tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post1255403178042436552..comments2024-03-28T02:36:04.078-07:00Comments on Health Correlator: The evolution of costly traits: A challenge to a strict paleo diet orientationNed Kockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-23541532124685704232012-01-23T08:41:46.142-08:002012-01-23T08:41:46.142-08:00Actually this diet works so well on me, so I want ...Actually this diet works so well on me, so I want to thank you, very professional advice!viagra onlinehttp://www.mutualpharmacy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-2549104066555891932010-02-11T08:08:33.400-08:002010-02-11T08:08:33.400-08:00I had a look at some of Trivers' stuff on gene...I had a look at some of Trivers' stuff on genes in confict but it is way, way over my head.<br /><br />I've read that looks and physical size are mainly from the father (IGF2 gene is only fully expressed if it's inherited from father) while personality is mainly from the mother. <br /><br /><br />Steve Sailor had a post about the different effect a trait has in men or women <a href="http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-doesnt-evolution-get-rid-of-ugly.html" rel="nofollow">"Why doesn't evolution get rid of ugly people?" </a><br /><br />"any particular gene-based trait may have very different effects on males than in females. Extrapolating to humans (and oversimplifying, sorry) you might imagine that a particular shape of the nose or turn of the chin would look drop-dead hunky on a male, but horsey on a woman; dad got to mate because his looks attracted a female, but the result of their togetherness produced daughters whose pulchritude was less than obvious."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/larg/pages/Rumresearch.html" rel="nofollow">Red Deer Research on the Isle of Rum</a>. Has a bit about a costly trait - antler size .<br /><br />Also<br />"Recent work has also revealed that genes that produce fit sons may produce poor quality daughters (Figure 10) [Foerster et al. 2007]. Such sexually antagonistic effects could substantially slow the effects of natural selection, but this is the first time such an effect has been documented in the wild."Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637818790791725275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-52071034847927784002010-02-11T06:07:53.143-08:002010-02-11T06:07:53.143-08:00Hi Ken.
Indeed, the evolution of costly traits is...Hi Ken.<br /><br />Indeed, the evolution of costly traits is intimately related with sexual selection. And these traits seem to be rarer than non-costly traits, which also enhance survival. Still, human evolution researchers believe that many costly traits exist.<br /><br />Ultimately what evolution favors are traits that maximize reproductive success, but at the gene level. Genes seek to replicate, and sometimes genes that are in conflict with each other will evolve. The book below (link at the end of the post) provides a brilliant discussion on this:<br /><br />Burt, A. & Trivers, R. (2006). Genes in conflict: The biology of selfish genetic elements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-7663206245830851262010-02-10T11:00:15.975-08:002010-02-10T11:00:15.975-08:00"evolution maximizes reproductive success, no..."evolution maximizes reproductive success, not survival"<br /><br />I disagree that there is always conflict, where the rearing of a child requires a dedicated male provider (ie monogamy) the healthier and longer lived a man the more children he can support to adulthood. <br /><br />Prenatal testosteronization (low digit ratio) is related to risk of heart attack and number of children fathered, moreover fathering 4 or more children by age 30 increases a man's chances of living to age 100 by 100-200%.<br /><a href="http://longevity-science.org/Centenarians-PAA-2009.ppt#604,26,Having%20children%20by%20age%2030%20and%20survival%20to%20age%20100" rel="nofollow">Here</a>.<br /><br />But European men do not have low digit ratios nor are their faces bages of masculinity <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559906/figure/fig2/" rel="nofollow">Visualization of the shape regression on 2D : 4D ratio </a>. (averaged among both hands) within males.<br /> <br /><br />"[T]he gist of their argument is always the same. Authentic human nature is represented today by indigenous tropical peoples. They are what we were. Therefore, human nature is about polygynous males who devote little time and energy to raising their progeny and a lot to seducing the limited number of females. Women are thus the ones who have been sexually selecting.<br /><br />In this kind of argument, we means ‘people of non-tropical origin,’ particularly those of European descent. Yet clearly this argument is false. We were not them for a long time. Europeans have an evolutionary history going back some 35,000 years on their continent. And this was when and where they evolved their current physical appearance: the shape of their face, the color of their skin, hair, and eyes; the length and form of their head hair. To understand why Europeans look the way they do, we should understand how their environment of sexual selection differed from that of tropical humans."<br /> <a href="http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/09/female-face-shape-and-sexual-selection.html" rel="nofollow">Female face shape and sexual selection </a><br />" The results of these analyses suggest that selection on females is driving the differentiation in facial features among populations. (Liberton et al., 2009)"Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637818790791725275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-54625584620995442522010-02-01T18:04:31.312-08:002010-02-01T18:04:31.312-08:00Scott:
I didn't work for me until I completel...Scott:<br /><br />I didn't work for me until I completely eliminated refined carbs and sugars from the diet for several months. Only then SF worked its magic, for me at least.<br /><br />I did not remove natural starches from my diet. Potatoes (Irish and sweet) were still in when the HDL went up and the LDL down.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-8425038778730131722010-02-01T09:38:39.873-08:002010-02-01T09:38:39.873-08:00In your early post about experimenting to alter yo...In your early post about experimenting to alter your cholesterol, you said that saturated fat did the trick, as long as it was not consumed in conjunction with refined carbs. Do you mean not consumed in conjunction time-wise, as in "don't eat french fries fried in tallow" but "OK to eat a nice strip of animal fat by itself, wait 4 hours and then eat a plain baked potato?" <br /><br />Or as in don't consume refined carbs AT ALL when eating saturated fat?<br /><br />Scott WScott Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687098328064801055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-75360029953283322692010-01-30T07:22:20.811-08:002010-01-30T07:22:20.811-08:00I agree that we need to differentiate between nat...I agree that we need to differentiate between natural and artificial high carb foods, such as sweet potatoes and white bread. They may lead to a similar elevation in glucose, but there are a number of differences.<br /><br />Sweet potatoes are packed with nutrients, particularly vitamin A. They are one of the staples of the Okinawan’s diet, and the Okinawans are known for their longevity.<br /><br />White bread has little more than carbs; mostly empty calories, so to speak.<br /><br />The same comparison holds for fruits. A peach is actually 90 percent water. It comes packed with nutrients, and some fiber.<br /><br />Table sugar and soft drinks are basically empty calories.<br /><br />If one is diabetic, however, that is another story. Most diabetics will have very elevated blood glucose levels after eating sweet potatoes. That is not good for them, so they are better off avoiding sweet potatoes.<br /><br />Non diabetics do not have to eat as if they were diabetics.<br /><br />So, the real problem, in my opinion, are highly refined carbs and sugars, whose source are industrialized foods.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-15135746684033917712010-01-29T07:37:39.905-08:002010-01-29T07:37:39.905-08:00Well, I've come back to read this two or three...Well, I've come back to read this two or three times now and it is still making me think. Reading the rest of your posts, too...thanks for your work on this. (Not sure I'll be munching smelts or sardines any time soon, but maybe...). <br /><br />Anyway, I have a thought about the oft-mentioned "highly refined carbs" as mentioned in this post. We hear this a lot and think "white bread" or "white rice" which are recent additions to the human diet. But there are starchy tubers that have been around for eons, and reportedly eaten by man, that would be just as "refined" in their tendency to break down quickly to glucose. So for some populations, refined carbs would not be a recent addition at all and should, hypothetically, not be lumped in with indisputably bad stuff, such as refined vegetable oil.<br /><br />And starch is starch, by and large, regarding its processing by the human digestive system, as long as it doesn't contain lectins and gluten, etc. So by extrapolation, white rice should be just fine for humans who have previously adapted to eating tubers, even though it is a product of the neolithic revolution and thus fairly recent.<br /><br />Now, excessive quantities of fructose, also a carb, would be another recent addition to the diet and would meet the "too-recent-to-be-adapted-to" criteria, as evidenced by the impact on the liver and on (I understand) triglyceride levels.<br /><br />I am tending to think that using the word "carbohydrate" as a catch-all can be too imprecise for discussions of human nutrition. Distinguishing between starch and fructose and fiber would be more precise, just as we have learned to distinguish between different types of fat.<br /><br />Anyway, my comment kind of lost its way, perhaps, but your thoughts would be appreciated. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Scott WScott Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687098328064801055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-68450764828061120192010-01-20T06:17:10.664-08:002010-01-20T06:17:10.664-08:00Thanks for stopping by Scott. Take care, NedThanks for stopping by Scott. Take care, NedNed Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-24558980256742257222010-01-19T20:12:19.723-08:002010-01-19T20:12:19.723-08:00Great post. Thanks for the thoughtful research and...Great post. Thanks for the thoughtful research and time that went into this. I'll be reading it again to absorb it more fully.Scott Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687098328064801055noreply@blogger.com