I read a great article recently. It was brought to my attention by a very passionate “Paleo” detractor. His argument to me was that there are really no “good or bad” foods. Rather, one needs primarily to understand the first law of thermodynamics – that is if you consume more calories than you burn, you’ll retain those calories as fat. Conversely, if you burn off more calories than you consume, you will lose body fat.
The other pillar of his argument though, was that for health, fat loss, and performance success, one need only consume the macro and micro nutrients his/her body requires, given individual activity levels, metabolism, etc. The point being that your body breaks down the food and does not know (nor does it matter) if, for example the protein it receives comes from a wild moose steak, or a McDonald’s hamburger. The article made some similar arguments, but with some excellent explanation. Here is the link to said article:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/
I was impressed with this article as it provided some excellent critical analysis of food advice both past and present. It pointed out the contradictory, ironic and fickle history of much of our modern dietary advice. The Paleolithic diet did not escape this article without a few bruises, although simple “guilt by association” with our past food advice errors was the main critique. That, along with some humorous and obviously true ironies and hypocrisy the author had experienced with some ardent Paleo-diet practitioners.
The article warns about the potential dangers of over emphasizing the classification of foods as either “good or bad” especially in relation to conditions like anorexia nervosa. It also suggest strongly that given our staggering history of errors and contradictory mass food guidance that we should be very skeptical of the next “big idea” on how we should be eating for optimal health. Quoting this article:
“There currently is no compelling evidence suggesting that a diet whose calories are 80-90% from whole & minimally processed foods is not prudent enough for maximizing health, longevity, body composition, or training performance.”
Still, this statement inherently creates a judgment call on the other 10-20% as somehow “less good” than the 80-90% of the whole and minimally processed foods it suggests we should eat.
Wisely clarifying that other 10-20%, the article goes on to state:
“10-20% indicates the maximum, not minimum discretionary allotment. If someone strives to consume 0% of calories from any food that’s been processed or refined from its original state, then that’s perfectly fine – as long as this is the person’s genuine preference, and not a painful battle of will. I’d also like to make it clear that there is still plenty of grey area in the study of dietary effects on health. As such, the nature and extent of the miscellaneous or rule-free food allotment is a delicate judgment call. In this case, it’s wise to keep scientific research at the head of the judging panel, but don’t ignore personal experience & individual feedback.”
So, it seems clear from the author’s own words that I have his blessing if I choose to eat primarily what I consider my evolutionary foods!
Reading this article and arguing with my virulently “anti-Paleo” adversary was enlightening. It made me realize that many people who hear about this simple idea on food carry some strong, pejorative presumptions. Yet, contrary to what many have heard or read about the realities of following a Paleolithic era diet, my experience has been that many if not the vast majority of us simply use evolution as a general guide on what to eat- nothing more.
We often drink alcohol (in my case “quite often”) and eat outside of this context with 20% or more of those yummy and decidedly “non-Paleo” calories – especially if they are unprocessed versions. There are no exact rules of consumption and it depends on the individual and results – and more importantly, living and enjoying your life in the modern world. We just use evolution as a rational guide or filter– that’s all. This just gives us a spectrum of foods that are either really bad (ex. processed cheese in a can, Pop-tarts, fast food milk shake) or really good – the most natural forms of our meats, fish, fruits vegetables, nuts and seeds.
Some things we know to be relatively true:
- Animals – their physical bodies, including digestive systems, etc. evolved with their natural foods. This is why cats are obligate carnivores, cows are ruminant-herbivores, Koala bears eat eucalyptus leaves, and whales consume fish and plankton.
- All things being equal, animals tend to achieve what we know to be a healthful state eating primarily their respective natural diets (just ask a zoologist)
- The interaction between a living being and its food and the subsequent consequences for health or disease are infinitely complex. We certainly do not know everything and we know less today than we will tomorrow.
- Our foods are made up of an extremely complex list of constituent ingredients, some which we have yet to discover. Further, we continue to add chemicals and various ingredients to our foods, including genetically modified organisms, the long term effects of which we are not entirely aware.
If one takes the strangely “food egalitarian” position that there are no “good” or “bad” foods, this position unfortunately defies the above maxims, especially #3 and #4.
While our bodies don’t discern where our food nutrients come from once they are digested, they are digested differently given the existence of the other ingredients (or lack thereof) in the foods we eat. That is, our bodies evolved to eat foods like oranges and attain the vitamin C from the oranges, along with all of the other healthy, natural ingredients in the orange. This is why the body does not benefit from a spoonful of scientifically reduced, pure vitamin C quite the same way as it does the vitamin C consumed with the whole orange. Quoting Marion Nestle from her book “Food Politics” regarding nutrient reductionism:
“This logic is flawed in that it fails to consider the complexity of food consumption and the interaction among food components. Throughout evolution, food plants developed hundreds of chemicals to ward off unwanted insects and predators, and a great many of these have been shown to stimulate detoxifying enzymes in the people who eat them. The complexity of food composition means that no single nutrient is likely to work nearly so well as a diet rich in the fruits and vegetables from which that nutrient was isolated”
Further, we do not yet know all of the health consequences created by the difference between eating natural whole foods vs. some of their isolated ingredients. We do know that it is really healthy to eat oranges though, because of the other healthy ingredients, including the other nutrients (known and as yet unknown), water, fiber, etc.
The reality is that people generally eat complex foods – not just big glasses of pure macro and micro nutrients. Some of these foods are obviously highly processed with questionable chemical additives. Even some of our more common whole foods have dangerous constituent ingredients. Witness peanuts or milk for those with allergies or intolerance to those foods, or wheat for someone with Celiac disease. So, how we react to our food is far more complex, with profound consequences now and in the future – some of which we are completely unaware of at this time.
Further, some of our modern processed foods, especially those loaded with salt, fats and sugars are highly addictive. Quoting Michael Moss from his groundbreaking book “Salt, Sugar, Fat”:
“The blood gets especially besieged when processed food is ingested, flooding the system with its heavy loads of salt, sugar, and fat. But where the links between eating and drugs gets really interesting is in the brain. There, narcotics and food – especially food that is high in salt, sugar and fat – act much alike. Once ingested, they race along the same pathways, using the same neurological circuitry to reach the brain’s pleasure zones, those areas that reward us with enjoyable feelings”
There seems to be an excellent argument for avoiding highly processed and fast foods completely, just as there would be for not partaking in “a little heroin or cocaine” now and then. Pondering whether these foods can be addictive or harmful seems to end abruptly when one witnesses the size and apparent ill-health of those eating them everyday where they are procured. Interestingly, healthier and less complicated versions of these same tempting and delicious “foods” created from simple, natural ingredients are demonstrably more benign (even if just as caloric).
So, ostensibly there indeed seems to be a rather unavoidable spectrum of good and bad foods – not just micro or macro nutrients – generally for our species, and then more specifically for individuals.
Recently, I was told that people who advise eating our Paleolithic era human diet have a hidden agenda. Responding sarcastically was for me, unavoidable. “Yes! Damnit! We have finally been exposed!” All of those struggling small farmers selling natural food are actually part of a vast conspiracy out to take over the world. Ted Nugent is running the whole thing. All of those greedy, super rich “Paleo” people will finally be unmasked for the Charlatans they are. I recall the hippie girl who sucked me into the conspiracy 23 years ago – she wrote “natural meats, fruits, vegetables nuts and seeds” on the back of a receipt and told me “eat mostly this stuff, it’s typically what our ancestors ate. You’ll get really healthy and lean”. How could I have been so gullible?! Strangest thing though, she didn’t charge me anything, she just smiled and walked away.
In a sea of misinformation on diet, eating primarily our evolutionary foods represents a simple, elegant plan which has demonstrably delivered robust health and fat loss to millions of people and seems to make more logical sense than most of the alternatives – that’s all. It’s simply the best general compass we have discovered on “what to eat” and what to avoid eating.
So, I am confused as to why a passionately “anti-Paleo” contingency seems so against this idea. Myself and millions of other people have permanently lost their excess body fat and enjoy measured improvements in health. Our symptoms of many chronic or auto-immune diseases have diminished or disappeared – including type II diabetes, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, IBS, etc., etc. What exactly would they have us do? Go back to the “all foods are equal” plan? If eating primarily these foods had not worked and Evolutionary Discordance theory made no sense, I certainly would. There is no pride here, just logic and results.
I have found that the following article stands as one of the best introductions to our Paleolithic diet. It is absolutely worth the read and provides a very rational, well referenced overview:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.long
There is no risk in eating this way. Anyone can try it for a week or two and quickly see if their health improves or if they lose some body fat. Regardless as to the aspersions some have cast about “hidden Paleo agendas” there is nothing to buy – it’s free. It’s all over the internet. I summarized it in a single sentence about five paragraphs back.
Contrastingly, there seems to be more risk in following the advice: “there are no good or bad foods”. Just review the statistics and trends on obesity and food related illnesses. Just walk into your local supermarket or fast food restaurant and witness the many poor souls struggling with obesity and food related disease. Ask, and I doubt you will find too many of those folks who have used evolution as their primary guide in deciding “what to eat”.