Addendum: We Kept It Gray

Addendum: We Kept It Gray

Historiography

There is nothing intrinsically wrong about paleo dieting; short term adoption may, in fact, benefit certain populations. Its popularity is based on selective interpretation and an unfounded belief in applicability. This can be said that this is true of most any popular idea of any time, but paleo is different in that it is not a modern theory based on archaic research, but an archaic theory unchanged from its inception.

This is not to say that it has not been modified to appeal to a contemporary demographic, but rather, that its tenets are reasoned with all of the [lack of] scientific knowledge and bias of the early 20th century. The Stefansson and Price expeditions, which showed that 1) Humans can survive on a diet comprised exclusively of animal products 2) People in westernized nations had reduced markers of health (bad teeth, in particular) compared to indigenous populations. In the 1970s, Gastroenterologist Walter Voegtlin decided that since we have the capacity to digest animal protein, and certain populations get by on little else, that we are all innately carnivores. Basically, he said “What applies to remote groups of Eskimos applies to all of humanity, except even more so.”
  
I do not intend to take any credit away from these individuals, as their contributions were of great value in the progression of nutrition science, but we should not forget the historical context in which these studies were conducted. Stefansson was an arctic explorer; he was much more concerned with survivability than optimal health. Price was a dentist; he was absolutely correct in positing that western diets were responsible for the prevalence of weak bones and rotten teeth, but he took his observations to logical fallacy. I do not believe it was intentional, merely reflective of the scientific limitations of the day.

The poor health of western populations was a product of the unregulated industrialization of food. Wheat was hulled, bleached, bromated (which is currently illegal in the rest of the civilized world. USA! USA!), stored in silos with no moisture control, and combined with sawdust. Dairy cows were fed distillery waste and produced tainted milk. “Formula” for babies was often a cheap sugar and rice water mixture, which led to a great many cases of malnutrition and death. Meat was often contaminated, rancid, and preserved with formaldehyde. It was not until we killed hundreds of our own Soldiers with tainted beef in the Spanish-American War that some regulation was imposed. Even later in the century, industrial solvents and lubricants, products of mass production in WWII, became staples in the food industry. The waste product of a popular lubricant actually led to the formation of the modern supplement industry, as defatted soy flour became a cheap source of protein that could be sold at a huge profit margin. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the population with the food-based diet is healthier.

Though regulations in America are still dangerously lax, the food industry has been responsive to a health-conscious market. The presence of any poison must be clearly indicated on the ingredients list. It is still the responsibility of the consumer to research the toxicity of any given compound, but, in all fairness, the presence of fire diamonds on packaging might dissuade consumers.

Because people undertaking a paleo diet are doing so in the present day, they should not equate the food of Weston Price’s era to that which is currently available. A modern young European, or a young non-alcoholic, non-obese American, would show very similar, if not superior markers of development and health. There would still be a discrepancy in cavities, but that is due to the pervasive availability of sugar, rather than the absence of essential nutrients. A regular diet of frozen pizza and ice cream sandwiches as a youth allowed me to grow to above average height, with not a single cavity or fracture. I certainly don’t come from hardy stock, as my parents were not so fortunate, spending their formative years in the abject poverty of postwar Italy. I do not in any way condone the typical American diet, but the plausible health advantages of paleo eating are far removed from what they would have been a hundred years ago.

Pragmatic Utility

A paleo-style diet has some applicability in the treatment of metabolic syndrome. A sedentary lifestyle requires very few carbohydrates, and the reduction/removal of dietary fructose will assist in normalizing liver function and insulin regulation. Low intensity activity would also be of benefit, as it would increase glucose transport efficiency to muscle tissue, increase glucagon production, and increase B-oxidation as a proportion of expenditure, all of which contribute to lower blood sugar levels. Because abnormal insulin activity is the perpetuating factor in populations with metabolic syndrome, I would actually suggest that a paleo approach would yield faster results than a similarly restricted isocaloric diet. Once stability is achieved, however, a different methodology would likely prove superior in eliciting further improvements in body composition, especially if anaerobic work (i.e. weight training) is simultaneously undertaken.

Standards, No Compromise

There is no argument that can be made about which diets “work”. Results will vary across every demographic, and very often, even within specific populations. The only way to calibrate a diet to your specific needs is through years of trial and error, ideally under the supervision of a good trainer/nutritionist. In the realm of theoretical work, we can only know the experiences of others, but from that data, we can determine plausible courses of action. There are traps to avoid in conducting diet research:

1. Deceptive Studies. These also feature notably in the absurd claims made by supplement manufacturers. It is impossible to judge the efficacy of any compound/routine/diet if all other variables are not controlled. When an advertisement claims that people have lost up to 40 pounds in two months, they are not saying anything quantifiable about their product. The 40 pounds was lost in tandem with a diet and exercise program (hence the asterisk). Even when variables are accounted for, the claimed efficacy of diets are generally based on comparison with a control group. Your form of caloric restriction works better than unrestricted consumption? Amazing.

2. Assumed Transference. There may exist a great deal of fair, unbiased research which favorably compares a product/diet/routine to many of its plausible options. The only problem is that the studies in question were done on rats/monkeys/horses/pregnant women/diabetics/the comatose/burn victims. There is some transference among all mammals, but life processes and responses to stimuli are extremely variable. It’s great that Boron increases muscle mass in some geriatric populations, and that intravenous Glutamine speeds recovery in burn victims. Perhaps there’s a certain fatty acid that slows the progress of Alzheimer’s, or reduces the risk of relapse following triple bypass surgery. Fantastic, all of it. That doesn’t mean it applies to you. If taking an aspirin relieves your headache, it does not follow that taking two aspirin would be more effective, or that taking aspirin in the absence of pain would cause euphoria. If panaceas were so common, we wouldn’t need fifty variations of a drug to treat the same disease.

3. Attribution Error. Sometimes success is achieved despite a poor diet/training regimen, sometimes failure is achieved despite a proper diet/training regimen. We’re much more likely to attribute success to the most convenient coincidental occurrence, rather than conduct a proper post-game analysis. We like to think about amazing throws and catches, because they give dramatic significance to an otherwise mundane outcome. One might feel sick or tired during a powerlifting meet, and say “I hit that lift through pure willpower”, but actually, they hit it because their months of preparation were sufficient to overcome minor unexpected obstacles. If you follow a diet during a particularly happy time in your life, you may insist it was extremely effective, give no acknowledgement to the context of your success, and be genuinely shocked when the same experiment yields different results.

There are very few circumstances in which inertia yields greater results than action. Insecurity causes an obsession with certainty, and hard doctrine leads to closed minds. There is no “answer”, and nothing “works”. Adherence to archaic convictions in the face of scientific evidence is self-destructive. Progress demands that we cease the tribal practice of tying our egos into a collective idea. You aren’t “faithful” to Westside, or Stronglifts, or Atkin’s, or Muscle Milk, you’re just denying yourself the knowledge of anything else because you’re afraid of realizing your own identity.