Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: If human beings have not evolved to our "new diet", why is it that... page

  1. #1
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371

    If human beings have not evolved to our "new diet", why is it that...

    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    ... races of people (e.g. Europeans) that have been exposed to alcohol for thousands of years can handle it much better and more easily than races of people who have never been exposed to it until extremely recently (e.g. Australian Aboriginals)?

    I was explaining the concept of the paleolithic diet to some of my friends last night, citing that paleolithic man is genetically identical to modern man, and they we have not evolved to cope well with our "new diet" of grains, sugars, etc.

    One of them asked me this question and I have to admit I was stumped. Any answers?

  2. #2
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Well, it's a better tolerance for a poison, but when you get right down to it, alcohol is still pretty toxic stuff. I mean, it's fun and all, but a hangover is the result of mild alcohol poisoning, and more severe alcohol poisoning frequently happens among youth particularly.

    Just because a toxin is better tolerated over generational exposure doesn't mean it's no longer a toxin.
    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  3. #3
    rayout's Avatar
    rayout is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    187
    That sounds right to me. Ethnicities that traditionally did not eat much grain (blacks, hispanics) are much more predisposed to obesity.

    However our modern diet involves much more sugar than the average middle-ages peasant could afford so there are definitely aspects of SAD that most bodies cannot handle.

  4. #4
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371
    @Owly: Sure, the argument isn't that alcohol is good for us though.

    The argument is that over a relatively short period of time (a few thousand years), humans seem to have adapted to cope with it better. Meaning that at-least some evolutionary(?) adaptation had occurred in that time. Given 10 times that amount of time, who is to say we haven't also adapted to be able to consume grains and diary, which are obviously far less toxic than alcohol...

    The whole premise of the paleolithic diet is that we are genetically identical to our most recent paleolithic ancestors, and have not adapted at all to our new diet. If it turns out we have actually adapted, and considerably, then it sort of throws the whole idea out the window...

    That's the argument anyway.

  5. #5
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    That is a hypothesis and should never be treated like anything more. We are genetically identical and thus we MIGHT not be adapted to our new diet. You can still be adapted to things that you have never seen before. Being able to metabolize lactose was lucky because all it took was persistence of an infantile trait into adulthood, more or less. Our gut flora actually produce some ethanol so that was already there. While we're more or less identical (would we really say exactly identical?) there has been much natural selection of pre-existing genes.

    The thing with grains is that it is their biological niche to poison anything that tries to eat them. To be able to adapt to lectins and such we would need some pretty profound evolution and I don't think it has happened. That doesn't mean that we haven't adapted a bit, some have somewhat of an adaptation to gluten, just not enough to make it a healthy food, probably. The conclusion is a bit of a truism, we haven't adapted to our new diet because sufficient adaptation hasn't taken place.

    We always need empirical evidence to back these claims and I don't think anyone really takes pure paleo logic as a valid conclusion unless tested for. If they do then they shouldn't. That a good way to be wrong about stuff.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  6. #6
    TCOHTom's Avatar
    TCOHTom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by captaineight View Post
    The argument is that over a relatively short period of time (a few thousand years), humans seem to have adapted to cope with it better.
    Why would you think our adaptation to alcohol is only a few thousand years? The linked video is to wild animals getting loaded on over-ripe fruit. I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that early man followed suit and adapted before we were even 'human'.

    YouTube - African Animals Getting Drunk From Ripe Marula Fruit <--this is to YouTube, as it's sort of funny. You can find a source in the scientific literature with a quick search.
    Retirement has afforded me the ultimate affluence, that of free time (Sahlins/Wells)

  7. #7
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Stabby View Post
    That is a hypothesis and should never be treated like anything more. We are genetically identical and thus we MIGHT not be adapted to our new diet. You can still be adapted to things that you have never seen before. Being able to metabolize lactose was lucky because all it took was persistence of an infantile trait into adulthood, more or less. Our gut flora actually produce some ethanol so that was already there. While we're more or less identical (would we really say exactly identical?) there has been much natural selection of pre-existing genes.

    The thing with grains is that it is their biological niche to poison anything that tries to eat them. To be able to adapt to lectins and such we would need some pretty profound evolution and I don't think it has happened. That doesn't mean that we haven't adapted a bit, some have somewhat of an adaptation to gluten, just not enough to make it a healthy food, probably. The conclusion is a bit of a truism, we haven't adapted to our new diet because sufficient adaptation hasn't taken place.

    We always need empirical evidence to back these claims and I don't think anyone really takes pure paleo logic as a valid conclusion unless tested for. If they do then they shouldn't. That a good way to be wrong about stuff.
    Stabby, as usual, a great response.
    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  8. #8
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by TCOHTom View Post
    Why would you think our adaptation to alcohol is only a few thousand years? The linked video is to wild animals getting loaded on over-ripe fruit. I'd guess (and it's only a guess) that early man followed suit and adapted before we were even 'human'.

    YouTube - African Animals Getting Drunk From Ripe Marula Fruit <--this is to YouTube, as it's sort of funny. You can find a source in the scientific literature with a quick search.
    The reason is because we're talking about consistent intake. And it's evident that it happened over a few thousand years in that the cultures who have drank a lot of it over that time are seemingly now much better able to cope than those who didn't.

  9. #9
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371
    Thanks guys, some interesting responses so far. I would also add (just for the curiosity of it) that scientists have also observed wild animals purposefully ingesting magic mushrooms, bears in particular. Which vommit, run around in a frenzy, seemingly chasing imaginary prey, fall asleep for 12 hours, then get up and do it again.

    lol.

  10. #10
    captaineight's Avatar
    captaineight is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    371
    @Tom: that video was really funny.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •