Recent comments in /f/science

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7fceo1 wrote

Ok. As a matter of fact I have 5 kids and I grew up babysitting kids. I apologize for offending you by using the word idiot because I was obviously 100% attempting to insult children.

I'm really not sorry, but hopefully my apology will make you feel better and you will go away. Toodles!

1

Suldand1966159 t1_j7fblbx wrote

The latest science would disagree I think. It's more about epigenetic expression. Environment seems to play a greater part than genetics. Studies on twins have borne this out.

Sure, inheriting great genes is at definite advantage, but even those so called unlucky ones, can still manifest how the epigenome expresses their genes in such a way as to affect their lifespans substantially. Witness the studies done on identical twins with different lifestyles.

That's my overly worded way of kindly saying that you're not quite right.

1

lugdunum_burdigala t1_j7f5l0v wrote

From the abstract, they don't seem to differentiate between starchy foods and (refined) sugars. Intuitively and from my limited knowledge, I would assume that sugar is the real culprit of health decline, unless starchy foods are consumed in lieu of a diverse diet (including various protein sources, vegetables and nuts).

Starchy foods are still at the basis of many diets over the world, including in countries with high life expectancy (e.g. Japan and their high white rice consumption).

80

Key-Hamster8897 t1_j7f44xo wrote

The way I look at it is that the human body has had very little time to adapt to a rich carbohydrate intake. Let's not forget that the agricultural revolution happened only 12,000 years ago. Mass carbohydrate intake was adapted even later. Before that, people ate mainly meat, greens, and fruit. Evolution will adapt eventually, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

7