So you're suggesting that genetic predisposition is responsible also for ones decision making processes as well (whether or not to be raw vegan or paleo etc)? If this is the case it only proves the genetic variability argument and cancels out Dukes proclamation that all humans are genetically adapted to a single diet.
No, and genetic variability is the *least* influential factor of the ones I listed. It doesn't mean "I'm a non-primal gene person"... it means that there is variability to how well different people will do on the outer reaches of dietary choices. There are people who will do well enough on a raw vegan diet to think it was just fine. However we have no idea whether Brian Clement's optimal body and mind expression is on his current choices, or if he would be even a step better on a primal choice. Edit: It also means there are people who do well enough on the current standard american diet while smoking every day. I don't think any of us would suggest this person is getting the most from their body (but if they don't *want* to... that's fine).
Humans are genetically adapted to survive on a wide variety of diets. That's what made it possible for us spread across the globe. This is why there are cultures that live entirely off of meat, while most others live off a more balanced. (I am not aware of any primitive or modern primitive cultures which subsist entirely on a vegan diet). That however, doesn't mean that the Inuit are getting the optimal results from their bodies on their entire meat and fat diets, just like it doesn't mean a raw vegan is getting the optimal results from their bodies.
Also, not even Duke is saying "Ever person needs to eat X grams of this exactly and Y grams of that" etc. Mark for example, calls it a blueprint on purpose. People who take it up use it as a starting point (with some areas that are out of bounds) and then adjust according to the results they are getting. Some people eat more protein, some eat less. A 4'11" woman is going to need different dietary choices from a 6'9" man. However the range of foods within that diet will simply change in amounts, not in types on a macronutrient scale.
That said, appearances do matter, because they are what lead people to take up lifestyle choices, for better or worse.
Yes, this is why people take on eating disorders. That does not make the decision a healthy one. The healthy choice must be based on the scientific results and genuine long term health of the individual... as well as monitoring the person's health indicators over time.
Obviously a best case would be someone looking at a raw foodist and wanting to look 'that good' when they are 'that age'. A bad case would be someone looking at a body builder and then immediately inquiring where to find steroids.
Neither indicate health, nor indicate results that will necessarily be indicative of themselves. So neither is a good reason to pick up any food choices. A best case would be someone who wants to look good at that age but understands that that's secondary to the underlying health and lifestyle issues.
I don't see how a pro-growth diet can be good for longevity. And the Paleo diet seems hormonally imbalanced in favor of way too much testoserone. In my understanding so far pro-growth may mean pro-aging so one who seeks longevity should approach their diet with hormone balance in mind, as opposed to hormone escalation.
"I don't see how man can arise from a microbe". "I don't see how smoking can be causing cancer".
You basically are telling us "*I* don't understand how this could work this way". And yes... I agree..
balance. I don't see how on earth including meats in a diet that includes vegetables and fruits is less balanced than a diet which does not include them. That seems like a contradiction from the start.
Wait: Do you believe that humans aren't evolutionarily designed to eat meat (I'm new here so I'm still trying to figure everyone out)?
It is no secret that the vast majority of paleo proponents are men. So I think at its core it is a psychological approach (fear of feminine traits, etc). Again, egos must be put in check for this reason.
It's a secret to me and the enormous number of women on Mark's website if that's true. I won't deny that there are probably *more* men, but to paint it as a men's club or one that doesn't appeal to women seems more like you're working from a limited sample set. It's also a secret to my girlfriend, and my step brother's wife who are also enthusiastically enjoying primal food habits. They *do* enjoy a different balance of things from me, but the general direction is still the same.
The discussion of feminine fear has never even entered into it for me and until I hit this thread I wasn't even aware it was taken seriously in terms of health and anything but muscle size. Perhaps it is for many others... I don't know. And neither do you.
Edited by wieder, 29 January 2010 - 04:38 PM.
On the bright side, I get to eat chocolate cakes!
