2. 外语
  3. You are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But Richard Wrangham, of Harvard University, believes that this is true in a more p

You are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But Richard Wrangham, of Harvard University, believes that this is true in a more p

admin2017-04-20  35
问题     You are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But Richard Wrangham, of Harvard University, believes that this is true in a more profound sense than the one implied by the old proverb. It is not just you who are what you eat, but the entire human species. And with Homo sapiens, what makes the species unique in Dr. Wrangham’s opinion is that its food is so often cooked.
    Cooking is a human universal. No one other than a few faddists tries to survive on raw food alone. And the consumption of a cooked meal is normal in every known society. Moreover, without cooking, the human brain (which consumes 20-25% of the body’s energy) could not keep running. Dr. Wrangham thus believes that cooking and humanity are coeval.
    In fact, he thinks that cooking and other forms of preparing food are humanity’s "killer app": the evolutionary change that underpins all of the other—and subsequent—changes that have made people such unusual animals.
    Humans became human with the emergence 1. 8m years ago of a species called Homo erectus. This had a skeleton much like modern man’s—a big, brain-filled skull and a narrow pelvis and rib cage, which imply a small abdomen and thus a small gut. Hitherto, the explanation for this shift from the smaller skulls and wider pelvises of man’s apelike ancestors has been a shift from a vegetable-based diet to a meat-based one. Meat has more calories than plant matter, the theory went. A smaller gut could therefore support a larger brain.
    Dr. Wrangham disagrees. When you do the sums, he argues, raw meat is still insufficient to bridge the gap. He points out that even modern "raw foodists", members of a town-dwelling, back-to-nature social movement, struggle to maintain their weight—and they have access to animals and plants that have been bred for the table. Pre-agricultural man confined to raw food would have starved.
    Start cooking, however, and things change radically. Cooking alters food in three important ways. It breaks starch molecules into more digestible fragments. It "denatures" protein molecules, so that their amino-acid chains unfold and digestive enzymes can attack them more easily. And heat physically softens food. That makes it easier to digest, so even though the stuff is no more calorific, the body uses fewer calories dealing with it.
    In support of his thesis, Dr. Wrangham, who is an anthropologist, has ransacked other fields and come up with an impressive array of material. Cooking increases the share of food digested in the stomach and small intestine, where it can be absorbed, from 50% to 95%. Previous studies had suggested raw food was digested equally well as cooked food because they looked at faeces as being the end product. These, however, have been exposed to the digestive mercies of bacteria in the large intestine, and any residual goodies have been removed from them that way.
    Another telling experiment, conducted on rats, did not rely on cooking. Rather the experimenters ground up food pellets and then recompacted them to make them softer. Rats fed on the softer pellets weighed 30% more after 26 weeks than those fed the same weight of standard pellets. The difference was because of the lower cost of digestion. Indeed, Dr. Wrangham suspects the main cause of the modern epidemic of obesity is not overeating but the rise of processed foods. These are softer, because that is what people prefer. Indeed, the nerves from the taste buds meet in a part of the brain called the amygdala with nerves that convey information on the softness of food. It is only after these two qualities have been compared that the brain assesses how pleasant a mouthful actually is.
    The archaeological evidence for ancient cookery is equivocal. Digs show that both modern humans and Neanderthals controlled fire in a way that almost certainly means they could cook, and did so at least 200,000 years ago. Since the last common ancestor of the two species lived more than 400,000 years ago, fire-control is probably at least as old as that, for they lived in different parts of the world, and so could not have copied each other.
    Older alleged sites of human fires are more susceptible to other interpretations, but they do exist. And traces of fire are easily wiped out, so the lack of direct evidence for them is no surprise. Instead, Dr. Wrangham is relying on a compelling chain of logic. And in doing so he may have cast light not only on what made humanity, but on one of the threats it faces today.
Which of the following claims would Dr. Wrangham DISAGREE with?
选项 A、The shift from a vegetable-based diet to a meat-based one is an essential step in human evolution.
B、It is not yet clear when exactly human learned how to control fire.
C、With bacteria in large intestine, human body can still digest and absorb raw food as well as cooked food.
D、Modern humans did not learn how to use fire from Neanderthals.
答案C
解析 态度题。根据第五段可知，朗罕博士认为吃生肉不足以补充人类身体结构变化所需的全部额外热量，但并不否认人类从吃植物为主转向以吃肉类为主的确增加了热量的摄入，对身体的发育和进化是很重要的，故[A]“从以植物类食物为主转变为以肉类食物为主是人类进化中的关键一步”正确，故排除；根据最后两段可知，有关人类在远古时期用火烹饪的考古学证据并不十分严密，因此[B]“尚未查明人类究竟如何学会使用火”正确，故排除；根据倒数第二段可知，现代人和尼安德特人的居住地相去甚远，不太可能彼此模仿如何用火，更有可能的是他们共同的祖先已经学会使用火，因此[D]“现代人并非从尼安德特人那里学会如何使用火”正确，故排除。第七段尽管证明了大肠在细菌的帮助下可以彻底地分解残留物，弥补了生食在小肠中消化率较低的不足，但结合第四段来看，现代生食主义者只能勉强维持体重，可见，人体消化吸收生食所获得的热量仍不如熟食，所以[C]“借助大肠中的细菌，人体仍可消化吸收生食和熟食”不符合朗罕博士的论点，故为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/2EeMFFFM
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)