Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Ethnicity and Primal Eating page 2

  1. #11
    saturnfan's Avatar
    saturnfan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    136
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Why is the onus on the refuter when you're the one making an exceptional claim? I accept that nutritional differences could exist, and in the case of lactose tolerance, we even have an example (most Asians = not lactose tolerant, most northern euro whites = lactose tolerant).

    But if you want to claim, despite the widely accepted fact that the vast majority of genetic diversity is not correlated to race, that there are genetic reasons for different dietary needs among different races or ethnic groups, present some actual evidence to that effect.
    Only because I wanted to stay on topic, but I suppose it doesn't matter. I never claimed that the vast majority of genetic diversity was correlated with race. I suggested that in my original post, although it was not specifically stated. As you borrowed from Lewontin's famous article, most genetic diversity exists across ethnicities/races rather than between ethnicities/races. This is true. Somewhere on the order of 85/15. My claim is that small genetic differences, well within that 15% threshold can have significant real world outcomes. Well it's not my claim, I'm only an hobbyist, but that of published researchers and scholars.

    Maybe that was the misunderstanding (probably on my account of misreading one your posts)? The ability to digest lactose is rather small genetic difference. It doesn't seem far fetched to me, and I think the empirical evidence supports it, that certain ethnic types should be more weary of eating a Western diet.
    Last edited by saturnfan; 01-29-2013 at 07:53 AM.
    Started 9/5/11 at 212lb
    Last weigh in 12/10/11 at 188lb
    Goal: 160

  2. #12
    saturnfan's Avatar
    saturnfan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    136
    I do believe the book, The 10,000 Year Explosion by Cochran and Harpending discussion some of these nutritional differences though I feel probably exist, and use the same example you did with lactose.

    I don't have the book handy though, maybe I'll thumb through index later today.
    Started 9/5/11 at 212lb
    Last weigh in 12/10/11 at 188lb
    Goal: 160

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    miami
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnfan View Post
    In the USA, European heritage people suffer less than African-Americans, who in turn suffer less than Indigenous peoples. Do blacks and Native Americans eat more crap than Whites? I doubt it.
    Well, I think your last assumption is seriously flawed. Blacks and Native Americans do eat far more crap than whites. Obviously there are genetic differences with respect to diet that correlate with race. Whites are more likely to be able to digest lactose. Native Americans seem to have a particular weakness with respect to alcohol addiction. But I don't see any simple anecdotal evidence that would cause one to think that non-whites suffer from SAD diets more than white. Aborigines are dirt poor. Is their health really any worse than poor whites eating the poor man's SAD diet in Appalachia or rural Mississippi? Healthy eating is mostly either a function of wealth or a cultural tradition (such as the Amish or Mennonite) sufficiently strong to resist the influence of popular culture and mass marketing and in America at least, almost everybody in those two groups are white. Middle class, professional blacks who eat healthy seem to be just as healthy as their white counterparts. Poor blacks who eat bad seem just as unhealthy as their white counterparts in Honey Boo Boo land.

  4. #14
    Belforte's Avatar
    Belforte is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Naples (ITA), Melbourne (AUS)
    Posts
    259
    I thought there was a high incidence of sickle cell disease in Greece and souther Europe.

    I think the difference between the Australian aboriginals say and the white Australian, was that their whole way of life was rejected completely. Not just food, but culture and lifestyle. That is a big loss to overcome. Those that arrived, sure they may have been used to bread but they still had an okay diet, and the aboriginal would not have been give good quality food at all, just the scraps.

    Remember up to 50 years ago even the poor ate broth and liver which would have supplemented their poor diet. And might have kept big problems away. So I think it is very difficult to analyse any of this. The quality of food would have made up for the bread. It has only been the last 30 years or so that the other food is not making up for excess sugar and grains.

    Once you think about epigenetics, that is what your mother and grandmother ate is also important for gene expression....

    You may as well be herding cats.
    Life. Be in it.

  5. #15
    saturnfan's Avatar
    saturnfan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthBeachPrimal View Post
    Well, I think your last assumption is seriously flawed. Blacks and Native Americans do eat far more crap than whites. Obviously there are genetic differences with respect to diet that correlate with race. Whites are more likely to be able to digest lactose. Native Americans seem to have a particular weakness with respect to alcohol addiction. But I don't see any simple anecdotal evidence that would cause one to think that non-whites suffer from SAD diets more than white. Aborigines are dirt poor. Is their health really any worse than poor whites eating the poor man's SAD diet in Appalachia or rural Mississippi? Healthy eating is mostly either a function of wealth or a cultural tradition (such as the Amish or Mennonite) sufficiently strong to resist the influence of popular culture and mass marketing and in America at least, almost everybody in those two groups are white. Middle class, professional blacks who eat healthy seem to be just as healthy as their white counterparts. Poor blacks who eat bad seem just as unhealthy as their white counterparts in Honey Boo Boo land.
    Seriously flawed is a bit strong, considered diabetes type 2 is 2.5x more likely to occur in the Navaho and 4x more likely to occur in Aboriginals (than Europeans). I'll grant you that those in poverty eat food that is lower in quality, but is the quality of that food so sever to cause such disparate rates in diabetes? This to me would be an interesting research topic, certainly one worthy of exploration.

    However, researchers have discovered new protective gene variants involved in insulin regulation. The age and frequency of the gene variants seem to correlate with that societies adaptions to agriculture.

    Refining the impact of : : TCF7L2: : gene variants on type 2 diabetes and adaptive evolution : Abstract : Nature Genetics
    Started 9/5/11 at 212lb
    Last weigh in 12/10/11 at 188lb
    Goal: 160

  6. #16
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,524
    I haven't read through all 4 pages but have you all mentioned eugenics in this 10,000 year span? Lots of european emperors and oriental kings sent literally millions of viable mate-aged vigorous males either to their premature deaths, or just relocated them to different populations.
    "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

    Jack london, "Before Adam"

  7. #17
    saturnfan's Avatar
    saturnfan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
    I haven't read through all 4 pages but have you all mentioned eugenics in this 10,000 year span? Lots of european emperors and oriental kings sent literally millions of viable mate-aged vigorous males either to their premature deaths, or just relocated them to different populations.
    Well eugenics is ostensibly aimed at promoting positive gene selection, hence the word which literally means "good gene." I doubt that these emperors did this with any long term goal in mind for the gene pool. But large scale death and relocation could have an effect on the gene pool, particularly relocation as the new inhabitants would immediately be fraternizing with their new neighbors. I could see relocation as a way to introduce new genes into a foreign population, although it would have been unintentional.
    Started 9/5/11 at 212lb
    Last weigh in 12/10/11 at 188lb
    Goal: 160

  8. #18
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,524
    Well eugenics is ostensibly aimed at promoting positive gene selection, hence the word which literally means "good gene."
    right and Hillary Clinton wants Lasting Peace for the world...

    lol yo the ruling class is defined by their duplicity; their words have different meanings.

    anyway in the context that I mean, interpret "eugenics" as "politically motivated behavior that effects breeding demographics on a large scale as a matter of state policy."

    I doubt that these emperors did this with any long term goal in mind for the gene pool.
    did you see Quest for Fire? It is not inconcievable to believe that even cave men had an awareness of genetic selection and the perpetuation of traits. Emperors were usually dumb front men like Obama and Bush whose job was to present a unified front to the disparate classes- behind their curtains though in the throne room are always priesthoods and temples and banks with their own, better social and human sciences, and they engineer policy. I would not be surprised if there were initiatives since the beginning of history to diminish the vigor of the subject populations. They only have to clean streets and cook meals and shit, any strength beyond that is a liability.

    But large scale death and relocation could have an effect on the gene pool, particularly relocation as the new inhabitants would immediately be fraternizing with their new neighbors.
    in the best cases sure. Raping their new neighbors was probably more common.

    I could see relocation as a way to introduce new genes into a foreign population, although it would have been unintentional.
    whether or not it was intentional, I'm arguing that 10,000 years is longer in a historical timeline than in a natural selection one, because conscious human decisions accelerate or interfere with natural processes.
    "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

    Jack london, "Before Adam"

  9. #19
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    I think your initial question has much merit. Like you pointed out, different populations have different levels of lactose tolerance. This is a real world indication of genetics at work.

    Adding guidelines based on race makes sense if the science is there, for example: "Limited full-fat dairy could be included in a Primal eating pattern, but be aware that if you are non-Caucasian you may be more susceptible to lactose intolerance." Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    That being said, I highly doubt that there would be a very measurable difference in the over-all health benefit from switching to a Primal diet. Any difference that you would likely see from switching would be mostly a function of what you are eating prior to going Primal.

    If you are switching from Cheeto's and Red Bull to Grass-fed beef and coconut milk, you will be healthier regardless of your cultural/racial background.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  10. #20
    saturnfan's Avatar
    saturnfan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    I think your initial question has much merit. Like you pointed out, different populations have different levels of lactose tolerance. This is a real world indication of genetics at work.

    Adding guidelines based on race makes sense if the science is there, for example: "Limited full-fat dairy could be included in a Primal eating pattern, but be aware that if you are non-Caucasian you may be more susceptible to lactose intolerance." Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    That being said, I highly doubt that there would be a very measurable difference in the over-all health benefit from switching to a Primal diet. Any difference that you would likely see from switching would be mostly a function of what you are eating prior to going Primal.

    If you are switching from Cheeto's and Red Bull to Grass-fed beef and coconut milk, you will be healthier regardless of your cultural/racial background.
    True, but at least academically, I feel there must be different levels of optimal nutrition. If you follow the basic guidelines of primal nutrition, you should see results despite your ethnicity. But why not explore the possibility of optimal outcomes?

    This makes me think of Weston Price when he was doing research in Australia. When he tasked some aboriginals with reclaiming their ancestral habits, their health saw a pretty rapid restoration. If they suffer from type 2 diabetes at a rate of 4x that of Caucasians and lack some of the gene frequencies for optimal insulin regulation, I see the switch as being more optimal. Poverty might play into those disease rates, but I can't see it being the only reason.
    Started 9/5/11 at 212lb
    Last weigh in 12/10/11 at 188lb
    Goal: 160

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •