Couldn't have said it better Tweek!Our nutritional needs are set by the environment we evolved in. So no...we don't all have the exact same nutritional needs. For example, the Inuit consume a diet primarily made up of protein and fats. In North America alone, the population boomed due to agricultural development. Two different societies eating and thriving in different ways.
Edit: I might also add, that my father's blood pressure and high cholesterol went back to healthy levels once he dropped a majority of processed carbs out of his diet and went mainly high fat/protein. Another friend of mine, had to cut back the amount of fat and protein, and increase his healthy carbs for the same result. I also meet people all the time with Celiac and other allergies. Everyone is different.
Our nutritional needs, just like with any other species has been set long ago through millions of years of evolution my friend... Changes and mutations in organisms happen over a span of millions of years especially in the case of complicated ones like humans and not just a few thousand years like you are implying with one indian paradigm and the North Americans. In the North american paradigm you mentioned specifically, do you really think population overgrowth has anything to do with thriving as an organism or as individuals? Modern reality says different and so says the bloody history of all the great civilisations before ours...
I won't go into personal stories that we cannot have a whole idea of but high cholesterol is just one aspect of a person's health. We need to go deep into the diet history of a person to say what really spiked his cholesterol... I am sure it wasn't thanks to his raw fruit and veggies eating habits, was it now? Most possibly it was a combination of the processed carbs and certainly the fat percentage in those processed carbs (sweets?)!
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but depending on your roots, Tweek is right in that our diets and ways of survival have been significantly different within the human species ... this would inevitably lead to different metabolisms, ways of processing different nutrients, etc.
I understand (and agree with on many levels) your statement that evolution is much slower than is being implied by these differences, but then again, its been shown that with stress factors, significant evolution can happen within a 1-3 generations when required ... wouldn't be much of a stretch to extrapolate that our earlier ancestors were under significant enough stress to force evolution to suit the situation .... in some species under certain circumstances its even been observed that the learning of a behavior required for survival is learned and passed on in as little as one generation ...
Last edited: