Comments by "Louise Hogg" (@louisehogg8472) on "Celtic History Decoded"
channel.
-
7
-
7
-
4
-
3
-
Fair skin must help too, whereas blonds tend to tan, that is darken and that must block some UV?
Still only enough UV from May to September in Scotland though. So much so that vitamin D deficiency is 'normal' here. I take a supplement all year round, to prevent cold sores emerging in December.
Prior to starting that, I chose to go outside for half an hour every lunchtime, with face, hands and head exposed. And the cold sores (low immunity/low vitamin D) didn't start until a month later that year.
Apparently you need oily fish three times a day to get enough vitamin D in your diet during the winter.
Dad, whose family are much more redheaded than Mum's, maybe 2/3 redheads, also has a mild version of hemochromatosis. Not enough to need bled, but enough to prevent anaemia in the days when they used to kill most cattle in the winter and couldn't get iron in their diet all winter as a result. With green veg not having enough light to grow, or grass to feed the cattle.
His family originated on Skye, which is a couple of hundred miles further North. So he was adapted for low light (eyes), low UV light/vitamin D, AND low dietary iron (indirect consequence of the low UV light).
He does of course get depressed, which also goes with the red hair.
2
-
2
-
Though since your ancestors 250 years ago, will have been much less socially, and probably geographically, mobile, they'll likely have reproduced with their own near relatives.
So unless the 'random ancestor' was an 'exotic' addition to the family, you likely share more of their DNA than you'd expect statistically.
For example, about 250 years ago, a direct ancestor of mine was James Hogg's older brother. That's probably eight generations ago. Statistically I'd share only 1/256 of James Hogg's DNA, and my dad and grandpa only 1/128 and 1/64 of it.
Yet it's not that surprising that both Dad and his father had the same distinctive tuft of curly, frizzy hair you see on his portraits. While Dad and I both have/had hair as red or more so than his, and his long-fingered, narrow hands.
The surname has been passed on, so likely all down to my Dad shared an almost identical Y chromosome. Perhaps the frizzy 'coo's lick' was on that chromosome?
But ALSO, the family on my dad's side have remained living within 15 miles for the generations since, and 550 years before! So despite input from three other areas of Scotland, plus Northern England and Ireland (at least) in the intervening generations, probably three quarters of Dad's ancestors were ALSO closely related to James Hogg, and his brother.
Thus James Hogg's portrait doesn't so much show 'James Hogg', as 'an example of one of several dominant Ettrick/Selkirkshire/Teviotdale native types'.
Probably a mix of Brittonic, Anglian, Scots and Norse, that had been settled and 'fixed' in the area for a good few centuries by then.
Until the Industrial Revolution, most people will have been as 'fixed' types as sheep breeds are today! Probably everyone in the Borders was basically a Blackie or a Cheviot, a Scott or a Kerr. With a few exotic Border Leicesters added in the 1780s! 🤣
I've been mistaken for the brother of another well-known local, who can't have a shared ancestor closer than at least four generations back (if we have one!) - But who is similarly VERY much of the same 'stock'. Another family name that's hung around here for at least three hundred years. And by 'here', I mean within ten miles of here.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agree.
Like 80% of Scots, I've got the red hair genes. Like only a fraction of those, I've got it on both sides or dominant, and therefore the red hair that's useful for maximising vitamin D production from daylight. Fortunately, I continue to live in Scotland, where I don't have to negate the benefit by shielding myself from strong sunlight.
Unfortunately I only discovered recently, that it correlates with a REDUCED ability to absorb vitamin D from food. So to maintain vitamin D levels, I can't just take the shortcut of a supplement, but really SHOULD be out in all that 'Scotch mist' (rain) more often! 😕 Presumably wearing my see-you-Jimmy hat. 🤣
Unlike Dad (ancestors from Skye), I HAVEN'T got the hemochromatosis 'tendency', that would be as useful for preventing middle-aged woman anaemia, as it was In preventing pre-Agricultural Revolution no-red-meat-or-green-veg-in-winter anaemia, in crofting areas. (Is this why Lewis became known for their black pudding? A very good source of iron that I eat every week.)
Based on this, to what extent do you think those wishing to improve their health, or with naturally fragile health, should aim to incorporate the diet and physical habits of their ancestors?
It's a no brainer that folk from the far East are best to avoid dairy and minimise alcohol. But, in addition to going out more (even when it's raining), and stocking up on black pudding, what else should I be doing?
I'm from a rugby area, but herding-farming-woollen mills, rather than coal. Athletic build, but unfortunately have flat feet (from the fishermen side of the family) limiting my running ability. Logically, I 'should' have the stamina for walking many miles a day looking for sheep. (I certainly lack the physical strength for heavy digging.).
Despite the wonky feet, I DID manage a job where I was standing up all day. Which I suppose the mills would have selected for?
And despite all shepherding, mill work and joiners being before my time, I love all things woolly, sheep, wood and collie dogs. So I guess the breeding of the previous 750 years hasn't been cancelled out by the contrary education and training of the last 50!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've asked about this too. As the only example I KNOW has been proven, is the 'strong Y' (for want of a better name) chromosome. The one that men with many brothers have. Which beats it's X counterpart more than 50% of the time. Resulting in more sons than daughters.
I've also speculated that 'problem' genes, such as Queen Victoria's carried haemophilia gene, will be effectively passed on less. Since those who get two copies (or for Y chromosome, one copy), mostly won't survive or reproduce. So their 'share' of the statistical Family Tree, will be absent. The same way that you'll have zero sterile direct ancestors, despite some sterile folk in your family tree.
Logically, the opposite will also be, more voluntarily, over-represented. That is, those WITH certain sought-after characteristics will be chosen as mates, repeatedly, so their DNA will increasingly dominate. And those with 'successful' traits will also dominate. Eg the hemochromatosis 'tendency' that Dad got from the Skye side of his ancestry. (It prevented anaemia in the winter, before the Agricultural Revolution allowed a supply of red meat and green vegetables all year round.)
It's not necessarily that you'll have more chance of that DNA combination resulting in a baby. But more that you're more likely to have that DNA available as both 'options', and in a lot of ancestors.
Eg if 80% of Scots, carry a red haired gene, a lot of us will appear to be descendants of James II, even though he's only one (possible I suppose) ancestor 800 years ago.
My dad and I share red hair with James Hogg (8 generations back to JH's parents being last common ancestors.) But realistically, we probably BOTH inherited it from Dad's mother, a red haired Morrison, from a family where about 2/3 of them had red hair. Again, the Skye side of his family, where maximising vitamin D from daylight at high latitude was an advantage.
(It's unclear whether the crippled feet problem was a NEGATIVE result of such bioaccumulation in Skye too. Or whether that came from another isolated community the Skye ancestors settled in for three generations. But that trait seems more recessive, as it's not been passed on to my generation.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the Yamnaya are to blame for Northern Europeans' susceptibility to hemochromatosis and multiple sclerosis, how does our incidence of schizophrenia fare? I'm sure I heard it mentioned in a video somewhere.
I ask, because on another channel, a Canadian of obvious Celtic/Saxon/Viking sort of heritage, HAS schizophrenia, BUT has also found a strict ketogenic diet effectively 'curing' it. As in, off all medication, with no symptoms, after nine months. When previously she was on medication for a decade with symptoms (and with several psychotic episodes during that decade).
Her husband is following the same diet, as moral support and as a form of 'control', but has found his body adapt less naturally to it. While obviously not having the same sensitivity to carbohydrates in the first place, in that he had no mental illness. He appears, superficially, more Brythonic/Latin looking.
Is she descended from Steppe (keto diet?) herders? And he from Neolithic (grain eating) farmers?
Both can survive on each other's diet, but in marginal health situations, their optimal 'adapted' one is the difference between health and illness?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1