Cultural Differences/ Genetics and Types of Food [Archive]

toiletmoose

03-01-2009, 12:42 PM

It's really hard to say for certain whether an Ethnic group does well on certain macros. I am Asian myself, and grew up with rice as a staple. However, living in Singapore (Chinese, Malays and Indians make up the largest groups) for 17 years, i will observe the same trend. The diet is largely carb based and there are people ranging from really athletic to being fat slobs.

Then, on my trips to smaller provinces in China and villages in India, its hard to find fat people.

Come back to myself, and i have found myself (and my family) to easily be adapted to a low carb intake. (I do completely fine, and probably enjoy, ketogenic diets)

---

Back to the first post, i would agree that the foods that were traditionally available to various ethnic groups would have affected their response and tolerance to such foods over time. However, i think the magnitude of such a shift becomes irrelevant in the face of modernization and introduction of increasingly processed foods. (it is important to note how long it takes for one to become genetically inclined to express certain traits, a process which seriously takes hundreds to thousands of generations. Hence my point that the tolerance of certain macros would not be very far apart)

For example, in Singapore, peoples' diets are far from just rice and tofu and include plently of Fast food and sweets, etc. This is also the same for people in New Delhi compared to people in Shivpuri (which i bet no one has heard of), where people still survive largely on what the land gives them.

It is important to note that the US is home to some really bad diseases, and i would blame lifestyle for that. Yet the highest rate of heart attacks are in India, with projections that it will only increase. This would also be attributed to lifestyle. (possibly the insane fat intake, but i won't speculate)

---

My point is simple. In face of modern foods, genetics don't really matter. A crap lifestyle will just lead to crap health. It would be interesting to really find out how various ethnic groups tolerate certain macros though, if that is really true. But i will still argue that individual tolerance can vary a great deal, independent of ethnic background, and is a better indicator to monitor.

Madevilz

03-01-2009, 04:05 PM

For example Asians perhaps seem to handle carbohydrates rather well , having rice and bread(flatbreads etc..) as a staple of their diets. An increase in fats doesn't tend to favour with the majority and dairy isn't that popular , if we look at China - cheese and butter are difficult to get or weren't very common until recent times. Also in Thailand, Malaysia , Southern India etc... They tend to use coconut milk in their curries rather than regular milk. Possibly mediterraneans, can be included in this and southern european countries - italian spanish etc...

well, i might be the exception, but Carbs make me bloated. I always try to keep my carbs less than 30-35g every meal or else I get bloated. Luckily I also sweat like a pig, so that even things out... lol

KLMARB

03-04-2009, 11:36 AM

Beyondveg.com as well as paleodiet.com covers all of this stuff fairly well.

Jay Rawd

03-12-2009, 04:09 PM

I know Charles Poliquin, and most notably, Peter D'Adamo are real big into genetic typing. I think it's pretty interesting and has some merit, but I haven't really seen any conclusive evidence favoring it.

Poliquin pretty much says people of European descent should eat no carbs except for berries and veggies, which to me is a little extreme. Then you have D'Adamo, who claims blood type O's shouldn't eat an dairy. My brother drinks about a gallon of milk a day as a Type O, and holds maybe 10% bodyfat on a bad day.

I do think some people can handle higher amounts of carbs or fat in the diet, but to go so far as saying "if you're German or French, you can't eat bread" is kinda whack.
I was always under the impression that Europeans can handle carbs quite well, it's fat they they can't take.

Why else do you see diabetes more prominent in non-Whites than in Whites? Diabetes and insulin resistance (and glucose intolerance) seem to be problems of non-Whites, in my opinion.

Just my experience. But I think it varies between Nordics, Mediterraneans, Alpines, Dinarics, etc.

Jay Rawd

03-12-2009, 04:11 PM

Possibly mediterraneans, can be included in this and southern european countries - italian spanish etc...

And Europeans and Caucasians seem to do well on higher fat , butter , red meat , saturated fats are handled pretty well (French, Germans, some Americans etc)

So I assume that by "Europeans and Caucasians" you mean people of Nordic descent? Because italians and Spaniards are European Caucasians.

I don't know where people get this, though. Practically most White people I know can shove huge amounts of carbs into their system without negative consequence. it's the fat that is killing them.

nathanbailey

03-12-2009, 04:39 PM

So I assume that by "Europeans and Caucasians" you mean people of Nordic descent? Because italians and Spaniards are European Caucasians.

I don't know where people get this, though. Practically most White people I know can shove huge amounts of carbs into their system without negative consequence. it's the fat that is killing them.

the italian diet SCREAMS carbs!! with all the pastas/breads, etc that are consumed in high volume... how somebody could think they cant handle carbs is beyond me!!

Jay Rawd

03-12-2009, 04:40 PM

the italian diet SCREAMS carbs!! with all the pastas/breads, etc that are consumed in high volume... how somebody could think they cant handle carbs is beyond me!!
Pretty much. Perhaps he meant Nordic Europeans moreso than Mediterranean Europeans who eat tons of carbs.

I'm Mediterranean and I can handle carbs very well. When I start eating high fat I run into problems.

http://emilymorrow.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/bowling-with-my-sicilian-family.jpg

nathanbailey

03-12-2009, 04:57 PM

Pretty much. Perhaps he meant Nordic Europeans moreso than Mediterranean Europeans who eat tons of carbs.

I'm Mediterranean and I can handle carbs very well. When I start eating high fat I run into problems.

yep i know what you mean... i seem to be able to handle both styles of eating fairly well but being half italian i dont see how you can pass up a big bowl of pasta over fatty foods no matter how healthy they r :P

ShayThor1989

03-13-2009, 07:03 AM

I was always under the impression that Europeans can handle carbs quite well, it's fat they they can't take.

Why else do you see diabetes more prominent in non-Whites than in Whites? Diabetes and insulin resistance (and glucose intolerance) seem to be problems of non-Whites, in my opinion.

Just my experience. But I think it varies between Nordics, Mediterraneans, Alpines, Dinarics, etc.

Interesting you would reference racial sub-categories. Wasn't it that guy Coon who came up with these?

Jay Rawd

03-13-2009, 02:34 PM

Interesting you would reference racial sub-categories. Wasn't it that guy Coon who came up with these?
Maybe Carleton S. Coon or Hans P.K. Gunther. One of those guys.

But the diet of Europeans varies so much that you can't lump all of them as either glucose intolerant or glucose tolerant. I know that there can't be many glucose intolerant Mediterraneans since their diets are high in carbs and few of them are fat. I don't even think that Whites as a whole are very glucose intolerant, seeing as diabetes isn't really that prominent in Whites.

queloque

03-15-2009, 12:37 PM

Maybe Carleton S. Coon or Hans P.K. Gunther. One of those guys.

But the diet of Europeans varies so much that you can't lump all of them as either glucose intolerant or glucose tolerant. I know that there can't be many glucose intolerant Mediterraneans since their diets are high in carbs and few of them are fat. I don't even think that Whites as a whole are very glucose intolerant, seeing as diabetes isn't really that prominent in Whites.

diabetics is prominent in fat people and our diet no matter the race. Diabetics is not selective of race.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12324978
Estimates and projections suggest an epidemic expansion of diabetes incidence and prevalence in Europe.

http://www.idf.org/home/index.cfm?node=46
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is low in both rural and urban Bantu communities, but is ten times more prevalent in Muslim and Hindu communities in Tanzania and South Africa, and in the Chinese community in Mauritius. Type 1 diabetes, while still rare, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Diabetes is already a major public health problem in Africa and its impact is bound to increase significantly if nothing is done to curb the rising rate.

This is a world epidemic because our eating habits have changed drastically. has nothing to do with race.

Dr. Horse

03-15-2009, 03:36 PM

has nothing to do with race.

Oh really?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/blueprint/images/figure2.gif
Prevalence of Diabetes: Diagnosed and Undiagnosed
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/index.htm

queloque

03-16-2009, 11:40 AM

Oh really?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/blueprint/images/figure2.gif
Prevalence of Diabetes: Diagnosed and Undiagnosed
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/index.htm

First of all most Blacks in the US are genetically mixed with white. What category do mixed race come in? Another evil sin in the US when it comes to science.
Please don't argue the social definition of what Black is.

white latinos are mixed with European Spanish and Indio. Again, multiracial....so again what is the racial makeup again?

Indigenous Indians don't have a great number of diabetic problems nor do Africans on the continent before the introduction of process foods with high levels of sodium, carbs and sugars.

The strongest argument you can make is it is due to cultures because culture is ever changing and also the evolution of Foods in society, and especially processed foods and finally economics. Culture is how you are brought up. That statistic doesn't show that. You can't say its just based on the tone of ones skin.

Central Americans eat a great amount of Fried foods. So do native Americans. The fried foods for native Americans was the result of the introduction to Flours, Pig Fats(Lard) for cooking, salts and sugars when they were thrown on Reservations and this was allocated to them by the government. One of the best tasting food from Native Americans after they were thrown on Reservations was the famous "Fry Bread". 1400 calories for one piece. Nothing but dough patted into a large disk and deep fried in animal grease topped with sugar and honey. One of the best tasting things I've ever had but guess what it contributes to their bad health. One example of Culture changing artificially. And as a result of the forced change in their culture their dietary habits changed and because of that an increase in diabetics and overweight within the Native American Community.

It wasn't the fact that they were racially of native American descent.

Eskimos did not have a diabetes problem because their diet was primarily meats and fats.

In fact the most healthiest group of people in the world come from the Dinka tribe in the Sudan.
Why? heavy diet of proteins, fats and minimal sugars. Guess what, they are Black and as Black as you can get. It has nothing to do with race.

All the statistic does is show a correlation with what happens to a cultural society when the improper foods are introduced to them after they are conquered by another society and economics plays the strongest role of what people will buy when it comes to food. The Alaskan and Native Americans are the strongest examples to date and there is a historical connection to their health and when they were forced to live on Reservations after they were taken over. And you can see on the graph they are in the worst situation.

This is when the evil scientist come out of their caves to play the race argument and they are completely wrong.

Try reading books like, "Guns Germs and Steal" for a start to learn why people and cultures did what they do and eat what they eat and it goes beyond race. Another good book is, "Salt, A World History: Mark Kurlansky." That alone will lead you to the promise land of why Americans eat the way that they do and the rest of the world and why high blood pressure, dieteties and other ailments hurt American Citizens of different "Social-economic cultural" groups.

You can't say you are Black or hispanic so therefore you are going to be a fat diabetic. Wrong! You can only say, yes you are Black but "if you eat in this manner" this "will" happen to you.

And the data is showing that diabetes is in epidemic proportions in Europe. Is that because they are, "White"?

Holyspokes

03-16-2009, 01:01 PM

First of all most Blacks in the US are genetically mixed with white. What category do mixed race come in? Another evil sin in the US when it comes to science.
Please don't argue the social definition of what Black is.

white latinos are mixed with European Spanish and Indio. Again, multiracial....so again what is the racial makeup again?

Indigenous Indians don't have a great number of diabetic problems nor do Africans on the continent before the introduction of process foods with high levels of sodium, carbs and sugars.

The strongest argument you can make is it is due to cultures because culture is ever changing and also the evolution of Foods in society, and especially processed foods and finally economics. Culture is how you are brought up. That statistic doesn't show that. You can't say its just based on the tone of ones skin.

Central Americans eat a great amount of Fried foods. So do native Americans. The fried foods for native Americans was the result of the introduction to Flours, Pig Fats(Lard) for cooking, salts and sugars when they were thrown on Reservations and this was allocated to them by the government. One of the best tasting food from Native Americans after they were thrown on Reservations was the famous "Fry Bread". 1400 calories for one piece. Nothing but dough patted into a large disk and deep fried in animal grease topped with sugar and honey. One of the best tasting things I've ever had but guess what it contributes to their bad health. One example of Culture changing artificially. And as a result of the forced change in their culture their dietary habits changed and because of that an increase in diabetics and overweight within the Native American Community.

It wasn't the fact that they were racially of native American descent.

Eskimos did not have a diabetes problem because their diet was primarily meats and fats.

In fact the most healthiest group of people in the world come from the Dinka tribe in the Sudan.
Why? heavy diet of proteins, fats and minimal sugars. Guess what, they are Black and as Black as you can get. It has nothing to do with race.

All the statistic does is show a correlation with what happens to a cultural society when the improper foods are introduced to them after they are conquered by another society and economics plays the strongest role of what people will buy when it comes to food. The Alaskan and Native Americans are the strongest examples to date and there is a historical connection to their health and when they were forced to live on Reservations after they were taken over. And you can see on the graph they are in the worst situation.

This is when the evil scientist come out of their caves to play the race argument and they are completely wrong.

Try reading books like, "Guns Germs and Steal" for a start to learn why people and cultures did what they do and eat what they eat and it goes beyond race. Another good book is, "Salt, A World History: Mark Kurlansky." That alone will lead you to the promise land of why Americans eat the way that they do and the rest of the world and why high blood pressure, dieteties and other ailments hurt American Citizens of different "Social-economic cultural" groups.

You can't say you are Black or hispanic so therefore you are going to be a fat diabetic. Wrong! You can only say, yes you are Black but "if you eat in this manner" this "will" happen to you.

And the data is showing that diabetes is in epidemic proportions in Europe. Is that because they are, "White"?

Good post, and I kind of agree... But why are whites who eat the same way as blacks less likely to get diabetes..? Obviously you can't just make a blanket statement like "blacks are more likely to get diabetes because of their race, no matter what their diet is and location"

queloque

03-16-2009, 01:30 PM

Good post, and I kind of agree... But why are whites who eat the same way as blacks less likely to get diabetes..? Obviously you can't just make a blanket statement like "blacks are more likely to get diabetes because of their race, no matter what their diet is and location"

My question to you is, "are they eating the same way?" There is no data to support they are. There is a lot more data that shows they are not eating the same way. There was a CNN documentary about Inner Cities and diets and the lack of Grocery Stores so they go to corner stores for cheap processed foods. Go to small markets near by for low quality meats and processed foods.

In fact data shows that that culture and you can go back to slavery if you like, eats a higher amounts of salt, the worst parts of meats on Pork and cows and an introduction to heavy pig fats. The book, Salt I mentioned in my earlier post really lays that out. I was amazed. And of course not knowing how to properly cook these heavily salted meats at the time. When Europeans salted the meats for preservation, when it was time to eat it or cook it, a lot of that salt had to be removed and washed off. For many slaves they did not understand this and because of that ate higher amounts of sodium passed down from generation after generation. Also at one point fried chicken in the Black community was generally eaten only on Sundays because of the amount of work involved but with fast food these foods are eaten almost everyday. It requires little effort to cook. Why cook if you can get a 3 piece chicken meal for $3.99.

Fast forward in history, that tradition of eating and cooking gets passed down generation after generation.

And today the data says, Blacks cook with more grease than whites, more salt than whites, more fatty and low quality of meats. The only group that beats them out are Native Americans who were introduced to the same foods but learned to cook the food a different way. Soul food is Soul food for a reason...Heavy grease, salt, saturated fats, deep fried, etc. if it was just food similar to what white people eat, it would not be called, Soul Food.

The way Blacks cook in terms of the amount of saturated fats and salts are Almost similar to Native Americans and now Central Americans but Native Americans are far worse.

And according to to Pubmed.gov titled, Food choices of whites, blacks, and Hispanics: data from the 1987 National Health Interview Survey.
Although its dated, I would say the way Americans eat has gotten worse.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7644380?dopt=Abstract

"Whites eat a more varied diet than blacks and Hispanics; blacks eat more fried and high-fat food; consumption of high-fat foods is lowest among Hispanics. Public health messages, especially those aimed at cancer prevention, should be targeted at increasing the overall consumption of fruits and vegetables, decreasing consumption of high-fat foods, especially among white and black men, and increasing consumption of those healthful foods already consumed by particular race/ethnicity groups."

But how they eat goes way beyond race which is my point. There is a history of why different cultures eat the way they do and race is not a factor in that but more of an excuse in my honest opinion.

And although not the most reliable wiki has a good and sad description of soul food with heath.

"Soul food was developed by enslaved African-Americans who lived under the difficult and impoverished conditions of grinding physical labor. It is humble, hearty fare, traditionally cooked and seasoned with pork products and often fried in lard.

Formerly, an important aspect of the preparation of soul food was the reuse of cooking lard. Because many cooks were too poor to throw out shortening that had already been used, they would pour the cooled liquid grease into a container. After cooling completely, the grease resolidified and could be used again the next time the cook required lard. Used cooking lard was simply a way to reuse an ingredient. Many poor Whites do this as well.

Frequent consumption of these ingredients without significant exercise or activity can contribute to disproportionately high occurrences of obesity, hypertension, cardiac/circulatory problems, and/or type 2 diabetes, conditions which often result in shortened lifespan. Additionally, trans fat, which is used not only in soul food, but in many baked goods, is a known contributor to cardiovascular disease."

Just the description above of "soul food" is tied more directly to a cultural change in eating habits for a poorer class of people. ECONOMICS. It wasn't because they were Black or Native American who cooked their food in almost a similar way. And like I said before, native americans have the worst health in this country when it comes to diet.

Now, as far as I'm concerned this is not a typical way of cooking for most White americans. I will admit Whites in the south eat similar but the south is also where the heavist white americans live and Mississippi is considered the state with the most heaviest people in the country.

And a final note, if you go to the Carribean be it Latin or British influence the Blacks in those regions are much more thinner than Black Americans but much of their food is of an African tradition with a slight mixture of Spanish influence. After all many of those countries won their independance from Spain in the 1800's. The memory of the traditional foods were not forgotten.

Fruits, Bananas, soups, roots. The frying came from the Spanish.

And the only difference between Black Americans and Caribbean and Brazilian Blacks is that they got off of their boats first during slavery because they all came from the same countries in Africa and they are pretty much kissing cousins. It was called the Slave Triangle - From Africa to the Caribbean where Europeans picked up Sugar and Salts, than to the US to drop off more slaves, salts and sugar, and picked up processed Fish and taxes from the US and than back to Europe....the Slave Triangle. Also some of that is noted in the book, Salt but other sources as well. And the reason I know is because i'm of Latin Caribbean descent so I eat a lot of those traditional foods of the islands. Many still have their African names if you go to The Dominican Republic, Cuba and even Puerto Rico. One of my favorites is, "Mangu". its basically boiled and smashed Plantains also Cuban Mofongo and Fufu which is a thick porridge from Plantains. Dominican Sancocho All that comes from Western Africa. Sancocho is the Dominican Republics National dish but its also cooked in Haiti, Puerto Rico, Panama and Columbia who all have a large Black latino population.

And if you walk up to a Dominican, Cuban or Puerto Rican and mention these food names, it will put a smile to their face.

Most Caribenos get fat when they come to the United States. It never fails and because they pick up the American culture not understanding the full effect of Fast Food, fried foods, and the quantity of food and what it can do to the body.

I think Americans are starting to have the worst eating tradition in the world to be honest.

Jay Rawd

03-16-2009, 05:08 PM

reefpicker

03-16-2009, 05:18 PM

My question to you is, "are they eating the same way?" There is no data to support they are. There is a lot more data that shows they are not eating the same way. There was a CNN documentary about Inner Cities and diets and the lack of Grocery Stores so they go to corner stores for cheap processed foods. Go to small markets near by for low quality meats and processed foods.

In fact data shows that that culture and you can go back to slavery if you like, eats a higher amounts of salt, the worst parts of meats on Pork and cows and an introduction to heavy pig fats. The book, Salt I mentioned in my earlier post really lays that out. I was amazed. And of course not knowing how to properly cook these heavily salted meats at the time. When Europeans salted the meats for preservation, when it was time to eat it or cook it, a lot of that salt had to be removed and washed off. For many slaves they did not understand this and because of that ate higher amounts of sodium passed down from generation after generation. Also at one point fried chicken in the Black community was generally eaten only on Sundays because of the amount of work involved but with fast food these foods are eaten almost everyday. It requires little effort to cook. Why cook if you can get a 3 piece chicken meal for $3.99.

Fast forward in history, that tradition of eating and cooking gets passed down generation after generation.

And today the data says, Blacks cook with more grease than whites, more salt than whites, more fatty and low quality of meats. The only group that beats them out are Native Americans who were introduced to the same foods but learned to cook the food a different way. Soul food is Soul food for a reason...Heavy grease, salt, saturated fats, deep fried, etc. if it was just food similar to what white people eat, it would not be called, Soul Food.

The way Blacks cook in terms of the amount of saturated fats and salts are Almost similar to Native Americans and now Central Americans but Native Americans are far worse.

And according to to Pubmed.gov titled, Food choices of whites, blacks, and Hispanics: data from the 1987 National Health Interview Survey.
Although its dated, I would say the way Americans eat has gotten worse.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7644380?dopt=Abstract

"Whites eat a more varied diet than blacks and Hispanics; blacks eat more fried and high-fat food; consumption of high-fat foods is lowest among Hispanics. Public health messages, especially those aimed at cancer prevention, should be targeted at increasing the overall consumption of fruits and vegetables, decreasing consumption of high-fat foods, especially among white and black men, and increasing consumption of those healthful foods already consumed by particular race/ethnicity groups."

But how they eat goes way beyond race which is my point. There is a history of why different cultures eat the way they do and race is not a factor in that but more of an excuse in my honest opinion.

And although not the most reliable wiki has a good and sad description of soul food with heath.

"Soul food was developed by enslaved African-Americans who lived under the difficult and impoverished conditions of grinding physical labor. It is humble, hearty fare, traditionally cooked and seasoned with pork products and often fried in lard.

Formerly, an important aspect of the preparation of soul food was the reuse of cooking lard. Because many cooks were too poor to throw out shortening that had already been used, they would pour the cooled liquid grease into a container. After cooling completely, the grease resolidified and could be used again the next time the cook required lard. Used cooking lard was simply a way to reuse an ingredient. Many poor Whites do this as well.

Frequent consumption of these ingredients without significant exercise or activity can contribute to disproportionately high occurrences of obesity, hypertension, cardiac/circulatory problems, and/or type 2 diabetes, conditions which often result in shortened lifespan. Additionally, trans fat, which is used not only in soul food, but in many baked goods, is a known contributor to cardiovascular disease."

Just the description above of "soul food" is tied more directly to a cultural change in eating habits for a poorer class of people. ECONOMICS. It wasn't because they were Black or Native American who cooked their food in almost a similar way. And like I said before, native americans have the worst health in this country when it comes to diet.

Now, as far as I'm concerned this is not a typical way of cooking for most White americans. I will admit Whites in the south eat similar but the south is also where the heavist white americans live and Mississippi is considered the state with the most heaviest people in the country.

And a final note, if you go to the Carribean be it Latin or British influence the Blacks in those regions are much more thinner than Black Americans but much of their food is of an African tradition with a slight mixture of Spanish influence. After all many of those countries won their independance from Spain in the 1800's. The memory of the traditional foods were not forgotten.

Fruits, Bananas, soups, roots. The frying came from the Spanish.

And the only difference between Black Americans and Caribbean and Brazilian Blacks is that they got off of their boats first during slavery because they all came from the same countries in Africa and they are pretty much kissing cousins. It was called the Slave Triangle - From Africa to the Caribbean where Europeans picked up Sugar and Salts, than to the US to drop off more slaves, salts and sugar, and picked up processed Fish and taxes from the US and than back to Europe....the Slave Triangle. Also some of that is noted in the book, Salt but other sources as well. And the reason I know is because i'm of Latin Caribbean descent so I eat a lot of those traditional foods of the islands. Many still have their African names if you go to The Dominican Republic, Cuba and even Puerto Rico. One of my favorites is, "Mangu". its basically boiled and smashed Plantains also Cuban Mofongo and Fufu which is a thick porridge from Plantains. Dominican Sancocho All that comes from Western Africa. Sancocho is the Dominican Republics National dish but its also cooked in Haiti, Puerto Rico, Panama and Columbia who all have a large Black latino population.

And if you walk up to a Dominican, Cuban or Puerto Rican and mention these food names, it will put a smile to their face.

Most Caribenos get fat when they come to the United States. It never fails and because they pick up the American culture not understanding the full effect of Fast Food, fried foods, and the quantity of food and what it can do to the body.

I think Americans are starting to have the worst eating tradition in the world to be honest.

I can't agree with you more.

I am latino myself and has always found the "racial" labeling to be rather ludicrous at best. What the f is non-white hispanic? LOL Hispanics are hispanics....

The only difference between most white and non-white hispanics is the percent of genetic contribution from africans.... and even then... I am light skinned, with green eyes, and a lot of people are puzzled to learn I am 100% Puertorrican... Yet, my sister is dark skinned, my dad is very dark skinned, and so was my grandma. My mom is really white as far as puertorricans go....

I think the biggest different between Ethnicity (NOT RACE) and anything related to "nutrition" is diet and lifestyle.

The poster that noted a difference between the rural areas of China and the city hits it in the nail but he missed the point himself: people in the rural communities probably do not overeat, and may be more active.

There are so many factors to consider. In some cultures leaving an empty plate is bad manners, while in others the converse is true. For some cultures, eating is a big social event. In communities were public transportation or no motorized transportation is a commonality, people walk more.

Chosticks and the tradition of passing one big bowl of rice for all the comensals, might foster a slower, much more paced, eating.... And the signals to the brain for satiation take time to reach it, so slower eating might preclude overeating.

Contrast this with eating in front of a TV.

Talking while eating is also something that fosters less overeating.

I could go on.

I think that most epidemiological studies on this issue are flawed.

My grandfather had high BP untreated for a long time and also high cholesterol. He did have heart surgery but after that, he lived quiet a long time... I know a lot of older puertorricans (specially woman), who have died 90+ yr and seemed pretty much in good shape until they hit the high 80s or low 90s. And they all eat lots of lard, fried food, rice, etc. And those pre/post-WWII would have eaten very little fresh meat right around the time of the war and also during the great depression. My parents used to talk about how they would eat pollock salted (no refrigeration) and how they would use the same fillet of fish to make stock a couple of times (or so i think goes the story)... Point is they eat little protein, lots of carbs, and lots of soup (and ah, EGGS!).

Jay Rawd

03-16-2009, 05:29 PM

White non-Hispanic means any European that doesn't have Spaniard blood.

Hispanic is not a racial labeling, it's cultural. Hispanics can be White, Black, Mestizo, Amerindian but in most cases are mixed.

queloque

03-16-2009, 06:41 PM

All I know is that most Whites I've met eat horribly and they never get diabetes. They get fat, but they don't get diabetes. However, give an Eskimo a hamburger and he almost dies from insulin shock.

It's great to be White. Well I'm not really White but I also don't come from any of those insulin resistant groups.

Yes, this evidence is anecdotal but you can't deny that Whites don't exactly have the healthiest diet yet they don't suffer from the same problems as the others do.

First there are three people at my job who have diabetics, all three are White and they are overweight because that is what generally cause Type II diabetics.

Also where did you get that from? Again, in Europe diabetes is an epidemic. Are they not white but I'm smart enough to know diets are changing drastically for the worst in Europe as in the US?

"Estimates and projections suggest an epidemic expansion of diabetes incidence and prevalence in Europe. To evaluate trends in type 1 and type 2 diabetes in seven European countries (Finland, Denmark, the UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy), a variety of information is available, including population-based studies on small or large cohorts of subjects representative of the general population in a particular country, European co-operative studies, and sales figures for insulin and oral hypoglycemic agents that allow extrapolation of the number of pharmacologically treated diabetic patients. The incidence of type 1 diabetes in young people is increasing in most European countries, as is its prevalence in all age groups. Type 2 diabetes is the major contributor to the epidemic rise in diabetes. From 1995 to 1999, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased considerably, particularly in the UK, Germany, and France. Costs of ambulatory and in-hospital diabetic care (including antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and hypolipidemic agents) have increased even more rapidly than has the number of affected patients. Diabetes trends in Europe are alarming;" Pub Med.gov

type I is genetic and type II is generally self inflicting due to diet.
5% of Blacks have Type I and 6% of All Americans have type I.

A different story when it comes to Type II diebeties and Type II is due to diet and obesity and weight NOT RACE. So your celebration for being White is silly at best.
And if it was soo racial why isn't it a major problem in Africa? Why is it a major problem in Central America but not South America. Similar racial makeup. CULTURE.

Source 1
The WHO European Health for All database compiles data from national diabetes registers, where available, or from routine reporting systems. These data show the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes is increasing in nearly all countries of Europe. The WHO data, however, greatly underestimate the true prevalence of diabetes in the population as around 50% of diabetes is undiagnosed.

Type 1 diabetes which is genetic accounts for 5 percent of all cases among African Americans, while type 2 diabetes accounts for 90 to 95 percent of all cases. In every age group the prevalence of Type II diabetes is higher among African-American women than among African-American men.

And 6% of all Americans have Type I diabetes which is argued as genetic.
And we know that Type II is generally caused by diet and self inflicting not because of your race. Source: http://www.dlife.com, and www.omhrc.gov

Why is it high in African-American women? How many have you seen in your local gym.
Many don't work out. LIFESTYLE not race. Especially in a culture where their men like thier women heavier...again CULTURAL LIFESTYLE. Similar in many Latino cultures. LIFESTYLE.

The continuance of Americans basing every behavior and causation due to race it just creates a very ignorant society when it comes to health and its an old mindset this country refuses to let go because THE BLAME GAME is how it works here. And when it comes to eating, it gives certain groups of false sense of security in their eating habits. Case in point,

1970's the average american ate 1900 calories a day
1990's The average American ate 2300 calories a day
Today, the average american eats about 3600 calories a day and now we have children of all races getting Type II diabetes at the same rate when it comes to race.

So if you feel like Superman because you are white and can eat anything you want, I have some links to where you can get your insulin shots while you hover in the 200 plus pound range when you eventually stop working out hardcore.

Finally an article on NFL Lineman who are generally white since you like playing race even though its false its due to race but cultural and lifestyle.

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.cfm?pageid=P08807
After their playing days are done, many National Football League linemen suffer from a health syndrome that puts them at significant risk for cardiovascular disease.

So far, the researchers have found that 52 percent of the lineman have metabolic syndrome, in which a person has three or more of the following conditions: abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides (blood fats) and low HDL (good) cholesterol. This is more than double the rate of metabolic syndrom for other retired players and the general US population.

Linemen also have a higher rate of diabetes, thicker heart walls and a greater rate of obesity and high blood pressure. They are also 54 percent more likely to have enlarged hearts than other NFL players. Among lineman, 37 percent had enlarged hearts, compared with 25 percent of other retired players.

Linemen, who are the largest players and typically weigh in at 300 to 350 pounds, are twice as likely to develop these conditions as other retired football players. "When you break it down, the main risk factor is their large body size," Dr. Roberts says.

GEE, looks like lifestyle to me. Similar symptoms you find with overweight Americans in general no matter the race. You choose a certain lifestyle you pay big time.
So unless Blacks, Indio-Hispanics, Native Americans adjust their eating lifestyle, they will always have worse statistics than other groups.

queloque

03-16-2009, 07:06 PM

All I know is that most Whites I've met eat horribly and they never get diabetes. They get fat, but they don't get diabetes. However, give an Eskimo a hamburger and he almost dies from insulin shock.

It's great to be White. Well I'm not really White but I also don't come from any of those insulin resistant groups.

Yes, this evidence is anecdotal but you can't deny that Whites don't exactly have the healthiest diet yet they don't suffer from the same problems as the others do.

First there are three people at my job who have diabetics, all three are White and they are overweight because that is what generally cause Type II diabetics.

Also where did you get that from? Again, in Europe diabetes is an epidemic. Are they not white?
"Estimates and projections suggest an epidemic expansion of diabetes incidence and prevalence in Europe. To evaluate trends in type 1 and type 2 diabetes in seven European countries (Finland, Denmark, the UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy), a variety of information is available, including population-based studies on small or large cohorts of subjects representative of the general population in a particular country, European co-operative studies, and sales figures for insulin and oral hypoglycemic agents that allow extrapolation of the number of pharmacologically treated diabetic patients. The incidence of type 1 diabetes in young people is increasing in most European countries, as is its prevalence in all age groups. Type 2 diabetes is the major contributor to the epidemic rise in diabetes. From 1995 to 1999, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased considerably, particularly in the UK, Germany, and France. Costs of ambulatory and in-hospital diabetic care (including antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and hypolipidemic agents) have increased even more rapidly than has the number of affected patients. Diabetes trends in Europe are alarming;" Pub Med.gov

type I is genetic and type II is generally self inflicting due to diet.
5% of Blacks have Type I and 6% of All Americans have type I.

A different story when it comes to Type II diebeties and Type II is due to diet and obesity and weight NOT RACE. So your celebration for being White is silly at best. Why isn't it a problem in Africa. I guess Black Americans are a different type of Black. Why isn't it a problem in South America but a major problem in Central American. Similar racial makeup. hmmmm. Culture?

Source 1
The WHO European Health for All database compiles data from national diabetes registers, where available, or from routine reporting systems. These data show the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes is increasing in nearly all countries of Europe. The WHO data, however, greatly underestimate the true prevalence of diabetes in the population as around 50% of diabetes is undiagnosed.

Type 1 diabetes which is genetic accounts for 5 percent of all cases among African Americans, while type 2 diabetes accounts for 90 to 95 percent of all cases. In every age group the prevalence of Type II diabetes is higher among African-American women than among African-American men.

And 6% of all Americans have Type I diabetes which is argued as genetic.
And we know that Type II is generally caused by diet and self inflicting not because of your race. Source: http://www.dlife.com, and www.omhrc.gov

The continuance of Americans basing every behavior and causation due to race it just creates a very ignorant society when it comes to health. And when it comes to eating, it gives certain groups of false sense of security in their eating habits. Case in point,

1970's the average american ate 1900 calories a day
1990's The average American ate 2300 calories a day
Today, the average american eats about 3600 calories a day and now we have children of all races getting Type II diabetes at the same rate when it comes to race.

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.cfm?pageid=P08807
NFL lineman are generally White but we are smart enough to know its lifestyle.

"NFL Linemen, who are the largest players and typically weigh in at 300 to 350 pounds, are twice as likely to develop these conditions as other retired football players. "When you break it down, the main risk factor is their large body size," Dr. Roberts says.

So far, the researchers have found that 52 percent of the lineman have metabolic syndrome, in which a person has three or more of the following conditions: abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides (blood fats) and low HDL (good) cholesterol. This is more than double the rate of metabolic syndrom for other retired players and the general US population.

Linemen also have a higher rate of diabetes, thicker heart walls and a greater rate of obesity and high blood pressure. They are also 54 percent more likely to have enlarged hearts than other NFL players. Among lineman, 37 percent had enlarged hearts, compared with 25 percent of other retired players."

So if you feel like Superman because you are white and can eat anything you want, I have some links to where you can get your insulin shots while you hover in the 200 plus pound range when you stop working out.

Dr. Horse

03-16-2009, 11:42 PM

type I is genetic and type II is generally self inflicting due to diet.
5% of Blacks have Type I and 6% of All Americans have type I.

A different story when it comes to Type II diebeties and Type II is due to diet and obesity and weight NOT RACE. So your celebration for being White is silly at best.

Type II DM actually has a higher genetic concordance than type I DM. So there goes your theory.

queloque

03-17-2009, 05:17 AM

Type II DM actually has a higher genetic concordance than type I DM. So there goes your theory.

But the data is saying that the reason why African Americans, Whites, and hispanics are getting is is due to becoming more overweight. That is a fact not a theory. You make yourself overweight and when you do you get ailments.

For 300 years, Blacks, for example never had a problem with Type II diebetis. NEVER. Thats a fact. So in the passed 2 decades it is starting to slam Americans. They said that children NO MATTER THE RACE, have the same rate of Type II diebetis...PLEASE ANSWER THAT ONE.
Let me guess, its different with kids...Race matters when you are an adult.

They say people have the genetic for being an alcoholic. That doesn't mean they are born to be an alcoholic it means if you drink in excess there is a greater chance you won't shake it.

White people are 90% more likely to get skin cancer and over 50% of whites will get some form of skin cancer in their lifetime. In fact by the time a White Austrailian reaches 40 years old they will have some form of skin ailment do to the sun. That is a fact. But it requires you do certain things, right? Not sun worship in the Sun, not wear sunscreen. Is that a racial inferiority because Whites cannot hack the Sun? Or an Environmental issue?

This is when people like you go into the slippery slope of nonsense and you don't look at the fact that the environment that you are in and that you put yourself in creates 99% of most ailments humans have or created for themselves. And because Americans eat over 3600 calories a day and Blacks eat in excess o 4000 calories a day, why would anyone be shocked that certain groups get more ailments than other. Type II is one of those things that are self inflicting and there is no data anywhere that says Whites are resistant to Type II because they are conditioned to eating Bagels and ravioli.

Please post that special white DNA gene written in some Medical Journal that is uniquely in Whites and protects Whites more so than other groups from Type II and if you have it, I will lick your nuts. If that is the case why is Type II an epedimic in Europe? Please answer the next question before you move forward.

I guess it must be genetic and White Americans became this super race after leaving Europe. I whole continent is getting slammed with Type II that is pretty much a white region of the world.

The majority of the time people use "genetic" is when they don't have answers. When they don't choose to find answers.

There was some local news report from some quack doctor that said that some people might be more genetically inclined to Social Networking websites on the internet.....WHAT! How long has the internet been here and humans been here for over 100,000 years and some of us have a genetic connection to social networking websites?

Again, if you say dumb stuff long enough you tend to start believing it. I think many in this discussion has entered that realm.

Remember for 200 years this is the same country that said, there is a difference between white blood and Black blood. Another historical and scientific fact. Until during WWII when Blood was short and transfusions were needed, that idea quickly died.

Dr. Horse

03-17-2009, 07:56 AM

queloque

03-17-2009, 09:16 AM

We actually have very good data on this. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

Of course environment plays a big role, I never discounted that. Seems like you have a BIG chip on your shoulder about this issue. Stop for a second and ask who/what you are arguing about.

First I don't know who "we" is.

Now I have a chip on my shoulder because I took the time to counter one liner conclusions by people as fact by making incorrect statements?

Chip on my shoulder? How old are you? Are you older than 50. I think i'm getting an idea of why you think the way you do.

First you need to stop and think and ask yourself, Mr. Horse, why do you believe that skin tone plays a key part in type II diabetics? Why do you think Skin tone determines who has more resistant of Type II even if they weight 300 pounds. That is the question you have to ask yourself, not me.
Show me the evidence that it is Skin tone that determines this. You are the one that has the Chip on your should to make a baseless argument that straddles 17th Century thinking.

Not once have you responded to my questions, you just ignore and say someone has a chip on their shoulder with "one liners." Who are you?

Answer my questions.
1. Why is it an epidemic in Europe if you believe "Whites" are resistant.
2. Why isn't it an epidemic in Africa
3. Why is it an epidemic in central American but not south america they are all Hispanic/Latino?
3. Why is that the national average of Type 1 is 6% and Black Americans who have type 1 is between 5% to 7% which is roughly the national average. What is the genetic argument to that?
4. What data do you have that shows that "race" of whites are "genetically" more resistant to type II sense that is what we are really talking about because most people including Blacks and Native Americans don't have type I.
5. I'm Latino and where I grew up everyone is mixed on the islands. So where is the data for this ever growing Mix Race of people? Hispanic is a culture not a race yet someone post data of "Black, White, and Hispanic? Is that how studies are done in America?

White women are 2 times more likely to have Breast cancer in the US than any other Race. is that because they are white?
Do you honestly believe it is because they are white?
An epidemic that went off the charts in the US starting in the early to mid 1970's. A period of time when they started adding Aluminum to deodorant sticks and spray to fight wetness......hmmmmmmm May not be the cause but doctors are making some strong arguments.

The easy way out is to say causation is due to them having White skin tone if you choose stupid logic. But a rational thinker are smart enough to know better.

So is that how studies are done in America? It starts with, what color are you first?
Is this a way to determine how much effort one takes in the study?
If its empacting Native Americans, less resources are put into the study like they did when doctors thought AIDS was a Gay Disease.
But when it attacks mainstream, then now the race argument is removed and now its an American problem or a Human problem that is not selective of Race. That is how it always seems to end, doesn't it?

That is called, Stupid Logic.

reefpicker

03-17-2009, 09:40 AM

We actually have very good data on this. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

Of course environment plays a big role, I never discounted that. Seems like you have a BIG chip on your shoulder about this issue. Stop for a second and ask who/what you are arguing about.

Regardless of which is the best "model"/paradigm disease for this or not, he has a very valid argument: that epidemiological studies suffer a large racial bias.

While you find it easy to believe that studies that link racial minorities to disease show how they have "genetic concordance", I believe the converse should be true: that those studies find any genetic homogenicity in the larger black and hispanic population is amazing.

Not saying they don't, because often they do. But this should not be construed as the rule but as the exception.

For example, Spaniards are the melting pot of Europe. They in turn are our main line of Ancestry for European blood. Depending on what part of Spain my ancestors came, I may have more or less Moorish blood in me. My own family lore suggests that I have some Italian blood within me too. I also have some Black (either from the Spanish or my own PR side). The possibility of Caribbean Arawak Indian blood is also there.

I am very typical hispanic. How come they bunch us together? IDK They should split us into groups, depending on what is the biggest genetic contributor (European, Black, Native), because 200 or so years ago, those populations where more homogenous.

Blacks here also come from different areas of Africa. They also may have some "white" in them. Thus, it would be silly to group them together.

If and when you can ID a genetic polymorphism which is more prevalent in one "racial" group than the other, then I will say OK. But stick to the polymorphism or gene and not to the race.... Group people not by the color of the skin, but the content of their genes :)

Seriously, why group people by one external phenotype when we know that the human genotype can express a phenotype in the skin independently. In other words, why should someone have X gene just because they are black? What about someone that looks white but has the black gene because they have black ancestry? What about the reverse? What if you are black but have white ancestry?

To us, hispanics, this is silly. We are used to people of different skin colors, all being of the same ethnicity. We NEVER say to a Puertorrican that he is "black" because he has dark skin, and our own Epidemiological studies only divide people by geography (because they assume that people that migrated to the same regions of the island probably came from the same regions and remained genetically isolated for a few decades before roads, etc where more common), but if anyone said, lets divide them by black or white and assume that it marks their african or spanish ancestry... Gosh, they would be banned from the University and they would be called racists. And the results would be "confounded" by the fact that these are not true lineages.

Here is one good point:

They say people have the genetic for being an alcoholic. That doesn't mean they are born to be an alcoholic it means if you drink in excess there is a greater chance you won't shake it.

Genes are not the ultimate causative agent for most metabolic diseases. It is a mix of genes, environment, and diet.

Teasing out Genes Vs. Culture, nature vs. nurture, etc. is a very hard task and I say, take every result from epidemiological studies with a grain of salt.

As I mentioned, too many cultural factors can become "confounding" factors in such analysis. Clearly, "asians", black-americans, Africans, white, white-europeans, "hispanics", East-coasters, West-coasters, City-dwellers, Mormons, etc. all have different "average" activity levels, food habits, meal timing, etc. It is a mess to tease out.

queloque

03-17-2009, 10:26 AM

Genes are not the ultimate causative agent for most metabolic diseases. It is a mix of genes, environment, and diet.

Teasing out Genes Vs. Culture, nature vs. nurture, etc. is a very hard task and I say, take every result from epidemiological studies with a grain of salt.

And this is what I seem to notice in this country, if one makes the argument that gene represents 5% of the causation to lets say for example, Hispanics will be overweight. So instead of looking at the other 95% causation such as, by the mid 20th century they begin to fry more foods. they started eating 4500 calories a day by the mid 1990's. They exercise less due to economic factors. Instead you have people making the Genetic argument that makes up 5% of the causation and call it the basis of why they have the problem and you get someone to post...."I'm glad I'm white." RIDICULOUS.

What it does is remove the burden of addressing the problem of lifestyle, environment, economics and awareness.
The whole point of why we participate on this site. Lifestyle, awareness, changing our environment and controlling what we eat because we want bodies like a bodybuilder or close to it.

So if we know that Blacks getting Type I represents the US standard at about 6% why would you bring in the genetic argument in the first place when its clear it has the smallest impact of why they will get Type I.

And time and time again they state Type II in Native Americans has been the result of increased caloric intake, frying foods, increased body size and the foods they eat which took hold of that culture once they were forced onto Reservations. Why use the Genetic argument when the causations are slapping you in the face.

reefpicker

03-17-2009, 02:02 PM

Why use the Genetic argument when the causations are slapping you in the face.

Some genes are to blame usually, but correlation studies (even if they say they control for X factor) are no sufficient to proof a genetic basis as the ultimate causative factor. However, genes do seem to contribute and a certain group, if it remains relatively "unmixed", might show a higher probability of having that gene (ie. the gene will appear at a higher frequency in the gene pool).

The fact is that until you can pin point a gene or gene cluster, it is not smart to point out genes as the sole problem.

What is even more interesting, a combination of bad genes and bad diet, can trigger diseases.

So going back to the OP's question. I think his question itself is an example of a misunderstanding.

You can't group "Asians" with Filipinos and "southamericans". First, their gene pools have been isolated for thousands of years. Second, southamericans have probably more Spanish influence than the other two (gene-wise). Filipinos and southamericans have strong Spanish influence in their cooking, yet in Southamerica cooking is not as strongly influenced by Asia as in Philipines.

Asia is a large continent and the foods and people of Southeast Asia and China are so different that its almost two different worlds. Within Southeast Asia, their are many groups of people and some have remained relatively gene-wise isolated.

An example of the importance of isolation is the Amish here in the US. They are white, of Eurpean ancestry, yet have their own set of common genetic mutations (and even a Clinic dedicated to treating them), mostly because of relative "inbreeding".... The same happens to a lot of the groups in Asia and Oceania.

When you think that those people have also different cultures and traditions: You really can't compare anything!

I think the issues we see among the so called "whites", as far as diet go, is mostly influenced by lifestyle. Lifestyle is heavily influenced by social status. You can guess how the rest goes...

Dr. Horse

03-17-2009, 05:13 PM

blah blah blah...

You sir, are a bizarre individual. You are making an argument that doesn't make sense against someone who doesn't even exist.

I won't stop you.

Jay Rawd

03-17-2009, 05:43 PM

Regardless of which is the best "model"/paradigm disease for this or not, he has a very valid argument: that epidemiological studies suffer a large racial bias.

While you find it easy to believe that studies that link racial minorities to disease show how they have "genetic concordance", I believe the converse should be true: that those studies find any genetic homogenicity in the larger black and hispanic population is amazing.

Not saying they don't, because often they do. But this should not be construed as the rule but as the exception.

For example, Spaniards are the melting pot of Europe. They in turn are our main line of Ancestry for European blood. Depending on what part of Spain my ancestors came, I may have more or less Moorish blood in me. My own family lore suggests that I have some Italian blood within me too. I also have some Black (either from the Spanish or my own PR side). The possibility of Caribbean Arawak Indian blood is also there.

I am very typical hispanic. How come they bunch us together? IDK They should split us into groups, depending on what is the biggest genetic contributor (European, Black, Native), because 200 or so years ago, those populations where more homogenous.

Blacks here also come from different areas of Africa. They also may have some "white" in them. Thus, it would be silly to group them together.

If and when you can ID a genetic polymorphism which is more prevalent in one "racial" group than the other, then I will say OK. But stick to the polymorphism or gene and not to the race.... Group people not by the color of the skin, but the content of their genes :)

Seriously, why group people by one external phenotype when we know that the human genotype can express a phenotype in the skin independently. In other words, why should someone have X gene just because they are black? What about someone that looks white but has the black gene because they have black ancestry? What about the reverse? What if you are black but have white ancestry?

To us, hispanics, this is silly. We are used to people of different skin colors, all being of the same ethnicity. We NEVER say to a Puertorrican that he is "black" because he has dark skin, and our own Epidemiological studies only divide people by geography (because they assume that people that migrated to the same regions of the island probably came from the same regions and remained genetically isolated for a few decades before roads, etc where more common), but if anyone said, lets divide them by black or white and assume that it marks their african or spanish ancestry... Gosh, they would be banned from the University and they would be called racists. And the results would be "confounded" by the fact that these are not true lineages.

Here is one good point:

Genes are not the ultimate causative agent for most metabolic diseases. It is a mix of genes, environment, and diet.

Teasing out Genes Vs. Culture, nature vs. nurture, etc. is a very hard task and I say, take every result from epidemiological studies with a grain of salt.

As I mentioned, too many cultural factors can become "confounding" factors in such analysis. Clearly, "asians", black-americans, Africans, white, white-europeans, "hispanics", East-coasters, West-coasters, City-dwellers, Mormons, etc. all have different "average" activity levels, food habits, meal timing, etc. It is a mess to tease out.
Spaniards aren't the melting pot of Europe. A Spaniard is as White as an Irishman is as White as a Swede. Genetic studies show that Spain is no more a melting pot that Scandinavia is.

I'll even show you the genetic studies if you want. Spaniards are not mixed like you claim they are. Very few people in Spain have non-White blood.

Regice

03-17-2009, 05:46 PM

To us, hispanics, this is silly. We are used to people of different skin colors, all being of the same ethnicity. We NEVER say to a Puertorrican that he is "black" because he has dark skin, and our own Epidemiological studies only divide people by geography (because they assume that people that migrated to the same regions of the island probably came from the same regions and remained genetically isolated for a few decades before roads, etc where more common), but if anyone said, lets divide them by black or white and assume that it marks their african or spanish ancestry... Gosh, they would be banned from the University and they would be called racists. And the results would be "confounded" by the fact that these are not true lineages.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm from Mexico and we do refer to people by their race, we don't call them "Hispanic." We call them Indios (Amerindian), Blancos/Criollos (Europeans), mestizos (mixed), Mulatos (white/black), Prietos (Black), Zambo (Black/Amerindian), etc.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about. Maybe Puerto Ricans don't do it. Don't lump all of us together in the same thought pattern, though.

queloque

03-18-2009, 07:34 AM

What the hell are you talking about? I'm from Mexico and we do refer to people by their race, we don't call them "Hispanic." We call them Indios (Amerindian), Blancos/Criollos (Europeans), mestizos (mixed), Mulatos (white/black), Prietos (Black), Zambo (Black/Amerindian), etc.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about. Maybe Puerto Ricans don't do it. Don't lump all of us together in the same thought pattern, though.

Caribenos might be a more appropriate response from ReefPicker.. Mexicans are like night and day when compared to Hispanics on the islands. Nothing in common but religion and language.
Bingo!!! Another reason why America should not dump Hispanics as one group of people. You clearly made the point. And so a genetic argument would not work for hispanic as it would not work for Black Americans who all came from more than what is now 26 different African countries.
You are Cuban, and you come to America and now you are Hispanic as a racial category. This country is crazy over race. Its a joke.
Especially since we know hispanic is not a race but American statistics takers for government seem to believe so.

queloque

03-18-2009, 07:35 AM

You sir, are a bizarre individual. You are making an argument that doesn't make sense against someone who doesn't even exist.

I won't stop you.

The feeling is mutual, stranger. And like I thought, a stranger with a few word but a lot of conclusions.

Ok, you don't exist.

queloque

03-18-2009, 07:37 AM

Spaniards aren't the melting pot of Europe. A Spaniard is as White as an Irishman is as White as a Swede. Genetic studies show that Spain is no more a melting pot that Scandinavia is.

I would like to see that data, especially when the Muslim empire had stretched into spain and portugal. I don't think Muslims ever stepped foot in Scandinavia.

Look at where the Muslim empire stretched and you want to make the argument that Spain is no different than Scandinavia? have you gone cookoo. And there influenced lasted there for almost 500 years. The US as a country is half that age and look how quickly race mixing and culture mixing have become. The genetic argument gets weaker more and more. "The conquest of the Iberian Peninsula commenced when the Moors (mostly Berbers with some Arabs) invaded Visigothic Christian Iberia (modern Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, Andorra) in the year 711"

Image of the Muslim Empire and where it stretched during the dark ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age-of-caliphs.png

But i'm sure the only thing Americans want to know about muslims and their influence is terrorism.

reefpicker

03-18-2009, 09:59 AM

You sir, are a bizarre individual. You are making an argument that doesn't make sense against someone who doesn't even exist.

I won't stop you.

He might have a bit a problem with the way he expresses his thoughts, but I can understand his arguments and I am pretty sure you can too.

To counter some of his arguments (here I am playing Devil's Advocate), you could post some data that shows that the genetic marker for DB-II has been shown to be significantly more prevalent among X race or not significantly prevalent in Y race. If such data does not exist, it is your argument that is not valid.

Spaniards aren't the melting pot of Europe. A Spaniard is as White as an Irishman is as White as a Swede. Genetic studies show that Spain is no more a melting pot that Scandinavia is.

I'll even show you the genetic studies if you want. Spaniards are not mixed like you claim they are. Very few people in Spain have non-White blood.

You are very ignorant about Spanish history. During La Reconquista, the Spanish kick the Muslims out of Spain. In the meantime, they intermixed, and so did the Jewish during the Diaspora. Furthermore, Spanish people to this date still look "moorish" and have integrated the Muslim style architecture into theirs. There are Spanish people who, like me, have green eyes, and a few of them are blonde. However, most Spanish people have dark hair, dark eyes, and tanned skin. They are also very hairy. Of course, this also depends on what region of Spain. Not all Spaniards look the same, and they would be insulted if we group them together. This of course was my argument anyway.

Your very last sentence sounds even more ignorant. Spanish do not have "non-white" blood? What does "non-white" blood means?

Do you know that there is no such thing as a "white" race? White is a skin color and it only becomes an Ethnicity within the context of the USA, where most people of white skin are of European descent. Here in the USA, Italians, Greeks and Spaniards who are Mediterranean are also referred to as white, even if they do not really have a white skin and share little of that ancestry with the rest of the European continent but I won't get into that.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm from Mexico and we do refer to people by their race, we don't call them "Hispanic." We call them Indios (Amerindian), Blancos/Criollos (Europeans), mestizos (mixed), Mulatos (white/black), Prietos (Black), Zambo (Black/Amerindian), etc.

Actually you are only reinforcing what I said. Notice how you clearly use terms that group people by Ethnicity. Also note how you have a non-binary classification system. Here in the USA, Mulatos, Prietos would be black. Zambos too.

Mexicans do seem to draw lines between the amerindians and the likes. When I watch a Mexican movie, I can see that there are deeper lines carved in the society which almost makes it worst than the US. Sorry that I forgot about that ongoing problem.

Brazil has the same issue.

But you are all Mexicans? No? In PR, we refer to dark skinned people as Triguenos (toned skin), not Black. It is not politically correct to use that term in Puerto Rico. I bet that some of that terminology you mentioned is also not Politically correct, is it? In Puerto Rico, prieto (black) is a derogatory statement unless used by your spouse (in that context it means, "dear" but is trashy).

I have no idea what you're rambling on about. Maybe Puerto Ricans don't do it. Don't lump all of us together in the same thought pattern, though.

If you are proud of carving racial divisions, and do not want to be included, ok. There you go. Mexicans, and most south americans countries are excluded.

Caribenos might be a more appropriate response from ReefPicker.. Mexicans are like night and day when compared to Hispanics on the islands. Nothing in common but religion and language.
Bingo!!! Another reason why America should not dump Hispanics as one group of people.

Agreed.

I hate when people think I am Mexican because of my accent. I also find it funny that they think I should like hot, spicy food.

Asians and Hispanics are a group of people with a very wide range of diversity. I think this discussion goes to show how different we are.

Honestly, lumping us together in one category is like lumping the blacks and whites and asian-americans in the USA just because they all speak the same language. But you know that they have different cultures.

I always wonder... Why is it that French are Frenchmen, Spanish people are Spaniards, but people here in the USA are "american" ? In Spanish we can use the term "estadounidense" meaning united statesmen. But not in English...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estadounidense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)

The only reason I bring this up, is because I wanted to stress that, in my opinion, this is yet another aspect of the culture and language of this country, which shows its tendency to minimize the world. (i.e. another term I hate: "Muslim terrorist", why not Catholic Terrorist? Here, the USA is not alone, but leads the way for sure... hmmm, while we are that, why not say this too: War on Terror. What is Terror? that is a word that is similar to Fear, the War on Terror, the War on Fear, stupid. stupid. Sorry. And the Press is even more Stupid for never correcting it.)

Language is a powerful thing. How we say things, the word we use, it all forms part of our paradigms, and regardless of what came first, words always make their way to our very thoughts. Seeing the world as Black or White, will always be a hurdle in racial integration. And it is sad when these paradigms penetrate all the way to our Scientific Research and Public Health policies.

reefpicker

03-18-2009, 10:13 AM

And for the illiterates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista

My point precisely:

Spanish people or Spaniards are a nation or ethnic group native to Spain, in the Iberian Peninsula of southwestern Europe. They are often considered an amalgam of different ethnic groups, rather than an ethnic group by itself. They are one of the Latin European peoples and have somewhat varied origins, due to the long history of migrations in and out of the Iberian Peninsula. Substantial populations descended from Spanish colonists and immigrants also exist in other parts of the world, most notably in Latin America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_people

The article mentions that the Spanish might be the most "ancestral" European group, but it also mentions that they have a heavy influence from the Near East (aka Turkish) people. Also note how many different Ethnicities exists within Spain. Each one has different influences.

Dr. Horse

03-18-2009, 05:45 PM

He might have a bit a problem with the way he expresses his thoughts, but I can understand his arguments and I am pretty sure you can too.

To counter some of his arguments (here I am playing Devil's Advocate), you could post some data that shows that the genetic marker for DB-II has been shown to be significantly more prevalent among X race or not significantly prevalent in Y race. If such data does not exist, it is your argument that is not valid.

He's so far off topic from what I said that I don't even know where to start. Besides, he's a blow hard and has no desire to hear anything but his own opinion.

queloque

03-18-2009, 06:37 PM

He's so far off topic from what I said that I don't even know where to start. Besides, he's a blow hard and has no desire to hear anything but his own opinion.

That's not true. I'm very very open to opinions. If you have data to back it up i'm open to it. Especially on topics like this. One liners just don't work for me. Never have and never will.

I run a debate website where people compete with each other so unsupported comments just don't work for me and your type of comments and others get shut down very quickly or get addressed directly and that is what I do. Sorry if it upsets you.

Dr. Horse

03-18-2009, 06:47 PM

That's not true. I'm very very open to opinions. If you have data to back it up i'm open to it. Especially on topics like this. One liners just don't work for me. Never have and never will.

Just because your posts are massive doesn't make their content any more valid.

Here's some reading on genetics of DM. A few reviews to get you started:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17151290?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9105779?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9015678?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1892472?ordinalpos=24&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2570596?ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

queloque

03-18-2009, 07:12 PM

Just because your posts are massive doesn't make their content any more valid.

Here's some reading on genetics of DM. A few reviews to get you started:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17151290?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9105779?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9015678?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1892472?ordinalpos=24&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2570596?ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Dude, that is just how I write. I'm not a person that writes one liners to get my point across. That's just me. If it offends you that is your problem not mine. And something like that shouldn't bother you in the first place. Has nothing to do with impressing anybody. Since when is writing a couple of paragraphs impressing someone? I'm a grown man.

Dr. Horse

03-18-2009, 07:16 PM

Dude, that is just how I write. I'm not a person that writes one liners to get my point across. That's just me. If it offends you that is your problem not mine. And something like that shouldn't bother you in the first place. Has nothing to do with impressing anybody. Since when is writing a couple of paragraphs impressing someone? I'm a grown man.

You are so tangential it makes any conversation near impossible.

queloque

03-18-2009, 07:21 PM

You are so tangential it makes any conversation near impossible.

You attack me for writing more than what is acceptable to you, I respond to it and you call me, tangential. This is a ridiculous exchange.

You continually throw insults and when someone responds you get annoyed?
You are a very unusual person.

"posting massive posts." Such a comment is laughable. A couple of paragraphs is "Massive". What happen to American Education?

Dr. Horse

03-18-2009, 07:28 PM

You attack me for writing more than what is acceptable to you, I respond to it and you call me, tangential. This is a ridiculous exchange.

You continually throw insults and when someone responds you get annoyed?
You are a very unusual person.

"posting massive posts." Such a comment is laughable. A couple of paragraphs is "Massive". What happen to American Education?

You have a serious chip about so many different issues. I "attacked" you for "writing more than is acceptable"??? Where are you getting this man?

And don't talk to me about American education; I've had plenty. I read and write enough. Don't need to blow hard on a message board to feel smart...

queloque

03-18-2009, 07:32 PM

You have a serious chip about so many different issues. I "attacked" you for "writing more than is acceptable"??? Where are you getting this man?

And don't talk to me about American education; I've had plenty. I read and write enough. Don't need to blow hard on a message board to feel smart...

Here is your quote because you seem to have a short memory. "Just because your posts are massive doesn't make their content any more valid."

To most people that is an insult. To you I guess a complement.

Feel smart? Talking to you, it is not necessary. 8th grade education will do just fine with you.

Chip on my shoulder? Look in the mirror my friend.

Dr. Horse

03-18-2009, 07:37 PM

Here is your quote because you seem to have a short memory. "Just because your posts are massive doesn't make their content any more valid."

To most people that is an insult. To you I guess a complement.

Ok, since you seem to have trouble interpreting written English, I will spell it out for you.

I was not insulting you, but I was remarking on the content of your post. Get it? My point is that a wordy post doesn't make its questionable content any less so. Get it? I have no problem with a long post, but if it's full of gibberish, then it's just A LOT of gibberish. Get it?

I notice that you asked for information, then promptly ignored it. I can't say that I'm surprised.

queloque

03-18-2009, 07:45 PM

Ok, since you seem to have trouble interpreting written English, I will spell it out for you.

I was not insulting you, but I was remarking on the content of your post. Get it? My point is that a wordy post doesn't make its questionable content any less so. Get it? I have no problem with a long post, but if it's full of gibberish, then it's just A LOT of gibberish. Get it?

I notice that you asked for information, then promptly ignored it. I can't say that I'm surprised.

Ha, more insults. You are very funny. An insult is an insult be it direct or indirect. Be responsible for what you say. I don't know you. I will never see you. So be a man and accept that fact. Dios Mio, people find an excuse for everything, even with what they say.

I read each one of the links. I'm looking for the skin color argument. In your first link it showed based on region to be greater in Europe. No surprise I guess. If I read it wrong, please correct me. But all the numbers in each region are pretty much in par with each other per 100,000 people. And in each one of the paragraphs of the 5 links it kept stressing the impact of Environment. So it is clear they are being very careful with putting a lot of weight on genetics. And I'm not denying that genetics plays a role with us as humans, but to say base on "Skin Color". I'm still looking for that data.

Dr. Horse

03-18-2009, 07:54 PM

Ha, more insults. You are very funny. An insult is an insult be it direct or indirect. Be responsible for what you say. I don't know you. I will never see you. So be a man and accept that fact. Dios Mio, people find an excuse for everything, even with what they say.

I read each one of the links. I'm looking for the skin color argument. In your first link it showed based on region to be greater in Europe. No surprise I guess. If I read it wrong, please correct me. But all the numbers in each region are pretty much in par with each other per 100,000 people. And in each one of the paragraphs of the 5 links it kept stressing the impact of Environment. So it is clear they are being very careful with putting a lot of weight on genetics. And I'm not denying that genetics plays a role with us as humans, but to say base on "Skin Color". I'm still looking for that data.

Once again you are arguing with yourself. I never mentioned "skin color". You introduced that term into this thread, not me.

You said DM has "nothing to do with race"- i posted a quick pic showing variation in prevalence of DM among races in the US. Of course a single bar graph does not tell the whole story, but to suggest that there is no impact of race on DM is simple foolish.

Then I made a statement about genetic component of type I vs type II DM and you responded with a tangential diatribe arguing with that statement, which is an irrefutable fact.

And you wonder why I find this thread exasperating.

queloque

03-18-2009, 08:00 PM

Once again you are arguing with yourself. I never mentioned "skin color". You introduced that term into this thread, not me.

You said DM has "nothing to do with race"- i posted a quick pic showing variation in prevalence of DM among races in the US. Of course a single bar graph does not tell the whole story, but to suggest that there is no impact of race on DM is simple foolish.

Then I made a statement about genetic component of type I vs type II DM and you responded with a tangential diatribe arguing with that statement, which is an irrefutable fact.

And you wonder why I find this thread exasperating.

That is the whole point. That stupid graph is basically Skin color. Do you understand how many variations of Black people, Hispanic and white people there are genetically? That is what Reefpicker who is a scientist was trying to explain to you. You can make the strongest case of genetic problems with the Amish because they stay within themselves but you seem to ignore what Reepicker was trying to say.

How can you lump Hispanics from Mexico with Hispanics from the Islands? How can you lump Black Americans who come from over 30 different regions in Africa. And over 75% of them are mixed with White Americans over the course of slavery and segregation.

That was the whole point of why American statistics when it comes to race is stupid. And you champion that graph like it was the holy grail.

Dr. Horse

03-18-2009, 08:02 PM

That is the whole point. That stupid graph is basically Skin color. Do you understand how many variations of Black people, Hispanic and white people there are. That is what Reefpicker who is a scientist was trying to explain to you.

How can you lump Hispanics from Mexico with Hispanics from the Islands? How can you lump Black Americans who come from over 30 different regions in Africa.

That was the whole point of why American statistics when it comes to race is stupid. And you champion that graph like it was the holy grail.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! I "champion the graph like it was the holy grail"!!!!!!

You are too hilarious. Now I know you are just having fun.

queloque

03-18-2009, 08:07 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! I "champion the graph like it was the holy grail"!!!!!!

You are too hilarious. Now I know you are just having fun.

LOL ------- Now give me a positive on my Rep!!! I joined this site to lose weight and build muscle not argue about race and culture and what race is better at being fat without getting diabetes.

reefpicker

03-19-2009, 09:26 AM

...Going back to topic ;).....

I find that the first link MH posted is perhaps the most poignant:

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most common endocrine disorders affecting almost 6% of the world's population. The number of diabetic patients will reach 300 million in 2025 (International Diabetes Federation, 2001). More than 97% of these patients will have type II diabetes. The projected increase in the number of diabetic patients will strain the capabilities of healthcare providers the world over. Thus it is of paramount importance to revisit the causes and epidemiology of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus is caused by both environmental and genetic factors. The environmental factors that may lead to the development of diabetes mellitus include physical inactivity, drugs and toxic agents, obesity, viral infection, and location. While type I diabetes is not a genetically predestined disease, an increased susceptibility can be inherited. Genetic susceptibility plays a crucial role in the etiology and manifestation of type II diabetes, with concordance in monozygotic twins approaching 100%. Genetic factors may have to be modified by environmental factors for diabetes mellitus to become overt. An individual with a susceptible gene may become diabetic if environmental factors modify the expression of these genes. Since there is an increase in the trend at which diabetes prevail, it is evident that environmental factors are playing a more increasing role in the cause of diabetes mellitus. The incidence of type I diabetes ranged from 1.9 to 7.0/100,000/yr in Africa, 0.13 to 10/100,000/yr in Asia, approximately 4.4/100,000/yr in Australasia, 3.4 to 36/100,000/yr in Europe, 2.62 to 20.18/100,000/yr in the Middle East, 7.61 to 25.7/100,000/yr in North America, and 1.27 to 18/100,000/yr in South America. The epidemiology of type II diabetes is equally bleak. The prevalence of type II diabetes ranged from 0.3 to 17.9% in Africa, 1.2 to 14.6% in Asia, 0.7 to 11.6% in Europe, 4.6 to 40% in the Middle East, 6.69 to 28.2% in North America, and 2.01 to 17.4% in South America.

That bolded statement is very good reasoning and it is based on such reasoning that I can't really say who is right and wrong in any debate about nature vs. nurture. It also invalidates any conclusions that can be drawn from the epidemiological data they attached at the end of the abstract.

Just like there are cultural variations within families, so do you have variation in the gene pool. And what is even more interesting, and has not been addressed, is that more than one gene can contribute to a disease and that such multi-allelic disorders can have varying penetration based on environmental factors (as one gene can confer some degree of protection while the other damaged gene is present yet both are sensitive to diet, etc.).

Both sources of variation, makes interpreting epidemiological studies even more difficult.

The fact that there is 100% concordance among true twins makes it evident that there is a strong genetic component. By comparing it to heterozygotic twins (aka brothers/sisters basically), then you get a good idea of what the environmental contribution could be.

That this whole thing works out well for DBMII should not construe an example to negate the previous argument about racial biases and the race paradigm in the US. Personally (i.e. gut instinct), I think that hypertension has both genetics and environmental components, but there is more environment than genetics. And those studies comparing "race" vs. incidence of Hypertension are bogus. I have no science to back it up, just logic. Like Q said, these races that they usually lump together are heterogenous.

And by that token, I also think that studies that show SOY ingestion is great for you because Asians have less cancer, etc, are also bogus. Not only because of genetic differences, but because the whole Asian lifestyle and food choices, diet, etc, are just completely different. Soy is not the only thing they eat that is different.

As far as the MH vs. Q controversy that ensued, I would say... Well, nothing.... I think that both have some valid points, even if they are arguing about two completely different things. Arguing is an art, and you are both tangentialistic by nature. As tangentialism is at the core of great debating (watch politicians do it). Of course, one liners are also part of that. That's something I can't never seem to do. As someone who disliked me pointed out once (Aaron I think it was), I have "verbosity" LOL