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

From: Brian Atkins (brian@posthuman.com)
Date: Fri Apr 18 2003 - 11:15:53 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "RE: evolution and diet (was: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise)"

    Harvey Newstrom wrote:
    >
    >>>And personally, I can't imagine anybody arguing *history*
    >>
    >>as evidence.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I meant history as evidence of dietary superiority. History is great
    > evidence that something has happened. It is not very good evidence that
    > what happened was the best thing that could have happened. Was the asteroid
    > that wiped out the dinosaurs the "optimum" event? Just because evolution
    > takes a turn does not mean it is for the best. I know evolution tends to go
    > toward survival of the fittest, but this is no guarantee that the result was
    > indeed "best".
    >

    Harvey as gts tried to point out to you, historical evidence clearly
    shows some dramatic negative health changes- first back when agriculture
    came along, and more recently as I tried to point out here there was a
    very dramatic rise in heart disease (especially the new form- heart
    attacks), cancer, etc. during the first half of the 20th century. That
    rise in incidence continues currently, and now we also have dramatic
    rises in things like diabetes... all while much of the first world
    population has faithfully eaten what nutritional scientists claim is the
    safest diet - "the food pyramid".

    Now, I can understand the feeling of wanting to do your own research and
    come up with what you think is an even better way to eat than the now
    almost-discredited food pyramid, but how can you be any more sure that
    your ideas will turn out any better? It seems like you are essentially
    going to experiment on yourself, and based on the results we've seen
    from nutritional science so far it seems to have so little actually
    figured out about how the human body really interacts with food that its
    recommendations and findings often seem to have very significant
    unforseen negative consequences. Why risk that when you can choose a
    diet that has significant historical evidence on its side that it will
    not be harmful? You can still supplement it with substances that seem to
    be well-proven to help extend lifespan.

    P.S. Can anyone show me some real proof that vegetarians live longer?
    Some evidence mentioned at URL below says they don't.

    http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_vegetarianism.html

    -- 
    Brian Atkins
    Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
    http://www.singinst.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 18 2003 - 11:23:17 MDT