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.
"They took over because they could."
That line is the product of editing. Feel free to guess the original wording.
It's interesting you mention your wife who is not responding to the high fat fare the way you are – I'm struggling with the same thing. I have a Scots/Irish/English background (i.e. I'm the typical white New Zealand mongrel) and although I weigh twice what I should, I'm not losing weight on a high fat diet (60% fats). I thought personally I would thrive on it becuase the Scots and Irish thrived on fatty fishes, game and very low carb veggies. I'm starting to wonder if I need to change the amounts, not the ratios, or the ratios not the amounts. Perhaps both need changing? I don't know! ARGH!
It's really driving me batty – so if you find out what works for your wife, PLEASE fill us in.
The genetic variability that predisposes people to thrive on various configurations of macronutrient intake probably cannot produce any sort of adaptation effect (natural selection), as far as modern foods are concerned, because most food induced chronic conditions that cause early death are not fatal until well after reproductive maturity. This holds true despite the fact that the biological potency of the modern diet may be near its lowest ebb in recorded history.
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.
My guess is that they were, even pre-agriculture, "stealing" something alright. Most likely females.
Hunter-gatherer societies were (are) typically much more violent and war prone than their more "civilized" counterparts. On page 57 of the paperback edition of Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, Pinker mentions that Carl Ember, an anthropologist, "calculated that 90 percent of hunter-gatherer societies are known to engage in warfare, 64 percent wage war at least once every two years." Pinker then mentions that the 90 percent figure may be an underestimation.
Yea, well I thought of that objection more than a decade ago, Patrik.
The State, or, "governement," if you prefer, was never set up to protect against dominion over females. To the extent females were considered at all, it was quite the opposite.
That's why limp dicks go into politics.
Richard Nikoley
Greetings, Dr. Cochran.
I'm always pleased when Google does its job and an author or someone else who has done something good (or bad, but that's inapplicable here) that I highlight gets to see it.
I'm not finished with the book, yet, but am now blazing full speed ahead and it goes with me everywhere on my Kindle 2, along with Gibson's "It Takes a Genome," which I've just barely touched.
Ah, the quote. Let me take a stab:
"They stole because they could."
Close?
Hi, Beastie Girl (like your blog):
I'd say it's more likely that being as much overweight as you are that there are metabolic issues at play and that once you do get the weight off you'll be fine with high fat.
Tried any fasting to shake things loose?
The other thing I always recommend is to go zero carb for a while, and low fat as well, i.e., lean meats mostly, as much as you can tolerate. You can probably easily get by with 1,000 calories per day with no hunger at all. This should work. Do that for two weeks, then go back to regular and see if loss continues. If not, then wait a couple of weeks and go another round.
Keep us updated.
David:
Well, OK, but I think the standard way is that a random favorable mutation (say, ability to extract high nutrition from grains, resistance to the ravishing effects of high sugar, etc.) takes hold at some point, and I think there probably already are such genes or early prototypes of them. Of course, it's a long process that takes many favorable mutations over time, and the argument from 10,000 Year is that this pace is accelerating due to huge populations, so, more chances for the favorable mutations to show up, and to spread more quickly once they do.
The rest of us are stuck with what we have — at least for now and until genetic engineering becomes a viable option.
I suppose another route could be through reproductive selection, but I can't see that. Obese people (predominantly comprised of people who have these metabolic intolerances) seem to have no problem reproducing, and in fact, seem to be producing at a higher rate than people without these severe metabolic issues.
I don't know. Seems quite high, and how could he possibly account for all H-Gs? Perhaps the more peaceful and cooperative ones lived in places that were ultimately not conducive to preservation of the evidence of their lives and activities. Since they were mobile, it's much different than finding a settlement based on early agriculture.
But, supposing it's true, I see that as no reason to impose bands of thieves to keep people in line. Violence is probably a trait that can face evolutionary pressures as well, and particularly so when it consumes so many young men in their prime, whilst the more peaceful and cooperative people minding their own business, and doing as best they can to steer clear of human predators as well as wildlife predators go about making peaceful and cooperative babies.
All that said, I do recognize that being the subjects of elite bands of thieves (government) is simply part of our human evolution. My hope is that the future disposes of the elite thieves over time, just like it goes other genetic garbage.
Richard, shame on you! Whole grains are the bomb. Don't you know that that fatty stuff is going to make you fat. come on dude, get witht program ;).
Regarding your wife, what type of diet should she go on? If some people fare better on high-carb diet shoud they include starchy carbs, or should it be Cordain-ish? What if she consumes alo of fruit and lean meats whith a smaller helping of butter and oil? BTW protein should be a constant in fat loss low fat or low carb.
Hi Richard,
I couldn't help but notice that your wife is of Mexican descent just as I am. I too have had trouble losing weight on a high fat diet. To be sure however, many other parameters have improved drastically. Since grade school (I am 37)I have always been somewhat of a depressoid malcontent. Since lowering my carbs below 100 grams per day and eating saturated fat ad lib, i have been on a a strange happy high and my skin has become smooth and healthy and free of acne, which I have had since the fifth grade. The list is a bit longer,including things like indisputable cognitive improvements, but in the interest of brevity, I'll move on.
I was able to eventually lose weight (from 230lbs to 195 lbs, but only by cutting calories. However, previous attempts to lose weight by cutting calories were dismal failures (not to mention libido killers)until I incorporated a low-carb component to my efforts.
I think the issue with saturated fat and paleo starches like tubers, requires an appreciation for the seasonality of these items in the ancestral environment. Too often the paleo community misses the subtle complexities of the primitive environmental and economic milieu: fat, carbohydrates, and salt were limited in our evolutionary past, hence the intense cravings for these items. They were/are essential, but until recently always limited. To dichotomize the issues between "good" and "bad" is therefore, short sighted
For example, is consuming copious amounts of anilmal fat "good" or "bad" for us? In terms of heart disease, there is no credible evidence to support this notion, but there is some evidence that saturated fat may decrease insulin sensitivity. In the same vain, we ask, are paleo starches, like tubers, "good" or "bad"? For our ancestors they were a real nutrient/calorie-dense life saver during the winter and spring months, but the consumption of these signaled SCARCITY via INSULIN so our ancestors would rightly store more fat at every turn during these periods.
Neither copious amounts of saturated fat nor tubers were (and/or could not have been) consumed year round in large amounts. Copious amounts of animal fat would have been consumed mainly in the summer and fall months and tubers in the winter and spring.
I feel for this reason these two items are essential to optimal health, but their limited availability in our ancestral past should be taken into account.
Richard, I'm gonna send you a before and after picture. It's shocking how sick and SAD i looked compared to now. Keep up the good work. P.S. This paleo-community is really starting to take on the feel of a "tribe."
Thanks, Mario. A lot of good ideas, and yes, I too often consider the seasonal nature of foods and is one reason why I tend to eat different ways at different times, not necessarily in line with seasons, but to keep my metabolism guessing and off balance.
I'm not sure what type of diet, and I should emphasize that the gain is nothing huge. Moreover, her workouts are pretty intense and she has gained a lot of strength.
Richard, maybe your wife hasn't lost a gob of weight, but perhaps she's in better health? You say she works out. Maybe the scale hasn't moved, but it's been recomposed better?
I've always heard and read that we females (especially mature females in mid-life) have a harder time than males losing weight anyway, for various reasons.
Suggested reading: http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia.htm
That's a distinct possibility, Pam, not lost on me or here, which is why we're staying the course, for now. No worries, just curiosity at this point. She wasn't overweight to begin with, and she's still OK. Just not leaned out like I have.
She works out in the gym in out building, twice per week and hard, as I initially taught her to do over a few month's time. Last week she came with me to the gym to have a workout with my trainer and he told me yesterday that she has become amazingly strong for a female: "solid like a fireplug," he said.
Well, Richard, I keep hearing that muscles are denser than fat.
Anyway, we females aren't supposed to be as lean as males–not without a lot of help from steroids, is my guess.
If a woman's body fat percentage gets too low, she has problems with lack of menstrual periods and possibly other things (but if your wife is of a similar age to you, maybe she's in menopause anyway).
The part about being solid and really strong for a woman is good.
Maybe she has lost inches.
Yep. I'm really beginning to think that her body comp has gone where it is BECAUSE it's supposed to when you're on a highly nutritious diet as I feed her.
Yea, I do all the cooking. I love it.
Richard,
I don't know how this one got under my RADAR. Great insight, here. I can't wait to pick up a copy of the book myself.
Well, as long as she doesn't (and you don't) mind, please keep us posted on your wife's progress. At 4'11" and 108 lbs, I'm not exactly obese, but still having trouble leaning out, despite high fat, low carb, IF, lifting heavy stuff, etc. It's enough to give me doubts, such as all you need is one good counterexample to falsify a hypothesis, right? Am I failing Paleo, or is Paleo failing me? But my next stop is lowering the fat and increasing the lean protein. Life is a highway, and all that!
Richard,
Perhaps you consider the Government a "band of thieves" because of coerced taxation? Would you still consider them as such if you didn't /have/ to pay them, but could choose to? The idea of voluntarily funded government might sound ludicrous to you, but would you accept that they would not be thieves then?
And suppose the reason they exist is not merely to be the strongest bully in the playground, keeping all the little ones in check. What if we install a government because we, as a society, recognise each others right to live? We realise that the issue of force exists, and so we nominate a group – the Government – bound by a Constitution, to punish those who initiate force?
Those ideas were the founding of the United States (well, on taxation, the founders believed in "limited" taxation, but if they followed through consistently they would have abolished taxation there and then — and slavery, too).
What you describe is the situation of the mixed/socialists states that exist today, or the monarchies of old, but I think if you follow history, what you see is the growing limits placed on the Government, and the shift from it being this strongest-band-of-thugs to it being a tool of the citizenry for the protection of rights.
What you describe is the old feudal system, where people flocked to the nearest war lord. But I do not believe that's the only way for government to be organised, nor is it the only way it has been organised (however brief America's time as a properly free nation was).
Rory:
I tend to think that the notion of non-coercive government (in any respect) is an oxymoron. Force is, in fact, its raison d'etre.
On the practical side, I'd be more than happy to take my chances without government. 99% of my life is in various value trades with businesses, friends, and family.
"What if we install a government because we, as a society, recognise each others right to live?"
I don't know about the "we" in that. Most of us had nothing to do with it, so it is imposed upon us by force. That includes me.
I want nothing to do with it, ever.
I loath everything about government, voters, and voting from top to bottom and wall to wall.
Government is NOT a value to me. It never will be.
If the benefits of a large society, which allows a division of labour, giving you the fruits of all those divided elements, is of no value to you, then I can understand that a Government would be of no use to you.
I don't say that sarcastically. I understand that you would much rather live the Paleo-ish lifestyle. And if you want to do that, then, no, you do not need a Government.
You just have to understand – and I think you do – that you are putting yourself at the mercy of any thug with a gun, when you choose to do that.
"If the benefits of a large society, which allows a division of labour, giving you the fruits of all those divided elements, is of no value to you, then I can understand that a Government would be of no use to you."
You're presuming that the value of division of labor requires a government. It requires a society (and there are many possible levels of that, too), but societies don't require a government. Government are simply predatory organizations set up for non-productive, often destructive people to extract wealth while selling the illusion (delusion, really) that they are necessary and that people couldn't possibly live without them.
Needless to say, I reject such utter rubbish.
"I understand that you would much rather live the Paleo-ish lifestyle."
Nope. To some extent, yes, in order to be physically and mentally healthy. I just don't want thieves running the show, that's all.
"You just have to understand – and I think you do – that you are putting yourself at the mercy of any thug with a gun, when you choose to do that."
Both in my loft here in the city and house in the mountains, I'm never more than six seconds away from a loaded handgun. I'm happy to blow out brains if necessary and my marksman skill are well practiced. I don't suffer the delusion that MY protection is everyone's responsibility — and even right — but mine.
Like a good friend of mine always says: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."