 What makes us beautiful? What creates symmetrical attractive faces? Many people would boil it down to genetics. I personally believe genetics are determined by diet and region of the world over a period of generations. More recently the idea of facial posture and the position that your tongue is in your mouth determines ultimately how your face will develop, whether it will develop properly. The issue here is that people are looking at ideal facial development, facial posture and saying, yeah, of course, you need to have proper facial posture to have ideal facial development. But what determines whether or not you have proper facial posture? For anyone unfamiliar with orthotropics or Drs. John and Mike Mu, it's a branch of orthodontics where they're using certain devices to replicate the tongue posture that humans are supposed to have. And this was present in all indigenous groups, hunter-gatherers. So if we look at these people and we notice the symmetry between their lips, the width of the lower jaw, all of these various aspects of their facial development, we can hypothetically say that this is what humans are supposed to look like. An interesting analogy here to be made is with animals. If you have a species of a certain type of wolf from a certain part of the world, they will look differently than wolves from, say, another part of the world. Same thing with Native Americans from one part of America and Native Americans from another part of America. There are differences in what these people look like and if the location of the world and the diet they're following doesn't determine that, then what does? So now if we look at lifestyle factors of these people and try to determine why they had this proper facial development, most people try to boil it down to chewing and hard food versus soft food. But this does not make sense for quite a few reasons. Mainly because there were indigenous groups that consumed both hard and soft foods. We'll take a look at an excerpt from the book The Fat of the Land later about that. The other thing is that infants and babies that are breast-fed mothers milk, there are drastic variances in their facial structure despite both being breast-fed and hypothetically having the same, you know, workout of the facial muscles. Not only that, there are many many pictures of babies coming out of the womb and having drastically different width of the lower face and as much as you want to boil this down from genetics, when one child's mouth is like a centimeter wide and another child's mouth is five inches wide, obviously, there's some sort of nutrient, i.e., vitamin or mineral determining factor here. It just doesn't make sense. The fact that there were indigenous groups consuming both soft and chewed food and the variants in babies leads me to believe that nutrition is the key factor here. So my theory is that nutrition allows for proper facial posture. So what happens is your skull and your facial bones develop properly and then the tongue can fit in the mouth. Obviously, if your skull isn't large enough, if your jaw isn't wide enough, the tongue isn't going to fit comfortably. It's like trying to cram a 16 ounce burger patty onto a white castle bun. Obviously, it's not going to fit because it's not meant to be there. It just doesn't work. Now, of course, if you replicate proper facial structure with orthotropics in young and early stages of life, you can improve the facial development, but there is really little to no evidence that this can be done in an adult. Yes, there are people who are older that have seen slight, slight, slight changes in their facial development. But to me, there's no indication that this is something that can be changed at older stages of life. So for me, the purpose of orthotropics is what you're supposed to do. You want to increase the nutrient density of the child's diet, try to use orthotropics to fix their mouth and their face to how it should be, but you have to keep in mind. Orthotropics and facial posture is not changing everything. You did not develop properly. I did not develop properly. For those of you guys that don't know, I had double jaw surgery to fix my bite. We are not just referring to the jaw and the face here. We're referring to the skull. We're referring to every single bone in the face. And there's only so much that the tongue will do in pushing the maxilla forward. People really think that fixing your facial posture is going to do all of these things. No, it's not. We don't have a time machine. We can only do the best with what we have access to. Of course, if your face doesn't develop properly and mine didn't, I had jaw surgery to correct the bite and now I am trying to practice proper tongue and facial posture. But if your face didn't develop properly, practicing proper facial posture and tongue posture isn't going to do anything. You might, what you're doing with orthotropics is you're fixing your facial posture. You're not fixing how your face looks. That's what people need to understand. So here we have an excerpt from The Fat of the Land. It's a book about an arctic explorer named William Stephenson. And here there's an anthropologist who essentially talks about the dietary differences between certain eskimos and why chewing hard foods doesn't make sense in the context of facial development. We quote now Henry B. Collins, Senior Ethnologist of the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian from a letter dated August 10th, 1939. In this letter, Collins refers to the idea that chewing hard, tough or coarse foods will keep the teeth sound and terms it an old wives tale. He says that by his own observation, eskimos who have the soundest of teeth are more likely to gulp than to chew their food, which is chiefly boiled or raw meats. He goes on, the hard chewing hypothesis to explain sound teeth seems at best an impediment and distraction from the main issue, which is the extremely important role of diet in the formation and condition of teeth. It would not be difficult to point to other examples of an inverse relationship between vigorous chewing and good teeth. Consider the prehistoric Indians of coastal Florida, who to judge from the skulls in the National Museum had fully as robust jaws and almost as perfect teeth as the eskimo. And yet their principal food was oysters and other shellfish which surely required little chewing. Their immunity from dental carries and the splendid development of their teeth and bones in general is to my mind a condition directly correlated with their diet. For consider on the other hand that without exception every prehistoric or modern Indian population that depended to any extent on grain agriculture shows susceptibility to dental carries. I base this generalization also on the extensive skull collections in the National Museum. From examination of these collections I have the definite impression that there is a rather close correlation between dental ills and grain consumption. The more intense of the agriculture the higher the incidence of carries. At one end of the scale are the Pueblos, prehistoric and modern, whose worship of the corn deity has not prevented them from having the most wretched teeth of any American aborigine. Dental decay is also much in evidence among the eastern and southern Indians, mostly inland, who were also agricultureists. Ascending the scale somewhat we find that prehistoric plains tribes who practice agriculture to some extent show some carries while later plains Indians of whatever group who have given up agriculture for a nomadic hunting life have splendid teeth. So there's a correlation between consuming grains and plant foods as opposed to animal foods and what this is is an increase in anti-nutrients in the diet such as phytic acid and oxalates which bind to minerals and take them out of the body. This results in the teeth not remineralizing properly and the lack of animal foods in the diet results in a lack of vitamin K2, metabolism of D3, all these vitamins that are important for the mobilization of calcium and other minerals into the bones. So for anyone to argue that soft versus hard foods and chewing and facial posture there's just too many factors going against it. The variance in the facial structure of babies and infants, the idea that they can't be cognizant of their facial posture at such a young age, it's just that there were indigenous groups consuming both hard and soft food it really doesn't make any sense. One thing people don't realize is that modern medicine is preventing us from going extinct. I believe Gail said, talked about this on a Joe Rogan podcast, there was a group of monkeys that were living in a jungle as monkeys do and they open up this resort in this jungle and at this resort they're throwing out all this cake and all this food in the dumpsters behind the resort and the monkeys find these dumpsters and the monkeys start eating this cake and they literally die of tuberculosis within one or two generations. The monkeys go extinct essentially. This is what Weston Price found in these indigenous groups. When indigenous groups went on modern man-made foods they develop tuberculosis and they die. So what I'm basically saying is without modern medicine humans are supposed to get tuberculosis and die and tuberculosis seems to me a result of going off of native and indigenous diets to some degree. It's really interesting. To me it's crazy interesting that we would literally die on a modern diet without medicine vaccines or all this stuff. I think that's something people really need to understand. So yes we have improper facial development, yes we have all these things wrong with us, yes we need to wear glasses, we need braces, we need all these things but we should have been dead is what I'm getting at. Having these things isn't natural and the only reason we're able to live with them is because of modern amenities. It's crazy to think about but you know modern problems call for modern intervention. So hopefully I've given you guys some good points to think about in this video. I've seen a lot of information out there about mewing and listen I'm a very open-minded and objective person but this whole facial posture thing and soft food versus hard food really doesn't make any sense especially looking at those pictures of babies. This is why guys I advocate so much for nutrient density in the diet. To me it's very clear I might not be best at illustrating and conveying this point but what do I always say whether it's a year from now, five years from now, 10 years from now, Frankie Boy was right. So do you guys want to be on the right side or the wrong side? I personally don't really care but I'm inclined to believe that you know it's kind of like bragging rights you know I could say oh well when everyone else thought that facial posture and orthotropics was the issue nutrient density is really the issue and I know some people have acknowledged the diet to some degree but it tends to be in the context of hard foods and soft foods. So outside of that thank you guys for watching if you guys would like to support the channel please subscribe like and share the video all the stuff down below guys I have an amazon shop that has nutrient dense foods like cod liver oil you can check out my patreon I have some exclusive videos on there if you guys would like to go on my twitter instagram on twitter I post a lot of studies like this and pictures of indigenous groups on instagram it's pretty much our selfies and you can see stories of me complaining about driving in new york city traffic and if you guys would like to reach out to me for one-on-one consultations and increasing the nutrient density of your diet you can do so via email frankatofano at gmail.com all that stuff is down in the comments guys if you guys have not seen my video on prenatal nutrition I kind of cover the bases in a similar light to this so definitely check out that video it was last week if you want to know more about this but again thank you guys so much for watching and enjoy the rest of your week