Are we biologically adapted to living in North America?

[Anopsology]

Most of Human Evolution happened in Africa and Eurasia where we evolved and adapted to our surroundings. Now we have only been living in North America for a few hundred years. (unless your native American)... My questions being.. Are we adapted to the climate, vegetation, air quality, etc. the same way we would be to the other continents?

 

 

I am finish, French Canadian, german, and everyone somewhere long down the line is African.

etc...

 

But now my body is in North America. Am I just as healthy?

 

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

A hallmark of the human species is its adaptability. We are well suited to the North American and the South American and the European and the Asian and the African climates and environments. A second hallmark of the species is to create micro-environments that suit us. We call these micro-environments home and work and Wallmart.

[iNow]

I haven't yet adapted to the Walmart micro-environment, myself. Frankly, the work micro-environment is challenging enough. I'm pretty sure my niche is the pub, but more testing is probably needed to confirm.

[Phi for All]

Climate, air quality, I think we can adapt more easily to environmental factors than to nutritional ones. I've often wondered if our micro-environments might lack nutrients we used to get before we decided to focus on wheat and corn production. I haven't looked into the claims much, but are amaranth and spelt better grains for us because humans have spent longer adapting to them? Wheat, at least, seems to cause a lot of problems lately, if all the gluten-free offerings count as supportive evidence.

 

I am finish, French Canadian, german, and everyone somewhere long down the line is African.

etc...

 

But now my body is in North America. Am I just as healthy?

 

If you're in Canada, you should be fine. If you're in the US, you pay so much more for health it should make you ill.

[Acme]

... I've often wondered if our micro-environments might lack nutrients we used to get before we decided to focus on wheat and corn production. I haven't looked into the claims much, but are amaranth and spelt better grains for us because humans have spent longer adapting to them? Wheat, at least, seems to cause a lot of problems lately, if all the gluten-free offerings count as supportive evidence.

...

Most of the corn production in the US is fed to animals; 80% by this source. >> Major Crops Grown in the United States They further note we only consume 12% of our production some of which is as high fructose corn syrup and we on average consume only 25 pounds annually. Read about the nutrients in corn in a variety of forms here: >> corn

 

As to the gluten issue, it is an urban myth promoted for profit that gluten is bad for people. It's only a problem for people who have celiac disease or are sensitive to gluten, and such people are a small minority. What to know about celiac disease, gluten sensitivity, and gluten-free diets.

 

As to the OP, yes we are [in general] as well adapted in N. America as anywhere else we have habituated. I say generally because if you live in a polluted area anywhere then the effects will be similar. If you think you are unhealthy, see a doctor.

[iNow]

Wheat, at least, seems to cause a lot of problems lately, if all the gluten-free offerings count as supportive evidence.

They probably shouldn't.

 

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/05/gluten_sensitivity_may_not_exist.html

Analyzing the data, Gibson found that each treatment diet, whether it included gluten or not, prompted subjects to report a worsening of gastrointestinal symptoms to similar degrees. Reported pain, bloating, nausea, and gas all increased over the baseline low-FODMAP diet. Even in the second experiment, when the placebo diet was identical to the baseline diet, subjects reported a worsening of symptoms! The data clearly indicated that a nocebo effect, the same reaction that prompts some people to get sick from wind turbines and wireless internet, was at work here. Patients reported gastrointestinal distress without any apparent physical cause. Gluten wasn't the culprit; the cause was likely psychological. Participants expected the diets to make them sick, and so they did. The finding led Gibson to the opposite conclusion of his 2011 research:

 

In contrast to our first study we could find absolutely no specific response to gluten."

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-many-people-with-gluten-sensitivity-havent-had-proper-tests-2014-07

Some people who dont have celiac disease or havent been tested have similar symptoms they believe are triggered by gluten.

 

There is a great deal of hype and misinformation surrounding gluten and wheat allergies and sensitivities. The group of so-called non-celiac gluten sensitivity remains undefined and largely ambiguous because of the minimal scientific evidence, Biesiekierski said in an email.

 

This non-celiac gluten sensitivity entity has become a quandary, as patients are powerfully influenced by alternative practitioners, Internet websites and mass media who all proclaim the benefits of avoiding gluten- and wheat-containing foods, she said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-people-shouldnt-eat-gluten-free/

People who have a condition called celiac disease develop an immune reaction to gluten that damages the intestine, and so they need to avoid the protein. About 1 percent of the population has celiac disease.

 

For most other people, a gluten-free diet won't provide a benefit, said Katherine Tallmadge, a dietitian and the author of "Diet Simple" (LifeLine Press, 2011). What's more, people who unnecessarily shun gluten may do so at the expense of their health, Tallmadge said.

 

That's because whole grains, which contain gluten, are a good source of fiber, vitamins and minerals, Tallmadge said. Gluten-free products are often made with refined grains, and are low in nutrients.

 

If you embrace such a diet, you'll end up "eating a lot of foods that are stripped of nutrients," Tallmadge said. Studies show gluten-free diets can be deficient in fiber, iron, folate, niacin, thiamine, calcium, vitamin B12, phosphorus and zinc, she said.

.

 

 

Are we adapted to the climate, vegetation, air quality, etc. the same way we would be to the other continents?

Air quality might be a real issue depending on where in the US you go, but probably nothing to stress out about, really. Texas and West Virginia have worse air quality than Wyoming or Maine, for example, but nothing is quite as bad as what one might see in urban parts of Asia right now like in Shanghai or Delhi. As others have already mentioned, our strongest trait is our adaptability so you will likely be fine. Much more important to your health are simpler things like diet and exercise. Edited July 8, 2014 by iNow

[chadn737]

We should not see the offering of "gluten free" as evidence of a gluten problem....no more than we should see the offering of magnetic bracelets as evidence that wearing a magnet does anything other than prove a person is gullible. If someone can find a niche to make a buck, especially if it means selling it at a higher price, they will. If that means preying on the fears of people, then so be it.

 

Wheat, by the way was domesticated in the Middle East and was the stable there and throughout Europe for thousands of years.

Edited July 8, 2014 by chadn737

[swansont]

Most of Human Evolution happened in Africa and Eurasia where we evolved and adapted to our surroundings. Now we have only been living in North America for a few hundred years. (unless your native American)... My questions being.. Are we adapted to the climate, vegetation, air quality, etc. the same way we would be to the other continents?

 

 

I am finish, French Canadian, german, and everyone somewhere long down the line is African.

etc...

 

But now my body is in North America. Am I just as healthy?

 

 

What climate and pre-industrial air quality differences exist that we might not be adapted to?

 

As for vegetation, we immigrants brought a lot of that with us.

[Phi for All]

I appreciate the lessons in gluten awareness, everyone. I'll have to decide on how to share the data with people I know who feel SO much better now that they're gluten-free.

 

Now we have only been living in North America for a few hundred years. (unless your native American)...

 

And there are a few ways native Americans could have ended up here after starting out in Africa. So even the people one might claim to have adapted first and best came from a different climate.

 

As for vegetation, we immigrants brought a lot of that with us.

 

Excellent point. Didn't Jared Diamond mention in Guns, Germs & Steel that the seed crops we took with us when migrating had better success when we travelled east and west, as opposed to north and south where we would be more likely to encounter climate changes?

[Janus]

Most of Human Evolution happened in Africa and Eurasia where we evolved and adapted to our surroundings. Now we have only been living in North America for a few hundred years. (unless your native American)... My questions being.. Are we adapted to the climate, vegetation, air quality, etc. the same way we would be to the other continents?

 

 

I am finish, French Canadian, german, and everyone somewhere long down the line is African.

etc...

 

But now my body is in North America. Am I just as healthy?

Well, if you have Finnish in you, you'll just out-stubborn your environment anyway. Failing that, you could always move to Northern Minnesota, which has a large Finnish population just because of its similarity to Finland in many respects.

[swansont]

 

Excellent point. Didn't Jared Diamond mention in Guns, Germs & Steel that the seed crops we took with us when migrating had better success when we travelled east and west, as opposed to north and south where we would be more likely to encounter climate changes?

 

Yes, as well as the ease with which Eurasian crops were transferred prior to that, so they has a wider mix and thus better nutrition. North America had maize, which isn't as nutritious overall, and IIRC harder to grow.

[overtone]

No, humans are not "biologically adapted" to North America - as can be seen by the need for clothing, weapons, and shelters. We might be biologically adapted to some of the tropical coastlines and islands - in fact, having left most parasites and diseases behind in Africa, we might be unusually well suited to some Caribbean islands - the ones with rich near-shore marine environments.

 

 

side topic:

 

 

People who have a condition called celiac disease develop an immune reaction to gluten that damages the intestine, and so they need to avoid the protein. About 1 percent of the population has celiac disease.

 

1% with actual celiac disease - reaction so severe that physical damage to the small intestine is visible by inpsection - is not a small number.

 

For most other people, a gluten-free diet won't provide a benefit, said Katherine Tallmadge, a dietitian and the author of "Diet Simple" (LifeLine Press, 2011). What's more, people who unnecessarily shun gluten may do so at the expense of their health, Tallmadge said.

That's because whole grains, which contain gluten, are a good source of fiber, vitamins and minerals, Tallmadge said. Gluten-free products are often made with refined grains, and are low in nutrients.

That's an odd thing to say. "Whole grains" do not generally contain wheat gluten, unless they are wheat grains, or one of the immediate relatives (rye, say). Whole wheat does, but so does refined wheat. Blaming avoidance of wheat for the deficiences of over-refined grains is goofy. Whole wheat is not the only whole grain on the planet, and over-refinement of wheat is just as bad as over-refinement of rice or sorghum or teff or anything else. Highly refined wheat flour, the longtime standard for junk food and supermarket bread and prepackaged cereals, is deficient in almost everything except gluten - you lose nothing by avoiding it.

 

And as mildly wheat sensitive white people often recover the ability to digest milk when they've avoided wheat for a while, along with the ability to absorb vitamins and minerals from the rest of their food, the nutritional argument is not clear.

 

 

 

I appreciate the lessons in gluten awareness, everyone. I'll have to decide on how to share the data with people I know who feel SO much better now that they're gluten-free.

Nothing wrong with sharing data - but that's not much in evidence above. The false sense of possessing knowledge brought on by not falling for some fad, by avoiding some particular scam or delusion, is as much a trap for the gullible as the latest fad diet.

 

Wheat - especially the high-gluten bread wheat now standard in all markets - does not have as much history with people in general as is often presented - especially northern Europeans, southern Africans, monsoon climate Asians, Aboamericans, and others who have come into contact with it only recently. There's no evolutionary argument for presuming universal tolerance of wheat gluten

 

Meanwhile, the pattern of faddish overreaction and paranoia among civilians brought on by having jackass "experts" denigrate them for years before being pinned by reality (trans fats, leaded gasoline, CO_2, pesticides, combustion acids, plastic beverage containers, heavy metal exposure, asbestos, and unless we are very, very lucky a couple of these GMOs) continues. If you want people to be sensible, don't betray them like that.

Edited July 10, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

No, humans are not "biologically adapted" to North America - as can be seen by the need for clothing, weapons, and shelters. We might be biologically adapted to some of the tropical coastlines and islands - in fact, having left most parasites and diseases behind in Africa, we might be unusually well suited to some Caribbean islands - the ones with rich near-shore marine environments.

 

 

side topic:

 

 

 

1% with actual celiac disease - reaction so severe that physical damage to the small intestine is visible by inpsection - is not a small number.

 

 

 

That's an odd thing to say. "Whole grains" do not generally contain wheat gluten, unless they are wheat grains, or one of the immediate relatives (rye, say). Whole wheat does, but so does refined wheat. Blaming avoidance of wheat for the deficiences of over-refined grains is goofy. Whole wheat is not the only whole grain on the planet, and over-refinement of wheat is just as bad as over-refinement of rice or sorghum or teff or anything else. Highly refined wheat flour, the longtime standard for junk food and supermarket bread and prepackaged cereals, is deficient in almost everything except gluten - you lose nothing by avoiding it.

 

And as mildly wheat sensitive white people often recover the ability to digest milk when they've avoided wheat for a while, along with the ability to absorb vitamins and minerals from the rest of their food, the nutritional argument is not clear.

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with sharing data - but that's not much in evidence above. The false sense of possessing knowledge brought on by not falling for some fad, by avoiding some particular scam or delusion, is as much a trap for the gullible as the latest fad diet.

 

Wheat - especially the high-gluten bread wheat now standard in all markets - does not have as much history with people in general as is often presented - especially northern Europeans, southern Africans, monsoon climate Asians, Aboamericans, and others who have come into contact with it only recently. There's no evolutionary argument for presuming universal tolerance of wheat gluten

 

Meanwhile, the pattern of faddish overreaction and paranoia among civilians brought on by having jackass "experts" denigrate them for years before being pinned by reality (trans fats, leaded gasoline, CO_2, pesticides, combustion acids, plastic beverage containers, heavy metal exposure, asbestos, and unless we are very, very lucky a couple of these GMOs) continues. If you want people to be sensible, don't betray them like that.

 

Hexaploid wheat varieties have been cultivated by man for ~9000 years. While there is evidence that the gluten proteins that have the most profound immune responses are more concentrated in the D genome of hexaploids, they also exist in the A and B genomes of tetraploids. Man has lived with this for 9000 years. Consumption of wheat flour was far higher in the 1800s than even today.

 

Its truly difficult to say with certainty how much incidence of Celiacs has increased since the disease was not actually identified until the 1950s. Like many such diseases, increased incidence can in no small part be attributed to better diagnosis. Prior to the 1950s, its really impossible to say how prevalent Celiacs was.

 

There is no clear evidence that wheat gluten content has increased. I have seen this urban myth circulating the internet that GMO wheat has higher gluten content and wheat breeding is causing Celiacs. Never mind that no GMO wheat exists on the market, comparison of modern varieties to those from the 1920s (and prior to the increased incidence of Celiacs) has shown no increase in actual gluten content in modern varieties.

 

Meanwhile, we now used purified gluten in all sorts of applications so that people may be exposed to more gluten simply as a result of consumption of purified gluten. This however has nothing to do with plant breeding or the production of wheat.

Edited July 10, 2014 by chadn737

[iNow]

Nothing wrong with sharing data - but that's not much in evidence above.

Interestingly, there's ZERO evidence in your post, which (...if I'm doing the math correctly here...) is actually LESS than "not much." Perhaps you could begin leading by example instead of chastising others / poisoning wells as your core argumentative approach?

[overtone]

So we appear to be agreed that we were and are not "biologically adapted" to a specifically North American internal continent diet (salt deficient, poor foraging, etc) any more than we were and are to the North American climate, flora and fauna, or geography in general.

 

back in tangent:

 

Hexaploid wheat varieties have been cultivated by man for ~9000 years. While there is evidence that the gluten proteins that have the most profound immune responses are more concentrated in the D genome of hexaploids, they also exist in the A and B genomes of tetraploids. Man has lived with this for 9000 years. Consumption of wheat flour was far higher in the 1800s than even today.

Not "man" - an historically geographically and genetically circumscribed minority, and until fairly recently a quite small minority, of human beings have ever had significant evolutionary pressure put on their ability to eat wheat gluten.

 

And if you check out the history, you'll find that the adoption of wheat and rye as mainstays of the human diet correlates - among the early adopters - with a marked decline in average height, lifespan, dental health, and other measures of dietary wonderfulness as observed in skeletons. Now that's only a correlation, and a very complex one with no solid foundation for presumption, but it certainly []i]agrees[/i] with the notion that wheat gluten is capable of damaging the health of a fair proportion of newly exposed human populations - enough and in enough variety of vulnerability so that it might take many generations to breed out. There is, in other words, no conflict between the observation that a significant proportion - greater than 1% - of current humans are harmed by eating wheat gluten, and the facts of agricultural history even within their cultural heritage.

 

 

 

Its truly difficult to say with certainty how much incidence of Celiacs has increased since the disease was not actually identified until the 1950s. Like many such diseases, increased incidence can in no small part be attributed to better diagnosis

The possibility that allergy to wheat gluten is actually increasing in synchrony with some other specific allergies (peanuts, bee venom) and immune system problems in general (asthma, etc) acts as counter or conflicting evidence to the implications of my observation that human beings do not have as much evolutionary familiarity with wheat gluten as is generally portrayed.

 

 

 

There is no clear evidence that wheat gluten content has increased. I have seen this urban myth circulating the internet that GMO wheat has higher gluten content and wheat breeding is causing Celiacs

Nobody here has even mentioned that in passing, and it has (or should have, see last paragraph post 12) nothing to do with anyone's posting here, or the thread topic. Motive?

 

 

 

Perhaps you could begin leading by example instead of chastising others / poisoning wells as your core argumentative approach?

I'm not the one claiming to be presenting or sharing "data" when retailing various and obvious bullshit ("whole grains contain gluten"), instead laying out simple and uncontroversial arguments based on stuff everyone here knows or should know (the most common highly-refined and thus nutrient deficient grain in the Western diet is wheat). I don't, of course, mistake that for "leading by example" - no followers anticipated.

[chadn737]

 

So we appear to be agreed that we were and are not "biologically adapted" to a specifically North American internal continent diet (salt deficient, poor foraging, etc) any more than we were and are to the North American climate, flora and fauna, or geography in general.

 

Man's intelligence and culture allows him to shape his environment and outfit him with the technological adaptations necessary to thrive in any climate. The evolution of man is one that has occurred over vast terrains, with specific adaptations evident in groups living in such extremities as the Himalayas. Quite frankly, I don't think it makes sense to speak of man being adapted to a particular climate in any way because man has evolved to shape his own environment to fit his needs.

 

 

back in tangent:

 

Not "man" - an historically geographically and genetically circumscribed minority, and until fairly recently a quite small minority, of human beings have ever had significant evolutionary pressure put on their ability to eat wheat gluten.

 

And if you check out the history, you'll find that the adoption of wheat and rye as mainstays of the human diet correlates - among the early adopters - with a marked decline in average height, lifespan, dental health, and other measures of dietary wonderfulness as observed in skeletons. Now that's only a correlation, and a very complex one with no solid foundation for presumption, but it certainly []i]agrees[/i] with the notion that wheat gluten is capable of damaging the health of a fair proportion of newly exposed human populations - enough and in enough variety of vulnerability so that it might take many generations to breed out. There is, in other words, no conflict between the observation that a significant proportion - greater than 1% - of current humans are harmed by eating wheat gluten, and the facts of agricultural history even within their cultural heritage.

 

 

 

The possibility that allergy to wheat gluten is actually increasing in synchrony with some other specific allergies (peanuts, bee venom) and immune system problems in general (asthma, etc) acts as counter or conflicting evidence to the implications of my observation that human beings do not have as much evolutionary familiarity with wheat gluten as is generally portrayed.

 

 

 

Nobody here has even mentioned that in passing, and it has (or should have, see last paragraph post 12) nothing to do with anyone's posting here, or the thread topic. Motive?

 

 

 

I'm not the one claiming to be presenting or sharing "data" when retailing various and obvious bullshit ("whole grains contain gluten"), instead laying out simple and uncontroversial arguments based on stuff everyone here knows or should know (the most common highly-refined and thus nutrient deficient grain in the Western diet is wheat). I don't, of course, mistake that for "leading by example" - no followers anticipated.

 

Wheat has only been the dominant crop of the Near East and Europe throughout that period, that is not a "quite small minority". Furthermore, the epidemiology of Celiacs is not so simple. Celiacs is purely a genetic disease, attributed to the frequency of certain alleles of HLA-DQA1 and DQB1. As a genetic disease, any increase in Celiacs will be driven by genetic factors and not "developed" due to exposure to wheat. The expectation is that for cultures and peoples who are most dependent upon wheat for caloric intake, that there would be selection against those alleles that cause Celiacs. That is not at all the case, with increasing evidence that there has been positive selection for some of these alleles. As these genes are involved in immune responses, particularly to bacterial pathogens, the most likely explanation is that there has been stronger selection for these alleles due to immunity and disease. This means that consumption of wheat and wheat breeding itself is not at all a factor driving the prevalence of celiacs. At most, it only reveals the hidden epidemiology of Celiacs.

 

I wish to God that you would learn how to actually cite references. You are wrong that the adoption of wheat and rye correlates with declining aspects of human health. The decline of human health correlates in general with the adoption of agriculture, regardless of the mainstay food sources. This includes rice and maize based cultures (gluten free!!!) and other forms, such in the gulf coast, where agriculture served more as a supplement to a culture that derived most of its food from the sea. Increasingly, it looks like many of the effects of health were not directly related to nutrition, but rather lifestyle, reproduction, and population stresses.

 

It is also not clear at all whether or not there is an actual increase in food allergies or if there is simply greater awareness resulting in both better diagnosis and/or misreporting. Most studies of the sort have relied on self-reported surveys of food allergies, which are easily subject to false positives and can be swayed by increased awareness and dare I say hypochondria.

 

Consider one study of the prevalence of various food allergies in a Canadian population. This study relied, like most, on self-reported food allergies. For some inexplicable reason, self-reported egg and wheat allergies were much higher in households with a post-secondary graduate. You know, the sort of household that will have the sort of individual who has a greater awareness of such things, higher income, and also more likely to follow such health fads. The researchers even note that the self-reported rates are way too high based on other literature and likely to be due to confusion of various things.

 

But you are making scientific claims and reporting supposed "facts" without providing any sources. Take the claim that you just made regarding wheat and rye contributing to declining health in ancient man. This is a scientific claim requiring supporting evidence. Its problematic that you have not provided sources, because the fact is that your claim is not true because this observation is a general trend of agriculture adoptions, regardless of food source. In making this claim and not providing the actual sources, you actually misrepresent the research.

[CharonY]

Excellent information and just to emphasize, individual health issues did arise due to the agricultural revolution (not specific to wheat). However, this was also the only way to sustain the population and the eventual rise of civilization. Together, this has allowed humans to change their environment in a way that not not merely allow survival but ensures success in an unprecedented scale.

 

Without wheat or other agriculture crops the vast majority of humans would simply have not lived, celiac disease or not.

[overtone]

Wheat has only been the dominant crop of the Near East and Europe throughout that period, that is not a "quite small minority".

Not all of Europe, only the southern fraction, and not all of the Near East was suitable. Dominant regional crop is not dominant regional diet, either, btw.

 

As most of the human race lived elsewhere, in subSaharan Africa and the Far East and the Americas and the Indonesian archipelago and Australia and so forth where there was no wheat until very recently,

 

and as even in the wheat growing regions many people did not eat all that much of it (there were nomads and herding folk throughout, as well as other crops)

 

we see that only a minority, and for most of that time a small minority, of humans have been under evolutionary pressure from wheat gluten. And we see in those humans skeletal evidence of nutritional deficiency - not necessarily wheat gluten related, we don't know, but certainly consistent with the hypothesis that wheat gluten can cause problems in significant numbers of the newly (in evolutionary terms) exposed.

 

 

 

I wish to God that you would learn how to actually cite references.

Try following the argument, instead. You'll say fewer stupid things, like this

 

You are wrong that the adoption of wheat and rye correlates with declining aspects of human health.

No, I'm not. As you immediately demonstrate (simultaneously verifying my presumption of common knowledge)

 

The decline of human health correlates in general with the adoption of agriculture, regardless of the mainstay food sources. This includes rice and maize based cultures (gluten free!!!) and other forms, such in the gulf coast, where agriculture served more as a supplement to a culture that derived most of its food from the sea. Increasingly, it looks like many of the effects of health were not directly related to nutrition, but rather lifestyle, reproduction, and population stresses.

What you just posted supported my common knowledge observation that adoption of wheat (or rye) as a dietary mainstay is correlated with evidence of nutritional deficiency and dietary problems. As I explicitly noted (by rights unnecessarily, but I have become gunshy around here):

 

Now that's only a correlation, and a very complex one with no solid foundation for presumption, but it certainly []i]agrees[/i] with the notion that wheat gluten is capable of damaging the health of a fair proportion of newly exposed human populations

. Italics in the original, in the vain hope that the emphasis would jar the reader's attention.

 

 

 

Celiacs is purely a genetic disease, attributed to the frequency of certain alleles of HLA-DQA1 and DQB1. As a genetic disease, any increase in Celiacs will be driven by genetic factors and not "developed" due to exposure to wheat.

What are you trying to argue here? Celiacs is a set of allergic reactions, and by presumption - in common with most allergies and allergic reactions generally - has a genetic basis, complex origins in both development and environment, and exactly one "cause" - in this case dietary exposure to particular gluten proteins, especially wheat.

 

 

 

The expectation is that for cultures and peoples who are most dependent upon wheat for caloric intake, that there would be selection against those alleles that cause Celiacs. That is not at all the case, with increasing evidence that there has been positive selection for some of these alleles. As these genes are involved in immune responses, particularly to bacterial pathogens, the most likely explanation is that there has been stronger selection for these alleles due to immunity and disease. This means that consumption of wheat and wheat breeding itself is not at all a factor driving the prevalence of celiacs.

Uh, the existence of an overriding positive selection factor does not mean any negative selection factor has vanished, or played no role in the prevalance of some disease. Reference sickle cell anemia.

 

 

 

It is also not clear at all whether or not there is an actual increase in food allergies or if there is simply greater awareness resulting in both better diagnosis and/or misreporting

Why are you posting that, and that entire line of discussion, here? That is without bearing on any issue in this thread except your apparent desire to disparage people who find wheat allergies and reactions to be both serious matters in their own right and - relevantly (imagine that) - tangentially informative within a thread on the biological adaptation of the human organism to "North America".

 

That whole multiple post obsession, all twelve paragraphs or whatever in this thread, is nothing but an ad hominem argument in an irrelevant matter. You don't like hippies and fads, we get it, enough already.

 

 

 

But you are making scientific claims and reporting supposed "facts" without providing any sources. Take the claim that you just made regarding wheat and rye contributing to declining health in ancient man. This is a scientific claim requiring supporting evidence.

Since you can't seem to figure out what claims I'm making in the first place, or what their role is in an argument you once again haven't bothered to follow, you once again obviously don't know whether or not they are properly sourced. Yet you once again post demands and insults. How should I respond this time?

Edited July 11, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

Not all of Europe, only the southern fraction, and not all of the Near East was suitable. Dominant regional crop is not dominant regional diet, either, btw.

 

As most of the human race lived elsewhere, in subSaharan Africa and the Far East and the Americas and the Indonesian archipelago and Australia and so forth where there was no wheat until very recently,

 

and as even in the wheat growing regions many people did not eat all that much of it (there were nomads and herding folk throughout, as well as other crops)

 

we see that only a minority, and for most of that time a small minority, of humans have been under evolutionary pressure from wheat gluten. And we see in those humans skeletal evidence of nutritional deficiency - not necessarily wheat gluten related, we don't know, but certainly consistent with the hypothesis that wheat gluten can cause problems in significant numbers of the newly (in evolutionary terms) exposed.

 

 

 

Try following the argument, instead. You'll say fewer stupid things, like this

 

No, I'm not. As you immediately demonstrate (simultaneously verifying my presumption of common knowledge)

 

What you just posted supported my common knowledge observation that adoption of wheat (or rye) as a dietary mainstay is correlated with evidence of nutritional deficiency and dietary problems. As I explicitly noted (by rights unnecessarily, but I have become gunshy around here):

 

. Italics in the original, in the vain hope that the emphasis would jar the reader's attention.

 

 

 

What are you trying to argue here? Celiacs is a set of allergic reactions, and by presumption - in common with most allergies and allergic reactions generally - has a genetic basis, complex origins in both development and environment, and exactly one "cause" - in this case dietary exposure to particular gluten proteins, especially wheat.

 

 

 

Uh, the existence of an overriding positive selection factor does not mean any negative selection factor has vanished, or played no role in the prevalance of some disease. Reference sickle cell anemia.

 

 

 

Why are you posting that, and that entire line of discussion, here? That is without bearing on any issue in this thread except your apparent desire to disparage people who find wheat allergies and reactions to be both serious matters in their own right and - relevantly (imagine that) - tangentially informative within a thread on the biological adaptation of the human organism to "North America".

 

That whole multiple post obsession, all twelve paragraphs or whatever in this thread, is nothing but an ad hominem argument in an irrelevant matter. You don't like hippies and fads, we get it, enough already.

 

 

 

Since you can't seem to figure out what claims I'm making in the first place, or what their role is in an argument you once again haven't bothered to follow, you once again obviously don't know whether or not they are properly sourced. Yet you once again post demands and insults. How should I respond this time?

 

I'll respond to you in full later because I need to leave in a bit, but I just have to correct you on one thing:

 

Overtone: "Celiacs is a set of allergic reactions" ...........I pretty much stopped reading right there.

 

Celiacs IS NOT A SET OF ALLERGIC REACTIONS.

 

Allergies occur via IgE antibodies and inflammatory responses. Celiacs is an autoimmune disorder where the body is induced into attacking its own cells. They occur by very different pathways (Celiacs does not occur via IgE antibodies) and the molecular responses are very different. People can develop allergies and grow out of allergies. Allergies do not trigger autoimmune responses. Celiacs is genetic and you will never "grow out of it", nor will you "develop" it due to exposure. You are born with Celiacs and you die with Celiacs.

 

In typical fashion you have not bothered to cite a single reference and it shows....Celiacs is in no way comparable to any food allergy and to suggest as much is completely wrong.

Edited July 11, 2014 by chadn737

[chadn737]

Not all of Europe, only the southern fraction, and not all of the Near East was suitable. Dominant regional crop is not dominant regional diet, either, btw.

 

As most of the human race lived elsewhere, in subSaharan Africa and the Far East and the Americas and the Indonesian archipelago and Australia and so forth where there was no wheat until very recently,

 

and as even in the wheat growing regions many people did not eat all that much of it (there were nomads and herding folk throughout, as well as other crops)

 

This argument presumes that populations were evenly distributed and that the ancestors of say modern North Europeans, were the populations living in these regions 10000 years ago. Neither of these hold true. Because agriculture enabled greater population size and density, the centers of human population happened to be those agricultural regions like the Fertile Crescent and the Indus Valley. Even well up until the Renaissance, populations were far greater in Southern Europe and the Near East than regions like England. So while geographically, wheat production was originally concentrated to a small region, in terms of the number of of actual people living dependent upon it, this was no small minority, but a large fraction.

 

Secondly, Modern people of places like Northern Europe are not the direct descendants or pure descendants of those that inhabited those regions ten thousand plus years ago. Many waves of migration, extermination, conflict, etc have led to replacement and admixture of these original populations. These waves came out of the East and South. Consider Rome's influence, after centuries of conquest. Human genetics is not such a simple thing and you underestimate the extent of man's exposure to food sources like wheat.

we see that only a minority, and for most of that time a small minority, of humans have been under evolutionary pressure from wheat gluten. And we see in those humans skeletal evidence of nutritional deficiency - not necessarily wheat gluten related, we don't know, but certainly consistent with the hypothesis that wheat gluten can cause problems in significant numbers of the newly (in evolutionary terms) exposed.

 

No, I'm not. As you immediately demonstrate (simultaneously verifying my presumption of common knowledge)

 

That is nothing more than pure speculation with no facts to support it. You make spurious connections between the adoption of agriculture, the epidemiology of Celiacs and wheat allergies that have no factual basis. We have almost no clue as to the true prevalence of any gluten related health issue prior to the 1950s and this is confounded even today by self-reporting issues, awareness, and proper diagnosis. The fact that the exact same changes in skeletal remains are observed in nearly every culture that adopted agriculture, regardless of primary food source is also strong evidence against gluten being a factor. If you look at the sedentary Gulf Coast cultures where there was no wheat, rye, or other gluten containing crops and where agriculture was only a supplement to a rich marine diet; you find the exact same skeletal changes observed in every other culture that adopted agriculture. This includes also rice based cultures in China and the Indus, Maize based cultures in Mexico. It is clear from the hard evidence that this trend is entirely due to some factor other than the specific crops grown, otherwise we would see it limited to specific crops. You make such speculations despite evidence to the contrary.

 

So yes, you are absolutely wrong about any connection between the specific crops grown and the declining health of these populations.

 

What you just posted supported my common knowledge observation that adoption of wheat (or rye) as a dietary mainstay is correlated with evidence of nutritional deficiency and dietary problems. As I explicitly noted (by rights unnecessarily, but I have become gunshy around here):

 

. Italics in the original, in the vain hope that the emphasis would jar the reader's attention.

 

No it does not. If wheat gluten were at all a specific cause in these factors, then we would observe declines in health SPECIFIC to cultures that produced wheat. We would not find the same correlations in rice cultures, maize cultures, and agricultural cultures dependent upon other crops and food sources. That this is a general trend to all agricultural adoption is evidence against any such effect.

Thats the difference between relying on unsupported "common knowledge" and referencing actual facts and research. What you call "common knowledge" is often speculation, spurious correlation, and false. If you were to look at the actual facts as supported by research and back those by cited resources, then your conclusions would be more reliable.

What are you trying to argue here? Celiacs is a set of allergic reactions, and by presumption - in common with most allergies and allergic reactions generally - has a genetic basis, complex origins in both development and environment, and exactly one "cause" - in this case dietary exposure to particular gluten proteins, especially wheat.

 

Uh, the existence of an overriding positive selection factor does not mean any negative selection factor has vanished, or played no role in the prevalance of some disease. Reference sickle cell anemia.

I already took you to task on this one. Celiacs is not an allergy and allergies can be developed and lost during a life-time, being very much influenced by environment. The two diseases operate by completely different molecular pathways, have completely different bases and are not at all equivalent. Being an autoimmune disorder and purely genetic, Celiacs is much more subject to Selection, whereas an environmentally induced allergy is far more variable and less heritable. Its basic genetics that the higher the heritability of a trait, the stronger the response to selection, that matters when we try to understand the epidemiology of a disease like Celiacs and potential reasons for its prevalence. Many, such as yourself, incorrectly think of it as an allergy and allergies are something that can be developed. But its not, so positive selection for Celiacs is indicative of factors other than the cultivation of wheat for its prevalence.

 

As allergies can be developed and have weaker heritability, this raises a different set of questions. The situation is made worse as we do not know the true prevalence of food allergies and especially do not know their prevalence historically. The fact that when you use self-reported food allergies, that there is a significant prevalence amongst spurious factors like someone with a post-secondary education in the household, suggests that "awareness" and misdiagnosis are major contributors.

 

Why are you posting that, and that entire line of discussion, here? That is without bearing on any issue in this thread except your apparent desire to disparage people who find wheat allergies and reactions to be both serious matters in their own right and - relevantly (imagine that) - tangentially informative within a thread on the biological adaptation of the human organism to "North America".

That whole multiple post obsession, all twelve paragraphs or whatever in this thread, is nothing but an ad hominem argument in an irrelevant matter. You don't like hippies and fads, we get it, enough already.

 

 

But it is relevant. You have claimed that there has been an increase in food allergies, such as wheat allergies:

 

Overtone: "The possibility that allergy to wheat gluten is actually increasing in synchrony with some other specific allergies (peanuts, bee venom) and immune system problems in general (asthma, etc) acts as counter or conflicting evidence to the implications of my observation that human beings do not have as much evolutionary familiarity with wheat gluten as is generally portrayed."

 

In typical fashion you couch arguments in unsupported speculation. Its relevant to the fact that you have made such claims, yet the evidence is lacking. I'm not disparaging anyone. It is a valid argument that awareness and misdiagnosis likely increase the number of self-reported food allergies beyond what the true prevalence is. This is clearly illustrated in the fact that there is increased prevalence with spurious factors like post-secondary education.

 

Since you can't seem to figure out what claims I'm making in the first place, or what their role is in an argument you once again haven't bothered to follow, you once again obviously don't know whether or not they are properly sourced. Yet you once again post demands and insults. How should I respond this time?

 

 

Overtone, we play the same game over and over again. You make speculative arguments without support from "common knowledge" (urban myths are a form of common knowledge), refuse to support them, and when pressed on the matter claim that I am insulting and don't understand the argument. Want to know how to respond? Really very simple. Rather than spouting out unsupported claims, present facts that are premised in real data. You could start by not making such a blatant mistake like claiming that Celiacs is an allergy...

[overtone]

This argument presumes that populations were evenly distributed and that the ancestors of say modern North Europeans, were the populations living in these regions 10000 years ago.

That is not true. I made no such assumption.

 

 

So while geographically, wheat production was originally concentrated to a small region, in terms of the number of of actual people living dependent upon it, this was no small minority, but a large fraction.

You have overlooked the time scale (9000 years), and the populations of the rest of the planet, and the distributions of population increases in the subsequent years. What percentage of the current world's population has a 9000 year co-evolutionary ancestral exposure to wheat gluten? None of the aboriginal Asian, American, Australian, Indonesian, or subSaharan African do. Many of the Europeans, even, don't. I think this was both relevant to the thread in my original invocation, the reason for posting reference to it above before the sidetrack into confusion, and apparently (despite its simplicity and obvious nature) news to a surprising number of folks.

 

 

It is clear from the hard evidence that this trend is entirely due to some factor other than the specific crops grown, otherwise we would see it limited to specific crops.

That is false. Nothing of the kind is "clear" from that evidence. You are reading far too much into a general correlation summarizing many and very complex specific causes and effects, mostly unresearched at present. It is not known, for example, whether the recently discovered development of agriculture in the Amazon basin or across Polynesia even displays the general correlation.

 

You have no evidence at all capable of excluding harmful dietary effects of wheat from the set of causes behind the declines associated with wheat agriculture. None.

 

 

If you look at the sedentary Gulf Coast cultures where there was no wheat, rye, or other gluten containing crops and where agriculture was only a supplement to a rich marine diet; you find the exact same skeletal changes observed in every other culture that adopted agriculture

Really? The exact same? Tooth decay, lifespan, height, gender distribution, bone density, protein composition, all identical? Then that would leave such matters as miscarriage rate, fertility rates, rate of population growth, muscle strength and endurance, cultural institutions involving outbreeding, and so forth and so on.

 

 

If wheat gluten were at all a specific cause in these factors, then we would observe declines in health SPECIFIC to cultures that produced wheat. We would not find the same correlations in rice cultures, maize cultures, and agricultural cultures dependent upon other crops and food sources.

What makes you think that is excluded from possibility? Are you claiming that the declines in health and wellbeing we observe during the various transitions to agriculture have been shown to be identical in both cause and effect in all those cultures - that no aspects of the declines in wheat adopting cultures are different from the rice and maize associated declines in any way, and that this has been demonstrated?

 

 

That is nothing more than pure speculation with no facts to support it. You make spurious connections between the adoption of agriculture, the epidemiology of Celiacs and wheat allergies that have no factual basis

- - - -

So yes, you are absolutely wrong about any connection between the specific crops grown and the declining health of these populations.

Look up the word "correlate" in the dictionary. Then reread my posts, and your links if necessary (I did assume common knowledge), and figure it out.

 

 

But it is relevant. You have claimed that there has been an increase in food allergies, such as wheat allergies

I have not, and if I had it would not be relevant.

 

 

You make speculative arguments without support from "common knowledge" (urban myths are a form of common knowledge), refuse to support them, and when pressed on the matter claim that I am insulting and don't understand the argument.

No, I don't.

 

I'm not making the arguments you say I am making. You aren't "pressing" me on anything, you're just being obstinate in your failure to attend to the actual content of what I post. And if you have an objective other than disparaging hippies and fad followers and attempting to associate them with any aspects of reality you don't like, it isn't visible.

 

What, for example, do you intend to conclude from this

 

Celiacs IS NOT A SET OF ALLERGIC REACTIONS. - - -

- - - - You could start by not making such a blatant mistake like claiming that Celiacs is an allergy.

Aside from attaching importance to your repetition of the obvious falsehood that celiac disease is "purely genetic" - the environmental trigger is kind of famous, eh? - do you have some reason for insisting that we abide by the formal and medical distinction between an "allergy" and an "inflammatory reaction, including environmentally induced and reversible autoimmunity, in response to exposure"? Are you then going to ignore wheat allergy in that sense as a factor in that side aspect of my argument? It is also underdiagnosed, newly recognized, genetically mediated, and so forth.

 

What is your argument, in other words - thread relevant, as mine was?

 

Because as far as I can tell we have essentially complete agreement with my proposed conclusion - that human beings are not "biologically adapted" to North America. True?

Edited July 12, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

do you have some reason for insisting that we abide by the formal and medical distinction

 

Because its the CORRECT definition.

 

I know....crazy to insist we use correct medical definitions in discussing a medical condition in a science forum of all places....

Edited July 12, 2014 by chadn737

[Ophiolite]

Because as far as I can tell we have essentially complete agreement with my proposed conclusion - that human beings are not "biologically adapted" to North America. True?

I view adaptation, as I think does the biology community at large, as being a process that leads to a better fit of a population for a particular environment. In evolutionary theory there is no expectation or requirement that such adaptation should be perfect. Arguably the notion of a perfect adaptation is meaningless.

 

How then to decide if a population is adapted to an environment. That is simple enough. Does the population flourish in that environment? If so it is adapted. It may later become better adapted, or if the environment changes, less well adapted. But if it flourishes it is ipso facto adapted. Hundreds of millions live in North America today. Many millions lived there pre-Columbus. Human beings are biologically adapted to North America.

 

Finis.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ophiolite

[overtone]

 

 

How then to decide if a population is adapted to an environment. That is simple enough. Does the population flourish in that environment?

In the first place, the usual implication of biological adaptation to an environment is a change specific to that particular environment - rabbits are not usually described as being biologically adapted to Australia, for example, but rather Australia as being vulnerable (insufficiently adapted) to rabbits.

 

In the second place, specifically biological adaptation is usually taken to differentiate certain kinds of adaptations in humans from the cultural ones that have led to so much flourishing of humans. Fire and clothing, for example, without which most of North America would be uninhabitable by humans, are not usually listed among the biological adaptations of humans. Adult lactose metabolism capability is, along with sickle cell genetics and loss of melanin in the skin of midcontinental northerners and a couple of others - but none of these are specific to North American aboriginals.

 

And so I know of none. As far as I can recall, there are no biological adaptations of the human species to North America. One might make an argument for the immune system simplicity - a cost saving that turned into a nearly fatal vulnerability when Europeans brought disease - but what else? Salt conservation and fat storage of sugar calories in SW aboriginals, maybe, but it's a very short list even of possibilities.

Edited July 16, 2014 by overtone

[Ophiolite]

In the first place, the usual implication of biological adaptation to an environment is a change specific to that particular environment -

Let us suppose that your statement is completely true. Let us suppose that less common implications are unacceptable. Let us adhere to the strictest of definitions of adaptation. In such a case, and applying similar rigour, there is no way in which you can describe North America as an environment. Even a child's geography primer will show at least half a dozen environments. Most, if not all, of these environments have equivalents in the Old World, to which humans have - arguably - adapted. Are you asserting that adaptation to environmental conditions is not equivalent to adaptation to an environment, when the only difference is the longitude?

 

In the second place, specifically biological adaptation is usually taken to differentiate certain kinds of adaptations in humans from the cultural ones that have led to so much flourishing of humans.

The evolution of sophisticated culture, was a direct outcome of enhanced development of intelligence and extended social cooperation, both biological adaptations: the first physical, the second behavioural. The unique depth of cultural skills in humans is what has enabled adaptation to the diverse environments of North America.

 

And yes, the rabbit is very well adapted to environmental conditions of Australia.

 

Using a a very specific suite of definitions you may be able to demonstrate the validity of your case. Using any practical considerations your assertions are mistaken.