I'm curious what everyone's two cents are on this article. In particular, what's your opinion on Daniel Lieberman's position that our genes could care less how healthy we are as long as we reproduce. This is completely against TPB's basic premise.
It doesn't matter whether some paleo folks ran a lot. What matters is that evidence shows you can be in great health by running a little, thereby avoiding injury.
We are not a species that pops out a bunch of young who soon fend for themselves. Small hunter gatherer tribes needed elders.
Read The Old Way: A Story of the First People by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas.
Ancestral Health Info
I design websites and blogs for a living. If you would like a blog or website designed by someone who understands Primal, see my web page.
Primal Blueprint Explorer My blog for people who are not into the Grok thing. Since starting the blog, I have moved close to being Archevore instead of Primal. But Mark's Daily Apple is still the best source of information about living an ancestral lifestyle.
What an absolutely awful article. Seriously, every sentence is a strawman or red herring. Anyway on you your specific question about a particulary idiotic passage from the article...
Genes don't "care" about anything. Saying they do must be a manifestation of tongue in cheek humor, complete lunacy, or total misunderstanding of what genes actually "do".
So yes, technically genes don't care if we're healthy. So what? Does anyone really organize there life around how their genes feel? No. People tend to care about their own subjective experience and seek methods to enhance that experience in a positive direction.
Anyway, I fail to see how this nonsense is at odds with PB's basic premise. I mean, nonsense can't be at odds with anything really. And what's PB's basic premise btw?
At least the comments kick ass. Robb Wolf and Art De Vany personally comment plenty of times. Noice!
Last edited by Roach; 02-27-2011 at 12:00 AM.
Time has the worst writing of any major magazine I've ever read. I haven't looked at it in many years and obviously nothing has changed. Why do I get the impression that most "journalists" today do some cursory web surfing and then bang out some lame copy?
At any rate, I thought the ability to tolerate lactose was more a function of gut flora than genetic mutation. I know that for a couple of years after being a fairly strict vegan I couldn't tolerate it very well myself after a lifetime prior of eating it.
Wheat is the new tobacco. Spread the word.
''And there's no doubt that this is a direct result of our high-fat, high-calorie, sedentary lives.''
''And our genes don't care how healthy we are as long as we reproduce. "Natural selection is about how many children you have and how many children they have," Lieberman says. "From an adaptation perspective, people today are doing just fine. There are several billion of us."''
Wrong again. Epigenetics, mothers with diabetes giving birth to insulin-resistant children, fertility rates decreasing, ...
''Harvard colleague Frank Marlowe indicates that your average Paleolithic hunter probably ran up to 14 km (9 mi.)''
Misinterpreted. They didn't jog for 9 miles straight without stopping. They stopped, accelerated, slowed down, changed directions, etc. It probably looked way more like the effort you'd give during a frisbee or a soccer game. Sure, you run 5-8 miles, but you never feel as dead as when you jog like a masochist for 90 minutes straight.