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.

On Scientific Reductionism

Something has been bothering me lately.

No, wait.  Let me clarify.  It’s been bothering me for the past three years, ever since I read Michael Pollan’s In Defense Of Food. It is the problem of scientific reductionism.

In short, scientific reductionism reduces complicated entities and systems down to its component parts.  A + B = C.  In other words, that which is A, combined with that which is B, is quantitatively equal to that which is C–but it is not qualitatively so.

Western philosophy set the trend for reductionism.  Frustrated with the wishy-washy language of holism, we categorized, labelled, and tried to control for things we wanted to study.  Much of scientific inquiry is based in the practice of trying to study a single component, such as A, and see how, for example, when B is altered, it will affect C.

This is bogus.  I don’t like to throw stupid words around to discredit a practice.  But how about this?  Science has come to a point of downright arrogance.  It is exalted as an absolute truth.  We believe that mankind is so intelligent, so knowledgeable, and so powerful that we can understand anything if we simply look hard enough.  And perhaps that’s true.

But for now, we’re not there.  Not by a long shot.  A wise person knows he knows little.  The more you learn, the more you realize you don’t know.

Trying to control climate change, nutrition, the economy, and interpersonal relationships by hyper-focusing on one component may affect the picture, but it does not resolve the underlying dynamic systemic picture.  Some systems are simple; and many are well beyond our comprehension.

Try to cut out a certain food to see if it will affect your health.  A certain population may have logged significant changes toward the desired benefit.  But what about the others?  What about people who were minimally or completely unaffected.  How many variables might there be affecting his condition?

Our specialized approaches to reductionist problems: politicians for politics, nutritionists for nutrition, economists for economics can’t fix all the world’s problemsWhat you do, every small change you make, might not either. It is difficult to tell.

And supposing you did notice a difference, can you be certain it was completely attributable to your change, or did numerous undetectable influences combine to promote that difference? There’s no way to reduce down to certainty.

What do we do, if we can’t be certain?

Can’t I eat that non-organic food substance?  A little pesticide won’t hurt me.  Should I really bother to turn off all the lights?  A little extra energy wasted hardly strikes a dent against total energy usage.

It must be difficult to live a “virtuous” healthy, environmentally friendly lifestyle when you cannot see your definitive impact–reduce down conclusively.

But sometimes you have to act, even if you can’t prove it will make a difference. Sometimes when you cannot control every variable, when certain hypocrisy rears its ugly head, when you don’t know if it will even achieve your desired end, you must act.  You have no choice but to act.  Oftentimes, what we do boils down to true intention alone.

So when you do act, think about how you would like other people to act.  Think about how your actions paint your portrait.  How do you want to live?  How do you want others to perceive you?  And how do you perceive yourself?

Control for that, science!

Mechanical Or Electrical Failure?

This post was inspired by my recent trek accross the Wicklow Way in Ireland.

The Way, 132 km across windswept and barren hills, forestry tracks, and county roads, is Ireland’s most challenging organized trek.  I had it in mind to finish the Way in five days which, according to my guidebook, was inadvisable and practically impossible if weather conditions do not hold.

As it happened, barring a few hours on the second day, the weather conditions did hold.  I did not, however, achieve my goal.

On the morning of the fifth day, I realized that not ony had I experienced mechanical failure (an inflammed Achilles tendon), but also electircal failure (I lost my will to continue once I knew I was going to fail).

For the full story: click here.

The lessons I learned?  They were bittersweet.

First, set reasonable goals.

Second, understand what hinders your success.  Are you indeed injured, or are you psyching yourself out?  Are you being stupid?  Will your injury possibly set you back longer if you don’t cease activity?

Third, if you are unhappy with your progress, that doesn’t necessarily mean you should quit.

Mechanical vs. electrical failure.  It can be very difficult to ascertain which type of failure is holding you back.

If you’ve set an unattainable goal…?

If you’ve set an attainable goal that you ultimately don’t even find satisfying…?

Is the journey even worth the end?

If you find yourself overwhelemed by negative feelings during the journey, think again.  Reasses.  There’s no point in making yourself miserable for something unlikely to deliver happiness in the end.

What is it that you want?

Sugar Is An Addictive Drug

If you take a plant, refine it, refine it again, bleach it… what do you get?  A white powder.

If you take another plant, refine it, refine it again, bleach it… you also get: a white powder!

The first is illegal, the second is pervasive in the Standard American Diet.

Sugar is a drug.

Criteria for drug-addicted behavior.

* Taking the drug more often or in larger amounts than intended. “I REALLY SHOULDN’T HAVE EATEN THAT.”

* Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving. HELL YES.

* Excessive time spent in drug seeking.  FREQUENT TRIPS TO THE FREEZER, THROUGH THE KITCHEN CABINETS…

* Giving up other things for it. LIKE HEALTH?

* Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others. OF COURSE.

* Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy increases at first before leveling off. INDISPUTABLE.

* Characteristic withdrawal symptoms for particular drugs. INTENSE SUGAR CRAVING.

* Taking the drug to relieve or avoid withdrawal. ANOTHER LIFT FROM SEROTONIN AND DOPAMINE.

Hard Work

I know there are situations where no amount of hard work will pay off.  Example: I will never be a ballerina.

But for most attainable goals, hard work is the lynch pin for success.

Every now and then, it takes a client or a friend to remind me that I have to be patient.  I have to put in the time.  I have to do the grind.  In a culture more and more accustomed to instant gratification, from fast food, to high speed internet, to freeways, it is harder to grasp the notion that nothing magnificent can be accomplished in a day, or a week, or even a month.  Masterpieces are works in progress.  Genius is, as Edison said, 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

A man told me recently about a number: 10,000.  It’s a real number that represents true genius and accomplishment.  Bill Gates, for example, did not create Microsoft overnight.  Michael Phelps didn’t sweep Olympic medals without training.  Edison did night invent the light bulb without trying to burn every conceivable filament.  10,000, apparently, equates to roughly five years of working 40 hours a week at ones passion. Some of us devote even more time.

Gates, for example, was writing computer code all through his high school and collegiate days before dropping out.  Phelps, you can be assured, has been swimming 6 hours a day for his high school and collegiate years.  Edison… I won’t even bother citing the hours of this legend.

So when I received an unexpected chat this morning from a dear old friend of mine, Megan Kalmoe, I was pleased and then subsequently surprised when she divulged a few of her recent accomplishments with the United States Olympic Rowing Team.  In short, Kalmoe, through years of dedication, perspiration, and tooth and nail perseverance, has accomplished something many, years ago, would have written off as physiologically impossible.

I remember when Kalmoe, a 2008 Olympian and now a serious contender for the 2012 Olympic Games, was fresh to the National Team pool–smaller than the majority of the athletes, and largely, if not constantly overlooked. No matter how she was treated, passed over, left behind, ostracised to off-site housing, isolated in the single, and over-looked in favor of taller stronger athletes, she never quit.  Neither did her room mate and doubles partner, Ellen Tomek.  What they have accomplished together stands in my mind as one of the greatest achievements I’ve witnessed in real life, with real contact. They were not out-of-this world legendary goddesses (well, now they are!), but real people.

I remember when… it was five years ago.  Pursuing a dream for five years, full time, day and and day out.  What do you get?  10,000 hours.

Congratulations, Megan Kalmoe.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers