathier... and more active...
and more importantly... it lives 30% longer....
so.. another reason to stay trim.. and eat less.(LESS CALORIES)\
AND SO... more salads... without dressing.
02-26-06, 12:12 PM #9
Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon
02-26-06, 12:24 PM #10
Well I would say that such was probally true for short periods of time, and depending on the activity of the animal. They must first grow to there fullest exstent,before a reduction of food intake by say 30%.
Most likly the increase in preformance observed is the result of the body consuming its own tissues, The body will always preform better on its own generated plasma then,one created from digestions of food.
Eventually the bodies celluar material thins and there is better organ communication, Chemical communication of the body between differeing organs.
Still the body must produce enough of its cells by the consumption of forgien foods, to allow it to in end result to consume its own mass and create a balanced plasma for the high preformance you suggested.
02-26-06, 12:35 PM #11
Ok well Billy what would base the human body on, a function of carbon.
There are only so many atoms of which to base a human on, there is carbon,oxygen and hydrogen, unless of course you would choose silicon which would be a exterior measurement.
Hydrogen was best,given its ablity to feed the comsic background providing stablity,and its polar sensitivity, and the large precentage of hydrogen in the human body. As well amoung other things, it seems to me that hydrogen feeds the carbon resulting in a product call life
Probally seems like nonsense to you because you do not consider the event of gravity, the solar influences as a part of the human being effecting food consumption.
02-26-06, 10:18 PM #12
Originally Posted by Billy T
It's pretty obvious in dogs, with their much shorter intestine and the concomitant much faster passage of food, that some preservatives inhibit the action of their bacterial culture and some actually kill it off. All species of Canis eat the intestines of their prey to replenish their culture, but domestic dogs fed commercial food became famous for going out and looking for stool to eat for two reasons: A. They were desperate for bacteria because the preservatives in the food had killed off much of their own, and B. The stool contained a lot of undigested food that was still full of nutrients because the food from which it was derived was full of preservatives and was difficult for the previous dog, cat, or whatever, to digest. We all used to feed dogs yogurt to make them less compulsive about it. Today most of the premium dog foods are preservative-free and it's less of a problem.
02-26-06, 10:28 PM #13
Originally Posted by dixonmassey
02-26-06, 11:10 PM #14
Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon
And since you decided to rear you head again, Rabon, I'm still waiting for your explanation of your "very cold" Earth core temperature statement. I know you haven't forgotten - you're just avoiding it.
02-27-06, 12:39 AM #15
What is so utter nonsense,?
Well if its all about calories as you say Light, then please exsplain your version.
or do you even have a version, ten to one you can't calculate the hydrogen atom so i doubt that you will have a relavant calculation based on the atom componets of the human being.
And so consider your self informed by the great educator D.Rabon on the issue of food quanity consumtion, Relavant to atomic clock.
02-27-06, 01:03 AM #16
Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon
"My version" needs no "exsplaination" (as you would wrongly spell it, self-proclaimed genius that cannot even spell simple words) since it's recognized by nutritionists the world over. Hydrogen is simply a part of the calories - as well as oxygen, nitrogen and carbon.
You don't even understand the simplest things, choosing rather to substitute your on very flawed idea of things. Rubbish!
Ans where is your "exsplaination", idiot, of your cold Earth core, eh?????
02-27-06, 02:12 AM #17
Well Light what is rubbish about the presence of hydrogen in the body.
Assuming that the human body is 70 to 90 percent water, and the other portions of the body are say 10 to 30 percent hydrocarbons, it would seem that the body was quite relavant to hydrogen.
Generally it would seem that there where more hydrogen atoms in the human body than any other type of atom be it carbon or oxygen. Nitrogen would not serve as a major percentage to base a calculation on.
Well I am unsure of your version but it seems as though you have no intrest in exslpaining it, which as before in the past has made conversation with you most difficult.
But maybe your pea brain would be intreseted in a comparison of a assumption of other atoms, if the consumption of food source was based upon the carbon atom we could assume that a person would have to consume 6 times the list amount(depending on if you wish to consider the neutrons of a atom) which would amount to about 36 pounds for a 200 pound man, nitrogen would require 42 pounds, and oxygen say 48 pounds Dry weight, you could add a water value of 50% to 90% to assume the natural relavant vaule.
Certainly it becomes obvious that niether carbon, nitrogen or oxygen are relavant to humans or any other animal as a function of consumtion. however it may add a small increase in the consumption rate adding to that of which is determined by the hydrogen atom. But let me add that it seems to me that 24 pounds dry weight or around there would be the maxium exstent of a 200 pound man.
But either way, one should of come to the conclusion that hydrogen being the major element in the human body would determine some direct behavior in the human.
lastly light i think you don't like me because I am a genius
02-27-06, 02:28 AM #18
Hydrogen is also the smallest, lightest element that exists. Do not confuse quantity for mass.
hydrogen being the major element in the human body would determine some direct behavior in the human
Last edited by Blue_UK; 02-27-06 at 02:37 AM.
02-27-06, 02:34 AM #19
Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon
See? You cannot hide from me because I know you and your situation very well. It's also very unlikely that you will ever grow up mentally, you'll always be stuck at little more than a teenager.
As to "my version" as you so stubbornly and stupidly call it, just do a tiny bit of research on human nutrition and caloric intake. You might actually learn something.
Your numbers and your ideas are pure junk. Nothing more.
And once again you show your childishness and stupidity for refusing to answer the question put to about the Earth's core. See how easy it is for us to tell how dumb you actually are?
Tell me, how often do you take a shower without your mother forcing you to? Once or twice a month perhaps? That's yet another trouble people with your problem often have. Yes, I know how smart you think you are and that your parents tell you that just to make you feel better. But it's still not true - you're actually very, very dumb.
02-27-06, 02:46 AM #20
It seems you don't know to much about me.
It also seems that you must have been wanting to say some thing like that to me for a long time. is there a reason why you stalk me. it seems a little perverted. as there is never any thing of value in anything you say, your like tell me what you think idiot or some other problem child complex.
I cerrtainly hope you live in another country where you can not come to my country, because you seem like the kind that might try to look in my window while i am useing the bath room or try some other perverted idea.
It would be easier if you just click the ignore button.