Stacey Irvine, 17, collapses after eating only McDonald's chicken nuggets since age 2

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
There is a theory now that humans evolved to be persistence hunters by developing a more advanced cooling system than other animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

I'm not 100% sold on it though as it seems to be quite a difficult way of acquiring food compared with other techniques especially when you consider that we have an intelligence advantage over prey animals.

Be careful when you use the word theory, it implies that there is a large amount of evidence that supports a hypothesis that can be used to make predictions that are correct.

It also goes against the proven theory of the evolution of primates.

I'll say it's on par with Hovinds hypothesis of Dinosaurs being "Jesus horses".
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Be careful when you use the word theory, it implies that there is a large amount of evidence that supports a hypothesis that can be used to make predictions that are correct.

It also goes against the proven theory of the evolution of primates.

I'll say it's on par with Hovinds hypothesis of Dinosaurs being "Jesus horses".

I would also consider it more of a hypothesis than a theory at this point. I was using the word theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one but I should have been more precise.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I would also consider it more of a hypothesis than a theory at this point. I was using the word theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific one but I should have been more precise.

When used in common conversations the terms are interchangeable but in this case where we are actually debating biological science and evolution no less, it's probably a good idea to stick to the correct terms.

No worries though, i got your point and while i don't quite get the merits of the hypothesis over general evolutionary theory, i accept that it's a hypothesis that is out there.

I really want to tell those proposing it "now provide evidence" though.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Then you misunderstood it or it was a travesty of a program.

Our brains don't require proteins, they are made up of fatty tissue and use carbohydrates for energy, this isn't up for discussion, it's been known for 100 years. I'll go with fruits and berries for 1 trillion dollars Alec.

Reading comprehension is not taught in the UK it appears. Lets try again, only this time I will use baby sized sentences so maybe you can better understand.

Digestion uses a lot of engery.
Brains use a lot of energy.
Bigger brains use more energy than smaller brains.
Meat hard to digest when raw.
Hard to digest means it takes more energy to digest in order to get the needed nutrients out of it.
Cooking food makes it easier to digest.
Easier to digest meants it takes less energy to digest in order to get the needed nutrients out of it.
Less energy needed to process food means more energy available for larger brains.
Larger brains aid in survival.
Survival means more reproduction.
More reproduction means larger brains are passed on to offspring.

The rest is so ... stupid... we're not great runners, humans never hunted based on outrunning others and ALL animals have a way to release excessive heat.

The fastest sprinter and the most durable runners on earth, Cheetas and Elephants, don't sweat at all.

You confuse distance with speed. Cheetas can only run short distances and then must stop and pant or they die. Humans can run for a great many miles without the need to stop. Cheetas will need to stop and cool off, humans catch up, kill easy pray which cannot run away now.

And just think, in another thread you claimed to actually be smart. When you are presented with information that could easily be true (due to it having been presenting on a scientific show, you should ask for support for the statement instead of spouting vitriol and making yourself look foolish.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
To lend support to both my statements, I am invoking Harvard for the first:

A couple of million years ago or so, our hominid ancestors began exchanging their lowbrow looks for forehead prominence. The trigger for the large, calorie-hungry brains of ours is cooking, argues Richard W. Wrangham, the Ruth B. Moore Professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. He hit on his theory after decades of study of our closest cousin, the chimpanzee. For the Insights story "Cooking Up Bigger Brains," appearing in the January 2008 Scientific American, Rachael Moeller Gorman talked with Wrangham about chimps, food, fire, human evolution and the evidence for his controversial theory. Here is an expanded interview.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolving-bigger-brains-th

The other, I will invoke the Journal of Human Evolution:

The results of the research support earlier findings that long-distance running in Homo sapiens evolved over two million years ago and probably helped early humans in hunting before spears began to be widely used about 400,000 years ago. The ability to run long distances in hot environments is thought to help in running prey to exhaustion.

The paper was published in the Journal of Human Evolution.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-early-humans-won-neandertals.html
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Reading comprehension is not taught in the UK it appears. Lets try again, only this time I will use baby sized sentences so maybe you can better understand.

Digestion uses a lot of engery.
Brains use a lot of energy.
Bigger brains use more energy than smaller brains.
Meat hard to digest when raw.
Hard to digest means it takes more energy to digest in order to get the needed nutrients out of it.
Cooking food makes it easier to digest.
Easier to digest meants it takes less energy to digest in order to get the needed nutrients out of it.
Less energy needed to process food means more energy available for larger brains.
Larger brains aid in survival.
Survival means more reproduction.
More reproduction means larger brains are passed on to offspring.



You confuse distance with speed. Cheetas can only run short distances and then must stop and pant or they die. Humans can run for a great many miles without the need to stop. Cheetas will need to stop and cool off, humans catch up, kill easy pray which cannot run away now.

And just think, in another thread you claimed to actually be smart. When you are presented with information that could easily be true (due to it having been presenting on a scientific show, you should ask for support for the statement instead of spouting vitriol and making yourself look foolish.

Are you really this fucking daft? IT'S NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION WHETHER SIMPLE SUGARS FROM FRUITS AND BERRIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUDDEN PEAK OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, IT'S BEEN KNOWN FOR 100 YEARS THAT IT IS THE CASE.

And i didn't confuse anything, i showed you that both the worlds greatest sprinters (cheetas) and the best long distance runners (elephants) don't sweat. Humans are among the worst and not good hunters without weapons, a third grade biology teacher cold have (and should have) taught you that much. We are horribly inefficient and hopelessly flawed physically, we have big brains and that is our ONLY claim to fame as a species.

Why you persist with this stupidity is beyond me, just accept that you are wrong and be done with it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Are you really this fucking daft? IT'S NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION WHETHER SIMPLE SUGARS FROM FRUITS AND BERRIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUDDEN PEAK OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, IT'S BEEN KNOWN FOR 100 YEARS THAT IT IS THE CASE.

Shouting does not make you any less wrong. I suggest you take it up with the professors at Harvard and explain to them why YOU are right and they are idiots.

And i didn't confuse anything, i showed you that both the worlds greatest sprinters (cheetas) and the best long distance runners (elephants) don't sweat. Humans are among the worst and not good hunters without weapons, a third grade biology teacher cold have (and should have) taught you that much. We are horribly inefficient and hopelessly flawed physically, we have big brains and that is our ONLY claim to fame as a species.

I suggest you take it up with the Journal of Human Evolution and explain to them why YOU are right and THEY are wrong.

Why you persist with this stupidity is beyond me, just accept that you are wrong and be done with it.

I persist in trying to help you move away from your stupidity because you persist in showing it to everyone.

You claim I am wrong...yet I am quoting Harvard and the Journal of Human Evolution. You are quoting...well...you are not quoting anything. You are just saying "cause I said so" which is rather lame. You do not accept that from others, so why do you expect others to accept it from you?

How about you support your position with something other than "cause I said so" or rather "CAUSE I SAID SO"? Post something with some teeth in it...something that can actually rebutt Harvard and The Journal of Human Evolution.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
I'm surprised JoS hasn't managed to somehow incorporate in this thread about chicken nuggets, his 27 tours in Afghanistan hunting the worst of Al Qaeda while in the SAS.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
Are you really this fucking daft? IT'S NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION WHETHER SIMPLE SUGARS FROM FRUITS AND BERRIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUDDEN PEAK OF HUMAN EVOLUTION, IT'S BEEN KNOWN FOR 100 YEARS THAT IT IS THE CASE.

And i didn't confuse anything, i showed you that both the worlds greatest sprinters (cheetas) and the best long distance runners (elephants) don't sweat. Humans are among the worst and not good hunters without weapons, a third grade biology teacher cold have (and should have) taught you that much. We are horribly inefficient and hopelessly flawed physically, we have big brains and that is our ONLY claim to fame as a species.

Why you persist with this stupidity is beyond me, just accept that you are wrong and be done with it.

Elephants are the best long distance runners....huh?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Hairless, clawless, and largely weaponless, ancient humans used the unlikely combination of sweatiness and relentlessness to gain the upper hand over their faster, stronger, generally more dangerous animal prey, Harvard Anthropology Professor Daniel Lieberman said Thursday (April 12).

While more than a million humans run marathons voluntarily each year, most animals we consider excellent runners — antelopes and cheetahs, for example — are built for speed, not endurance. Even nature’s best animal distance runners — such as horses and dogs — will run similar distances only if forced to do so, and the startling evidence is that humans are better at it, Lieberman said.
Modern humans and their immediate ancestors such as Homo erectus sport several adaptations that make humans, instead of some ferocious, furry, or fleet creature, the animal world’s best distance runners.
“Humans are terrible athletes in terms of power and speed, but we’re phenomenal at slow and steady. We’re the tortoises of the animal kingdom,” Lieberman said.


By the end of the process, Lieberman said, even humans with their crude early weapons could have overcome stronger and more dangerous prey. Adding credence to the theory, Lieberman said, is the fact that some aboriginal humans still practice persistence hunting today, and it remains an effective technique. It requires very minimal technology, has a high success rate, and yields a lot of meat.
http://www.physorg.com/news95954919.html
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Elephants are the best long distance runners....huh?

They are not even in the top 5. The Ostrich is very good. Dogs are good too, but we selectively bred them for it. Antelope are very good distance runners as well.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
How many foods out there would you only be able to eat it and only it and not be unhealthy?

Assuming chicken nuggets would only be the chicken and batter fried in oil, not sure you could maintain a healthy lifestyle eating only 1 thing so simple.
 

slayernine

Senior member
Jul 23, 2007
895
0
71
slayernine.com
I eat a Bacon Egg McGriddle everyday with a large coffee and I feel great. How is fast food actually different than any other food? If your body can digest it and you occasionally get some exercise why wouldn't a reasonable amount of McDonalds be perfectly fine to intake. I think back to the butter smothered, salt infused food that many people eat at home and think that its healthy when it clearly is not. The only difference I see is that fast food is heavily processed but what does that have to do with how good or bad it is. All I hear is a lot of hype around fast food and no real facts to back up why eating McDonalds is any worse than eating steak and potatoes.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I eat a Bacon Egg McGriddle everyday with a large coffee and I feel great. How is fast food actually different than any other food? If your body can digest it and you occasionally get some exercise why wouldn't a reasonable amount of McDonalds be perfectly fine to intake. I think back to the butter smothered, salt infused food that many people eat at home and think that its healthy when it clearly is not. The only difference I see is that fast food is heavily processed but what does that have to do with how good or bad it is. All I hear is a lot of hype around fast food and no real facts to back up why eating McDonalds is any worse than eating steak and potatoes.

Absolutely. That McGriddle is certainly not good for you, but put in with good foods for the rest of the day and get proper exercise and you will be fine.

McDonalds is bad due to the horribly high fat, cholesteral, and sodium levels in it.

view_pic.php
 
Last edited:

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
s9, fast food is different.

It concentrates mostly on sodium and fat. It will give you the energy to do things, but is sorely lacking in the nutrients needed to function optimally.

You can live on it, especially when you are younger, but it is not a good long-term energy food, it does not have a good protein to caloric ratio, and the vitamin content is abysmal.

Supersize Me was a good study of what an outrageous diet could do to your health. It was not a marker of what happens to everyone, but the results are similar in 99% of the general public in varying degrees dependent on how exclusive they are.

Now, as for all this parenting talk, many of you are remembering your own childhood and/or projecting your thoughts about how things should be rather than how they are.

As a dad with a 3yo, what you want is not what you get. Jr has been eating pretty well, albeit a bit salty, with Broccoli, Mushrooms and Carrots being things he actually likes (sauteed garlic also helps in that vein). But getting them to eat a full meal at that age is very hard.

One thing that my own parents would do would be the "you eat what you take and you have to take a bit of everything". So you take a sprig of broccoli, a mound of mashed potatoes and a small bit of meat....

Only to say "I'm not hungry" and get up from the table. Well, that mount of potatoes would get wrapped up and put in the fridge for when you came back asking for a snack.

We learned early on not to do this.

People seem to think it is either one way or another. Shoving food in a kids face does not work (although sometimes getting a bit on the lips to taste it does). Catering to them, like McIdiot here, also does not work.

You need to realize that this is a small person, and they will like some things more than others. But at the same time that they need to know that you can't live on hot dogs and chicken nuggets.

Not long, at least.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Shouting does not make you any less wrong. I suggest you take it up with the professors at Harvard and explain to them why YOU are right and they are idiots.

I suggest you take it up with the Journal of Human Evolution and explain to them why YOU are right and THEY are wrong.

Once again we have a post from someone who - in one context - is extremely comfortable with the notion that scientists know a hell of a lot more than ATPN posters. Yet in the context of anthropomorphic climate change, Cybersage tells us he knows more than scientists.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
14
81
I wonder if she was the main reason why my McDonald's stock has tripled since the crash in 2008?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Once again we have a post from someone who - in one context - is extremely comfortable with the notion that scientists know a hell of a lot more than ATPN posters. Yet in the context of anthropomorphic climate change, Cybersage tells us he knows more than scientists.

Oh hai! It is the troll who thinks oranges and apples are the same thing!
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
I wonder if she was the main reason why my McDonald's stock has tripled since the crash in 2008?

Had she been eating McDoubles, McChickens, or 1$ anysize drink then absolutely yes. Chicken nuggets are meant for those with deeper pockets and their sales haven't been in a boom since the recession.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Oh hai! It is the troll who thinks oranges and apples are the same thing!

Why don't you explain to us why evolutionary biologists are "apples" - who you think know much more than ATPN posters, but climatologists are "oranges- who you think you know more than? Tell us, in principle, what the difference is between your two widely-divergent statements?