Do they say we are closest to chimps?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Blueberry on May 26, 2009 at 3:43am

"Question, why would we need B12, carnitine, co Q 10, omega 3 fats and quite optimal amounts of it,pro vitamin A, etc; etc; does anyone know where these elements are found?"

Carnitine is highest in red meat, although you can convert it from the amino acids methonine and lysine , methione is hghest in peanuts and lysine is in rice, I'm not sure which raw foods are highest in those elements,carnitine does seem to cause a problem if deficient, co enzyme q 10 are highest in salmon sardines and mackeral, although there is also in veg foods peanuts spinach, but not as much Interesting as people with mitochondria failure are deficient in carnitine and co enzyme q 10 and these are used as treatments in mainstream medicine,but treatments and injections don't work longterm either ddue to the metabolic deficit to use these elements

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rawstrength on May 24, 2009 at 12:06am

I love ants. They are so spicy and lemony. I haven't tried any other insects.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mellifera on May 26, 2009 at 8:03am

I eat the bee larva that is a byproduct of royal jelly production...mmmmmmmm

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by hajapapaya on May 23, 2009 at 4:59pm

XanderFrancisH so you would eat a homo sapiens?

Is this the analogy here?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by hajapapaya on May 24, 2009 at 11:28am

I know, this Dr. Karadzic is a great healer to, an d Adolf Hitler allways said "heal Hitler", healing gives you a feeling of power......

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Dubz on May 24, 2009 at 12:51am

Mystery of the meat-eaters' molecule


Our inability to produce a chemical present in every other primate may be linked to a series of chronic diseases. Roger Highfield explains more

What does it mean to be human? For most people, it all comes down to that extraordinary object between our ears, and how it blesses us with language, laughter and logic. But not for Ajit Varki, a doctor-cum-scientist who works in California.

Not so rare: a molecule absorbed by eating red meat
has been linked to inflammation and auto-immune illnesses

For him, being human is also about a single chemical that separates us from our closest relatives, and which could be linked to many of our most debilitating illnesses.

The story began in 1984, when Prof Varki was working at the University of California, San Diego. When treating a woman with bone-marrow failure, he injected her with horse serum. The treatment carried the risk of a side effect called "serum sickness", in which the patient's immune system launches an attack on a molecule present in the serum called Neu5Gc.

Sure enough, her skin erupted with an itchy red rash. Investigating further, Prof Varki found that Neu5Gc was foreign to humans, even though we carry a very similar version of the same molecule - which may be one reason why animal-to-human organ and tissue transplants do not work well.

But in recent years, he has come to believe that the implications of this molecular difference are much wider. He has built up a range of evidence that potentially links Neu5Gc, a so-called sialic acid, to chronic disease.

This is because the animal version is absorbed by humans as a result of eating red meat and milk products, and there is evidence that the body views it as an invader.

Eating these foods could trigger inflammation and, over the long term, heart disease, certain cancers and auto-immune illnesses. Prof Varki stresses, however, that "we have not proven any link to disease, just suggested that it is something to explore".

This sialic acid plays a number of roles: it helps us recognise cells and helps cells stick together (this stickiness is also exploited by microbes, which latch on to the sugary molecule to invade our cells). It also helps regulate our immune response, which may influence the progression of diseases and even play a part in human evolution.

The first evidence that this particular molecule is of unique importance to humans came a decade ago. Prof Varki's team, along with Prof Elaine Muchmore, also of the University of California, studied blood from chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and humans.

They found that we are the only primates whose bodies do not produce Neu5Gc - although further research established that our Neanderthal cousins were missing this version of the sugar acid, too.

Instead, human (and Neanderthal) cells bristle with a sugar called Neu5Ac. The two molecules are identical, apart from one little detail: the ape molecule has a single extra oxygen atom. Because of the many different jobs this sugar does throughout the body, this one atom was the first example found of a fundamental genetic and biochemical difference between humans and our closest relatives.

Profs Muchmore and Varki then found out why this oxygen atom is missing: our molecule is the precursor of the animal version. Unlike chimpanzees and other great apes, humans lack a particular version of an enzyme that converts Neu5Ac (or, to give it its full name, N-acetylneuraminic acid) into Neu5Gc. This tiny change could potentially explain some of the more unusual differences between humans and apes.

Chimpanzees do not seem to suffer from heart disease, cancers, rheumatoid arthritis or bronchial asthma - common conditions in humans. Nor do they get sick from the human malaria parasite, which uses sialic acid to latch on to our blood cells.

In recent studies, Prof Varki's team has found tantalising evidence that this mysterious molecule could be exerting a wider effect on our health, through the substances we eat.

After testing a range of foods, they found the highest levels of Neu5Gc in red meat: up to 11,600 micrograms could be absorbed from the recommended daily serving of beef, 5,100 from pork and 4,900 from lamb. The level in goat's cheese was 5,500, but fell to around 700 in milk and salmon. Cod, tuna, turkey and duck were in the twenties.

Given that food is broken down in the stomach, did eating animal tissue present the same dangers of provoking an immune attack as transplanting it? Following that great scientific tradition of self-experimentation, Profs Varki, Muchmore and Pascal Gagneux ate pure Neu5Gc to see what would happen.

Not only did the foreign sugar show up in the body soon after eating, but tests also revealed that many people carry antibodies that react to Neu5Gc - a protective immune response, but one which could trigger damaging inflammation.

Prof Varki's colleague - and wife - Prof Nissi Varki then found that small amounts of Neu5Gc were present in normal human tissue, probably as a result of long-term consumption. And as well as food, many biotherapeutic products made in animal cells and/or using animal materials were also contaminated with Neu5Gc.

This raised the fascinating possibility that anti-Neu5Gc antibodies are involved in auto-immunity. Auto-immune diseases, such as type-1 or juvenile diabetes and some types of arthritis, occur when the body mistakenly attacks healthy tissue.

Because the animal version of the sugar is so similar to the human one, the latter could be caught in the friendly fire directed by the immune system. Chronic inflammation is also linked with cancer; intriguingly, the team found that Neu5Gc was concentrated in tumours, particularly those that spread throughout the body. This could aid detection of such diseases, by getting scientists to look for the animal acid rather than the tumours themselves.

Some of this might sound familiar: several previous studies have linked ingestion of red meat to cancer and heart disease, and possibly to some other disorders involving inflammation, such as arthritis and lupus. But these focused mostly on the role of saturated fats, and on products that arise from cooking.

Prof Varki, however, believes that his little molecular difference could also be to blame: Neu5Gc elicits an immune reaction that might contribute to a whole spectrum of human-specific diseases. Although they have not proven this yet, the evidence is sufficiently compelling for his team to start work on ways to eliminate Neu5Gc from the body.

But the question remains: why are humans unique among primates in not producing Neu5Gc?

By studying the mutations in the enzyme that makes this molecular difference between apes and humans, Prof Varki, along with Prof Naoyuki Takahata of the Graduate University for Advanced Studies in Kanagawa, Japan, estimates that the genetic change first appeared up to three million years ago, which coincides with the emergence of Homo erectus, the first of our ancestors to venture out of Africa.

At the time, life was nasty, brutish and short: any subtle but chronic effects of this foreign sugar would not be felt until old age, and Homo erectus did not survive that long.

If the mutation that kept us producing Neu5Ac rather than Neu5Gc helped shrug off a particular disease, it would have spread rapidly through the population. It is ironic that what may have protected our ancestors then could be responsible for much of the pain of their long-lived descendants.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken on May 24, 2009 at 1:08am

Have you ever seen that TED talks on bonobos? cute, but definitely not related :)

there are lots of factors when it comes to what to eat

people want to point to physiological similarities, but really humans own 'evolution' up into modern periods..and the affects thereafter - and which foods properly detox/heal - should be people's primary concern.

Often this isn't going to line up with any biology books..which havn't exactly guided the smartest brains in medicine to figure much out that is helpful for those seeking true health.

no human species who lives off the land throughout history exists as an herbivore. Whether that disproves anyone theories I do not know - as some folks believe that they create their biology, or that the present moment has a shift in such things.

It should be blatantly obvious that a diet that supplies what is necessary for nutrition by almost all proposed herbivorous nutritional programs. CANNOT exist without cultivation, which is the fountainhead of civilization and disorder :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Dubz on May 24, 2009 at 1:50am

First, it would be scientifically disingenuous to define vegans solely as typical herbivores, for many herbivores, as I described earlier have unique ways of masticating their food and many times have unique digestive systems. Even Gorillas who are mostly raw vegetarians are classified more as folivores (leaf -eaters) and those primates that eat a majority of fruit are considered frugivores, even though 66% of all herbivorous animals are also frugivores. Many of these terms or classifications are not absolutes.

Also, man’s need to cultivate may have more to do with man’s many other motivations or enterprises, such as living in larger groups as a possible protective measure. As you mention, cultivation is directly related to disorder, as appose to what, “wild foraging?” And if wild foraging was and is able to sustain all other known species, why not man?

Some social anthropologist believe that the rise of agrarian societies, cattle-herding, feudalism, imperialism, and even patriarchy have some degree of coalescence.

Maybe as it was said throughout the ages and repeated by Churchill, "History is written by the victors", and it's obvious that the cattle herders and agrarians collectively were victorious over the foragers and gathers, and still rule to this day.

Peace

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ken on May 24, 2009 at 7:42am

Absolutely. I was just going by the original post.

veganism is a philosophy, herbivore is a classification based on physiology and consistent observed practice among the group discussed. The simplest answer is humans are NOT herbivores by shear percentage analysis. This does NOT rule out that humans can potentially only eat leaves or fruits or air. But its kinda like saying humans are superheros, just because a few people learn how to run a 3:33 mile or something


as for disorder, personally, I am all for it. What really I was pointing out - and to me what is disingenuous - is often people will form arguments that the 'modern forms of X are what distances humans from their natural living conditions', and then assumes what those conditions are based on the modern predicaments and manifestations of like, factory farming or something.

it makes little sense. especially when the words 'science' are brought in.

for instance. To say humans do not need much external fat because it is not found in the form of avocados or nuts year round, really is not an idea that bodes well for herbivorious or frugivorious eating, and yet it is passed off as 'science' about why the assumed diet of plants and seasonal avocados or whatever is the best. What becomes more ab surd is that this diet equires cultivation and would not function for all of the truly sustainable societies of this planet's history,

Unless its those peoples idea that the lot of humanity is not meant to exists on this planet (of which you will be surprised how many 'compassionate' folks believe this) . To me that is the crux of it, and something I cannot accept, especially with the idea that all beings - no matter what their disposition - are significant and to be respected and nourished.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Dubz on May 25, 2009 at 11:52am

Let’s look at your comparative analysis of the extraordinary 3:33 mile runner and a steadfast lifelong raw vegan. I think you’re making a sort of odd comparison, for eating a leaf or fruit-centered diet is not such an extreme that it takes superhuman power to obtain for most. Even someone who might run a 3:33 mile one day will only probably run it once in their lifetime. But as we know, over the decades, athleticism that was once deemed extraordinary or superhuman-like has become now the norm for most well-trained top athletes.

Deciphering what may be the most optimum and natural human diet, as it’s been discussed and agreed upon by us both, it would be first of all asinine to view humans extremely as absolute herbivores, and I believe we both agree that even most herbivores do not isolate their diets to merely grasses.

It would be interesting to know not only how much fruit most herbivores consume, but also what degree incidentally of protein rich insects?

Being a raw vegan is more than an extraordinary philosophical idea only obtainable by a few adepts. As a matter of fact, veganism and raw food-centered diets have allowed those with the worst of health and long family histories plagued with diseases to have normality and in many cases surpassing the physiological norm produced by the average modern lifestyle.

Every great enlightened teaching that has been passed down and studied has tried to give humanity a greater understanding of its true nature, whereas the spirit, mind, and body are one, and this cohesion has been lost and needs to be rediscovered for completeness and the optimum human experience.

And I also agree that some of your post is a little confusing and would like for you to clear up this last statement for me also:

Unless its those peoples idea that the lot of humanity is not meant to exists on this planet (of which you will be surprised how many 'compassionate' folks believe this) . To me that is the crux of it, and something I cannot accept, especially with the idea that all beings - no matter what their disposition - are significant and to be respected and nourished.

Peace

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by hajapapaya on May 28, 2009 at 4:43pm

lol
thats true, and often both countries are the victors.....each in their own view...
my sister was in an inter-national class, that in reality was a extra-national class. And the most laughters and discussions have been in history, when they had to learn for example about a dangerous terrorist - the people from this country told the teacher laughing, that the "terrorist" is a national hero in their country...

so its just about the perspective.....(thats what it means to me......)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Dubz on May 25, 2009 at 9:47pm

I'm not on any save the animals kick, and I'm not one who find meat-eating offensive, even though I feel that the whole corporate breeding farm and packinghouse approach is somewhat macabre and very unhealthy to the meat consuming public, raw or not. I'm focusing on human physiology and its relationship to food and health, which like I said, is merely a small, but important part of a larger picture.

Regardless if I would ever eat raw meat or not, I am definitely open to the research or scientific papers that supports that type of consumption as far as it being a missing or necessary part of developing optimum human health. Because the raw meat eater has the same hurdle as the plant-based vegan in trying to look back and find a time in human history that the Human race without question healthily ate exclusively raw meat or vegetables. And even as we move forward viewing this as solely an advanced science or philosophy, there will still be a debate concerning the cooking of food and what types of food make humans healthier.

Let's all stay open minded and follow as much empirical evidence as possible and hopefully continue to live our best...

Peace

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last