Mark Sisson's Blog, page 228

Should You Sleep-Low to Boost Performance?

Thought experiment time. Say you train hard, hard enough to deplete a signifiant amount of glycogen. Your muscles are empty, sensitive to the effects of insulin, and screaming for a couple potatoes to refill glycogen. What do you do?

In most circles, the answer is to eat those potatoes and refill those glycogen stores. And why not? The post-workout period is a special window of opportunity for eating a bunch of carbs and having them go to the right places with minimal insulin required. They won’t contribute to fat storage. They’ll go straight to your muscles. Restocking glycogen sets your muscles up to repeat the hard work and keep up with your training. It makes sense.

What if you didn’t eat the potatoes after a hard workout? What if you abstained from carbs entirely after a glycogen-depleting workout? What if you just went to bed without any (carbs in your) supper? What if you were an elite athlete and skipped the carbs?

That’s exactly what a team of French researchers had a group of highly trained male triathletes do, according to a study released a couple months back.

They were exploring the effects of a “sleep-low” eating regimen on the type of performance indices relevant to endurance athletes. It was a really interesting study.

First of all, everyone was highly-trained. These were elite triathletes, the cream of the crop. No weekend warriors in sight. They were split into two groups: a control group and a “sleep-low” group. After a three week induction period of identical diets, supplements, and training, the experimental phase commenced. Both groups ate the same total amount of carbohydrate (6 g/kg bodyweight) each day, just at different times. The control group ate theirs with every meal. The sleep-low group ate theirs at breakfast and lunch.

Training was identical for both groups. For four days straight each week, both would follow a routine.

In the afternoon, they’d perform high intensity training sessions, either 8×5 minutes cycling at 85% maximal aerobic power output (MAP) or 6×5 minutes running at 85% MAP (alternating each day) with a minute between each interval.

In the morning, they’d do low intensity aerobic (LIT) work before breakfast: an hour of cycling at 65% MAP.

The sleep-low group ate carbs at breakfast, lunch, and a pre-workout snack. Then a HIT workout. No carbs until breakfast the next day after the LIT session.

The control group ate carbs at breakfast, lunch, post-workout, and dinner. Breakfast came after the LIT session.

After three weeks, the scientists subjected both groups to submaximal (LIT) and supramaximal (HIT) cycling performance tests, Vo2max tests, and a 10k run (to simulate the final leg of a triathlon). The sleep-low group performed these tests in a “low-carb availability” state (low glycogen). The control group performed them in a carb-replete state.

What happened?

Submaximal efficiency (power output per calorie burned when pedaling at moderate intensity) greatly improved in the sleep-low group. The control group saw very little improvement. This is a crucial biomarker for endurance athletes. If your submaximal efficiency is high, you get more power out of each stride/pedal/stroke with less energy required. That means your “easy pace” is faster than the other runners.

The sleep-low group’s supramaximal capacity also saw a major boost. They were able to cycle at 150% of their Vo2max for around 12-20% longer than before. There was very little improvement in the control group.

In a 10k run test, the sleep-low group shaved around 3-5% off their times. The control group shaved just 0.10% off.

Even though they were all quite lean to begin with and this wasn’t the purpose of the study, the sleep-low group lost more body fat.

This was the “have your cake and eat it too so just long as it’s not at dinner” study. When they did HIT, they were glycogen-replete and dominant. When they did LIT, they were running on fat and just as dominant. They weren’t on a keto diet. They rapidly reached the very-low carb/ketogenic state for a good portion of the day by depleting glycogen and failing to replace it, from the afternoon snack to the post-workout breakfast. They weren’t just “high-carb.” They were smart carb, filling the glycogen, depleting it, and forcing their bodies to run on fat for a while.

What’s truly remarkable is that this was a short-term study. Three weeks of experimental conditions were plenty for the benefits to accrue and amass. They didn’t have to spend six months getting adapted. They didn’t go through a keto induction period. They manipulated the pattern of energy substrate use through carb and workout timing. This is simple stuff anyone could do. And if the elite athletes (triathlons are no joke!) can benefit from it, I’m pretty sure the average person trying to improve performance will see benefits.

Another cool part is that even though the sleep-low group performed HIT workouts in the carb-fed state throughout the study, they were tested in a carb-depleted state and still saw huge improvements. They “trained low, raced low” when it came to submaximal endurance and “trained high, raced low” when it came to supramaximal capacity—and both modalities improved. That’s huge.

What’s going on is forced adaptation. By waiting to eat more carbs immediately after you deplete yours, your body has to upregulate fat metabolism. You will get the carbs soon enough—you’re going to eat them the next day after your morning workout—but you make your body wait a bit. In the meantime, it has to work with what it has available: fat. This study is just the latest to show that forcing these adaptations can have real benefits.

If you wanted to try this out yourself, you could follow the schedule in the study. You’d have to have a lot of free time and flexibility, but it’d probably work.

If you’re a normal person with a normal schedule, you could do a truncated version. Eat carbs before your high intensity workouts and none after. Go for a walk or a light jog in the morning before breakfast. Eat carbs with breakfast and lunch and perhaps a snack before your high intensity workout. You probably don’t need the 6 grams of carbs per kg of bodyweight the athletes ate in this study. Whatever you do, be sure to really deplete glycogen and wait for 12-16 hours to refill it.

Standard low-carb dieting promotes similar adaptations, but it works more slowly. Glycogen depletion takes a while if you aren’t training intensely, so you can speed up the process by throwing in some sprint, circuit, or HIIT workouts.

I know from personal experience that this can work (hence Primal Endurance). Once or twice a week, I like to fast after workouts. That’s a slightly more extreme version of post-workout carb abstention, but it’s the same idea: withholding food and forcing your body to adapt. This increases growth hormone (important for fat burning and cellular repair) and speeds up fat adaptation.

So, who’s interested in trying this out? Anyone? Let me know how it goes in the comment section!

Why Are Some Wines More Primal-Approved Than Others?

Wine is one of humankind’s oldest and most favorite beverages not for the health benefits, or the antioxidants, or the resveratrol, but because it enhances life. Poets, authors, artists, philosophers, and laypeople across the ages will tell you that wine makes food taste better, promotes richer conversation, unfetters creative expression (a single glass can really dissolve writer’s block), relaxes the racing mind and emboldens the spirit.

Over the years, I’ve enjoyed wine with dinner and friends. Usually every night. Not only as a gluten-free replacement for the grain-heavy beer I used to drink to wind down at the end of a day, but as a hedge against the various causes of early mortality light-to-moderate wine consumption seems to protect against. Some of the most recent research suggests that moderate wine consumption may even help against the run-of-the-mill cognitive impairments associated with aging. The mechanisms behind the beneficial relationship of wine and health are not fully understood, but most studies attribute it to the high concentrations of polyphenolic compounds, like flavonoids and resveratrol. Even the alcohol itself has benefits in low doses, increasing nitric oxide release and improving endothelial function. The various health benefits associated with moderate wine consumption were just too well known and numerous to ignore.

But in recent years I began experiencing negative side effects. I was waking up in the middle of the night, and I just didn’t feel well after throwing back a glass or two—even of my favorites. Something just wasn’t right, and I couldn’t ignore it. All the research in the world couldn’t justify a consistently bad night’s sleep.

I wasn’t the only one. From your emails asking for help, I know a lot of you can tell the same story. A love for wine that turned sour once the side effects couldn’t be ignored. I didn’t really have an answer beyond “stop drinking wine.”

So, with a bittersweet farewell, I stopped drinking it.

Until last fall. That’s when I met a guy named Todd White at Dave Asprey’s BulletProof Conference in Pasadena. Todd is the founder of Dry Farm Wines and was providing wine for the conference.

We got to chatting. I told him that I didn’t drink anymore, and why. Todd’s eyes widened. I could see his brain going into overdrive. The dude was excited. I know that look. I’ve had that look. He was emphatic that his wines were different. He’d had the same problem with wine as me. Bad sleep, “blah” feeling, general all-around unpleasantness. He’d loved wine for decades and had been in the wine business for 15 years, but the side effects became too much. So he decided to do something about it and founded Dry Farm Wines. By selecting wines from vintners who used only traditional, organic, and natural winemaking methods, Todd could drink and enjoy wine again without the side effects. He was bringing wine back from the brink of industrialization.

Dry Farm Wines is my favorite type of business. Just like I got into this Primal business to create a system of eating, training, and living that made me happier, healthier, and more productive, Todd created Dry Farm Wines so that he could improve his life and drink wine again. Any entrepreneur will tell you: tons of people have your problems, too. The trick is finding the one that will resonate with the most people.

Now, I was initially skeptical of Todd’s claims. I hadn’t just been drinking 2 buck chuck. Even some of the most expensive, highly-lauded bottles of California cab had left me awake and annoyed at 3 AM. Were Todd’s wines really different?

The way he put it certainly appealed to my Primal sensibilities. Similar to the effect the modern industrialized food system has on those who eat from it, modern wine production may be causing most of the problems associated with its consumption.

“Mark,” I thought. “You’re an n=1 guy. Far crazier things have worked. Give it a shot.” So a couple weeks later, Todd came over to our home in Malibu for a wine tasting. To my surprise and delight, he was right. Not only did his wines taste great and complex and unlike anything I’d ever had, I didn’t experience any of the negative side effects I had with the commercial varieties. My sleep was unaffected. My mood the morning after was positive. After a couple of weeks of imbibing these babies and changing nothing else about my lifestyle, I was a total believer.

I was so appreciative of Todd giving me back something I’ve enjoyed—and confident that you guys would also be interested— that I decided to introduce him and Dry Farm Wines on the blog. Todd isn’t just a wine aficionado. He is also an avid biohacker, fitness enthusiast and nutrition geek. In other words, we really get along and he knows what he’s talking about.

According to Todd, the winemaking process and farming techniques have changed dramatically from the naturally fermented grape juice our ancestors enjoyed. Standard modern wines are now much higher in alcohol, higher in sugar, and filled with chemicals and additives to improve texture, color, and flavor. There are 76 chemicals and additives approved by the FDA for use in wine-making. Of these additives, the FDA bestows upon 38 of them the not-entirely-reassuring acronym “GRAS”—generally regarded as safe. Nice, huh?

Farming practices have been industrialized, too, and conventional wine often contains fungicides, mycotoxins, and phthalates. The wine industry, like most of the agribusinesses in the country, has put profit and palate pleasing above all else. The name of the game is quantity and cost-effectiveness, not quality or nutrition.

The U.S. government also has their hand in plenty of the blame. Collusion between the mainstream wine industry and government has kept nutritional information and ingredient lists off of wine labels. Are they protecting trade secrets? Preserving decades-old family recipes? Nope: they simply don’t want you to know what you’re drinking because the truth is so unappetizing (or worse). From excessive sulfites that keep microbes at bay but often cause headaches, added sugar to increase fermentation, added water to reduce alcohol, grape juice concentrate to deepen the color, fibers and gums to improve texture, antimicrobials like velcorin, added tartaric acid to provide missing acidity, and oak “essence” added because actual oak barrels are too expensive, accurate wine labels would contain ingredients lists far more complex than just “grapes, yeast, sulfur.” Will all those things hurt you? Maybe not, but it’s hard to know when you, well, don’t know what’s in that bottle.

Furthermore, the only requirement the government has for wine labels is that the alcohol content be included. And guess what? Even that’s just a guess. By law, the actual ABV in a bottle of wine can be 1.5% greater than stated on the label. You really have no idea what you’re consuming or how much alcohol you’re drinking.

Since they contain no added sugar to boost fermentation and thus conversion into ethanol, all Dry Farm Wine ABVs are under 12.5%. And because Todd’s team lab-tests every batch, the ABV on the label is actually accurate. Drinking a low alcohol wine makes all the difference in how I feel, both while drinking and afterward. While drinking, I get that gentle lift we all like without crossing the threshold into sloppiness. Afterwards, I avoid the heaviness and foggy dullness. You can drink and enjoy more without increasing your alcohol intake to problematic levels.

These natural wines contain nothing but grapes and the wild yeasts that live on the grapes themselves. As Todd tells it, the farmers that make the wines he carries are nearly all in Europe where the natural wine movement has been growing steadily in recent years. Like many of us, there is a fast growing interest in eating and drinking whole, natural products. Todd describes these natural winemakers as activist farmers and hippies who have a real pride in stewardship of the land. Most of them are multi-generational landowners who are still farming the same vines their parents and grandparents tended. They’re zealots, he says, rebelling against the modern practices they believe have poisoned wine-making. They have respect for and trust in nature and a commitment to craft and authenticity.

In their obsession for letting nature be the guide, all of them employ organic practices that create a “living soil,” rich in nutrients and teeming with beneficial organisms. This includes a rejection of irrigation, which increases yield and sugar content but “dilutes” the quality and washes away nutrients. An irrigated wine will be higher in alcohol but lower in complexity than a dry-farmed wine.

Todd’s wines are 100% dry farmed, which means they rely entirely on natural rainfall. That’s how it’s been done for millennia in Europe. His farmers are non-interventionists and believe irrigation is the first point of intervention in nature’s logic. A dry farmed vine produces a more complex, deep flavored fruit that can be picked when it’s less ripe (and much lower in sugar content). Their use of old-growth vines also improves the quality. The more mature a grape vine, the deeper its roots and greater its ability to draw moisture and minerals from the soil.

The way these wines are fermented is different, too. Rather than use commercial yeasts, Dry Farm Wines are fermented using the wild, naturally occurring yeasts found on the grapes. This lends more complexity and a unique quality that you simply won’t find in the homogenous 100,000 gallon vat-wine.

But it’s not all tradition and instinct. They require that all of their natural wines meet the following standards and lab quantifications:

Alcohol under 12.5%

Sugar under 1 g/L

Sulfites under 75ppm (very little added, mostly naturally occurring)

Mycotoxin (Ochratoxin A) free

Organically farmed

Dry farmed

Old growth vines (35-100 years old)

Native/wild yeasts

Minimal intervention

Minimal filtering (watch for some bottom sediment)

No chaptalization (adding sugar to the grape must in fermentation to boost alcohol content)

Like the ancestral health community at large, they use science to improve upon traditional ways. Fanatical about lab testing, they are the perfect blend of craft and quantification. I know exactly what I am drinking: what’s in it, what’s not, how it was farmed, and how it was processed. It’s the only wine I drink now.

Anyhow, I’ll get off my new found wine case (get it? That’s like a soapbox, but with wine). If you’re a Primal reader, like me, who enjoys a glass of wine, check them out or look for wine. But if you want to get the most out of it, find a provider that’s local, organic, and dry farmed for all the benefits and fewer drawbacks.

Since Dry Farm Wines is the only wine club in the world focusing on traditionally-produced, dry-farmed wines, I’m happy to support them and their collective of rebel vintners. You could head down to the local Whole Foods or specialty wine shop and try a dry-farmed, natural, organic wine, but I really like that Dry Farm Wines curates their offerings. I have no clue if the dude down at the wine shop knows about the importance of sleep (and the effect wine may have on it) or polyphenol count or resveratrol, but Todd does. He’s one of us. That’s why we’ve partnered to offer a one penny bottle of wine with any club order and free shipping to all my readers. (Full disclosure: If you click that link and purchase something, Mark’s Daily Apple receives compensation. Thank you for your support!) Check ‘em out and tell me what you think. If I can help a few people enjoy wine again, I’ll be happy (at least for the next week or so).

Thanks for reading, everyone. What are your experiences with wine? Anyone else have the bittersweet relationship I (used to) have with it? Find any differences between varieties you drink and the effects you feel later? Let me know in the comments below.

Dear Mark: Bodyweight with Weights; Glycemic Index Versus Load

For today’s edition of Dear Mark, I’m answering a pair of questions from readers. First comes from Gaspare, who heard me talking on Joe Rogan’s podcast in January and wonders whether bodyweight training and weight training can complement each other. It turns out they can. Then, I discuss glycemic index, glycemic load, how foods can have low glycemic loads but still be bad for weight gain, and how focusing on glycemic index and glycemic load might be misleading, if not an outright mistake.

Let’s go:

Hello,

I heard about you from Rogan’s Podcast, So I ended up buying your book Primal Blueprint(haven’t started it yet). On Rogan’s podcast you mentioned doing 80% of your 1RepMax for about 4-5 reps and as many sets as you can handle. But on your blog I mainly see you talking about bodyweight stuff. Can you “get away” with using mainly bodyweight stuff and maybe using weights 1x a week? Thanks for your time and your advice, Im really looking forward to learning more!

-Gaspare

Yup. That’s actually very similar to how I train every week.

The foundation is bodyweight movement, things I can do without the gym or any additional equipment. So tons of walking, much of it done in nature; occasional sprinting, often uphill; and a lot of bodyweight strength training.

Most of my upper body training is bodyweight, sometimes with a weight vest to increase resistance. Pullups, dips, and pushups are plenty for most people looking to build upper body strength and look good with their shirt off. Doubly so if you throw on a weight vest or loop a kettlebell over your foot (parents can strap a child to their bodies or train kids to hang on and hold for dear life).

But it’s tough to get an effective lower-body stimulus from just bodyweight. You could do all the bodyweight squats in the world—and don’t get me wrong, I do them all the time—but beyond a certain point you won’t really be getting stronger. Purists will promote single leg squats, but not everyone has the flexibility for that, and in my view they’re more of a parlor trick than an effective way to train the lower body. Besides, at some point, you’ll just be doing dozens and dozens of single leg squats and run into the same issues you do with traditional bodyweight squats.

That’s where weights come in.

I don’t mess around with heavy barbell squats anymore. If I’m doing squats, I like the hack squat machine. They can be done with barbells, albeit a bit awkwardly, but I just find the machine effective enough and more convenient. I’ll also sometimes use the trap bar for deadlifts, as those become more of a hybrid quad/hamstring/glute exercise; stand on stacked weights to get more depth. Training minimalists might pick up a kettlebell or two for swings and goblet squats and presses and rows.

So yeah, weights aren’t necessary but they really do help optimize your workout, especially for the lower body, and they don’t have to be intimidating or heavy or scary at all.

Keep in mind that I’m not training for anything specific. There are no races, no competitions, no big events for which I need to prep. I’m just training to stay fit, strong, and fast enough to enjoy life, play Ultimate, snowboard, standup paddle, hike, and look good naked. If I were training seriously, I’d throw in a day of heavy weight training (squats, deadlifts, etc) each week, making sure to keep the reps low and the intensity high.

Mark:

Thanks for creating this blog – just a terrific resource. I have a question about glycemic load. I scanned the list of foods catalogued here –

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

One portion of the list that jumped out at me was that white breads showed reasonably low load, which had me scratching my head because one aspect of my personal experiences with bread has been that its absence from my diet really seems to boost weight loss (or maintenance).

I realize you must get saturated with emails, but I am curious about this.

Take care.

Glycemic load is different than, but dependent on, glycemic index.

Glycemic index measures the blood glucose response to 50 grams of carbs from a given food. To measure the glycemic index (GI) of a baked potato, you’d feed the subject 50 grams of carbs’ worth of baked potato. The carb amount used to determine GI is always fixed; the amount of food used to determine it fluctuates.

Glycemic load (GL) measures the glycemic index of a normal serving of a given food. If a food has a high GI but lower GL, that means the official serving size used to determine the glycemic load provides fewer than the 50 grams of carbs used to determine the glycemic index. Most food serving sizes—at least the ones used in official GL/GI tests—provide fewer than 50 grams of carbs.

In reality, people eat way more than a single serving of white bread, pasta, white rice, and other foods that have low glycemic loads. The official GL may be lower for bread, but that’s not how most people eat it. This is why you (and thousands of others) notice better fat loss upon giving up bread.

Focusing on GI or GL just doesn’t really work:

You can have a “low-GL diet” full of white bread or an equally low-GL one full of fruit and tubers. Which would be better for your waistline?

GI values are generated by feeding foods in isolation. To get the GI of white bread, a subject will eat only white bread and track his blood glucose response. A food eaten in isolation (how GI is tested) has a different glycemic index than that same food eaten in a meal (how people actually eat). Almost everything you’d encounter in a typical meal—like fiber, fat, protein, dairy, and vinegar—have been shown to reduce the GI of specific foods. In other words, eating food reduces GI.

That’s why neither glycemic index nor glycemic load are consistently helpful in predicting health outcomes or weight loss. They’ve done tons of studies on GI/GL diets and mostly come up empty. There’s just not much evidence they improve weight loss.

Chris Kresser did a podcast on the topic, coming to a very similar conclusion—focusing on GI and GL is ineffective.

Thanks for the kind words, by the way. I appreciate you reading it!

That’s it for today, folks. Take care and be sure to throw in your input down below!

Like This Blog Post? Subscribe to the Mark's Daily Apple Newsletter and Get 10 eBooks and More Delivered to Your Inbox for FREE

Weekend Link Love – Edition 392

Primal Kitchen Mayo is back in stock. Finally! We’ve had too many choking deaths attributed to consumption of dry tuna.

Research of the Week

Collagen isotope analysis reveals that Neanderthals were total vegetarians, except for all that meat they ate.

Kids in the ICU recover quicker when they fast.

A new finger prick test for celiac is quite accurate.

Walking is hard.

Kids without younger siblings are more likely to become obese.

A research lab realized it had a bunch of oxytocin studies that were never published because their results contradicted the “oxytocin as love hormone” hypothesis.

New Primal Blueprint Podcasts

Episode 111: Mark Interviews Melissa Hartwig: I chat with my friend, Melissa Hartwig, co-creator of the Whole30 movement. Our lively discussion covers the Whole 30 program, alcohol’s place in a healthy lifestyle, feeding kids, paleo sweets, the future of Whole 30, and much more.

Each week, select Mark’s Daily Apple blog posts are prepared as Primal Blueprint Podcasts. Need to catch up on reading, but don’t have the time? Prefer to listen to articles while on the go? Check out the new blog post podcasts below, and subscribe to the Primal Blueprint Podcast here so you never miss an episode.

10 Interesting Predictors of Longevity
Can Exposure to Non-Primal Foods Actually Help?
9 Primal Ways to Become a Better Communicator

Interesting Blog Posts

The nature of canine intelligence.

The case for preheating your slow cooker.

Media, Schmedia

Why some cry and some don’t.

Thai Buddhism is really growing.

Everything Else

What high heels do.

Can you pass this flexibility, strength, balance, and coordination test?

Keith Norris, co-founder of PaleoFX, talks about psychedelics, community, and finding a life path.

“Keep the Faith.”

Iberian storks are addicted to junk food.

Duh.

Babies know they don’t know.

Recipe Corner

Easter eggs you’ll actually eat.
Pork and apples just work, as shown in apple cider pulled pork.

Time Capsule

One year ago (Mar 23 – Mar 29)

The Definitive Guide to Seeds – Everything you need to know about edible seeds.
How to Safely and Enjoyable Transition to a Barefoot-Dominant Lifestyle – Because going barefoot safely requires planning, caution, and know-how.

Comment of the Week

Inconceivable!!

– I actually do think it means what you think it means, Neal.

West African Nut Stew

West African nut stew is usually West African peanut stew. Peanut butter is whisked into the broth to give the stew a rich texture and slightly sweet, nutty flavor. Although a little peanut butter isn’t something that most people, even those following a Primal diet, need to avoid at all costs, it’s good to have options.

You could leave the nut butter out entirely, and the stew is still good, but the nut butter is what makes this stew unique and gives it a really satisfying flavor and texture. In place of peanut butter, almond butter can be whisked into West African stew with little noticeable difference in flavor. Cashew butter or sunflower butter can also be used.

“Stew” often means thick chunks of meat, but West African stew is all about vegetables. Sweet potato, bell pepper and dark greens of some sort (spinach, kale, collards) fill the bowl with different flavors and textures. In this version, chicken thighs add protein and heft, but are optional. Without meat, West African stew is still flavorsome, nutrient-dense comfort food.

Servings: 6

Time in the Kitchen: 1 hour

Ingredients:

1 tablespoon coconut oil (15 ml)
1 white or yellow onion, finely chopped
1/2 pound (2 or 3 thighs) skinless, boneless chicken thighs cut into 1-inch chunks (230 g)
1 teaspoon ground coriander (5 ml)
3 garlic cloves, finely chopped
2-inches ginger, peeled and finely chopped (5 cm)
1 red bell pepper, finely chopped
1 sweet potato, peeled and cut into ½ to 1-inch pieces (13mm to 2.5 cm)
1 28-ounce jar chopped or diced tomatoes (794 g)
1/3 cup raw, unsalted almond butter (80 g)
4 cups chicken broth (950 ml)
3 ounces (a few handfuls) fresh baby spinach leaves or other dark leafy greens (85 g)

Optional: Cayenne, red pepper flakes, chiles de arbol, or your favorite hot sauce, to taste. Cilantro, for garnish.

Instructions:

Heat coconut oil in a wide soup pot over medium heat. Add onion and cook until soft, 8 minutes.

Add chicken and cook until browned on the outside. Season with salt, and the coriander.

Add garlic and ginger, cook 1 minute more.

Add the bell pepper, sweet potato, and tomatoes.

Heat the chicken broth. Whisk in the almond butter. Pour into the soup pot. Add cayenne pepper, red pepper flakes, or chiles de arbol to taste if using.

Cover and simmer 25 – 35 minutes, until sweet potato is soft. Spinach can be added during the last few minutes of cooking. Heavier greens, like kale or collards, should be added in the last 10 to 15 minutes.

Serve with chopped cilantro and hot sauce.

Thyroid Levels Normal After Just 30 Days of Primal Eating

It’s Friday, everyone! And that means another Primal Blueprint Real Life Story from a Mark’s Daily Apple reader. If you have your own success story and would like to share it with me and the Mark’s Daily Apple community please contact me here. I’ll continue to publish these each Friday as long as they keep coming in. Thank you for reading!

I’ve always been active and in relatively good physical condition. Growing up we ate reasonable home cooked meals, which primarily consisted of meat and vegetables. I danced ballet two to three nights a week from the age of four, in addition to cheerleading, as I got older. I continued this lifestyle up until high school, and, despite the occasional illness usually associated with or aggravated by my allergies, I was quite healthy. I had no choice but to continue with my fitness regime once I joined the US Navy at eighteen. I served until I was twenty-two when I was honorably discharged. Once I left the Navy, I did have a period where I gained about 15-20 pounds, but I quickly realized it was because I had become more stagnant as I enrolled in university to pursue a career in science. Within a matter of months I had lost the weight again, was eating more consciously, and regularly going to the gym. I managed to maintain a good fitness level and physical condition throughout my twenties.

At the start of my thirties, whilst I was pursuing my PhD at Oxford University, I became much more sluggish, depressed, and fatigued. I was still doing all the same routines I had previously—eating the same type of foods, going to the gym, and sleeping well. Yet I couldn’t shake the state I was in. I then thought I was doomed like the rest of my family. My three younger siblings had all been diagnosed with Hashimoto’s disease since high school and my mother, who was one of eight children, had had her thyroid removed at age thirty because they simply could not keep her levels under control. Given the way I felt at the time, I was somewhat anticipating the same outcome for myself.

Going to the physician confirmed my fear that I had begun producing antibodies, but my levels weren’t yet at the stage of requiring medication. Then a few months later I fell pregnant. I didn’t think so much about feeling horrible and as I moved into the second and third trimester, I improved with the exception of having high blood pressure. As a result, I was induced and had my first child a week early. In turn, I had a five-day stay in the hospital to ensure I didn’t have any further complications.

On and off over the next several years and with having my second child, I struggled with depression and weight gain, despite being an active working mother and eating what I thought was a balanced diet. At the beginning of last year, after dizzy spells, chest pain, bloated belly, insomnia, weight gain, depression, eczema, thinning hair and skin peeling off the soles of my feet, I had had enough. I went to the doctor, who again confirmed my thyroid levels were out of balance. I was producing even more antibodies, but they wanted to wait until my levels soared before putting me on medication. I decided to take matters into my own hands because, frankly, I couldn’t go on living that way. It wasn’t a life at all to me. I did quite a bit of research on a thyroid diet and read how it had helped to improve the lives of other people. The most important factor seemed to be the elimination of gluten and the reduction of a number of goitrogenic foods as well as my caffeine intake. I did this and began to feel incredible. My symptoms almost vanished over night. I still had not lost all the weight, but I had lost some and that was a start. Unfortunately, that only lasted for about five to six months and yet again I was feeling sluggish, depressed and gained weight as my thyroid levels yet again crept up. Despite my desperate pleas to my physician to see a nutritionist, they always declined me and I simply couldn’t afford the hundreds of pounds they required for privately conducted blood and sample tests as well as consultation fees. I set out once again to find an answer.

This time it appears as though I have found it. I am now 17 weeks pregnant and a little more than a month into primal eating. I’m feeling great, full of energy and am sleeping well. I lost 10 lbs within the first two weeks of changing my eating habits despite being 12 weeks pregnant at the time. The greatest news I have had this week is that by changing to not only a gluten-free but also a grain-free diet, my thyroid blood levels in four weeks have all returned to normal. No more high TSH, antibodies, and low free T4. I am right where I need to be in my second trimester of pregnancy. I’m absolutely thrilled with the success of that alone. I have no doubt that once I deliver my lovely little one, I will be on my way to shedding even more pounds and still feeling great.

Thank you so very much to Mark and The Primal Blueprint for contributing to my success story so far and my new way of living.

Theresa

How to Handle Constructive Criticism as a Primal Advocate

It’s a role that’s probably more often thrust upon us than one we individually choose—that of Primal advocate. There we are minding our own healthy business, and somebody’s question or comment fixes the spotlight (or interrogation light) on us. Why do we eat “so much” protein? What could possibly be wrong with bread? Why do we wear the shoes we do or race down the street like we stole something?

Sometimes it’s the people in our inner circle who are the inquiring minds. Other times it’s co-workers or even strangers. It might even be our doctors. Whatever the case, what might begin as a simple question can often devolve into a full-blown harangue about how we’re putting our health in grave peril. On the flip side, it may be we who descend into an extended diatribe on all things Primal as the other person tries to slink away, having just been intrigued by our lettuce wrapped “un-wich.” How do we respond in these conversations without losing all patience or perspective?

Not all of us are out to become Primal advocates, of course. But you don’t need to be sporting a Grok “Live Long, Drop Dead” t-shirt to garner attention. The fact is, our choices can make us stick out. Just by eating what we eat (or avoiding what we don’t) or otherwise going about our Primal routines, we become accidental examples for a lifestyle conventional wisdom finds unusual or even dangerous.

A lot of people these days have heard enough about paleo/Primal (usually misunderstanding it) to have an opinion, but they may not know other flesh-and-blood adherents. Suddenly you’ve become the spokesperson, poster child, resident expert and/or prime target in their midst. This can be a good thing—or not—depending on their agenda.

Many of us by now have witnessed the positive angle of this. Someone you know (or don’t) asks a question out of genuine curiosity, and you end up having a great discussion. By the end, they’re determined to learn more or even give it a whirl. You walk away having felt like you enjoyed a fulfilling conversation and did an act of public service.

On the other hand, we’ve likely been put in the hot seat, too. Perhaps we’re honest about our lifestyle changes at a physician appointment. Maybe we take a pass on dessert or appear to be an expert at menu substitutions or another choice entirely, but our nonconformity ruffles some feathers. Two minutes into dinner (or a doctor appointment) we find ourselves the center of everyone’s conversation and worry about what we’re doing to our bodies.

I’ve certainly offered my share of tongue-in-cheek suggestions for meeting Primal critiques, but let’s take a serious look at how to respond to those who try to offer their ardent “constructive” criticism and what to consider when we’re moved to share our experience for others’ benefit…

Walk away from outright attacks

I’m going to start by drawing a line in the sand. As they say, you don’t have to attend every argument you’re invited to. There’s a difference between constructive criticism and flat out attack. You can sense whether someone is genuinely curious or concerned or if that person is gunning for a fight (verbal or otherwise). Do they immediately descend into judgment of your character or otherwise make it melodramatically personal (to you or them)? Don’t waste your time or energy.

Don’t argue with fear

Maybe it’s your mother in tears as you announce you’re going Primal or an anxious spouse who’s nervous about the changes ahead or even your doctor’s impassioned warning about eating “extra” fat. These people mean well. They do. Their resistance and emotion aren’t an attack; they’re simply misplaced fear spilling over.

They’re making an assessment based on false assumptions, and the more fearful they are the less they’re able to hear logic. In some cases, you might be able to explain the simple reasoning behind the Primal Blueprint and how it will and won’t change your life (see below). In the case of your physician, you might ask him/her to suspend judgment until the biomarkers speak for themselves.

At times, however, (particularly in the case of loved ones), you’ll find your best response is to honor the other person’s emotion itself. Tell (and show) them you hear their fear and that you feel the love behind it. Let them know you wouldn’t be doing what you’re doing if you didn’t have absolute confidence that it would only make you healthier because you want to live a long and vital life with and for them.

Couch it as a personal choice

How does living Primally make you feel? What’s it done for you lately? People can wrangle with you about statistics this, statistics that—likely erroneous numbers or skewed understanding of research anyway. It’s much harder to argue against a person’s individual experience. In fact, it’s near impossible.

If you’ve lost fifty pounds, come off of your blood pressure meds or are otherwise living with enhanced health and energy, then your story is the perfect answer to their criticism, however constructive. Some will continue at the same line of reasoning, attempting to deny the extent of your success. All you have to say in this instance is, “I’m happy with my results. That’s all I need to know.”

Subtract yourself from their choice

Unfortunately, some people feel that because you say you’ve reclaimed your health and vitality with the Primal Blueprint that you’re dictating to them they have to do the same. Sure, it would behoove them (twenty-five cent word of the day) to try it out, too. But I’ve never advocated dragging or nagging anyone to the Primal Blueprint. Your personal success is your best argument—always. The other person will either be willing to acknowledge it or not, but their inability to do so (when that’s the case) will have nothing to do with you.

And flat out tell them they’re free to choose their own path. In fact, tell them you’re not arguing they should do what you did. Maybe it’s not a good fit for them, say. But then say they can always stop by the site or forum if they change their minds about wanting to know more.

Keep any explanation simple

Of course, you may find yourself in the kind of conversation where it makes sense to share the logic of the Primal Blueprint. In this case, it’s best to keep it simple.

Because so many people have false assumptions about the ancestral health movement, it might be most effective to address those first. No, we don’t only eat meat. No, we don’t all sleep on the floor (although some people find it more comfortable). No, we don’t walk around in loin cloths. I’m sure you can add to the list of myths.

And then offer a bit about what it means to you—how you personally practice it. I can’t speak for you, but I know some people who might say it means eating as close to natural and ancestral as they can reasonably put together—animal proteins ideally from livestock (or hunted animals) raised in relatively natural and healthy living conditions with their natural feed with nutrient dense vegetables and some fruit.

They might say shaping their workouts to fit the ancestral model of lifting heavy things, moving a lot at slow to moderate paces and pushing for maximum power and speed a few times a week. (You can add this saves time and is a lot more fun than the average workout routine.) They might share they try to get to bed earlier for the best quality sleep and that they prioritize time outdoors for the peace, activity and vitamin D.

There are as many answers here as there are Primal adherents, but you know the basics as they matter to your vision. Instead of arguing a dogma (something the Primal Blueprint definitely is not), simply tell your story of what appealed to you about the principles and how you’ve shaped it to your life and values. A story can reach people in a way rationale can’t.

Don’t try to save anyone

I know this sounds counter intuitive to the purpose here, but suspend judgment for a moment while you read further. We tend to get stuck on the question of why people wouldn’t do what’s healthy for themselves. If they just knew more, we think. If we just offer one more example or statistic, they might wake up. But that’s not your job. It’s theirs.

Trust me. I’m in this business to help people. I am still 100% committed to the goal I set of helping ten million people take back their health. There’s nothing that satisfies me more than seeing people regain their vitality through the simple means of living by ancestral principle.

But here’s the thing. At some point we have to see that health transformation is for people who want it not for people who need it. As the old saying goes, “You can only lead a horse to water. You can’t make him drink.” Self-advocacy has to be a part of the picture. Spare yourself unnecessary frustration by accepting you’ll never make a difference in peoples’ lives who aren’t open to change and who don’t make themselves available for help and education.

Advocating for a lifestyle model you believe in is a noble pursuit. All of us who have improved our lives through the Primal Blueprint (myself included) want to make the same knowledge and support available to others. Rest assured, the proof is always in the pudding no matter what else gets said. Live well, and let the results be your best promotional strategy as well as your personal reward.

Thanks for reading, everyone. Share how you’ve chosen to respond to others’ critiques and what your thoughts are on Primal advocacy. Have a great end to your week.

10 Interesting Predictors of Longevity

This isn’t a Homeric epic. There are no oracles laying out our destiny and predicting our inevitable demise. But even if we can’t know the precise date of our death, we can use certain biomarkers, measurements, and characteristics to make predictions—with a reasonable amount of accuracy—about a person’s propensity to kick the bucket.

As is the case with any observational data, these predictors may not be malleable. And if they are malleable, actively changing them won’t necessarily confer the longevity they’re associated with. Getting plastic surgery to appear younger probably won’t make you live any longer. But they do tell a story. They suggest the qualities, activities, behaviors, and exercise patterns that may, if maintained, lead to a better, longer life. At the very worst, walking a bit more briskly and gaining some lean muscle won’t hurt you, and it will very likely help you.

So let’s take a look at ten of the most interesting predictors of longevity:

1. Handgrip strength.

You know your grandpa with the vice grip for a handshake? Or that old lady who simply would not give up her hold on those plush towels last Black Friday at the Walmart despite you yanking her around like a rag doll? They’ll probably live a long time.

In middle-aged and elderly people, grip strength consistently predicts mortality risk from all causes. It’s even better than blood pressure. In older disabled women, grip strength predicts all-cause mortality, even when controlling for disease status, inflammatory load, depression, nutritional status, and inactivity. Poor grip strength is even an independent risk factor for type 2 diabetes across all ethnicities.

2. Walking speed.

A few years ago, a study of over 7000 male and 31,000 female recreational walkers found that walking intensity predicted mortality risk. Those who walked the fastest tended to die the least. Now, don’t think you can consciously speed walk your way past a hundred. Researchers in the study were looking at the natural walking speed of frequent walkers. What the study tracked and linked to lifespan was the natural walking speed of the participants. They had no idea they’d be graded.

A more recent study found that rapid declines in walking speed also predicted death. Some clinicians find so much value in walking speed that they even use it as a “sixth vital sign.”

3. Facial appearance.

Several studies indicate that the perceived “age of the face” is a better predictor of mortality risk than objective health markers, actual age, or cognitive function. More objective measurements of aesthetic age, like wrinkling in areas unexposed to the sun, also predict longevity.

4. Subjective opinion of one’s quality of life.

If you’re happy with your physical and psychological health, social relationships, and your immediate environment, you may live longer. Having a poor opinion of your current lot in life may have the opposite effect. Even when those subjective opinions are compared to objective measurements of your health, your relationships, and your environment, subjective outlook is a better predictor of lifespan.

5. Muscle.

I’ve always said that lean muscle mass is a metabolic reservoir for healthy aging. Skeletal muscle produces important proteins and metabolites that regulate recovery from trauma and injury. The more you have, the better you’ll recover from surgeries, burns, falls, breaks, punctures, and damage. The more muscle you start with, the more you can spare to wasting and the better you’ll bounce back from bed rest and other forms of forced inactivity. Expression of klotho, the “longevity protein,” is even strongly dependent on the strength of one’s skeletal muscle.

6. Life purpose.

The popular notion that being driven to achieve your goals increases wear and tear on the body and destroys your health seems right. You’re sacrificing sleep for work, neglecting loved ones, choosing work over exercise, eating junk food instead of cooking. What does the evidence actually say? It turns out that having something to live for helps you live longer with a lower disease burden. Life purpose predicts allostatic load, another way of saying “age-related wear and tear.”

This was a little surprising. We often think of the hard-working entrepreneur burning the candle at both ends, falling apart at the seams, health suffering just to pursue and achieve the goals. But the actual evidence refutes this.

7. Intelligence.

Intelligent people live longer. Across any and all causes of mortality, having a higher IQ confers protection.

Some point to the quicker reaction times that also accompany higher IQs. If you’re smarter, you’ll probably have an extra fraction of a second to swerve out of the big rig’s path and avoid a fatal collision. This is certainly part of it, but a faster reaction time can’t explain the protection intelligence confers against all-cause mortality.

Others attribute the all-encompassing protection to the intelligent decisions, healthy behaviors, and prudent practices smart people make and follow (PDF). The smarter you are, the less likely you are to smoke, not exercise, or think fast food is okay to eat for dinner every day of the week.

8. White blood cell count.

White blood cells, or leukocytes, are the primary agents of our immune system. They battle pathogens, infections, and foreign invaders. Many diseases are associated with white blood cell deficiencies, so it seems like healthier, longer-lived people would have high leukocyte counts. Right?

No. Actually, leukocyte counts on the lower end of normal predict longevity. That only seems to be true in healthy men and women. It’s unlikely to persist in unhealthy or immunocompromised populations who actually need the white blood cells to stave off causes of. In the healthy folks, a low-normal WBC count indicates a low disease burden.

9. Autophagy.

Autophagy is cellular maintenance. It’s how our cells recycle waste material, eliminate inefficiencies, and repair themselves. It’s required to maintain muscle mass as we age, and inhibiting it induces age-related atrophy of adult skeletal muscle. It reduces the negative effects of aging and reduces the incidence and progression of aging-related diseases. In fact, researchers have determined that autophagy is the essential aspect of the anti-aging mechanism of fasting. “Aging” only occurs when cellular autophagy fails, or reduces. People who live past 100 have higher levels of the primary autophagy biomarker, meaning their cells are maintaining themselves longer and retarding the aging process.

This is something you can directly control. Fasting, ketosis, caloric restriction, exercise, and dietary polyphenols all trigger autophagy, and they’re all likely to improve longevity.

10. How much broccoli and Indian food you eat.

I’m kind of kidding, but not really. Maybe the most important anti-aging pathway in the body is Nrf2. Activating Nrf2 unleashes many antioxidant pathways, increases glutathione, and has been shown to trigger the “anti-aging phenotype” in animal studies. Foods in the brassica family, which includes broccoli, kale, cabbage, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts, all contain sulforaphane, a potent Nrf2 activator. Another Nrf2 activator is curcumin, found in turmeric, the primary spice in Indian curries.

If I’m being safe, these are merely descriptive. People who already have these attributes, biomarkers, and tendencies are more likely to live longer than those who do not. But if I’m engaging in educated speculation, many are also prescriptive. Lifting weights, going for walks, finding a life purpose, improving your day-to-day quality of life, eating more antioxidant-rich food (including broccoli and turmeric), triggering autophagy through fasting or occasional bouts of caloric restriction and ketosis—these are all good, healthy practices that should pay off.

What do you think, folks? Can you think of any interesting longevity predictors not mentioned today? Which of these are you already implementing?

Thanks for reading. Take care.

Prefer listening to reading? Get an audio recording of this blog post, and subscribe to the Primal Blueprint Podcast on iTunes for instant access to all past, present and future episodes here.

Can Exposure to Non-Primal Foods Actually Help?

Are we shortchanging ourselves by complete elimination of potentially allergenic or sensitizing foods like wheat, peanuts, or dairy? Do we become even more sensitive to “bad” foods by avoiding them entirely? This question stems from two things I recently encountered. The first was a recent rewatcing of The Princess Bride. The second was the recent peanut allergy study.

If you haven’t watched The Princess Bride yet, go do it (the book is also good) because a small spoiler is coming. The hero Wesley spikes the wine he and the villain Vizzini are sharing with iocane powder, a fictitious ultra-lethal poison that kills instantly. But because Wesley has spent the last several years ingesting incrementally-larger doses of the poison, he has complete resistance to its effects. Both men drink. Only Vizzini dies. What else can this apply to? I wondered.

Then there was the study last week describing a new way to prevent food allergy in kids: feed them the offending foods during infancy. For years, we’ve been told to avoid potentially allergenic foods when introducing solids to our babies. Stick to supposedly safe stuff, like rice cereal. But this paper, and several other recent findings, turns that old advice on its head. Exposure to peanuts before turning one appears to confer protection against allergies later on, even with subsequent peanut avoidance. This has also been strongly suggested for other commonly allergenic foods like eggs, wheat, white fish, sesame seeds, and yogurt. In that study, breast-fed infants who were regularly exposed to allergenic foods in the first year of life were less likely to be allergic at age 3, compared to exclusively breast-fed infants with no exposure to allergenic foods.

We aren’t infants. If any of you are, incredible. I’d love to hear how you learned to read at such an early age, assuming you can also use a keyboard to type. But for the rest of us, that developmental window in which future desensitization is established has passed. We can’t return to the breast. We can’t recapture that magic time when our immune systems are being primed for the rest of our lives.

But is it possible that we can still benefit from exposure to certain non-Primal foods?

Certain sensitivities can definitely be overcome with exposure to the food. With dairy, for example, we can change our ability to digest lactose with careful consumption of fermented dairy because fermented dairy contains the very same probiotic bacteria that can digest lactose. That’s how dairy ferments—the bacteria consume the lactose. If you want to try this, start small. Eat a tablespoon at a time and check for symptoms. Any discomfort—gas, bloating, diarrhea—means you’ve passed the threshold of tolerance. But it’s not going to hurt you, just feed your bacteria and toilet bowl, and the next time you eat yogurt or drink milk you (and your bacteria) should be able to handle a little bit more without crossing the threshold.

Introduction of specific bacteria (whether through yogurt or probiotics) who set up shop and digest the food component responsible for your sensitivity clearly works, but that’s a specific example. Any others?

Milk and egg allergy can be treated, too. In one study, children who were otherwise intolerant of milk and eggs were given milk and eggs that had been subjected to extensive heating. Not only did they tolerate the baked milk and eggs, the baked milk and egg diet accelerated the children’s development of regular milk and egg tolerance. Overall, researchers find that most kids intolerant of milk and eggs can tolerate heated milk and eggs. Between 69% and 83% of milk allergy patients can eat baked milk. Between 63% and 84% of egg allergy patients can tolerate baked eggs. They have to start with a modified (heated) version of the foods but can eventually graduate to normal versions.

Consumption of problematic compounds that can negatively affect everyone, not just the allergic or intolerant, might also confer benefits.

4-HNE is a toxic byproduct of oxidized linoleic acid implicated in oxidative stress and found in arterial lesions. French fries cooked in refined seed oils are probably the best (worst?) source, having up to 32 micrograms of 4-HNE per serving. Large concentrations of 4-HNE and other similar toxins are responsible for tissue damage stemming from ischemic heart attacks, but low concentrations of 4-HNE activate NrF2, the same resistance pathway activated by phytonutrients like blueberry anthocyanin. In the right dose, 4-HNE actually primed cardiac cells to develop resistance against the damaging effects of 4-HNE and increased glutathione synthesis. More glutathione improves your overall ability to deal with oxidative damage and inflammation, including the inflammatory effects of eating refined seed oils.

Your gut bacteria can learn to break down the phytates found in grains and other foods, thus liberating any bound minerals and creating helpful new compounds in the process. Certain gut flora actually turn phytic acid into inositol, a nutrient involved in mood regulation and insulin sensitivity (one of my favorites, in fact). The more phytate-rich foods you eat, the better your gut bacteria get at breaking it down.

What about wheat?

Anecdotes abound of lifelong wheat eaters going gluten-free or Primal for a year, having a bite of bread one day, and feeling like they’re hit with a ton of bricks. I’m sure many of you reading this have experienced the same thing. I was like that in the early days of the Primal Blueprint. I’d figured out the grains were largely responsible for my decades-long battle with irritable bowel syndrome, so I gave them up and remained strict for a year or two. Felt great. When I decided to see how it felt to eat wheat again, I was destroyed. Headache, diarrhea, all that good stuff came roaring back. But in the last five years or so, I’ve been more lax. I’ll have a crust of bread at a restaurant. I’ll nibble on dessert at a friend’s dinner party. I don’t worry about getting gluten-free tamari at sushi joints. And those little dalliances never bother me. I seem to have built up a tolerance.

There’s some indication that how and what you eat can affect your response to wheat. There’s the most obvious one: sourdough. The fermentation process makes gluten somewhat less allergenic, depending on the sourdough cultures used and the duration of the fermentation. Though I’m not sure if eating sourdough can help you adapt to non-fermented wheat.

There’s the fact that gluten-degrading bacteria exist in the mouth and survive passage into the duodenum (first part of the small intestine) where they may reactivate and continue acting on gluten. Those same bacteria may even colonize the duodenum itself, where they can work on any gluten that passes through. Many other species that live in human guts show potential as gluten degraders or mitigators. This is just preliminary, of course. Most research concerns farming those bacteria for gluten-cleaving enzymes to be used in celiac drugs. But the anecdotes are numerous and compelling. Once I started using probiotics and resistant starch and other prebiotics regularly, my tolerance of wheat seemed to increase.

The nocebo effect.

You read how grains contain harmful lectins, mineral-binding phytates, and are far less nutritious than we’ve been led to believe. You catch up on the latest data about gluten sensitivity and the problems with modern wheat. You read how superior organic produce is and how some of the pesticides in non-organic produce really do matter. You stop eating pasta and bread. You cook all your meals and switch over to grass-fed meat and leafy green vegetables. You do everything right, and you feel fantastic. The weight melts off, your energy levels skyrocket, you get stronger and think quicker. Given the powerful evidence for the deleterious effects of many non-Primal foods, you can think of no good reason to eat them ever again.

When you do encounter a slice of cake or crust of bread, you’re convinced it’s “bad” for you. You take a bite and imagine the gluten molecules entering and perforating your gut lining, leaving you vulnerable to all manner of dangerous pathogens and compounds. You go out for fast food and can’t help but notice that the fries smell really, really good, so you order another lettuce-wrapped burger to keep you from eating any oxidized PUFA-laden potatoes. You’re at your kid’s friend’s birthday party and get a cold sweat at the thought of eating the cake.

The placebo effect describes our ability to derive medical benefits from inert compounds or therapies through sheer belief. If a doctor gives you a sugar pill and tells you it’s an anti-hypertension drug, it may very well lower your blood pressure. If an orthopedic surgeon puts you under for knee surgery but doesn’t actually cut into your knee, studies show your condition will improve.

The nocebo effect is like that but flipped around: a mostly innocuous intervention harming your health because you think it will. Many of those non-Primal foods are problematic, particularly if consumed on a daily basis. That’s the standard Western diet, a chronic load of inflammatory foods and dietary toxins. Eating non-Primal foods every once in awhile is a different thing. I don’t just recommend the 80/20 principle for fun and flexibility. Those are major reasons why it’s important to let loose, but I also want to avoid people turning their way of eating into a pathology. I want people to make choices without feeling guilty about it.

So listen up: you’re going to be okay. I’m serious. You’re probably fine.

Eat the slice of birthday cake the cute towhead with freckles and a My Little Pony shirt offers you. Unless you’re celiac or full-blown gluten-sensitive, you’re going to survive.

Have a couple fries when you’re at happy hour after work and your manager offers. Maybe the small dose of 4-HNE will upregulate glutathione synthesis!

If you plan on getting into any battles of wits with balding evil geniuses, build up resistance to the tasteless, odorless poison of your choice.

Mostly, know that absent blatant allergy or intolerance consumption of these foods is not a death sentence. You’re not letting yourself or anyone down. You’re not a failure. And you might just help solve the problem preventing you from eating them in the first place.

What do you think, folks? What’s your experience with non-Primal foods?

Like This Blog Post? Subscribe to the Mark's Daily Apple Newsletter and Get 10 eBooks and More Delivered to Your Inbox for FREE

 

Dear Mark: Red Blood Cell Fatty Acid Content and Obese Paleo Figurines

For today’s edition of Dear Mark, I’m answering a pair questions that, well, question some of the fundamental principles of Primal living and eating. First up concerns a study seeming to show that linoleic acid (from seed oils) is a healthier, less inflammatory choice than olive oil or fish oil. Could it be true? Find out below. Then, I discuss the existence of obese female figurines from the paleolithic as evidence of obesity in actual paleo populations. Does a doll with a belly mean the Primal way of eating, living, and moving needs to be reworked?

Let’s go:

“Leaner bodies, less heart disease and diabetes risk found in people with higher levels of linoleic acid”

Ok. Now I’m really confused. Please comment for the coconut/olive-oil drenched masses. Thanks!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...

Interesting paper. Thanks for the link.

The relationship of diet to the fatty acids in the body to health is interesting, and we have to be careful about assuming that the relationship is straightforward. For example, one recent paper examined how fatty acids of varying chain lengths relate to the risk of type 2 diabetes. Drawing on results from over 340,000 people across eight European countries, the researchers found:

Very long-chain saturated fatty acids were linked to lower rates of type 2 diabetes.

Odd-chain saturated fatty acids were linked to lower rates of type 2 diabetes. These include pentadecanoic acid and heptadecanoic acid, found abundantly in dairy.

Even-chain saturated fatty acids were linked to higher rates of type 2 diabetes. These include palmitic acid, myristic acid, and stearic acid, found abundantly in meat and butter.

Sounds pretty damning, right? Hold on. In a comment to the journal, Dariush Mozaffarian makes an important point: plasma levels of fatty acids do not necessarily correlate with dietary intake of these fatty acids.

Although even-chain saturated fats are found in meat and butter, serum levels of those fats were not associated with consumption of those foods. Instead, people who ate the most sugar, potatoes, starchy foods, and drank the most alcohol—which Mozaffarian describes as “drivers of de novo lipogenesis”—had the highest serum levels of even-chain SFA. There was no relationship to meat or other foods actually rich in even-chain SFA. The likely explanation is that serum levels of “these SFAs are mainly derived from endogenous hepatic synthesis, driven by consumption of starch, sugars, and alcohol.”

Odd-chain saturated fat levels predicted dairy consumption, as you’d expect. This lines up with the growing evidence for the considerable health benefits of high-fat dairy.

Very long-chain saturated fatty acids were curiously linked to nut and seed consumption.

Now let’s turn to the study you cite.

A group of adults had their red blood cell fatty acids analyzed and plotted against inflammation and diabetes biomarkers and body composition.

Linoleic acid was linked to lower inflammation, higher insulin sensitivity, greater lean mass, and less visceral fat. Good stuff all around.

Oleic acid (a monounsaturated fat found in avocado oil and olive oil) and omega-3 (found in fish) were both linked to lower inflammation but had no relationship to insulin sensitivity, lean mass, or visceral fat. They were mostly neutral.

As far as I could tell, they didn’t track any saturated fats. Too bad.

Red blood cell linoleic acid does track well with dietary linoleic acid, so the people with lower inflammation, higher insulin sensitivity and other positive markers were eating linoleic acid. The authors remark that these were healthy adults, so it may be that RBC linoleic acid reflected consumption of healthy sources of linoleic acid like nuts and seeds. Notice that people with higher levels (and thus intakes) of linoleic acid had more lean mass, less visceral fat, and lower inflammation. In other words, they probably exercised more and ate better diets overall. Sure, you could argue that the linoleic acid was the causative factor promoting all these superior biomarkers, but you’d actually have to test for that; the current study did not.

But it also doesn’t mean oleic acid and fish oil are suddenly bad or useless. First of all, RBC oleic acid doesn’t necessarily indicate olive oil consumption. At least in rats, eating olive oil increases red blood cell PUFA (both omega-3 and linoleic acid). And we already have clear, clinical evidence for the direct benefits of consuming omega-3s and extra virgin olive oil, just as we do for nut and seed consumption.

Other studies have found different relationships between red blood cell linoleic acid and health. RBC linoleic acid has been linked to higher hip fracture risk and telomere shortening (a marker of aging), for example. Doesn’t mean “almonds are bad for you,” though.

The only solid takeaway–and it’s an important one—is that dietary linoleic acid is compatible with good health. Heck, I’ve been saying this for a long time. Nuts and seeds are good for you. But this study doesn’t let us make any conclusions about other dietary fats because the connection between other dietary fats and RBC fatty acids is less clear-cut.

As for the suggestion that the fats we espouse on the Primal eating plan, like coconut oil, olive oil, or butter, will crowd out the linoleic acid and counter the effects seen in this study, this doesn’t make that claim. In fact, a recent study from Finland examined the effects of diet on RBC fatty acid content and found that butter consumption did not affect the omega-3/omega-6 ratio in RBCs.

One day in the future, maybe I’ll take a closer look at the link between dietary fats and RBC fatty acids. For now, keep doing what you’re doing.

Hello Mark,

I must say that I love and share your entire approach to health, fitness and life in general.

I visited Malta some years ago and saw pictures of a statuette from paleolithic days. It was of a decidedly obese feminine form. Just for fun, I searched and found loads of other similar examples from all around Europe.

It would appear that obese females were around and even admired over their more svelte sisters.

Where does that leave our approach?

ATB

Michael

You’re probably referring to the Venus of Malta, similar to the famous Venus of Willendorf or any of the dozens of others obese female figurines from paleolithic Europe.

And yes: these are definite representations of obesity. Realistic, too—abdominal fat, large sagging breasts, rolls of fat, large thighs, knock knees. Whoever made these figures had seen it with their own eyes.  A recent analysis of available figurines from the paleolithic found that a hair over half of them depicted overweight or obesity. Why?

The Venus figurines represent the human potential for obesity. Sometimes that potential is realized, as humans have always had the genetic ability to become obese. Shove enough food in a person’s mouth for a long enough time and they’ll gain weight. Doesn’t matter how grass-fed, wild-caught, or low-carb that food is.

But that doesn’t mean obesity was common. You don’t make figurines and totems of the mundane. The Venus figures probably represented the abnormal, the ideal, the rare. And it wasn’t just the women who got unrealistic representations. Some of the earliest male figurines depict men with enormous erections spanning half their height. Are those realistic? Were foot-long penises the norm in the paleolithic?

Probably not. Look at us—who do we idolize? Are the body types we idealize common or rare?

Do most people look like Henry Cavill or Kim Kardashian? These are the body types we see most frequently in popular media—lean and muscular for the men, slim and voluptuous for the women. But walk through your average mall and the reality is decidedly different from the ideal. Or consider pornography, where every attribute is exaggerated and oversized. These are real humans with these physical endowments, but they aren’t normal or typical of the broader population.

If you’re wondering why any culture would revere obesity, it still happens today. Take the Bodi tribe of Ethiopia, whose men compete to gain the most weight (and female admirers) by drinking a calorie-dense blend of milk and blood, the “fattening rooms” of Calabar, Nigeria where young brides go to gain weight before marriage, or Mauritania, where obesity is a sign of prestige and a startling number of young girls are force-fed to make them fat.

But when the rubber meets the road, when people actually follow the Primal way of eating, living, and moving, good things tend to happen. This kind of obesity doesn’t develop. Since you love and share this entire approach to health, fitness, and life, I’d bet it’s working well for you, too. If Primal isn’t making you into a Venus figurine, don’t worry.

Thanks for reading, everyone. Take care and be sure to chime in with your input on today’s questions down below!