Story

Europeans were lactose intolerant for 4,000 years

Preview

Starving people... (Score: 1)

by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2014-12-15 17:29 (#2VYT)

Either die from their food allergies or figure out how to survive them. It doesn't mean they don't have them.

There is a crazy part of our population that thinks that what ever we did before we had civilization was better. Like "modern medicine" is somehow worse than eating some crazy diet that people think (despite double blind tests to the contrary) solves the same problem. This "starving people have no food allergies" is of the same thinking. Its like people forget how high our mortality rate used to be, and how short our life expectancy was.

Re: Starving people... (Score: 2, Informative)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-12-15 18:21 (#2VYX)

I think you over-interpret
starving people have no food allergies
Not every food allergy is deadly. Some, perhaps most, are only very inconvenient. Flatulence, bad rashes, whatever. While in normal times people rightfully stay away from perhaps embarrassing or even painful, but not immediately deadly side effects, starving people don't have this luxury. I think above proverb quite nicely summarizes this fact.

Re: Starving people... (Score: 1)

by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2014-12-15 19:33 (#2VZ1)

Just a nit I have to pick: Lactose intolerance isn't a food allergy, it's the body not producing lactase. If you were allergic to lactose, eating would definitely kill you. The phrase "food allergy" has a specific meaning related to anaphylaxis, which is extremely dangerous; often deadly.

Re: Starving people... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-12-15 20:34 (#2VZ3)

Lactose intolerance isn't a food allergy, it's the body not producing lactase
True, but in this context irrelevant.
The phrase "food allergy" has a specific meaning related to anaphylaxis,
Most likely wrong.
According to:
http://acaai.org/allergies/types/food-allergies
Anaphylaxis is only the most severe allergic reaction. There are plenty of reactions, which are less severe. Some can almost be described as only annoying:
Delayed reactions are most typically seen in children who develop eczema as a symptom of food allergy
Nevertheless, you can find plenty of false information googling. I am not an expert, but for me the source looks plausible.

Re: Starving people... (Score: 1, Informative)

by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2014-12-17 21:09 (#2W22)

No, I'll take that back. I was right. Your link even states the truth:
Symptoms of a food allergy can range from mild to severe. Just because an initial reaction causes few problems doesn't mean that all reactions will be similar; a food that triggered only mild symptoms on one occasion may cause more severe symptoms at another time.

Re: Starving people... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-12-18 07:05 (#2W2M)

a food that triggered only mild symptoms on one occasion may cause more severe symptoms at another time.
...may cause...
This is only a possibility. This does not exclude, that many people never have a severe reaction. And it does not exclude that even if such a risk of a severe reaction does exist, it is so rare that it does not prevent the allergic persons to pass on their genes... An opportunity these persons might never have had, if they rather starved than accepted the risk.

Btw.. a friend of mine is allergic to flavour enhancers. Not really a big deal. He gets some minor skin problems. From time to time he says (more or less): "F**k it... today I want to eat my ". I doubt he would do it, if doing so he constantly would had the sword of Damocles of a deadly reaction over his head.

I looked for some statistics, but did not have much time. So this must be enough:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15618
As many as one-third of peanut-sensitive patients have severe reactions, such as fatal and near-fatal anaphylaxis. ("Anaphylactic deaths in asthmatic patients," Allergy Proc., 1989)
I would interpret this that two-thirds never have fatal or near-fatal reactions.

History

2014-12-18 07:05
a food that triggered only mild symptoms on one occasion may cause more severe symptoms at another time.
...may cause...
This is only a possibility. This does not exclude, that many people never have a severe reaction. And it does not exclude that even if such a risk of a severe reaction does exist, it is so rare that it does not prevent the allergic persons to pass on their genes... An opportunity these persons might never have had, if they rather starved than accepted the risk.

Btw.. a friend of mine is allergic to flavour enhancers. Not really a big deal. He gets some minor skin problems. From time to time he says (more or less): "F**k it... today I want to eat my ". I doubt he would do it, if doing so he constantly would had the sword of Damocles of a deadly reaction over his head.

I looked for some statistics, but did not have much time. So this must be enough:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=15618
As many as one-third of peanut-sensitive patients have severe reactions, such as fatal and near-fatal anaphylaxis. ("Anaphylactic deaths in asthmatic patients," Allergy Proc., 1989)
I would interpret this that two-thirds never have fatal or near-fatal reactions.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk