Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lowcarbUgh
Okay, I'll posit that the exceptions are self-limiting eaters.
|
Not necessarily. Like I said in my last post, there's always exceptions. Like the mice bred to get cancer, there's an exception that was unable to get cancer. There are probably mice in that group that got cancer even faster than the average too. But they're the genetic oddities.
I'm suggesting that ending up somewhere along the type 2 continuum is a pretty normal result after a few decades of eating the crap people are eating these days. The outliers are the ones that are immune or that get there far earlier than most other people do.
Possible explanations for why indigenous populations seem to get hit harder, that people like to attribute to the hypothesis of the Thrifty Gene -- which even the inventor of that term decided it was bogus -- is that those populations are generally extremely poor when they go from being Hunter Gatherers to gathering in super markets. They can only afford the worst and cheapest food around which is generally sugar and starch based. They're not getting a lot of meat and vegetables. When we send food aid to poor countries we're sending them rice, corn, wheat and so on and expecting them to be healthy and thrive on it when even WE don't.
And there's no real Thrifty Gene found in animals either. When you feed them the proper diet (lets not even discuss pets fed commercial pet foods please), even too much of it, their bodies seem to deal with the excess calories by burning them off in futile cycles.
As Taubes says over and over, there's a homeostasis that is supposed to be at work that *should* be working very hard to keep us at one weight, as it does in every other animal out there. But it breaks and then works really hard to keep us from losing weight. That it is breaking in many (most?) of us at this point in history, all over the modern world, isn't just a sudden spread of faulty genes.
Linear Mode
