View Single Post
  #7   ^
Old Tue, May-25-21, 16:08
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,038
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristine
My problem with Mark's thinking here is that we're all mutts. You might have certain genes that are markers for a certain geographic location, but who says that necessarily translates to food tolerance/intolerance? I might buy it if you can trace your lineage as a "purebred" for many generations, but that probably doesn't happen for most humans. We immigrate, we flee, and our armies conquer each other and make babies with other populations.

Analogy: I'd find it plausible that Dobermans have certain nutrition needs and problems, and Huskies have different ones. Purebred dogs are a genetic bottleneck. But a mixed breed that kinda seems to be part Doberman, or Husky, or any other breed? How do you know which nutrition genes they inherited, unless they're specifically linked to the other marker genes that are being identified?

Essentially, I'm skeptical for the same reason I'm skeptical on the blood type diet. You'd have to demonstrate that those ancestral gene loci and whatever nutrition gene loci are close together, meaning there's little crossing over on chromosomes.

Good points. I understand the mutt analogy, as we are products of many generations from many ancestors who lived in many regions where available foods varied. However, being a skeptic, I'm more skeptical and risk averse of newer, manufactured foods than anything that's been part of the human diet for years. Eating what's been traditional human food for more than 60 years despite regional variations is probably the safest place to begin.
Reply With Quote