Re: Is ketosis really the "backup" system?

Tom generously shared with us this little ditty:

Quoted message said:

I think that it was possibly believed that since carbs are used up
faster than fats, that it must be the primary or prefered source of
energy. It seems to me that if a natural diet is followed, it would
be tough to get enough carbs from plants other than fruits which
would have been seasonal. To figure out which is "our" primary fuel
source would be based on a different question. Were we basically meat
eaters that supplemented our diet with plants when meat was
unavailable, or were we plant eaters that evolved over time to get
our energy from meat using an existing process that breaks down fat
from nuts? If we could determine what is our true food source, it
would be easier to answer what our primary energy source is. I have
read though, that we can survive on only meat, but would have great
difficulty surviving on only plants. Tom
210/180/180

Check out our teeth and gut. They give good clues. We ([censored] sapiens
sapiens) have evolved to eat primarily fish--other meats being not as
good for us I don't think, and supplementing on plants. (I lean toward
the aquatic ape theory as at least possible).
--
revek
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage
to change the things I can and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the
people I had to kill because they [censored] me off.

Tom said:

I think that it was possibly believed that since carbs are used up faster
than fats, that it must be the primary or prefered source of energy.

By the same logic, alcohol would be primary, preferred over carbohydrates.
I don't think that's a sensible conclusion, and I'm certain any diet based
on it would be maximally unhealthy.

SOME alcohol on the other hand, say a wee dram of a 24 year old cask
strength Dallas Dhu that was distilled in the same week I was married,
cannot possibly be a bad thing.

I'm saving the rest of the bottle for our 30th anniversary.

Martin (215/165/165 since 4/2003)
--
Martin Golding | If I'd wanted all that water in my beer,
Dod #0236 KotLQ | why would I have paid so much to have it dehydrated?

Quoted message said:

Check out our teeth and gut. They give good clues. We ([censored] sapiens
sapiens) have evolved to eat primarily fish--other meats being not as
good for us I don't think, and supplementing on plants. (I lean toward
the aquatic ape theory as at least possible).

Hmmm. Reminds me of a book I read about 25 years ago. Descent of Woman? I
think. The book did give good insight in to why we were aquatic at one point
in our evolution. The reason for the shape of our noses as apposed to other
apes, and the streamlined way our body hair acts in water were probably the
best arguments as well as the safety of the water from land predators.
Although the book was written in a matriarchal tone, it was a refreshing
change from the view points that women played a small role in our evolution.
Tom

Quoted message said:

--
revek
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage
to change the things I can and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the
people I had to kill because they [censored] me off.

Tom generously shared with us this little ditty:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Check out our teeth and gut. They give good clues. We ([censored] sapiens
sapiens) have evolved to eat primarily fish--other meats being not as
good for us I don't think, and supplementing on plants. (I lean
toward the aquatic ape theory as at least possible).

Hmmm. Reminds me of a book I read about 25 years ago. Descent of
Woman? I think.

Never ran across it. I discovered the theory in sci.archeology of all
places (posted by a known kook, but that's neither here nor there). I'm
mildly curious about it, but still haven't done much but skim the
arguments.

The book did give good insight in to why we were

Quoted message said:

aquatic at one point in our evolution. The reason for the shape of
our noses as apposed to other apes, and the streamlined way our body
hair acts in water were probably the best arguments as well as the
safety of the water from land predators. Although the book was
written in a matriarchal tone, it was a refreshing change from the
view points that women played a small role in our evolution.

Er, at least half. 🙂
--
revek
For the low, LOW price of $19.95 these opinions can be yours too!

Tom said:

revek said:

Check out our teeth and gut. They give good clues. We ([censored] sapiens
sapiens) have evolved to eat primarily fish--other meats being not as
good for us I don't think, and supplementing on plants. (I lean toward
the aquatic ape theory as at least possible).

I lean toward the aquatic ape theory as the best explanation for a
lot of differences between humans and other apes.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm. Reminds me of a book I read about 25 years ago. Descent of Woman?

I encountered it in Discovery and Scientific American magazines
put Discovery Channel and TLC shows.

Quoted message said:

The book did give good insight in to why we were aquatic at one point
in our evolution. The reason for the shape of our noses as apposed to other
apes, and the streamlined way our body hair acts in water were probably the
best arguments as well as the safety of the water from land predators.

Humans have a metabolic need for salt unlike other apes. Go on a
low salt diet and you will crave salt more and more. Humans can
also eject vast amounts of salt from their bodies if they eat more
than needed. Why would humans need to be able to eject large
amounts of eaten salt if they evolved on the grasslands? And
why would animals that evolved on the grasslands need and crave
salt so much that it is critical to life?

The majority of human population is close to the ocean shore or
close to rivers. Lakefront property is far more expensive than
prarie property. If humans evolved in grasslands, why are there
so few people in Kansas?

Lobster flown in daily to Denver. Smooth swimming skin for swimming.
A tendency to accumulate bouyant body fat for swimming (ASLDC focus).

If you go carefully over the differences between humans and gorillas,
chimps, orangutangs, and gibbons there are many such differences.

None of the differences is completely convincing and each difference
can be explained in other ways. But to me the pattern fits well
enough that I subscribe to the aquatic ape theory.

Quoted message said:

None of the differences is completely convincing and each difference
can be explained in other ways. But to me the pattern fits well
enough that I subscribe to the aquatic ape theory.

Yes, I agree. It does explain a lot of our differences from other primates.
Tom

Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> wrote:
....

Quoted message said:

None of the differences is completely convincing and each difference
can be explained in other ways. But to me the pattern fits well
enough that I subscribe to the aquatic ape theory.

I might, too, except for the wee troubling fact that the fittest, largest
males, presumably the most desirable mates, sink in water.

Dan (ex-sinker)
325/211/180
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes