= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kaj_Sotala comments on Open Thread, May 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (264)
Re-reading my own post on the 10,000 year explosion, a thought struck me. There's evidence that the humans populations in various regions have adapted to their local environment and diet, with e.g. lactose tolerance being more common in people of central and northern European descent. At the same time, there are studies that try to look at the diet, living habits etc. of various exceptionally long-lived populations, and occasionally people suggest that we should try to mimic the diet of such populations in order to be healthier (e.g. the Okinawa diet).
That made me wonder. How generalizable can we consider any findings from such studies? What odds should one assign to the hypothesis that any health benefits such long-lived populations get from their diet are mostly due to local adaptation for that diet, and would not benefit people with different ancestry?
The diets I've seen described all sound like fairly old-fashioned diets. None of them seem to suggest foods that would be novel in any areas - what, fish are novel? Fruits and vegetables? Smaller portions and regular exercise?
Your categories are rather broad. "Fish" are not going to be novel anywhere, but "Atlantic cod" might be. Likewise, by "fruit" do you mean apples, oranges, or some African fruit that's completely obscure in the West because nobody's figured out how to commercialise it yet?
It's a rather broad topic. The main non-disputed example for the 10,000 Year Explosion is lactose-intolerance; lactose is present in most milks, so you could with justice say that this example is an example of an entire unadapted food group. The recommended foods in things like the Mediterranean or Okinawan diets all use food groups consumed by pretty much all ethnicities. No ethnicity is 'fruit intolerant' or 'fish intolerant', that I've heard of. Milk seems to pretty much be the special-case exception that proves the rule.
The risks and benefits of alcohol consumption for different ethnic groups seems like another example.
Milk is two mutations (one in Europe and one in Kenya) and we've worked out when and where. It's a very special case.
This was my rationale for sticking with my mostly wheat-based diet, but I think my belief in this position is slipping. It does appear that there are strong biochemical reasons to favor rice over wheat, for example. I think there's reason to be skeptical of "Okinawans eat this way, so you should too" but I think "Okinawans eat this way" is at least weak evidence for any particular diet change, like "you should eat more rice" or "you should eat more seaweed," but that those changes need other evidence ("you're gluten intolerant" or "iodine is good for you").
There's a lot to be said for self-experimentation. One of my friends has found that his digestive system "shuts down" (constipation, lack of satiation, possibly additional symptoms I've forgotten) if he doesn't eat wheat. This trait runs in his family. I haven't heard of anyone else having it.
One's ancestry and long-lived populations give clues about what to experiment with, though.
That's fascinating. Do you know what he tried to replace it with?
I'm pretty sure it was rice. He hasn't experimented to find out whether he needs gluten or if it's something more specific to wheat.
I'm pretty sure it was rice. He hasn't experimented to find out whether he needs gluten or if it's something more specific to wheat.