Is our community becoming a religious movement à la veganism?
September 29, 2010 23 Comments
Jesus was not paleo... He is the bread of life. Processed food?
I have always wanted to write about food-religion, but I was not sure if I should do it. I hinted at it in a guest blog post before, though [link here]. Lately, more and more bloggers are starting to write about it, so I figured that the timing was right. This is certainly the case of Free the animal, who has been writing about quasi-religious vegans [Link here]. I will say it right away: I am an atheist. I am a man of simple tastes : I like facts, interpretations, and intellectual stimulation. I also believe in evolution. Wait, that’s actually not a good way to say it. I said I want facts, not beliefs. Here is a better way to put it : evolution rules everything that is happening on earth. This should include nutrition too. While this should be very simple in theory, it is very complicated in reality. More and more, people are hiding their beliefs under what seems to be an evolutionary approach. But it has nothing to do with evolution. This is a religion that, as an atheist, I don’t want part of the debate. Religions stop debates and progress.
You still can’t figure out what I am talking about ? I will give you two examples.
Does this have any evolutionary basis?
More and more, people are hating on fruits. Of course, this all aligns with the carbohydrate hate. I have even read on some blogs that fruits were not part of the evolutionary diet. I’m not sure how one could actually misinterpret what we know to come up with such a conclusion. This is a topic I have been defending for a while now [link here, here, here, here]. It only takes a very minimal level of evolutionary knowledge to understand how fruits have been -and should be- part of the evolutionary diet. In a world where you could not hack the senses of anyone (as we do with processed foods today), fruits were appealing to animals. Fruits tasted -and still taste- good. So, obviously, about any animal ate -and still eats- them.
Why do they taste good? These people will tell you that it is because of the sugar, and that sugar is necessarily evil. Really, a piece of fruit will disrupt your insulin so bad. I swear that you will get diabetes and become obese. It’s not 7 million years of fruit eating that will change anything to this. But what I will tell you is this : fruits taste good to make sure they get eaten! If they get eaten by animals, their chance of survival is way better than if you’d just drop the fruits on the ground (and expect them to become a plant). This is due to the fact when you eat a fruit, you always eat the seeds (when it is not the case, you usually throw the seeds on the ground). The seeds don’t get digested and they get to travel with you. When they do hit the ground, they have everything to grow. Basic evolutionary science 101.
Before being good at hunting, they ate a diet of mostly plant foods.
Then, you get to read about how men would not have eaten many of them due to natural restrictions : ”In the old world, fruits were not an abundant resource”. Maybe they are right. Still, let’s question this claim. How do they know for sure? If an environment without fruits is an environment without many plants, can we say that the old world (which is supposed to be Africa) really was an environment without many types of plants? Plus, a large amount of animals feed themselves on fruits and vegetables alone. This was the case for us too, until we introduced meat in our diet. Can we say that fruits really were not an abundant resource in a world where everything seemed to have been flourishing? I will let you answer these questions. The beauty of science is that there is data and there is interpretation. Only interpreters of sciences who refuse to ignore other theories are competent. This prevents the apparition of beliefs. In other words, this prevents the apparition of food-religion (in the case of nutritional science).
I am not finished with fruits just yet. Usually, the next argument anti-fruit people have is about domestication. We managed to grow plants to harvest their fruits. By doing so, we have managed to have more plant food resources. We also managed to make the fruits bigger (basic plant genetic : plant the seeds of big fruits, harvest big fruits). This is true. But then again, we also domesticated cows, pigs, dogs, goats, horses, etc. This means that we also managed to have more animal food resources. How often do we get to hear them blame animal domestication? Rarely. But I do get it. Protein and fat are in, and carbs are out. Lack of objectivity? Probably. Just the beginning of another food-religion? Definitely.
See, the difference between me and my grandfather is that I spend about 500 calories less than he did (I am very active, a sedentary person would spend up to 1000-1200 calories less) at my age. Are fruits -or some natural (plant foods) carbs- really the reason why we are unhealthy and fat?
Let’s answer this question with example number two. My grandfather (or yours, for all that matters) ate better quality food than what the average person is eating now. Meat, vegetables, potatoes, bread, etc. No real processed foods. Yet he was not fat. He was quite healthy too. This was all before nutritional science and the fat -and carbs- hate. Let’s stay objective. Why was he (and countless of other people from these generation) not fat and unhealthy? Well, as we have seen earlier, he spent about a 1000 more calories a day then we do now.
Ok, I hear you coming. Calories are not the whole picture and he was just genetically gifted. Maybe you are right. But we are seeking a real explanation here. We don’t want to stop there and not consider the whole picture. That’s what food-religion is all about, and that’s what we want to avoid! The first thing we have to ask ourselves here is this : How did he burn those calories? The answer is that our grandparents were more active. Some played sports, some had a physical jobs (like my grandfather), some just walked a lot (back then, not everybody had a car).
No exercise, no improved insulin sensitivity.
Wait, if he burned more calories, he must have eaten more calories, right? Yes, he did. He did not hold back on anything. But will you please drop the whole calories issues for a moment, please. That’s not where I am going with this. The point was that I used his higher calorie intake to understand his daily life. We just found out that he was just more active than us. The point is that because he was more active than us, exercise helped him be more sensitive to insulin! That’s why he ate a somewhat large amount of (mostly natural, unprocessed) carbs without any health or weight problems. If you remember, last week I explained how exercise make you more sensitive to insulin [Link here].
But what do these people say? That exercise does not matter that much. It’s fun, great for building muscles, but it sucks for weight loss. Diet plays a bigger role, so don’t worry too much about exercise. Oh, and while you are at it, try to limit your exercise time too. Once a week is enough (as if there was anything scientific behind those claims). Avoid chronic exercise, it’s the devil! I’m sorry to break your train of thought here, but exercise is just has important. More importantly, it’s human nature to move and exercise. I don’t see how limiting (or going way too hard, for all that matters) it is evolutionarily right.
Evolutionary eating should avoid the religious logic.
I somehow have to come up with a conclusion. I am not sure how I will do that, and I am very tempted to finish the post right here. I think these examples speak for themselves. I hope people understand that they have to be careful with the stuff they read on the Internet (even on my website. Unfortunately, I am not perfect). I guess the point is that I want my readers to question everything. Don’t let this become another food religion. Disagree, argue, question, have a debate, interpret, give examples, and have fun doing it. This is what it is all about. Do all of this without being biased. The moment we stop doing this is the moment we become a movement à la veganism. I am not interested in beliefs that hold no water.
I have to say they weren’t as active as us. At least not as overlty.
Let’s tackle the issue of food intake. You say they were more active so they must’ve eaten more. I say well yes & no. I say they ate more by volume not by calories. Having no nutritionists & personal trainers around to them to eat 6 times a day, the most likely ate 2 to 3 times a day. Probably the biggest meal would’ve been breakfast as that would be the cheapest. I’d say lunch for most would be nonexistent. and probably some bread/coffee/piece of fruit. Grandmom would be busy cooking & cleaning all day for dinner to eat a peanut butter & jelly sandwich or chicken breast big ass salad. Before tv & electricity, it was early to bed, early to rise, no refrigeration so you weren’t getting up in the middle of the night for a midnight snack, etc, etc, so on & so on.
As for being active, they obviously weren’t active as we think of being active today. I’m very much a believer in NEAT, Non-exercise Activity Thermogenesis. I believe that’s the key to long term succeesful weight loss & why our great-grandparents were thin. Simply, they moved more than us and us such would not cause the huge appetite increase that, say, running 5 miles would. They were always doing something.
And I suppose you can tack on lack of environmental toxins, modern stress, & lack of sleep.
Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Well, may be your grand parents are not the same as mine. Or as any other people I know from that generation.
My grand father must have eaten at least 3000 calories a day. It was a tradition to slow cook a huge piece of meat for the dinner.
He worked in an industry where he had to lift heavy things all day long. He was more active than us. We spend 8 hours a day seated in front of a screen and a walk is now considered exercise. I don’t think he lacked environmental toxins (again, he worked in an industries. Others worked in mines), he was just has stressed as we are (money problems are not a modern thing), and he did not sleep more than us (he went earlier to bed but he was also up before the sun rose). I don’t think my grand father is really different than any other people from that time. Baby boomers really were hardworking people (at least, based on the people I know).
So, to sum up, their lifestyle really was more active and this helped their insulin sensitivity too.
As a side note, 6 meals a day is not a most by the way. I eat between two and three and it’s much better than 6 (for me, that is). But that’s for another debate.
Thanks for the comment!
As you say, he must have eaten 3000 a day which is not the same he did as we’ll never know exactly. More specifically, he was most likey often in a calorie deficit. If your burning 3500 calories a day & only eating 3000 calories that is the important point & what I was trying to make.
I also didn’t say you ate 6 meals a day as any self-respecting paleo convert knows that’s just wrong. Now, I’m talking pre-electricity which I’m sure isn’t your grandfather. So, in my example going to bed at 8pm & waking at 5 pm is 9 hours sleep. Even if he (my example, not your grandfather) went to sleep at nine (wouldn’t need to stay up later as Johnny Carson or the evening news wasn’t around) that is still 8 hours in total dark probably as gaslights would be few and far between especially if you didn’t live in the big city. Plus, industrial toxins & environmental toxins while similar are two different beasts. For one, industrial toxins are limited to the person working in the industry while environmental toxins as we know it today effects everyone right down to the water bottle we drink out of, the cans we eat from, the makeup, shampoo, food we eat, etc. etc. so on and so on.
Industrial toxins in the past wouldn’t fuck with your metabolism. Yeah, you’d end up with miner’s lung, but that’s what you did and still do to put food in your families mouths and roofs over their heads.
In the end though, we can’t base a theory on your grandfather as much as he sounds like a cool dude.
Hi Chris, thanks for replying, I love discussion.
I used my grand father as a role model of this generation. Just as Mark Sisson created grok. It’s easier to write when you use a metaphorical person. It sticks in the mind of people. But, I did not base my arguing on my grand father. I based it on tons of statistics we have in Canada. Here is one :
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2006004/article/habit/t/4148985-eng.htm
You can see that in 1972 (now, imagine 1950…1930…1900…) an average male (aged 20 to 39) ate approximately 600 more calories a day than an average male (aged 20-39) did in 2004.
The next thing I did was wonder about the higher (approximate) calories intake. How come? They had to burn it off somehow. Then, it is easy to understand that they were more active than us (as in living an active lifestyle and not being seated for hours and hours).
After I established that, I wondered about the impact of such an active lifestyle. As you say (and as I actually said in my article), they ate more and they also burned more. That’s step 1.
Step 2 is about the real impact of exercise (lifting stuff at work, walking, playing sport (here, it’s all about hockey) with friends, etc.). My theory (which is based on facts too) is that the increased activity time probably helped them be better at using carbohydrates for fuel (as activity/exercise improve insulin sensitivity).
It’s important to understand that according to these statistics, the carbohydrates intake of the average male has always been around 300 grams. Why a lot of us can’t deal with a high intake of carbohydrates now? I mean, they seem to have managed it pretty good, right?
It has to be because of decreased activity levels and the change of the type of carbohydrates we are eating now (fruits and tubers vs processed carbs)
This is why love carbs diet are in vogue now. We don’t really tolerate them that good. We are very inactive (no you and me, though) and this is probably why a lower carb intake works (less glucose to deal with). Just food for thought.
I don’t see how this theory does not hold water. But, as you say, you have to take into account other factors (stress, etc.) which could have played a role. Still more activity time is a good way to help your glucose metabolization.
this was an interesting read, some days i eat 2 meals others i eat 3. as for fruit, i limit my consumption to 1 piece a day or none at all. however, i don’t believe fruit is evil! if it’s late and i’m craving a sweet, i def think i’m making a better choice by eating an apple than noshing on a primal treat (ala almond flour cookie or flourless chocolate pot de creme)
We really aren’t in disagreement on the finer points. We both agree they ate more calorically and burned more through activity. However, I’m arguing that the generation we are talking about (50s and earlier) had the same type of activity level that we do now & maybe (seemingly) less. You mention sports but pre-fitness revolution sports was rarely played by non-pros past the collegiate level. Working out, exercising, playing sports was done by “quacks” “nutjobs” etc. Parents would find it irresponsible to pursue such an activity past high school years (especially pre-1900). There weren’t suburban softball (or hockey) dad teams. There weren’t even suburbs. There were just as many people working non-physical jobs, clerical positions etc who still managed to stay thin. Contrast that to physical jobs you see now where you can see many people overwheight or obese.
I think it’s been documented time and again how people today are no less active tthan in the past (and maybe in some ways more so, eg. chronic cardio, etc.).
I came across this article recently in the Telegragh:
“Obesity epidemic simply caused by eating too much, claims academic” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8006659/Obesity-epidemic-simply-caused-by-eating-too-much-claims-academic.html
His estimates have us currently eating 3500 calories a day on average (and for most probably crap processed food that wreaks havoc on the body & metabolism. He also mentions how physical activity hasn’t changed.
However, assuming his caloric intake is correct, I still believe it only half the story. Moving away from real food is obviously part of it (and possibly a big part of it). Changes in gut bacteria is another big key. As is the host of hormonal responses in the body caused by both of those.
As has been shown, pre-agriculture, early paleolithic man was mostly inactive and lived fairly leisurely lives compared to post-agriculture. The same has been said of the Kitavans.
All fairly complex for saying eat real food, avoid processed anything, and if your stuck at a desk stand up for christ’s sake.
I think part of the reason we are disagreeing is that we have different reference point.
Here, in Quebec, sports have always been popular. Especially hockey. Hence the reason I mentioned ”sports”.
Also, most quebecers had a very physical jobs (we modernized our society quite slowly). Which explains why most people worked in industries or were farmers.
This might explain why I think we differ on the activity (types and frequency) argument.
Still, in the end, I am happy to be able to see that we both come up with the same conclusion :
”All fairly complex for saying eat real food, avoid processed anything, and if your stuck at a desk stand up for christ’s sake.”
Now this is interesting but ony shows US trends from 1972-2000:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
The graph at the bottom shows that while protein & fat stayed the same carbohydrate intake increased dramatically. No doubt a mixture of processed sugar/hfcs junk and “healthy” whole grains(breads/muffins/waffles/Lucky Charms, etc.) which I’m sure has increased in the past 10 years.
Yup. Definitely. I have come up to the conclusion that processed foods is the real evil. Not carbs, not fat, etc.
Remove them, and I’m pretty sure the carb count does not matter anymore. (fruits, tubers, and vegetables are not bad in my book).
+1 for this comment!!!!!!!!! i wish people got this
Here’s an interesting blog post that on Fanatic Cook I just sumbled upon:
http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2007/04/caloric-intake-relatively.html
“It attempts to depict graphically a size and distribution of caloric intake for Europe during the 16th-18th Centuries. It shows an intake for Swedish nobility of between 5078 and 6406 calories, an intake for 17th century Pavia (Northern Italy/Switzerland/Southern France/Austria) of between 4446 to 7217 calories. And an average intake for Spanish seafarers of 3422 calories. Parisians in the late 18th century were eating about 2300 calories/day.”
and
“In 1800, the English population consumed a little more than 2,000 calories per day…”
and a few more nuggets.
Thanks for posting this. Interesting read and definitely along the lines of what I was trying to say (Except, the author put it a bit better than me).
I’m not a 100% sure, but I have seen in class that Quebecers ate about 3500-3800 calories at the beginning of the 1900′s (Male). If they were not fat (’cause, i’m sure there was some fat people in there), they had to burn more than that. Hence, the need to live a physical life.
This really prove that the problem is we eat less calories (or equal, and probably sometime more) from very bad sources and we don’t move as much. This made us unhealthy.
Hi JP,
You are really coming along as a writer. I like how you are getting more and more “edgy.” You may have more disagreements in the comments, but those blogs are always the best reads. They get you thinking, and maybe looking a bit more deeply into things. Good work.
Thanks a lot Michael!
I think that using “religion” as a universal substitute for “belief” or “philosophy” is overly colloquial. Granted, a well aimed barrage of hyperbole can be effective, even if not factually correct. You’re kind of applying the argument against the religification of evolutionary bioligy in a similar way that religious people try to say that atheism is a religion.
On the fruit issue, much of the the carb hating is actually fructose hating. I don’t have the research at my fingertips, but studies pointing out the differences in human metabolization of fructose vs. sucrose/glucose are popping up. When checking out a chart of fructose content in fruit, it’s instantly obvious that some fruit has a ton of fructose, but some less so. Rather than have to memorize a chart, the “eat vegetables, not fruit” advice seems more of a nice heuristic than a proclamation of divinity.
From an evolutionary perspective, you’re half right about human appreciation of the taste of fruit, but also ignoring the other half of the equation. Natural selection also applies adaptive pressure to the taste preferences of animals to appreciate things that are beneficial for survival/reproductive fitness. Hominids didn’t have a pre-existing, fixed set of preferences that fruits simply adapted to. The selection pressure on humans would have tended to result in stronger positive sensory responses to dietary components that were necessary, efficient, and rare. The strong human preferences for fat, sugar, and salt are all good examples of this. And now that these things are abundant, our strong desire for them is a problematic artifact.
Re: the anthropological/archaeological evidence on human diets… There’s a ton out there. Here are a few…
Katzenberg, M., Goriunova, O., & Weber, A. (2009). Paleodiet reconstruction of Bronze Age Siberians from the mortuary site of Khuzhir-Nuge XIV, Lake Baikal. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(3), 663-674
Richards, M. (2002). A Brief Review Of The Archaeological Evidence For Paleolithic And Neolithic Subsistence. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Villotte, S., Churchill, S. E., Dutour, O. J., & Henry-Gambier, D. (n.d.). Subsistence activities and the sexual division of labor in the European Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic: Evidence from upper limb enthesopathies. Journal of Human Evolution
Hi Andrew, Thanks for stopping by.
I define as religious anything that follows the last picture of my post (Arguing with beliefs instead of facts).
As for fruits, It’s all a matter of context. What’s a little fructose compare to a little gluten from a beer? Or, what’s a fruit compared to the chocolate paleo people seem to love so much? Even Cordain recommends unlimited fruits. In his last letters, he has -again- made a reference to it. Also, I’m still not sold on the whole fructose thing.
As for the second part of your post (About natural selection and our preferences being the results of what the body wants), I have to say that I have blogged quite a lot about it in the past. This is why I have not included it -yet again- in this post. A good example of this is women and chocolate during PMS. PMS make women deficient in Iron and therefore they crave chocolate for the iron content (as well as magnesium and what not). Thanks for pointing it out, though. It is definitely part of the equation.
Again, thanks for the comment. I really appreciate to read everybody thoughts.
I don’t know that I’m sold on fructose, or non-fructose as the case may be. And obviously, it is a matter of degree. However, I also can’t dismiss it out of hand as you seem to. I hope you haven’t found religion regarding sucrose.
Fructose: A highly lipogenic nutrient implicated in insulin resistance, hepatic steatosis and metabolic syndrome.
Chronic consumption of a high fat/high fructose diet renders the liver incapable of net hepatic glucose uptake.
Fructose at the center of necroinflammation and fibrosis in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
Fructose and glucose co-ingestion during prolonged exercise increases lactate and glucose fluxes and oxidation compared with an equimolar intake of glucose.
Increased fructose associates with elevated blood pressure.
A search for articles Cordain has written in the journals that focus on fructose resulted in a goose egg for me. It was mentioned tangentially in one of his recently published articles: “There is disagreement about the relative importance of overeating (gluttony) and physical inactivity (sloth) as causes of obesity and insulin resistance. Recently adopted food industry practices—supersizing, use of high-fructose corn syrup, fast food pricing, and so on—are clearly contributors.” (Cordain, et al.; Evolution, body composition, insulin receptor competition, and insulin resistance; Preventative Medicine; 2009)
I’m too lazy to read your entire blog to ascertain your views on the evolution of taste preferences at the moment. If there’s one post in particular, perhaps you’ll pass the link along. However, your example about a chocolate-iron-pregnancy connection seems highly speculative/anecdotal. Searches of PubMed and EBSCO both pull up 0 related results for me. I got out of bed at 4am to kill a craving with some 85% chocolate (only contains 6% RDA iron) just this morning, but I certainly hope that’s only anecdotal. My doctor will look at me funny if I ask for a pregnancy test.
I hope I’m not being too critical. As you said… context counts, and this post was about stamping out the laziness of religious belief in favor of facts (as it applies to diet, etc.). In any case, it’s all meant in good fun.
Slainte.
Hi Andrew,
Again, I thank you for your comment. When I wrote this post, I wanted to start a debate. I wanted people to question everything, including me. You certainly did it and that’s good.
As for the iron thing, the chocolate thing was anecdotal. It was just a way of saying that our body might be way more intelligent than most think it is. The cravings are there for something.
As for fructose, I’m with you. ”Foods” that contains almost only pure fructose ( like high fructose corn syrup that contains a minimum of 50% of it and is hidden in about any processed foods) is bad. It’s a processed food, after all. So, what do we expect?
So, I don’t dismiss it. But, in the case of fruits, they do contain fructose. But, they also contains other types of sugar. The amount of fructose you get from a piece of fruit compared to the amount of fructose you get from processed foods are two different beasts, In my opinion.
I did not talk about it because I really doubt a little fructose from 1-2 fruits a day will be that unhealthy (provided that your diet is on par). Or, at least, in my case, fruits have never stopped my progress in strength training. And, boy, do I feel good.
As we both agree, it’s a matter of degree and context. Massive intake of foods that are almost pure in fructose is probably dangerous (such as eating a diet that is high in HFSC), though. I will give you that.
this post is amazing….nothng flipping trying to prove anything nothing about carb crap…its real, is easy to read and i love the rant-like fashion. di you know about richards contest at free the animal?? yo shoud enter this but make it shroter and more rant-like hahah i think it would be hilarious!!
anyway, i agree with everything you said, wellwritten!
Thanks a lot Malpaz!
I did see his contest and I submitted something. Although, I am not very good at ranting compared to Richard. He is such an entertaining writer!
I agree with some of the above comments: you are finding your style of writing. Very well written article. I am in the process of starting a blog and your style of down to earth thinking I relate with easily. Keep it up.
JP, this was a really informative post. I think I can understand what you are trying to say (correct me if I’m wrong). For example, my husband’s grandmother from Italy ate pasta and bread every day and she lived until 97! BUT…she was active ALL DAY LONG. When they were still in Italy she worked in the fields, then here in Canada she cooked and cleaned and did gardening AND had a full time job!
The only common demoninator that I can find amongst the longest lived people is the fact that they didn’t eat processed foods. They didn’t count calories or carbs or whatever else, they just ate real food and were very active. And people from all over the world ate different things and still managed to be healthy! Some people would have had more fruit, and some less or even none at all depending on where you lived.
Hi Carla,
I think you are pretty much spot on. No processed foods + lots of activity through daily tasks = Success for longevity/health