RE: tooth brushing/ intestinal length/Suze

[Guest guest]

>>>>I found your comment about the changes in the intestinal length of a

dog very interesting. Do you know how long has it taken for this to

occur?

--->they don't say. the researchers write that the dogs fed *fermentable*

fiber (beet pulp and FOS) had longer and heavier small intestines as

compared to the group fed cellulose (non-fermentable fiber). this

effectively increased the absorptive surface, which resulted in increased

absorption of glucose and proline in this study. but apparently the same

results weren't found in dogs fed other types of fiber. the authors said

it's specifically *highly fermentable* fibers that had this effect.

(although, beet pulp is typically considered a *moderately fermentable*

fiber, but FOS is highly fermentable. (these fibers also changed bacterial

density and profile, such as lower clostridial and enterobacteriaceae

numbers and higher lactobacilli and steptococci numbers, for example.)

they also mention other studies with cats and dogs have found structural

changes in GIT in response to fermentable fiber - presumably similar

structural changes. this also reminds me of what wharton writes in

" Metabolic Man: 10,000 Years from Eden " about a study that found autopsied

humans had a 30-fold(!) difference in gut length. I don't remember how many

cadavers were in the study, but how amazing to have such differences in the

same species! i always think of that when i see simplistic comparisons of

different species gut lengths, which are almost always vegetarian sites

trying to *prove* humans are naturally more herbivorous than omnivorous or

carnivorous. wonder *whose* gut they are comparing?

>>>>We are often talking about how we must go back to a more traditional

diet to be healthier.I totally agree, however one of the reasons we

say this is, because we believe our bodies have NOT adapted to the

changes in our food supply. I realize how horrendous these changes

have been in a very short time and how damaged and/or altered many of

our foods have become. Still I am curious if there has been any

research anyone has come across about how long it takes for POSITIVE

physical adaptations to occur based on dietary changes. I call them

positve because, because they allow us to survive and prehaps even

thrive.

----->well, i don't think a natural organism (us!) can ever really adapt to

a *nutrient-deficient* diet of processed foods that wreak havoc with

hormonal balance, blood sugar, etc. but if you're talking about the

transition from say an omnivore to an obligate carnivore...i dunno...that's

natural selection which takes maybe thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of

thousands, or even longer depending on numerous variables. interestingly,

dogs and cats are descended from the same common ancestor - the Miacids.

they branched off approx. 55 million years ago. i have no idea if cats were

*obligate* carnivores at that time, or whether canids were either (they WERE

carnivores, though), but 55 million years later dogs are not obligate

carnivores and cats are - meaning they have some differences in how they

respond to different foods. as an example cats CANNOT convert carotenoids to

vit. A, but dogs can. this is probably not very representative of how long

it takes a species to adapt to a new diet though, i don't recall the

specific number of years, but a new species can evolve in something like

5-15,000 years, IIRC, IF they are isolated from the original group long

enough. this has happened with some species of canids. BUT, i don't know if

that affected their digestive anatomy at all, probably very little actually.

AFAIK, all canids are primarily carnivorous, although a number of the

smaller species have a more significant amount of plant foods in the diet as

compared to the larger grey wolves - the dogs' ancestor.

hmmm...i guess this doesn't really speak to your question about *positive*

dietary changes. I guess we'd have to define *positive* in order to find

examples of it. with the branching of felids and canids, i would think it

was just an *adaptation* to what was regionally available...not sure if it's

'positive' or 'negative' it just is what enabled them to survive and

reproduce - guess that would be positive :-)

>>>>>>Look at how people who eat more proteins grow taller? Are there

other changes too, some which are not so visible? We certainly no

longer look like Neanderthals, or even the primative peoples' Price

studied.

----->i believe prevailing theory is that we are not *descended* from

neanderthals, but our ancestors - cro magnon - co-existed at the same time

of the neanderthals. someone correct me if that's wrong, please.

>>>>>Did Price measure height? I am not saying taller is better,

just wondering abut the " why " of the changes.

----->i think he mentioned something about the dinka being 'healthier' and

of sturdier stock than the taller milk n' meat tribes. i'm not sure if that

was someone else's interpretation of his work, or whether he himself felt

they were 'healthier.' they were all quite healthy so i think that would

almost be an opinion more than something that could be subjectively

measured. i could be wrong, though.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Hi Suze,

You are right about our being decendants of Cro magan. From the looks

of the Neanderathal I guess we should be tahnkfu!

I have a few other comments but must save them until later today when

I have more time to write back. Thanks for your reply, as always it

was thoughtfully written and knowledgeable.

Sheila

> >>>>I found your comment about the changes in the intestinal length

of a

> dog very interesting. Do you know how long has it taken for this to

> occur?

>

> --->they don't say. the researchers write that the dogs fed

*fermentable*

> fiber (beet pulp and FOS) had longer and heavier small intestines as

> compared to the group fed cellulose (non-fermentable fiber). this

> effectively increased the absorptive surface, which resulted in

increased

> absorption of glucose and proline in this study. but apparently the

same

> results weren't found in dogs fed other types of fiber. the authors

said

> it's specifically *highly fermentable* fibers that had this effect.

> (although, beet pulp is typically considered a *moderately

fermentable*

> fiber, but FOS is highly fermentable. (these fibers also changed

bacterial

> density and profile, such as lower clostridial and

enterobacteriaceae

> numbers and higher lactobacilli and steptococci numbers, for

example.)

>

> they also mention other studies with cats and dogs have found

structural

> changes in GIT in response to fermentable fiber - presumably similar

> structural changes. this also reminds me of what wharton writes in

> " Metabolic Man: 10,000 Years from Eden " about a study that found

autopsied

> humans had a 30-fold(!) difference in gut length. I don't remember

how many

> cadavers were in the study, but how amazing to have such

differences in the

> same species! i always think of that when i see simplistic

comparisons of

> different species gut lengths, which are almost always vegetarian

sites

> trying to *prove* humans are naturally more herbivorous than

omnivorous or

> carnivorous. wonder *whose* gut they are comparing?

>

> >>>>We are often talking about how we must go back to a more

traditional

> diet to be healthier.I totally agree, however one of the reasons we

> say this is, because we believe our bodies have NOT adapted to the

> changes in our food supply. I realize how horrendous these changes

> have been in a very short time and how damaged and/or altered many

of

> our foods have become. Still I am curious if there has been any

> research anyone has come across about how long it takes for POSITIVE

> physical adaptations to occur based on dietary changes. I call them

> positve because, because they allow us to survive and prehaps even

> thrive.

>

> ----->well, i don't think a natural organism (us!) can ever really

adapt to

> a *nutrient-deficient* diet of processed foods that wreak havoc with

> hormonal balance, blood sugar, etc. but if you're talking about the

> transition from say an omnivore to an obligate carnivore...i

dunno...that's

> natural selection which takes maybe thousands of years, perhaps

hundreds of

> thousands, or even longer depending on numerous variables.

interestingly,

> dogs and cats are descended from the same common ancestor - the

Miacids.

> they branched off approx. 55 million years ago. i have no idea if

cats were

> *obligate* carnivores at that time, or whether canids were either

(they WERE

> carnivores, though), but 55 million years later dogs are not

obligate

> carnivores and cats are - meaning they have some differences in how

they

> respond to different foods. as an example cats CANNOT convert

carotenoids to

> vit. A, but dogs can. this is probably not very representative of

how long

> it takes a species to adapt to a new diet though, i don't recall the

> specific number of years, but a new species can evolve in something

like

> 5-15,000 years, IIRC, IF they are isolated from the original group

long

> enough. this has happened with some species of canids. BUT, i don't

know if

> that affected their digestive anatomy at all, probably very little

actually.

> AFAIK, all canids are primarily carnivorous, although a number of

the

> smaller species have a more significant amount of plant foods in

the diet as

> compared to the larger grey wolves - the dogs' ancestor.

>

> hmmm...i guess this doesn't really speak to your question about

*positive*

> dietary changes. I guess we'd have to define *positive* in order to

find

> examples of it. with the branching of felids and canids, i would

think it

> was just an *adaptation* to what was regionally available...not

sure if it's

> 'positive' or 'negative' it just is what enabled them to survive and

> reproduce - guess that would be positive :-)

>

> >>>>>>Look at how people who eat more proteins grow taller? Are

there

> other changes too, some which are not so visible? We certainly no

> longer look like Neanderthals, or even the primative peoples' Price

> studied.

>

> ----->i believe prevailing theory is that we are not *descended*

from

> neanderthals, but our ancestors - cro magnon - co-existed at the

same time

> of the neanderthals. someone correct me if that's wrong, please.

>

> >>>>>Did Price measure height? I am not saying taller is better,

> just wondering abut the " why " of the changes.

>

> ----->i think he mentioned something about the dinka

being 'healthier' and

> of sturdier stock than the taller milk n' meat tribes. i'm not sure

if that

> was someone else's interpretation of his work, or whether he

himself felt

> they were 'healthier.' they were all quite healthy so i think that

would

> almost be an opinion more than something that could be subjectively

> measured. i could be wrong, though.

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

> mailto:s.fisher22@v...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>i believe prevailing theory is that we are not *descended* from

>neanderthals, but our ancestors - cro magnon - co-existed at the same time

>of the neanderthals. someone correct me if that's wrong, please.

That used to be the prevailing theory, but now it's believed that

Neanderthals interbred with our other ancestors, and that we are in fact

partly descended from them.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>>Suze-

>i believe prevailing theory is that we are not *descended* from

>neanderthals, but our ancestors - cro magnon - co-existed at the same time

>of the neanderthals. someone correct me if that's wrong, please.

That used to be the prevailing theory, but now it's believed that

Neanderthals interbred with our other ancestors, and that we are in fact

partly descended from them.

----->interesting....i have recentlynread the " Not descended from

neanderthals " theory. do you recall where you read about the

interbreeding...i'd like to read more about it. hey, isn't that what Clan of

the Cave Bear was about?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>do you recall where you read about the

>interbreeding...i'd like to read more about it.

It was in an article in the NY Times, but I just went looking for it and I

can't tell which article is the one I read, because now they're charging

for old (even a couple months old) articles.

-