Neanderthal Diet/Human Protein Max

[Ancestor Paul]

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

You might be the first Bum in history to state that Taomeow hasn´t "done enough research" on any subject. Just sayin´.

 

 

 

And I’m sure Taomeow is just as human as us and isn’t perfect.

[Taomeow]

18 minutes ago, Ancestor Paul said:

And I’m sure Taomeow is just as human as us and isn’t perfect.

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Taomeow

[Ancestor Paul]

4 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Show your evidence.  They argued even about Jesus and Laozi whether they were human or not, and still do.  The point being, it's not easy to prove one way or the other even if someone's biography has been studied back and forth and diagonally for two thousand years.  And you know nothing whatsoever about mine!

Your biography means nothing to me, neither does it affect the subject at hand. Neither do you know me and that’s also irrelevant to the subject. You should go find the evidence the same way I did, I’m not here to spoon feed you.

 

6 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Some cats count me among their own, and some taoist immortals have received my application to the club.  Are you in charge of approving or rejecting it?  If you are, show your evidence, please.  So I can drop what I'm up to and watch some TV instead, as just humans do.  

I also do not care how many immortals you sit with, that’s has no context on this subject, if you’ve done research into holistic doctors there no way you won’t stumble on the information provided here.  So when you’ve done real reaserch on holistic doctors like Dr Sebi who cured cancer and aids with just plant based diet, then we’ll love to hear what you have to say on the issue of meat. As a matter of fact i wouldn’t take advice from someone who eats raw fish, and as a matter of fact I’m Not a Neanderthal so I will leave the diet to those who enjoy it. 

[Taomeow]

3 minutes ago, Ancestor Paul said:

 You should go find the evidence the same way I did, I’m not here to spoon feed you.

 

[Apech]

I'm curious what peoples view on fruit is.  There's a lot a scare stories about fructose but I think that's mainly to do with corn starch being added to so many convenience foods.  I take the view that fruit especially in season and local is good for you.  But does it fit in any way with a low carb approach???

 

TM?  anyone?

[Ancestor Paul]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

I'm curious what peoples view on fruit is.  There's a lot a scare stories about fructose but I think that's mainly to do with corn starch being added to so many convenience foods.  I take the view that fruit especially in season and local is good for you.  But does it fit in any way with a low carb approach???

 

TM?  anyone?

Corn syrup or sugar is a genetically modified food GMO and is unnatural, it’s processed sugar and it’s very bad for the body. Speaking of GMO people do not know that most foods we eat are man made, made in the lab. These foods are not compatible with our DNA and accumulate toxins in our body, a major obstacle to cultivation. The way to eat clean is to eat organic natural foods, foods that grow in nature.

[Phoenix3]

15 minutes ago, Apech said:

I'm curious what peoples view on fruit is.  There's a lot a scare stories about fructose but I think that's mainly to do with corn starch being added to so many convenience foods.  I take the view that fruit especially in season and local is good for you.  But does it fit in any way with a low carb approach???

 

TM?  anyone?

 

Taomeow wrote previously that the fruit we know today is not natural. The fruits of ancient times would have been bitter or not very sweet, with a very small amount of juice, and not so much sugar in general, the fruit nowadays contains so much sugar that it can cause problems.

 

oh, I was misquoting her. My mistake. This is what she said:

 

 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Phoenix3

[Ancestor Paul]

20 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Did you paint these? They’re really pretty.

[Taomeow]

26 minutes ago, Apech said:

I'm curious what peoples view on fruit is.  There's a lot a scare stories about fructose but I think that's mainly to do with corn starch being added to so many convenience foods.  I take the view that fruit especially in season and local is good for you.  But does it fit in any way with a low carb approach???

 

TM?  anyone?

 

Phoenix3 quoted a post of mine from before (see above) where I touched upon that a bit.  I might add that I don't see eating some fruit as a problem for most people -- of course those who do need to watch their sugar, weight, or yeast infestation problems more closely, or those who need to go way stricter with their "zerocarb" eating, might not qualify as fruit eaters with impunity.  E.g. Mikhalia Peterson, whose lectures and interviews are on youtube and IMO worth giving a listen to (regardless of what one thinks of her dad's politics -- incidentally she got him to follow the same zerocarb protocol, and then her mom.)  She had severe autoimmune problems since early childhood, got juvenile arthritis while at it and had two of her joints, hip and ankle, replaced because of that by age 17 -- the list goes on and on -- she fixed all of her health issues (dozens, each of them by itself enough to make it a losing bet that she would see her 25th birthday) with zerocarb, got super healthy, got married, had a child, founded two companies, yada yada.  She's  one of the people who are better off not taking any chances.  https://www.youtube.com/user/mikhailapeterson1 

 

But for most, I don't think it's necessary to exclude fruit.  When one keeps one's carb intake low though, it becomes quite obvious to the senses how excessively sweet and "flat" modern fruit is.  More often than not a lot of it tastes like sugar water to me.  Whereas the real thing...  but don't let me get myself into another food-nostalgic diatribe. 

 

So, if you can seek out what is not overly sweet, not overly sprayed,  and not ripened by gassing (like bananas), I don't think it's a big issue.  Fruit trees are sprayed extremely aggressively.  Do you ever see wormholes in any fruit where you live?  Here, I never do...  whereas in any non-factory-farm-style garden it's a seal of approval for anything real and good -- worms understand about nutritious and delicious and safe to eat... I used to always check for the wormhole and at least half the time it was there for me to cut out -- easy peasy.  I don't think I've seen one in years and years.  And so what is labeled "organic" is probably also...  but don't let me digress again.  

 

I think we did eat some plant food even when the oceans were frozen to the bottom and the surface of the earth covered with ice 3 kilometers thick (which is to say, for most of our developmental history as a species).  I judge by the fact that in the tundra, they do get a handful of very sour, very frost-resistant berries and incorporate them, in small amounts, in the diet to this day.   Wild cranberry,  not the commercial variety, is very small, very bright red, thin skin, juicy inside, and sour to the unimaginable extent.  I believe it may have served to tenderize meat, the way we use some acidic media for the carne asada or shish kabob today.   Of the other frost-tolerant berries, I only had a few --  who knows, there may have been more in prehistory.  I had cloudberry as a sour fermented drink, could be made alcoholic too.  Lingonberry, native to the Arctic, also small, on the sour side, but I just had it as a preserve with sugar so don't know what fresh is like.  Honeysuckle (not the flower, a variety of berries in Siberia), sea buckhorn.  None of these could be a staple food, of course, but our ancestors are likely to have eaten some.  They are all very, very low in sugar in their natural state.  

[Nungali]

44 minutes ago, Phoenix3 said:

 

Taomeow wrote previously that the fruit we know today is not natural. The fruits of ancient times would have been bitter or not very sweet, with a very small amount of juice, and not so much sugar in general, the fruit nowadays contains so much sugar that it can cause problems.

 

 

 

I was recently eating some fruit  Australian Aboriginals been eating for YONKS ... way back into 'ancient times' , some was delightfully sweet , especially 'emu berries'   .... they even got 'honey pot  ants'   

 

 

... or, if you prefer sweet lime flavour ;

 

 

... or even some 'ice cream'

 

 

 

 

" Contrary to popular belief, wild fruit—including the stuff we would’ve had access to during our evolution—is not necessarily any of the above. In fact, it can be bigger, tastier, and sweeter than anything you’ll ever find in the aisles of your grocery store."

 

https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

[Taomeow]

54 minutes ago, Ancestor Paul said:

Did you paint these? They’re really pretty.

 

Not me, alas.  A modern Ukrainian artist I like a lot named Evgeny Leschenko.  

 

[Taomeow]

2 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

I was recently eating some fruit  Australian Aboriginals been eating for YONKS ... way back into 'ancient times' , some was delightfully sweet , especially 'emu berries'   .... they even got 'honey pot  ants'   

 

Contrary to popular belief, wild fruit—including the stuff we would’ve had access to during our evolution—is not necessarily any of the above. In fact, it can be bigger, tastier, and sweeter than anything you’ll ever find in the aisles of your grocery store."

 

https://deniseminger.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

 

What was the weather like in Australia 100,000 years ago?  How about 300,000?  400,000?

 

What we eat during interglacials is a moot point.  Everything.  What I'm talking about is the bulk of our history as a species, not the last minute of it.  And even Australian Aboriginals are a last minute human culture in the grand scheme of things... so...  what I said, stet.  Those ants do look yummy though... have you tried them?   

[Nungali]

Do you mean the fruit archaic H.Sapiens ate 200,000 ya and since ,  and in all the different places they travelled and lived    ? 

 

How do we know how sweet that was ?  

 

( I guess its possible, humans may have dispersed the seed of the sweetest fruits they where attracted to  more than the others , contributing  to a 'natural selection / evolution / adaption  { 'ethnobotany' ? } )

[Apech]

9 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Phoenix3 quoted a post of mine from before (see above) where I touched upon that a bit.  I might add that I don't see eating some fruit as a problem for most people -- of course those who do need to watch their sugar, weight, or yeast infestation problems more closely, or those who need to go way stricter with their "zerocarb" eating, might not qualify as fruit eaters with impunity.  E.g. Mikhalia Peterson, whose lectures and interviews are on youtube and IMO worth giving a listen to (regardless of what one thinks of her dad's politics -- incidentally she got him to follow the same zerocarb protocol, and then her mom.)  She had severe autoimmune problems since early childhood, got juvenile arthritis while at it and had two of her joints, hip and ankle, replaced because of that by age 17 -- the list goes on and on -- she fixed all of her health issues (dozens, each of them by itself enough to make it a losing bet that she would see her 25th birthday) with zerocarb, got super healthy, got married, had a child, founded two companies, yada yada.  She's  one of the people who are better off not taking any chances.  https://www.youtube.com/user/mikhailapeterson1 

 

Thanks yes I've seen her interviewed and also listened to her father (whose politics are very mild contrary to what the mainstream media like to suggest).  I can see that these extreme dietary measures may be necessary for some people suffering from auto-immune conditions and so on but I'm not convinced they are essentially healthy for everyone.  Jordan Peterson eats only beef, that's it, nothing else, which is very extreme.

 

9 hours ago, Taomeow said:

But for most, I don't think it's necessary to exclude fruit.  When one keeps one's carb intake low though, it becomes quite obvious to the senses how excessively sweet and "flat" modern fruit is.  More often than not a lot of it tastes like sugar water to me.  Whereas the real thing...  but don't let me get myself into another food-nostalgic diatribe. 

 

So, if you can seek out what is not overly sweet, not overly sprayed,  and not ripened by gassing (like bananas), I don't think it's a big issue.  Fruit trees are sprayed extremely aggressively.  Do you ever see wormholes in any fruit where you live?  Here, I never do...  whereas in any non-factory-farm-style garden it's a seal of approval for anything real and good -- worms understand about nutritious and delicious and safe to eat... I used to always check for the wormhole and at least half the time it was there for me to cut out -- easy peasy.  I don't think I've seen one in years and years.  And so what is labeled "organic" is probably also...  but don't let me digress again.  

 

I live in a fruit growing area and have some plants myself, strawberries, blackberries, peaches, figs and so on.  Nothing I grow is sprayed of course, so yes odd shapes and worm holes abound.  I do eat some supermarket fruit - some seems ok but generally low on taste and high on sweetness.  I know for instance that commercial strawberries are sprayed with sugar solution before picking to make them swell up - that's why they are generally so big.

 

9 hours ago, Taomeow said:

I think we did eat some plant food even when the oceans were frozen to the bottom and the surface of the earth covered with ice 3 kilometers thick (which is to say, for most of our developmental history as a species).  I judge by the fact that in the tundra, they do get a handful of very sour, very frost-resistant berries and incorporate them, in small amounts, in the diet to this day.   Wild cranberry,  not the commercial variety, is very small, very bright red, thin skin, juicy inside, and sour to the unimaginable extent.  I believe it may have served to tenderize meat, the way we use some acidic media for the carne asada or shish kabob today.   Of the other frost-tolerant berries, I only had a few --  who knows, there may have been more in prehistory.  I had cloudberry as a sour fermented drink, could be made alcoholic too.  Lingonberry, native to the Arctic, also small, on the sour side, but I just had it as a preserve with sugar so don't know what fresh is like.  Honeysuckle (not the flower, a variety of berries in Siberia), sea buckhorn.  None of these could be a staple food, of course, but our ancestors are likely to have eaten some.  They are all very, very low in sugar in their natural state.  

 

 

[Apech]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

Do you mean the fruit archaic H.Sapiens ate 200,000 ya and since ,  and in all the different places they travelled and lived    ? 

 

How do we know how sweet that was ?  

 

( I guess its possible, humans may have dispersed the seed of the sweetest fruits they where attracted to  more than the others , contributing  to a 'natural selection / evolution / adaption  { 'ethnobotany' ? } )

 

The thread title says neanderthal - so you can go back a bit further than 200,000 yrs.

 

Selective cultivation of varieties and cross breeding hybrids and wotnot are not really unnatural in the sense of GM are they?  Its perfectly possible that our hunter-gatherer forebears selected the best grasses, berries and roots in some way and promoted their growth.

 

 

[Taomeow]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

The thread title says neanderthal - so you can go back a bit further than 200,000 yrs.

 

Selective cultivation of varieties and cross breeding hybrids and wotnot are not really unnatural in the sense of GM are they?  Its perfectly possible that our hunter-gatherer forebears selected the best grasses, berries and roots in some way and promoted their growth.

 

 

 

All cultivated plants have a very recent history.  None were cultivated in the ice ages.  The date palm, the first known tree to have been cultivated for its fruit, was cultivated only for the last few thousand years.  (A mystery in and of itself, how that came about...  perhaps for later for my Sumerian thread.)

 

By the way, people still talk of neanderthals as our progenitors -- they weren't, although we did cross-breed a bit, some of us more than others, but none of us have more than 2.1% Neanderthal genetic material.  The bulk of what we are is what "human" has become by 400,000 years ago.  We haven't changed since then.  The only new genetic adaptation that happened since then was the acquired ability, in the populations inhabiting the islands of Japan, to digest seaweed.  Otherwise, nothing new.  So it's fair to look at our life in the midst of hundreds of thousands of years of ice ages (a fact, not a speculation) when we are trying to figure out what it is that we are truly adapted to eating best.        

 

Yes, selective cultivation and cross breeding, for many varieties (not for all), is not "unnatural in the sense GM stuff is.  But again, all of it is a very late afterthought with a very short history of implementation.  We don't know if we might not go extinct from it yet, it's not been long enough to tell. 

 

Also, I still have a problem with a "natural" explanation for the cultivation of cereal grains.  The genome of wheat is much larger than that of humans, and most of what its 17 billion nucleotides are up to is completely unknown to humans who only have 1 billion.  Cultivated wheat does not seem to be a product of selective breeding unless one jumps to the convenient conclusion that "it has to have been because how else could it have happened."  Whereas the very traits that make it possible to cultivate wheat rely on two rather uncanny and unlikely mutations both of which had to happen simultaneously in order to keep the wheat seeds attached to the sheaf waiting to be harvested in order to reproduce -- instead of falling off and scattering in the wind, the way all wild grasses ensure their existence.  So some 15,000-years-ago Monsanto or other seems to be, strangely enough, the only explanation that makes any genetic sense.  Everything else can only be a product of faith.  Our ancestors at the dawn of our modern civilized history are to be believed in as master geneticists who could do shit modern ones can't begin to fathom how.  But since this nonsensical explanation comes from authoritative sources, everybody buys it.  Those authoritative sources, however...  I wonder what their source really is.  

[vonkrankenhaus]

On 9/23/2019 at 11:57 AM, Taomeow said:

So some 15,000-years-ago Monsanto or other seems to be, strangely enough, the only explanation that makes any genetic sense. 

 

What we call cereal grains are quite recent.

 

They were created to facilitate civilization - large populations abstractly existing anywhere needed to insure power and control - workers and soldiers, etc.

 

Most of these are said to have originated in mountain areas.

 

This is where it would be smart to begin a selective breeding program.

 

Up in the high mountains, the atmospheric protection from mutogenic cosmic radiation is much less.

 

And the mutations found are more severe. More to select from.

 

It is said that this kind of situation would reduce the time needed to produce the traits we see to well under 200 years.

 

One family lineage could oversee this kind of project.

 

There would be no need to see actual DNA to judge results. Expression will be visible and testable by growing out various examples.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Taomeow]

11 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

What we call cereal grains are quite recent.

 

They were created to facilitate civilization - large populations abstractly existing anywhere needed to insure power and control - workers and soldiers, etc.

 

Definitely there's no such thing as "workers" and "soldiers" possible without them.  

 

But I have a crazier idea.  They themselves, cereal grains, may have been manipulating us.  It's well known that certain species are masters of manipulation of other species and are capable of completely changing their behavior in order to propagate.  Here's how the parasite  toxoplasma gondii does it, for instance: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-parasite-that-makes-a-rat-love-a-cat-86515093/ -- completely rewiring the rat's brain and its most basic life functions and instincts toward its own goals.

 

So I look at thousands of years of deforestation toward ever-greater parts of earth being taken over by cereal grains, and wonder what those cereals know about our endogenous opiate receptors which allow them to manipulate our behavior with their opiate-mimicking proteins...

[Phoenix3]

But what would be the point? Was the creation of a wheat-based diet just a way to increase population, or did someone likely know the side-effects of eating wheat?

 

And wheat just seemed to be cultivated in west asia. What about rice, maize, rye, oats, and so on?

 

Also I don’t know how true it is, but some say that the average human brain decreased in size 30,000 years ago. That’s tens of thousands of years before agriculture.

[Ancestor Paul]

59 minutes ago, Phoenix3 said:

But what would be the point? Was the creation of a wheat-based diet just a way to increase population, or did someone likely know the side-effects of eating wheat?

Most of the wheat produced today is hybrid and man made and difficult for the body to digest e, even white rice I’ve researched is unnatural. Wild rice is the original rice and is darker in color and very tasty. I could eat this rice everyday if i could, unfortunately this rice is hard to find and purchase in bulk due to the popularity of other new varieties of rice which most of all are genetically modified and affects the way the body absorbs nutrients.

 

hybrid foods might increase yields and provide food for a larger population, but are the kind of foods doing more harm or good.

 

I would like to recommend a holistic Doctor named DR Sebi, he’s black man so his work is heavily suppressed by big pharmaceuticals. Dr Sebi won a case in the Supreme Court against a claim that he could cure every diseas including HIV andCancer, all his cured patients appeared as witnesses providing hospital reports and all. Basically his theory is that no disease can exist in an alkaline environment so if you cut out meats and acidic foods and replace them with alkaline foods, the bodies alkalinity increase and cleanses the body of disease.

 

After extensive research on this matter, I turned vegan 3 years ago, and it’s had been a life changing experience on my health. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Ancestor Paul

[Phoenix3]

If your new vegan diet has improved your health, then that’s great. Yes, eating wild rice is enjoyable, more so than regular rice.

[Apech]

3 hours ago, Phoenix3 said:

But what would be the point? Was the creation of a wheat-based diet just a way to increase population, or did someone likely know the side-effects of eating wheat?

 

And wheat just seemed to be cultivated in west asia. What about rice, maize, rye, oats, and so on?

 

Also I don’t know how true it is, but some say that the average human brain decreased in size 30,000 years ago. That’s tens of thousands of years before agriculture.

 

 

I read a study recently which showed that one set of early hominids in Africa lived mainly off eating grasses.  While another had a mixed diet with meat and so on.  So I think it is certain that mankind always ate some grass based foods even when hunter gatherers.  The growth of wheat based agriculture is said to have started in the fertile crescent (Middle East) and spread across Europe by the Neolithic Farmers who generally replaced the Western Hunter Gatherer culture which preceded it.

 

The change from hunter-gatherer diet to farming had some major negative health impacts and it usually assumed (rightly or wrongly) that it was simply the dependability of agriculture which was its attraction.  So humans were more in control and less dependent on the environment.  In fact this change to farming about 10,000 BC (gaining pace thereafter) which is a major factor in the change in environment - most of Europe is man-made and not natural at all.

 

 

[Taomeow]

52 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I read a study recently which showed that one set of early hominids in Africa lived mainly off eating grasses.  While another had a mixed diet with meat and so on.  So I think it is certain that mankind always ate some grass based foods even when hunter gatherers.  The growth of wheat based agriculture is said to have started in the fertile crescent (Middle East) and spread across Europe by the Neolithic Farmers who generally replaced the Western Hunter Gatherer culture which preceded it.

 

The change from hunter-gatherer diet to farming had some major negative health impacts and it usually assumed (rightly or wrongly) that it was simply the dependability of agriculture which was its attraction.  So humans were more in control and less dependent on the environment.  In fact this change to farming about 10,000 BC (gaining pace thereafter) which is a major factor in the change in environment - most of Europe is man-made and not natural at all.

 

 

 

"One set of early hominids" who didn't survive (no grasses when it gets cold and stays cold for tens, hundreds of thousands of years, remember?) while other sets did survive (plenty of animals when it gets cold, for tens, hundreds of thousands of years) proves that "mankind" always ate grasses?..   How are they mankind?..  Or human at all for that matter?  

 

There's an obligatory carnivore killer mouse, the Grasshopper Mouse, that also howls at the moon like a wolf.  So it exists.  One could even speculate that it is the very mouse Douglas Adams was talking about in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when he asserted that Earth was commissioned, paid for, and run by mice.  But what about 99.9999999% of all other mice who are herbivores?  Does the existence of the carnivore mouse prove they are "all the same" and cut out for the same diet?  And it is much closer related to its other mouse contemporaries than "one set of early hominids" is to us.

 

What we have come to selectively breed as the "scientist species" does seem to have a sweet deal.  A mandate on "conducting a study" without "deriving an understanding" -- and getting paid for fantasizing or insinuating the implications instead.  Study and publish and get your reward.  Study and publish and get your reward.  Study and publish and get your reward.  What a simple animal it is, a grant eating scientist.  

[Apech]

7 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

"One set of early hominids" who didn't survive (no grasses when it gets cold and stays cold for tens, hundreds of thousands of years, remember?) while other sets did survive (plenty of animals when it gets cold, for tens, hundreds of thousands of years) proves that "mankind" always ate grasses?..   How are they mankind?..  Or human at all for that matter?  

 

There's an obligatory carnivore killer mouse, the Grasshopper Mouse, that also howls at the moon like a wolf.  So it exists.  One could even speculate that it is the very mouse Douglas Adams was talking about in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when he asserted that Earth was commissioned, paid for, and run by mice.  But what about 99.9999999% of all other mice who are herbivores?  Does the existence of the carnivore mouse prove they are "all the same" and cut out for the same diet?  And it is much closer related to its other mouse contemporaries than "one set of early hominids" is to us.

 

What we have come to selectively breed as the "scientist species" does seem to have a sweet deal.  A mandate on "conducting a study" without "deriving an understanding" -- and getting paid for fantasizing or insinuating the implications instead.  Study and publish and get your reward.  Study and publish and get your reward.  Study and publish and get your reward.  What a simple animal it is, a grant eating scientist.  

 

 

Didn't they survive?  None of the early hominids survived in that sense I guess.  I wish I could find the article to link to but I don't recall where I saw it.

 

This is a different one:

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22494-our-ancestors-dined-on-grass-3-5-million-years-ago/

Edited September 25, 2019 by Apech

[MuadDib]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

There's an obligatory carnivore killer mouse, the Grasshopper Mouse, that also howls at the moon like a wolf. 

 

I once saw one of those on a documentary. A large and deadly scorpion entered the mouse's home (a hole in the ground) at night. After a while, the mouse emerged from the hole and howled victoriously - no trace of the scorpion. It was hilarious