Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Does TC have howler monkey syndrome?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.