Mark Sisson's Blog, page 360

Dear Mark: Beef Suet, Lowered HR, Alcohol, and Long Easy Runs

In today’s edition of Dear Mark, I answer a question about the nutritional viability of beef suet, which so many people assume is waste. Then, I address an extremely common occurrence around these parts: the discovery of one’s newfound ability to maintain a low heart rate at higher energy outputs. Next I cover a question about alcohol, or, to be more specific, I give my two cents on what a reader can do who just can’t seem to give up beer. And finally, I address a reader’s concern that his much-beloved long, easy runs are doing damage to him over the long term.

Let’s go:

Hi Mark,

My name is Joshua Roper. I have been doing the Primal Blueprint for a few months now and it has been great! I have discovered all kinds of new things about myself, including my insatiable desire for fat. I just cannot get enough of it for the budget I have. I live near a Hunter Cattle farm in Statesboro GA, which sells grassfed beef, and they also sell suet and various bones. I love their meat, but I can’t afford fatty cuts, and the cheaper cuts aren’t fatty enough to cover my fat needs. So I was thinking about suet. The fat on a roast or steak is the tastiest part to me and there just doesn’t seem to be enough of it, so why not just buy straight fat? Yet, I am not sure if it is healthy fat or how to eat it. I couldn’t find anything in the forums about it. I was wondering if it is good to eat? If so, how do I prepare it? I don’t know if I feel comfortable eating it raw. Should I try to get animal fat elsewhere, like bone marrow? I am a full time college student (Dual Math/Physics major) with a lean physique and a fast metabolism, but cursed with a $75 a week food budget. My constant thinking about eating fat is making it hard to think about other things, like math problems. Any help or insight into this strange new food source would be appreciated.

Joshua

I actually wrote a post awhile explaining the merits of edible animal fats, including but not limited to beef suet. A followup post even showed you how to render raw suet into tallow - a helpful, useful cooking fat (because trying to eat raw suet is pretty gross).

Suet is mostly palmitic acid (a saturated fat), stearic acid (a saturated fat) and oleic acid (a monounsaturated fat, the same one found in olive oil). Polyunsaturated fats are found in paltry amounts, though since your source is grass-fed, it will be slightly higher in omega-3s than suet from grain-fed cattle.

Suet isn’t particularly nutrient-dense, but you may find that your suet takes on a distinctive yellowish hue; this is a sign of significant carotenoids in the diet, which cattle dining on fresh grass will tend to pass on in their fat to the consumer. Best of all, suet is relatively inexpensive, making it a fantastic way to add calories to your diet on a college food budget. If you can get bone marrow, I would definitely opt for that, too. There’s no official word on the micronutrient content of marrow, but it’s delicious. Also, it has a flavor that’s somehow “different” than just straight beef fat, which, along with the fact that bone marrow performs many important tasks including the rebuilding of bone and connective tissue, leads me to think that it contains compounds of considerable nutritional value beyond just the fat calories.

By all means, Joshua, eat the suet!

Hi Mark and crew! I’ve noticed that when I’m eating strictly Primal my heart rate is lower when running. I usually run on a treadmill in my basement and I’ve noticed about 5-8 BPM difference at the same speed/incline. Any reason why?

Thanks!

Matt

One of the main advantages of eating higher-fat, lower-carb is the improved aerobic efficiency. That is, when you’re able to access and mobilize stored and dietary fat for energy – rather than having inefficient fat-burning machinery and relying on carbs for all your athletic activity – you can suddenly go for longer runs while staying in the aerobic energy pathway. This is known as the aerobic base, or the cut off point after which you’ll start burning carbs for more than 50% of your energy. If you’re more reliant on carbs, you’re going to hit that point where glycogen begins providing the bulk of your energy sooner and at a higher heart rate.

Matt, you’ve simply expanded your aerobic base, which means you’re getting fitter. This is partly a consequence of your training and partly a consequence of eating more and better fat. Best of all, it also means you’re becoming (more) fat-adapted. Congratulations!

Peter Attia had a similar performance boost after going ketogenic, an experience he describes in excruciating detail. See if anything he wrote sounds familiar to you, and keep up the good work.

I have been on the Primal for 5 months. Still love my beer. Still drink too much. ANY ANSWERS?

Thanks

Tos

Obviously, you could cut back on the drink. But assuming you’re not going to do that and just want some healthier options, I’ll give you some ideas.

Stick to wine. Wine tastes great, goes well with food, contains ample levels of antioxidants, and you can even improve the healthfulness of your food by cooking with red wine (which contains more antioxidant compounds than white wine). Oh, and it’s gluten-free.

Stick to spirits. As long as you don’t pair them with sweet mixers, spirits are low-carb and also have some antioxidant activity, particularly those aged in wood barrels (like Scotch). Robb Wolf’s signature drink, the NorCal Margarita, consists of good tequila, fresh lime juice, and soda/sparkling water. I can vouch that it’s a really good drink, but you have to use decent tequila.

Stick to gluten-free beer. I know how much beer means to some people; I still love it myself and occasionally sneak one. Thankfully, though, gluten-free options are getting better and better (and more widely available). See if you can find any of the offerings listed in this list of the best and worst gluten-free beers. It’s interesting that the top-rated beer was made with barley that had the gluten extracted from it. And hey, beer also reduces the formation of potentially carcinogenic compounds during cooking.

Whatever you choose to drink, think about establishing a good preloading regimen. I wrote a short article on how to avoid a hangover some time ago, and the folks at Highbrow Paleo did a two part series on reducing alcohol toxicity that went into even more detail. Read part one and part two. One of the Worker Bees swears by his regimen:

Before – Two cups of strong, high antioxidant green tea, 1,000-1,500 mg of N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), 200 mg magnesium glycinate, a cup of gelatinous bone broth with black pepper and turmeric powder mixed in (or powdered gelatin broth if you don’t have any real broth), and a tablespoon of extra virgin coconut oil.
During – Water, preferably mineral.
After – Sparkling mineral water with juice from two lemons, a quarter teaspoon of sea salt, half a teaspoon of trace mineral drops. One whole banana with salty almond butter smeared on it.

And, of course, if by “too much” you really mean too much, please seek the help of a medical professional.

Good luck!

Mark, as a former distance runner, I am sure you’re familiar with the feelings of well-being and elation sometimes produced by running. Although I adhere to a mostly Primal Blueprint diet and lift heavy weights 3x a week, I also really enjoy to run. I don’t push myself for speed, and I incorporate plenty of walking. In fact, when I run, I never feel out of breath and I maintain a low intensity throughout. I find that after these runs I feel very peaceful and calm, and my legs don’t feel dead. You know that the “long run” (slow, aiming for greater distance) is the primary form of training for the distance runner. Does such light, long-distance training elevate cortisol that much beyond walking for the fit individual? Again, I am not aiming for a “cardio zone” or anything, just taking a nice slow run of up to 12 miles and enjoying nature. Could this really be harmful?

Sam

Let’s see.

You’re doing it in nature. As shown in the post on forest bathing, simply spending time in nature has the tendency to lower cortisol levels, or at least normalize them. These lowered levels are accompanied by lower blood pressure, low pulse rate, and greater parasympathetic nerve activity. In other words, spending time in nature has a de-stressing effect.

You’re maintaining a low intensity and not pushing yourself for speed. I’ve always maintained that it’s the constant pushing of race-pace intensity over long distances that constitutes chronic cardio. It doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re doing.

You’re never out of breath. Again, this is an indication that you’re not going too hard for too long. You should be able to maintain a conversation, even if there’s no one to talk to.

You feel peaceful and calm afterward with plenty of pep in your step. These are not the subjective mood markers commonly reported by people with elevated cortisol.

You incorporate plenty of walking. Walking not only breaks up the potentially stressful running; it even reduces subjective reports and objective measurements of stress in older adults (who are likely far more out of shape than you).

You really enjoy it.

I think you have your answer, Sam. Keep it up.

Thanks for reading this one, guys. Send along any other questions you might have. Grok on!

Grab a Copy of The Primal Blueprint 21-Day Total Body Transformation and Start Getting Primal Today!

Weekend Link Love

Research of the Week

A recent study found that seniors over the age of 70 who ate high-carb diets had four times the risk of Alzheimer’s disease as seniors who ate more fat and protein.

Can yoga help kids with autism? It certainly seems to improve their symptoms when performed daily in a classroom setting.

Interesting Blog Posts

We all know that Paula Deen-esque “southern food” is nigh-on self destructive, but what about real, traditional southern food?

Are we getting fatter simply because we’re living long enough to get to that point? Ned Kock wonders aloud.

Media, Schmedia

What really happened to those Coca-Cola polar bears.

If you live in Newport Beach, you can rest easy knowing that local school administrators have taken a “No Tolerance” approach to the deadly scourge ravaging our youth known as kombucha.

Everything Else

Nine supermarket secrets your grocer won’t tell you (willingly).

On his latest podcast episode, Chris Kresser spoke with Dr. Nicholas Ralston - an expert in the relationship between mercury and selenium in seafood – about whether we should be worried about mercury in the fish we eat. If you can’t listen to the entire podcast, the transcript is available in the blog post. It’s a good one.

Recipe Corner

If you’re not up on Ethiopian food, you should rectify that. Or, make some doro wat yourself.
Chawanmushi – a savory, traditional Japanese custard.

Time Capsule

One year ago (October 21 – October 27)

Spiritual Encounters in Nature – I’m confident that atheists, agnostics, and theists alike can all have equally mystical experiences in nature.
What If I Don’t Want to Lose Weight? – Can going Primal help if you’re happy with your weight – or even want to gain a bit?

Comment of the Week

More than a grain of truth that it’s not wheat-berry good for you!

- Now those are some shameless puns that were clearly intended, Groktimus Primal.

Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster

Tomato-Garlic Butter

Tomato. Garlic. Butter. Three simple ingredients, all good on their own, but when blended together they meld into something magical.

Tomato-Garlic Butter is a simple spread that adds unique flavor to meat, seafood and vegetables. The combination of the roasted tomatoes and butter is sweet and deliciously rich. The garlic and sea salt lend a savory kick that makes this butter a little, okay, really addictive. You can take the flavor completely over the top by also adding fresh herbs, chopped olives, red pepper flakes or smoked paprika.

This stuff is good enough to eat with a spoon. But you can also grill a steak, bake a fillet of salmon or sauté scallops and then top all three with a generous pat of Tomato-Garlic Butter. Once you start using tomato-flavored butter, you’re not going to want to stop there. Put it on vegetables, shrimp, eggs…pretty much anything.

Refrigerated and kept in a sealed container, or shaped into a log and wrapped tightly with plastic wrap, the butter will taste best if eaten within a week. If you don’t think you’ll go through a large batch in a week, then cut the recipe below in half (or freeze some). But it’s unlikely that finishing the tomato-butter will be a problem. In fact, after making this recipe you may never want to eat plain, unflavored butter again.

Ingredients:

16 ounces (450 g) cherry tomatoes
4 cloves of garlic, peeled and finely chopped
8 ounces (230 g) unsalted butter, at room temperature
1/4 teaspoon (1 ml) sea salt, or more to taste

Instructions:

Preheat oven to 400 °F (200 °C).

In a rimmed baking pan, mix together tomatoes and garlic. Melt 2 tablespoons (30 g) of the butter and pour it on top.

Mix well then roast the tomatoes for forty-five minutes, stirring occasionally, until the tomatoes are soft.

Let the tomatoes cool.

Scrape the tomato and garlic mixture into a food processor with the salt. Pulse until a smooth puree, about twenty-five seconds.

Add butter in small chunks and process until completely mixed in with the tomato.

This could take one to two minutes and you’ll need to scrape the sides of the food processor down once or twice.

Refrigerate and enjoy.

Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster

Finally, I Am Me

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!

Last September marked the one year anniversary of the beginning of my Primal Journey. It’s been a life changing year for me and my family. I finally feel ready to tell my story. So here we go…

I can honestly, whole-heartedly say that my whole life, I felt like I was way off course. I am smart, athletic, was always successful in school, came from a good family, knew my career choice (teacher) at a young age and was passionate about everything I did. Despite my “normal” life, I struggled deeply with anxiety as long as I can remember. I never felt normal, or like I could handle anything. The slightest bit of stress sent me into a life or death reaction. I honestly thought I was crazy, but I knew deep down that this wasn’t how I was supposed to be living my life. This wasn’t ok. I knew that for sure.

I was in constant pursuit of changing my outlook on life, but I just couldn’t make it happen. My anxiety spiraled out of control in my mid-twenties and I was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder. My doctor suggested I go on Cipralex, a medication for anxiety and depression. It helped with my mood and I guess life went on, but the anxiety was always lurking in the background and it never felt right being on medication. My husband and I decided to have a baby, so I went off my anxiety medication. The anxiety symptoms returned full force and I was once again feeling out of control. I continued to try and manage it as we added a second beautiful child to our family, but I generally could not keep myself together. It was a tough couple of years. I was unhappy, moody, lost and felt completely alone.

On top of my ever present anxiety and all the other struggles that came with it (weight gain, strain on relationships, lack of sleep, isolation, depression) I was quickly developing horrible digestion issues and felt sick to my stomach after every meal. I had knee pain, back pain, bad seasonal allergies, acne, tendinitis, constant migraines, I was tired all the time, but suffered from insomnia for many years. I felt like I was falling apart and I was only 29. I was really struggling with my weight, which had been creeping up slowly since high school despite being involved in many sports, and eating “very healthy” according to the Canada Food guide. When I say healthy, I mean, “egg whites-whole grain bread-brown rice-oatmeal-no fat yogurt-no fat cottage cheese healthy.” We thought we were very aware of our diets, but I just couldn’t keep a healthy body composition. I was baffled. What was I doing wrong? I was at my worst when I should have been at my prime.

Finally, June 2011, I saw a naturopath who recommended that I give up Gluten and Dairy. I think I actually laughed at them. I thought in my head, there’s no way I could EVER do that. Coincidentally, soon afterward, I started talking to an Ultimate Frisbee friend who ate Primal (I know! Ultimate players know best!). He started talking about inflammation, omega 3-6 ratio, etc… To be honest, I was a bit lost in the whole conversation, but the simplicity of what he ate intrigued me. He told me about your site, I wrote it down on a napkin and checked you out the second I got home. I was hooked immediately! I bought The Primal Blueprint and The Primal Blueprint 21-Day Total Body Transformation and started my research. I downloaded your fitness ebook, bought a few cookbooks, read every article I could cram in my brain and dove right in!

Exactly a year ago, I told my husband we were changing our lives and going Primal. He was amazing and 100% supportive from the start (despite his love for sandwiches, crackers, cereal and other high-carb fillers). We went cold turkey (ummmmm!) and our kids are Primal too. A month in I started seeing the changes…changes I didn’t even know I needed! I began to sleep better, wake up refreshed and maintain that energy throughout the day – it was incredible! A few more months went by and my acne disappeared, my knee pain, back pain, tendinitis and allergies were gone. The debilitating migraines that I was suffering from on a sometimes daily basis ceased. I lost 40 lbs and who knows how many inches, gained muscle and leaned out. My husband tells people I look like I did when he met me at 19. I feel younger and am so energetic. I am in the best shape of my life! And the most phenomenal benefit of Primal for me has been the complete change in my anxiety. I no longer feel like I am out of control. No more panic attacks, breakdowns, or feeling sorry for myself. The symptoms of GAD are non-existent. I finally feel like I am living my life the way I should be. I am a better mother, a better wife, a better teacher, a better Me. I am Me. I am truly happy. Finally. I have never been able to say that.

Primal living has changed my life and this passion could not be contained. People were asking me what I had been doing so often, I decided to start running Primal Information and Cooking workshops in my community. I am a full time teacher and love Primal, so I thought I’d combine the two. It has been a great success and I have inspired many people in my community to take control of their health. This past year has been amazing. I feel like I am just beginning. Thanks for all your amazing inspiration, Mark. I can’t wait to see what I can do next!

Nikki

P.S. I am looking forward to taking a Primal Blueprint Certification course through Mark’s Daily Apple…hoping you have one in the works…wink wink.

Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster

The Problems with Modern Wheat

This may seem like a redundant topic, since most of you following a Primal eating plan are already avoiding wheat. The occasional dabbing of soy sauce, maybe a bit of crusty bread at a restaurant, sure, but for the most part, you’re not munching on baguettes in parks on sunny days, wolfing down huge sandwiches, and eating pasta. Wheat avoidance tends to be the rule in our circle. Still, though, haven’t you had that moment where someone asks “What’s wrong with wheat?” and you mutter something about gluten and the advent of agriculture that doesn’t really sound convincing, even to you? Consider today’s post a crash course in exactly why modern wheat in particular is a problem. To borrow a horrible concept that has helped politicians and their cronies obfuscate the truth for decades, these are “talking points” to which you can always refer when asked. The only difference is that these talking points are based on actual research.

Before we begin, what is modern wheat?

Modern wheat is dwarf wheat, a cultivar developed in the ’60s to massively increase yield per acre. But this dwarf wheat wasn’t the lovable, bearded, wisecracking, clownish, comic relief-providing, overly self-conscious Gimli of the Lord of the Rings films, nor was it the fearsome, highly respected, resolute dwarven warrior Gimli in the books. It was a high-yielding cultivar with larger seed heads and thick, short stocks that could bear the extra weight. Being shorter, it received less sunlight than traditional wheat cultivars, but it produced a lot of grains on less acreage. Agronomist Norman Borlaug pioneered the development of these high yield dwarf varieties, refining and perfecting already existing wheat strains, and received much acclaim (including the Nobel Peace Prize) for introducing the dwarf wheat and modern agriculture to developing countries. He certainly helped many millions of people find sustenance and livelihood through wheat agriculture, but what were the unintended consequences of his forays into genetic manipulation of wheat? How is modern wheat different? What are the problems – if any – of modern wheat?

It’s less nutritious.

In 1843, agronomists at Rothamstead Research Station in Hertfordshire, England began what would become one of the longest-running continuous agronomic experiments in the world: the Broadbalk Winter Wheat Experiment. For the last two centuries, generations of scientists involved in the experiment have grown multiple wheat cultivars on adjacent plots of land and applied different farming techniques and fertilizers to study the effect on yield, nutritional content, and viability of the crop. They’ve rotated crops in and out, switched up fertilizers, and tracked the change in mineral content of both soil and wheat grain. It’s a stunning example of a well-designed, seemingly never ending (it continues to this day, as far as I can tell) experiment.

Between 1843 and the mid 1960s, the mineral content, including zinc, magnesium, iron, and copper, of harvested wheat grain in the experiment stayed constant. But after that point, zinc, magnesium, iron, and copper concentrations began to decrease – a shift that “coincided with the introduction of semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars” into the Broadbalk experiment. Another study found that the “ancient” wheats – emmer, spelt, and einkorn – had higher concentrations of selenium, an extremely important mineral, than modern wheats. Further compounding the mineral issue is the fact that phytic acid content remains unaffected in dwarf wheat. Thus, the phytate:mineral ratio is higher, which will make the already reduced levels of minerals in dwarf wheat even more unavailable to its consumers.

Increased yield leading to dilution of mineral density is one possible explanation for the reduction in wheat mineral content, but modern wheat has shorter root systems than ancient wheat, and longer roots allow greater extraction of minerals from the soil. Some people have proposed soil mineral depletion as the cause of reduced nutrient content of food, but – at least in the Broadbalk experiment – soil mineral content actually increased over time.

It’s more damaging to celiacs and gluten-sensitives.

One of the primary proteins in wheat, gluten provides the “viscoelastic properties” that allow wheat to be turned into bread, dough, pasta, and all sorts of processed foods. Gluten provides the chewiness of good bread, the bite of al dente pasta. Bakers, cooks, and foodies prize it – but some people fear it, and rightfully so. I wrote all about gluten sensitivity and celiac disease a few weeks back, but the basic gist is that for many people, consuming gluten inflames the body, perforates the gut, and opens them up to a whole host of health maladies.

So what’s the deal with modern wheat? Well, celiac disease is on the rise, and some researchers have suggested that this is caused by the prevalence of certain gluten proteins that predominate in the new varieties of wheat. Namely, a gluten peptide known as glia-α9, which is nearly absent in older wheats but prevalent in modern wheats, is the most reactive “CD (celiac disease) epitope.” In other words, a majority of people with celiac disease react negatively to glia-α9. It’s a common trigger, and older wheat doesn’t have as much of it.

Meanwhile, einkorn, an ancient variety of wheat, has been shown to cause less intestinal toxicity in patients with celiac. Einkorn and other related ancient strains of wheat still contain gluten, of course, but they do not appear to be as damaging to people sensitive to or completely intolerant of gluten and its related protein subfractions.

It’s prepared differently.

Consider how bread is made today:

With refined, old (often rancid) white flour instead of freshly ground wheat.

Using quick rise commercial yeast instead of slowly fermenting with proven sourdough cultures.

On an industrial scale instead of in the home.

Meanwhile, for the vast majority of our wheat-eating history, humans have been grinding whole wheat berries up fresh and fermenting them before baking and eating the stuff. Dr. Weston Price famously found several traditional cultures who thrived on wheat, but they weren’t eating refined white flour treated with quick-rising yeast. They were stone-grinding fresh wheat. They were fermenting it. They were doing all the things a person has got to do if they want to make wheat a staple of their diet and maximize the nutrition in the process. Later, Price conducted experiments in which he reversed dental decay and remineralized cavity-ridden teeth in refined white flour-eating people using wholesome, varied diets that included some freshly ground wheat. Fermentation effectively “pre-digests” the proteins in wheat, as I mentioned previously. If you have the right organisms, you can even break down wheat gluten to the point that celiacs can eat it without suffering symptoms.

That’s not to suggest you should go eat wheat. It’s simply to suggest that if you do, fresh, whole, ancient wheat prepared the old way is definitely healthier.

So, there you go: a few good lines of solid evidence showing why modern wheat – which is the only kind of wheat most people are ever going to encounter in the real world – should be avoided. Does that help? If you’re interested in more, check out Dr. Davis (of Wheat Belly fame), who’s made it something of his mission to rail against what he calls a “perfect, chronic poison.”

Thanks for reading, folks. Lemme know what you think in the comment section. And don’t go rushing out to buy artisan einkorn bread and spelt fusilli or anything like that. Ancient wheat is still wheat, it’s still a grain, it’s still got gluten, and it’s still problematic for a lot of people.

Grab a copy of Primal Blueprint Quick & Easy Meals for over 100 Primal Recipes You Can Prepare in 30 Minutes or Less

Should You Worry About Genetically Modified Food?

A new study came out last month out of France. In it, researchers found that rats on diets consisting of 11%, 22%, and 33% Roundup-resistant genetically modified corn developed far more mammary tumors than control rats on non-GMO corn diets. GMO diet rats died earlier and in greater numbers. Why is this study notable amidst all the other studies that seem to show the safety of GMOs? Well, it’s one of the few long term GMO feeding studies, lasting a full two years, which, to a rat, is the equivalent of 60 of our human years. The other safety studies which found no evidence of toxicity in GM foods tend to last just 90 days, or 15 rat years. In other words, the French study studied rats over the course of an entire lifespan, whereas other studies have looked at rats for a relatively brief snippet of their lives. Cancer generally develops over a lifetime, as you probably know, so this would appear to be more relevant to human health than the shorter trials.

Of course, there has been a huge outcry against the study and its author. Critics have said the sample sizes (ten rats per group of each sex) were too small, but judging from the official guidelines of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), which states that oral toxicity experiments using rats must use at least 20 animals per group (10 males and 10 females), the French study was just doing what other GMO studies have done. Even if the sample sizes are inadequate, couldn’t that be rectified by running a longer, larger, later study to attempt to replicate its findings?

Obviously, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a testy subject, and people from both sides of the argument make articulate, seemingly logical points about why the other side is completely and utterly wrong. I don’t claim to have the answer either way, but hopefully this post will help you make a decision that works for you.

To date, it’s true that there exists no conclusive hard evidence that GM foods are dangerous to people. There are no human feeding trials, and, because GM foods aren’t labeled (at least in the United States) and people don’t know what they’re eating enough to give an accurate account of their food intake, epidemiological studies on the effects are impossible to conduct. You can’t ask people how often they’ve eaten GM foods over the past ten years if the average person doesn’t even know what GMOs are. There are some animal studies, like the one mentioned above, but there have been mixed results, with some independent studies showing potentially problematic differences in health outcomes between GMOs and non-GMOs, and industry studies showing no significant differences.

Personally, I’m not so worried about a fish gene being put into a tomato, or insect genes in strawberries on their own merits. I’m worried about whether that particular gene codes for the production of a lectin that might harm the person that eats the crop. I’m worried about the amount of Roundup that farmers will therefore spray on the crops, having been given carte blanche to use gallons of the stuff. I’m worried about the Roundup-resistant weeds and Bt-resistant bugs that are popping up in response to all the Roundup being applied and Bt-crops being used. I’m worried about the more toxic herbicides and pesticides being used to take care of these new superweeds and superbugs. Didn’t a wise man once say that “Life finds a way“? Though he was a fictional character talking about the unintended consequences of using frog DNA to “plug” the holes in dinosaur DNA, I think he was right.

A lot of people are worried about the potential of unintended effects to arise. I think John Hagelin said it well in his statement to the EPA:

Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that DNA is a complex nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into the DNA of a food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side effects that could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the genetic engineering of our food – and the widespread presence of genetically altered foods in American supermarkets – is based on the premise that the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that all bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven otherwise.

Take a recent example of transgenic modification applied to cassava, a staple starchy tuber for millions (if not billions) of people across the globe. This is the stuff that’s high in cyanide, requires extensive processing to remove said cyanide, and has an extremely paltry protein content (the lowest of all staples foods, in fact). Transgenic insertion of a gene into the plant increased the protein content four-fold and reduced the cyanide content by up to 55%, turning a decent staple into a fantastic, protein-rich one – at least on paper. The increased protein came from a novel chimeric storage protein called zeolin, which was cobbled together using zein (from corn) and phaseolin (from beans, used in “carb blocker” products). For someone who relies on cassava for, well, everything, the increased protein is welcome and perhaps even necessary. But zein (also known as corn gluten) is a prolamine, a type of plant protein that many people have trouble digesting, as well as an herbicide in its own right (PDF). Wheat gluten is another (in)famous prolamine. Phaseolin is a “carb blocker”; it literally reduces your absorption and digestion of glucose. The zeolin may not have the same properties as zein or phaseolin, and even if it did, those properties may be worth it if it’s the best source of protein in the area, but I think this example shows that genetic engineering has the potential to have unintended effects.

Plus there’s a lot of sneaky stuff that makes you go “Hmm…” It’s just circumstantial, sure. There are no smoking guns, but it’s worth considering:

Before being allowed to purchase GM seeds, customers (including farmers, scientists, and other researchers) must sign an agreement that limits what they’re allowed to do with them. For instance, customers can’t replicate the genetic alterations – a perfectly reasonable kind of patent protection. These legally-binding end-user agreements also forbid the seeds from being used in independent research, thereby severely limiting independent researchers from conducting any meaningful tests unless they get permission.
After a leading bee research firm published results implicating it in colony collapse disorder, Monsanto simply bought the entire company. That’s one way to do it, I suppose.
Following previous stints as VP at Monsanto, lawyer for Monsanto, and administrator at the USDA, Michael Taylor, is now the chief commissioner of foods at the FDA. As chief commissioner, Taylor will be protecting all of us from dangerous food.
A veritable who’s who of processed food manufacturers and GMO firms are contributing over $25 million to stop CA proposition 37, which will force companies to label foods that contain GMOs. Monsanto has ponied up over $7 million alone.

It certainly brings to mind Gertrude’s famous line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much,” doesn’t it?

At any rate, you can simply avoid GMOs, and sticking to a Primal way of eating gets you most of the way there. After all, the most prevalent GMOs in the United States are:

Soybeans – 93% are GM
Corn – 86% are GM
Sugar beets – 95% are GM
Canola – 87% are GM
Cotton – 93% are GM
Hawaiian papaya – 80% are GM
Processed food – In 2003, it was estimated that 70-75% of processed food contained GMOs. That number is probably higher now.
Potatoes and alfalfa – Unknown, but at least some are genetically modified.

Almost without exception, the fruits, the vegetables, the nuts and the seeds you come across and which form the foundation of many of your meals and snacks are not GMO. No need to worry about those. If you’re eating processed foods, however, even so called “healthy snacks,” you’ll likely be eating GMOs.

Unless you’re still cooking with canola, sneaking corn tortillas, eating out at places that cook with soybean oil, making papaya smoothies every morning, and losing bets that have you eating articles of clothing made with GMO cotton, you’re avoiding 99% of genetically modified food simply by going Primal. You’re definitely not eating diets consisting of 11% or 22% or 33% GM corn or soy, so I really wouldn’t worry too much about the occasional bite. Stick to organic potatoes when you eat them and you’re golden. Of course, conventionally-raised, grain-fed livestock are eating almost entirely GMO feed, but I’m unaware of any evidence that this affects the health of those who eat their meat and milk (and grass-fed and pastured animal products are healthier, anyway). Anyone know?

Is there a bottom line to all this? A definitive answer? No; not yet.

But I think at the bare minimum, GM foods should be labeled so that people can make decisions about the food they and their families are eating. With so much uncertainty, I think the only fair thing to do is give people a choice in the matter. Not everyone avoids grains and legumes in general, like us.

Well, I hope this was helpful. I’ll probably get criticized from both sides – for not completely and unequivocally condemning GMOs and for failing to pledge my undying support. Not everything has a clear conclusion, though. So it goes.

By all means, though, get it going in the comment section! I want to hear evidence and arguments from both sides. Just try to be respectful, and Grok on!

The Primal Essentials Kit: Click Here to See the Top 3 Supplements I Believe Everyone Should Be Taking

Is Organic a Scam? – Biodiversity, Soil Health, Carbon Sequestration, Bee Activity, and Worker Health

At first glance, these may seem inconsequential to the casual reader. Biodiversity? That sounds like some fancy newspeak conjured up by Greenpeace! Soil health? How can soil be healthy? It’s just a collection of inanimate bits of dirt and clay and sand! Bee health? What do I care about a lousy bee? All those things have ever done is sting me, vomit up fructose, and make annoying buzzing noises. Carbon sequestration? Carbon dioxide is a mythological compound! It doesn’t even exist. Worker health? I dunno about you, but it looks like they’re getting a great workout to me, and what’s healthier than that?

Although I’m exaggerating these reactions, of course, the fact is that a lot of the potential benefits of organic farming are lost on consumers because they fail to immediately impact your health in the here and the now. You might be vaguely aware that biodiversity, the health of the soil, the role of bees, the ability of soil to sequester carbon, and the health effects of conventional farming on farm workers are “important” to consider, but are they important enough to nudge you toward consuming organic?

Following the recent Stanford study and the accompanying media frenzy that set this series of “Is Organic a Scam?” posts off, in the last couple weeks we took a look at fetal and child development, antibiotic resistance, and the nutrient differences between conventional and organic farming. This week, let’s take a look at a these five additional facets, so that you can make an honest appraisal of where organic fits in your life and budget.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity refers to the degree of diversity of animal, plant, and microbial life in a given biome. The large bulk of the available literature suggests that organic farming increases biodiversity, partly because it avoids the usage of ample chemicals whose express purpose is to kill select members of the biome, and partly because organic methods like crop rotation, mixed crop usage, and hedgerowing add more species to the mix. Ultimately, the best organic farmers are trying to simulate the natural biome as best they can while maintaining production, and what biome is more biodiverse than wild nature? It’s a natural consequence of doing things, well, naturally.

Personally, I’m inclined to suggest that biodiversity is its own reward, if only for aesthetic value. Where would you rather live, walk, or hike through – sprawling, sterile fields of soy and wheat monocrops as far as the eye can see, or lush wild-looking green spaces full of bugs, bees, small animals, and birds overhead? Even if it had no effect one way or the other on nutrition, yield, or physical human health, I’d pick the wild diverse garden every time. Forest bathing, anyone? Never heard of cornfield bathing. Also, I like coming across deer, seeing lizards dart across my path, and hearing the unmistakable rattle of a rattlesnake off in the bushes. But not everyone values that. Most, in fact, want to know how this increased biodiversity will actually benefit them in tangible, objective ways:

The biodiversity of microbes in organic soil is usually superior to that of conventional soil, and this has major effects on the viability of the crops. Soil microbes are responsible for nitrogen fixation (they grab atmospheric nitrogen and convert it into nitrogen that plants can use), denitrification, and pesticide degradation. They degrade organic matter and turn it into even more soil. They suppress plant diseases (PDF) and crowd out pathogens (similar to how eradicating gut flora can leave us wide open to colonization from bad bugs). When people talk about “living soil,” they’re mostly talking about the microbial life present. The more diverse the microbial life in the soil, the better they’re able to perform their roles. If microbial life is stricken from the soil or limited to a few select species, the soil and whatever you grow or plant to grow in it suffers. In the literature review linked above, researchers report that out of nine papers examining the difference in soil microbial diversity in conventional and organic farming, eight found increased diversity in the organic farm and just one found no effect.

Biodiversity in general also improves pest resistance. As shown in the review, organic systems create favorable conditions for “natural biocontrol of pests,” whether it’s crop-munching herbivores being swarmed by stinging, biting, and generally dissuading pests that would have otherwise been killed by chemicals, or the pitting of natural enemies against each other in a kind of noble warfare.

Soil Health

Soil is, of course, a dynamic collective of living organisms and dead organic matter. And so, while “soil health” does not refer to the blood lipids, blood pressure, and abdominal obesity of the soil (although organic soil tends to have low triglycerides, excellent BP, and a trim figure, for what it’s worth), it does refer to the ability of a soil to support plant and animal life, resist erosion, and prevent runoff. Most importantly, healthy soil should be able to maintain that health; it should be sustainable. So, does organic farming tend to produce healthier soil?

Conventional agriculture promotes nutrient runoff, which harms the environment and even contributes to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Organic has far less nutrient runoff, and a longterm study found that organic farming was more effective than the conventional system in reducing soil erosion and maintaining soil health.

Carbon Dioxide Sequestration

There’s more carbon in soil than there is in the atmosphere and the global biomass combined; soil contains about twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, which sounds incredible but makes perfect sense when you realize that carbon increases the water-holding capacity of sandy soil, contributes to the structural stability of clay soil, prevents nutrient leaching, and helps make minerals available to plants. In short, carbon is crucial for soil health. Whatever your views on the importance of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, it’s been shown that soil subject to organic farming methods sequesters far more carbon than conventionally-farmed soil:

Organic grazing techniques restore carbon to the soil, thereby improving sequestration and rejuvenating dry, arid landscapes (PDF). A massive review of the available studies comparing carbon sequestration in organic and conventional farming found that on average, organic soil sequestered 20% more carbon than conventional soil. Furthermore, biodynamic farming, which refers to organic farming with the use of composting and fermented manure/mineral mixes, was even more effective at 25% more carbon sequestered than conventional (PDF).

Bee Health

Bees. You know, the buzzy stinging bugs that pollinate plants, thereby enabling illicit sexual contact between lusty flora. Before you get all worked up, though, understand that pollination isn’t just about recreational plant sex; it’s about plant reproduction. If you’re at all interested in consuming the edible products of any of these popular crop plants (or honey), you should strongly support the right of pollinators to pollinate.

Unfortunately, some aspects of conventional farming are having a negative impact on bees:

Neonicotinoid, an insecticide, has been shown to significantly reduce colony size and reduce production of new queens by 85% when applied to sample colonies. The same insecticide has also been shown to increase bee mortality by impairing its homing ability. A wayward bee is a dead bee. And research suggests that “high proportions of conventionally managed and large crop fields threaten pollination and biological control services.”

Luckily, organic farming tends to promote bee health and activity:

Organic fields contain more bee-pollinated forbs (a type of herbaceous plant) than conventional fields. Plus, not using neonicotinoids (a prerequisite of organic farming) means the bees who come into contact with organic plants won’t be in danger of picking any up.

Worker Health

It’s one thing to worry about the pesticide residues on that nectarine in your hand, or the sheen of Roundup and methyl iodide adorning your flat of strawberries. You can wash some of it off – not all of it, but some of it – and at any rate, you’re supposedly getting exposed to levels deemed “acceptable” by the authorities (who, no doubt, care deeply about your health). But what about the workers? What about the people who spend backbreaking hours hunched over broccoli plants as crop dusters drone overhead? You think if they time it so that the dusters only hit the crops without workers working, that stuff doesn’t drift on over to the next highly populated crop? What about the workers who literally handle the chemicals, loading them, unloading them, unscrewing lids, heaving sloshing tanks around, and applying the pesticides to the crops?

Several negative health conditions have been linked to agricultural work:

US farmers and pesticide applicators were more likely to have cancers of the nervous system and hematopoietic system (like leukemia).

Workers with high levels of exposure to organochlorine pesticides (lindane and hepatachlor), organophosphate pesticides (dichlorvos), fumigants (methyl bromide), or triazine herbicides (simazine) have higher rates of prostate cancer than workers with low exposure levels.

For women who farmed shortly after pesticide application and who did not wear protective clothing, the risk of breast cancer rose.

Even when the risks of pesticide use are made available, protective clothing isn’t always worn, and workers often wear their pesticide-laden work clothes and boots home, bringing chemical residues with them. My hunch is that wearing protective suits on hot days is likely unbearable (PDF); just ask the crusaders how chain mail feels in the desert.

I’d personally prefer that agricultural workers not be exposed to dangerous levels of agricultural chemicals. I mean, as decent people, we’re going to look at that situation and feel kinda bad, right? This isn’t about politics at all. This is about human beings working long, hot days in the presence of airborne chemicals designed to kill pests and suffering the highest rate of chemically related illness of any occupational group. That’s really, really rough. I shoot for grass-fed and pastured animal products not just for the health benefits, but for the promotion of animal welfare and rejection of the ways CAFOs treat their animals. Buying organic because of concerns about conventional farm worker health is a similarly legit motivation, as I see it.

That’s it for today, guys. I hope I provided a few longer-term, alternative explanations for why some people might choose to buy organic beyond the usual reasons. Let me know your thoughts in the comment section and thanks for reading!

Next week, I’ll try to wrap up this series.

Grab a Copy of The Primal Blueprint 21-Day Total Body Transformation and Start Getting Primal Today!

Dear Mark: Maximum 4,000 Calories a Week of Exercise?

Last week, I made the suggestion that people interested in maintaining health and immunity while avoiding excessive oxidative stress should expend no more than 4,000 calories per week through focused exercise, a recommendation that I’ve found to be pretty sound for most of the general population. You guys had plenty of questions about that recommendation, as I expected, so today I’m going to devote the entirety of “Dear Mark” to answering some of those questions. I didn’t get to all of them, but I did try to tackle a representative swath. Don’t expect big sprawling walls of text; I’m just doing this rapid fire style. If I’ve made any glaring omissions, let me know and I’ll see if I can answer them at a later date.

That said, let’s get right into it:

This makes my daily 16-mile round trip commuting through London bad for me then?

When I talk about a 4,000 calorie limit, I’m talking about formal, focused exercise: weight lifting, running, sprinting, cycling, circuit training, CrossFit, training for a 5k, 10k, or half marathon, arduous hikes. If you set out with the mindset to “get a workout in,” you should count that toward your “limit.” If you end up sweaty and breathless and feeling like you’ve just done some real work, you’ve done focused exercise that counts.

If you have to ask, it’s probably not. If it were too much, you’d know. You’re probably so used to it and the relative intensity is such that it’s not much of a stressor. Cycling, right (walking 16 miles a day would be pretty nuts)? It’s free activity, in my opinion. It doesn’t really count.

Plus, that’s your commute. You have to do it. Even if you’re going over the 4,000 calorie “limit,” what can you do but make the best of it? This is just a guideline to keep in mind.

If 4,000 weekly exercise calories is the maximum recommended, what would be the minimum weekly exercise calories?

I hesitate to give a minimum calorie figure, so I’ll give a minimum recommended fitness regimen instead:

One or two strength training sessions a week. Weights, bodyweight, rocks in your yard, sandbags, kettlebells, anything. Just lift some heavy things. If you go once, you’re really gonna have to make it count.

One intense movement session a week. Sprints, intervals, circuit training, maybe a CrossFit WOD. Something that makes you move quickly and safely for about 20-30 minutes (counting the breaks in between intervals, sprints, etc). Think metabolic conditioning.

Lots of moderate activity. Walking, hiking, light jogging, cycling, swimming. Just move around a lot, usually a slow pace, but occasionally picking things up a bit and elevating the heart rate.

Choosing a minimum expenditure is tough, because the quality of calories expended is what matters most on the low end. You could lift a couple times a week, sprint once, and do lots of walking. You wouldn’t necessarily “burn” a ton of calories, but you could get lean, strong, fit, and healthy on that routine because the quality of calories expended was exemplary. At the high end, hitting 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 calories expended is going to be rough on your body no matter their quality.

Any hints for adjusting this – I weigh about 2/3 what your theoretical 185lb. fella does… Should I be thinking in terms of 2/3 the time, the ‘calories’, the road miles….? Will it basically adjust automatically because it ‘costs’ me fewer calories to haul myself around?

Oy, I’m talking about calories.

Also – when you say stuff like walking around doesn’t count – you mean it doesn’t count for purposes of this cutoff, right? It still ‘counts’ toward making us generally happier, perkier, etc…. right?

Yeah, this is just a really rough guideline. A big guy will burn 4,000 calories a little easier than a smaller guy, who’ll have to put in a bit more work… but 4,000 is a good target to shoot for in my experience. You could add up to a 1,000 calories for bigger guys and subtract up to 1,000 for smaller people and you’d still be in the general ballpark.

And of course, walking counts toward happiness, health, and general mobility, so you should definitely do it as much as you can. It just doesn’t matter in terms of caloric expenditure.

Did those studies control for food in? I would imagine the average person at super high levels of activity is eating more and likely eating more higher carb foods, including all of those nasty in-activity gels, blocks and other forms of corn syrup.

I’m curious if a sample exercising at 4,000+ calories/week but making it up with high quality fat and protein would see the same ill effects.

Well, that’s just it – when you start getting into the upper echelons of caloric expenditure, you almost have to rely on the cheap sources of refined carbohydrates, just to get by and keep your head above the water. This is necessary to keep up your energy output, but it’ll mess you up in the long run. Not only will the activity induce excessive oxidative stress and impair health, the food will do it, too. Plus, you’ll only enable your excessive activity even more.

Trying to maintain a heavy exercise schedule (especially if it’s heavy on the glycogen-burning cardio) on just fat and protein – no matter how grass-fed, raw, and/or organic it may be – won’t work out too well. It may even be more stressful, as you’ll be working overtime to produce enough glycogen from protein to replenish the stuff you burn. Of course, since you’ll burn out and eventually figure out that maybe you should change things up, maybe it’ll work in the long run in a roundabout way.

That’s why I recommend that health-focused individuals stick to a moderate, smart exercise program without “too much” caloric expenditure: to reduce the need for cheap, refined, excessive amounts of carbohydrates. It’s easier on your body, it doesn’t preclude excellent fitness levels, and it allows you to eat nutrient-dense, Primal fare.

Wow, this is really food for thought. I am in my late 50′s and don’t think I burn anything close to 4,000 calories per week. I don’t do any formal exercise, but I farm on a small place and do a lot of walking and hauling. I am the most muscular I have ever been in my life, and for the first time in more than 25 years, feel like my weight is under control and stable. I’m not sure what to do with this post since my life seems to be working as it is, but I don’t want to ignore something that may contribute positively to my longterm health.

4,000 calories is the upper limit. Hanging out below that threshold is perfectly fine, and perhaps even ideal or optimal. Heck, from what you’re saying – lots of walking and hauling, more lean mass than you’ve ever had, weight stable for the first time – you should absolutely keep doing whatever you’re currently doing. Whenever your “life seems to be working as it is,” rejoice, for you have attained what we’re all pretty much chasing.

Isn’t a leisurely ride round the neighbourhood and a stroll to the store moving frequently at a slow pace? No mention again of “natural” exercise, working in the garden, chopping wood etc as well as taking the stairs instead of the lift etc and just trying to incorporate more natural movement and exertion into your daily life.

Yep. I love all that stuff and you should do it as often as possible. Daily, integrated movement is essential. I didn’t explicitly mention it last week, however, precisely because it doesn’t “count” toward the calorie expenditure upper limit. It’s “free.”

I agree with Mark (or thought I did?) that these are more likely the natural gaits for homosapiens most of the time – that we were, in fact, NOT “born to run”, at least not long distances at a time. Isn’t PB and PBF about getting away from medium/high exertion, long duration? Long being more than a minute or so?

Not exactly. The “Chronic Cardio” I’ve always railed against refers to high exertion, long duration, steady state training where your heart rate is in excess of 75% of your max. It’s the ceaseless pushing that breaks you down. It’s the high volume that hurts you, the miles and miles you pack away. I’m not against long duration training as long as the intensity is mild enough. I’m not against high exertion training as long as you take breaks (intervals) or keep the duration short. Think of the ancestral persistence hunt – lots of walking and crouching down to follow tracks interspersed with light jogging and full out running – which was absolutely not done at “marathon race pace.”

Thanks for reading, folks, and I hope I covered the questions you needed answering. Send along any more, and if there are enough to warrant a new post, I’ll try to answer them in the future.

Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster

Weekend Link Love

Research of the Week

“Uninterrupted bouts of sedentary behavior” are strongly associated with lower insulin sensitivity, impaired glucose tolerance, and increased triglyceride levels, according to a new review. Of course, most of the available research was performed on males, not females, and all you’d need to do to mitigate any potential damage is interrupt your sedentary bouts with movement.

Here’s one quick (but grueling) way to interrupt those bouts of sedentism: five all-out 30 second sprints separated by four minute rest periods.

Interesting Blog Posts

The inimitable Dr. BG on migraines, oxytocin, and mind-reading.

What if there was a difference between industrial sodium nitrate and nitrate from celery, spinach, and other vegetables?

Media, Schmedia

“Personally I have been eating them for years, and I cannot stop. I just have this urge to eat them.”

Perhaps I’m biased, but this looks an awful lot like a metaphor for modern man’s first contact with Primal living. And even if you don’t agree, you get to watch some cute ducks flap around in the water.

Everything Else

Sign the petition from the Healthy Paleo Coalition to get Whole Foods to revise its vegan-centric healthy eating program.

The anthropology geek part of me loves that humans have shared the earth (and the bed) with other hominid species, but the fantasy geek in me gets bummed out that we don’t have one of our own living among us today. I mean, we missed out on hobbits!

Forget pastured eggs. I want eggs from chickens raised on tannery byproducts!

Recipe Corner

Rice-free, avocado-instead, Paleo sushi.
Sandwich? No; meatwich.

Time Capsule

One year ago (October 14 – October 20)

Managing Your Mitochondria – They can be an unruly bunch of misfits, but you had better figure out how to manage your mitochondria.
Dear Mark: Bad, Supplements, Bad; Simple Mitochondrial Biogenesis; and a Big Day Tomorrow – Learn whether supplements are in fact useless and/or harmful, plus some simple ways to grow new mitochondria.

Comment of the Week

I don’t really like that saying because it’s so easily misused.

Hey, how about a moderate amount of Doritos every day? Or could somebody smoke in moderation? How much is a moderate amount of cocaine?

Hmm, I don’t think so.

- Well said, Jeff.

Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster

Spiced Pork and Butternut Squash with Sage

Spiced Pork and Butternut Squash with Sage is the perfect meal for a chilly day, not only because it’s hearty and comforting but also because the blend of autumnal spices warms the belly.

Nutmeg, cinnamon, allspice and ginger aren’t just for pumpkin pie. This blend of spices also makes a delicious spice rub for pork. Pumpkin (or squash) doesn’t have to be left out entirely. In this recipe, butternut squash is roasted to crispy perfection and served alongside the braised pork with a garnish of brown butter and sage.

You can mix the spices together yourself, or to save time just use Pumpkin Pie spice blend from the store. Once seasoned, the pork simmers in broth for a half hour or so until tender. That same broth is mixed with coconut milk and quickly reduced into a savory sauce.

The squash is roasted separately so the edges become crisp and caramelized, a texture that’s a nice contrast to the tender meat. The final step – browning butter with minced sage – should not be skipped. You’ll be amazed by how the rich, nutty flavor of this simple garnish takes the dish to a whole new level.

Ingredients:

1/2 teaspoon allspice (2.5 ml)
1/4 teaspoon nutmeg (1.25 ml)
1/4 teaspoon cinnamon (1.25 ml)
1/4 teaspoon ground ginger (1.25 ml)
1/2 teaspoon salt (2.5 ml)
1/4 teaspoon black pepper (1.25 ml)
2-3 pounds of boneless country style pork ribs or pork shoulder cut into 1-inch chunks (900-1350 g)
1 butternut squash or pumpkin, weighing about 3 pounds (1350 g)
6 tablespoons coconut oil or olive oil (90 ml)
1 teaspoon cumin (5 ml)
1 cup chicken or beef broth (250 ml)
1/4 cup coconut milk, or more to taste (60 ml)
2 tablespoons butter (30 g)
1 tablespoon finely chopped fresh sage (15 ml)

Instructions:

Preheat the oven to 375 °F (190 °C).

In a small bowl mix together the allspice, nutmeg, cinnamon, ginger, salt, and pepper. Sprinkle the spice mixture over the meat then rub it in. Set the meat aside.

Peel the squash or pumpkin.

To peel and cut a butternut squash or pumpkin: Cut the top stem off. Cut a little bit off the bottom too, so it sits flat on a cutting board. Using a sturdy vegetable peeler, peel off the skin. Cut in half lengthwise and scoop out the seeds/stringy parts with a spoon. Cut the halves into slices then into chunks of the same size, about 1-inch square.

Spread the cut pieces out in a large rimmed baking pan and coat with half of the coconut oil/olive oil and sprinkle with the cumin and a little bit of salt.

Roast for at least 45 minutes, stirring once or twice, until the pieces are lightly browned and soft. Depending on the size of the pieces and how soft and browned you want them to be, you might keep them in the oven for an hour or slightly more. Put the cooked squash in a large serving dish.

While the squash/pumpkin is roasting, heat a pot over medium-high on the stove then add the remaining oil. Let the oil heat for a minute then add the pork.

Cook for 5 minutes without turning the pork pieces so they brown, then stir the pieces and cook 3 minutes more.

Add the broth and bring to a boil. There should be just enough liquid to cover the meat, if not, add a little water. Turn the heat to low and cover the pot. Simmer for 30-40 minutes, stirring occasionally. The meat should be tender when it’s done.

Remove the lid and add the coconut milk. Raise the heat to high so the liquid boils and reduces a bit. After 5 minutes, turn the heat off and pour the pork and sauce over the roasted squash.

Melt the butter in a pan over medium heat. Add the sage. Fry the sage for 3-4 minutes, until it’s slightly crisp and the butter is browned.

Drizzle over the pork and squash.

Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster