Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:50:19 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:51:18 -0500, Robert Kesterson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
The
> article says that mankind's genes *have* adapted to the "new" foods, and
> that if true, that calls into premise the adaptation reasoning.
There is also the argument that "new" foods can switch on or off genes,
not AFAIK disproven.
>
This is also shown in the
> studies by Weston Price -- the diets of all the micro-cultures he
> studied varied widely, including in some cases, large proportions of
> things that were not paleo, yet those people thrived on it.
Yet they didn't live any longer than us.
>
> It seems to pose the question of whether it is the foods themselves
> (grains, legumes, dairy, etc) that are at fault, or whether it is merely
> what we *do* to those foods that puts our health at risk (excepting of
> course food allergies etc.).
If food can change our genetic composition, then it is the foods
themselves.
>
> (I also think it's what we *don't* do with our *bodies* that leads to a
> lot of problems (ie lack of hard physical work and exercise on a routine
> bases), but that's probably off topic for this list.)
>
>
My last living aunt died recently, she never did any hard physical work or
exercise. She was 99, and healthier than most.
William
|
|
|