> Note how all the explanations of difference are assumed to be essentially moral failings of westerners, to eat "properly" [1] or exercise. You are missing my

> Note how all the explanations of difference are assumed to be essentially moral failings of westerners, to eat "properly" [1] or exercise. You are missing my point. Failure to eat "properly" or exercise is not a moral failing. The article never says that; you interpret it as such. I have failed to eat properly and exercise for most of my adult life. That does not make me a bad person. "Immoral" and "wrong" are not equivalent concepts; the former is a subset of the latter. > Note the ingrained assumption that if there's a difference between the isolated primitive and the Westerner, the Westerner is automatically in the wrong, be it in behaviors or gut biomes, which they actually have to remind themselves may not be true, though they don't actually come up with any other possible explanations. That's a problem in certain circles across all of medicine. Just look at the irrational support for "traditional Chinese medicine". > Mind you, I don't disagree that there are dietary issues in the Western diet or that there are exercise issues, but it's still bad science to presume in advance those are the only explanations to be considered, be it explicitly assumed or implicitly assumed. There's a world of variables out there and we've barely begun to shine a light. I agree, with medical science in particular suffering from this.