In a message dated 5/7/99 9:31:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

>
>  This statement raised another interesting issue to me -- it seems that many
>  of the diseases we associate with a contemporary diet -- the heart disease,
>  auto-immune disorders, diabetes, etc., occur in mid-or-later life (with
>  exceptions, of course), AFTER prime child-bearing years.
>
>  It would be interesting to see statistics on rise or fall of percentage of
>  these types of diseases in children, adolescents, and young adults,  esp.
>  since the industrial revolution and refridgerated food transport (1935 or
>  so), which radically altered the standard American diet.  It is my
> impression
>  (although I have not researched or studied it) that certain chronic
diseases,
>
>  including obesity, are on the rise in younger populations.
>
>  Kim
>  [log in to unmask]
>

Damn, there are some righteously smart people on this list!!  It's an honor
to converse with you all.
I think that would be a VERY telling set of statistics too!!
I have seen the issue here on this list before, I don't remember who, but
someone said not too long ago that "nature doesn't care what happens to
us after our childbearing years 30s, 40s?"....I was going to respond at that
time to drop it down to the teens, thats when in nature we would be having
kids...After we have our children, and our DNA and genes have been passed
on...from a "Selfish Gene" (this is the title of a very interesting book by
the way)
prospective, after the children are on their own,,,there *is* no concern for
us.

Yes for family support, and the other reasons to have a larger family we
might live longer.  But looking at it STRICTLY from *our* gene's need to
reproduce,
there is no purpose whatsoever in living to be 70,80,90,100. After a certain
point
we are baggage.

I read this point in a book, sorry forgot the title, but it addressed the
fact that
certain foods were designed to help us get to reproduction faster (paleo
eaters would say it was grains and milk, and they're probably right) but
were NOT healthy foods to eat for longevity.  That the type of longevity
potential
we have now is unprecedented in evolutionary history, and the foods that
were good to get us to reproduction faster are actually BAD for us afterwards.
This is collaborated by the fact that we get our periods earlier than ever in
history, and like you said Kim, we come down with the majority of the life
threatening diseases in mid life, after we've raised our kids.

This is a
fascinating point I think. Because it begs two very important questions, "What
is the best diet for longevity?", and "How long are our lifespans supposed
to be?" The only way to answer that, is to look
at the longest living people on the planet....and this is my area of research
now.   Everyone else can draw their own conclusions and go from there.

Great discussion people, I appreciate each and every one of you! 8-)

Anna L. Abrante
[log in to unmask]
"...the more things change...
..the more they stay the same...."