Photo by Lord Jim

“What do you think of the Paleo diet which advocates zero grain consumption?”

The Paleolithic diet is one of the most rapidly growing diet trends of the past several years. Followers of the Paleo diet argue that humans have not evolved to eat agriculture-based foods and can only achieve optimal health by consuming a hunter-gatherer style diet. Thus the Paleo diet is completely devoid of grains and legumes, and also shuns dairy, salt, refined sugar and processed oils. The diet is composed primarily of meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, roots, nuts and seeds.

(The Wikipedia article on the Paleo diet is actually pretty good if you’d like to read up on the details. I particularly like the Opposing views section.)

Like most diets the Paleo diet has a little bit of good science behind it, but also a lot of logical leaps and baseless assumptions. The evolutionary argument that humans are somehow maladapted to agriculture-based diets is particularly unconvincing (resting on many unproven assumptions), yet is the fundamental premise on which the Paleo diet bases its recommendations.

The reasoning behind the Paleo diet is less interesting to me, however, than the impact of the diet itself. Will “eating like a caveman” really help you be healthier?

Possibly, but not necessarily.

The most obvious advantage of the Paleo diet is the lack of processed foods. There is ample evidence that societies on traditional diets boast far better health than those on modern, Western diets–and the hallmark of modern diets is food processing. Paleo diets therefore are low in sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess salt and pretty much everything else that leads to “diseases of civilization.”

Paleo diets are also abundant in healthy, nutrient-rich foods such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, fish and meats. I have no doubt that anyone willing to stick to a Paleo eating plan will have a healthy weight and remain virtually free of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and may even have lower rates of cancer.

But the question still remains, is it necessary to eat Paleo to be healthy?

This is where I take issue with the Paleo philosophy. While the promise of a diet free of processed foods is substantial, the Paleo diet goes beyond this and demands considerable sacrifice.

Paleo diets do not allow for any grains or legumes. This pretty much eliminates every traditional cuisine on earth including Japanese, Italian, Indian and Greek. Not only is this a culinary tragedy, it ignores the fact that these cuisines feed some of the world’s healthiest and longest-lived individuals.

Traditional, global diets that include grains and legumes but exclude highly processed foods have been some of the most successful for health. Diseases of civilization are only problematic in Western cultures where highly processed foods make up a large proportion of the calories consumed.

Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that it is necessary to eliminate grains and legumes because they contain “antinutrients,” substances that can interfere with the body’s absorption of other important vitamins, minerals and proteins. However, well-nourished individuals who eat a varied diet of unprocessed foods (including grains and legumes) are not nutrient deficient and are generally healthy.

Given that it is possible to thrive on a diet that includes some grains, legumes and even small amounts of processed foods, one must question if giving up the culinary joys of travel and global cuisine are really worth the sacrifice. In my experience, food substitutions and modified recipes designed to mimic traditional meals can sometimes be tasty but can never replace true authenticity.

Another contention I have with the Paleo diet is the assumption that the same eating patterns will work for everyone. People’s lives differ in countless ways. We each have different levels of daily activity, demands on our time and food preferences. We also have slightly different genetic backgrounds, which can result in significant differences in metabolism and hormone levels. These individual variations can make dietary needs different for each of us.

Scientific reports on health and diet almost always rely on data pooled over many people (sometimes hundreds of thousands), since this is the only way to measure statistical significance. As a result these studies only inform us about dietary health trends on a population level and tell us little about what will work for us individually. Differences among people may be part of the reason large nutrition studies so often fail to show meaningful results.

Thus, there may be a percentage of the population that has great success on the Paleo diet and finds it easy to stick to and achieve results. This is wonderful. However there may also be a segment of the population (myself included) that finds living without grains and legumes to be chronically unsatisfying and unsustainable.

Try telling a foodie they can never use salt, eat cheese or drink wine again and see how far you get pitching a Paleo diet.

If you currently eat a typical Western diet with little variety and many processed foods, tend to have better success following rigid diet plans, and have no qualms about giving up or modifying traditional meals to meet your dietary demands, then you might have luck following the Paleo diet. However there is no reason to believe it is the only path to good health.

The best diet is the one that works for you. Finding a healthstyle you can embrace and enjoy is essential if you want to build a lifetime of healthy habits.

Do you follow a Paleo diet? What do you think?

Tags: antinutrients, beans, diseases of civilization, intact grains, legumes, paleo diet, processed foods, trans fat

Photo by Mornflake

If there is a single subject that befuddles the health-conscious eater, it is undoubtedly carbohydrates.

Most of us have seen the impressive results of at least temporarily restricting carbs, but studies examining the long-term effects of carbohydrate restriction are often ambiguous. Also, while some experts argue fervently for a low-carb lifestyle, some nutritionists still warn about the dangers of eating too much fat or protein.

So how do we know what to believe?

A full examination of the science behind carbohydrate metabolism is beyond the scope of a single blog post, and is in fact not entirely understood by the scientific community (for a thorough review of this topic read Gary Taubes’ book Good Calories, Bad Calories, which I will be reviewing soon).

However, there are a few things we do know about carbohydrates that are worth pointing out.

Lesson 1: Refined grains contribute to nearly every chronic disease in modern civilization.

It is universally agreed in the nutrition community that refined, processed carbohydrates are the worst things to eat on the entire planet.

And it is impossible to overstate how remarkable this is.

The nutrition community is one of the most disagreeable bunches in all of science. But across the board–from vegans like Colin Campbell to carnivores like Robert Atkins–not a single one of them considers processed carbs to be nutritionally neutral. They all consider them dangerous.

Without question, refined carbohydrates contribute to poor health.

Lesson 2: Vegetables protect against nearly every chronic disease in modern civilization.

Where things start to get more complicated is with unrefined carbohydrates, and the various iterations of this definition. There is ample evidence that the carbohydrates contained in vegetables are not harmful, and possibly beneficial.

To call these vegetable carbohydrates “fiber” is to oversimplify the science, but suffice to say that vegetables are good for you and contribute to your good health.

This is also generally agreed upon.

Lesson 3: Whole grains are different from intact grains.

Few people will argue against my first two points. But bring up whole grains and you will unleash a fury of controversy. Some people believe whole grains to be the cornerstone of any healthy diet, while others consider them superfluous and possibly detrimental to good health. You can find dozens of PhDs and MDs to back up your claims no matter what camp you align with.

So why is there so much disagreement? What does the science say?

The problem is that nutrition science conducted in free-living humans is virtually impossible to interpret. This is largely because the studies are so difficult to control and people’s behavior and self-reporting are so unreliable. Another problem is that the definition of “whole grains” has been watered down to a point where it is virtually meaningless.

One reason whole grains are hard to identify is because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has created a definition that is friendly to food companies, but not to consumers.

The FDA requirements for a manufacturer to use the term “whole grain” on its label (along with the respective health claims) are as follows:

“Cereal grains that consist of the intact, ground, cracked or flaked caryopsis, whose principal anatomical components – the starchy endosperm, germ and bran – are present in the same relative proportions as they exist in the intact caryopsis - should be considered a whole grain food.” (emphasis added by me)

Get it? To be considered “whole,” grains do not actually have to be intact.

Thus food manufacturers create products using this loose definition to their advantage, demolishing grains as normal, then adding back the required ratios of grain parts (germ and bran) to meet the standard.

This is how products like Froot Loops get spiffy health labels claiming they lower heart disease when any unbiased nutrition scientist would agree that, with 41% sugar by weight, Froot Loops almost certainly contribute to heart disease.

On the other hand, there is compelling data that intact whole grains contribute to better health.

Lesson 4: Eating grains is a personal choice, not a nutritional imperative.

The good news is that it is really easy to tell the difference between fake “whole” grains and intact whole grains. If a food actually looks like a grain (i.e., it retains its original form and bran covering), then it is an intact grain. If it looks like a Cheerio, chip, loaf of bread or pasta with a “whole grain” label, then it is a fake whole grain.

People following a primal or paleo diet will argue that this difference is irrelevant and that all grains (and legumes?!) are unnecessary for good health. Personally I disagree, but remain fairly neutral on the personal choice of removing grains from the diet entirely.

Grains do not appear to be necessary for survival (Inuit tribes survive without them), but optimal nutrition may require slightly more effort than would be necessary following a traditional balanced diet.

This is generally how I feel about all healthy, restrictive regimens such as vegetarian, vegan and raw diets. You can make it work for yourself if you are willing to make sacrifices and put in the effort.

However you should be aware that for many people, myself included, cutting whole grains out of your diet completely is extremely difficult and, if you ask me, unnecessarily painful.

Conclusion

When making food choices about grains, the critical question is not whether or not a food is “whole” grain but whether the grain is intact. For this reason, it matters very little if you substitute “whole grain” products for regular refined products such as pasta.

Examples of intact grains are oats, barley, brown rice, whole wheat, quinoa (sort of) and faro. White rice is not a whole grain, and is closer to a refined grain than a whole grain.

For optimal health, processed and refined grains should be eaten very sparingly. Small amounts such as those eaten in traditional cultures can be part of any healthstyle, but including them is a personal choice that will depend on your own goals and preferences.

The irony is that if you are able to remove processed foods from your diet, the way you eat could probably be described as low-carb. But this label really undermines a healthstyle based on real food.

Though I eat relatively few grains compared to most Americans, I cringe when I see the shining example of low-carb living, The Atkins Diet website, with images of fake pancakes and pasta plastered all over it. If that is what low-carb is, I want nothing to do with it.

Processed food is still processed food, whether the carbohydrates have been synthetically removed or not. Stick to eating real food and you’ll never have to worry about carbs.

Do you count your carbohydrates?

Tags: bread, carbs, intact grains, paleo diet, pasta, processed foods, quinoa, raw food, real food, refined carbs, rice, vegan, vegetables, vegetarian, whole grains

Delicious Nuts

“When I work out at the gym, I am there for a couple of hours and by the end of the first hour, I am still energized but start getting hungry. I read your article on packing food for lunch but wanted to specifically ask if you recommend any specific store bought bars.”

I frequently get questions about different nutrition and energy bars. Generally I think all of them are a bad idea, since they are little more than processed food with added vitamins and/or other trendy diet ingredients–a hallmark of food from the Matrix.

Energy and meal replacement bars serve only one purpose: convenience. So let’s make no mistake about it, these are not health foods.

But I understand that quick calories can be incredibly useful, particularly when intense workouts are a regular part of your day. If you get hungry and don’t have anything around to eat, the chances of you breaking down and eating something you’ll really regret increase substantially. But I think there are better things to carry around than energy bars.

My quick snack of choice is nuts or trail mix. I always have a small stash of nuts hidden somewhere in my gym bag (which comes with me everywhere). My personal favorites are almonds, pistachios, cashews and macadamia nuts. When I’m feeling ambitious I’ll combine a few different kinds together in a plastic zipper bag along with some dried fruit, just to mix things up.

One of the only drawbacks of snacking on nuts is if you are really hungry it is easy to eat too many and ruin your appetite for dinner. Too many nuts can also be difficult to digest. To avoid this I recommend getting into the habit of counting the nuts you eat, drinking water and waiting 20 minutes before eating more. The protein and fat in nuts can be very satisfying, but it takes awhile for the satiety signals to reach your brain.

For almonds, cashews and macadamia nuts 10 is a good number to start with. For shelled pistachios and peanuts, 15-20 nuts is more realistic. You are aiming for a single serving size of 1/4 cup. After some practice, eating the proper amount will come naturally to you. But at the beginning you should either count the nuts or measure them out in advance so it is easier to make good decisions.

There are a few other easily transportable foods that can serve as good substitutes for energy bars. Fruit is a great option, particularly filling fruits with lots of fiber like apples and oranges. Be careful with soft fruits, however, or you may end up with a gym bag filled with goo. Yes, I’m speaking from experience.

(Read: How to transport soft fruits and vegetables)

Another option that I don’t often use but am not opposed to is jerky. Beef and turkey jerky are generally high in protein and very satisfying. Just be careful about the teriyaki flavor that is often high in added sugar.

As a final thought, I wonder if you are maybe spending too much time in the gym? For weight loss and fat burning, more than an hour is really overkill and may actually work against you. If you are training for a specific athletic event, you’ve gotta do what you gotta do. But for the rest of us mortals one hour in the gym is more than enough to accomplish our goals. Maybe your hunger is a signal to you that it’s time to shower up and head home?

One of the most essential aspects of a great healthstyle is planning for moments of hunger throughout your day, but processed foods are hardly ever the answer–no matter how convenient.

What are your favorite post-workout snacks?

Tags: dried fruit, Exercise, fruit, jerky, nuts, processed foods, snacks, workout

By _Max-B

Hopefully I sold you on why it’s better to be an adventurous eater than a picky eater, but that doesn’t mean you should eat everything that’s put in front of you.

In fact, you should always question what you eat and never accept food blindly. Learning how to choose good food is one of the most important skills you need to successfully navigate the nutritional minefield we live in.

But how do you learn to be judiciously discriminating without being annoyingly picky? And how do you avoid stepping over the boundary into food snob territory?

Ultimately you need to determine your personal values and define your own healthstyle. Here I’ve outlined a few guiding principles I use to make these decisions every day.

Food Origins

The first step is developing an appreciation for where your food comes from.

Whole foods vs Processed foods

The first great divide in the modern food world is between whole foods and processed foods. Whole foods are those that have not been substantially changed by industrial processes and still look fairly similar to how they are found in nature. Processed foods are those that have been broken down by commercial methods then reassembled into “edible food-like products,” to quote Michael Pollan from In Defense of Food.

For unknown reasons the act of processing foods strips them of their magical powers (pretty scientific, eh?). We’ve learned from dozens of clinical trials on nutrient supplements that removing molecules from the context of whole foods almost always prevents them from doing their job properly.

Thus it seems that natural foods–as far as our bodies are concerned–are equal to more than the sum of their parts, and it is unlikely we will understand all the science behind this for at least several decades.

Luckily we do not need to know the mechanisms of nutrition to make healthy food choices.

The single most consistent finding in the field of nutrition is that whole foods are better for you than processed foods.

Independent food vs Industrial food

The second great divide is between independent food producers and industrial farming and agriculture. A huge misconception among eaters is that all produce and farm products are created equal. But anyone who has shopped at a farmers market knows this is not true for produce, meat or any other farm product.

Not only does produce grown in (or animals raised on) healthy, fertile soil taste orders of magnitude better than anything grown in depleted industrial soil, but it will also have more nutrients, be better for the environment and create a more healthy food culture.

No matter how you slice it, farm fresh food is better.

I will even  make the case that the distinction between independent and industrial food is more important than the difference between organic and conventional. While I support organics in general (especially compared to conventional industrial ag), some of my favorite farms are not certified organic, yet their growing practices far exceed certification requirements.

I know these farmers personally, and their food speaks for itself.

There is a world of difference between rejecting food for what it is and rejecting food because of its quality. My personal opinion is that any whole food that isn’t grown industrially is probably worth trying and liking.

Culinary Talent

Also important in appreciating valuable food is recognizing culinary talent.

The prospect of experiencing an artist’s work is usually enough to get me to try a food, even if it is not the healthiest thing on earth.

As I explained above I rarely find reason to eat processed foods, and that means pretty much anything made with sugar or flour. Most of the time it just isn’t worth it.

But sometimes it is.

Sometimes pastry chefs, bakers and pizza makers can transform simple ingredients into such amazing creations that you’d be foolish to turn them down. I watch my portions when I eat these foods, but generally think life is too short to miss such opportunities.

But proceed with caution. The quest for superior culinary talent is a slippery slope to food snobbery. You don’t want to be that guy who turns down birthday cake unless it is make by Elizabeth Prueitt. Nobody likes that guy.

But of course, where you draw the line is up to you.

Finding Value

For me the value of food is defined by the quality of the ingredients, the talent of the chef and the nature of the occasion.

The purpose of eating should always be to make your life better in some way: may it bring you good health, sensual pleasure or stronger personal relationships.

I think it’s best when it does all of the above.

What kind of eater are you?

Tags: food snobs, industrial food, Michael Pollan, organic, picky eaters, processed foods

By D Sharon Pruitt

Most people’s eyes light up if free food is mentioned. But using “free” as an excuse to eat junk food is nothing to be proud of.

We are excited by the concept of free food because we perceive it as having value. But cheap, mass-produced food isn’t worth much in health, taste or even satisfaction.

Although we believe we are getting a great deal, foods typically offered as free don’t even fulfill our most basic nutritional (or emotional) needs.

Thus one of the most important lessons I’ve learned in my 12 years of higher education is:

Just because it’s free doesn’t mean you have to eat it.

On occasion someone will offer you high quality food at no cost, but these times are few and far between. More often you will find yourself wading through a sea of donuts, pizza, cookies and other junk food.

Your best bet is skipping the empty calories all together when attending meetings, seminars and other public events.

10 reasons to never eat free food

1. It’s cheap. You may be inclined to think that cheap food is a good deal, but if you take a minute to think about what you’re really getting you find it is not the value you may have thought. Cheap food means you are getting low quality, mass-produced calories made from industrial processes. Isn’t that the stuff we want to avoid?
2. It’s flavorless. The right combinations of sugar, fat and salt, pretty easily deceive your brain, as these ingredients can strongly activate your neural reward pathways. But if you try and focus on the true flavor of food and eat mindfully, you quickly notice the tastelessness of industrial food.
3. It’s bad for you. Evidence is mounting that processed foods are the cause of most “diseases of civilization” such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. When you wolf down a few of those Costco brownie bites at happy hour, you are contributing directly to your likelihood of developing these chronic diseases. Is that value?
4. You aren’t saving money. You may tell yourself that this free meal will keep you from eating later, but there’s a good chance you will eat again anyway. Processed foods do not satisfy you, but actually stimulate your appetite and strengthen future cravings. Also, if you factor in your future health care costs, what you save by eating that $2 slice of pizza starts to seem rather trivial.
5. You’ll feel gross later. Junk food makes you feel bad, both physically and mentally. If someone offered you a free headache, would you take it?
6. It screws up your metabolism. Highly refined foods create rapid insulin spikes that induce insulin resistance over the next few hours, making your next meal more fattening. If you make a habit of eating cheap abundant food, this condition will become chronic and may develop into type 2 diabetes. What a bargain!
7. You’ll gain weight. With insulin resistance comes weight gain, and with time you will gain more weight eating fewer calories. Unfortunately, people aren’t often giving away free plus-sized jeans.
8. You’re eating empty calories. When you submit to eating cheap food, you are also choosing not to eat nutritious food. Choosing a diet rich in vitamins and other essential nutrients may be the single biggest factor in determining your risk for disease and overall longevity. Luckily, local, seasonal foods taste way better than anything your co-workers can pour out of a plastic bag.
9. You don’t need it. Chances are you get plenty of calories in your typical day. So why do we feel like we need to eat junk food just because it is free? Healthy food does not have to be very expensive.
10. It isn’t worth it. The truth is free junk food isn’t really free. Even if processed foods don’t cost you money, they still cost you your health, happiness and sense of well-being.

Why do you eat free food?

Tags: diseases of civilization, free food, industrial food, junk food, processed foods