Free the Animal

Wise Words from Primal Wisdom

It was a weekend too busy for blogging, with a couple of home projects, getting started and well into Mark's book, The Primal Blueprint (so far: I think it's going to be the 'go to' book), and a little cooking.

There's quite a number of interesting comments on my last post that figured largely on the subject of cholesterol. I think it's important to understand that we are all different and aren't necessarily going to have the same lipid numbers even on largely the same diets. I see lots of signs that people are stressing out about it. They are feeling great, have dropped a ton of weight, the one big sign they are on the right track is the typical huge drop of triglycerides, but then they go and worry and beat themselves up because total cholesterol went up, and/or they are not getting the numbers they want in LDL or HDL. Some have gone on to get NMR LipoProfile testing done and are not happy about their particle size and mix.

So, with that in mind, let me paste here some wise words from reader and commenter Don Matesz, who also blogs at Primal Wisdom.

Let's not forget that Dr. Ravnskov has pointed out that people with higher cholesterol live the longest.

http://westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html

And as Mary Enig says, a total blood lipoprotein count between 200 and 240 is normal, not a disease process. 

http://westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/fats_phony.html

In any population, all measurable characteristics vary within a normal range in a Bell Curve fashion. Just as some people are shorter than average and some taller than average, some have smaller and some have larger feet, and some have lower and some have higher total lipoproteins. Thus, "high" cholesterol is not by itself indicative of a disease process any more than above average height indicates a disease process.

I have read that taller people have, in general, a lower life expectancy than shorter people (don't have the reference). Assuming this is true, it would not give warrant for height reduction surgery for taller than average people. Similarly, even if it could be demonstrated that people with lower total lipoprotein counts did live longer, that would not give warrant to subject individuals with "above average" total lipoprotein counts to artificial cholesterol reduction.

This gets back to the whole issue of reductionism. Tim's doctor thinks a blood cholesterol of 226 is a disease process. He completely ignores the context (patient) in which this occurs. Rather than evaluating the patient, he reduces the patient to a lab number. He wants to treat the cholesterol, not the patient.

We would be wise to keep all of this in mind.

Unbridled Reductionism vs. Common Sense

I get lots of interesting questions. For instance, the other day I was in the 40F deg. cold plunge at San Jose Athletic Club -- a mere 5-minute walk from the loft -- and while coming up on the minute mark and my intended time to get out, another guy got in and asked if I hadn't lost quite a bit of weight.

I ended up staying in and chatting for over five minutes about things Primal, Paleo, and "Ev-Revolutionary," not feeling a bit cold.

But the questions were remarkable, in that he could see the transformation in front of his very eyes -- which meant he also had no reason to doubt my performance gains in the gym either (and he could just go ask my trainer, Mike, anyway). But I guess they had to come...

Fasting? Doesn't that "harm your metabolism?"
Answer by question: does it harm the metabolisms of wild animals if they don't always get their kill?...

"Skipping" breakfast? Don't you have to "fuel" the body for the day?
Answer by question: are you saying that I should eat when I'm not hungry, and, do you observe wild animals eating that way?... 

"Only" two meals per day, usually? Don't you need to keep your "nitrogen balance" up so that you don't waste lean tissue?
Answer by question: do wild animals save up their kills and forages in order to divide into six annoying little meals per day?...

No cardio? Don't you have to get your heart rate up into the "fat burning zone?"
Answer by question: do you see wild animals on treadmills or in any way behaving as though they would have the remotest use for one?

Of course, this could go on and on, but hopefully you see the underlying principle at work. Principles save time, folks, because once you see them vindicated over and over, you can gradually raise the bar, over time, such that the burden of proof becomes greater, and you can dismiss out of hand propositions that clearly violate the principle.

I do this a lot, lately. There's so much out there now that is the product of unbridled reductionism in the service of bias confirmation; i.e., The Conventional Wisdom. So, for example, we can easily understand from an almost obvious, self-evident (a priori) point of view that it would be entirely logical for nature to have evolved very complex pathways in many species, including humans, that provide for essential nourishment from the body's own tissues when needed. Everyone talks about "fat burning," but the body can also burn lean tissue (for protein), and even bone (for calcium and perhaps other essential minerals).

But now, since we've been subjected to the conventional "wisdom" for decades that fat is the greatest nutritional evil, everyone is obsessed about "burning fat," "preserving lean tissue," and even, now, preserving bones from leaching minerals. Of course, no one seems to stop to ponder why they aren't afraid of releasing all that arterycloggingsaturatedfat into their bloodstream when they get into the "fat burning range."

So what happens? Reductionism happens, which, on its face is a worthwhile endeavor: "an approach to understand the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things" (Wikipedia) That's a good method generally, but then there's the unbridled sort of reductionism where a complex, integrated, and logical view of a system is set aside while sweeping cautions are leveled against perfectly normal behavior that we observe in nature all the time, like not getting three squares per day, not eating when hungry, not eating every two - three waking hours, and not running on treadmills or in circles.

Here's an example that's a little different from the above, which focuses primarily on fat burning and an obsessive fear with metabolizing even the slightest gram of lean body mass. I received this very respectful question in email from a reader.

I'd like to preface this by stating that I'm very grateful for the information that people like you and Mark Sisson freely provide to those who are trying to live and eat in a healthy, natural manner.

My question is concerning the fact that Vitamin K2 protects against osteoporosis. You stated that things like animal fats and lean meats are good sources of K2. Since K2 protects against osteoporosis, then it's logical to say that increased meat consumption would preclude bone breakdown; however, I have also read other literature stating that a high protein diet -- such as a diet high in meat content -- would also cause the blood pH to be in a persistent, subclinically acidotic state. The thinking is that this would cause leeching of calcium from the bones, which leads to calciuria and decreased bone mineral density.

I'm thinking that there is a gap in knowledge with respect to the latter point, but can you explain the logical disconnect between the two?

Well I must say that reader Sun hit the nail on the head: logical disconnect. Now, without knowing anything else, does it make any sense that one pathway to good health is also the pathway to decline? I touched on this in my Vitamin K2 entry the other day:

So we're in a sort of bizarre estoppel situation, where they're now finding important nutritional benefits for preventing and reversing heart disease, and these super nutrients are found primarily in the things we've been told will give us heart disease. A perfect storm of modern ignorance.

And digging through the medical literature can become even more confusing, and these are just things I got today, only one of which I explicitly searched for:

Maybe vitamin K increases bone mineral density (BMD) in some people.

Or, maybe it doesn't.

Or, maybe vitamin D is also critical, synergistic.

Or, maybe what's really important is the actual end fracture risk, not bone density, implying the logical, that BD is not the only factor in fractures.

It's enough to make your head spin. Now, here's one I specifically went searching for, but really, only as a means of showing you that the fundamental logic, the Paleo Principle, is sound. Of course, eating meat in abundance is great and essential for your bones, just as one would think from merely looking around and observing nature.

Nutrition plays a major role in the development and maintenance of bone structures resistant to usual mechanical loadings. In addition to calcium in the presence of an adequate vitamin D supply, proteins represent a key nutrient for bone health, and thereby in the prevention of osteoporosis. In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health by inducing chronic metabolic acidosis which in turn would be responsible for increased calciuria and accelerated mineral dissolution. This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures. The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological "cascade" that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, many experimental and clinical published data concur to indicate that low protein intake negatively affects bone health. Thus, selective deficiency in dietary proteins causes marked deterioration in bone mass, micro architecture and strength, the hallmark of osteoporosis. In the elderly, low protein intakes are often observed in patients with hip fracture. In these patients intervention study after orthopedic management demonstrates that protein supplementation as given in the form of casein, attenuates post-fracture bone loss, increases muscles strength, reduces medical complications and hospital stay. In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures. As to the increased calciuria that can be observed in response to an augmentation in either animal or vegetal proteins it can be explained by a stimulation of the intestinal calcium absorption. Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation. Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures.

Now, did you catch the unbridled reductionism in the above? "This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures."

It's all so unnecessary.

HED: High Everything Diet (If eating garbage is your problem, just eat more of it)

Coming to one or more of your favorite blogs' comments section soon, if the messianic crusade on Peter's Hyperlipid blog is any indication. The comment thread in question begins here. He has also hit Dr. Eades on this post (there's no comment links, but the comments in question begin at 25 April 2009, 23:24). Now, Stephan's blog.

In a nutshell, from one of his comments:

HED = high-carbs + high-fat + high-calories

HED = SAD - sugar - HFCS - PUFAs - TFAs

I'm not going to recount all the specifics, as those are contained in the comments -- over and over -- if you're interested.

I've said before that I don't think carbohydrate is the primary problem (for those without type 2 or borderline, or obsese), and the Kitavans and other H-G groups seem to prove that. In that regard, this HED does seem to eliminate at least some of what migh destroy a high-carb munching Kitavan's health, i.e., refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, processed vegetable oils (HEDers seem also not too fond of omega-3 PUFA -- the Ray Peat influence) and trans fatty-acids.

He has also posted that lots of the low-carbers ignore the Kitavans, which is true. I don't think that's the case for all the paleo-like eaters, and certainly not true for me, as I've often written that healthful diets exist from equator to arctic circle, from high carb intake (Kitavans, Kuna and others -- mostly from starch) to virtually zero carb (Inuit).

What I think is of far more importance is to find the diet or life way that works for you. First, begin with a principle: Real Food and nothing but Real Food. Next, attempt to determine where your genetic ancestry evolved in the last 50,000 years since coming out of Africa. Did your ancestors evolve in tropical regions with plenty of starches and fruits available year round, in regions with limited starches and fruits only seasonally, or with pretty much nothing but meat and animal fat most of the time?

Start there and go with how you feel as your first and primary authority. It's a process. There is great variability, so you may be more adaptable to one macronutrient mix than another, or, it may not make much of a difference. Some are going to feel better on high carb, and some on zero carb, and some in-between.

But never forget the Real Food principle. That's a safe haven and you just can't go wrong.

The HED people are saying, in essence, that if you don't eat grains in abundance (e.g., replacing the cals with more meat, fat, veggies, fruits, nuts), that you're "stupid" and that you're damaging your health. That's nonsense. It violates a sound and proven principle (Real Food), it's -- so far -- based on short term anecdotes and nothing more, and it proposes a one-size-fits-all diet.

Perhaps most annoying of all is that -- at least in the case of the comment crusader -- they seem to take great stock in each and every anecdote of great health achieved (over the last weeks and couple of months) on this HED, yet discount the thousands of low-carb and paleo anecdotes recounted over decades. Everyone here knows my story, including that I've lost 50ish pounds so far, dropped my BP from 160/100 to normal ranges, have HDLs in the 130s, Trigs in the 40s, cured and reversed gum disease, and have rid myself of a number of prescription medications that I have been on for years, and in one case, decades.

But I'm not munching on unlimited bread, pasta, bagels, pizza and pancakes, so I've actually damaged my health, you see. I am unclean; unwashed; unsaved. I'm ruined. I need salvation: HED, I repent; please save me.

A final note about that last paragraph. He -- over and over -- stipulates that those things are only a problem in a low fat environment and that eating them with plenty of animal fat solves the problem. Well, I was never a low fat dieter, and have probably been over 40% fat most of my entire life, mostly from animal sources. I was never much of a candy or junk food muncher, but I certainly did eat lots and lots and lots of bread (with huge mounds of meat, cheese, and veggies between), pizzas (all meat, usually), always used lots of butter and drank plenty of milk and other dairy sources of fat.

Grains ruined my health, and getting away from them while eating unlimited meat, fowl, fish, animal fat, coconut milk & oil, veggies and reasonable fruits and nuts restored my health.

This post is intended as a public service announcement, aimed primarily at those who, for lack of a good explanation, seem to be influenced by religious crusades. So just remember: Animals don't need gurus. Be your own Master and Control your own life.

"The Original Low-Carb Diet"

Just a quick hit, as I said earlier that I'd review Jimmy Moore's interview with Dr. Loren Cordain once I'd listened to it.

First off, I highly recommend it. The best parts concern anti-nutrients and toxins in foods that a low-carber might eat, because the focus is on low carb and not on foods we evolved to eat (and the "foods" we should avoid like the plague). In other words, low-carbers often don't experience the sorts of health benefits paleos do, because many eat stuff like this and other modern concoctions. In essence, many are stuck in the same place as the low-fatters. You can only eat so much protein, the upper limit being around 1/3 of total energy. So, the remainder is going to be some combination of fat and carbohydrate. Consequently, the low-fatters are necessarily high-carbers, and industry has seen to it that they have plenty of low-fat processed products loaded with sugar and other crap. Conversely, industry is seeing to the low-carbers as well, giving them all sorts of processed "food" with cheap ingredients nobody ate for the 2.5 million years preceding the last 10,000 years. That would be all fine and good, but we're talking about foods that are literally poison to some degree for most -- maybe even all -- people, causing low-level inflammation below the pain threshold that goes unchecked for decades. To make matters worse, many of these grain-based products promote the production of small, dense LDL (VLDL) and oxidized LDL, the very thing that acts upon inflamed arteries to form plaques.

The good thing about the paleo principle is that it's a principle, not a description for a macronutrient ratio. As such, you could never call this low-carb bread paleo. Look at the ingredients:

whole grains, bean, seeds of kamut, spelt, wheat, rye, millet, lentils, eggs, soy protein, flax, sesame, quinoa, amaranth, wheat gluten, 7 grain flakes, oat bran, sea salt & yeast.

So, while it meets the qualifications of a low-carb diet, very nearly all of the ingredients -- and the top 8 in terms of volume -- are not things anyone would have consumed in any important quantity prior to 10,000 years ago. Virtually all plants have toxins, but our ancestors spent 2.5 million years in a push-pull struggle with natural selection to adapt to most of them.

Now, everyone will want to know: yes, Cordain is still beating the "lean meat" mantra, though he doesn't seem to be dwelling on it, as least not to the obsessive extent he did in his book. And, he's still justifying this stance on the basis of the total fat proportion of the total edible content of wild animals, while relying on the assumption that primitives would have eaten entire carcasses, one by one, start to finish, nose to hoof to tail, rather than being wasteful and selective, as virtually all predators are -- which is why there's a whole wild kingdom of scavengers in virtually every ecological niche.

One notable difference from his book, published in 2000 I believe, is that he's now recommending supplementing vitamin D for all, regardless of diet and he says 2,000 IU per day out to be the lower limit. I agree.

No mention of "Paleo" skinless chicken breasts, "Paleo" canola oil, or "Paleo" diet soft drinks, thank god.

All in all, it's a great interview, Loren Cordain is a hero, and Jimmy Moore is a superstar with his podcasts that you can subscribe to on iTunes.

The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution

I've been reading The 10,000 Year Explosion over the last several weeks, nearing completion. It's been a while since I found a book so interesting and compelling. In contrast, though Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories is a watershed science of nutrition book that has yet to see the popularity it deserves and, I believe, will receive in time -- I was already a "convert." So while I leaned a lot of specifics, nothing was particularly surprising.

This is not the case for the former. In fact, it has and is challenging some things that I, and I believe the "Paleo community" in general, hold dear. On the other hand, I was already going to some of these places. For example, I don't think it's primarily about the carbohydrate load, anymore (within reason: two Big Gulps per day and an order of Crispy Cremes is not what I mean). In fact, I have been pondering a name for my own particular approach to diet, exercise, and intermittent fasting, and I always come back to: The Ancestral Life. Why? Because what you can tolerate and what makes you at your best is not determined by the fact that you're an H. Sapiens, with a particular genome, but rather, party to one eventual group or another that left Africa 60,000 years ago, branched off, experienced great survival success in wildly different environments, and it's all written in your genes. So: where did you come from, say, in the last 50,000 years?

A personal case in point: I am of NW and Central Euro (Germanic) descent, my wife of American and South-Central American Indian (specifically: Mexican). Consequently, they lived for thousands of years in relative isolation, not mixing genes with tradesmen, travelers, or immigrants from other far distant regions (as Euros, Asians, and Middle Easterners -- broadly speaking -- did), and genetically adapting to different foods and environments. It has only been hundreds of years that their genome has become reacquainted with the descendants of their ultimate ancestors, the first being Spaniards. This is anecdotal, but my wife does not seem to be responding to the leaning nature of my high-fat diet, as I do -- in fact she has put on some weight. There may be other things at work, including the ass-kicking workouts, and I'll eventually sort it all out, but what it is not is formulaic, as though we're all cut from the same genome.

I rather like to do a few substantive book reviews whilst I'm reading something worthy, rather than a general wrap up upon conclusion. So, this may just be the the first of a couple or more hits & run of what may be more -- maybe not -- substantive partial reviews. If you saw my Facebook and Tweet updates earlier, then you saw that I was spending my first afternoon of the year at the pool, scooping up Vit D. This is the book I was reading, and so began to think of some passages I clipped some days back.

First, I must back up to 1993, 16 years ago. I picked up a book by James Dale Davidson entitled The Great Reckoning: Protecting Yourself in the Coming Depression. Lest you think that he was so insightful as to predict what may be happening now, that's not it. In fact, in terms of investment advice, he missed by a million miles. But the book was still vastly interesting. It looked at all of modern history from a geo-political standpoint, i.e., how things like the stirrup (mobilize an armored army on horseback), gunpowder and assorted other things changed the world and set up a sort of ebb & flow, a push-pull between centralized or distributed control of violence (that which largely runs the modern world). Of everything I read, there was a single brief passage that so resonated with me that I have recounted it in paraphrase dozens and dozens of times in writing and in conversations over the last 16 years. It was about the invention of government, of the modern State.

It goes something like this. Before agriculture, people hunted, gathered, and migrated -- probably often following herds of animals. They only "owned" what they could carry, which wasn't a lot. Consequently: little to nothing owned, so nothing to bother to steal. Populations were small, averaging 30 members. Along comes agriculture and, suddenly, people have to stick around to tend to fields, they begin to accumulate wealth, as they don't have to pick up and move all the time. It's not a great leap to imagine that some preferred to remain hunter-gatherers, but with a new prey: other humans.

So, they systematically raid settlements of other humans who have stores of grains, livestock, and other valuable things they have acquired or fashioned. But there's an inherent problem: disorganization among thieves. What happens if, after a four-day trek to loot the village you "visited" six months ago, you find that they have just been hit a few days prior by another "enterprising" band of thieves and there's nothing left worth stealing? Moreover, you're smart: you want to milk them, not kill them. You have a "long-term view."

What. Do. You. Do?

There's only one logical solution. You protect them from future marauders, but at a price (for you and your friends). This, my friends, is the ancient root of government: a protection racket by non-productive thieves for the benefit of themselves and other thieves.

Isn't it great to see that some things just don't change, even in 10,000 years?

OK, let's fast forward to a clip in The 10,000 Year Explosion that I recently read.

The sedentary lifestyle of farming allowed a vast elaboration of material culture. Food, shelter, and artifacts no longer had to be portable. Births could be spaced closer together, since mothers didn't have to continually carry small children. Food was now storable, unlike the typical products of foraging, and storable food could be stolen. For the first time, humans could begin to accumulate wealth. This allowed for nonproductive elites, which had been impossible among hunter-gatherers. We emphasize that these elites were not formed in response to some societal need: They took over because they could.

Combined with sedentism, these developments eventually led to the birth of governments, which limited local violence. Presumably, governments did this because it let them extract more resources from their subjects, the same reason that farmers castrate bulls. Since societies were generally Malthusian, with population growth limited by decreasing agriculture production per person at higher human density, limits on interpersonal violence ultimately led to a situation in which a higher fraction of the population died of infectious disease or starvation.

[Emphasis added]

So, here you have the root of my decade-plus-long personal impatience with voters and voting.

I don't "vote" for thieves; neither do I lobby them or send them letters. As a matter of fact: I would rather that the full and complete consequences of their thievery bear full fruit, rather than persist in generation after generation of public delusion about who they are and what they're about. And I'm happy to take my chances with the obvious potential global pain that would cause.

Look Paleo guys and gals: you did it for grains, legumes, vegetable oils, refined concentrated sugars and their highly processed derivatives. Why do you stop there? Government is an even newer "innovation" than agriculture. It is far more toxic, if you ask me.

[/soapbox]

Alright, here's a final interesting passage. Heretofore, everything I've read (including the foregoing mentioned Reckoning) sees modern history in terms of cultural change and technological innovation, as though human evolution stopped with the advent of agriculture rather than continued or, as 10,000 Year sets out to show, actually accelerated.

Over time, if our argument is correct, farming peoples should have become better adapted to their agricultural diets in many ways, and we might expect that some of the skeletal signs of physiological stress would have gradually decreased. Although such genetic adaptation clearly occurred, cultural changes that improved health must have occurred as well. For example, the adoption of new crops and new methods of food preparation would have improved the nutritional quality of the average peasant's diet. Of course, some of those new methods (polishing rice) and new crops (sugarcane)-actually made things worse. Adaptive change is slow and blind, but it is also sure and steady. Cultural change is less reliable.

But cultural change is important. Although many traditional archaeologists and anthropologists will probably see us as biological imperialists out to explain everything that ever happened with our pet genetic theories, we firmly believe that cultural change-new ideas, new techniques, new forms of social organization-were powerful influences on the historical process. We're simply saying that the complete historical analyst must consider genetic change as well as social, cultural, and political change. Once a list of battles and kings seemed plenty good enough, but life keeps getting more complicated.

[emphasis added]

Well, I don't know how long it will take for average people to become super tolerant to grains -- much less to the point that they're nutritionally superior to, say, a big fat steak, but I'll take my steak. You all can do your part for the collective genome, if you like, but I'll take my big fat steak, 90% saturated fat coconut oil, my butter, ghee, lard, fatty fish, and my high-fat meat & fish sauces.

Are You a Trained or Practiced Animal?

Recently, owing to a post by Billy Beck on his blog, I've been mulling over the concept of "training."

They're trained, you see. This relieves them of the burden of thinking. This is especially handy for them in moral tests: they don't have to pause to evaluate the use of force. There is a training maxim that goes, "In a crisis, you don’t rise to the level of the situation, you sink to the level of your training." There is a very good Objectivist maxim that says, "Man is the only creature that can sink below his nature." Behold the terrible fix of these two X-lines on a graph: the ascent of anti-thought where thinking is most crucial -- the application of force -- and the sink of humans to the level of robots. These two lines cross at a concept of "training", which in this context and these applications is a rote substitution of formula in place of actual cognitive integration and ethical evaluation of all the facts at hand.

This really resonates with me and has wide application (and I think Billy's application to politics and the use of State force is spot on). We do use the concept of training quite a lot, and in particular, when we're talking about our workouts at the gym and so forth. So, there's an element of validity to it, I thought. Then I though otherwise.

Are wild animals trained? Of course not, and that goes to the principal distinction of wild vs. domesticated animals, or pets.

I also realized that my wife and I have never bothered to spend much time "training" our animals. I prefer to see them in a more natural state of behavior, and to actually take both verbal and non-verbal cues. I have never been overly impressed with animals that have been rigorously trained to jump through all sorts of hoops.

And so then I began to wonder at what concept we could arrive, where we take the good part of "training," i.e., acquired physical and mental skills, and ditch the bad, i.e., robotic unthinking. And that's when I arrived at a concept I believe fits the bill: practice.

Rather than training ourselves, like robotic zoo animals, performance animals, and State agents of force, how about we practice our skills in differing environments and circumstances, such that we are able to apply our skills to all of our perceptions, as gathered by our senses and integrated into a one-off context of reality at that moment in time -- a moment and circumstances different than any other, before or after?

Imagine the hunter-gatherer as master of his domain with varying terrain, night, day, hot & cold weather, seasons, snow, ice, scorching heat, migrating animals, and all of these things and more combine into an impossibly complex array of possible scenarios at any given time. Now, add to that the element of survival, and how it's all up to him and perhaps a few fellow hunters (no social "safety net").

If he was "trained," rather than being superbly practiced over years and years to adeptly respond to and act (apply skills, knowledge, experience and principles to a moment-in-time context of facts and reality) in a wide range of different survival situations, then he would as surely perish as would a trained dog set into the wild.

"Training" is for domesticated, zoo humans. The wild human animal is highly practiced, competent, and independent.

Rational Animal Philosophy

While going through reams of links this morning to come up with a handful for you, I felt I had to make this one a separate entry, thanks to Chris Highcock at Conditioning Research, always a great source of useful diet and exercise information.

One of the aspects of my approach to the "Free the Animal" theme is that we are, very much indeed: animals. Our technological, industrial, and social development is such that we have lost sight of that core, fundamental identification. We have literally forgotten who we really are, at root, base, and foundation. Look around you at all the decrepit, overweight, constantly grazing, feeding, shopping bodies. That's the result of failing to live by one's true animal nature.

So, here is a fabulous introduction into who the Animal inside you really is, by Frank Forencich of Exuberant Animal. There are, I think, three very core aspects to his presentation. First is the loss of sensory input that we're all subject to. Some may recall past blogs where I talked about walking outside barefoot daily in summer (or in Vibrams). What was astounding to me, at first, was the sensory overload. But, after a period of adjustment, it becomes normal and you then realize that you have actually heightened your senses in a very fulfilling way.

Next is how our social arrangements are about as far from what we were designed to be as possible, and I say: this is why collectivist political institutions will never work (for me) -- though we may yet somehow manage to physically and neurologically evolve into the social equivalent of ants & bees. It is for this reason that I eschew modern politics utterly and completely. A primal hunter-gatherer used to accounting for the values and actions of about 30 other people -- having real and important influence in his group -- would quite rightly find the notion of voting (getting a 1 in 200,000,000th say in his own affairs) absurd. He might even cut off your head for suggesting such an unnatural thing (and I wouldn't blame him).

Finally, Frank does a fabulous job of demolishing the modern notion of the mind-body dichotomy with a very interesting approach: body-centric education. I previously blogged about mind-body dichotomies.

Exuberant Animal's Frank Forencich gives hope to the modern man (and woman) from Lauren Muney on Vimeo.

Do You Need to Gain Weight? Try Paleo

For the most part, because it's the chief problem most face by far, people come and follow this and other blogs in order to lose weight (fat), recompose their bodies (lean to fat ratio), and to maintain.

But for a (lucky?) few, that's not the problem. Rather, they are skinny and can't seem to add muscle mass. For that, here's Nathan's story.

~~~

Two years ago, I tipped the scales at just over 130lbs. I'm 5'10" and living in Southern California, that didn't make for me feeling especially great about myself when hanging out at the beach. Don't get me wrong, I was not horribly depressed with the way I looked or anything, I just knew I could be better. I have always been the skinny guy, was sick of it and wanted some shape. I started hitting the gym 4x/week and following the "standard" bodybuilding diet of eating as much as I could, with very little effort to make sure it was quality food. Last summer, I was at a solid 150 and quite pleased with myself. On Oct. 1 I crashed my motorcycle and that quickly led into the holiday season, so I went for three months without going to the gym. In the meantime, I had been reading your site and began taking steps toward a paleo-style diet.

Immediately after Christmas, I started in on the paleo diet in earnest. On Jan. 5 I started hitting the gym again, still 4x/week, this time with a modified paleo diet and the difference has been amazing. Before, when doing a tough leg workout I used to get nauseous and/or lightheaded nearly every time from the strain. Neither has happened once since starting up again in January and I've been hitting it harder than before. I only rest 30 to 45 seconds between my sets except for when I switch exercises, when I grab a drink of water and then immediately start back up. My workouts went from an average of 60-75 minutes to 30-40 minutes and are much more intense. I have also been hitting the major muscle groups harder, as you suggest, to help stimulate the release of GH.

I was gaining lean mass previously, but was also gaining a bit of fat along with it. That is no longer the case. I checked my weight after the first week of lifting, 150 dead on. I am not looking to get huge, 170 or so should be good for me depending on how I look and feel. I have not checked weight since after that first week and won't until my birthday in April, but I have seen some great progress in six short weeks, much more than I saw in twice the time with my previous diet. Three of my shirts, which fit perfectly at the New Year, are now too small and I have yet to lose any definition in my abs, which is my only gauge for whether or not I'm gaining fat.

I just wanted to relate that this lifestyle will not only work for those who wish to lose weight, but for those who want to gain weight as well. It is a far cry from the "standard" bodybuilding diet of constant eating, but I have found it to be much more effective... not to mention easier to stick to. All the constant eating takes up lots of time. Instead I am eating good food when I'm hungry, feeling great and seeing great results.

Thank you for all the great information. People I talk to still think I'm slightly crazy but there is no denying the way I feel and the results I see.

~~~

Thanks for the great story, Nathan; and congratulations to you for listening to your body and making that your primary guide. It never surprises me. That's because this blog is about the principles of evolutionary biology. That is our guiding light. It should be no surprise that when living in accordance with sound principles delivers the goods every time.

We Live in a Zoo

What a day for a title like that, eh? What, with about a million cattle and sheep herding around D.C., trying to get an angle on how they get to be led around by the nose for the next four years...

Alas, politics isn't the core subject of this post. Rather, I would like to introduce you to someone worth paying attention to. I got an email from this gentleman last week introducing himself, and I'm sure glad he did. His name is Erwan Le Corre and he operates MovNat.

The “zoo” is a modern, global and growing phenomenon generated by the powerful combination of social conventions, technological environment and commercial pressures. Increasingly disconnected from the natural world and their true nature, zoo humans are suffering physically, mentally and spiritually.

Are you experiencing chronic pains, are you overweight, do you often feel depressed or do you suffer from frequent illnesses and general lack of vitality? These symptoms indicate that you are experiencing the zoo human syndrome. Modern society conditions us to think that this is normal and unavoidable.

We don’t think so. Our true nature is to be strong, healthy, happy and free.

We have designed a complete education system that empowers zoo humans to experience their true nature.

That stuck an immediate chord with me, as several days earlier I had compared how we had gone soft as humans with the way domestic dogs are ill-equipped for survival on their own, unlike their genetic ancestor, the wolf.

Now, what I'd really like you to take a look at is his video. There is also a YouTube version (of significantly less quality; Later: turns out there's a 'watch in HD' link that is of superb quality) if your particular browser doesn't bring up the one on Erwan's site. The thing to take away from that is to notice how natural and functional are all the movements. This, folks, is the Gold Standard for exercising the body designed by evolution.

Finally, Chris Highcock at Conditioning Research came across Erwin as well, and went and conducted an interview that's very much worth the read. Given the political theme of the day -- the inauguration and replacement of the 'old bad king' with a 'new good king,' and with everyone stumbling over everyone else to see who can more quickly and readily dispense with their individualism in exchange for "hope" and duty to the collective, I particularly liked this bit in Erwan's interview.

The zoo is not just an environment, it is a phenomenon, a process, which is designed to keep you a captive of both external and internal cages. It is something that conditions many of your behaviours: clearly it is to me a domestication system, no less. The zoo impairs our ability to experience our true nature which is to be strong, healthy, happy and free. [...]

But I personally have a problem with morals or ethics when it comes to deciding what is good or what is not good for me, what is done and what's not, what I should do or what society expects me to do or would like to impose to me as some form of duty.

After all, a tool is useful, a cog in the machine is useful right? I accept no institutional duty. Free will is the most precious thing in my eyes. If I choose to be helpful to others, which I in fact often do because I tend to like others, it is because I decide so and not because I have to. The problem is, many people often think of altruism as sacrificing oneself or one's resources unconditionally for others, even for those that are total strangers to you or even if it's going to be seriously detrimental to yourself. I prefer to impose no moral code in MovNat and leave it up to each individual to decide for themselves what is best when it comes to investing their energy or risking their physical integrity for others, because each situation is different. MovNat training will greatly increase your preparedness so that, in time of need, you have the ability to respond efficiently to practical challenges.

Notice this grand distinction, folks: utility is amoral. Pay attention whenever you hear or read of a justification for something on the grounds that it's useful, functional, efficient. Think really hard.

That, my friends, is the essence of individualism, and there could be no greater contrast between that individualism and those old, tired, collectivist ideas straight form the zookeeper's manual -- hauled out and polished up for those ignorant of the failures of history -- delivered by the new Zookeeper-in-Chief, himself.

In fact, I wonder if 'zoo' is even the right metaphor for what we're going to get, now. I think ant farm or bee hive might be a little bit more fitting.

Failure

We talk a lot here about The Animal, which means: don't forget about it. Yea, we're humans, but to command nature, we must first obey it (thanks, Francis Bacon). So, we're devoted to the obeying nature part of the equation. We have to eat -- a lot -- so that's pretty much the focus.

But we also celebrate the human spirit. The way of the Luddite holds no sway, here, though a web surfer could indeed get that cursory impression.

The other day I was downtown and saw a poster for a free public talk at Stanford to be given by Daniel C. Dennett. The subject of the talk was "Free Will Via the Evolution of Why." That's what I call a ponderable, as philosophically speaking, I'm a materialist (everything is ultimately matter / energy) and I tend to recoil from various mysticisms (soul, Eastern unity or oneness; take your picks). I think we either have genuine free will, or our belief in it it tantamount to free will. Moreover, values seem to transcend determinism. I just think we're highly complex; end of story, but let's go ahead and figure out how complex, if we can. So when I read that, the first thing I realized is I couldn't think of a single instance where I observed a non-human animal to be inquisitive in the sense of "why," but only for other "mundane" reasons like: is there food, humping, or security, there? But not the eternal question: why? So, perhaps Dr. Dennett is onto something. I'll save that to ponder.

In the meantime, again emphasizing the human aspect of the animal, please do enjoy this short video on Failure as the Key to Success, courtesy of Honda. My buddy and business partner, Chris, sent me that.

Meat & Morality

One feature of the hit & run vegans (who sometimes comment here) is that they always eagerly provide a link to photos of feedlots, slaughterhouses, and so on. That's their lazy way. Of course, it's effective.

1 in 200 Children are Vegetarian

Nichole Nightingale, 14, was exposed to a YouTube video that showed the graphic details of how chickens are slaughtered for meat. The letter ended with an invitation to visit the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for more information.

This information prompted Nightingale to become a vegan – meaning she consumes no animal meat or animal products such as eggs or milk.

In complete defiance of human evolutionary biology, the "wise & experienced" 14-year-old decides to eat the diet of long-extinct pea-brained hominids and chimpanzees. Just wonderful.

Not to drag on, because frequent commenter Monica Hughes, PhD biology, has a pretty wide ranging post on the issue. Go read it. As far as the photos go, at the end of her post she quotes Garrett Hardin.

In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one knows the total system in which his act appears. "One picture is worth a thousand words," said an ancient Chinese; but it may take ten thousand words to validate it. It is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essence of an argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally -- in words.

In today's increasingly graphic world, this is an identification worth burning into your consciousness. Words can be weasely and manipulative enough. Photographs lacking all context are a recipe for a snake pit. Don't allow yourselves to be anyone's fool.

While I have always regarded the treating of animals humanely and with respect a great value, and thus regard feedlots and other similar operations as shameful, I regard the use of photographs and hyperbole as means to manipulate people into ignoring their own biological imperatives for the sake of propaganda to be despicable.

But what can you expect from people who eat the diet of long extinct pea-brained hominids?

Vitamin Supplements - Part Three

Part One

Part Two

Part Four

In part three of what will now most assuredly be four parts total, I'm going to show why, if following a Paleo diet, you probably don't require supplementation (with a few exceptions). Whereas, if you eat bread, pasta, sugary foods, rice, cereals, corn products, processed foods and such, you very likely have numerous vitamin deficiencies under the surface. In your case, supplementation might be a good idea indeed.

Now, unless you're a Paleo eater who has already seen this sort of thing, prepare to be shocked. You grain eaters: prepare for great chagrin, because you are about to see in living color how nutritionally bankrupt your diet is; you know, the one based on "lots of servings of 'healthy' whole grains." But the honest truth and hard reality is that if you eat grains, beans, rice, breads, cereals and so on as daily staples, you are getting awful nutrition. That's a fact; not an opinion. Let me go a step further: if you give any of your kids this crap as daily staple, it's tantamount to starving them. I'm serious.

In Loren Cordain's book, The Paleo Diet, he has a slightly flawed but fabulous illustration of how radically awful and crappy the "Standard American Diet" (SAD) is in terms of nutritional content, contrasted with how radically amazing the Paleo diet is. Again: this is fact, people, not speculation. Grain eaters, and even vegetarians and vegans who eat processed veggie foods: your guys' diets suck batsh*t off cave walls in comparison to the Paleo diet. Vary the ingredients if you like, then verify nutrients at the USDA's own nutrient database. You're going to come out with the same answer. If you eat an average diet you are eating a woefully nutrient deficient diet.

I shall begin by Quoting Dr. Cordain from chapter 2, from the section The Paleo Diet: A Nutritional Bonanza.

Many registered dietitians and knowledgeable nutritionists would predict that any diet that excludes all cereal grains, dairy products, and legumes would lack many important nutrients and would require extremely careful planning to make it work. Just the opposite is true with the Paleo Diet -- which confirms yet again that this is exactly the type of diet humans were meant to thrive on, as they have for all but the last 10,000 years.

The Paleo Diet provides 100 percent of our nutrient requirements. My research team has analyzed the nutrient composition of hundreds of varying combinations of the Paleo Diet, in which we've altered the percentage as well as the types of plant and animal foods it contains. In virtually every dietary permutation, the levels of vitamins and minerals exceed governmental recommended daily allowances (RDAs). The Paleo Diet even surpasses modern cereal and dairy-based diets in many nutritional elements that protect against heart disease and cancer... [...]

In fact, the Paleo Diet is packed with much higher levels of many nutrients that are deficient in both vegetarian and average American diets, such as iron, zinc, vitamin B1, B2, B6 and omega 3 fats.

He goes on to outline a typical day on a Paleo diet vs. a typical day on the SAD, both at 2200 calories. First, the Paleo day.

For breakfast, she eats half a cantaloupe and a 12-ounce portion of broiled Atlantic salmon. Lunch is a shrimp, spinach / vegetable salad (seven large boiled shrimp, three cups of raw spinach leaves, one shredded carrot, one sliced cucumber, two diced tomatoes, lemon juice / olive oil / spice dressing). For dinner, she has two lean pork chops, two cups of steamed broccoli, and a tossed green salad (two cups of romaine lettuce, a half-cup of diced tomatoes, a quarter-cup of sliced purple onions, half an avocado, lemon juice dressing). She tops it all off with a half-cup of fresh or frozen blueberries and a quarter-cup of slivered almonds. For a snack, she has a quarter-cup of slivered almonds and a cold pork chop.

Now, the first thing that might strike you is what an amazing amount of food that sounds like, and for only 2,200 calories, pretty much an average daily intake for lots of people. However, this is where I think there's a bit of a flaw. This day contains 190 grams of protein, 142 of carbohydrate, and 108 of fat (which actually comes to 2,300 kcals). This comes out to 33% of calories as protein (25% for carbs and 42% for fat) which I don't think is realistic on a daily basis. The underlying reasons are beyond the scope of this, but a more appropriate ratio would be 25p / 25c / 50f and I would certainly be happy with another 10% from fat and 10% less from carbs.

Now heres a day of SAD.

Now let's take a look at this same 2,200 calorie diet for our sample twenty-five-year-old woman -- but let's replace most of the real foods (lean meats and fruits and vegetables) with processed foods, cereal grains, and dairy products. Remember, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Pyramid encourages you to eat six to eleven servings of grains every day. The nutrient breakdown depicted below closely resembles that of the average American diet. This is the same diet that has produced a nation in which 63 percent of all American men over age twenty-five and 55 percent of women over age twenty-five are either overweight or obese.

For breakfast, our twenty-five-year-old woman eats a Danish pastry and two cups of cornflakes with 8 ounces of whole milk, topped off with a teaspoon of sugar, and drinks a cup of coffee with a tablespoon of cream and a teaspoon of sugar. Because of the large amounts of refined carbohydrates consumed for breakfast, her blood sugar level soon plummets and she is hungry again by midmorning, so she eats a glazed doughnut and another cup of coffee with cream and sugar. By noon, she's hungry again. She goes to the McDonald's near her office and orders a Quarter Pounder, a small portion of French fries, and a 12-ounce cola drink. For dinner, she eats two slices of cheese pizza and a small iceberg lettuce salad with half a tomato, covered with two tablespoons of Thousand Island dressing. She washes it all down with 12 ounces of lemon-lime soda.

Now, you are welcome to try it. Go ahead and replace the danish and donut with, say, "nice" whole grain bread and butter. It's not going to make much nutritional difference because the foundation (grains) is pure crap. Do you know why so much of it is "fortified" with this and that? Because it's crap and would be even worse crap if not "fortified." The breakdown is 62 grams of protein, 309 carb, and 83 fat (2,231 kcals). So, in terms of percentage: 11p / 55c / 34f. This doesn't even qualify as a "healthy low-fat" diet (<20% from fat), and you know what? If getting low fat meant buying a bunch of "low-fat" processed foods that line the supermarket shelves, it's going to make the already disastrous nutritional picture you are about to see even worse.

So, how do they compare in terms of essential vitamins and minerals? For the Paleo diet, every single nutrient from A to Zinc, except D, comes in at a minimum of 150% of the RDA to as much as 1000%+ in excess of the RDA. No supplements required.

For the SAD, the picture is dismal, and BTW, I for years ate a diet quite similar: bagel & cream cheese for breakfast, some sort of fast food or deli sandwich for lunch, and crap like fast, processed food, or pizza for dinner at least 2-3 times per week.

This diet typifies everything that's wrong with the way most of us eat today -- the modern, processed food-based diet. It violates all of the Seven Keys of the Paleo Diet -- the ones we're genetically programmed to follow. Except for calcium and phosphorus, every nutrient falls below the RDA. The protein intake on the standard American diet is a paltry 62 grams (57 percent of the RDA) compared to that of the Paleo Diet (a mighty 190 grams, or 379 percent of the RDA). Remember, protein is your ally in weight loss and good health. It lowers your cholesterol, improves your insulin sensitivity, speeds up your metabolism, satisfies your appetite, and helps you lose weight.

It's very true what he says about protein, and this is, in the end, a battle over hunger. Nothing satiates like protein and I've tested that even on a low carb AND low fat, 95% protein diet of 220 g of protein per day, 900ish calories. By day three or four, I could no longer keep up the protein intake. 900 calories per day for a 210 pounder at the time, and I couldn't eat it all. Protein is king, but I think about 30% of energy is probably going to be an average upper limit for most people. 25% is going to be even more fine and dandy.

Frankly, I'm shocked at how little meat so many people eat nowadays.

So, to wrap it up, since this is about supplementation, you simply don't need to concern yourself with it if you are eating Paleo (with exceptions in Part Four), and after all, we should all agree that getting our nutrients integrated with our food is the optimal method. But if you eat the SAD, then if you're not willing to change to the world's most nutritious, natural diet, then you better start popping the pills. This brings to mind one common objection to Paleo eating: expense. Well, if you want to meet or exceed nutritional requirements, what's going to be better: the added expense of real food or the added expense of pills?

In Part Four, I'll cover the exceptions that call for supplementation, why, and I'll cover what I take and where I get it. In the meantime, I'll have to get up a post for reference on the omega 6 to omega 3 ratio issue.

Go to Part Four

FA/RM: Free Agriculture - Restore Markets

Frequent commenter and newly minted PhD (biology) Monica Hughes has launched a new project.

The group, Free Agriculture - Restore Markets (FA/RM), advocates agricultural and health policies based solely on the principles of individual rights.

The protection of a person's basic rights to growing, producing, selling, buying, and eating the food of his or her choice -- which are applications of the fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- require a separation of economy and state. We support the right of producers and consumers to grow, sell, manufacture, and trade food supplies to mutual benefit without government interference. Based on objective fraud and tort laws, the courts can adjudicate cases of harm to consumers due to negligence or fraud.

This is not anarchy. This is free-market capitalism.

Also, check out the blog, where Monica reports on a lot of really shocking stuff, such as small family farmers being the target of SWAT raids right here in "The Land of the Free."

Doing My Civic Duty; And CA Proposition 8

I suppose a post about politics once every national election might not be too cumbersome, and plus, perhaps some new readers are curious -- perhaps not. Comments are closed, so this is simply a statement on an election day. Such diversions will be rare to non-existent in the future.

I saw one popular health blogger mention that he had driven home a long distance to do his civic duty. Well, for me, I can imagine no civic duty higher than simply minding my own business. 

Besides, there's evolutionary precedent. We're descended from hominoids, not bees & ants.

So; no, I didn't vote. I won't vote; not now, not ever. I can't imagine an exercise more undeserving of my time, or so profoundly unhealthy considering all the feverish work up for what is, now, literally years prior to each one. The amount of time wasted that could go towards constructive rather than destructive and divisive things boggles the mind. Of course, contrary to my post on stress, some people apparently aren't worried at all. Powerful things, "hope" & "change," eh?

I did perform one act of voting, however, and it was with my feet; last evening. I walked out on a dinner with other folks as the conversation turned to Proposition 8 here in California, the one that seeks to prevent gays and lesbians from uniting themselves in marriage under CA law. I'm privileged to have lots of dear friends, gays and lesbians both, some of whom have been partnered in excess of 25 years.

This "vote" is a vile and evil repudiation of their basic dignity as people. It's an embarrassment that such a fundamental right of free association and equality under the law is even up for a "vote." Should we put human life to a vote? How about liberty? Pursuit of happiness? Why not, if anything can be voted on; anything wrested from those less influential by those whose only claim is that they're more mighty in numbers?

This isn't a vote about whether to "allow" such marriages, which would be bad enough, because, as I told you, man's most fundamental civic duty is to first mind his own business, tend to his own peaceful affairs, and leave others likewise free to attend theirs. That, to my mind, is civilization. What we're witnessing today, a competition to see whose values get imposed upon whom is, to me, profoundly uncivilized.

This is a vote where one group of people are attempting to deny, by force, a peaceful union by two human beings that they can already legally engage in. Anyone who is to vote yes, affirming their desire to employ force against people simply trying to get married, should be ashamed of themselves. Shame on you.

In the end, I don't think we're very enlightened at all. Seems some people may still have to go to the back of the bus, drink from their own water fountains, and keep to their own restrooms.

P.S. Yes, I am aware that a pro Prop 8 group bought up tons of Google AdSense space and their ads have been showing up here. I have taken measures to suspend advertising for the time being.

What Causes Heart Disease?

In a mental exercise I posted yesterday, I asked readers to speculate as to the order of most likely cause of heart disease and death from myocardial infarction.

The facts are that death by MI was unheard of in 1910 (about 100 years ago), had risen to 3,000 deaths per year by 1930, and to 500,000 by 1960. Then I provided eight food group categories, A - H, and indicated how much each had changed over the last 100 years, but without telling you which group was which. So here we go:

• A; sugar and sweeteners: 100% increase
• B; eggs, fruit (excl. citrus), vegetables, whole grain: Moderate decrease
• C; lowfat milk: 100% increase 
• D; whole (full fat) milk: 50% decrease
• E; butter, lard, tallow: 70% decrease (30 lbs. per person per year to under 10)
• F; vegetable oils (incl. hydrogenated): 437% increase (11 lbs. pppy to 59) 
• G; poultry: 280% increase (18 lbs. pppy to 70)
• H; beef; 46% increase (54 lbs. pppy to 79) 

So, if one were to simply line it up by the numbers, the order would be like this:

1. Massive increase in vegetable oil consumption.
2. Huge increase in poultry consumption. 
3. Large increase in sugar and sweeteners.
4. Large increase in low fat milk consumption. 
5. Large decrease in animal fat consumption (butter, lard, tallow).
6. Moderate decrease in whole, full fat milk consumption.
7. Moderate increase in beef consumption.
8. Moderate decrease in eggs, fruit, vegetables and whole grains. 

Of course, this is missing junk and highly processed foods.

Now, I agree with the commenter on the previous post. This does not establish causality. And yet, how many decades has it been now that the "health" establishment has been telling you, as though it was certain, that meat and saturated fat are the causes of heart disease? If they even mention junk food, pastries, and all manner of stuff loaded with flour and sugar, it's not those: It's the fat.

It's absurd.

So here's the article with associated references from whence I culled this little exercise. That's Sally Fallon and Mary Enig: It's the Beef. This is an excellent source for all manner of mythbusting with regard to meat and other animal products. Here's another good one.

There was another question posed on my original post speculating that perhaps there weren't heart attacks in 1910 because people didn't live long enough to have them. Average longevity was way lower. The firs thing to note about that is infant and child mortality is what brings the averages way down. There are still people living to 80, 90, 100 and beyond -- plenty of them -- and they weren't dying of heart attacks. Stephan had a good post last July concerning this exact issue, vis-a-vis the Inuit.