You're just considering the human body as of today. I doubt whether you can be so sure of the physiology of an ancestor around 40 million years ago.
Did Sweating Evolve To Keep Us Cool Or Expell Excess Salt?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
- Status
With respect to item 2: My diet has been extremely consistent and low in salt for several months now. This week, I bought a box of microwave popcorn and bags of salted-roasted, unshelled peanuts.
On my first day, I consumed 2 bags of popcorn and about 12 oz of the peanuts. I actually got a buzz following consumption (for lack of a better way to describe the sensation--hypertension maybe?). That night, I sweat profusely. Four times I woke up, dried off, turned or replaced my pillow.
Since, I have consumed about the same amount of popcorn and peanuts daily (four days now), and the sweating is starting to decrease somewhat, but I have also been using the ceiling fan now when I sleep. Also, I do not notice that "buzzed" feeling anymore like the first day. However, I have been noticing my body temperature feeling somewhat elevated and not responding as well to the icy-liquids that normally make me feel cooler.
Other than that, my diet, physical activity, and drinking habits have not changed. Temperature and humidity are controlled. How do you explain this excessive sweating if not connected to the increased salt consumption?
Interesting story DdoubleD. Incidentally, I've just been reading up on the The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis for the first time. Are the so called experts simply too narrow minded? It's the same situation in any field of science; established 'facts' are difficult to remove.
I seem to have jumped into a debate here that I know nothing about. I jumped in due to the subject matter of salt and sweat and had been searching online for hours before coming across this forum, which is the only definitive thing I have found addressing this subject.
My environment is extremely controlled. I do NOT eat out and I cook all of my food. No processed food, except the recent addition of the popcorn and peanuts. Therefore, I know how much salt is in it. If anyone has an opinion on the recent changes occurring to me (connection between the added salt and sweating), I am very interested to learn. Thanks.
My environment is extremely controlled. I do NOT eat out and I cook all of my food. No processed food, except the recent addition of the popcorn and peanuts. Therefore, I know how much salt is in it. If anyone has an opinion on the recent changes occurring to me (connection between the added salt and sweating), I am very interested to learn. Thanks.
I'm certainly no expert, but wish you the best of luck with the others. 
I'm certainly no expert, but wish you the best of luck with the others.
Thank you. I did visit your link to the Aquatic Ape, and I must say the fascination with such theories and quests to define why we are, or whence we came, tend to leave me feeling perplexed to say the least. From the ever-expanding universe to missing links, in in the end, is there not only one thing that always prevails--that which we believe to be true?
If we should discover that the theory of Aquatic Apes were true, or at least consistent with evolutionary theory, how does that help us in any way? Will we not then simply believe in something different in order to fill another missing link that will ultimately prove false once again; until we discover something new again--then repeat? How does any of this content affect our lives fundamentally?
40 Million years ago, our ancestors were still quite hairy. They didn't sweat.
The split to 'Homo' species only happened 2 million years ago.
On Homo ergaster;
"This was clearly a strapping lad, with a body shape that was perfectly adapted to an active life in the sun. Human populations living on equatorial grasslands today, such as the Masai in Kenya, have the same tall, linear physique.
This body shape creates a large surface area over which the body can cool itself more easily, preventing Nariokotome Boy from overheating under the blazing Sun.
This hominid was probably the first to regulate its temperature through sweating."
You're quite right, it's just for certain people who grow up with a strong natural desire to understand everything. When you're young it fills you with a sense of wonder, but now I've hit middle age I'm quite envious of everyday people who aren't really interested. They tend to be more 'people-persons' and socially more content. Who'd want to be a scientist?
Interesting stuff. The tall linear shape also applies to cooling via dilated blood vessels though. It was BECAUSE we began to walk upright that the body could lose it's hair due to the lower incident solar heating.
I've ordered the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis 1997 book, which I need to read-up on.
I'm all for science and what it brings us by gaining a deeper understanding of "why" and "how". I also tend to be quite curious with respect to "why" and "how".
It's just when it comes to evolution that I fail to see the tangible benefits of knowing how many millions of years it took life to evolve from one stage to another, and from knowing exactly what all of those stages of life were. :shrug:
Now, on the hand, if you could prove humans did not evolve, and abruptly come into being at some point, I would be very interested in knowing this.
I guess it depends on the upbringing of an individual. I find evolution more credible than an instant creation event. The study of a fractal style build of matter before the big bang is more my thing. One could always say that this creation event was preconceived I suppose.
I've been on both sides of the fence when it comes to creation, as well as sitting on the fence too.
I continue to want answers, but as I believe you have suggested with respect to "intelligent design", the creation question will always remain.It would sometimes seem to be an easier task to disprove one theory over another, but that is difficult to do too, if not impossible? However, when you remove the seemingly, few, practical-scientific applications of solving the evolution puzzle, what purpose can it serve other than to disprove one belief over the other?:shrug:
Are there practical applications to such discovery, or is it simply the equivalent of an accomplishment that is perhaps a million times greater than climbing Mount Everest? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to criticize; only to, perhaps, develop a better understanding of any practical applications.
EmeraldAxe
Registered Senior Member
Evaporation is an endothermic reaction. This literally means the transformation of liquid water to a gas (not by boiling but by evaporating) takes energy (heat) from the environment (your skin). Common sense is nothing if you can't apply what you've been taught. Be able to apply your general chemistry; wiping away the water will not cool you.
H20(liquid) + energy (heat for all intents and purposes) ----> H2O(gas)
If you don't believe any of us, then talk to your dermatologist. He'll be able to explain things much better than we can. If you are right, there has to be a physiological between our salt sensors and our skin. If you can't prove this, then I don't see how you could possibly be correct. The dermatologist will explain if any such relationship exists and if he's in research may even know if people have looked at this question. And check pubmed.
As I understand it and as they teach in medical school, sweating is controlled by the thermo-regulatory centers of the hypothalamus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_gland
Last edited:
I believe that there is practical use of the information, if a little unknown at the present. If it is accepted that the tidal interaction of a massive body near-miss with the Earth 40,000 years ago accelerated human evolution for example, then this would benefit scientific understanding in general. The genetic revolution will help solve the many problems of our existence.I've been on both sides of the fence when it comes to creation, as well as sitting on the fence too.
It would sometimes seem to be an easier task to disprove one theory over another, but that is difficult to do too, if not impossible? However, when you remove the seemingly, few, practical-scientific applications of solving the evolution puzzle, what purpose can it serve other than to disprove one belief over the other?:shrug:
Are there practical applications to such discovery, or is it simply the equivalent of an accomplishment that is perhaps a million times greater than climbing Mount Everest? Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to criticize; only to, perhaps, develop a better understanding of any practical applications.
I know about the evaporation of sweat requiring a latent heat. The wiping of sweat does cool the body to some degree though. It was a small point of contention at the time of discussion.
My point is that evolution is NOT by design. Why would small mammals want to leave a scent trail of sweat from their paws so that their pathways can be easily identified by ambushing snakes for example? It is a very convoluted route of changing environment, physiology and luck which has determined our sequence of DNA.
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Huh??? All mammals have sweat glands except the cetaceans, who have readapted to a completely aquatic existence. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the mammary glands that define us as "mammals" are modified sweat glands. Horses sweat profusely.
Much scientific research does not have an obvious "tangible" benefit until it accomplishes its objective, and even then it often has to wait for other research to be completed in order to work in concert.
That would require refutation of mountains of evidence from independent scientific disciplines: paleontology and DNA analysis. So please don't hold your breath.
Understood. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. Maybe you can help me realize a better appreciation for the possibilities in this particular area of science.
I can see the obvious contributions, such as the identification and grouping of species, both living and dead, perhaps. Mostly, all I observe are people debating theories for many decades now, still with many holes that have not, and may never be filled.
Can you expand my perspective without the need to go into great detail? Thanks.
I think you need to re-read the thread and see which side of this debate I'm on, 'cos you are barking up the wrong tree.
When I say 'sweat', I mean like homo-sapiens do. I thought the distinction was clear, maybe not enough.
The main argument about profuse sweating as man's cooling system is that is most likely to have developed at the same time as becoming a dominant predator. Man evolving into a spear using multi-disciplined group within the Congo estuary fits the scenario. When walking the land, the great smell of the human would be less of a hindrance since he would have walked as a top predator and have been able to secure inland water holes. Within the river delta itself, contant washing, hunting and foraging would keep the skin clean naturally.
Er, no. It's 'most likely' that we started to sweat throughout our body, when it stopped being so hairy.
You're not being very smart: why would evolution develop an ape cooling system that also alerts your presence to predators for miles around? Why would evolution develop an excessive sweating mechanism when water can not be guaranteed to be found in large supply?
- Status