Are We Meant to Eat Grains?

The Natural Human Diet, Part 1

January 6, 2011 Feathered hair, wussy synthesizers, and the USDA Food Pyramid. For those of you around in the 1980s, other memories may define that curious decade, but for me these three stand out. The Food Pyramid lodged in my brain because it displaced the famous Basic Four Food Groups (meat, dairy, fruits & vegetables, and bread). The Basic Four were stamped into us children of the 70s in the form of cutesy cartoons and posters anthropomorphizing members of each of the quartet. With the 80s came the end of those lovable dancing milk cartons and wisenheimer pork chops, replaced by the more complicated and way less entertaining Pyramid, which cajoled us to eat as many grain products as we could stuff in our face (611 servings per day to be exact). Given these turn of events, one will imagine the consternation of Drs. Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner, a physician and an archaeologist who were studying the diet of our hunter-gatherer ancestors of the Paleolithic era. Also known as the Old Stone Age, the Paleolithic era is the period of archaeological history that begins about 2.4 million years ago, when the first humans (genus Homo) emerged, and ends with the appearance of farming about 10,000 years before now. Hold onto that thought about farming. Now, 10,000 may seem like a large number, but compared with 2.4 million its actually quite small. In fact, if you divide 10,000 by 2.4 million, you get a measly 0.004, or 0.4%, which is like half a yard on a 100-yard football field. Thats great, you say, but what does this have to do with anything? Well, if weve been around for 2.4 million years but farming for only 0.4% of it, the doctors argued, then this means for 99.6% of our existence we ate a diet that contained no products of agriculture. Moreover, archaeological evidence indicates that, genetically speaking, no significant changes in our digestion or metabolism have occurred since before we went agro. Thus, they said, the ideal human dietthe one truly natural to the human bodyis that of our prefarming, hunter-gathering, Stone Age ancestors. So what does a Stone Age diet look like? Well, for one, it does not include any grain agricultures most prominent contribution that presently accounts for over 50% of worldwide calorie consumption.

Wait a minute, you say. Grains might be bad for us? How could that be? Didnt agriculture revolutionize humanity, allowing our population to soar and civilization to arise? These things are true, yes, but evidence indicates that they occurred at the expense of individual health. Contrary to the notion that the lives of Stone Age people were nasty, brutish and short, as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes once wrote, the archaeological facts paint quite a different picture. As Dr. Loren Cordain, a leading authority on Paleolithic nutrition, points out, whenever cerealbased diets replaced animal-based diets in hunter-gatherers, people became shorter; their bones became weaker; infant mortality increased; they got more cavities; and infectious diseases increased. And, their average lifespan decreaseda lot. Thats right. We shrank, got sicker, and started dying earlier after we switched to an agriculturebased diet. None of these facts are contested within the field of archaeology. Since grains appear to deliver benefits in small amounts, proponents of a Paleolithic diet debate whether they should be minimized in the diet or cut out completely. Those in the latter camp claim that the benefits of grains are outweighed by the negative effects of their many anti-nutrients and toxinscompounds the plants developed to purposefully thwart digestion of their seeds by insects and herbivores. With no evolutionary defense against these compounds, our digestive system is a sitting duck against their destructive effects. Youve probably heard of one of these toxins. Gluten, a protein found in wheat, is not only one of the most difficult foods for human beings to digest, in many people it is actively destructive to the digestive system, causing an array of nasty symptoms that are often misdiagnosed. Some claim gluten intolerance is even linked to weight gain. So, are you sensitive to gluten? Should you get off it? What about grains in general? Ill discuss these questions and more in my next post as Selene Nutrition continues its series on the Natural Human Diet. Gluten: Better Safe Than Sorry (The Natural Human Diet, Part 2) On Weight Loss: The Natural Human Diet, Part 3 Considering Paleolithic Nutrition: The Natural Human Diet, Part 4 References Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes, Knopf, 2007. Humanitys double edged sword, Loren Cordain, World Rev Nutr Diet 1999; 84:1973. News and Views on Nutritional Therapeutics 19972009, Judith DeCava, Selene River Press, 2009.

Gluten: Better Safe Than Sorry (The Natural Human Diet, Part 2)
January 11, 2011 Well, by now a few readers have informed Grandpa Patrick that the USDA Food Pyramid was released in 1992, not in the 1980s as Id seemed to recall in my last post. I blame my failing memory on gluten. Just kidding. But take my advice, kids: dont get old. Although the Pyramid was not released until the 90s, the high-carb diet it advertises is based on the famous 1980 governmental decree Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which reflected the opinion of some researchers that we would all benefit from eating more carbohydrates, specifically grain carbohydrates.

The USDA Grain Fest The notion that human beings should be eating large amounts of grainand perhaps any grain at allflies in the face of the Paleo Diet, a growing nutritional movement rooted in the archaeological observation that for 99.6% of our existence, humans ate a pre-agricultural, huntergatherer diet. That is to say, no grains.

Caveman geometry? While there is evidence that in times of starvation our Paleo ancestors ate a miniscule amount of wild grasses (the predecessors to modern grains), for all intents and purposes our digestive and metabolic systems had no significant exposure to grains before we began cultivating them via agriculture some 10,000 years ago. Were You a Seed of Grain It might surprise you to know that the aim of a seed of grain is not to be used as food by a planteating animal. Nope, the seeds goal, if eaten, is to pass through the animals digestive system and be deposited on a nice patch of real estate where it can lay down some roots and reproduce.

What's my motivation here? Consequently, grains have developed a host of chemical deterrents to thwart the digestive efforts of their consumers and help them get to the end of the gastrointestinal rainbow. In turn, evolution has bestowed seed-eating herbivores various physical systems to defeat the plants chemical defenses and digest the seeds. Bully for them.

Human beings, however, have not had sufficient time, evolutionarily speaking, to develop digestive mechanisms that counteract the aggressions of grain seeds. Being gifted with opposable thumbs and a knack for thought, however, our agricultural ancestors did devise certain preparatory techniques that break down or neutralize many of the grains defensive compounds. These methods, e.g., soaking, sprouting, and fermenting, appear to have allowed ancient societies to benefit from the nutritive compounds in grains without suffering too terribly from their digestion-thwarting chemicals. (Of course, the definition of too terribly depends on whom you ask).

One way of de-fanging grains While some researchers question how successful the traditional techniques of grain preparation were, one thing is certain: the methods have been all but abandoned by modernity, which means todays grain eaters are exposed to a daily barrage of intact antagonists assailing their digestive system. To make matters much worse, most of the grains we eat today are processed and refined by methods that destroy certain beneficial compounds in the grains that would aid their digestion. As a result, sensitivities to grain have experienced an upswing during the past fifty years. Or at least they have in the case of the trouble-making gluten, a protein complex in wheat that by many accounts is the worst grain anti-nutrient of all. Lootin Tootin Gluten There is no debate that gluten significantly impairs health in people with a bona fide genetic intolerance to itan autoimmune disorder known as celiac that affects an estimated 1% of the population. Celiac destroys the lining of the intestinal lining, causing nutrient malabsorption and just about every digestive and autoimmune affliction known to science.

Where conventional medicine and alternative health butt heads is the matter of how many people in the population are gluten sensitive, that is to say, not officially celiac but appearing to suffer from exposure to gluten nevertheless. Symptoms of gluten sensitivity include the woes one might expect as a result of something attacking the intestinal tractdiarrhea, bloating, flatulence, etc. But they can also include any number of extra-intestinal complaints such as headaches, canker sores, fatigue, depression, muscle or joint pain, skin disorders, weight gain or loss, etc. Dr. Marios Hadjivassiliou, a neurologist who studies gluten sensitivity and brain disease, has even gone so far as to claim that gluten sensitivity should be entirely reclassed, defining it not as a mere intestinal disorder but rather a spectrum of diseases that can affect many different organs.

Is your breakfast killing you softly? With scientific research into gluten sensitivity in its infancy, testing for the condition is notoriously inconclusive. Based on genetic research and observations in his practice, enteorlogist Dr. Scot Lewey estimates that between 10% and 30% of the population is gluten sensitive. Yet, he adds, there seems to be an irrational resistance [among physicians] to a more widespread recommendation for gluten avoidance. Irrational resistance in the medical field? Shocking. Should You Be Worried About Gluten? In talking about this post with Dr. Mark Southwell, a nutrition-oriented chiropractor in Denver, I started by asking him how many of his patients come to him because of digestive complaints. About half, he said, which wasnt all that surprising. After all, illness begins in the gut, as the old saw goes. But when I asked him how many of his digestion patients have trouble with gluten, his answer surprised me. One hundred percent, he said matter of factly.

Really? So everyone who comes to you with a digestive problem is gluten sensitive? Yup.

So, should you be concerned about gluten? If you have any sort of digestive problem, yes, Id say you should probably consider the possibility that gluten is a factor, possibly the factor, in your condition. In addition, if you have any of the symptoms listed above or you have allergies or other food intolerances (often secondary effects of gluten sensitivity), gluten could be a culprit. Of course Im not saying that gluten is definitely the cause of your problems. Heck, even if wheat is ailing you, gluten still might not be the main player. There are plenty of other gastrointestinal meanies in wheat other than gluten. I am saying, however, that it wouldnt be surprising if gluten is as big a deal as some claim given what practitioners are reporting and the fact that, from an evolutionary perspective, gluten is practically foreign to the human body. Not to mention that, thanks to some fancy engineering done back in the 1960s and 70s, the wheat sold today has considerably more gluten than the stuff grown only fifty years ago. Fortunately, the best way to tell whether you are gluten sensitive is simple to do at home, and it can also be used as a first step in a healthy weight loss program. Isnt that nice? Its like a two-forone wellness deal. Ill get into the details of a gluten challenge as well as how to take it a step further toward weight loss in my next post, as Selene Nutritions Natural Human Diet series rolls on. Are We Meant to Eat Grains? The Natural Human Diet, Part 1 On Weight Loss: The Natural Human Diet, Part 3 Considering Paleolithic Nutrition: The Natural Human Diet, Part 4 References

Gluten: What You Dont Know Might Kill You, Dr. Mark Hyman. Gluten Sensitivity: A Gastroenterologists Personal Journey Down the Gluten Rabbit Hole, Dr. Scot Lewey. Gluten Sensitivity: Celiac Disease is the Tip of the Iceberg, Dr. Stephan Guyenet. Nourishing Traditions, Sally Fallon, New Trends Publising, 2001.

On Weight Loss: The Natural Human Diet, Part 3

January 17, 2011 In the last few posts I talked a lot about whether we humans are meant to eat grains. Many compounds in grains are evolutionarily foreign to our gut, the argument goes, and they tend to aggravate or even damage our GI tract. Yet I dont mean to imply that grains are the sole cause of poor digestion. Stomach or intestinal upset can be caused by any number of problems, from a lack of lactic acid in the bowel to an overtaxed liver or pancreas to a general mineral deficiency in the body. Moreover, properly prepared whole grains might be a healthy food for some people. But properly prepared is not how most of us eat grains, especially our favorite one, wheat. Instead of soaking or fermenting or sprouting wheat berries, we tend to eat them in the form of refined flour, a substance that is likely at the root of much modern illness, along with refined sugar and refined vegetable oils. And refined flour is almost certainly linked to weight gain. In the past thirty years, the obesity rate in America has climbed from 15% of the population, where it had held steady for decades, to a mind boggling 33% at present. The typical American eats about 300 more calories in a day than she or he did in 1980with almost the entire increase coming in the form of flour and sugar. It just so happens that thirty years ago is precisely when the U.S. government started telling us to lower our fat consumption and eat more complex carbohydrates such as refined wheat flour. Now you might think a raging obesity epidemic would cause our public health officials to rethink their high-carb policy, but that aint happening anytime soon. So figuring out how to stop craving all those extra calories and how to shed our extra tonnage is up to you and me. Fortunately, I have a plan. Past Perfect? Some ideas just make sense. One of them is the notion that the hunter-gatherer diet we evolved on for 99.6% of our existence might be ideal for our health. The idea starts to make even more sense when we consider that such a diet is naturally devoid of refined carbohydrates like flour and sugar.

And the idea becomes downright attractive when we consider the results of scientific investigations comparing low-fat (i.e., high-carb) diets with low-carb ones akin to many huntergatherer diets. Studies show that while people lose weight on each type of diet (with the low-carbers usually losing a bit more), the low-fat dieters must actively limit their calories to achieve weight loss. In other words, they go hungry. People on low-carb diets, on the other hand, eat as much as they feel like and still lose weight. Moreover, traditional markers of heart health such as the ratio of HDL (good cholesterol) to triglycerides in the bloodone of the true risk factors for cardiovascular diseasetend to improve on a low-carb diet, while they stay the same or get worse on a high-carb diet. So, would you rather lose weight by going hungry while doing nothing for your health and possibly worsening it, or would you prefer to slim down by eating as much as your body tells you to while it naturally moves to balance? Resetting with Paleo Adopting a hunter-gatherer diet offers an additional benefit. According to Paleolithic nutritionists, there hasnt been sufficient time for all of us to have adapted genetically to the new foods introduced by agriculture ten thousand years agograins, legumes and milk. The negative effects of such foods may be obvious, as for someone with a wheat, peanut or milk allergy. Or they may be more subtleand being attributed by you or you doctor to some other cause. By going Paleo for a few weeks and then reintroducing these foods back into your diet, you might discover whether any of them have been aggravating your system. And if you are affected, you can test whether traditional methods of preparation (such as soaking and sprouting, which Ill discuss in a future post) alleviate your sensitivity. Okay, so from the perspectives of weight loss, general health and identifying food intolerances, a Paleo diet seems like a pretty good idea. But what exactly does such a diet look like? In Part 4 of the Natural Human Diet series, Ill discuss what archaeologists think our Paleo ancestors ate and how we might translate that to modern times. Are We Meant to Eat Grains? The Natural Human Diet, Part 1 Gluten: Better Safe Than Sorry (The Natural Human Diet, Part 2) Considering Paleolithic Nutrition: The Natural Human Diet, Part 4 References News and Views on Nutritional Therapeutics 19972009, Judith DeCava, Selene River Press, 2009. Nourishing Traditions, Sally Fallon, New Trends Publising, 2001.

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Weston Price, Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 2008.

Considering Paleolithic Nutrition: The Natural Human Diet, Part 4

January 25, 2011 One of the frustrating things about nutrition for most people is the lack of a basic starting point, a fundamental diet to hang their hat on, a natural baseline that says, Begin eating here! In the 1960s a group of professors believed they had found that fundamental diet. In the spirit of their time, they began by chemically classifying the basic fuels of human lifefat, protein, carbohydrate. They then proclaimed that the secret to good health is to eat little of the first and a lot of the last. Although the Low-Fat Theory was based on scant evidence, in time it took hold, especially when its advice to reduce animal products dovetailed with the burgeoning vegetarian movement of the 1970s. These sister philosophies would combine to dominate conventional nutrition thinking for the next 40 years (a phenomenon that continues to this day). Some years later, just about the time Low-Fat Theory was adopted as official policy by our government, another theory about the fundamental human diet was born, one that was quite different in perspective from the low-fat idea. In 1985 Drs. Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner published a now-famous paper in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine titled, Paleolithic Nutrition: A Consideration of Its Nature and Current Implications. The doctors point was as simple as it was profound: Genetically, human beings have changed very little in the past 40,000 years (less than 0.02% to be precise). So if were looking for a baseline human diet, the place to look isnt a place but a time. Specifically, that time is the Paleolithic era, which runs from about 2.4 million years ago, when the first human-like beings appeared (or the emergence of the genus Homo for you archaeology buffs), to about 12,000 years ago, by which time the blueprint for the human body had been pretty much laid out. With the Paleolithic era covering virtually all of our physical development, its not unreasonable, the researchers argued, to assume the foods eaten during that time constitute the fundamental diet for human health. After all, every other animal on the planet thrives best on the foods to which it is adapted. Why should we be any different?

How would a wolf do on a diet of rice and tofu? Lots of Hunting, Some Gathering The idea of eating what we were designed to seems so logical you might wonder why you didnt hear about it two decades ago. Well, figuring out what people ate a million years back is a bit of a trick. One thing archaeologists know for sure is that the humans of the Paleolithic era were not farmers. Since agriculture was invented only about 10,000 years ago, the original human diet pre-dates the likes of grains, beans and cheese. You would not find a box of primitive corn flakes in the Paleo pantry. Nope, our Paleo ancestors were strictly hunter-gatherers (HGs). And, evidence indicates, they were naturally omnivorous, meaning they ate both plant and animal foods. But just how much of each did they eat? With the fossil record sketchy on these details, Eaton and Konner turned to modern HG tribes to get an idea. Based on observations of the 229 HG societies in existence, the researchers concluded that humans were born of a diet of mostly low-fat plant foods. Bells! Whistles! The vegetarians and low-fatters were ecstatic. Their enthusiasm would be short lived, however. Turns out the investigators made a mistake. In estimating how much of the HG diet is animal, they forgot that HGs, unlike us post-moderns, eat almost every part of the animals they kill. This includes the liver, heart, brains, kidney and virtually every other organ; even the marrow inside the bones gets devoured. (Those of you familiar with Standard Process supplements now know why theyre so effective for nutritional therapy. From cow liver to pig brain to sheep spleen, their ingredients read like a Paleo pu-pu platter.) When the organ factor was taken into account, the picture of the typical HG diet changed radically. Of the 229 modern HG tribes, a whopping three quarters were now shown to obtain the

majority of their calories from animal foods, with an astounding 20% getting virtually all their calories (86100%) from animals.

Got Organs? SP's multi is a Paleo smorgasbord. Recent isotopic analyses of human remains from the Paleolithic era confirm the meaty implication of modern HG diets. One study of the remains of Cro-Magnon humans from just 12,000 years ago right before the dawn of agricultureindicates humans of the time were top-level carnivores on par with the wolf and the arctic fox. In contrast, no modern HG societies get 86100% of their calories from plant foods. That it is to say, it is highly unlikely that any of our Paleo ancestors were either vegetarian or low-fat eaters. (You can probably guess what most conventional nutritionists think about Paleo Theory.) Eating Paleo in the Modern World In spite of its political incorrectness, Paleo Theory boldly states that the original, natural human diet involves a lot of meatabout 3035% of total calories to be exact. But what other foods did the Paleos eat? Its not a long list. Theres fish, eggs, fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds. Thats about it. Oh, and some insects and larvae, which Im guessing wont be making your gather list.

In spite of this simplicity, simulating a Paleolithic diet in todays world has its challenges. For starters, theres the humongous matter of avoiding foods foreign to our Paleolithic constitution. These include refined sugar, grains and vegetable oils as well as pasteurized-milk products. In real-word terms, this means pasta, bagels, breakfast cereals, rice, muffins, yogurt, cheese, milk, soy milk, tofu and just about anything that hails from the inner aisles of the supermarket. All told, were talking about 70% of the typical Americans diet. And theres the fact that few foods today resemble their counterparts of the Paleo era. For instance, the wild game our HG ancestors ate were much leaner than todays factory farmed animals, and they ate grass not grain, which means more anti-inflammatory omega-3s and fewer proinflammatory omega-6s. Same goes for wild-caught fish versus farm-raised fish. Also, the wild fruits of Paleo times were considerably less sweet than most modern fruits, which contain unnatural amounts of that shifty sugar fructose, a likely culprit behind many modern metabolic disorders (and the subject of a future post). And then there are vegetables. In spite of the celebrity of leafy greens in todays world of nutrition, these are not particularly popular among hunter-gatherers, who seem to prefer starchier roots and tubers. Which raises the question Were the Paleos Low-Carbers? Though most versions of the Paleolithic diet out there are low in carbohydrates, in truth researchers report a wide range of carbohydrate consumption among modern HG societies: 2040% of total calories. While this is far below the 55% recommended by Low-Fat Theory, its fairly up there in the eyes of low carbers. The reason for the low-carb Paleo diets is simple: weight loss. Whereas hunter-gatherers tend to be lean and can easily process a significant amount of natural carbs in the forms we were designed on, most Americans are looking to shed a few pounds after eating unnatural versions of carbs their whole lives. Since the key to jump-starting weight loss for most overweight people is cutting out carbohydrates of any kind (as Ill be discussing next week), many Paleo diets downplay the consumption of sugary fruits and starchy Paleo-type vegetables such as sweet potatoes and carrots. Other Paleo diets recommend less protein and more saturated fat than theory would suggest. (Strictly speaking, Paleo Theory recommends a diet high in protein (2035% of calories) and moderate in fat (3050% of calories)). For folks accustomed to the narrow confines of Low-Fat Theory, Paleo Theorys wiggle room with respect to fats and carbohydrates may be a bit disconcerting. But the variability speaks to the fact

that the original human diet isnt defined by singular percentages of fats or carbs. Its defined by the types of foods we ate. While Paleo Theory says that lean meat and fish should be the main staples of a persons diet, it recognizes that some people might thrive on a fair amount of fruits and starchy vegetables or nuts in addition, while others will discover they do best on almost all meat and fish. Some genetically lucky individuals might even find they can tolerate some new foods such as wheat or beans. In any case, as the Low-Fat Theory sputters to its inevitable demise, Paleolithic Theory makes a convincing case for the starting point that nutrition has been after for so long. Meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, eggs: begin eating here. Are We Meant to Eat Grains? The Natural Human Diet, Part 1 Gluten: Better Safe Than Sorry (The Natural Human Diet, Part 2) On Weight Loss: The Natural Human Diet, Part 3 References Cereal Grains: Humanitys Double-Edged Sword Loren Cordain, Rev Nutr Diet 1999; 84:19-73. Food and Western Disease: Health and Nutrition from an Evolutionary Perspective, Staffan Lindeberg, Wiley-Blackwell. Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes, Knopf, 2007. News and Views on Nutritional Therapeutics 19972009, Judith DeCava, Selene River Press, 2009. Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st Century, L. L. Cordain et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 2005;81, No. 2, 341-354. Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios and Macronutrient Energy Estimations in Worldwide HunterGatherer Diets, L. Cordain et al., Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:68292.