Would these reports/study be reflective of what you are stating?
and
I must confess Iâm not a biologist or one who knows much about physiology.
Are the books you have read saying this change is occurring from generation to generation? Is what was shared previously saying the same thing?
Does this also explain why I have long arms and legs and fingers. When growing up I spent much time swimming and running and learning to play a piano. My wonderful off-spring did much less being couch potatoes to video games and their school work.
Hence based on the books noted, lesser activity activity says their bones will be less developed, weaker and shorter. And their children will due to mechanical change be born with the same outcome of weaker and shorter bones. An effect we will notice over only a few generations as suggested for those who eat soft processed food and supposedly have a trait of smaller jaws and faces. Is this how it works?
P.S.
Itâs understood exercise and good nutrition are important to development as we grow and age. Iâm not sure that I understand why mechanical change in one generation is a trait able to be passed on to the next.
Locally we have a population of death adders. They were nearly extinct in the area following the arrival of the cane toad. The snakes are a one strike and you are a meal predator. There would be very little chance of an adder surviving a toad meal and breeding. The adders around now all have smaller heads and mouths compared to previous specimens. IE It makes it too hard for an adder to capture and consume a larger toad, but one small toad is not fatal and the adders avoid toads there after. Is this what you are trying to explain?
note: It all seems very complicated.
This is correct for impact of ultra processed foodsâŠultra-processed foods are a recent invention so they wouldnât have lead to any evolutionary changes in one to two generations since their consumptionâŠchanges through evolution for humans takes many scores of generations as a minimum.
But jaw and their muscle changes over time is an evolutionary adaption. This is why canines, felines, bovines etc have different shaped jaws and teeth structures. They have evolved based on the foods consumed.
There are two distinct processes here.
The first is about long term changes to the gene pool of a species, this is evolution in action. Our antecedents of millions to hundreds of thousands of years ago had bigger jaws. The progressive change to smaller jaws is inherited in each generation. Many modern humans no longer have room in their face for all their teeth, the final molars (wisdom teeth) do not erupt properly or have to be removed as there isnât room. This is selection pressure altering the genome as large jaws are no longer required.
The second is a short term one that takes place in the body of the individual. The activity of that person to some degree determines the shape of their body during their life. The classic example is of the weightlifter or manual worker whose body changes in response to their muscle use. It isnât just that certain muscles grow from repeated use but the bones change too to support the action of those muscles. So in some cases an expert can tell the occupation of an individual by examining their skeleton. This is not the inheritance of acquired characteristics as the changes are not genetic and are not passed on to progeny. If a weightlifter has a muscular child that is either because the weightlifter already had genes for heavy muscles and passed them on or the child lifted weights, or both, it is not because the parent lifted weights.
As I understand it the idea @sandy.rigby is putting forward is in the second category. This means that reduction in jaw structure in one generation could be reversed by greater activity in the next. There are several things that are not clear to me about this.
- How much change to jaw structure due to diet is possible during oneâs life?
- Are the changes localised, say to the attachments of the major muscles, or to the size of the jaw overall?
- What are the consequences of these changes?
- Can changes be shown to be related to the consumption of ultra-processed food using the definitions discussed above? That is after all what this thread is about.
1 Like
Compare the lifespan of a death adder to that of humans.
The death adders that eat the toads die. The adders that, by a variation in their genes (similar to a child of tall parents being much shorter) have smaller jaws cannot eat the larger, more poisonous toads, and survive to mate with other (surviving) adders with smaller jaws. Some of their offspring will have the smaller jaws and some will have the larger jaws. The ones with the larger jaws may eat toads and die leaving ones with smaller jaws etc. The point is that that is a GENETIC mutation - they have the smaller jaws selected genetically and cannot do anything to increase their size.
We are not born with small jaws. Human skulls/faces/jaws etc will develop according to the ways that the bones and muscles are stressed (think load-bearing exercise/movement and its effect on bone strength and density). Plus, unlike adders, we have many choices in the foods that we eat, have access to medical/dental interventions to allow us to âcopeâ with the disabilities that we inflict on ourselves and our children through lifestyle choices and we have access to research, education, abstract thought and the ability to change habits. We do NOT operate simply on instinct. Our food choices do not immediately result in death (unless we ingest poison or something that puts us into anaphylactic shock. One of the points that James Nestor (âBreath:âŠâ) makes as a result of his research is that, despite what is stated on the websites of dental/orthodontic associations in the USA (and also on the website of the Aus orthodontic assocn - I checked), smaller jaws and crooked teeth are not the result of genetics. PLUS - a BONUS - Stanford Uni has found that we can significantly alter (for the better) our jaws and airways even when we are in our 50âs through the ways that we use our jaws and by altering the ways we breathe (our breathing affects soooooo much and we ignore it). Best of all - itâs under our control and itâs FREE!
I am not a doctor, scientist or anything like that. I am someone who reads/listens to audiobooks across a wide range of topics and, what I am finding, is that many more people (including researchers) are realising/recognising that nothing, including every part of our bodies, operates in isolation. Everything that we do has an effect on other things. The sooner we realise that and become more conscious of all the tiny parts of our movements and thoughts and how they impact on each other, us and others, the better we each feel and become in so many ways. Example: sitting in most chairs takes the natural curve out of our lower back which results in our upper bodies slumping forward and chins dropping. This constricts our breathing which means we take shorter, quicker breaths which puts our bodies into âfight or flightâ mode - our bodies release âstressâ hormones into our systems and we stay in that mode for most of the day. That screws up our hearts, our thoughts (much harder to think rationally) and how we interact with others and our range of movement and our likelihood of falling as we grow older etc⊠And so it goes.
Apologies for the length of my response but I hope that I have managed to convey my thoughts adequately.
I would need to see evidence for that. As I explained above there are two mechanisms for changing the bones of the jaw, one genetic the other not.
How does Nestor decide that the effects are not genetic?
Does he publish in peer reviewed journals? If not he has an opinion but he is not doing science.
Does he speak about ultra-processed foods according to the above definition?
1 Like
He is reporting the research. Check the papers etc to which he refers in his book.
As I donât have the book and you do how about you provide the ones you think are relevant. [edit] I mean a reference to the papers not the articles in full.
My intent with my response, as in previous responses about topics such as beds and pillows, is to raise awareness that what we perceive as ânormalâ is generally not. It is the âusual in our Western societyâ. If people, including you, wish to explore further, please conduct your own research. I am not a scientist and I also do not have the time to comb through every relevant quote and reference in the particular book that I mention. I could scan the dozens of pages of references for you and send, but you would still need to refer to the text within the book. How about we also apply some common sense, observe ourselves and those around us and take note of the feedback from within our own bodies? The little that I remember of my (admittedly European-influenced) early childhood in an Asian country helps me be more conscious of other ways/attitudes regarding footwear, clothing, food, movement, furniture and bedding and more. We need to be aware that most of the reported medical data etc (regardless of who is supposed to be the âbeneficiaryâ of the outcomes/drugs/treatments/knowledge) has largely been derived from studies on college-aged, white, relatively high status MALES ONLY and the results that we are given/quoted omit that information. How about us also putting on our thinking hats and asking the questions about root causes of issues/problems and why we are given âsolutionsâ (which only treat symptoms) which cost money when most of our health and well-being issues/problems could be solved at little or no cost if we choose to put in the effort? That is all that I am willing to say on this topic. Bye.
I donât know how that would help me understand the consequences of eating ultra-processed food. I donât eat very much processed food and I have no way to observe the consequences of my diet and those of my intimates on the structure of their jaws or their ability to breath.
In general if I cannot find any facts about an issue I am inclined to shrug and think it is an open question, I am not likely to pick an explanation because it is in a book written by somebody who makes his living selling his words (a journalist). He is BTW a white male who some people at least think is high status.
I am all for people spending time thinking and coming up with their own views and I agree that some aspects of our health system do revolve about treating symptoms not causes. There are some disorders where that is the state of knowledge however, the best we can do right now. I also agree that that many of us would be better off if we took more care of what we ate. In fairness many professionals do give good advice in this area - the failure is mostly ours for disregarding what they say. Is that all their fault?
Thank you all for your posts. As the topic seems to be becoming stale it has been closed for 18 days to allow some time for it to cool a little and if new information becomes available it can then be added to the discussion.
Thank you all again.
This topic was automatically opened after 18 days.
An article rating Australian junk foods.
Fancy Red Rooster being the worst and Maccaâs being much better.
There is now evidence that a diet high in processed/pro-inflammatory foods has significant long term health consequencesâŠ
There is however anti-inflammatory foods as well, some presented hereâŠ
An article regarding anti-inflammatory foods.
Very similar to the best foods for lowering cholesterol.
There are plenty of threads for meandering talk about what is good to eat or not. The topic is ultra-processed food, what is the relationship of the article to that?
1 Like
This article illustrates some of the problems in trying to address this subject This topic was introduced with two references to studies in the British Medical Journal that made the distinction between problems caused by ultra-processing and poor balance in processed food, ie:
In a nutshell the idea is that it isnât just the poor dietary composition of highly processed food (high in fat, sugar, salt; low in fibre) that is unhealthy, nor is it just the propensity to gain weight on high fat/sugar diets that cause health problems but that there is something inherently harmful about highly processed food beyond those factors.
The article does mention that the study is observational and does not establish causality. This is not the only reason for me to think the outcome is uncertain.
In the study of the link between ultra-processed food and IBD it isnât clear what definition of âultra-processedâ they used. It is not by the same authors as the previous articles. It is widely thought that dietary fibre is an influence on bowel problems and this is mentioned in the study.
The survey included categorisation of the food intake of subjects; eg meat, dairy, fruit and veg but I can find no mention of correcting for the likely confounding factor that processed food is frequently low in fibre.
So I am left not knowing whether it is relevant to the subject or not.
1 Like
SBS are about to have a show with Michael Mosely focusing on ultra-processed food and Type 2 diabetes in Australia
3 Likes
