reply to post by mhinsey
The reactions to nutritional issues appear to be genetically determined; at least, what I've read so far on certain genetic issues indicate that
powerfully enough in some areas to fairly extrapolate, till we know better, that this is probably not uncommon.
That means given the same set of circumstance, people react differently in their symptoms/responses.
Taking the 'diseases of civilization' as an example (well tracked to refined carbohydrates/sugar influx into the food of a population), one person
gets schizophrenia, one person gets fat, one person gets cancer, one person gets diabetes, one person just becomes a freak (let's say criminal) in
some way, one person has a heart attack, on person has a stroke, one person gets Alzheimers, etc. If you're chinese you're more likely to have a
stroke than be fat. If you're native american you're more likely to be an alcoholic, have diabetes, and be obese than have a stroke. All these
things are correlated (not: not yet causally linked but definitely correlated) with food intake.
Unfortunately the people who own the media, own the agri corps, own the food corps, own the pharma corps, run the government agencies, all these
people are verging on the same cast of characters (see 'Murder by Injection' for board of directors lists of many corps and agencies in the late
80s), we don't hear much about this. All the money they make growing it, selling it to food corps, selling it from food corps, then selling us drugs
when we're sick from food, is not something they want to lose. So everything from medical school to the pervasive media won't mention even the
science that does exist on it, and science funding is massively, even overwhelmingly slanted toward ludicrous experiments with ludicrously subjective
and incomplete info provided (often literally an abstract that is the polar opposite of findings), to ensure we all think that grains [eg wheat and
corn] are good for humans and not pretty much destroying us. Understand that the new advertising is a 'research notice' to the AP wire -- then you
get "free advertising" in nearly every newspaper and magazine in any remotely related area and mass media, plus it comes under the heading of
"authority" as a science result. How laughably unscientific it is, and how little money a company had to pay for that incredible amount of free ad
work, isn't observed by most of the public.
Hence you get even doctors who act like cancer, schizophrenia and diabetes just fall on people out of the sky, or it's "inherited". What's
inherited is the genetic predisposition to a certain reaction to a certain kind of chronic poisoning. One person gets arteries hardening around their
heart. Another lives 30 years longer but gets dementia from arteries hardening in their brain. Both stay thin, so think they're healthy.
How long different symtpoms take to occur varies based on many factors it appears. One may show growing schizophrenia at 25 while the other may keel
over of a heart attack at 40 and another won't hit Alzheimers until 70 but the causes may have been pretty similar, but for how their genetics
I point this out in response to the post that suggested growing up on ramen and sandwiches didn't make you a criminal. While that's a relief, given
the amount of ramen and sandwiches my kid used to eat LOL, I think these food issues cannot be tracked in any way 'generically' but MUST be
evaluated within the racial classes for each, because what kind of effect it is going to have is likely to be different (as a larger statistics) based
There are some interesting things online from Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, a molecular biologist, Head Geneticist at Rockefeller University, if you google, a
little more on different races handling the same factors differently.
[edit on 18-3-2009 by RedCairo]