Land race genetics, what do you know?

[hopewrites]

From what I can gather, the idea of Land Race Genetics is that a group of people ate XYZ food crops in their geographical area. And if you can trace down the food crop descendents of your genetic line, they will provide you the best nutrition of anything on the planet.

I know just enough about genetics for that to make sense. Adaptability and all that. Grow up drinking water from one source, body adapts; move to new place with different water, body has to adapt again. The new water still is utilizable, but not all additives are filtered, or some lacking minerals must be taken up elsewhere.


So it's not that the natural sources of food and medicine would not work for everyone, but that the finer synergy of them is reserved for those with family history together.



---
I'm pretty much a self taught person. I know there's people here with way more science background than me. So I'm asking. Just because it makes sense to me doesn't make it real. What do you sciency types think of this idea?

 

[Nick B]

Makes complete sense. Evolution is a tremendously slow process (which is possibly why our diet of processed, not quite natural foods is causing a lot of illnesses) so even a few hundred years of adaption can be beneficial, especialy if you take away the most modern processed foodstuffs.

 

[Mirannan]

Yup. A good example is that in people from many places where dairy products were not part of the diet, production of lactase in the digestive system shuts down early in life; whereas in people from ethnic groups traditionally kept cattle and used dairy products, this enzyme persists into adulthood.

 

[Brian G Turner]

What do you sciency types think of this idea?

It sounds like you're talking about something similar to the paleo diet:
The Beginner’s Guide to the Paleo Diet

While there's necessarily argument about it, IMO it does make a lot of sense - not least that our bodies may not have genetically adapted to properly process modern foods.

So it suggests more of a focus on lean meat, vegetables, fruit, and nuts. Which isn't really that much different from what nutritionists generally tell us. The one big difference is the recommendation to avoid grains, cereals, and any foods derived from these, and to try and get sugars only from fruit.

 

[hopewrites]

Interesting about the grains thing.

Because I'd heard that if you stick to your ethically traditional grains your body will process them.



---
So all this leads me to wonder if 5-15 generations from now will there be people who have to eat processed foods because that's what their genetics are adapted to?

It would also unloce a bit of the mystery of which antidepressants should work for whom. Go with the ones derived from ancestarally available plants.

And wouldn't this apply for other medicines as well?

 

[Brian G Turner]

So all this leads me to wonder if 5-15 generations from now will there be people who have to eat processed foods because that's what their genetics are adapted to?

That would be too quick - you'd really need a longer time for that.

After all, the agricultural revolution was around 9,000 years ago, and the people behind the paleo diet claim our bodies have yet to genetically adapt properly to that.I'm sure I've heard the same thing mentioned in the general science press.

As for traditional foods - really, this is going to depend on your genetic code rather than where you were born. For example, you might be ethnically American, with Scottish blood and some Jewish ancestry. So which would be best for you - corn, oats, or wheat?

Certainly I should think the body adapts to expect even trace minerals in such things as local water supply, if you lived decades in the same area. But trace elements might also be gleaned from other sources, too - that's what the body is built to do. And if any trace minerals were able to have a major effect on the body, the suggestion might be that there's a serious over-sensitivity within that body.

It would also unloce a bit of the mystery of which antidepressants should work for whom.

There are significant differences in how individuals react to different drugs. This is why you get side-effects warnings on the bottle. We really aren't as homogeneous as some people might claim - I strongly suspect most drugs have an effect according to a bell-curve:

 

[hopewrites]

Yeah the side effects on the bottle are the ones towards the middle of the bell curve. The really bad ones from the sides are in the supplementary reading the pharmacist hands you. But I think even they have to have at least a 1% chance of happening.

I think bodies adapt faster than that. Wasn't there a thread up somewhere about the hight difference in Europeans in just the last century? Yes some of it was nutrition availability and disease control. But it's got to be more than that as the average keeps shifting and moving.

As diseases mutate and spread people's habits change to combat contagion. As pests evolve and migrate, plant resistances struggle to adapt as well. Survivors passing on the abilities to survive.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Can I suggest an excellent book called Mismatch by Gluckman & Hanson. Really interesting read this one.

 

[Dave]

Interesting about the grains thing.

Because I'd heard that if you stick to your ethically traditional grains your body will process them.

There is a theory (and I'm not sure how much credence it can be given, but there is a theory anyway) that the reason that 'Western' civilisations overtook 'Eastern civilisations' was because Rice is poor in protein compared to Wheat, Barley, Rye and Corn (Maize).

 

[Venusian Broon]

That would be too quick - you'd really need a longer time for that.

After all, the agricultural revolution was around 9,000 years ago, and the people behind the paleo diet claim our bodies have yet to genetically adapt properly to that.I'm sure I've heard the same thing mentioned in the general science press.

As for traditional foods - really, this is going to depend on your genetic code rather than where you were born. For example, you might be ethnically American, with Scottish blood and some Jewish ancestry. So which would be best for you - corn, oats, or wheat?

This article here is interesting - takes a negative view of the paleo diet:

How to Really Eat Like a Hunter-Gatherer: Why the Paleo Diet Is Half-Baked [Interactive & Infographic]

I do think 9000 years is more than enough time to adapt. As the article states there are a number of other issues that we have genetically adapted to in a quicker time scale - for example getting used to milk and dairy in our diet. True there is the issue of problems like gluten intolerance - but using your bell curve, we are not homogenous clones with identical genetics. (Maybe even the genetics that gives rise to gluten intolerance may potentially give different advantages with other issues? Cue the reason why sickle cell anaemia survives, because although it is generally a negative trait, it does boost an individuals ability to fight malaria.)

Secondly the problem with 'traditional foods' is that we have been ever evolving our entire ecosystem dramatically for thousands of years as our farming and agriculture GM the entire world in a quest for 'nicer and better' food stuff. (Or nowadays, food that is more suitable for businesses to sell!) This is happening at a breathtaking rate and impacts both plants and animals.

So the problem with the whole paleo diet, in my eye IMO, is that we don't actually know what paleo man/woman really ate, we don't know how their bodies really digested what we don't know they ate and anyway, we can never ever get back to the actual sort of things they would have eaten . So it's just all finger in the air assumptions!

Personally I do think we are highly adaptable. I remember seeing an account of some archaeological findings around the Scottish islands and mainland for hunter gather groups about 8-9000 years ago. They were extremely mobile, moving hundreds of miles to go to the next 'in-season' food stuff. The variety and extent was quite breathtaking.