There is speculation that a highly refined carbohydrate diet causes PCOS in 
the offspring of mothers who eat this way.  So in some way the genes are 
altered for the next generation. However there is no actual research to back 
this up and the whole issue of insulin resistance is speculative. Whether 
insulin resistance is a side effect of PCOS or PCOS is a side effect of 
insuline resistance is one of those things that research has also not been 
able to establish (to my knowledge anyway).

Certainly a better diet assists in managing the symptoms of PCOS but you 
still have the underlying genetic predisposition to insulin resistance, 
weight gain etc.

Speculation is useful to develop hypotheses but only the science of good 
research and can definitively answer any of these questions.

Leonie







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ashley Moran" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: Cutting edge research about children's diets


>
> On Feb 22, 2008, at 7:04 pm, Gale wrote:
>
>> There is no question that PCOS (poly-cystic ovarian syndrome) has a 
>> genetic cause and probably only a minute (if any) environmental  factor 
>> link
>
> If this was true, a significant number of women during the paleolithic 
> would have suffered from PCOS.  This I just don't believe.  Loren  Cordain 
> thinks it is a side effect of insulin resistance.  Just  because it can't 
> be fully corrected by an improved diet doesn't mean  it wasn't caused by 
> the faulty diet in the beginning.
>
> Remember: ALL non-infectious diseases are ultimately genetic.   Something 
> in the organism has to respond to the environment.  Either  the organism 
> responds in a way that is beneficial for its survival, or  in a way that 
> makes it fall ill.  The organism's genes have no concept  of either 
> outcome - either the animal survives to produce offspring or  it doesn't.
>
> Common sense says that the number of purely genetic illnesses must be 
> pretty insignificant, or individuals carrying the disadvantageous  genes 
> would have been weeded out long ago.  The only reason I can  think that 
> humans may be more susceptible to genetic disease than  other species is 
> that we went through a population bottle neck in the  relatively recent 
> past.  But maybe other similar species have too - I  have no idea.  That's 
> something I'd like to know more about, but I'm  no biologist.
>
> Ashley
>