On Jul 27, 9:48 am, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), crisology
>
>
>
> <crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 26, 4:06 pm, ferr...@ironcity.com wrote:
> >> "As I said, no other animal willingly/knowingly engages in self
> >> destructive behavior (eat unnatural cooked food known to have natural &
> >> synthetic carcinogens, etc)"
>
> >> Should we assume you refer primarily to meat? If we are to use nature to
> >> instruct us, we should eat meat raw or at least let age some first to be
> >> consistent.
>
> >> Boiling and steaming and microwaving avoids the cancer producing
> >> substances of intensively browned meat.
>
> >> No other animal uses fire so the point is moot if we compare ourselves.
> >> Animals will not hesitate to eat cooked meat when offered.
>
> >On Jul 26, 4:06 pm, ferr...@ironcity.com wrote:
> >> "As I said, no other animal willingly/knowingly engages in self
> >> destructive behavior (eat unnatural cooked food known to have natural &
> >> synthetic carcinogens, etc)"
>
> >> Should we assume you refer primarily to meat? If we are to use nature to
> >> instruct us
>
> >Or use scientific studies, which reflect ancestor's adaptation
> >(nature)..
> >"Research leading to the discovery of a series of mutagenic and
> >carcinogenic heterocyclic amines (HCAs) was inspired by the idea that
> >smoke produced during cooking of food, especially meat or fish, might
> >be carcinogenic. More than ten kinds of HCAs, actually produced by
> >cooking or heating of meat or fish, have now been isolated and their
> >structures determined, most being previously unregistered compounds
> >HCAs have now been chemically synthesized in quantity and subjected to
> >long-term animal testing. When HCAs were fed in the diet, rodents
> >developed cancers in many organs, including the colon, breast and
> >prostate, and one HCA produced hepatomas in monkeys. Cancer Sci. 2004
> >Apr;95(4):290-9.
>
> Yes but, humans have been eating "Cooked" meat to include fish,
> poultry & fish preserved via smoke ever since we learned to produce &
> control fire. Life spans have been ever increasing every since. There
> are entire families that are struck down by cancers of one form or
> another, and others that never experience it. Same thing holds true
> for the use of salt -- it affects people differently, but the guidance
> is to use it in moderation.
>
>
>
>
> >> Boiling and steaming and microwaving avoids the cancer producing
> >> substances of intensively browned meat.
>
> >"In studies at Cornell University, scientists looked at the effects of
> >cooking on water-soluble vitamins in vegetables and found that spinach
> >retained nearly all its folate when cooked in a microwave, but lost
> >about 77 percent when cooked on a stove. They also found that bacon
> >cooked by microwave has significantly lower levels of cancer-causing
> >nitrosamines than conventionally cooked bacon"
>
> >"One study published in the Journal of the Science of Food and
> >Agriculture in 2003 found that broccoli cooked by microwave -- and
> >immersed in water -- loses about 74 percent to 97 percent of its
> >antioxidants. When steamed or cooked without water, the broccoli
> >retained most of its nutrients"http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/289113_healthrail19.html
>
> >> No other animal uses fire so the point is moot if
>
> >you don't care about health risks/compromises.
>
> >> we compare ourselves.
>
> >No, contrast..
>
> >> Animals will not hesitate to eat cooked meat when offered.
>
> >But no animal intentionally does any preparation to food that either
> >reduces the nutrients or much less- produces toxins.
>
> But they also don't have herds of Science Animals that tell them that
> their natural tendencies, wants, needs or desires are bad for them
> either. There are also animals that do prepare their food. Just
> because they don't cook it has more to do with the "Opposable Thumb"
> issue & the ability to create tools. My cat doesn't hunt mice &
> birds, she waits for me to open a can of Little Friskies. Not only
> that she does have a preference for one style of preparation over
> another. She likes the sliced in gravy over the loaf variety. Even
> animals have food preferences, especially among omnivores.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
On Jul 27, 9:38 am, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:06:10 +0000 (UTC), ferr...@ironcity.com wrote:
> Most animals will not hesitate to eat just about anything if they are
> hungry enough.
Irrelevant. Most people will eat anything if they are hungry enough. I
was referring to healthy/natural diet. Just eating anything when
starving does not relate to obesity (the subject of the thread..)
> Hell they don't even follow the "If it smells good eat
> it" methodology.
No, domestic dogs may respond quicker to conditioned stimuli.
> I've got a dog that will pretty much eat anything
Dogs are omnivore/scavengers
> that it sees me eating and I hand it to him. Granted it is more of a
> gulp/swallow then eating, but eat it he does.
>
> To me what this goes to show is what "Domestication" does to Animals.
> Society is what Domesticated the Human Animal.
That's my point.
> For example monogamy
> isn't a natural state to most male animals,
http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/fys/barash%20on%20monogamy.htm
"Gorillas, despite their large bodies, have comparatively tiny
testicles. Those of chimpanzees, by contrast, are immense. The reason
for the difference seems clear: Gorilla males compete with their
bodies, not their sperm. Once a dominant silverback male has achieved
control over a harem of females, he is pretty much guaranteed to be
the only male who copulates with them. Chimps, by contrast, experience
a sexual free-for-all, with many different males often copulating in
succession with the same adult female. As a result, male chimpanzees
compete with their sperm, and they have evolved big testicles to
produce large quantities of it. In most species, the ratio of testicle
size to body size is a good predictor of how many sexual partners an
animal is likely to have.
How, then, do human beings rate in this regard? The testicles of Homo
sapiens are, relatively speaking, larger than those of gorillas but
smaller than those of the champion chimpanzees. The most likely
interpretation? Human beings are less certain of sexual monopoly than
are gorillas, but are not as promiscuous as chimps. Another way of
putting it: We are (somewhat) biologically primed to form mateships,
but at the same time, adultery is no stranger in our evolutionary
past.
Given how much we have been learning about extra-pair matings among
animals, and considering the current availability of DNA testimony, it
is remarkable how rarely genetic paternity tests have been run on
human beings. On the other hand, considering the inflammatory
potential of the results -- as well as, perhaps, a hesitancy to open
such a Pandora's box -- Homo sapiens' reluctance to test for paternity
may be sapient indeed. Even before DNA fingerprinting, blood-group
studies in England found that the purported father of a child is the
real father about 94 percent of the time; that means that in six out
of every hundred cases, someone else is. In response to surveys, 25 to
50 percent of American men report having had at least one episode of
extramarital sex. The numbers for women are perhaps a bit lower, but
in the same ballpark"
but our Society has sort
> of inflicted/enforced that on us Human One's. Now I am not making a
> case for society and/or any of its rules, but the point is that when
> one acts outside one's own nature, and studies on animals are done
> without them being in their natural habitat doing what it is they
> normally do, the science can be FUBARed from the beginning.
>
> Omnivores (from Latin: omne all, everything; vorare to devour) are
> species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source.
> They are opportunistic, general feeders not specifically adapted to
> eat and digest either meat or plant material exclusively. Pigs are one
> well-known example of an omnivore. Crows are another example of an
> omnivore that many people see every day. Humans are omnivores as well"
H. Sapiens ARE specialized frugivores, digesting fruit best. Meat
contributes to oxidative stress while fruit reverses diseases created
by meat. Humans do not digest meat and fruit equally. The anatomy of
humans is most similar to frugivores.
> Now seeing that humans also have a pretty good sense of taste, are
> driven from pleasure in most things, and have an extremely wide
> variety of easily obtainable food stuffs it is not surprising that we
> will normally eat those things that "Taste Good". Let's face it the
> large majority of meat tastes better cooked then it does raw.
Cooking is a conditioned, recent custom. Regardless of recent
conditioning by cooking meat w/veg products or w/herbs to combine
flavors, it reduces nutrients and creates toxins. The topic is not
about what we've been conditioned to eat or enjoy, it is about the
lack of adaptation to recent foods that contribute to obesity.
Chris
aka_velcro
ReaderRabbit
