Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More support for my theory...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More support for my theory...

    My theory: Most people on this site are not representative of the human population as a whole, and are instead much more sensitive and/or allergic to gluten, dairy, etc.

    People on here always claim that evolution requires "10,000 years" and use that as a justification why grains, even gluten free grains, and dairy, nightshades, etc. are "bad" for people -- because we haven't evolved to eat them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/sc...me&ref=general


    Oops, looks like evolution happens a lot faster than 10,000 years. There goes that idea. Looks like "Primal CW" to me.

  • #2
    I claim no such thing. I eat what makes me feel better; I don't eat foods that don't make me feel good. This is a solitary venture for me. I say again: FOR ME.

    Although you do have an interesting point that people on this site are more likely to be gluten and or lactose intolerance.
    Because if you didn't know, of that is life made: only of moments; Don't lose the now.
    ~Borges

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, I think many people come here because they are gluten/lactose intolerant, so there's probably a greater percentage here than the population as a whole. But I, for one, am perfectly fine with lactose (haven't added any gluten back in) and so I continue to eat it. Whatever floats your boat.

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't care how long in terms of years evolution happens. I care that if I go to any remote place in the world RIGHT NOW I won't see any bread trees, cereal fields or bagel bushes. I know that if i was in such an environment, any grain I picked up would be unedible and potentially toxic and wouldn't supply me with any nutrients. I know that I would find vegetation, nuts, seeds and animals to eat, so I eat those.

        (PS: I'm aware cereal grains grow in fields, I was saying specifically a field of cereal that you could put in milk or whatever people do with it)
        I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FDgreen View Post
          My theory: Most people on this site are not representative of the human population as a whole, and are instead much more sensitive and/or allergic to gluten, dairy, etc.

          People on here always claim that evolution requires "10,000 years" and use that as a justification why grains, even gluten free grains, and dairy, nightshades, etc. are "bad" for people -- because we haven't evolved to eat them.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/sc...me&ref=general


          Oops, looks like evolution happens a lot faster than 10,000 years. There goes that idea. Looks like "Primal CW" to me.
          I didn't even read this all the way, but how does that disprove that grains are bad for you? I wouldn't care if they were around since the dawn of man, our bodies can survive on a grain based diet, but they won't thrive on one. We're organism that just like any other, will cling to life even in sub-optimal conditions, that doesn't equate a life, but merely an existence.
          I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

          Comment


          • #6
            You may be right that the people on this site are not a cross-sectional random sample of the world population. Ah, sorry but duh.

            Couple of points - evolution is not an on/off thing, where some subpopulations of humans have fully adapted to grains or milk, and others haven't adopted at all. Realistically, we have all probably evolved to some extent to handle grains somewhat better than people in the past. Do we handle them as well as we handle the food we originally evolved eating? The evidence is to me strikingly clear that on average, humans don't handle them all that well. The evidence also seems abundantly clear that there is a lot of individual variation in these things. Perhaps those vegan bodybuilders recently discussed are among the most-adapted humans to a high grains and plant toxin environment, whereas I am among the less-adapted. I do know that eating this way makes me personally a whole holy heck of a lot healthier.
            If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

            Comment


            • #7
              Here is a pro-tip, evolution happens constantly . . . people are born and die every day, its continuous, but slow. I was under the assumption that the 10,000 years of grains in our diet cannot (at least fully) change our dietary system that has been evolving for millions of years. The proof is in the pudding, people feel better, manage their weight better, and have less health problems when eating like this.

              I personally a not lactose intolerant, and to the best of my knowledge am not gluten intolerant etc, i came to this diet to lose weight, but stayed for the health.
              Starting Weight : 338lbs 6/11/2010
              Current Weight: 266lbs
              High-school Weight: 235lbs
              Goal: ????

              Comment


              • #8
                Confusion between Adaptation and Evolution...

                Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species.

                Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat. This process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.

                Comment


                • #9
                  we discussed this in another thread. it's irrelevant. there just aren't selective pressures for grain consumption because we can reproduce before the long term effects of grain conumption become apparent.

                  http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ion#post163918

                  Originally posted by jturk
                  Yes, as has been said, there is no selection pressure promoting grain tolerance, as it has no effect on reproductive potential. So no, we won't evolve towards grain tolerance.

                  Unfortunately, barring some unforeseen catastrophic selection pressure, we're pretty much done evolving towards any specific goal (like improved grain tolerance) since now in modern society most everyone outlives their reproductive period. Population genetics may continue to shift over time (random mutation, genetic drift, etc.), but we're pretty much done evolving by natural selection. Actually, it's possible that our species will become less rational beings with worse judgment, as the genes of those who continue to reproduce in great numbers in spite of scarce resources (i.e. poor decision making) will make an increasingly greater proportion of our species' genome. To the extent that this type of behavior and decision making process is genetically influenced, these types of behaviors will be selected for. So yeah, this may be the pinnacle for us hominids
                  Last edited by cillakat; 07-21-2010, 09:23 PM. Reason: clarifying quote attribution



                  iherb referral code CIL457- $5 off first order

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm fairly sure we all agree that evolution is still happening... as long as we continue to breed there will be selective pressures.

                    This article doesn't disprove the ideas of PB at all...

                    The variant gene rapidly degrades alcohol to a chemical that is not intoxicating but makes people flush, leaving many people of Asian descent a legacy of turning red in the face when they drink alcohol.
                    They still get drunk... ... so obviously the rice alcohol still has an effect... ...

                    as such we have different levels of tolerance to grains... but they still f*** with us... ... ...

                    survival does not equate optimal health.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by FDgreen View Post
                      My theory: Most people on this site are not representative of the human population as a whole, and are instead much more sensitive and/or allergic to gluten, dairy, etc.

                      People on here always claim that evolution requires "10,000 years" and use that as a justification why grains, even gluten free grains, and dairy, nightshades, etc. are "bad" for people -- because we haven't evolved to eat them.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/sc...me&ref=general


                      Oops, looks like evolution happens a lot faster than 10,000 years. There goes that idea. Looks like "Primal CW" to me.
                      Well I'm not a statistician but I do have some basic understanding of statitics and I see nothing to support your theory that "Most people on this site are not representative of the human population as a whole, and are instead much more sensitive and/or allergic to gluten, dairy, etc.".

                      There is no data on the NY Times link that in any way shape or form provides information about the population distribution of the members of this forum. I don't even think Mark's administrators have that information unless they had a mandatory poll upon registering to become a member, a poll I must have missed.

                      Now your hyothesis may or may not have merit but again I see nothing to support that. We seem to have members from all over the world. Granted that the member population may appear to be biased towards European based ethnicities, I still see no correlation betwenn that appearance and the NY times article.

                      The NY Times article suggests that humans continue to evolve and I agree with that premise. In fact, leading human geneticist and anthropologist Spencer Wells also suggests that human evolution continues today and perhaps at a faster rate than in previous history due to exploding population and travel technology that allows us to increase the variability of the human gene pool at an ever faster rate.

                      Yes people are different and some have more tolerance to certain things than others but I also don't think the article implies "Primal CW".
                      “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creeds into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.”
                      —Robert A. Heinlein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Good point, but it's not 'people on here who always claim' there is a large body of evidence to support the theory especially that collated by Loren Cordain in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition - 'Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century'. Which points out that it is not just about evolving genes, but about the over refining of the foodstuffs too. That would include fattening cattle with grains which produces larger, fatter animals faster with meat which is nutritionally different to that which Paleolithic man ate, as well as grains theselves, which are highly refined. Industry and technology have combined to make some of our foods into practical poison such as the innocent sunflower seed, the extracted oil (only since @1910) of which when blown with Hydrogen in the manufacture of margarine produces transfatty acids which cause cell mutation and other ills. Good article in the NYT but has to be read in cintext and, as the article itself says, 'there is widespread disagreement amongst scientists...' oh, And I don't suffer from allergies, just like to eat what my body needs for optimum health. Have a read of The Sacharinne Disease by Surgeon Captain T.L. Cleave regarding refined carbohydrates and sunflower oil - fascinating.
                        Last edited by PJT13; 07-21-2010, 09:02 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cillakat View Post
                          we discussed this in another thread. it's irrelevant. there just aren't selective pressures for grain consumption because we can reproduce before the long term effects of grain conumption become apparent.

                          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ion#post163918

                          <<Yes, as has been said, there is no selection pressure promoting grain tolerance, as it has no effect on reproductive potential. So no, we won't evolve towards grain tolerance.

                          Unfortunately, barring some unforeseen catastrophic selection pressure, we're pretty much done evolving towards any specific goal (like improved grain tolerance) since now in modern society most everyone outlives their reproductive period. Population genetics may continue to shift over time (random mutation, genetic drift, etc.), but we're pretty much done evolving by natural selection. Actually, it's possible that our species will become less rational beings with worse judgment, as the genes of those who continue to reproduce in great numbers in spite of scarce resources (i.e. poor decision making) will make an increasingly greater proportion of our species' genome. To the extent that this type of behavior and decision making process is genetically influenced, these types of behaviors will be selected for. So yeah, this may be the pinnacle for us hominids >>
                          I love your brains.
                          I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by say_rahhh View Post
                            I claim no such thing. I eat what makes me feel better; I don't eat foods that don't make me feel good. This is a solitary venture for me. I say again: FOR ME.

                            perfectly put
                            Get on my Level
                            http://malpaz.wordpress.com/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So your reasoning is humans adapt to stuff therefore grains aren't unhealthy? Are you mentally disabled? There is tons of evidence to suggest that humans have not adapted sufficiently to grains enough to make them a healthy food. That humans adapt does not entail that humans have adapted full to grains, they are still harmful. Nobody is just taking it on faith that "humans have only been eating grains for a little while therefore they are BAD". We tend to feel the need to test these things empirically.

                              Loren Cordain, 2010
                              Currently there’s an epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2D) worldwide, especially in Westernized countries. T2D is characterized by persistent elevated glucose levels due to disrupted insulin action or an alteration in pancreatic insulin production1.
                              It was estimated that 171 million people were suffering from T2D in 2001, with a total overall population prevalence of 6%. More alarming is the fact that in Caucasian adolescents 4% suffer from T2D and 25% are glucose intolerant1. However, T2D prevalence in hunter-gatherer societies is low2-6, and even nonexistent in the island of Kitava in Trobiand Islands in Papua New Guinea3.
                              Genetics does not seem to explain the difference, because when these populations are Westernized they suffer even more from diseases of civilization such as T2D, obesity, myocardial infarction and stroke among others7-10 than original Western populations. Furthermore, there’s evidence showing that hunter-gatherer populations can reverse T2D when they are resettled in their ancient habitat8, a fact that has been demonstrated in two recent clinical trials conducted on Western populations11, 12.
                              Insulin resistance seems to be one of the factors involved in T2D which is caused, by low-grade chronic inflammation13-15 among other factors. Interestingly, low-grade chronic inflammation is a hallmark16-19 in T2D patients.
                              Considering these factors, it seems plausible that the nutrition introduced with the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago played an important role in the current diabetes epidemic in Westernized populations. Western foods are overload with antinutrients, namely lectins, saponins and gliadin, which may explain the great disparity between paleolithic and modern Western food when it comes to metabolic syndrome (a combination of medical disorders that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes). There is evidence showing that antinutrients act as endocrine disrupting substances, promoting metabolic syndrome20. On the other hand, antinutrients may elicit their negative health effects through increased intestinal permeability21. However, scant evidence exists regarding the role of antinutrients in the aetiology of Western diseases.
                              Gliadin and increased intestinal permeability
                              One of the most studied foods in the recent years is wheat, which contains a protein called gliadin, and is part of the gluten protein family22. Gliadin increases gut permeability by means of Zonulin production (a protein that regulates in tight junctions between cells in the wall of the digestive tract) in the gut enterocytes (epithelial cells found in the small intestines and colon). Zonulin binds the CXCR3 chemokine receptor leading to intracellular signalling cascades, mediated by protein kinase C (PKC), which ultimately causes disruption of the tight junction proteins which maintain the gut barrier function, and lead to increased gut permeability23, 24.
                              In addition, when intestinal permeability is increased, gliadin - which is resistant to heat and digestive enzymes - is able to interact with gut associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) stimulating the innate immune system, leading to low-grade chronic inflammation22, 24. Several studies have demonstrated that gliadin induces the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (a small protein released by cells that has a specific effect on the interactions between cells, communications between cells or the behavior of cells), independent of one’s genetic predisposition to celiac disease – which is virtually everyone23, 25, 26.
                              Lectins and increased gut permeability
                              Lectins are a family of glycoproteins (a complex protein containing a carbohydrate combined with a simple protein) found in the plant kingdom, including grains, legumes and solanacous plants (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants and peppers)21, 27. Lectins also have the ability to bind sugar containing molecules. They were first studied for their ability to agglutinate (cause to adhere) red blood cells by binding to their cell membranes. Many lectins present in other foods are harmless, but some lectins found in grains, legumes and solanaceous plants have been shown to be harmful to human physiology28. Lectins are resistant to heat (unless cooked by pressure cooking)29 and digestive enzymes38, and therefore arrive intact when they reach the intestinal epithelium, passing through the intestinal barrier into peripheral circulation. Lectins are able to bind peripheral tissues, producing many deleterious health effects21. Furthermore, lectins disrupt intestinal barrier and immunological function when they bind surface glycans (a carbohydrate polymer containing simple sugars) on gut epithelial cells, causing cellular disruption and increasing gut permeability. Lectins also facilitate the growth of certain bacteria strains, stimulate T-cell proliferation, increase intercellular adhesion molecules (ICAM), stimulate production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1, TNF-alpha, etc.), and amplify HLA class II molecules expression, among other effects21.
                              Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                              Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X