Well, the 80-10-10 theory and it's author claims that humans natural area is not more than a thousand miles from the Equator. We moved North (and South) and we paid the price. But, who is all that fruit and vegetable that grows in Northern areas for? Do we really eat birds' food? Or other animals'? Is it not our natural habitat? How come I love grapes so much (I love other fruit too, but nothing like grapes...and maybe mulberries)? Apples, pears etc. - who were they for if winters are so harsh?

Could it be that we adjusted a little bit to a different type of food? A little bit? Just a tiny bit? Or how does all that work (in theory)?

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....could it be that we adjusted a little bit to a
> different type of food? A little bit? Just a tiny
> bit? Or how does all that work (in theory)?

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." ......Yogi Berra

We aren't the only creatures that eat stuff though Rab, not everything on this earth was meant for human consumption no matter how much we act like it is. Birds, bears, bees, there are tons of other beings inhabiting the sphere.

ok then...if our bodies were made for Equator area - does that mean that we should only eat fruit and vegetable from that area? Are we built for that type of food, or is the food from other areas just as good?

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ......Are we built for that
> type of food, or is the food from other areas just
> as good?
Man first appeared near the Equator, but found the Fruit
lacking the vibrancy his Body craved. Man then started migrating
in search of Greens. Only there did he find satisfaction.
I just made that up.....WY

Does Doug give any reasoning for this theory?

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]

I think we need to take all the years of evolution into account here, nothing is as it once was. What doesn't change to adapt dies.

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> or is the food from other areas just
> as good?

You can answer that for yourself. What is fruit made of? What are greens made of? In other words... our bodies aren't designed to eat melons, bananas, and coconuts -- our bodies are designed to eat carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, minerals. So it really doesn't matter where the fruit came from because it has the same basic molecular building blocks.

I think the bigger indicator that we are equatorial creatures is our physical design. Our practically hairless bodies were not designed for cold weather without the aid of clothing and we have a built in cooling system where sweat evaporates from the skin and clothing interrupts the process. If we were meant for cold weather we would have evolved with fur. (Unless you subscribe to the aquatic ape theory, and even then the water was warm.)

I agree i get abit tried of hearing the whole evolution theory which is usually flawed who it comes from and there reasoning's. We are not rats, monkeys, cows etc, we may bear similar genetics/receptor sites to many of these animals but were humans. The same goes for various pharmaceutical studies ohh a rat has shown this or that, yes evaluate the findings of the study but don't now go spreading around major misconceptions from the findings on a rat which equates nothing to a human. We live much differently than they do.

Like i said in the other thread some animals can take in levels of heavy metals such as arsenic that would kill a human being. Many animals produce there own ascobic acid supply and so on when us humans cant?.

Its so tedious reading constantly about how we should be living like animals in the wild or how they don't do several things we do. Or why are we not grazing like cows do etc. Cows manage to live without......
[www.amlaberry.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 07:07PM by powerlifer.

Rab,
Who is the author of the 811 theory? Are you sure he didn't make up the thousand mile thing to make it seem to fit the dietary theory? In any case, I don't think that people currently living in the area generally follow the ideal. It seems to me that if people lived in the 'natural zone' as claimed those same people would be naturally predisposed to follow the natural foods that are available there.

I spoke to someone from within this zone, and they said 'fruit'? She said she ate mostly grains, beans, nuts and cultured milk products. She said most people were she was from ate that way.

Doug Graham does mention that in his book. But, Mislu, that is not logical at all that people from that area should eat vegan diet - there were thousands of migrations and people went through hardship and got used to the type of food that guarantees survival throughout the year. That is a tradition, and everyone just follows it. It is about SURVIVAL, not health. Now, since we have the technology to survive, we can go back to healthy life, whenever possible.

RocketShip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think the bigger indicator that we are
> equatorial creatures is our physical design. Our
> practically hairless bodies were not designed for
> cold weather without the aid of clothing and we
> have a built in cooling system where sweat
> evaporates from the skin and clothing interrupts
> the process. If we were meant for cold weather we
> would have evolved with fur. (Unless you
> subscribe to the aquatic ape theory, and even then
> the water was warm.)


What about sun burn then? This theory doesn't hold water when you throw that into the equation. Even creatures near the equator have some sort of hair covering their skin.

Lighter skin is simply due to the lack of pigment - and is a product of living in the North. But, what is that "aquatic ape" theory? Never heard of it.

Elaine Morgan's alternate theory of evolution. I personally love her books. The one you are after is The Descent of Woman but check out The Descent of the Child, it's freaking brilliant. That one tops my list absolutely, best book on kids (and humans) around!

Is Doug living near the Equator?

coco Wrote:
> >
> What about sun burn then? This theory doesn't hold
> water when you throw that into the equation.

Huh? What theory? It is a fact that we cannot live in cold climates without clothes. And a fact that we sweat to cool ourselves and are mostly hairless. What "theory" are you disputing? Are you saying that we can survive in cold climates in nothing but our birthday suites?

Doug is often in South America, I can tell by his videos...which I always watch with envy. I wish I could go to the sunny areas, by the sea, often. As a matter of fact, I would LOVE to live by the warm see.
coco, I will check her books out - I have read a little bit about "Aquatic Ape" theory, and it is very logical. There are much more questions than answers, but we cannot look into our history and see how things developed. I always wandered why are things in the sea so colorful, like fruit. Algae and other plants, but shellfish also. (Please do not remove my post, I am not advocating anything).

RocketShip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coco Wrote:
> > >
> > What about sun burn then? This theory doesn't
> hold
> > water when you throw that into the equation.
>
> Huh? What theory? It is a fact that we cannot
> live in cold climates without clothes. And a fact
> that we sweat to cool ourselves and are mostly
> hairless. What "theory" are you disputing? Are you
> saying that we can survive in cold climates in
> nothing but our birthday suites?

Nope, but I am saying that we can't survive at or near the equator in our birthday suits either.

coco Wrote:

> Nope, but I am saying that we can't survive at or
> near the equator in our birthday suits either.


Yes we can...if we spend our days by water (in and out). Light skin is not an advantage though, that is a souvenir from the North, where it provides more Vitamin D.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Nope, but I am saying that we can't survive at or
> near the equator in our birthday suits either.

Of course we can. And do for the most part... modesty in culture dictates covering certain parts of the body.

I certainly don't see any half-naked indiginous tribes roaming the North and South poles. LOL

I lived near the equator for years and did just fine and I'm pretty pasty white. LOL. Worried about sunburn? Don't spend hours in the sun in the mid-day. Outdoor work is done in the morning, a long mid-day siesta in the shade (or house), then work in the late afternoon.

It's just a theory[I use this in the vernacular sense]; it isn't an ukaz from Doug Graham to you, specifically!

"ukaz" lol ))

Theories are there to be discussed. And to learn something from others (which I always do, as I am open to new ideas).

Doug Graham has a valid reason why he claims that we should live close to Equator. But, that is not a rock solid fact as a lot of 'official' theories will disagree with him.

People generally don't like theory as it is uncertain. People like to be certain about things, as it feels safe.

Am i missing something here or has my post been missed.

What was Dougs reasoning behind the theory?

Ive been rather slow today so forgive me if ive missed something lol.

[www.amlaberry.co.uk]

I can't remember, I should check the book again (maybe later), but I guess some of the arguments may be - we don't have fur (hair) to protect us from the cold, our diet is fruit and plant based, so wee need to have those whole year - and that would be the climate to provide that. There is probably more to it, I will try to find out.
With tools and our brains developed, we can live on North or South pole, but that is not what he is referring to - he is talking about our origin. By the way, the Equator area probably looks quite different now compared to the period of times when first humans lived there.

Natural people often migrated with the seasons, this is what makes the most sense to me in terms of climate and food availability. It doesn't work today with international borders and the massive amount of humanity and development the world over of course but in a perfect world...