Interesting blog entry from Hyperlipid blogger.
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot....tance-wild.html

The nutshell, as I understand it. Wild mice left to feed from fat, protein or carb chose a diet that was 6% carb, 12% protein and the rest fat. They had a higher fasting BG than Ornish-ly fed mice but when injected with insulin their bodies responded just as well as the other group.

Ornish wild mice versus Bernstein wild mice.
Who will prevail?
<chuckle>
Eddie

They're mice, though, and they are obviously adapted to the foods available to them in the wild, which, if you are a mouse pretty much means seeds, which are what the nutrients described would match.

Humans are not mice. We are adapted to a different diet. And anyone who could not survive and reproduce well on an agricultural diet took their genes out of our gene pool 8,000 years ago.

That is one reason why I personally think the "paleo" argument is all wet. Paleo people who didn't adapt to agriculture died out and left no descendants. All of us who are here (with the exception of a very small number of people in the Amazon, Borneo, Melanesia, and perhaps some remote parts of Africa), are the descendants of people who flourished and reproduced well in an agricultural setting.

That is why the portion of the population that does not have blood sugar disorders can eat a high carb diet and remain very healthy. And for that matter, lose weight. It is just those of us with something wrong with our glucose-processing systems that can't.

Surely in past times it was the custom for girls to marry early. Roman girls tended to marry very young, though the law prohibited them from marrying below the age of twelve and contraception was not reliable until much later.

It follows that most of the chronic conditions arising from farming do not impact on fertility and therefore those genes would not have been eliminated from the gene pool.

As far as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes rheumatoid arthritis MS are concerned providing you don't die before you have reproduced it matters not a jot if you get these conditions in later life from the evolutionary perspective.

Clearly vitamin D status impacted on fertility and people with dark skins did not survive or reproduce successfully when they moved away from tropical latitudes.

It's a pity the evolutionary advantage that having a white skin offer s those living above latitude 40 is not taken advantage of nowadays. Average UK D3 status is 20ng- 50nmol/l.

The evolutionary advantage that comes from the ability to store D3 to improve fertility and via it's anti microbial activity improve survival through the winter occurs when status is over 50ng-125nmol/l so only those people taking around 5000iu/daily (or who live naked as we evolved) benefit from this evolutionary advantage.

For the most part, (since we're just thinking out loud, so to speak), I think diabetes is self inflicted through our interactions with our environment, which doesn't take into consideration any gene pool what-so-ever. Pre-dispostion and Pre-destined are two different things entirely in my opinion. If you don't pull the trigger, you don't risk shooting yourself.... Now, I don't think anyone is intentionally causing their diabetes, but for the most part, we are causing it all the same......

Almost everyone of my generation on my mother's side of the
family has type 2 diabetes.Most of these people live in a small
town in texas called Ranger.Most of them are farmers,grow a
lot of their own food and work very hard.A lot of their meat
comes from fishing,hunting and local slaughterhouses.
Almost none of these people are overweight.It just doesn't
follow that they brought diabetes on themselves-sort of
points to inherited diaberes to me.I was born in Ranger but
didn't make a life there so I can't include myself with this
group.
Cheers from battered but recovering Houston
Eddie

Eddie - come on, give us a narrative of your storm experience!

So how could people go about not causing it? What could people do that would prevent it? How are we causing it?

Rhetorical questions, right?

I was just stating what I think and feel about how we acquire diabetes. I don't think I can defend my thoughts and feelings about it. No matter how I got diabetes, one fact remains... I got it!

I think "Good Calories, Bad Calories" does a pretty fair job explaining it. You might want to read that book. Gary Taubes is the author. This would be type 2 diabetes though, not type 1.

Well, the fossil record from Egypt shows a markedly different skeletal structure (smaller), much more tooth decay and osteoperosis of the grain eaters from the hunter-gatherer people.

Eating grains, or other starchy foods, isn't quite deadly enough to exert much evolutionary change at least for most people. Probably some childhood celiacs died quite quickly at one point. Evolution doesn't always involve quick changes. Sometimes the changes are very slow, just a small decrease in fertility might take many, many thousands of generations to play out. The bigger the population is, the longer it would take.

Would something that you eat that makes you sick, but doesn't kill you for a long time ever be something evolutionary forces would adapt a species to? I doubt it, especially since there were so many other, more deadly things to die of like child birth, dysentery, being mauled by a lion, infections and so on.

Domestic cats are a pretty good example. In the wild they eat bugs and small rodents and nom on grass sometimes. Domestically they're fed chow with much higher carb content including grains. Well, cats are getting diabetes at a very high rate nowadays, especially as they get older. Will they ever adapt to a high carb, grain filled diet? I doubt it because they still have a lot of reproductive years before they get the diabetes (except a few outliers, of course).

Strangely... (ok, not strange to me) this form of diabetes goes away when you put the cats on a low carb diet.

Ok, sorry to ramble on.

Exactly That is why in Herodotus we see the Ethiopian's sneering at the short lived, short stature and ill dung eating Egyptions who died when they were only 80 rather than living till they were 120 as the Ethiopians did then.

The dung eating refers to the use of human excrement to fertilise the crops, a practice that, although excellent from the recycling perpective, does have certain potential health hazards.

well you dont consider PCOS. PCOS is caused by insuline resistence and prevents proliferation of genes if left untreated.

Indeed but in earlier times PCOS would not have existed. When people lived outdoors most of the time and had less clothing, NO access to sunscreen/sunblock they had higher vitamin d3 status.
PCOS is linked to low D3 STATUS
and higher PTH
Cut the carbs, raise vitamin D status (5000iu/daily or sufficient to raise 25(OH)D to 60ng 150nmol/l) and Pth goes down as does insulin resistance.

It's always been my understanding that IR doesn't necessarily preceed PCOS; it's a 'chicken and egg' question: which came first?
My understanding of the syndrome is that the hormone disruptions involved in PCOS play a part in creating the IR which creates an environment for further hormone disruptions and a downward spiral. Of course, I'm basing this on the fact that not all women who have PCOS also have IR; only about half do. Based on that, there must be at least one other cause for PCOS other than IR or (what I tend to lean towards), IR is a result of PCOS, not a primary cause of it.