I have an amateur interest in genetics and evolution and I have always disagreed with the notion that humans have undergone little to no evolutionary change over the past 10,000 years. As we know, this is one of the primary points of Paleolithic nutrition; since our genetic makeup is relatively unchanged, we should focus our attention and research on how our pre-agricultural ancestors ate. But have we truly undergone such little change? As a percentage of our genome I’d say yes, but we must remember that tiny genetic changes can actually have significant real world outcomes. How do you think the ability to digest lactose became a common factor in modern day Europeans?
Which leads me to my point, I largely agree with the principles of primal eating, but feel it’s not specific enough to the needs of different ethnic types. When introduced to a Western SAD diet, I seem to observe a trend. Those who have practiced agriculture the longest collectively suffer the least from “Western diseases” (in comparison to other ethnic groups). 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.
Around the world we see similar trends. Australia is a good example. The Aboriginals suffer greatly from the introduction of refrained grains and alcohol, more so than the Europeans. Aboriginals have been living a Western lifestyle for only 200 years, if that. Europeans have 10,000+ years under their belt. Seems to me evolutionary selective pressures have at least begun a transition towards adapting to our new style of eating, and those who have less history with agriculture are more prone to the consequences of eating this way.
I feel that non-whites (not including Asians) would actually benefit the most from a Paleolithic diet. Thoughts?