yeah i think i know what you're talking about. last year there was this anthropologist on npr science friday talking about this stuff. one of the things that interested me was that animals tend to favor cooked meat just like we do. obviously they can't cook it themselves, but they'd like to.Yeah, I figured one of the guys like Sinister, Turbozed, or JSN would have spotted this.
What that white belt said is almost certainly wrong (looks like crap science he probably gleaned from the "raw foods" community, I'm guessing). In fact, and I think you might find this interesting JSN, but my mother recently related an article to me where some anthropologists are hypothesizing that one of the most critical behaviors that evolved civilization was the cooking of food; by applying fire to food, we basically partially digest it, and therein enable ourselves to consume more energy while expending less energy digesting. This allowed a reserve of energy to better pursue other activities. A strong indicator that is the overwhelming number of civilizations that have excavated/discovered sites where there is evidence of fire pits and food processing.
And yeah, I also believe you're right: carbs are digested faster than proteins. Dextrose is like the fastest digested food that I know of.
Anyways, that theory sounds like a dope idea to me. That along with the fossil studies that have suggested that man developed faster intellectually in coastal regions-- some are thinking because of diets richer in Omega-3's-- are two of the most interesting theories I've heard out of the anthro community, lately. I'll admit, though, it's not like I sit around reading anthro journals.
Ironic as it was only thru the domestication of those allowable animals that would thrust man into the agricultural revolution, laying the grounds for the industrial revolution, paving the way for the modern scientific revolutionUnfortunately, if that happens, many the animals we have domesticated will likely go extinct (or near it) because thousands of years of artificial selection have changed them such that they will likely not be able to survive in the wild.
I was also watching a documentary on the brown bears in Alaska recently. They only eat the heads (brains) and skin of the salmon when they make their runs and food is plentiful; they want only the fattiest part.yeah i think i know what you're talking about. last year there was this anthropologist on npr science friday talking about this stuff. one of the things that interested me was that animals tend to favor cooked meat just like we do. obviously they can't cook it themselves, but they'd like to.
here is the link to the guy's book and the audio:
Science Friday Archives: How Cooking Made Us Human
Yeah, I figured one of the guys like Sinister, Turbozed, or JSN would have spotted this.
What that white belt said is almost certainly wrong (looks like crap science he probably gleaned from the "raw foods" community, I'm guessing). In fact, and I think you might find this interesting JSN, but my mother recently related an article to me where some anthropologists are hypothesizing that one of the most critical behaviors that evolved civilization was the cooking of food; by applying fire to food, we basically partially digest it, and therein enable ourselves to consume more energy while expending less energy digesting. This allowed a reserve of energy to better pursue other activities. A strong indicator that is the overwhelming number of civilizations that have excavated/discovered sites where there is evidence of fire pits and food processing.
And yeah, I also believe you're right: carbs are digested faster than proteins. Dextrose is like the fastest digested food that I know of.
Anyways, that theory sounds like a dope idea to me. That along with the fossil studies that have suggested that man developed faster intellectually in coastal regions-- some are thinking because of diets richer in Omega-3's-- are two of the most interesting theories I've heard out of the anthro community, lately. I'll admit, though, it's not like I sit around reading anthro journals.
1g-1.5g protein per pound of lean body weight is optimal. Scientifically proven.
Soy could possibly explain why his nipples are so pointy.
Everyone that is saying you don't need as much protein like they say in fitness magazines are wrong.
1g-1.5g protein per pound of lean body weight is optimal. Scientifically proven.
I think your argument is more along the lines of... could you get by with less protein? sure. Would you be better off with more protein? yes.
Everyone that is saying you don't need as much protein like they say in fitness magazines are wrong.
1g-1.5g protein per pound of lean body weight is optimal. Scientifically proven.
I think your argument is more along the lines of... could you get by with less protein? sure. Would you be better off with more protein? yes.
I believe the text books and nutrition people are saying the 1 to 1.5g of protein per kg, not pound of bodyweight