I was going to post that Scientific American article about location and
weight privately to someone who inquired, but have gotten more than one
email about it, so for the sake of simplicity, here's the link....

http://www.sciam.com/0896issue/0896gibbs.html

In reading it, which is a pretty good article for Paleo tidbits,
frankly it sounds like the "environmental conditions" that are cited as
making for a change in weight are probably things like whether there's
farming and whether the population watches lots of television, as I
look at this article now.

One study discussed noted that "shared environmental effects" didn't
influence the weight gain of twins... but that "cumulative genetic
effects explain most of the tracking in obesity over time."

The article further says:

>>Apparently, only dramatic environmental differences, such as those
between the mountains of Mexico and the plains of Arizona, have much
effect on the mass of a people.

Anyway, I remain one of those people curious about whether it's really
more than food in and exercise out that makes a difference (Paleo
lifestyle, in other words). Certainly there are issues like coastal
iodine versus inland lack thereof (forgetting for a moment about
iodized salt) that affect thyroid health of a population. It would seem
unscientific to outright suppose without study that other variations
don't happen or aren't relevant to weight and health issues-- could be
anything from a certain mineral in food or water to, uh, *maybe*
barometric pressure and altitude or airborne irritants, etc.  I realize
a *lot* of the equation does relate to food and calories and ratios of
protein to fat to carbohydrate, just suspect it ain't the whole story.

Best,

Donna

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com