I've often thought that the optimal human diet must be the one which we were eating at the very beginning of our existence. Although many groups of humans have evolved since then in ways which the primitive tribes have not (intelligence for one), so it's not safe to assume that anything we have started eating since prehistoric times is bad for us.
I really don't think our intelligence is any different from people living as hunter and gatherers, its just our technology that has changed. However, the fact that some groups are not lactose intolerant does show that their have been some changes in our biology since we were hunter and gatherers. I do think the paleo diet can be a good guide... I'm not particularly convinced that whole grains, beans, or milk (depending on your ancestry) need to be left out of a healthy diet. Also, Keep in mind that the meat from animals raised on a farm is different from wild animals particularly the ratios of types of fat. So you would have to get free range meat or hunt your own. Grad
I really don't think our intelligence is any different from people living as hunter and gatherers, its just our technology that has changed. There are significant cognitive, physical and behavioral differences between the human races, which is overwhelmingly genetic in nature. (it is just politically incorrect to talk about it. The truth is often racist) That's why it wouldn't surprise me if digestive systems had adapted differently, too.
There are significant cognitive, physical and behavioral differences between the human races, which is overwhelmingly genetic in nature. (it is just politically incorrect to talk about it. The truth is often racist) That's why it wouldn't surprise me if digestive systems had adapted differently, too. Where do you get that their are all these significant genetic differences between the human races? Is there a particular study that you can point to that shows this? The majority of modern scientist would disagree with this and don't consider racial classifications biological classifications. The differences between the races are either considered to be superficial or the result of differing enviroments, not distinct genetic patterns.
gradstudent, i completely agree with you (for once! ) pseudo-science can be a dangerous thing, mattjames. did you get your theories from "the bell curve" book?
I don't think there is anything that new and exciting about this "diet". (No disrepect to the original poster of course!) There is nothing in the article that one can't find in nutritional guides. The foods that they mention (for the most part) that are "bad" are high on the GI (see my other post). The breads, milk, potatos and such are all sugar. I don't really think this is anything out of the ordinary. America doesn't really have that much of a problem with fat, our obesity is really coming from sugar. I don't think this is psuedo science at all. It's simply a good way to eat which is quite known and common. Plus, different people in different parts of the world eat different things and their bodies show it. Their bodies develop different enzymes and such and their bodies are different because they eat different foods. Think about it, the closer the food we eat is to the earth the healthier it is. (Yes, I know, there are some things like potatoes, yams, suger snap peas that are high on the GI, but in the total scheme of things they are better than refined sugar - pasta, white bread...)
Hi Tck13, i completely agree with you. when i said, "pseudo-science," i was referring to matt's statement that "There are significant cognitive, physical and behavioral differences between the human races, which is overwhelmingly genetic in nature."
Hi Tck13, i completely agree with you. when i said, "pseudo-science," i was referring to matt's statement that "There are significant cognitive, physical and behavioral differences between the human races, which is overwhelmingly genetic in nature." If you eat at Arby's (the beef and cheddar melt) it does actually change your genetics. Unless you get the Arby's or Horsey sauce!
Hi Tck13, i completely agree with you. when i said, "pseudo-science," i was referring to matt's statement that "There are significant cognitive, physical and behavioral differences between the human races, which is overwhelmingly genetic in nature." There was nothing pseuo-scientific about what I said. It's purely factual, and all honest scientists without an agenda know it. But I don't wish to get into it here as it can offend some people, but I can point you towards places where the subject is discussed thoroughly and you'll find that I'm right. Race is very real, like it or not.
It's not about having an agenda or not having an agenda, its about the evidence. Yes there are significant differences between different people based upon racial categorization. But such categorization has been shown to be based upon social categories, not biological distinct categories, with the majority of the differences seen being the result of environmental differences, not genetic ones. here's an example of a study that showed this. December 2005, Vol 95, No. 12 | American Journal of Public Health 2191-2197 Skin Color, Social Classification, and Blood Pressure in Southeastern Puerto Rico Clarence C. Gravlee, PhD, William W. Dressler, PhD and H. Russell Bernard, PhD Objectives. We tested competing hypotheses for the skin color-blood pressure relationship by analyzing the association between blood pressure and 2 skin color variables: skin pigmentation and social classification. Methods. We measured skin pigmentation by reflectance spectrophotometry and social classification by linking respondents to ethnographic data on the cultural model of "color" in southeastern Puerto Rico. We used multiple regression analysis to test the associations between these variables and blood pressure in a community-based sample of Puerto Rican adults aged 25-55 years (n=100). Regression models included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), self-reported use of antihypertensive medication, and socioeconomic status (SES). Results. Social classification, but not skin pigmentation, is associated with systolic and diastolic blood pressure through a statistical interaction with SES, independent of age, gender, BMI, self-reported use of antihypertensive medication, and skin reflectance. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that sociocultural processes mediate the relationship between skin color and blood pressure. They also help to clarify the meaning and measurement of skin color and "race" as social variables in health research.
I really don't think our intelligence is any different from people living as hunter and gatherers, its just our technology that has changed. Obviously. Anyone who suggests, you know, that there is any real difference in intelligence between modern humans and Homo habilis is a racist.
It's not about having an agenda or not having an agenda, its about the evidence. Yes there are significant differences between different people based upon racial categorization. Impressive. I hear there are studies that show, believe it or not, that blacks and whites have ten fingers and ten toes! The assertion is that hereditary racial differences exist within the human species, not that blacks and whites are biologically distinct in every respect. You are attacking a straw man. So, if you snap your fingers, you can transform yourself morphologically into a black man at will?