Perriconing Around the World
I am a fan of Dr. Nicholas V. Perricone, although at this point I just buy his books, not the pre-packaged pills or creams, leaving myself something to look forward to. Among all low-carbing advocates, he is the one who has got it right, so that it actually feels normal and reasonable to eat and live according to his thinking, and to call it "Perriconing." A big part of Dr, Perricone's message is to eat more berries and oily fish, and especially fish oils, and brightly colored vegetables, with lashings of olive oil, and Alpha Lipoic Acid, and DMAE...
which seems to agree with the work of pediatric hematologist and Oxford University DNA researcher Stephen Oppenheimer and the Bradshaw Foundation. If you look at their representation of The JOURNEY OF MANKIND, which illustrates the argument for a single point of human origin, and especially, if you read other pages on their web site, it is easy to see that their mapping lies quite far beyond the realm of conjecture. They show that for the first forty-odd thousand years after some human ancestors left Africa, they made their beachcombing progress clinging to the coastlines of South and South East Asia and then Australia.
Conjecturing freely from there, on the other hand, and this is where Dr, Perricone comes in, one imagines forests growing close to the shore, full of menacing beasts of prey, rather than open grasslands full of grazing animals waiting to be eaten up right by the sea. It seems fair to assume that one's beachcombing ancestors caught, ate, and easily digested fish of all kinds-- which, very likely, they already knew to do from being around streams and rivers -- and much sooner and more often than they might have caught scampering rabbits and such, to eat them freshly killed and raw, or organized the tribe to go into the dark and threatening forest to chase down leaping stag with especially prepared weapons. Eating fish is probably still the best idea. After all, it still is correct and proper to eat it raw, although not necessary to catch them with one's hands.
I mentioned some of this to R, who was about to leave for Easter Island, over scrambled eggs and sautéed green beans, the new substitute for fries at The Columbus Bakery, but he was skeptical. All he said was "Sounds delicious!"
which seems to agree with the work of pediatric hematologist and Oxford University DNA researcher Stephen Oppenheimer and the Bradshaw Foundation. If you look at their representation of The JOURNEY OF MANKIND, which illustrates the argument for a single point of human origin, and especially, if you read other pages on their web site, it is easy to see that their mapping lies quite far beyond the realm of conjecture. They show that for the first forty-odd thousand years after some human ancestors left Africa, they made their beachcombing progress clinging to the coastlines of South and South East Asia and then Australia.
Conjecturing freely from there, on the other hand, and this is where Dr, Perricone comes in, one imagines forests growing close to the shore, full of menacing beasts of prey, rather than open grasslands full of grazing animals waiting to be eaten up right by the sea. It seems fair to assume that one's beachcombing ancestors caught, ate, and easily digested fish of all kinds-- which, very likely, they already knew to do from being around streams and rivers -- and much sooner and more often than they might have caught scampering rabbits and such, to eat them freshly killed and raw, or organized the tribe to go into the dark and threatening forest to chase down leaping stag with especially prepared weapons. Eating fish is probably still the best idea. After all, it still is correct and proper to eat it raw, although not necessary to catch them with one's hands.
I mentioned some of this to R, who was about to leave for Easter Island, over scrambled eggs and sautéed green beans, the new substitute for fries at The Columbus Bakery, but he was skeptical. All he said was "Sounds delicious!"
posted by zade at
1:01 PM
<< Home