How Did Humans Develop Lactose Tolerance?

Our friends at Wikipeda claim that lactose intolerance ranges from 5% of adults in northern Europe to 90% in some African and Asian countries. I never knew this but I guess most of the lactose intolerant people that I have known did not come from northern Europe blood lines.

I don't study the subject but I thought that about 10 years ago Scientific American published that all of us were in a small number of clans or tribes in Africa about 100,000 years ago. If still considered to be true (and if my memory is correct) then that would help put into perspective the 20,000 years comment.

hmmm...

. Let's see, if one can develop an alcohol tolerance at a liquor bar....

. . at what kind of bar can one develop a lactose tolerance?

(for those utterly certain that I am merely trying to milk this for all its worth...I assure you I am just keeping everyone abreast of the situation)

Well, obviously at a milk bar. Duh!I was taken to the one in Dolgellau as a child.

It is sloppy writing, mixing a mentioned orange with an unmentioned potato.

First of all, 20,000 years are over 1000 generation. Genetically, that is a very long time, for a selection to take place. Small bands of people moved around, genetically identical in some aspects. Some arizona indian tribes exhibit this exact pattern. On their ancestral diet they were healthy. Recently they adopted modern diet, and all without exception diabetics from the 10th year age on. A serious research program is going on on their behalf, and for benefitting the general population the very same way. The benefits of "Nopalea" drinks came from these insights.

Our ancestors were no idiots. No group of people, I know of, who lives the old simpler way drinks cow milk straight. The sugar in it produces gas. Very painful, and public farthing is a maior embarrassment. But, you sent violently to the bathroom, because immunologically speaking cows and us are 70% identical enough. Anything, that your cow's immune system encountered, appears to your gut, as if you yourself encountered the same trouble. Sheep, horses, goats are much further genetically from us. Accordingly, I have not heard trouble from their milk.

The same trouble does not show up generally with processed milk. The bacteria fermenting it alters it in every sense. Hence all forms, whey protein, well aged cheeses generally free of these trouble causing molecules.

The lactase mutation is so trivial, and its avoidance is so trivial too, that I hope the geneticist was misquoted. Who can take it and who cannot? Chance selection in the small band wandering groups is an adequate and sufficient explanation. With fermentation it is of no consequence.

One "exception". Pediaticians set drinking of cowmilk by children as #1 cause of ear infections and a few others. No good.

'....It is sloppy writing....'

Pot calling Kettle. Come in, Kettle. You got your ears on, Kettle? Over... :-)

If you are going to lob (weirdly) mixed metaphores and proclaim someone's article 'sloppy writing', it would be a good idea to make sure your own writing is free of 'slop'... .

-----Let's begin with the slop you introduced about a tribe in Arizona being '...all without exception diabetics from the 10th year age on....'.

In a word; No.

Some populations that lack much genetic diversity can have high susceptability to certain diseases but these trbes are not exhibiting 100 percent occurence of diabetes.

-----Next....could you you go into some more detail about your explanation of lactose intolerance as you related it to human reaction to the bovine immune system? You hinted, and i think more details would be worthwhile.

If you would also be so kind as to explain (or link reference) your insights into the 70 percent number you arrived at for the shared genetics between cows and humans ....which you claim is much closer than humans are to sheep and horses...

------There are a myriad of other points of slop in your comment, but I hope you get the point.... if not, just ask.

Re: #5, TRUTH.... I decided to cut you some slack for the rant, after all you might have a personal reason for it.

I took time out to look into some 20 years old starting points on the matter of the genetic basis and correction programs for the US southwestern indian tribes, concerning diabetes. Today, I have found good programs, while the total is still in a unacceptable sorry state. The starting program was for a small tribe, as I described. I read about it, in all places, in the Scientific American. It was also depicted in a PBS or National Geographic program, before even a single research program had the first good results. I remember it, as a significant input to my engagement in the subiect matter. I had good personal and tribal reasons for it, while my ancestry is from far away, nonetheless.

It appears, the modern research is concentrated on the Pima Indians in the southwest, as a large tribe "blessed" with the same basic characteristic. Living healthy (with sugar related genetic defects) on traditional diet. It was entirely devoid of sugar and refined carbs. It was rich in complex substances, soluble and insoluble fibres, prohibiting postprandial (after a meal) sugar spikes. The research initiated by arizona and a california college concentrated on the still living tribal elder's knowledge in the ancestral foods and living. Initial results were encouraging. And proved, that you are not a helpless captive of your genes. Today's understanding is that genes are 20-25%, the rest is what you are making with it. Not bad, IMHO.

The Pima data today shows roughly 37% man, 50% woman diabetes for young middle ages. Bad stats. Compare it to european stats of <10% and 15%?. Still no good. And I have reason to know, that it does not have to be, at all. But, as the research shows, one have to go sharply agains the accepted customary norms to get there.

Instead feeding you, see the present status yourself with Google, for a starter:

Arizona indian diabetes

Nevada indian diabetes

California indian diabetes

I picked up the genetic distances info from Craig Venter right at the beginning. Interestingly already Darwin had a glimmer of it, while he lacked the modern foundation for it.

Good national and local programs, still I figure 2-3 generations, before it sinks in, that people with a certain genetic background cannot be as freewheeling as others seem to be, in some health areas of their life. That rule applies for some for this, for you for something else, and for me for something else again. Tough! That's life!

For the remainder of your note. Do your research before piping up. As:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everybody is entitled to their opininons on the facts. Nobody is entitled to their facts.

37% of males and 50% of females is indeed a very high incidence of diabetes;

however those rates do not justify your statement:

.

'.... all without exception diabetics from the 10th year age on.....'.

.

I probably wouldn't have given you a hard time, except you started your comment decrying sloppy writing. It should have gone without saying that your own writing should make sure your own house is order before others with your white inspection gloves. At the very least, one should be a good sport about receiving criticism similar to what one just dished out.

.

.

Here. let's practice:

When you wrote:

'... cows and us are 70% identical enough. Anything, that your cow's immune system encountered, appears to your gut, as if you yourself encountered the same trouble. Sheep, horses, goats are much further genetically from us....'

.

-What exactly is '70% identical enough'?

(I hear 87% of facts containing percentages are made up on the spot, while only 12% had been rehearsed after being made up for a previous argument...if this is one of the 1%, please provide a explanation and link, I appreciate knowledge upgrades.)

.

-

As for the next portions:

'... Anything, that your cow's immune system encountered, appears to your gut, as if you yourself encountered the same trouble....'

.

...to borrow a phrase from PWSlack...

"How abstruse."

.

.

I am very curious about your claim that horses, sheep and goats are genetically much further than cow from humans.... can you provide any links related to this claim?

.

...remember, be a good sport.

They took these...?

First, just a general comment to the CR4 person who posted this: Why add the tag 'read the whole article' when what you've posted IS the whole article? Clicking the link gives no additional information.

Now as to the article itself. The claim of genetic specialization here seems backwards to me. Humans begin as children with a tolerance for lactose. Northern European people maintain that tolerance all their lives. In other parts of the world, humans lose the ability to digest lactose as they age. So it seems to me they should be asking the question: why did most of the world's people lose the ability to digest lactose? Maintaining an ability to do something seems like the natural course of life, losing an ability to do something is what needs an explanation.

Is there an connection with lactose intolerance and the fact that most oriental peoples never developed the making of cheese? Essentially, their cuisine lacks cheese and other dairy products common elsewhere.

It was not a very indepth explanation, only a synopsis, if it explained more how the body broke down the complex sugars, it would help explain its case better.

IMHO, the people that developed the ability to digest dairy, had an advantage of a larger food source, but you also have to look at when we started domesticating farm animals for this evolution to begin.

Which was about 10,000 years ago.

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

From what I've read, lactose is present in all mammalian milk, and lactase activity is highest at birth, that's why almost all babies can digest milk, but this ability diminishes with age(~40-50), in some geographic regions faster than others.....

Population Tendency to Lactose Intolerance