Archive for November, 2009

Jared Diamond and Genomics at the Origins of Agriculture

Friday, November 20th, 2009

While I was doing research investigating “The China Study,” I came across a great Jared Diamond article from the late 1980’s.  I highly recommend reading any of his books, specifically “Guns, Germs and Steel.”  Diamond is a professor at UCLA and has ton extensive research into the paleo era of human existence.  The article I am referring to specifically details the time frame of humanity when the majority of native tribes gave up hunting and gathering for the sedentary agriculture life.

Within “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,” Diamond talks about the changing of the diet, lowering of leisure time, higher levels of autoimmune diseases found from bone lesions, as well as increasing levels of sexual inequality along with humans becoming shorter.  What I am most interested is the change in the diet.

At this time, Diamond argues the diet changed from a meat based, plant foraging diet to a diet much higher in cereal grains and carbohydrates.  These individuals became malnourished due to the fact that their extensive use of plant life instead of wild animals ceased to contain the appropriate amounts of vitamins and minerals.  Diamond also compares elite/royal human remains to those of the commoners and finds a unique comparison.  The royalty undoubtedly ate better, they were taller, had fewer bone lesions, lived longer and contained significantly more teeth in their mouth (1 missing instead of 6) when compared with their lower minions.  This most likely was a direct cause of excess labor and diet.

Interestingly enough, Diamond argues that agriculture brought about deep class/societal divisions.  When humans were hunting and gathering, there was minimal amount of stored foods and concentrated food sources.  Instead, the tribes needed to work together on a daily basis to obtain their food source at an optimal level.  With the rise of farming, humans could hoard food and eventually use this food to impose control/command over a portion of the population.  The basis of his argument then becomes the idea that farming can support more people than hunting, however the existence is at a lower quality of life, in regards to nutrition and social quality.

George Armelagos points out in his article, “Genomics at the Origins of Agriculture” that agriculture did indeed bring about “food surpluses, craft specialization, art, religious hierarchies, writing, social hierarchies, urbanization, and the origin of the state.” The earliest consumption of grains was based around fermented drinks and utilizing domesticated animals and plants as pieces of wealth and royalty, eventually becoming staples in the everyday diet.

Interestingly enough, there was a move in dietary consumption during the Paleolithic era.  At the middle portions of the era, Armelagos reports that humans tended to exploit slow moving prey, such as mollusks and tortoises.  However, as humans progressed and their brains grew from the protein/fat consumption we were able to develop weaponry and begin preying on “fast moving” prey.  This hunting process was more intensive but the animals that were targeted were able to handle the harvesting due to their rapid abilities of adaptation.  As Armelagos points out, harvesting the fast moving prey leads to a 10-fold greater level of exploitation prior to complete extinction in comparison to the slow moving prey.  Along with the evolution of hunting animals, the plant lif e consumed/domesticated was based solely on what that area already supported in the wild.  For example, the Mediterranean regions supported figs and olives, which led to the early domestication of these two crops and the early introduction to that diet.  This is important to understand and consider with the quality of soil and what is actually native to each region and their particular soils.

In regards to the domestication of animals, the goat and pigs tend to be considered the earliest domesticated animals.  It is also believed that the domestication of cows came at probably three different points: 1. domesticated in India 2. another domestication point in Europe and Europe and 3. another domestication point in Japan.

What does all this mean?  When humans began farming our diet changed a bit…from a predominantly meat based diet to a meat based diet that utilized stone ground grains and fermented grains.  I suspect this holds true for dairy as well.  The earliest dairy products were consumed raw and/or fermented and both dairy and grains may have been in our diet for nearly 15-20,000 years.  The key is to find meat products that are raised in a way that is closest to their biological markers…meat raised as close to “wild” as possible.  This means grass fed livestock, animals outside, chickens out on pasture, etc.  Supplement this diet with healthy, organic vegetables such as leafy green vegetables and soaked tubers.

T. Colin Campbell and The China Study pt. 1

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

T. Colin Campbell’s book, “The China Study” has caught my attention recently.  Campbell has popped up in a few places recently and last evening, a client of mine brought his book in for me to analyze.  I decided to give it a look and to do so with an open mind.  “The China Study” is a book written by a vegan whose hypothesis is simply that the consumption of animal meats is the root of degenerative diseases, including obesity, cancer and heart disease.  Campbell promotes a whole food plant based diet with an accordance to avoid refined sugars/carbohydrates (I agree with him on the whole foods and refined carbs).  I flipped through the book to check a few things out here and there…here is my first criticism of Campbell’s work:

Campbell decided to use the Framingham Study as his guideline in later chapters.  He concedes that blood pressure and obesity play a major role in coronary heart disease.  He then goes on to attack cholesterol, which he clearly has no concept of cholesterol and its functions.  Perhaps he should be enlightened with this cholesterol article.  Campbell also fails to mention anything about CReactive Protein as a solid indicator of heart disease and he does not have any discussion based on LDL and HDL particle sizes.  Basically, his argument is lacking a general background of crucial information surrounding his case.

I decided to check out some stuff from Dr. Michael Eades to help us further break down Framingham to help us analyze whether or not it is justifiable for Campbell to use the Framingham study to back up his argument against meat based food consumption.

Background on Framingham: This is a heart observational study that began in 1948 and is now on its third generation of research.  Researchers focus on diet, exercise and medication to consider issues in heart disease and negative or positive correlations in life habits.  The study began with 5,200 healthy men and women and is still continuing today.

It is fairly ironic that he uses Framingham as his study of choice. This is a direct quote from Dr. William Castelli in 1991, head of the Framingham Study…“…In Framingham, for example, we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.”

More on Framingham…Here is Dr. Michael Eades’ analysis of a direct copy of Framingham. Eades obtained a copy of Framingham results (from early 1970’s) and thankfully, he decided to share the copy and results found. These are all quotes and implications with dietary consumption and its impact on cholesterol (my emphasis added):

Fat intake and Cholesterol?

Paralleling the findings for total calories there is a slight negative association between daily intake of total fat (and also of animal fat) with serum cholesterol level, in men but not in women. This parallel is not surprising given the high correlation between fat intake and total caloric intake. No association between percent of calories from fat and serum cholesterol level was shown; nor between ratio of plant fat to animal fat intake and serum cholesterol level.

How about protein?

There was a trivial negative correlation between daily protein intake (in grams) and serum cholesterol level.

Dietary cholesterol and its impact on serum cholesterol?

There is no indication of a relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol level. If the intake on animal fat is held constant there is still no relation of cholesterol intake to serum cholesterol level. If (further) a multiple regression is calculated [using animal fat and dietary cholesterol] there is also little suggestion of an association between this pair of variables and serum cholesterol level.

When it comes to diet and coronary heart disease, nothing changes.

In undertaking the diet study at Framingham the primary interest was, of course, in the relation of diet to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). It was felt, however, that any such relationship would be an indirect one, diet influencing serum cholesterol level and serum cholesterol level influencing the risk of CHD. However, no relationship could be discerned within the study cohort between food intake and serum cholesterol level.

In the period between the taking of the diet interviews and the end of the 16-year follow-up, 47 cases of de novo CHD developed in the Diet Study group. The means for all the diet variables measured were practically the same for these cases as for the original cohort at risk. There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group…

Framingham conclusions…

With one exception there was no discernible association between reported diet intake and serum cholesterol level in the Framingham Diet Study Group. The one exception was a weak negative association between caloric intake and serum cholesterol level in men. [As to] coronary heart disease–was it related prospectively to diet. No relationship was found.

What does this mean? Campbell uses the Framingham study to prove his point, yet neglects to recognize what the actual documents read. The basis of Campbell’s entire argument is that consuming anything with cholesterol is bad and that has a negative impact on serum cholesterol levels along with CHD. He uses Framingham to justify his argument yet neglects to actually peer into the findings of Framingham. He goes on to attack saturated fat consumption and the role that dietary fats play in elevating cholesterol levels.  Clearly, he did not do his research and actually investigate the numbers.

I have decided to include a few other studies/researchers that use the same criteria to predict CHD (tryglycerides, blood pressure, obesity, cholesterol) as Campbell and show everyone what they concluded.

I recommend reading studies from Dr. Eric Westman who has done tremendous amount of research on Low Carb diets at Duke University and has also found low carb diets to have a positive impact on blood pressure, blood cholesterol (higher hdl, lower ldl) and weight loss…all aspects that Campbell deems signs of heart disease.

Ditto that with Dr. Ronald Krauss, Director of Atherosclerosis Research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Senior Scientist in the Department of Genome Sciences at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of California at Berkeley.

Here are the findings of one particular Atkins based study, one administered by Gary Foster at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and the other done by the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center:

• After six months, the Atkins dieters lost an average 15 pounds; conventional dieters, 7 pounds. (the weight loss is more significant)

• After a year, the Atkins followers kept off 9½ pounds; the conventional dieters kept off 5½. This difference is not considered statistically significant. (The dieters remained leaner for a longer period of time which is very important)

• At the end of the year, the Atkins dieters had an 18% increase in HDL (good) cholesterol, compared with 3% increase for the other group; Atkins dieters had a 28% drop in triglycerides (blood fats), while others had a 1% increase. Neither group had changes in LDL (bad) cholesterol. (Their cholesterol profiles actually improved with the Atkins diet)

• The low-carb followers lost 13 pounds in that time compared with 4 pounds for the low-fat dieters. (Again, weight loss is more significant)

• Triglycerides dropped 20% for low-carb dieters compared with 4% for those in the low-fat group. (Another measurement Campbell uses for heart disease risk which was improved by the Atkins-like diet)

In my next blog, I will analyze Campbell’s break down on obesity and diabetes.

Weekend Garage Strength Nutrition Seminar

Monday, November 16th, 2009

The seminar went well this past weekend.  All the speakers did a great job and Mark spoke so well with his raw milk presentation, he convinced my Dad to start drinking raw milk!  These are the results that I love.  I want to continue providing seminars/inspiration that can change the way people think.  If anyone out there has any ideas, feel free to email me and discuss what can be done!

One question that went unanswered was a discussion about how much protein should be consumed on a Low-Carb diet.  My answer was fairly vague as I did not know the precise requirements.  I never really count my grams of protein intake or even my carbs or fat, I simply eat a lot of meat and a lot of fat (coconut oil/butter).  With that being said, I decided to do a bit more research and found a few interesting articles that discuss this topic, specifically.

The more a cell contains mitochondria, the more those cells prefer to use fat/ketones as their energy source.  an example would be the heart cells.  Cells that contain virtually no mitochondria include white blood cells, the testes and inner part of the kidneys.  With that being said, our body does need a bit of glucose to use as energy at some point.  The body can create glucose by breaking down muscle proteins, but clearly this would weaken our muscles and significantly decrease sports performance.

So, what can we do?  According to Jeff Volek, if we consume 1 to 1.5 grams of protein per lean kilogram of body weight, we will have enough protein to save our muscles and create enough glucose.  Here is an example:  I weigh 110 kilos.  At 13% body fat, that leaves me with 95.8 kilos of lean body mass.  If I consume anywhere between 100-140 grams of protein a day, I will be able to build muscle and use protein to fuel the parts of my body that cannot use ketones/fat as an energy source.

Most individuals think of low-carb diets as high protein diets.  Fortunately, my first exposure to low carb consumption came from my brother’s need to consume a ketogenic diet to handle his epilepsy symptoms.  Ketogenic diets are blatantly high fat.  It took me a while to get over this mode as I was younger and uneducated on the positive aspect of ketone presence within our body.  In my interview with Gary Taubes, Taubes mentions that the total fat consumption should comprise somewhere between 70 and 80% of the total calories of that diet.  I believe this goes right along with historical observations of indigenous people who consumed a very, very high fat diet (Inuit were believed to be in upwards of 85%).

Consuming high amounts of fats can lead to the production of ketone bodies.  At the seminar this past weekend, I argued that ketones were actually the preferred energy source for muscles and the brain.  During the paleolithic era, glucose was only used heavily in the diet during the period in the fall when natives tended to gain more weight for the coming winter months.  I also argued that insulin was a relatively dormant hormone, EXCEPT in the fall.  With that being said, anaerobic activity was highly utilized by primitive movement which undoubtedly lead to higher levels of growth hormone.  The higher levels of growth hormone protected the muscles/organs from being used as energy and instead forced the body to burn free fatty acids and any carbohydrates consumed from the diet.

Back to fat and ketones:  Ketones  may come from dietary fat or body fat.  They are formed by the liver which processes free fatty acids and converts them into ketones and are then used as energy by the cells which turn the ketones into ATP.  Basically, if you cut your carbohydrate intake, your body will burn the fatty acids stored on your body as energy.  As Taubes points out…you can’t get fat on a low carb diet and as I mentioned previously, your muscles/brain/heart will all be thoroughly nourished by the presence of ketones.

The first priority is to make sure you are getting enough energy from your fat consumption.  This fat consumption will not only provide substantial amount of energy, it will also keep inflammation down, lower your blood pressure, and fuel your brain.  In reality, the protein is an after thought.  If we are eating enough fatty meats, we will nourish our body with ample amounts of protein to recover from intense workouts.

After reflecting on my daily food consumption, I have found that most of my fat comes from egg yolks, beef, chicken skin, pork, lamb tallow, raw cheese and coconut oil as well as my raw milk consumption.  My protein is then taken from the egg whites, beef, chicken, lamb and raw milk.  My remaining carbohydrate intake is absorbed from raw milk.  If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

Soil Quotation

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

I recently came across a unique quote from FDR, commenting about soils.  It seems that in 1937, he recognized that the more we destroy our soils, the more problems we will have and the weaker we will be as a nation.  I am not sure if FDR actually followed his own words as many of the projects the Tennessee Valley Authority conducted dealt with building dams and utilizing natural resources.  With that being said, the quote is worthwhile.

“The Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”  FDR in a letter to all state governors, 1937

I truly believe in this…the better we treat our soil, the healthier our food and animals are and the healthier we will then become!

Return from Rhode Island

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

This past weekend I spent 20 hours in the Poliquin Institute of Strength.  It was a very informative time and enjoyable.  I was quite pleased to find that many of my theories and methods are sound and upon that, I was given numerous ideas and tools to build a greater system of training.  It was very rewarding and a very positive experience.

I got the idea to work with Poliquin because last year I consulted with Adam Nelson, a professional shot putter.  Nelson spoke highly of Poliquin and had a positive influence on me to learn more about the Poliquin system.  Now, I am here and the only person in the world who trained under Anatoly Bondarchuk and is certified by Charles Poliquin. I am proud to say that and look forward to developing my own unique system of the two modes of training.

With that being said, I was quite excited to get back to the Garage and apply a few new methods I learned.  Things are turning out well and moving in the right direction. I am also pleased to announce that I will be leaving my day job at a local high school and working full time inside the Garage!!!  This is a huge step forward for myself and my business and a risk I am ready to take.  Feel free to come in and chat, get in a training session or discuss anything nutrition.

Remember, this weekend I am hosting a systemic nutrition seminar at 2pm on Saturday.