Meat Shaming

The Problem With the WHO's Great Meat Conspiracy. A nice polemic from HuffPo.

http://flip.it/_l3ZV

Plant Rights

I disagree that veganism and vegetarianism reduces animal suffering.  As J.Stanton once said, "it pushes the killing to where it cannot be seen".  One look at the biodiversity of pasture, and then a consequent look at the chemically-managed, industrial, mono-cropping of machine-farmed arable land is evidence of this.

This issue of suffering however, has just got a whole lot more complex,

• "Plants are intelligent. Plants deserve rights. Plants are like the Internet – or more accurately the Internet is like plants. To most of us these statements may sound, at best, insupportable or, at worst, crazy. But a new book, Brilliant Green: the Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence, by plant neurobiologist (yes, plant neurobiologist), Stefano Mancuso and journalist, Alessandro Viola, makes a compelling and fascinating case not only for plant sentience and smarts, but also plant rights."

Just as we've changed our belief that animals are 'unthinking automatons', Stefano Mancuso attempts to do the same for plants.

His presentation on TED can he seen here:

Having lost the health argument some time ago, now the moral argument for v*nism is looking increasingly shaky.

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).

Domestic Bottlenecks

Interesting article on  safeguarding the future of food security | Nicola Davis

http://gu.com/p/3p86v

Food Quality

Paleo has flirted with low carb and now seems comfortable alongside If It Fits Your Macros, but this article in WSJ suggests that we should never lose sight of the underlying principle of foog quality; something backed by a growing body of evidence.

This article also adds weight to an ongoing idea that chronic cardio can lesd to health issues. The dose makes the poison.

http://m.europe.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303949704579461381883678174?mobile=y

Gluten Intolerence

New Scientists today suggest gluten intolerence is for most people, 'all in the mind'.  I'm not so sure but I liked this paragraph,

• Accepting a psychological explanation of gluten intolerance is especially difficult because food aversions often turn into a way of life. Like religion, avoiding gluten requires personal sacrifice. Gluten intolerance creates communities, which, like religious communities, share stories of suffering and redemption, and share meals made special by the presence of a food taboo. It's no wonder people take offence at the suggestion that gluten intolerance could be psychological – after all, who wants to have built their way of life on a "mere" trick of the mind?

Not sure I will return to mainstream grain-based food just yet!

Paleo Properties

I was thinking about how you'd define paleo food in just a few words.  It is tricky as paleo is evolving as a concept.  As with all movements it is splintering as it moves to the mainstream.  For many now, dairy is 'in' as are (traditional) grains when prepared in traditional ways. 

So what does this leave us with?  How would we define paleo foods?  Some ideas include:

• Could be hunted with a stick or foraged for.
• Can be eaten raw.
• Can be eaten after modest processing (soaking and cooking)
• Has an indigenous name in a native tongue amongst several cultures.
• Has a short shelf life.

Colour Be Thy Guide

This Color-Coded Chart Helps You Pick the Most Nutritious Produce http://lifehacker.com/5994343/

Re-Wire

Breakthrough in neuroscience could help re-wire appetite control http://earthsky.org/science-wire/breakthrough-in-neuroscience-could-help-re-wire-appetite-control

Don't Lose Your Head & Stackelberg

I was spooked when I first learnt about acrylamide.  I've blogged about it before a couple of times.  Despite industry assurances, this really is something that you don't want to consume in the doses afforded by modern baked goods and snacks.  One reason for this is that it can, in sufficient doses, affect foetal head development.  And we are not talking implausible doses.  We are talking doses present in a standard Western diet.  From today's Telegraph, "Chips in pregnancy can cause underweight babies",

• Consuming a vast quantity of chips, crisps and biscuits during pregnancy can lead to babies having a lower than average birth weight, the study found.
  
  Mothers-to-be who have a high intake of acrylamide - which is found in commonly consumed foods and coffee - are also more likely to have a baby which has a smaller head circumference.
  
  The size of a child's head has been associated with delayed neurodevelopment while lower birth weights have been associated with adverse health effects in early life and as children grow up.
  
  Babies born to mothers with a high dietary intake of acrylamide were found to be up to 132 grams lighter than babies born to mothers who had a low intake, researchers said.

Although a food frequency questionnaire has several flaws, these findings were backed up by analysis of the cord blood and the impact with regard to reduced birth weight may be on par with smoking.

Food manufacturers are interested in profits and will 'satisfy' regulation - but as with dopers and testers, the Stackelberg version of game theory shows us that the manufacturers will be one step ahead of what is harmless to our health,

• "[Stackelberg] requires one entity to establish its defences first whilst the other conducts surveillance to identify weak spots. The notion of a sequential move, with the opposite entity responding to measures established by the first"

Ironically, regulation can help identify areas of legislation to exploit for weakness.  We are edge dwellers.

We've seen quite recently that products like popcorn can cause illness far beyond metabolic syndrome and this is yet another example of modern foods, disarmed of suspicion by their familiarity, posing very real dangers to health.

There is a growing call to advise pregnant women on diet  - but I think we know the answer - just eat real food!  Buy raw ingredients.  (And don't forget exercise).

CHO Superfood!

I've spent the past week looking at my diet from the perspective of macro nutrients.  I was delighted to find that my weekly consumption of an average Ox Tongue (560g when cooked and peeled), pans out as follows:

Calories = 2436
P = 118g
CHO = 2g
Fat = 116g

That opened my eyes.  I then went on to look at my other big love, black pudding (33g):

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?

Diet and Destiny

One of the many weaknesses with ELDM is it narrow remit.  For example, it singularly fails to address the impact of epigenetics, stress/sleep, mitochondrial expression and gut flora.  The latter is addressed in this piece by Science Daily which discusses research in to how microbes harvest energy,

• In a new study appearing in the journal Nutrition in Clinical Practice, researcher Rosa Krajmalnik-Brown and her colleagues at the Swette Center for Environmental Biotechnology at Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute in collaboration with John DiBaise from the Division of Gastroenterology at the Mayo Clinic, review the role of gut microbes in nutrient absorption and energy regulation.

Given my recent blow-out over the jubilee weekend I was particularly taken with the comment about the speed with which the profile of gut flora can change,

•  After birth, diet becomes a critical determinant in microbial diversity within the gut. Recent research indicates that microbial populations vary geographically in a manner consistent with regional differences in diet. Children in rural areas of Burkina Faso for example showed much more abundant concentrations of Bacteroidetes compared with their cohorts in Italy, a finding consistent with the African children's plant-rich diet.While microbiomes appear to have adapted to local diets, changes in eating habits significantly alter composition of gut microbes. Variations in macronutrient composition can modify the structure of gut microbiota in a few days -- in some cases, a single day. Studies in mice show that changing from a low fat, plant polysaccharide diet to a Western diet high in sugar and fat rapidly and profoundly reconfigures the composition of microbes in the gut.

 
Glad I am back on board the paleo-mammoth!

Rigby's Body

Having nailed the diet in this episode, Rigby and Mordecai here expose the dangers of not looking after your body - including the dangers of over-exercising!

Meat, A Benign Extravagence

I have been meaning to post about Simon Fairlie's "Meat: A Benign Extravagance" for some time now.  It opens up so many lines of question and not only tries to qualify and quantify the cost of meat (in economical, sustainable and ecological terms), but goes on with incredible ambition to develop a model of how sustainable agriculture (and indeed the very bed rock of capitalism), may look in the future and how Earth's ecology may prosper with grass roots reworking of our current agricultural model.

Fat Cycling

Hat tip to TheGymMonkey through whose blog I was led to this paper discussing Lance Armstrong's performance before and after testicular cancer:

• We propose that his dramatic improvement in recovery between stages, the most important factor in winning multi-day stage races, is due to his unilateral orchiectomy, a procedure that results in permanent changes in serum hormones. These hormonal changes, specifically an increase in gonadotropins (and prolactin) required to maintain serum testosterone levels, alter fuel metabolism; increasing hormone sensitive lipase expression and activity, promoting increased free fatty acid (FFA) mobilization to, and utilization by, muscles, thereby decreasing the requirement to expend limiting glycogen stores before, during and after exercise.

They go on to note:

• Such hormonal changes also have been associated with ketone body production, improvements in muscle repair and haematocrit levels and may facilitate the loss of body weight, thereby increasing power to weight ratio. Taken together, these hormonal changes act to limit glycogen utilization, delay fatigue and enhance recovery thereby allowing for optimal performances on a day-to-day basis.

TheGymMonkey pulls the paper apart in a little more detail here. (And if you want to bone-up on hormone sensitive lipase then you could do worse than read this link.)

For me there does seem to be a slight irony in the fact that it is recommended we carb-up for endurance events - from the marathon to days out on the hills - it is all about carb drinks, fruit cake and the like.

But the most significant bit has to be ketoadaption - the hormonal expression of which, "act[s] to limit glycogen utilization, delay fatigue and enhance recovery thereby allowing for optimal performances on a day-to-day basis".

If you could produce an 'energy drink' with that kind of property, you'd be a rich person.

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.

Fat as a Battery

Kerrrr-ching! Responding to a comment on my blog, out popped a single phrase that crystallises my views on the topic of fat - and which should be fundamental to your understanding of body fat; 'Fat is a battery'.

We can take this analogy further - I sit here working on a laptop. If I unplug the laptop from the mains, it seamlessly functions on its battery (fat). An indicator in the bottom corner shows the current power level. When the power level drops to a certain point, a dialogue box is displayed (hunger pang), with a relevant warning. The laptop will continue to function on its battery, but as the battery runs down, the warnings become increasingly frequent, and in extreme cases, the laptop will become inactive and shut down until a fresh power source is available.

If I hook the laptop back in to the mains, it will function again, and recharge its battery. Once charged, there is no further dialogue box warning of the the charge state (hunger has been sated). Whilst charging, the indicator in the bottom corner of the screen could be thought of as appetite. The more you run down your battery, the greater the required charging to reach 'full charge' (so the more you run your fat down, the bigger your appetite).

If the indicator (appetite) is faulty then the battery could overcharge or undercharge. Welcome to the world of the refined carb-eater.

Thirst

Thirst is a complementary mechanism to appetite. News reports today carry the story of a woman who drank too much
water. As with the diet industry, there is a hydration industry that persuades us to drink ritualistically rather than in response to thirst. Hyponatraemia is a greater threat than obesity - but that is due to the immediacy of consequence. Obesity and degraded insulin sensitivity are both harmful - the ill effects just takes longer to manifest.

What is curious about this story is that the BBC felt the need to wheel out some Professor to state, "...people should drink when their body tells them to - when they get thirsty."

OMG! Do we REALLY need to be told to obey our thirst? Unfortunately few would extend this logic to the more revolutionary advice to obey your appetite. Oh how I would love to hear someone Professor-type come out and state "...people should eat when their body tells them to - when they get hungry."

But no, people are told to cut back on their food (eat less) and ignore their hunger or, conversely, to do more but maintain the same calorific intake....and ignore their appetite.

Back to the story; The British Dietetic Association (BDA) offer the advice that "the amount of water actually needed in a day varies from person to person, and depends on other factors such as climate, and exercise". Not rocket science is it? One of their members noted that "You shouldn't be drinking massively over and above what you feel comfortable with, when you're not thirsty, in a mechanical way."

Now I am not sure what thirst in a 'mechanical way' is, but the same could be said of food - "You shouldn't be eating massively over and above what you feel comfortable with, when you're not hungry."

A quick visit to the BDA site shows a complete disregard for the notion of appetite and hunger. Their PDF on weight loss does not mention the word 'appetite' and involves ritualistic eating (the usual 'start the day with a breakfast' and 'eat regular balanced meals' type advice).

The term 'balanced' means different things to different people. What is more concerning is the advice to watch your portion size. This implicitly ignores appetite and hunger. Their PDF on fad diets is similarly lacking in consistency with their view on thirst. How can people hope to regulate what they eat if they have no responsive mechanism to indicate they have had 'enough'? Well the fact is that we DO have a responsive mechanism to indicate enough. Appetite. All we need to do is to ensure that it is callibrated. This beats a food diary any day.

Instinct

So there you have it. According to the BDA, trust your instincts when it comes to thirst, but not when it comes to hunger. Me? I say TRUST your evolutionary mechanisms. If these mechanisms tell you to drink, drink. If they tell you to eat, eat. If they tell you to rest, rest. If you become bored and restless, get out and seek novelty and activity. These instincts can be misled - and identifying the cause is not always easy. The negative results will however, become apparent over time.

The BDA may pick and choose which instincts they agree with, but as these instincts have evolved over millions of years, I trust all of them. After a lifetime of poor habits these instincts may need some form of re-callibration, but it CAN be done.

Ask an Expert

There are few scientific references on this site. My output is opinion. I base it on personal experience and experimentation. This in turn is driven by reading of wider research dedicated to nutrition and fitness.

I try not to make any outlandish claims and simply try to blog with honesty. If you want to get all sciency then go to Cochrane or PubMed and you will find plenty of research dedicated to the paleo philosophy - and its benefits on a nutritional and athletic basis. There are additional blogs and websites run by those with a scientific background which will distill the science in to a simpler form.

There are also many papers and hundreds of sites run by equally qualified doctors and scientists that follow the traditional/government approved advice on exercise and nutrition.

With so many conflicting views, who should you believe? This is where I suggest you experiment for yourself!

One thing to keep in mind is the physique of the person giving the advice - particularly if it is dietary.

Smoke and Mirrors

I have seen several dietitians who are themselves obese. All of them were firmly in the 'low fat, complex carb' camp. But nutritional advice from fat dietitian makes me think that their advice either does not work, or is such that it simply cannot be followed in the short, medium or long term.

You might say that for example, advice to give up smoking from a doctor who himself smokes, is good advice regardless. This is indeed true. But a smoking doctor is not telling you HOW to smoke. Telling someone HOW to do something suggests a skill in that activity. You cannot have a skill in an activity by NOT doing it. This is an important distinction.

There are several diet advisors on TV. One in particular has an incredibly bad physique. Sure she is thin (the apparent goal of so many people today), but I suspect she has a lot of visceral fat. Her body composition looks very poor. There is a distinct lack of muscle mass and no tone. Don't get me wrong, she promises in her books and programs to make you thin and that is indeed what she does. But, if you gain thinness at the expense of muscle mass, this does not constitute much of an improvement in your health - and particularly your metabolic health.

Find an Expert

To some point, all diets will work in terms of getting your body to burn fat. Whether they are healthful is another matter. The paleo philosophy is different in that it constitutes a lifestyle change that is intended to guide you in the long term. Form follows function - your body will get fitter, leaner and stronger in response to this change. The philosophy is simple and the results are of a quality I have not found on any other program.

Once you are behind the philosophy, you have obtained the value from it and can work out the rest for yourself. Better than that, you do not need science and references to implement or progress. A simple annual health check at the doctors, general happiness and athletic prowess are the only measures you need.

I am going to put up a picture of myself at some point. I want a record of how my physique has adapted to my own implementation of this paleo philosophy. Readers will be able to see that not only can I 'live' my advice, but also the physical results it produces.

Science sits behind the curve, in terms of both research and proof. An absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

Finally, when you think you have found an expert, consider this;

I may lack scientific credentials, but I promise you that the number of HGs who have read the science is precisely zero - and they ARE the experts.

Fasting

I feel I have reached a new phase with my fasting. There is seldom a time where I have to snack - even after a fast. The fasts are truely instinctive. They don't really feel like fasts as I will abstain for a 24 hour period (running from evening meal on day one to evening meal on day two), so I do actually have at least one meal each day.

I have mentioned elsewhere that I get a feeling of slight hunger at some point on a fasting day, but nothing too uncomfortable - especially when compared with my hunger pangs as a refined carb eater. In those days, five hours from eating a low fat, wholemeal, complex-carb lunch would see me getting withdrawal-symptom like hunger. In addition, where as I used to get occasional weakness and shaking with hunger - there is none of that now. On a fasting day I can gladly work-out at lunchtime and in the evening hit a kick-boxing class without a second thought. On my return home I feel ready to eat.

I fasted today. I mentioned to a colleague at work that I couldn't wait for my evening meal. I made a similar comment on leaving work for the day to the same colleague. She claimed I was obviously starving and had been 'talking about food all day'.

This is a classic response from those under the spell of refined carbohydrate. Such people would find it uncomfortable to fast. I however, can fast with ease. My comments (and there WERE only two of them), was actually driven by the appeal and anticipation of food. This wasn't in response to hunger (although I am sure the smell of food at lunchtime might have driven some thoughts of food), it was simply an appreciation for how good my evening meal was going to be (organic roasted chicken with stir fry vegetables). Such quality fare inspires me (and I write this having just eaten).

That is another significant step in my paleo journey. I really do appreciate the flavours of foods now. Carb food can often taste the same - so much of what we eat is artificially sweetend. But eating 'close to the ground' develops a broader palette.