I've noticed, since befriending a number of forum people on Facebook a bunch of people here liking and friending different Paleo diet organizations and groups. I thought that a distinction should be made between our diet, what we call Paleo, and the diet the general public refers to as Paleo.
Essentially, the two dietary approaches share a philosophy - that the ideal diet for humanity should closely resemble the diet we have been eating for the vast majority of our evolution. This is the hunter-gatherer diet which predates farming and all the foods that entails.
In the last 10,000 years, since we began farming, grains have made up the main staple of almost every single culture on the face of the planet. From the Paleo point of view, this is a mistake. I don't need to go over the dangers of grain consumption here, as this is well covered in different threads in a great deal of detail here on the forum (if you don't know what I'm talking about here, mosey on through the Diet and Health section, looking for threads on gluten in particular).
Unfortunately, this is where our Paleo approach and the popular conception of Paleo seems to end. Those at the forefront of the popular approach to the Paleo diet have somehow gotten it in their heads that a low-carb diet is the answer to all human misery. This is simply not the case for reasons I'll outline below.
First off, from the perspective of the philosophy behind the diet, it is rather foolish to believe our Paleolithic ancestors ate low-carb, at least not purposely or for long periods. It is highly probable that our ancestors ate high carbohydrates in the form of starchy roots and tubers, starchy veg like squashes and maybe even some nuts and legumes. It is particularly foolish to believe our ancestors wouldn't have eaten fruit, for example ("oh look, something sweet and delicious growing on a tree. I'd better not eat that since it would bring me out of ketosis and wouldn't adhere to my Paleo diet.").
But none the less, the Paleo movement has morphed itself into the second coming of the Atkins diet with a new philosophical sheen. It's Atkins 2.0, now with theoretical backup! Apparently, no one learned their lessons from the first round of Atkins diets ten years ago and now we're all going to take another crack at it and make all the same mistakes again.
The Paleo people this time around are all holding up "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes as their bible. And don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic book. It's extremely well referenced, does a masterful job of dissecting the lipid hypothesis and tears apart the calorie theory of weight loss/maintenance. All good points.
However, the book makes one fatal mistake that all the nouveau low-carb peeps are all falling in line and disseminating around the net: the idea that repeated stimulation of the insulin pathway is what leads to metabolic syndrome including weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc. etc. This is not, in fact, true. It has never been shown conclusively and doesn't really make much sense when you stop to think about it.
Glucose consumption, in other words carbohydrate consumption, causes insulin to be released from the pancreas which then shuttles glucose into the cells. When someone eats refined carbohydrates, this process happens too quickly, leading to excessive insulin release which leads to too much glucose being shuttled into the cells, drastically low blood sugar, hypoglycemia and, ultimately, cortisol release as a last ditch, panic by the body to get blood sugar levels back to normal. This is not a healthy chain reaction, thus the need to avoid refined carbohydrates.
On the other hand, when unrefined starch in the form of whole carbohydrate foods are eaten, in conjunction with all their fibre, minerals, vitamins and all other plant constituents that contribute to our nutrition, this pattern doesn't happen. Glucose is released slowly into the blood, insulin is released in appropriate amounts and just enough glucose is shuttled into the cells without an accompanying severe drop in blood glucose levels. This is a normal, healthy mechanism which does not lead to metabolic syndrome.
The best evidence for this is looking at cultures that eat high starch diets and have no sign of metabolic syndrome. The Piima Indians who live in the mountains and still eat their traditional, very high-starch diet of corn, potatoes, beans and other grains and tubers, along with primarily game meats, for example. They are lean, active, have no sign of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes or any other hallmarks of Westerner disease. There are many other examples of this, including the Kitavan in Papau New Guinea and many of the tribal populations across China. Traditional, high-starch diets, no sign of Western disease.
So, if not starch, what does cause metabolic syndrome? It's still a bit of a mystery, but the front contenders are refined fructose, cortisol (or an enzyme called 11 beta HSD), some sort of environmental toxicity perhaps (like heavy metals), excessive omega-6 fat consumption, or maybe some sort of combination of these. But it certainly isn't the consumption of unrefined starch. Metabolic syndrome is a modern disease and can therefore not be blamed on things that have been in our diets for millions of years.
The low-carbers love to point out that starch becomes glucose when it's digested. Great, thanks for pointing that out. But glucose doesn't cause insulin resistance. Stimulating the pancreas to produce insulin is not the problem. Your body is supposed to produce insulin when blood glucose levels rise, so that’s normal and healthy. It is insulin resistance that is closely linked to metabolic syndrome and weight gain. Unrefined carbohydrates can be eaten unrestricted and no sign of insulin resistance will ever show up (which brings into question the value of the glycemic index, but that's a tangent not pertinent to the current discussion).
OK, so the low-carb Paleo crowd has it wrong. Big deal. They've got a lot of stuff right: they only eat organic, clean meat and veg, they avoid grains, (most of them) avoid dairy and eggs and their diets are close to lectin-free. Sounds like something we should be on board with.
This would be true, except for the whole low-carb thing. Basically what these guys encourage is a "ketogenic diet." Some might remember this from when the Atkins diet was popular. Basically, when the body is getting severely restricted levels of carbohydrates, it goes into a mode of operation called "ketosis." Ketosis is what happens when the body is converting fat to ketone bodies to be used rather than glucose as its primary fuel for the brain (while the rest of the body can use fatty acids for energy, they can't cross the blood brain barrier. Ketone bodies can, and thus are used as fuel for the brain instead of glucose). You know someone is in ketosis when they have the chemical smell of acetone on their breath. This is the product of ketone bodies being excreted.
Ketosis is a survival mechanism. During long winters or droughts, when vegetation was sparse but animals were still plentiful, we needed a way to survive on just meat. The ketosis mechanism does just that. We can survive just fine in ketosis short term.
Dieters like this sort of diet because you can lose a lot of weight with it (although, the initial ten pounds or so that are lost rapidly and impress people so much are actually all in the form of water and glycogen, not fat). But staying on the diet long term has it's consequences. You can even go a couple of years without noticing any ill effects, but then things start to go south. Basically, metabolism goes way down as thyroid function begins to slow. Fatigue, sluggishness, dry skin, coarse hair or hair that's falling out, raised cholesterol and a low body temperature start to creep in (all symptoms of falling metabolism/low thyroid). Constipation, bad moods, heartburn, cold hands and feet and a whole whackload of other minor but significant health problems start to show up.
And this all makes sense - your body is going into famine mode. From your body's perspective, if you're going long term without eating much in the way of carbs it must mean there is a famine (your body probably couldn't conceive of why anyone would actually do this to themselves on purpose). It slows down metabolism in order to conserve. It ramps up an enzyme in the fat cells of the abdomen to store as much as possible so that there's a fuel source at the ready for all the major organs should food dry up altogether, which is why long term low-carb dieters start to get a potbelly (incidentally, some may recognize this as being a symptom of chronic cortisol release; high cortisol levels being a consequence of low-carb diets). The body is storing for the future.
And, ironically, your body develops insulin resistance. Insulin resistance, when your cells no longer accept insulin's attempts to shuttle glucose into the cells, is likely a mechanism for conservation. Glucose is prevented from going into the cells to be burned for energy so that it can be stored in body fat. This is a starvation mechanism. If your body assumes food is in short supply, it's going to conserve. I say this is ironic because insulin resistance is what low-carb dieters are generally trying to avoid by ditching carbohydrates, yet that's exactly what they get if they go low-carb for long enough.
Incidentally, this is the same process that happens with low calorie diets. The body, assuming it's starving, goes into conservation mode. This is what dieters commonly refer to as the "weight loss plateau" as they stop losing weight and even start to gain some back, the body having gone into starvation mode, slowing metabolism way down and trying to conserve every last speck of food it gets its hands on. This is also accompanied by intense cravings for quick energy foods like fat and sugar, or, in the case of low-carb diets, cravings for carbs.
And when the low-carb or low calorie dieter eventually cracks on their cravings (which they will), they gain weight with a vengeance as the body stores every little thing it can get its hands on - particularly around the abdomen. It takes a long time of eating to appetite on nutritious foods to get your body out of conservation mode by convincing it you're no longer in the middle of a famine. Few people have this kind of patience (or even know this is what is required) and so quickly jump to another diet. But I digress...
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying here is that low-carb diets are not the answer and a distinction really needs to be made between what we call the Paleo diet and what the rest of the world is calling a Paleo diet. Similar philosophy, different in practice. Don't let the name fool you.
So don't be afraid of unrefined carbs! Eat your buckwheat, eat your quinoa, eat your sweet potatoes, squash and turnips. Even eat your fruit (don't listen to Mercola on this one. He fails to distinguish between refined and unrefined fructose to his detriment. Eat as much fruit as you want, but eat it separately from other foods). And eat lots, don't restrict! The diet the network here has come to the conclusion is best for us really is the best - high in good fat, high in protein, high in unrefined carbs. No macronutrient left behind!
Incidentally, a lot of what I've written here I learned from independent health researcher Matt Stone at 180degreehealth.com. His blog, his ebooks and his audios are well worth checking out for anyone who's interested in the nitty-gritty of health like I am (Nutrition Nerd? Guilty as charged :P ). Although I don't agree with everything he says, he's really helped me to see the big picture on a lot of this stuff.
Essentially, the two dietary approaches share a philosophy - that the ideal diet for humanity should closely resemble the diet we have been eating for the vast majority of our evolution. This is the hunter-gatherer diet which predates farming and all the foods that entails.
In the last 10,000 years, since we began farming, grains have made up the main staple of almost every single culture on the face of the planet. From the Paleo point of view, this is a mistake. I don't need to go over the dangers of grain consumption here, as this is well covered in different threads in a great deal of detail here on the forum (if you don't know what I'm talking about here, mosey on through the Diet and Health section, looking for threads on gluten in particular).
Unfortunately, this is where our Paleo approach and the popular conception of Paleo seems to end. Those at the forefront of the popular approach to the Paleo diet have somehow gotten it in their heads that a low-carb diet is the answer to all human misery. This is simply not the case for reasons I'll outline below.
First off, from the perspective of the philosophy behind the diet, it is rather foolish to believe our Paleolithic ancestors ate low-carb, at least not purposely or for long periods. It is highly probable that our ancestors ate high carbohydrates in the form of starchy roots and tubers, starchy veg like squashes and maybe even some nuts and legumes. It is particularly foolish to believe our ancestors wouldn't have eaten fruit, for example ("oh look, something sweet and delicious growing on a tree. I'd better not eat that since it would bring me out of ketosis and wouldn't adhere to my Paleo diet.").
But none the less, the Paleo movement has morphed itself into the second coming of the Atkins diet with a new philosophical sheen. It's Atkins 2.0, now with theoretical backup! Apparently, no one learned their lessons from the first round of Atkins diets ten years ago and now we're all going to take another crack at it and make all the same mistakes again.
The Paleo people this time around are all holding up "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes as their bible. And don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic book. It's extremely well referenced, does a masterful job of dissecting the lipid hypothesis and tears apart the calorie theory of weight loss/maintenance. All good points.
However, the book makes one fatal mistake that all the nouveau low-carb peeps are all falling in line and disseminating around the net: the idea that repeated stimulation of the insulin pathway is what leads to metabolic syndrome including weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc. etc. This is not, in fact, true. It has never been shown conclusively and doesn't really make much sense when you stop to think about it.
Glucose consumption, in other words carbohydrate consumption, causes insulin to be released from the pancreas which then shuttles glucose into the cells. When someone eats refined carbohydrates, this process happens too quickly, leading to excessive insulin release which leads to too much glucose being shuttled into the cells, drastically low blood sugar, hypoglycemia and, ultimately, cortisol release as a last ditch, panic by the body to get blood sugar levels back to normal. This is not a healthy chain reaction, thus the need to avoid refined carbohydrates.
On the other hand, when unrefined starch in the form of whole carbohydrate foods are eaten, in conjunction with all their fibre, minerals, vitamins and all other plant constituents that contribute to our nutrition, this pattern doesn't happen. Glucose is released slowly into the blood, insulin is released in appropriate amounts and just enough glucose is shuttled into the cells without an accompanying severe drop in blood glucose levels. This is a normal, healthy mechanism which does not lead to metabolic syndrome.
The best evidence for this is looking at cultures that eat high starch diets and have no sign of metabolic syndrome. The Piima Indians who live in the mountains and still eat their traditional, very high-starch diet of corn, potatoes, beans and other grains and tubers, along with primarily game meats, for example. They are lean, active, have no sign of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes or any other hallmarks of Westerner disease. There are many other examples of this, including the Kitavan in Papau New Guinea and many of the tribal populations across China. Traditional, high-starch diets, no sign of Western disease.
So, if not starch, what does cause metabolic syndrome? It's still a bit of a mystery, but the front contenders are refined fructose, cortisol (or an enzyme called 11 beta HSD), some sort of environmental toxicity perhaps (like heavy metals), excessive omega-6 fat consumption, or maybe some sort of combination of these. But it certainly isn't the consumption of unrefined starch. Metabolic syndrome is a modern disease and can therefore not be blamed on things that have been in our diets for millions of years.
The low-carbers love to point out that starch becomes glucose when it's digested. Great, thanks for pointing that out. But glucose doesn't cause insulin resistance. Stimulating the pancreas to produce insulin is not the problem. Your body is supposed to produce insulin when blood glucose levels rise, so that’s normal and healthy. It is insulin resistance that is closely linked to metabolic syndrome and weight gain. Unrefined carbohydrates can be eaten unrestricted and no sign of insulin resistance will ever show up (which brings into question the value of the glycemic index, but that's a tangent not pertinent to the current discussion).
OK, so the low-carb Paleo crowd has it wrong. Big deal. They've got a lot of stuff right: they only eat organic, clean meat and veg, they avoid grains, (most of them) avoid dairy and eggs and their diets are close to lectin-free. Sounds like something we should be on board with.
This would be true, except for the whole low-carb thing. Basically what these guys encourage is a "ketogenic diet." Some might remember this from when the Atkins diet was popular. Basically, when the body is getting severely restricted levels of carbohydrates, it goes into a mode of operation called "ketosis." Ketosis is what happens when the body is converting fat to ketone bodies to be used rather than glucose as its primary fuel for the brain (while the rest of the body can use fatty acids for energy, they can't cross the blood brain barrier. Ketone bodies can, and thus are used as fuel for the brain instead of glucose). You know someone is in ketosis when they have the chemical smell of acetone on their breath. This is the product of ketone bodies being excreted.
Ketosis is a survival mechanism. During long winters or droughts, when vegetation was sparse but animals were still plentiful, we needed a way to survive on just meat. The ketosis mechanism does just that. We can survive just fine in ketosis short term.
Dieters like this sort of diet because you can lose a lot of weight with it (although, the initial ten pounds or so that are lost rapidly and impress people so much are actually all in the form of water and glycogen, not fat). But staying on the diet long term has it's consequences. You can even go a couple of years without noticing any ill effects, but then things start to go south. Basically, metabolism goes way down as thyroid function begins to slow. Fatigue, sluggishness, dry skin, coarse hair or hair that's falling out, raised cholesterol and a low body temperature start to creep in (all symptoms of falling metabolism/low thyroid). Constipation, bad moods, heartburn, cold hands and feet and a whole whackload of other minor but significant health problems start to show up.
And this all makes sense - your body is going into famine mode. From your body's perspective, if you're going long term without eating much in the way of carbs it must mean there is a famine (your body probably couldn't conceive of why anyone would actually do this to themselves on purpose). It slows down metabolism in order to conserve. It ramps up an enzyme in the fat cells of the abdomen to store as much as possible so that there's a fuel source at the ready for all the major organs should food dry up altogether, which is why long term low-carb dieters start to get a potbelly (incidentally, some may recognize this as being a symptom of chronic cortisol release; high cortisol levels being a consequence of low-carb diets). The body is storing for the future.
And, ironically, your body develops insulin resistance. Insulin resistance, when your cells no longer accept insulin's attempts to shuttle glucose into the cells, is likely a mechanism for conservation. Glucose is prevented from going into the cells to be burned for energy so that it can be stored in body fat. This is a starvation mechanism. If your body assumes food is in short supply, it's going to conserve. I say this is ironic because insulin resistance is what low-carb dieters are generally trying to avoid by ditching carbohydrates, yet that's exactly what they get if they go low-carb for long enough.
Incidentally, this is the same process that happens with low calorie diets. The body, assuming it's starving, goes into conservation mode. This is what dieters commonly refer to as the "weight loss plateau" as they stop losing weight and even start to gain some back, the body having gone into starvation mode, slowing metabolism way down and trying to conserve every last speck of food it gets its hands on. This is also accompanied by intense cravings for quick energy foods like fat and sugar, or, in the case of low-carb diets, cravings for carbs.
And when the low-carb or low calorie dieter eventually cracks on their cravings (which they will), they gain weight with a vengeance as the body stores every little thing it can get its hands on - particularly around the abdomen. It takes a long time of eating to appetite on nutritious foods to get your body out of conservation mode by convincing it you're no longer in the middle of a famine. Few people have this kind of patience (or even know this is what is required) and so quickly jump to another diet. But I digress...
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying here is that low-carb diets are not the answer and a distinction really needs to be made between what we call the Paleo diet and what the rest of the world is calling a Paleo diet. Similar philosophy, different in practice. Don't let the name fool you.
So don't be afraid of unrefined carbs! Eat your buckwheat, eat your quinoa, eat your sweet potatoes, squash and turnips. Even eat your fruit (don't listen to Mercola on this one. He fails to distinguish between refined and unrefined fructose to his detriment. Eat as much fruit as you want, but eat it separately from other foods). And eat lots, don't restrict! The diet the network here has come to the conclusion is best for us really is the best - high in good fat, high in protein, high in unrefined carbs. No macronutrient left behind!
Incidentally, a lot of what I've written here I learned from independent health researcher Matt Stone at 180degreehealth.com. His blog, his ebooks and his audios are well worth checking out for anyone who's interested in the nitty-gritty of health like I am (Nutrition Nerd? Guilty as charged :P ). Although I don't agree with everything he says, he's really helped me to see the big picture on a lot of this stuff.
