Paleo Backpedaling?

show previous quotes

I'd say, or I would like to see more of a focus on how food reacts to each individual person. More so than the "We ALL have to cut this or that out of our diets!" approach. You know - how some people respond to certain foods a certain way.

There is quite a bit of research being done in this area. And the results point to genetics playing a bigger role than most people give them credit for when it comes to nutrition.

Yeah, I was very surprised when I heard about the percentages of lactose intolerance in various ethnic groups. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was somewhere around 10% Caucasian, 60% African American, and 90% of Asian populations were intolerant. That is pretty wild to see such a vast difference. Apparently some of the cultures lack the enzymes to break down the lactose in dairy.
Similar to how some ethnicities cannot break down alcohol properly.

So we really are NOT all the same after all when it comes to nutrition? Mind blown.

show previous quotes

I'm pretty sure there were no bicycles in the palaeolithic era to be backpedaling with.... :bigsmile:

You've clearly never watched the flintstones!

show previous quotes

I'm not sure how it's backpedaling when it's "...we're fast learning". As long as they're not blatantly ignoring new evidence, it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

Also, it seems the preparation still has a lot to do with it's effects (this cooked and cooled thing). This means I will go eat a big potato salad to celebrate.

Very true. I'm glad he is not burying his head in the sand and insisting he is right. Kind of nice to see it adapting, but I have a feeling as more and more science comes out, paleo is going to start resembling eating all food groups in moderation with a focus on whole foods (which is a pretty darn reasonable diet).

Yeah - I wouldn't be surprised! And ditto, the diet sounds good to me too!! I'm a vaguely paleo, and I've found it was more the 'whole foods' aspect that did me good, above the 'no grains and legumes' stuff.

I'd say, or I would like to see more of a focus on how food reacts to each individual person. More so than the "We ALL have to cut this or that out of our diets!" approach. You know - how some people respond to certain foods a certain way. That's not really Paleo though... or Primal or whatever.

Is it bad that the more scientific evidence comes out about stuff, the less I care and decide to do what I want anyway?!

show previous quotes

But I just listen to my body and eat what makes it happy. There is no diet name for that, tho.

You could make a buck if you came up with a name. The Believe Your Body diet?

I actually feel my best eating a diet similar to what you describe.

Were potatoes formerly not ok foods but are now?)

show previous quotes

I'm pretty sure there were no bicycles in the palaeolithic era to be backpedaling with.... :bigsmile:

You've clearly never watched the flintstones!

that's where I think some of these paleo gurus get their info from...

It is. That's why we don't eat grain.

But you're all for a rack of ribs big enough to tip over your car. :laugh:

who isn't?

show previous quotes

I'm pretty sure there were no bicycles in the palaeolithic era to be backpedaling with.... :bigsmile:

You've clearly never watched the flintstones!

that's where I think some of these paleo gurus get their info from...

It is. That's why we don't eat grain.

But you're all for a rack of ribs big enough to tip over your car. :laugh:

who isn't?

*raises hand* If had a rack of ribs of that big I'd eat it all. And that would pretty much be my calories for the entire week.

show previous quotes

I'd say, or I would like to see more of a focus on how food reacts to each individual person. More so than the "We ALL have to cut this or that out of our diets!" approach. You know - how some people respond to certain foods a certain way.

There is quite a bit of research being done in this area. And the results point to genetics playing a bigger role than most people give them credit for when it comes to nutrition.

Yeah, I was very surprised when I heard about the percentages of lactose intolerance in various ethnic groups. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was somewhere around 10% Caucasian, 60% African American, and 90% of Asian populations were intolerant. That is pretty wild to see such a vast difference. Apparently some of the cultures lack the enzymes to break down the lactose in dairy.
Similar to how some ethnicities cannot break down alcohol properly.

So we really are NOT all the same after all when it comes to nutrition? Mind blown.

if you're descended from a population with a long tradition of dairy farming/herding then you're likely able to digest lactose. If you're not, then you're likely not. This is an example of natural selection happening in modern times. Dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults.

I read an interesting book called the sports gene, and while it basically sums up genetic studies for the average joe, some of the information was phrased in a way I'd never contemplated before. People who descended from African populations are the most diverse genetically (I've known that for years). However, that means it is incredibly likely that someone that is the best at doing something and someone that is the worst at doing that same thing are of African descent. His example of this was basketball. Some of the best players have been of African descent, but pygmies would probably be some of the worst players.

It actually has nothing to do with the conversation, but for some reason your comment reminded me of it. :laugh:

no it's cool, this is a much more interesting topic of conversation! :drinker:

yeah Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, and all non-Africans are descended from what's essentially an evolutionary bottleneck of those who left Africa. However, upon leaving Africa, they interbred and Neanderthals and Denisovans (and probably some other human species who were around, e.g. Asian Homo erectus, but the DNA evidence for that hasn't been found yet) so there are some traits in non-Africans that don't exist in Africans. It's also possible that many of these traits that are adaptations to specific climates, e.g. white skin and big noses in Europeans, came from neanderthals, etc. When you look at patterns of variation around the world in different prehistoric eras, there are some very interesting patterns emerging. And a big part of this picture seems to be that humans like to have sex with other humans from very different populations.... just waiting for scientists to announce the discovery of Asian Homo erectus DNA in modern populations, or the discovery of a whole new species of human which, surprise surprise, left some of its DNA in modern humans...)

show previous quotes

I'd say, or I would like to see more of a focus on how food reacts to each individual person. More so than the "We ALL have to cut this or that out of our diets!" approach. You know - how some people respond to certain foods a certain way.

There is quite a bit of research being done in this area. And the results point to genetics playing a bigger role than most people give them credit for when it comes to nutrition.

Yeah, I was very surprised when I heard about the percentages of lactose intolerance in various ethnic groups. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was somewhere around 10% Caucasian, 60% African American, and 90% of Asian populations were intolerant. That is pretty wild to see such a vast difference. Apparently some of the cultures lack the enzymes to break down the lactose in dairy.
Similar to how some ethnicities cannot break down alcohol properly.

So we really are NOT all the same after all when it comes to nutrition? Mind blown.

if you're descended from a population with a long tradition of dairy farming/herding then you're likely able to digest lactose. If you're not, then you're likely not. This is an example of natural selection happening in modern times. Dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults.

I read an interesting book called the sports gene, and while it basically sums up genetic studies for the average joe, some of the information was phrased in a way I'd never contemplated before. People who descended from African populations are the most diverse genetically (I've known that for years). However, that means it is incredibly likely that someone that is the best at doing something and someone that is the worst at doing that same thing are of African descent. His example of this was basketball. Some of the best players have been of African descent, but pygmies would probably be some of the worst players.

It actually has nothing to do with the conversation, but for some reason your comment reminded me of it. :laugh:

no it's cool, this is a much more interesting topic of conversation! :drinker:

yeah Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, and all non-Africans are descended from what's essentially an evolutionary bottleneck of those who left Africa. However, upon leaving Africa, they interbred and Neanderthals and Denisovans (and probably some other human species who were around, e.g. Asian Homo erectus, but the DNA evidence for that hasn't been found yet) so there are some traits in non-Africans that don't exist in Africans. It's also possible that many of these traits that are adaptations to specific climates, e.g. white skin and big noses in Europeans, came from neanderthals, etc. When you look at patterns of variation around the world in different prehistoric eras, there are some very interesting patterns emerging. And a big part of this picture seems to be that humans like to have sex with other humans from very different populations.... just waiting for scientists to announce the discovery of Asian Homo erectus DNA in modern populations, or the discovery of a whole new species of human which, surprise surprise, left some of its DNA in modern humans...)

Would that be like Java Man?

show previous quotes

I'm pretty sure there were no bicycles in the palaeolithic era to be backpedaling with.... :bigsmile:

You've clearly never watched the flintstones!

that's where I think some of these paleo gurus get their info from...

It is. That's why we don't eat grain.

But you're all for a rack of ribs big enough to tip over your car. :laugh:

who isn't?

*raises hand* If had a rack of ribs of that big I'd eat it all. And that would pretty much be my calories for the entire week.

it's a shame the woolly mammoth is extinct because I'm sure a rack of woolly mammoth ribs would be that big. And as elephants are kind of vaguely related to pigs, they'd probably taste rather like pigs ribs.

ETA: and my avatar (or at least the woman who my avatar is a reconstruction of) probably ate mammoth ribs... *jealous*

show previous quotes

I'd say, or I would like to see more of a focus on how food reacts to each individual person. More so than the "We ALL have to cut this or that out of our diets!" approach. You know - how some people respond to certain foods a certain way.

There is quite a bit of research being done in this area. And the results point to genetics playing a bigger role than most people give them credit for when it comes to nutrition.

Yeah, I was very surprised when I heard about the percentages of lactose intolerance in various ethnic groups. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was somewhere around 10% Caucasian, 60% African American, and 90% of Asian populations were intolerant. That is pretty wild to see such a vast difference. Apparently some of the cultures lack the enzymes to break down the lactose in dairy.
Similar to how some ethnicities cannot break down alcohol properly.

So we really are NOT all the same after all when it comes to nutrition? Mind blown.

if you're descended from a population with a long tradition of dairy farming/herding then you're likely able to digest lactose. If you're not, then you're likely not. This is an example of natural selection happening in modern times. Dairy farming/herding populations have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults.

I read an interesting book called the sports gene, and while it basically sums up genetic studies for the average joe, some of the information was phrased in a way I'd never contemplated before. People who descended from African populations are the most diverse genetically (I've known that for years). However, that means it is incredibly likely that someone that is the best at doing something and someone that is the worst at doing that same thing are of African descent. His example of this was basketball. Some of the best players have been of African descent, but pygmies would probably be some of the worst players.

It actually has nothing to do with the conversation, but for some reason your comment reminded me of it. :laugh:

no it's cool, this is a much more interesting topic of conversation! :drinker:

yeah Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, and all non-Africans are descended from what's essentially an evolutionary bottleneck of those who left Africa. However, upon leaving Africa, they interbred and Neanderthals and Denisovans (and probably some other human species who were around, e.g. Asian Homo erectus, but the DNA evidence for that hasn't been found yet) so there are some traits in non-Africans that don't exist in Africans. It's also possible that many of these traits that are adaptations to specific climates, e.g. white skin and big noses in Europeans, came from neanderthals, etc. When you look at patterns of variation around the world in different prehistoric eras, there are some very interesting patterns emerging. And a big part of this picture seems to be that humans like to have sex with other humans from very different populations.... just waiting for scientists to announce the discovery of Asian Homo erectus DNA in modern populations, or the discovery of a whole new species of human which, surprise surprise, left some of its DNA in modern humans...)

Sometimes I worry about what the lack of near human relatives means for us as a species. But, this indicates that all the subgroups disappeared because we all interbred...that makes a lot of sense and is better than the conclusion I was drawing.

ETA: LOL - Homo erectus.

show previous quotes

I'm pretty sure there were no bicycles in the palaeolithic era to be backpedaling with.... :bigsmile:

You've clearly never watched the flintstones!

that's where I think some of these paleo gurus get their info from...

It is. That's why we don't eat grain.

But you're all for a rack of ribs big enough to tip over your car. :laugh:

who isn't?

*raises hand* If had a rack of ribs of that big I'd eat it all. And that would pretty much be my calories for the entire week.

it's a shame the woolly mammoth is extinct because I'm sure a rack of woolly mammoth ribs would be that big. And as elephants are kind of vaguely related to pigs, they'd probably taste rather like pigs ribs.

ETA: and my avatar (or at least the woman who my avatar is a reconstruction of) probably ate mammoth ribs... *jealous*

Perhaps the reason why the woolly mammoth is extinct is because they were *that good*

Yes I think you are correct.

And I also think that the whole reason why modern people are so miserable all the time is due to the lack of mammoth ribs in our diets.

...a genetic longing for the lost food of a golden era...