Stamets@lemmy.world to Comic Strips@lemmy.world · 16 days ago[SeanyBoyDraws] Lactose Intolerance Erasurelemmy.worldexternal-linkmessage-square130fedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1external-link[SeanyBoyDraws] Lactose Intolerance Erasurelemmy.worldStamets@lemmy.world to Comic Strips@lemmy.world · 16 days agomessage-square130fedilink
minus-squareMonkderVierte@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·16 days agoBtw, is there a evolutionary cost to creating lactase? Because, why do we stop with it usually and only keep it if it has huge advantages?
minus-squareRob Bos@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·16 days agoI would guess that humans have been around for what, 250k years? And that the vast majority of that didn’t involve a whole lot of milk after age 4. So it wouldn’t have been to much advantage to be able to metabolize lactose.
minus-squareMonkderVierte@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·15 days agoNo, there is, you get more from your cattle, and on a individual level, less likely to starve. Keeping Lactase production happened at least twice; north europe and a group in west africa.
minus-squareRob Bos@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-215 days agoSure, if you a) keep mammals around and b) drink their milk. I’m not convinced domesticated animals have been a thing for all that long, evolutionarily. Long enough for some groups to have adapted, sure. We have adaptations for cooked food, too. [Searches] Cattle probably around 10k years ago.
minus-squareBlackmist@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·15 days agoSaudi Arabia too. I assume that camel milk came in pretty handy in early tribes surviving the deserts.
minus-squarehperrin@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·16 days agoYes. It costs calories and nutrients.
minus-squareMonkderVierte@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0·15 days agoBut why then creating lactose in milk at all? Fat alone doesn’t suffice?
minus-squareFloey@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·15 days agoIt’s easy to break down into glucose, which is important for bodily functions. Gluconeogenesis is a thing, but it is inefficient.
![[SeanyBoyDraws] Lactose Intolerance Erasure](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/711a8ad0-3bbf-4b09-9a8c-c2f7be14d498.jpeg){kind=link}
Btw, is there a evolutionary cost to creating lactase? Because, why do we stop with it usually and only keep it if it has huge advantages?
I would guess that humans have been around for what, 250k years? And that the vast majority of that didn’t involve a whole lot of milk after age 4.
So it wouldn’t have been to much advantage to be able to metabolize lactose.
No, there is, you get more from your cattle, and on a individual level, less likely to starve.
Keeping Lactase production happened at least twice; north europe and a group in west africa.
Sure, if you a) keep mammals around and b) drink their milk. I’m not convinced domesticated animals have been a thing for all that long, evolutionarily. Long enough for some groups to have adapted, sure. We have adaptations for cooked food, too.
[Searches] Cattle probably around 10k years ago.
Saudi Arabia too. I assume that camel milk came in pretty handy in early tribes surviving the deserts.
Yes. It costs calories and nutrients.
But why then creating lactose in milk at all? Fat alone doesn’t suffice?
It’s easy to break down into glucose, which is important for bodily functions. Gluconeogenesis is a thing, but it is inefficient.