quietEnvoy | Health

Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter

Listen to the Story and use Transcript version if it helps.

Our earliest ancestors ate their food raw — fruit, leaves, maybe some nuts. When they ventured down onto land, they added things like underground tubers, roots and berries.

It wasn’t a very high-calorie diet, so to get the energy you needed, you had to eat a lot and have a big gut to digest it all. But having a big gut has its drawbacks.

“You can’t have a large brain and big guts at the same time,” explains Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and director of the Wenner-Gren Foundation in New York City, which funds research on evolution. Digestion, she says, was the energy-hog of our primate ancestor’s body. The brain was the poor stepsister who got the leftovers.

Until, that is, we discovered meat.

“What we think is that this dietary change around 2.3 million years ago was one of the major significant factors in the evolution of our own species,” Aiello says.

That period is when cut marks on animal bones appeared — not a predator’s tooth marks, but incisions that could have been made only by a sharp tool. That’s one sign of our carnivorous conversion. But Aiello’s favorite clue is somewhat ickier — it’s a tapeworm. “The closest relative of human tapeworms are tapeworms that affect African hyenas and wild dogs,” she says.

So sometime in our evolutionary history, she explains, “we actually shared saliva with wild dogs and hyenas.” That would have happened if, say, we were scavenging on the same carcass that hyenas were.

But dining with dogs was worth it. Meat is packed with lots of calories and fat. Our brain — which uses about 20 times as much energy as the equivalent amount of muscle — piped up and said, “Please, sir, I want some more.”

Carving Up The Diet

As we got more, our guts shrank because we didn’t need a giant vegetable processor any more. Our bodies could spend more energy on other things like building a bigger brain. Sorry, vegetarians, but eating meat apparently made our ancestors smarter — smart enough to make better tools, which in turn led to other changes, says Aiello.

“If you look in your dog’s mouth and cat’s mouth, and open up your own mouth, our teeth are quite different,” she says. “What allows us to do what a cat or dog can do are tools.”

Tools meant we didn’t need big sharp teeth like other predators. Tools even made vegetable matter easier to deal with. As anthropologist Shara Bailey at New York University says, they were like “external” teeth.

“Your teeth are really for processing food, of course, but if you do all the food processing out here,” she says, gesturing with her hands, “if you are grinding things, then there is less pressure for your teeth to pick up the slack.”

Our teeth, jaws and mouth changed as well as our gut.

A Tough Bite To Swallow

But adding raw meat to our diet doesn’t tell the whole food story, according to anthropologist Richard Wrangham. Wrangham invited me to his apartment at Harvard University to explain what he believes is the real secret to being human. All I had to do was bring the groceries, which meant a steak — which I thought could fill in for wildebeest or antelope — and a turnip, a mango, some peanuts and potatoes.

As we slice up the turnip and put the potatoes in a pot, Wrangham explains that even after we started eating meat, raw food just didn’t pack the energy to build the big-brained, small-toothed modern human. He cites research that showed that people on a raw food diet, including meat and oil, lost a lot of weight. Many said they felt better, but also experienced chronic energy deficiency. And half the women in the experiment stopped menstruating.

It’s not as if raw food isn’t nutritious; it’s just harder for the body to get at the nutrition.

Wrangham urges me to try some raw turnip. Not too bad, but hardly enough to get the juices flowing. “They’ve got a tremendous amount of caloric energy in them,” he says. “The problem is that it’s in the form of starch, which unless you cook it, does not give you very much.”

Then there’s all the chewing that raw food requires. Chimps, for example, sometimes chew for six hours a day. That actually consumes a lot of energy.

“Plato said if we were regular animals, you know, we wouldn’t have time to write poetry,” Wrangham jokes. “You know, he was right.”

Tartare No More

One solution might have been to pound food, especially meat — like the steak I brought. “If our ancestors had used stones to mash the meat like this,” Wrangham says as he demonstrates with a wooden mallet, “then it would have reduced the difficulty they would have had in digesting it.”

But pounding isn’t as good as cooking that steak, says Wrangham. And cooking is what he thinks really changed our modern body. Someone discovered fire — no one knows exactly when — and then someone got around to putting steak and veggies on the barbeque. And people said, “Hey, let’s do that again.”

Besides better taste, cooked food had other benefits — cooking killed some pathogens on food.

But cooking also altered the meat itself. It breaks up the long protein chains, and that makes them easier for stomach enzymes to digest. “The second thing is very clear,” Wrangham adds, “and that is the muscle, which is made of protein, is wrapped up like a sausage in a skin, and the skin is collagen, connective tissue. And that collagen is very hard to digest. But if you heat it, it turns to jelly.”

As for starchy foods like turnips, cooking gelatinizes the tough starch granules and makes them easier to digest too. Even just softening food — which cooking does — makes it more digestible. In the end, you get more energy out of the food.

Yes, cooking can damage some good things in raw food, like vitamins. But Wrangham argues that what’s gained by cooking far outweighs the losses.

As I cut into my steak (Wrangham is a vegetarian; he settles for the mango and potatoes), Wrangham explains that cooking also led to some of the finer elements of human behavior: it encourages people to share labor; it brings families and communities together at the end of the day and encourages conversation and story-telling — all very human activities.

“Ultimately, of course, what makes us intellectually human is our brain,” he says. “And I think that comes from having the highest quality of food in the animal kingdom, and that’s because we cook.”

So, as the Neanderthals liked to say around the campfire: bon appetit.

by Christopher Joyce

Learn how to measure muscle and fat weight of your body

How do you know if you are making progress? If your weight is going up, are you gaining fat or muscle. If your weight is going down, are you losing fat or muscle. In this video I show you an easy and accurate way to tell exactly how much muscle you are gaining and how much fat you are losing! If you want to maximize your fat loss and muscle gain you need to be able to chart the exact amount of fat and muscle on your body on a week by week basis so you can adapt your nutrition and workouts as needed.

.

YouTube video: Losing fat? Gaining muscle? @ Youtube

Made by Scooby1961

July 5, 2010

A Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret

TEXT | A Neuroscientist Uncovers A Dark Secret

The criminal brain has always held a fascination for James Fallon. For nearly 20 years, the neuroscientist at the University of California-Irvine has studied the brains of psychopaths. He studies the biological basis for behavior, and one of his specialties is to try to figure out how a killer’s brain differs from yours and mine.

About four years ago, Fallon made a startling discovery. It happened during a conversation with his then 88-year-old mother, Jenny, at a family barbecue.

“I said, ‘Jim, why don’t you find out about your father’s relatives?’ ” Jenny Fallon recalls. “I think there were some cuckoos back there.”

Fallon investigated.

“There’s a whole lineage of very violent people — killers,” he says.

One of his direct great-grandfathers, Thomas Cornell, was hanged in 1667 for murdering his mother. That line of Cornells produced seven other alleged murderers, including Lizzy Borden. “Cousin Lizzy,” as Fallon wryly calls her, was accused (and controversially acquitted) of killing her father and stepmother with an ax in Fall River, Mass., in 1882.

A little spooked by his ancestry, Fallon set out to see whether anyone in his family possesses the brain of a serial killer. Because he has studied the brains of dozens of psychopaths, he knew precisely what to look for. To demonstrate, he opened his laptop and called up an image of a brain on his computer screen.

“Here is a brain that’s not normal,” he says. There are patches of yellow and red. Then he points to another section of the brain, in the front part of the brain, just behind the eyes.

“Look at that — there’s almost nothing here,” Fallon says.

This is the orbital cortex, the area that Fallon and other scientists believe is involved with ethical behavior, moral decision-making and impulse control.

“People with low activity [in the orbital cortex] are either free-wheeling types or sociopaths,” he says.

Fallon’s Scans

He’s clearly oversimplifying, but Fallon says the orbital cortex puts a brake on another part of the brain called the amygdala, which is involved with aggression and appetites. But in some people, there’s an imbalance — the orbital cortex isn’t doing its job — perhaps because the person had a brain injury or was born that way.

“What’s left? What takes over?” he asks. “The area of the brain that drives your id-type behaviors, which is rage, violence, eating, sex, drinking.”

Fallon's brain scan

Courtesy of Jim Fallon

Fallon’s brain (on the right) has dark patches in the orbital cortex, the area just behind the eyes. This is the area that Fallon and other scientists say is involved with ethical behavior, moral decision-making and impulse control. The normal scan on the left is his son’s.

Fallon says nobody in his family has real problems with those behaviors. But he wanted to be sure. Conveniently, he had everything he needed: Previously, he had persuaded 10 of his close relatives to submit to a PET brain scan and give a blood sample as part of a project to see whether his family had a risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease.

After learning his violent family history, he examined the images and compared them with the brains of psychopaths. His wife’s scan was normal. His mother: normal. His siblings: normal. His children: normal.

“And I took a look at my own PET scan and saw something disturbing that I did not talk about,” he says.

What he didn’t want to reveal was that his orbital cortex looks inactive.

“If you look at the PET scan, I look just like one of those killers.”

Fallon cautions that this is a young field. Scientists are just beginning to study this area of the brain — much less the brains of criminals. Still, he says the evidence is accumulating that some people’s brains predispose them toward violence and that psychopathic tendencies may be passed down from one generation to another.

The Three Ingredients

And that brings us to the next part of Jim Fallon’s family experiment. Along with brain scans, Fallon also tested each family member’s DNA for genes that are associated with violence. He looked at 12 genes related to aggression and violence and zeroed in on the MAO-A gene (monoamine oxidase A). This gene, which has been the target of considerable research, is also known as the “warrior gene” because it regulates serotonin in the brain. Serotonin affects your mood — think Prozac — and many scientists believe that if you have a certain version of the warrior gene, your brain won’t respond to the calming effects of serotonin.

Fallon calls up another slide on his computer. It has a list of family members’ names, and next to them, the results of the genotyping. Everyone in his family has the low-aggression variant of the MAO-A gene, except for one person.

“You see that? I’m 100 percent. I have the pattern, the risky pattern,” he says, then pauses. “In a sense, I’m a born killer.”


Courtesy of Jim Fallon

Fallon was prompted to study his brain after his mother, Jenny, told him his ancestry was full of alleged murderers.

Fallon was prompted to study his brain after his mother, Jenny, told him his ancestry was full of alleged murderers.

Fallon’s being tongue-in-cheek — sort of. He doesn’t believe his fate or anyone else’s is entirely determined by genes. They merely tip you in one direction or another.

And yet: “When I put the two together, it was frankly a little disturbing,” Fallon says with a laugh. “You start to look at yourself and you say, ‘I may be a sociopath.’ I don’t think I am, but this looks exactly like [the brains of] the psychopaths, the sociopaths, that I’ve seen before.”

I asked his wife, Diane, what she thought of the result.

“I wasn’t too concerned,” she says, laughing. “I mean, I’ve known him since I was 12.”

Diane probably does not need to worry, according to scientists who study this area. They believe that brain patterns and genetic makeup are not enough to make anyone a psychopath. You need a third ingredient: abuse or violence in one’s childhood.

“And fortunately, he wasn’t abused as a young person,” Diane says, “so I’ve lived to be a ripe old age so far.”

The New World of ‘Neurolaw’

Jim Fallon says he had a terrific childhood; he was doted on by his parents and had loving relationships with his brothers and sisters and entire extended family. Significantly, he says this journey through his brain has changed the way he thinks about nature and nurture. He once believed that genes and brain function could determine everything about us. But now he thinks his childhood may have made all the difference.

“We’ll never know, but the way these patterns are looking in general population, had I been abused, we might not be sitting here today,” he says.

As for the psychopaths he studies, Fallon feels some compassion for these people who, he says, got “a bad roll of the dice.”

“It’s an unlucky day when all of these three things come together in a bad way, and I think one has to empathize with what happened to them,” he says.

But what about people who rape and murder — should we feel empathy for them? Should they be allowed to argue in court that their brains made them do it? Enter the new world of “neurolaw” — in which neuroscience is used as evidence in the courtroom.

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty @ NPR.org

June 29, 2010 | First in a three-part series.

.

Explore The Series

PART 2: Inside A Psychopath’s Brain:The Sentencing DebateJune 30, 2010

PART 3: Can Your Genes Make You Murder?July 1, 2010

Want To Get Faster, Smarter? Sleep 10 Hours

Download to Listen to the Story

New research adds to a growing body of evidence showing the perks of a good night’s sleep.

A study from researchers at Stanford University finds that extra hours of sleep at night can help improve football players’ performance on drills such as the 40-yard dash and the 20-yard shuttle.

“The goal was to aim for 10 hours of sleep per night,” says Cheri Mah of the Stanford Sleep Disorders Clinic. At the beginning of the season, Mah found that the players had moderate levels of daytime fatigue, even though they thought they were getting enough rest at night. Seven players were included in the study.

It’s not easy to convince college students to add hours of sleep to their schedules each day. “It’s a lot to ask,” Mah says, but throughout the season she was able to document a significant extension of nighttime sleep.

Early in the season, the players’ average 40-yard dash time was 4.99 seconds. But after six weeks of extra ZZZs, the average time dropped one-tenth of a second — to 4.89 seconds.

“That could mean millions in the NFL,” says Dr. Tim Church of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University. “A tenth of a second is a huge, huge difference from a performance standpoint.”

As the players’ performance on drills improved with the extra sleep, their levels of daytime fatigue dropped dramatically. And the scores on vigor tests improved, too.

“It’s not a surprise,” Church says. He adds that the players’ workouts are so extreme and intense that “when you give them a little extra time to recover, you see additional benefits.”

It’s hard to say how the connection between more sleep and improved physical performance may translate to weekend warriors — or middle-age folks who are just trying to hold onto a nine-minute jogging pace.

The take-home message here, Church says, is that this is just one more example of how sleep makes a difference.

Sleep And Preschool Success

The benefits of adequate sleep extend far beyond what’s now being documented on athletic performance. And when it comes to teaching good sleep hygiene, it seems parents can never start too early.

One new study that explored the sleep habits of preschool-age children finds that bedtime rituals and rules play a unique role in the development of 4-year-olds.

“This is a good time to look at things like early learning and brain development,” says researcher Erika Gaylor of SRI International, a nonprofit research institute in Menlo Park, Calif.

She analyzed a federal survey of some 8,000 families in which parents were asked a slew of questions about bedtime. The survey was ongoing — from the time their kids were 9 months old through the start of kindergarten. Parents were surveyed several times throughout this period.

The researchers asked questions such as, “What time does your child go to bed?” and “Do you as parents have a rule about bedtime?” Researchers followed up with home visits, during which they conducted one-on-one assessments to measure math and language skills.

“What was really surprising was that having a rule about bedtime was associated with higher scores on language and math skills,” Gaylor says.

Children of parents who reported having a rule about bedtime scored about 6 percentage points higher on an assessment of their vocabulary compared with children whose parents did not report a rule about bedtime. They scored 7 percent higher on assessments of early math skills.

They were small but significant differences. And researchers say the study is yet another example of the power of a good night’s sleep.

Both of these studies are being presented this week at the annual SLEEP conference, which is a joint venture of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society.

by Allison Aubrey @ NPR.org

Related Blog Posts

Some Teens Who Sleep Less Gain More Weight May 4, 2010

Sleep Apnea Raises Risk For Stroke April 9, 2010

\ Advice For Hardgainers

Are you a hardgainer? Trouble packing the muscle on? Are you an ectomorph? Need to bulk up for football? This is another video in my Beginning Bodybuilding series that discusses how to gain muscle, how quickly you can expect to gain muscle, and how to measure your progress.

Please check out my website for more information
http://www.scoobysworkshop.com

You can also check out my new book reveiew section:
http://www.scoobysworkshop.com/goodfitnessbooks

And my new really cool online calorie calculator:
http://www.scoobysworkshop.com/caloriecalculator

Tanning Beds Substantially Raise Skin Cancer Risks

Indoor tanning may be more dangerous than previously thought.

New research finds people who frequent tanning salons significantly increase their risk of getting melanoma, one of the most aggressive and deadliest cancers.

Cancer epidemiologist and lead researcher DeAnn Lazovich of the University of Minnesota says melanoma risk was 74 percent higher for the people who tanned indoors compared with those who didn’t.

Because melanoma is related to exposure to ultraviolet light, researchers from the University of Minnesota wanted to know exactly how much of the risk indoor tanning contributed.

Those who tanned indoors most frequently faced the biggest risk. In questionnaires and telephone interviews of more than 2,200 people (about evenly divided between cancer patients and those without the disease), Lazovich asked about their tanning habits. Had they ever used indoor tanning? Is so, at what age did they start and how often did they go?

She found the risk increased for people who reported more than 10 years of use, more than 100 tanning lifetime sessions or spent more than 50 hours in tanning beds. The findings appear in the latest issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center’s Dr. Allan Halpern, chief of dermatology, says these findings are an important addition to evidence about tanning beds and melanoma risk. Tanning is unsafe no matter how people do it, he says. “What tanning beds are doing is concentrating the same kind of rays that we get from the sun; so, you’re getting a much bigger dose” than you would from the same amount of time outdoors, he says.

Another dispute has been over the increasing use of indoor tanning by younger people, particularly teenage girls. The federal government estimates that 1 in 5  girls has been to a tanning booth at some point in her life.

Several studies have raised questions about the link between the age which people start tanning and melanoma risk. Lazovich says that, although certain research found links between indoor tanning that started before the age of 36 and melanoma, her study didn’t find such a link. The accumulation of exposure was the culprit.

Nevertheless the World Health Organization has classified tanning beds as carcinogenic and recommends banning them for kids under 18.

Melanoma appears as a dark brown or black patch with irregular edges.  Sometimes, its multi colored with shades of red, blue, or white. Every year, more than 68,000 people are diagnosed with melanoma. About 10 percent will die.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration regulates the ultraviolet light dose from indoor tanning and sets guidelines for how long people should stay in tanning beds. The agency is considering stricter regulation, including stronger warnings on the beds themselves, requiring teenagers to get approval from their parents before allowed entry to a salon, along with a ‘ban’ for kids under 18.

Officials with the indoor-tanning industry question the findings, saying the results could be biased because researchers looked only at people in Minnesota, who are largely caucasian, and therefore at greater risk of melanoma.

NPR.org by Patti Neighmond