Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: TylerDurden on July 10, 2017, 09:14:31 pm
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4681614/Alcohol-pregnancy-affect-great-grandchildren.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4681614/Alcohol-pregnancy-affect-great-grandchildren.html)
Epigenetics is clearly more powerful than thought. I would love scientists to work out what harm 100s of thousands of years of eating cooked foods has done to human health/DNA. Admittedly, the proportion of cooked foods in the human diet rose dramatically once agriculture was introduced, so the damage would have been more extensive after c.10,000 BC, but even so....
-
Both of my grand parents died from alcohol. I wonder though; surely somewhere along the line man is adapting to it. Schrodenger's cats couldn't reproduce after the third generation of cooked food and man has been eating cooked food for far longer then he's presumably been drinking alcohol and we haven't gone extinct.
At least not yet!
-
Both of my grand parents died from alcohol. I wonder though; surely somewhere along the line man is adapting to it. Schrodenger's cats couldn't reproduce after the third generation of cooked food and man has been eating cooked food for far longer then he's presumably been drinking alcohol and we haven't gone extinct.
At least not yet!
If we were adapted, we would be at least partially immune to the heat-created toxins derived from cooking such as AGEs/advanced glycation end products.No evidence exists to suggest that. Plus, for most of the period since cooking began, Humanity has been only eating some of its diet in cooked form. The advent of agriculture increased the amount of cooked foods in the diet, and this(or dysgenics) has resulted in a c.10-11% decrease in the average human brain-size(and a corresponding drop in intelligence). In other words, adaptation to cooked foods may well lead to a decrease in the future health/well-being of future generations etc.
Oh, and then there is the "panda paradox". Pandas have been eating bamboo for 2 million years plus, and the panda STILL hasn't adapted to a bamboo diet fully(just incorporating a bamboo-eating enzyme but still retaining a carnivorous digestive system all those millions of years). In other words, length of time on a diet does not imply adaptation, however long that time might have been.
-
By adapted I meant that some of us were able to reproduce after more than three generations of cooked food. I didn't mean to imply that we are flourishing under ideal health. If even one percent of Schrodenger's cats survived and were able to reproduce there would have been enough to carry on and keep them from going extinct. Something similar probably happened to humans.
-
By adapted I meant that some of us were able to reproduce after more than three generations of cooked food. I didn't mean to imply that we are flourishing under ideal health. If even one percent of Schrodenger's cats survived and were able to reproduce there would have been enough to carry on and keep them from going extinct. Something similar probably happened to humans.
While cooked food is harmful(re reducing fertility etc.), it is not harmful enough to kill before the next generation is produced. That does not imply adaptation. Also, all animals since evolution began, like Iguana stated, have some small ability to handle getting rid of inflammatory molecules like AGEs as AGEs are produced in tiny amounts in the human body even on the best possible 100% raw diet. It is merely that cooking creates more of the AGEs and other heat-derived toxins.
-
Seems many things can eliminate us.
We just need to keep on fighting and fucking for real.
-
Ha. I said Schrodenger's cats instead of Pottenger's cat's. Surprised no one caught that yet. Anyway Pottenger's cats took three generations of cooked foods before he claimed they were no longer able to reproduce. My point was that humans have been eating cooked foods much longer than that so I think the ones that were able to reproduce would have needed somehow to get beyond that point if his findings were correct and also applied to humans. Perhaps natural selection would be a better phrase to describe that process than adaptation. Anyway. Unless it's all bunk; how did we get past it?
-
Ha. I said Schrodenger's cats instead of Pottenger's cat's. Surprised no one caught that yet. Anyway Pottenger's cats took three generations of cooked foods before he claimed they were no longer able to reproduce. My point was that humans have been eating cooked foods much longer than that so I think the ones that were able to reproduce would have needed somehow to get beyond that point if his findings were correct and also applied to humans. Perhaps natural selection would be a better phrase to describe that process than adaptation. Anyway. Unless it's all bunk; how did we get past it?
We got past it because cooked foods are slow poisons, not fast-acting ones. Cooking foods does reduce fertility a lot, but if there is no Pill and humans are mating all the time, then some children would be produced and survival of the species would continue. The Pottenger analogy isn't the same. The cats in question required a specific nutrient in order to be able to breed, once the pet-food manufacturers reintroduced artificial amounts of that nutrient, the cats survived from then on and could breed. Obviously, cats still suffer from ill-health and pass on epigenetic-damaged genes to their offspring, but the point is that cooking is not a fatal, fast-acting toxin and never was such.
-
What nutrient was it that was missing from cooked cat food during Pottenger's time? I read that cats need extra taurine. Was it that?
-
Yes.