Fruit Might Be Responsible For Our Bigger Brains

[stargazer1111]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/eating-fruit-fuels-bigger-brains-primates

I have suspected this for a while.

Also, our inability to produce vitamin C is strong evidence that humans evolved eating massive amounts of fruit. To lose the ability to produce vitamin C, we had to be consuming large amounts of it in our diet. The most concentrated source of it is in fruit. This would mean that we evolved to eat lots of fruit sugar. This might explain why sugar eaten in the proper context actually helps diabetics. It is very healthy.

It never made any sense to me that foods that are good for you taste bad and foods that are bad for you taste good. If that were true, we would have gone extinct because we would have sought out the very foods that reduced our fitness and avoided the ones that would have increased it. Obviously, our tastes can be fooled like when we drown bitter vegetables in dressing and other stuff that masks the bitter flavor which is supposed to warn us not to consume that substance again.

There is a reason kids don't like to eat their vegetables. They instinctively know that they are not entirely healthy.

 

[snowboard111]

Peat already talked about it in one his interview or articles (can't remember) about the elongated skulls that we're found in the tropics. Had something to do with the combinations of sugar from tropical fruits, the sun and the ocean and something else (all in all good factors). It was quite fascinating/intriguing.

• The problem of Alzheimer's disease as a clue to immortality - Part 2
  They are advancing a myth about human nature, so I will advance a counter-myth. At the time people were growing their large brains they lived in the tropics. I suggest that in this time before the development of grain-based agriculture, they ate a diet that was relatively free of unsaturated fats and low in iron--based on tropical fruits. I suggest that the Boskop skull from Mt. Kilimanjaro was representative of people under those conditions, and that just by our present knowledge of the association of brain size with longevity, they--as various "Golden Age" myths claim--must have had a very long life-span. As people moved north and developed new ways of living, their consumption of unsaturated fats increased, their brain size decreased, and they aged rapidly. Neanderthal relics show that flaxseed was a staple of their diet.

Probably why usually people feels an overall feeling of well being and clarity in those places... just guessing

 

[Westside PUFAs]

It seems more likely that it was the ability to cook starch that is responsible for the human brain:

Carbs (not Meat) Were Crucial Factor For Developing Big Brains

like when we drown bitter vegetables in dressing and other stuff that masks the bitter flavor

We also drown non-vegetable foods in dressings and flavors. Steak sauce, Bbq sauce, mayonnaise, herbs, spices, marinades etc. Not all vegetables are bitter. Sweet potatoes are sweet. Similar to how salted and flavored meat is not bitter, neither is rice or regular potatoes. Cacao is bitter by itself but with sugar it changes. Many greens are bitter raw but less so when cooked.

It never made any sense to me that foods that are good for you taste bad and foods that are bad for you taste good.

Meat doesn't taste like anything by itself, similar to most starch. A little salt changes everything and salt is a special subject for humans.

Also, our inability to produce vitamin C is strong evidence that humans evolved eating massive amounts of fruit. To lose the ability to produce vitamin C, we had to be consuming large amounts of it in our diet.

Potatoes have vitamin C. But even many wild plants like nettles have high amounts of vitamin C as well.

.

 

[lvysaur]

It never made any sense to me that foods that are good for you taste bad and foods that are bad for you taste good.

If that were true, we would have gone extinct because we would have sought out the very foods that reduced our fitness and avoided the ones that would have increased it.

Or, we evolved cravings for foods that were once scarce and hard to come by in our environments, but are now ubiquitous.

 

[stargazer1111]

It seems more likely that it was the ability to cook starch that is responsible for the human brain:

Carbs (not Meat) Were Crucial Factor For Developing Big Brains



We also drown non-vegetable foods in dressings and flavors. Steak sauce, Bbq sauce, mayonnaise, herbs, spices, marinades etc. Not all vegetables are bitter. Sweet potatoes are sweet. Similar to how salted and flavored meat is not bitter, neither is rice or regular potatoes. Cacao is bitter by itself but with sugar it changes. Many greens are bitter raw but less so when cooked.



Meat doesn't taste like anything by itself, similar to most starch. A little salt changes everything and salt is a special subject for humans.



Potatoes have vitamin C. But even many wild plants like nettles have high amounts of vitamin C as well.

.

I disagree about the meat. Especially undercooked meat. It tastes more like fruit to me.

 

[stargazer1111]

View attachment 5305



Or, we evolved cravings for foods that were once scarce and hard to come by in our environments, but are now ubiquitous.

That could be. I have to admit that I love milk but feel like ***t when I drink it.

 

[Dante]

Or, we evolved cravings for foods that were once scarce and hard to come by in our environments, but are now ubiquitous.

ivysaur, would anything bad happen if i were to consume generous amounts of these once scarce but now ubiquitous foods?

Potatoes have vitamin C. But even many wild plants like nettles have high amounts of vitamin C as well.

.

Yeah I was checking wikipedia and found that chilli pepper, red pepper and a bitter fruit called guava have very high vitamin C per 100g. Definitely not going to eat these :).

 

[lvysaur]

That could be. I have to admit that I love milk but feel like ***t when I drink it.

I'm "okay" with milk, but feel great when I drink it. I love meat, but feel like ***t if I eat too much.

ivysaur, would anything bad happen if i were to consume generous amounts of these once scarce but now ubiquitous foods?

I don't know, I was just posting that as an evolutionary bull**** counterpoint to a bull**** argument (no offense stargazer)

 

[stargazer1111]

No offense taken. It was purely speculation on my part. I wasn't asserting it as fact.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Fruit is superior

 

[Dante]

an evolutionary bull**** counterpoint

Fruit is superior

 

[sladerunner69]

View attachment 5305



Or, we evolved cravings for foods that were once scarce and hard to come by in our environments, but are now ubiquitous.

Actually PUFA fried foods do taste bad. Have you every had authentic lard-fried chicken? It is miles ahead of the crap you get at kfc nowadays. Colonel Sanders home recipe used butter, and his restaurants used lard.

I can't even eat high PUFA foods without being slightly repulsed, its a bland smell and taste that I no longer savor whatsoever. I think people who crave it all the time have adapted to it from eating their whole lives, and being deprived of saturated fat goodness, and grow accustomed to the taste, unfortunately.

 

[lvysaur]

Actually PUFA fried foods do taste bad. Have you every had authentic lard-fried chicken?

Lard is actually more polyunsaturated from a purely arachidonic acid perspective. Animal fats (though maybe not ruminant ones) raise AA more than any vegetable PUFA oil.

That's good for you, but most people don't feel that way. Even on this forum you can see people saying that canola/soy fried stuff has some taste to it that coconut fried stuff just doesn't have.

On the other hand, I've recently had the same feelings of disgust, but towards chicken legs and pork fat. Not potato chips and french fries, in line with the AA paradigm.

 

[sladerunner69]

Lard is actually more polyunsaturated from a purely arachidonic acid perspective. Animal fats (though maybe not ruminant ones) raise AA more than any vegetable PUFA oil.

That's good for you, but most people don't feel that way. Even on this forum you can see people saying that canola/soy fried stuff has some taste to it that coconut fried stuff just doesn't have.

On the other hand, I've recently had the same feelings of disgust, but towards chicken legs and pork fat. Not potato chips and french fries, in line with the AA paradigm.

Coconut fried is not butter fried. I agree that coconut oil has a peculiar taste (like coconut) and that the refined is fairly tasteless.

But fry anything in lard or butter fat and then fry the same thing in canola/soya and give people blind taste test. 9/10 the ruminant fat wins, it's just much more appealing and natural to the taste buds. Sometimes people prefer the unsaturated oils but Im convinced that is conditioning to our modern food supply.

Lard from cows is not more unsaturated that canola/soya/corn etc from any perspective. Maybe you are refering to pork lard or chicken lard, which I know find fairly smelly and unpalatable compared to ruminant lard.

 

[lvysaur]

But fry anything in lard or butter fat and then fry the same thing in canola/soya and give people blind taste test. 9/10 the ruminant fat wins

Still going to disagree. It's not conditioning at all, the unsaturated taste is just addicting.

Lard from cows

Lard comes from pigs, not cows.

 

[sladerunner69]

Still going to disagree. It's not conditioning at all, the unsaturated taste is just addicting.



Lard comes from pigs, not cows.

Oh right. Tallow then, but colloquially everyone says lard. And pig used to be a decent animal low in unsaturated fats, back when they were pasture raised.

 

[fradon]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/eating-fruit-fuels-bigger-brains-primates

I have suspected this for a while.

Also, our inability to produce vitamin C is strong evidence that humans evolved eating massive amounts of fruit. To lose the ability to produce vitamin C, we had to be consuming large amounts of it in our diet. The most concentrated source of it is in fruit. This would mean that we evolved to eat lots of fruit sugar. This might explain why sugar eaten in the proper context actually helps diabetics. It is very healthy.

It never made any sense to me that foods that are good for you taste bad and foods that are bad for you taste good. If that were true, we would have gone extinct because we would have sought out the very foods that reduced our fitness and avoided the ones that would have increased it. Obviously, our tastes can be fooled like when we drown bitter vegetables in dressing and other stuff that masks the bitter flavor which is supposed to warn us not to consume that substance again.

There is a reason kids don't like to eat their vegetables. They instinctively know that they are not entirely healthy.

no i think wheat made man smart...many a monkey eats fruit and they aren't that smart. but man made beer. most of the smart people come from wheat eating lands...which is mostly europe and northern china...even the bible spoke of wheat but the wheat we have today is not the same. it will make you dumbfuck.

 

[tygertgr]

sugar from tropical fruits

There is this myth I see repeatedly that in the tropics there is a lot fruit. I've heard Peat claim this. Fruit is in season in the tropics for about as long as it is in Canada. Fruiting species in Hawaii are ripe for the same one or two months that they are in Alberta. It's the same window of time.

There are exceptions like bananas. Which is why bananas are cheap.

Sure, you can get more total fruit per acre from tropical operations. But without preservation methods that's almost irrelevant. It is grains and tubers that fueled modern brains. Not fruit. That's obviously impossible.

 

[Runenight201]

I tried a fruit based diet (granted for only 24 hours), and felt my teeth get sensitive, my strength go way down, my muscles went flat, hard to satiate myself, and overall didn’t feel optimal, as my body was asking for dense fatty nutrition but I was sending it bananas instead.

I love my fruits...but eating that way is not right.

 

[lvysaur]

There is this myth I see repeatedly that in the tropics there is a lot fruit. I've heard Peat claim this. Fruit is in season in the tropics for about as long as it is in Canada.

This "myth" is itself a myth, fostered by paleo followers: Wild and Ancient Fruit: Is it Really Small, Bitter, and Low in Sugar?

Why ignore the exception of bananas? Even the wild seedy ones had a good amount of flesh on them. And a lot of current limited availability is due to our huge populations, which wouldn't have been around in paleolithic times.

Northern peoples have lower capabilities of sugar digestion, with the trait peaking in Inuits at 10%. This wouldn't be the case if all climates were equally capable of producing fruit.

In addition, fruit is not the only source of sugar: honey is effectively the same, and honey also comes from flower nectar, which is abundant in sunny places. Not to mention that insects are more active in warm climates, compounding the effect.

The Hadza literally live off of nothing but honey for months at a time. Sugar was abundant in hotter climes; that is a fact. Of course starch is the real engine that powered humanity into the neolithic age and beyond, I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that.