Re: Eating "Naturally"

[John Sankey]

Increasingly, evidence is increasing that selection of the human
genome is so strong that our effective genetic heritage is a
matter of 10s of thousands of years, not the million plus
assumed to now. In particular, selection for the ability to
thrive on recent additions to our food diet has resulted in
almost total elimination of genes that used to exist.

Our 'natural' diet is the one our recent ancestors ate, recent
meaning at most the last 10,000 years. See the National
Geographic Genome project news for the most recent info on this
sort of thing.

 

[George Cherry]

"John Sankey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Increasingly, evidence is increasing that selection of the human
> genome is so strong that our effective genetic heritage is a
> matter of 10s of thousands of years, not the million plus
> assumed to now. In particular, selection for the ability to
> thrive on recent additions to our food diet has resulted in
> almost total elimination of genes that used to exist.
>
> Our 'natural' diet is the one our recent ancestors ate, recent
> meaning at most the last 10,000 years. See the National
> Geographic Genome project news for the most recent info on this
> sort of thing.

This rings true to mean, even though I prate (half
jokingly) about Paleolithic man. But the genome
just guides us to what's, well, just adequate--not
to what's optimum. For example, the genome
might lead us to stuff at a buffet, trying every flavor
and dish. But, of course, calorie restriction (with
optimal nutrition) is closer to optimum. The genomic
thing may be a poor guide for behavior and choice,
n'est pas?

George