vmaxjohn, I agree largely with what you have said. Man has ceased to progress in evolutionary terms for the reasons you have stated. That is why it was puzzling to the paleontologists that are stature had decreased. I believe as you said that protection for the weak has in part contributed.

As far as the "fittest" surviving vs. the handsome, I have this to add though. (and this is not my own, I heard it on the radio) People are attracted to beauty, but this is due to our evolutionary instincts. Modern homo sapiens may not know why they are attracted to a girl with radiant skin, healthy hair, and a slender healthy figure and women may not know why they are attracted to men with a good physique, but this is evolutionary instinct. We instinctually learned to seek out someone to procreate with that looked healthy. Lean strong physiques look healthy to us. Good skin and hair makes a person beautiful to humans because instinctively we want to mate with someone healthy.

We instinctively know that being overweight is unhealthy. And this is proven by the diseases of obesity.

Now personally, I hate the way the world has prized personal beauty over everything else (like intelligence). But if it is survival of the fittest, instinct tells us that the beautiful are probably more fit.

The problem that I see with this is that intelligence also makes people more fit to survive and there isn't enough instinct to prefer intelligence over beauty.

But I agree with the man point that if men have indeed decreased in stature and brain size in the last 10,000 years, it definitely has a strong correlation with the onset of agriculture.

Agriculture is also the reason that we are overweight and obese and thereby unhealthy. Most of us here when we were young would have been in the "beautiful" classification if we had been raised in a hunter-gatherer society and never eaten trans fat, processed foods, white flour and sugar during our lifetime.

Agreed!

The one thing I could add, would be that our foreheads have grown. Our temperal lobes are housed up front, and compared to a chimp or bonobo, we got huge, high foreheads.

Is it possible that the need for phisical strength and skills were increasingly less important than the ability to plan ahead?

The other thought I had, is that it is impossible to judge the density of the brains in question. You know how computer chips have shrunk over time? Maybe a smaller, more powerfull brain is preferable?

Personally, I was thinking the same thing especially in regard to body size. Maybe smaller is better. But I didn't want to contradict the point I was trying to make about agriculture being bad for us.

The Evolution, Diet and Health essay posted here says humans have become the only primates to eat cereal grains and with bad results.

But as far as stature goes, I'm not so sure it's better to be bigger. I think someone should take gravity into consideration. The larger a mammal (say an elephant) is the less dexterity of movement there is. Perhaps we are evolutionary-speaking at the peak body stature.

Have you ever seen Civil War uniforms soldiers wore? They are tiny compared to the average man now. Why is that? Our diets have improved tremendously, as far as vitimins, nutrients, etc. I think it's important to seperate the current obesity problem, with the fact 19th century diet was pretty darn ok. Meat was a luxury for most, unless they had the ability to hunt. Which many did!

The sugar era took over...when? The sixties lets say. With each generation taking in more sugar than the last, the eating habits of their children were severely hampered. I remember it being a very special treat to get a candy bar or ice cream as a kid, the thing was, it happened pretty regularly. So, I inherited my dad's sweet tooth! And his inability to keep the weight off.

It seems like a recent development, evolutionarily speaking.

You raise some interesting points about height and body size. People were smaller during the 1860's civil war period, but also during the few hundred years prior to that. Look at the clothing during the period of King Louis IV of France.

I believe that where merely height is concerned, we are dealing more with genetics than diet. Evolutionary changes need thousands of years not hundreds or even decades. Man's stature is shorter during the last 10,000-35,000 years from an evolutionary point of view when considering all races and cultures including those known to be very tall and very short.

Even though during the 1800s and early 1900s, humans consumed more red meat and dairy, grain was still a huge factor in the diet. A day never passed without eating bread. I think we have to look at the change not between the 1800s and now, but between pre-agricultural and agricultural. People died younger in the 1800s and early 1900s not because of diet, but because of unsanitary conditions, city crowding without knowlegde of bacteria and sanitation, and lack of medical knowledge. We really have no statistics yet as to whether the lifespan of humans has decreased due to the introduction of trans fatty acids, processed foods, fast food restaurants and higher sugar intakes since 1960. Most of these people who ate these foods since 1960 are still alive. The people that lifespan-lengths are currently based on ate meats, dairy and fats most of their life. So when the baby boomer generation age-of-death figures finally get tallyed, the probability is that we may find that human lifespan has gone down due to low-fat, high vegetable oil diets since the 1970s.

That may be true. I'd believe it only if the dicrepency between the average life span of men vs women. I say this, because health care has improved all the way along, furthering our golden years.

If the baby boomer men die sooner on average, than women, I'll buy your prediction. Men prefer to just tough out problems in health, while women tend to have the good sense to go see a doctor!

I think you lost me.

Current human lifespan is about 80 years (some have said 85). What I'm saying is that you have to wait until someone dies to figure out what the current human lifespan is.

When everyone who was born in 1960 and ate McDonalds, processed foods, fast foods, trans fat, low-fat/high-carb, omega-6 lopsided vegetable oils while cutting out red meat and eggs and these people born in 1960 who ate this way for the majority of their lives (which is what most people have eaten since 1960), when most of these people finally die, the average human lifespan may be 70 or 65 despite healthcare.

Let's talk about healthcare. As most people on these boards know who have any of the diseases of civilization i.e. obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension, they are certainly going into the doctor and have certainly been put on lots of medications. But would they be going to the doctor had they not eaten these foods? And just because a medication might prolong a life due to lowering cholesterol, will this person live longer than he would have lived had he eaten red meat and dairy, stayed away from trans fat and white sugar (eaten a more pre-1960 diet) and never had heart disease?

If your life-long diet has ruined your health, your heart, your arteries, the miracles of modern medicine may prolong your life further than if you had these problems in 1950, but you will probably still die younger than a person who never had these problems. Ask my 51-year-old boss who just had his third heart operation (a triple bypass) if he thinks he will live to 80 or 85 due to modern medicine. Sure he's alive today due to modern medicine, but despite modern medicine, his diet has shortened his lifespan (and he knows it being very familiar with the benefits of LC--but not sticking to it--he insists on eating french fries and pizza).

I hope I'm young enough to here the results! Still, life span is measured from birth to death, no? With no medical intervention, the life spans would certainly be shorter, right?

Men live shorter lives than women, on average, and it's suggested that it's because of men's general allergy to doctors. We, as a gender, don't want to go to the doctor, because that would suggest we have a problem!hehe

Since women tend to seek out more medical care, as the baby boom ages we'll see men's average life span shrinking, while women will hold still, just my guess.

Like I said, we'll see! (in another 20 years)

According to the following article, the postulations for women out-living men were numerous, but going to the doctor was not one of them.

Scientific American
70s and Up/Why Women Live Longer than Men; Women's Health-Summer 1998; by Perls, Fretts; 4 Page(s)
Women around the world have a survival advantage over men - sometimes by as much as 10 years. What gives them the upper hand?
http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cach...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Rather it appears that the average lifespan calculations include death at any age for any cause. Therefore:

"Between 15 and 24 years, for example, the male-to-female mortality ratio peaks because of a sudden surge in male deaths with the onset of puberty. During this period, men are three times more likely to die than women , and most of the male fatalities are caused by reckless behavior or violence. Motor vehicle accidents are the most common cause of death for males in this age group, followed by homicide, suicide, cancer and drowning."

"In the 55- to 64-year-old age group, behavior-related fatalities are still among the most common causes of death for men and are still much higher in men than in women. Men of this age are more than twice as likely as women to die in car accidents , for example, and almost four times as likely to take their own lives."

"Indeed, there is a difference between the sexes in disease patterns, with women having more chronic nonfatal conditions--such as arthritis, osteoporosis and autoimmune disorders--and men having more fatal conditions, such as heart disease and cancer."

"Ultimately, our investigation of the gender gap in life span has led us to posit an evolutionary explanation, one that suggests that female longevity is more essential, from a Darwinian perspective , than the prolonged survival of males."

As regards, men not going to the doctor, it should be noted that women outlived men before modern medical science existed:

"Although the reasons women live longer than men may change with time, it seems likely that women have been outliving men for centuries and perhaps longer. Even with the sizable risk conferred by childbirth, women lived longer than men in 1900, and it appears that women have outsurvived men at least since the 1500s, when the first reliable mortality data were kept. Sweden was the first country to collect data on death rates nationally; in that country's earliest records, between 1751 and 1790, the average life expectancy at birth was 36.6 years for women and 33.7 years for men."

The question is: Medical science enables those with diseases to live longer, but has processed food, fast food, white flour and sugar caused more diseases than there would have been before their introduction into the western diet? And can medical science extend the human lifespan even though these diseases are now epidemic?

that's a good question. I doubt medical science will change it's tune quick enough to help the folks who are unwilling to help themselves. If you are not listening to your body, and changing your diet and habits, you may be doomed.

I guess I preach to my friends and family a little too much on this subject. But it's hard to know something so vital, that people don't want to hear. I'm at odds with the practice of 'helping people because I know better' type attitude, it's never easy.

I've lost 2 pounds today! Wahoo!

Almost 10 years later, here's the link for the original NY times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/m...ig-fat-lie.html

I just get so mad every time I read Taubes. That's what I get for agreeing with him. It raises my blood pressure.

Nevermind, I misread the message.

Has it been 9 years already?

Glad you brought this thread back to life, NortonMan - I had not seen it before. Thanks!

The subject this thread deals with is very current, what with Taubes' latest book WWGF and his earlier book GCBC which followed the article quoted in the OP.

Wow- what a great thread to bump up! It's funny, yet somewhat sad how some people come and go. Harsh reality I guess, but the topic endures.