One of the first issues of hibernating bears to be studied was how, despite maintaining a high metabolic rate (high body temperature), the bear still does not need to drink or urinate all winter....[p. 259]The answer is fascinating, but I'm not going to summarize it; you're better off picking up this wonderful book yourself, anyway.
But bears also
do without...exercise [during their winter hibernation] and suffer no ill effects....We are not well-adapted to physical inactivity, and we need to avoid it. That's where the book's exercise health advice comes in:
Hibernating bears accomplish metabolic feats that, if we knew their secrets, would likely lead to cures for many human ills. They have the secrets of how to survive lack of exercise, and then, after five months of resting, of how to get up and walk up a mountain. In all of those months of what amounts to bed rest, they suffer no bed sores. They have marginal loss of muscle mass and no change in muscle fiber type. Despite their non-weight-bearing position for months at a time, they do not suffer from bone loss or osteoporosis. After burning fat for fuel for months during which their cholesterol levels become double those of humans and those they have in the summer, yet they still don't suffer from hardening of the arteries or gallstones, conditions resulting from high cholesterol levels in us. Most of the enigmas that have been revealed in hibernating bears have not been solved [as of 2003, when the book was published], maybe because bears just can't be studied as conveniently as lab rats. We can be reasonably certain, however, that once we understand how bears hibernate through the winter, we will also have a larger window into ourselves. We inadvertently simulate a hibernation-like state of inactivity in our modern environment, a new state of nature to which we are not well-adapted. [pp. 260, 262]
We require mechanical stress of exercise on our skeleton to maintain bone structure and function...Most of the American population subjects itself to the physical stress of inactivity [emphasis mine]...Every hour of vigorous exercise as an adult was repaid [in a study of "the effects of lifestyle on 17,000 Harvard students for twenty-five years"] with two hours of additional life span [how did they concluded that?]. There is, obviously, a limit to the benefits of human exercise or else more exercise could make us immortal. Instead, too much exercising increases the aging process as well. I suspect the debate of optimum exercise for maximum longevity may relate less to how much exercise we get than to how many calories we take in versus how many we burn off. There is a correlation between eating less and having a longer lifespan. But of course starvation shortens life, and there is thus also a correlation between eating more and having a longer lifespan. The difference is in the range of food intake versus the amount of exercise. [pp. 260-261]Bernd Heinrich has been a marathoner and has also written a book about running: Why We Run: A Natural History.
It is interesting, considering that bears and humans are both omnivores, that bears’ “cholesterol levels [can] become double those of humans … yet they … don't suffer from hardening of the arteries” as do we humans. But most interesting to me is that we humans are the ONLY animal, whether carnivore, herbivore or omnivore, that gets heart disease. I wonder why that is?
ReplyDeleteJim, I hope you mean by wondering why that you are actively investigating the situation to try to discover the answer. Let us know if you find out anything. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteNo, I was hoping you and/or your readers might want to help out in understanding this interesting phenomenon. It shouldn't take much thought to come up with some interesting and entertaining explanation especially if it's made up (as I did awhile back in claiming that Methuselah was vegan).
ReplyDeleteTotally random here...
ReplyDelete* Can anyone imagine the implications for deep space exploration if humans can figure out how to hibernate like bears without ill effects from the long period of inactivity?
* As to why bears don't have the ill effects from cholesterol that humans allegedly do, well they did evolve to be bears and we evolved to be humans so maybe it is simply that our systems are that different.
* Or is it that cholesterol risk in humans is more hype than fact? I didn't have time to come up with facts beyond this link http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/121187-overview but over the years I have heard of genetically linked groups of people who have cholesterol in the range of 400 and above who seem to suffer no ill effects from it. I also recently heard an interview with an author of a study about those who lived healthily to 100 or more and if I heard him correctly he said the common trait all people in the study shared was a "good" cholesterol reading that was twice the average of "normal" people.
* In my own family I am one of the few who has managed to keep my cholesterol down to the 200 range. Yes, down to because everyone else is 275 and up. Mine is that high despite being a vegan for nearly 20 years, working out constantly, and living on a diet that makes most Mediterranean and "heart healthy" menus look like the dessert tray in a French restaurant by comparison. Other than a grandfather who was killed in his 50s in a hunting accident, almost everyone else in my lineage lived healthily and happily well into their 90s, high cholesterol and all. Most notably my grandmother on my mother's side, who carried her cholesterol of well above 300 with her to age 99, and was still doing the NY Times Sunday crossword puzzle up to the last three weeks of her life. There was one member of my family who did give in and take medication to lower his cholesterol. My father tried that, and he died of heart failure at age 73.
Make of it what you will...
VERY GOOD! MOTOMYND
ReplyDeleteCarl Sagan in his series Cosmos mentioned that hibernation may be necessary if humans are to venture into deep space. Perhaps bears hold the key to achieve this goal.
Also, I’m with you that evolution is a key factor why bears don’t get heart disease and we humans do despite the fact that we are both omnivores. So (as Socrates would ask) what is different about our evolutionary path and that of bears that might explain this biological anomaly?
Well thank you Jim!
ReplyDeleteSorry I was unaware of Sagan's thoughts on hibernation and space travel. The price I pay for not owning a TV.
As for the difference in the evolutionary paths of humans and bears, I actually have given that quite a bit of thought when spending extended periods of time with grizzlies in Alaska and black bears in Shenandoah National Park.
My guess is that if one went back thousands upon thousands of years you would find the diets of bears and humans to be nearly identical. This was a time when neither was a supreme predator in its realm, organized farming and herding had not yet developed, and both subsisted as hunter gatherers, living on grasses, seeds, nuts, insects and what meat they could find, mainly as carrion.
So why did we evolve one way and bears the other? Could it be as simple as fire, perhaps? With the coming of the Ice Age bears evolved the ability to hibernate so they could survive winter, and humans did not have to learn to hibernate because they had fire?
This idea of course does not come with a warranty. For even though I have given it thought I have never actually studied it. If anyone knows of any scientific research on the matter I would love to hear about it.
A footnote: Having spent some wonderful days around some really smart and entertaining bears, and having wasted years of my life around some dull and boorish people, I do have a theory as to why humans developed fire and bears developed hibernation. My theory is it has a lot more to do with humans having thumbs rather than superior intellect.
Motomynd, thanks for your long, well-expressed comments! Bernd Heinrich, from whose book I was quoting here, actually mentions fire as THE factor that enables humans to survive in winter without employing any of the "natural" inventions of the many, many animals he discusses (including bears).
ReplyDeleteAnd, Jim, thanks for eliciting that second Motomynd essay; feel free to provoke him often—Moristotle misses his presence on the blog.
Motomynd, your concluding sentence is worthy of anthologizing in a book of pithy observations!
Well...sorry I am rehashing points I would know had already been made, if I had a TV and a better library. While I'm at it, let me share one I heard on NPR that relates to a major difference in the diets of wild animals and humans, and therefore very possibly to a difference in evolution in bears and people.
ReplyDeleteBears, as you may know, love to eat acorns. People, as you may know, prefer other nuts, with walnuts being a particular favorite. Do you know why this is?
According to the NPR program it has nothing to do with taste or nutrition, since the acorn is arguably superior to the walnut in both categories. Instead it seems the walnut is more simple genetically and is therefore easier to domesticate and propagate in controlled circumstances. Much like so many of our other staple foods that are available in grocery stores not because of better taste or nutrition, but rather for ease of growing and shipping. Care for a Florida tomato anyone, picked and shipped green then treated with ethylene gas to turn it red and make it look ripe? Mmmmm...just makes your mouth water doesn't it?
Anyway, while bears continue to eat their traditional wild, varied and therefore healthier diet of acorns and other grasses and vegetables, humans rely on farmed crops of walnuts and other foods that are a more reliable source of calories but offer less nutrition.
So next time you are smugly thinking of yourself as being smarter than the average bear, maybe you should give it another thought. Bears not only get to eat whatever they want whenever they wish, with no concern about the cholesterol cops, their wild foods are actually healthier than ours. Plus they aren't stressed from lack of sleep and they never have to worry about driving I-40.
Very good thoughts
ReplyDeleteFire and thumbs do offer a plausible explanation why bears hibernate and humans don’t. It was certainly not necessary for humans to hibernate during the cold months as fire provided warmth and thumbs gave humans the ability to fashion warm clothing and build shelters.
But I question whether humans and bears evolved simultaneously as hunter-gatherers. It seems to me that the bear’s anatomy (doglike snout with sharp teeth and paws with claws) is more adapted to hunting than the human anatomy. So I suspect that humans were relegated to gathering only until they learned to fashion weapons and tools that allowed them to kill and strip flesh from bones. (And fire gave man the ability to cook animal flesh and make it more palatable). This observation means that the ability for humans to hunt is a relatively recent event, is it not? The Stone Age began a mere 2.5 million years ago while evolution has been going on for more than a billion years.
Also if bears and humans evolved simultaneously as hunter-gatherers why would nature be so cruel as to give bears (as well as all other omnivores and all carnivores) the ability to synthesize cholesterol and deny it to humans?
I find the acorn vs the walnut interesting and do not disagree that it is better to eat natural foods rather than processed farm foods. But I don’t believe the solution to the cholesterol anomaly lies with plant foods as no plant food contains cholesterol while all animal foods do.
So what’s the answer? Does the fact that man is the only animal that cooks its food play a role? Or does the difference between bear and human anatomy provide the clue?
Gentle Jim and Motomynd, thank you both for tending this particular fire while its host is away working intently to complete a legislative report due this month....
ReplyDeleteWhile bears enjoyed a lazy summer rambling field and forest dining on fresh berries and veggies and taking to water to beat the heat, humans rushed to and fro and hid behind air conditioners. And now as bears enjoy the coming of autumn and fatten up on acorns for their long winter nap, humans are hustling to meet deadlines for legislative reports? I rest my case on the relative intellect of ursus versus homosapien.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that Morris. Back to you later Jim.
Excellent, Motomynd, you are definitely on a roll! I appreciate the good writing, the irony, the wisdom.
ReplyDeleteMotomynd I do believe that you are onto something. Could it be that the human intellect is not all it's cracked up to be? After all it coupled with human nature did create religion. So creating an anomaly or two should be a piece of cake.
ReplyDeleteJim, I share your doubts about "humans and bears evolv[ing] simultaneously as hunter-gatherers." I don't have a copy of Richard Dawkins's Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Lif, in which he traces man's common ancestors back to bacteria (I listened to a recorded book), but I'm quite sure (from memory) that man's common ancestor with bears must have existed some scores of million years ago, much farther back than our common ancestor with chimps or gibbons. Armchair speculation about such things as "why [nature would] be so cruel as to give bears (as well as all other omnivores and all carnivores) the ability to synthesize cholesterol and deny it to humans" is extremely conjectural. (Do I detect a bit of hyperbole in your use of "cruel" with regard to Nature?)
ReplyDeleteVery perceptive to discern my use of “cruel” as hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteObviously nature is not “cruel”. Nature simply “is” and the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe. The laws governing biological evolution discovered by Charles Darwin apply to all species equally. So why did all omnivores except one evolve biological immunity to heart disease? Could it be that the exception is an herbivore by the slow process of evolution that became omnivorous through technology so rapidly that nature could not keep up and protect it?
Is their evidence for this conjecture? Look at the anatomy of the two omnivores in question. Does a bear more closely resemble a dog, a known carnivore, or a cow, a known herbivore? Is the human jaw shaped more for chewing plants, nuts and seeds or for killing and tearing apart other animals?
Just as I was about to give up on finding any sort of support for my own theory of why things are as they are, here comes NPR to the rescue. http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/09/19/140533195/lucretius-man-of-modern-mystery. No, I do not own a TV or a well-worn library of books overladen with pages of knowledge that I peruse daily (or even annually), but I do own a radio and a computer.
ReplyDeleteQuoting from the meat of the theory put forth by Lucretius more than 2,000 years ago...he says the universe is made of an infinite number of atoms...
...moving randomly through space, like dust motes in a sunbeam, colliding, hooking together, forming complex structures, breaking apart again, in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction. There is no escape from this process...There is no master plan, no divine architect, no intelligent design.
All things, including the species to which you belong, have evolved over vast stretches of time. The evolution is random, though in the case of living organisms, it involves a principle of natural selection. That is, species that are suited to survive and to reproduce successfully, endure, at least for a time; those that are not so well suited, die off quickly. But nothing —- from our own species, to the planet on which we live, to the sun that lights our days—lasts forever. Only the atoms are immortal..
So, as to the question of how and why evolution went down one track to create the bear and another to create the human, I accept that random is random, what is is, things are what they are. And we can never know the facts with certainty.
Not meaning to sound Pollyannaish but I believe we are all born knowing this basic truth. All the argument, strife, religious persecution, outright warfare -- and in so many cases, billions upon billions of wasted research dollars -- that have surrounded the debate over the centuries are based in people trying to inflate their self-perceived importance or game whatever system to their advantage rather than accepting that basic truth.
Given that all most likely is random, is it more important to put hours of thought and conjecture into the unlimited miracles of evolution, the twin miracles of 422 and 432 passing yards by the Carolina Panther's rookie quarterback Cam Newton in his first two pro games, or the seemingly miraculous appeal of an attractive blonde or brunette? Or is it more important to put the hours into just accepting and enjoying?
Ha, Motomynd, the source of your Lucretius quotation mentions Steven Greenblatt! He was a classmate of mine at Yale, and I recently read a review of his latest book, which review I think also mentioned Greenblatt's encounter with Lucretius.
ReplyDeleteYes, Lucretius was a mighty thinker. Christopher Hitchens even excerpts Lucretius's On the Nature of Things in his Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.
Ah, Motomynd, sorry, two errors (at least) in my comment: (1) It's "Stephen," not "Steven" Greenblatt, and (2) it was his article "The Answer Man," in the August 8 issue of the New Yorker magazine in which he talked about Lucretius (his poem, De Rerum Natura). You'd probably enjoy the article.
ReplyDelete“Where’s the Money?”
ReplyDeleteGood on Lucretius although Einstein might take exception with atoms being immortal. According to E=mc^2 matter can disappear becoming energy. Nevertheless Lucretius’ understanding of the randomness of creation including evolution was way ahead of his times. Had he been a biologist he may very well have discovered the principles of evolution way ahead of Darwin.
Comparing the evolution of bears vs humans Motomynd asked “If anyone knows of any scientific research on the matter I would love to hear about it.”
So here’s an interview with Nathaniel Dominy, PhD - Associate Professor of Anthropology at Dartmouth College who is currently doing research on hunter-gatherer populations in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Uganda.
http://www.drmcdougall.com/expert_testimonies.htm
Note: There are 3 interviews. Dr Dominy is the third one. The first one is on the very successful Duke University Rice Diet Program.
For those who take the ten minutes to watch Dr. Dominy's interview, Shockrixtease (pronounced Socrates) would be interested if you agree or not with Dr. Dominy on “Where’s the money?”
Jim, I enjoyed Dr. Dominy's comments, but I'm not sure that the extent to which they might be interpreted as "comparing the evolution of bears vs humans" is a substantial reply to Motomynd's request for "scientific research on the matter." But maybe he will disagree and congratulate you on raising the veil for him entirely on this obscure matter.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the main thing you may have wanted us to get from Dr. D's comments is that "the money" investment that paid off in homo sapiens' evolving a large, many-talented brain was starch (if that is what he is saying, and I believe it is).
Yes it is.
ReplyDeleteI was taught that the reason humans developed a comparatively large brain and were able to migrate away from the equator was because we humans became meat eaters. Now Dr. Dominy suggests that the real reason we humans evolved to become the dominant species on earth is that humans evolved the ability to digest starch. This makes sense to me in that the brain runs only on carbohydrate (ie gets its energy from starch) and not protein. And no carnivore or other omnivore has evolved a brain comparable to the human brain.
Admittedly Dr Dominy did not compare the evolution of bears and humans directly. But, he did say that “We’ve evolved a face and mouth that’s made for eating something else other than meat” supporting the fact that humans evolved as herbivores. But bears evolved as carnivores (see The Comparative Anatomy of Eating, Milton R. Mills, M.D. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html).
Since both are omnivores, does not the fact that the anatomy of bears is carnivorous and humans herbivorous suggest that bears evolved as carnivores with a tolerance for plant foods while humans evolved as herbivores with a tolerance for animal food?
Bears eat copious amounts of meat because nature programmed them that way but humans eat copious amounts of meat because of their culture. So Shockrixtease (pronounced Socrates) asks, “Could this going against nature be the reason why humans develop uniquely human diseases”?
Jim, I apologize that your comment didn't show up immediately. It was given to me to moderate, for the reason that the original post is old by a certain amount (not sure what the standard period is).
ReplyDeleteYour comment is certainly clear and cogent enough (VERY much so in both regards) to have won instantaneous publication. Your final question is wonderfully provocative, and I'd like to think that the answer is "yes."
I'd also like to congratulate you for "Shockrixtease (pronounced Socrates)" and invite you to submit articles to be published here under that rubric (as Motomynd publishes here under his own rubric). Would you be interested? I regret to have to say that there would be no remuneration for articles, unless you'd consider the dubious honor of being published on Moristotle as reward enough. Let me know. Thanks.