Most paleo converts are white. I'm Indian. Europe is way colder than India, and you guys might be different with respect to nutritional needs. The obvious stuff like lactose tolerance notwithstanding, what else is different? Here's some speculative ideas:
-Paleo Europeans eat more meat, because fruits and veggies didn't grow all year -Paleo Euros eat more berries, Indians eat more (mangos?) -Indians have been eating coconut longer? (depending on region of India) -We darkies need more sunlight to get vitamin D (not really speculative, or food related) -Our tubers are different than yours, but I don't know what they are/were
Even though there are changes that occurred over the past 60,000 years since we left Africa, the biggest chunk of evolution had happened over 2,5 mln years since we started eat meat and our brains could rapidly develop. The changes, mutations and adaptations that happened since our move out of Africa are only cosmetic compared to it - like skin color, higher tolerance for milk among peoples with early cow and goats domestication. There might be a slightly benefit with eating whatever is local and available, just as everywhere else. I moved around, I don't live where I used to live, and I assuming my ancestors spent at least some dozens of generations in Europe b/c I am very pale. It's also good to know when a particular style of agriculture was introduced in your general area. I don't know exactly where my ancestors came from, but I know that in Easter Europe the grains were introduced very late, so although they might have eaten them on their way from Asia, they probably weren't a staple of their diets as much as in ancient Western Asia, central Asia etc., which might mean even less adaptation. I am actually celiac, but of course that can happen everywhere.
We all have the same biological base. There is no such thing as race from biological perspective, the differences in the ways we look is only as differences in clothing that had to be adapted to a particular climate. So I wouldn't bother much beyond the Vit.D absorption if your skin is of very dark shade. There are some genetic accommodations that had happened over the past few tens of thousands of years which helped people survive particular local challenge, like higher numbers of people with a kind of anemia (which helped survive malaria) or malfunction in iron handling which might have been beneficial in contact with some diseases. I think a lot of it is more of a realm of epigenetics than genetics. Which means that they can still be changed even "against" what your ethnic group has been doing for a while if you move somewhere else and don't need that particular genes expression/switched on.
I think the other principles - eating meat, fish, natural fats and local veggies with some fruits is the same like everywhere else.
Kamal, I have just returned from India. I worked on my own and with Dr. Rosedale. The majority of Diabetics I worked with were from Gujarat. I would be curious to know how you are doing. India is a vast country with so many different peoples. However, all who climbed on board to a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet responded well. Vegeterians in India tend to be protein deficient and hard pressed to jump on the higher fat bandwagon. Diabetes is a problem that is exploding there. If you choose to get your sugar from Mangos as opposed to berries, I would see it as a cultural rather than a biologic choice. Namascar to you and your family.
I'm really wondering whether the subtleties in diet differences are big enough to warrant attention. Because we can't/don't do randomized trials comparing different ethnicities' response to different foods, there may be stuff we don't know about other than lactose/wheat adaptation.
Even with the out of Africa hypothesis, we had many thousands of years to develop differences in the way we digest and metabolize nutrients. Personally, I wonder about my immediate ancestors. My region of Indian (Gujarat) has been largely vegetarian for a while. No one in my family has eaten meat for many many years until me. Probably too short of a time to give a survival advantage to those that deal with wheat and beans better than meat, but who knows. Also, I'm sure some regions have eaten a large percentage of tubers for eons, while others have eaten barely any. It's these kinds of things that I'm looking for any existing anthropological/archaeological evidence on.
well some things like rice and grains are never beneficial to the body in the long run, but there is definitely meat in india, and there are definitely vegitables. The fruits seem to be the only big difference, and for that idk.
Paleolithic humans inhabited various biomes, each of which provided food to the humans who lived there. Paleo polynesians obviously ate very differently from paleo europeans, but they all ate paleo, or they didn't eat at all. As far as Vitamin D goes, there is always supplementation for those days when we don't get some strong sun.
This sounds like a case where a little self-experimentation would be very useful. If you do that, Kamal, I'd be very interested to know the results. As an aside, I think we should rely less on theory and speculation than we often do, and just give different things a try and see what happens. I suspect that people from warmer climates may have higher insulin sensitivity on average, due to higher availability of fruit year around, but this is just speculation.
Indian cookbook? 3 Answers
Meat, Eggs, Dairy, and Protein 3 Answers
Brain Aging from Red Meat 7 Answers
Fruit and meat at the same time? 8 Answers