But what happens when some kids and his cool friends first stumble on a crossfit video?

I have been working as personal trainer in a globo gym for the last few months. Every now and then, some guy will come to me and try to make me learn about crossfit as if I have been out of the loop for the past few years. My issue with it is that all these crossfit fans who don’t crossfit don’t get the real take home points. All they remember from these videos is how some dude can do 100 bodyweight squats and 100 kipping pullups. And…that’s about it.

Crossfit fans who don’t crossfit… You piss me off!!!

People don’t want to work hard (read : heavy) in the gym. When these kids see met cons – and actually think it’s strength training- it gives them an excuses to bench more ligth weight reps for more [useless] sets. It gives them an excuse to stay weak. To be mediocre. To be the kid with all the advice and little of the experience. This is all echoed by my experience as a PT  in the gym.

What these people should really fall in love with is this : Crossfitters lift HEAVY for A FEW REPS once in a while. This is why crossfit has grown so much. Oh, and, Crossfitters use REAL LIFTS such as the snatch, cleans, deadlift and squat. Kid, when is the last time you have done any of the following? You have not squatted since… Well since you started working out. This kid does not need to learn kipping pullups or does not need to bench press more light weight. He needs to get down in the hole with a freakin’ bar on his back!

Oh, and women are not different. They notice how female crossfitter have nice abs and they think it’s all because of met cons and/or the occasional crossfit run. While it’s partly true (met cons = burn fat), what these woman don’t seem to see is that female crossfitter do ”MEN” LIFTS. They ain’t toying around with 5lbs pink dumbbells. They snatch, they front squat, they press overhead and they look good because of that.

The bottom line is this : Next time you check out a crossfit video, try to pay a bit more attention to the actual strength work that crossfit involves. Met cons are fine but they are far from being what most people (in globo gyms) need. They need to start training heavy.

I find the data to be insufficient -or at least conflicting- to make conclusions about saturated fats and cholesterol. Yes, you need both of them. No, it’s probably not the most intelligent idea ever to focus on getting as much of it as possible.

By this, I mean that cholesterol and saturated fat should not exclusively be the reason why you consume certain foods. For instance, egg is a wonderful food because of its high vitamin content, protein content and availability as well as overall energy. It is not  a great food because of it’s cholesterol content but because of the reason I have listed. Before you go all crazy and start cursing like a pirate (or like a caveman since most of my readership are just modern cavemen/woman), let me tell you that I’m known for my ability to eat 10 eggs (cooked in butter) as a breakfast. That means I’m not afraid of the stuff nor am I preaching a low fat, low animal products diet. What I am preaching is common sense and objectivity.

I eat them for the protein and energy. Not the cholesterol.

Still the point is, you gotta be careful with the way you deal with things and the message you send to the world. Low fat (30% of your calories as fat, as is advised) is technically not a problem at all. High carb (60-70% of your calories as carbs, as is advised) is technically not a problem at all. Plenty of epidemiology studies demonstrate this. I know, this type of studies sucks…except when you pull one about eskimos or another tribe, right?

Really, as long as you pick foods that you seem to do well on (aka foods you pick in nature for the most part), you are doing fine. For some it means a high meat diet. For others, it can be a diet lower in meat. My theory is that it’s all about the quality of the food you eat instead of the composition of the diet itself (macro nutrient, etc). Obviously, if we are going to use an evolutionary perspective, this make sense. Macro nutrients were cycled. Feast and famine. And sometimes the feast would involve stuffing your skinny ass with potatoes (a strategy that has persisted till today and made humans survive quite well actually). On the other end, quality was rarely an issue. It’s not like you would find mutant foods in an environment that was NOT dominated by humans.

This brings us to paleo dogma bullshit that plague the internet world the way freaking vegetarians seem to be everywhere around here. I get to hear their rhetoric bullshit in my nutrition class as well as at the metro station where they want us to sign some peta petitions. Same shit, different smell. All opinions, no fact.

The supposed idea of a perfect diet is ridiculous for various reasons : (a) not everyone is the same (genetics, etc.) (b) not everyone do the same thing (sleep, lifestyle, job, etc.) (c) not everyone is active (no matter what the so called paleo exercise haters tell you, exercise is a must and it will greatly enhance various processes that we are actually trying to improve with diet…insulin sensitivity, blood pressure, etc.) (d) not everyone as access to the same resources (foods or money). (e) everyone has a different health record.

I’m not a scientist (yet…but nutrition is not the field I will be studying) but from my less than optimally educated perspective, the only thing that has been demonstrated -either by scientific facts or by anecdotal experience is that a diet as natural (hunter gatherer style) as possible usually make people healthier.

/rant

As I said earlier this month, I will be posting a bit more studies and science posts.

Here is a study from the Department of Nutritional Sciences of University of Connecticut about eggs, cholesterol, metabolic syndrome & restricted carbohydrate diet. Another nail in the coffin of the cholesterol myth?

I want to take a minute to thank all of my readers. I also want to thank everybody who commented on my posts and made this experience fun and worth it. I swear I will be more present in 2011.

The blog might change it’s orientation a bit. I’m thinking about putting the focus of the blog on other topics than nutrition as I feel pretty much everything as been covered. I have also reached a point where I feel that nutrition science gets way too much attention for what it really is. I feel like it’s more of a belief-oriented ”science”. This is the case for all nutrition community, paleo included.

What I really want to do is write posts about topics that I feel are often ignored, yet very interesting (however, some bloggers do a good job at covering some of them). These topics include psychology, neurology, sociology, biology (how funny is it that we only rarely talk about the evolutionary part of ”evolutionary nutrition”) and more. By no means I am an expert on these topics but I expect to have a good discussion with you all. May be we can all learn something from each other and make this year the best. Really, commenter are the only reason I’m still dedicating time to this blog. I have stated in about every post : I like to debate and I love a good discussion. To quote Aristotle, ”Man is by nature a political animal.”

So, here is to you, my friends, Happy new year!

Money > Health

As time goes by, nutrition science is getting more and more popular . I remember when I first got interested by nutrition, I was amazed at how little [good] information about food was available. Most of the information available was based on myth, beliefs and pseudo theories. Unfortunately, little has changed since then. At the time, I was looking for a way to improve my performance in the gym. I was very underweight and I had a pathetic level of strength. I wasn’t pleased about my slow progress and I figured that the quality -instead of the quantity- of calories I was eating might play a bigger role. A few years later, I’m amazed at how popular (how mainstream) nutrition has become when you consider how limited  progress we  made since the golden age of nutrition (The era of vitamin discoveries).

Folks, let’s face it : the optimal diet is yet to be found. Indeed, I’m amazed at how popular it has become to talk about nutrition when you consider how fragile the pillars of such an argumentation are. For instance, I can’t say how often I have heard one of the following statement in a casual discussion with friends: ”Sorry, I can’t eat that, there is bad fat in this food”, ”I’m on a low carbs diet, I want to lose weight”, ”I’m eating tons of vegetables because I don’t want to die of cancer”, ”No, sorry, can’t do… I’m watching my calories”, ”OMGZ vitamin water soooooooooooo healthy dude!” or ”I went for the low fat and low sodium 100 calories biscuit packs so I can control my calories”. It’s trendy to talk about nutrition.

Would we have heard any of these claims 80 years ago? No! Nutrition science was not as popular and it cared more about general health than optimization. By the way, it takes more than ”nutritional optimization” (as if it even exist) to be healthy. Just saying.

More importantly, nutrition science was not as present in the media. Nutrition started getting popular the moment we noticed a mind shift in the media ($$$$$$). In other words, the moment they realized that they could make money with media, they started to optimize their strategy to do so and applied it to about any topic. Nutrition was no different.

At least, neurology is useful

I have said it many times : If you want to have a huge impact in a given society, all you need to do is play the ”fear card”. In this perspective, it’s no wonders that nutrition is so present in media. Indeed, reporters know how to get readers to read their science deprived articles by using certain words combinations to their advantage. Actually, scratch that. People only read the headline so you might as well make it extremely catchy if you want ”readers”.

As a side note, how many readers do you think I would have right now if I changed the title of this post to ”Bacon removes 10 years from your lifespan, scientists say” [fictive claim!]? A lot! If you know how to play the ”fear card”, you know how to control people and make money.

The pillars of nutrition science are weak because of the approach used. Population studies are irrevelant in most cases and, yet, they are very popular. I think we all remember the china study pseudo scientific craze and how biased the whole thing is.

The focus in lots of diet trials is on nutrients instead of foods. While you can play with foods, it’s very hard to play with nutrients. How can you be sure it’s the ratio of nutrients – instead of the food choices, total calories, type of nutrients, and the person itself- that really produced the results?

Most studies are short term studies. Also, using questionnaire as a way to gauge food intake and choices has been done extensively. We all know how unreliable these questionnaires are : People lie in these questionnaires.

Diabetes in a box!

The biggest problem in my opinion is the lack possible comparison between diets. Diets are a cultural thing (an inuit eats very differently than an Australian aborigine). Also, believe it or not, some people can be healthy by eating crappy foods (at least ”look healthy” on various tests). We all remember the twinkie diet guy, don’t we [refer to my comment about short term studies]? So, how do we know if it is a certain food, a cultural habbit or the lack of a certain food that is making us sick? In other words, it’s very hard to define what being healthy really means.

Another problem we face is the lack of multidisciplinary knowledge amongst nutrition experts. How can we know if something is good to cure cancer if we understand very little about cancer in the first place? How can nutritionists try to help people if they have limited education in biology, genetics and neurology? Really, nutrition is supposed to be a branch of biology so I would expect nutritionist that have knowledge in metabolism, cellular biology, and even neurology. Yet, most nutritionists (at least around here), have very limited knowledge in these domains.

Mr. Preston of the Abundant Brain blog wrote an interesting post about how we could possibly know for sure if our dietary choices are right. The idea -which comes from Keith Grimaldi- is that if the foods we think are making us sick really make us sick, then we would be able to detect some DNA damage. Therefore, we should spend time researching DNA alteration when consuming foods. In my opinion, this is very good idea because we would be sure of how unhealthy some foods are.

DNA is where it's at.

The bottom line is this : Modern nutrition science sucks because too many variables are into play with no mean of knowing what’s really harmful or not. People are getting fat and most of their focus is nutrition since it’s so popular in the media. However, making people healthier require people with multidisciplinary knowledge and unbiased information. Both are not too present and this is why -not carbs, not fruits, not tubers, not fat, etc.- people are not getting healthier. As a side note, question the claims of all medias. If you want to eat an healthy diet, eat foods you can pick in the nature. It’s the only way to lower the probability of diseases.

”The muffled thunder of dialogue comes through the walls, then a chorus of laughter. Then more thunder. Most of the laugh tracks on television were recorded in the early 1950s. These days, most of the people you hear laughing are dead.

The stomp and stomp and stomp of a drum comes down through the ceiling. The rhythm changes. Maybe the beat crowds together, faster, or it spreads out, slower, but it doesn’t stop.

Up through the floor, someone’s barking the words to a song. These people who need their television or stereo or radio playing all the time. These people so scared of silence. These are my neighbors. These sound-oholics. These quiet-ophobics.

Laughter of the dead comes through every wall.

These days, this is what passes for home sweet home.

This siege of noise.”

[...]

”At my apartment, the ceiling is pounding with some fast music. The walls are murmuring with panicked voices. Either an ancient cursed Egyptian mummy has come back to life and is trying to kill the people next door, or they’re watching a movie.

Under the floor, there’s someone shouting, a dog barking, doors slamming, the auctioneer call of some song.”

[...]

”This is what passes for civilization.

People who would never throw litter from their car will drive past you with their radio blaring. People who’d never blow cigar smoke at you in a crowded restaurant will bellow into their cell phone. They’ll shout at each other across the space of a dinner plate.

These people who would never spray herbicides or insecticides will fog the neighbourhood with their stereo playing Scottish bagpipe music. Chinese opera. Country and western.

Outdoors, a bird singing is fine. Patsy Cline is not.

Outdoors, the din of traffic is bad enough. Adding Chopin’s Piano Concerto in E Minor is not making the situation any better.

You turn up your music to hide the noise. Other people turn up their music to hide yours. You turn up yours again. Everyone buys a bigger stereo system. This is the arms race of sound. You don’t win with a lot of treble.

This isn’t about quality. It’s about volume.

This isn’t about music. This is about winning.

You stomp the competition with the bass line. You rattle windows. You drop the melody line and shout the lyrics. You put in foul language and come down hard on each cussword.

You dominate. This is really about power.”

[...]

”These music-oholics. These calm-ophobics.

No one wants to admit we’re addicted to music. That’s just not possible. No one’s addicted to music and television and radio. We just need more of it, more channels, a larger screen, more volume. We can’t bear to be without it, but no, nobody’s addicted.

We could turn it off anytime we wanted.”

[...]

”The sound shivers through the walls, through the table, through the window frame, and into my finger.

These distraction-oholics. These focus-ophobics. Old George Orwell got it backward.

Big Brother isn’t watching. He’s singing and dancing. He’s pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding your attention every moment you’re awake.

He’s making sure you’re always distracted. He’s making sure you’re fully absorbed.

He’s making sure your imagination withers. Until it’s as useful as your appendix. He’s making sure your attention is always filled.

And this being fed, it’s worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what’s in your mind. With everyone’s imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a threat to the world.”

[...]

”The music and laughter eat away at your thoughts. The noise blots them out. All the sound distracts. Your head aches from the glue.

Anymore, no one’s mind is their own. You can’t concentrate.

You can’t think. There’s always some noise worming in. Singers shouting. Dead people laughing. Actors crying. All these little doses of emotion.

Someone’s always spraying the air with their mood.

Their car stereo, broadcasting their grief or joy or anger all over the neighborhood.”

[...]

”This isn’t anything new.

Experts in ancient Greek culture say that people back then didn’t see their thoughts as belonging to them. When ancient Greeks had a thought, it occurred to them as a god or goddess giving an order. Apollo was telling them to be brave. Athena was telling them to fall in love.

Now people hear a commercial for sour cream potato chips and rush out to buy, but now they call this free will.

At least the ancient Greeks were being honest.

The truth is, even if you read to your wife and child some night. You read them a lullaby.

And the next morning, you wake up but your family doesn’t. You lie in bed, still curled against your wife. She’s still warm but not breathing. Your daughter’s not crying.

The house is already hectic with traffic and talk radio and steam pounding through the pipes inside the wall. The truth is, you can forget even that day for the moment it takes to make a perfect knot in your tie.

This I know. This is my life.

You might move away, but that’s not enough. You’ll take up a hobby. You’ll bury yourself in work. Change your name. You’ll cobble things together. Make order out of chaos. You’ll do this each time your foot is healed enough, and you have the money.

Organize every detail.

This isn’t what a therapist will tell you to do, but it works.”

Source

Chuck’s website

Buy Lullaby (Link to amazon)

One thing that really bothers me about governmental dietary recommendations, religious dietary rules, the fake food producers, politics and various ”health-oriented” organization is their self proclaimed authority (read : ”expertise”). In the face of this so called expertise, we lose our food traditions, our dietary freedom and, even more important, our love for foods. A global paleo movement that seek to convert ignorant fools is no different that this.

Actually, I have been concerned about such an endeavor for a great while. In a long post that was published at Darwin’s table a while ago(link here) that most people most likely did not read (let’s face it folks : long blog posts don’t get read), I explained that science has to lead the nutrition debate if we seek to better our health. Science – like everything on this planet- evolve. It’s not a never ending quest to better our understanding of this world.

Now, there is bad science and there is good science. Everyone that don’t understand science (due to lack of knowledge) most likely think that all science is bad. Everyone that somewhat -or totally- understand science most likely think that all science is good. The whole problem arise when one camp tries to convert the other side and therefore, ignore the most important thing about scientific nutrition : we know too little. It’s no different that the majority of people that don’t understand politics and their hate of every politicians (Really guys, don’t blame the politicians…blame the whole system!).

So, it becomes a politic game. Indeed, it’s no different than the democrats versus the republicans (or in my case,  the liberals versus the conservative party). Each side likes to blame the other side for everything that is wrong in our society. Each side obsessively tries to prove that the other side is wrong. Each side likes to use propaganda against the other side. It’s all about the public opinion, the trends and a few others things. What both side don’t do is this : they don’t try to show how their idea really is better (it’s easier to prove an argument wrong than it is to come up with one than can’t be proven wrong). No, I know they can do it… Or do they really do it?

You might think so… But they don’t. The ideas that they focus on are either irrelevant (read : no body is going to disagree with them) or work some on some kind of human values that are collectively shared. A good example of the first point is this : ”Support our soldier”. Really, who will disagree with that? A good example of the second point is this : ”Enemies will invade our country”. It works because people will fear danger which is totally normal (Evolution is about surviving….).  Wait, Wait, I have a better example : If you eat some carbs, your insulin will sky rocket and you will automatically become diabetic, fat and socially rejected. So, it comes down to the fact that the good of the population is not as important as looking good in the media and making money.

Okay, JP, what’s up with all that political talk? you might ask. ”As far as I know, the paleo diet has no direct political ties, so will you please get to the point?”. Okay, Okay, I’m getting there, I’m getting there…

The point is that if we try to convert people (read : act as we know the universal truth about nutrition), refuse to acknowledge that we don’t know that much about nutrition (I would argue that we definitely don’t know enough about it to make any kind of diet rules for a whole population), omit the facts that contradict our theories (’cause, that’s what we have : theories), and refuse to acknowledge that we are sometimes wrong, we are left with a pseudo-scientific approach to nutrition that is no better than anything else on the market.

Can you really live your life according to one book?

If we get rid of the objectivity that is required to do science and focus on converting people, we are left with nothing else than a bible. A paleo bible, if you will. Hey, it might even have another 30 days transformation program (’cause, you can really reverse a life of unhealthy habits in 30 days). On the plus side, it might become as popular as the christian bible and sell a few millions copies. That’s super cool if your goal is to make money (’cause, paleo is now a business and a trademark is a bias). Plus, considering there is about 3 or 4 authors, that means the profit will be quite high (the market is not that divided…).On the down side, we just lost what made us so strong : the possibility to go back and change our stance in the light of new evidence even if it contradicts our theories(Ever seen the Pope change his stance and acknowledge that the scientific data is at least interesting to consider?) Most importantly, you lose the possibility to state that you were wrong on some issues.

And…Really… this is the reason politicians blame every other parties. They lost their freedom of speech. They are now biased. They have ties to something bigger than them : A party. Allow me to borrow an expression from our communist friends that fits the bill here : ”Remember, the party is always right, comrade”.

If low carbs really was the way to go for everyone, we would not have data to prove that very healthy individuals living in uncivilized societies can enjoy a very large amount of carbs without any ill effect. If running a few miles really was that bad, some of the fastest runners wouldn’t come from uncivilized societies. If fruits were evil, no healthy primal societies would be eating them (like they don’t eat a large amount of dangerous plant foods).If feasting was evil, it wouldn’t be an animal characteristic. The only thing we know for sure is that they don’t have access to fake foods. We can speculate that this is the reason they are free of modern illness, but that’s about it.

I guess the point I really want to get across is that what we really need is an unbiased debate with experts from all kind of fields. We need to acknowledge the limitation of what we know. Don’t worry, I know it will never happen. First, because humans have huge egos and refuse to acknowledge of their limitations. Second, because the political system prevents this. The best way to make people healthier is to use every data we have access to. I think that it has to be done with an evolutionary basis because nutrition is applied biology and biology can’t be understood without evolution. But, I am not willing to push my ideas someone else throat and spread it like it’s the gospel. If paleo becomes a religion, you can forget about improving our understanding of nutrition. The irony of this is that this post is biased to start with.

I'm back from the death (Hey, you know me, I had to poke some fun at religion)

Surprise, surprise, I’m still alive. Yes I know, it has been such a long time since I last posted anything on here. Even more surprising is the fact that my traffic has improved. I would like to thank everyone who has been reading Primal Journal. I really appreciate it. Now, I have been thinking about a great way to make a come back and I just did not know what I should write about (too many ideas!). I finally decided to write about an aspect of fasting that I still have not seen covered.

Being a student and because I care a lot about the grades I get, my budget has been severely affected ( I work less). The biggest portion of my budget is usually spent on foods. Since I could not afford the foods I usually buy and eat, I had to change my strategy.While I was willing to eat some non-paleo foods, anything that is processed was out of the question. OUT are the fancy cut of meat (lamb, veal, horse, pricey fish, etc.) and IN are organ meats (more of them, since I was already eating them), cheese (especially the raw ones my mother makes), milk (not that much), sweet potatoes and potatoes. Definitely not bad, in my opinion.

Pork heart : a fantastic choice for someone who study anatomy (ME!) and does not have much money to spend on food (450g = 2$)

Now, as with most ”poor” people, I could have given up evolutionary eating. I could have resigned myself to eat foods that make me feel unhealthy, bloated, and simply bad (Wheat and its refined form). I could have been like most people and eat that 1.30$ hamburger at McDonald’s. But, I did not. I like to eat foods and I refuse to eat food-like substances. Excuses to not eat healthy are just that : Excuses.

This led me to experiment with daily fasting, again. Indeed, a year and a half or so ago, I experimented with a few principles I read in Ori Hofmelker’s Warrior diet. Back then, I mostly did it because I needed more time for my studies and, obviously, cooking one big meal a day is easier than cooking 3-4 smaller meals. It worked wonders along those lines. However, I did this type of dieting only during the exam sessions.In other words, I stopped before I could notice any behavioural changes.

Accordingly, due to budget restriction and lack of time, I have been experimenting with a somewhat lean gain/warrior diet approach. I fast daily. On non workout days, I will break the fast around 3 to 5 PM and feast (no calorie counting). An example of a meal is a whole pork heart (about 450g of pleasure) and a large sweet potato(about as big as three white potatoes). On workout days, I will eat something small (protein) at 11am and workout at 12. I will then eat a huge meal and feast a second time during the evening.

My body composition improvement might be due to digestion improvement and leptin and insulin sensivity.

Even though my diet has not been has strict as it was a few weeks ago, I feel like my body composition has improved while my calorie intake as not really changed (only the timing of the calories has). I gained 6 pounds and, yet, I am leaner (leanness being defined by the fact that my abs are more visible). My energy has not really changed at all unless I’m very sleep deprived which happens when you have papers that are due  (aka when you are a student).

One thing that stroke me as very interesting (Hey, I study body composition, so I get a kick out anything that is related to it) is that my body reflect quite visibly what we like to call the ”feast or famine survival mechanism”.  Concretely, whenever I wake up, I usually have quite defined abs and shoulders. Just before I break the fast, I usually have even more defined abs. I’m already quite lean so it’s normal that this happens. Whenever you fast, you heavily rely on stored body fat to fuel your muscle and the leaner you are, the more it shows. However, whenever I do eat (I will often eat 1500-2000 calories on the first meal from real foods), you can be sure that I will lose some of this definition in a few hours.

This is completely normal! In my opinion, it actually proves that my body is healthy. Whenever food enter my system, my body, which is now  adapted to periods of ”famine” on a daily basis, will use and store all the energy it has access to. In other words, it anticipate a time of famine and acts accordingly. In my case, the interesting part is that I get to see it with my eyes (Although it’s not drastic, I do lose some definition).

Another thing that has been quite interesting to me concerns my own behavior. I have absolutely nothing but theories to explain the change in my behavior but it’s interesting to say the least. Ever since I have been fasting on a daily basis, I have become somewhat more competitive, aggressive, lost some patience (only with things of no interest aka things that waste my time), focused, and more willing to prove myself.  Let’s just clear something up before we continue (and before you think I need some anger management classes). By aggressive, I mean that I know what I want and I actually GO for it. No physical or psychological violence are involved here. I guess we could say that I am more of a ”conqueror” now, if that makes any sense. Oh, and, whenever I do eat, my libido sky rocket.

Evolutionary speaking, this make a lot of sense. Most of the time, whenever evolution is being discussed, the notions of natural selection and adaptation are king. We often forget about a factor that I feel is very important : competition (between species and in between individuals). If, for some reason, you need something to survive and it’s limited (or at least, perceived as limited by your body), it does make sense that you become somewhat more competitive. It also make sense that once you get your ”survival fix”, you resume what you were created for : passing on the gene.

Well, the good news is my grades are quite high and, while I can’t say it due to intermittent fasting alone, I know it did help me (if anything, I had more time to study).This is something that strike me as quite interesting. I would definitely like to learn more about behavioral changes that are linked to food. Could being ”food-deprived” make us more dominant (or at least, more willing to be dominant?)? Anyone has any insight on the topic? Anyone has any similar experience they want to share?

P.S : This new approach has reinforced my stance on carbs. I eat more of them (sometimes as much as 150g when I break the fast) and I have nothing but positive things to say. This is not a nutrient war but a natural vs processed foods type of war.

Tubers : The evil kid.

Today, as I write this post in a fasting state (Skipping breakfast is now the only way to have some free time in the morning), I am looking for your input. I must repeat that this blog is both about sharing and learning. If you have been reading my blog for the past few months, you know what my stance on carbs (natural : tubers, fruits, veggies, etc.) is : they are not evil! [Link here and here]. So, today is about sharing a theory/hypothesis with you guys. If you have any insight on the subject, please don’t hesitate to share it.

Our body is an interesting chemical and mechanical machine. If I had to make an analogy, I think I would say our body is very similar to a lego person kids build. Through adaptation and natural selection, our body acquired ”blocks” that are specific for certain situations. Put all these blocks together and you get a lego person (or a human in our case). The point being that we have a large number of systems in our body that are specific to what our environment ask of us and what is accessible in it. Sometimes some systems are active while some other systems are not. Sometimes, it’s the other way around.

Glucose : the unwanted kid of the bunch.

As I am writing this, I have the whole glucose system (insulin + insulin receptors) in mind. Our brain runs on glucose. The prefered muscle energy is also glucose (it’s quicker to get and any real intense physical activity is fuelled by glucose). The fact that we have so many insulin receptors, the possibility to actually produce insulin and sweet cravings must means something. Current ”conventional” paleo thinking says everyone should lower his carbs intake in the very low range of the spectrum (<100g) so that insulin is controlled. What if it was the other way around : We should have times with large amounts of carbs and times with very low amounts of carbs. (the total amount might not matters as much as the frequency).

Why would we have such an efficient system if carbs were evil (read : if we should never eat them)? Wouldn’t we have ”lost” (or never evolved) such a system if carbs were problematic (pretty much like say alcohol which we can’t metabolize)? Wouldn’t we have evolved differently (say, a brain that runs only on fat and a liver and muscles that do not care about creating glycogen and using glucose) if carbs were THAT evil? In other words, we have the possibility to use a system that our body seem to think is important, and yet, we try to never active it (in the case of very low carbs). Does that make sense? I can’t say for sure, but I am questioning this behaviour.

Now, before we get a bit more serious, let me just point out that I am not advocating a very high carbs diet (especially not grains). It’s important to point it out before some internet paleo police officer send me a ticket for infraction of the primal laws. So there it is, I said it!

Let’s use some very basic evolutionary thinking to put things in perspective. This is my own interpretation and it might be totally wrong. I would assume that our ancestors had access to a large variety of foods : meat (if they managed to hunt successfully) and plant foods (may be some veggies, probably a lot more fruits, some tubers). I doubt they really cared about the amount they ate from either groups. Just like they cycled through feast and famine, they probably cycled the foods they ate during the feast part of the equation. The feast part of the cycle is interesting : paleos assume that they only had meat (But, again, Eskimos are not representative of our origins). However, if they were anything like modern hunter gatherers, they probably ate lots of meat on some days, and lots of carbs foods (fruits and tubers) other days (depending on a few factors such as how successful the hunt was, how much tubers/fruits they found that day, etc). The point is they probably enjoyed some carbs (read lots) unless situational restriction prohibited it.

This is were it gets interesting : If you take most populations living in the ”North” ( I have Indians from the north and Finland populations), they tend to get diabetic very quick when introduced to large amounts of carbohydrates. They probably don’t have an history of chronic insulin spikes (multiple times a day) and this is why the modern diet probably destroy them. Most people probably think that it proves that carbohydrates are very unhealthy (Carbs = diabetes= pseudo science/logic). However, the people from these populations are not very different than us : they have the possibility to produce insulin and they have insulin receptors (they ain’t mutan or anything, you know). Why do they become diabetic so quick then? Is it the carbs or the frequency of the insulin spikes? May be an insulin spike is not unhealthy as long as it’s not done 3-5 times a day (depending on meal frequency).

Famine : The kid everybody forgets about.

Scratch that, let’s see it from another angle : Physical activity make you sensible to insulin and so does fasting ( read : famine). While there is a ton of ”facts” out there that are left to interpretation, I think we can all agree that our ancestors were active and lived times of famine. Then, why would fasting and physical activity make you sensible to insulin if we should avoid glucose?

Put simply, I think current research on modern hunter gatherers and basic biology/metabolism knowledge demonstrate how glucose is needed/wanted in various tasks (be it glycolysis or the fact that our brain prefered energy is glucose). What evolution demonstrate, however, is that glucose was present but it would probably have been impossible to spike your insulin through the roof all day long (the absence of refined sugar being a good factor here). So, say our Paleo man found some honey, I am pretty sure he would have spiked his insulin through the roof but I doubt he would have found honey on a daily basis and ate it all day long. Plus, he would be active all day long (which improve his sensibility to insulin) and he would probably have to fast sometimes (which also improve his sensibility to insulin).

The point I am trying to bring here is that I think carbohydrates are not unhealthy (paleo carbs). I think it’s a matter of carbs periodization (which is also why carbs periodization is so used in bodybuilding circles). In other words, the insulin spike itself is probably not bad as long as it’s not done chronically (all day long). It’s a matter of equillibrium/balance. Spike it high from times to times, and cycles in days where you just don’t spike it. Wouldn’t that make sense?

Well, I have been doing it and I can’t say I have noticed anything bad… And I even spiked it with dextrose just to see if anything bad would happen (energy crashes, trouble sleeping, etc.). Now, you can dial 911 and send the paleo police over here.

Thanks mate for helping us understand our own biological problems.

I had to leave the blogsphere for a while due to my studies. Now that I am starting to have a life again (slowly but surely), I can start to read, write, and explore ideas again. After a great discussion about how natural selection and adaptation gave us a pre-existing preference for salt, sugar and fat with my neurology Professor’s colleague, I was referred to a paper that I would like to discuss today. For one, the paper has been completely ignored by the evolutionary eaters of this online world. For two, it is definitely interesting because it probably allows us to understand more precisely the obesity epidemic and food addiction. Food addiction is a problem that is too often ignored.

I would like to start by reminding everyone of my stance on nutritional science. Nutritional science is a relatively new science. People take for granted that we know a lot – if not everything – about nutrition and the impact of nutrition – or the lack of nutrition – on the body. This is true of paleo or primal experts as well as other diet experts (e.g. vegans, government institutions, etc). However, the truth is that we do know some things and we don’t know -or understand- a lot of things. This needs to be said more often. I have blogged about the need to stay away from gurus in the past [link here]

This is definitely why, after good reflection, I decided to back out of the paleo eating movement [link here]. Don’t get me wrong, I am in love with the whole evolutionary concept. This is why I consider myself an evolutionary -not paleo or primal – eater. What I can’t stand is dogmatism. I really believe that personalization is one of the most obvious thing our evolution has shown us. You know, there is more to total carb intake to achieve success. I’m tired of the same old discussion about the same old things. Plus, lately, these discussions have become everything but scientific. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t know everything (nor do I pretend to know everything), but I enjoy discussions that are based on knowledge, science and the whole debate aspect of it. This is the only way to learn for me. This movement is not about it anymore : it’s about beliefs, some knowledge and some science, and little to zero debate.

Just because you are paleo does not mean you should not consider the position of the other camp. More importantly, just because you are paleo (I should really say primal, sorry) does not mean you should not consider the science of the other camp. Only then, can you really disagree or agree with someone. Instead, people look for papers that agree with them to use them as a way to break the debate. They don’t care to read papers that actually disagree with them.

I prefer to speak when you are silent and to be silent when you speak. That's what a debate is about.

You need both science to back up your point and science to disagree with your point. I have said it many times : the only way to know if there is some truth to your statement is to try and prove it wrong. This is what a hypothesis testing is. In other words, I am tired of seeing the paleolithic approach being promoted in a semi-religious way. This is probably due to the fact that we have so little ”bibles” (about 3 books that are worth it, really). I always thought that if we could get the evolutionary eating concept in the mainstream, we would be able to have better debates. This is not true. It’s only good for selling protein shakes. Again, I don’t mean any disrespect, but this is really not what I am in for. I am seeking knowledge, not profit. Lately, I actually think the paleo micro society has become the same as vegan micro societies.

That’s fine by me, if it fits you nicely. I am not calling out anyone on anything. However, I refuse to live under any nutritional barriers (especially those that are forced on me). Unlike with vegans, at least, great minds can scientifically argue that paleo eating is a step ahead. Can we really be sure that it’s the best available thing, though? There is absolutely no evidence that it’s the best thing (read : the only good thing) out there.

So anyway, 700 words later, it’s about time I get to the point right? Let’s first check out the abstract (actually, please read the whole thing) so that we can discuss a few things :

Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals. We speculate that the addictive potential of intense sweetness results from an inborn hypersensitivity to sweet tastants. In most mammals, including rats and humans, sweet receptors evolved in ancestral environments poor in sugars and are thus not adapted to high concentrations of sweet tastants. The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction.

Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward

Magalie Lenoir^#, Fuschia Serre^#, Lauriane Cantin, Serge H. Ahmed^*University Bordeaux 2, Université Bordeaux 1, CNRS, UMR 5227, Bordeaux, France [Link here]

It appears that ”sweet tastants and drugs of abuse stimulate dopamine signaling in the ventral stratum, a brain signaling pathway critically involved in reward processing and learning”. Pretty interesting stuff, right?

So, all in all, we have a pre-existing preference for sugar. Our cravings prove it.  How is that? Why are people trying to eat zero carbs if we actually evolved sweet tastant? Instead of being dogmatic (see, I was not just ranting) here and say that it ”proves” we should not consume sugar, I will actually try and discuss it from another perspective.

First, it’s important to understand how different the ancestral world is. Sugar could only be found in fruits, tubers and honey. Now, I know the paleo experts are telling you to avoid all of these foods. Put your bias aside for a minute or two, then discuss it with me in the comment section. Fruits, in general, are full of nutrients, anti-oxydants, fiber and they provide fast energy for a brain that runs only on glucose. Tubers are pretty much the same thing. Wild unfiltered and raw honey is well-known for its antibacterial properties which is, in itself, a very useful thing for someone who is living in a world filled with bacteria and has no access to modern medicine.

Second, the fact that we evolved sweet tastant could probably mean that our own preference for sugar is not bad per se. In a world where you could only find your sugar in fruits, honey and tubers, it was very hard to overdo it on a regular basis. However, the body evolved a way of telling you to go for it when you could have access to it. It tastes good to us and, as said in the paper, it feels good (thanks to its action on dopamine!). The fact that the brain runs on glucose probably means that it could have played a role in our evolution. I actually wrote about it in the past [Link here].

So, the idea that sugar is more addictive than cocaine tells us a few things :

If you can trump the pre-existing biological networking of a person by producing a reaction that the body loves (defined as the release of dopamine in this case), you can make that person addicted. This is because you play with that person’s reward system. Put simply, the reward system is a system that will reward you when you eat something the body wants (tastes good, smells good, looks good, etc.) or will ”punish” you in the case where you try and eat something the body does not want (tastes bad, smells bad, looks bad, and feels very bad in your gut).

The moment you start and play with that person reward system, you can reprogram that person’s reference of pleasure. Just like someone who does cocaine and marijuana will say the best buzz they ever had is cocaine, the person who introduces fake foods that are highly sweetened has a new reference point. Nothing below that is enough anymore.

Here is a way to see it : Most people who have been eating a diet based on evolutionary principles will (there are many testimonials around) lose their preference for fake foods (sodas, candies, etc.) after a good while (usually 1,5-2 years). The moment you can break free of this type of reference (a highly unnatural preference), you can improve your health (and most likely break free of your addiction).

Who is guilty : Carbs or fake foods?

So, in other words, this study, while being done on rats (although, it would be hard to argue against this happening in human beings), does not make me think that we should lower our carbohydrates. I think it tells us that it’s important to avoid human-made foods. If you respect the laws of nature by following an evolutionary eating pattern, you will have less cravings and more nutrition. The problem is not about eating a moderate amount of carbs but about the existence of processed foods. Hopefully, people will realize that a piece of fruit is not the same thing as a soda. Or maybe they won’t…