Among modern diet proponents of various persuasions, I've observed a tendency to cite the past while justifying their modern diet recommendations.
"We should eat X and not Y because this ancient group did and they were better off than we are when it comes to health."
In particular, I hear that certain groups did or did not get heart disease because of their diets. To the extent that I've looked into those claims, they often seem dubious at best. For instance, we hear that omega-3 rich diet of ancient Eskimos kept them free of heart disease from modern paleo diet proponents.
But we can easily find examples of very old mummies with heart disease who ate the eskimo diet in the published literature. Zimmerman, for instance, cites a 53-year-old woman from St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea from 300 AD. A autopsy found that she had lots of atherosclerotic plaque build up in her arteries.
>***"We have also seen that ancient Eskimos, far removed from the stresses of modern technological society, suffered from coronary artery disease...This anatomic evidence in Alaska not only confirms the antiquity of arteriosclerotic heart disease, but also its occurrence in a preliterate society..."*** -M.R. Zimmerman, MD, PhD
However, I've hardly made a large study of the subject. I
'm curious to know if historians have found that the preserved remains of any particular cultures are actually free of heart disease. Or perhaps if certain segments of some cultures (the poor, but not the rich, for instance, or costal dwellers vs mountain dwellers) did not seem to develop it.
I realize that the subject is tricky because we're reliant on well-preserved remains, and talking about all of human history here, and we're never entirely certain what an ancient diet really looked like.
But perhaps we have several historians specializing in various cultures who could speak to the heart disease incidence found in remains in their areas of expertise.
Source: Zimmerman, M.R. "The Paleopathology of the Cardiovascular System." Texas Heart Institute Journal 1993;20:252-7.
Hello,
im not sure this is the right place to post this but i have to write a paper on population distribution based on marital status. where can i find sources and material on the importance , meaning, and effects of marital status distribution on the population. also, what kind of policies can the government implement to combat the problems that might arise.
your thoughts and opinions will also be useful.
thanks
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OWu7q3FZE4I
>"Urban politics does require focus because cities are the center of politics, cities decide the politics of this country"
>"The number one thing in city politics is demography, it is not like pulling one here and pushing one there; disadvantaging one while benefiting the other, but as Oromo you must understand that we are doing a lot.
>It doesnt mean it's enough. But what we have started should be encouraged"
>"The 500, 000 refugees that were evicted from Somalia numbered more than 500,000 we could have some how in some way returned them back to their original place.
>But we didnt want to do that. We used that issue to our advantage, for Oromo unity.
>Even though they still face some issues we didnt put them back to rural area , we settled them in an urban area.
>More than 500,000 people!
>Not just any where but around Addis Ababa.
>We have inserted 6000 people to Addis Ababa.
>It is not just around Addis Ababa. These refugees may face problems adjusting as the culture is different but let them.
>It may bring provlems now but if they face issues then let them.
>At atleast we have given them a place to stand on even if they face issues, it will be beneficial to their children.
>In such a hope we inconvinienced our people more than we could (have) to settle them in Addis Ababa.
>Most are from Harar. We could have settled them in Borededa or east Harar.
>In fact, would have been more right (correct to resettle them in their original place as they are used to it there but we have brought them in Addis Ababa to a culture they dont know.
>If they are inconvinienced, it will be only for 2 years after that they will get through it.
>As this will be beneficial both interms of poliitics and economy.
>Not only that but we have even done a lot in the name of forming business as a job for the youth. In such a way we moved the majority to the urban area giving them land.
>We gave more than 500,000 Oromo workers land in the urban area not the rural areas.
>Whether small or large we have given it to half a million.
>I am not saying it is enough.
>We have to work more on it but we have not ignored it. While we do this, it requires great care (carfulness)
>So we should see it like that.
Tranlation by Abrham Alemu
------||-----
In Addis Ababa there have been a sequence of evictions for almost 3 months in poore
... keep reading on reddit β‘https://preview.redd.it/cspm3qjssqo31.jpg?width=1188&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a195b100f1fba547baeb0bbd76ddc742cd422e7
Lithuania, especially the natop version, needs to be rebuilt. In general, Lithuanians are not a majority in their own country. According to the German censorship of 1916. The Lithuanians in Vilnius were the... 2,4 % Basiclly,
>As a result of World War I, almost all of the territory encompassing the present borders of modern Lithuania and Poland were occupied by the German Army. On March 9, 1916, the German military authorities organised a census to determine the ethnic composition of their newly-conquered territories. This census is currently the only census organised before 1991 that is accepted by both Polish and Lithuanian historians. However, many Belarusian historians note that the Belarusian minority is not noted among the inhabitants of the city.
In fact, half of the country (the better industrialised and populated one), the countryside is Polish/east - Belorussian , while the larger cities are Polish-Jewish. Lithuanians themselves are the majority only in the northwest, often not even being the majority in cities.
It is worth noting that the German sources are the most objective in comparison to the Russian, Polish and Lithuanian sources, which were made on the basis of the thesis and overestimated certain nationalities.
Translating this into a world in which Germany won the First World War, nationalistic Lithuania is basically impossible. Nationalists are unable to obtain a majority for demographic reasons. Only a nat-pop military coup is possible, but I believe that this should result in civil war and a lack of cores for half of the country.
In addition, in the Kaiserreich universe Lithuania is larger to the south and east respectively. Which means even more Poles, Belarusians and Jews, and less Lithuanians. So nat-pop version is completely unrealistic. Simply the ultra-nationalists would be a minority in their own country. So, how are they supposed to reach for power? Additionally, we have a German monarch on the throne and we are a German puppet sharing border with master.
More than that! Minorities that together are ok. 50-60% of the population of our country, have their own countries just beyond our borders!
So even if they had miraculously come to power, German-Polish-Belarusian intervention would have been waiting for them. Not to mention the civil war, where the majority of the popula
... keep reading on reddit β‘