Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2004
Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
George W. Cherry - 21 Dec 2003 19:13 GMT One reason not to skimp on carbohydrate: http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/amador/Creek/AP98/JoyGobs/intro.html A big question is: Does the food you eat really have a significant effect on your cognitive processing and behavioral patterns? According to Katherine Milton, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, " the behaviors and physiology that define us are the consequences
of dietary-driven evolution. . . and everything comes back to diet." Milton has spent the last twenty years on the island of Barro Colorado in Panama, studying howler and spider monkeys. Her extensive research has resulted in an increased knowledge of the effects of diet in relation to the productivity of the brain. After many years of observation and analyzation of the monkeys, their habitat, diet, and physiology she made some astounding discoveries. Even though the two monkeys shared the same environment and were approximately the same size, they had dramatic differences. The spider monkeys, whose diet consisted ninety percent from fruits, had more energy, were brighter, and had larger brains. Milton also found that their digestive tracts were much smaller allowing for quicker removal of wastes. By eating high energy, hard to find fruits, the monkeys were forced to memorize more locations of plants, the time of year and day the fruit would ripen, thus forcing their brains to
expand over time. In contrast, their counterpart, the howler monkey, fed themselves on protein rich leaves leading to a lack of energy that was needed to fuel the brain. Because of the excess in protein and lack of carbohydrates the howler monkeys were dull and unobservant. Milton was able to eat bananas and peanut butter sandwiches in front of the howler's making loud slurping noises, and the howler's were seemingly oblivious to her action's. The spider monkeys, however, had a much different reaction. They would attack Milton to get her food, and she quickly learned that eating could become a hazardous situation because of their attentiveness.
In conclusion, the focal point of our experiment was based on the idea that diet has a direct impact on the function's of the brain.
-- Thanks to DeVries
tcomeau - 22 Dec 2003 01:04 GMT > One reason not to skimp on carbohydrate: > http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/amador/Creek/AP98/JoyGobs/intro.html [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > -- Thanks to DeVries Why, thank you Georgie boy. I consider this as your admission that you are completely wrong about carbs in the diet and as a complete vindication for us low-carb advocates.
In the absence of any credible argument to back your contentions, you resort to mindless name calling. That is as clear a statement of defeat as I've ever seen.
ta ta,
TC
Tim Tyler - 31 Dec 2003 17:45 GMT George W. Cherry <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote or quoted:
> One reason not to skimp on carbohydrate: > http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/amador/Creek/AP98/JoyGobs/intro.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > consequences of dietary-driven evolution. . . and everything comes back > to diet."
> Milton has spent the last twenty years on the island of Barro Colorado > in Panama, studying howler and spider monkeys. Her extensive research [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > memorize more locations of plants, the time of year and day the fruit > would ripen, thus forcing their brains to expand over time. Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a more sophisticated social life - rather than as a consequence of keeping track of the locations of fruit (which is normally a trivial task by comparison).
One wonders if Milton controlled for that.
 Signature __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
George W. Cherry - 01 Jan 2004 00:24 GMT > George W. Cherry <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote or quoted: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > sophisticated social life - rather than as a consequence of keeping track > of the locations of fruit (which is normally a trivial task by comparison). Yes, that's a notion held by some evolutionary psychologists and some neuroscientists. It's hard for me to believe that get- ting along with members of your family, clan, and tribe was as intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and secur- ity in a hostile world.
George
Mark D. - 01 Jan 2004 01:51 GMT "George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:9NJIb.
> > Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a more > > sophisticated social life - rather than as a consequence of keeping track [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and secur- > ity in a hostile world. It's not hard for me to believe. In my understanding, 'finding food, shelter and security' mostly involves relatively simple and unchanging issues: most of the individual activities don't require updating or further learning, and many of them could actually be 'hard-wired'. If you don't believe me, ask a prawn.
A *social life*, on the other hand, involves such complex and/or continually changing considerations as kinship, obligation, dominance and subservience, general communication, secret communication, deceptive communication, understanding another's behaviour, predicting another's behaviour, controlling or manipulating another's behaviour, being able to prevent another understanding, predicting or controlling one's *own* behaviour, etc, etc...
Feel free not to understand.
M.
George W. Cherry - 01 Jan 2004 23:54 GMT > "George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote in > message news:9NJIb. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Feel free not to understand. Hi, Mark. I responded to this in my response to Tim Tyler.
George
Tim Tyler - 01 Jan 2004 15:19 GMT George W. Cherry <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote or quoted:
[rich social life > sexual selection > big brains]
> Yes, that's a notion held by some evolutionary psychologists > and some neuroscientists. It's hard for me to believe that get- > ting along with members of your family, clan, and tribe was > as intellectually challenging as finding food, shelter, and > security in a hostile world. I have no problem with the notion.
Much of the primate envrionment consists of others of the same species - including many of the more hostile bits.
Big brains are needed to compete for mates with others with big brains. They are not necessary to perform other survival tasks - as the many small-brained species demonstrate.
 Signature __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
George W. Cherry - 01 Jan 2004 18:43 GMT > George W. Cherry <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote or quoted: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I have no problem with the notion. There's no doubt about social relationships being problematical for primates. If an individual were very socially challenged and interpersonally incompetent s/he might even be driven out of the tribe and therefore likely to perish--or at least not reproduce.
But consider brain lateralization, handedness, and dexterity. The human hand is an incredibly cunning instrument, and the evolution of the human brain was no doubt greatly influenced by tool making and tool handling. Consider baseball pitchers, concert pianists, and watchmakers. It takes a rich neural capacity to perform these feats. Notice how the hands work together, the left hand holding and the right hand manipulating. Observe this in yourself. (I've assumed that you're right handed.) Surely, the brain evolved to its size in human beings for many reasons, manual dexterity and social skills being chief among them. Another evolutionary pressure was to communicate, and language is centered in the left brain hemisphere, as is the control center for the most dexterous hand (in right handed persons). It appears that evolution utilized the richness of the left hemisphere (developed for right hand dexterity) for language.
> Much of the primate envrionment consists of others of the same species - > including many of the more hostile bits. > > Big brains are needed to compete for mates with others with big brains. Big breasts in women and big muscles and fat wallets in males are as effective as big brains in attracting the other sex. :o)
> They are not necessary to perform other survival tasks - as the many > small-brained species demonstrate. John 'the Man' - 01 Jan 2004 20:05 GMT Once upon a time, our fellow George W. Cherry rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>There's no doubt about social relationships being problematical >for primates. If an individual were very socially challenged and >interpersonally incompetent s/he might even be driven out of the >tribe and therefore likely to perish--or at least not reproduc ?????
The center of medical scientism is the incorrect biomedical model rather than the correct biopsychosocial model.
In the world of medicine, social relationships don't exist.
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! -- John Gohde, Feeling Great and Better than Ever!
Natural health is an eclectic self-care system of natural therapies that builds and restores health by working with the natural recuperative powers of the human body. http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/definition.html
Tim Tyler - 02 Jan 2004 10:08 GMT George W. Cherry <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote or quoted:
>> George W. Cherry <@mit.edu> wrote or quoted: [rich social life > sexual selection > big brains]
> But consider brain lateralization, handedness, and dexterity. > The human hand is an incredibly cunning instrument, and the > evolution of the human brain was no doubt greatly influenced > by tool making and tool handling. Consider baseball pitchers, > concert pianists, and watchmakers. It takes a rich neural > capacity to perform these feats. Machines will master such tasks well before that can compose and perform good love songs - IMO.
> Surely, the brain evolved to its size in human beings for many > reasons, manual dexterity and social skills being chief among > them. I don't rate manual dexterity as especially important. The whole "tools -> intelligence" theory has always been massively overrated.
> Another evolutionary pressure was to communicate, > and language is centered in the left brain hemisphere, as is > the control center for the most dexterous hand (in right handed > persons). It appears that evolution utilized the richness of the > left hemisphere (developed for right hand dexterity) for language. Spoken language is widely believed to have evolved out of a system where gestures played a more prominent role. Such a relationship would not be very suprising.
>> Much of the primate envrionment consists of others of the same species - >> including many of the more hostile bits. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Big breasts in women and big muscles and fat wallets in males > are as effective as big brains in attracting the other sex. :o) Big breasts take no brain power - and demonstrate that brains are not the only structure in humans that sexual selection is making explode.
However, "fat wallets" seems to play into the "big brain" area to me. Isn't the fastest way to a fat wallet notoriously through management and leadership of a band of your fellow men? It seems to me that the task requires a substantial degree of competence in the field of social affairs - and involves competition with other brains trying to pull the same trick.
 Signature __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
George W. Cherry - 02 Jan 2004 17:43 GMT > George W. Cherry <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote or quoted: > >> George W. Cherry <@mit.edu> wrote or quoted: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > affairs - and involves competition with other brains trying to pull > the same trick. Sometimes inheritance does the trick. :o)
Bill Gates does not seem to have especially great interpersonal competence. He's a nerdy guy who saw the potential of the personal computer and saw that realizing this potential required new soft- ware. Nobelist John F. Nash, Jr. fattened his wal- let by the Nobel prize money by his work on game theory while he was paranoid, schizophrenic, and completely socially inept. Phil Condit, the recent- ly deposed chairman of the board at Boeing, was a Sloan Fellow at MIT the same year I was. He lacked interpersonal skills and sensitivity, but he he had a passion for aircraft design, manufacturing, and marketing. (He had an MS degree in aeronau- tics from Princeton.) He's been married and divorced four times. I know many captains of industry and very successful entrepreneurs. It was their vision for products or services that drove their success. Patrick J. McGovern, Jr., another MIT Sloan alumni and wildly successful entrepreneur, had a vision for publishing books with the title "X for Dummies". That was it (his biography will not reveal unusual social competence). Was Pat successful? You bet: he recently gave $350 million dollars to MIT to fund "The McGovern Institute for Brain Research". (That's the largest gift given to a university by any- one).
BTW, correlation is not causation. Other evolutionary pressures (non-social pressures) may have created our large brains--which then created complex social situations which required cunning social actions which required even larger brains. My take on the whole "Was it tools, manual dexterity, language, or complex social situations that required big brains?" question is that it was probably a mix of these and other things. I plead ignorance on the "final answer" to this com- plex--unanswerable--question. (Maybe I should read "Biology for Dummies".) :o)
George
John 'the Man' - 02 Jan 2004 18:57 GMT Once upon a time, our fellow George W. Cherry rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>was >a Sloan Fellow at MIT the same year I was. Look at you now!
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Mark D. - 01 Jan 2004 02:00 GMT "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:HqrtBn.KKB@
> Larger brains are conventially explained as being a consequence of a more > sophisticated social life - rather than as a consequence of keeping track > of the locations of fruit (which is normally a trivial task by comparison). Tim,
I recently saw a TV programme which showed a bunch of primate (or monkey; or ape...?) skulls laid out in a row, while it was explained that the size of each was quite precisely correlated to the size of the community its species tended to live in. At the 'top' end was a human skull - but the presenter didn't say what *its* size suggested would be the size of the 'natural' human community! I'd love to have seen such a calculation: 50? 100? 150? 500? 1000?
Do you have any idea what the figure would be...?
Anyone else...?
M.
John 'the Man' - 01 Jan 2004 06:02 GMT Once upon a time, our fellow Mark D. rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>I recently saw a TV programme Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Try learning to spell in a civilized society, social boy!
Why are the British so anal? You no longer rule this ng, the sea, let alone your bedroom!
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
PS: I just love my dentures. :)
Mark D. - 01 Jan 2004 06:33 GMT "John 'the health expert who gave himself anaemia'" <DeMan@fBodybuilding.com> wrote in message news:tuk6vvoit9jjbkbc67aotcikqgg5gvj34
> PS: I just love my dentures. :) How about the CP and the 'physically abnormal brain' you told us all about? Do you love those as well?
And then there is the fact that you've been waiting *6 months* for my ISP to cancel my account in response to your complaining - only to find that they take as little f.cking notice of what you say as *everyone else does*. So tell us, Gohde-boy: do you love *that* too?
M.
John 'the Man' - 01 Jan 2004 16:08 GMT Once upon a time, our fellow Mark D. rambled on about "Re: Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>> PS: I just love my dentures. :) > >How about the CP and the 'physically abnormal brain' you told us all about? >Do you love those as well? Ah! I see that you received my post.
Thank you for publicly acknowledging that my jab was more effective. :)
It is easy to poke Academics with a pointy stick. People like you are so stupid and predictable. :)
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Mark D. - 01 Jan 2004 17:46 GMT "John 'the Man'" <DeMan@fBodybuilding.com> wrote in message news:
> Thank you for publicly acknowledging that my jab was more > effective. :) What 'jab', Gohde-boy? You're utterly toothless and feeble in *every way*...
> It is easy to poke Academics with a pointy stick. People like you are > so stupid and predictable. :) So go on: tell us all how you *always knew* that I'd go on to re-post the following:
--------text of Gohde message:------- From: Sir John (Sir_John@GetStev.com) Subject: Re: Whole Grains & John's colic View: Complete Thread (56 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Date: 2002-05-17 08:54:52 PST
"Actually, Dilworth and the other academics just get their jollies stomping on the physically handicapped.
I happen to be a physically handicapped individual.
I have been documented to have physical brain damage and slight CP.
I have been documented to have a physically abnormal brain.
I have an obvious speech impediment, among other physical problems, due to my physical brain damage. The right corner of my mouth is also physically paralyzed.
My physical handicap has existed since birth. My brain is wired differently from other people. English as a result has always been my weakest subject. But, that did not prevent me from succeeding academically in both French and German at college.
Like many other people, I do have trouble in the language department due to my physical handicap. But, I have largely over come my language problems except for the occasional A-Hole on these ngs.
It is always amazing to me how the supposedly so intelligent can be so profoundly stupid! As long as I am still breathing, I will be posting and expanding my website, grammar and spelling errors or no. :-)
I make no apologizes for being born screwed and having to constantly deal with A-Holes like you people.
I bet scum like you also go around kicking cripples too? ---------
M.
John 'the Man' - 01 Jan 2004 18:10 GMT Once upon a time, our fellow Mark D. rambled on about "Re: Does Mark D howler at the Moon? YES." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>So go on: tell us all how you *always knew* that I'd go on to re-post the >following: More proof that my posts are more effective. :)
You are so stupid, Mark D.
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Tim Josling - 01 Jan 2004 19:44 GMT > "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:HqrtBn.KKB@ > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > M. 150 is the number I have read in several books,
Tim Josling
Mark D. - 01 Jan 2004 03:57 GMT "Tim Josling" <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@nospam.com> wrote in message news:bt056f$lpm$
> > At the 'top' end was a human skull - but the presenter > > didn't say what *its* size suggested would be the size of the 'natural' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Anyone else...?
> 150 is the number I have read in several books, Thanks, Tim.
Actually, I've seen the same figure; but looking at all those skulls, 150 seemed a bit *low*...
M.
|
|
|