Monday, January 7, 2013

I Travel The World And The 7 Seas


Mitochondrial DNA Lineages












Y chromosome DNA Lineages

http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/you-might-be-very-surprised-to-know-where-your-genes-are-from



WHAT ARE MEXICANS? THEY'RE NATIVE AMERICAN/EUROPEAN ADMIXTURES. SOME HAVE MORE NATIVE AMERICAN* GENES AND HENCE LOOK MORE NATIVE AMERICAN, WHILE OTHERS HAVE MORE EUROPEAN GENES AND HENCE LOOK MORE EUROPEAN.
*NATIVE AMERICANS DESCEND FROM POPULATIONS THAT ORIGINATED IN NORTH AND EAST ASIA (SIBERIA) AND THEN MIGRATED TO NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA IN STAGGERED WAVES FROM ABOUT 15,000 YEARS AGO TO 9,000 YEARS AGO, HENCE THE EPICANTHIC FOLD STILL FOUND AMONG MANY OF THE LATER MIGRATING NATIVE AMERICAN GROUPS. (IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE CHROMOSOME PORTRAITS OF MEXICANS, CENTRAL AMERICANS, AND SOUTH AMERICANS THEY'D LOOK LIKE "WILL KANE"'S AND "ROGER THORNHILL"'S (5th PAGE OF PORTRAITS DOWN) WITH VARYING AMOUNTS OF ORANGE AND BLUE COLORING DEPENDING ON THE PROPORTION OF EUROPEAN AND NATIVE AMERICAN DNA.)  HEY, MEXICANS, YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN HAVE THE EPICANTHIC FOLD TRAIT NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE ASIAN, BUT BECAUSE YOU'RE NATIVE AMERICAN. http://instagram.com/zuryluv (NOTICE HER NATIVE AMERICAN FEATURES, PARTICULARLY HER EPICANTHIC FOLD?)



HEINA


MEXICANS, LOOK BELOW AND FIND OUT WHAT Y'ALL IS.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations/

MEXICAN-AMERICAN


This reference population is based on samples collected from Mexican-Americans living in Los Angeles, California, and is reflective of the broad range of genetic diversity that many ethnic populations in present-day North America carry. The mixture of regions reflected here is due to original groups that populated the Americas (36% Native American and 2% Southeast Asian) with more recent influence from integration with European Americans (28% Mediterranean, 20% Northern European, 8% Southwest Asian) and African Americans (4% sub-Saharan African). The Mediterranean, northern European, and southwest Asian components are reflective of the ancient genetic patterns in Europe.


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/admixture-in-us-populations.html
On average Latinos had about 70 percent European ancestry, 14 percent Native American ancestry and 6 percent African ancestry. The remainder ancestry is difficult to assign because the DNA is either shared by a number of different populations around the world, or because it’s from understudied populations, such as Native Americans. Obviously that large “unassigned” percentage means that those “averages” could be higher. As with African Americans, looking at the regional and state-to-state numbers for self-identified Latinos, the differences are striking. 
...

For example, some Latinos have no discernible Native American ancestry, while in others have as much as 50 percent of the ancestry being Native American. Latinos in states in the Southwest, bordering Mexico — New Mexico, Texas, California and Arizona — have the greatest percentage of Native American ancestry. Latinos in states with the largest proportion of African Americans in their population — South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama — have the highest percentage of African Ancestry.


http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/the-racial-makeup-of-hispanics/
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2013/06/ancestry-of-latinos.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/10/admixture-ethnicity-and-pigmentation-of.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/admixture-in-mexican-mestizos.html
http://www.isteve.com/2002_where_did_mexicos_blacks_go.htm
http://www.banderasnews.com/0707/eded-racesofmexico.htm
READ ABOUT MEXICANS IN THE LINKS ABOVE. MEXICANS, READ ABOUT YOURSELVES AND YOUR ANCESTORS. TAKE PRIDE IN WHO YOU ARE ESE! LA RAZA HOLMES!

http://instagram.com/p/Ze93RmTJpc/
http://instagram.com/p/elWIuMvMgz/
Why Do The Two Females Above Have Similar Features (Similar Features That Distinguish Them From Mexicans And Similar Features That Make Them Look Somewhat Black)? Because They're Central American And A Large Percentage Of The Central American Population Has A Large Proportion Of  American Indian (Amerindian) And Black Genes Relative To European Genes. So, For Instance, Mexicans And Certain South Americans Are Genetic Admixtures With A Relatively High Proportion Of European Genes (Typically 30% Or More), However, In Certain Central American Countries There's Been Little European Gene Flow So Large Segments Of The Central American Population Have Retained A High Percentage Of Amerindian Genes Admixed With A Decent Proportion Of African Genes. This Is Especially The Case In Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador And Panama (The Latter Two From Which, I Believe, The Ancestors* Of Two Females Above Originate). So, To Sum It Up, The Females Above Look Similar Because They Have A High Percentage Of Amerindian Genes Coupled With A Decent Percentage Of African Genes.

*I WAS WRONG ABOUT THEIR ANCESTORS ORIGIN. I RECENTLY LOOKED AT THEIR INSTAGRAM PAGES AND NOTICED THAT I WAS WRONG SO I HAD TO UPDATE THAT. 

Hard, Harsh Native American (Native Central American) Facial Features, Especially In The Mouth And Cheekbone Area!
LA BOCA (CALLATE)


http://instagram.com/p/dzoDd4PMnb/
My Nose Isn't Crooked Like This. You Can't Tell My Nose Has Been Broken Unless You Stare At It Closely.

https://twitter.com/CV31
A SPIC With A Whole Lot Of West African Genes, So Culturally He May Be Hispanic, But Genetically He's A Different Story And That Different Story (Those African Genes That He Inherited Controlling Height And Athleticism) Have Allowed Him To Play In The NBA.

POLYNESIANS TRACE THEIR MITOCHONDRIAL DNA TO TAIWAN AND MELANESIA WHILE THEIR Y CHROMOSOME DNA PRIMARILY COMES FROM SOUTHEAST ASIA (SPECIFICALLY INDONESIA) AND MELANESIA. IF THEIR CHROMOSOMES WERE SCANNED AND PAINTED THEY'D BE PREDOMINANTLY ORANGE WITH SOME MELANESIAN GENES, WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD ALSO BE ORANGE.



SECTV Sports Scene Vai Sikahema's Fight Training


BLACC PEOPLE, READ THE PARAGRAPHS ABOUT SKIN COLOR AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PASSAGE. THEY RELATE DIRECTLY TO ALL OF YOU DARK SKINNED, LIGHT SKINNED, RED BONE, YELLOW BONE, ETC. BROTHAS AND SISTAS. YOU SEE, MANY OF YOU NEGROIDS ARE COMPOSED OF EUROPEAN,  NATIVE AMERICAN, AND AFRICAN GENES. ALL OF THESE GENES THEN WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE YOUR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL TRAITS (MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE EUROPEAN GENES CONTROLLING FACIAL FEATURES, MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE NATIVE AMERICAN GENES CONTROLLING HAIR TEXTURE AND LENGTH, MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE AFRICAN GENES CONTROLLING BODY TYPE AND MUSCLE COMPOSITION, BUT, LIKELY, MOST OF YOU HAVE A COMBINATION OF EUROPEAN, AFRICAN, AND NATIVE AMERICAN GENES CONTROLLING A VARIETY OF TRAITS, ETC., ETC., ETC.).

KERRY KITTLES

When Richard and I had visited Rick Kittles in Chicago, he had told me about his experience with another group whose appeal to genetics to back up a claim to the entitlements of tribal membership had also produced an ambiguous result. Back in 2004, before the time of chromosome painting, Kittles had been asked to help members of the Freedmen Association of Oklahoma fight their expulsion from the Seminole Nation three years earlier. As my Cherokee volunteer, "Lucas Jackson," had recently explained to me, the Florida Seminole were one of the five tribes forcibly relocated west of the Mississippi in the 1830s.

Like the other "Civilized Tribes," the Seminole had kept black slaves and after Emancipation in 1863, the freed slaves became full tribal members. They were treated as equals by the tribe with no boundaries to intermarriage, with the freed slaves -the Freedman- often marrying the children of their former masters. What seemed to be a model of racial inclusion continued for more than a century, as the editor of the local newspaper the Seminal Producer remarked in a revealing account in Wired magazine: "You've got Indians marrying whites, Indians marrying blacks. It was never a problem until they got some money."

The money that put an end to decades of harmony was a combination of gaming receipts accrued since the passing of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, and American government reparations for historic land seizures. For the Seminole the reparations alone amounted to $56 million, according to the Wired account. Once the money began to pour into the tribal coffers, applications for tribal membership mushroomed. For example, membership of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, which also saw a similar increase in its financial fortunes, rose from fifty thousand in 1980 to more than a quarter of a million today. In 1983 the Cherokee introduced a requirement for tribal members to carry a "Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood" that was open to anyone who could establish a genealogical link to the Dawes Rolls. As we have already seen, the rolls were not directly concerned with any literal concept of blood relationship, but the very title of the certificate infers a link based on biology. When the Seminole expelled all two thousand black members of the tribe in 2000, it was not long before the Freedman realized that directly establishing at least a degree of authentic Native American ancestry through a DNA test should help them challenge the expulsions where other legal means had failed.

When Kittles heard about this from a friend at the University of Oklahoma, he paid a visit to a conference of the "Descendants of the Freedman of Oklahoma," the organization dedicated to ending "discrimination against people of mixed Indian African descent," and offered free DNA ancestry tests to delegates. This was before the refinement of the chromosome portraits was available, and the tests were based on the less sensitive AIMs technology Kittles had developed with Mark Shriver of the University of Pennsylvania. Even so, the AIMs tests would give a figure, however crude, for the degree of Native American ancestry in the Freedman's DNA, which could be compared to other groups of people. Kittles tested a total of ninety-five Freedman descendants and presented his results to an expectant audience at their 2005 annual conference. He had found that the proportion of African ancestry among the Freedman's descendants ranged from the lowest at only 4 percent to the highest at 76 percent. Likewise, there was a large range in the proportion of European ancestry among the group, ranging from zero to 62 percent. When it came to the most keenly anticipated result, the component of their genomes that was assigned to Native American ancestry, the figures fell between zero and 30 percent, with an average of 6 percent. This was, as Kittles announced to the hushed audience, roughly the same as the average African American from Baltimore or New York City.

Even though this was a lower average component of Native American ancestry than many descendants had hoped for, several declared there and then that they would use the results to press for tribal membership. But the prospects for success do not look bright, judging by the reaction of the Seminole leader, Jerry Haney, who was behind the expulsion of black tribal members in 2000. When asked by the Wired reporter if he would reconsider his stance based on new DNA evidence his reply was brutally frank: "They can claim all the Indian they want, " he said, "but they cannot become a member of the Seminole Nation by blood. They're down there [on the roll] as Freedman. They're separate." Nor does litigation offer much hope to disenfranchised Freedman descendants as complete tribal autonomy in matters of membership has repeatedly been upheld in the courts, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court.

The original source of the problem traces back to the way the all-important Dawes Rolls were compiled back in 1906 by a delegation of mainly white clerks sent out from Washington. It was their task to vet applications for tribal membership and entitlement to the landholdings that were being distributed. Applicants were directed to one of the tents that had been put up, one of which dealt with the Freeman. The enrollment system was bound to be arbitrary, and in the absence of documentation or the ability to speak an Indian language, several applicants found themselves on the Freedmen's Roll based on a clerical assignment of their physical appearance. The fact that siblings were sometimes assigned to different rolls only emphasizes the intrinsic fallibility of the system. In those cases, one sibling would be issued a blood-quantum certificate while the other on the Freedman's Roll would be denied one, even though their ancestry was exactly the same.

What is missing in all of this is a parallel measure of Native American ancestry among the enrolled members, which has not been done. Kittles is not alone in suspecting that such a test would reveal that they, too, had a very mixed genetic background, and that many of today's enrolled members of the Five Nations would have lower proportions of Native American ancestry than some descendants of the Freedmen.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/race/black_indians_genetic_testing_2005.html

Cherokee leaders decided to take anyone with a drop of black blood off of the books so they couldn't receive any of the profits that come from gambling . They figured if they allowed their slave descendants (Niggers) in as Cherokee that they would have to share more money with them.
EXACTLY RIGHT, PRINCESS!

These Boys Have A Decent Percentage Of Native Hawaiian Blood! Probably Anywhere From 25% TO Maybe 50% (The One In The Middle May Be 50%).

NOW THAT YOU'VE READ THE ABOVE PASSAGE THINK ABOUT ALL OF THOSE HAWAIIANS WHO CLAIM TO BE HAWAIIAN, BUT IF WERE GIVEN A DNA TEST WOULD BE FOUND TO HAVE ALMOST NO HAWAIIAN DNA WHATSOEVER. THOSE GOD DAMN LYING, CHEATING, FRAUDS. THIS GUY MIGHT BE ONE OF THEM http://instagram.com/koapaden IF HE DOES HAVE SOME HAWAIIAN DNA IT'D PROBABLY BE MINIMAL. THIS BROAD IS ANOTHER ONE https://twitter.com/akaSPARKLEZ HER NAME IS NOT NOELANI AND SHE HAS NO HAWAIIAN DNA WHATSOEVER. AND HERE'S ANOTHER https://twitter.com/Alohaa_leilani LIKE SPARKLEZ, LEILANI'S BIRTH NAME IS NOT LILI'UOKALANI, NOR IS IT EVEN LEILANI AND, LIKE SPARKLEZ, SHE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO HAWAIIAN DNA.

http://instagram.com/p/dimmBjnsTw/?modal=true
His Curly Hair Isn't A Result Of Polynesian Genes. It's A Result Of Either Hispanic (Mexican) Or White Genes. He Doesn't Have Enough Polynesian Genes To Code For Curly Hair Like That. Plus, The Polynesians That He May Have Descended From Didn't Have Curly, Coarse, Kinky Hair Like The Kind He's Implying That He Has. They Most Likely Had Straight Hair!


The first portrait in the gallery is of my New England volunteer "Margo Channing." She is, as you'll see, all one color: blue. This means that without a single exception, all of Margo's DNA has a European origin. It is not the most colorful portrait or, you might think the best to choose to begin our tour of the gallery...But, despite its uniformity, this portrait is one of the most interesting and surprising of all. I could equally well have shown you the portraits of my older New England volunteers: "Terry Malloy," "Rio McDoald," "Anna Christie," "Lisa Fremont," Or "Rose Sayer." All of them are exactly the same, solidly blue throughout without a trace of DNA from either African or Native American Ancestors. Remember that all my sitters in this part of the gallery are descended from European settlers who arrived in New England during the seventeenth century, many of them before 1650. And yet there is not the slightest echo of any interbreeding with Native Americans, with whom they lived in close proximity. Had there been, then the blue chromosome would have been flecked with orange. That was what I had been suspecting, having seen the effects of European settlement among other indigenous people where genes are quick to cross ethnic boundaries in both directions. But in New England there is no sign of it.    

I can  only conclude that, if there had been any intermixing between early New Englanders and the indigenous tribes living around Plymouth and Cape Cod, the offspring would have stayed within the Indian tribes rather than being absorbed into the English settlements. The single exception is "Atticus Finch." His portrait shows a tiny fleck of orange at the end of chromosome 9.

"Atticus," if you recall, had reason to believe he was descended on his father's side from Ots-Toch, the daughter of a Mohawk mother and a French father. Although I cannot prove it beyond any doubt, I think it likely that the speck of orange in "Atticus"'s chromosome portrait really is the genetic legacy that he inherited from Ots-Toch and her Mohawk mother. The fact that the portraits of my other New England volunteers were all uniformly European blue throughout makes me think that the little bit of orange in "Atticus Finch"'s portrait is genuinely from his Mohawk ancestor. After twelve generations of doubling dilution, there was never going to be much left of her DNA in "Atticus"'s genome, and the single speck we see in his portrait is about all I would have expected.

One of the attractions that drew me to the chromosome portraits, as well as their visual impact, is that it is easy to look up which genes correspond to which particular chromosome segments. The Human Genome Project located all our genes at fixed points along the chromosomes, so it is a simple task in "Atticus Finch"'s case to identify which genes have come down to him from Ots-Toch. This will identify the parts of "Atticus"'s body that are running on Mohawk DNA. Among several genes that chromosome 9 carries with frankly obscure functions, there is one that is familiar to all of us. This is the gene that controls our blood group, deciding whether we are group A, B, AB, or O. We all have two copies of this gene, one from each parent, and in "Atticus"'s case one of them has been inherited from Ots-Toch, while the other has come from a European ancestor on his mother's side of the family. Both Mohawk and European genes are working together to decide "Atticus"'s blood group, and since he is fit and well, it looks as though they are doing a good job.

"Harry Lime," a staff member at the New England Historic Genealogy Society who also volunteered to have his chromosome painted, was the only other European New Englander to have anything other than a uniformly blue chromosome portrait. In his case, as you can see, the speck of color was not orange but green. "Harry Lime" therefore has an African ancestor. When I unveiled the portrait, his first question - to himself more than to me - was to wonder who this ancestor might have been. Being a professional genealogist, he set off in search of this unexpected family member. Like "Atticus Finch"'s portrait, this was only a splash of color amid a sea of blue, suggesting that, whoever it was, his African ancestor had lived a very long time ago. The likelihood is that he or she was an African American, but even that is not certain. Some Europeans, myself included, have small segments of African DNA that must have entered the British gene pool at some time in the past. The last time I spoke to "Harry," he was still on the track of his elusive African ancestor.

As we did with "Atticus Finch," we can also see which of "Harry"'s genes are firing on African DNA. The section of chromosome 7 containing African DNA does not hold any well-known genes. However, there is one intriguing gene among the otherwise uninspiring collection. It belongs to the family of genes that control the exquisitely sensitive receptors that give us our sense of smell. It is a large family dispersed around the human genome, with each member of the family capable of sensing particular odors. In "Harry"'s case one of these is being run by a collaboration of DNA from one African and one European ancestor.

FIRING ON ALL CYLINDERS

For proof that Britons can also have African DNA, we need look no further than my own chromosome portrait. As you can see, it has a small segment of green at the tip of chromosome 11. I don't know which ancestor this has come from, but black Africans have been coming to Britain since at least the time of the Roman Empire. Indeed there was an influx of African Americans who moved to Britain after the Revolutionary War, having been persuaded to fight on the British side with a promise of a guaranteed welcome in England after the war was over. In fact, the promise was never kept, and most were shipped off to Nova Scotia, although some did eventually make their way to Britain. So, while my African ancestor probably came to Britain a very long time ago as a Roman slave, he or she might instead have been an African American, just as "Harry"'s African ancestor could have been British. 

The particular segment of African chromosome 11 that I have inherited happens to be very rich in genes. Among many others, there are genes for insulin and for beta-goblin, one of the two subunits of hemoglobin located there. So both my body's pancreatic insulin and hemoglobin output are controlled by a fifty-fifty mixture of African and European DNA. I also have a fleck of orange from an unknown Asian ancestor, and the segment of chromosome 7 that contains it houses an important collagen gene. So my skin and bones owe a great deal of their mechanical strength to my Asian ancestor, just as much as my pancreas is jointly run on African DNA.



Judging by her portrait, "Phyllis Dietrichson," like "Harry Lime," also has an African ancestor and although I met her through the NEHGS headquarters in Boston, some of her family are from North Carolina. Like "Harry," she does not know who this African ancestor was, but she was delighted when I told her that the chromosomal segment involved, which as you can see is located on her chromosome 7, contains an important muscle gene called beta-actin. With this new knowledge, "Phyllis" now flexes her African biceps with increased vigor.

On our travels around America we met with "Rhett Butler,"..."Rhett" was a European American from the South, from Georgia, whose ancestors had come over from England in the early eighteenth century. He was quite sure he did not have any black ancestors, but when his portrait came back, there were three streaks of green against an otherwise all-blue genome. His reaction to this when I showed him was amusement more than anything else. By the sound of it, his sister had married a man who was a bit of a racist, and "Rhett" was looking forward to telling him that he had actually married a black woman, on the very reasonable assumption that at least some of his African ancestor's genes had also been inherited by his sister.





The portrait of another of our volunteers, "Sugar Kane," also shows up several long segments of African DNA. If you recall...I met "Sugar" and her husband in San Francisco, where she had told us about the family photograph of her grandmother who looked to her like a Native American. It was because of the possibility of an Indian ancestor that "Sugar" had become very interested in the spiritual life of Native Americans and had gone on her own spirit quest, including a spell in the sweat lodge at Pine Ridge. "Sugar" and her family had lived in Florida for generations, and from the appearance of her chromosome portrait, she certainly does have one or more black ancestors. If you look closely you will see that she also has two very short smudges orange from what was very probably a Native American ancestor. There isn't enough there to indicate that the grandmother in her family album was a full-blooded American Indian, but as we shall see, that is not always easy to tell from genetic analysis.

Our other volunteer who life "Sugar Kane," certainly considered herself to be from solidly European stock was "Ilsa Lund." Appropriately enough "Ilsa"'s family hails from the Carolinas, and her chromosome portrait...has even more green segments than "Sugar Kane"'s. As you see, the green segments in "Ilsa"'s portrait are quite long and relatively intact, which suggests they have been inherited from a fairly recent African ancestor. That is because there has been less time for the segments to be broken up by the constant shuffling that chromosomes undergo between each generation...Like "Sugar Kane," "Ilsa"'s portrait has the tiniest fleck of orange on four of her chromosomes, indicating a far distant Native American ancestry as well.     

I am the first to point out that the gallery has far too small a number of individual portraits for me to draw any statistically significant conclusions. But that isn't going to stop me from making a few observations on the collection for the catalog notes. I am genuinely astonished to find so little genetic evidence of intermixing among the descendants of the early New England settlers. Of the twelve complete genome scans, each one scrutinizing half a million markers, I found a segment of orange only in "Atticus Finch"'s portrait, and he probably inherited it from the Mohawk ancestor he knew about. Apart from the one segment of African DNA in "Harry Lime," every other New Englander has a completely European set of chromosomes. The volunteers themselves were not as surprised as I was, but I think that is only to be expected. After all, none of the European American volunteers from the South thought they had any African ancestors, yet they all did. The only explanation I can come up with for the completely blue portraits from New England is that if there were any liaisons with Native Americans, the offspring were never, or almost never, accepted into the English colonies and instead were raised as Indians.


The portraits of European American volunteers had produced fascinating results, even if the portraits themselves were rather monotone, being mostly blue with the very occasional brushstroke of green and orange. This call changed when I unwrapped the portraits from my African American DNA sitters...



In this section of the exhibition you can see portraits with a full range of color from the almost all-green Toby Cooper, through blue on green in "Virgil Tibbs"'s chromosomes, to the balanced blend of blue and green in the portrait of Mark Thompson. However, as you can see at a glance, unlike the New Englanders, not one of the portraits of of my African American volunteers has a completely uniform set of chromosomes. Every single one shows the genetic evidence of at least some European ancestry. The other features to notice in this section of the gallery is that all of the African American portraits also show some blocks of orange from Native American ancestors. There are some aspects of the brushwork that I think may indicate slight inaccuracies in assigning the Native American component against an otherwise African background. To be more precise, I am surprised that so many of the orange segments among African Americans extended across both chromosomes, which if taken literally would mean that they had been inherited from a common ancestor, which I find most unlikely. But this is only a detail and does not diminish the observation that all the chromosome portraits of my African American volunteers have some degree of Native American ancestry. This news delighted many of my volunteers who, like "Virgil Tibbs' from Boston, had hoped for a tangible genetic link to the indigenous inhabitants of their adopted land. Another noticeable feature of the collection is that the chromosome portraits of African American sitters from the south, like Toby Cooper and the two friends from Atlanta, "Ned Land" and "Mildred Pierce,' have a lot more green in them than the portraits of their fellow African Americans, like Mark Thompson and "Virgil Tibbs," whose ancestors had moved north either directly after the Civil War or later on in the nineteenth century.



Moving to the final section of the gallery, I have already explained why I did not want to paint the genetic portraits of Native Americans for DNA USA. However, I was fortunate to meet up with "Will Kane" and "Roger Thornhill," who each had one Native American and one European parent and who were gracious enough to give DNA samples. When I unwrapped the paintings prior to displaying them, I could see, as you can, that both portraits have a larger component of blue from their European parents. However, the way portraits are painted means that the contribution can easily be subtracted, leaving the lower half of each chromosome representing the Native American component. In both "Will"'s and "Roger"'s portraits you can see that these lower segments are a mixture of blue and orange. We have seen earlier in the book that although portraits of Native American chromosome appear  to have a European component, this can be partly due to the Asia/Europe border artifacts of Siberian chromosomes rather than a genuinely recent European admixture. Mike MacPherson's estimate is that chromosome portraits of Native Americans living five hundred years ago, before there was any chance of interbreeding with recently arrived Europeans, would be 75+/-15 percent orange with the remainder blue. On these grounds the Navajo and Hopi ingredients of "Will Kane"'s and "Roger Thornbill"'s genome are well within the range for unmixed Native American chromosomes. What is noticeable is that there are no signs of green, meaning African ancestry, in neither of the portraits.



"Will"'s Navajo and "Roger"'s Hopi chromosomes contrast dramatically with the final portrait in this room from my one and only Cherokee volunteer, "Lucas Jackson." I was astonished when I first saw his chromosome portrait, and so was he. "Isn't that something!" he said with quiet amazement. There is only one small segment of orange among an otherwise uniform sea of blue. I would have dismissed this as an error were it not for something Mike MacPherson said when I visited him in San Francisco. He had evidently had a similar experience with the company's Cherokee customers, and had often found very little sign of orange in their chromosome portraits. We did not discuss the "Cherokee paradox," as MacPherson called it, any more than that, but it did make me think that perhaps "Luca Jackson"'s portrait was not so unusual for a Cherokee as I had first thought. It also shone an admittedly dim light on the question of tribal membership of the Cherokee Nation and the other displaced Oklahoma tribes. "Though "Lucas" has not yet applied, his father and many of his relatives living in Oklahoma are members of the Cherokee Nation through their proven genealogical descent from ancestors on the Dawes Rolls. Yet, even though one of his chromosomes came from his European mother, there is really only one tiny speck of Native American DNA on the chromosome he inherited from his Cherokee father, which is far less than the average of 6 percent shown by the disenfranchised descendants of the Freedmen of Oklahoma.

...


There is only one more observation to make in DNA USA, and it derives from the fascinating complexity of the human genome illustrated so well by the chromosome portraits of the sitters. This is most readily appreciated in the multicolored paintings of my African American volunteers, because here you can see most clearly how all of our bodies work on the intimate collaboration of DNA segments handed down by thousands if not millions of ancestors. The Native and European American genomes are equally complicated mixtures of ancestral contributions, but it is not easy to see the individual components in the present color scheme.

To illustrate my point I have picked out 140 genes that help run eleven major body systems and shown their locations against the chromosome portrait of Mark Thompson, one of my African American volunteers. The composite portrait is the last in the gallery and I have put the detailed description of these genes in an appendix. These are only a tiny fraction of the total number of genes we need to keep going, but enough to convey the principle. In all of us they work equally from the two copies that we inherited, one from each of our parents. They have to cooperate properly, or we could simply not survive, as the example of severe inherited diseases teaches us. So, whatever their own individual ancestry, whether African, European, or Native American, our genes must have found a way of working together. My pancreas functions on a combination of both African and European genes. Equally, "Rhett Butler," a white man from the South, depends on the DNA inherited from an unknown African ancestor for his heart muscles to work properly. "Ilsa Lund"'s digestive system, and much else besides, runs on DNA from her African ancestors. "Atticus Finch" needs his Mohawk genes to make sure his red blood cells do their job.

...

The essential genetic contributions are even more obvious in the portraits of my African American volunteers. Mark Thompson's insulin output is controlled by 100 percent European genes at the tip of chromosome 11, making his pancreas less "African" than mine. The same goes for his beta-globin genes, located right next door. They are both from European ancestors, which means that even though he is an African American he is extremely unlikely to be a carrier of sickle-cell anemia, which is caused by a mutation in this gene. I, on the other hand, could be a carrier, as this globin gene is located in the segment that I inherited from my African ancestor. this illustrates a relevant health care issue. No doubt with the best of intentions, ethnicity is taken into account when deciding on diagnosis and treatment plans. Since I am easily classified as a white Caucasian, no one would ever suspect that I might be a carrier for sickle cell anemia, which is an African disease, but I could well be.

During the Korean War in the early 1950s, American troops in the field were prescribed antimalarial drugs. About 10 percent of African American soldiers developed severe anemia after this treatment while European Americans soldiers only very rarely showed any side effects. It took a long time to pin down the cause, but it was eventually tracked to a deficiency in an enzyme with the shorthand G6PD, whose gene is carried on the X chromosome. As with sickle cell anemia, carriers for the G6PD mutations have some resistance to malarial infection, and for this reason G6PD deficiency is more prevalent among people with ancestry from West Africa, where malaria is endemic. This was the first time anyone had noticed that there was a difference in the effects of pharmaceuticals between different racial groups, and it is regarded as the moment when the new field of pharmacogenetics was born. Since then there have been many more examples of severe side effects suffered by different ethnic or racial groups, which has had an influence on drug prescriptions and treatment plans.

Of these the most clinically relevant are the observed differences in the way people metabolize pharmaceuticals. Most drugs, and other toxins, are cleared from the body by the liver, using a series of proteins called P450 cytochromes. Many African Americans carry a version of the P450 gene located on chromosome 10 that is less active in clearing some widely used drugs, like beta-blockers, the blood thinner warfarin, and the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac. As a consequence, African American patients are generally prescribed much lower doses of these drugs than are their European counterparts. By now you will begin to see the dangers of the blanket application of this prescribing policy toward anyone classified as African American. If one or both of their P450 genes is actually European in origin, then the basis for prescribing the lower dose will be wrong. A quick scan through the chromosome portraits in the gallery reveals that of my nine African American volunteers, only three have both copies of the P450 gene from African ancestors, there have one European and one African copy, and the genes of the remaining three are completely European. Inversely, "Sugar Kane," my European American volunteer from Florida, also carries an African version of P450 on her chromosome number 10, so even though she is unmistakably white she could well clear drugs more slowly than her physician would expect using only her overall ethnic affiliation. 

But it is not just the collaborations between African and European genes that are highlighted by the portraits. Another of my DNA volunteers "Holly Golightly," a distinguished African American biographer whom I met whole she was on sabbatical in Oxford, was surprised when I told her both copies of her lactase genes, located on chromosome 2, were inherited from Native American ancestors. She is lactose intolerant and had always put this down to her African background, whereas in fact her inability to break down lactose, which is found mainly in milk, is due to the poorly functioning lactase genes that she inherited from her Native American ancestors.

Possibly the most revealing feature of the chromosome portraits concerns the genes for the one trait that, more than any other has been used to define racial categories - that of color. All pigmentation in humans is due to just one basic substance, melanin. It alone is responsible for the vast range of skin and hair colors found in people from around the world. Melanin itself is a polymer derived from the amino acid tyrosine and is contained within pigmented cells, the melanocytes, in discrete granules. Basically, the more melanocytes and the more melanin in the granules, the darker the skin, eyes, and hair. Blue eyes are not blue because they contain a pigment but because, in the absence of melanin, light reflected from a layer in the iris is diffracted through the regularly spaced transparent collagen fibers in the cornea and gives the appearance of being blue; it is the same optical mechanism that imparts the vivid colors of a butterfly's wings.

The genetic control of skin and hair pigmentation is controlled by eleven genes that we know about, though there may well be more. They each control different parts of the process of producing melanin granules and regulating the number of melanocytes. The paler end of the wide range of human pigmentation is probably a response to the reduced exposure to sunlight that some of our ancestors experienced when moving from Africa to higher latitudes. Some vital functions, like the synthesis of vitamin D and folic acid, depend on sunlight, so it makes sense that evolutionary natural selection would have promoted the survival of lighter-skinned individuals. When we look at the chromosome portraits, it is very clear that many African American volunteers, who count themselves as black, actually have a mixture of pigmentation genes from many different ancestries. To take just one example, the radio-talk-show host Mark Thompson. Of his eleven pigmentation genes, only two are of completely African origin, five have been inherited equally from European and African ancestors two are an equal mix of African and Native American, and one has been inherited from exclusively European ancestors. That blend of origins is the direct result of the mixing of his chromosome segments in generations of his African, European, and Native American ancestors.

Since this process is more or less completely random, a vast number of combinations is possible in any African American. There will be individuals who actually have very little DNA from African ancestors, yet if these contributions include chromosome segments housing the pigmentation genes, then they will have typically dark coloring. Likewise there will be Americans who DNA is almost all African in origin, yet if the pigmentation genes are not included in these segments and instead come from European ancestors, then their coloring will be white. Similarly, it would be entirely possible for a European American with only a small overall component of African DNA to be very dark skinned if these ancestral segments were to include the pigmentation genes. Our only Cherokee volunteer probably had a dark skin tone because the sole surviving segment of Native American DNA in his genome included one of the most influential of the pigmentation genes, located on chromosome 15.






.
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2012/12/racial-composition-and-history-of-india.html




Hungry lIKE The Wolf (Thinks It's Not Kosher!)

Replying to PGBDagampat@outlook.com
I started following the advice and knowledge you spread on blog a while back and I’ve seen great results in fitness, energy levels, sleep, overall health! I feel like I owe you money or something lol

It's interesting how scientific studies that are unfavorable to a person's favorite diet are often interpreted as "attacks", revealing feelings of tribal identification. The appropriate response, of course, is a counterattack against the opposing tribe.

You Eat The Foods That Your Culture And Subculture Eat (The Food Your Peer Group Eats) And You Become Defensive When Told That Those Foods Aren't G00D For You And Resistant To The Idea Of Changing Your Diet! Why? because You Identify With Your Peer Group (What They Eat, Whether They Exercise, Whether They're Health Conscious). Your Identity Is Tied To Your Peer Group And If You Don't Conform To Their Norms (Their Beliefs And Behaviors, e.g. Diet) They Won't See You As One Of Them And You Won't See Yourself As One Of Them And You Don't Want To Lose Your Identity And Who You Identify With!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYL-OvRzOp4&t=14s
2:23

Our social connections are more important than our genetic connections in determining our health. The reason? Social connections influence our behavior. Using the power of peer pressure for good can make it easier to do the right thing.

If You Surround Yourself With Fat People Who Have Poor Eating Habits And Eat A Poor Diet You Too Will Become Fat!
If you do what everyone else is doing, you'll have the same body composition that they do: high body fat and little muscle. So, find out what everyone else is doing, and do the opposite.

80% OF YOUR BODY COMPOSITION (PHYSIQUE) IS DETERMINED BY YOUR GENES. THE REMAINING 20%* IS DETERMINED BY YOUR DIET (WHAT YOU EAT) AND YOUR LEVEL OF ACTIVITY (WHAT TYPE OF EXERCISE YOU ENGAGE IN AND HOW FREQUENTLY YOU ENGAGE IN IT). SO IF YOU WERE BORN WITH INFERIOR GENES IN RELATION TO BODY TYPE AND EAT ALL OF THE WRONG FOODS YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK LIKE THAT (LOOK LIKE HELL) REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH EXERCISE YOU DO. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU EAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW YOU EXERCISE AND HOW OFTEN YOU EXERCISE.

*15% OF THIS 20% IS A RESULT OF YOUR DIET.  FUZZY MATH!

  1. Mainstream fitness is largely a scam. You don't need to spend long hours in the gym. You don't need to spend hours jogging or doing other cardio. But money is made by telling you that you do.
The Fitness Industry, Like The Nutraceutical (Vitamin) Industry, Like The Pharmaceutical Industry, Is Conning You Clowns Out Of Your Money!

4 hours ago
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1155459690635177984

“the ‘antacids’ like Tums, Rolaids, Alka Seltzer...seem uniquely American... Only we seem to have developed a multibillion-dollar industry based on eating junk and then taking junk— chalk, largely— to overcome the effects of eating it.”

I just installed an exercise gym in front of my house.
You Don't Need To Join A Gym! You Just Need To Walk Regularly, Sprint Occasionally, Swim, Garden, Landscape, Construct, And Move Heavy Things Around On A Consistent Basis! Essentially, Do Menial Manual Labor Routinely! 

"TAKE A SHOVEL FROM A GOLD DIGGER AND FUCK HER UP!"- MR. FREE

"How much longer before these idiots try to get us to eat our own #$%$?"
"You can air drop that into North Korea, it’s an upgrade from tree bark. I will stick with eating the usual avian creatures and mammals."
HA HA HA!

Comedian has a bit #richmanpoorman abt similarities between rich and poor, but not the middle class Family members in and out of prison Incest Many cars on the property First name basis w/ local law enforcement Living at a hotel Day drinking Wearing sweats at work
"I Use My Own Waste To Grow Food"
They're Eating Their Own Shit! Literally!

http://thefecaltransplantfoundation.org/what-is-fecal-transplant/
They're Not Ramming Your Shit Down Your Throat. They're Ramming Your Shit Up Your Ass!
2 reasons to opt-in on dirt... are important for a healthy & it's high in !
 I'M EATON SHIT AND DIRT THESE DAYS! 
(DIRTY SHIT THESE DAYS!)
G0D Made Dirt And Dirt Don't Hurt! Playing In The Dirt Is G00D For Your Immune System! So Go Outdoors And Play In It! Roll Around In That Shit!

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wit3P2MqFeM
"Island Raiders" ABC Four Corners 2004

lIKE The People Of Most Pacific Island Populations, The Inhabitants Of Nauru, Including Their Leaders And Government Officials, Suffer From High Time Preference Or The Inability To Delay Gratification, Think Long-term And Plan Ahead. Because Of This Genetic Shortcoming, They Are Now Experiencing The Consequences Of This No Longer Adaptive (Maladaptive) Thought And Behavior.

In Our Evolutionary Past, Hunting Was The Equivalent Of Working An Office Job And Food Was The Equivalent Of Money. If Saving Food Didn't Benefit A Population Because It Would Quickly Rot, People Would Gorge On Food As Soon As They Came Across Some And The Genes For Saving, Thinking Long-term, And Planning Head In That Population Would Not Be Selected For And Thus Would Not Spread Throughout The Population (A Large Percentage Of The Population Would Not Inherit Low Time Preference Genes*).

They're Discounting The Future. They're Living For The Moment. They're Placing More Emphasis And Importance On The Here And Now, Rather Than The There And Later. This Type Of Thought And Behavior Was Adaptive For Polynesian Populations During Most Of Their Evolution As Hunter-Gatherers When Food Was Hard To Come By And Couldn't Be Saved. (When You Can't Find Food Or Store It You've Got To Make The Most Of It When You Do Find It. There's No Point In Saving Some For Later Since It'll Go Bad.)

*The Selection For These Time Preference Genes Are Not Only Dependent Upon Hunting, But The Possession Of Property (And Other Personal Belongings), Child Rearing, Shelter Building, And Other Environmental Factors As Well.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/health/pacific-islands-obesity/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/asia/junk-food-ban-vanuatu.html?_r=0

Savings boost survival: food/resources get you through lean periods. Prudent to provide buffer against storm & starvation. Do all realise that?

...one important element underlying the existence of interest rates in any society is a behavior called time preference. Time preference is simply the idea that, everything else being equal, people prefer to consume now rather than later. It is the percentage by which the amount of consumption of a good next year must be higher than consumption this year for people to be indifferent between consuming now or later.
Time preference rates are very high in young children and decline as they age. Experiments suggest that American 6-year-olds have time preference rates on the order of 3 percent per day. That is, they will delay collecting a reward only if they are offered the equivalent of an interest rate of at least 3 percent per day, or a monthly interest rate of 150 percent. Time preference rates also vary across people within a society. They are higher among the poor and less educated. Children with high time preference rates in preschool in California did less well academically later and had lower SAT scores.
Anthropologists have devised ways to measure time preference rates in premarket societies. They look, for example, at the relative rewards of activities who benefits occur at different times in the future: digging up wild tubers of fishing with an immediate reward, as opposed to trapping with a reward delayed by days, as opposed to clearing and planting with a reward months in the future, as opposed to animal rearing with a reward years in the future.   
A recent study of Mikea forager-farmers in Madagascar found, for example, that the typical Mikea household planted less than half as much land as was needed to feed themselves. Yet the returns from shifting cultivation of maize were enormous. A typical yield was a minimum of 74,000 kilocalories per hour of work. Foraging for tubers, in comparison, yielded an average return of 1,800 kilocalories per hour. Despite this the Mikea rely on foraging for a larger share of their food, consequently spending most of their time foraging. This implies extraordinary high time preference rates. James Woodburn claimed that the Hadza of Tanzania showed a similar disinterest in distant benefits: "In harvesting berries, entire branches are often cut from the trees to ease the present problems of picking without regard to future loss of yield." Even the near future mattered little. The Piraha of Brazil are even more blind to future benefits. Daniel Everett, a linguistic anthropologist who has studied their language and culture for many years, concluded that future events and benefits were of almost no interest to them. (A Farewell to Alms)  

TIME PREFERENCE IS SO HIGH AMONG HUNTER-GATHERERS THAT THEY'D RATHER CONSUME THE FEWER CALORIES THAT THEY EITHER GATHERED, SCAVENGED, OR CAUGHT RIGHT NOW (i.e. digging up wild tubers of fishing with for an immediate reward), THAN TRAP GAME, PLANT CROPS, OR REAR ANIMALS, WHICH WILL PROVIDE FAR MORE CALORIES, BUT WHOSE REWARDS WILL TAKE MUCH LONGER TO REAP. 
"The capacity to anticipate and plan for the future is a mental attribute which would be favored under northern conditions and selected for"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiX1aDaViN0
Aaradhna's new life in New York

She Is Packing On The Pounds. Look At How Bloated And Dis-Toaded Her Face Is. She's Looking Like Elvis Circa The Bad Years. She Obviously Has An Eating Disorder And Maybe Even A Drug Problem (She May Be Bingeing On Both). Someone Needs To Intervene Before Tragedy Strikes (She Has A Heart Attack Or Something).

Polynesians Are FAT ASSES Now Because Of The Genes That They Have, Which Are Maladapted To This Current Environment. In Short, Polynesians Have Genes That Allow Them To Store FAT Easily And Excessively On A Minimal Amount Of Calories. So, In This Modern Environment Where High Caloric Food Is In Abundance And No Effort Is Needed To Acquire It (Or Even Survive For That Matter), Polynesians Can Easily Become FAT ASSES By Sitting Around And Just Eating A Little, Which They Do.

Most of the problems in human health come from being too domesticated. - from "Anaerobics" by


To Cope With Environmental Pressures Placed On Polynesians In Their Environment Of Evolutionary Adaptedness, Particularly In The Form Of Food Shortages And The Wind Chill Factor During Voyages, Those Polynesians That Could Swiftly Convert Food To Fat, Store More Fat, And Develop Large, Muscular Bodies Had Greater Reproductive Success, So The Genes Associated With This Metabolic And Body Type Increased In Frequency Until A Large Proportion Of The Polynesian Population Inherited These Genes.

In Our Modern Environment Where Most Polynesians Are Sheltered From The Elements, Where Most Polynesians Don't Engage In Much Physically Demanding Activity, And Where Most Polynesians Have Unlimited Access To High Caloric Foods, These Genes Are A Liability Because They, Coupled With The Environmental Factors I Stated Above, Lead To Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, Diabetes, Dementia, Etc. So What Should Polynesians Do*? Cut Back On Their Carbohydrate Intake (Poor Food), Garden, Do Construction Work, And Walk More.

*Polynesian People, You Don't Have To Do All Of This Working Out Stuff. All You Have To Do Is Eat A Paleo Diet (Cut Out The Simple Carbohydrates From Your Diet), Walk Frequently For Long Durations At A Slow Pace, And Occasionally Garden And/Or Do Construction Work (Which Most Of You Already Do). Weight Training And Jogging Do More Harm To Your Body Than Good.
  1. Jun 17
    Discipline to exercise or eat right is foreign to most of us because in the past we didn't need it. We're hard-wired to eat and be sedentary
  1. Jun 17
    Replying to
    In an era of abundance, processed food, & labor-saving devices, our evolutionary past doesn't serve us well, causes diseases of civilization
  Retweeted
Does exercise make you smarter or do smarter people exercise more? Looks like the latter
ANYWAY, I NEVER WATCHED MY DIET WHEN I PLAYED COMPETITIVELY, BUT...

THE MORE INTELLIGENT YOU ARE, THE MORE EDUCATED YOU ARE, THE MORE HEALTHILY YOU EAT. THIS IS WHY ALL OF YOU LOWER CLASS BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE EAT SUCH POOR DIETS (FAST FOOD, JUNK FOOD, SWEETS) AND DIE OF DISEASES OF CIVILIZATION (HEART DISEASE, DIABETES, CANCER, ETC). YOU'RE ALL TOO UNINTELLIGENT, UNCULTURED, AND UNWORLDLY TO REALIZE THAT YOU'RE BEING INFLUENCED BY MAINSTREAM AMERICAN CULTURE TO EAT NUTRITIOUSLY POOR FOOD WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY SLOWLY KILL YOU (KILL YOURSELVES!).

Why We Get Fat

The Adversary (My Devilish Lil Stalker) Deleted My Posts Here, But I Basically Wrote (In Agreement With Another User) That The Amount Of Calories You Consume Isn't As important As The Type Of Calories* You Consume. And The Type Of Calories You Consume Should Primarily Be In The Form Of Fats And Proteins With A Lesser Percentage Coming From Complex Carbohydrates (Certain Fruits And Green, Leafy Vegetables).

*In Fact, You Can Eat More Calories In The Form Of Saturated Fats, Omega-3 Fats, Monounsaturated Fats, And Proteins And Lose More Weight Than You Can Eating Fewer Calories. Why? Because Your Metabolic Rate Increases When You Eat The Right Fats And Proteins, Your Body Burns Fat As Opposed To Sugar When You The Right Fats And Proteins (Fewer Carbohydrates Means Less Glycogen To Burn For Energy So Your Body Burns Fat For Energy) And You Become Satiated Quicker And Much Longer When You Eat the Right Fats And Proteins (Less Consumption Of Carbohydrates Produces A Lower Spike In Your Blood Sugar Level Which Results In Less Insulin Secretion Into Your Bloodstream, Which In Turn Causes You To Feel Fuller Longer). 
AHS12 Gary Taubes Calories vs Carbohydrates: Clearing up Confusion 
https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153715086571130/
HEALTHY FATS

Trans Fats

Trans fats are considered the worst kind of fat for the brain, and they should be consumed in limited quantities. Trans fats are detrimental to one's health because they reduce the level of good cholesterol. In addition, they increase bad cholesterol levels in the body, leading to a buildup of fat in arteries. This restricts the proper circulation of blood, including that within the brain, and can lead to brain damage. Trans fats are found in several foods, including processed snacks such as chips and fried food, baked foods such as cakes and cookies, and hydrogenated vegetable oils such as stick margarine. Also, many restaurants prepare their food using trans fats. It is therefore wise to avoid any fried foods on the menu, including French fries, fried onion rings, chicken-fried steaks, and fried fish. It should be noted that even foods that have "zero trans" indicated on them are allowed to contain up to 0.5 grams of trans fats per serving.


 

Hydrogenated Fats

Hydrogenation adds hydrogen bonds to fats, which makes fat more solid at room temperature. As a result, hydrogenated fats contain tightly packed molecules that restrict blood supply to the brain, and therefore affect proper cognition. When fats are fully hydrogenated, they are referred to as saturated fat, and when they are partially hydrogenated, they are referred to as trans fat. Frozen packaged foods such as pizza and pot pie; snacks such as chips, dis, and crackers; and fats such as cake frosting, shortening, and stick margarine all contain partially hydrogenated oils.  
Too Many Of You Eat Too Much Omega-6 Fatty Acid.
I Don't Eat! That's Why I'm Healthy!

Believe it or not, you can get too much of a good thing, and protein is good for you only up to a certain point. You can include as much carbohydrate and fat in your diet as you like with no immediate ill effects, but the same can't be said for protein. In the typical US diet, protein makes up about 15 percent of our daily calories, whereas in hunter-gatherer diets it would have been considerably higher, ranging from 25 to 40 percent of the daily energy intake. Laboratory studies in humans show that the maximum amount of protein we can ingest on a regular basis is about 40 percent of our daily calories. Anything above this and we get sick - a lesson our hunter-gatherers knew quite well. Early frontiersmen and explorers also knew exactly what happened when they were forced to eat only the lean meat of fat-depleted animals. They called this sickness "rabbit starvation." After eating enormous quantities of very lean meat, they would become nauseated and irritable, lose weight, develop diarrhea, and eventually die. They were better off starving than continuing to eat only lean meat. The only way around this situation: Get either fat or carbohydrate into the diet to dilute the protein level to below 40 percent.

In the modern world, it is easy to change the fat content of any food. Lobster is extremely lean (84 percent of its energy is protein) and would quickly cause protein poisoning if that's all you ate. Most of us prefer to dip our lobster in melted butter, which allows us to eat all we want and never develop any symptoms of protein excess. Hunter-gatherers weren't so lucky. Fat and protein came in a single packet - the animals carcass. Either the animal had fat on it or it didn't. There was no such thing as adding fat to a food. Similarly, if you were to eat a carbohydrate source such as brown rice or potatoes along with the lobster, you'd dilute the protein below the crucial 40 percent ceiling and have no problems whatsoever. However, until the development of agriculture and domestication of cereal grains, hunter-gatherers, particularly those living at higher altitudes, had no reliable year-round source of carbohydrate.

Now let's answer the question of why Stone Age hunters risked life and limb on a regular basis to kill large, unruly beasts. Large animals are fat animals. The larger a species, the more body fat it has. The average body fat content of a small animal like a squirrel (1 pound) is 5.2 percent by weight, whereas a large animal such as a musk ox (900 pounds) has 20.5 percent body fat by weight. If we look at the squirrel's body fat by total calories rather than weight, it's clear why the sole consumption of squirrels would cause protein poisoning. A squirrels entire body is 35 percent fat by energy (calories) and 65 percent protein - way over the 40 percent ceiling. In contrast, the musk ox's body is 73 percent fat and 27 percent protein. A carcass containing only 27 percent protein can easily be consumed in its entirety without even coming close to the protein ceiling.

The fossil record unmistakably tells us that ancestral humans have always included meat and animal foods in their diets, but there is tantalizingly little evidence showing how much plant food was typically consumed. Fortunately, anthropologists have developed a clever procedure that can give us a rough approximation of the dietary ration of animal to plant by measuring stable isotopes in the fossilized bones and teeth of long-dead hominins. Stable isotopes are elements like carbon 13 and nitrogen 15 that vary slightly from the normal versions. Julia Lee-Thorp, PhD, and her colleagues from the University of Cape Town in South Africa have measure stable isotopes in many of the very first hominins that were living in Africa 1 to 3 million years ago, and she concluded that all ate significant quantities of both animal and plant foods. Using stable isotopes to examine the diets of Neanderthals living in Europe 30,000 years ago, Mike Richards, PhD, of the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom concluded, "The isotope evidence overwhelmingly points to the Neanderthals behaving as top-level carnivores." In a similar study of Stone Age people living in England 12,000 years ago, he summarized, "We were testing the hypothesis that these humans had a mainly hunting economy, and therefore a diet high in animal protein. We found this to be the case..."

...

Hundreds, if not thousands, of descriptions of hunter-gatherers and what they ate have been written throughout historical times. These accounts were penned by explorers, sailors, trappers, frontiersmen, physicians, anthropologists, and others who encountered native peoples during their travels. Fortunately, an industrious anthropologist, George Murdock, PhD, took it upon himself to compile and organize historical accounts not only of hunter-gatherers but of all the world's cultures and how they lived. His enormous database included more than 100 specific data points for each society. In 1967, Dr. Murdock completed his life's work with the publication of a massive volume called the Ethnographic Atlas, a work that allows anybody to easily compare and contrast any society or culture.

One year after the publication of Dr. Murdock's massive volume, a young anthropologist at Harvard, Richard Lee, PhD, utilized some of the hunter-gatherer data from the Ethnographic Atlas to establish the plant-to-animal composition in the average hunter-gatherer diet. Dr. Lee concluded that hunted animal foods composed 35 percent of the energy in the average hunter-gatherer diet and that plant food made up the balance (65 percent). For the next 3 decades, Dr. Lee's conclusion became the unquestioned dogma in anthropological circles. Unfortunately, his analysis was flawed, and it wasn't corrected until 32 years later with our publication of a reanalysis of the Ethnographic Atlas's hunter-gatherer data. Let me show you how I came to this conclusion.

It's pretty hard to overeat raw carrots and celery - in fact, most of us have had enough after one or two carrots or celery stalks. Can you imagine eating 65 percent of your daily calories from celery? An active man who takes in 3,000 calories a day would have to eat 27 pounds of celery to obtain 65 percent of his daily calories from this plant food. Okay, perhaps celery is an extreme example. How about tomatoes? Try 20 pounds! Cantaloupe maybe? Twelve pounds! Perhaps potatoes would work: To get 65 percent of 3,000 calories (1,950 calories), you would have to eat 4 pounds. This is a doable situation. But the problem is that most wild tubers and roots bear little resemblance to today's thoroughly domesticated potatoes. Compared with their modern counterparts, wild tubers are smaller, usually more fibrous, less starchy, and, therefore, not nearly as calorie dense.

It became increasingly clear to me that only a very few wild plant foods could be consumed at quantities approaching 65 percent of the daily caloric intake. These were oily nuts and seeds, tubers, and cereal grains. Grains were out of the equation because they were rarely, if ever, consumed by hunter-gatherers, as explained in the Introduction. Also, when hunter-gatherers forage for food, they need to make some critical decisions. First, they must get more energy from the food they are hunting or gathering than the energy they expend to obtain it. It would be a losing proposition to run around all day using up 800 calories, only to bring back 500 calories. Second, hunter-gatherers prioritize food choices relative to their energy return rate. These are the foods that give them the most "bang for their buck" - large animals are preferred over small, and animal foods are almost always preferred over plant foods. Anthropologists have dubbed these hunter-gatherer decisions "optimal foraging theory."

At any rate, all of this information made me suspicious. It seemed unlikely that plant foods could have made up the majority of daily calories in the typical hunter-gatherer diet. So I went back to the original Ethnographic Atlas, plugged all the data points for  the 229 hunter-gatherer societies into a spreadsheet, and reanalyzed the whole kit and caboodle. I completed my analysis on Christmas Day 1997 and could not believe my eyes. Not only the results different from Richard Lee's analysis, they were exactly reversed. Plant foods represented about 35 percent of the total calories, while animal foods stood out at 65 percent! How could this be? I carefully checked all of the more than 2,000 data points - no errors there. Hmm! What was going on?

At last I saw it. Dr. Lee had failed to include fished animal foods along with hunted animal foods in determining the overall animal-to-plant subsistence ratio.

One of the huge problems with ethnographic studies is that they are almost entirely subjective. We went back to some of the original studies that Dr. Murdock had used to estimate the subsistence ratios and were dumbfounded at how he did it. There were absolutely no concrete data in many of these accounts of hunter-gatherers to show how much meat or plant food was consumed. Using some of the accounts as a starting point, my research team and I rooted out each and every quantitative study in which the foods were weighted and the caloric content know. It turned out that 13 reports could be used. Two of them involved Eskimos, who have no choice but to eat animal food, so we were down to 11 reports. These more robust, quantitative studies were in agreement with our earlier analysis and once again demonstrated that animal foods made up two-thirds of the average energy intake in hunter-gatherer diets.

So these three separate lines of evidence (other primate diets, the fossil record, and ethnographic studies) now independently point to the notion that meat, organs, and animal foods have always been a significant part of the diet to which we are genetically adapted. But, as you'll see in chapter 9, wild animals and domesticated, feedlot-produced animals are worlds apart nutritionally. Eating a modern diet with 65 percent of its energy coming from fatty meats produced from grain-fed animals is not even close to resembling our ancestral diet.

...

A crucial aspect of the 21st -century Paleolithic diet is the proper balance of plant and animal foods. How much plant food and how much animal food were normally consumed in the diets of Stone Age hunter-gatherers? There is little doubt that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers preferred animal food over plant food. In our recent study of 229 hunter-gatherer societies, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, my research team showed that 73 percent of these cultures obtained between 56 and 65 percent of their daily subsistence from animal foods. In a follow-up study published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, involving 13 additional hunter-gatherer groups whose diets were more closely analyzed, we found almost identical results. Our colleague, Mike Richard, PhD, of the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom, has taken a slightly different approach in determining the plant-to-animal balance in Stone Age diets. He has measured chemicals called stable isotopes in skeletons of hunter-gatherers that lived during the Paleolithic Era. His results dovetailed nicely with ours and confirmed that hunter-gatherers living 12,000 to 28,000 years ago were no different from contemporary hunter-gatherers - the majority of their daily calories also came from animal sources.


Based upon the best available evidence, you should try to eat a little more than half (50 to 50 percent) of daily calories from lean meats, fish, and seafood. Avoid fatty meats, but fatty fish such as salmon, mackerel, and herring are perfectly acceptable because of their high concentrations of healthful omega-3 fatty acids and cholesterol lowering monounsaturated fats...

Some people who have adopted what they think are "Paleolithic diets" have embraced fatty meats such as bacon, T-bone steaks, and ribs as staples. Even some of the diet doctors with high-fat, low-carbohydrate weight-loss schemes  have tried to jump on the Paleolithic bandwagon by suggesting that fatty meats would  have been normal fare for Stone Agers. Let's take a look at the real story.

Because animals had yet to be domesticated, Stone Age hunters could eat only wild animals whose body fat naturally waxes and wanes with the seasons. In contrast, virtually all of the meat in the typical US diet comes from grain-fattened animals, slaughtered at peak body-fat percentage regardless of the time of year. For instance, modern feedlot operations typically produce an obese (30 percent by fat or greater) 1,2000-pound steer ready for slaughter in about 14 months. These animals are produced like clockwork, 12 months a year, no matter whether its spring, summer, fall, or winter. That's quite the opposite of wild animals such as caribou, whose body fat changes with the seasons...for 7 months out of the year, caribou total body fat averages less than 5 percent. Only in the fall and early winter are significant body fat stores present, but these values are one-half to two-thirds less than the obese feedlot-produced steer.

Even more telling is how the types of fat change seasonally in the carcasses of wild animals. Remember, hunter-gatherers relished all edible body parts - they ate everything except bones, hooves, hide, and horns. By analyzing the total amount of fat and the kinds of fat in muscle, storage fat, and all of the edible organs, our research team was able to show how the animal's total body content of saturated fat varied with the seasons...for 7 months out of the year, the saturated fat from the edible carcass averages only 11.1 percent of its total available calories - meaning that hunter-gatherers simply did not have a high, year-round dietary source of saturated fat. To lower our cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease, the American Heart Association recommends that out dietary saturated fat intake be 10 percent of our total daily calories - remarkably close to what hunter-gatherers could have obtained from eating wild animals on a year-round basis! For this reason we recommend that you always eat the leanest cuts of meat.

  1. Healthy fats shut down cravings, speed up metabolism, and can help prevent and reverse heart disease, not cause it.

  1. Dietary fat doesn't make you fat.

There is absolutely no doubt that hunter-gatherers favored the fattiest parts of animals. There is incredible fossil evidence from Africa, dating back to 2.5 million years ago, showing this scenario to be true. Stone-tool cut marks on the inner jawbone of antelope reveal that our ancient ancestors removed the tongue and almost certainly ate it. Other fossils show that Stone Age hunter-gatherers smashed open long bones and skulls of their prey and ate the contents. Not surprisingly, these organs are all relatively high in fat; but, more important, analyses from our laboratories showed the type of fat in the tongue, brain, and marrow are healthful, unlike the high concentration of saturated fats found in fatty domestic meats. Brain is extremely high in polyunsaturated fats, including the health-promoting omega-3 fatty acids, whereas the dominant fats in tongue and marrow are the cholesterol lowering monounsaturated fats.


Most of us would not savor the thought of eating brains, marrow, tongue, liver or any other organ meat on a regular basis; therefore, a few 21-st century modifications of the original Paleolithic diet are necessary to get the fatty acid balance "right." First, we suggest you limit your choice of meats to very lean cuts, but don't worry about the fatty fish - they're good for you, just like the organ meats our ancestors preferred. Second, we recommend that you add healthful vegetable oils to your diet. By following these simple steps, together with the other nuts and bolts of this plan, the fatty acid balance in your diet will approximate what our Stone Age ancestors got.

From our analysis of 229 hunter-gatherer diets and the nutrient content of wild plants and animals, our research team has demonstrated that the most representative fat intake would have varied from 28 to 57 percent of total calories. To reduce risk of heart disease, the American Heart Association recommends limiting total fat to 30 percent or less of daily calories. On the surface, it would appear that, except for the extreme lower range there would be too much fat in the typical hunter-gatherer diet - at least according to what we (the American public) have heard for decades: Get the fat out of your diet! The Food Pyramid cautions us to cut out as much fat as as possible and replace it with grains and carbohydrates. Not only is this message misguided, it is flat-out wrong. Scientists have known for more than 50 years that it is not the total amount of fat in the diet that promotes heart disease, but rather, the kind of fat. Plain and simple, it is a qualitative issue, not a quantitative one! Polyunsaturated fats are good for us, particularly when we correctly balance the omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Monounsaturated fats are heart-healthy, and even some saturated fats such as stearic acid (found in animal fat) do not promote heart disease. Deadly fats are three specific saturated fats (palmitic acid, lauric acid, and myristic acid) and the trans fats found in margarine, shortening, and hydrogenated vegetable oils, as well as processed foods made with these products.
This study found that higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower stroke risk (Yes, you read that correctly.) In fact, for every 10 g/d increase in saturated fat intake, there was a 6% decrease in the risk of stroke. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641-dieta

Now let's get back to the fat content of our ancestral hunter-gatherer diet.  They frequently ate more fat than we do, but it was almost inevitable healthy fats. Using computerized dietary analysis of the wild plant and animal foods, our research team has shown that the usual fat breakdown in hunter-gatherer diets was 55 to 65 percent monounsaturated fat , 20 to 25 percent polyunsaturated fat (with an omega-6-to-omega-3 ratio of 2:1), and 10 to 15 percent saturated fat (about half being the neutral stearic acid). This balance of fats is exactly what you'll get when you follow our dietary recommendations.

The Paleo Diet For Athletes: A Nutritional Formula For Peak Athletic Performance. Cordain and Friel, p.152-170.       
MANUOLA
(Float Like A Humming Bird, Sting Like A WASP)



Cautious, innovative, and absolutely versatile, the diverse Cro-magnon societies of the Last Glacial Maximum were an exemplar of all later arctic hunter-gatherer societies. The number of cultural options available to people living in extremely cold environments are necessarily limited by the realities of long winters with very low temperatures, strong winds, snow, and ice.

Obviously, everyone was well aware of the hazards that confronted them: overheating, frostbite, and fat deprivation caused by eating too much lean meat. Fat provided vital calories and was a central part of their diet. Cro-Magnons lived in environments where energy sources were in short supply during the winter months. Fat is a source of energy and heat when food is scarce. Birds and mammals, for example, use more than 85 percent of their dietary calories to maintain a constant body temperature. A genetic ability to fatten rapidly is an adaptive response to scarce times of the year. Many animals use fat as a way of transferring energy from the season of abundance to that of scarcity. Most animals living in late Ice Age Europe and Eurasia needed large fat reserves to survive the tough conditions of the winter. Winter saw slowly declining body weights that could sometimes assume lethal proportions. Fortunately for most animals, the arrival of spring arrested the decline. Were Cro-Magnons any different?

In human terms, any diet of lean muscle has few calories, about one thousand per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) of dry weight. Hunters working hard outside in cold environments could easily metabolize about four thousand to five thousand calories a day, equivalent to about 9 to 11 pounds (4 to 5 kilograms) of lean dried meat. That would be just enough to maintain their weight, let alone put on more poundage. Fat was only available from their prey for a relatively short time each year, in late summer and early fall, when reindeer and other animals had accumulated massive fat deposits. This is why late-summer and fall hunts were so important in Cro-Magnon life and probably why many of the animals depicted on cave walls appear with swollen bellies, with the massive fat deposits that carried them through winter. At the time of the fall hunts, everyone, animal or human, was searching for fat. Thus, argues paleontologist R. Dale Guthrie, it would be hazardous to keep much of it around one's camp for fear of attack. He believes that people put on weight by eating large quantities of fat as they acquired it so that they, like the animals, could survive the lean months ahead.
...

...The men drag the carcasses from the water to the sloping riverbank. There they split open the bellies with a single stroke, reaching inside the stomach cavity to disembowel their prey. They remove the liver and kidneys, then they detach the hindquarters from the trunk. Reindeer tongues are a delicacy, so they avulse them by slicing through the skin under the tongue. People grab hunks of fresh meat and fat, wolfing them down as the blood spills over their chins and clothes.

...

Back in camp, men and women dump heavy loads of skins and flesh. While the hunters dismember the carcasses, cut off the flesh, and hang it up in strips to dry, the women scrape the fat off the skins and then peg them out on frames or the ground to dry. People reach for a limb bone, smash it open, tap it on a rock, and suck out the yellow marrow. Marrow is fat and is always a delicacy. Reindeer tongues cook on sticks over the hearths...

...

Day after day, hunters prey on the migrating reindeer as they cross the river. Then, after a week or two, the seasonal migration ends abruptly, almost as if a faucet has been turned off. The hunters dry the last of the flesh and stake out the final hides. Everyone gorged on fat and marrow while they can. The women have smashed up spongy backbone and limb ends and boiled them in simple containers to extract as much grease as possible. They store as much reindeer fat as they can in leather bags, to be hung high off the ground in their rock shelter bases for the winter...

...

The people would have hunted migrating reindeer in spring, but like humans, the beasts would have been lean and fat deprived after the long winter months. The herds were in their best condition in late summer and fall. Their coats were soft and springy. A mature reindeer can carry 30 pounds (13.6 kilograms) of fat under its hide. This is why the fall hunt was of prime importance to the Cro-Magnons, for it was then that they acquired their stocks of fat, hides, and dried flesh to meet winter needs. We know just how important it was, for little has changed for subsistence hunters since then. As was often the case for historic caribou hunters in Canada's Barren Lands, there must have been years when there was insufficient fat to provide both food and fuel. Yet the people managed to stay alive in unheated dwellings because of efficient clothing, by spending a great deal of time under heavy furs, by sleeping in close proximity, and by burning off the fat stored in their bodies from summer. For about six to eight months a year, depending on the severity of the winter, most Cro-Magnon bands would have relied on stored food from late-summer and fall hunts. Spring and early summer would have been a stressful time of potential hunger even in good years. 

Cro-Magnon: How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans. Fagan, 157-158, 198-201.

Plant foods also naturally promote a beneficial balance between acidity and alkalinity (also known as "base", or non-acidic balance, in your bloodstream). Almost all cells prefer a slightly alkaline environment to function properly, but many metabolic processes, including the normal production of cellular energy, result in the release of acidic waste products. The buildup of acidic waste is toxic to your body, so it works very hard at all times to preserve a slightly alkaline environment, measured by the familiar "pH" levels. While we have evolved several highly refined buffering systems to balance our pH, ingesting too many acid-producing foods and not enough alkaline-forming foods makes it that much more difficult to achieve pH homeostasis.

As you might guess, consuming heavily processed foods, sugars, grains, deep-fried foods, alcohol, caffeine, cigarettes, carbonated drinks, artificial sweetners, and many recreational and prescription drugs are acid-forming in the body, a precursor to many health problems and diseases. In contrast, by eating sufficient amounts of alkaline--forming foods - vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds, you optimize your acid/base balance and improve metabolism to burn fat, build muscle, and reduce your susceptibility to environmental and dietary toxins. Meat and diary products also happen to be acid-forming, making it essential to balance the intake of these foods with sufficient vegetables and fruits that support alkalinity.
The Primal Blueprint. Sisson, p. 122.
Maintaining A Good pH Balance In Your Body Is Crucial.
Eat More Vegetables And Fruits To Create Proper Alkaline Levels In Your Body


"I EATS MY SPINACH!" - BO LOC (C-B0 CB4)
My Weapon Of Choice Is Spinach ("Uh Guh Guh Guh" - The Sailer Mann). I Like Raisins After Workouts. Then I Likes Raisin' Hell!

POST WORKOUT FOOD
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2015/03/26/top-6-foods-for-post-workout-recovery?int=986408&int=9e8c08
A High Carbohydrate Diet Creates An Acidic Body And Too Much Acidity Forces Your Body To Pull Calcium From Teeth And Bones To Level Out Your pH, Resulting In Weaker Teeth And Bones (Your Teeth And Bones Easily Chip/Break If The Acidic Level In Your Body Is Too High). So It's Not The Process Of Sugar From Candy Or Soda Or Other Sugary Foods Binding To Your Teeth And Eventually Rotting Your Teeth That Does The Most Damage (It's The Acidity That Sugar Produces That Does The Damage), But Rather The Acidity Created By A High Carbohydrate Diet That Does. I Do!


It's ironic that we distrust sugar but regard starch as a natural food. Fruit is full of sugar. Anthropologists have found evidence that honey, which is 100 percent sugar, was more plentiful in prehistoric times than it is now. Early humans ate it for millions of years before starch came on the scene. Our tongues have taste buds that respond to sugar but none that interact with starch.

Paranoia about sugar probably stems from childhood. Sugar was the first food our parents warned us about, but it wasn't because they were worried about our getting fat. It was because they didn't want us to get tooth decay. Indeed, sweets can be bad for children's teeth; however, the problem is not so much candy itself as the frequency with which kids eat it. Acids from the bacterial breakdown of sugar in our mouths erode tooth enamel. Saliva neutralizes those acids and restores enamel, but the process takes several hours. When kids snack on candy and soda between meals, their saliva doesn't have time to counteract the acids, which eventually promotes tooth decay. 

 
High blood sugar presents a triple threat to good oral health. First, it compromises your ability to fight infection, so even a small cold sore or tiny pocket of bacteria below the gum line could lead to serious trouble. Second, it raises the level of glucose in saliva, says Sol Silverman Jr., DDS, professor of oral medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry and a spokesman for the American Dental Association. The "sweeter" saliva supports the growth of fungal (thrush) and bacterial infections. Third, high blood sugar can dry up saliva, leaving you with less of this vital infection-fighting moisture when you need it most.

THAT WHITE DEVIL SENDING YOU ALL STRAIT TO HELL!

Refined Sugar

Refined sugar has all of its fiber, minerals, protein, fats, and enzymes depleted, leaving only empty calories. as a result, the body needs to take away nutrients such as calcium, sodium, potassium, and magnesium from its healthy cells to be able to metabolize the sugar. If the body lacks the nutrients it needs to metabolize sugar, the waste produced builds up in the brain and nervous system, causing damage. When sugar is consumed regularly, it causes the body to have too much acid. In an attempt to restore the acid-alkaline ratio, the body uses up its stores of vitamins and minerals, depriving the brain and other structures of these minerals.

Sugar effects the processing of other compounds in the body. For instance, when sugar is consumed, it kills some good bacteria found in the intestines that are responsible for manufacturing vitamin B compounds that help in the processing of glutamic acid, a compound found in vegetables. If glutamic acid is not processed due to the level of vitamin B compounds declining, a decrease in brain function and sleepiness occur.

Several foods and drinks contain refined sugars, including the following:
  • Soda
  •  Energy drinks
  • Fruit juice mixes
  • Candy
  • Sweetened cereal
  • Jams
  • Jellies
  • Baked goods
  • Frozen pizza
  • Spaghetti sauce
  • Canned fruits
  • Canned vegetables
The effects of sugary foods become more detrimental as people age. As people grow older, there is a loss of bone density, a reduction in body mass, and a body fat increase around the heart and other organs. With all these changes, sugar can be damaging since it targets the liver, heart, and pancreas. While it is not harmful to have an occasional sugary snack, consuming meals high in sugar on a regular basis can cause problems such as obesity. Being overweight as an elderly person places strain on the muscle and bones.

Sugar Substitutes

Since the brain requires glucose as the main source of energy, proper sugar balance is important for Alzheimer's patients. Sugary foods are considered high glycemic index foods. The glycemic index measures how much certain foods raise blood sugar levels. Clinical research notes that foods that rank high in the glycemic index are digested quickly and result in blood sugar levels spiking rapidly. This causes problems with brain function such as making eyes susceptible to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which affects the retina of the eye and is the top cause of vision loss in the United States.

Sugar substitutes might not be any better than refined sugar after all. Aspartame, a low calorie sweetener, is used in several diet sodas and other diet foods. Aspartame leads to damage to the nervous system because, when it is digested, it releases a compound that excites brain neurons, causing them to fire repeatedly until they eventually die. This interferes with normal brain function. It is also possible that, when aspartame is digested, it releases methanol in the small intestines. Methanol causes visual problems by interrupting the retina and optic nerve transmissions. While formal studies have not been done on the effect of aspartame on visions, there have been thousands of reports of visual problems from people who drink too many drinks containing aspartame.


The worst diet for maintaining proper cognitive function includes high gylcemic index foods and hydrogenated fats. Foods in these categories cause blockage in the circulatory system, which reduces blood flow in the brain, depriving the brain cells of oxygen and important nutrients necessary for maintaining proper cognitive ability.

High Glycemic Index Foods

Foods that rank high in the glycemic index include highly processed simple carbohydrates found in the following:
  • White flour
  • Foods made from refined flour, such as white bread, donuts, and cakes
  • Starchy foods such as white rice
  • Sugary snacks such as frosting and candy
  • Sugar- and syrup-sweetened drinks such as cola and juices

SUGAR Y




Carbohydrates Cause Tooth Decay.



FASTING IS GOOD FOR YOU. DO IT AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK (SKIP A MEAL AND THEN DON'T EAT FOR AT LEAST 16-24 HOURS). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fasting-for-two-days-could-regenerate-the-immune-system-according-to-research-9506168.html



Willpower can't beat hunger. But it's still necessary for fat loss b/c you must have the will to avoid certain food & most don't have that.


Best health and anti-aging advice: don't eat all the time.



Carbohydrates Cause Tooth Decay.





The Paleo Manifesto: Ancient Wisdom For Lifelong Health. Durant, p. 118-125, 147-153.

3h
All they got on this plane is a fckn sandwhich you'd feed your bird
SANDWICHES ARE NOT PALEO AND PALEO IS NOT BIRD FOOD. HEY, UNEDUCATED AND UNINTELLIGENT BLACK AND BROWN GIRLS, TO UNDERSTAND THE THINGS I'M WRITING AND REFERENCING YOU HAVE TO LET GO OF EVERYTHING YOU'VE BEEN TAUGHT BECAUSE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU'VE BEEN TAUGHT IS WRONG. YOU NEED TO ACQUIRE AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE AND THEN APPLY THAT TO EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE!


David Duke's Black Daughter!



THAT WHITE MAORI I WAS TELLIN' Y'ALL 'BOUT. THAT GENETIC ANOMALY I WAS REFERRING TO!

PARSIMONIOUS!

WADE "IN MY WATERS" BOGGS


2 G00D 4 U!


The Food Revolution - AHS 2011
THE POSTS BELOW ARE FROM THE VIDEO ABOVE AND ARE OUT OF ORDER. PLEASE MAKE SENSE OF THEM. THANK YOU.

Well, We're Not Just Carnivores. We're Omnivores. We Don't Just Subsist On Meats. We Eat Fruits, Vegetables, Nuts, Seeds, Etc. So We Need The Extra Intestinal Length To Digest These Non-Meat Foods. 

Most Populations (Races) Don't Metabolize An Excess Of Carbohydrates (Sugars, Starches) Well, Which Is The Diet That Most Of Them Are On, Because It Boosts Insulin Levels And Insulin Levels That Are High For Extended Periods Of Time Cause Havoc On Your Digestive System, Cardiovascular System, Endocrinological System, Reproductive System, Etc.
Humans Are Adapted To Eating Cooked Food. Ancestral Humans Started Cooking Food, Especially Meat About 1-2 Million Years Ago. So That Means Our Digestive System Has Evolved Adaptations Over These Millions Of Years To Digest Cooked Food More Easily By Expending Less Energy, Consume More Calories By Eating More Cooked Food, And Extract More Vitamins And Minerals From Cooked Food, Among Other Things. (More Calories From Cooked Food Translates Into More Energy For The Brain And Body.)

That's Because We're Not Entirely Carnivores. We Eat A Variety Of Foods, Some Of Which Are Starches. So It Makes Sense That We Evolved An Enzyme To Breakdown Starches. We're Omnivores And As Omnivores We've Evolved A Number Of Adaptations To Breakdown The Different Foods We Eat (Protein, Sugar, Fat, Etc). Just Because We Have The Amylase Enzyme Doesn't Mean We Didn't Evolve To Eat Meat. In Fact, A Large Percentage Of Our Diet Throughout Evolutionary History Has Consisted Of Meat.

Humans Have An Innate Aversion To Prolonged And Persistent Consumption Of Raw Meat. Plus, Humans Don't Absorb The Same Amount Of Vitamins And Minerals When They Eat Raw Meat As They Do With Cooked Meat.

Meat Eating Was One Of The Factors That Led To The Expansion In Brain Size In Our Hominin Lineage Over Millions Of Years. As Our Hominin Ancestors Relied More On Meat For Their Daily Sustenance, Greater Nutrients Were Extracted From This Diet (Particularly Protein), So Stomach Size Shrunk* And Brain Size Grew. *If You're Depending More On Meat And Eating Fewer Vegetables You Won't Need As Much Intestinal Volume To Digest Your Food (The Reason Why Carnivores Have Smaller Intestines). 

The Amount Of Calories You Eat Isn't As Important As The Type Of Calories You Eat. A Diet High In Carbohydrates Won't Keep You Satiated As Long As One That's High In Protein And Fat. Why? because Carbohydrates Don't Fuel Cells As Thoroughly And Properly As Fats And Proteins Do. So If Your Cells Are In A Constant State Of Energy Deprivation From A Lack Of Fuel (Nutrients) You'll Feel Hungry Sooner After Meals And More Often Throughout The Day, Which Will Lead You To Overeat And Not Burn Fat.

A student of mine told me his dad pays him $20/week for eating his vegetables... if I didn't eat my veggies I got my ass beat..
EAT OR BEAT!
BEET

http://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Healthy-Beet-Fries-37779892

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnN-QeMgJ_U

CARTA: The Evolution of Human Nutrition -- Richard Wrangham: Fire Starch Meat and Honey


The fact remains that no culture or society has ever survived for an extended period of time on a meatless diet. While it would seem to be much easier to live and evolve without having to run and around kill animals, the truth is that we need the concentrated, nutrient-rich energy source of meat to support accelerated brain development - our distinguishing feature that brought us to the top of the food chain.

Remarkably, about 500 calories a day are required just to fuel the human brain (both primitive and modern brains). Anthropological evidence strongly suggests that it was saturated fats, protein and omega-3 fatty acids from animal foods that provided both the raw materials and energy necessary for the human brain to grow larger and more sophisticated over the course of evolution. Our ability to catch and cook meat (cooking makes meat easier to chew, swallow, and digest) was critical in our branching up and away from our mostly vegetarian ape cousins. (The Primal Blueprint. Mark Sisson.)

Gluten Free Paleo Diet Discussed on Fox News Interview with Dr.
FIND MY POSTS IN THE VIDEO ABOVE



CHOLESTEROL GOOD



Have you heard that industrial seed oils might be the root of many of our health problems?

Who would have guessed a highly unnatural & highly processed oil that was originally an industrial byproduct would be bad for humans to consume in mass quantities?
Industrial seed oils were originally used in the soap making process. So how did these industrial byproducts end up on our plates? Check out this article to find out. #nutrition #paleo #chriskresser
The HEAT From The Pan Or Pot You Are Using To Cook Food In Makes The Vegetable Oil Toxic! Read Above!
Learn about good fats vs. bad fats in my new book SUPERFUEL. Now available for preorder on Amazon
Another study found that people who eat more saturated fat have a lower risk of stroke. This review included 26 studies with over a million participants. Definitely challenges the conventional dogma on saturated fat! bit.ly/2RKMYc2



retweeted
got it. Basically everything will kill us.
YES, EXACTLY RIGHT, PARE!