The Paleo approach to meal frequency

24. November 2009 William Davis (12)
Furthering our discussion of postprandial (after-eating) phenomenona, including chylomicron and triglyceride "stacking" (Grazing is for cattle and Triglyceride and chylomicron stacking), here's a comment from the recent Palet Diet Newsletter on the closely related issue, meal timing and frequency:


We are currently in the process of compiling meal times and patterns in the worlds historically studied hunter-gatherers. If any single picture is beginning to emerge, it clearly is not three meals per day plus snacking ala the typical U.S. grazing pattern. Here are a few examples:

--The Ingalik Hunter Gatherers of Interior Alaska: 'As has been made clear, the principal meal and sometimes the only one of the day is eaten in the evening.'
--The Guayaki (Ache) Hunter Gatherers of Paraguay: 'It seems, however, that the evening meal is the most consistent of the day. This is understandable, since the day is generally spent hunting for food that will be eaten in the evening."
--The Kung Hunter Gatherers of Botswana. "Members move out of camp each day individually or in small groups to work through the surrounding range and return in the evening to pool the collected resources for the evening meal."
--Hawaiians, Tahitians, Fijians and other Oceanic peoples (pre-westernization). 'Typically, meals, as defined by Westerners, were consumed once or twice a day. . . Oliver (1989) described the main meal, usually freshly cooked, as generally eaten in the late afternoon after the day’s work was over."

The most consistent daily eating pattern that is beginning to emerge from the ethnographic literature in hunter-gatherers is that of a large single meal which was consumed in the late afternoon or evening. A midday meal or lunch was rarely or never consumed and a small breakfast (consisting of the remainders of the previous evening meal) was sometimes eaten. Some snacking may have occurred during daily gathering, however the bulk of the daily calories were taken in the late afternoon or evening. This pattern of eating could be described as intermittent fasting relative to the typical Western pattern, particularly when daily gathering or hunting were unsuccessful or marginal. There is wisdom in the ways of our hunter gatherer ancestors, and perhaps it is time to re-think three squares a day.


In other words, the notion of "grazing," or eating small meals or snacks throughout the day, is an unnatural situation. It is directly contrary to the evolutionarily more appropriate large meal followed by periods of no eating or small occasional meals.

I stress this point because I see that the notion of grazing has seized hold of many people's thinking. In my view, grazing is a destructive practice that is self-indulgent, unnecessary, and simply fulfills the perverse non-stop hunger impulse fueled by modern carbohydrate foods.

Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars and you will find that grazing is a repulsive impulse that equates with gorging.


The full-text of the Paleo Diet Newsletter can be obtained through www.ThePaleoDiet.com. You can also read and/or subscribe to the new Paleo Diet Blog, just launched in November, 2009.

Even mummies do it

20. November 2009 William Davis (16)

Lady Rai, nursemaid to Queen Nefertari of Egypt, died in 1530 BC, somewhere between the age of 30 and 40 years. Her mummy is preserved in the Egyptian National museum of Antiquities in Cairo.

A CT scan of her thoracic aorta revealed calcium, representing aortic atherosclerosis, reported by Allam et al (including my friend from The Wisconsin Heart Hospital, Dr. Sam Wann, who provided me a blow-by-blow tale of this really fascinating project). Ladi Rai and 14 other Egyptian mummies were found to have vascular calcification of a total of 22 mummies scanned. (The hearts of the mummies were too degenerated to make out any coronary calcium.)

But why would people of that age have developed atherosclerosis?

The authors of the study comment that "Our findings that atherosclerosis was not infrequent among middle-aged and older ancient Egyptians of high social status challenges the view that it is a disease of modern humans. . . Although ancient Egyptians did not smoke tobacco or eat processed food or presumably lead sedentary lives, they were not hunter-gatherers. [Emphasis mine.] Agriculture was well established in ancient Egypt and meat consumption appers to have been common among those of high social status."

Fascinating. But I don't think that I'd blame meat consumption. Egyptians were also known to have cultivated grains, including wheat, and frequently consumed such sweet delicacies as dates and figs. Egyptians were also apparently beer drinkers. Unfortunately, no beer steins were seen in any of the scans.

Life Extension article on iodine

17. November 2009 William Davis (25)
Here's a link to my recent article in Life Extension Magazine on iodine:

Halt on Salt Sparks Iodine Deficiency

Iodized salt, a concept introduced into the U.S. by the FDA in 1924, slowly eliminated goiter (enlarged thyroid glands), along with an enormous amount of thyroid disease, heart attack, mental impairment, and death. The simple addition of iodine to salt ensured that salt-using Americans obtained enough iodine sufficient to not have a goiter.

Now that the FDA, goiters long forgotten from their memories, urges Americans to reduce salt, what has happened to our iodine?

I talk at length about this issue in the Life Extension article.

The healthiest people are the most iodine deficient

16. November 2009 William Davis (19)
Here's an informal observation.

The healthiest people are the most iodine deficient.

The healthier you are, the more likely you are to:

--Avoid junk foods--30% of which have some iodine from salt
--Avoid overuse of iodized salt
--Exercise--Sweating causes large losses of iodine.

So the healthy-eating, exercising person is the one most likely to show iodine deficiency: gradually enlarged thyroid gland (in the neck), declining thyroid function. Over time, if iodine deficiency persists, excessive sensitivity to iodine develops, as well as abnormal thyroid conditions like overactive nodules.

Even subtle levels of thyroid dysfunction act as a potent coronary risk factor.

It's the score, stupid

14. November 2009 William Davis (4)
Sal has had 3 heart scans. (He was not on the Track Your Plaque program.) His scores:

March, 2006: 439

April, 2007: 573

October, 2009: 799

Presented with the 39% increase from April, 2007 to October, 2009, Sal's doctor responded, "I don't understand. Your LDL cholesterol is fine."

This is the sort of drug-driven, cholesterol-minded thinking that characterizes 90% of primary care and cardiologists' practices: "Cholesterol is fine; therefore, you must be fine, too."

No. Absolutely not.

The data are clear: Heart scan scores that continue to increase at this rate predict high risk for cardiovascular events. Unfortunately, when my colleagues hear this, they respond by scheduling a heart catheterization to prevent heart attack--a practice that has never been shown to be effective and, in my view, constitutes malpractice (i.e., performing heart procedures in people with no symptoms and with either no stress test or a normal stress test).

It's the score, stupid! It's not the LDL cholesterol. Pay attention to the increasing heart scan score and you will know that the disease is progressing at an alarming rate. Accepting this fact will set you and your doctor on the track to ask "Why?"

That's when you start to uncover all the dozens of other reasons that plaque can grow that have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol or statin drugs.

Heart Scan Blog Redux: Cheers to flavonoids

13. November 2009 William Davis (32)
Because in Track Your Plaque we've been thinking a lot about anthocyanins, here's a rerun of a previous Heart Scan Blog post about red wine. (Anthocyanins are among the interesting flavonoids in red wine, along with resveratrol and quercetin.)


The case in favor of healthful flavonoids seems to grow bit by bit.

Flavonoids such as procyanadins in wine and chocolate, catechins in tea, and those in walnuts, pomegranates, and pycnogenol (pine bark extract) are suspected to block oxidation of LDL (preventing its entry into plaque), normalize abnormal endothelial constriction, and yield platelet-blocking effects (preventing blood clots).

Dr. Roger Corder is a prolific author of many scientific papers detailing his research into the flavonoids of foods, but wine in particular. He summarizes his findings in a recent book, The Red Wine Diet. Contrary to the obvious vying-for-prime-time title, Dr. Corder's compilation is probably the best mainstream discussion of flavonoids in foods and wines that I've come across. Although it would have been more entertaining if peppered with more wit and humans interest, given the topic, its straightfoward, semi-academic telling of the story makes his points effectively.

Among the important observations Corder makes is that regions of the world with the greatest longevity also correspond to regions with the highest procyanidin flavonoids in their wines.




Regarding the variable flavonoid content of wines, he states:

Although differences in the amount of procyanidins in red wine clearly occur because of the grape variety and the vineyard environment, the winemaker holds the key to what ends up in the bottle. The most important aspect of the winemaking process for ensuring high procyanidins in red wines is the contact time between the liquid and the grape seeds during fermentation when the alcohol concentration reaches about 6 percent. Depending on the fermentation temperature, it may be two to three days or more before this extraction process starts. Grape skins float and seeds sink, so the number of times they are pushed down and stirred into the fermenting wine also increases extraction of procyanidins. Even so, extraction is a slow process and, after fermentation is complete, many red wines are left to macerate with their seeds and skins for days or even weeks in order to extract all the color, flavor, and tannins. Wines that have a contact time of less than seven days will have a relatively low level of procyanidins. Wines with a contact time of ten to fourteen days have decent levels, and those with contact times of three weeks or more have the highest.

He points out that deeply-colored reds are more likely to be richer in procyanidins; mass-produced wines that are usually "house-grade" served at bars and restaurants tend to be low. Some are close to zero.

Wines rich in procyanidins provide several-fold more, such that a single glass can provide the same purported health benefit as several glasses of a procyanidin-poor wine.

So how do various wines stack up in procyanidin content? Here's an abbreviated list from his book:

Australian--tend to be low, except for Australian Cabernet Sauvignon which is moderate.

Chile--only Cabernet Sauvignon stands out, then only moderate in content.

France--Where to start? The French, of course, are the perennial masters of wine, and prolonged contact with skins and seeds is usually taken for granted in many varieties of wine. Each wine region (French wines are generally designated by region, not by variety of grape) can also vary widely in flavonoid content. Nonetheless, Bordeaux rate moderately; Burgundy low to moderate (except the village of Pommard); Languedoc-Roussillon moderate to high (and many great bargains in my experience, since these producers live in the shadow of its northern Bordeaux neighbors); Rhone (Cote du Rhone) moderate to high, though beware of their powerful "barnyard" character upon opening; decanting is wise.

Italy--Much red Italian wine is made from the Sangiovese grape and called variously Chianti, Valpolicella, and "super-Tuscan" when blended with other varietals. Corder rates the southern Italian wines from Sicily, Sardinia, and the mainland as high in procyanidins; most northern varieties are moderate.

Spain--Moderate in general.

United States--Though his comments are disappointingly scanty on the U.S., he points out that Cabernet Sauvignon is the standout for procyanidin content. He mentions only the Napa/Sonoma regions, unfortunately. (I'd like to know how the San Diego-Temecula and Virginian wines fare, for instance.)

The winner in procyanidin content is a variety grown in the Gers region of southwest France, a region with superior longevity of its residents. The wines here are made with the tannat grape within the Madiran appellation; wines labeled "Madiran" must contain 40% or more tannat to be so labeled (such is a quirk of French wine regulation). Among the producers Dr. Corder lists are Chateau de Sabazan, Chateau Saint-Go, Chateau du Bascou, Domaine Labranche Laffont, and Chateau d'Aydie. (A more complete list can be found in his book.)

How does this all figure into the Track Your Plaque program? Can you succeed without red wine? Of course you can. I doubt you could do it, however, without some attention to flavonoid-rich food sources, whether they come from spinach, tea, chocolate, beets, pomegranates, or red wine.

Though my wife and I love wine, I confess that I've never personally drank or even seen a French Madiran wine. Any wine afficionados with some advice?

Can wheat elimination cure ulcerative colitis?

13. November 2009 William Davis (0)
Tammy is a 36-year old mother of three young children. Since age 20, she has suffered with the debilitating symptoms of ulcerative colitis: constant, gnawing abdominal pain; frequent diarrhea, often bloody.



Tammy has had to take several medications, some with significant side-effects, all of which provided only partial relief from the pain and diarrhea. Her gastroenterologist and surgeon were planning a colectomy (removal of the colon) with creation of an ileostomy (rerouting of the small intestine to the abdominal surface, which would require Tammy to wear an ileostomy bag under her clothes for the rest of her life).



Although Tammy had previously tested negative for celiac disease (an allergic sensitivity to the gluten in wheat products), I urged her to attempt a trial of a wheat-free diet. Having witnessed many people experience relief from irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, and other common gastrointestinal complaints, all while trying to reduce blood sugar and small LDL, I'd hoped that Tammy would obtain at least some small improvement in her terrible symptoms.



I therefore urged Tammy to try it. After all, what was there to lose? Tammy grudgingly agreed.



She returned 6 months later. Her report: She had lost 38 lbs, virtually all of it within the first 6-8 weeks. Her diarrhea and cramping were not better, but gone. She was down to a single medicine from her former list of drugs.



I am unsure what proportion of people with ulcerative colitis or other inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn's will experience a result like Tammy's. Perhaps it's only a minority. But I take this another piece of evidence that this enormously destructive thing called wheat has no place in the human diet.



We have no facts or figures on the prevalence of various forms of wheat intolerance in the U.S. When I contacted the Celiac Disease Foundation, they had no figures on the number of fatalities per year in the U.S. from celiac disease. But if there are 2-3 million Americans with celiac disease, there are probably 100 times that many people with various forms of wheat intolerance.



Postprandial pile-up with fructose

12. November 2009 William Davis (20)
Heart disease is likely caused in the after-eating, postprandial period. That's why the practice of grazing, eating many small meals throughout the day, can potentially increase heart disease risk. Eating often can lead to the phenomenon I call triglyceride and chylomicron "stacking," or the piling up of postprandial breakdown products in the blood stream.

Different fatty acid fractions generate different postprandial patterns. But so do different sugars. Fructose, in particular, is an especially potent agent that magnifies the postprandial patterns. (See Goodbye, fructose.)

Take a look at the graphs from the exhaustive University of California study by Stanhope et al, 2009:



From Stanhope KL et al, J Clin Invest 2009. Click on image to make larger.

The left graphs show the triglyceride effects of adding glucose-sweetened drinks (not sucrose) to the study participants' diets. The right graphs show the triglyceride effects of adding fructose-sweetened drinks.

Note that fructose causes enormous "stacking" of triglycerides, meaning that postprandial chylomicrons and VLDL particles are accumulating. (This study also showed a 4-fold greater increase in abdominal fat and 45% increase in small LDL particles with fructose.)

It means that low-fat salad dressings, sodas, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and all the other foods made with high-fructose corn syrup not only make you fat, but also magnifies the severity of postprandial lipoprotein stacking, a phenomenon that leads to more atherosclerotic plaque.

Track Your Plaque: Safer at any score

11. November 2009 William Davis (0)
Imagine two people.

Tom is a 50-year old man. Tom's initial heart scan score was 500--a concerning score that carries a 5% risk for heart attack per year.

Harry is also 50 years old. His heart scan score is 100--also a concerning score, but not to the same degree as Tom's much higher score.

Tom follows the Track Your Plaque program. He achieves the 60:60:60 lipid targets; chooses healthy foods, including elimination of wheat; takes fish oil at a therapeutic dose; increase his blood vitamin D level to 60-70 ng/ml, etc. One year later, Tom's heart scan score is 400, representing a 20% reduction from his starting score.

Harry, on the other hand, doesn't understand the implications of his score. Neither does his doctor. He's casually provided a prescription for a cholesterol drug by his doctor, a brief admonition to follow a low-fat diet, and little else. One year later, Harry's heart scan score is 200, a doubling (100% increase) of the original score.

At this point, we're left with Tom having a score of 400, Harry with a score of 200. That is, Tom has twice Harry's score, 200 points higher. Who's better off?

Tom with the score of 400 is better off. Even though he has a significantly higher score, Tom's plaque is regressing. Tom's plaque is therefore quiescent with active components being extracted, inflammation subsiding, the artery in a more relaxed state, etc.

Harry's plaque, in contrast, is active and growing: inflammatory cells are abundant and producing enzymes that degrade supportive tissue, constrictive factors are released that cause the artery to pinch partially closed, fatty materials accumulate and trigger a cascade of abnormal responses.

So it's not just the score--the quantity of atherosclerotic plaque present--but the state of activity of the plaque: Is it growing, is it being reduced? Is there escalating or subsiding inflammation? Is plaque filled with degradative enzymes or quiescent?

Following the Track Your Plaque program therefore leads us to the notion that it's not the score that's most important; the most important thing is what you're doing about it. We sometimes say that Track Your Plaque makes you safer at any score.
Are humans meant to be omnivores?

Are humans meant to be omnivores?

28. September 2008 William Davis (24)
Are humans meant to be omnivores?

Does the ideal human diet include animal products like meat, fish, cheese, eggs, and dairy products?

Or should the ideal diet be devoid of all animal products?a vegetarian diet?

Though the argument is distorted by modern food processing methods (e.g., factory farming, long-term administration of antibiotics), convenience foods, and pseudo-foods crafted by food manufacturers, there are, obviously, proponents of both extremes.

The Atkins’ diet, for instance, advocates unrestricted intake of animal products, regardless of production methods or curing (sausage and bacon). At the opposite extreme are diets like Ornish (Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversal of Heart Disease) and the experiences of Dr. Colin Campbell, articulated in his studies and book, The China Study, in which he lambasts animal products, including dairy, as triggers for cancer and heart disease.

So which end of the spectrum is correct? Or ideal?

For the sake of argument, let's put aside philosophical questions (like not wanting eat animal products because of aversion to killing any living being) or ethical concerns (inhumane treatment of farm animals, cruel slaughtering practices, etc.). Does the inclusion of animal products provide advantage? Disadvantage?

The traditional argument against animal products has been saturated fat. If we accept that we’ve demoted the saturated fat question to a place far down the list of importance (though this is yet another argument to discuss another time), several questions emerge:

• If humans were meant to be vegetarian, why do omega-3 fatty acids (mostly from wild game and fish) yield such substantial health benefits, including dramatic reduction in sudden death from heart disease?

• Why would vitamin K2 (from meats and milk, as well as fermented foods like natto and cheese), obtainable in only the tiniest amounts on a vegetarian diet, provide such significant benefits on bone and cardiovascular health?

• Why would vitamin B12 (from meats) be necessary to maintain a normal blood count, prevent anemia, keep homocysteine at bay, and lead to profound neurologic dysfunction when deficient?


Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins K2 and B12 cannot be obtained in satisfactory quantities from a pure vegetarian diet. The consequences of deficiency are not measured in decades, but in a few years. The conclusion is unavoidable: Evolutionarily, humans are meant to consume at least some foods from animal sources.

That's not to say that we should gorge ourselves on animal products. Gout (excessive uric acid) and kidney stones are among the unhealthy consequences of excessive quantities of meats in our diets.

It pains me to say this, since I’ve always favored a vegetarian lifestyle, mostly because of philosophical concerns, as well as worries about the safety of our factory farm-raised livestock and rampant inhumane practices.

But, stepping back and objectively examining what nutritional approach appears to stack the odds in favor of optimal health, I believe that only one conclusion is possible: Humans are meant to be omnivorous, meant to consume some quantity of animal products in addition to vegetables, fruits, nuts, and other non-animal products.

The question is how much?
Tags :

Comments (24) -

  • Francis

    9/28/2008 4:55:00 PM |

    From the title I thought the debate would have been omnivore vs carnivore instead of omnivore vs vegetarian. Any solid arguments against a carnivorous lifestyle?

  • GK

    9/28/2008 6:21:00 PM |

    Hm, fingering meat as a cause of gout again?  Peter's Hyperlipid blog had some fairly convincing arguments that fructose may be worse.  See http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2006/12/which-drink-causes-gout.html and http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/02/fructoase-and-gout.html

    --GK

  • Jeremy

    9/28/2008 9:09:00 PM |

    The comment about gout is not true. Loren Cordain, author of the Paleo Diet, has reviewed the literature on gout in his Paleo Diet Newsletter, Volume 2, Number 4.

    The back issues of the newsletter are products you must pay for, so I won't discuss the contents in extreme detail. But he argues the body adjusts uric acid execretion in response to purine intake. Meanwhile, he cites studies showing fructose and alcohol for increase uric acid levels in the body.

    He cites a study where a high-protein diet relieved gout in 7 out of 12 patients!

    Jeremy

  • rabagley

    9/28/2008 10:24:00 PM |

    Personally, I find the analysis of the paleolithic diet to be most compelling.  In that analysis, we were almost entirely meat eaters, with the occasional smattering of vegetables, fruits, nuts, etc.

    There have been several indigenous cultures, both modern (Masai) and in recent history (Inuit) that lived long and healthy lives almost entirely free of diseases like diabetes or heart disease while eating almost 100% animal products.  I refer to the Inuit as "recent history" because their modern diet only rarely resembles their historical (and much healthier) diet of seal and whale fat and meat.

    After reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories", I'm convinced of the merits of the position that humans are non-obligate carnivores.  We can fall back to non-animal foods if absolutely necessary, but it's a bigger compromise to our health the farther you go.

    I do agree that the biggest problem with being a modern-day carnivore is the inhumane treatment of meat animals by agribusiness.  I spend quite a bit of money on meat that I trust has come from humanely treated animals.  I know the names and faces of the people who raised those cows, chickens, pigs and lambs.  This is a luxury.  Most people don't have the food budget that I do.

  • JD

    9/29/2008 1:13:00 AM |

    I think a better question is what diet was mankind's genetics formed from over 2 million years. Agriculture is only 10,000 years old. If you read Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, there were cultures such as the Inuit and the Masai who basically only ate meat and did not suffer from the diseases of civilization including heart disease, cancer, etc.

  • Stephan

    9/29/2008 3:26:00 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    I agree there are many animal nutrients that seem important to human health: you mentioned long-chain n-3s, vitamin K2 MK-4, and vitamin B12; I'd also add preformed vitamin A and heme iron to the list.

    I read a paper a while back in the AJCN that analyzed the diet composition of 229 historical hunter-gatherer groups (Loren Cordain's group).  The average percentage of calories from animal foods was about 70%.  Many groups were completely or almost completely carnivorous, while none ate less than about 15% of calories from animal foods.  

    That being said, the diets varied widely, from complete carnivory to plant-rich omnivory.  By all accounts, none of them suffered from the modern diseases of civilization such as cardiovascular disease.  I posted on this study a while back:

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/composition-of-hunter-gatherer-diet.html

  • Peter

    9/29/2008 12:23:00 PM |

    Hi Dr Davis,

    Great post. I have to agree with your concerns about modern meat production techniques and animal welfare as serious issues which need addressing, but we humans have always been pretty awful to our prey. Just thinking of traditional "harvesting" of marine mammals in the Faroes and subsistence whaling techniques here. No excuse for any of us to feel comfortable with these practices or to support factory farming, but humans are humans and we are top level predators after all. Lions are not exactly kind to their prey either.

    To be driven to omnivory acceptance by logic and evidence, against ones basic inclination, shows a great respect for facts and evidence that is seriously thin on the ground in both conventional and more alternative cardiological circles.

    What else can anyone say? Great post.

    Peter

  • Jeanne Shepard

    9/29/2008 3:00:00 PM |

    Vegans say that if the walls of slaughter houses were glass that noone would eat meat. I'm inclined to think that instead, there would be demands for humane animal handling.
    Agriculture kills many small mammals and ground nesting birds, with heavy farm machinery and fertilizers/pesticides. If you want to eat, there is no free lunch, in terms of animals losing their lives.
    As someone who is humane but feels that being a carnivore is essential to my health, I buy locally grass fed beef that is is humanely slaughtered.

  • Anonymous

    9/29/2008 3:32:00 PM |

    I wonder how it would be possible to gather 2000 to 2500 calories' worth of wild plant foods every day to survive.  It would amount to something like a bushel-basket full of stems and leaves and fruits -- every single day, for every member of the group. Maybe 20 pounds a week per person.  The only way around this is to include relatively large amounts of high-fat nuts, or high-starch tubers, or high-starch grass seeds, such as wheat.  And to have to do that ALL YEAR LONG.  Nuts and seeds aren't always available year round.

    Leaf-eating vegetarians, such as the gorilla, have HUGE guts amounting to some 70% of their body volume to process the vast amounts of leaf matter needed to survive.  And they eat pretty much constantly.

    That isn't us.

    If

  • Anonymous

    9/29/2008 5:03:00 PM |

    Man evolved eating lots of animal products, with some vegetation thrown in seasonally for hundreds of thousands of years. Then about 10,000 years ago we began introducing agricultural products into our diet. So rationally, we have evolved to process animal products much better than vegetation.

    Speaking for myself, gout runs in the family (among other things). Eating high animal products/low vegetation, relieves all my pains (gout and arthritic) and solves dozens of my other health complaints. And my bloodwork is the envy of people 1/2 my age.

    My only concern is how the animals are treated and raised. I only buy organic free-range eggs and try to buy organic meats and wild fish.

  • Anonymous

    9/29/2008 5:57:00 PM |

    I think we don't lose the abilities formed as evolving.  We evolved to eat nuts and bugs, then fish, then plants and finally meat. We're a true omnivore with the ability to choose.  I choose not to eat meat because I'm a veterinarian with 25 years experience dealing with unwholesome meatpacking industry.

  • stephen_b

    9/29/2008 7:38:00 PM |

    In my opinion any conversation about vegetarian vs. omnivore diets or low-carb vs. low fat diets need to take into account how the food is prepared. Any diet with high advanced glycation endproduct (AGE) content will be unhealthy.

    StephenB

  • Jeff Consiglio

    9/29/2008 9:11:00 PM |

    Holy synchronicity Batman! This is the exact question I've been mulling over for a long time and have just recently resolved the issue in my own mind, to my satisfaction. Having done and advocated low carb diets for a long time, I no longer do.

    There are numerous traditional cultures that live on a high carbohydrate intake - WITHOUT obesity, diabetes etc. So that inarguable fact always bothered me, when it came to trying to justify extreme low carb.

    For instance, here's a link to a Men's Health article on a tribe in Mexico that thrives on about an 80% carbohydrate diet.

    http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?conitem=3b4b1ca01e91c010VgnVCM10000013281eac____&page=1

    Also, I believe the science is pointing more and more toward fructose being the primary "bad carb" as opposed to starches which are chains of glucose. It is the fructose half of sucrose causing the problems, rather than the glucose.

    Not that eating pure glucose is a good idea. Nor starches that convert too rapidly into glucose.

    But I can tell you from my personal experience that as someone who once was sure that I was "carb intolerant" I now thrive on a high carb diet of WHOLE FOODS.
    I eat legumes, sprouted grain bread, slow cooked rolled oats etc. And yes I eat lean, and minimally processed meats as well.

    And my grocery bill is MUCH cheaper than it was when my wife and I were both living the low carb lifestyle. By the way, I used to suffer from reactive hypoglycemia, yet I thrive on plenty of UNREFINED carbs now.

    Here's a link to an amazing interview with a Dr. Lustig who discusses how fructose causes de-novo lipogensis, insulin resistance and high uric acid levels. he also discusses the Atkins diet and why Asians are able to thrive in spite of high intake of white rice. Ties in very nicely with this topic.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/2104024.htm

    And here's just one more link that I think ties all this together. it's an seminar by Micheal Pollan who wrote  "In Defense of Food."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-t-7lTw6mA

    Having read literally thousands of books and scientific papers on the topic of nutrition, I feel Micheal's is the all time best. It exposes the fallacy of nutritional reductionism - what he calls "nutritionism - the idea that we should study individual macro or micro nutrients, rather than looking at overall eating patterns. He makes a brilliant case for the notion that to discover the "secret" to what constitutes the ideal human diet we need look no further than what traditional healthy cultures eat. Traditional, healthy cultures have all kinds of varying macro-nutrient ratios. But they all eat REAL FOOD.

    And I now believe that explains why totally "opposite" diets like Atkins and vegetarian can both work. Because they are both based on real food!

    Sure, some folks don't do well on high carb intake. Some don't seem to tolerate a lot meat very well. But I do not believe most people need to go to extremes in regards to high/low carb. Forget about macronutrient ratios and just eat real food and avoid sugar and refined carbs.

    And probably take a vitamin D3 supplement since most of us do not get enough sunshine to make it on our own these days.

    Sorry to make this so long, but I just had to get this off my chest.

    Keep up the good work. I enjoy your blog very much.

  • Stephanie

    10/1/2008 12:31:00 AM |

    Just to concur with your findings, at a recent 'food aid' symposium at Columbia University, sponsored by Doctors Without Borders, and a WHO conference in Geneva, it was concluded that animal proteins must be included in international food aid in order to save the millions of children who die each year of malnutrition. The standard emergency food distributions of grain-based flours (corn-soya blend) are not working. The milk powder seems to be the essential ingredient that prevents both wasting and stunting in children under 5.

  • Anonymous

    10/1/2008 6:33:00 PM |

    As a vegetarian this sort of thing interests me. I used to think it necessary to supplement with lots of nutrients (such as omega-3 fats) and be careful in order to be healthy. However I'm lately beginning to wonder if a plant-based diet is actually the key to health.

    According to several studies such as the China study, cultures who eat a plant-based diet very low in fat and animal products (even if not expressly vegan very close to it)  tend to be protected from "diseases of civilization" such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.  Certain doctors who've researched this like Dr. Ornish have used this type of diet to reverse heart disease. This idea certainly has been attacked, but I'm sure it hasn't been actually refuted.

    If this is true maybe nutrients like K2 and fish oil become less important, (assuming you're getting the required amount of essential fatty acids and other nutrients). Afterall, if you don't have atherosclerosis to begin with you don't need large amounts of special nutrients such as vitamin k2 that fight against it. Still, I guess vitamin B12 is an issue.

  • Anonymous

    10/2/2008 2:43:00 AM |

    I think it's very telling about who stands to profit if Americans embrace a vegetarian or vegan diet.  Soy, rapeseed, and cereal grains are all much easier to make high profits from than factory farmed chickens, cows, and pigs, not to mention properly, humanely raised animals.  I've noticed the push to dissuade Americans from beef, and cattle are some of the hardest animals to fit into a factory farm model, because the calves must live on grass in a field for a while - they can't be jammed up eating grain the whole time.

  • donny

    10/2/2008 1:28:00 PM |

    They did a study in rats where they either fed the rats a certain amount of vitamin k alone, or a certain amount along with Nadh, and then measured gamma-carboxylation of certain proteins. Increased levels of Nadh increased the levels of gamma-carboxylation just as if more vitamin k had been administered.
    Exercise, alcohol, and niacin all increase levels of Nadh. It's possible that something about our modern lifestyles is exaggerating our need for vitamin k2.
    The same goes for b12. Other vitamins like folic acid, b6, etc., either help in the b12 cycle, keeping it in the system, or spare it like b6 which cycles homocysteine into cysteine instead of back into methionine. People with low thyroid who receive replacement therapy have their homocysteine levels go down as well as their triglycerides, almost as if a b vitamin deficiency had been corrected.

    Dean Ornish shows increased bloodflow on his diet, but what is that diet's effect on calcium scores? Just eating a cup of sugar should increase blood flow, in the short term; vasodilation is an acute action of insulin.

  • rabagley

    10/2/2008 4:38:00 PM |

    First, the China Study authors didn't read the China Study data, or they would have noticed that the Chinese only eat about 12g/day of soy (almost entirely of one fermented form or another).  It is far from a dominant staple.  They also might have noticed that only those extremely close to starvation ate a nearly vegan diet.  Anyone who could afford to eat meat, ate meat.

    Second, Ornish is the master of selectively paying attention to study data.  Any study which can be spun to support his goals is blown all out of proportion to its actual significance.  Those studies that directly contradict his goals?  No mention...

    Personally, I know three people who've tried Ornish.  They were incredibly hungry all the time and gained all of the weight back within six months.  Their blood sugars and cholesterol numbers were even worse afterwards than before.  I and one other friend tried paleo (carnivory) instead.  Now one year into our meat-centered diet, we're both stable with moderate BMI's (me 22, him 23), normal hunger, few or no cravings, my blood sugar is way down, HDL is up, triglycerides are down...

    Ornish is a vegetarian activist claiming to be an authority on diet.  Too bad his diets are counter-productive for real people in the real world.

  • ganeshan

    10/3/2008 8:23:00 PM |

    not exactly ,humans can be carnivores too but they must go through the exact working so as to avoid any disease.being an omnivores will make us much safer.
    --------
    ganeshan

    Sreevysh Corp

  • Diana Obesity News Watcher

    10/16/2008 12:02:00 PM |

    Canadian consumers have different dietary needs depending on the end-goal they want to achieve, such as disease prevention, weight control or overall healthier dietary lifestyle. On this principle, the Compliments Balance program was developed in partnership with the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program to provide consumers with healthier options for managing their personal diets. http://www.phentermine-effects.com

  • prince

    9/28/2010 4:14:32 AM |

    Hi, probably our entry may be off topic but anyways, I have been surfing around your blog and it looks very professional. It’s obvious you know your topic and you appear fervent about it. I’m developing a fresh blog plus I’m struggling to make it look good, as well as offer the best quality content. I have learned much at your web site and also I anticipate alot more articles and will be coming back soon. Thanks you.

    farmmachinery used

  • orgni

    9/29/2010 10:22:21 AM |

    Hi there, awesome site. I thought the topics you posted on were very interesting. I tried to add your RSS to my feed reader and it a few. take a look at it, hopefully I can add you and follow.

    farmmachinery used

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:51:49 PM |

    Though the argument is distorted by modern food processing methods (e.g., factory farming, long-term administration of antibiotics), convenience foods, and pseudo-foods crafted by food manufacturers, there are, obviously, proponents of both extremes.

  • online viagra

    2/16/2011 9:06:11 AM |

    No I am not agree with this statement whatever character should be possessed by omnivores is not observed in human being so human beings are vegetarian animal.

    Thanks  lot for this nice informative post I like to read and take part in controversial questing.


    Smith ALan

Add comment

Loading