mugaliens said:
If by "we" you mean yourself, then enjoy! Approximately 75% of all human adults are lactose intolerant.
It's lowest for those of Dutch descent (less than 1%), and about 5%, in the U.S. and Northern Europe, though for Native Americans, it's close to 100%
75% of all humans are lactose intolerant but only 5% of Americans are? Why such a big difference?
nothing will happen because your still eating really unhealthy food even though we can digest it (but what does that matter right? It's not about what we're "meant" to do, but what we CAN do. Right?).
Nothing will happen because subtracting one cheeseburger from your diet won't reduce your calories very much.
You're mixing up what I was applying "what we can do" to. I wasn't saying that in regards to eating whatever you want if you can digest it. I said it in regards to eating grains. If we're not meant to eat it, that suggests that it's detrimental to our health or we shouldn't eat it for any other reason. The fact that we recently started eating it isn't a reason not to eat it.
Then you disagree with me and say that the greatest life expectancies come from "pretty industrialized nations". I think you might have life expectancy and mortality confused (or, I could). Regardless, do you think that if someone grew their own food and lived like a primitive person (E.g. [Latin for exemplum gratia, or "for example"], having consistent low level exercise, a stable social life, and a consistent diet) that they would live a shorter life than someone from an industrialized nation with a steady diet of fast food, little exercise, and a slightly less stable social life? I don't think they would. I think that the former would outlive the latter not only in years, but in quality of years as well.
Oh yeah, that would be the best way to live. But the reason that I think the stats don't reflect that is because usually those people don't have access to the medical care that people in industrialized nations do.
I would've been dead at 21 if I didn't have access to a hospital.
Then you say "If we can digest it, I don't see the problem". This probably wasn't thought out, and was probably unintentionally left vague. But, we can technically swallow mouth wash and still be fine. We can also ingest the 3 in 1 oil that is sold at my dad's hardware store and live. What's the problem? Both of those are very toxic and consequently very bad for our bodies and brains.
Which is why we shouldn't drink that. If someone says we're not meant to eat grains, then that implies it's harmful to our health or is somehow a negative thing. I don't know of any for grains, do you?
And yes, fish don't come wrapped in rice for our enjoyment. But, most nothing comes straight from the ground (or sea for that matter) ready for our immediate consumption. But, fish and rice are both naturally occurring food sources. Just the mere coupling of them together does not (IMO) mean that we're not supposed to eat sushi.
True, which is why there's no reason to say we're not meant to eat it. Just like grains and milk. If we can eat it and it's healthy for us, I don't see how someone can say we're not supposed to eat it.
Also, I think you are grossly underestimating how many people are lactose intolerant. Plus, I don't understand the concept of milk being inherently bad for humans as our mothers carry it around all day if we were to get hungary (as babies of course). Maybe we're just intolerant to cows or goats milk.
Of all the people I know, only two are lactose intolerant, or so they say, but they can still drink milk, just not a lot of it. That may be because I live in America.
I think most people become lactose intolerant as they age.
