Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
"Junk Food" and Health
Replies
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »In the other thread it was suggested that we (genetic expectations ("GE") vs. the other posters) disagreed, because even though all of us were saying that eating a balanced, nutrient dense diet was a good idea, GE said that he/she believed that "junk food" was actively a negative in any amount whereas the rest of us were saying it was fine in moderation in the context of a diet that was otherwise calorie appropriate and nutritionally adequate.
GE, if I am misunderstanding your claim from the other thread, please correct me.
If that is the claim, my question is what harm it does to eat some "junk food" (i.e., high cal, low nutrient foods) if you otherwise don't go over calories or prevent yourself from getting the nutrients you need (and even beyond that, have a nutrient dense diet). For the purposes of this discussion I will say that I agree that transfats are harmful and would not choose "junk foods" with that as an ingredient.
I will also say that although I don't object to the term "junk food," I think it's kind of hard to really define or differentiate from other foods. For example, I'd call ice cream "junk food" as it's higher cal and not especially high in protein or healthy fats or micros, but if so how is it that different from a dessert of cheese or, say, a meal involving pulled pork, which has more protein, but mostly just has more calories and fat than pork loin, so ends up working in the context of an overall diet in the same way.
No, you got my claim right.
I think you partially answered your first question to me. You identified an ingredient that you feel is harmful and would not choose junk foods with that ingredient. I am the same (and I also include man made transfats. I'm totally fine with congugated linolenic acid in grass fed products though). My list of ingredients is only slightly larger (albeit with ingredients that are more ubiquitous).
Okay -- I wonder if your definition of "junk food" (assuming it is foods with those ingredients) is so unusual as to be unhelpful in a discussion, however -- by which I mean makes communication less likely.
As you have said you are "paleo," I'd assume your list of ingredients includes grains, legumes, and dairy (although I know you said not all dairy), sugar, various oils -- is that right? So "junk food" would include steel cut oats, legumes, or corn on the cob (which you said you did not eat before)?However, I don't actually define junk food as high calorie low nutrient. Now, I do believe in nutrient density, but I have no problem eating a lot of chocolate as long as the sugar content is low (I have a company near me that makes very low sugar chocolate with maybe too much fiber.. aghem you know what I mean), but it tastes great. No I don't think sugar is the devil, but low sugar chocolates are mostly fat, which jives with my body just fine. I guess because I don't keep an eye on calories at all (and yes I was obese by medical definition 5 years ago), just quality of food, I don't necessarily consider all high calorie low nutrient food by definition to be junk food. But I know that for others, high calorie foods send their weight loss goals off the rails, so I completely understand.
I'm not meaning by "junk foods" foods that are bad for me (as I said, I don't think they are, in moderation), but foods that simply aren't nutrient dense. I think that's the usual definition.
I don't think any specific foods are bad for my goals, but particular ways of eating overall. Nor do I think what works for me is going to work for everyone, although I do have a general sense of what a healthy diet involves that I think is more general.
It sounds to me that a lot of what you are talking about isn't really about health in general (i.e., including some junk food is actively negative to health) but about what is helpful to YOU. If that's so, there's really no debate, as I don't disagree that it could be.
No, that's why I don't have a definition of junk food. There are foods I prefer to eat and those I don't. I mean because the term is thrown around there must be some definition out there that people adhere to when they mean junk food, and you have stated that for you that definition is high cal low nutrition.
My definition yes works for me, but I'm not the only one with that definition. I follow ancestral health principles and that way of eating is actually becoming common. Not to say one thing is right over the other, but both "definitions" are fairly prevalent.
I think that's stretching the definition of common. It was kind of common among people in a CF box I used to be a member of, but even so, not really -- most of them were in the process of transitioning to something else, mainly because it tended to be too limited in carbs to fit with their ideas of good nutrition for their goals.
Random story: our receptionist sees me as a repository of knowledge about weight loss stuff and grabbed me one day as I passed and said "I just heard about this new diet, paleo, do you know what that is?" I realize it's not new (as I said in the other thread, I was interested in it at one time and did it for a bit, but ultimately decided I saw no point in it for me and that I thought the various "scientific" claims ranged from not well supported to silly), but was not committal and just said "yeah, no grains, no legumes, no dairy." "Oh," she said. And then, "well, won't be doing that!"
Among physicians its getting more common. We don't want to be what we diagnose all day.
I'm skeptical, as everyone I know who knows anything about science pooh-poohs the paleo thing. But show me evidence and I'll consider it.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in another thread to address this:
Someone else wrote: I'm struggling with your position of the body "expecting" things since as a species, we're evolutionarily adaptable.
Me:
Except my argument is that for evolution to take place, you don't just need people, environment and the passage of time.
You need strong selection pressure. The biggest selection pressures over 2.5 million years were starvation and predator danger. You had to be damn proficient at being badass to survive to reproductive age. Surviving to reproductive age was all that was required, but that was a ridiculously hard task. You had to be among the best.
10 thousand years ago, when we developed agriculture, we had a food supply that we could now sustain in one place, and we had shelter and permanenent community. Thereby, eliminating the two strongest selection pressures that drove evolution.
Sure, if junk food was around and there was selection pressure to evolve, I'm sure we would have.
Today, there is no evolutionary penalty for any lifestyle behaviours b/c all of us can evolve to reproductive age - we won't starve and no lion will bite off our heads.
So yeah, aside from a few instances of random genetic drift (eg. Tay Sachs disease etc) that have occurred since the advent of civilization, we're genetically identical to 10 thousand years ago. But we would NOT be if selection pressures were maintained over the last 10 thousand years.
So yes, if we were all still in the wild and had to fend for ourselves and the ground started growing white castle burgers and crispy creme donuts, it is possible that we could have evolved to thrive on those, circumstances dictating.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.
What I've read is that "evolution" of lactose intolerance isn't evolution, it is genetic drift, also known as Spontaneous Nucleotide Polymorphism. Similar to Tay Sachs disease. They are random genetic alterations, and may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. But that is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires selection pressure to select for traits that allow survival to reproductive age and selects against traits that prevent survival to reproductive age.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.
What I've read is that "evolution" of lactose intolerance isn't evolution, it is genetic drift, also known as Spontaneous Nucleotide Polymorphism. Similar to Tay Sachs disease. They are random genetic alterations, and may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. But that is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires selection pressure to select for traits that allow survival to reproductive age and selects against traits that prevent survival to reproductive age.
SNPs are part of evolution.3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in another thread to address this:
Someone else wrote: I'm struggling with your position of the body "expecting" things since as a species, we're evolutionarily adaptable.
Me:
Except my argument is that for evolution to take place, you don't just need people, environment and the passage of time.
You need strong selection pressure. The biggest selection pressures over 2.5 million years were starvation and predator danger. You had to be damn proficient at being badass to survive to reproductive age. Surviving to reproductive age was all that was required, but that was a ridiculously hard task. You had to be among the best.
10 thousand years ago, when we developed agriculture, we had a food supply that we could now sustain in one place, and we had shelter and permanenent community. Thereby, eliminating the two strongest selection pressures that drove evolution.
Sure, if junk food was around and there was selection pressure to evolve, I'm sure we would have.
Today, there is no evolutionary penalty for any lifestyle behaviours b/c all of us can evolve to reproductive age - we won't starve and no lion will bite off our heads.
So yeah, aside from a few instances of random genetic drift (eg. Tay Sachs disease etc) that have occurred since the advent of civilization, we're genetically identical to 10 thousand years ago. But we would NOT be if selection pressures were maintained over the last 10 thousand years.
So yes, if we were all still in the wild and had to fend for ourselves and the ground started growing white castle burgers and crispy creme donuts, it is possible that we could have evolved to thrive on those, circumstances dictating.
But I don't think I'm talking about "evolving" though. I'm going to paraphrase, but I think you are saying that our DNA is programmed to expect certain nutrients? elements? chemicals? substances? coming into our bodies. And that if our food contains something different from that, it causes health issues. My point is that over the thousands of years we have existed, the stuff we have eaten, drank, and breathed has changed dramatically, and even at the same time has been dramatically different based on geography. So why is all of that change fine for our DNA until the moment we decided to start "processing" our food? Isn't all the crap in the air and the water far more "unexpected" than a corn chip?4 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.
What I've read is that "evolution" of lactose intolerance isn't evolution, it is genetic drift, also known as Spontaneous Nucleotide Polymorphism. Similar to Tay Sachs disease. They are random genetic alterations, and may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. But that is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires selection pressure to select for traits that allow survival to reproductive age and selects against traits that prevent survival to reproductive age.
Also if you think that 10000 years ago there was no selection pressure anymore I don't know what to tell you.2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in another thread to address this:
Someone else wrote: I'm struggling with your position of the body "expecting" things since as a species, we're evolutionarily adaptable.
Me:
Except my argument is that for evolution to take place, you don't just need people, environment and the passage of time.
You need strong selection pressure. The biggest selection pressures over 2.5 million years were starvation and predator danger. You had to be damn proficient at being badass to survive to reproductive age. Surviving to reproductive age was all that was required, but that was a ridiculously hard task. You had to be among the best.
10 thousand years ago, when we developed agriculture, we had a food supply that we could now sustain in one place, and we had shelter and permanenent community. Thereby, eliminating the two strongest selection pressures that drove evolution.
Sure, if junk food was around and there was selection pressure to evolve, I'm sure we would have.
Today, there is no evolutionary penalty for any lifestyle behaviours b/c all of us can evolve to reproductive age - we won't starve and no lion will bite off our heads.
So yeah, aside from a few instances of random genetic drift (eg. Tay Sachs disease etc) that have occurred since the advent of civilization, we're genetically identical to 10 thousand years ago. But we would NOT be if selection pressures were maintained over the last 10 thousand years.
So yes, if we were all still in the wild and had to fend for ourselves and the ground started growing white castle burgers and crispy creme donuts, it is possible that we could have evolved to thrive on those, circumstances dictating.
But I don't think I'm talking about "evolving" though. I'm going to paraphrase, but I think you are saying that our DNA is programmed to expect certain nutrients? elements? chemicals? substances? coming into our bodies. And that if our food contains something different from that, it causes health issues. My point is that over the thousands of years we have existed, the stuff we have eaten, drank, and breathed has changed dramatically, and even at the same time has been dramatically different based on geography. So why is all of that change fine for our DNA until the moment we decided to start "processing" our food? Isn't all the crap in the air and the water far more "unexpected" than a corn chip?
Ah ok. Well, I don't know. to be perfectly honest. My first inclination would be, NO, it's probably not expected. But I can't control that. I can control the corn chip. And given how much food we ingest over our lifetimes I don't think that part of the equation is insignificant. The air and water etc (well, I do control my water), but yeah all the other variables.... I agree with you. But I don't focus on perfection. to me it's a spectrum.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.
What I've read is that "evolution" of lactose intolerance isn't evolution, it is genetic drift, also known as Spontaneous Nucleotide Polymorphism. Similar to Tay Sachs disease. They are random genetic alterations, and may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. But that is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires selection pressure to select for traits that allow survival to reproductive age and selects against traits that prevent survival to reproductive age.
Also if you think that 10000 years ago there was no selection pressure anymore I don't know what to tell you.
There's always some selection pressure. There are many types. The two main ones are starvation and predator danger. Once you have a food supply that you can grow yourself and once you have permanent residences (and nobody would pick a permanent resident without defense advantage), starvation and predator danger don't necessarily exert the same force.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in another thread to address this:
Someone else wrote: I'm struggling with your position of the body "expecting" things since as a species, we're evolutionarily adaptable.
Me:
Except my argument is that for evolution to take place, you don't just need people, environment and the passage of time.
You need strong selection pressure. The biggest selection pressures over 2.5 million years were starvation and predator danger. You had to be damn proficient at being badass to survive to reproductive age. Surviving to reproductive age was all that was required, but that was a ridiculously hard task. You had to be among the best.
10 thousand years ago, when we developed agriculture, we had a food supply that we could now sustain in one place, and we had shelter and permanenent community. Thereby, eliminating the two strongest selection pressures that drove evolution.
Sure, if junk food was around and there was selection pressure to evolve, I'm sure we would have.
Today, there is no evolutionary penalty for any lifestyle behaviours b/c all of us can evolve to reproductive age - we won't starve and no lion will bite off our heads.
So yeah, aside from a few instances of random genetic drift (eg. Tay Sachs disease etc) that have occurred since the advent of civilization, we're genetically identical to 10 thousand years ago. But we would NOT be if selection pressures were maintained over the last 10 thousand years.
So yes, if we were all still in the wild and had to fend for ourselves and the ground started growing white castle burgers and crispy creme donuts, it is possible that we could have evolved to thrive on those, circumstances dictating.
But I don't think I'm talking about "evolving" though. I'm going to paraphrase, but I think you are saying that our DNA is programmed to expect certain nutrients? elements? chemicals? substances? coming into our bodies. And that if our food contains something different from that, it causes health issues. My point is that over the thousands of years we have existed, the stuff we have eaten, drank, and breathed has changed dramatically, and even at the same time has been dramatically different based on geography. So why is all of that change fine for our DNA until the moment we decided to start "processing" our food? Isn't all the crap in the air and the water far more "unexpected" than a corn chip?
Ah ok. Well, I don't know. to be perfectly honest. My first inclination would be, NO, it's probably not expected. But I can't control that. I can control the corn chip. And given how much food we ingest over our lifetimes I don't think that part of the equation is insignificant. The air and water etc (well, I do control my water), but yeah all the other variables.... I agree with you. But I don't focus on perfection. to me it's a spectrum.
Fair enough I have typed out everything I know about any of this, so I'm off to eat dinner, which ironically will be almost entirely processed LOL. Have a great night! 0 -
stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.
What I've read is that "evolution" of lactose intolerance isn't evolution, it is genetic drift, also known as Spontaneous Nucleotide Polymorphism. Similar to Tay Sachs disease. They are random genetic alterations, and may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. But that is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires selection pressure to select for traits that allow survival to reproductive age and selects against traits that prevent survival to reproductive age.
SNPs are part of evolution.
Only if they are selected for and against. After civilization it is really hard for nature to make you pay an evolutionary penalty for having a mutation that makes you run too slow, or makes you glow in the dark. You are behind walls (safe from predator danger) and you have a food supply within those walls in the form of agriculture (safe from starvation... most of the time). If evolution lets you get protected from certain deleterious mutations that decrease survival to reproductive age, it's no longer evolution. Just SNPs. Just genetic drift.
Evolution is not the same as mutations. Evolution is selection based on mutations. For selection, you need selection pressure.0 -
Alright guys I have to take off here, but may be back on the weekend. Thanks for those who replied and thanks for everyone for keeping the topic civil. Thanks Lemurcat for inviting discussion.1
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.
What I've read is that "evolution" of lactose intolerance isn't evolution, it is genetic drift, also known as Spontaneous Nucleotide Polymorphism. Similar to Tay Sachs disease. They are random genetic alterations, and may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. But that is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires selection pressure to select for traits that allow survival to reproductive age and selects against traits that prevent survival to reproductive age.
SNPs are part of evolution.
Only if they are selected for and against. After civilization it is really hard for nature to make you pay an evolutionary penalty for having a mutation that makes you run too slow, or makes you glow in the dark. You are behind walls (safe from predator danger) and you have a food supply within those walls in the form of agriculture (safe from starvation... most of the time). If evolution lets you get protected from certain deleterious mutations that decrease survival to reproductive age, it's no longer evolution. Just SNPs. Just genetic drift.
Evolution is not the same as mutations. Evolution is selection based on mutations. For selection, you need selection pressure.
And there's where milk comes into play.
Pooping your innards out (and possibly dying as a result of it if it gets bad) from dairy is bad for survival, and when other sources of food are scarce you take what you get (which is about the truest "Paleo" diet there is. "Whatever you can get your hands on."). There's been many, many times of food scarcity and famines all the way into the 20th century. Not being able to digest a readily avaliable source of good nutrition is detrimental to survival.
So, what do you call a SNP that spreads to 90% of a population that just so happens to extensively breed cattle? Could it be that this SNP has a positive effect on survival by providing good nutrition reliably, thus increasing chances people with this mutation survive into adulthood in a time where child mortality was stupid high?
Also the behind walls part hasn't been a thing until quite a bit later. First walled settlements started in the bronze age.0 -
I'm only on page two but you reference large consumption of ghee. I assume you're sourcing unpasteurised milk for this? Or is it okay for man to process that?0
-
I'd enjoy hearing from the anthropologists chime in on this.
I would oblige, but it inevitably leads to me getting into trouble...
Though, I'd start with the fact the term hominid applies to all living and extinct Great Apes, not just the Homo line that has been around for the past ~2.5 million years. The term hominin applies more specifically to our more immediate ancestors (the Homo line), but also to more distant relatives (including evolutionary dead ends, so not our ancestors) in the Australopithicus, Paranthropus and Ardipithicus families. If you're going to use scientific terms, get them right
.
There's plenty more I could say, but it's a sunny day
ETA: We're actually totes still evolving btw. That didn't just shut down 10000 years ago. Just because it isn't obvious, doesn't mean it isn't happening. A child with Google could tell you that (and someone with access to scientific journals could then back that up with plenty of peer reviewed research).8 -
And actually, why is dairy even okay, I'm not sure we were gleefully milking cows and shaking their milk for ages to make butter in paleolithic times were we?*
*Disclaimer: I'm not anthropologist, though I've watched a lot Time Team and I think that's kind of the same......3 -
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
Not to mention the fact that people in the Paleolithic era lived in different parts of the world, just as they do today. To assume that Paleolithic man living in the coastal Mediterranean climate was eating the same diet as Paleolithic men living in the Artic, or in arid desert steppes, or rainforests, or in isolated mountain villages, is patently ridiculous. It's not like they all lived in one little village somewhere in the same climate, with the same flora and fauna around them.7 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »I'd enjoy hearing from the anthropologists chime in on this.
I would oblige, but it inevitably leads to me getting into trouble...
Though, I'd start with the fact the term hominid applies to all living and extinct Great Apes, not just the Homo line that has been around for the past ~2.5 million years. The term hominin applies more specifically to our more immediate ancestors (the Homo line), but also to more distant relatives (including evolutionary dead ends, so not our ancestors) in the Australopithicus, Paranthropus and Ardipithicus families. If you're going to use scientific terms, get them right.
There's plenty more I could say, but it's a sunny day
ETA: We're actually totes still evolving btw. That didn't just shut down 10000 years ago. Just because it isn't obvious, doesn't mean it isn't happening. A child with Google could tell you that (and someone with access to scientific journals could then back that up with plenty of peer reviewed research).
THANK YOU! I have some anthropology background from ages ago, and the way people throw around assumptions about our evolutionary lineage makes me crazy!
The whole romance with the paleolithic era is baffling to me, and the made-up nonsense about how people lived is laughable. The fixation on a lifestyle of constant activity and brutal battle with nature isn't supported by the many studies of indigenous hunter-gatherer societies on record. From wikipedia - and you can find this observation repeated in any reputable analysis of human culture during the paleolithic era:
Paleolithic humans enjoyed an abundance of leisure time unparalleled in both Neolithic farming societies and modern industrial societies.[25][27]
Seriously, starvation was a constant threat since the food supply was so unreliable. I seriously doubt anyone ever migrated south following the animals they hunted and said "Oh, I can't eat that fruit, my great-grandmother up north didn't eat it so it must not be good for me."
7 -
stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »A lot of this is over my head, so I am just quietly reading with great interest, but I wanted to chime in!
An issue I have always had with proponents of the Paleo way of eating, is there are SO MANY variables that are completely different between now and then. Sure our diet is different than it was in paleolithic times. Our food is also handled differently, even the "all-natural, organic" stuff. We largely do less manual labor. We have different sleep schedules. Our air and water quality is different. The climate is different. Our healthcare is different. The viruses floating around are different. We are surrounded by different plants and animals. We are clothed and sheltered differently. That's all just off the top of my head. Considering all of that, I find it hard to believe that food processing is the one thing out of all of those variables that is measurably affecting our health.
As others have said, if Paleo makes you feel better, that's awesome. But I have to wonder if it's the actual diet, or focus on adherence to the way of eating (and therefore any way of eating) that makes one physically and mentally healthier?
I've been enjoying this one, I love it when we can all just have a nice little debate
No worries. I don't really like the paleo label b/c well it refers to a too-rigid diet. And what I do isn't about imitating ancestors, but rather exercising options today that are more in line (again, on a spectrum) with genetic expectations than options that are less in line.
I use the words "more" and "less" because it is a spectrum. What I do isn't about perfection, just optimization given the cards we have in hand at the present moment.
And because much of what you say is very true. Variables are different. Interesting that you mentioned sleep, there's also things I do for that that is kind of ancestral based. Sun exposure also. But those aside, yes things are different, lots of things, but my point is that the DNA that resides in each of our cells is essentially NOT different.
We can't change the environment our cells see to replicate the exact conditions that our DNA expects. However, can we get closer to what our DNA expects than the standards that exist today? I think so, yes. Even if its still far on an absolute scale, I'm ok with closer on a relative scale. And I seem to be functioning better as a whole for sure, but who knows, maybe it could be all in my head. I accept that as a possibility too.
But why would our DNA still "expect" a lifestyle we have so far outgrown? Almost every single thing you come in contact with is different than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Considering how much our species has evolved over time, hasn't our DNA's expectations evolved too? If your DNA is getting bombarded with "stuff" in the water and the air now that it isn't "expecting" because that stuff just wasn't there thousands of years ago, is that bag of Cheetos I just ate really going to be the thing that confuses my DNA to the point I get sick?
To add an example to that point (and throw another wrench into the idea of paleo as it pertains something that is a no-no in it), in the ~10000 years since we started agriculture, and more importantly cattle farming, the regions that did this extensively already evolved so a large majority of the population in these regions is lactose tolerant.
Our bodies now "expect" that many of us drink milk past infanthood and thus keep producing lactase to properly digest it.
What I've read is that "evolution" of lactose intolerance isn't evolution, it is genetic drift, also known as Spontaneous Nucleotide Polymorphism. Similar to Tay Sachs disease. They are random genetic alterations, and may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. But that is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires selection pressure to select for traits that allow survival to reproductive age and selects against traits that prevent survival to reproductive age.
SNPs are part of evolution.
Only if they are selected for and against. After civilization it is really hard for nature to make you pay an evolutionary penalty for having a mutation that makes you run too slow, or makes you glow in the dark. You are behind walls (safe from predator danger) and you have a food supply within those walls in the form of agriculture (safe from starvation... most of the time). If evolution lets you get protected from certain deleterious mutations that decrease survival to reproductive age, it's no longer evolution. Just SNPs. Just genetic drift.
Evolution is not the same as mutations. Evolution is selection based on mutations. For selection, you need selection pressure.
And there's where milk comes into play.
Pooping your innards out (and possibly dying as a result of it if it gets bad) from dairy is bad for survival, and when other sources of food are scarce you take what you get (which is about the truest "Paleo" diet there is. "Whatever you can get your hands on."). There's been many, many times of food scarcity and famines all the way into the 20th century. Not being able to digest a readily avaliable source of good nutrition is detrimental to survival.
So, what do you call a SNP that spreads to 90% of a population that just so happens to extensively breed cattle? Could it be that this SNP has a positive effect on survival by providing good nutrition reliably, thus increasing chances people with this mutation survive into adulthood in a time where child mortality was stupid high?
Also the behind walls part hasn't been a thing until quite a bit later. First walled settlements started in the bronze age.
Behind the walls - yes I agree with what you said, but I was half alluding to it being metaphorically "behind the wall" in the early stages just for brevity. Even without walls, strength in numbers + presumed premeditated geographical advantage > Nomad random location while being attacked.
Yes, I would agree that really if there is one SNP that has been beneficial to the human race it would be lactose tolerance spreading like wildfire through the Scandinavian herder population, whereas it is extremely rare in the rest of the world. And that is a source of ongoing debate for sure. Most SNPs are absolutely inconsequential, but this one conferred a bigtime survival advantage, especially in times of food scarcity. Technically, since it spread throughout the population, yeah, one can argue on that semantic that it could be a small form of evolution. But that's considered a one-off, literally, a small form of luck, which of course can happen. It is incredibly small in scope compared to the massive sifting and "filing" of a large number of human traits on a huge scale that was ongoing when selection pressures were at our throats 24/7.
I guess to discuss this at a practical level, I know for me, a one-off neolithic SNP isn't enough to make me comfortable in thinking that we have evolved to eat whatever we conjure up. Incredible amounts of foods are "invented" over the course of a single individual's lifetime, and evolution occurs over generations, not over a single individual's life. We've had one lottery ticket SNP over 10,000 years to one type of food... I don't think it's likely that the massively different Western diet (that has shown up in the last 60 years) will have adaptations given that track record. Again, just my thoughts and ramblings.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I'm only on page two but you reference large consumption of ghee. I assume you're sourcing unpasteurised milk for this? Or is it okay for man to process that?
I live in Canada, so you are absolutely right, I do not have access to unpasteurized dairy. I would be ok with it though. At least for fermented dairy. I don't have much use for straight up milk. I do have access to an extremely high fat grass fed buffalo yogurt, although pasteurized, so that is my go to (buffalo being less commoditized is something I prefer). I do have access to unpasteurized cheese (legal in canada if aged greater than 60 days), so yes I eat that. Pasteurization is not a huge neg for me, although yes it kills beneficial bacteria and drastically reduces the fat soluble vitamins A, D and E, but less so Vitamin C (and B6 and B12 are completely wrecked), dairy really isn't my go-to source for those things. For milk (for my kid who drinks whole milk) I will for sure get unhomogenized so there is less fat oxidation (and to be safe I'll give him pasteurized milk since he also gets his nutrients and probiotics from other things so no sense taking the small but admittedly serious risk of raw milk)
I just do the best with the options I've got. I know you're only on page two, but by page two, you should have read that I mentioned that I don't get hung up on semantics, I don't care about perfectly emulating cavemen to a T, and I don't care for the "paleo" label. I try to think along a spectrum, not worry if I have to exclude something from my diet for the sole reason that it is "processed". I try not to exhibit black or white thinking because as I referenced in an earlier thread, that is a characteristic of "high conflict personalities", and I try to do the opposite - I try to interact with people openly and frankly without resorting to vibes that hint at thinly veiled sarcasm.1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »I'd enjoy hearing from the anthropologists chime in on this.
I would oblige, but it inevitably leads to me getting into trouble...
Though, I'd start with the fact the term hominid applies to all living and extinct Great Apes, not just the Homo line that has been around for the past ~2.5 million years. The term hominin applies more specifically to our more immediate ancestors (the Homo line), but also to more distant relatives (including evolutionary dead ends, so not our ancestors) in the Australopithicus, Paranthropus and Ardipithicus families. If you're going to use scientific terms, get them right.
There's plenty more I could say, but it's a sunny day
ETA: We're actually totes still evolving btw. That didn't just shut down 10000 years ago. Just because it isn't obvious, doesn't mean it isn't happening. A child with Google could tell you that (and someone with access to scientific journals could then back that up with plenty of peer reviewed research).
Correct, Hominid does refer to all living and great apes. Much of the 2.5 million years I referenced is that of Homo Erectus who is not among the evolutionary dead ends (about 1.9 of those million years), and yes Homo Sapiens is much younger at approx 160,000 years. I was not referring to the evolutionary dead ends such as our friends Lucy our favorite Afarensis, because why would anyone with knowledge of evolution reference Australopithicus in relevance to this topic?
[Edited by MFP Staff]0 -
I'm sure I could find something, but with crime lower over the years and the prison population increasing, the assumption would be that the death of inmates aren't equaling incoming inmates.geneticexpectations wrote: »
It's hard to define the above incidences even if conclusive because GENETICS would dictate much of it. The prison population doesn't reflect the general population when it comes to it's population by percentage.geneticexpectations wrote: »A population of people who eat processed and low quality food on a daily basis, 3x a day for years on in and have many in better shape than the average American.................................Prison inmates.
They aren't dying from the food. Staying in prison for many for decades yet eating all that "bad" food should have them in body bags according to many "naturalists".
So explanation for why this is?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
When people who spout crazy ideas like me speak of certain foods being unhealthy, it is not the same as the FDA's version of unhealthy, which deals with ACUTE unhealthiness of a food. We are referring to CHRONIC unhealthy effects. Again, this is of course difficult to prove, unless one does a study examining chronic disease patterns in inmates.
What is the incidence of:
Cancer
significant flow limiting coronary heart disease
autoimmune disease
diabetes
even mental health (obviously hard to elicit food vs shower experience as a cause)
But being in better "shape" ie, lots of muscle no fat, is better than being obese, but does not, I repeat, does NOT prevent the above diseases.
Again, I have no proof, just my "feelings", which are based upon seeing these people from a clinical standpoint day in and day out. I see their scans. I know what is inside. Unless I am hallucinating every day. Shiny on the outside is shiny on the outside. Not shiny on the inside by default.
But the point is, shouldn't the low quality food being eaten 3x a day cause health issues to the point that they are dying from it? How do they live decades doing this?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agreed. genetics are important. I wouldn't survive a day in prison. I'm too nice. Plus some of the muscle they pack on is insane.
How do you know they are NOT dying from their stay in prison?
Though it doesn't emphasize on how long, stating inmates at 55+ years old for violent offenses that are still incarcerated would likely denote a decade or more in prison.How do you know that many of them are living decades?
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5602A study would be very interesting.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 3 -
Agree. Health has so many more aspects that aren't addressed. Most everyone believes it's just food, exercise and weight loss.geneticexpectations wrote: »
Completely agree. fat loss is certainly helpful. It's just not the immunity card people think it is.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
We cleaned up this discussion a bit, mostly to remove posts that weren't about the debate topic but the style or tone of the debate. Lots of good content still here, please carry on.0
-
@geneticexpectations
Can I ask for clarification of "plants that come from the ground"?
I'm lying awake trying to think of plants that done "come from the ground" and how that relates to food that our ancestors may or may not have eaten. It doesn't sound as though you only eat potatoes, carrots, peanuts and kelp, which makes me think I don't understand your definition.
Additionally, I'd love it if you or someone else can tell me why people who follow a paleo type way of eating have such an issue with grains? I find it hard to see the big difference between eating a blueberry or almond or potato that came from a plant vs grain that comes from a plant?0 -
pebble4321 wrote: »@geneticexpectations
Can I ask for clarification of "plants that come from the ground"?
I'm lying awake trying to think of plants that done "come from the ground" and how that relates to food that our ancestors may or may not have eaten. It doesn't sound as though you only eat potatoes, carrots, peanuts and kelp, which makes me think I don't understand your definition.
Additionally, I'd love it if you or someone else can tell me why people who follow a paleo type way of eating have such an issue with grains? I find it hard to see the big difference between eating a blueberry or almond or potato that came from a plant vs grain that comes from a plant?
From what I understand, the reasoning is that grains contain anti-nutrients. I think the reasoning is the same for legumes. I may be simplifying the paleo/primal stance a bit, though, in stating that.
I do believe grains were eaten in the paleolithic era, as evidence has been found in archaeology. That's beyond the scope of the discussion, though. I think they ate pretty much anything they could get their hands on.
Personally, I don't consider the whole grains I eat (mainly oats and air-popped popcorn) to be junk food, so I don't think they'd be impacting health negatively. Now, I do eat what the OP would likely consider junk food on occasion, but on the whole, I don't consider my sporadic intake of that to have adversely impacted my general health.
I am, after all, successfully managing familial high cholesterol solely through diet and exercise.
One of the issues I have with the idea of this whole thread and the raising of autoimmune issues in particular (since I suffer from three of them) has to do with a sort of victim blaming. The idea that we might have been able to control a genetic expression of a predisposition to disease (if I'm getting where the OP is coming from) if we had practiced some sort of protocol all our lives is a slippery slope argument of, as I said, victim blaming, that makes me deeply uncomfortable. Especially since it's all conjecture.3 -
I want to point something out here since we're throwing around assumptions about what diseases were present in humans living in the paleolithic era. The truth is we have no idea. We've found a few fossilized remains compared to the millions of humans who lived and died during that time, hardly a representative sample. Soft tissue isn't preserved, so any diseases that don't affect skeletal remains can't be detected, even assuming we know anything about the health of the general population by examining a few specimens and not finding evidence of disease that would be evident in the bones. There's no reason why any gene mutations that caused autoimmune diseases but allowed the carrier to live long enough to reproduce wouldn't be present in any population at any time.4
-
I want to point something out here since we're throwing around assumptions about what diseases were present in humans living in the paleolithic era. The truth is we have no idea. We've found a few fossilized remains compared to the millions of humans who lived and died during that time, hardly a representative sample. Soft tissue isn't preserved, so any diseases that don't affect skeletal remains can't be detected, even assuming we know anything about the health of the general population by examining a few specimens and not finding evidence of disease that would be evident in the bones. There's no reason why any gene mutations that caused autoimmune diseases but allowed the carrier to live long enough to reproduce wouldn't be present in any population at any time.
Apart from what bones and teeth tell us, we have studies on contemporary hunter gatherer populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8450295
0 -
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-can-we-learn-from-the-kitavans/
"2,250 people live on Kitava. They are traditional farmers. Their dietary staples are tubers (yam, sweet potato and taro), fruit, fish, and coconut. They don’t use dairy products, alcohol, coffee, or tea. Their intake of oils, margarine, cereals, and sugar is negligible. Western foods constitute less than 1% of their diet. Their activity level is only slightly higher than in Western populations. 80% of them smoke daily and an unspecified number of them chew betel. The macronutrient composition of the Kitavan diet was estimated as 21% of total calories from fat, 17% from saturated fat, 10% from protein, and 69% from carbohydrates."
Note: the sat fat seems to be mainly from plant-based sources, such as coconut, rather than the usual sources in the western pattern diet.
"Lindeberg’s Kitava study examined a sample of 220 Kitavans aged 14-87 and compared them to healthy Swedish populations. They found substantially lower diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and triceps skinfold thickness in the Kitavans. Systolic blood pressure was lower in Kitava than in Sweden for men over 20 and women over 60. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B were lower in men over 40 and in women over 60. Triglycerides were higher in Kitavans aged 20-39 than in Swedes of the same age. HDL was not significantly different...."
"Lindeberg’s studies were done in the early 90’s and have not been confirmed by other studies in the ensuing two decades. In the Kitava study, the ages of subjects were not objectively verifiable, but were estimated from whether or not they remembered significant historical events. The absence of heart disease and stroke was deduced by asking islanders if they had never known anyone who had the symptoms of either condition. This was reinforced by anecdotal reports from doctors who said that they didn’t see those diseases in islanders. EKGs were done on the Kitavans, but a normal EKG does not rule out atherosclerosis or cardiovascular disease. I’m not convinced that we have enough solid data to rule out the presence of cardiovascular disease or other so-called “diseases of civilization” in that population.
But even supposing those diseases don’t exist in Kitava, what could we deduce from that? Lindeberg thinks it constitutes evidence to support the Paleolithic diet of meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and nuts that our ancestors ate 2,000,000 to 10,000 years BP. We aren’t really sure what our Paleolithic ancestors ate, but we can be reasonably sure they didn’t typically eat what Kitavans eat. The Paleolithic diet included meat and was probably much higher in protein than the Kitavan diet. Most of our Paleolithic ancestors probably did not have access to coconuts or taro or to an abundance of fish. Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, while the Kitavans are farmers; agriculture did not develop until around 10,000 BP.
I don’t see how we could assume the absence of those diseases was due to the Kitavan diet. Other causes would have to be ruled out, including heredity and environmental factors. Even if it was due to the diet, how could we possibly know whether it was due to the diet as a whole or to some specific aspect or component of the diet?
What can we conclude?
The Kitava study serves as a disconfirming example to discredit the claims made for low-carb diets. Kitavans eat a very high-carb diet, with lots of saturated fat and little protein, and they appear to thrive on it without becoming obese or developing a high incidence of metabolic syndrome as the low-carb theorists would predict.
It is evidence against the hypothesis that low-fat diet recommendations caused the obesity “epidemic” simply because people replaced fat with carbohydrates. It shows that a diet high in carbohydrates does not necessarily lead to obesity, especially if they are complex carbohydrates and the total calorie intake is not excessive.
It supports the general consensus of most diet experts that a predominately plant-based diet is healthy. It supports Mom’s admonishments to eat our vegetables.
It suggests that saturated fat need not be avoided, especially if it is of vegetable rather than animal origin.
It tends to confirm the health benefits of weight control and the principle that weight can be controlled simply by limiting calories. The Kitavans are not overweight, and their intake of calories is lower than the conventional Western diet.
It tends to support advice to avoid processed foods and refined carbohydrates.
It reinforces the concept that humans can thrive on a wide variety of diets...."1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-can-we-learn-from-the-kitavans/
"2,250 people live on Kitava. They are traditional farmers. Their dietary staples are tubers (yam, sweet potato and taro), fruit, fish, and coconut. They don’t use dairy products, alcohol, coffee, or tea. Their intake of oils, margarine, cereals, and sugar is negligible. Western foods constitute less than 1% of their diet. Their activity level is only slightly higher than in Western populations. 80% of them smoke daily and an unspecified number of them chew betel. The macronutrient composition of the Kitavan diet was estimated as 21% of total calories from fat, 17% from saturated fat, 10% from protein, and 69% from carbohydrates."
Note: the sat fat seems to be mainly from plant-based sources, such as coconut, rather than the usual sources in the western pattern diet.
"Lindeberg’s Kitava study examined a sample of 220 Kitavans aged 14-87 and compared them to healthy Swedish populations. They found substantially lower diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and triceps skinfold thickness in the Kitavans. Systolic blood pressure was lower in Kitava than in Sweden for men over 20 and women over 60. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B were lower in men over 40 and in women over 60. Triglycerides were higher in Kitavans aged 20-39 than in Swedes of the same age. HDL was not significantly different...."
"Lindeberg’s studies were done in the early 90’s and have not been confirmed by other studies in the ensuing two decades. In the Kitava study, the ages of subjects were not objectively verifiable, but were estimated from whether or not they remembered significant historical events. The absence of heart disease and stroke was deduced by asking islanders if they had never known anyone who had the symptoms of either condition. This was reinforced by anecdotal reports from doctors who said that they didn’t see those diseases in islanders. EKGs were done on the Kitavans, but a normal EKG does not rule out atherosclerosis or cardiovascular disease. I’m not convinced that we have enough solid data to rule out the presence of cardiovascular disease or other so-called “diseases of civilization” in that population.
But even supposing those diseases don’t exist in Kitava, what could we deduce from that? Lindeberg thinks it constitutes evidence to support the Paleolithic diet of meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and nuts that our ancestors ate 2,000,000 to 10,000 years BP. We aren’t really sure what our Paleolithic ancestors ate, but we can be reasonably sure they didn’t typically eat what Kitavans eat. The Paleolithic diet included meat and was probably much higher in protein than the Kitavan diet. Most of our Paleolithic ancestors probably did not have access to coconuts or taro or to an abundance of fish. Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, while the Kitavans are farmers; agriculture did not develop until around 10,000 BP.
I don’t see how we could assume the absence of those diseases was due to the Kitavan diet. Other causes would have to be ruled out, including heredity and environmental factors. Even if it was due to the diet, how could we possibly know whether it was due to the diet as a whole or to some specific aspect or component of the diet?
What can we conclude?
The Kitava study serves as a disconfirming example to discredit the claims made for low-carb diets. Kitavans eat a very high-carb diet, with lots of saturated fat and little protein, and they appear to thrive on it without becoming obese or developing a high incidence of metabolic syndrome as the low-carb theorists would predict.
It is evidence against the hypothesis that low-fat diet recommendations caused the obesity “epidemic” simply because people replaced fat with carbohydrates. It shows that a diet high in carbohydrates does not necessarily lead to obesity, especially if they are complex carbohydrates and the total calorie intake is not excessive.
It supports the general consensus of most diet experts that a predominately plant-based diet is healthy. It supports Mom’s admonishments to eat our vegetables.
It suggests that saturated fat need not be avoided, especially if it is of vegetable rather than animal origin.
It tends to confirm the health benefits of weight control and the principle that weight can be controlled simply by limiting calories. The Kitavans are not overweight, and their intake of calories is lower than the conventional Western diet.
It tends to support advice to avoid processed foods and refined carbohydrates.
It reinforces the concept that humans can thrive on a wide variety of diets...."
I said "studies", do you want another one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2444100 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-can-we-learn-from-the-kitavans/
"2,250 people live on Kitava. They are traditional farmers. Their dietary staples are tubers (yam, sweet potato and taro), fruit, fish, and coconut. They don’t use dairy products, alcohol, coffee, or tea. Their intake of oils, margarine, cereals, and sugar is negligible. Western foods constitute less than 1% of their diet. Their activity level is only slightly higher than in Western populations. 80% of them smoke daily and an unspecified number of them chew betel. The macronutrient composition of the Kitavan diet was estimated as 21% of total calories from fat, 17% from saturated fat, 10% from protein, and 69% from carbohydrates."
Note: the sat fat seems to be mainly from plant-based sources, such as coconut, rather than the usual sources in the western pattern diet.
"Lindeberg’s Kitava study examined a sample of 220 Kitavans aged 14-87 and compared them to healthy Swedish populations. They found substantially lower diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, and triceps skinfold thickness in the Kitavans. Systolic blood pressure was lower in Kitava than in Sweden for men over 20 and women over 60. Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B were lower in men over 40 and in women over 60. Triglycerides were higher in Kitavans aged 20-39 than in Swedes of the same age. HDL was not significantly different...."
"Lindeberg’s studies were done in the early 90’s and have not been confirmed by other studies in the ensuing two decades. In the Kitava study, the ages of subjects were not objectively verifiable, but were estimated from whether or not they remembered significant historical events. The absence of heart disease and stroke was deduced by asking islanders if they had never known anyone who had the symptoms of either condition. This was reinforced by anecdotal reports from doctors who said that they didn’t see those diseases in islanders. EKGs were done on the Kitavans, but a normal EKG does not rule out atherosclerosis or cardiovascular disease. I’m not convinced that we have enough solid data to rule out the presence of cardiovascular disease or other so-called “diseases of civilization” in that population.
But even supposing those diseases don’t exist in Kitava, what could we deduce from that? Lindeberg thinks it constitutes evidence to support the Paleolithic diet of meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and nuts that our ancestors ate 2,000,000 to 10,000 years BP. We aren’t really sure what our Paleolithic ancestors ate, but we can be reasonably sure they didn’t typically eat what Kitavans eat. The Paleolithic diet included meat and was probably much higher in protein than the Kitavan diet. Most of our Paleolithic ancestors probably did not have access to coconuts or taro or to an abundance of fish. Our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, while the Kitavans are farmers; agriculture did not develop until around 10,000 BP.
I don’t see how we could assume the absence of those diseases was due to the Kitavan diet. Other causes would have to be ruled out, including heredity and environmental factors. Even if it was due to the diet, how could we possibly know whether it was due to the diet as a whole or to some specific aspect or component of the diet?
What can we conclude?
The Kitava study serves as a disconfirming example to discredit the claims made for low-carb diets. Kitavans eat a very high-carb diet, with lots of saturated fat and little protein, and they appear to thrive on it without becoming obese or developing a high incidence of metabolic syndrome as the low-carb theorists would predict.
It is evidence against the hypothesis that low-fat diet recommendations caused the obesity “epidemic” simply because people replaced fat with carbohydrates. It shows that a diet high in carbohydrates does not necessarily lead to obesity, especially if they are complex carbohydrates and the total calorie intake is not excessive.
It supports the general consensus of most diet experts that a predominately plant-based diet is healthy. It supports Mom’s admonishments to eat our vegetables.
It suggests that saturated fat need not be avoided, especially if it is of vegetable rather than animal origin.
It tends to confirm the health benefits of weight control and the principle that weight can be controlled simply by limiting calories. The Kitavans are not overweight, and their intake of calories is lower than the conventional Western diet.
It tends to support advice to avoid processed foods and refined carbohydrates.
It reinforces the concept that humans can thrive on a wide variety of diets...."
I said "studies", do you want another one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/244410
Now we are on 1977 and an abstract that doesn't even discuss diet?
This is informative: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions