Peter Rouse wrote: Rucifer wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
You know nothing of the evolutionary process of humans. For one it talks approximately 100,000 years to alter the human genome by 0.01% (not taking into account epigenetics).
I wonder how the eskimo managed to survive then? Or the Masai, or the many native tribes around the world.
Hahahaha. What does your percentage of time to alter human genetics have to do with anything? Oh my god this is simply silly. Take the population of the world that's in environments without vegetation, and then take the population of the world that's in environments with vegetation (and account for the fact humans evolved IN TROPICAL CLIMATES), and enough is said. I do CLEARLY admit that humans can survive on a incredibly low to no carb diet, but am pointing out IT ISN'T OPTIMAL.
I didn't realize Africa was considered tropical...
It's not optimal? Let's look at one study of Eskimos over a 42 year period on native diet - in 42 years 1 case of CHD.... 1 single case. Do you have any idea of the rate in the US alone?
This depends on the individuals biochemistry - that had developed over 100,000's of years.
Take a look at the book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" - based on a study of native diets at the beginning of last century.
Fuel wise animal meat was always the prime choice - this is a scientific fact - all you have to do is look at the systems of the human body and they are designed as a meat eater. How primates are vegetarian? So why are humans any different.
Only in times of limited meat did humans look at surviving on other sources - and this was not optimal for human health. How many vegans do you know of that live past 100. Every single one of these people have eaten meat during their lifetimes.
By the way no one was talking about low carb. We were discussing need for sweet taste - tribes that also include some root vegetables into their diets may in fact do better on a slightly higher carb intake due to the adaption of their oxidative systems through the krebs cycle. You also must take into account their autonomic nervous system dominance.
If you want I can break this down far deeper if you like. I have advanced degree in biochemistry and Ph.D in physiology - I have been researching this stuff half my life.
I do want this broken down further because at this moment, I do not believe that your arguments are Ph D worthy. This certainly makes more sense than some of your previous posts, but here's my criticisms-
Ok, look up what Africa was like when humans evolved from it. It was tropical.
One case study, in which you do not even provide in your post, as complete and absolute truth that it is optimal? Does this study even take into account variables such as that they might not have lived as long to not see the diseases we are afflicted with in modern society, that primarily come with age? Oh and speaking of that...using modern US diet as a reference point is not what I am advocating. I am arguing more a paleo type diet.
Once again, I am not arguing for veganism or vegetarianism, simply a sweet craving is the result of our and our evolved ancestors desire for fruit cosumption, and that it is optimal to eat fruits and veggies.
Oh, and you would argue that these sweet tastes could come from an animal source? If you are arguing against sweet tastes, and the argument of eating nothing sweet, then you are arguing low carb, because many fruits and veggies that we consume now that we don't consider sweet our caveman like ancestors would, simply because they weren't exposed to sugar as much as we are and haven't become as desensitized (spelling) to it as we have. And fruits that you are arguing against are just as, if not more nutrient dense than most root vegetables.