Well, the figure most commonly cited for lactose-intolerance-rates for the whole world is 75%. Given that dairy causes many other problems(re hormones/opioids etc.), quite aside from the issue of food-intolerance/allergy, I can't see it as a health-food. And even beyondveg.com admits that pasteurising dairy harms it even more.

 

Re genes:- Well, I seem to recall beyondveg.com claiming that there was no genuine mutation re dairy.(can't remember the exact page). There is now a science called "epigenetics" which indicates that it is possible to (partially) adapt to different lifestyles/diet etc. without changing whole genes re mutation but just changing the gene-expression, so that could be an alternative explanation.

 

Geoff

 







 
> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:05:32 -0600
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: How cooking made us human
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> >Many people around the world do not have adult onset lactose
> >intolerance (myself included). I've seen studies that examined cultures
> >that started keeping cows (which is the only way to get dairy in your diet,
> >realistically) and found that populations whose ancestors kept cattle for a
> >certain amount of time (I think it was around 1500 years, but I'm not sure)
> >had relatively little lactose intolerance, while those whose ancestors
> >didn't have cattle or had them for less time had a lot of lactose
> >intolerance.
> 
> I too, being lactose tolerant, have wondered about the same thing. There are populations in the world who are 99%+ lactose intolerant (most Amerindians and many Asians), yet some populations swing the exact opposite. I think it's fascinating.
> 
> After doing a bit of reasearch I discovered that there is a gene that actually turns off an adult's lactose "factory". So, those of us who can tolerate lactose as adults are, in reality, "mutants". We have a defective gene. It all really boils down, once again, to natural selection - we are around because our mutation was not filtered out of the gene pool. It gave someone an advantage. Perhaps it allowed some small group of late paleolithic people to survive a cataclysm. Or, perhaps it was just perceived as a beneficial, or even superior, trait in some cultures. At any rate - it stuck.
> 
> At the beyondveg.org site (which some members here seem to despise for whatever reason), there is a lengthy interview with Ward Nicholson. In it there is a section that explores how long it takes for a given genetic trait to stick. If I recall, the numbers ranged from a few thousand years to tens of thousands depending on how drastic the change was. Which is why a few cultures, most notably in the Middle East, seem to have a greater tolerance for Neolithic foods than others - obviously because they were exposed earlier. Since I am of Northern European stock, I suck at eating grains - and especially beans.

_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/