The Food Reward Hypothesis: A Rule Of Thumb For All Successful Diets

Readers, I’m not an expert on anything (except for maybe shoestring travel in Europe).  But every now and then, I hit the nail on the head without thinking.

Literally, after just posting this comment on another fitness blogger’s post on Food Logging

Food diaries are the absolute best tool for facilitating weight loss. Statistical fact.
When I first woke up from my junk-food induced coma and realized I was (again) way too fat, I bought a book on diet and weight loss, written by a business man.

Key point was to treat calories like money. Create a daily deficit, and you will lose weight and go broke.

Easy. I lost 40 pounds in three months.

But I am totally OVER food logging. As long as I don’t eat over-stimulating food, my body, which has thankfully repaired its hunger/satiety gauges through clean whole foods eating, tells me when to quit.

I eat a lot. 3,000-4,000 calories a day, on average, and no—I’m not working out.  Just living. I try to eat as much variety as possible, and tracking ALL THAT FOOD is a pain.

–I began to read an article I’d left open yesterday in my browser, on the food reward hypothesis.

From the article,

The food reward hypothesis of obesity states that the reward and palatability value of food influence body fatness, and excess reward/palatability can promote body fat accumulation.

In other words, when food is yummy, we eat more of it.  Too much eating eventually leads to overweight/fat accumulation, and/or possibly brain damage (i.e. damage in the hypothalamus, where appetite is regulated) and obesity.

Now, this might sound like a no-brainer, right?

Wrong, if you’re a low-carber.  If you’re like Gary Taubes (the “journalist” to which the fabulous article was written as a response piece), or a no-cash-crop-Paleo promoter, you probably want us to think that it is the type of calorie, not how tasty it is.  In other words, carbs, by virtue of their caloric type, cause fatness, and fats and proteins do not.

The author of the paper, Stephan Guyenet, explains the backwardation of this “no brainer” as follows,

I thought it would be more productive to discuss one of the core elements of [Taubes'] position, which has arguably been one of his greatest influences on the public.  This is the “paradigm shift” he promotes, away from thinking about obesity as a problem of energy imbalance (energy in vs. out), and toward thinking about it as a “disorder of excess fat accumulation” where energy imbalance is the result rather than the cause of fat tissue expansion (36)…He uses this argument to brush aside much of the last 60 years of obesity research, and the opinions of many seasoned researchers, arguing that they are largely irrelevant because they operate under the wrong paradigm (logical framework).

And the pages of Good Calories, Bad Calories came screaming back to me!  As well as the feelings I’d had after reading it, which led me to compose my longest article to date, which is little more than my amateur attempt to piece together the words of other experts and my own knowledge–a blunder, out of focus, but there, nonetheless, and I hope not far off the mark.

All I have to say is Taubes is reaching with his new paradigm.

Back to my little blog comment, though: “As long as I don’t eat over-stimulating food.”  Over-stimulating, aka, highly palatable food.

It did not take my subsequent years of voracious consumption (pun intended) of nutritional information to learn this.  It just seemed sensible.  I knew that if I bit into a cookie, I’d Tasmanian Devil the whole box.  Most women know this.

Me, especially after a workout.

I knew that if I wanted a slice a bread, I certainly wasn’t going to eat it as-is.  It would have been a vessel for delivering fat and/or sugar into my mouth!

Fat! Sugar! Married in a sandwich! NOM NOM.

I knew that some foods (like corn chips) are “like crack,” and other foods (like carrots) have a very rapid diminishing return on pleasure–and yet, both are high carb foods.

You’d never ask your waiter to bring over another basket of carrots.

So if you don’t blow your brains out with fat, salt, and sugar, or any combination thereof, you’ll probably be on your way to weight loss until you’ve “kicked the habit.”

Yeah… the habit.  We can be addicted to food.  We can also be overly-habituated to certain food presentations (i.e., “I can’t eat Thanksgiving turkey without cranberry sauce!”).

I hate to strip food of its beauty–of its aroma, flavor, and interplay with our olfactory and visual senses.  I hate to strip away its relationship to culture: food as a gift, food as a gesture, food as religion, food as identity–but if we take a moment and identify food solely as fuel, and treat it as such, we begin to lose our psychological dependence on it, and allow it to guide our health in more appropriate directions.

Guyenet states is beautifully in this other article,

Diet trials have shown that a ‘simple’ diet, low in palatability and reward value, reduces hunger and causes fat loss in obese humans and animals, apparently by lowering the ‘defended’ level of fat mass (30313233). This may be a reason why virtually any diet in which food choices are restricted (e.g., Paleo, vegan, fruitarian), including diametrically opposed approaches like low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets, can reduce food intake and body fatness in clinical trials.

I said it on my Nutrition Page, “Whether you follow a meat-centered, vegetarian, vegan, macrobiotic, or raw food diet, there is one common denominator for success: that the foods are of high quality and unadulterated.

So here’s the rule of thumb, if you’re trying to eat less.  Eat whole foods, or process them in your own kitchen.

Plant-Based vs. Low-Carb Paleo: In Search of the Optimal Diet

After responding to a comment left by a Crossfit-Paleo enthusiast on my critique of Crossfit, and beginning to delve into the new video series by Plant Positive, and  reading a most interesting book called Everybody Eats: Understanding Food and Culture, by E.N. Anderson, I couldn’t help but lash out a few more thoughts on the plant/starch-centric diet vs. the paleo/meat-centric diet debate.

In case anyone falls into the pit of hyper focus on the plant vs. animal debate, and foolishly thinks that humans actually evolved as herbivores or carnivores, I’ll state it here: humans evolved, most likely, as specialized omnivores.

Humans are highly adaptable creatures, and given these high levels of adaptability, it doesn’t make sense from the point of view of natural selection to be able to persist on any single foodstuff.  In other words, we are not Koalas that eat eucalyptus; we are not horses, subsisting on grass; we are not lions, eating the flesh of other animals.  We fail to synthesize many vitamins the way other animal species can; hence, we must find them through diet.  We must have a variety-rich diet.

Our nutritional requirements can be met fairly well through animal-source dominance, as well as through plant-source dominance.  The debate, however, often hinges on the question: which source causes more collateral damage?  The ridiculous long-winded arguments in favor of predominantly plant-eating diets over predominately animal-eating diets, and vice verse, are the sad result of a narrow attention span spawned by the pressures of media and marketing.  Sell an idea to the exclusion of all others!

To market an idea (from a food company, or a diet book, or a supplement center) one must first create a perceived need in the would-be consumer.  Once the consumer feels he has a need, or a problem, or even the long-term possibility of a problem (heart disease, for example) he is psychologically more prepared to accept your idea or product.  If this idea or product sells well enough, the contents of it are eventually assumed to be conventional wisdom.

Dr. Loren Cordain, for example, is one of the most widely-cited Paleo nutrition experts, and yet a casual look at his book tells us everything we need to know.  It reads like a diet book, not like a comprehensive work of nutritional science.  His words are loaded and emotional, selected in order to make his readers enthusiastic about biased ideas.  Science is not supposed to do that.

The very same can be said about T. Colin Campbell, whose China Study should not be taken as a rigorous meta-analysis of nutritional studies.  If it were, you wouldn’t see it for sale at Barnes and Noble.  It is a public health warning.  T. Colin Campbell has received an avalanch of criticism from the hugely unscientific community of Paleo pushers whose arguments generally rest on the shoulders of amateur bloggers, lobby groups, and cherry-picked studies from journalists.  Their arguments also typically stem from the nature fallacy; “natural,” a most vapid term, is clearly better than modern, in their eyes; by that logic, death at childbirth, death by infectious disease, and death by a hazardous environment are preferable to deaths from heart disease, kidney failure, and breast cancer.  But death is still death, and based on humanity’s utterly ridiculous psychology of risk assessment, and our inconsistent prioritization of some types of life over others, we glibly go with the flow of conventional wisdom as defined by good PR and marketing.

Here’s a cheerful comment recently left on my blog:

No disrespect but youre an idiot!!…And if you actually read anything and did you reaearch PALEO makes total sense. Its not supose to be an all meat diet or even a high protien diet, its supposed to be a non processed natural diet. You think nomadic herding tribes were planting farms and rows of grains??? HUNTER GATHERER is how most rolled. That didnt mean fruits and veggies, they didnt have fridges or coolers back then, veggies and fruit both rot quickly making it inpossible to maintain. But you can dry meat and fat and fish and keep it all winter. You want to find out how humans are supoosed to eat, go live in the woods for a few months, and see if you can survive on a “Vegan” or “Vegitarian” diet.

The nature fallacy reminds me of out-dated religious dogma which reminds us daily that it isn’t acceptable to be a homosexual, and yet conveniently forgets that it is also still acceptable to stone your wife if she commits adultery.  Clearly, the dogma hasn’t “evolved” with culture, and the changing priorities.

Furthermore, dropping some guy in the woods is not the same as equating him with hunter-gatherers as a group (an extremely broad one).

“Modern hunter gatherers vary enormously in their diet… There is a clear trend, long known in anthropology, from almost entirely animal foods in high latitudes down to overwhelming dependence on plant foods in low latitudes, especially in dry areas where animals are few,” (Anderson, E.N., 2005)

But the debate continues in search of the optimal diet, nonetheless.

Optimal for what?  For which circumstances?  Longevity?  Athletic performance?  Disease management?  Gene expression?  Re-production?  Environmental stewardship?

Once we define the goal, the diet becomes much hazier.

Social and environmental circumstances change.  Given the high levels of human metabolic and digestive adaptability, we should seek out dietary regimes which are not only physiologically viable, but viable in other ways.  This is T. Colin Campbell’s core message; meat-centric/low-carb/Paleo cult critics label it as vegan propaganda.

Citing the Inuit Eskimos as healthy viable examples of Paleo nutrition is just as extreme as promoting a 100% vegan diet as the future of human health.  The difference, though, is that the 100% vegan diet is possible on a global scale, now.

But no.  After all the re-packaged low-carb diet books from the paleo movement (really, just a new, healthier spin on Atkins), in steps my new favorite questionable journalist, Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories, who is nothing short of another author making a living exploiting conventional wisdom and confusing his lay-readers first into insecurity, and later into believing the low-carb gospel.

His claims are outrageous, his list of references formidably long, and his stamina for hypothesis-debunking is impressive!  By the end, the reader is dizzy and breathless from reading such an astounding body of evidence to demonstrate without a doubt that gravity has no pull on us anymore–that is to say, that everything we’ve been told is a lie propagated by a few self-serving scientists.  Oh yeah, and that processed food is bad for you, and that carbs are carbs are carbs and they’re all bad, too.

Thanks, Mr. Taubes.

And I hate myself just a little bit for buying into his crap at first–that is, until I began to question his assertion that energy balance was irrelevant to weight gain.  As I wrote out my thoughts, studied his words, they unraveled before my eyes, and I could see his convenient little omissions and understatements of things that didn’t support his agenda.  A quick Google search does not reveal hordes of dissenters like myself, but there are a few, and they say it much better than I do.  I only wish my own articles were as cogent and cleanly presented, and not the bitter mutterings of a disgruntled endurance athlete.

Yes, I can get pretty amped up over the nutrition debate.  Just remember this: anthropology has done a great job of unveiling the habits of pre-historic humans, but a lot of it is stuff guess-work, heavily influenced by the human ego which wants very much to be higher on the food chain.  What we do know, is that a lot of diets have worked for lots of people, under lots of circumstances.  Gatorade is junk food, and yet athletes find it an extremely beneficial energy source.

Never remove your diet from its context.

New GMO Wheat Strain To Have Lower GI Value; Complete and Utter Bullshit!

Read the article, if you want, or see the excerpts.

From “Scientists Reject human trials of GM wheat,” the following quotes appeared:

“The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.

…eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials…

…They believed the CSRIO’s animal feeding trials of up to 28 days were “completely inadequate” to assess such risks….

…The CSIRO’s trials were trying to determine whether the new type of GM grain had health benefits for people with conditions such as colourectal cancer and diabetes, he said….

…And you say?

What.A.Bunch.Of.Bullshit!

Inadequate testing aside, are we being serious here?

Lowering the glycemic index of wheat to improve blood glucose levels?

In who?

Diabetics?  Or the farm animals you want to feed it to?  Or both?

How many people actually eat whole wheat berries which, BY THE WAY, have a mere glycemic index of 46???  (“High” is over 70.)

So what these PR assholes are trying to tell us is that GMO wheat might, what, magically control our blood glucose levels and make us all healthier?

Don’t these guys know that it is the refining of wheat that causes its high GI value, and not the wheat berries?  It’s not the food.  It’s what you do to it.  And eating a low-GI food alone will not correct your blood glucose levels if you have no clue what other foods to avoid.

This has got to be the worst guise for a GM crop I’ve ever heard of.

Clearly this isn’t about feeding the world.  It’s just selling any stupid idea to gain control of the seed market.

I’m done!

Crossfit – A Cool Idea, Poorly Implemented

The article stems from a quote from my previous article on the problems with the paleo diet, “Crossfit, a popular and generally-looked-down-upon, dangerous and poorly-implemented fitness fad…”

“What did you mean by that?  Hang on just a second!  You can’t slam Crossfit!  Crossfit is the shit!  Crossfit has made me the badass I am today!  Crossfit isn’t for pu$$!eS .  Clearly you can’t handle it.”

…well, this is how I imagine the response.  I’m sure the Crossfit community is more dignified than that, so what is the story?  Why do I exaggerate such a barbaric response?

Because of the paleo-centric community.

I wish I could say that I’m sorry for being unfair, but I can’t.  I devoted several weeks to researching the plant-based vs. paleo camps, and read dozens of meticulously written articles, and then spent many hours combing through each of their avalanches of comments and the links contained within.

I was absolutely appalled by what I read.  While plant-based enthusiasts are not immune to being petty and insulting, the paleo community had it in spades.  There is something about glorifying man as a meat-eating ,savage, athletic, shirtless, smooth-chested stud that gets the paleo people up in arms whenever you suggest that man really wasn’t that impressive–and that he didn’t gorge himself on delicious meat.

By comparison, man is a skinny, hairless, weak-looking dweeb who was smart enough to use tools to scavenge leftovers, steal eggs from nests, and eat his own parasites.  He was lean, wiry, and as strong as his environment functionally permitted him to be.

Rest assured, nothing in the paleolithic environment resembled a gym.

The fact that the paleo movement and Crossfit are married makes me shudder at the thought of receiving paleo community backlash.  Seriously.

I admit this might be my way of criticizing those same hyper-defensive paleo people (not all paleo people are assholes).  This time I’m striking at the paleo cult from a different angle: Crossfit–the holy grail of paleo fitness.

For the record, I don’t hate Crossfit.  I like it a lot.  Really.  A lot.  I still do it.

THE PROS:

  • Crossfit is the most efficient training protocol I have ever encountered (up there with RKC) when measuring gains spread broadly over power, speed, and medium muscular endurance.
  • The dietary guidelines are perfectly sensible for its aim and scope.
  • Crossfit teaches mental toughness in a way unlike most training regimes.
  • It offers a wide variety of workout styles, and keeps things interesting, both on a metabolic level, and for entertainment purposes.
  • Crossfit focuses predominantly on functional training exercises, dismissing isolated lifting and long bouts of cardio.
  • When executed smartly, Crossfit makes fitness animals who are prepared for just about anything life can throw at them.
  • The Crossfit Website is an amazing free resource and exercise library, full of tutorials for anyone seeking a better understanding of its core movements.

THE CONS, or at least THINGS TO CONSIDER:

  • The Crossfit I certification is too easy to obtainand serves as a money-making scheme, as well as a stepping stone for it’s Level II certification, required for its franchise.  Crossfit may very well be the most rapidly expanding fitness franchise out there.
  • Lack of depth and understanding in its certification - a Crossfit certification demonstrates that you have sufficient understanding of Crossfit methodology, in order to pass a short test at the end of a two-day seminar.  Understanding Crossfit methodology is not the same as understanding exercise physiology. Most training certifications, for those with no B.S. in anatomy, kinesiology, of physiology, takes at least several months to study for, and the tests are proctored.  Furthermore, most reputable certifications require regular continuing education courses, to ensure that fitness professionals are staying current with the trends and findings in exercise physiology.  The fitness industry is plagued with bad certifications, and only a handful of nationally recognized certifications carry any weight in the fitness industry.  Having a Crossfit certification means little more than having a certification in TRX Suspension training, and should only be considered supplemental to any trainer’s list of qualifications.
  • Inattentive and/or unqualified trainers - I could be wrong. I haven’t looked up the resume skirt.  But the proof is in the pudding.  I have witnessed it with my own eyes, and there is a plethora of video on youtube demonstrating this fact: that Crossfit’s attention to safety and form is lacking.  This leads me to believe that many Crossfit instructors have no idea how to correctly teach Olympic and Power lifts; or if they do, they certainly do not care if the trainee is performing these lifts properly.  Olympic and Power lifts are not things to play around with.  It is extremely easy to hurt yourself, and it happens all the time, which leads me to the next point…
  • Insanely high rate of injury - This is a multi-faceted problem.  First, Crossfit seeks intensity and speed in favor of safety.  The lifts are so physically demanding, the metabolic pathways so punishing when mixed and matched, that the trainee fatigues rapidly, leaving room for error.  Second, Crossfit relies heavily on medium muscular endurance activities which, at a high enough and sloppy intensity, can easily cause overuse injury.  Third, quantity is favored over quality.  ”Come on, push!  You got this!  One more!” as someone struggles under the weight of their hang clean caught at their stomach, rather than in an appropriate rack position.
  • Business modelAside from being a rapidly expanding franchise, Crossfit has capitalized on the next biggest thing in fitness: group training.  Group training is both cost-effective and motivating for the trainee, and the intensity of group training usually helps provide a better workout.  Group fitness has known this for years; group training is supposed to be a compromise between group fitness and private training.  Crossfit workouts are usually drop-in, as trainees purchase entry on a month-to-month basis, or class packages.  The affordability of Crossfit (along with its cultish ambiance) makes for an easy revenue stream.  The groups, in my opinion, are usually too large and cannot be appropriately monitored.  If someone gets hurt, its easy to fill his spot.  People are always coming through the door, transfixed by the heavy metal music, grunting, and slamming of weights by sweat-soaked, shirtless animals.
  • Lack of training infrasctructure – Huh? This will depend on the location, for sure, as well as the quality of training and instructor staff.  In large part, Crossfit lacks scaled training options for beginners, people with contraindications, and people with significant muscle-skeletal imbalances.  Crossfit is only appropriate for healthy, well-moving people, and lacks programming for everyone else.
  • Vomiting – I have no idea why this is considered a badge of honor.  Vomiting from a workout says only one thing to me: you’re out of shape.  I’ve trained with dozens of truly elite athletes.  They don’t vomit after their races.  Ever.  Furthermore, the people most likely to experience vomiting and dizziness during or after a workout are those who are just getting started in a training program.  If anything, the high rates of vomiting speak only to the volume of amateurs embarking on the very technical aspects of Crossfit, and thus putting themselves in danger.
  • Lack of logic in program design/ no program design – In other words, there is only one goal for anyone in Crossfit: to be a badass.  That’s it.  For anyone with specific fitness goals, I recommend going somewhere else.  Exercises are neither good nor bad; they are simply appropriate or inappropriate with respect to the trainee’s goals.
  • “Oh my god, I’m soo sore!”Giving someone 150 of anything will make him sore.  Any trainer, if he’s any good, can make you ungodly sore in 20 minutes.  That’s not an accomplishment.  Over-training large muscle groups isn’t a skill.  Fine-tuning smaller, more stabilizing muscle groups with patience and precision is more difficult.
  • Crossfit is not “elite” athleticsCrossfit enthusiasts are typically only good at one thing: Crossfit.  Crossfit has no specialization outside of the scope of itself.  It doesn’t seem to have any progressive training protocol to prepare its athletes for upper-level competition in anything, even its own Crossfit games.
  • Introductory exercises are anything but introductory – If a seasoned athlete or skilled gym rat enters a Crossfit gym, he’s got a pretty decent chance of doing well in his first week, especially if he’s coordinated.  But the complexity of compound movements, for most people, cannot be taught or understood in a day, or even a week.  It must be taught in a dedicated and progressive manner.  One under-appreciated compound movement used by Crossfit is the rowing stroke on a Concept II ergometer.  I have yet to see one Crossfit member or instructor perform a single stroke properly.

Obviously, I’m generalizing.  Rest assured, there are some great, disciplined, serious Crossfit affiliate gyms out there.  Crossfit is like personal training: there are good trainers and bad trainers.

I liked Crossfit when I first got involved.  It put a whole new spin on fitness; but I was a young, impressionable, and inexperienced trainer at the time.

I got insanely fit from doing the workouts on their website, and by daily conferring with a hot meat-heat named Brad (of all names!).  I did well with Crossfit, possibly because I’d already had training in the technical lifts from my collegiate rowing years, but mostly because I had an insanely large aerobic base to work with, and did not fatigue easily.  Busting my butt for 15 minutes was nothing, so I started designing my own Crossfit-style workouts to last 45 minutes to an hour.

Years later, I ended up doing WODs with a group of guys who were just about to open their own Crossfit gym across the street from mine.  I liked working out with these guys; and I beat them–every time (Crossfit will never give you the stamina of years of aerobic base training, to be fair).  They then offered me a job.  I declined, preferring to travel to Europe.

As I got older, the awe of Crossfit waned.  I met too many people who got hurt; I spoke with too many Crossfit certified trainers who identified its short-comings.  My style of training shifted into the direction of smart training, not insane training.

Oh Crossfit, I don’t hate you.  I just think you have a lot of design flaws.  If the masses of under-qualified trainers and over-zealous trainees would pause to consider these design flaws, you might not have such a controversial reputation.

Problems With Paleo & Low-Carb Diets

This is the Paleo article I didn’t want to write.

No wait.  I take that back.  I desperately wanted to write it, because the Paleo obsession with meat and its attack on starch drove me up the wall.  But at the end of the day, I couldn’t stay angry at the Paleo Diet.  Though the original popularization of Paleo was aggressively put forth by Dr. Loren Cordain with a meat pyramid that made my environmentalist-anti-industrial-meat-production sensibilities shudder in horror, many of the spin-offs of the Paleo movement have a much more docile message: don’t process your food.

Simple.

Oh yeah, and don’t eat refined “fast-carbs,” as I like to call them (i.e., fine flour products, sugars, syrups, extracts, alcohol).

That’s easy.  And that sounds just like every other sensible diet that works.

But what kills me is the Paleo avoidance of whole food starches like whole grains, bean, legumes, and potatoes.  What gives?

If you had given me sixty seconds to say it all, I would have sucked up a bunch of air like Ace Ventura and proceeded rapidly with something like this:

  • Carbs are essential for performance, especially for endurance.
  • Our anatomy far more resembles than of an herbivore than it does that of a carnivore.  In light of this, as omnivores, it makes more sense to lean toward the herbivore end of the food spectrum.
  • Carbs are overwhelmingly abundant in nature compared to fats and proteins, though marginalized terrains don’t offer enough of the carbs we can actually eat, and therefore lead us to rely more heavily on animal-sourced calories.
  • Carbs have a unique ability to make us fat if we eat too many of them; this would actually be an evolutionary advantage, especially with fructose consumption. Interestingly, it is nearly impossible to become fat on a high whole carb diet if fat intake is limited.
  • Carbs regulate serotonin and digestive contraction.
  • Carbs mostly break down into glucose, which is our preferred energy source; glucose metabolism is the oldest form of energy metabolism identified.
  • The Paleo movement is egocentric, especially for men; any diet that makes us feel more manly, more aggressive, and more dominant over our environment (read: top of the food chain) would clearly gain favor, as demonstrated by the Crossfit movement.
  • Crossfit, a popular and generally-looked-down-upon, dangerous and poorly-implemented fitness fad (at least from my surveys of other exercise physiologists–I’ll save this critique for another article) promotes a style and intensity of fitness appropriate to the limitations of a low-carb diet.  Metabolic conditioning workouts lasting 5-20 minutes do not draw heavily on glycogen stores.
  • Re: Crossfit and its Paleo appeal to functional training – I can’t think of any circumstance in which a paleolithic human would ever need to perform a true Olympic lift, or could actually handle such weights in their natural, awkward, unbalanced forms (logs, rocks, etc.).  Olympic lifting, at least, requires considerable and impressive technique; power lifting, also a mainstay of Crossfit, is less technical and certainly another ego-driven endeavor.  It comes as no surprise to me that meat-eating and Crossfit are happily married.
  • High protein, low-carb diets are not only dehydrating, they require much more intensive digestive and metabolic effort, and the net energy gained from such diets is poor.  While this is helpful to a sedentary fat person who wants to lose weight without working out, it is not beneficial to people who must move all day.
  • Blood samples from plant-based meals are cleaner and less cloudy than those from animal-based meals; this, too, should have implications on cardiovascular efficiency.
  • High meat consumption–especially red meat–is acidifying and overly “yang.”  This can be no better than a “yin” dominated diet of refined foods, alcohols, and stimulants.  The name of the game is balance, and Paleo is nothing more than a re-packaged Atkins diet with marginal flexibility around fruits and vegetables (as long as they don’t grow underground).
  • Intermittent fasting packaged as “replicating” paleo life is a joke.  This is nothing more than promoters establishing–through their dietary protocols–a guarantee to deplete glycogen stores (the first to go during a fast) so that you must always be in a state of gluconeogenesis (a metabolic pathway that results in the generation of glucose from non-carbohydrate sources).
  • Paleo Diet is nothing more than a fad diet book that makes impatient, lazy people happy with a scientifically proven (thanks to the attention drawn from the Atkins movement) failsafe way to burn fat.
  • The Paleo Diet’s environmental impact (if applied on a large scale) is nothing short of a suicide mission for the environment, considering our capacity for land animals.
  • The Paleo Diet completely ignores less glamorous aspects of paleolithic life: namely, consumption of insects, parasitic infection rates and their inhibition of autoimmune disorders and allergies, and the inevitable consumption of feces and dirt.
  • The Paleo Diet unfairly names protein and fat consumption as being responsible for encephalation (increase brain size) in relation to a decrease in the size of the gut.  It is far more likely that encephalation resulted from the implementation of cooking food, thereby reducing its mass, “pre-digesting” it, creating greater bio-availability of its nutrients, and increasing net energy after digestive effort.
  • The Paleo Diet claims that agrarian life led to shorter, weaker, sicker humans.  This is unfounded.  The evidence points in all directions; many agrarian peoples fared better than hunter-gatherer groups; the inverse is also true.  Ultimately, height and strength is a factor of nutrition, parasitic load, and physical activity more than it is a factor of meat consumption.
  • Meat and animal sources of protein are high in certain amino acids which are strongly linked to cancer growth (i.e., methionine).
  • The Paleo Diet denies (or at least tries to ignore) the well-established lipid hypothesis, which has established the link between cholesterol and heart disease.  Saturated fat, a mainstay in the paleo diet, is strongly associated with increased LDL (bad) cholesterol.  (Learn more about lipids in this reader-friendly article.)
  • Bad breath is usually a sign of a health imbalance.  Bad breath is a common sign of ketosis, which is a desired effect of low-carb diets.  Constipation is also strongly correlated with high protein consumption.

This was just my superficial rant.

I’ll stop here.  I won’t dig any deeper, because Plant Positive does it so much better, and I’d much rather give homage to his thorough, well-reasoned, calm discussion of scientific research he uncovered.

It you are serious about your health–I mean, if you really are on a mission to avoid all the bad diseases of affluence and live a long, energetic life–then I DARE you to take the time to watch the entire PRIMITIVE NUTRITION series by Plant Positive.

Budget about 9 1/2 hours.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers