[ExI] pale diet again: RE: It's not only the fittest who survive.

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of BillK

>...Research shows not only the fittest survive

>Darwin's notion that only the fittest survive has been called into question
by new research published today (27 March 2011) in Nature.

><http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/uoe-rsn032311.php>

>Professor Laurence Hurst, of the University of Bath, said: "Key to the new
understanding is the realisation that the amount of energy organisms squeeze
out of their food depends on how much food they have...--------------------
So there's hope for us unfit ones..........      ;) BillK


BillK, this fits with a notion I have had that is vaguely related to the
paleo diet discussions.  As one who has never dieted for the purpose of
weight loss, this perspective is necessarily compromised, but my notion is
as follows.  We have deeply ingrained in our collective memetic
infrastructure that those whose goal is to lose weight should have a low fat
diet.  Yet this strategy apparently fails for so many.  On the other hand,
humans having evolved as hunters, gatherers and scavengers, sometimes had
access in short bursts to high fat content foods, such as whale blubber for
instance.  Our digestive systems evolved accordingly.

In modern times, our processed foods are very high fat, and they are
appealing (think McDonalds happy meals.)  An intended (and profitable)
consequence is that modern people devour high fat foods in absurd
quantities, resulting in their getting flabby.

My theory is that for optimum results, instead of eating low fat foods in
high quantities, dieters should eat high fat foods in low quantities.

I am no expert, but I think this may be similar to the thinking of the paleo
diet crowd.

spike