On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:57 AM, hillrunner_tx <preedntx@aol.com> wrote:
I'd think the *theory* that people lived near the shoreline would be somewhat accurate. But, there's no way in the world any animal, unless you're amphibious, would want to live close to the edge of a lake or river. Safety would be the prime factor--the big hunters need to consume water just like the herds of other animals. Because of the traffic and other threats--crocodile,s snakes like water moccasins or fellow human beings--hanging out on or near a river or lake edge wouldn't be the safest place except in large numbers such as villages. Otherwise, humans before the days of the village were probably gathered in groups living in trees or elevated areas away from the rivers or lakes for safety.
Except that if you look at a map of human populations ... that is exactly where they live. On the shores of lakes and rivers and the ocean. The populations that lived near some oceans did move inland in the stormy seasons. Small groups though ... yeah, they live near lakes and rivers too. Human beings pretty much HAVE to be by water. And some of the earliest humans seem to have lived in forests that flooded a lot. We are very good around water.
You would think water would be very dangerous, but there are people that have gone swimming in some of the most dangerous water.
He survived swimming the entire Amazon, though he had doctors handy ... but granted he was not a native who would know the wildlife better, with no innate resistance to local diseases.
The large cats generally won't hunt in water, so for a small unarmed human, it's safer to be in the water. Crocs are looking for mammals above the water, not so much in it. Bonobos live quite well in such a flooded forest environment, and have been observed wading for hours, apparently eating shrimp. Plus, if you are in the water, the mosquitos can't get you and it's cooler: some people in Africa today spend plenty of time in the lake during the day, for that reason.
Anyway, it's not a theory. The analyses of foods of the earliest humans show lots of shells and fish bones. And they ate waterbirds too. One 700k old camp shows a specialized part of the camp just for processing fish. Shoreline food has fed more human beings than any other type, historically ... and that is still true in much of the world.
Which has to do with Fast-5 in that ... I think fish and waterbird and egg protein is the most satisfying. (Probably insects too, but I'm not up for that yet!). I do try to eat one or two eggs and some fish daily. My family sort of adopted the idea too. I also try to stick with water/swamp plants (garlic, onion, yam, arrowroot, rice, coconut, seaweed) more than dry land plants (corn, wheat, white potatoes etc.). It's an experiment, but it WORKS.
And I'd challenge anyone to catch a rabbit or fish (especially with your barehanded). It takes a special skill to do either. Guarantee, those bugs will taste good when you get hungry enough or don't want to head down to the water to try to catch an elusive fish.
Um, yeah, I've gathered food for meals by the seashore. Fish typically get caught in tidepools or stuck on rafts of seaweed, but kids can catch them in the water, esp. the slower fish (and flatfish just SIT there on the bottom, and catfish just sit under overhangs). But you can bring up a nice haul of crabs, conch, clams, oysters, mussels, shrimp without any agility at all. You can catch squid with a simple lure. A fair bit of stuff just washes on shore and you can just collect it at low tide. And where there are tidepools, you can generally get enough for a meal without even going in the water. The local Indians DID gather a lot of stuff by the shore ... they also used nets and simple traps to catch fish.
Also, sugary fruits aren't really available in the wilds. Fruits in the wild are much different than the sugar-loaded versions in the grocery stores.
A lot of the store-fruits are actually LOWER in sugar than their wild counterparts: the really sugary fruits don't ship well. It is true for apples and oranges, which have been highly bred, but wild persimmons are among the sweetest fruits in existence (pawpaws too, I think). The "sugar loaded fruit" theory I think is something Mythbusters should take on!
Anyway, some starches start turning into sugar the minute you eat them, so white rice has a higher glycemic index than sugar (72 vs 65). And you are apt to eat more white rice than straight sugar. And yet the Asians are not keeling over from diabetes (until they eat Western food, anyway). It is a mystery!
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment