WTG, Subby!

Nicely done, subs. I chortled.

Headline of the year.

Jessie J. approves

"We found that among those with the high-risk genotype, if they consumed a diet high in vegetables and fruits, their risk for heart attack did not increase despite their having the high-risk gene profile,"

So, the genes are involved HOW? Having a diet that doesn't include food high in fat and cholesterol sounds like smart eating... So, to defeat your bad genes you have to eat smarter? I don't get it.

PressPlayOnTape: Headline of the year.

Really?

Our genes are designed for a certain diet. The genes themselves do not increase risk of heart problems, it's all in the diet. It doesn't seem that way because of the easily available ubiquitous modern diet which gives almost everyone the same foods. That diet is not good for people that have genes designed for other diets that have fallen out of use. That's the real problem.

Different groups of people are different though, it depends on what kind of tribe you came from and what they ate. Some do better with a heavy meat diet, others with almost no meat, etc.

But people in vegetative states don't use crutches?

diaphoresis: "We found that among those with the high-risk genotype, if they consumed a diet high in vegetables and fruits, their risk for heart attack did not increase despite their having the high-risk gene profile,"

So, the genes are involved HOW? Having a diet that doesn't include food high in fat and cholesterol sounds like smart eating... So, to defeat your bad genes you have to eat smarter? I don't get it.

Natural fat and cholesterol are actually good for you. Veggies are fine. Take it easy on the fruit (lots of sugar).

Link (new window)

+1 Subby.


/possibly going to hell for being so amused

nothing comes between me and my Calvins

Can someone explain the headline? I don't get it either.

Jake Havechek: When exactly did early humans go from a pure vegetable diet to become omnivores?

We were probably never pure vegetarians. Like most apes and primates, we likely ate insects and various animals (lizards, bird eggs, etc) in addition to plants before we even came down out of the trees. However, once we started venturing out onto the savannah, we began scavenging other animals kills, and gaining access to meat, organs, marrow, etc.

cast55: Can someone explain the headline? I don't get it either.

Fruits (homosexuals) and veggies (comatose people? Crutches? Bad comparison).

Jake Havechek: When exactly did early humans go from a pure vegetable diet to become omnivores?

Long, long, long before we were anything remotely resembling humans. Just looking at primates in general, they tend to be omnivorous. There's some pretty solid acheological evidence, too.

Some Oldowan tools, for example, were almost definitely used for butchering/scavenging animals, and some of those date over 2 million years ago.

I still dont get the headline.

how could you possibly outwit these?

vodka: Our genes are designed for a certain diet. The genes themselves do not increase risk of heart problems, it's all in the diet. It doesn't seem that way because of the easily available ubiquitous modern diet which gives almost everyone the same foods. That diet is not good for people that have genes designed for other diets that have fallen out of use. That's the real problem.


Bullshiat. Your observable characteristics (phenotype) are a result of the interaction of your genes and the environment. Yes, diet (environment) plays a role, but to suggest that genetics is irrelevant not only defies common sense, but ignores mountains of data that has demonstrated genetic linkage to a wide variety of cardiovascular conditions.

The Russian figure skater Sergei Grinkov illustrates this point very well. He died at the age of 28, in peak physical condition, from a massive coronary caused by high cholesterol. His diet was excellent, however he did carry a variant of the Phosolipase 2 gene associated with high cholesterol.

Jake Havechek: When exactly did early humans go from a pure vegetable diet to become omnivores?

We've always been omnivores. Look at our variated dentition: incisors, canines, premolars, molars. In fact, that's true for all Old World primates, and for all of the ancestral primates we know of. And the only difference between Old World and New World dentition is that we have an extra premolar. So you're talking a characteristic that predates the breakup of Africa and South America.

Urrrgh. I guess you can't blame subby for trying.

Tyrosine: The Russian figure skater Sergei Grinkov illustrates this point very well. He died at the age of 28, in peak physical condition, from a massive coronary caused by high cholesterol. His diet was excellent, however he did carry a variant of the Phosolipase 2 gene associated with high cholesterol.

It still could mean he wasn't eating the right diet. There is no such thing as a generic "excellent" diet, you have to eat what works for your body and that has an incredibly wide variation.

Sure, there can be real genetic problems but those are much more rare. I mean just like that guy in the other article that died from a simple punch, there can be serious physical defects in your make up.

Still, often it's an issue of people not living within of the design of their genes versus "your genes will kill you no matter what you do."

vodka: Different groups of people are different though, it depends on what kind of tribe you came from and what they ate. Some do better with a heavy meat diet, others with almost no meat, etc.

Yeah, because everyone knows you don't breed outside your tribe. Look, that whole argument is rooted in 100 year old science, long since disproven. Genes flow between populations and have for quite a while. It's like when they talk about "blacks" having predispositions toward this or that. How many of the samples have 25% non-African genes? Or only 25% African genes? And breaking it down by tribe is even worse. Similar logic applies to this diet argument.

Rule of thumb: In any given related group, there is more variation between members of the group than between that group and another, similarly related group. Populations are rarely static and frequently intermarry (or at least interbreed).

PYROY: I don't get it.

It can be very hard to understand bullshiat science, because it usually makes no sense. This is one of those times. Publish or parish produces more hooey than anything else. What I don't understand is how they get crap like this published.

cast55: Can someone explain the headline? I don't get it either.

It's not very funny.

cast55: Can someone explain the headline? I don't get it either.

Gene Masseth.