My favorite example: Rabbit ears!

They're great for cooling. Big ears are great
for cooling.

They're also great for hearing but, it's their
cooling that probably makes them so
successful.

Think of it. If big ears for hearing was such
an awesome adaptation, pretty much every
animal should have them. But if an animal
can exploit big ears for hearing AND for cooling,
it's more likely to stick. Right? The adaption?

So sweating is good for cooling, yeah, but it
literally expels water & salt. So if an animal is
living primarily off of shellfish, filled with water
and salt amongst other things, sweating would
be a great adaptation...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679904370902679552

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 5:04:42 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> My favorite example: Rabbit ears!
>
> They're great for cooling. Big ears are great
> for cooling.
>
> They're also great for hearing but, it's their
> cooling that probably makes them so
> successful.
>
> Think of it. If big ears for hearing was such
> an awesome adaptation, pretty much every
> animal should have them. But if an animal
> can exploit big ears for hearing AND for cooling,
> it's more likely to stick. Right? The adaption?
>
> So sweating is good for cooling, yeah, but it
> literally expels water & salt. So if an animal is
> living primarily off of shellfish, filled with water
> and salt amongst other things, sweating would
> be a great adaptation...
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679904370902679552
Dumbo.

On Sunday 27 March 2022 at 22:04:42 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:

> So sweating is good for cooling, yeah, but it
> literally expels water & salt.

I so rarely agree with anything you say, that I
thought I should respond to one of your more
sensible remarks.

Daud Deden recently pointed out that heavy
sweating is -- for the purposes of cooling --
a self-defeating mechanism. Yet humans
often sweat profusely, and gettring rid of
excess salts could well be its function.

In thread: Human hair --- Mar 15, 2022, 1:22:43 AM

I wrote:
>> Sweating was IMO
>> primarily for emergencies -- such as when
>> they got into fights, or suffered fevers.

Daud Deden replied:
> That is heavy sweating, a comparatively rare occurrence, and a poor way
> to cool since it excretes faster than it evaporates, unlike incipient and
> light sweating. Dripping sweat is both inefficient and ineffective, and
> leads to dehydration.

> So if an animal is living primarily off of shellfish,
> filled with water and salt amongst other things,
> sweating would be a great adaptation...

I think you've gone wrong here, in that
the salt content of shellfish would not be
great, especially if the hominins washed
them (or cooked them) in fresh water --
bearing in mind that humans (and probably
all hominins) need only about 0.8 grams of
protein per kg of weight per day -- about
56 grams per day for an adult male.

A more likely source of their excess salt
is the brackish water that they were
occasionally obliged to consume. They
would have dug wells, often in sandy
ground, close to coasts. Sometimes,
especially during drought, these would
have become more salty than the
hominins liked but, if that was all they
had, they'd have had to use it.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 7:04:07 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 27 March 2022 at 22:04:42 UTC+1, I Envy JTEM wrote:
>
> > So sweating is good for cooling, yeah, but it
> > literally expels water & salt.
> I so rarely agree with anything you say, that I
> thought I should respond to one of your more
> sensible remarks.
>
> Daud Deden recently pointed out that heavy
> sweating is -- for the purposes of cooling --
> a self-defeating mechanism. Yet humans
> often sweat profusely, and gettring rid of
> excess salts could well be its function.
>
> In thread: Human hair --- Mar 15, 2022, 1:22:43 AM
>
> I wrote:
> >> Sweating was IMO
> >> primarily for emergencies -- such as when
> >> they got into fights, or suffered fevers.
>
> Daud Deden replied:
> > That is heavy sweating, a comparatively rare occurrence, and a poor way
> > to cool since it excretes faster than it evaporates, unlike incipient and
> > light sweating. Dripping sweat is both inefficient and ineffective, and
> > leads to dehydration.
> > So if an animal is living primarily off of shellfish,
> > filled with water and salt amongst other things,
> > sweating would be a great adaptation...
> I think you've gone wrong here, in that
> the salt content of shellfish would not be
> great, especially if the hominins washed
> them (or cooked them) in fresh water --
> bearing in mind that humans (and probably
> all hominins) need only about 0.8 grams of
> protein per kg of weight per day -- about
> 56 grams per day for an adult male.
>
> A more likely source of their excess salt
> is the brackish water that they were
> occasionally obliged to consume. They
> would have dug wells, often in sandy
> ground, close to coasts. Sometimes,
> especially during drought, these would
> have become more salty than the
> hominins liked but, if that was all they
> had, they'd have had to use it.

If eccrine sweat removes excess salt, why have salt recycling?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433483/

In addition to concerns with sweat rate dependence or metabolic relationships, there are also issues of contamination from the surface of the skin. For instance, it has been shown that glucose levels in sweat do trend with glucose levels in blood. However, a severe limitation is that glucose diffusing from the uppermost layers of skin into the wet (sweaty) skin surface can completely confound sweat glucose correlation with blood. This further highlights the need for microfluidic models to inspire technological designs that can isolate sweat from skin surface contaminants.

Clear cells are hypothesized to be the dominant source of sweat secretion due to the abundance of mitochondria present within the cell (see Subsection IV A on Na+ and Cl partitioning). Dark cells, however, are believed to be involved in membrane-cellular transport and may also have the ability to act as clear cells, themselves.2 Myoepithelial cells are thought to act as a supportive network between the basolateral membrane. Regarding the dermal duct, the luminal cells form a semi-cuticular border with many microvilli protruding into the lumen of the duct, which increases the effective surface area of the cells for absorption or secretion. The basal cells in the dermal duct are characterized with abundant mitochondria, also suggesting a highly active role in sodium reabsorption (see Subsection IV A on Na+ and Cl partitioning).1 Other physical descriptors of sweat glands and their densities across the body are listed in Table TableI.I. A more exhaustive review can be found elsewhere. Notice how the axilla (armpit) is excluded. Even though the axilla has an eccrine gland density of 100 to 200 glands/cm2, it is rich with apocrine glands which have a different secretion process that could confound eccrine sweat measurements and is therefore beyond the scope of this work.

DD: the axillary sweat glands seem unlikely to have been osmotic gateways due to apocrine contamination. Not sure about volar eccrines.

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Daud Deden recently pointed out that heavy
> sweating is -- for the purposes of cooling --
> a self-defeating mechanism. Yet humans
> often sweat profusely, and gettring rid of
> excess salts could well be its function.

I've never claimed to originate any of my positions. Most
are mere extrapolations, logical "Next steps" or simply
moving (appropriately) from one context to another.

...the assumption that interbreeding wouldn't necessarily
be reflected in mtDNA studies even centuries later, applied
to studies on populations tens of thousands of years ago.

> > So if an animal is living primarily off of shellfish,
> > filled with water and salt amongst other things,
> > sweating would be a great adaptation...

> I think you've gone wrong here, in that
> the salt content of shellfish would not be
> great, especially if the hominins washed
> them (or cooked them) in fresh water

I think we can confidently rule that one out, seeing how
Aquatic/Waterside Ape would have had to begun BEFORE
fire.

Aquatic Ape = Bigger Brains = Fire

They needed the bigger brains to happen FIRST.

Secondly, people eat them raw today, right now. Why assume
they wouldn't?

What I do assume is that just as soon as they cracked the
secrets of fire, they used it to open shellfish! It would not only
be a great labor saving development but "Bad" shellfish won't
open!

If they don't open, they're bad! So fire saves you labor AND
screens out dangerous shellfish...

I couldn't find any two sources that agree with each other but,
according to the official USDA figures, a dozen raw oysters are
going to have about 280mg of salt.

...another source said 100mg for a single "Pacific Oyster."

Doing the Google, the first source I opened said that claims
were even worse: Over a thousand mgs per serving!

It's a mixed bag, these sources, but even going by the low end
numbers one would EASILY exceed modern sodium and protein
needs.

And ALL OF THESE shellfish are rich in Omega-3s compared to
terrestrial meats, even the least nutritious amongst them.

> bearing in mind that humans (and probably
> all hominins) need only about 0.8 grams of
> protein per kg of weight per day -- about
> 56 grams per day for an adult male.

So this Aquatic Diet would have exceeded the need.

> A more likely source of their excess salt
> is the brackish water that they were
> occasionally obliged to consume. They
> would have dug wells, often in sandy
> ground, close to coasts. Sometimes,
> especially during drought, these would
> have become more salty than the
> hominins liked but, if that was all they
> had, they'd have had to use it.

Clearly they couldn't have started out that way.
So, why other then necessity would they ever fall
into that?

So the very first "Aquatic" population hadn't grown
large brains yet. They picked up food. They ate it.
Now that food offered an abundance of protein &
was incredibly rich in brain building Omega-3s,
in comparison to any terrestrial food source.

Yum.

They never had to cook it, and they didn't know how
anyway. But within a generation of turning to the sea
for an abundance of easy protein they would have been
growing brains to the maximum size allowable by their
DNA.

I dunno, but I tend to think that if they were growing
smarter then they weren't creating a whole lot of
useless extra work for themselves...

So that leaves us with shellfish full of lots of water, lots
of salt and no need for cooking. Cooking would come in
handy, eventually, once they got around to inventing it
(or inventing how to start fires) but it wasn't necessary.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679904370902679552

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:23:37 AM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > Daud Deden recently pointed out that heavy
> > sweating is -- for the purposes of cooling --
> > a self-defeating mechanism. Yet humans
> > often sweat profusely, and gettring rid of
> > excess salts could well be its function.
> I've never claimed to originate any of my positions. Most
> are mere extrapolations, logical "Next steps" or simply
> moving (appropriately) from one context to another.
>
> ...the assumption that interbreeding wouldn't necessarily
> be reflected in mtDNA studies even centuries later, applied
> to studies on populations tens of thousands of years ago.
> > > So if an animal is living primarily off of shellfish,
> > > filled with water and salt amongst other things,
> > > sweating would be a great adaptation...
>
> > I think you've gone wrong here, in that
> > the salt content of shellfish would not be
> > great, especially if the hominins washed
> > them (or cooked them) in fresh water
> I think we can confidently rule that one out, seeing how
> Aquatic/Waterside Ape would have had to begun BEFORE
> fire.
>
> Aquatic Ape = Bigger Brains = Fire
>
> They needed the bigger brains to happen FIRST.
>
> Secondly, people eat them raw today, right now. Why assume
> they wouldn't?
>
> What I do assume is that just as soon as they cracked the
> secrets of fire, they used it to open shellfish! It would not only
> be a great labor saving development but "Bad" shellfish won't
> open!
>
> If they don't open, they're bad! So fire saves you labor AND
> screens out dangerous shellfish...
>
> I couldn't find any two sources that agree with each other but,
> according to the official USDA figures, a dozen raw oysters are
> going to have about 280mg of salt.
>
> ...another source said 100mg for a single "Pacific Oyster."
>
> Doing the Google, the first source I opened said that claims
> were even worse: Over a thousand mgs per serving!
>
> It's a mixed bag, these sources, but even going by the low end
> numbers one would EASILY exceed modern sodium and protein
> needs.
>
> And ALL OF THESE shellfish are rich in Omega-3s compared to
> terrestrial meats, even the least nutritious amongst them.
> > bearing in mind that humans (and probably
> > all hominins) need only about 0.8 grams of
> > protein per kg of weight per day -- about
> > 56 grams per day for an adult male.
> So this Aquatic Diet would have exceeded the need.
> > A more likely source of their excess salt
> > is the brackish water that they were
> > occasionally obliged to consume. They
> > would have dug wells, often in sandy
> > ground, close to coasts. Sometimes,
> > especially during drought, these would
> > have become more salty than the
> > hominins liked but, if that was all they
> > had, they'd have had to use it.
> Clearly they couldn't have started out that way.
> So, why other then necessity would they ever fall
> into that?
>
> So the very first "Aquatic" population hadn't grown
> large brains yet. They picked up food. They ate it.
> Now that food offered an abundance of protein &
> was incredibly rich in brain building Omega-3s,
> in comparison to any terrestrial food source.
>
> Yum.
>
> They never had to cook it, and they didn't know how
> anyway. But within a generation of turning to the sea
> for an abundance of easy protein they would have been
> growing brains to the maximum size allowable by their
> DNA.
>
> I dunno, but I tend to think that if they were growing
> smarter then they weren't creating a whole lot of
> useless extra work for themselves...
>
> So that leaves us with shellfish full of lots of water, lots
> of salt and no need for cooking. Cooking would come in
> handy, eventually, once they got around to inventing it
> (or inventing how to start fires) but it wasn't necessary.
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/679904370902679552

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6773238/
An important point is that the absolute rate of Na reabsorption actually increased continuously with increases in sweating rate. However, the percentage of secreted Na that was reabsorbed in the duct decreased with a rise in sweating rate. That is, at the lowest sweating rate 86 ± 3% of the secreted Na was reabsorbed, while at the highest sweating rate only 65 ± 6% of Na was reabsorbed from the duct. Therefore, the faster the primary sweat travels along the duct the smaller the percentage of Na that can be reabsorbed.

On Tuesday 29 March 2022 at 12:45:02 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6773238/
> An important point is that the absolute rate of Na reabsorption
> actually increased continuously with increases in sweating rate.
> However, the percentage of secreted Na that was reabsorbed in the
> duct decreased with a rise in sweating rate. That is, at the lowest
> sweating rate 86 ± 3% of the secreted Na was reabsorbed, while at
> the highest sweating rate only 65 ± 6% of Na was reabsorbed from
> the duct. Therefore, the faster the primary sweat travels along the
> duct the smaller the percentage of Na that can be reabsorbed.

Light sweating is effective and common
in H.sap. It cools the skin when it
evaporates and does not lose excessive
quantities of vital salts. It still uses
some (100% - 86% = 14%) which is
why it is not seen among fauna that
evolved in salt-poor habitats.

Heavy sweating much less effective at
cooling. Drops of sweat that drop to
the ground do not cool the skin by
evaporation. It loses large quantities
of vital salts (100%-65%=35%).

It can only have evolved in a habitat
with plentiful supplies of vital salts
and a good supply of fresh water.

Since its commonly assumed purpose
of cooling is so ineffective, it would
seem to have had some other one:
such as dumping excess salts.

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:37:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 March 2022 at 12:45:02 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6773238/
> > An important point is that the absolute rate of Na reabsorption
> > actually increased continuously with increases in sweating rate.
> > However, the percentage of secreted Na that was reabsorbed in the
> > duct decreased with a rise in sweating rate. That is, at the lowest
> > sweating rate 86 ± 3% of the secreted Na was reabsorbed, while at
> > the highest sweating rate only 65 ± 6% of Na was reabsorbed from
> > the duct. Therefore, the faster the primary sweat travels along the
> > duct the smaller the percentage of Na that can be reabsorbed.
> Light sweating is effective and common
> in H.sap. It cools the skin when it
> evaporates and does not lose excessive
> quantities of vital salts. It still uses
> some (100% - 86% = 14%) which is
> why it is not seen among fauna that
> evolved in salt-poor habitats.
>
> Heavy sweating much less effective at
> cooling. Drops of sweat that drop to
> the ground do not cool the skin by
> evaporation. It loses large quantities
> of vital salts (100%-65%=35%).
>
> It can only have evolved in a habitat
> with plentiful supplies of vital salts
> and a good supply of fresh water.
>
> Since its commonly assumed purpose
> of cooling is so ineffective, it would
> seem to have had some other one:
> such as dumping excess salts.

Alternatively, or additionally, per Gareth Morgan, eccrine sweat glands may have been surface reverse osmotic channels which converted seawater to freshwater in the body via absorption and filtration, especially during dry season, perhaps in the Red Sea region. See "A Day at the Beach" at academia.edu where he explains and tests his hypothesis.

On Friday 1 April 2022 at 00:17:51 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Alternatively, or additionally, per Gareth Morgan, eccrine sweat
> glands may have been surface reverse osmotic channels which
> converted seawater to freshwater in the body via absorption and
> filtration, especially during dry season, perhaps in the Red Sea
> region. See "A Day at the Beach" at academia.edu where he
> explains and tests his hypothesis.

Crazy idea. Numerous mammal species, over
many tens of millions of years, have tried to
survive droughts when close to bodies of sea-
water. Not one has discovered this method.
If any had, it would have become widespread,
and enabled entirely new sets of taxa.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:42:20 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Friday 1 April 2022 at 00:17:51 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, or additionally, per Gareth Morgan, eccrine sweat
> > glands may have been surface reverse osmotic channels which
> > converted seawater to freshwater in the body via absorption and
> > filtration, especially during dry season, perhaps in the Red Sea
> > region. See "A Day at the Beach" at academia.edu where he
> > explains and tests his hypothesis.
> Crazy idea. Numerous mammal species, over
> many tens of millions of years, have tried to
> survive droughts when close to bodies of sea-
> water. Not one has discovered this method.
> If any had, it would have become widespread,
> and enabled entirely new sets of taxa.

Ignorance is bliss, Gilligan.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:49:56 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:42:20 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > On Friday 1 April 2022 at 00:17:51 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >
> > > Alternatively, or additionally, per Gareth Morgan, eccrine sweat
> > > glands may have been surface reverse osmotic channels which
> > > converted seawater to freshwater in the body via absorption and
> > > filtration, especially during dry season, perhaps in the Red Sea
> > > region. See "A Day at the Beach" at academia.edu where he
> > > explains and tests his hypothesis.
> > Crazy idea. Numerous mammal species, over
> > many tens of millions of years, have tried to
> > survive droughts when close to bodies of sea-
> > water. Not one has discovered this method.
> > If any had, it would have become widespread,
> > and enabled entirely new sets of taxa.
> Ignorance is bliss, Gilligan.
-

Heart failure due to high salt & low water levels

"Similar to reducing salt intake, drinking enough water and staying hydrated are ways to support our hearts and may help reduce long-term risks for heart disease," said Natalia Dmitrieva, Ph.D., the lead study author and a researcher in the Laboratory of Cardiovascular Regenerative Medicine at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH.

After conducting preclinical research that suggested connections between dehydration and cardiac fibrosis, a hardening of the heart muscles, Dmitrieva and researchers looked for similar associations in large-scale population studies. To start, they analyzed data from more than 15,000 adults, ages 45-66, who enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study between 1987-1989 and shared information from medical visits over a 25-year period.

In selecting participants for their retrospective review, the scientists focused on those whose hydration levels were within a normal range and who did not have diabetes, obesity, or heart failure at the start of the study. Approximately 11,814 adults were included in the final analysis, and, of those, the researchers found 1,366 (11.56%) later developed heart failure.

To assess potential links with hydration, the team assessed the hydration status of the participants using several clinical measures. Looking at levels of serum sodium, which increases as the body's fluid levels decrease, was especially useful in helping to identify participants with an increased risk for developing heart failure. It also helped identify older adults with an increased risk for developing both heart failure and left ventricular hypertrophy, an enlargement and thickening of the heart.
- Idiots (jerm, PC, MV et al) say you need salt to hydrate. No, you need freshwater to hydrate, since there is salt in animal products. (One mammoth had enough salt to supply a hunter for 6 years of salt.) When dehydrated, heart must work much harder to pump blood throughout the body.
Gatorade supplies electrolytes in Kool aid because players can't stop to eat a beefsteak midgame.

On Saturday 2 April 2022 at 02:58:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Heart failure due to high salt & low water levels
>..
> "Similar to reducing salt intake, drinking enough water and staying hydrated are ways to
> support our hearts and may help reduce long-term risks for heart disease," said Natalia
> Dmitrieva, Ph.D., the lead study author and a researcher in the Laboratory of Cardiovascular
> Regenerative Medicine at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH.

You've dredged up something from the early
phases of the 'salt wars'. Still going on, of
course. And human males are still consuming
a lot more salt than females, and are way
over 'recommended levels'.

The 'science' behind the these recommended
levels is based on what excess salt does to
chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
blood pressure. And since "humans evolved
on the savanna" humans shouldn't be able
to cope with it as well.

But google "Salt and mortality" OR
"Low salt and mortality"

> Idiots (jerm, PC, MV et al) say you need salt to hydrate.

I've never said anything of the kind. Obviously
we need water. But since we sweat so much
(especially when it's hot or we're physically
active) we also need a lot of salt.

> since there is salt in animal products.

No carnivores sweat. They can't afford
the loss of salt.

> (One mammoth had enough salt to supply a hunter for 6 years of salt.)

How long does an elephant corpse remain
edible in a hot climate?

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 3:52:48 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Saturday 2 April 2022 at 02:58:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > Heart failure due to high salt & low water levels
> >..
> > "Similar to reducing salt intake, drinking enough water and staying hydrated are ways to
> > support our hearts and may help reduce long-term risks for heart disease," said Natalia
> > Dmitrieva, Ph.D., the lead study author and a researcher in the Laboratory of Cardiovascular
> > Regenerative Medicine at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH.
> You've dredged up something from the early
> phases of the 'salt wars'. Still going on, of
> course. And human males are still consuming
> a lot more salt than females, and are way
> over 'recommended levels'.

Again, "heart failure due to high salt and low water levels". The issue is not salt, but water sufficiency to enable the metabolic plumbing to operate optimally.

> The 'science' behind the these recommended
> levels is based on what excess salt does to
> chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
> blood pressure. And since "humans evolved
> on the savanna" humans shouldn't be able
> to cope with it as well.

Not relevant here, the focus is on sufficient hydration.

> But google "Salt and mortality" OR
> "Low salt and mortality"

Not relevant here. Hydration.

> > Idiots (jerm, PC, MV et al) say you need salt to hydrate.
> I've never said anything of the kind. Obviously
> we need water. But since we sweat so much
> (especially when it's hot or we're physically
> active) we also need a lot of salt.

Sounds like Gilligan is lost on the savannah, hot and physically active with no portable shade.

> > since there is salt in animal products.
> No carnivores sweat.

Irrelevant here.

They can't afford
> the loss of salt.

Vegetarian fauna need salt, carnivores (including humans) get it in their diet.

> > (One mammoth had enough salt to supply a hunter for 6 years of salt.)
> How long does an elephant corpse remain
> edible in a hot climate?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/60-mammoths-house-russia-180974426/#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20generally%20considered%20them,2014)%20is%203%2C000%20years%20older. 22ka mammoth dome huts winter ice age

Pygmies invite neighboring pygmy bands to join, the elephant is soon portioned out.

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:48:41 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 3:52:48 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > On Saturday 2 April 2022 at 02:58:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >
> > > Heart failure due to high salt & low water levels
> > >..
> > > "Similar to reducing salt intake, drinking enough water and staying hydrated are ways to
> > > support our hearts and may help reduce long-term risks for heart disease," said Natalia
> > > Dmitrieva, Ph.D., the lead study author and a researcher in the Laboratory of Cardiovascular
> > > Regenerative Medicine at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH.
> > You've dredged up something from the early
> > phases of the 'salt wars'. Still going on, of
> > course. And human males are still consuming
> > a lot more salt than females, and are way
> > over 'recommended levels'.
> Again, "heart failure due to high salt and low water levels". The issue is not salt, but water sufficiency to enable the metabolic plumbing to operate optimally.
> > The 'science' behind the these recommended
> > levels is based on what excess salt does to
> > chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
> > blood pressure. And since "humans evolved
> > on the savanna" humans shouldn't be able
> > to cope with it as well.
> Not relevant here, the focus is on sufficient hydration.
> > But google "Salt and mortality" OR
> > "Low salt and mortality"
> Not relevant here. Hydration.
> > > Idiots (jerm, PC, MV et al) say you need salt to hydrate.
> > I've never said anything of the kind. Obviously
> > we need water. But since we sweat so much
> > (especially when it's hot or we're physically
> > active) we also need a lot of salt.
> Sounds like Gilligan is lost on the savannah, hot and physically active with no portable shade.
> > > since there is salt in animal products.
> > No carnivores sweat.
> Irrelevant here.
> They can't afford
> > the loss of salt.
> Vegetarian fauna need salt, carnivores (including humans) get it in their diet.
> > > (One mammoth had enough salt to supply a hunter for 6 years of salt.)
> > How long does an elephant corpse remain
> > edible in a hot climate?
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/60-mammoths-house-russia-180974426/#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20generally%20considered%20them,2014)%20is%203%2C000%20years%20older. 22ka mammoth dome huts winter ice age
>
> Pygmies invite neighboring pygmy bands to join, the elephant is soon portioned out.
- https://www.insider.com/signs-of-a-heavy-drinker-just-by-looking-experts-say-2022-3?amp
Dehydration

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:48:41 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 3:52:48 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > > On Saturday 2 April 2022 at 02:58:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> > >
> > > > Heart failure due to high salt & low water levels
> > > >..
> > > > "Similar to reducing salt intake, drinking enough water and staying hydrated are ways to
> > > > support our hearts and may help reduce long-term risks for heart disease," said Natalia
> > > > Dmitrieva, Ph.D., the lead study author and a researcher in the Laboratory of Cardiovascular
> > > > Regenerative Medicine at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH.
> > > You've dredged up something from the early
> > > phases of the 'salt wars'. Still going on, of
> > > course. And human males are still consuming
> > > a lot more salt than females, and are way
> > > over 'recommended levels'.
> > Again, "heart failure due to high salt and low water levels". The issue is not salt, but water sufficiency to enable the metabolic plumbing to operate optimally.
> > > The 'science' behind the these recommended
> > > levels is based on what excess salt does to
> > > chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
> > > blood pressure. And since "humans evolved
> > > on the savanna" humans shouldn't be able
> > > to cope with it as well.
> > Not relevant here, the focus is on sufficient hydration.
> > > But google "Salt and mortality" OR
> > > "Low salt and mortality"
> > Not relevant here. Hydration.
> > > > Idiots (jerm, PC, MV et al) say you need salt to hydrate.
> > > I've never said anything of the kind. Obviously
> > > we need water. But since we sweat so much
> > > (especially when it's hot or we're physically
> > > active) we also need a lot of salt.
> > Sounds like Gilligan is lost on the savannah, hot and physically active with no portable shade.
> > > > since there is salt in animal products.
> > > No carnivores sweat.
> > Irrelevant here.
> > They can't afford
> > > the loss of salt.
> > Vegetarian fauna need salt, carnivores (including humans) get it in their diet.
> > > > (One mammoth had enough salt to supply a hunter for 6 years of salt.)
> > > How long does an elephant corpse remain
> > > edible in a hot climate?
> > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/60-mammoths-house-russia-180974426/#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20generally%20considered%20them,2014)%20is%203%2C000%20years%20older. 22ka mammoth dome huts winter ice age
> >
> > Pygmies invite neighboring pygmy bands to join, the elephant is soon portioned out.
> -
> https://www.insider.com/signs-of-a-heavy-drinker-just-by-looking-experts-say-2022-3?amp
> Dehydration

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-04-salt-reveals-sodium-intake-patients.html
Again, I think its a hydration problem, not a sodium problem. The heart must work harder when fluids are low.
Just like inland lakes with freshwater inflow but no outflow except evaporation eventually become more saline, and if they dry out they leave a salt rime. The lake dies from dehydration, not from sodium levels.

On Sunday 3 April 2022 at 05:48:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

>> You've dredged up something from the early
>> phases of the 'salt wars'. Still going on, of
>> course. And human males are still consuming
>> a lot more salt than females, and are way
>> over 'recommended levels'.
>..
> Again, "heart failure due to high salt and low water levels". The issue
> is not salt, but water sufficiency to enable the metabolic plumbing to
> operate optimally.

That's not an issue. No one doubts that
a lack of fresh water kills humans (and
presumably killed hominins) within a few
days. (It would be interesting to know
how long other primates could survive.)

>> The 'science' behind the these recommended
>> levels is based on what excess salt does to
>> chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
>> blood pressure. And since "humans evolved
>> on the savanna" humans shouldn't be able
>> to cope with it as well.
>..
> Not relevant here, the focus is on sufficient hydration.

You're trying to re-focus the thread on to
some non-issue. Hydration is important
to all mammals.

>>> Idiots (jerm, PC, MV et al) say you need salt to hydrate.
>>..
>> I've never said anything of the kind. Obviously
>> we need water. But since we sweat so much
>> (especially when it's hot or we're physically
>> active) we also need a lot of salt.
>..
> Sounds like Gilligan is lost on the savannah, hot and physically active
> with no portable shade.

Unlike other animals, humans sweat,
excreting salts. Salts are scarce except
on the coast. Therefore humans evolved
on the coasts. (Isn't science hard?)

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 5:46:35 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Sunday 3 April 2022 at 05:48:41 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves
> >> You've dredged up something from the early
> >> phases of the 'salt wars'. Still going on, of
> >> course. And human males are still consuming
> >> a lot more salt than females, and are way
> >> over 'recommended levels'.
> >..
> > Again, "heart failure due to high salt and low water levels". The issue
> > is not salt, but water sufficiency to enable the metabolic plumbing to
> > operate optimally.
> That's not an issue. No one doubts that
> a lack of fresh water kills humans (and
> presumably killed hominins) within a few
> days. (It would be interesting to know
> how long other primates could survive.)
> >> The 'science' behind the these recommended
> >> levels is based on what excess salt does to
> >> chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
> >> blood pressure.

High blood pressure = heart failure = relatively dehydrated due to pumping of viscous fluids through microscopic capillaries is much harder than in a well-lubricated (hydrated) system.

And since "humans evolved
> >> on the savanna" humans shouldn't be able
> >> to cope with it as well.
> >..
> > Not relevant here, the focus is on sufficient hydration.
> You're trying to re-focus the thread on to
> some non-issue. Hydration is important
> to all mammals.
> >>> Idiots (jerm, PC, MV et al) say you need salt to hydrate.
> >>..
> >> I've never said anything of the kind. Obviously
> >> we need water. But since we sweat so much
> >> (especially when it's hot or we're physically
> >> active) we also need a lot of salt.
> >..
> > Sounds like Gilligan is lost on the savannah, hot and physically active
> > with no portable shade.
> Unlike other animals, humans sweat,
> excreting salts.

And recycling most of those salts.

Salts are scarce except
> on the coast.

Salt mines in mountains, salt pans in deserts ...

Therefore humans evolved
> on the coasts. (Isn't science hard?)

Horses sweat so they must have evolved from coastal seahorses, QED.

On Wednesday 6 April 2022 at 11:37:49 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>>>> The 'science' behind the these recommended
>>>> levels is based on what excess salt does to
>>>> chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
>>>> blood pressure.
> . .
> High blood pressure = heart failure = relatively dehydrated due to
> pumping of viscous fluids through microscopic capillaries is much
> harder than in a well-lubricated (hydrated) system.

You don't need to get into whatever you
imagine is the pathology. All mammalian
blood has a salt level that echoes that of
sea-water. Too much or little and the
animal dies. When habitat of the species
is deficient in salt, individuals will go to
some length (including taking risks) to
replenish their salt levels. Some (such
as chimps) will indulge in carnivory.

When the habitat (and the diet) is salt-
rich, the species must evolve kidneys (and/
or other mechanisms, such as sweating)
that can eliminate the excess. Humans,
cattle, and many other species have
lobulated kidneys that can cope. Inland
species (which usually live in salt-deficient
habitats) don't have lobulated kidneys.
A chimp obliged to live on brackish water
would suffer, where a human or a cow
would thrive.

The mistake that the warriors for "low salt
for humans" make is that they think we
are closer (in this respect) to chimps than
we are to cows.

>> Unlike other animals, humans sweat,
>> excreting salts.
> . .
> And recycling most of those salts.

Light sweating excretes some salts.
Heavy sweating excretes lots of salts.

>> Salts are scarce except on the coast.
> . .
> Salt mines in mountains, salt pans in deserts ...

Once humans (& hominins) learnt how
to trade in salt, the occupation of inland
areas became feasible -- at least in this
respect.

>> Therefore humans evolved
>> on the coasts. (Isn't science hard?)
> . .
> Horses sweat so they must have evolved from coastal seahorses,
> QED.

Horses don't have territories. They
range over wide areas (migrating over
the seasons to find the best grass).
They locate salt deposits within their
ranges. They don't sweat through
eccrine glands and lose only a fraction
of the salts that humans do.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Wednesday 6 April 2022 at 11:37:49 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >>>> The 'science' behind the these recommended
> >>>> levels is based on what excess salt does to
> >>>> chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
> >>>> blood pressure.
> > . .
> > High blood pressure = heart failure = relatively dehydrated due to
> > pumping of viscous fluids through microscopic capillaries is much
> > harder than in a well-lubricated (hydrated) system.
> You don't need to get into whatever you
> imagine is the pathology. All mammalian
> blood has a salt level that echoes that of
> sea-water. Too much or little and the
> animal dies. When habitat of the species
> is deficient in salt, individuals will go to
> some length (including taking risks) to
> replenish their salt levels. Some (such
> as chimps) will indulge in carnivory.

A mammoth had enough salt to supply a hunter's needs for 6 years.

> When the habitat (and the diet) is salt-
> rich, the species must evolve kidneys (and/
> or other mechanisms, such as sweating)
> that can eliminate the excess. Humans,
> cattle, and many other species have
> lobulated kidneys that can cope. Inland
> species (which usually live in salt-deficient
> habitats) don't have lobulated kidneys.
> A chimp obliged to live on brackish water
> would suffer, where a human or a cow
> would thrive.

Chimps are arboreal and primarily get their water from rain in tree hollows, humans and cattle are terrestrial and primarily get their water from mineral-laden streams etc. never from seawater.

> The mistake that the warriors for "low salt
> for humans" make is that they think we
> are closer (in this respect) to chimps than
> we are to cows.

We are terrestrial apes very heavily dependent on freshwater, no-one drinks seawater.
Again, I suggest you check out Gareth Morgan's paper A Day at the Beach.

> >> Unlike other animals, humans sweat,
> >> excreting salts.
> > . .
> > And recycling most of those salts.
> Light sweating excretes some salts.
> Heavy sweating excretes lots of salts.

Back to endurance running on the savannah? Why would a hominin start sweating heavily at a seashore? If hot, just splash.

> >> Salts are scarce except on the coast.
> > . .
> > Salt mines in mountains, salt pans in deserts ...
> Once humans (& hominins) learnt how
> to trade in salt, the occupation of inland
> areas became feasible -- at least in this
> respect.

Do you still claim naledi were salt miners?
No evidence for that afaik.
Lots of evidence for butchery of game far from seashores.

> >> Therefore humans evolved
> >> on the coasts. (Isn't science hard?)
> > . .
> > Horses sweat so they must have evolved from coastal seahorses,
> > QED.
> Horses don't have territories. They
> range over wide areas (migrating over
> the seasons to find the best grass).
> They locate salt deposits within their
> ranges.

Visibly so to hominins with spears, digging sticks and baskets.

They don't sweat through
> eccrine glands and lose only a fraction
> of the salts that humans do.

Right, mobile containers of salt, easily ambushed & speared by gangs of Homo.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 9:37:05 AM UTC-4, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:07:18 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > On Wednesday 6 April 2022 at 11:37:49 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
> >
> > >>>> The 'science' behind the these recommended
> > >>>> levels is based on what excess salt does to
> > >>>> chimps. They can't cope with it and get high
> > >>>> blood pressure.
> > > . .
> > > High blood pressure = heart failure = relatively dehydrated due to
> > > pumping of viscous fluids through microscopic capillaries is much
> > > harder than in a well-lubricated (hydrated) system.
> > You don't need to get into whatever you
> > imagine is the pathology. All mammalian
> > blood has a salt level that echoes that of
> > sea-water. Too much or little and the
> > animal dies. When habitat of the species
> > is deficient in salt, individuals will go to
> > some length (including taking risks) to
> > replenish their salt levels. Some (such
> > as chimps) will indulge in carnivory.
> A mammoth had enough salt to supply a hunter's needs for 6 years.
> > When the habitat (and the diet) is salt-
> > rich, the species must evolve kidneys (and/
> > or other mechanisms, such as sweating)
> > that can eliminate the excess. Humans,
> > cattle, and many other species have
> > lobulated kidneys that can cope. Inland
> > species (which usually live in salt-deficient
> > habitats) don't have lobulated kidneys.

Bears do, and are partly arboreal/freshwater terrestrials often exposed to toxins via carnivory scavenging.

"discrete multireniculate kidneys have been described in all other bear species examined (i.e., grizzley, U. arctos; sun bear, U. malatjanus; and sloth bear, Melursus ursinus; Sperber, 1944). Studies of kidney function in polar bears are lacking.

Reniculate kidney
The reniculate kidney is a multilobed kidney found in marine and aquatic mammals such as pinnipeds and cetaceans but absent in terrestrial mammals except bears. Kidneys of this morphology have increased surface area for removing toxins from the body more efficiently than a non-lobed kidney."

> > A chimp obliged to live on brackish water
> > would suffer, where a human or a cow
> > would thrive.
> Chimps are arboreal and primarily get their water from rain in tree hollows, humans and cattle are terrestrial and primarily get their water from mineral-laden streams etc. never from seawater.
> > The mistake that the warriors for "low salt
> > for humans" make is that they think we
> > are closer (in this respect) to chimps than
> > we are to cows.
> We are terrestrial apes very heavily dependent on freshwater, no-one drinks seawater.
> Again, I suggest you check out Gareth Morgan's paper A Day at the Beach.
> > >> Unlike other animals, humans sweat,
> > >> excreting salts.
> > > . .
> > > And recycling most of those salts.
> > Light sweating excretes some salts.
> > Heavy sweating excretes lots of salts.
> Back to endurance running on the savannah? Why would a hominin start sweating heavily at a seashore? If hot, just splash.
> > >> Salts are scarce except on the coast.
> > > . .
> > > Salt mines in mountains, salt pans in deserts ...
> > Once humans (& hominins) learnt how
> > to trade in salt, the occupation of inland
> > areas became feasible -- at least in this
> > respect.
> Do you still claim naledi were salt miners?
> No evidence for that afaik.
> Lots of evidence for butchery of game far from seashores.
> > >> Therefore humans evolved
> > >> on the coasts. (Isn't science hard?)
> > > . .
> > > Horses sweat so they must have evolved from coastal seahorses,
> > > QED.
> > Horses don't have territories. They
> > range over wide areas (migrating over
> > the seasons to find the best grass).
> > They locate salt deposits within their
> > ranges.
> Visibly so to hominins with spears, digging sticks and baskets.
> They don't sweat through
> > eccrine glands and lose only a fraction
> > of the salts that humans do.
> Right, mobile containers of salt, easily ambushed & speared by gangs of Homo.

On Wednesday 6 April 2022 at 14:37:05 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

>> When the habitat (and the diet) is salt-
>> rich, the species must evolve kidneys (and/
>> or other mechanisms, such as sweating)
>> that can eliminate the excess. Humans,
>> cattle, and many other species have
>> lobulated kidneys that can cope. Inland
>> species (which usually live in salt-deficient
>> habitats) don't have lobulated kidneys.
>> A chimp obliged to live on brackish water
>> would suffer, where a human or a cow
>> would thrive.
> . .
> Chimps are arboreal and primarily get their water from rain in tree
> hollows, humans and cattle are terrestrial and primarily get their water
> from mineral-laden streams etc. never from seawater.
> . .

Hominins would have dug wells. Sometimes
they'd get contaminated with salt from the
sea.

>> The mistake that the warriors for "low salt
>> for humans" make is that they think we
>> are closer (in this respect) to chimps than
>> we are to cows.
> . .
> We are terrestrial apes very heavily dependent on freshwater, no-one drinks seawater.
> . .
We all prefer fresh water all the time, but
when -- on occasion -- the only water we
could get was brackish we'd have to drink
it. That happened often enough in our
evolutionary history for our kidneys to
adapt.
> . .

> Again, I suggest you check out Gareth Morgan's paper A Day at the
> Beach.
> . .
This is the skin "reverse osmosis" not
found in ANY known terrestrial mammal.
Nice idea, but not a sensible suggestion.
> . .

> > > And recycling most of those salts.
> > Light sweating excretes some salts.
> > Heavy sweating excretes lots of salts.
> > . .

> Back to endurance running on the savannah? Why would a hominin
> start sweating heavily at a seashore? If hot, just splash.
> . .
Because, while the populations are coastal,
many tribal groups are up to 10 km from
the coast. Depending on their capacity to
trade, they could be further inland.

>> Once humans (& hominins) learnt how
>> to trade in salt, the occupation of inland
>> areas became feasible -- at least in this
>> respect.
> . .
> Do you still claim naledi were salt miners?
> . .
I've not seen any arguments against, and
it seems a sensible suggestion.
> . .
> No evidence for that afaik.
> . .
What evidence would you expect?
> . .
> Lots of evidence for butchery of game far from seashores.
> . .
I would not say 'lots'. But it is what the
investigators look for, often finding
marks, etc., that they over-interpret.

> . .
> Right, mobile containers of salt, easily ambushed & speared by gangs of
> Homo.
> . .
" . . Easily ambushed . . ". You've fallen for
the 'hunting on the savannah' nonsense. A
small group of rhinos, or zebra, or any adult
mammal > ~100 kg, would readily disperse a
group of hominins.

IF they had done what you imagine, there
would have been numerous (recently and
recorded) modern stone-age H/G tribes in
Africa living like that.

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Hominins would have dug wells.

Speculation.

Humans need salt. In our evolutionary past we were taking in too
much salt. We were taking in so much salt that we evolved a means
to excrete it: Sweating!

But we're also excreting water with that salt.

Now, where were they getting so much salt and water that evolving
a means to excrete it was a powerful evolutionary advantage?

Fresh water springs?

Nope.

Fresh water wells that they dug?

Nope.

Could it have been sea water? I doubt it but it makes as much sense
as the well digging. I mean, it is possible that our distant ancestors
had a far greater tolerance for salt than we do now, just as Europeans
have a greater tolerance than Africans...

A more likely explanation is seafood. Shellfish contain a lot of water.
It's salty but not as salty as sea water. And even fish have water.

Fish is wet. We have to dry it in order to have dried fish because it
doesn't come dry...

So we know they had a lot of salt in their diet, and they had a lot of
water in their diet, because they evolved the means to excrete BOTH
of these through the skin...

Why look further?

There's numbers to be worked out. Like, how much salt, exactly, from
particular sources, how much water... how far that puts them from
modern humans, if any.

REMEMBER: Even a lifestyle that guarantees them a death in their
early 30s would have been evolutionarily viable... if noticed at all.

AT LEAST 75% of all ancient Romans born would have died before
their mid 40s. And the Romans were quite advanced compared to
their contemporaries. Now turn the clock back to the birth of erectus
and I think it safe to say that low to mid 30s is a safe bet...

There's plenty of water inside of shellfish. Plenty. And it's not as salty
as sea water. And they evolved a means for excreting too much salt
and water:

Sweating.

I don't see any need to look further.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/680747811703341056

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 2:08:43 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Wednesday 6 April 2022 at 14:37:05 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> >> When the habitat (and the diet) is salt-
> >> rich, the species must evolve kidneys (and/
> >> or other mechanisms, such as sweating)
> >> that can eliminate the excess. Humans,
> >> cattle, and many other species have
> >> lobulated kidneys that can cope. Inland
> >> species (which usually live in salt-deficient
> >> habitats) don't have lobulated kidneys.
> >> A chimp obliged to live on brackish water
> >> would suffer, where a human or a cow
> >> would thrive.
> > . .
> > Chimps are arboreal and primarily get their water from rain in tree
> > hollows, humans and cattle are terrestrial and primarily get their water
> > from mineral-laden streams etc. never from seawater.
> > . .
>
> Hominins would have dug wells.

Not necessary, since they lived along shallow crystalline streams.
Hs agriculture, dependent upon sedentary locale and climate, did find wells and canals to be advantageous.

Sometimes
> they'd get contaminated with salt from the
> sea.

The Congo basin has lots of briny swamps which can't drain into the river due to geography.

> >> The mistake that the warriors for "low salt
> >> for humans" make is that they think we
> >> are closer (in this respect) to chimps than
> >> we are to cows.
> > . .
> > We are terrestrial apes very heavily dependent on freshwater, no-one drinks seawater.
> > . .
> We all prefer fresh water all the time, but
> when -- on occasion -- the only water we
> could get was brackish we'd have to drink
> it. That happened often enough in our
> evolutionary history for our kidneys to
> adapt.

The Maasai drink both milk and blood.

> > Again, I suggest you check out Gareth Morgan's paper A Day at the
> > Beach.
> > . .
> This is the skin "reverse osmosis" not
> found in ANY known terrestrial mammal.
> Nice idea, but not a sensible suggestion.

A uniquely human trait? MV claims fur seals eccrine sweat at the rear flippers while on land exposed to sun, they also (maybe) drink seawater while in water.
Eccrine glands can both excrete out and recycle in salt in solution. Where does the water go that the salt is dissolved in?

> > > > And recycling most of those salts.
> > > Light sweating excretes some salts.
> > > Heavy sweating excretes lots of salts.
> > > . .
> > Back to endurance running on the savannah? Why would a hominin
> > start sweating heavily at a seashore? If hot, just splash.
> > . .
> Because, while the populations are coastal,
> many tribal groups are up to 10 km from
> the coast.

Why go inland when seafood is in seawater?

Depending on their capacity to
> trade, they could be further inland.

Why?

> >> Once humans (& hominins) learnt how
> >> to trade in salt, the occupation of inland
> >> areas became feasible -- at least in this
> >> respect.
> > . .
> > Do you still claim naledi were salt miners?
> > . .
> I've not seen any arguments against, and
> it seems a sensible suggestion.
> > . .
> > No evidence for that afaik.
> > . .
> What evidence would you expect?

Salt, extraction tools, diggings.

> > Lots of evidence for butchery of game far from seashores.
> > . .
> I would not say 'lots'. But it is what the
> investigators look for, often finding
> marks, etc., that they over-interpret.
>
> > . .
> > Right, mobile containers of salt, easily ambushed & speared by gangs of
> > Homo.
> > . .
> " . . Easily ambushed . . ". You've fallen for
> the 'hunting on the savannah'

No, ambushed along shallow crystalline streams (deeper murky rivers held Crocs).

nonsense. A
> small group of rhinos, or zebra, or any adult
> mammal > ~100 kg, would readily disperse a
> group of hominins.

One dead/wounded ungulate/swine would suffice, 5 spears, domeshields camouflaged.

> IF they had done what you imagine, there
> would have been numerous (recently and
> recorded) modern stone-age H/G tribes in
> Africa living like that.

Planting and herding have dominated Africa for 1000's of years, except in the deep rainforest, the deserts, the mountains, the swampy coasts and the arid coasts, where H&G survived marginally.

On Thursday 7 April 2022 at 02:56:50 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Hominins would have dug wells.
> . .
> Not necessary, since they lived along shallow crystalline streams.
> . .
The professionals have also made the subject
much easier -- by ruling out of existence all
those nasty predators.

> The Congo basin has lots of briny swamps which can't drain into the river
> due to geography.
> . .
Lots? There may be a few -- but no basis
for a population that needed salt regularly.
> . .

>> This is the skin "reverse osmosis" not
>> found in ANY known terrestrial mammal.
>> Nice idea, but not a sensible suggestion.
> . .
> A uniquely human trait?
> . .
A uniquely imaginary human trait.
> . .
> MV claims fur seals eccrine sweat at the rear
> flippers while on land exposed to sun, they also (maybe) drink seawater
> while in water.
> . .
Fish need to reduce the salt in the sea-
water that they drink. Seals probably
get all the fresh water they need by
consuming fish.
> . .
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/water-h2o-life/life-in-water/surviving-in-salt-water
> . .
> Eccrine glands can both excrete out and recycle in salt in solution. Where
> does the water go that the salt is dissolved in?
> . .
I don't follow your question. You'll have
to set it out much more clearly.
> . .

>>> Back to endurance running on the savannah? Why would a hominin
>>> start sweating heavily at a seashore? If hot, just splash.
>>> . .
>> Because, while the populations are coastal,
>> many tribal groups are up to 10 km from
>> the coast.
> . .
> Why go inland when seafood is in seawater?
> . .
The seafood is largely protein. Humans
(and presumably all hominins) can't
survive on such a high-protein diet.
They need carbohydrates, which they
probably mostly got from USOs, leaves
& fruit. Coastal populations would
have needed to forage inland.
> . .
> . .
> > What evidence would you expect?
>. .
> Salt, extraction tools, diggings.
>. .
Such evidence could be there, but
deep down in hard-to-reach places.
. .

>> IF they had done what you imagine, there
>> would have been numerous (recently and
>> recorded) modern stone-age H/G tribes in
>> Africa living like that.
.. .
> Planting and herding have dominated Africa for 1000's of years, except in
> the deep rainforest, the deserts, the mountains, the swampy coasts and the
> arid coasts, where H&G survived marginally.

Planting occurred only in the river valleys.
Herding was ruled out by the tsetse fly
until recently (<100 years). The San (or
Bushmen) peoples would have performed
in the roles you imagine -- if it was ever
feasible. But it wasn't -- ever. They had
the sense to know that you don't tackle
a zebra (nor any other large animal) if
you want to live.

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:48:50 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Thursday 7 April 2022 at 02:56:50 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
>
> > Hominins would have dug wells.
> > . .
> > Not necessary, since they lived along shallow crystalline streams.
> > . .
> The professionals have also made the subject
> much easier -- by ruling out of existence all
> those nasty predators.

Irrelevant.

> > The Congo basin has lots of briny swamps which can't drain into the river
> > due to geography.
> > . .
> Lots? There may be a few -- but no basis
> for a population that needed salt regularly.
> > . .

Lots of briny swamps in central Africa.
Forgot about the elephantids with 6 years worth of salt...

> >> This is the skin "reverse osmosis" not
> >> found in ANY known terrestrial mammal.
> >> Nice idea, but not a sensible suggestion.
> > . .
> > A uniquely human trait?
> > . .
> A uniquely imaginary human trait.

You have no clue. Again, read the paper.

> > . .
> > MV claims fur seals eccrine sweat at the rear
> > flippers while on land exposed to sun, they also (maybe) drink seawater
> > while in water.
> > . .
> Fish need to reduce the salt in the sea-
> water that they drink. Seals probably
> get all the fresh water they need by
> consuming fish.
> > . .
> https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/water-h2o-life/life-in-water/surviving-in-salt-water
> > . .
Mermaids? You are saying archaic Homo got their freshwater from eating saltwater fish?

> > Eccrine glands can both excrete out and recycle in salt in solution. Where
> > does the water go that the salt is dissolved in?
> > . .
> I don't follow your question. You'll have
> to set it out much more clearly.

Salt in sweat gets recycled while in aqueous solution. Thus the eccrines can indeed intake saltwater through the interstitium organ. The multi-lobed pyramidal kidneys filter it.

> > . .
>
> >>> Back to endurance running on the savannah? Why would a hominin
> >>> start sweating heavily at a seashore? If hot, just splash.
> >>> . .
> >> Because, while the populations are coastal,
> >> many tribal groups are up to 10 km from
> >> the coast.
> > . .
> > Why go inland when seafood is in seawater?
> > . .
> The seafood is largely protein.

Seaweed is not, but contains vit C. Both contain omega 3 oils.

Humans
> (and presumably all hominins) can't
> survive on such a high-protein diet.
> They need carbohydrates, which they
> probably mostly got from USOs, leaves
> & fruit. Coastal populations would
> have needed to forage inland.
> > . .
Obviously they spent much of the year not at seashores.
> > . .
> > > What evidence would you expect?
> >. .
> > Salt, extraction tools, diggings.
> >. .
> Such evidence could be there,

You are claiming incompetence of Berger's team?

but
> deep down in hard-to-reach places.

That cave has been sonar/radar/xray/UV/IR scanned and dug and measured more than your bedroom. All ancient salt mines contain obvious evidence, not these caves.
> . .
> >> IF they had done what you imagine, there
> >> would have been numerous (recently and
> >> recorded) modern stone-age H/G tribes in
> >> Africa living like that.
> . .
> > Planting and herding have dominated Africa for 1000's of years, except in
> > the deep rainforest, the deserts, the mountains, the swampy coasts and the
> > arid coasts, where H&G survived marginally.
> Planting occurred only in the river valleys.

Too vague, Central Africa is a river valley, like the US midwest.

> Herding was ruled out by the tsetse fly
> until recently (<100 years).

Tsetse flies have a preferred range. Most of Africa was not inside that range.

The San (or
> Bushmen) peoples would have performed
> in the roles you imagine -- if it was ever
> feasible. But it wasn't -- ever. They had
> the sense to know that you don't tackle
> a zebra (nor any other large animal) if
> you want to live.

Again, shallow crystalline streams, mass ambush on prey seeking water. Bushmen live in desert, streams are incipient.