Could our ancient ancestors have given today

Could our ancient ancestors have given today’s champion athletes a run for their money?

Anyone familiar with my health

Print This Post Print This Post

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Comments

RSS Comments - TrackBack

  1. John Duggan says:

    One point I have worried about in Dr Briffa’s argument about diet is: how long would it take for our genetic makeup to adapt to the changed diet? Breeding experiments seem to produce quite noticeable changes in a relatively small number of generations. Also, habitat changes produce noticeable changes in population profile, in a short period of time. Is it not reasonable to assume that our bodies could have adapted to the new diet, over the 10,000 years or so since farming was first developed?

    John

    October 23, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

  2. Dr Briffa on Athletic Ancients « Stuff And Nonsense says:

    [...] While browsing Dr John Briffa’s blog today, I stumbled upon this recent post. [Backup here: http://backupurl.com/6u8x3z. Brilliantly, Briffa’s post seems to be based [...]

    October 23, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

  3. DennisW says:

    “The worst mistake in the history of the human race” was originally from the title of a Jared Diamond article in a 1987 article in “Discover.”

    http://www.awok.org/worst-mistake/

    – Dennis

    October 23, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

  4. Jamie says:

    I couldn’t agree more John. I try to follow Paleo eating as much as possible & on that plan, you can well see how additional health would have been an advantage – and all without many of the deleterious effects of consuming vast amounts of grains (for which there seems to be mounting evidence against their indiscriminate use).

    What I find fascinating, is when the book ‘Manthropology’ was reported on here in New Zealand, are how the comments pages in the online papers filled up with people suggesting that what we now lack in physical prowess, we now make up for in intellect – that modern man is vastly superior to our ancestors in brain power.

    I don’t believe this for an instant. People can cite inventions such as cars, computers, etc, as if they invented those things individually. As a society, we probably tend to bask in the intellect of a relatively small number of individuals.

    I challenge anyone who thinks are ancient ancestors weren’t as bright as modern man, to do away with all your modern conveniences & go & try to catch a wild pig/goat/deer, using only what is available in the environment & see how quickly you get outsmarted!

    Jamie

    October 24, 2009 @ 1:09 am

  5. Everett says:

    Does the book Manthropology differentiate between husbandry farms and plantstuff farms? Certainly we can never return fully to a hnter/gatherer lifestyle, so I feel this leaves us a choice amongst the various manners in which we work a “domesticated” plot of land.

    October 24, 2009 @ 1:25 am

  6. Chris says:

    Interesting! I am going to request this from my local library service or hope that Santa deposits one in my stocking.

    Assuming that it will be possible to get a letter out for posting to Santa what other books would you or perhaps other visitors suggest as being worthy of being on a Christmas wish list?

    Mondays’ Daily Mail featured a full page article by Christopher Lloyd bringing attention to his book ‘WHAT ON EARTH EVOLVED? 100 Species That Changed the World’. (Bloomsbury

    October 24, 2009 @ 11:43 pm

  7. CJ says:

    I recall seeing a ‘Horizon’ broadcast or such a few years back which focused upon the plural nature of gene expression and upon the capaicity of genes to be toggled on/or off within a lifetime. I would love to revisit that material. Apparently genetic change in relation to the introduction of lactose from milk is a good illustration of the process in action. After 2000 years lactose intolerance remains extensive but diminishing.
    But else-wise I run with the idea that evolution is a cruel process. For one, and despite mind boggling diversity, 99.9% of species that ever lived are now extinct. For two, mistakenly or otherwise, the biggest force in adaptation would seem to stem from the distinction between individuals who get to successfully parent offspring and those who do not. With the greatest of respect to Darwin I wonder if the term natural de-selection would better convey that sense.
    The move to agrarianism, when successfully practiced, improves yield for effort and contributes to the security of food supply. Accordingly, birth rate increased and populations began to rise. Increasing population density proved an agreeable habitat for infectious disease.

    21st C. health challenges stemming from chronic disease are different. Individuals think all is well and only question after degeneration becomes apparent later in life. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, Alzheimers and cancers generally happen later in life after those who choose have elected to reproduce.

    John (Duggan), adaptation by natural selection would appear to rely significantly upon casualties not attaining reproduction, which in itself is not a charitable thought, or could result from gene switching or expression as a response to stresses which also result in a reduction in the quality of life. I am diabetic. I would rather I wasn’t.
    Genetics is a vast and complicated field in its’ infancy. I doubt a geneticist could answer your question definitively. For me as a layman it is apparent that the pace of change in the evolution of the human diet (western developed) has been exponential in recent years. Mine is a cursory understanding of the processes of evolution but I would be sceptical that adaptation by mutation and natural selection in a higher order species with a long life-cycle could possibly keep pace.

    October 25, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

Write Comment









Store
Audio BooksBooksE-books
recent posts
Dr Briffa Facebook
Dr Briffa Twitter
Dr Briffa