Phil, emeric, Mountiandog, looking for an explaination.

[knucklehed]

We don't have to imagine it...just go to Wal-Mart and behold!

The genes that are selected "for" these days, belong in large percentage to the unfit. And not just physically. I mean, people of below average intelligence, unable to take care of themselves, financially unstable, non-producers. They just breed and breed. There is no limiting Gene there.

On the other hand, getting educated, financially stable, and experienced enough to raise kids well and responsibly takes time. These folks breed later and only as many offspring as they can care for. The "fit" are losing the gene battle.

This is true^^^

About the original question: What would be considered healthy or unhealthy food for someone starving or in a huge caloric deficit? Over eating is what turns food into bad-food.

My point is if we were still hunting/gathering to survive everyday, I don't believe any food would be unhealthy unless contaminated/spoiled etc.

So basically our ability to feed ourselves has evolved faster then our instincts.

 

[BYBON]

We don't have to imagine it...just go to Wal-Mart and behold!

The genes that are selected "for" these days, belong in large percentage to the unfit.

Actually, whoever is reproducing more than us is more "fit", according to the evolutionary theory's definition of the word "fit" and "fitness". I truly hate that Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest". So, take me-a bodybuilder with no children-versus an obese woman with 3 children, the obese woman has greater "fitness" than me, simply due to the fact that she has greater reproductive success in her given environment than me.

Meh, guess I'm being too anal with words; I just don't want anyone to confuse the words "fit" or "fitness" when talking about evolution.

And not just physically. I mean, people of below average intelligence, unable to take care of themselves, financially unstable, non-producers. They just breed and breed. There is no limiting Gene there.

Actually, natural selection still works there. The aforementioned example, an obese woman, would be very "Fit" individually, or have high individual "fitness", but low inclusive "fitness" according to my previous example.

Let me explain. Sure, the obese woman reproduces and is more "fit" than me due to me not having a child versus her three. Now the woman's given environment, as is with most uneducated, financially unstable-riddled environments, is surely riddled with drugs, lack of financing, crime, et cetera.

The woman's inclusive fitness is going to be very low because that is a harsh environment to propogate in, so there is no need to worry about her offspring making more offpsring and so on and so forth. Thus, a low inclusive fitness for the woman, and me coming ahead even though I have a child later in life.

On the other hand, getting educated, financially stable, and experienced enough to raise kids well and responsibly takes time. These folks breed later and only as many offspring as they can care for. The "fit" are losing the gene battle.

No losing here, as aforementioned. Even though you have low clasical "fitness" compared to the "less blessed" individuals, you'll still up with a high inclusive fitness. Also, I bet you would have a greater indirect fitness gain simply due to kin selection, which individual altruism and sacrifice isn't as present in the Wal-Mart lady's environments.

Hopefully that'll quell your fears about a bastardized Wal-Mart infestation (and stop reading eugenics books )

 

[RINO]

This is true^^^

About the original question: What would be considered healthy or unhealthy food for someone starving or in a huge caloric deficit? Over eating is what turns food into bad-food.

My point is if we were still hunting/gathering to survive everyday, I don't believe any food would be unhealthy unless contaminated/spoiled etc.

So basically our ability to feed ourselves has evolved faster then our instincts.

evolution...really....that ability is gonna change very shortly.

 

[Massive G]

I don't like the word evolution-that refers to theories of millions of years...
I think the human body can adapt very quickly.
I have seen many cases were people had "metabolic syndrome" were on 2-3 type 2 diabetic drugs cholesterolmed and blood pressure pills and it was corrected by diet and exercise. A healthy diet with mild exercise, low carbs lean proteins and Vitamin d and fish oil did the trick everytime.
I never thought genes could change so quickly but apparently there is a lot of research out there indicating that fat and type 2 diabetic genes can be passed to children by their parents in a generation.
Various articles posted on true paleo diets -(70% saturated fat) indicate that the caveman was very healthy and lean with strong bones. When man started domestication and farming of grains -the skeletons of those early men had very fragile bones. Even 50 years ago you hardly saw any really FAT people and most ate tons of saturated fats and 2 maybe 3 large meals a day.
The key was activity of course and not so much goddamned sugar....

 

[Achilles-reborn]

that fox study is pretty cool....however that has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of humans you just described...unless you isolate a population of humans and only allow the ones to breed that have your desired traits.

I think thats been tried before

 

[kid1dakota]

I don't like the word evolution-that refers to theories of millions of years...
I think the human body can adapt very quickly.
I have seen many cases were people had "metabolic syndrome" were on 2-3 type 2 diabetic drugs cholesterolmed and blood pressure pills and it was corrected by diet and exercise. A healthy diet with mild exercise, low carbs lean proteins and Vitamin d and fish oil did the trick everytime.
I never thought genes could change so quickly but apparently there is a lot of research out there indicating that fat and type 2 diabetic genes can be passed to children by their parents in a generation.
Various articles posted on true paleo diets -(70% saturated fat) indicate that the caveman was very healthy and lean with strong bones. When man started domestication and farming of grains -the skeletons of those early men had very fragile bones. Even 50 years ago you hardly saw any really FAT people and most ate tons of saturated fats and 2 maybe 3 large meals a day.
The key was activity of course and not so much goddamned sugar....

True ,I have seen this also with type 2 diabetics.Some weight loss along with a low carb diet,the cells re-sensitize.

The Egyptians were the first to farm and store grains.Along with this began a rise in diabetes etc...

Sorry,I know I am not one of whom this was addressed.

 

[Phidias]

I apologize, I just noticed this thread wasn't addressed to me. Well here is my input, you can delete it if it's inappropriate.

I somehow felt the same way you did reading the title of the thread, halflife...

Pm's exist for a reason.

 

[tkav1980]

To clear up my reason for addressing those people i did in this thread, is that IMO theyre way of explaining things leaves little to interpretation and the answeres are more concrete. not to offend anyone else. emeric specifically has a wealth of knowledge that IMO is virtually unmatched and i felt that asking these people this particular question in open forum would lead to a whole slew of other questions stemming from their responses. I should have included Massive G in there as well but hind sight is 20/20.

Not that i didnt want responses from others, i just felt it best to direct the question.

 

[Diesel Gear]

Great conversation. We are so adaptable it's hard to say how much is adaptation vs evolution and does it equate to future evolution? Maybe we our bodies are reverse diet compatible as well... I would imagine we could revert back to hunter gatherer dietary needs. How long would it take...who knows and to to what effect on our health and longevity?

I definitely would like to hear more people chime in on subjects like this.... many people seem to be able to attain different results with the same diet/training regimens.

Some what related to topic - I read a book quite a few years back....think it was "eating for your blood type" or something very close to that. Interesting read.

 

[Diesel Gear]

Ok...so the guy who wrote the book has huge website now...go figure.


http://www.dadamo.com/program.htm

 

[uL7iMa]

Just to further the discussion, there has been rather large discussion on the Iron Addict's forum regarding the warrior diet (underfeeding throughout the day, and a huge feeding towards the end of the day; similar to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle)...

what do you guys think?

*link to forum/thread:
Nutrition and Diet - Iron Addicts Forums
Warrior Diet - Iron Addicts Forums

 

[BYBON]

I don't like the word evolution-that refers to theories of millions of years...
I think the human body can adapt very quickly.
I have seen many cases were people had "metabolic syndrome" were on 2-3 type 2 diabetic drugs cholesterolmed and blood pressure pills and it was corrected by diet and exercise. A healthy diet with mild exercise, low carbs lean proteins and Vitamin d and fish oil did the trick everytime.
I never thought genes could change so quickly but apparently there is a lot of research out there indicating that fat and type 2 diabetic genes can be passed to children by their parents in a generation.
Various articles posted on true paleo diets -(70% saturated fat) indicate that the caveman was very healthy and lean with strong bones. When man started domestication and farming of grains -the skeletons of those early men had very fragile bones. Even 50 years ago you hardly saw any really FAT people and most ate tons of saturated fats and 2 maybe 3 large meals a day.
The key was activity of course and not so much goddamned sugar....

Of course the human body can adapt quickly; if it couldn't then we couldn't propogate, thus ending our species-which is basically the framework for the word you don't like.

And even into the 2010's we are still evolving-our brains are getting smaller since the last 5,000 years.

Not that i didnt want responses from others, i just felt it best to direct the question.

I thought I answered, but I'll bite again.

My question is, do our bodies differentiate healthy sources of energy from unhealthy ones and change the way in which we are chemically rewarded for this?

No, any time you eat sugar or carb-heavy foods you will feel good (if you're normal). That's why I said to do a cutting diet and then eat cake or the like. You will always be rewarded the same way-with dopamine and endorphins. It also makes perfect sense; why wouldn't the brain reward the body for fueling it?

And, Seeing as how this idea of feast or famine is not part of day to day life for so long, shouldnt evolution have changed this in some fashion? making the responce greater for more frequency than one sitting volume?

Actually, the idea of feast or famine is still a reality for a lot of humans. Until hunger doesn't become an issue for the majority of humans, I doubt there's going to be any gene expression changes or mutations to leptin, ghrelin, and the like (e.g. like with lactose tolerance).

Second question being when manipulating diet for a desired result, like bodybuilding, do you know if there are such rewards in the brain for foods when their timed and manipulated to produce different results?

Once again, a cutting diet would be the only example I know of, or post workout. Any time you're craving or hungry. Just about anything to give you satiety will give you dopamine and endorphins (but don't expect no morphine high )