From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 15:30:04 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> I would say you have more than an "appreciation" of
> evolution. You seem to have "faith" in it as well.
I have faith in the *science* of evolution, yes. I believe it is well
established that living organisms are best adapted to the environments in
which they evolved. This principle is applicable to diets. I mentioned that
in my view humans are as well adapted to paleodiets as giraffes are well
adapted to eating the leaves of tall trees. In giraffes this dietary
adaptation is extremely obvious. Unfortunately in humans our dietary
adaptive traits are mostly invisible, buried in our metabolisms.
Would you argue with a talking giraffe who told you that he thought his long
neck was for eating the leaves of tall trees? Would you ask him if he was a
Luddite if he insisted that the leaves of tall trees should be the main
staple of his diet?
Nutritional science, organic chemistry and other branches of the life
sciences are only beginning to unravel the full picture of human metabolism.
And the more we learn, the more our nutritional recommendations begin to
correlate with paleodiet theory. For example it has only been a few years
since nutritionists discovered that vitamin C works best in the company of
bioflavonoids and other antioxidants. Similarly, alpha-tocopherol works best
in the company of gamma-tocopherol. New phytonutrients are being discovered
constantly. The vitamin supplements you buy today vs 30 years ago contain
more of the ingredients found in natural paleolithic foods, not less.
> Are you really a neo-Luddite in disguise? I don't mean to be
> funny or offensive here.
No, I hardly even know what a Luddite is. :) I'm just a typical guy raised
in the San Francisco Bay Area who happens to have spent the last five years
of his life studying diet and nutrition and longevity. I moderate two other
internet mailing lists devoted to these subjects.
> But you seem to say that we need to
> stick to "natural" diets, and that modern science is not a
> good guide to figuring things out.
That is not exactly what I say, Harvey. I consider evolution science to *be*
modern science. Evolution science is very helpful for "figuring things out."
> Four millions years of evolution has optimized the human
> genome for surviving just long enough to reproduce
I agree. This is why I'm happy to deviate from a natural diet when there is
sufficient evidence to do so. I start with the best of what nature can give
me, and build from there.
By the way cholesterol and saturated fats should not be avoided completely.
We need some of each for optimal health. As with many things, moderation is
key.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 15:38:56 MDT