Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it is impractical to compare monocultures such as Eskimos, Asians, Africans and their diets and health to Americans which come from such a diverse gene pool. Many of these mono cultures have adapted for thousands of years to a particular diet, and their biology tolerates and even thrives on a diet many of us could not tolerate well.
We have to find out which way of eating is healthy for us personally and fits our individual biology best. There is a big margin of difference in the best type of eating habits for various Americans.
Exactly. Did you know that the Inuit have naturally larger livers, presumably to accommodate their particular diet? If the average American-born of European ancestry were to eat like that, no doubt we'd be causing some pretty significant damage to our bodies because we simply don't have the anatomy to accommodate it.
...If the average American-born of European ancestry were to eat like that, no doubt we'd be causing some pretty significant damage to our bodies because we simply don't have the anatomy to accommodate it.
Yes, exactly. Cultural background makes a significant difference. And individual variation can also play a major role. No matter what your cultural background is, you might still have a personal intolerance for certain kinds of food. Anyone suffering from chronic health problems (e.g., fibromyalgia, lupus, chronic fatigue, etc.) should seriously consider trying "elimination" diets - i.e., you eliminate a category of food for a while to see what effect this has. Food allergies are generally so obvious that you already know about these by the time you become an adult, but various levels along a spectrum of "food intolerance" can be tricky to pin down. (BTW: One of the first things to try eliminating is gluten. You don't need to be full-blown celiac to have chronic health trouble related to gluten.)
Almost every book and website in favor of paleo style diets are very specific in condemning factory farmed beef that is fattened up on corn. Most suggest finding a local small farm, which i have done, and buying meats from people who let you visit their farms and see their animal treatment practices. Try doing that with farms from the meat industry and you will get nowhere.
Also, there is a wide variety of suggestions on how much meat to eat. We eat a lot more in the winter, less in the summer when lots of delicious local veggies and fruit are easy to find. I've encountered paleo dieters who dont like beef or chicken and eat it infrequently, their focus remains consistent with basic paleo principles, unprocessed foods, organic almost all of the time, and supporting small, local farms rather than big agribusiness.
Sure, there are some "paleo" dieters out there that will go to McDonald's and get a double quarter pounder with cheese, throw out the bun and call it a paleo meal. Just realize not all paleo dieters share the same goals and values.
Just FYI, I find it difficult to gorge on meat. I can eat loads of fruit easily though.
Like with all hobbies or religions, people will follow it to the extent that they feel comfortable with. However, saying that with the example you've given with people eating a McDonald's burger only and calling it Paleo, I actually think is totally wrong. First of all the burger is highly processed and secondly the organic/natural aim of Paleo is completely missing.
Did you know there are plenty of vegetarian Paleoers (if that makes sense ) - they get all their nutrients and vitamins from organic vegetables and fruits, just have a little search and you will see some great examples of foods to eat.
While i dont follow diets as they dont work for most people i do enjoy healthy foods and paleo recipes are quite diverse and healthy. I go to these sites regularly to get healthy ideas for family meals.
Like with all hobbies or religions, people will follow it to the extent that they feel comfortable with. However, saying that with the example you've given with people eating a McDonald's burger only and calling it Paleo, I actually think is totally wrong. First of all the burger is highly processed and secondly the organic/natural aim of Paleo is completely missing.
The 'example' is funny to me because YEARS AGO I was 'addicted' to Cheezits (and Wheat Thins). Every day a box came to work with me, well, maybe every other day. I ate them ALL MORNING long - until lunch.
Well, I heard about the 'high protein' idea and tried an experiment. Instead of Cheezits, on the way to work I got a Sausage McMuffin. (Sometimes 2 and made into a 'double-double'.) Sure enough - I was NOT hungry until very near lunchtime. That greasy, poor quality, patty (or 2) sustained me for HOURS. I was amazed.
Later I 'graduated' to a real double-double when I was going to work in late morning and In-n-Out was open. (Spread only - so it really is like a 'McMuffin' - but even better.)
Anyway, I've 'graduated' again to better quality protein breakfast (ie, egg burrito) - but the protein thing really worked well for my 'divorce' from Cheezits for breakfast.
I think it is impractical to compare monocultures such as Eskimos, Asians, Africans and their diets and health to Americans which come from such a diverse gene pool. Many of these mono cultures have adapted for thousands of years to a particular diet, and their biology tolerates and even thrives on a diet many of us could not tolerate well.
Where is your proof for this statement?
Our gene set when it comes to metabolism and how we process foods is EXACTLY like the Inuits.
Guyton and Hall. It's a textbook on Medical Physiology.
Textbook??
Basic metabolism has evolved over 600 million years at least.
To say that there have been radical genetic changes because a sub-population of humans has subsisted largely on a meat-and-fat diet for a few thousand years is ludicrous.
But we have Inuits, and we have non-Inuits. If someone could prove a genetic divergence of any consequence between them they would win the Nobel prize.
To say that there have been radical genetic changes because a sub-population of humans has subsisted largely on a meat-and-fat diet for a few thousand years is ludicrous.
But we have Inuits, and we have non-Inuits. If someone could prove a genetic divergence of any consequence between them they would win the Nobel prize.
The poster didn't say anything about "radical genetic changes", it doesn't take a "radical genetic change" for differences to emerge between populations.
As for genetic divergence, that's an easy one, take a Northern European like myself and an Inuit. My digestive system still produces lactase so I have the ability to digestive lactose as an adult....an Inuit does not. My salavia and digestive tract produce large amounts of amylase which means I can pretty much eat all the starch I want on the other hand Inuit (and other similar populations) produce much less amylase. And so on. There are many known genetic divergences that have consequence for diet....and probably many unknown differences.
Anyhow, another problem with people mentioning the Inuit is that they are cherry picking certain aspects of their diet while ignoring others. The Inuit diet consists of very particular foods prepared in very particular ways, so even if their diet was healthful (and it probably wasn't) that doesn't mean any high meat diet would have similar health properties.
And while lactase production varies in humans, it is not altogether absent in anyone.
Oh, I can give you a link so you can get a FREE download of a Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical physiology.
Interested a little?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.