Author Topic: Drinking alcohol while preggers may harm your great-grandchildren study suggests  (Read 2860 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
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....
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
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!

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
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.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
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.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
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.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Seems many things can eliminate us.

We just need to keep on fighting and fucking for real.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
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?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
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.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline surfsteve

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
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?

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk