From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 23:44:05 MDT
I've resisted weighing in on this thread, but I think there are a
couple important point to make about human adaptation to the paleo
diet.
1) Paleolithic humans had a life expectancy of around 18 years. Just
because they were adapted to a certain diet doesn't mean that it's the
healthiest diet for those who want to live much longer lifespans.
2) Related to point 1: Evolution selects for traits that maximized
survival to reproduction, total lifetime fertility, and little else.
Selection ceases after last age of reproduction. Selection is
progressively weaker as less of the population is alive. Since we
believe that only about 10 - 15% of the paleolithic population made it
to age 40, and few of those survivors were reproducing, evolutionary
theory tells us very little about what's healthy for humans past that
age.
3) Humans are adapted to an environment with no antibiotics, no basic
sanitation, minimal artificial heating and cooling, etc... However,
each of those innovations has dramatically increases life expectancy.
So basically I don't see much value in pointing out that we're
evolutionarily adapted to a particular diet. That might mean
something or it might not. I put more faith in large scale studies in
a more modern environment.
Those studies indicate that regular cardiovascular exercise, moderate
caloric consumption, low consumption of refined sugar, low consumption
of saturated and oxidized fats, and high consumption of fruits,
vegetables, and whole grains are all associated with higher life
expectancy.
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 23:51:28 MDT