Explain to me like I am 5: How is coffee bad for you?

[2xj_m]

Usually I drink one cup of pourover coffee in the morning and sometimes when I want to be extra productive I make myself a cappucino or an espresso shot in the afternoon, but It is always 7 hours before I go to sleep. I use coffee beans that were roasted in my town a week or two ago.

I am trying to clean up my diet and I watched @Leo Gura 's video about shoping for healthy foods. He says that coffee should be eliminated from the diet altogether. Why though?

[UDT]

Dont take health advice from leo gura
There are rules and hormonal influences of coffee, which you dont understand because you´re 5 so I wont bother 

Edited December 11, 2022 by UDT

[Osaid]

14 minutes ago, UDT said:

There are rules and hormonal influences of coffee, which you dont understand because you´re 5 so I wont bother 

Explain to me like I am above 5

[UDT]

@Osaid

caffeine is a sympathetic / adrenal stimulant --> cortisol, adrenaline release --> feel good but supression of immune system, steroid hormone production, oxidative phosphorylation --> abuse of caffeine leads to chronic elevated stress hormones -> wear n tear on the body / less anabolic states, melatonin suppression, less digestive function (when you e.g. drink coffee before meals) etc etc 

caffeine binds to adenosine receptors in the brain blocking them, leading to a increase in adenosine in the brain. When caffeine wears off adenosine levels are high, sleep recycles adenosine, when it cant because too much -> morning sleepyness -> more coffee -> negative spiral effect. end stage is adrenal exhaustion. Adenosine also regultes heart rate and kidney functions and more stuff

If you want more than the summary, watch these:
https://youtu.be/7KSZpodK9WI 
&
https://youtu.be/bRCe6zWBPQs

 

[UnbornTao]

Caffeine is an addictive stimulant. Probably not ideal for a meditation practice.

However, according to the World Health Organization, coffee is among the three healthiest beverages there are, along with water and tea.

If you want, drink black coffee in moderation, preferably without creamer or sugar.

Btw, milk blocks tea and coffee's benefits.

Edited December 12, 2022 by UnbornTao

[undeather]

 

7 hours ago, 2xj_m said:

Usually I drink one cup of pourover coffee in the morning and sometimes when I want to be extra productive I make myself a cappucino or an espresso shot in the afternoon, but It is always 7 hours before I go to sleep. I use coffee beans that were roasted in my town a week or two ago.

I am trying to clean up my diet and I watched @Leo Gura 's video about shoping for healthy foods. He says that coffee should be eliminated from the diet altogether. Why though?

 

Leo's health advice is decent in general, but it's not his deepest area of expertise. 

Let me explain you the thing with coffee: 
1) Caffeine affects us in differnt ways and there is a huge interindividual component to it. Meaning if you, I and Leo drink 3 coffees a day - our bodies will each react measureably different to it.  The essence of this process is the so called "metabolisation rate" which is mainly predetermined by your genetics but also varies through epigenetic influences and diet or drug/supplement intake (through the so called Cytochrome P450 system). 

2) Fast metabolisers can basically drink coffee all day long without facing any negative consequneces from it. My father for example drinks coffee at night and then sleeps like a baby. Others get super shaky when they drink 1 light cup of coffee. Some patients with high blood pressure can almost "heal" themselves through getting off caffinated beverages. Most people are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve and it would not affect them as much. 

3) Sleep - there are a ton of case reports of improved sleep quality after caffeine-cessation. Scientifically, there is mixed evidence - it seems like the best thing you can do is to avoid caffeeine roughly 8 hours before sleep. Again, everyones adenosine-pathway will react differently to it and you gotta try it out in the science lab of your own body. Dont't let bad epistemiology like in the case of Matthew Walker tell you otherwise. 

4) Health: Coffee drinking is consistently associated with increased longevity. This is a very, very robust correlation. To max out on the health benefits: Drink it black, without sugar and from a high quality, organic roast. 

5) Delaying Your Morning Coffee:
Delay coffee consumption for a minimum of 1.5 to 2 hours after waking up in order to maximize energy and reset your circadian rhythm. The idea behind is to basically sync your caffeine intake with natural drop of cortisol. 

[Leo Gura]

A bit of coffee may even be good for your health, however its addictive, which is not good.

Hard to buy that being hopped up on caffeine every day is good thing.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Javfly33]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Coffee consumption is associated with REDUCED occurrence of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Prostate Cancer, Lung Cancer, liver cancer, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in general across human epidemiological data. 

 

That's very demagogical, and I´ve seen you post that argument several times already in coffee-addiction-usage related posts.

Those "benefits" come probably from some properties the coffee plant has, and I'm sure a lot of other plants, vegetables or fruits have those things too and you can have reduced occurrence of all those illnesses without having to take coffee. But you don't say that...

To the OP, as long as you don't see that it doesn't impair what you want to do in your daily life, then maybe it's not a big issue for you right now. I am definitely think that coffee helps in being more productive at work. At least in mechanical type of tasks.

For meditation, yoga and spiritual sadhanas its quite bad though, it removes sensitivity of the prana system and it make your practice much less intense. I would avoid it if you plan to go serious in this practices. If not, I think you can enjoy for sure one of cup of coffee a day.

 

[Snader]

Healthwise there apparently is nothing to worry about as long as it's 1-2 cups a day. It's about how it plays in your life and suits your lifestyle.

Teachers, specifically spiritual teachers are biased in that way that they will guide you away from caffeine, because it's clearly not beneficial for your spiritual growth (IN GENERAL). Eventhough their advice is great, it's still up to you to use your own wisdom to make the best out of it. Caffeine isn't probably good for someone doing hours of hardcore spiritual practices every day, but that's not you is it?

No matter if you are ''spiritual'' or you are constantly developing yourself or just doing any productive work, you are still propably part of modern society and part of its mechanics, where caffeine plays its role. Therefore it might not be a big deal and it might support your growth at the moment.

Although, it indeed is stupid to let the quality of your day to be determined by some stupid bean, but we are stupid creatures doing stupid stuff 

[CultivateLove]

On 12/11/2022 at 0:03 PM, UDT said:

which you dont understand because you´re 5 so I wont bother 

Do you make a conscious effort to be an asshole, or is it just your default state?

[Javfly33]

4 hours ago, Michael569 said:

@Javfly33 maybe it is demagogical but who cares. Why not learn from the experience of people who have gone before us? We use similar thinking in all sorts of other domains. 

By the way you can control for all those things in studies (and they do that) such as controlling for fruits, bodyweight, meat intake and still see the effect of a particular exposure (coffee in this case).

A well controlled and stratified study will be sure to separate the benefits of one thing against another so that you can see the true effect of an exposure (whatever that is)

 

Fair enough.

Quote

Obviously, You should not rely on caffeine for energy that your body can't otherwise make. I totally agree with that. It shouldn't be a crutch. 

But that's precisely what people do, man. With the exception of some special occasions where you would particularly enjoy the taste of a good expresso, the majority of people do coffee because the stimulation and focus that it provides they are unable of producing that for themselves within, without the chemical.

Quote

OFCOURSE if your diet and lifestyle is shit coffee won't help you

Precisely people that eat bad, have bad habits and have overall a low baseline motivation at work, use coffee to be able to be productive and feel energetic. 

Notice how is so common to drink coffee after meal, because most people way of eating produces such lethargy in their system they have to take a coffee to "wake up". 

Quote

Also, let's be honest. How many people need to realistically be worried about not attaining the highest levels of spiritual teachings compared to 1 in 8 men getting prostate cancer. If coffee can slightly impair one while benefiting the other, it is a trade of worth making every single time.

For sure for the majority of people who are in low stages of development doing coffee might not be a great deal. But since this is forum its usually populated with individuals looking for more conscious and advanced ways of living, I was speaking and giving my advice from that perspective.

Quote

And who says a cup a day can't actually help you with your spiritual practice?

You probably haven't done yoga Kriyas because if not you would know this. For serious spiritual practices one of the most basic factors for it to work is that your emotional and mental aspects are as clear as they can be. It's not only about not being drowsy or sleepy, that's just the basics. But the sensitivity of your nervous system must be as clear as it can because these are very subtle and profound practices so the system must be in a very receptive state. Drinking a stimulant numbs and ruins this areas of your organism during the practice. Of course its better than drinking a shot of whisky, but nonetheless its still limiting the practice significantly.

Quote

 Anecdotally caffeine might help you sustain longer meditation and keep you more awake during long sessions.

Bruh...Meditation is not 'the longer you can sit the better you are doing it'. You can be mediating for a whole year and accomplish almost anything if your state in mediocre. Being awake during meditation is the basics, but not how you measure if you are actually getting into meditative states.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Javfly33

[eggopm3]

I dont think it's that bad all things considered, as far as stimulants are concerned it's certainly less harmful than most. though I often get the vibe from "coffee is healthy" articles that it's people who love coffee confirming their biases. I do drink coffee every day because I like the taste and if I dont have one or two cups I'll be really sleepy mid-day and get withdrawal symptoms pretty quickly. But I don't like being overcaffeinated, especially when I'm not doing anything that requires so much extra energy.

I used to drink more than twice as much as I do now, and back then I'd have to go to the bathroom way more frequently than is normal, there's no way that can be good in the long run. Plus being over-caffeinated on a regular basis increased my baseline anxiety by a lot, and that also can't be good every day. My current living situation has me in a place where I get high quality coffee for free so it does require some self control, eventually I wont be living here anymore though and I'll probably quit at that point since I can't be bothered to invest in an expensive coffee maker like I have access to right now.

[StarStruck]

Not all coffee beans are the same. Don’t go for cheap ones but for the healthy ones. 
I drink only one shot of arabica every day. Freshly ground and from a manual device. It tastes like liquid chocolate. 

[Vytas]

Drank coffee twice a day for ages. Stopped last week. I miss the taste of that juicy dance of roasted beans with the sweat of honey on my tongue. I cant say I noticed any difference thou. Perhaps overall not as tired. Like 5-10 percent more alive in the evenings but thats about it. Of course this one week is super short term to judge is there any effect. Idk. I love the taste of coffee, but might continue the challenge in order to observe effects on a long term scale.

 

[Roy]

Caffeine is literally proof of a loving, caring God. Consume it as appreciation.

[RendHeaven]

23 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Coffee consumption is associated with REDUCED occurrence of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Prostate Cancer, Lung Cancer, liver cancer, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in general across human epidemiological data. 

However very high consumption might elevate cholesterol levels (this effect disappears with filtered coffee tho and there is a potential link to french press coffee here) 

I love you Michael, but I do not trust epidemiological data, and I am surprised that you have no qualms doing so.

It also seems here that you are perpetuating the narrative that "elevated cholesterol" is indiscriminately undesirable. I personally don't buy into that narrative. I am happy to have elevated cholesterol levels so long as my cells are not inflamed.

Time and time again we are finding that measuring elevated LDL cholesterol (or any cholesterol for that matter) has little to no meaning as a predictor for disease.

As far as I'm aware, tracking HDL + triglycerides is a more meaningful predictor of disease, as you get a rough estimation of the inflammation accumulating in your body.

Anyway, I'm just sharing this since it puzzles me when people flee from "elevated cholesterol."

In my independent study I am beginning to see that not only is native LDL cholesterol not bad, it is likely good for us.

I'm glad to see you're doing well

Edited December 13, 2022 by RendHeaven

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

@RendHeaven the sympathy is mutual ? so nothing I'll say here is any form of personal dislike or disagreement (other than the content of this topic)

BUT

You have been misled and misinformed by people who either do not know how to interpret longitudinal data (that's no shame, it's extremely difficult and I don't claim proficiency either) or they don't care (more likely and more common - this defines quackery) or they know and deliberately misinterpret it due to existing commercial interest (also very common and in my opinion the worst of it)

Would I be off if I hopothesised that Paul Saladino, Shawn Baker and Liver King are your go-to study sources?

The LDL denialism is fairly new thing and these people are at a forefront of this new movement, mostly propagating carnivore diets. 

Let me point you to a few fundamental claims:

* "epidemiology is not to be trusted" - not entirely true, while epidemiology cannot show causal relationship, that's true, the internal validity of prospective cohort studies is about 95% identical to randomised controlled studies. Majority of nutritional studies are of epidemiological nature (mostly prospective cohorts, some case control and some cross sectional) because it cannot be otherwise. It would be impossible to create the type of controlled environment we would require to see changes in blood lipids and their effects on heart health for example simply because it takes decades so we need to rely on epidemiology. 

Otherwise you would need to lock people in metabolic wards for 40 years and let's face it, that wouldn't somehow feel right ? and who says metabolic ward is not a confounder.

* "LDL is no predictor of a disease" - my oh my this is a BIG one. You're basically taking decades of data worth millions of human lifes and showing them down the drain. 

LDL reduction therapies reduce the risk of all cause mortality, stroke and heart attacks. Regardless of particle size LDL is a robust marker of chronic disease risk. 

Secondly LDL is a proxy for ApoB containing lipoproteins (a small protein on the LDL molecule) that is the real issue. So technically it's not LDL per se but the fact that LDL is ApoB carrier in many cases and ApoB is the problem.

* "Tracking HDL and triglycerides is more meaningful predictor" - they are important for sure but for example HDL modification does not lead to risk reduction the same way LDL does. HDL is like homocysteine - you want to keep it low but once it gets high, lowering it again, offers little value compared to reducing LDL and HBA1C at least on terms of cardiovascular disease risk.

* "Keeping LDL higher might even be beneficial" - this is a type of claim that will, one day probably get a lot of people who propagate it on the internet to jail due to premature loss of human life. 

Keeping your LDL low offers a significant protection against all cause mortality and heart disease. At this point, this is so robustly proven that saying otherwise in the absence of newer evidence is just not right.

I'd highly suggest you review those studies one more time to be sure. This is the most barbed wire topic in nutritonist and we cannot afford to listen to quacks with strong commercial interest selling pills.

Also be sure to review those trials yourself and not to rely on others to do that. You always want to look at highest levels of hierarchy of evidence when doing so and not rely on one or two palers that support your hypothesis. I'm currently doing that and have been for a few months for my own research and the benefit of my clients with blood lipid issues so i take this topic extremely seriously.

Again, nothing personal here. Just defending the position ?‍♂️

I believe @undeather being on the forefront of patient care has actually investigated this topic very deeply and wrote some papers himself so would be cool to get his take. 

All I'm saying is, of someone suddenly claims that everything we know is wrong, be aware and be cautious. Just because someone is a good marketer and looks fit  does not mean they  know what they are talking about all the time. In fact, I'd encourage you to look up the real nerds who do the digging and the type of evaluating that nobody else does, at least not that I've seen such as  The Nutrivore, Avi Bitterman, Gil Carvalho, Tom Dayspring, Allan Fllanagan and potentially even Layne Norton has lately been changing mamy of his past opinions. They may help with showing you the other side of the story)

But in the end we all do our best most of the time and I don't believe most of these people mean any harm. They are just complacent because they achieved major success and most of their audience are not nutritionally savy to the point that they could do the research themselves so they conform.

Take care and thanks for your comments! Great work on your YT channel by the way.

Saladino makes a pretty compelling case for his diet.

You can't ignore evolutionary realities in a holistic framework of human health. Most physiologists and dieticians are stuck in their reductionist neuroscience and don't comprehend the importance of evolutionary adaptation. 

We didn't evolve in a vacuum. The largest chunk of our phylogenetic development has been spent in some kind of hunter gatherer/foraging situation, so that should absolutely be at the core of how we think about diet.

We acknowledge these realities in almost every aspect of what it means to be human (sex, violence, socialization, art, language), but somehow when it comes to diet, we think we are above this.

For what it's worth: Im on his diet for a month now and I feel absolutely fantastic. 

[LfcCharlie4]

@Nilsi  This is the most common thing I've seen with carnivore / high red meat diets. You are literally removing any food you had sensitivities with & temporarily starving the body of them. But, long term fucking up your heart & digestion, not to mention increasing the risk of basically every chronic disease out there

Feeling amazing for short period > decades of research on what people who actually lived to 100 do.

I just don't understand this thinking. 

I'm not saying small amounts of animal products can't be healthy, they defo can. But, one thing the majority of the nutrition world agree on except this corner is that lots of red meat will lead to increased risk of heart issues. Not even just read meat but Sat Fat from foods like Coconut oil which was hounded as a superfood for a while. 

Also, why does it have to be one or the other, why can't it be a balance of all Macros / Micros slightly adjusted for individual goals. 

I think one of the biggest issues with Socials is people like Liver King who jack themselves up with $15k+/ monthly PEDs then spend millions on one of the greatest Social Media Marketing campaigns are what people are easily influenced by. 

The guys actually going by the data and who look 'normal' will never garner that attention, sure its partly their fault for marketing poorly, but algorithms push what gets clicks, and that's extreme content. 

It was similar in 2014-2017 when the extreme raw vegans were getting the attention with the whole HCLF push that caused a shit tonne of problems.

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

it pays his bills to say the things he does, what do you expect  

 Look, I get his arguments on processed junk, and toxins in the environment as well as the general decline in physical activity and rise of obesity in people. All of that is very concerning but once he starts saying that fibre is actually harmful and that low fibre diets cure constipation because one study said so and that all of problems are caused by "toxic plants" and toxic seed oils and we all need to step worrying about our cholesterol levels, he is spitting in the face of everything we've known and walking very thin ice because he could literally be (indirectly) killing people with that sort of advice. 

Can you unpack what you mean by this for me? 

this is mostly irrelevant. We are not our ancestors anymore. We don't hunt animals nor live in caves. Society has moved on. There is a reason we started farming because it helped us to move societies forward. I don't see any need to keep appealing to hunter gatherer tribal life anymore. 

I'd urge you to pay visit to Thailand and visit the Lahu villages in North West region of Pang Mapha at the edge of Burmese mountains. These people die of tuberculosis, opium overdose, malnutrition and infectious diseases. They eat bugs, bats, dogs, rats, cats they shoot on the moon during eclipse and they kill poorly developed children in the belief that they are cursed.  Lahu also mostly rely on rice and vegetables, eating meat rarely when they can actually kill a wild boar or deer. When they eat red meat, it is in small amounts, from wild animal, not fat locally farmed cow and probably less than 150 grams per week, not 1 pound a week. Or at least they did 20 years ago before the modernisation of the country, nowadays they own cell phones and motorbikes and eat fried wings when they can.

Lahu people are what you would call descendants of tribal cultures in southeast Asia. Would you say they somehow have a manual for health? In my opinion they lived purely survival-based lifestyles and their life improved with the advancement of technology, medicine and more dietary variety. Same for many other once tribal societies.

These people (including tribes in south America and other regions of south east Asia) are stage purple groups and the idea that we should follow their lead is a bit naive. 

I'm gonna need you to unpack this for me as well if you don't mind. 

you are a young man in your prime years. It is to be expected. You should be at your peak strength and mental performance. Eating a lot of red meat is going to make you stronger in this age but probably introduce detriment later on. It is up to you to decide whether you want to play that roulette. 

Also one month is not long enough to see any detriment, you could be eating kiwi only diet and feel fine after a month 

For example: One successful genetic adaptation might be "perceiving childlike features as attractive;"

• This is adaptive, because males who possess this trait will take more care of their children, which in turn makes those children more likely to survive and thus reproduce, spreading the gene that codes for "perceiving childlike features as attractive."
• This is in fact why you find young-looking women so attractive (because the specificity of this trait is low enough to where it is also triggered by adults with childlike features)

Now, this kind of logic is how evolution works in every dimension.

Also important: We have spent most of our evolutionary past (roughly 2.000.000 years) in foraging (hunter gatherer) societies and not in agrarian ones (which only emerged roughly 10.000 years ago), so this is where most of the adaptation took place.

• So, a gene that codes for something like "more optimal digestability of red meat" or "more optimal nutrient absorption of fruits," would have brought about an evolutionary advantage and thus been selected for over the generations.
• A gene coding for "more optimal energy utilization of grain," would have brought no advantage and would thus not have spread as rapidly as the former two, if at all.

So: Our organism (which is the product of an evolutionary process) has been optimized under conditions in which we were mainly consuming meats, fruits and wild plants (Im not sure what to make of Saladinos comments on plants - it sounds plausible, but I have not seen good evidence for it; thats why I supplement my diet with AG1), which is why it is optimized to process those foods and not others (like bread or pasta or oats or whatever).

Just for the sake of it: My diet consists of ground beef, eggs, fruits, honey and coconut oil. I drink coffee and water (and the occasional beer, or 2, or 3, or 4 - but thats besides the point). I supplement with AG1, Creatine, D3/K2, Omega-3 and Magnesium Glycinate.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

adaptations for reproductive survival, yes but not post-reproductive survival. 

Yes, but only for reproductive fitness. 

Are you familiar with the theory of antagonistic pleiotropy? What it hypothesised is that when genetic adaptation happens, that improves the odds of reproductive fitness and production of offspring, that adaptation leads to detriment later in life. This is part of Darwinism and evolutionary biology. 

So for example, in men who have high levels of testosterone in youth, reproductive fitness is increased due to increased muscularity, increased libido, increased sperm motility, often longer penis etc all of which improve their odds of producing offspring. But men with high levels of testosterone are also at increased risk of prostate cancer later in life (antagonistically pleiotropic adaptation causing exchange of favourable and less favourable genetic traits) https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/88/16/1118/886395?login=true

Another example: Women with higher levels of oestrogens throughout life are more likely to be more fertile, have higher ovarian reserve, better blood supply to the uterus and are less likely to miscarry. They are also more likely to have more prominent sexual characteristics (hips, breasts,) which makes them more attractive to males and more likely to deliver living offspring (wider pelvis allows for larger separation of the pelvic cavity and undisturbed passing of the newborn...but....women with higher oestrogens are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer and ovarian cancer in their lifetime and might be more likely to reach earlier menopause (antagonistic pleiotropy) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314432/

Final example: male babies who consume more dairy products tend to grow well and have fewer developmental problems and lower incidence of rickets and yet in later adolescence higher consumption od dairy, especially higher fat dairy has been associated with higher risk of prostate cancer in men. (antagonistically pleiotropic genetic adaptation) 

Who's to say that this does not happen with food everywhere? 

If we are genetically adapted to a particular food (e.g. meat and dairy) it perpetuates early life survival, reduces risk of death early in life and causes increased odds of survival success between the age of 12-35 but then as more and more genetic adaptations are added up, antagonistic pleiotropy kicks in and you start paying for it in the later part of life by having higher risk of chronic disease

This might explain higher cardiovascular incidence in red meat consumers despite anecdotal evidence that it makes you stronger and hornier. Diet that we are highly adapted to might be causing a reduction in longevity and increased risk of chronic disease in exchange for increasing your attractiveness, strength and odds of being on the top of the male hierarchy. 

 What if being actually a little bit weaker, a little bit less sexually driven and eating a less genetically adapted diet (e.g. high plant diet) prevents from stacking up antagonistically pleiotropic genes and hence prolongs longevity? And if we look at nutritional epidemiology, then higher fibre diets (grains, legumes) tend to lead to reduced risk and reduced rate of major chronic diseases (obesity, cancer, type 2 diabetes) 

Also, if you look at it from another perspective, it is likely that the fact that plants have poorer digestibility and bioavailability might be one of the reasons why they lead to reduction in things like colorectal cancer due to fibre leftovers and lower caloric intake overall. Higher plant eaters tend to be leaner, lighter and have healthier lipid panel compared to their counterparts who eat higher diet in saturated fats. 

whatever rocks your boat  

I have reviewed a chunk of the antinutrient evidence and let me tell you there isn't anything there that infers any harm to humans, in fact it appears that antinutrients might actually be beneficial to us. Lectins and phytates appear to reduce the risk of cancer for example. Oxalates are not problematic in healthy individuals with healthy kidneys and healthy microbiome balance.  Goitrogens have only been shown to show some weird effects in rats and foods that contain them (such as brassica vegetables) are associated with reduced all cause mortality and cancer risk reduction. Of course don't eat raw legumes and don't go chugging a pound of spinach if you have kidney disease. 

The thing is many of these arguments are nice and persuasive when you listen to them until you start digging yourself then you realise a lot of carnivore "experts" are absolute quacks. 

Thats all good.

So, it is either a choice (short term advantage + long term detriment OR long term advantage + short term detriment) OR there is actually some kind of transcendent diet that optimizes across lifespan (which is probably what we should be looking for).

These long term detrimental genes have only survived, because these humans had their offspring before the point at which they became a liability.

I guess all roads lead to eugenics. CRISPR will allow us to clean up these "bad genes" and remove the downside from the "advantage now" diet (not to mention, that we can genetically optimize our food to our unique genetic makeup). How long before this will be available? I dont know.