Paleo Porridge

Is porridge 'paleo'?  Well it was consumed before settled agriculture (not nomadic agriculture).  From New Scientist - Stone-age people were making porridge 32,000 years ago:

• To see the benefits of a plant-based diet, you only need to know that society has been largely fuelled by processed grains for the last 20,000 years, says archaeologist Matt Pope of University College London. “There is a relationship there to be explored between diet, experimentation with processing plant food and cultural sophistication.”
  
  
  This is another example of the advances made by Europe’s Gravettian culture, which produced technology, artwork and elaborate burial systems during the Upper Palaeolithic era, says Erik Trinkaus at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. “These people were described 15 years ago as ‘Hunters of the Golden Age’, and the details of that are still being filled out.”
  
  Mariotti Lippi’s team hopes to continue studying ancient grinding stones to find out more about the Palaeolithic plant diet. Grinding stones go back a long way, says Trinkaus, and people may well have been pounding and eating various wild grains even earlier than 32,000 years ago.

 Let's not lose sight that such grains would not have been harmongenised, of vastly differing strains to those eaten nowadays, were unlikely to have been processes to such refined, acellular state, nor covered in sweetened substances to the extent that cereals in their modern form are.  We must also consider the seasonal nature of diet and how this affects consumption rates and so forth. 

There is little to say whether such food was a food of last resort or how it was considered against game.  Perspective, people.

Want to Stay Slim?

....then eat fat!  This film by Britsh Pathe is from 1958.  In response to this being a new theory, Dr McArless (?) responds,

• "Yes, it's new now, today, but it wasn't new in history.  In the days when we had no agriculture and there was no starch in our food, no potatoes, no bread, no cereals, everybody had to live by hunting on meat and fat and in those days, I believe, that they were all slim.  Now if we stop eating these new foods, so called, then we will get our weight down back to normal....stop eating starch and sugar.  Eat everything else, as much as he likes, and he will get slim but it will not make him more slim than he should be."

At 3'20" fasting even makes an appearance!

Whatever your diet dogma, this will make you think.  Now let me go place an order for some 'Slimmo'!

Bug Mac & Flies

Check out @newscientist's Tweet:

Food Unwrapped

I've not been following the 'Food Unwrapped' series, but I did catch this episode (series 4, episode3), featuring black pudding.

• One of Jimmy's old favourites is black pudding. He learns about the amazing properties of blood and discovers how it's becoming trendy in gastronomy. Could desserts like pavlova be made from no-egg blood meringues?

I am a big fan of black pudding but what I found rather inspiring is the news that blood can be used as a substitute for egg!  The possibilities are endless (and distinctly 'faleo', but damn, if you are going to eat junk, what a way to do it).

The Nordic Diet

Move over Mediterranean Diet!  It looks like the Nordic diet is the next big thing (sadly I had to read the Daily Mail to get this story):

• For years, the Mediterranean diet with plenty of olive oil and vegetables has been lauded as the key to health and longevity.
  
  But it seems that a Scandinavian nation's cuisine could actually be better for you.
  
  Scientists have found that eating a diet based on that served up traditionally in Denmark could significantly reduce your risk of heart disease.
  
  Nordic cuisine is usually made up of fresh berries, fish and game - foods that thrive in colder northern climates.

While it is saddening to hear of another 'new diet' fad, the fact is that this diet easily falls under the paleo template.  There is no 'best diet', and the diet best for you may well be somewhere between these two diets and may change based on age, gender, activity levels, health and seasonality.

As with all these 'super-diets', they share a commonality in that they involve real foods and are based on traditional nutritional practice. The key to health and longevity is probably to avoid or limit foods that have the same name globally or that you can't make or prepare in your kitchen.  Not hard is it?

Reversing T2 Diabetes

An interesting piece from The Guardian today about a guy who reversed his T2:

• At 59 I was 10st 7lb, 5ft 7in, and had never been overweight. I ran and played cricket regularly and didn't drink alcohol excessively. Yet at a routine check-up I was told that I had type 2 diabetes. In 10 years I could be dependent on insulin, it could affect my sight, feet, ears, heart and I had a 36% greater chance of dying early.
  In type 1 diabetes, the body produces none of the insulin that regulates our blood sugar levels. Very high glucose levels can damage the body's organs. Patients with type 2 diabetes, however, do produce insulin - just not enough to keep their glucose levels normal. Because I was fit and not overweight (obesity is a major risk factor in type 2 diabetes; however, a number of non-obese people, particularly members of south Asian communities, are also prone to it), my doctor told me I could control my condition with diet alone.
  
  Desperate for information, I headed to the web, where I found a report about a research trial at Newcastle University led by Professor Roy Taylor. His research suggested type 2 diabetes could be reversed by following a daily 800-calorie diet for eight weeks.

As with all such stories the comments give a tantalising insight in to the potential of eating real food (you know it when you see it), and engaging in some occasional, vigorous, strength-demanding exercise. (Of course none of this will be new to those who have been around the paleosphere for the last 5 years.)

On the study, I think an 8-week diet of 800 calories a day is rather restrictive and, given some of the research from Martin at Leangains, I wonder if the same outcome could be achieved with an IF approach.  Perhaps the timescales would be longer, but compliance may well be higher.

Learning to Use Fat

I was looking for more detail on Bradley Wiggins' diet and it seems that nutrition in cycling has undergone some quite dramatic changes in recent years.  One of the leading nutritionists is  Bob Seebohar.  I subsequently found this piece on PezCyclingNews called Cutting Edge Nutrition Strategies,

• "According to Seebohar the process of actually changing your metabolic efficiency takes a couple of focused efforts. First you have to change your nutrition, then you have to change your training. The change in nutrition requires you to dramatically cut the starches and whole grain carbohydrate load in your diet. This is no small feat for endurance athletes and may require up to four or more weeks to accomplish. In addition to changing the total CHO load it is advised that the athlete change their CHO utilization prior to, and during training. In essence you want to avoid dumping a bunch of carbohydrate into your bloodstream in the hour before you start training. This will help manage the insulin response and allow your body to begin using fat more efficiently."

Diet and Destiny 2

So according to New Statesman it seems that fat is a political issue,

• "In dense urban environments, it’s easier to be fat than healthy. A fear of crime can stop people going out. A world where poorer parents often have to work more than two jobs leaves little time. Leisure budgets are being cut. Fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive, both in price and in preparation time. Take-aways are easy because children love them; they give exhausted parents a chance to apologise."

It is an interesting angle - but plenty of lean people live in urban environments.  Factor that in to the statement above and you aren't left with much that is plausible.  We get the token mention of 'fruit and veg' but what about the meat?

Cancer and Baked Goods

On a day we discover that 'Processed Meats Declared Too Dangerous for Human Consumption' (a subject ably covered by David Calqhoun), it is worth mentioning that food dangers are not confined to the flesh.

I first mentioned acrylamide back in 2008.  Wiki elaborates on this carcinogen,

• Acrylamide...occurs in many cooked starchy foods and is of concern as a possible carcinogen. Acrylamide was accidentally discovered in foods in April 2002 by scientists in Sweden when they found the chemical in starchy foods, such as potato chips, French fries, and bread that had been heated (production of acrylamide in the heating process was shown to be temperature-dependent).  It was not found in food that had been boiled or in foods that were not heated.
  

Mastodon!

I have diverse musical tastes but mainstream rock, metal and a bit of progressive rock dominate my music collection.  All these elements have been masterfully combined by the superb Mastodon on their epic 'Crack the Skye'.

Some of my other interests include rock guitar and rock climbing.  In this video below you can see Mastodon combining all these elements in to one track, Divinations, and it even has a 'paleo' ending!

Rawk !"!


Mastodon: Divinations - New Video

Mastodon | Myspace Music Videos

Less Advice, More Information

This seems to have crept under my radar. The International Journal of Applied and Basic Nutritional Sciences have broken cover with this paper "In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee":

• "Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs."

My emphasis.  They are not afraid to question the absence of robust scientific method.  I particularly like the last line - questioning HOW the guidelines are created.  This is a massive question.  We all know to follow the money.  There is so much money to be made with the status quo (not to mention the 'reputational capital' of scientists and key medical figures), that transparency has suffered.  Transparency is always the first victim of illicit profiteering.

Release the Kraken

Having decided a week or two ago to follow a CKD diet, I figured I'd put this in to practice for a week prior to 'releasing the Kraken' and going CKD on the diet side in addition to upping the exercise with an explicit glycogen-depleting workout.

I regularly fast for 24 hours once a week.  It really is not hard after so long 'paleo'.  The CKD approach mandates several days (around 4), of 'under-eating'.  This arguably has just as much legitimacy in a paleo context as once-weekly 24hr fasting (see how paleo once again flaunts its chameleon like qualities).

I like the idea of running glycogen stores down.  I like the idea that this might spur me to exercise.  Is it healthful or safe?  Don't know. 

The period of undereating and glycogen depletion are followed my 2-3 days of carbing up.  So yes, a few potatoes might creep back in to my diet.  I already eat squash and starchy winter tubers once a week.  Maybe the odd banana will creep in to my diet (and let me point out that tonight I broke the carb-fast with some leftover Xmas choccies).

What are the ramifications of a weekly carb-load? Not sure.

So anyway the way it has panned out this week is as follows. 
 
Monday-Thursday:  Instead of my usual 2-3 tins of fish at lunchtime and occasional one block of goats cheese, I force a calorie deficit by eating only one tin of fish.  During this time I am orthodox paleo - so no dairy, and maybe a small drop of milk in my coffee (no coffee and cream like usual). 
 
Thursday PM: I broke the fast with cheese and Cadbury's Celebrations.  I know what you are thinking "That Asclepius is paleo-as-fuck!  He hardcore.  He da maaaan!".  This is a one off for this week only.
 
Friday - Sunday: I will eat my usual weekly fry up (or two).
 
On EVERY day my evening meal was the usual half a chicken/lamb with some vegetables (50/50 by volume).

Let me just say, consciously under-eating/calorie restricting is slightly trickier than my normal approach.  Day one isn't so bad, nor day two.  But by Wednesday the cumulative effect of calorie restriction was noticeable (but still not as bad as the hunger pangs I used to get prior to my evening meal as a vegetarian!).

I intend to add another exercise session to the week during my next training cycle, but feel that if I ran a calorie deficit any more than my orthodox paleo approach above, things would become too difficult (I don't 'do' hunger).

So in light of this my plan is as follows for the next six weeks:
 
Monday - Friday AM: Orthodox paleo.  No dairy or cream in the coffee.  1-2 tins of fish at lunch.  Regular paleo evening meal.  This will be a period of undernutrition.
 
Friday PM - Saturday: Regular evening meal (paleo) but with some starchy carbs on the side (squash, potato and/or a banana afterwards).  Some dairy (goats cheese) and cream in my coffee.  Saturday lunch is ALWAYS a big fry-up (the Doctor)!  This will be a period of over-nutrition.
 
Sunday: Regular evening meal (paleo) - but no carbohydrate. Some dairy (goats cheese) and cream in my coffee. This is my standard diet that sees me at 10% BF.

So there you have it.  One or two days will be moderately uncomfortable but there should be nothing too demanding here - depending on how the depletion workout goes!  I might have to up the fish at lunch. 
 
Single digits here we come....!*
 
I hope to get a BEFORE shot up sometime soon - but am technically have already started.  Doh!  Once again this strikes me a 'obsessive compulsive'!  Only be eating paleo have I really appreciated how odd it is to calorie count and stop eating before your body tells you.
 
*Unless it gets too hard then I will respond to my hunger as normal.

Best Bodybuilding Diet Plan Revealed!

The way-honed Mark McManus at Muscle Hack might just have the strategy to allow me to enjoy Christmas in a more...ahem...'traditional' manner. Figgy pudding all round (for 36 hours in the week anyway).

Best Bodybuilding Diet Plan Revealed!

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Hat tip to Keith for an excellent link here. The comment about energy expenditure's relationship with quality of life is a superb insight.

20-15-10-5

Another extract from Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories (page 314), concerning plant based carbohydrate content in a (highly successful) 'reducing diet' as prescribed at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago during the 1940s and 1950s:

• "...potatoes are nearly 20 percent carbohydrate by weight (the rest is mostly water), so they were known as 20-percent vegetables. Green peas and artichokes are 15-percent vegetables. Onions, carrots, beets and okra are 10-percent vegetables. Most of the green vegetables- including lettuce, cucumbers, spinach, asparagus, broccoli and kale - are 5-percent, which means carbohydrates constitute at most 5 percent of their weight...a one-cup serving of a 5-percent vegetable will yield only twenty to thirty calories..."

Thus we finally have a successful use of the 'traffic light system' of which the mainstream nutritionists are so fond. But, in a paleo sense we only apply it to the plant based food and notwithstanding peas and artichokes, if it is green it means "GO!"

If you reach a plateau in your fat loss, it might be worth cutting right back on fruit and implementing the Plant Traffic Light scheme above - keep it green. Additionally, make sure you are getting enough meat and fat. My general thoughts on nutrition can be found in this (updated), post here.

A Calorie is a Calorie

Just one further point I should make. Some will argue that mention of calories and plants supports the calorie restricted diet model. This is not the case. Over to Taubes again (p339):

• "When Bruce Bistrian and George Blackburn instructed their patients to eat nothing but lean meat, fish and fowl - 650 to 800 calories a day of fat and protein - half of them lost at least forty pounds each. That success rate held true for "thousands of patients" from the 1960s on, Bistrian said....But had they chosen to balance these very low calorie diets of fat and protein wth carbohydrates - say, by adding another 400 calories of "wonderful fruit and vegetables," as Bistrian phrased it- they would then be consuming the kind of semi-starvation diet that inevitably fails: 1,200 calories evenly balanced between protein, fat and carbohydrates."

Starvation diets are baaaaad maaaaan! A diet can become a starvation diet by simple virtue of its macro nutrient composition. An increased carbohydrate content will bring on all the disadvantages of starvation diets - lethargy (and generally reduced energy expenditure), hunger and so forth. In summary (p340),

• "If we add 400 calories of fat and protein to 800 calories of fat and protein, we have a 1,200-calorie high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diet that will result in considerable weight loss. If we add 400 calories of carbohydrates to the 800 calories of fat and protein, we have a balanced semi-starvation diet of the kind commonly recommended to treat obesity - and we reduce the efficacy by a factor of fifty."

Some might still focus on the fact that each of the diets above are calorie restricted. But this is irrelevant for fat loss on a LC diet, and you can experiment with this yourself as follows.

As long as it is fat and protein (both from an animal source), eat all you can for a period of time - days, months or years. And I mean ALL YOU CAN. Let your hunger be sated. Then:

1. Take off clothing,
2. Go to the mirror,
3. Observe abs.
4. Erm...Fin.

That's it! Keep it meat - tip you hat to the fat - go green.

Make My Body Younger

We are going through a TV revolution here in the UK. Hot on the heels of a decade of gardening, DIY and property-centric programming we are now in the age of Diet/Exercise Docu-drama (DEaD) programming. These televisual feasts are fueling the airways in the UK and like a carb-oholic faced with a plate of hot chips, fresh toast, pasta and a side order of pastries, the viewing public seem to be lapping it up.

With an increasing number of fat and fattening members of the general public in the UK, it makes sense to target this demographic. It is both a growing population, and a GROWING population (you read it right first time).

First things first; as with just about every other DEaD program, do not expect anything that will work long term. In fact, we could reduce all these programs down to four words;

Eat more, do less.

Tonight's offering on BBC3 was called "Make My Body Younger". Now before I go on to criticise much of the advice given on this program, I want to give you the brief of how the suits at the Beeb must have decided to pull this show together.

The Pitch

Gustav: "Charles, we need a new show to fill the airtime on BBC3! We cant tamper with BBC1, BBC2 is stuck together by anything involving Jeremy Clarkson - so we can't dilute it with re-runs, and besides we have sold all the repeat rights for "Top Gear" to 'Dave', and BBC4 is turning in to a general crock of shite. Your budget is zero. Hit me."

Charles: (Clearly crapping himself because decent public service broadcasting involves making BRAVE programs that challenge conventional wisdom); "Erm we could do a diet program....erm, but not any old diet program, this one is erm.......erm ..it has young doctors - men and women that you'd want to shag, and erm, patients that are young - and who you'd want to shag.....erm and the doctors are dressed like the cast of The OC or Lost (during their flashbacks)..one of the doctors has an Audi A3."

Gustav: "My God Charles, you're a genius. We appeal to youth, with youth, attack Mad-dog McKeith's audience and draw in the fat-bastard demographic, whilst simultaneously appearing to be tackling a serious issue, following real people - all for the cost of a £20k car, some good haircuts and a wardrobe from Top Shop. Let's do it!"

So there you have it. Another DEaD program which, in case I didn't say it before, boils down to;

Eat more, do less.

Tonight's Episode

So let us not beat around the bush. I am a heterosexual married man with two kids. However, within minutes of seeing this program I wanted to shag all the doctors - male or female - it doesn't matter - and in any order, nick their clothes (those of the men only - I mean what are you thinking, that I am some kind of pervert or something?) and run off with the keys to the Audi A3. Erm, well actually I would only run as far as the Audi A3, then I would get in it and drive. In fact, if they didn't mind that I had just shagged them and nicked their clothes, the doctors could actually come with me in the car and we could all be friends - I mean THAT IS HOW COOL THEY ALL WERE!

As for the subject of this program, the delightful Amy, we find that her life was turned around '360 degrees' (Dr James said so). And just in case we didn't catch it, at the end of the program Amy reiterated the fact that her life had been turned around '360 degrees'. Now thank God Dr James is a doctor and not a mathematician - although if he was ever faced with an operation to resolve inverted sternum the result might be interesting (that would make a bloody good program in itself - the final scene of which could involve a close up of the parents face as they realise little Timmy's sternum had been inverted back to its original position).

We get to see Amy meeting up with Dr James and she is wearing a low-cut pink top - a scene from which, if you only saw a still, you'd swear was from some kind of romantic fly-on-the-wall dating show. The suave Dr James smiled seductively (and damn is hair/clothes/teeth looked good), whilst Amy leaned forwards forcing her boobs in to his face. Jeez, I am no psychologist but I could tell that he was fighting the urge to look down - I'd say they had to re-shoot and edit that section several times - the out-takes from that bit alone should be worth their own show!

I digress.

So what did Amy get out of it?

Well, she ate more fruit and veg, she cut back on the sugar and fat and took up wholemeal this that and the other. She also found exercise - long, arduous, boring and repetitive exercise like treadmill work and spinning. That certainly sounds like a life turned 360 degrees - changing one piss-poor lifestyle based on poor nutrition and no exercise for another piss-poor lifestyle based on poor nutrition and piss poor exercise. YOUR FACING THE SAME WAY AMY!

Note to all: If you want to turn your life around, turn it around 180 degress, and no more!

So what didn't Amy get out of it?

She didn't get out of this program and way of eating that would tame her HUNGER. She didn't get our of this program a way of exercising that embraces novelty and sustains interest.

So what won't Amy get out of it?

Amy has rules. The rules are based upon limitation and denial. The model is premised on hunger. She is encouraged to eat food with a poor satiating quality. She is encouraged to eat food which will compel her to eat MORE (refined carbohydrate). She is encouraged to eat less. On top of all that, Amy is encouraged to perform activities that will make her hungry.

If we follow the Paleo model, we get a concept from which we can generalise. The generalisations give us reasonable rules by which to live and conduct ourselves. So unlike a rule that says "drink five glasses of water a day" - something that sets up a condition of failure, a Paleo approach reaches deeper, and advises us to simply "respond to your thirst". Thus you understand that thirst is simply feedback - there is no failure.

Similarly, if you feel you are suffering from bloating or eating too much fruit (yes it CAN be done), follow the paleo model. In this case, you just need to eat seasonal fruits. You see how easy that is? You answer a technical question such as 'am I eating too much fruit' not from having dietary knowledge or gardening wisdom, nor from rules based on hte consupmtion of 'x number of fruits a day', but from a simple philosophy based upon a model from which you can generalise and get a ball park answer to your problem.

Feeling your bicep curls aren't working as an exercise? Bored with your gym routine? Well climb a tree - hoist your body up in to the branches, climb up 20ft and then climb down. Repeat a few times - and imagine a tiger is after you. Think like a paleo guy and act like a paleo guy.

Hell, I am not sure what paleo-guy REALLY did think, eat or do, but I know he didn't eat 14 bananas and work on two sessions of 5x5 dead curls a week.

Follow Up

For all these DEaD programs, I'd like to see a follow-up program one, two, three and five years down the line. That would be a real TV-treat. It is a win/win for the production companies as well.

Invariably, even after 5 years, at best most of the subjects of these shows will have maintained their weight. They'll still be fucking fat. Most will be fatter. The doctors (undoubtedly fatter themselves), could then mock their subjects and criticise them for their lack of self control. We could then go through the whole cycle again.

As an approach to nutritional health, the premise of 'eat more, do less', as most of us know, is dead. Don't believe me? Then ask the next fat person you see a) have they ever been on a diet? and b) have they tried to exercise to lose weight? The answers to both will be "yes"!

Let us just step back and think about that for a minute. The fat person you have asked will have tried to 'diet' (and I use 'diet' in its conventional sense), and exercise to lose weight.

Stoopid DEaD TV

What annoys me about this program is that I am sooooo willing to bet that these TV doctors were selected due to their media-friendly appearance rather than for their knowledge or belief in the advice they give. I would go so far as to say that the 'doctor' status is a 'badge' - I mean I am sure they ARE doctors but that they do not drive the program's agenda.

The credits showed some additional medical advisers/consultants involved with the program and I suspect that these are the real architects of the show and who the Beeb would claim 'have little desire to appear in front of the camera', but who I reckon are simply too frickin' ugly to appeal to the wider demographic (hey, their target audience are fat, NOT blind). In fact, I'll bet that these advisers are actually overweight themselves!

TV should be accessible and there are important messages to get across. It is great that we no longer have doctors in white coats stirring test tubes of foaming liquid, or wearing a stethoscope, castigating us for our unhealthy way of life in some plummy English accent, but sexing up TV based upon such dire advice as 'eat more, do less' is no way to tackle a real health time-bomb.

Eat Less. Do More

At the time of writing, the Food Standards Agency offers tips on healthy eating and living, amongst which is the advice to "Get active and try to be a healthy weight". It goes on to suggest that you should:

- only eat as much food as you need
- make healthy choices - it's a good idea to choose low-fat and low-sugar varieties, eat plenty of fruit and veg and whole grains
- get more active.

Only eat as much food as you need! Can you believe how vacuous this statement is? How many people out there think "You know what, I have eaten as much as I need, but I reckon I will eat some more?". If this is the reason for people being overweight, then, given current obesity levels, people would have to be coming to the "I've Had As Much Food As I Need But I'm Going To Eat Some More" conclusion regularly.

The one thing the FSA does not answer is HOW to identify that you have eaten 'as much as you need'. The answer is simple. Appetite.

Appetite is a desire for food which manifests as hunger. Appetite serves to regulate adequate energy intake sufficient to maintain our metabolic needs. The question is, why does this regulator of how much we eat seem to work so poorly, such that we can eat ourselves in to a state of immobilisation? Why can't we trust our appetite to regulate our consumption?

Think about it. What percentage of your diet comes from refined foods? (By refined, I mean anything that you could not eat in a raw form.) Now imagine that you are on a large desert island with no modern tools (including lighters or matches). What would you eat? You could fish and trap game. You could gather seasonal fruit, salad, vegetables and nuts. All could be eaten raw if need be. If you found a particularly supply, you would likely eat until you were full (as indicated by appetite), but no more - just as we eat now - until our appetite is sufficed.

It is unlikely you would eat grains or potatoes as the former require much effort to gather as they grow disparately and both require processing to make them suitable for human consumption. Without some form of settled agriculture, refined carbohydrate would not feature in the diet. By all accounts, you exist in a rather carbohydrate scarce environment. Honey would be available, but wild bees would fiercely defend it - so you would have to decide if obtaining it was worth the risk?

With this 'island diet' in mind, what percentage is carbohydrate? More importantly, compare this carbohydrate percentage to that with your modern day diet. Notice a difference?

Now this harvest would require some modest energy expenditure to gather but, save for lugging the harvest back to camp, nothing too physically intense.

Now throw in a mix of apex predators, maybe a bear or some big cats. It would pay to be able to run fast, to climb, maybe to fight (especially if there were another hostile survivor on the island). These fight or flight responses would require intense activity and would be periodically tested. Other skills might be to swim (but speed would be an important quality of your swimming given the predators in the water). Once you have burned a load of calories this way, you need to replenish your body's energy stores!

Anyone lacking speed, agility, strength, power would not last in such an environment. Anyone who regularly ate 'more than they needed' and became obese would lose speed and agility in particular. In this situation, you become a snack for Mr Apex.

Dinner at Mine; A Question

Stay with me, I am coming to my conclusion! The FSA's advice basically boils down to 'Eat Less, Do More'. Now if I were to invite you to my house for a four course meal with all the trimmings and said 'bring your appetite', how would you develop your appetite? You might skip breakfast (i.e, eat less), and/or you might go for a big walk or for a swim (i.e, do more).

Does it therefore strike you as somewhat curious that the very thing the FSA is advising as a means to control your weight (eat less, do more), is the very thing most of us would do to increase our capacity to eat food?

Our desert island survivor above would not be eating a diet based heavily on carbohydrate. He would be eating minimal (if any), refined carbohydrate. If he was one of a tribe, over thousands of years, evolution would ensure that his offspring could regulate their dietary consumption using appetite. Those who were unable to do this would be picked off by other predators.

Given these factors, and the scarcity of carbohydrate in our ancestor's environment:

- Would it not make sense for us to gorge on carbohydrate when we found it? Especially as carbohydrate is a fantastic energy source and hunger is a massive driver of our behaviour.

- What better way for our body to ensure we stock up on such a rare and rich energy source than by offering a 'disconnect' between our appetite and the 'prize' we have found? (Given the carbohydrate scarcity there is little chance of 'over consuming' it.)

- If carbohydrate was scarce, how could we ever develop the appropriate metabolic controls to deal with it?

So there you have it, a reasonable explanation of why we are compelled to gorge on sugar, bread, pastries and potatoes. Eat more, do less? No way! For a start, simply eat right.

Healthy Eating in 10 Steps

The diet industry is based on a destructive, negative feedback loop. How many people do you know who are on, or have been on a diet? How many people do you know who have been on more than one diet? Do the diets work? Are people on commercial diet programs happy? At what cost do people reach a target weight? Is such a simple measure as weight actually an indication of health?

The diet industry is the closest you can get to the commercialisation of failure. If a diet succeeds and a dieter loses weight, the industry 'wins'. If a dieter does not lose weight, or regains it, the individual is blamed for his/her weakness. The weight industry can point to their successes (regardless of the individual cost of that success), and say "our diet works, our products work, if YOU have not lost weight then YOU must be to blame. YOU have failed". But what is failure and how should it be appropriated?

In truth, there is no failure, only feedback.

Think of your body like a river. It is in a state of flow. You cannot stop this flow, but you can influence the path it takes - principally by diet and exercise. Fat accumulation and loss are however, mainly an issue of diet. Commercial diets tinker around the shores of the river. The following guidelines enable you to bore out a new channel!


My top 10 nutrition guidelines:

1. The food group to draw from is defined by the ability to eat a particular foodstuff raw. If you can eat it raw, you can include it in your diet! (This does not mean you HAVE to eat it raw!) . Viewed another way, if the foodstuff can still hurt you when it is newly killed/freshly dead- DON'T EAT IT!  If the food is marketed aggressively- DON'T EAT IT!  If the food has the same name in several languages - DON'T EAT IT!

2. Eat seasonally and source locally (as much as possible).

3. Eat foods that go rancid quickly, but consume them in as fresh a state as possible.  This tip is to guide you away from food engineered to have a long shelf life.

4. Eat foods in as unprocessed a state as possible (processing includes any form of curing and juicing but excludes simple cooking). If you are thirsty then water is as good as it gets!  As above, this tip is to guide you away from food engineered to have a long shelf life.

5. Let colour and texture be your guide. Aim for around 3-4 different colours and/or textures per meal (emphasis green vegetables but limit peas and artichokes; moderate other coloured vegetables and restrict white vegetables) .  You can eat starches, but the percentage of your diet should be primarily meat and secondarily coloured veg.

6. Relax about eating. Eating is essential and natural and should NOT be a battleground. There should be no room for guilt or war at the dinner table.

7. Emphasise meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, salad and nuts (in that order). Enjoy the fat content that comes with these foodstuffs - do not avoid it as it satiates appetite (a case where literally you are NOT what you eat). Moderate intake of fruit, particularly bananas, melon, pineapples and grapes (keep it seasonal). Enjoy berries seasonally. Moderate consumption of dairy produce - particularly milk, and avoid all grains, refined sugars and seed/plant oils.

8. Once comfortable with this way of eating, do one or two 24 hour fasts a week ideally from supper to supper, one, two or three days apart (intermittent fasting). Eat episodically throughout any given day. Occasionally fast before and/or after a period of exercise. Experiment with 'feeding windows' (such as 8/16). Cyclical Ketogenic Diets are another way of combining elements of overfeeding, underfeeding, fasting and CHO intake.

9. Listen and respond to your hunger. Try to 'tune in' to it and let it guide you. Stop eating when you feel full, but not before - and certainly not after! If you can 'respond to your hunger' amongst periods of intermittent fasting (IF), and occasional, intense exercise, you are home and dry.  Hunger should make you move - so exercise fasted.

10. Ignore dietary advice to persist in a chronic state of hunger. The solution to excessive fat accumulation will not be found by saddling up with one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (Famine!). (Chronic calorie restriction is not the same as IF!)