Finished Paleo challenge, started vegan challenge

So I finished my paleo diet/ for athletes trial, culminating in running the Copenhagen marathon on 23^rd of may. I will be honest and say that looking a couple of months back I had hoped for a better finish time (I actually don't have my exact time – but it was more than 4 hours and 30 minutes) however seen in the light of the situation, I had pains in both my knees the entire time, and from about 7 kilometers to about 15 my right foot kept falling a sleep.

So what is my general experience of the diet? And what measurable results have I got?

My general experience of the diet has been that it is doable, but it takes a lot of planning and preparation time, and on top of that it is expensive and hard (not impossible) to keep interesting. One of the pratical tips, for anybody out there interested in trying this diet – make some sort of 'pot dish' like say bolognese or chicken in curry (without the pasta/rice) for breakfast (you want to make it the day before, not in the morning). I found this sort of dish a lot more easy to chow down first thing in the morning than say a steak is.

I felt pretty good generally during my paleo trial, however I can't say that I have felt any particular surge of energy, or anything else indicating that this diet was just right for me. I may have felt less tired, and I defintely can tell you that meat in the morning keeps you full a lot longer than grains do (even oat porridge) however besides from that I haven't observed anything special.

Measurable results -  

Now -

Body fat -

36 mm skinfolds (between 13 and 16 %)

27, 33 mm skinfolds (8%)

weight – 62,1 kilograms

Bloddpressure– 118,6/49

then – 14/3 - 10

Body fat -

30 mm (13%)

24 mm (7%)

weight 64,7 kg

Bloodpressure -

116,9/60,75

So if these results are credible, then it seems like I have lost muscle mass, which may very well be the case, though it may be due to my changing training patterns (from medium distance and interval training 2 - 3 times a week, to long distance once a week) up to the marathon.

BTW. the different skinfold measurements are because I have come across two different sets of instructions that give two different results (says something about the reliability of this method), so I decided to include both.

I also filled out a health questionnaire by Mark Hyman, M.D. where you give points for how often and severe different ailments you have are, then add them together - the more points the worse you're off. I had 47 points when I began, and 36 after the first 60 days. It will be interesting to see what I get after the vegan challenge.

New vegan 30 day trial -

Thursday the 27^th (of may 2010) I will begin my new diet trial; a vegan diet made up of what i would call real foods – meaning foods that have not have had all their nutritional value processed out of them. This is obviously not a very strict or clear definition, so to clarify; whole grain products are generally acceptable, whereas white flour is not. That being said I may choose to add in supplements, like fiber rich seed husks or vegan protein powders made from brown rice or yellow peas, that are highly processed and have had their fiber and starchy components removed. The difference however is that these things have been done with nutritional goals in mind, and that in some cases, these products have a lot of their micronutrional contents preserved, unlike white flour. For the record undamaged fats and oils are on the to eat list, while damaged fats and oils are not – that means cooking is mainly with coconut oil, and possibly olive or avocado oils (at low heat) while margarine and oils high in polyunsaturated fatty acids are no gos in cooking (however polyunsaturated fats can off course be consumed as part of spreads, dips, smoothies etc.).

Now why would I want to eat a vegan diet?!

First of all this blog is about trying to get an idea of what diet works the best for me, and that will include trying out different approaches, with radically different theoretical stand points, like the paleo diet and a vegan diet.

While I think the theory behind veganism, as a nutritionally superior diet, is fairly weak, the anecdotal evidence is somewhat strong, and it provides an important 'scale' (in lack of a better word) for me to compare the paleo diet against. Furthermore, adding in small amounts of high quality animal products after a period on a vegan diet may tell us something about how a frugivore great ape inspired diet compares.

This is interesting because: while the argumentation, for eating no animal products at all, is weak (in my opinion), the arguments for eating a lot less animal products, than both followers of paleolithic diets and the 'standard american/western diet' do, is a lot stronger - our closest human contemporary relatives – the great apes (more specifically Bonobos and Chimpanzees) all consume, small but highly priced portions of meat and insects (are insects classified as meats? - I mean it is a lot more than that – it is truly a whole food). Now this certainly does not prove that we should eat this way, in fact vegans would emphasize that meat is a small,unstable, and calorie wise rather insignificant part of the different great apes' diets, while proponents of paleo/primal diets would argue that this is were our ancestors diverged from those of the great apes; that, due to different factors like easier access to calories (less time spent gathering compared to hunting or finding and eating carrion, as well as less energy spent on digestion, because of less fiber, and higher energy density) and long chain omega 3 fatty acids, our gut size was decreased and our brain size increased (along with other changes).

This clearly shows that this theoretical standpoint is not clear from counter arguments, however it is a lot easier to defend than the more extreme vegan approach – when comparing this diet to both the 'standard american/western diet' and paleolithic type diets (as well as other diets containing medium or high amounts of animal products) the great ape inspired diet basically has all of the pro vegan arguments (I will get into some of those in another post), but at the same time it can pretty much avoid all of the (often strong) counter arguments against eliminating all animal products from one's diet. In a sense its taking the best of both worlds.

So to sum up there are three reasons why I am giving the vegan diet a chance: first of is off course because the diet concept is, in my opinion, at least worth trying (it is not the most convincing from a theoretical standpoint but there is a lot of people reporting success with it). Secondly it is very much in contrast to the paleolithic type diet I just tried, and thus will make for a good comparison. And thirdly it may tell us something about the great ape inspired diet, which has a lot more going for it on a theoretical level, and in my eyes is one of the best bets at a starting point for trying to find the optimal human diet.

PS. I am still planning on finishing the discussion on critique of the paleo diet theory, however it takes some time to put together - but it is still in the works :)

Paleo diet for athletes + Part 1 of arguments against the Paleo diet

So Wednesday I completed my original 30 day Paleo challenge. So far I have found the results to be hard to evaluate. So I'm giving it one more chance, to succeed or fail, 30 days more.

However this time I have changed the regimen a slight bit (explanation will follow). Last Sunday last i participated in a half marathon race, I finished, but at about 20 km through, I suddenly had no more energy, and just couldn't seem to move my legs as fast as I wanted (and had). My time was just under 1 hour and 48 minutes, which I think is acceptable, but not what I wanted. So Thursday I started the second 30 days, and this time I am following the Paleo diet for athletes. This is of course mainly the same diet, however with some modifications before, during and after exercise/race, in order to provide enough, and easily absorb able enough, nutrition for the special circumstances endurance elites have. The main differences are that fruit juice, potatoes, sweet potatoes and yams, as well as salt, glucose and non paleo protein powders are allowed in conjunction with exercise/races.

My result so far is positive. Yesterday (this Sunday) I ran another half marathon, this time having eaten potatoes and more fruit before, as well as having a mix of fruit and vegetable juice along with me. My this time i finished my 21,1 km in under 1 hour and 45 minutes, and where a week before I had been almost unable to move my legs after I was done, this time I ran 25 km :D

So hopefully this will keep working, and I will be able to run the Copenhagen Marathon in 34 days.

And now to first part of my promised post on arguments against the Paleo diet:

There are several arguments against 'the paleo diet' being the optimal diet for human beings. Some of them are directed at foundations of the theory of the paleo diet, while others are biochemical or statistical arguments that point in another direction, than the diet promoted by Loren Cordain.

I will try to make a (hopefully) easily understandble walkthrough of the ones I have come across, as well as possible counter arguments, and my own evaluation of their significance.

Saturated fat is not bad.

One of the first arguments against the eating regimen promoted by Loren Cordain, is an argument promoted by many other paleo/primal diet advocates as well as Dr. Mercola and the Western A. Price Foundation – In his book 'the Paleo diet' Loren Cordain adheres, at least in part, to the so called lipid hypothesis which claims that a high intake of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat increases the amounts of these nutrients in the blood and promotes athereosclerosis. Loren Cordain actually downtones the significance of cholesterol intake somewhat, but still puts a limit on egg (which is high in cholesterol) intake, at 6 a week. However he goes along with the idea that a high intake of saturated fats, cause, or at least promote, plague building up in the arteries.  

The counter argument is of course that this is not the case, and that saturated fats have lots of healthfull properties to them, in fact both cholesterol and saturated fats are both very important for different bodily functions. For instance it is described in the classsic 'Nutrition and Physical degeneration' by Western A. Price, how he found that idegenous people who had a high intake of fat soluble vitamins (which are often found in animal products with a high cholesterol and saturated fatty acid content) were much healthier than their counterparts, that had adopted a western diet.

It is also argued that the statistics that show a correlation between a high intake of saturated fatty acids and heart disease, do so, because they count the extremly unhealthy mostly artificial trans fatty acids together with saturated fatty acids.

Proponents of paleo/primal diets that are more heavily based on saturated fatty acids for calories also argue that our early ancestors had very high intake of these, from all the animal fat they consumed.

Loren Cordain's counter argument is that when you take into account the fatty acid composition of the entire animals, not just the fat situated around and inside the muscles (our ancestors ate almost the entire animal, not just the muscle meat), as well as their intake of nuts and seeds, the picture is one of an intake based more on mono and poly unsaturated fatty acids.

Furthermore he says that intake of saturated fatty acids increases LDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol is related to athereosclerosis. There are several counter arguments to this – First of all there is some confusion as to the exact realation between LDL cholesterol and athereosclerosis, however that is a discussion for another day. Secondly only some saturated fatty acids cause LDL levels to go up. And thirdly some saturated fatty acids cause HDL levels to go up, which is ascociated with protection from heart disease.

2. Grains and legumes are not (nescesarilly) bad

There are several sidses to this argument, the first being that grains and legumes have a lot of beneficial properties including water solluble fiber and long chain polysaccrides, thus giving a slow steady realease of energy, and at the same time nourishing the colon and preventing reuptake of cholesterol from bile in the small intestine.

The second part of the argument is that: yes they do contain antinutrients, things that are supposedly part of the plants immune system, but all plant foods do.

And thirdly the amount of these antinutrients can be severely disminished by sprouting and/or fermenting them, as well as heating them, something that 'traditional' cultures have long been doing. Asian cultures for instance fermented the soybeans they ate.

3. There is no good source of calcium in 'the paleo diet'.

This is set forth by people advocating the consumption of dairy products, such as the Western A. Price foundation. It is however, in my opinon, not a very good one, as it is easily refuted- Loren Cordain argues that because of the high intake of vegtables and fruits (which acording to him push the body in an alkaline direction), as well as an increased uptake of calcium caused by the high protein content of the diet, the need for calcium on this diet is less, than on a more acid producing diet, such as the standard american diet.

On top of that, there are several good sources of calcium in allowed in the paleo diet – most green leafy vegetables have a high calcium content, an most (not spinach for instance) also are more easily assimilated than calcium from dairy. Also sessame seeds have a high calcium content.

4. Our closest contemporary non-human relatives; the great apes (especially chimpanzees and bonobos) eat very small amounts of meat, therefore we should this way as well.

This argument asumes several things:

• that because the great apes are so closely realted to us, the chimpanzees and bononbos share 98% of our genes, we have the same nutritional requirements as they do.

• that great apes living in the wild are consuming their optimal diet, this part of the argument goes something like this: because the great apes don't have any culture (something that not everybody agrees upon) they don't have any rules or taboos about eating (which it is argued is the reason the human diet has gone astray), and thus eat whatever feels natural to them (again this builds upon the assumption that what feels best for them also is best).

  There are several counter arguments to this -

• There are several key differences between humans and apes, for instance our digestive system is more like that of an omnivore (who eats more meat than apes) than that of the apes (frugivores – they live of a diet of fruit, green leaves, nuts, seeds and small amounts of meat), and thus we can handle less fiber, but more meat, than the great apes. On the other hand we have smaller canines than our close relatives do, just take a look at a gorillas teeth, and they actually seem better equiped to rip meat.

• Brain started evovling after animal consumption arose -

  There is some evidence that early humans brain started to grow (beyond the size of for example the brain of a chimpanzee) at the same time that our intake of animal foods began to increase. This off course beggs the question of what came first, and wheter or not the two were related – the theory (of those that asume that the increased animal intake caused this brain growth) is that increased animal intake led to increased calorie consumption, which allowed the development of a bigger brain (brains use a lot of calories). Also nutrients found mostly in animals, such as EPA and DHA omege 3 oils, are essentiel for brain development, so an increased availability of these may have lead, at least in part, to bigger brains.

• Another counter argument to this is that if we consumed so little meat (excluding the option of eggs or dairy as well) we would not get optimal amounts fo protein, especially not atheltes. This however is hard to belive, if you take a look at our hairy relatives – a large silverback gorilla is both way larger and stronger than any bodybuilding athlete, however they consume a diet largely made up of green leaves, fruit nuts, and seeds, in other words a diet low in animal 'products' and protein.

What is the Paleo diet (now - in text!)

Ok so I know it has been a while - unfortunately I can't get the video thing to work at the moment, so instead, for now, you will have to do with the link I gave you - and a short text -

What we were meant to eat

So the paleo diet is a book written by Loren Cordain, however it is also a concept, sometimes referred to as the hunter gatherer diet, the caveman diet, or - the Paleo diet, which has been written about and developed by other authors as well. The shared idea or philosophy behind these different names, is that the optimal diet (from an individual health point of view) for human beings is the one which we are genetically adapted to. In other words the paleo diet builds its philosophy on what is probably the strongest theory in biology; evolution. Now which diet is that? - The argumentation that Loren Cordain uses, is that we have changed very little, since our ancestors were hunter - gatherers (that is, for most people, back in the Paleolithic - old stone age). He argues - that because we our genetic make up, is basically the same as it was back then, we also have the same nutritional requirements as they did. This is off course supported by biochemical evidence, as well as anthropological and archaeological evidence, that hunter gatherer societies were, and are, basically free of the generative lifestyle diseases, that are so common in our civilizations.

So that was the why - here is the what -

The diet consists of three mainstays - lean meat, non starchy vegetables, and fruit. Besides that nuts, seeds and eggs are also allowed in moderation, along with spices and herbs.

- That means no grains, no dairy, no legumes, no refined sugar, no added salt, or refined foods.

What? no bread, cheese, beans, cakes, salt?!  -

As I already wrote the idea is that we only that which our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have had access to on a normal basis. Also there are biochemical arguments for not eating these things, in other words, according to Loren Cordain they are unhealthy to consume, as we have not genetically evolved to be able to properly digest and assimilate them, without adverse reactions.

The diet is NOT, meant to be a low fat diet, though some people around the 'net, criticize it for being so. In fact the diet is meant to contain between 28 and 57 % of caloric intake from lipids (fats). The reason that he emphasizes lean meats, is he wants to hit the same overall composition of different fats (saturated, mono-unsaturated and poly-unsaturated) as a hunter gatherer who eats the entire animal, without people having to do that. Most people would not be too keen on starting a program that involved eating organ meats every day. However organ meats tend to have a different composition of fats, than muscle meats does - where muscle meats tend to hold more saturated fats, organ meats, like brains, contain more poly and mono unsaturated fats. So therefore Cordain advises us to eat lean meat, and then add fat back in, from plant sources, such as olive oil, that is higher in mono and poly unsaturated fats.

The diet is a so called 'high protein' diet, meaning that it contains about 30 % of calories as protein, mainly from meat, which is included  at virtually every meal. The idea is that you eat your full in lean meats, vegetables and fruit, and that the protein from the meat, and the fiber from the vegetables (and fruit) will make sure you stay full until next meal - it is not specifically a weight loss diet, however it is supposed to normalize any weight issues, one might have.

For me personally I consume three or four meals a day, each consisting of 200 - 300g of lean meat, and some fruit or vegetables, often both, possibly along with some extra oil. I also take a fish oil supplement as recommended in the book (as I don't like fish) - 8 1000 mg soft gels - all in all 1680 mg DHA omega 3 and 2400 mg EPA omega 3.

Ok that was it for today, I will soon be back with a discussion of the arguments for and against this diet/concept, as well as my initial experiences with the diet - stay healthy :D