RE: evolution and diet (was: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise)

From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 00:37:50 MDT

  • Next message: Ramez Naam: "data mining for gene function"

    From: gts [mailto:gts_2000@yahoo.com]
    > Ramez Naam wrote:
    >
    > http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/drybones/intro.html
    >
    > "In primitive cultures past and present the most frequent
    > causes of disability and death are infections, nutritional
    > disturbances, trauma, and obstetrical, neonatal, and early
    > pediatric problems."
    >
    > This is not a claim about pre vs post agricultural revolution
    > diets. It is thus not a claim against paleodiet theory, which
    > states that infant mortality and death from many diseases
    > were actually greater in the early neolithic than in the late
    > paleolithic.

    Certainly. I have no problem with the notion that early farmers were
    less healthy than late hunter-gatherers. I consider this idea to be
    well documented and in the mainstream of anthropology.

    My point is that in *all* human cultures prior to the last few
    centuries, the causes of death were very different than the causes of
    death that we see today.

    To be specific, heart disease, cancer, and stroke combined made up
    about 80% of deaths in the US last year. They likely made up less
    than 10% of deaths in any pre-industrial society.

    Here's what this tells us: the causes of death we now face have been
    almost "invisible" to evolution until just the past few centuries.
    That's why I'm dubious that an evolutionary perspective can tell you a
    whole lot about what kind of diet is going to best stave off heart
    disease or cancer - because heart disease and cancer were virtually
    non-existent in human populations until very recently.

    > More generally, from some of the posts you've written here, I
    > think you may be under the false impression that paleodiet
    > theory prescribes a diet that does not take advantage the
    > modern medicine, (e.g., that one should not take antibiotics
    > or vitamin supplements). If that is your view of paleodiet
    > theory then it is incorrect. Paleodieters are not Christian
    > Scientists. :)

    :) I'm glad to hear that. My points about antibiotics, etc... have
    not meant to imply that paleo dieters won't avail themselves of modern
    medicine. Rather, they point out the problem with this kind of
    evolutionary model of what's healthy and not healthy. Someone on a
    paleo diet who uses antibiotics or vitamin supplements must do so
    *despite* the fact that humans are not "adapted" to such modern
    inventions. So when does a paleo dieter decide to do what humans are
    adapted for and when do you decided to do something humans are not
    adapted for? That's the crux of my use of vitamin supplements and
    antibiotics as examples.

    cheers,
    mez



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 00:47:57 MDT