12 Jun 10 Evolutionary Health vs State-Sponsored Science

Proponents of evolutionary health are in a frustrating position. On one hand, our position follows directly from evolutionary theory (one of the most well established scientific facts around). On the other hand, our position stands in direct contradiction to the mainstream state-sponsored position on nutrition and health (although that’s slowly changing for the better). Obviously, a theory contradicting evolution is in all likelihood wrong. I don’t think anybody doubts that all other living organisms are healthy when living under the conditions to which they have adapted via evolution (that’s why zoos try to recreate their natural habitat). Humans, members of the same family of DNA-based organisms, should also be healthy under the conditions of the evolutionary environment.

The scientific research in the field of nutrition and health has been deeply muddled, as Gary Taubes has forcefully argued. This is because they haven’t adopted the guiding paradigm of evolution, the theory underpinning all of biology (and this due to government distortion of science). Without a theory to interpret the data, they’re adrift at sea without a rudder, facing a bewildering array of disconnected facts with no way of relating them. Only evolution can make sense of the facts, but if they accept that, they’ll have to admit that they were wrong and that the evolutionary health proponents were right. I look forward to the day.

In this excerpt from The Protein Debate (HT Robb Wolf), Loren Cordain beautifully makes this point:

Although humanity has been interested in diet and health for thousands of years, the organized, scientific study of nutrition has a relatively recent past. For instance, the world’s first scientific journal devoted entirely to diet and nutrition, The Journal of Nutrition only began publication in 1928. Other well known nutrition journals have a more recent history still: The British Journal of Nutrition (1947), The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1954), and The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1988). The first vitamin was “discovered” in 1912 and the last vitamin (B12) was identified in 1948 (1). The scientific notion that omega 3 fatty acids have beneficial health effects dates back only to the late 1970’s (2), and the characterization of the glycemic index of foods only began in 1981 (3).

Nutritional science is not only a newly established discipline, but it is also a highly fractionated, contentious field with constantly changing viewpoints on both major and minor issues that impact public health. For example, in 1996 a task force of experts from the American Society for Clinical Nutrition (ASCN) and the American Institute of Nutrition (AIN) came out with an official position paper on trans fatty acids stating,

“We cannot conclude that the intake of trans fatty acids is a risk factor for coronary heart disease” (4).

Fast forward 6 short years to 2002 and the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine’s report on trans fatty acids (5) stating,

“Because there is a positive linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and total and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of cardiovascular heart disease, the Food and Nutrition Board recommends that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet”.

These kinds of complete turnabouts and divergence of opinion regarding diet and health are commonplace in the scientific, governmental and medical communities. The official U.S. governmental recommendations for healthy eating are outlined in the “My Pyramid” program (6) which recently replaced the “Food Pyramid”, both of which have been loudly condemned for nutritional shortcomings by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health (7). Dietary advice by the American Heart Association (AHA) to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) is to limit total fat intake to 30% of total energy, to limit saturated fat to <10% of energy and cholesterol to <300 mg/day while eating at least 2 servings of fish per week (8). Although similar recommendations are proffered in the USDA “My Pyramid”, weekly fish consumption is not recommended because the authors of these guidelines feel there is only “limited” information regarding the role of omega 3 fatty acids in preventing cardiovascular disease (6). Surprisingly, the personnel makeup of both scientific advisory boards is almost identical. At least 30 million Americans have followed Dr. Atkins advice to eat more fat and meat to lose weight (9). In utter contrast, Dean Ornish tells us fat and meat cause cancer, heart disease and obesity, and that we would all would be a lot healthier if we were strict vegetarians (10). Who’s right and who’s wrong? How in the world can anyone make any sense out of this apparent disarray of conflicting facts, opinions and ideas?

In mature and well-developed scientific disciplines there are universal paradigms that guide scientists to fruitful end points as they design their experiments and hypotheses. For instance, in cosmology (the study of the universe) the guiding paradigm is the “Big Bang” concept showing that the universe began with an enormous explosion and has been expanding ever since. In geology, the “Continental Drift” model established that all of the current continents at one time formed a continuous landmass that eventually drifted apart to form the present-day continents. These central concepts are not theories for each discipline, but rather are indisputable facts that serve as orientation points for all other inquiry within each discipline. Scientists do not know everything about the nature of the universe, but it is absolutely unquestionable that it has been and is expanding. This central knowledge then serves as a guiding template that allows scientists to make much more accurate and informed hypotheses about factors yet to be discovered.

The study of human nutrition remains an immature science because it lacks a universally acknowledged unifying paradigm (11). Without an overarching and guiding template, it is not surprising that there is such seeming chaos, disagreement and confusion in the discipline. The renowned Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (12). Indeed, nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory, much less human evolution. Nutritionists face the same problem as anyone who is not using an evolutionary model to evaluate biology: fragmented information and no coherent way to interpret the data.

All human nutritional requirements like those of all living organisms are ultimately genetically determined. Most nutritionists are aware of this basic concept; what they have little appreciation for is the process (natural selection) which uniquely shaped our species’ nutritional requirements. By carefully examining the ancient environment under which our genome arose, it is possible to gain insight into our present day nutritional requirements and the range of foods and diets to which we are genetically adapted via natural selection (13-16). This insight can then be employed as a template to organize and make sense out of experimental and epidemiological studies of human biology and nutrition (11).

07 Jan 10 Good Calories, Bad Calories summarized in point form!

***Note: I checked with Knopf about copyright and they informed me that I can keep the notes up for a limited time until they withdraw the permission. Please download your own copy of the PDF while it’s still available.***

Gary Taubes’s masterpiece—Good Calories, Bad Calories—is the most important book ever written on diet and health. Drawing from an astounding body of research, Taubes challenges the conventional wisdom head on and decisively wins (the book is perhaps overkill.) He shows that carbohydrates are the root cause of obesity and most chronic diseases, and that fat is not only innocent, but positively beneficial. The book was so amazingly good that after finishing it, I decided to read it through again and take extensive notes for future reference. Now that I’ve finished, I figure that these notes could be quite useful as a reference to others who’ve read the book, or even as an overview to get more people to read the book. These notes are no substitute for reading the book though. They were written as a reference to complement the book and I strongly recommend reading it through in its entirety. Armed with Taubes’s book and these notes, you’ll be a low-carb, high-fat force to be reckoned with!

• Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
• Or, save or print a copy of the PDF version.
• New: EPUB version

If you’re unacquainted with Taubes’s work, his obesity lecture is a good place to start.

23 Jan 09 The Evolutionary Lifestyle II: Radical Implications

What are the implications of the evolutionary lifestyle? To find out, we must first figure out what the evolutionary lifestyle consisted of. The timeline of human evolution indicates that evolutionary change takes place over hundreds of thousands of years. To put that into perspective, the complete timeline—from the earliest lifeforms to modern humans—spans 4 billion years.

According to S. Boyd Eaton:

We are the heirs of inherited characteristics accrued over millions of years; the vast majority of our biochemistry and physiology are tuned to life conditions that existed prior to the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago. Genetically our bodies are virtually the same as they were at the end of the Paleolithic era some 20,000 years ago.

The Paleolithic era, otherwise known as the Stone Age, spans from 2.5 million years ago, with the introduction of stone tools, until the advent of agriculture 8,000-12,000 years ago. During this era, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. Anatomically modern humans—people with the same physical appearance and intelligence as ourselves—appeared in Africa at least 130,000 years ago.

Since our bodies have evolved to thrive under Paleolithic conditions, mimicking the Paleolithic lifestyle is the key to optimum health. We can immediately see that the implications of this approach are at odds with much of the conventional wisdom. The basic premises carry radical implications. A few examples:

• Diet: primarily meat, fish, shellfish, leafy vegetables, fruit, nuts and insects.
  • Eating meat is the foundation of a good diet.
  • Fat is good for you. Good quality fats (they ate the entire animal) are essential for good health.
  • Grains and dairy have no evolutionary precedent in the human diet. We should therefore expect them to be lousy sources of nutrition and possibly even harmful.
  • Water: drink when you feel thirsty, there’s no evolutionary precedent for forcing down 8 glasses of water per day. Nor is there any precedent for drinking fluoride-medicated water.
• Skin health: our ancestors lived for millions of years under the sun, without sunscreen (or clothes). We should expect sunlight to be healthy, but excessive exposure (sunburn) to be unhealthy. There’s no precedent for using moisturizing lotions, or other skin products, either.
• Exercise: Paleolithic exercise consisted of lots of low-intensity walking, coupled with occasional short bursts of high-intensity work (hunting, fleeing from predators, etc). Regular cardio exercise (jogging, cycling) has no evolutionary precedent. High-intensity, low-duration strength exercise is optimal.
• Rest: contrary to popular perception, hunter-gatherers enjoyed an abundance of leisure time. Laziness is natural.

Given that these ideas are extremely dangerous to some powerful special interests, it is perfectly obvious why the Paleolithic lifestyle is marginalized in mainstream health. In both the USA and Canada, the government publishes nutritional and health guidelines. And sure enough, they line up pretty nicely with the interests of some big lobbies. For example, both recommend eating a lot of grain and dairy, and using plenty of sunscreen.

If the bureaucrats and special interests are somehow right, we would be asked to accept a mind-boggling coincidence of stupendous proportions: that there is another type of lifestyle that by chance happens to be better suited for our bodies. Remember, our bodies have become highly specialized, through millions of years of evolutionary adaptation, to thrive under a specific set of conditions; it would be next to impossible for a different lifestyle to suit our bodies better than the one our bodies have literally grown into. The evolutionary lifestyle fits like a glove. There’s no alternative that could suit us any better.

For a neutral opinion:

• Wikipedia – Paleo Diet

From the advocates of the Paleolithic lifestyle:

• Mark’s Daily Apple – my favorite site about the Paleolithic lifestyle (he calls it the Primal Blueprint). I recommend starting with his Definitive Guide to the Primal Blueprint.
• PaNu – Dr. Kurt Harris is my new favorite paleo writer. He gives a rigorous scientific analysis of paleolithic nutrition. Check out his 12 steps.
• The Protein Power Lifeplan – this book draws upon both evolutionary theory and empirical evidence and offers a comprehensive Paleolithic lifestyle plan.

15 Jan 09 The Evolutionary Lifestyle: A Logical Theory of Health

Unlike other lifestyles, diets and exercise plans; the evolutionary lifestyle is based on theory, not on empirical evidence. We know it’s a healthy lifestyle without even looking at any studies. This is crucially important for two major reasons. First, the conclusions of research studies seem to be constantly changing. There is still wide controversy in the field of health (unlike in chemistry or physics), which brings me to the second reason: government tainted science. Governments (tax-funded monopolies) have horrible incentives, so their involvement in the field of health is sure to spread misinformation and lies. In most countries, the government publishes recommendations for diet, exercise and other health-related topics. Given the perverse incentives of governments, it’s extremely important to question such nutritional guidelines. Fortunately, we can sidestep the empirical research by using evolutionary theory, which actually turns out to be a much more reliable and accurate way to discover the healthiest lifestyle.

The theory can be stated as follows:

Given that humans are the product of evolution, the lifestyle that the human body has adapted to through evolutionary natural selection will tend to be optimally healthy.

If we accept the assumption that humans evolved through Darwinian adaptation, then we can conclude that our bodies have become specialized in a certain lifestyle (diet, exercise, etc.) and this lifestyle will be optimal for good health. If we want to be healthy, all we need to do is read up on our evolutionary history. No research studies required.

Evolution is the process by which random mutations of the genes (DNA) that happen to confer an advantage to the organism survive and outcompete the old genes (and vice versa for bad genetic mutations). This positive feedback system, over thousands of generations, improves the genetic blueprint of the species. But evolution is not perfect; it is a process of continual improvement. The length of time (or the number of generations) that a species exists under certain conditions determines how much adaptation will occur. That is why the theory states that the evolutionary lifestyle will tend to be optimally healthy.

Unless critics can somehow disprove the theory, then all the research studies in the world wouldn’t be able to invalidate the thesis. Ultimately, however, if the theory is correct, the empirical research must illustrate it, by definition. I believe that it already does, but I won’t get into the empirical side here.

The evolutionary lifestyle is highest standard in the field of health, because the theory is logically, not empirically, derived. (Technically, it’s logically derived from the theory of evolution, which is empirically derived—but that’s a pretty solid empirical theory!) No longer are we to remain at the mercy of the ever changing nutritional advice of the empiricists. We now have a theory that will enable us to cut through the controversy and get straight to the facts.