>http://www.westonaprice.org/caustic_comments/spring2004.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>height of Europeans and Asians has increased while the height of
>Americans has remained flat or even fallen.
So what if it had remained flat? It must level off eventually.
> Today Northern Europeans
>are three inches taller than the average AmericanDutch men average
>six feet one and Dutch women average five feet eight.
A worthless and invalid comparison. The racial makeup of the United
States has changed profoundly since 1955. America has had the highest
immigration rate of any country in the world since 1955.
> Americans also
>rank 28th among industrialized countries in longevity. The decline in
>height runs across all classes and racial groups.
uh huh
> Komlos and his
>colleagues recognize that diet plays a major role in determining
>height,
I dunno I grew up on a horrible diet by any measure and at 6'1' I am
taller than my father and a couple inches shorter than my brother. I
think genetics is a more important factor but a severely malnourished
person could have stunted growth.
I don't know of many centenarians that are over 6'0 so height can not
be all that important. Large people seem to check out sooner, kind of
like large dogs.
>noting that both the wealthy and the impoverished in America
>today consume mostly processed food (The New Yorker, April 5, 2004).
Big news flash
>Where they are wrong is the suggestion that eating more fruits and
>vegetables will make a population taller.
Well considering most people do not eat a lot of fruits or vegetables
I don't see the relevance. A diet of 70% good carbs 20% good fats not
saturated animal fats and 10% protein is not going stunt anyone's
growth.
>To attain the imposing
>height and general good looks that characterized Americans during the
>Second World War,
Well I believe that has more to do with cross-breading. You go to
Europe and the women are much more beautiful on average than an
American women. But Italians breed with Italians French with French.
Its the same with dogs pure breed is much better than a mutt.
>we'll need to start eating animal fats again,
Again? I wasn't aware that it ever stopped. Has McDonalds replaced
their ground beef patty?
>and
>drink the kind of milk that we had during the first half of the
>>twentieth centuryraw, whole milk from pastured cows.
Do all these other countries with greater height drink a lot of milk?
I don't think so.
Lictor - 17 Sep 2004 08:44 GMT
> Well considering most people do not eat a lot of fruits or vegetables
> I don't see the relevance. A diet of 70% good carbs 20% good fats not
> saturated animal fats and 10% protein is not going stunt anyone's
> growth.
20% is very low, few of the countries with the highest life expectancy go
that low. You run the risk of various deficiencies (vitamins, essential
fatty acids, taste...).
> Well I believe that has more to do with cross-breading. You go to
> Europe and the women are much more beautiful on average than an
> American women. But Italians breed with Italians French with French.
You do have a weird idea of racial purity in Europe... FYI, France is about
as multi-racial as the USA. The tradition of being a country of immigration
here is at least as strong as in the USA, the country has always known waves
of immigrants, from the Polish and Italian of early 20th century to the
North and Black Africans in the 1950s and later, and the various invasions
in medieval times.
> Its the same with dogs pure breed is much better than a mutt.
You have obviously never seen an Eurasian or African-caucassian metis
woman... Or even mixes with North African or Indian people...
As for animals, there is such a thing as hybrid vigor. Pure breeds tend to
be a lot more fragile than mixed-breeded animals, because cross-breeding
promotes genetics diseases through indirect incest. Just check the overall
health of islanders, it's often catastrophic. Mutts often live longer, and
don't suffer from degenerative diseases as much as pure breeds.
For instance, Iceland is one of the country in the world with the least
amount of inter-breeding; noone emigrates to Iceland... As a result, Iceland
now sells its population files to research groups on genetic diseases, since
they have an insane amount of these. Life expectancy in Iceland is not that
great either, just compare with France...
> Again? I wasn't aware that it ever stopped. Has McDonalds replaced
> their ground beef patty?
I think the problem comes with the *kind* of animal fats. More specifically,
what the cattle is fed with. Compare hens fed with corn cakes and the ones
fed with flax seeds or the traditionnal way (grain and worms). Compare pigs
fed with acorns and pigs fed with corn cakes. The omega-3/omega-6 ratio is
completely reversed. The saturated fat content skyrockets in the industrial
version, while it remains reasonnable (around 1/3) in the traditionnal
version.
For instance, traditionnal black pigs that are fed acorns, as is the case in
some areas of Spain, is quite high in o-3, reasonnable in o-6, and balanced
(1/3 each) between SFA, MUFA and PUFA. Pigs fed with flaxseed have the same
caracteristics.
Subventions towards farmers should be *cut* when they feed their cattle with
junk, and the total amount distributed among farmers who agree to use either
traditionnal methods or flaxseed. That's the right thing to do, both
nutritionnally and economically (the Third World is going to beat us on the
cheap low quality meat anyway).
Jan - 17 Sep 2004 09:09 GMT
> > Well considering most people do not eat a lot of fruits or vegetables
> > I don't see the relevance. A diet of 70% good carbs 20% good fats not
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> promotes genetics diseases through indirect incest. Just check the overall
> health of islanders, it's often catastrophic.
I think that in this respect you are not right. Just think about people
living in Crete or in Japan. Also in Finland, where I live, the longest
lived people live in the island of Åland. I think that the consumption
of fish and the intake of omega-3 fatty acids outweight more in the
health of these islanders than lack of genetic mixture.
Jan
Lictor - 17 Sep 2004 12:21 GMT
I think that the consumption
of fish and the intake of omega-3 fatty acids outweight more in the
health of these islanders than lack of genetic mixture.
--------------------
Probably, but the previous poster seemed to be thinking that genetics (and
in that case, gene pollution from non-caucassian sources) was accountable
for lack of health. I was just pointing to a few cases where it was
obviously not the case.
Nutrition certainly plays a stronger role than genetics. It is actually
quite possible that an inbred population with a rampant genetic deffect
learns over time to tune its nutrition to offset it. The Pima Native
Americans are a classical exemple of that, they were surviving quite fine
despite their hereditary diabete before they were switched off their
traditionnal diet onto the American one.
Jan - 17 Sep 2004 20:14 GMT
> I think that the consumption
> of fish and the intake of omega-3 fatty acids outweight more in the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> despite their hereditary diabete before they were switched off their
> traditionnal diet onto the American one.
Yes, I understood the context. Otherwise your postings have been
sensible.
Jan
> http://www.westonaprice.org/caustic_comments/spring2004.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that in Northern Europe over the past twelve hundred years, human
> stature has followed a U-shaped curve: from a high around 800 AD......
Hmmm
What evidence does he cite?
If you have a look in the dungeon of castles from the eleventh & twelfth
century you'll see the imprints in the wall made by prisoners who were
chained to the walls. (Hastings castle in East Sussex UK is a very good
example of this).
From these imprints it's long been cited by historians that in those times
people were about a foot shorter than they are today.