 |
| http://madame.lefigaro.fr/art-de-vivre/on-mange-quoi-cet-hiver-311012-303104 |
 |
Harold L. Dibble:
You know, I sometimes wonder why some people argue so strongly that Neandertals have to be considered to be just like us, as if to say otherwise is some kind of insult to them. Considerting our current condition, and our very uncertain future, I tend to think that pushing our brand of humanity on them could be the bigger insult. |
|
John Speth:
Hi Beth, a topic dear to my heart! Here I recognize that my views as they are evolving may be more than three standard deviations from the current mean, but here goes anyway. Generally bones are what preserve, big bones are more visible and seemingly of more interest to a lot of people, and reflect a long bias in our own traditions. So since Darwin, and probably long before we have seen big-game hunting as what we as humans are all about and it is what largely drove our evolution. But a close look at modern hunter-gatherers like the Hadza and San (Bushmen) suggests that men do most of their big-game hunting at the time when other foods, gathered mostly by women, are at their peak (baobab, mopane worms, various seeds, nuts and fruit, etc.). Also men's hunting is notoriously unreliable, they fail most of the time, the spend inordinate amounts of time tracking, etc, not a very reliable and effective way of provisioning on a per capita daily basis. Social/political dimensions such as "costly signaling" are now being looked at very closely by behavioral ecologists (same for chimpanzees) and it looks increasingly like male hunting of big game is largely underwritten by women and serves social/political functions first and foremost and provisioning second. In many hunter-gatherers, men would do better in return rates and reliability by doing what women did. There's another entire issue with the nitrogen values in Neanderthals, but I better leave that one alone here. There's also alot of work going on now showing from microfossils in Neanderthal teeth that they were indeed exploiting plant foods. We don't know how much. |
| Results of incidence for total, prostate and colo-rectal cancers |
| The difference in men with previous history of cancer is also on incidence of cancers |
92 g/day) and the trend was borderline significant (P for trend=0.07). Raw vegetable intake was significantly inversely associated with ischemic stroke (>27 vs 27 g/day; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.34–0.73), and raw fruit borderline significantly with hemorrhagic stroke (>120 vs 120 g/day; HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.28–1.01).
Articles
Commentaires
