Science, Technology, and Evolution of the Human diet

[Guest guest]

I'm afraid there has been too much dogma tossed around in recent postings. =

This is especially dangerous when trying to educate someone new to CRON.

I think Walford's books are the best starting point. The man is a true sci=

entist

who quotes data from many experiments—he doesn't extrapolate grand

conclusions or make broad statements of certainty based on one or two

experiments. Unlike many health gurus and demagogues, he avoids using

anecdotal evidence.

If there is one thing that can be said about evolution of the human diet, i=

t is

incredibly diverse. Human physiology has evolved to accommodate and,

indeed, thrive, with a great variety of foods. That is why such disparate =

cultures, such as Okinawans and Sardinians, can achieve longevity with

different diets.

CR comes first in CRON. ON follows with a less clear definition. What is =

meant by optimum nutrition is controversial. Some of us follow different d=

iets

to achieve the same ultimate goal of a long and healthy life. Some swear b=

y

high (but selected) fat and low carbohydrate, others like the Zone Diet, so=

me

of us are vegetarians and vegans, and still others (myself included) prefer=

Walford's approach.

Human evolution tells us little about choosing an optimum diet for longevit=

y

because, as already noted, natural selection as a process ends soon after

optimum reproductive age (and, probably, a little longer, to allow nurturin=

g of

offspring). According to anthropological evidence, primitive man reproduce=

d

in his teens and rarely lived past his twenties or early thirties. Indeed,=

there

probably never was evolutionary selective pressure for humans to live a lon=

g

time. One might even argue that living to a hundred or beyond is " unnatura=

l. "

Thus, there is no evolutionary argument for extrapolating a Paleolithic die=

t

into a CRON diet. This is particularly true because we don't know what a

Paleolithic diet was, except that it was different for different groups in =

different

regions. Primitives in the new world had no tea, and thus had to find its =

benefits with something else or not at all. Primitives in the old world ha=

d no

tomatoes. They had to get lycopene from some other food, or, perhaps, not =

at

all. And, where did all Paleolithic humans find kale!?

Technology informs our lives as it always has since the Paleolithic era. Y=

ou

trust it for so many things in life. Why should scientific knowledge be

inapplicable to optimizing diet beyond what primitive man could achieve

naturally?

Aside from the fact that I don't like it, I see no health reason to eat raw=

meat (or

a lot of any meat for that matter), but I can list many reasons why one

shouldn't. Despite my own careful diet, statins have been a godsend for me=

and my high lipid blood levels (quite typical in my family). I'm also happ=

y, at

the age of 52, that they may be associated with diminishing the likelihood =

of

senility/dementia and other disorders of old age, which is not worth achiev=

ing

without health and well-being. Regarding antibiotics, they have saved my l=

ife

at least two, if not more, times. QED.

Thin Man