The first was a link to this article. The author Jane Lear's (features director at Martha Stewart Living) root agenda here is that the "Paleo Diet" is not supported by science; that humans evolved because of our flexibility to eat new things. She claims we are the 'ready-for-anything species,' and our ancestors adapted to an ever-changing landscape, just as we have recently - to dairy, grains, legumes, etc. Lear interviewed evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk and she had this to say: "You cannot assume that it’s impossible for us to change. Sometimes evolution is slow, sometimes it’s fast, sometimes it’s in between. The poster child for quick evolution in humans is dairy tolerance.”
I had mixed feelings, and to be honest I agreed with the majority of the author's claims. Zuk's quote was kind of spot on - not everyone is tolerant of dairy but not everyone isn't. One thing that really stood out to me was the statement, "As far as I’m concerned, the idea that there is essentially one Paleo Diet is up there with the equally ill-founded notion that there is one cuisine that defines India, say, or China." I guess I've always agreed with that. It seems like most people who act holier than thou because they're "strict paleo" are the same ones who order coconut oil and grass-fed beef online because coconuts don't grow where they live and they're too afraid to actually kill something. That's not paleo at all. And if we're talking about 2+ million years of evolution, what percentage of those hominids were pressing olive oil and pouring it over leafy greens?
"You wash your hair, bro? So not Paleo."
So the thought provoked was this: this is 2013, we're not cavemen, and there are no bonus points for living in a cave, rubbing sticks together and eating termites. To borrow a quote from Chris Kresser: "The Paleo Diet is a means to an end, not an end in itself." To me this article is a classic example of missing that point. It's not just the opposition, though; advocates can be just as bad. The purpose is not to replicate the lifestyle; it is to make make your road to "the end" longer, more healthful, and more enjoyable. To me that seems impossible to argue, and by that logic it's good idea to wear layers when it's cold, brush and floss your teeth, utilize modern medical care if you've been in a car accident or have a severe infection, etc. You'd have to be a moron to not do those things because they're not paleo enough. If you enjoy a beer with your dinner and you don't have any significantly nasty reactions to a little gluten, it doesn't mean the Paleo Diet is totally not for you. You'll still benefit by removing most of the other neolithic agents that contribute to modern disease...I always like to say if a kid gets beat at home, it doesn't mean his teacher should beat him too.
If your goal is health and longevity, eliminating most heavily-processed junk food can probably get you 75% of the way there. Paleo followers usually take that a various number of steps further to make up portions of the other 25%, but 100% is just not possible. As far as I'm concerned, vegans who eat mostly whole foods (no, not the ones who scoff at my shopping cart full of flesh and fill their own with vegan burritos and potato chips) probably have pretty much the same agenda as the standard "paleo," and they usually live relatively long and healthfully, too. Sure, they probably eat more fructose, linoleic acid, and gluten grains, and less branched-chain amino acids, choline, and conjugated linoleic acid, but that's why you don't see many vegans who look like Greek statues, while you can pick the "paleo" from a lineup almost every time. Sorry vegans, I appreciate you, I really do - just had get a dig in there, but I totally kind of meant it. I think it's the "glow."
***Note: The section of the article pertaining to sustainability is definitely important to consider and I suppose there's an animal rights issue, too. I can't speak much to the statistics on greenhouse gases or death to living things - I'll never claim to be an expert in ecology and there are just too many variables to consider there to even attempt to get into it. But fly over middle America and tell me all those corn, soy, and wheat fields wouldn't be fantastic grasslands for grazing ruminants, along with the millions of animals whose habitats were destroyed to plant them in the first place. Perhaps we couldn't support the current population that way, but it did support evolution for quite some time. Plus, survival of the fittest is paleo, isn't it? (That's a joke.)***
The second post was made by a friend admitting a craving of a very delicious food - this particular item is kind of non-nutritious, but certainly not the worst thing in the average American pantry - and she had tagged her personal trainer. I get it; a food addict myself, I'm assuming it's kind of like an alcoholic calling her sponsor when she feels her will is week. Either that or she was looking for him to say it's okay(he said no). Either way, understand that this girl is not metabolically deranged, has no apparent gut permeability issues, and has a body composition that she of course would like to improve but would be desired by most. My immediate reaction kind of surprised me because she and I are in the same boat there, but my only thought was just eat the freakin' thing and move on!
Nothing will ever change the fact that pancakes and syrup taste a fuck ton better than skinless chicken and rice with no salt.
I made the connection between these two posts because it really boils down to the same issue. I'll be the first to tell you there are certainly times when it's important to be strict. Certain people, such as those with Hashimoto's disease or other auto-immune disorders can have inflammatory issues with damn near ALL neolithic foods, including my beloved coffee and the nightshade family (potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, etc.). If this is you, you should probably be getting your info from someone a lot smarter than I am. Stringency can also be very important in the case of morbid obesity, or when trying to cut weight for a specific sporting event or competition. But for a majority of us with the long-term goal of health and longevity, that slice of non-paleo pizza or bowl of Frankenberry is pretty insignificant if we are eating like responsible adults the other 90% of the time. And don't underestimate the psychological nightmare of restricting oneself from everything pleasurable. I can't remember who said this to me, but the quote itself has always stuck: "Sure you can live to be 100. All you have to do is give up all the things that make you want to live to be 100." I say screw that!
Maybe this seems a little abstract, but I did make a conclusion about all of this. And I'm happy I did, because I have certainly been guilty of some adverse thinking over the years. But here's the thing: Each of us only has a specific and individual amount of free will. If you use that all up on workouts you hate and keeping your hand out of the cookie jar, you will have no more to give to the other parts of your life that need some too, like your job, family, friends, etc. Taking pride in how strict you follow Paleo means jack shit if you miss your children's football games to CrossFit or get fired for spending your workdays searching for bargain gym equipment (#Perlo. For real though, find us a Prowler!). At the same time, people who neglect their own health because of their busy work and family life are doing themselves a huge injustice too. So work hard, but be sure to make some "me time," whatever that may be. Eat mostly healthy stuff but you'd better not deny a fried Snicker's if the opportunity presents itself; Nobody is perfect, and if you don't accept that you'll only be disappointed but we can all strive to get a little closer by figuring out just how much free will we've got, and spreading that shit around. And who knows, you might just live to 100 anyway.
"Live long and prosper." - Mr. Spock
No comments:
Post a Comment