Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "Inuit paradox" is that the Inuit appeared to not have high rates of heart disease despite a high fat diet......not that the Inuit were one of the "healthiest people". This paradox has been explained by their high intake of omega-3 fatty acids which are known to be somewhat protective of heart disease.
Not just cardiovascular disease, but cancer as well.
Seems to be a common theme from you. You did not link your comment on low fat diet to healthy cultures. Anyway onwards to your links here.
Inuit had high rates of stroke and probably didn't have low rates of heart disease:
"Based on the examination of 15 candidate gene polymorphisms, the Inuit genetic architecture does not obviously explain putative differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence." A study that failed to notice any difference.
This study included modern day Eskimos, that eat not only meat but prepackaged foods, moot study because it did not follow the traditional diet. It is a well known fact that a diet is best when acid/alkaline foods are mixed 60/40 respectively. Calcium from the bones is to make up loss from acidic foods, but modern man consumes way too many acidic foods (milk, beers, grains, etc.).
"reveals several possible explanations for these differences, including warfare, subsistence pursuits, and housing practices." A study that reveals these defects are possibly from the above, not even including diet, moot study.
Eskimo mummies were found to have atherosclerosis from hundreds of years ago:
Read that last paragraph, it suggests diet may or may not play a role in atherosclerosis. Moot study.
The purpose of the studies I linked to were to show that the Inuit were not, by any means, one of the "healthiest" populations. Now you're trying to change the goal post by suggesting that their poor health wasn't because their diet yet earlier you were trying to imply they were one of the "healthiest' populations because their diet. Its amusing, I think, how this science denialism works.
As for low-fat populations, I didn't say anything about that, instead I said that the longest lived populations have diets low in saturated fat. All the so called "Blue zones", areas with the longest lifespans, have diets that are low in saturated fat but with vary degrees of total fat as these diets are all rich in whole plant foods. But there are some very long-lived low-fat populations, take for example, the Okinawa diet. Their primary staple is sweet potato and they eat very little meat or fish and live longer than other populations in Japan despite being the same ethnicity. It should be noted as well, despite eating a very high glyemic and high carbohydrate diet, they have very low rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes is very rare as well.
So, by all means, model your diet on a populations with life expectancy in the 30~40 year range but I think I'll take my clues from populations that live long and healthy lives.
The purpose of the studies I linked to were to show that the Inuit were not, by any means, one of the "healthiest" populations. Now you're trying to change the goal post by suggesting that their poor health wasn't because their diet yet earlier you were trying to imply they were one of the "healthiest' populations because their diet. Its amusing, I think, how this science denialism works.
As for low-fat populations, I didn't say anything about that, instead I said that the longest lived populations have diets low in saturated fat. All the so called "Blue zones", areas with the longest lifespans, have diets that are low in saturated fat but with vary degrees of total fat as these diets are all rich in whole plant foods. But there are some very long-lived low-fat populations, take for example, the Okinawa diet. Their primary staple is sweet potato and they eat very little meat or fish and live longer than other populations in Japan despite being the same ethnicity. It should be noted as well, despite eating a very high glyemic and high carbohydrate diet, they have very low rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes is very rare as well.
So, by all means, model your diet on a populations with life expectancy in the 30~40 year range but I think I'll take my clues from populations that live long and healthy lives.
Do whatever you want, I'm not here trying to change your mind. You certainly have a goal to change other peoples diets. By all means feel free to do what you want, act pompous and live longer than anyone else, it's what you feed yourself in every post.
What about the central Asian nomads? Dont they eat exclusively meat, at least before modern times?
I believe meat is mainly what humans evolved eating. Besides, aren't all the most intelligent animals carnivores? Rabbits are dumb. Humans only began growing crops about 10K years ago, about the time the last ice age ended. This from: Early Human Evolution: Climate Change and Human Evoluti
Quote:
Human evolution was very likely affected strongly by the dramatic climate swings of the Pleistocene. These changes no doubt presented powerful new natural selection pressures. Many animal species were driven to extinction by the advancing and retreating ice ages. Humanity survived primarily by becoming more intelligent and adaptable. This allowed us to develop new cultural technology to deal with cold environments and changing food sources, especially during the last 1/4 million years. One of the greatest problems in the cold regions would have been the relative scarcity of plant foods that humans could eat during the winters. In response to this, our ancestors became more proficient at hunting animals, especially large ones that provided more calories. This required inventing more sophisticated hunting skills as well as better weapons and butchering tools. These changes in subsistence pattern were essential for our survival.
I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their favored diet b/c I couldn't care less what anyone else eats, but I think this is an interesting topic as I am very interested in human evolution and nutrition.
I believe meat is mainly what humans evolved eating. Besides, aren't all the most intelligent animals carnivores? Rabbits are dumb. Humans only began growing crops about 10K years ago, about the time the last ice age ended.
No, the most intelligent animals aren't carnivores. Gorillas and Elephants, for example, are rather intelligence and don't eat meat.
Humans have no adaptations for meat eating, not exactly what you'd expect of a species that "evolved" to meat. Due to our physiological limitations, human ancestors would not have been able to eat meat in a significant way until they posed significant technology (hunting technologies, ability to cook, ability to process meat, etc).
Humans have no adaptations for meat eating, not exactly what you'd expect of a species that "evolved" to meat. Due to our physiological limitations, human ancestors would not have been able to eat meat in a significant way until they posed significant technology (hunting technologies, ability to cook, ability to process meat, etc).
Which is when our evolution took a leap forward. We became more intelligent in order to be able to eat and those who could not hunt or eat meat died out.
Which is when our evolution took a leap forward. We became more intelligent in order to be able to eat and those who could not hunt or eat meat died out.
Brain size in human ancestors started to increase around 4 million years ago which was well before they had the ability to eat and obtain meats. Since meat eating depends on advanced tool use, the group that first started to eat meat would have already had large brains which means that meat eating couldn't have been the cause of the increase.
Human ancestors, at some point, started to increase their intake of meat but the idea that this was instrumental to human developing is problematic. But regardless of when and how much meat human ancestors consumed, modern humans have no dietary need for meat and develop just fine with no meat.
But regardless of when and how much meat human ancestors consumed, modern humans have no dietary need for meat and develop just fine with no meat.
The same can be said for fruits and vegetables. Meat has several nutritional advantages and is often a more efficient means of transporting nutrients, especially those that ruminants and other animals process on our behalf.
Eat whatever makes you feel best, whether morally, ethically, or physically. There are several paths to good health and balanced nutrition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
