Going Paleo: The First Three Days
by Jason GodeskyI’m at the end of the first three days, which flush out the glycogen in the liver and put the body in a state of ketosis. I’ve uploaded the Excel spreadsheet I’ve been keeping with my meals, calories, carbs, exercise, and other statistics. Below are notes I’ve kept of the process. I kept running notes for the first three days because of how critical they are on The Foundation Diet. From now on, I’ll be making weekly, less detailed, updates, including updating the Excel spreadsheet.
1 March 2006
9:34 AM. First day, no effects yet, as expected. Probably won’t feel anything until this evening at the earliest, and more likely tomorrow. So far, only drinking water. Wearing a pedometer to track how many steps I take every day, but I think I didn’t set it correctly. Need to find ketone sticks; already missed today’s test.
2:50 PM. Still no effects. Had some Yogi teas’ Peach Detox tea with lunch, so that may be helping. It is getting about to the time I normally take a short, mid-afternoon break, go down to the Rite-Aid downstairs, and get myself a small snack, but I doubt I’ll be able to find anything that will fit my requirements. It’s worth a shot, though!
3:04 PM. No ketone sticks, but a can of mixed nuts will do. I’ll need to be careful of the serving size, though.
2 March 2006
11:31 AM. By evening yesterday, I was really starting to feel the effects of low carbs. I was feeling all … “crazy.” This morning I feel better, but I didn’t get nearly enough calories yesterday. Dinner was way, way too small; I’ll need to find something more substantive tonight. In other news, brewed up my first home-made batch of iced tea, and tried out the “pepperoni chips” suggested on the Foundation Diet’s web forums. The tea is way too strong; I’m going to need to pick up some more lemon juice. I forgot my pedometer this morning, so I can’t track my steps today, so my numbers for my exercise are going to be way off.
1:56 PM. I really need to adapt my habits if this experiment is going to work. I’m keeping to the dietary restrictions just fine, but I’m not collecting data very well, and we’re now more than halfway through the most crucial period–the first three days. Still no ketone strips, and I forgot to weigh in this morning. I lost my pedometer last night, and remarkably enough, I found it when I went home for lunch–right next to the door to the apartment building, where it had apparently lain all night. I’m a little surprised to have it back at all. But it lost my data for yesterday, and I have no data for today, either. I’ll have to be sure to measure my walking tomorrow, and use that as “fill in” numbers, since the amount of walking I do doesn’t vary all that much from weekday to weekday. It’s the weekends that get all screwy.
6:19 PM. Ah, the pedometer keeps records going back one full week! Excellent, so I’ve only lost one day’s worth of data. I still haven’t been able to find any ketone strips, though. My planned trip to Whole Foods (or the big Giant Eagle at the Waterfront) has been scratched due to inclement weather–it started snowing, almost as soon as I left the office.
3 March 2006
12:05 AM. Went grocery shopping and stocked up on various meats and sundry other goodness. Walnut meal looks promising–with some eggs, we could even “bread” chicken with it, sans carbs! When I added up the totals for the day, I noticed that my carbohydrates were actually a lot lower than 15. I was afraid of ketoacidosis, so I ate two of Giuli’s chocolate-covered raisins to bring it up. From 5.8 to 13.8 in less than one quarter of a mouthful. Going to bed now–again, not getting enough sleep. I took an evening weighing, and it’s two pounds lighter than yesterday morning. Weight fluctuates during the day, but it’s usually heavier in the evening, not lighter … could I already be losing weight?
9:17 AM. Remembered the pedometer this morning! I reprogrammed it with the correct values, now that I know how to set it, so today’s figures will be my first accurate picture of how much I walk every day. But, I again forgot to weigh in this morning, and still no ketone strips. When I added up my daily calories, it became quite evident why I was so hungry the first day, and why I felt so much better the second–it was a difference of almost 800 calories! I’m still learning the ropes here, and how to prepare a filling, satisfying meal with so few carbs. The problem is that our cultural conception of a “meal” revolves around some kind of grain product. In Japan, it’s rice; for Europe, it’s bread. For Italians, it’s pasta. Whatever the case may be, if there’s no grain, it’s not a meal–it’s a snack. I think my brain may be reacting as much to that, as to any genuine hunger.
2:25 PM. Giuli grilled two hamburgers for me for lunch today and they were delicious! I’m not feeling any adverse effects, so I suppose my “freak out” Wednesday evening must have been the worst of it. By last night I was *really* craving something sweet, and Giuli snacking on all those chocolate-covered raisins wasn’t helping in the least. The sweet cravings are really helped by Splenda. Sugar comes in two forms, chemically: left or right. We can taste both, but our enzymes can only digest right. Left passes through untouched. Most sugar has something approaching 50% left and 50% right, but Splenda is 100% left–tastes like sugar, but completely undigestable, so the net carbs remain zero.
10:15 PM. Ben & Miranda came up, and tomorrow we’ll be going to Raccoon Creek for a class on herbal medicine, but for tonight, we went to Uno’s. The Uno burger, sans bun, with some smashed cauliflower makes for a great night out. We stocked up some foodstuffs for the weekend, but starting tomorrow, I get to go all the way up to 25 grams of carbs per day! The results so far are much more startling than even I would have expected. The first three days put the body into ketosis and flush out the glycogen in the liver. That process has been remarkably straightforward and simple, and though the first three days set up the situation for dramatic weight loss, I wasn’t expecting any to actually occur in that time. It’s still within the margin of error, and yet, it is still incredibly promising.
Jason, has this sudden rush of postings got anything to do with your new diet?
I figure that either your ‘crazy’ stage produced a mad rush of creativity or else you’re trying to distract yourself from the empty feeling in your stomach
Comment by Aaron — 4 March 2006 @ 3:23 AM
Sugar comes in two forms, chemically: left or right. We can taste both, but our enzymes can only digest right. Left passes through untouched. Most sugar has something approaching 50% left and 50% right, but Splenda is 100% left–tastes like sugar, but completely undigestable, so the net carbs remain zero.
It sounds like what you have as Splenda in the US may not be the same as what we have over here under that trade name. British Splenda is this repulsive stuff that froths in milk (although that won’t bother you
and tastes no better than any other sweetener.
I do like the idea of breading chicken in nut meal. I shall have to give that a go myself.
Comment by Vashti — 4 March 2006 @ 6:26 AM
Last year I undertook a minimal-carb diet for a few days to get my body to carb load before a half-marathon.
After 2-3 days, I felt very good, alert, and cheerful… haven’t thought about it much lately, but at the time, I think I concluded that it caused a (helpful) lowering of some neurotransmitter which I implicated in what I consider likely sub-clinical narcolepsy (though other times I just think the capitalists make me want to sleep). I’ll hafta go back and reresearch to see if that still makes sense to me.
Peace,
Ryvr
Comment by Ryvr — 4 March 2006 @ 5:43 PM
hi jason, i’m wondering how much you have thought about maybe adjusting your diet to your bioregion, and perhaps to what is seasonally available in your region. Seems like quite a large component for a primitive diet of any sort - you’re only gonna be able to eat whats there- good luck!
Comment by miles — 6 March 2006 @ 1:49 AM
Miles, that’s a very big concern … eventually. At the moment, I’m concentrating first on getting my weight under control, and second, getting my body accustomed to the basic profile of nutrients it can expect. Once that’s accomplished, I’ll be shifting more and more to the seasonality and specific foods available in my particular bioregion. But that’s a more advanced level than I’m at just yet. One step at a time.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 10:50 AM
I’m not very interested in sweets, though carbs are a big part of my diet (Italian upbringing, I shudden to think at giving up pasta and peasant bread). However, it seems to me that stevia (raw plant product) is a much more interesting sweetener than Splenda (synthetic chemical). I have not read the foundation diet and know little of the chemistry, so I am very naive here. Just wanted to know if you had considered stevia (apparantly quite easy to grow), and if it is “unpaleo”, whyso?
I have a couple other questions. Corn is “too new” to be included into the diet, correct? Though corn surely existed in a precursor form during the upper paleolithic. Was it not consumed during that time? I assume it is then argued that the modern cultivars bear little resemblance to “paleo corn”. Isn’t the same true of tomatoes and nearly all other vegetables? I guess I need to read a lot more, but it seems almost arbitrary how some modern vegetables are “paleo-ok” and others aren’t. Raw corn right off the plant is so good, it is hard to imagine it being inheirently unhealthy, though again I have not done the proper research into the paleo diet. I did find Dr. Andrew Weil’s mild condemnation of it interesting though (suggesting that any diet eliminating carbs is unwise) but on the fringes of dietary research we realize how little anyone actually knows, and how its all essentially voodoo.
Anyone else out there find eggs completely unappealing? I realize they are economical, nutritious, and so on, but as I look at these recipes, I am disgusted by the number of eggs Paleoers seem to consume. Eggs are pretty much the only food I truly cannot stand, and wonder if it would be wise to make a concerted effort to eat them.
One more oddball question… if you are eventually considering a true foraging lifestyle, are you prepared to/interested in entomophagy? There are some intersting recipes for mealworms floating around on the net… even using them as “flour”. I am not kidding… I haven’t gone there yet but think it would be a great mental challenge to become comfortable eating bugs.
Comment by rob — 6 March 2006 @ 2:14 PM
Giuli has the same problem.
Stevia can’t be sold as a sweetener in the U.S., because there are conflicting studies about whether or not it’s a carcinogen. Until that’s settled, it can’t be sold as a sweetener in the U.S.
Otherwise, seems fine to me.
Rarely, because in order to consume it on any kind of significant scale, you need a lot of sedentary processing equipment.
Oh hell yes. Ever see wild corn? It’s a tiny little thing.
Domestication makes most vegetables bigger (while it makes animals smaller), but that’s not the dividing line. The real rule is how long we’ve been eating it, and whether or not we have an adaptation to eat it. We’ve been eating a lot of vegetables for a very long time; others, like corn, we’ve only started eating recently, and we’ve yet to “catch up,” in terms of evolution.
Huh. I love eggs. Eggs and nuts have been my salvation. But Ben’s allergic to nuts. So, there’s plenty of room to adapt this stuff to your own needs and tastes. There was a wide diversity of Paleolithic peoples, so it stands to reason you could have a wide diversity of paleo diets, too.
Giuli has the same problem.
Me? … Bees are delicious.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 3:05 PM
Hey –
What’s that with stevia, J? they sell it in liquid and powdered form at my co-op and Wildway over on Ishcon gave it mad props the other day…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 March 2006 @ 3:14 PM
Stevia can’t be sold as a sweetener in the U.S.
That’s often cited as evidence of how Big Business is keeping us down. I always get prickly around gross generalizations that try to paint competing entities as a monolithic force, so I dug into it, and saw some studies that say it’s a carcinogen, and some that don’t.
Kind of like sassafras, which I love, which makes me think that stevia’s prolly just fine. At the same time, I can understand why it wouldn’t be FDA-approved without invoking some kind of sugar conspiracy. Sure, it would put the sugar-growers out of business, but it would be great for Big Stevia.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 3:24 PM
My grandmother used to tell me I had hearts coming out of my eyes when I saw bread. It was indeed my favorite food. Hot rolls especially.
Odd enough, though, out of everything disallowed on the diet, bread was the easiest thing to give up, and when I do cheat, probably the thing I cheat the least one. Go figure.
Personally, I cant wait to roast up some bees and eat them like popcorn.
hmm…deliciously sweet and healthy.
Comment by Miranda Belcher — 6 March 2006 @ 3:24 PM
Hey –
I guess I’m not understanding you… how do they determine if it is sold ‘as a sweetener’? Its labeled as one in the co-op, so is there some other thing that they have to do? Or is it about marketing? I’m feeling very perplexed
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 March 2006 @ 4:36 PM
If they make any claim on the package or in their marketing, or if it’s shelved with other sugars and sweeteners, then it’s being sold as a sweetener.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 4:39 PM
Hey –
Well, that’s what I would have thought… and that is exactly what they are doing at my co-op. There could be little slide in there, in that the store is so small that saying it is ’shelved with other sweetners’ could be argued based on ‘but half of the store is on that shelf!’ But in fact, it is grouped with all of the baking supplies, alternative sweeteners, etc.
Bizarre.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 March 2006 @ 5:27 PM
As to the idea of “cheating” on this diet, what are the ramifications? I assume there are two layers to be addressed, perhaps the more important one being that it is an overall approach to life, and a sandwich or a sushi meal is not going to catastrophically affect this as long as you are personally fine with it.
But as far as the weight reduction and well-being aspects go, how serious of a transgression is reverting to a “normal” meal? How many days does it take to recover from a rice or bread incident? Do you need to tell your friends and family you will never share a meal with them again unless they switch, or can you occasionally revert? The only anecdotal experience I have with this is in Wizard of the Upper Amazon where the storyteller visits peruvian settlers after a long time eating only the indian’s foods. The salt and beans make him quite ill.
Anyway, keep it up, Jason. I appreciate your reports and the fact that you are sharing so much of a highly personal experience for our collective benefit. I look forward to your excel data, and you are indeed peaking my interest in this eating style. I had read about it several years ago and gave up after reading Dr Weil’s critiques. It is very challenging to find quality nutrition information amongst so much contradiction, but I love the philosophical simplicity of the paleo approach as well as the “time proven” nature of its principles. It makes a lot of sense for anyone trying to develop the flexibility collapse may ask of us to at least try it.
Comment by rob — 6 March 2006 @ 5:39 PM
Well, don’t give us any more details about “your local co-op” in this thread, or you might land them in some hot water with the FDA.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 5:40 PM
We don’t have any kind of genetic adaptation to these foods. All the adaptation we have is what we build up during our lifetime, the same way you’ll become near-sighted if all you ever do is sit in front of a screen all day. On the paleo diet, you lose those adaptations, just like your vision starts to correct itself if you spend more time looking at things far away. So, if you cheat, your body doesn’t know how to handle the food. You might actually lose weight–from the purging that follows.
If you’re doing the Foundation Diet like me, it’s disastrous. Low-carb diets rely on ketosis, and a “normal” meal will knock that out. You’ll need to go through the three-day induction all over again, like you never even started.
You can be inventive. With just a little bit of consideration, most “normal” meals should be covnertible to paleo. Let them have the smashed potatoes; will they really be so upset if you just take the turkey and the broccolli? You may need to let them know, so they can make a little more turkey and broccolli than they otherwise might, but I’ve found that even with my family, all it really takes is a little ingenuity.
See above.
I’ll need to look that up. Seems like something to write a rebutting article for.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 6:04 PM
Jason, if you want to try it, stevia is available in bulk as an *herb/spice* at “your local co-op” (look over where they keep the jars of teas and similar such items.)
Patricia (formerly known as “Librarian”)
Comment by Librarian — 6 March 2006 @ 6:08 PM
(i should add that while Ran thinks it works great, i haven’t quite worked out exactly how to use it to my own tastes…if you are craving the sugar too hard, stevia may not help!)
P.
Comment by Librarian — 6 March 2006 @ 6:18 PM
Hey –
Uh, yeah. I’ll be quiet now
Very true, from a weight loss standpoint…but I did find that psychologically and physically, that single instances of ‘cheating’ were not difficult to vercome. However, when I ate things I was not supposed to more than one meal in a couple days, the physicaly cravings came on really strongly. Just FYI — if it tunrs out to be even relevant for you.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 March 2006 @ 6:43 PM
“Well, don’t give us any more details about “your local co-op” in this thread, or you might land them in some hot water with the FDA.” I followed that link, and it appears to me that that edict applies only to imports. Though I’m not really clear on the difference between a “dietary supplement” and a “food additive” the former is ok to import the latter is not…. whatever.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 March 2006 @ 9:32 PM
That’s only one of the “warnings” the FDA has released on stevia.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 9:33 PM
I think that the reason that many people are overweight is due to the toxics that we accumulate in our bodies, specifically in our “fat.” It is the way that our bodies protect our internal organs from poisons, by storing them in our fat. So, in order to lose weight, the first thing that people must do is “de-tox.” There are several ways to do this. Bernard Jensen has an exceptional program called Tissue Cleansing through Bowel Management. It’s an intense program and it is difficult to work outside the home while undergoing the cleanse. However, it is quite effective. One woman passed a popcorn seed which must have been lurking in her intestines as she had not eaten popcorn for four years. A person will actually see the gooey lining in the shape of one’s intestines pass. Another great program which can be done while working is The Fast Track One-Day Detox Diet by Ann Louise Gittleman. The book’s title is very misleading. It’s actually an eleven day program of detoxing through diet. It’s easy to do, keeps blood sugar level and one is not hungry. It is even more effective when combined with liver and gallbladder cleanse Chinese herbs which can be obtained from Sensible-Health.com in Canada. (Chinese Bitter, Curcuma, Coptis and GCB). There is also a great gallbladder flush (several variations) but basically with the use of epson salt and olive oil. You will be surprised at the number of little green things that get passed!
Good luck.
Lisa
Comment by Lisa — 7 March 2006 @ 10:51 AM
Toxins are often stored in fat, but that’s not why or even how we generate fat. Fat is also very useful when you live in cold temperatures, but ultimately, fat is made from excess carbohydrate intake, and it serves primarily as an energy reserve. But in biology, few things have just one use.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 March 2006 @ 11:35 AM
Jason,
I was glancing through the Foundation Diet page and noticed that Green Beans are apparently ok to eat but Kidney beans apparently aren’t. I had thought that all legumes were out, so what about the green beans?
Jimfive
Comment by JimFive — 7 March 2006 @ 1:02 PM
I haven’t been eating green beans; I think Burday is mistaken about that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 March 2006 @ 1:09 PM
I’m planning to look at The Foundation Diet and perhaps Neanderthin this weekend. I’ve been reading as much as I can on the web regarding “paleo” food styles, and it leaves me with a few questions/observations:
1) How do Asian people tend to remain so thin and healthy with a diet centered around rice? I have never felt better than I did living in Japan for a couple years, eating huge quantities of rice, seafood, and vegetables. I had assumed that was close to an ideal diet at the time, although I secretly preferred brown rice both intellectually and experientially to the common white. Is it possible that some Asian people have a better ability to process rice (perhaps they can “ignore” the glycogen reaction?), much the same way that some groups of people handle lactose better than others? A large part of it is probably that despite amazing public transportation, Japanese people end up walking much more than Americans, but its still amazing to see how thin everyone is there despite constant consumption of fried foods, rice, and noodles.
2) Its been a grim reminder at how little we know about nutrition. I admit I know next to nothing, despite knowing (or at least having studied) much more than most people I know. I took nutrition classes in college, have been deeply involved with ethnobotany research, and have worked with nutritionists for my own health. I still have no clue as to what is best for humans to eat, though it is obvious the American diet is completely wrong. Almost any theory regarding nutrition can be easily countered if you look around enough. It probably goes without saying that federal guidelines are silly, but if you cant trust the Scientists, who can you trust? Some hippie who writes a book about juicing and nudism? Some dude on the internet? As with all things, we must ultimately trust ourselves, but MY self says that it wants pasta, potato chips, and beer, so I can’t afford to listen to that. For several years I’ve settled on using the basic philosophies of Dr Andrew Weil, as he favors combining western medicine with plenty of “alternative” influences when they make sense. He essentially advocates moderate fat, lots of variety in vegetables (including peas, soy, corn), and minimal lowfat meat such as seafood. It makes a lot of sense, but he does warn against limiting carbs, considering them important as in traditional American nutrition. The paleo diets make so much more intuitive sense, however. Its a frustrating, helpless feeling I am left with.
3) Is nori acceptable on a paleo diet? It is sea-salty, but wouldn’t paleo people along the coasts be sampling this stuff? I’m interested in items like this to help transition from my normal sandwich/wrap concepts. I’d much rather eat a turkey-nut roll wrapped in nori than plain. I do like lettuce wraps but imagine that would get old very fast. Are there any other “wrap” materials that are legit?
thanks for any thoughts,
rob
Comment by rob — 8 March 2006 @ 5:35 PM
Minimally–not enough to matter. The truth is, Asian diets are no more “healthy” than Western diets. The “obesity epidemic” of the United States is a function of the spread of fast food. Meanwhile, the stereotype of Japanese as “short” no longer holds true. Why? It was formed soon after Commodore Perry blasted his way into Tokyo Harbor, when they lived under a feudal system. The short height was a function of malnutrition. Now that they eat similar quantities to the rest of the world, they’re just as tall.
Asians are no healthier than the French, or any other well-off country … except for the United States, which is an anomoly because of all the fast food.
I hear the bodies of heroin addicts tend to demand heroin, too. Carobhydrates in general, and grains specifically, are addictive. You need to approach it as an addiction.
I would say yes, but then again, I don’t have a problem with using salt, either.
I loves me my tuna on romaine.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2006 @ 5:49 PM
I suffer from diet confusion as well - if i could offer any advice it would be to identify with a bioregion (that is, where you live - especially if you intend to continue living there), and start learning what is regionally appropriate to be eating. ‘Regionally appropriate’ could be a controversial term, but I use it to mean that where i live, deer grow and soybeans don’t (nor do soy-fed cattle). I think studying what the natives ate, what occurs and is capable of occurring very easily (through horticulture/gardening) is really clearing things up for me-and of course its a learniing process i expect to contine my whole life. i do have alot of free time to forage and preserve edibles that grow where i grow, and probably until I have that close relationship w/ most everything I eat, my relationship (with food) will be confusing.
Comment by miles — 8 March 2006 @ 6:21 PM
That can be a hard place for someone to start at. I know for me, that’s where I want to end up. If I tried starting there, I’d only succeed at ensuring my failure.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2006 @ 6:37 PM
Why are peas off-limit to foragers? I remember eating peas off the field with no ill effects.
Comment by _Gi — 8 March 2006 @ 8:36 PM
Like the others we mentioned upthread, they’re typically difficult to gather en masse. Peas are legumes.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2006 @ 9:06 PM
Hey –
hmmm… Peas are hard to gather… but pine nuts, not so much? C’mon.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 8 March 2006 @ 9:17 PM
Wild peas explode; only domesticated peas come in handy little pods.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2006 @ 9:18 PM
indians round where i live (kwakiutl) ate wild peas - called them ‘raven’s canoe’
seems paleo to me
Comment by miles — 8 March 2006 @ 10:00 PM
In moderation, perhaps. Not as a staple.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2006 @ 11:15 PM
definetely
Comment by miles — 8 March 2006 @ 11:16 PM
Jason,
How are you handling when to eat? Are you scheduling times or are you eating when you are hungry? I found that before I started my current diet that I was eating at set times (breakfast,lunch,dinner) but now I only eat when I am hungry and have found that I was eating alot when I wasn’t needing it.
Matthew p
Comment by matthew p — 9 March 2006 @ 10:21 AM
I work a desk job. I can’t just eat anytime I like. So for now, I’m forced to eat regular meals still. I know it’s not good, but it’s all I can do. Anyone who has the freedom to do otherwise, should.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 March 2006 @ 11:05 AM
Jason,
I suggest you consider the information and viewpoint contained in the following article regarding the paleo diet: http://soalive.biz/articles/plain_paleo.htm.
I’ve been on the low fat, raw vegan diet for five years, eating primarily raw fruits and vegetables, and I’ve been thriving. It’s a lot more fun, and natural, to eat sweet fruit all day and have a big salad at night, keeping the fats down. I’m old, but look young, have a young girlfriend :-).
For an FAQ on this type of raw diet, I have one available in PDF format at my website: http://tinyurl.com/87vs2. I don’t sell anything, just trying to pass the good stuff along.
Jack
Comment by Jack Whitley — 9 March 2006 @ 12:17 PM
I know a lot of vegans, but it’s anything but natural. While there are a few examples of human societies that only eat meat, there’s not one that doesn’t eat any meat at all. There are parts of our digestive tracts that are only useful for digesting meat. Of course, part of the civilized mindset is a reliance on grown crops–and that means a reliance on vegetables. That’s why all the vegetarian movements come out of civilization. It’s the kind of diet, and the kind of attitude towards food, that really promotes civilization–just like the paleo diet promotes tribalism.
The article you link to, I think, is very, very weak. For instance, it criticizes Cordain’s book for not being rigorous enough. Cordain’s book was written for laymen. The author was apparently too lazy to look up the many, many peer-reviewed papers that Cordain has written on this subject. All of the author’s objections are described, in painstaking detail, in those papers, but not in the book, because the book was written for laypeople. The criticism of “meat as ‘brain food’” is unbelievably facile–it is well-known that it was animal protein that fueled the huge jump in cranial capacity that seperates genus Australopithecus from genus Homo. The time between the Upper Paleolithic Revolution and the introduction of reductionism with the Enlightenment has not a whit to do with it. That the author could even find an objection in such an obvious rhetorical flourish highlighted both his complete lack of understanding of the relationship between nutrition and brain chemistry, and an anal-retentive, obsessive nit-picking that is the intolerably clear sign of someone who has no interest in understanding an argument, but only with rebutting it. I must admit, at that point, I stopped reading. The author clearly has very little understanding of anthropology or even basic human biology, and I couldn’t see how continuing to read would be in any way worthwhile. I do not have sufficient time to read very long articles by very stupid people, so once I realized that’s what this is, I stopped wasting my time with it.
If you have a criticism of the paleo diet written by someone who knows what he’s talking about, though, I’d be happy to read it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 March 2006 @ 12:30 PM
You opine without reference to the specifics of the raw vegan diet that I have actually been on for over five years. I made those specifics available to you. This suggests a bias or prejudice that may well be influencing you. Eating a primarily fruit diet, especially tropical fruits, does work, and appears to be optimal for the human body. I have the evidence of quite a few very healthy, athletic people who have been doing it for many, many years. You, on the other hand, are just starting the experiment, so you cannot speak from that place.
BTW, as I point out in my FAQ, the reason most raw vegan diets don’t work is because they are based on the acquisition of calories from fat, which is unsustainable. I have sympathy for them, as well.
In any event, my suggestions were meant in a friendly spirit, to help you avoid unnecessary harm and discomfort. Dealing with the next meal is a lot more pressing than many Americans and consumers of the Standard Western Diet realize until they begin imposing restrictions on themselves. Nevertheless, you can only lead the horse to water ………….
Jack
Comment by Jack Whitley — 9 March 2006 @ 12:44 PM
No I didn’t. I said the author displays a gross ignorance of evolution and biology in that article you linked to on the paleo diet. I never read a single reference to the raw food diet in there, nor did I make any reference to the raw food diet. I mentioned veganism and vegetarianism in general, but I also referred to them in general ways. The first is a well-known fact that every known society eats meat; the second was my feeling of how veganism relates to culture; as I explained in thesis #8, human societies are defined by their food. Historically, warlike, expansionistc empires have relied more on vegetables and promoted more vegetarian diets, while peaceful, rhizome societies built on consensus have been heavy meat-eaters. This is not a coincidence.
I will state my “bias” outright, though it is really more of an axiom: most things basically work. Where we see a number of “bad” things, that’s usually the myriad symptoms of one thing out of place. Take a cold. Runny nose, sore throat–these things are not necessarily related, yet we know that these are both results of the same root cause: cathcing a cold.
Hunter-gatherers enjoy a far superior standard of living than we do. 10,000 years ago, we stopped living as hunter-gatherers and adopted a primarily vegetarian diet based on grown crops. At the same time, we became fat, depressed, sickly and started dying earlier. This is not a coincidence.
Since things basically work, when you make a change and it results in a lot of bad things happening, my thinking is, you should probably change back.
Sankofa.
The cultures that do that are some of the most sickly people in the world. The world’s healthiest people eat a lot of meat. I don’t see how any diet can be “optimal” for the human body, when it neglects the many, many parts of the human body that serve no other purpose than to help digest meat. (Likewise, I don’t think an all-meat diet is terribly optimal, either)
That’s called “anecdotal evidence,” which isn’t really evidence at all. Relying on it is a logical fallacy. No, my case isn’t based on anecdotal evidence; my case is based on human evolution.
But, while we’re on the subject of anecdotal evidence, I should note that I know quite a few vegans, and quite a few people who have been on the paleo diet. The reviews I’ve heard from vegans is mixed; some say it’s great, others were nearly killed by it. Everyone I know on the paleo diet raves about it, though. But again, that’s anecdotal–it isn’t evidence.
I took it in that spirit, and I appreciate that. But I don’t think your suggestions were particularly helpful, and I wanted to make sure that other readers weighed the evidence you presented properly, as someone with less of a background in human evolution might not recognize how bankrupt that particular article is.
In the same friendly spirit, you should take a look at, “The Myths of Vegetarianism” from the Weston A. Price Foundation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 March 2006 @ 12:58 PM
Confusion reigns, again. I was not standing behind the anti-paleo article. I had just read it and thought it would be informative to read your take on it; indeed, I was interested in your views on it. After reading your response, I let that article go, since I had no stake in it.
I shifted my response to your stabs at the raw vegan diet, which to me demonstrated a clear bias, since I had provided you with a link to my FAQ, which described this particular type of raw vegan diet, based primarily on fresh fruits and vegetables, not on fats–the normal basis for the raw vegan diet. Apparently, you didn’t shift with me. My error since I inititated the communication. My FAQ is not a scholarly treatise on the subject; it’s written for someone who already has an interest in the raw vegan diet. If you have no interest, it won’t be persuasive enough to encourage you into trying it. It helps if you’ve tried all the other diets and found them wanting.
While it is true, as you point out, all of my evidence for the benefits of this diet is anecdotal at this point, at least the people who are thriving on it are currently alive. They compete successfully in world-class sporting events around the world. I should also add, from a purely anecdotal position, that since I began this way of eating and living, I haven’t had any form of illness (including a cold). Instead, I’ve lost excess weight (I’m now 160 lbs. at 6′), have lost wrinkles under the eyes and redness from rosacea on my face and nose. It’s truly amazing what happens when you get out of the way and let your body heal. Since raw foods leave no toxic residue in the body, the body is left free to heal past sins and will do so in a process that many refer to as “detox.” I giggle in happiness at the pleasure of having found this fountain of youth, even at my late stage of life. Again, I’m selling nothing; just passing along a word to the wise.
BTW, do you currently kill the animals whose meat you are consuming? Do you slit the throat or stab for the heart? Do you go through the skinning and the rest of the process involved in making the meat ready for your consumption? Does that feel natural to you? or do you purchase your meat in a tidy, clear package from the butcher?
Jack
Comment by Jack Whitley — 9 March 2006 @ 1:24 PM
Hey Jack,
I read your FAQ — I assume this was what you were pointing to? (It didn’t go directly)
Aside from the ‘primitive man didn’t start eating meat until just before the Agricultural Revolution’, I have a few comments pro and con…
First the pro — I think that a raw food diet leads to improved health in many ways. After all, you are eliminating grains and legumes all togethr, as well as all processed foods, and that is definately a good thing.
I tend to eat 2+ cups of fresh, raw vegies everyday, plus at least one piece of fresh fruit, plus cooked vegies, eggs, meat and seafood. So I agree taht raw fruits and vegies are important and healthy parts of your diet.
However, you make the claim that diabetes is caused by fat content in your diet. Seeing as how Northern peoples (the inuit etc) traditionally got 50%+ of thier calories from fat and diabetes was unheard of in thier populations until AFTER the introduction of grains and processed foods, I think the weight of evidence falls squarely on your shoulders. If you can offer any way to reconcile this, I would love to hear it.
Also, I would point out that meats, seafood, and eggs fall squarely in the realm of ‘edible raw’ so perhaps you have another reason for excluding them from your diet?
In any case, I think that it is quite possible to eat raw vegan and be healthy… the only question I have is how sustainable is it? If you do not live in the tropics, raw fruits and vegies are not available year round without shipping those products vast distances (using fossil fuels, of course) Do you have any thoughts on how one would maintain raw veganism, post crash, in a northern climate?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 9 March 2006 @ 2:26 PM
Didn’t say you did. I didn’t comment on your beliefs, or your diet. I commented on the article itself. What connection that article may or may not have to you is for you to tell us. I don’t know. I just responded to the article, that’s all.
I’m skeptical of any vegetarian diet on the grounds outlined above. I could go into detail on the subject, but it’s fairly clear to me that the human animal is quite obviously an omnivore, adapted to eating both plants and meat. I’m therefore highly skeptical of any diet that proposes going entirely with one or the other. But I wasn’t really commenting on your particular form of the raw food diet. I wasn’t even commenting on the raw food diet in general. I was merely expressing my skepticism of any vegetarian diet proposed on health grounds. Ethically, I can understand it as a protest against factory farming. I cannot accept it as a general ethical principle, though; nor can I accept that it is a “healthy” way of life when vegetarians tend to be so sickly and walk such a fine line with various forms of malnutrition, and require so many vitamin supplments.
Wouldn’t that depend entirely on the food? I wouldn’t imagine that, say, raw potatoes or grains would help very much with “detox.” (Both examples of foods that are very high in toxins, which only become safe when thoroughly cooked.)
Unfortunately, the latter. I hope to be up to the former by the end of this year, but I’m not there yet. As I said when I introduced this experiment, I’m trying to see what benefits are accrued just from eating like a forager, even if everything else in your life remains civilized.
I do think that the scenario you describe is important, and it’s something I want to do. I’m just not there yet.
I didn’t read your FAQ … did you really say that? Oh, wow, that is unbelievably, egregiously wrong. Even Australopithecus were scavengers, and it was hunting that seperated Australopithecus and Homo. It’s the pursuit of meat that’s made us human. The Agricultural Revolution was all about giving up meat, so that only the wealthy could have meat and eat like humans. Everyone else was given grain and lived a vegetarian lifestyle. That’s why they were all so sick all the time.
That’s probably the best thing the paleo diet does, too.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 March 2006 @ 3:00 PM
Janene,
In response to your first question about eskimos, I checked I couldn’t find the exact correlation you were attempting to make between diabetes and eskimo meat diet, but I did find plenty regarding the short life-span of the inuit. Because the quotes are so long, I will pick up your other two issues in a subsequent post.
From: The Health Revolution, by Ross Horne http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020121horne/020121toc.html
”That the effect of high EPA intake can be harmful and prevent blood coagulation altogether, is shown by the fact that primitive Eskimos whose diet consists mainly of fish, although not prone to heart attacks or cancer, are very prone to hemorrhaging, young and old alike, and often suffer nose bleeding lasting several days which sometimes reduces them to a state of collapse.
It has always perplexed nutritionists how primitive Eskimos and Masai natives could maintain good health as long as they do on diets consisting of almost lethal quantities of animal protein and fat. The answer to that puzzle, according to Dr Howell, is that apart from other lifestyle factors in their favor, these people, like the wild carnivorous animals, eat most of their food raw. (The name Eskimo is derived from the Cree Indian expression: “he eats meat raw”.)
Dr Howell blames the cooking of food for practically every disease known to man. He points out that raw milk, containing 35 different enzymes, is an entirely different substance to the pasteurized dairy products of today, which are known to contribute to atherosclerosis. In his paper, “Lipase versus Cholesterol” (1983), Dr Howell says:
”Lipase is destroyed by cooking. Could it be that the bad reputation of cholesterol starts in the human digestive tract when fat, divorced from its lipase companion, is forced to remain idle and unaltered in the stomach during the period of 2 or 3 or more hours after it is swallowed? While ptyalin and then pepsin digest carbohydrate and protein in the stomach, lipase is absent and fat cannot be digested. But when fat is eaten raw, with its lipase undamaged by heat, it also can be digested in the upper stomach prior to the time the acidity becomes strong enough to prevent further action.
”When unaltered fat, deprived of its lipase companion, must confront strong hydrochloric acid in the human stomach, it faces a new and harsh experience. It may be left with a structural defect, or impairment with some undesirable trademark that prevents it from being properly digested in the intestine and hence improperly metabolized when it reaches the body tissues later. It must be remembered that in both animals and humans, it is impossible to prevent fat plus lipase from engaging in initial digestion during the first hour in the stomach.
”It has been shown that even ptyalin, which is more effective on starch near neutral pH, digests in the cardiac and fundic portion of the stomach for a period approaching an hour. The lipase associated with fat, in common with other food enzymes, has a pH optimum further down on the acid side of the pH scale, and therefore can be expected to digest fat in the upper stomach (the food-enzyme stomach) for a period at least as long as ptyalin can work on starch. This happens every day in the stomachs of millions of wild animals, and for epochal periods before the cooking era, evolution contrived to make it a regular scheduled event in the human stomach. It appears, therefore, that fat is being denied its traditional digestive rites during its passage along the digestive tract. And this may well be the reason that animals and humans, eating raw fat with its lipase, are immune to cardiovascular disease. Thus a strong reason emerges why research to explore this promising area is long overdue and merits top priority for allocation of research funds.”
Health Revolution, Chapter 10
Studies of primitive Eskimos in the late 1800s and early 1900s revealed no evident cancer or heart disease among them. These robust and happy people, living in their natural state, existed almost entirely on animal protein and fat, and so impressed were some of the observers, they adopted all-meat diets themselves.
What these people overlooked was that the Eskimos’ vigorous health was enjoyed only by the young, and that by middle age, when their vital organs began to break down, the Eskimo aged rapidly, and suffered severe osteoporosis. At the same time, the Eskimos had a very low resistance to infectious diseases whenever exposed to them. Dr Samuel Hutton, one of the observers (1902-1913) in his book Health Conditions and Disease Incidence Among the Eskimos of Labrador, confirmed the fact that cancer and other diseases of civilization were not evident among the Eskimos but had this to say about their life expectancy:
”Old age sets in at fifty and its signs are strongly marked at sixty. In the years beyond sixty, the Eskimo is aged and feeble. Comparatively few live beyond sixty and only a very few reach seventy. Those who live to such an age have spent a life of great activity, feeding on Eskimo foods and engaging in characteristically Eskimo pursuits . . . Careful records have been left by the missionaries for more than a hundred years.
”Perhaps the most striking of the peculiarities of the Eskimo constitution is the tendency to hemorrhage.* Young and old alike are subject to nose bleeding and these sometimes continue for as much as three days and reduce the patient to a condition of collapse.
Vilhjalmur Stephansson spent many years among the primitive Eskimos around the turn of the century, observing them specifically for signs of cancer. He wrote the book Cancer, a Disease of Civilization and erroneously concluded that an all-animal diet was the key to their health. Later under the auspices of the US meat industry, Stephansson adopted an all-meat diet. His blood cholesterol rose to over 600 mg% and he developed serious cardiovascular disease.*
0. *The Eskimos consumed most of their food (including large amounts of fat) uncooked, and thereby to a great degree were protected from hypercholesterolemia as explained in the discussion on raw food.
Snip
It was mentioned earlier that Vilhjalmur Stephansson adopted an all-meat diet with disastrous results, all the worse because of consuming the meat cooked. A more recent study of Angmagsalik Eskimos, a community of about 1,000 on the east coast of Greenland, showed an average life span of only 27.5 years, mainly due to premature degeneration of adults. Their diet consisted of 95% flesh food. The study was by Hoygaard and Pedersen, Copenhagen 1941. This short life span appears to be worse than in the earlier reports on Eskimos elsewhere, and the writer speculates whether the Angmagsalik Eskimos had adopted the practice of cooking their food.
The Health Revolution, Chapter 15
0. *The reason for this hemorrhaging is the large quantities of EPA in the fats of the Eskimo diet, as described in Chapter 10. EPA, and the improved circulation it affords, accounts also, to a great extent, for the Eskimos’ freedom from cancer and heart attack.
Vilhjalmur Stephansson spent many years among the primitive Eskimos around the turn of the century, observing them specifically for signs of cancer. He wrote the book Cancer, a Disease of Civilization and erroneously concluded that an all-animal diet was the key to their health. Later under the auspices of the US meat industry, Stephansson adopted an all-meat diet. His blood cholesterol rose to over 600 mg% and he developed serious cardiovascular disease.*
0. *The Eskimos consumed most of their food (including large amounts of fat) uncooked, and thereby to a great degree were protected from hypercholesterolemia as explained in the discussion on raw food.
More in next post
Jack
Comment by Jack Whitley — 9 March 2006 @ 3:19 PM
The short-lived Inuit might make a better case for you, except for the fact that they live in the Arctic. I agree, as I mentioned above, that an all-meat diet is as sub-optimal as an all-vegetable one. But the fact of the matter is, the Inuit do exist, while no purely vegetarian culture has ever been found. It isn’t surprising in the least that such maladies would be present among the Inuit; they mirror the complaints and ailments that generally afflict vegetarians, too. Humans are omnivores; eliminating meat or plants entirely is never a good idea, and always leads to poor results, even if your environment is so harsh (like the Arctic) as to leave no other choice.
It was only in the past century that our own life expectancy broke 70. As mentioned in thesis #25 where I deal with forager life expectancies in depth, in 1901, the life expectancy in the United States was 49. So, until quite recently, the Inuit were still living longer than us.
Also, your claim regarded diabetes. I see nothing about diabetes. We didn’t say the Inuit didn’t live hard lives. Obviously, they do. They live in the Arctic, of course it’s going to be a hard life. But if animal fats cause diabetes, shouldn’t the Inuit be plagued with it? Instead, it’s impossible to find. Your claim does not hold up, and you’ve offered no defense of it. Instead, you’ve attacked a straw man of some Inuit utopia.
That doesn’t have a thing to do with diet. It has to do with antibodies, generated by contact with diseases. Europeans have more antibodies, because Europeans have spent more time being sick. That’s why smallpox wiped out 99% of the Native American population, but the Spaniards didn’t bring much back from the New World in terms of epidemics. We had the domesticated animals to infect us and give us nearly all of our epidemic diseases.
You’ll note the distinct lack of domesticated animals among the Inuit, save for the dog.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 9 March 2006 @ 3:40 PM
Hey Jack –
I see that all of the sources you sited have an ‘agenda’ that they are working on. It might be more useful to look at the raw data and histories before you buy everything that they say.
For example:
This from a study done in 1902 - 1913. Are you aware of the average life expetancy of Americans in the same time period?