Paleolithic Diet Vs Vegetarianism PDF

Paleolithic Diet vs.
Vegetarianism:
What was humanity's original, natural diet?
A 3-Part Jisit with Ward Aicholson
Copvright 1998 bv hard Nicholson. All rights reserved.
Contact author for permission to republish.
P A R T 1
Setting the Scientific Record Straight on Humanity's
Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets.
P A R T 2
Fire and Cooking in Human Evolution,
Rates of Genetic Adaptation to Change, Hunter-Gatherers, and Diseases in the Wild.
P A R T 3
The Psychology of Idealistic Diets and
Lessons Learned from the Natural Hygiene Many-to-Many about Successes and Failures of Vegetarian Diets.
"One of the best things to ever appear on the net
on the subject of diet and human evolution. Probably the most
meticulously documented, closely detailed, well-researched
discussion I have ever read."
--Dean Esmay, host and moderator of the PALEODIET listgroup
A detailed TABLE OF CONTENTSlinked to all portions of the article can be
found at the bottom of this first page of introduction.
Introductory Remarks
The discussions here were first published as a series of three interviews in Chet Day's Health & Bevond newsletter in
October and December 1996, and January 1997. As new/additional information is now available for some of the topics
covered in the interviews, updates in postscript form have been added here for each of the three original articles.
IMPORTANT: Be sure to check the Updates to Part 1], Updates to Part 2], and Updates to Part 3] before
prematurely attributing specific views to the author based only on the original section of each part of the interviews.
A quick outline of the updates can be found in the Table of Contents for each part. Also, please note the following
important modifications/changes in the present web version:
N Specific points in the original interview that have been affected by newer science or that have benefited from
additional observations in hindsight have been marked in the text with an asterisk (*). These points are the items
discussed further in the updates concluding each part of the interview, and have been labeled with boldfaced,
triple-asterisked (***) heads in the update sections for easy identification.
Some of this information entails important modifications to a few of the interpretations/conclusions that were
drawn from the evidence discussed in the original interviews. However, rather than wrestle with the problem of
how to re-edit the interview periodically as a whole without changing the flow of the original, I have elected to
leave the initial text of each part of the interview in its original form, and simply supplement it with updated
evidence as it becomes relevant.
I became aware of much of this additional information after having begun to subscribe to the PALEODIET
listgroup which was launched on the internet at about the same time the interviews were first published. At the
time the postscripts to the interviews were written, the Bevond Jeg site had not yet been conceived and I did not
foresee the need to provide a full set of references for the updates. Eventually, the inclusion of references linked
directly to the updates here on the site is planned when time allows.
For those wanting reference citations in support of this additional information , a good place to start would
be to search the archives of the PALEODIET listgroup for posts on these topics, or if that fails, post questions
about them on the PALEODIET listgroup itself. (You can also find instructions for subscribing to the
PALEODIET list at the same link.) Pointers are given in the postscripts to some of this information where
known.
I want to thank Loren Cordain, Ph.D. of Colorado State University, a regular participant on the list and one of
today's most knowledgeable researchers in the field of Paleodiet, who was instrumental in making me aware of
many of the updated pieces of information discussed in the postscripts to Parts 1 and 2 that appear here.
N The text of the interview is republished here much as it originally appeared in Chet Day's Health &
Beyond newsletter, with the following modifications:
4 Heads and paragraph-level lead-in subheads have been added, certain technical terms have been
boldfaced, and some of the longer paragraphs have been split up, to promote easy scanning and
readability on the web.
4 Comments in brackets | | are brief explanatory notes for the sake of clarity in this republished version,
and a few minor word insertions for improved clarity have also been made.
4 Numbers in brackets | | denote footnote references, which are clickable to access the author referenced,
and page number of work cited. (The author and page-number references are themselves clickable to
access the full entry in the interview bibliography.)
N For those unfamiliar, the term "Natural Hygiene," which appears periodically in these interviews, is a health
philosophy emphasizing a diet of raw-food or mostly raw-food vegetarianism, primarily fruits, vegetables, and
nuts, although for revisionists eating some cooked food, it can also include significant supplementary amounts of
grains, legumes, and tubers. Important to the points covered in this interview series is that Natural Hygiene
begins with the idea that diet and other health behavior of human beings will be best when it is in accord with
their natural biological adaptation. How that squares with the actual facts of evolution compared to the traditions
of Natural Hygiene--and by extension those of most other vegetarian diets--is one of the themes discussed here to
bring out the differences in the ways "natural" diets are conceived. If you find the peculiarity of the term "natural
hygiene" disconcerting, simply substitute the concept of "mostly raw-food vegetarianism" where it occurs in the
discussion.
N Ward transferred coordinatorship of the Natural Hygiene M2M to long-time member Bob Avery in 1997, and is
no longer associated with the Natural Hygiene movement. To learn more about the N.H. M2M (now called
the Natural Health M2M), or for information about getting a sample copy, you can find out more here.
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
PART 1
Setting the Scientific Record Straight
on Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet
and Ape Diets
N Preface and introductory remarks
N Interviewer Chet Day's introduction of Ward as guest
N Personal experiences with fasting, Natural Hygiene, and veganism
4 Introduction to Natural Hygiene through distance running.
4 Initial experiences with fasting.
4 Health crash after extended period of overwork and poor diet.
4 Post-crash fasts and recommitment to Natural Hygiene.
4 Improvements on fasts alternating with gradual downhill trend on vegan Natural Hygiene diet.
4 Shortcomings of the "comparative anatomy" rationale for determining our "natural" diet.
4 Exposure to the evolutionary picture and subsequent disillusionment with Natural Hygiene.
4 News of long-time vegetarians abandoning the diet due to failure to thrive.
4 Gradual personal health decline on vegan diet.
N Paleontological evidence shows humans have always been omnivores
4 Evidence well-known in scientific community; controversial only for vegetarians.
N Timeline of dietary shifts in the human line of evolution
4 65 to 50 million years ago (Mya): Ancient primates, mostly insectivores.
4 50 to 30 Mya: Shift to mostly frugivorous/herbivorous.
4 30 to 10 Mya: Maintenance of mostly frugivorous pattern.
4 7 to 5 Mya: Last common ancestor branches to gorillas, chimps, humans.
4 4.5 Mya: Eirst known hominid (proto-human).
4 3.7 Mya: Eirst fully bipedal hominid (Australopithecus).
4 2 Mya: Eirst true human (Homo habilis), first tools, increased meat-eating.
4 1.7 Mya: Evolution of Homo erectus, considerable increase in meat consumption and widely omnivorous
diet, continues till dawn of agriculture.
4 500,000 to 200,000 y.a.: Archaic Homo sapiens.
4 150,000 y.a.: Neanderthals evolve.
4 140,000 to 110,000 y.a.: Eirst anatomically modern humans, possible increase in fire use for cooking
(insufficient evidence).
4 40,000 B.C.: Eirst behaviorally modern humans.
4 40,000 to 10,000 B.C.: Late Paleolithic, latest period of universal hunting/gathering subsistence, seafood
use becomes evident in certain areas.
4 20,000 B.C. to 9,000 B.C.: Mesolithic transition period.
4 Approx. 10-8,000 B.C.: Neolithic period, beginnings of agriculture, precipitous drop in meat
consumption, great increase in grain consumption, decline in health as indicated by signs in skeletal
remains.
N Subjectively based vegetarian naturalism vs. what evolution tells us
4 Example of creative misinterpretation of evolutionary evidence to support frugivorism/vegetarianism (old
fossil teeth microwear study).
N Subjective naturalism vs. the functional definition provided by evolution/genetics
4 The subjective "animal model" for raw-food naturalism.
4 The trap of reactionary "reverse anthropomorphism."
4 Subjective views of dietary naturalism are prone to considerable differences of opinion; don't offer
meaningful scientific evidence.
4 Evolutionary adaptation/genetics as the functional scientific test of what's natural.
N Correcting the vegetarian myths about ape diets
4 Citing of outdated science an earmark of idealism out of touch with reality.
4 Accumulation of modern post-1960s research shows apes are not actually vegetarians.
4 Diet of chimpanzees.
S Meat consumption by chimps.
S The more significant role of social-insect/termite/ant consumption.
S Breakdown of chimpanzee food intake by dietary category.
S Eluid intake in chimps not restricted to fruit, and includes water separately.
S The predilection of chimpanzees toward omnivorous opportunism.
4 Other ape diets.
S Diet of gorillas compared with chimps.
S Other apes less closely related to humans.
Updates To Part 1:
Newer Research and Observations
IMPORTANT: The updates and additional observations linked to below modify some of the conclusions that were reached at the time the
interview was first published in 1996. Before attributing a specific view on a particular subject to the author, please make sure you read
the updates first.
N Update on fat consumption in pre-agricultural and hunter-gatherer diets
4 Organ meats favored in preference to muscle meats in hunter-gatherer diets.
4 Type of fat may be more important than amount of fat.
4 Cardiovascular disease and cancer are rare in hunter-gatherers, despite their fat/protein intake.
N Co-evolution of increased human brain size with decreased size of digestive system
4 Data points to increasing dependence on denser foods, processed by a less energy-intensive gut to free up
energy for the evolving brain.
4 Sufficient amounts of long-chain fatty acids essential to support brain growth.
4 Animal prey likeliest source for required amounts of long-chain fatty acids during human brain evolution.
4 Human brain size since the late Paleolithic has decreased in tandem with decreasing contribution of
animal food to diet.
4 A closely related factor is that the increase in brain size co-evolved with a concurrent reduction in size of
the human gut.
4 Human gut has evolved to be more dependent on nutrient- and energy-dense foods than other primates.
N Corrected anthropological survey data shows meat averages over 50 of hunter -gatherer diets
4 Previous meta-analysis of Ethnographic Atlas survey data on hunter-gatherer diets was performed
incorrectly.
4 Modern hunter-gatherer diets vis-a-vis optimal foraging theory and reconstructed prehistoric diets.
N Meat consumption levels in early Homo species
N Research updates relating to diet and health late in human evolution
N Clarifications regarding chimpanzee diet
PART 2
Rates of Genetic Adaptation to Change,
Hunter-Gatherers, and Diseases in the Wild
N Knowledge gap in vegetarian community about evolutionary data/implications
4 Many Natural Hygienists identify the system with certain dietary details, even though the system itself
flows from principles independent of those details.
4 Hygienic and vegan diets are a significant restriction of the diet(s) on which humans evolved.
4 Avowed Shelton loyalists are actually the ones who have most ignored his primary directive.
4 Only two insights remain that are still somewhat unique to Natural Hygiene.
S Strong recognition of the principle of the body as homeostatic self-healing mechanism.
S Easting as a tool to promote such self-healing.
4 In some ways Natural Hygiene now resembles a religion.
N The rift in the Natural Hygiene movement over raw vs. cooked foods
4 Character of the rift: doctors vs. the rank-and-file.
4 One side ignores the need for philosophical consistency. The other denies practical realities and real -
world results.
4 Is there a way these two stances in the conflict over cooking can be reconciled and accounted for
scientifically?
N When was fire first controlled by human beings?
4 Evidence for very early control of fire is sparse and ambiguous.
4 Earliest dates for control of fire accepted by skeptical critics.
4 Crux of the question: first control of fire vs. earliest widespread use.
4 Sequence of stages in control: fire for warmth vs. fire for cooking.
4 Opportunistic exploitation of animal kills by predators after wildfires.
N Potential adaptation to cooking in light of genetic rates of change
4 Rates of genetic change as estimated from speciation in the fossil record.
4 Measurements of genetic change from population genetics.
4 Influence of human culture on genetic selection pressures.
4 Relationship between earliest milking cultures and prevalence of lactose tolerance in populations.
4 Genetic changes in population groups who crossed the threshold from hunting-gathering to grain-farming
earliest.
4 Recent evolutionary changes in immunoglobulin types, and genetic rates of change overall.
4 Rates of gluten intolerance.
4 What do common genetic rates of change suggest about potential adaptation to cooking?
N Are cooking's effects black-and-white or an evolutionary cost/benefit tradeoff?
4 Cooking introduces some toxic by-products but neutralizes others.
4 We have a liver and kidneys because there have always been toxins in natural foods the body has had to
deal with.
4 The belief that a natural diet can be totally toxin-free is an idealistic fantasy.
4 Cooking may favorably impact digestibility.
4 Cooking practices of Aborigines in light of survival needs.
N The role of individual experimentation given evolutionary uncertainties about diet
4 Ely in the ointment: dietary changes since advent of agriculture.
4 The need to be careful in making absolute black-and-white pronouncements about invariant food rules
that apply equally to all.
4 Conflicting data from various modern lines of evidence means people must experiment and decide for
themselves.
4 Openness means challenging any rigid assumptions we may have through experimentation.
N Conflicts between paleo/anthropological vs. biochemical/epidemiological evidence
4 Cornell China Study conclusions about cholesterol and animal protein are contradicted by evidence from
studies of modern hunter-gatherers.
4 Large and significant differences between domesticated meat vs. wild game.
4 Protein and calcium loss: fossil remains of Paleolithic humans reveal high bone mass despite presumed
high protein intake.
N Caveats with respect to using modern hunter -gatherers as dietary models
4 Not all "hunter-gatherer" tribes of modern times eat diets in line with Paleolithic norms.
4 Infectious disease in modern hunter-gatherers.
4 Easting vs. extended nutritional stress/deprivation seen in some modern hunter-gatherers pushed onto
marginal habitats.
4 Animals in the wild on natural diets are not disease-free.
N Uninformed naturalism and unrealistic expectations in diet
4 Unrealistic perfectionism leads to heaping inhumanity and guilt on ourselves.
N Health improvements after becoming ex-vegetarian
Updates To Part 2:
Newer Research and Observations
IMPORTANT: The updates and additional observations linked to below modify some of the conclusions that were reached at the time the
interview was first published in 1996. Before attributing a specific view on a particular subject to theauthor, please make sure you read
the updates first.
N Uncertainties about earliest use of fire for cooking
N Incompatibilities between dairy consumpti on and human physiology
4 Genetic changes due to "neoteny" (such as adult lactose tolerance) not indicative of overall rates of
adaptation.
4 Additional indications of incongruence between dairy and human physiology.
S Lactose and heart disease.
S Poor Ca:Mg ratio which can skew overall dietary ratio.
S Saturated fat.
S Molecular mimicry/autoimmune response issues.
N Signs of evolutionary mismatch between grains and human physi ology
4 Certain wheat peptides appear to significantly increase the risk of diabetes through molecular mimicry.
4 Research suggests that celiac disease is probably also caused by autoimmune responses.
4 Phytates in grains bind the minerals iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium.
4 Hyperinsulinism, excess carbohydrate consumption, and "Syndrome X."
4 Hyperinsulinism and diabetes.
4 Recent studies indicate diets higher in protein reduce symptoms of Syndrome X.
N Why do cooked or denser foods often improve raw/vegan health?
4 Eor those who do not thrive on raw vegan diets, do the benefits experienced from grains/dairy outweigh
any downsides?
4 Long-term concerns.
4 Mitigating circumstances.
S Noteworthy difference between lacto-vegetarian subpopulations and raw-foodists adding
grains/dairy.
S Eor previous raw-foodists, the supplemental amounts are usually relatively modest.
4 Information about cooking's ultimate impact on health at the biochemical level of detail is still
inconclusive.
4 Big picture is more clear: Impact of cooking is likely to be much less important than other overarching
considerations.
4 Magnitude of effect from macronutrient ratios likely plays the most influential role.
S Tvpes of fats, and their ratios and sources.
S Eactors that may precipitate Syndrome X.
4 Eating all natural foods or all-raw by itself does not automatically result in a prudent diet.
S Which foods are, in fact, the most natural for humans.
S Which natural foods can be important to minimize or avoid.
S What balance of macronutrients, whether raw or cooked, results in best long-term nutrition?
N Update on protein intake and bone loss
4 Animal protein has greater impact on calcium excretion.
4 Paradox of high bone mass in pre-agricultural skeletons despite large animal protein intake points to
compensating factors.
4 Eskimos and osteoporosis.
N Brief miscellaneous points
PART 3
Lessons Learned from The Natural Hygiene Many-to-Many
About Successes and Failures of Vegetarian Diets
N Problem: Finding unsanitized reports about the full spectrum of real -world results with vegetarian diets
4 Background on the Natural Hygiene Many-to-Many as a pool of information about individuals on vegan
and raw diets.
4 Assessing the veracity and relevance of people's individual stories.
4 Why the Many-to-Many was started: bypassing "official" vegetarian organizations with vested interests to
get less filtered information.
N The attractions and pitfalls of purist black-and-white dietary philosophies
4 PROBLEM #1: Confusion and contradiction in the marketplace of dietary ideas and research.
4 PROBLEM #2: Eeeling powerless over microbes, genetics, or out-of-control authoritarian health-care.
4 PROBLEM #3: Thoughtful non-authoritarianism vs. mere reactionary rebellion.
4 How Natural Hygiene and raw/vegan diets satisfy the above appeals--the attractions and the pitfalls.
4 Other unconscious needs also met.
N Success/failure rates of vegan diets in Natural Hygiene
4 Rough estimate of success/failure rate of vegan diets based on experiences of people in the N.H. M2M.
S Dropouts over time and "cheating" on the diet complicate the assessment.
S The problem of vested interests among "official" sources in getting straight answers.
S "Party line" views and ostracism of dissidents.
S Special measures that may make the diet work for more individuals argue against its naturalness.
S Gap between uncensored reports and officialdom rarely surfaces publicly in a way that gets
widespread attention.
4 Success/failure on all-raw vegan diets compared to more conventional vegan diets that include cooked
starch sources.
S The distinction between short-term and long-term results is critical in evaluating "success."
S Are the rare all-raw success stories the "ideal," or simply "exceptions"?
N Symptoms of "failure to thrive" on raw and/or vegetarian diets
4 A look at the most serious potential problems.
4 Low-profile symptoms more commonly seen.
N How people get trapped by "pure" diets that don't maintain long -term health
4 The "frog in slowly boiling water" syndrome.
4 How can things end up bad when they started out so good?
4 The lulling effect of imperceptibly slow declines in health.
4 Emotional "certainty" shuts down one's ability to rationally assess symptoms.
4 The willingness to make sober judgments of current symptoms is perpetually displaced into the future.
4 Those who are successful are partners in reinforcing the tendency not to see failures as real failures.
N How obsessively striving for absolute dietary purity becomes a fruitless "grail quest"
4 Significant parallels with religious behavior.
4 The role of unseen and unverifiable "toxemia" as evidence of one's "sin."
4 The "relativity" of absolute purification transforms it into an ever-receding goal and goad.
4 Self-restriction becomes its own virtue as absolute purity recedes.
4 Endgame: fundamentalist obsessive-compulsiveness.
N Successful vegetarian diets require more than simple dietary purity
4 More attention to robust nutritional intake and other health factors.
4 Stress and vegetarian diets.
4 Stress creates less margin for error for nutrition's contribution to physiological maintenance.
4 Successful Natural Hygiene diets are often less strict and more diverse than traditional/"official"
recommendations.
4 Special nutritional practices added by some individuals.
4 Potential role of involuntary "lapses" in filling nutritional gaps.
4 Lapses usually automatically interpreted as "addictions" instead by adherents.
N Rationalizing dietary failures with circular thinking and untestable excuses
4 Pat answers and mantras.
4 Unfalsifiable excuses impervious to testability.
S "You're too addicted."
S "You just haven't given it enough time yet."
S "Unnatural overstimulation."
S When symptoms are always seen as "detox."
S Other meaningless, unhelpful, or unfalsifiable excuses.
N 5 tips for staying alert to the traps of excessive dietary idealism
4 Self-honesty instead of denial.
4 Eocus first on results rather than theoretical certainty.
4 Utilize reasonable timeframes to gauge trends.
4 Exercise at some activity that gently challenges your limits, to hone sensitivity to changes in your
capacities and health.
4 Don't ignore feedback about how you are doing from people who know you well.
N Interview wrap-up
4 The science will change somewhat but big picture is more important than disputes over details.
4 Tolerance for our own mistakes, tolerance for others.
4 Open-mindedness is an ongoing process, not something one achieves and then "has."
Updates To Part 3:
Additional Observations
IMPORTANT: The additional observations linked to below provide more in-depth information that further explores the eating behavior
patterns, and their health impact, as described in the original interview that was first published in 1997. Before attributing a specific view on a
particular subject to the author, please make sure you read the updates first.
N Further observations about "failure to thrive" on vegan diets
4 Case of rickets in vegan toddler.
S Eamily environment and parents' dietary beliefs/practices.
S Particulars of father's diet (reflected to some degree in toddler's diet).
S The son's diet was not much different, though perhaps heavier in fruit.
S Calcium deficiency rather than vitamin D deficiency as potential cause?
S Elimination of problem using supplements/animal foods demonstrates insufficiency of diet,
regardless of exact cause.
S Tendency is to rationalize as to speculative possibilities while ignoring probability/plausibility.
4 Special measures to make vegan diets work can be seen as compensations for lack of evolutionary
congruence.
4 That even informed advocates acknowledge vegan diets should be carefully planned suggests that less
margin for error is a real issue.
N The yo-yo syndrome as potential indicator of failure to thrive on strict diets
4 Viewing the yo-yo syndrome as valuable feedback to help pinpoint problems breaks the cycle of guilt
over so-called "lapses."
4 Unhooking from guilt frees attention to seriously consider and evaluate practical solutions one ma y have
been blind to before.
4 Experimental attitude requires new mental relationship with the question of "certainty."
N Why is being "hungry all the time" on a veg-raw-food diet such a problem for some individuals even in the
short-term before any deficiencies could have arisen?
4 Diet is lower in overall nutrient/energy-density than the one the human body evolved on.
4 Human digestive system not optimized for maximum extraction of nutrition/energy from a diet of all
high-fiber foods.
4 Eating like a gorilla leads to a life centered around food like a gorilla.
N Becoming highly dependent on "mainstay" foods in a veg -raw diet
4 The frequency of dependence on avocados and/or nuts is explained by human digestive system's design
for denser foods.
4 Raw-foodist eating patterns and difficulties are predictable/understandable given evol utionary design of
human gut.
4 Once all other, more energy-dense foods are eliminated, "fruitarianism" is the logical/inevitable outcome.
N The fallacy of fruitarianism: word games vs. the real world of practice and results
4 Word games over what qualifies as "fruit" often expand the definition so far that the distinction means
little.
4 Were our evolutionary primate predecessors really true "fruitarians"?
4 Simply put: Humans are not apes.
4 People may do well at first, but this is because they are living off of past nutritional reserves.
4 Advocates of "fruitarianism" frequently change their definition of it over time.
4 Synopsis of 4-part 1970s-era "Eruit for Thought" article series, by the American Vegan Society's Jay
Dinshah.
S Eruitarian gurus weren't actually practicing what they preached, but followers who did ran
aground.
S Excuses, excuses.
S Eailures the rule, no successes ever came to light.
S Little change in fruitarian movement between now and then.
S Notable Natural Hygiene practitioner at the time related specific problems seen in numerous
fruitarian patients.
4 Beyond the myth of fruitarianism is the empowerment that freedom from fantasy brings.
S When evaluating claims, look beyond the word games.
S A more "evolved" path, or only more extreme?
S Judge the diet, not yourself--by bottom-line results, not high-sounding philosophy.
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
GO 1O PAR1 1: Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets
GO 1O PAR1 2: Fire and Cooking in Human Evolution
GO 1O PAR1 3: 1he Psychology of Idealistic Diets / Successes and Failures of Jegetarian Diets
Setting the scientific record straight
on humanity's evolutionary prehistoric diet
and ape diets.
Part 1 of our Jisit with Ward Aicholson
Eirst published in the printed version of Chet Day's HEALTH & BEYOND newsletter,
October 1996. Chet's website is located at: http://www.chetday.com/
See clickable TABLE OF CONTENTSfor Part 1.
(HIGHLY RECOMMENDED in order to find what you want
quickly, as interview is lengthy.)
Note: Be sure to check the |Updates to Part 1| before prematurely attributing
specific views to the author based only on the original section of this interview,
which was first published in 1996. In the original article, asterisks have been
inserted to mark points about which the author's views may have changed somewhat.
A quick outline of the updates can be found in the Table of Contents.
I N T R O D U C T O R Y R E M A R K S
The text of the interview is republished here much as it originally appeared in Chet Day's Health & Bevond newsletter, with a few small
modifications necessary for the present web version. See the introductory remarks on the front page of the interview series for specifics.
For those unfamiliar, the term "Natural Hygiene," which appears periodically in these interviews, is a health philosophy emphasizing a diet
of mostly raw-food vegetarianism, primarily fruits, vegetables, and nuts, although for revisionists eating some cooked food, it can also include
significant supplementary amounts of grains, legumes, and tubers.
Ward transferred coordinatorship of the Natural Hygiene M2M to long-time member Bob Avery in 1997, and is no longer associated with the
Natural Hygiene movement. To learn more about the N.H. M2M (now called the Natural Health M2M), or for information about getting a
sample copy, you can find out more here.
Introduction
Our guest this issue is Ward Nicholson, |former| Coordinator of The Natural Hygiene M2M--a unique "many-to-many"
letter group forum created for correspondence between Natural Hygienists in a published format, which has been
operating since 1992. |Note: Long-time M2M participant Bob Avery took over the Coordinatorship in December 1996
after Ward resigned and left the Natural Hygiene movement.| Participants in the M2M write letters about their Hygienic
experiences, debate viewpoints, and offer support to each other. Each issue, Ward collates the letters together (exactly
as-is with nothing edited out) into a 160- to 180-page bimonthly installment of the M2M, a copy of which is sent out to
everyone in the group for ongoing response.
Two primary issues to be covered. What we'll be discussing with Mr. Nicholson in H&B are two things:
N Real-world accounts of how long-term vegans do on the Natural Hygiene diet. One of these consists of the
ideas and conclusions Ward has reached about Hygienists' actual experiences in the real world (based on
interacting with many Hygienists while coordinating the N.H. M2M)--which are often at variance with what the
"official" Hygienic books tell us "should" happen.
N The human evolutionary/dietary past. And the other is the meticulous research he has done tracking down
what our human ancestors ate in the evolutionary past as known by modern science, in the interest of discovering
directly what the "food of our biological adaptation" actually was and is--again in the real world rather than in
theory.
Given the recent death of T.C. Ery, I consider Ward's analysis of special importance to those who continue to adhere
strictly to the fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds diet.
We'll tackle this month the question of humanity's primitive diet. In two subsequent issues, we'll wrap that topic up and
delve into what Ward has learned from coordinating the Natural Hygiene M2M about Hygienists' experiences in real
life.
You'll find that will be a recurring theme throughout our discussions with Mr. Nicholson: what really goes on in real life
when you are able to hear a full spectrum of stories from a range of Hygienists, as well as what science says about areas
of Hygiene that you will find have in some cases been poorly researched or not at all by previous Hygienic writers.
Not everyone will agree with or appreciate what Mr. Nicholson has to say. But, as I've written more than once, I publish
material in H&B that you won't find anywhere else, material and sound thinking that interests me and calls into question
my ideas and my assumptions about building health naturally. In this series of three interviews, I guarantee Ward will
challenge many of our mind sets. Mr. Nicholson has a lot of ground to cover, so without further ado, I happily present
our controversial and articulate guest for this issue of H&B.
Personal experiences with fasting,
Natural Hygiene, and veganism
Health & Beyond: Ward, why don't we start out with my traditional question: How was it that you became
involved with Natural Hygiene?
hard Nicholson. I got my introduction to Natural Hygiene through distance running, which eventually got me interested
in the role of diet in athletic performance. During high school and college--throughout most of the 1970s--I was a
competitive distance runner. Runners are very concerned with anything that will improve their energy, endurance, and
rate of recovery, and are usually open to experimenting with different regimens in the interest of getting ever -better
results. Since I've always been a bookworm, that's usually the first route I take for teaching myself about subjects I get
interested in. In 1974 or '75, I read the book Yoga and the Athlete, by Ian Jackson, when it was published by Runners
horld magazine. In it, he talked about his forays into hatha yoga (the stretching postures) as a way of rehabilitating
himself from running injuries he had sustained. He eventually got into yoga full-time, and from there, began
investigating diet's effect on the body, writing about that too.
At first I was more interested in Are Waerland (a European Hygienist health advocate with a differing slant than
Shelton), who was mentioned in the book, so I wrote Jackson for more information. But instead of giving me
information about Waerland, he steered me in the direction of American Natural Hygiene, saying in his experience it
was far superior.
I was also fascinated with Jackson's experiences with fasting. He credited fasting with helping his distance running, and
had a somewhat mind-blowing "peak experience" while running on his first long fast. He kept training at long distances
during his fasts, so I decided that would be the first aspect of the Hygienic program I would try myself. Then in the
meantime, I started frequenting health-food stores and ran across Herbert Shelton's Fasting Can Save Your Life on the
bookracks, which as we all know, has been a very persuasive book for beginning Natural Hygienists.
Initial experiences with fasting. So to ease into things gradually, I started out with a few 3-day "juice" fasts (I know
some Hygienists will object to this language, but bear with me), then later two 8-day juice-diet fasts while I kept on
running and working at my warehouse job (during college). These were done--in fact, all the fasts I've experienced have
been done--at home on my own.
Needless to say, I found these "fasts" on juices difficult since I was both working, and working out, at the same time.
Had they been true "water" fasts, I doubt I would have been able to do it. I had been enticed by the promises of more
robust health and greater eventual energy from fasting, and kept wondering why I didn't feel as great while fas ting as the
books said I would, with their stories of past supermen lifting heavy weights or walking or running long distances as
they fasted.
Little did I realize in my naivete that this was normal for most fasters. At the time I assumed, as Hygienists have
probably been assuming since time immemorial when they don't get the hoped-for results, that it was just because I
"wasn't cleaned-out enough." So in order to get more cleaned-out, I kept doing longer fasts, working up to a 13-day true
water fast, and finally a 25-day water fast over Christmas break my senior year in college. (I had smartened up just a
little bit by this time and didn't try running during these longer fasts on water alone.)
I also tried the Hygienic vegetarian diet around this time. But as the mostly raw-food diet negatively affected my energy
levels and consequently my distance running performance, I lost enthusiasm for it, and my Hygienic interests receded to
the back burner. I was also weary of fasting at this point, never having reached what I supposed was the Hygienic
promised land of a total clean-out, so that held no further allure for me at the time.
Health crash. After college, I drifted away from running and got into doing hatha yoga for a couple of years, taught a
couple of local classes in it, then started my own business as a typesetter and graphic designer. Things took off and
during the mid to late 1980s, I worked 60 to 80 hours a week, often on just 5 to 6 hours of sleep a night, under extreme
round-the-clock deadline pressures setting type at the computer for demanding advertising agency clients. I dropped all
pretense of Hygienic living, with the exception of maintaining a nominally "vegetarian" regime. This did not preclude
me, however, guzzling large amounts of caffeine and sugar in the form of a half-gallon or more of soft drinks per day to
keep going.
Eventually all this took its toll and by 1990 my nervous system--and I assume (in the absence of having gone to a doctor
like most Hygienists don't!) probably my adrenals--were essentially just about shot from all the mainlining of sugar and
caffeine, the lack of sleep, and the 24-hour-a-day deadlines and accompanying emotional pressures. I started having
severe panic or adrenaline attacks that would sometimes last several hours during which time I literally thought I might
die from a heart attack or asphyxiation. The attacks were so debilitating it would take at least a full day afterwards to
recover every time I had one.
Post-crash fasts and recommitment to Natural Hygiene. Einally, in late 1990/early 1991, after I had begun having
one or two of these attacks a week, I decided it was "change my ways or else" and did a 42-day fast at home by myself
(mostly on water with occasional juices when I was feeling low), after which I went on a 95-100 raw-food Hygienic
diet. The panic attacks finally subsided after the 5th day of fasting, and have not returned since, although I did come
close to having a few the first year or two after the fast.
Soon after I made the recommitment to Hygienic living, when I had about completed my 42-day fast, I called a couple of
Hygienic doctors and had a few phone consultations. But while the information I received was useful to a degree with
my immediate symptoms, it did not really answer my Hygienic questions like I'd hoped, nor did it turn out to be of
significant help overcoming my health problems over the longer-term. So in 1992 I decided to start the Natural Hygiene
M2M to get directly in touch with Hygienists who had had real experience with their own problems, not just book
knowledge, and not just the party line I could already get from mainstream Hygiene. With this new source of
information and experience to draw on, among others, my health has continued to improve from the low it had re ached,
but it has been a gradual, trial-and-error process, and not without the occasional setback to learn from.
Improvements on fasts alternating with gradual downhill trend on vegan Natural Hygiene diet. One of the
motivating factors here was that although fasting had been helpful (and continues to be), unfortunately during the time in
between fasts (I have done three subsequent fasts on water of 11 days, 20 days, and 14 days in the past five years), I just
was not getting the results we are led to expect with the Hygienic diet itself. In fact, at best, I was stagnating, and at
worst I was developing new symptoms that while mild were in a disconcerting downhill direction. Over time, the
disparity between the Hygienic philosophy and the results I was (not) getting started eating at me. I slowly began to
consider through reading the experiences of others in the M2M that it was not something I was "doing wrong," or that I
wasn't adhering to the details sufficiently, but that there were others who were also not doing so well following the
Hygienic diet, try as they might. The "blame the victim for not following all the itty bitty details just right" mentality
began to seem more and more suspect to me.
This leads us up to the next phase of your Hygienic journey, where you eventually decided to remodel your diet
based on your exploration of the evolutionary picture of early human diets as now known by science. Coming
from your Hygienic background, what was it that got you so interested in evolution?
Well, I have always taken very seriously as one of my first principles the axiom in Hygiene that we should be eating
"food of our biological adaptation." What is offered in Hygiene to tell us what that is, is the "comparative anatomy" line
of reasoning we are all familiar with: You look at the anatomical and digestive structures of various animals, classify
them, and note the types of food that animals with certain digestive structures eat. By that criterion of course, humans are
said to be either frugivores or vegetarians like the apes are said to be, depending on how the language is used.
Shortcomings of the "comparative anatomy" rationale fo r determining our "natural" diet. Now at first (like any
good upstanding Hygienist!) I did not question this argument because as far as it goes it is certainly logical. But
nonetheless, it came to seem to me that was an indirect route for finding the truth, because as similar as we may be to the
apes and especially the chimpanzee (our closest relative), we are still a different species. We aren't looking directly at
ourselves via this route, we are looking at a different animal and basically just assuming that our diet will be pretty much
just like theirs based on certain digestive similarities. And in that difference between them and us could reside errors of
fact.
So I figured that one day, probably from outside Hygiene itself, someone would come along wi th a book on diet or
natural foods that would pull together the evidence directly from paleontology and evolutionary science and nail it down
once and for all. Of course, I felt confident at that time it would basically vindicate the Hygienic argument from
comparative anatomy, so it remained merely an academic concern to me at the time.
Exposure to the evolutionary picture and subsequent disillusionment with Natural Hygiene. And then one day
several years ago, there I was at the bookstore when out popped the words The Paleolithic Prescription|1| (by Boyd
Eaton, M.D. and anthropologists Marjorie Shostak and Melvin Konner) on the spine of a book just within the range of
my peripheral vision. Let me tell you I tackled that book in nothing flat! But when I opened it up and began reading, I
was very dismayed to find there was much talk about the kind of lean game animals our ancestors in Paleolithic times
(40,000 years ago) ate as an aspect of their otherwise high-plant-food diet,* but nowhere was there a word anywhere
about pure vegetarianism in our past except one measly paragraph to say it had never existed and simply wasn't
supported by the evidence.|2|
I have to tell you that while I bought the book, red lights were flashing as I argued vociferously in my head with the
authors on almost every other page, exploiting every tiny little loophole I could find to save my belief in humanity's
original vegetarian and perhaps even fruitarian ways. "Perhaps you haven't looked far enough back in time," I told them
inside myself. "You are just biased because of the modern meat-eating culture that surrounds us," I silently screamed,
"so you can't see the vegetarianism that was really there because you aren't even looking for it!"
So in order to prove them wrong, I decided I'd have to unearth all the scientific sources at the local university librar y
myself and look at the published evidence directly. But I didn't do this at first --I stalled for about a year, basically being
an ostrich for that time, sort of forgetting about the subject to bury the cognitive dissonance I was feeling.
News of long-time vegetarians abandoning the diet due to failure to thrive. In the meantime, though, I happened to
hear from a hatha yoga teacher I was acquainted with who taught internationally and was well -known in the yoga
community both in the U.S. and abroad in the '70s and early '80s, who, along with his significant other, had been
vegetarian for about 17 years. To my amazement, he told me in response to my bragging about my raw-food diet that he
and his partner had re-introduced some flesh foods to their diet a few years previously after some years of going
downhill on their vegetarian diets, and it had resulted in a significant upswing in their health. He also noted that a
number of their vegetarian friends in the yoga community had run the same gamut of deteriorat ing health after 10-15
years as vegetarians since the '70s era.
Once again, of course, I pooh-poohed all this to myself because they obviously weren't "Hygienist" vegetarians and none
of their friends probably were either. You know the line of thinking: If it ain't Hygienic vegetarianism, by golly, we'll
just discount the results as completelv irrelevant! If there's even one iota of difference between their brand of
vegetarianism and ours, well then, out the window with all the results!
But it did get me thinking, because this was a man of considerable intellect as well as a person of integrity whom I
respected more than perhaps anyone else I knew.
Gradual personal health decline on vegan diet. And then a few months after that, I began noticing I was having
almost continual semi-diarrhea on my raw-food diet and could not seem to make well-formed stools. I was not sleeping
well, my stamina was sub-par both during daily tasks and exercise, which was of concern to me after having gotten back
into distance running again, and so real doubts began creeping in. It was around this time I finally made that trip to the
university library.
And so what did you find?
Enough evidence for the existence of animal flesh consumption from early in human prehistory (approx. 2-3 million
years ago) that I knew I could no longer ignore the obvious. Eor awhile I simply could not believe that Hygienists had
never looked into this. But while it was disillusioning, that disillusionment gradually turned into something exciting
because I knew I was looking directly at what scientists knew based on the evidence. It gave me a feeling of more power
and control, and awareness of further dietary factors I had previously ruled out that I could experiment with to improve
my health, because now I was dealing with something much closer to "the actual" (based on scientific findings and
evidence) as opposed to dietary "idealism."
Paleontological evidence shows
humans have always been omnivores
What kind of "evidence" are we talking about here?
At its most basic, an accumulation of archaeological excavations by paleontologists, ranging all the way from the recent
past of 10,000-20,000 years ago back to approximately 2 million years ago, where ancient "hominid" (meaning human
and/or proto-human) skeletal remains are found in conjunction with stone tools and animal bones that have cut marks on
them. These cut marks indicate the flesh was scraped away from the bone with human-made tools, and could not have
been made in any other way. You also find distinctively smashed bones occurring in conjunction with hammerstone s
that clearly show they were used to get at the marrow for its fatty material. |3|
Prior to the evidence from these earliest stone tools, going back even further (2-3 million years) is chemical evidence
showing from strontium/calcium ratios in fossilized bone that some of the diet from earlier hominids was also coming
from animal flesh.|4| (Strontium/calcium ratios in bone indicate relative amounts of plant vs. animal foods in the diet. |5|)
Scanning electron microscope studies of the microwear of fossil teeth from various periods well back into human
prehistory show wear patterns indicating the use of flesh in the diet too. |6|
The consistency of these findings across vast eons of time show that these were not isolated incidents but characteristic
behavior of hominids in many times and many places.
Evidence well-known in scientific community; controversial only for vegetarians. The evidence--if it is even known
to them--is controversial only to Hygienists and other vegetarian groups, few to none of whom, so far as I can discern,
seem to have acquainted themselves sufficiently with the evolutionary picture other than to make a few armchair
remarks. To anyone who really looks at the published evidence in the scientific books and peer-reviewed journals and
has a basic understanding of the mechanisms for how evolution works, there is really not a whole lot to be controversial
about with regard to the very strong evidence indicating flesh has been a part of the human diet for vast eons of
evolutionary time. The real controversy in paleontology right now is whether the earliest forms of hominids were truly
"hunters," or more opportunistic "scavengers" making off with pieces of kills brought down by other predators, not
whether we ate flesh food itself as a portion of our diet or not.|7|
GO 1O AEX1 SEC1IOA OF PAR1 1
(Timeline of Dietarv Shifts in the Human Line of Evolution)
Return to beginning of interviews
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
SEE 1ABLE OF COA1EA1S FOR: PART 1 PART 2 PART 3
GO TO PART 1 - Setting the Record Straight on Humanitvs Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets
GO TO PART 2 - Fire and Cooking in Human Evolution
GO TO PART 3 - The Psvchologv of Idealistic Diets / Successes & Failures of Jegetarian Diets
Timeline of dietary shifts
in the human line of evolution
Can you give us a timeline of dietary developments in the human line of evolution to show readers the overall
picture from a bird's-eye view, so we can set a context for further discussion here?
Sure. We need to start at the beginning of the primate line long before apes and humans ever evolved, though, to make
sure we cover all the bases, including the objections often made by vegetarians (and fruitarians for that matter) that those
looking into prehistory simply haven't looked far enough back to find our "original" diet. Keep in mind some of these
dates are approximate and subject to refinement as further scientific progress is made.
65,000,000 to 50,000,000 B.C.: The first primates, resembling today's mouse lemurs, bush-babies, and tarsiers,
weighing in at 2 lbs. or less, and eating a largely insectivorous diet.|8|
50,000,000 to 30,000,000 B.C.: A gradual shift in diet for these primates to mostly frugivorous in the middle of this
period to mostly herbivorous towards the end of it, but with considerable variance between specific primate species as to
lesser items in the diet, such as insects, meat, and other plant foods. |9|
30,000,000 to 10,000,000 B.C.: Eairly stable persistence of above dietary pattern.|10|
Approx. 10,000,000 to 7,000,000 B.C.: Last common primate ancestor of both humans and the modern ape family. |11|
Approx. 7,000,000 to 5,000,000 B.C.: After the end of the previous period, a fork occurs branching into separate
primate lines, including humans.|12| The most recent DNA evidence shows that humans are closely related to both
gorillas and chimpanzees, but most closely to the chimp.|13| Most paleoanthropologists believe that after the split, flesh
foods began to assume a greater role in the human side of the primate family at this time.|14|
Approx. 4,500,000 B.C.: Eirst known hominid (proto-human) from fossil remains, known as Ardipithecus ramidus--
literally translating as "root ape" for its position as the very first known hominid, which may not yet have been fully
bipedal (walking upright on two legs). Anatomy and dentition (teeth) are very suggestive of a form similar to that of
modern chimpanzees.|15|
Approx. 3,700,000 B.C.: Eirst fully upright bipedal hominid, Australopithecus afarensis (meaning "southern ape," for
the initial discovery in southern Africa), about 4 feet tall, first known popularly from the famous "Lucy" skeleton.|16|
3,000,000 to 2,000,000 B.C.: Australopithecus line diverges into sub-lines,|17| one of which will eventually give rise to
Homo sapiens (modern man). It appears that the environmental impetus for this "adaptive radiation" into different
species was a changing global climate between 2.5 and 2 million years ago driven by glaciation in the polar regions.|18|
The climatic repercussions in Africa resulted in a breakup of the formerly extensively forested habitat into a "mosaic" of
forest interspersed with savanna (grassland). This put stress on many species to adapt to differing conditions and
availability of foodstuffs.|19| The different Australopithecus lineages, thus, ate somewhat differing diets, ranging from
more herbivorous (meaning high in plant matter) to more frugivorous (higher in soft and/or hard fruits than in other plant
parts).
There is still some debate as to which Australopithecus lineage modern humans ultimately descended from, but recent
evidence based on strontium/calcium ratios in bone, plus teeth microwear studies, show that whatever the lineage, some
meat was eaten in addition to the plant foods and fruits which were the staples.|20|
2,300,000 to 1,500,000 B.C.: Appearance of the first "true humans" (signified by the genus Homo), known as Homo
habilis ("handy man")--so named because of the appearance of stone tools and cultures at this time. These gatherer -
hunters were between 4 and 5 feet in height, weighed between 40 to 100 pounds, and still retained tree-climbing
adaptations (such as curved finger bones)|21| while subsisting on wild plant foods and scavenging and/or hunting meat.
(The evidence for flesh consumption based on cut-marks on animal bones, as well as use of hammerstones to smash
them for the marrow inside, dates to this period.|22|) It is thought that they lived in small groups like modern hunter-
gatherers but that the social structure would have been more like that of chimpanzees.|23|
The main controversy about this time period by paleoanthropologists is not whether Homo habilis consumed flesh
(which is well established) but whether the flesh they consumed was primarily obtained by scavenging kills made by
other predators or by hunting.|24| (The latter would indicate a more developed culture, the former a more primitive one.)
While meat was becoming a more important part of the diet at this time, based on the fact that the diet of modern hunter -
gatherers--with their considerably advanced tool set--has not been known to exceed 40 meat in tropical habitats* like
habilis evolved in, we can safely assume that the meat in habilis diet would have been substantially less than that.|25|
1,700,000 to 230,000 B.C.: Evolution of Homo habilis into the "erectines,"* a range of human species often collectively
referred to as Homo erectus, after the most well-known variant. Similar in height to modern humans (5-6 feet) but
stockier with a smaller brain, hunting activity increased over habilis, so that meat in the diet assumed greater importance.
Teeth microwear studies of erectus specimens have indicated harsh wear patterns typical of meat-eating animals like the
hyena.|26| No text I have yet read ventures any sort of percentage figure from this time period, but it is commonly
acknowledged that plants still made up the largest portion of the subsistence.* More typically human social structures
made their appearance with the erectines as well.|27|
The erectines were the first human ancestor to control and use fire. It is thought that perhaps because of this, but
more importantly because of other converging factors--such as increased hunting and technological sophistication with
tools--that about 900,000 years ago in response to another peak of glacial activity and global cooling (which broke up
the tropical landscape further into an even patchier mosaic), the erectines were forced to adapt to an increasingly varied
savanna/forest environment by being able to alternate opportunistically between vegetable and animal foods to survive,
and/or move around nomadically.|28|
Eor whatever reasons, it was also around this time (dated to approx. 700,000 years ago) that a significant increase in
large land animals occurred in Europe (elephants, hoofed animals, hippopotamuses, and predators of the big-cat family)
as these animals spread from their African home. It is unlikely to have been an accident that the spread of the erectines
to the European and Asian continent during and after this timeframe coincides with this increase in game as well, as they
probably followed them.|29|
Because of the considerably harsher conditions and seasonal variation in food supply, hunting became more important to
bridge the seasonal gaps, as well as the ability to store nonperishable items such as nuts, bulbs, and tubers for the winter
when the edible plants withered in the autumn. All of these factors, along with clothing (and also perhaps fire), helped
enable colonization of the less hospitable environment. There were also physical changes in response to the colder and
darker areas that were inhabited, such as the development of lighter skin color that allowed the sun to penetrate the skin
and produce vitamin D, as well as the adaptation of the fat layer and sweat glands to the new climate.*|30|
Erectus finds from northern China 400,000 years ago have indicated an omnivorous diet of meats, wild fruit and berries
(including hackberries), plus shoots and tubers, and various other animal foods such as birds and their eggs, insects,
reptiles, rats, and large mammals.|31|
500,000 to 200,000 B.C.: Archaic Homo sapiens (our immediate predecessor) appears. These human species, of which
there were a number of variants, did not last as long in evolutionary time as previous ones, apparently due simply to the
increasingly rapid rate of evolution occurring in the human line at this time. Thus they represent a transitional time after
the erectines leading up to modern man, and the later forms are sometimes not treated separately from the earliest
modern forms of true Homo sapiens.|32|
150,000 to 120,000 B.C.: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis--or the Neanderthals--begin appearing in Europe, reaching
a height between 90,000 and 35,000 years ago before becoming extinct. It is now well accepted that the Neanderthals
were an evolutionary offshoot that met an eventual dead-end (in other words, they were not our ancestors), and that more
than likely, both modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were sister species descended from a prior common archaic
sapiens ancestor.|33|
140,000 to 110,000 B.C.: Eirst appearance of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).|34| The last Ice Age
also dates from this period--stretching from 115,000 to 10,000 years ago. Thus it was in this context, which included
harsh and rapid climatic changes, that our most recent ancestors had to flexibly adapt their eating and subsistence. |35|
(Climatic shifts necessitating adaptations were also experienced in tropical regions, though to a lesser degree. |36|) It may
therefore be significant that fire, though discovered earlier, came into widespread use around this same time |37|
corresponding with the advent of modern human beings. Its use may in fact be a defining characteristic of modern
humans|38| and their mode of subsistence. (I'll discuss the timescale of fire and cooking at more length later.)
130,000 to 120,000 B.C.: Some of the earliest evidence for seafoods (molluscs, primarily) in the diet by coastal dwellers
appears at this time,|39| although in one isolated location discovered so far, there is evidence going back 300,000 years
ago.|40| Common use of seafoods by coastal aborigines becomes evident about 35,000 years ago,|41| but widespread
global use in the fossil record is not seen until around 20,000 years ago and since. |42| Eor the most part, seafoods should
probably not be considered a major departure,* however, as the composition of fish, shellfish, and poultry more closely
resembles the wild land-game animals many of these same ancestors ate than any other source today except for
commercial game farms that attempt to mimic ancient meat. |43|
40,000 to 35,000 B.C.: The first "behaviorally modern" human beings --as seen in the sudden explosion of new forms
of stone and bone tools, cave paintings and other artwork, plus elaborate burials and many other quintessentially modern
human behaviors. The impetus or origin for this watershed event is still a mystery.|44|
40,000 B.C. to 10-8,000 B.C.: Last period prior to the advent of agriculture in which human beings universally subsisted
by hunting and gathering (also known as the "Late Paleolithic"--or "Stone Age"--period). Paleolithic peoples did
process some of their foods, but these were simple methods that would have been confined to pounding, grinding,
scraping, roasting, and baking.|45|
35,000 B.C. to 15-10,000 B.C.: The Cro-Magnons (fully modern pre-Europeans) thrive in the cold climate of Europe
via big-game hunting, with meat consumption rising to as much as 50* of the diet.|46|
25,000 to 15,000 B.C.: Coldest period of the last Ice Age, during which global temperatures averaged 14E cooler than
they do today|47| (with local variations as much as 59E lower|48|), with an increasingly arid environment and much
more difficult conditions of survival to which plants, animals, and humans all had to adapt. |49| The Eurasian steppes just
before and during this time had a maximum annual summer temperature of only 59E. |50|
Humans in Europe and northern Asia, and later in North America, adapted by increasing their hunting of the large
mammals such as mammoths, horses, bison and caribou which flourished on the open grasslands, tundra, and steppes
which spread during this period.|51| Storage of vegetable foods that could be consumed during the harsh winters was
also exploited. Clothing methods were improved (including needles with eyes) and sturdier shelters developed--the most
common being animal hides wrapped around wooden posts, some of which had sunken floors and hearths.|52| In the
tropics, large areas became arid. (In South Africa, for instance, the vegetation consisted mostly of shrubs and gr ass with
few fruits.|53|)
20,000 B.C. to 9,000 B.C.: Transitional period known as the "Mesolithic," during which the bow-and-arrow
appeared,|54| and gazelle, antelope, and deer were being intensively hunted,|55| while at the same time precursor forms
of wild plant and game management began to be more intensively practiced. At this time, wild grains, including wheat
and barley by 17,000 B.C.--before their domestication--were being gathered and ground into flour as evidenced by the
use of mortars-and-pestles in what is now modern-day Israel. By 13,000 B.C. the descendants of these peoples were
harvesting wild grains intensely and it was only a small step from there to the development of agriculture. |56| Game
management through the burning-off of land to encourage grasslands and the increase of herds became widely practiced
during this time as well. In North America, for instance, the western high plains are the only area of the current United
States that did not see intensive changes to the land through extensive use of fire. |57|
Also during this time, and probably also for some millennia prior to the Mesolithic (perhaps as early as 45,000 B.C.),
ritual and magico-religious sanctions protecting certain wild plants developed, initiating a new symbiotic relationship
between people and their food sources that became encoded culturally and constituted the first phase of domestication
well prior to actual cultivation. Protections were accorded to certain wild food species (yams being a well -known
example) to prevent disruption of their life cycle at periods critical to their growth, so that they could be profitably
harvested later.|58| Digging sticks for yams have also been found dating to at least 40,000 B.C., |59| so these tubers
considerably antedated the use of grains in the diet.
Eoods known to be gathered during the Mesolithic period in the Middle East were root vegetables, wild pulses (peas,
beans, etc.), nuts such as almonds, pistachios, and hazelnuts, as well as fruits such as apples. Seafoods such as fish,
crabs, molluscs, and snails also became common during this time. |60|
Approx. 10,000 B.C.: The beginning of the "Neolithic" period, or "Agricultural Revolution," i.e., farming and
animal husbandry. The transition to agriculture was made necessary by gradually increasing population pressures due to
the success of Homo sapiens prior hunting and gathering way of life. (Hunting and gathering can support perhaps one
person per square 10 miles; Neolithic agriculture 100 times or more that many. |61|) Also, at about the time population
pressures were increasing, the last Ice Age ended, and many species of large game became extinct (probably due to a
combination of both intensive hunting and disappearance of their habitats when the Ice Age ended).|62| Wild grasses and
cereals began flourishing,* making them prime candidates for the staple foods to be domesticated, given our previous
familiarity with them.|63| By 9,000 B.C. sheep and goats were being domesticated in the Near East, and cattle and pigs
shortly after, while wheat, barley, and legumes were being cultivated somewhat before 7,000 B.C., as were fruits and
nuts, while meat consumption fell enormously.|64| By 5,000 B.C. agriculture had spread to all inhabited continents
except Australia.|65| During the time since the beginning of the Neolithic, the ratio of plant -to-animal foods in the diet
has sharply increased from an average of probably 65/35* during Paleolithic times|66| to as high as 90/10 since
the advent of agriculture.|67|
Remains of fossil humans indicate decrease in health status after the Neolithic. In most respects, the changes in diet
from hunter-gatherer times to agricultural times have been almost all detrimental, although there is some evidence we'll
discuss later indicating that at least some genetic adaptation to the Neolithic has begun taking place in the approximately
10,000 years since it began. With the much heavier reliance on starchy foods that became the staples of t he diet, tooth
decay, malnutrition, and rates of infectious disease increased dramatically over Paleolithic times, further exacerbated by
crowding leading to even higher rates of communicable infections.
Skeletal remains show that height decreased by four inches* from the Late Paleolithic to the early Neolithic, brought
about by poorer nutrition, and perhaps also by increased infectious disease causing growth stress, and possibly by some
inbreeding in communities that were isolated. Signs of osteoporosis and anemia, which was almost non-existent in pre-
Neolithic times, have been frequently noted in skeletal pathologies observed in the Neolithic peoples of the Middle East.
It is known that certain kinds of osteoporosis which have been found in these skeletal remains are caused by anemia, and
although the causes have not yet been determined exactly, the primary suspect is reduced levels of iron thought to have
been caused by the stress of infectious disease rather than dietary deficiency, although the latter r emains a possibility.|68|
(Subfectivelv Based Jegetarian Naturalism vs. hhat Evolution Tells Us)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Subjectively based vegetarian
naturalism vs. what evolution tells us
So have Hygienists really overlooked all the evolutionary] evidence you've compiled in the above timeline about
the omnivorous diet of humans throughout prehistory? Are you serious?
It was a puzzle to me when I first stumbled onto it myself. Why hadn't I been told about all this? I had thought in my
readings in the Hygienic literature that when the writers referred to our "original diet" or our "natural diet," that must
mean what I assumed they meant: that not only was it based on comparative anatomy, but also on what we actually ate
during the time the species evolved. And further, that they were at least familiar with the scientific evidence even if they
chose to keep things simple and not talk about it themselves. But when I did run across and chase down a scientific
reference or two that prominent Hygienists had at long last bothered to mention, I found to my dismay they had distorted
the actual evidence or left out crucial pieces.
Could you name a name or two here and give an example so people will know the kind of thing you are talking
about?
Sure, as long as we do it with the understanding I am not attempting to vilify anybody, and we all make mistakes. The
most recent one I'm familiar with is Victoria Bidwell's citation (in her Health Seekers Yearbook|69|) of a 1979 science
report from the New York Times,|70| where she summarizes anthropologist Alan Walker's microwear studies of fossil
teeth in an attempt to show that humans were originally exclusively, only, fruit -eaters.
Bidwell paraphrases the report she cited as saying that "humans were once exclusively fruit eaters... eaters of nothing but
fruit." And also that, "Dr. Walker and other researchers are absolutely certain that our ancestors, up to a point in
relatively recent history, were fruitarians/vegetarians."|71| But a perusal of the actual article being cited reveals that:
N Inappropriate absolutistic interpretation. The diet was said to be "chiefly" fruit, which was the "staple," and
the teeth studied were those of "fruit-eater|s|," but the article is not absolutistic like Bidwell painted it.
N Meaning of "fruit" and "frugivore" misinterpreted. Eruit as defined by Walker in the article included
tougher, less sugary foods, such as acacia tree pods. (Which laypeople like ourselves would be likely to classify
as a "vegetable"-type food in common parlance.) And although it was not clarified in the article, anyone familiar
with or conscientious enough to look a little further into evolutionary studies of diet would have been aware that
scientists generally use the terms "frugivore," "folivore," "carnivore," "herbivore," etc., as categories comparing
broad dietary trends, only very rarely as exclusivist terms, and among primates exclusivity in food is definitely
not the norm.
N Time period was at the very earliest cusp of the evolution of australopithecines into homo habilis. The
primate/hominids in the study were Australopithecus and Homo habilis--among the earliest in the hominid line--
hardly "relatively recent history" in this context.
N Study was preliminary and equivocal. The studies were preliminary, and Walker was cautious, saying he didn't
"want to make too much of this yet"--and his caution proved to be well warranted. I believe there was enough
research material available by the late 1980s (Health Seekers Yearbook was published in 1990) that had
checking been done, it would have been found that while he was largely right about Australopithecine species
being primarily frugivores (using a very broad definition of "fruit"), later research like what we outlined in our
timeline above has shown Australopithecus also included small amounts of flesh, seeds, and vegetable foods, and
that all subsequent species beginning with Homo habilis have included significant amounts of meat in their diet,
even if the diet of habilis probably was still mostly fruit plus veggies.
There is more that I could nitpick, but that's probably enough. I imagine Victoria was simply very excited to see
scientific mention of frugivorism in the past, and just got carried away in her enthusiasm. There's at least one or two
similar distortions by others in the vegetarian community that one could cite (Viktoras Kulvinskas' 1975 book Survival
into the 21st Centurv,|72| for instance, contains inaccuracies about ape diet and "fruitarianism") so I don't want to pick on
her too much because I would imagine we've all done that at times. It may be understandable when you are unfamiliar
with the research, but it points out the need to be careful.
Subjective naturalism vs. the functional
definition provided by evolution/genetics
Overall, then, what I have been left with--in the absence of any serious research into the evolutionary past by Hygienists-
-is the unavoidable conclusion that Hygienists simply assume it ought to be intuitively obvious that the original diet of
humans was totally vegetarian and totally raw. (Hygienists often seem impatient with scientists who can't "see" this, and
may creatively embellish their research to make a point. Research that is discovered by Hygienists sometimes seems to
be used in highly selective fashion only as a convenient afterthought to justify conclusions that have already been
assumed beforehand.) I too for years thought it was obvious in the absence of realizing science had already found
otherwise.
The subjective "animal model" for raw-food naturalism. The argument made is very similar to the "comparative
anatomy" argument: Look at the rest of the animals, and especially look at the ones we are most similar to, the apes.*
They are vegetarians |this is now known to be false for chimps and gorillas and almost all the other great apes --which is
something we'll get to shortly|, and none of them cook their food. Animals who eat meat have large canines, rough
rasping tongues, sharp claws, and short digestive tracts to eliminate the poisons in the meat before it putrefies, etc.
The trap of reactionary "reverse anthropomorphism." In other words, it is a view based on a philosophy of
"naturalism," but without really defining too closely what that naturalism is. The Hygienic view of naturalism, then,
simplistically looks to the rest of the animal kingdom as its model for that naturalism by way of analogy. This is good as
a device to get us to look at ourselves more objectively from "outside" ourselves, but when you take it too far, it
completely ignores that we are unique in some ways, and you cannot simply assume it or figure it all out by way of
analogy only. It can become reverse anthropomorphism. (Anthropomorphism is the psychological tendency to
unconsciously make human behavior the standard for comparison, or to project human characteristics and motivations
onto the things we observe. Reverse anthropomorphism in this case would be saying humans should take specific
behaviors of other animals as our own model where food is concerned.)
Subjective views of dietary naturalism are prone to considerable differences of opinion; don't offer meaningful
scientific evidence. When you really get down to nuts and bolts about defining what you subjectively think is "natural,"
however, you find people don't so easily agree about all the particulars. The problem with the Hygienic definition of
naturalism--what we could call "the animal model for humans"--is that it is mostly a subjective comparison. (And quite
obviously so after you have had a chance to digest the evolutionary picture, like what I presented above. Those who
maintain that the only "natural" food for us is that which we can catch or process with our bare hands are by any realistic
evolutionary definition for what is natural grossly in error, since stone tools for obtaining animals and cutting the flesh
have been with us almost 2 million years now.)
Not that there isn't value in doing this, and not that there may not be large grains of truth to it, but since it is in large part
subfectivelv behavioral, there is no real way to test it fairly (which is required for a theory to be scientific), which means
you can never be sure elements of it may not be false. You either agree to it, or you don't--you either agree to the "animal
analogy" for raw-food eating and vegetarianism, or you have reservations about it--but you are not offering scientific
evidence.
Evolutionary adaptation/genetics as the functional s cientific test of what's natural. So my view became, why don't
we just look into the evolutionary picture as the best way to go straight to the source and find out what humans
"originally" ate? Why fool around philosophizing and theorizing about it when thanks to paleoanthropologists we can
now just go back and look? If we reallv want to resolve the dispute of what is natural for human beings, what better way
than to actually go back and look at what we actually did in prehistory before we supposedly became corrupted by
reason to go against our instincts? Why aren't we even looking? Are we afraid of what we might see? These questions
have driven much of my research into all this.
If we are going to be true dietary naturalists--eat "food of our biological adaptation" as the phrase goes--then it is
paramount that we have a functional or testable way of defining what we are biologically adapted to. This is something
that evolutionary science easily and straightforwardly defines: what is "natural" is simplv what we are adapted to bv
evolution, and a central axiom of evolution is that what we are adapted to is the behavior our species engaged in over a
long enough period of evolutionarv time for it to have become selected for in the species collective gene pool. This puts
the question of natural behavior on a more squarely concrete basis. I wanted a better way to determine what natural
behavior in terms of diet was for human beings that could be backed by science. This eliminates the dilemma of trying to
determine what natural behavior is by resorting solely to subjective comparisons with other animals as Hygienists often
do.
(Correcting the Jegetarian Mvths about Ape Diets)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Correcting the vegetarian
myths about ape diets
You mentioned the "comparative anatomy" argu ment that Natural Hygienists look to for justification instead of
evolution. Let's look at that a little more. Are you saying it is fundamentally wrong?
No, not as a general line of reasoning in saying that we are similar to apes so our diets should be similar. It's a good
argument--as far as it goes. But for the logic to be valid in making inferences about the human diet based on ape diet, it
must be based on accurate observations of the actual food intake of apes. Idealists such as we Hygienists don't often
appreciate just how difficult it is to make these observations, and do it thoroughly enough to be able to claim you have
really seen everything the apes are doing, or capable of doing. You have to go clear back to field observations in the
1960s and earlier to support the contention that apes are vegetarians. That doesn't wash nowadays with the far more
detailed field observations and studies of the '70s, '80s, and '90s. Chimp and gorilla behavior is diverse, and it is difficult
to observe and draw reliable conclusions without spending many months and/or years of observation. And as the studies
of Jane Goodall and others since have repeatedly shown, the early studies were simply not extensive enough to be
reliable.|73|
Citing of outdated science an earmark of idealism out of touch with reality. Science is a process of repeated
observation and progressively better approximations of the "real world," whatever that is. It is critical then, that we look
at recent evidence, which has elaborated on, refined, and extended earlier work. When you see anybody--such as
apologists for "comparative anatomy" vegetarian idealism (or in fact anybody doing this on any topic) --harking back to
outdated science that has since been eclipsed in order to bolster their views, you should immediately suspect something.
Accumulation of modern post-1960s research shows apes are not actually vegetarians. The main problem with the
comparative anatomy argument, then--at least when used to support vegetarianism--is that scientists now know that apes
are not vegetarians after all, as was once thought. The comparative anatomy argument actually argues for at least modest
amounts of animal flesh in the diet, based on the now much-more-complete observations of chimpanzees, our closest
animal relatives with whom we share somewhere around 98 to 98.6 of our genes. |74| (We'll also look briefly at the
diets of other apes, but the chimpanzee data will be focused on here since it has the most relevance for humans.)
Diet of chimpanzees. Though the chimp research is rarely oriented to the specific types of percentage numerical figures
we Hygienists would want to see classified, from what I have seen, it would probably be fair to estimate that most
populations of chimpanzees are getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 5* of their diet on average in most cases (as
a baseline) to perhaps 8-10* as a high depending on the season, as animal food--which in their case includes bird's
eggs and insects in addition to flesh--particularly insects, which are much more heavily consumed than is flesh. |75|
N Meat consumption by chimps. There is considerable variation across different chimp populations in flesh
consumption, which also fluctuates up and down considerably within populations on a seasonal basis as well.
(And behavior sometimes differs as well: Chimps in the Tai population, in 26 of 28 mammal kills, were observed
to break open the bones with their teeth and use tools to extract the marrow for consumption, |76| reminiscent of
early Homo habilis.) One population has been observed to eat as much as 4 oz. of flesh per day during the peak
hunting season, dwindling to virtually nothing much of the rest of the time, but researchers note that when it is
available, it is highly anticipated and prized.|77| It's hard to say exactly, but a reasonable estimate might be that
on average flesh may account for about 1-3 of the chimp diet.|78|
N The more significant role of social -insect/termite/ant consumption. Now of course, meat consumption among
chimps is what gets the headlines these days,|79| but the bulk of chimpanzees' animal food consumption actually
comes in the form of social insects|80| (termites, ants, and bees), which constitute a much higher payoff for the
labor invested to obtain them|81| than catching the colobus monkeys that are often the featured flesh item for
chimps. However, insect consumption has often been virtually ignored|82| since it constitutes a severe blind spot
for the Western world due to our cultural aversions and biases about it. And by no means is insect consumption
an isolated occurrence among just some chimp populations. With very few exceptions, termites and/or ants are
eaten about half the days out of a year on average, and during peak seasons are an almost daily item, constituting
a significant staple food in the diet (in terms of regularity), the remains of which show up in a minimum of
approximately 25 of all chimpanzee stool samples.|83|
N Breakdown of chimpanzee food intake by dietary category. Again, while chimp researchers normally don't
classify food intake by the types of volume or caloric percentages that we Hygienists would prefer to see it
broken down for comparison purposes (the rigors of observing these creatures in the wild make it difficult), what
they do record is illustrative. A chart for the chimps of Lope in Gabon classified by numbers of different species
of food eaten (caveat: this does not equate to volume), shows the fruit species eaten comprising approx. 68 of
the total range of species eaten in their diets, leaves 11, seeds 7, flowers 2, bark 1, pith 2, insects 6,
and mammals 2.|84|
A breakdown by feeding time for the chimps of Gombe showed their intake of foods to be (very roughly) 60 of
feeding time for fruit, 20 for leaves, with the other items in the diet varying greatly on a seasonal basis
depending on availability. Seasonal highs could range as high as (approx.) 17 of feeding time for blossoms, 22-
30 for seeds, 10-17 for insects, 2-6 for meat, with other miscellaneous items coming in at perhaps 4
through most months of the year.|85|
Miscellaneous items eaten by chimps include a few eggs,|86| plus the rare honey that chimps are known to rob
from beehives (as well as the embedded bees themselves), which is perhaps the most highly prized single item in
their diet,|87| but which they are limited from eating much of by circumstances. Soil is also occasionally eaten--
presumably for the mineral content according to researchers. |88|
N Fluid intake in chimps not restricted to fruit, and includes water separately. Eor those who suppose that
drinking is unnatural and that we should be able to get all the fluid we need from "high-water-content" foods, I
have some more unfortunate news: chimps drink water too. Even the largely frugivorous chimp may stop 2-3
times per day during the dry season to stoop and drink water directly from a stream (but perhaps not at all on
some days during the wet season), or from hollows in trees, using a leaf sponge if the water cannot be reached
with their lips.|89| (Or maybe that should be good news: If you've been feeling guilty or substandard for having to
drink water in the summer months, you can now rest easy knowing your chimp brothers and sisters are no
different!)
N The predilection of chimpanzees toward omnivorous opportunism. An important observation that cannot be
overlooked is the wide-ranging omnivorousness and the predilection for tremendous variety in chimpanzees' diet,
which can include up to 184 species* of foods, 40-60 of which may comprise the diet in any given month, with
13 different foods per day being one average calculated.|90| Thus, even given the largely frugivorous component
of their diets, it would be erroneous to infer from that (as many Hygienists may prefer to believe) that the 5 to
possibly 8 or so of their diet that is animal foods (not to mention other foods) is insignificant, or could be
thrown out or disregarded without consequence--the extreme variety in their diet being one of its defining
features.
Over millions of years of evolution, the wheels grind exceedingly fine, and everything comes out in the wash.
Remember that health is dependent on getting not just the right amounts of macro-elements such as
carbohydrates, fats, and proteins, but also critical amounts of trace minerals and vitami ns for instance. We
require, and are evolutionarily adapted to, the behavior that is natural to us. Where chimps are concerned, 5 or
8 animal food--whatever it actually is--is a modest but significant amount, and not something you can just say
is incidental or could be thrown out without materially changing the facts.
Other ape diets. In order of how closely related the other great apes are to humans, the gorilla is next after the
chimpanzee, then the orangutan, and gibbon in decreasing order. |91| I'll just briefly summarize a few basic facts about
the other great apes here, concentrating primarily on the gorilla.
N Diet of gorillas compared with chimps. Interestingly, while the gorilla has often been cited as a model in the
modern mythology of "fruitarianism,"|92| on average it is actually the least frugivorous of the apes. Highland
gorillas (where less fruit is available in their higher-altitude mountainous habitat) have become primarily
folivorous (leaf/vegetative-eaters), while the lowland gorilla is more of a hybrid folivore/frugivore. |93| I might
mention in this regard that there is some suggestion chimps seem not to prefer extra-high roughage volumes, at
least compared to the gorilla. Certainly they do not seem to be able to physiologically tolerate as much cellulose
from vegetative matter in their diet.*|94|
Gorillas can, however, tolerate higher amounts of folivorous matter, due apparently to thei r more varied and
extensive intestinal flora and fauna.|95| Chimps, however, are known to "wadge" some of their foods, which
is a form of juicing that has the effect of reducing their fiber intake.|96| Wadging means that they make a wad of
leaves which is mixed in with the primary food item (such as a fruit) as a mass, which is then used as a "press"
against their teeth and palate to literally "juice" the main food which they may suck on for up to 10 minutes
before discarding the wadge of fiber after all the juice has been sucked out. Wadging may also serve as a way to
avoid biting into potentially toxic seeds of certain fruits, from which they can then still extract the juices safely,
or as a way to handle very soft items such as pulpy or overripe fruits, as well as eggs and meat. |97|
Such behavior ought to debunk the prevalent Hygienic/raw-foods myth that it is always the more natural thing to
do to eat "whole" rather than fragmented foods. This is not necessarily true, and again, such a view is based in
subjective definitions out of touch with the real world. Another example here is that chimps (and gorillas as well)
also eat a fair amount of "pith" in their diet--meaning the insides of stems of various plants--which they first have
to process by peeling off the tough outer covering before the pith inside is either eaten or wadged. |98|
N Other apes less closely related to humans. All the great apes, with the exception of the gorilla, are primarily
frugivorous, but they do eat some animal products as well, though generally less than the chimp--although
lowland gorillas eat insects at a comparable rate to chimps. In decreasing order of animal food consumption in
the diet, the orang comes first after the chimp, then the bonobo chimp, the gibbon, the lowland gorilla, and the
highland gorilla--the latter eating any animal foods (as insects) incidentally in or on the plants eaten. Again,
remember, animal food consumption here does not equate solely with flesh consumption, as that is less
prominent than insects in ape diets. The chimp and bonobo chimp are the only ones to eat flesh (other than a rare
occurrence of an orang who was observed doing so once). All the apes other than the highland gorilla eat at least
some social insects, with the chimp, bonobo chimp, and orang also partaking of bird's eggs. |99|
(UPDATES TO PART 1. Fat Consumption in Hunter-Gatherer Diets / Co-Evolution of Enlarged Human Brain with Decreased Si:e
of Digestive Svstem)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
P O S T S C R I P T : S I G N I E I C A N T R E S E A R C H U P D A T E S T O
Setting the Scientific Record Straight on
Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets
(LAST UPDATED 3/24/2000)
Note: A number of the research updates listed below refer to the internet PALEODIET listgroup archives for further information and scientific
references. The search engine for locating material in the PALEODIET archives can be found at:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/paleodiet.html
Instructions for subscribing to the PALEODIET list are given at the above link as well.
At the time the postscripts to the interviews were first written, the Bevond Jeg site had not yet been conceived and I did not foresee the need to
provide a full set of scientific references for the updates. Eventually, the inclusion of references linked directly to the updates here on the site is
planned when time allows.
(EDITORIAL NOTE: Triple-asterisked items in boldface below refer to passages in the interview as originally published, which are followed
by updated comments based on additional observations or more recent scientific research.)
Update on fat consumption in pre-
agricultural and hunter-gatherer diets
*** "...there was much talk in 1he Paleolithic Prescription] about the kind of lean game animals our ancestors in
Paleolithic times (40,000 years ago) ate as an aspect of their otherwise high -plant-food diet..."
As one of the few initial published summaries of the modern Paleodiet evidence, it may be that the The Paleolithic
Prescriptions description of the levels of fat believed to have prevailed during the Paleolithic was somewhat on the
conservative side. However, the picture at this point is still being fleshed out and undergoing debate. Of perhaps most
relevance, though, is not so much the absolute levels of fat, but rather what the fat -intake profile would have been in
terms of saturated vs. polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats.
Organ meats favored in preference to muscle meats in hunter-gatherer diets. Observations of modern hunter-
gatherers have shown that muscle meats (the leanest part of the animal) are least preferred, sometimes even being thrown
away in times of plenty, in preference to the fattier portions. Eaten first are the organs such as brains, eyeballs, tongue,
kidneys, bone marrow (high in monounsaturated fat), and storage fat areas such as mesenteric (gut) fat. (Even this gut fat
is much less saturated in composition, however, than the kind of marbled fat found in the muscle meat of modern feedlot
animals.) There is no reason to believe earlier hunter-gatherers would have been any different in these preferences, since
other species of animals who eat other animals for food also follow the same general order of consumption.
Type of fat may be more important than amount of fat. As a related point, while it is likely to be controversial for
some time to come, an increasing amount of recent research on fats in the diet suggests there may actually be little if any
correlation between the overall level of fat consumption and heart disease, atherosclerosis, cancer, etc., contrary to
previous conclusions. (See The World's Biggest Ead Diet, offsite, for an overview of the recent studies that have called
into question the conventional wisdom's low-fat gospel.) Instead, the evidence seems to point more specifically to the
trans fats (hydrogenated vegetable oils used to emulsify and preserve foods) which permeate much of the modern food
supply in supermarkets, and highly saturated fats (including dairy products and probably saturated commercial meats,
but not lean game meats) along with, perhaps, a high consumption of starches and refined carbohydrates dr iving the
hyperinsulinism syndrome. (See the postscript to Part 2 for a brief discussion of the recent findings on hyperinsulinism.)
Cardiovascular disease and cancer are rare in hunter-gatherers, despite their fat/protein intake. Given that
atherosclerosis, heart disease, and cancer are almost non-existent even in longer-lived members of hunter-gatherer tribes
eating large amounts of meat, and whose diets much better approximate what the evolutionary diet is thought to have
been like than the diets of modern cultures, there is good reason to believe the earlier mainstream research on fats was
faulty. (Eor details on health and disease in hunter-gatherers, see Hunter-Gatherers: Examples of Healthy Omnivores, on
this site. The next page of Part 1 here will also discuss corrected anthropological survey data showing the average level
of meat consumption of hunter-gatherers to be in excess of 50 of the diet.)
Review papers and publications by fat and cholesterol researcher Mary Enig, Ph.D., and by Russell Smith and others
have revealed a pattern of misinterpretation and misrepresentati on of results of many earlier studies on dietary fat and
cholesterol. (Enig recommends Smith's comprehensive Diet, Blood Cholesterol and Coronarv Heart Disease. A Critical
Review of the Literature |Vector Enterprises, Santa Monica, CA (1988)| in particular, for examples. Also see Enig's
three-part online interview, "Health Risks of Processed Eoods and Trans Eats," |Part 1| |Part 2| |Part 3|, for her views, as
well as her own website on trans fats.)
Co-evolution of increased human brain
size with decreased size of digestive system
Data points to increasing dependence on denser foods, processed by a less energy-intensive gut to free up energy
for the evolving brain.
Also, left completely out of Part 1 of the interview above due to my initial passing familiarity with further evidence are
recent findings pointing to a correlation between increasing levels of animal flesh in the di et over the eons at the same
time the human brain was in the process of near-tripling in size--from 375-550cc at the time of Australopithecus, to 500-
800cc in Homo habilis, 775-1225cc in Homo erectus, and 1350cc in modern humans (Homo sapiens).
Sufficient amounts of long-chain fatty acids essential to support brain growth. While the specific evolutionary
factor(s) that drove the increase in human brain size are still being speculated about, one recent paper suggests that --
whatever the causes--the evolutionary increase in brain size would not have been able to be supported physiologically
without an increased intake of preformed long-chain fatty acids, which are an essential component in the formation of
brain tissue. |Crawford 1992|
Animal prey likeliest source for required amounts of long -chain fatty acids during human brain evolution. Lack
of sufficient intake of long-chain fatty acids in the diet would therefore be a limiting factor on brain growth, and these
are much richer in animal foods than plant. (Relative brain size development in herbivorous mammals was apparently
limited by the amount of these fatty acids in plant food that was available to them.) Given the foods available in
humanity's habitat during evolution, the necessary level of long-chain fatty acids to support the increasing size of the
human brain would therefore presumably only have been available through increased intake of flesh.
Human brain size since the late Paleolithic has decreased in tandem with decreasing contribution of animal food
to diet. In addition, a recent analysis updating the picture of encephalization (relative brain size) changes in humans
during our evolutionary history has revealed that human cranial capacity has decreased by 11 in the last 35,000 years,
the bulk of it (8) in the last 10,000 |Ruff, Trinkaus, and Holliday 1997|. Eaton |1998| notes that this correlates well
with decreasing amounts of animal food in the human diet during this timeframe. (Of particular relevance here is that
most of this decrease in animal foods correlates with the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago.)
The central role of DHA in brain growth. Eaton |1988| also notes the obvious hypothesis here would be that shortfalls
in the preformed long-chain fatty acids important to brain development are logical candidates as the potentially
responsible factors, most particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which is the long-chain fatty acid in most abundance
in brain tissue, as well as docosatetraenoic acid (DTA), and arachidonic acid (AA). (The human body can synthesize
these from their 18-carbon precursors linoleic acid (LA) and a-linolenic acid (ALA)--obtainable from plant foods--but
the rate of synthesis does not match the amounts that can be gotten directly from animal foods. Additionally, an
excessive amount of LA compared to ALA, which is likely when plant foods predominate in the diet, inhibits the body's
ability to synthesize DHA endogenously, compounding the problem.)
This evidence of decreasing brain size in the last 35,000 years, and particularly the last 10,000, represents important
potentially corroborative evidence for the continuing role of animal foods in human brain development, since diet ary
changes in this most recent period of human prehistory can be estimated with more precision than dietary composition
earlier in human evolution. While it should be clearly noted here that correlation alone is not causation, at the same time
it should be acknowledged that there seem to be no other worthy hypotheses as yet to explain the dietary basis that could
have supported the dramatic increase in brain size during human evolution.
Recent tuber-based hypothesis for evolutionary brain expansion fails to address key issues such as DHA and the
recent fossil record. As a case in point, there has been one tentative alternative hypothesis put forward recently by
primatologist Richard Wrangham et al. |1999| suggesting that perhaps cooked tubers (primarily a starch-based food)
provided additional calories/energy that might have supported brain expansion during human evolution.
However, this idea suffers from some serious, apparently fatal flaws, in that the paper failed to mention or address
critical pieces of key evidence regarding brain expansion that contradict the thesis. Eor instance, it overlooks the crucial
DHA and/or DHA-substrate adequacy issue just discussed above, which is central to brain development and perhaps the
most gaping of the holes. It's further contradicted by the evidence of 8 decrease in human brain size during the last
10,000 years, despite massive increases in starch consumption since the Neolithic revolution which began at about that
time. (Whether the starch is from grain or tubers does not essentially matter in this context.) Meat and therefore
presumed DHA consumption levels, both positive *and* negative-trending over human evolution, track relatively well
not simply with the observed brain size increases during human evolution, but with the Neolithic-era decrease as well,
on the other hand. |Eaton 1998|
These holes, among others in the hypothesis, will undoubtedly be drawing comment from paleo researchers in future
papers, and hopefully there will be a writeup on Bevond Jeg as more is published in the peer-review journals in response
to the idea. At this point, however, it does not appear to be a serious contender in plausibly accounting for all the known
evidence.
Co-evolution of increased brain size with concurrent reduction in size of the human gut. Recent work is showing
that the brain (20-25 of the human metabolic budget) and the intestinal system are both so metabolically energy-
expensive that in mammals generally (and this holds particularly in primates), an increase in the size of one comes at the
expense of the size of the other in order not to exceed the organism's limited "energy budget" that is dictated by its basal
metabolic rate. The suggestion here is not that the shrinkage in gut size caused the increase in brain size, but rather that it
was a necessary accompaniment. In other words, gut size is a constraining factor on potential brain size, and vice versa.
|Aiello and Wheeler 1995|
Human gut has evolved to be more dependent on nutrient - and energy-dense foods than other primates. The
relationship of all this to animal flesh intake is that compared to the other primates, the design of the more compact
human gut is less efficient at extracting sufficient energy and nutrition from fibrous foods and considerably more
dependent on higher-density, higher-bioavailable foods, which require less energy for their digestion per unit of
energy/nutrition released. Again, while it is not clear that the increasing levels of animal flesh in the human diet were a
directly causative factor in the growth of the evolving human brain, their absence would have been a limiting factor
regardless, without which the change likely could not have occurred. Ot her supporting data suggest that in other animals
there is a pattern whereby those with larger brain-to-body-size ratios are carnivores and omnivores, with smaller, less
complex guts, and dependent on diets of denser nutrients of higher bioavailability.
Vegetarian philosophy has traditionally relied on observing that the ratio of intestinal length to body trunk length
parallels that of the other primates as an indication the human diet should also parallel their more frugivorous/vegetarian
diet. However, this observation is based on the oversimplification that gut length is the relevant factor, when in fact both
cell types and intestinal surface area are the more important operative factors, the latter of which can vary greatly
depending on the density of villi lining the intestinal walls. In these respects, the human gut shares characteristics
common to both omnivores and carnivores. |McArdle 1996, p. 174| Also, intestinal length does not necessarily
accurately predict total gut mass (i.e., weight), which is the operative criterion where brain size/gut size relationships are
at issue. The human pattern of an overall smaller gut with a proportionatelv longer small intestine dedicated more to
absorptive functions, combined with a simple stomach, fits the same pattern seen in carnivores. |Aiello and Wheeler
1995, p. 206|
(Corrected Anthropological Survev Data Shows Meat Averages Over 50 of Hunter-Gatherer Diets)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
P O S T S C R I P T : S I G N I E I C A N T R E S E A R C H U P D A T E S ( c o n t .)
Corrected anthropological survey data shows
meat averages over 50 of hunter-gatherer diets
*** "No text I have yet read ventures any sort of percentage figure from this time period the historical period of
Homo erectus' existence], but it is commonly acknowledged that plants still made up the largest portion of the
subsistence."
The most significant correction to Part 1 of the interview series here involves newer Paleodiet analysis of the amount of
plant vs. animal food in modern hunter-gatherer diets, which--in conjunction with optimal foraging theory and
knowledge of ancient habitats--can be used as a basis for extrapolating backward to estimate what that of our hominid
ancestors may have been. The widely quoted figures of Richard Lee (in his Man the Hunter, 1968) that stated an average
of 65 plant and 35 animal food for modern hunter-gatherers have, upon review by other researchers, been discovered
to have been somewhat flawed. (Lee's 65/35 ratio was in turn repeated in the research sources I used for this
interview, but I had not traced the figures to their ultimate source at the time.)
Previous meta-analysis of Ethnographic Atlas survey data on hunter-gatherer diets was performed incorrectly. As
noted by Ember |1978|, it turns out that in calculating his averages, Lee somewhat arbitrarily threw out a portion of the
North American hunter-gatherer cases (who often had higher rates of meat consumption); plus he classified shellfishing
as a "gathering" activity (normally used to categorize plant-food gathering). Taken together, these skewed the resulting
average considerably. Reanalysis correcting for Lee's analytical errors shows a more likely average of somewhere
between 50-65 meat consumption in modern hunter-gatherer diets. (Eor a brief enumeration of the reanalysis that
researcher Loren Cordain's group has done, see the first section or two of Metabolic Evidence of Human Adaptation to
Increased Carnivory.)
Modern hunter-gatherer diets vis-a-vis optimal foraging theory and reconstructed prehistoric diets. An important
issue worthy of mention here is the reliability of backward extrapolations from behaviorally modern hunter-gatherers to
more primitive hominids. The phrase "behaviorally modern" generally refers to the time horizon of approximately
40,000 B.C., during and after which humans began exhibiting behaviors we think of as modern: such as ritual burials,
cave paintings, body ornamentation, other expressions of art, and most importantly for our purposes here, more
sophisticated tool design, use, and techniques where hunting is concerned (eventually culminating in the bow-and-arrow,
for example) which would presumably have increased hunting success.
In light of this, critics have questioned how reliable the backward extrapolations may be. Proponents, in justification,
note that well-established "optimal foraging theory" (which, reduced to its bare essentials, says that all creatures tend to
expend the least foraging effort for the greatest caloric and/or nutritional return) can be used as a basis to make
reasonable predictions. The kind of food intake that optimal foraging theory predicts for a parti cular species (modern or
ancient) is in turn dependent on the surrounding environment and foods prevailing at the time (i.e., savanna habitat,
generally, in the case of humans), along with what is known about the kind of foods their digestive physiology would
likely be able to efficiently process.
Based on this approach, proponents believe even with less sophisticated hunting technologies --given what is now known
about ancient environments and availabilities of ancient plant and animal resources --the level of animal food in the diet
beginning with erectus, at least, probably would have been in the 50 range with variations for local habitat. The
increasing encephalization quotient (brain volume relative to body size) of Homo and particularly the jump in brain size
with Homo erectus at 1.7 million years ago also tends to corroborate the suggestion of increasingly large amounts of
meat in the diet at this time.
Meat consumption levels
in early Homo species
*** "based on the fact that the diet of modern hunter gatherers...has not been known to exceed 40 meat in
tropical habitats like habilis evolved in, we can safely assume that the meat in habilis' diet would have been
substantially less than that."
As just discussed above regarding earlier analyses of anthropological data that have since been corrected, the average
percentage of meat eaten by all modern hunter-gatherers studied to date who have been described in the Ethnographic
Atlas (an anthropological compendium and database of hunter-gatherer data)--has now been shown to be in the 50-65
range, looking at the entire range of habitats studied. There are tropical hunter-gatherers eating in this range of meat
consumption as well. Therefore, the percentage of meat in habilis diet becomes an even more interesting question than
before.
As the diet of habilis precursor Australopithecus would presumably have been higher in meat than modern chimps (who
are in the 2 range of meat consumption) at some undetermined level, while habilis successor erectus is now thought to
have been near the range of modern hunter-gatherers (perhaps 50), the question of where in between those wide
endpoints habilis' meat consumption fell is not something I am prepared to guess. However, when we note that habilis
was the first known hominid tool user--and that those tools were specifically used for processing meat--it seems logical
to suggest that the amount must have jumped well above that of Australopithecus.
*** "1,500,000 to 230,000 B.C.: Evolution of Homo habilis into the 'erectines'..."
New and controversial reanalysis of previous fossil discoveries in Java has suggested erectus span of existence may
possibly have extended to as late as 30,000-50,000 B.C. in isolated areas, although the new analysis is still undergoing
intensive debate. |Wilford 1996|
*** "There were also physical changes in response to the colder and darker more northerly] areas that were
inhabited by erectus after 700,000 years ago], such as the development of lighter skin color that allowed the sun
to penetrate the skin and produce vitamin D, as well as the adaptation of the fat layer and sweat glands to the new
climate."
To avoid confusion here, it should be mentioned that these adaptations are believed to have evolved a second time in
modern homo sapiens 100,000-200,000 years ago once they began migrating out of Africa--after having evolved from a
group of erectines that would have remained behind in Africa during the earlier migrational wave during which other
erectines had spread northward 700,000 years ago.
(Diet and Health Late in Human Evolution / Chimp Diet Clarifications)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Research updates relating to diet
and health late in human evolution
*** "...but widespread global use of seafoods] in the fossil record is not seen until around 20,000 years ago and
since. For the most part, seafoods should probably not be considered a major departure, however, as the
composition of fish, shellfish, and poultry more closely resembles the wild land -game animals many of these same
ancestors ate than any other source today except for commercial game farms that attempt to mimic ancient
meat."
It may be that the fact fish is one of the foods some people are allergic to is an indicator evolutionary adaptation to this
food may well not be complete, or is at least still problematic for some genetic subgroups, though compared to grains
and dairy, there is of course a far better case for including it in a Paleolithic diet. Strictly speaking, meat from land
animals is the primary flesh-food adaptation for humans. (The small minority of researchers promoting the very
controversial "aquatic ape" theory of human evolution presently considered fringe science--which proposes a brief
formative phase of human evolution taking place in coastal waters--might disagree, of course.) To this date, I have not
myself seen or heard convincing research either way on how well adapted the human species overall may be to fish
consumption compared with land game animals.
*** "35,000 B.C. to 15-10,000 B.C.: The Cro-Magnons (fully modern pre-Europeans) thrive in the cold climate of
Europe via big-game hunting, with meat consumption rising to as much as 50 of the diet."
At least one researcher has voiced the opinion that given Ice-Age Europe in many areas was not too dissimilar from the
arctic climate that modern-day Eskimos inhabit |i.e., very little plant food available|, meat consumption in Europe
during the last Ice Age may have approached similar levels--that is, considerably more than 50, up to as high as 90
in some areas.
*** "Wild grasses and cereals began flourishing around 10,000 B.C.] making them prime candidates f or the
staple foods to be domesticated, given our previous familiarity with them."
This statement could be construed as giving the impression that wild grasses and cereals may have been flourishing in
many places around the globe. While it is true that environmental conditions at this time became considerably more
favorable to wild grasses and cereals, I have since learned that the ones which thrived naturally and lent themselves best
to the development of agriculture (wheat, barley, etc.) were indigenous only to a limited number of locales around the
globe, the most notable of which, of course, was the Near East, where agriculture got its earliest start. A more accurate
statement would be that peoples in the locations where these grasses and cereals began flourishing indigenously took
advantage of the improved weather and environment to exploit them even further. The grasses and cereals would not
have flourished to the extent they did, nor--most importantly--spread as widely as they came to do (virtually around the
globe), were it not for proactive human intervention.
*** "During the time since the beginning of the Neolithic, the ratio of plant-to-animal foods in the diet has
sharply increased from an average of probably 65/35 during Paleolithic times to as high as 90/10 since
the advent of agriculture."
As stated above, the average animal food consumption during the Paleolithic was more likely in the 50-65 range than
35. This makes the decrease down to 10 of the diet in many places even more noteworthy in terms of suggesting the
possible nutritional repercussions of modern-day diets.
*** "Skeletal remains show that height decreased by four inches from the Late Paleolithic to the early
Neolithic..."
Various sources I've seen since say as much as six inches decrease in height. It is worth noting in this connection that
vegetarians will often argue that the extra growth animal foods promote is "pathological" hypergrowth; leads to
premature aging, etc. It should be noted, however, that recent studies show that the reduced growth s ometimes seen in
infants on vegan diets can lead to failure to meet accepted benchmarks for health status during the growth period. In
refuting the common claim of vegetarians that the rebound in adult heights of modern populations eating more animal
food is nothing but "pathological hypergrowth," it is also worth repeating that the historical decrease in height noted in
skeletal remains after the Neolithic (when animal food consumption began plunging) was accompanied by skeletal signs
of disease-stress, as mentioned in Part 1 of the interview. Also, longevity of Neolithic peoples, who ate diets higher in
plant food (particularly grains) and lower in animal food, was in general a bit shorter than that of Paleolithic peoples.
|Angel 1984|
Clarifications regarding
chimpanzee diet
*** "The argument made is very similar to the "comparative anatomy" argument: Look at the rest of the
animals, and especially look at the ones we are most similar to, the apes."
A brief note: the original article noted that humans are most genetically similar to chimpanzees. If more space had been
available, I would have made the further distinction that we are equally as genetically close to the bonobo chimpanzee.
However, since the common chimpanzee has been more closely studied than the rare bonobo chimp, the research from
these studies has (until recently, perhaps) provided more wide-ranging insights.
So far as I am aware, the main observed differences between the common chimp and the bonobo, diet -wise, are that
bonobos eat a higher percentage of fruit in the diet (approx. 80 vs. up to 60-65 for the common chimp); and
apparently insect and flesh consumption is less. Interestingly reminiscent of human behavior, the bonobos' highly sexual
behavior in many common social situations seems to serve a communication function both as a social "glue" and as a
conciliatory mechanism between individuals in potentially divisive situations. (Examples: bonobos will often engage in
sex-play upon coming onto a major food source--sensory excitation often turns in sexual excitation, which is then
discharged in fraternization with others in the group and seems to promote group cohesiveness. Also, when spats occur
between bonobos, sexual engagement afterwards may serve as a way to smooth the incident over and reestablish normal
relations.)
*** "...it would probably be fair to estimate that most populations of chimpanzees are getting s omewhere in the
neighborhood of 5 of their diet on average in most cases (as a baseline) to perhaps 8 -10..."
While the 5 figure was the best guess I could make at the time based on the difficulty in finding any research with
precise figures, it does appear to be fairly close to the mark. I have since seen figures quoted in the 4 to 7 range for
chimp animal-food consumption. 8-10 is in all likelihood too high as an average, though could plausibly reach that
high at the height of the termite season or during the peak months for red colobus monkey kills.
*** "An important observation that cannot be overlooked is the wide-ranging omnivorousness and the
predilection for tremendous variety in chimpanzees' diet, which can include up to 184 species of foods..."
Something I overlooked in this factoid taken from Goodall's The Chimpan:ees of Gombe was that 26 out of the 184
items were observed to be eaten only once. Nevertheless, the 158 remaining items still constitute a remarkable variety of
food items. That the additional items would still be sought out, on top of an already high level of variety, can be looked
at as an interesting indicator of the "opportunistic" nature of chimpanzees in taking advantage of whatever food they can
find and utilize. (In other words, as a "model" for the kind of dietary behavior that vegetarians sometimes hold up that
humans ought to be compared to, chimps' opportunism suggests they are not part icularly constrained by arbitrary food
categories in deciding what is appropriate or not to eat.)
*** "...there is some suggestion chimps seem not to prefer extra -high roughage volumes, at least compared to the
gorilla. Certainly they do not seem to be able to physiologically tolerate as much cellulose from veg etative matter
in their diet."
This could be a bit misleading if construed to mean chimps don't have a lot of roughage in their diet, because they
certainly do. It remains true, however, that chimps do not possess the requisite kind of symbiotic intestinal fauna
(bacteria) to subsist on diets as high in leafy vegetative matter as gorillas do. The subsequent discussion on wadging was
meant to show two things: that chimp behavior is inventive toward meeting their needs, and also that wadging can be a
way of exploiting the part of fibrous foods they could otherwise not eat freely of due to the limitations of their gut.
The relevance of these observations for human diet would be that the first hominids went much further in the direction of
less fibrous foods than chimpanzees were to go after the divergence from our common ape ancestor, and toward a much
more concentrated diet higher in animal foods containing denser nutrients of higher bioavailability, as we discussed
above regarding the increasing size of the human brain that occurred concomitantly with a reduction i n the size of the
gut.
This concludes Part 1. In Part 2, we'll look into such things as fire and cooking in human evolution, rates of genetic adaptation to change, modern
hunter/gatherers, diseases in the wild, and then turn to "the psychology of idealistic diets."
GO 1O PAR1 2 OF IA1ERJIEW
(Fire and Cooking in Human Evolution)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tell hardolfski what vou think
Before writing to Bevond Jeg contributors, please be aware of our
email policy about what types of email we can and cannot respond to.
Rates of Genetic Adaptation to Change,
Hunter-Gatherers, and Diseases in the Wild
December 1996. Chet's website is located at: http://www.chetday.com/
Note: Be sure to check the |Updates to Part 2| before prematurely attributing
specific views to the author based only on the original section of this interview,
which was first published in 1996. In the original article, asterisks have been
inserted to mark points about which the author's views may have changed somewhat.
A quick outline of the updates can be found in the Table of Contents.
I N T R O D U C T O R Y R E M A RK S
modifications necessary for the present web version. See the introductory remarks to Part 1 of the interview for specifics.
Knowledge gap in vegetarian community
about evolutionary data/implications
Health & Beyond: In Part 1 of our interview, you discussed the extensive evidence showing that primitive human
beings as well as almost all of the primates today have included animal foods such as flesh or insects in their diets.
Why haven't Natural Hygienists and other vegetarians looked into all this information?
hard Nicholson. My guess is that: (1) Most aren't aware that paleoanthropologists have by now assembled a
considerable amount of data about our evolutionary past related to diet. But more importantly, I think it has to do with
psychological barriers, such as: (2) Many Hygienists assume they don't have to look because the subjective "animal
model" for raw-food naturalism makes it "obvious" what our natural diet is, and therefore the paleontologists' evidence
must therefore be in error, or biased by present cultural eating practices. Or: (3) They don't want to look, perhaps
because they're afraid of what they might see.
Many Hygienists identify the system mostly with certain dietary details, even though the system itself flows from
principles independent of those details. I think in spite of what most Natural Hygienists will tell you, they are really
more wedded to certain specific details of the Hygienic system that remain prevalent (i.e., raw-food vegetarianism, food
combining, etc.) than they are truly concerned with whether those details follow logically from underlying Hygienic
principles. The basic principle of Natural Hygiene is that the body is a self-maintaining, self-regulating, self-repairing
organism that naturally maintains its own health when it is given food and other living conditions appropriate to its
natural biological adaptation.
In and of itself, this does not tell you what foods to eat. That has to be determined by a review of the best evidence we
have available. So while the principles of Hygiene as a logical system do not change, our knowledge of the appropriate
details that follow from those principles may and probably will change from time to time--since science is a process of
systematically elucidating more "known" information from what used to be unknown. Thus the accuracy of our
knowledge is to some extent time-based, dependent on the accumulation of evidence to provide a more inclusive view of
"truth" which unfortunately is probably never absolute, but--as far as human beings are concerned--relative to the state
of our knowledge. Science simply tries to bridge the knowledge gap. And a hallmark of closing the knowledge gap
through scientific discovery is openness to change and refinements based on the accumulation of evidence. Open-
mindedness is really openness to change. Just memorizing details doesn't mean much in and of itself. It's how that
information is organized, or seen, or interpreted, or related to, that means something.
Hygienic and vegan diets are a significant restrictio n of the diet(s) on which humans evolved. What's interesting to
me is that the evolutionary diet is not so starkly different from the Hygienic diet. Much of it validates important elements
of the Hygienic view. It is very similar in terms of getting plenty of fresh fruits and veggies, some nuts and seeds, and so
forth, except for the addition of the smaller role of flesh and other amounts of animal food (at least compared to the
much larger role of plant foods) in the diet. It's one exception. We have actually done fairly well in approximating
humanity's "natural" or "original" diet, except we have been in error about this particular item, and gotten exceedingly
fundamentalist about it when there is nothing in the body of Hygienic principles themselves that would outlaw meat if
it's in our evolutionary adaptation.
Avowed Shelton loyalists are actually the ones who have most ignored his primary directive. But for some reason,
even though Natural Hygiene is not based on any "ethical" basis for vegetarianism (officially at least), this particular
item seems to completely freak most Hygienists out. Somehow we have made a religion out of dietary details that have
been the hand-me-downs of past Hygienists working with limited scientific information. They did the best they could
given the knowledge they had available to them then, and we should be grateful for their hard work. But today the rank
and file of Natural Hygiene has largely forgotten Herbert Shelton's rallying cry, "Let us have the truth, though the
heavens fall."
Natural Hygiene was alive and vital in Shelton's time because he was actively keeping abreast of scientific knowledge
and aware of the need to modify his previous views if scientific advances showed them to be inadequate. But since
Shelton retired from the scene, many people in the mainstream of Hygiene have begun to let their ideas stagnate and
become fossilized. The rest of the dietary world is beginning to pass us by in terms of scientific knowledge.
Only two insights remain that are still somewhat unique to Natural Hygiene. As I see it, there remain only two
things Natural Hygiene grasps that the rest of the more progressive camps in the dietary world still don't:
N Strong recognition of the principle of the body as homeostatic self -healing mechanism. An understanding of
the fundamental health principle that outside measures (drugs, surgery, etc.) never truly "cure" degenerative
health problems. In spite of the grandiose hopes and claims that they do, and the aura of research breakthroughs,
their function is really to serve as crutches, which can of course be helpful and may truly be needed in some
circumstances. But the only true healing is from within by a body that has a large capacity, within certain limits,
to heal and regenerate itself when given all of its essential biological requirements--and nothing more or less
which would hamper its homeostatic functioning.
The body's regenerative (homeostatic) abilities are still commonly unrecognized today (often classed as
"unexplained recoveries" or--in people fortunate enough to recover from cancer--as "spontaneous remission")
because the population at large is so far from eating anything even approaching a natural diet that would allow
their bodies to return to some kind of normal health, that it is just not seen very often outside limited pockets of
people seriously interested in approximating our natural diet.
N Fasting as a tool to promote such self -healing. And the other thing is that Hygienists are also keenly aware of
the power of fasting to help provide ideal conditions under which such self-healing can occur.
But the newer branch of science called "darwinian medicine" is slowly beginning (albeit with certain missteps) to grasp
the principle of self-healing, or probably more correctly, at least the understanding that degenerative diseases arise as a
result of behavior departing from what our evolutionary past has adapted us to. They see the negative side of how
departing from our natural diet and environment can result in degenerative disease, but they do not understand that the
reverse--regenerating health by returning to our pristine diet and lifestyle, without drugs or other "crutches" --is also
possible, again, within certain limits, but those limits are less than most people believe.
In some ways, though, Hygiene now resembles a religion as much as it does science, because people seem to want
"eternal" truths they can grab onto with absolute certainty. Unfortunately, however, knowledge does not work that way.
Truth may not change, but our knowledge of it certainly does as our awareness of it shifts or expands. Once again: The
principles of Hygiene may not change, but the details will always be subject to refinement.
(The Rift in the Natural Hvgiene Movement Over Raw vs. Cooked Foods)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
The rift in the Natural Hygiene
movement over raw vs. cooked foods
Speaking of such details subject to refinement, I know you've been sitting on some very suggestive evidence to
add further fuel to the fire-and-cooking debate now raging between the raw-foodist and "conservative-cooking"
camps within Hygiene. Please bring us up to date on what the evolutiona ry picture has to say about this.
I'd be happy to. But before we get into the evolutionary viewpoint, I want to back up a bit first and briefly discuss the
strange situation in the Hygienic community occurring right now over the raw foods vs. cooking-of-some-starch-foods
debate. The thing that fascinates me about this whole brouhaha is the way the two sides justify their positions, each of
which has a strong point, but also a telling blind spot.
Character of the rift: doctors vs. the rank-and-file. Now since most Natural Hygienists don't have any clear picture of
the evolutionary past based on science for what behavior is natural, the "naturalistic" model used by many Hygienists to
argue for eating all foods raw does so on a subfective basis--i.e., what I have called "the animal model for raw-food
naturalism." The idea being that we are too blinded culturally by modern food practices involving cooking, and to be
more objective we should look at the other animals--none of whom cook their food--so neither should we. Now it's true
the "subjective raw-food naturalists" are being philosophically consistent here, but their blind spot is they don't have any
good scientific evidence from humanity's primitive past to back up their claim that total raw-foodism is the most natural
behavior for us--that is, using the functional definition based on evolutionary adaptation I have proposed if we are going
to be rigorous and scientific about this.
Now on the other hand, with the doctors it's just the opposite story. In recent years, the Natural Hygiene doctors and the
ANHS (American Natural Hygiene Society) have been more and more vocal about what they say is the need for a
modest amount of cooked items in the diet--usually starches such as potatoes, squashes, legumes, and/or grains. And
their argument is based on the doctors' experience that few people they care for do as well on raw foods alone as they do
with the supplemental addition of these cooked items. Also, they argue that there are other practical reasons for eating
these foods, such as that they broaden the diet nutritionally, even if one grants that some of those nutrients may be
degraded to a degree by cooking. (Though they also say the assimilation of some nutrients is improved by cooking.)
They also point out these starchier foods allow for adequate calories to be eaten whi le avoiding the higher levels of fat
that would be necessary to obtain those calories if extra nuts and avocados and so forth were eaten to get them.
One side ignores the need for philosophical consistency. The other denies practical realities and real -world
results. So we have those with wider practical experience arguing for the inclusion of certain cooked foods based on
pragmatism. But their blind spot is in ignoring or attempting to finesse the inconsistency their stance creates with the
naturalist philosophy that is the very root of Hygienic thinking. And again, the total -raw-foodists engage in just the
opposite tactics: being philosophically consistent in arguing for all -raw foods, but being out of touch with the results
most other people in the real world besides themselves get on a total raw-food diet, and attempting to finesse that
particular inconsistency by nit-picking and fault-finding other implementations of the raw-food regime than their own. (I
might interject here, though we'll cover this in more depth later, that although it's not true for everyone, experience of
most people in the Natural Hygiene M2M supports the view that the majority do in fact do better when they add some
cooked foods to their diet.)
Is there a way these two stances in the conflict over cooking can be reconciled and accounted for scientifically?
Now my tack as both a realist and someone who is also interested in being philosophically consistent has been: If it is
true that most people* do better with the inclusion of some of these cooked items in their diet that we've mentioned--and
I believe that it is, based on everything I have seen and heard--then there must be some sort of clue in our evolutionary
past why this would be so, and which would show why it might be natural for us.
The question is not simply whether fire and cooking are "natural" by some subjective definition. It's whether they have
been used long enough and consistently enough by humans during evolutionary time for our bodies to have adapted
genetically to the effects their use in preparing foods may have on us. Again, this is the definition for "natural" that you
have to adopt if you want a functional justification that defines "natural" based on scientific validation rather than
subjectivity.
(hhen was Fire First Controlled bv Human Beings?)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
When was fire first
controlled by human beings?
So the next question is obvious: How long have fire and cooking been around, then, and how do we know whether
that length of time has been long enough for us to have adapted sufficientl y?
Let's take the question one part at a time. The short answer to the first part of the question is that fire was first controlled
by humans anywhere from about 230,000 years ago to 1.4 or 1.5 million years ago, depending on which evidence you
accept as definitive.
N Evidence for very early control of fire is sparse and ambig uous. The earliest evidence for control of fire by
humans, in the form of fires at Swartkrans, South Africa and at Chesowanja, in Kenya, suggests that it may
possibly have been in use there as early as about 1.4 or 1.5 million years ago. |100| However, the interpretation of
the physical evidence at these early sites has been under question in the archaeological community for some
years now, with critics saying these fires could have been wildfires instead of human-made fires. They suggest
the evidence for human control of fire might be a misreading of other factors, such as magnesium-staining of
soils, which can mimic the results of fire if not specifically accounted for. Eor indisputable evidence of fire
intentionally set and controlled by humans, the presence of a hearth or circle of scorched stones is often
demanded as conclusive proof,|101| and at these early sites, the evidence tying the fires to human control is based
on other factors.
N Earliest dates for control of fire accepted by skeptical critics. At the other end of the timescale, these same
critics who are only willing to consider the most unequivocal evidence will still admit that at least by 230,000
years ago|102| there is enough good evidence at at least one site to establish fire was under control at this time by
humans. At this site, called Terra Amata, an ancient beach location on the Erench Riviera, stone hearths are
found at the center of what may have been huts; and more recent sources may put the site's age at possibly
300,000 years old rather than 230,000.|103|
Somewhat further back--from around 300,000 to 500,000 years ago--more evidence has been accumulating
recently at sites in Spain and Erance|104| that looks as if it may force the ultraconservative paleontologists to
concede their 230,000-year-ago date is too stingy, but we'll see.
N And then there is Zhoukoudian cave in China, one of the most famous sites connected with Homo erectus,
where claims that fire may have been used as early as 500,000 to 1.5 million years ago have now largely been
discredited due to the complex and overlapping nature of the evidence left by not just humans, but hyenas and
owls who also inhabited the cave. (Owl droppings could conceivably have caught fire and caused many of the
fires.) Even after discounting the most extreme claims, however, it does seem likely that at least by 230,000 to
460,000 years ago humans were using fire in the cave|105|, and given scorching patterns around the teeth and
skulls of some animal remains, it does appear the hominids may have done this to cook the brains (not an
uncommon practice among hunting-gathering peoples today).|106|
N The most recent excavation with evidence for early use of fire has been within just the last couple of years in
Erance at the Menez-Dregan site, where a hearth and evidence of fire has been preliminarily dated to
approximately 380,000 to 465,000 years. If early interpretations of the evidence withstand criticism and further
analysis, the fact that a hearth composed of stone blocks inside a small cave was found with burnt rhinoceros
bones close by has provoked speculation that the rhino may have been cooked at the site. |107|
Crux of the question: first control of fire vs. earliest widespread use. Now of course, the crucial question for us isn't
just when the earliest control of fire was; it's at what date fire was being used consistently--and more specifically for
cooking, so that more-constant genetic selection pressures would have been brought to bear. Given the evidence
available at this time, most of it would probably indicate that 125,000 years ago is the earliest reasonable estimate for
widespread control.*|108| Another good reason it may be safer to base adaptation to fire and cooking on the figure of
125,000 years ago is that more and more evidence is indicating modern humans today are descended from a group of
ancestors who were living in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago, who then spread out across the globe to replace other
human groups.|109| If true, this would probably mean the fire sites in Europe and China are those of separate human
groups who did not leave descendants that survived to the present. Given that the African fire sites in Kenya and South
Africa from about 1.5 million years ago are under dispute, then, widespread usage at 125,000 years ago seems the safest
figure for our use here.
Sequence of stages in control: fire for warmth vs. fire for cookin g. One thing we can say about the widespread use of
fire probable by 125,000 years ago, however, is that it would almost certainly have included the use of fire for cooking.*
Why can this be assumed? It has to do with the sequence for the progressive stages of control over fire that would have
had to have taken place prior to fire usage becoming commonplace. And the most interesting of these is that fire for
cooking would almost inevitably have been one of the first uses it was put to by humans, rather than some later-stage
use.*
The first fires on earth occurred approximately 350 million years ago--the geological evidence for fire in remains of
forest vegetation being as old as the forests themselves.|110| It is usual to focus only on fire's immediately destructive
effects to plants and wildlife, but there are also benefits. In response to occasional periodic wildfires, for example,
certain plants and trees have evolved known as "pyrophytes," for whose existence periodic wildfires are essential. Eire
revitalizes them by destroying their parasites and competitors, and such plants include grasses eaten by herbivores as
well as trees that provide shelter and food for animals.|111|
Opportunistic exploitation of animal kills by predators after wildfires. Eires also provide other unintended benefits
to animals as well. Even at the time a wildfire is still burning, birds of prey (such as falcons and kites)--the first types of
predators to appear at fires--are attracted to the flames to hunt fleeing animals and insects. Later, land-animal predators
appear when the ashes are smoldering and dying out to pick out the burnt victims for consumption. Others, such as deer
and bovine animals appear after that to lick the ashes for their salt content. Notable as well is that most mammals appear
to enjoy the heat radiated at night at sites of recently burned-out fires.|112|
It would have been inconceivable, therefore, that human beings, being similarly observant and opportunistic creatures,
would not also have partaken of the dietary windfall provided by wildfires they came across. And thus, even before
humans had learned to control fire purposefully--and without here getting into the later stages of control over fire--their
early passive exposures to it would have already introduced them, like the other animals, to the role fire could play in
obtaining edible food and providing warmth.
Potential adaptation to cooking
in light of genetic rates of change
So if fire has been used on a widespread basis for cooking since roughly 125,000 years ago, how do we know if
that has been enough time for us to have fully adapted to it?
To answer that, we have to be able to determine the rate at which the genetic changes constituti ng evolutionary
adaptation take place in organisms as a result of environmental or behavioral change--which in this case means changes
in food intake.
Rates of genetic change as estimated from speciation in the fossil record. The two sources for estimates of rates at
which genetic change takes place are from students of the fossil record and from population geneticists. Where the fossil
record is concerned, Niles Eldredge, along with Stephen Jay Gould, two of the most well -known modern evolutionary
theorists, estimated the time span required for "speciation events" (the time required for a new species to arise in
response to evolutionary selection pressures) to be somewhere within the range of "five to 50,000 years."|113| Since this
rough figure is based on the fossil record, it makes it difficult to be much more precise than that range. Eldredge also
comments that "some evolutionary geneticists have said that the esti mate of five to 50,000 years is, if anything, overly
generous."|114| Also remember that this time span is for changes large enough to result in a new species classification.
Since we are talking here about changes (digestive changes) that may or may not be large enough to result in a new
species (though changes in diet often are in fact behind the origin of new species), it's difficult to say from this particular
estimate whether we may be talking about a somewhat shorter or longer time span than that for adaptation to changes in
food.
Measurements of genetic change from population genetics. Eortunately, however, the estimates from the population
geneticists are more precise. There are even mathematical equations to quantify the rates at which genetic change takes
place in a population, given evolutionary "selection pressures" of a given magnitude that favor survival of those
individuals with a certain genetic trait.|115| The difficulty lies in how accurately one can numerically quantify the
intensity of real-world selection pressures. However, it turns out there have been two or three actual examples where it
has been possible to do so at least approximately, and they are interesting enough I'll mention a couple of them briefly
here so people can get a feel for the situation.
The most interesting of these examples relates directly to our discussion here, and has to do with the gene for lactose
tolerance in adults. Babies are born with the capacity to digest lactose via production of the digestive enzyme lactase.
Otherwise they wouldn't be able to make use of mother's milk, which contains the milk sugar lactose. But sometime after
weaning, this capacity is normally lost, and there is a gene that is responsible. Most adults--roughly 70 of the world's
population overall--do not retain the ability to digest lactose into adulthood|116| and this outcome is known as "lactose
intolerance." (Actually this is something of a misnomer, since adult lactose intolerance would have been the baseline
normal condition for virtually everyone in the human race up until Neolithic (agricultural) times. |117|) If these people
attempt to drink milk, then the result may be bloating, gas, intestinal distress, diarrhea, etc.|118|
Influence of human culture on genetic selection pressures. However--and this is where it gets interesting--those
population groups that do retain the ability to produce lactase and digest milk into adulthood are those descended from
the very people who first began domesticating animals for milking during the Neolithic period several thousand years
ago.|119| (The earliest milking populations in Europe, Asia, and Africa began the practice probably around 4,000
B.C.|120|) And even more interestingly, in population groups where cultural changes have created "selection pressure"
for adapting to certain behavior--such as drinking milk in this case--the rate of genetic adaptation to such changes
significantly increases. In this case, the time span for widespread prevalence of the gene for lactose tolerance within
milking population groups has been estimated at approximately 1,150 years|121|--a very short span of time in
evolutionary terms.
Relationship between earliest milking cultures and prevalence of lactose tolerance in populations. There is a very
close correlation between the 30 of the world's population who are tolerant to lactose and the earliest human groups
who began milking animals. These individuals are represented most among modern-day Mediterranean, East African,
and Northern European groups, and emigrants from these groups to other countries. Only about 20 of white Americans
in general are lactose intolerant, but among sub-groups the rates are higher: 90-100 among Asian-Americans (as well
as Asians worldwide), 75 of African-Americans (most of whom came from West Africa), and 80 of Native
Americans. 50 of Hispanics worldwide are lactose intolerant.|122|
Now whether it is still completely healthy for the 30 of the world's population who are lactose tolerant to be drinking
animals' milk--which is a very recent food in our evolutionary history--I can't say. It may well be there are other factors
involved in successfully digesting and making use of milk without health side-effects other than the ability to produce
lactase--I haven't looked into that particular question yet. But for our purposes here, the example does powerfully
illustrate that genetic adaptations for digestive changes can take place with much more rapidity than was perhaps
previously thought.*
Genetic changes in population groups who crossed the threshold from hunting -gathering to grain-farming
earliest. Another interesting example of the spread of genetic adaptations since the Neolithic has been two specific
genes whose prevalence has been found to correlate with the amount of time populations in different geographical
regions have been eating the grain-based high-carbohydrate diets common since the transition from hunting and
gathering to Neolithic agriculture began 10,000 years ago. (These two genes are the gene for angiotensin-converting
enzyme--or ACE--and the one for apolipoprotein B, which, if the proper forms are not present, may increase one's
chances of getting cardiovascular disease.)|123|
In the Middle East and Europe, rates of these two genes are highest in populations (such as Greece, Italy, and Erance)
closer to the Middle Eastern "fertile crescent" where agriculture in this part of the gl obe started, and lowest in areas
furthest away, where the migrations of early Neolithic farmers with their grain-based diets took longest to reach (i.e.,
Northern Ireland, Scotland, Einland, Siberia). Closely correlating with both the occurrence of these genes and the
historical rate of grain consumption are corresponding rates of deaths due to coronary heart disease. Those in
Mediterranean countries who have been eating high-carbohydrate grain-based diets the longest (for example since
approximately 6,000 B.C. in Erance and Italy) have the lowest rates of heart disease, while those in areas where dietary
changes due to agriculture were last to take hold, such as Einland (perhaps only since 2,000 B.C.), have the highest rates
of death due to heart attack. Statistics on breast cancer rates in Europe also are higher for countries who have been
practicing agriculture the least amount of time.|124|
Whether grain-based diets eaten by people whose ancestors only began doing so recently (and therefore lack the
appropriate gene) is actually causing these health problems (and not simply correlated by coincidence) is at this point a
hypothesis under study. (One study with chickens, however--who in their natural environment eat little grain--has shown
much less atherosclerosis on a high-fat, high-protein diet than on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.|125|) But again, and
importantly, the key point here is that genetic changes in response to diet can be more rapid than perhaps once thought.
The difference in time since the advent of Neolithic agriculture between countries with the highest and lowest incidences
of these two genes is something on the order of 3,000-5,000 years,|126| showing again that genetic changes due to
cultural selection pressures for diet can force more rapid changes than might occur otherwise.
Recent evolutionary changes in immunoglobulin types, and genetic rates of change overall. Now we should also
look at the other end of the time scale for some perspective. The Cavalli -Sforza population genetics team that has been
one of the pioneers in tracking the spread of genes around the world due to migrations and/or interbreeding of
populations has also looked into the genes that control immunoglobulin types (an important component of the i mmune
system). Their estimate here is that the current variants of these genes were selected for within the last 50,000-100,000
years, and that this time span would be more representative for most groups of genes. They also feel that in general it is
unlikely gene frequencies for most groups of genes would undergo significant changes in time spans of less than about
11,500 years.|127|
However, the significant exception they mention--and this relates especially to our discussion here--is where there are
cultural pressures for certain behaviors that affect survival rates.|128| And the two examples we cited above: the gene for
lactose tolerance (milk-drinking) and those genes associated with high-carbohydrate grain consumption, both involve
cultural selection pressures that came with the change from hunting and gathering to Neolithi c agriculture. Again,
cultural selection pressures for genetic changes operate more rapidly than any other kind. Nobody yet, at least so far as I
can tell, really knows whether or not the observed genetic changes relating to the spread of milk-drinking and grain-
consumption are enough to confer a reasonable level of adaptation to these foods among populations who have the
genetic changes, and the picture seems mixed.*
Rates of gluten intolerance (gluten is a protein in certain grains such as wheat, barley, and oats that makes dough sticky
and conducive to bread-baking) are lower than for lactose intolerance, which one would expect given that milk-drinking
has been around for less than half the time grain-consumption has. Official estimates of gluten intolerance range from
0.3 to 1 worldwide depending on population group.|129| Some researchers, however, believe that gluten intolerance
is but the tip of the iceberg of problems due to grain consumption (or more specifically, wheat). Newer research seems to
suggest that anywhere from 5 to as much as 20-30 of the population with certain genetic characteristics (resulting in
what is called a "permeable intestine") may absorb incompletely digested peptide fragments from wheat with adverse
effects that could lead to a range of possible diseases.|130|
What do common genetic rates of change suggest about potential adaptation to cooking? We have gone a little far
afield here getting some kind of grasp on rates of genetic change, but I think it's been necessary for us to have a good
sense of the time ranges involved. So to bring this back around to the question of adaptation to cooking, it should
probably be clear by this point that given the time span involved (likely 125,000 years since fire and cooking became
widespread), the chances are very high that we are in fact adapted to the cooki ng of whatever foods were consistently
cooked.* I would include in these some of the vegetable foods, particularly the coarser ones such as starchy root
vegetables such as yams, which are long thought to have been cooked, |131| and perhaps others, as well as meat, from
what we know about the fossil record.
(Are Cookings Effects Black-and-hhite or an Evolutionarv Cost/Benefit Tradeoff?)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Are cooking's effects black-and-white
or an evolutionary cost/benefit tradeoff?
What about the contention by raw-food advocates that cooking foods results in pyrolytic by -products that are
carcinogenic or otherwise toxic to the body, and should be avoided for that reason?
It's true cooking introduces some toxic by-products, but it also neutralizes others.|132| In addition, the number of such
toxins created is dwarfed by the large background level of natural toxins (thousands)|133| already present in plant foods
from nature to begin with, including some that are similarly carcinogenic in high-enough doses. (Although only a few
dozen have been tested so far,|134| half of the naturally occurring substances in plants known as "nature's pesticides" that
have been tested have been shown to be carcinogenic in trials with rats and mice. |135|) Nature's pesticides appear to be
present in all plants, and though only a few are found in any one plant, 5-10 of a plant's total dry weight is made up of
them.|136|
|The reason "nature's pesticides" occur throughout the plant kingdom is because plants have had to evolve low-level
defense mechanisms against animals to deter overpredation. On one level, plants and animals are in a continual
evolutionary "arms race" against each other. Eruiting plants, of course, have also evolved the separate ability to exploit
the fact that certain animals are attracted to the fruit by enabling its seeds to be dispersed through the animals' feces.|
We have a liver and kidneys for a reason, which is that there have always been toxins in natural foods that the
body has had to deal with, and that's one reason why these organs evolved. There are also a number of other more
general defenses the body has against toxins. These types of defenses make evolutionary sense given the wide range of
toxic elements in foods the body has had to deal with over the eons. |Perhaps not clear enough in the original version of
the interview is the point that a wide range of GENERAL defenses might therefore be reasonably expected to aid in
neutralizing or ejecting toxins even of a type the body hadn't necessarily seen before, such as those that might be
introduced by cooking practices.| Such mechanisms include the constant shedding of surface-layer cells of the digestive
system, many defenses against oxygen free-radical damage, and DNA excision repair, among others.|137|
The belief that a natural diet is, or can be, totally toxin-free is basically an idealistic fantasy--an illusion of black-
and-white thinking not supported by real-world investigations. The real question is not whether a diet is completely free
of toxins, but whether we are adapted to process what substances are in our foods--in reasonable or customary amounts
such as encountered during evolution--that are not usable by the body. Again, the black-and-white nature of much
Hygienic thinking obscures here what are questions of degrees rather than absolutes.
Cooking may favorably impact digestibility. Also, and I know raw-foodists generally don't like to hear this, but there
has long been evidence cooking in fact does make foods of certain types more digestible. Eor example, trypsin inhibitors
(themselves a type of protease inhibitor) which are widely distributed in the plant kingdom, particularly in rich sources
of protein, inhibit the ability of digestive enzymes to break down protein. (Probably the best -known plants containing
trypsin inhibitors are legumes and grains.) Research has shown the effect of most such protease inhibitors on digestion to
be reduced by cooking.|138| And it is this advantage in expanding the range of utilizable foods in an uncertain
environment that was the evolutionary advantage that helped bring cooking about and enhanced survival.*
I want to make clear that I still believe the largest component of the diet should be raw (at least 50 if not considerably
more), but there is provision in the evolutionary picture for reasonable amounts of cooked foods of certain types, such as
at the very least, yams, probably some other root vegetables, the legumes, some meat, and so forth. (With meat, the
likelihood is that it was eaten raw when freshly killed, but what could not be eaten would likely have been dried or
cooked to preserve it for later consumption, rather than wasting it.) Whether or not some foods like these can be eaten
raw if one has no choice or is determined enough to do so is not the real question. The question is what was more
expedient or practical to survival and which prevailed over evolutionary time.
Cooking practices of Aborigines in light of survival needs. A brief look at the Australian Aborigines might be
illustrative here.* What data is available since the Aborigines were first encountered by Europeans shows that inland
Aborigines in the desert areas were subject to severe food shortages and prolonged droughts.|139| This of course made
emphasizing the most efficient use of whatever foods could be foraged paramount. Estimates based on studies of
Aborigines in northern Australia are that they processed roughly half of their plant foods, but that no food was processed
unnecessarily, any such preparation being done only to make a food edible, more digestible, or more palatable. |140| In
general food was eaten as it was collected, according to its availability during the seasons--except during times of feasts-
-with wastage being rare, such a pattern being characteristic of feast-and-famine habitats. Some food, however, was
processed for storage and later retrieval (usually by drying), including nuts and seeds, but may also have been ground
and baked into cakes instead, before burying in the ground or storing in dry caches.|141|
Eresh foods such as fruits, bulbs, nectar, gums, flowers, etc., were eaten raw when collected. Examples of foods that
were prepared before consumption include the cooking of starchy tubers or seeds, grinding and roasting of seeds, and
cooking of meat.|142|
That these practices were necessary to expand the food supply and not merely induced by frivolous cultural practices
like raw-foodists often tend to theorize can be seen in the fact that after colonization by Europeans, Aborigines were not
above coming into missions during droughts to get food. |143|
The role of individual experimentation given
evolutionary uncertainties about diet
Fly in the ointment: dietary changes since advent of agriculture. But the more interesting and more pressing
question, to my mind, is not whether we are adapted to cooking of certain foods, which seems very likely,* but how
much we have adapted to the dietary changes since the Neolithic agricultural transition, given the 10,000 years or less
it's been underway. At present, the answer is unclear, although in general, we can probably say there just hasn't been
enough time for full adaptation yet. Or if so, only for people descended from certain ancestral groups with the longest
involvement with agriculture.
My guess (and it is just a guess) would be that we are still mostly adapted to a Paleolithic diet, but for any particular
individual with a given ancestral background, certain Neolithic foods such as grains, perhaps even modest amounts of
certain cultured milk products such as cheese or yogurt (ones more easily digested than straight milk) for even fewer
people, might be not only tolerated, but helpful. Especially where people are avoiding flesh products which is our
primary animal food adaptation, these animal by-products may be helpful,* which Stanley Bass's work with mice and his
mentor Dr. Gian-Cursio's work with Hygienic patients seems to show, as Dr. Bass has discussed previously here in H&B
(in the April and June 1994 issues).
How are we to determine an optimum diet for ourselves, then, given that some genetic changes may be more or
less complete or incomplete in different population groups?
I think what all of this points to is the need to be careful in making absolute black-and-white pronouncements about
invariant food rules that apply equally to all. It is not as simple as saying that if we aren't sure we are fully adapted to
something to just eliminate it from the diet to be safe. Because adaptation to a food does not necessarily mean just
tolerance for that food, it also means that if we are in fact adapted to it, we would be expected to thrive better with some
amount of that food in our diet. Genetic adaptation cuts both ways.
This is why I believe it is important for people to experiment individually. Today, because of the Neolithic transition and
the rates at which genetic changes are being discovered to take place, it is apparent humanity is a species in evolutionary
transition. Due to the unequal flow and dissemination of genes through a population during times like these, it is unlikely
we will find |more| uniform adaptation across the population, as we probably would have during earlier times. This
means it is going to be more likely right now in this particular historical time period that individuals will be somewhat
different in their responses to diet. And as we saw above (with the two genes ACE and apolipoprotein-B) these genetic
differences may even confound attempts to replicate epidemiological dietary studies from one population to another
unless these factors are taken into account.*
Conflicting data from various modern lines of evidence means people must experiment and decide for themselves.
So while it is important to look for convergences among different lines of evidence (evolutionary studies, biochemical
nutritional studies, epidemiological studies and clinical trials, comparative anatomy from primate studies, and so forth),
it is well to consider how often the epidemiological studies, perhaps even some of the biochemical studies, reverse
themselves or come back with conflicting data. It usually takes many years--even decades--for their import to become
clear based on the lengthy scientific process of peer review and replication of experiments for confirmation or refutation.
Openness means challenging any rigid assumptions we may have through experimentation. So my advice is: don't
be afraid to experiment. Unless you have specific allergies or strong food intolerances and whatnot, the body is flexible
enough by evolution to handle short-term variations in diet from whatever an optimal diet might be anyway. If you start
within the general parameters we've outlined here and allow yourself to experiment, you have a much better chance of
finding the particular balance among these factors that will work best for you. If you already have something that works
well for you, that's great. If, however, you are looking for improvements, given the uncertainties above we've talked
about, it's important to look at any rigid assumptions you may have about the "ideal" diet, and be willing to challenge
them through experimentation. In the long run, you only have yourself to benefit by doing so.
Conflicts between paleo/anthropological
vs. biochemical/epidemiological evidence
Despite the evolutionary picture you've presented here, there are still objections that people have about meat
from a biochemical or epidemiological standpoint. What about T. Colin Campbell's China Study for example?
Good point. Campbell's famous study, to my mind, brings up one of the most unremarked-upon recent conflicts in
epidemiological data that has arisen. In his lecture at the 1991 ANHS annual conference, reported on in the national
ANHS publication Health Science, Campbell claimed that the China Study data pointed to not just high fat intake, but to
the protein in animal food, as increasing cholesterol levels. (High cholesterol levels in the blood are now widely thought
by many to be the biggest single factor responsible for increased rates of atherosclerosis--clogged blood vessels--and
coronary heart disease.) According to him, the lower the level of animal protein in the diet (not just the lower the level of
fat) the lower the cholesterol level in the blood. He believes that animal food is itself the biggest culprit, above and
beyond just fat levels in food.|144|
Campbell's conclusions about cholesterol and animal protein are contradicted by evidence from studies of
modern hunter-gatherers. Yet as rigorous as the study is proclaimed to be, I have to tell you that Campbell's claim that
animal protein by itself is the biggest culprit in raising blood cholesterol is contradicted by studies of modern-day
hunter-gatherers eating considerable amounts of wild game in their diet who have very low cholesterol levels
comparable to those of the China study. One review of different tribes studied showed low cholesterol levels for the
Hadza of 110 mg/dl (eating 20 animal food), San Bushmen 120 (20-37 animal), Aborigines 139 (10-75 animal),
and Pygmies at 106, considerably lower than the now-recommended safe level of below 150.|145| Clearly there are
unaccounted-for factors at work here yet to be studied sufficiently.
Large and significant differences between domesticated meat vs. wild game. One of them might be the difference in
composition between the levels of fat in domesticated meat vs. wild game: on average five times as much for the former
than the latter. On top of that, the proportion of saturated fat in domesticated meat compared to wild game is also five
times higher.|146|
Other differences between these two meat sources are that significant amounts of EPA (an omega-3 fatty acid thought to
perhaps help prevent atherosclerosis) are found in wild game (approx. 4 of total fat), while domestic beef for example
contains almost none.|147| This is important because the higher levels of EPA and other omega-3 fatty acids in wild
game help promote a low overall dietary ratio of omega-6 vs. omega-3 fatty acids for hunter-gatherers--ranging from 1:1
to 4:1--compared to the high 11:1 ratio observed in Western nations. Since omega-6 fatty acids may have a cancer-
promoting effect, some investigators are recommending lower ratios of omega-6 to omega-3 in the diet which would,
coincidentally, be much closer to the evolutionary norm.|148|
Differences like these may go some way toward explaining the similar blood cholesterol levels and low rates of disease
in both the rural Chinese eating a very-low-fat, low-animal-protein diet, and in hunter-gatherers eating a low-fat, high-
animal-protein diet. Rural Chinese eat a diet of only 15 fat and 10 protein, with the result that saturated fats only
contribute a low 4 of total calories. On the other hand, those hunter-gatherer groups approximating the Paleolithic
norm eat diets containing 20-25 fat and 30 protein, yet the contribution of saturated fat to total caloric intake is
nevertheless a similarly low 6 of total calories.|149|
What about the contention that high-protein diets promote calcium loss in bone and therefore contribute to
osteoporosis?
The picture here is complex and modern studies have been contradictory. In experimental settings, purified, isolated
protein extracts do significantly increase calcium excretion, but the effect of increased protein in natural foods such as
meat is smaller or nonexistent.|150| Studies of Eskimos have shown high rates of osteoporosis eating an almost all -meat
diet|151| (less than 10 plant intake|152|) but theirs is a recent historical aberration not typical of the evolutionary
Paleolithic diet thought to have averaged 65 plant foods and 35 flesh.* Analyses of numerous skeletons from our
Paleolithic ancestors have shown development of high peak bone mass and low rates of bone loss in elderly specimens
compared to their Neolithic agricultural successors whose rates of bone loss increased considerably even though they ate
much lower-protein diets.|153| Why, nobody knows for sure, though it is thought that the levels of phosphorus in meat
reduce excretion of calcium, and people in Paleolithic times also ate large amounts of fruits and vegetables |154| with an
extremely high calcium intake (perhaps 1,800 mg/day compared to an average of 500-800 for Americans today|155|) and
led extremely rigorous physical lives, all of which would have encouraged increased bone mass.|156|
(Caveats in Using Modern "Hunter-Gatherers" as Dietarv Models)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Caveats with respect to using modern
hunter-gatherers as dietary models
Okay, let's move on to the hunter-gatherers you mentioned earlier. I've heard that while some tribes may have
low rates of chronic degenerative disease, others don't, and may also suffer higher rates of infection than we do in
the West.
This is true. Not all "hunter-gatherer" tribes of modern times eat diets in line with Paleolithic norms. Aspects of their
diets and/or lifestyle can be harmful just as modern-day industrial diets can be. When using these people as comparative
models, it's important to remember they are not carbon copies of Paleolithic-era hunter-gatherers.|157| They can be
suggestive (the best living examples we have), but they are a mixed bag as "models" for behavior, and it is up to us to
keep our thinking caps on.
We've already mentioned the Eskimos above as less-than-exemplary models. Another example is the Masai tribe of
Africa who are really more pastoralists (animal herders) than hunter-gatherers. They have low cholesterol levels ranging
from 115 to 145,|158| yet autopsies have shown considerable atherosclerosis.|159| Why? Maybe because they deviate
from the Paleolithic norm of 20-25 fat intake due to their pastoralist lifestyle by eating a 73 fat diet that includes
large amounts of milk from animals in addition to meat and blood.*|160| Our bodies do have certain limits.
But after accounting for tribes like these, why do we see higher rates of mortality from infectious disease among
other hunter-gatherers who are eating a better diet and show little incidence of d egenerative disease?
There are two major reasons I know of. Eirst, most modern-day tribes have been pushed onto marginal habitats by
encroaching civilization.|161| This means they may at times experience nutritional stress resulting from seasonal
fluctuations in the food supply (like the Aborigines noted above) during which relatively large amounts of weight are
lost while they remain active. The study of "paleopathology" (the study of illnesses in past populations from signs left in
the fossil record) shows that similar nutritional stress experienced by some hunter-gatherers of the past was not unknown
either, and at times was great enough to have stunted their growth, resulting in "growth arrest lines" in human bone that
can be seen under conditions of nutritional deprivation. Such nutritional stress is most likely for hunter -gatherers in
environments where either the number of food sources is low (exposing them to the risk of undependable supply), or
where food is abundant only seasonally.|162|
Fasting vs. extended nutritional stress/deprivation. Going without food--or fasting while under conditions of total rest
as hygienists do as a regenerative/recuperative measure--is one thing, but nutritional stress or deprivation while under
continued physical stress is unhealthy and leaves one more susceptible to pathologies including infection. |163|
The second potential cause of higher rates of infection is the less artificially controlled sanitary conditions (one of the
areas where modern civilization is conducive rather than destructive to health)--due to less control over the environment
by hunter-gatherers than by modern civilizations. Creatures in the wild are in frequent contact with feces and other
breeding grounds for microorganisms such as rotting fruit and/or carcasses, to which they are exposed by skin breaks
and injuries, and so forth.|164|
Animals in the wild on natural diets are not disease -free. Contrary to popular Hygienic myth, animals in the wild
eating natural diets in a natural environment are not disease-free, and large infectious viral and bacterial plagues in the
past and present among wild animal populations are known to have occurred. (To cite one example, rinderpest plagues in
the African Serengeti occurred in the 1890s and again around 1930, 1960, and 1982 among buffalo, kudu, eland, and
wildebeest.|165|)
It becomes obvious when you look into studies of wild animals that natural diet combined with living in natural
conditions is no guarantee of freedom from disease and/or infection. Chimpanzees, our closest living animal relatives,
for instance, can and do suffer bouts in the wild from a spectrum of ail ments very similar to those observed in human
beings: including pneumonia and other respiratory infections (which occur more often during the cold and rainy season),
polio, abscesses, rashes, parasites, diarrhea, even hemorrhoids on occasion. |166| Signs of infectious disease in the fossil
record have also been detected in remains as far back as the dinosaur-age, as have signs of immune system mechanisms
to combat them.|167|
Uninformed naturalism and
unrealistic expectations in diet
Pure "naturalism" often overlooks the large positive impact of modern environmental health advantages. One of
the conclusions to be drawn from this is that artificial modern conditions are not all bad where health i s concerned. Such
conditions as "sanitation" due to hygienic measures, shelter and protection from harsh climatic extremes and physical
trauma, professional emergency care after potentially disabling or life-threatening accidents, elimination of the stresses
of nomadism, plus protection from seasonal nutritional deprivation due to the modern food system that Westerners like
ourselves enjoy today all play larger roles in health and longevity than we realize. |168|
Unrealistic perfectionism leads to heaping inhumanity and guilt on ourselves. Also, I would hope that the chimp
examples above might persuade hygienists not to feel so guilty or inevitably blame themselves when they occasionally
fall prey to acute illness. We read of examples in the Natural Hygiene M2M which sometimes seem to elicit an almost
palpable sense of relief among others when the conspiracy of silence is broken and they find they aren't the only ones.
I think we should resist the tendency to always assume we flubbed the dietary details. In my opinion it is a mistake to
believe that enervation need always be seen as simply the instigator of "toxemia" which is then held to always be the
incipient cause of any illness. It seems to me you can easily have "enervation" (lowered energy and resistance) without
toxemia, and that that in and of itself can be quite enough to upset the body's normal homeostasis ("health") and bring on
illness. (Indeed I have personally become ill once or twice during the rebuilding period after lengthy fasts when
overworked, a situation in which it would be difficult to blame toxemia as the cause.)
The examples of modern-day hunter-gatherers as well as those of chimps should show us that you can eat a healthy
natural diet and still suffer from health problems, including infectious disease, due to excessive stresses --what we would
call "enervation" in Natural Hygiene.
(Health Improvements After Becoming Ex-Jegetarian)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Health improvements after
becoming ex-vegetarian
Ward, we still have some space here to wrap up Part 2. Given the research you've done, how has it changed your
own diet and health lifestyle? What are you doing these days, and why?
I would say my diet right now* |late 1996| is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 85 plant and 15 animal, and
overall about 60 raw and 40 cooked by volume. A breakdown from a different angle would be that by volume it is,
very roughly, about 1/4 fruit, 1/4 starches (grains/potatoes, etc.), 1/4 veggies, and the remaining quarter divided between
nuts/seeds and animal products, with more of the latter than the former. Of the animal foods, I would say at least half is
flesh (mostly fish, but with occasional fowl or relatively lean red meat thrown in, eaten about 3-5 meals per week), the
rest composed of varying amounts of eggs, goat cheese, and yogurt.
Although I have to admit I am unsure about the inclusion of dairy products on an evolutionary basis given their late
introduction in our history, nevertheless, I do find that the more heavily I am exercising, the more I find myself tending
to eat them. To play it safe, what dairy I do eat is low- or no-lactose cultured forms like goat cheese and yogurt.*
Where the grains are concerned, so far I do not experience the kind of sustained energy I like to have for distance
running without them, even though I am running less mileage than I used to (20 miles/week now as opposed to 35-40 a
few years ago). The other starches such as potatoes, squash, etc., alone just don't seem to provide the energy punch I
need. Again, however, I try to be judicious by eating non-gluten-containing grains such as millet, quinoa, or rice, or else
use sprouted forms of grains, or breads made from them, that eliminate the gluten otherwise present in wheat, barley,
oats, and so forth.*
In general, while I do take the evolutionary picture heavily into account, I also believe it is important to listen to our own
bodies and experiment, given the uncertainties that remain.
Also, I have to say that I find exercise, rest, and stress management as important as diet in staying energetic, healthy, and
avoiding acute episodes of ill-health. Erankly, my experience is that once you reach a certain reasonable level of health
improvement based on your dietary disciplines, and things start to level out --but maybe you still aren't where you want
to be--most further gains are going to come from paying attention to these other factors, especially today when so many
of us are overworked, over-busy, and stressed-out. I think too many people focus too exclusively on diet and then
wonder why they aren't getting any further improvements.
Diet only gets you so far. I usually sleep about 8-10 hours a night, and I very much enjoy vigorous exercise, which I find
is necessary to help control my blood-sugar levels, which are still a weak spot for me. The optimum amount is
important, though. A few years ago I was running every day, totaling 35-40 miles/week and concentrating on hard
training for age-group competition, and more prone to respiratory problems like colds, etc. (not an infrequent complaint
of runners). In the last couple of years, I've cut back to every-other-day running totaling roughly 20 miles per week. I
still exercise fairly hard, but a bit less intensely than before, I give myself a day of rest in between, and the frequency of
colds and so forth is now much lower.
I am sure people will be curious here, Ward: What were some of the improvements you noticed after adding flesh
foods to your diet?
Well, although I expected it might take several months to really notice much of anything, one of the first things was that
within about 2 to 3 weeks I noticed better recovery after exercise--as a distance runner I was able to run my hard
workouts more frequently with fewer rest days or easy workouts in between. I also began sleeping better fairly early on,
was not hungry all the time anymore, and maintained weight more easily on lesser volumes of food. Over time, my
stools became a bit more well-formed, my sex drive increased somewhat (usually accompanies better energy levels for
me), my nervous system was more stable and not so prone to hyperreactive panic-attack-like instability like before, and
in general I found I didn't feel so puny or wilt under stress so easily as before. Unexpectedly, I also began to notice that
my moods had improved and I was more "buoyant." Individually, none of these changes was dramatic, but as a
cumulative whole they have made the difference for me. Most of these changes had leveled off after about 4-6 months, I
would say.
Something else I ought to mention here, too, was the effect of this dietary change on a visual disturbance I had been
having for some years prior to the time I embarked on a disciplined Hygienic program, and which continued unchanged
during the two or three years I was on the traditional vegetarian diet of either all -raw or 80 raw/20 cooked. During
that time I had been having regular episodes of "spots" in my visual field every week or so, where "snow" (like on a t.v.
set) would gradually build up to the point it would almost completely obscure my vision in one eye or the other for a
period of about 5 minutes, then gradually fade away after another 5 minutes. As soon as I began including flesh in my
diet several times per week, these started decreasing in frequency and over the 3 years since have almost completely
disappeared.
What problems are you still working on?
I still have an ongoing tussle with sugar-sensitivity due to the huge amounts of soft drinks I used to consume, and have
to eat fruits conservatively. I also notice that I still do not hold up under stress and the occasional long hours of work as
well as I think I ought to, even though it's better than before. Reducing stress and trying not to do so much in today's
world is an area I really pay attention to and try to stay on top of. My own personal experience has been that no matter
what kind of variation of the Hygienic or evolutionary "Paleolithic" diet I have tried so far, excessive prolonged stress of
one sort or another (whether physical or mental) is a more powerful factor than lapses in diet in bringing on symptoms of
illness, assuming of course that one is consistently eating well most of the time.
And Chet, this brings up something I also want to emphasize: Just as you've freely mentioned about yourself here in
H&B on numerous occasions, I'm not perfect in my food or health habits, and I don't intend to set myself up as some sort
of example for anyone. Like anyone else, I'm a fallible human being. I still have the occasional extra-cheese pizza or
frozen yogurt or creamy lasagna or whatever as treats, for example. Not that I consider having those on occasion to be
huge sins or anything. I stick to my intended diet most of the time, but I don't beat myself up for the indiscretions. I
would hope other people don't beat themselves up for it either, and that we can all be more forgiving of each other than
that.
(UPDATES TO PART 2. Earliest Cooking? / Mismatch of Grains/Dairv with Human Phvsiologv)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
P O S T S C R I P T : S I G N I E I C A N T R E S E A R C H U P D A T E S T O
Rates of Genetic Adaptation to Change, Hunter-Gatherers, and Diseases in the Wild
Note: A number of the research updates listed below refer to the internet PALEODIET listgroup archives for further information and scientific
references. The search engine for locating material in the PALEODIET archives can be found at:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/paleodiet.html
You can also find instructions for subscribing to the PALEODIET list at the same link.
At the time the postscripts to the interviews were first written, the Bevond Jeg site had not yet been conceived and I did not foresee the need to
provide a full set of scientific references for the updates. Eventually, the inclusion of references linked directly to the updates here on the site is
planned when time allows.
Overall Note: Some of my views on the adaptation-to-cooking question have changed since the Health & Bevond interviews were published,
due to having been exposed to new information sent my way by Paleodiet researcher Loren Cordain, Ph.D. While the underlying data cited in the
interview regarding inception dates for the discovery and control of fire remains accurate for the most part, the interpretations and conclusions I
drew need revision in several cases. A number of the notes below discuss this.
Uncertainties about earliest
use of fire for cooking
*** "Given the evidence available at this time, most of it would probably indicate that 125,000 years ago is the
earliest reasonable estimate for widespread contro l."
*** "...given the time span involved (likely 125,000 years since fire and cooking became widespread), the chances
are very high that we are in fact adapted to the cooking of whatever foods were consistently cooked."
*** "...it is this advantage in expanding the range of utilizable foods in an uncertain environment that was the
evolutionary advantage that helped bring cooking about and enhanced survival."
In hindsight here, it is worth pointing out that the above estimate of 125,000 years ago for widespread cooking is not
based on very much evidence--nor is anything about the earliest origins for fire and cooking based on very much
evidence, for that matter. Much about what is inferred about the earliest occurrences of fire use is based on considerable
deduction applied to very limited evidence (unlike the considerably more well-established, consistent, and converging
lines of evidence for early meat consumption). There are some who believe a more reasonable estimate might be more
like 40,000-60,000 years ago for widespread use of fire, based on wider distribution of hearths, but in my conversations
with those perhaps more familiar with the paleontological evidence for cooking and fire than me, it still seems apparent
that probably nobody knows for sure given the current state of the paleontological findings.
While some believe the rarity of evidence such as hearths early on after control of fire points toward the early use of fire
mostly for heating and protection from predators rather than cooking, discussions on the internet's PALEODIET
listgroup have brought up the point that some modern hunter-gatherers in fact have been known on occasion to use
cooking techniques that don't require hearths or cooking vessels that leave behind fossil evidence. And though modern
hunter-gatherers have evolved behaviorally since ancient ones, this suggests it may not be out of the realm of possibility
that other methods could have been used to utilize fire in cooking than just hearths.
*** "...the most interesting of these stages of sequence for control] is that fire for cooking would almost
inevitably have been one of the first uses it was put to by humans, rather than some later -stage use."
Again, I would now be more cautious in inferring this (my earlier inference about this was based on Johan Goudsblom's
1992 book, Fire and Civili:ation), after having been privy to further discussions with Paleodiet researchers. As the
preceding paragraph mentions, it is possible the stage of use for warmth and protection from predators may not have so
quickly progressed to the stage of using fire for cooking. But no one really seems to know one way or the other for sure
from what I can tell.
*** "A brief look at the Australian Aborigines who utilize c ooking for survival purposes] might be illustrative
here."
Elsewhere I believe studies of other hunter-gatherer tribes show that many of them cook about half their food. Again,
whether this particular behavior of modern hunter-gatherers is representative of behavior in the more-distant
evolutionary past should perhaps be regarded with caution.
Incompatibilities between dairy
consumption and human physiology
*** "...for our purposes here, the example of lactose tolerance having developed within 1,150 years in some
segments of the population] does powerfully illustrate that genetic adaptations for digestive changes can take
place with much more rapidity than was perhaps previously thought."
The estimate of 1,150 years is from the Cavalli-Sforza data. A somewhat more conservative estimate based on the
prevalence of lactose tolerance in those of Northern European extraction is that the gene for adult lactose tolerance
would have increased from 5 to 70 prevalence within about 5,000 years (approx. 250 generations). |Aoki 1991|
Genetic changes due to "neoteny" (such as adult lactose tolerance) not indicative of overall rates of adaptation.
Even while these data for relatively quick evolutionary changes resulting in adult lactase production remain essentially
true, however, an important point that should be clarified is that the gene for lactase production is already present and
expressed in all humans (for breastfeeding) up through the time of weaning. Therefore, for lactase production to continue
into adulthood would require only relatively small changes in the gene, e.g., via the process known as "neotenization"
(the retention of juvenile traits into adulthood). Thus, "brand-new" traits, so to speak, unlike polymorphisms such as the
gene for lactase production which already exist (even if not in a form previously expressed in adults) would take much
longer to evolve.
Additional indications of incongruence between dairy and human physiology. Eurther, beyond the question of
lactose tolerance, I have since learned there would be many additional genetic changes required (than just that for lactose
tolerance) to result in more complete adaptation to milk consumption. A number of recent studies demonstrate problems
of milk consumption that go considerably beyond whether or not a person is capable of handling lactose:
N Lactose and heart disease. One is that lactose itself is a risk factor for heart disease, since in appreciable
quantities it induces copper deficiency which, in turn, can lead through additional mechanisms to heart
pathologies and mortality as observed in lab animals.
N Poor Ca:Mg ratio which can skew overall dietary ratio. Another problem is the calcium-to-magnesium ratio
of dairy products of approximately 12:1, which is directly at odds with the ratio of 1:1 from a Paleolithic diet
composed of meats, fruits, and vegetables. Depending on the amount of milk in the diet, the resulting overall
dietary ratio can go as high as 4 or 5:1. This high ratio leads to reduced magnesium stores, which have the
additional ramification of increasing the risk of coronary heart disease, since magnesium helps to lower levels of
blood lipids (cholesterol), lower the potential for cardiac arrthymias, lower the oxidation of LDL and VLDL
cholesterol (oxidation of cholesterol has been linked to atherosclerosis), and prevent hyperinsulinism. (More
about hyperinsulinism shortly below.)
N Saturated fat. Milk has also been linked to coronary heart disease because of its very high saturated fat content.
N Molecular mimicry/autoimmune response issues. Additionally, autoimmune responses are being increasingly
recognized as a factor in the development of atherosclerosis. In relat ion to this, research has shown milk to cause
exceptionally high production of certain antibodies which cross-react with some of the body's own tissues (an
autoimmune response), specifically an immune response directed against the lining of the blood vessels. This
process is thought to lead to atherosclerotic lesions, the first step that paves the way for consequent buildup of
plaque.
|See Part 2 of Loren Cordain, Ph.D.'s posting of 10/9/97 to the PALEODIET list (relayed to the list and posted by Dean
Esmay) for details and references relating to the above points about dairy consumption.|
Signs of evolutionary mismatch between
grains and human physiology
*** "Nobody yet, at least so far as I can tell, really knows whether or not the observed genetic changes relating to
the spread of milk-drinking and grain-consumption are enough to confer a reasonable level of adap tation to these
foods among populations who have the genetic changes, and the picture seems mixed."
The most succinct addendum to this assessment is: Not any more, as we have seen above with milk. Where grains are
concerned, there are several similar problems which I have since learned have been uncovered. To li st a few:
N Certain wheat peptides appear to significantly increase the risk of diabetes through molecular mimicry of
the body's own tissues, leading to autoimmune responses destructive of cells that produce insulin. |See Loren
Cordain, Ph.D.'s post of 6/23/97 on the PALEODIET listgroup for reference citations, and also his article on this
site about the evolutionary discordance of grains and legumes in the human diet, for details. |
N Increasing amounts of research suggest that celiac disease is probably also caused by autoimmune
responses generated through molecular mimicry by certain peptides in wheat and other grains (known
collectively as "glutens"). Additional studies on autoimmune problems have led some researchers to believe
numerous additional chronic conditions are also traceable to autoimmune responses generated by the glutens in
grains. |See Ron Hoggan's various postings in the archives of the PALEODIET listgroup for information and
reference citations about this.|
N It is well documented that the phytates in grains bind the minerals iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium,
which can impair bone growth and metabolism, among other problems. Antinutrients in grains also negatively
affect vitamin D absorption which can lead to rickets with sufficient levels of intake. Grain consumption also
generates biotin deficiencies in experimental animal models--the lack of which impairs fatty acid synthesis. |See
Loren Cordain's post of 10/1/97 on PALEODIET for a brief summary and references pertaining to the preceding
points, as well as the article on the evolutionary discordance of grains and legumes mentioned in the first bullet
point just above.|
N Hyperinsulinism and excess carbohydrate consumption. Lastly, and most importantly, significant amounts of
grain consumption considerably increase the carbohydrate intake of the diet, and excessive carbohydrate
consumption is the primary factor driving what has come to be known as the hyperinsulinism syndrome.
Hyperinsulinism and its associated constellation of resulting symptoms, collectively known as "Syndrome X," is
not yet well-accepted in the medical and mainstream nutritional communities, but recent research has been
increasingly pointing in its direction as a potential underlying factor in the development of many "diseases of
civilization," which may be linked together via hyperinsulinism as a common cause.
The etiology of hyperinsulinism leading to the symptomology of Syndrome X is as follows:
N All carbohydrates, from whatever source (natural or artificial), whether simple or complex, are ultimately broken
down into glucose, or blood sugar. (And remember here that grains contribute the largest percentage of
carbohydrates in most modern diets.)
N Eor glucose to be taken up by the cells of the body and used as fuel, the hormone insulin must be secreted by the
pancreas.
N When chronically excessive levels of carbohydrates are eaten, insulin is overproduced, and the body eventually
becomes dulled--more unresponsive--to insulin. This can become a vicious circle: Since the body is dulled to
insulin, more has to be produced, which causes further dulling of sensitivity, leading the body to produce even
more.
Biomarkers indicating hyperinsulinism. High levels of insulin have been correlated with high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, high triglycerides. If the relationship is causative, then by extension hyperinsulinism would also presumably
be causative of the health problems that these symptoms themselves lead to (i.e., heart disease, etc.). High levels of
insulin also lead to obesity, since in addition to enabling glucose to be used as fuel, insulin also promotes fat storage,
while inhibiting the burning of fat.
Hyperinsulinism and diabetes. The foregoing constellation of symptoms constitutes what has come to be called
"Syndrome X." The extreme end of Syndrome X is probably Type II diabetes, in which the body has become so insulin-
resistant it can no longer control its blood sugar levels, or even Type I diabetes, in which the pancreas overloads and is
no longer able to produce insulin at all.
Recent studies indicate diets higher in protein reduce symptoms of Syndrome X. Dovetailing with this research on
Syndrome X is that diets higher in protein--or diets which lower carbohydrate levels by substituting animal protein--
improve blood lipid (cholesterol) profiles by lowering LDL, VLDL (the "bad cholesterols") and total cholesterol, while
increasing HDL ("good cholesterol") and improving other symptoms of Syndrome X. Conversely, repeated studies are
showing that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets popular today do the opposite. |See Loren Cordain, Ph.D.'s posting of
3/26/97 to the PALEODIET list, relayed to the list by Dean Esmay, for reference citations on this.| Note particularly that
these dietary changes which improve hyperinsulinism parallel the macronutrient composition that would have prevailed
in the evolutionary diet of humans during Paleolithic times. (I.e., fairly low carb intake combined with relatively higher
levels of fat and protein due to the prevalence of animal flesh in the diet, and more limited availability of fruits with high
sugar content.)
(hhv Do Cooked or Denser Foods Often Improve Raw/Jegan Health?)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Why do cooked or denser foods
often improve raw/vegan health?
*** "If it is true that most people do better with the inclusion of some of these cooked items in their diet that
we've mentioned--and I believe that it is, based on everything I have seen and heard..."
In retrospect, I want to make clear here that this was true of the vegetarians I was in contact with during the time I ran
the Natural Hygiene M2M (and others since). My opinion at this point is that the improved health observed in most
otherwise raw-foodist vegetarians who later include some amount of cooked food in their diet occurs because cooking
simply allows additional foods to be eaten that broaden the diet. Just as importantly, it also increases the nutrient density
of the diet by making available more concentrated nutrition in an otherwise restricted spectrum of nutrient intake brought
about by eating only the bulkier, less-dense foods that compose most vegetarian fare that is edible raw.
For those who do not thrive on raw vegan diets, do the benefits experienced from grains/dairy outweigh any
downsides? With the previously discussed evidence that grain and milk consumption can carry with them certain health
ramifications, an interesting question presents itself. Considering our earlier observation above that vegetarians on raw-
food diets often experience improvement when adding dairy products, or cooked items to their diet that allow more
concentrated and nutrient-dense foods such as grains or legumes, one now has to ask: Eor vegetarians who otherwise
refuse animal products such as meat--which is the primary Paleolithic adaptation to foods of animal origin--and eat a diet
whose macronutrient content (higher carb and lower protein) is out of line with the evolutionary past, how much do the
possible benefits of getting a wider spectrum of more concentrated nutritional intake in consuming grains, legumes,
and/or milk or milk by-products outweigh their disadvantages? Certainly in the short run it seems to help many
vegetarians, based on anecdotal observations, especially those we observed in the Natural Hygiene M2M. (There will be
more about this in Part 3 of the interview.)
Long-term concerns. In the long-term, however, it appears from the recent evidence coming in, especially regarding
hyperinsulinism, that there is a price to pay. While Americans have only been experimenting with vegetarianism in
larger numbers since the 1960s and 1970s, epidemiological studies of populations in Southeast Asia where cultures have
lived on grain and legume-based diets for centuries (often supplemented by dairy)--which is not so different in character
to many vegetarian diets--show high rates of heart disease and widespread nutritional deficiencies. That we saw
numerous health problems in the Natural Hygiene M2M that were often called "detox," but would appear to clinicians
more like deficiencies, adds at least some anecdotal support that similar results might prevail among vegetarians. (There
is unfortunately a lack of any controlled studies of predominantly raw-foodists who also include some dairy and/or
grain/legume products in their diets.)
Mitigating circumstances. Two observations worth noting that cloud the picture a bit, however, are the following:
N Noteworthy difference between lacto-vegetarian subpopulations and raw-foodists adding grains/dairy.
There is a primary difference between present-day raw-foodists (or predominantly raw-foodists) who supplement
the diet with dairy and grains vs. those traditional societies eating diets similar to (though not strictly the same as)
lacto-vegetarianism. And that is the huge focus that raw eaters put on large amounts of fresh fruits and
vegetables. Given the protective effects against disease that research has been showing consumption of fresh
fruits/veggies confers, this point of distinction between the two groups would lead one to expect there may be
interesting differences in results worth further consideration or study.
N For previous raw-foodists, the supplemental amounts are usually relatively modest. Secondly, those who
may otherwise be predominantly raw eaters supplementing their diet with grains and dairy usually do so in
modest amounts. How much their restricted intake of these problematic foods might mitigate what detrimental
fallout there is from eating them would also be an interesting question to pursue.
*** "...the more interesting and more pressing question, to my mind, is not whether we are adapted to cooking of
certain foods, which seems very likely, but how much we have adapted to the dietary changes since the Neolithic
agricultural transition, given the 10,000 years or less it's been underway."
Information about cooking's ultimate impact on health at the biochemical level of detail is still inconclusive. While
as we've noted above, the detrimental repercussions of grains on health have now been implicated in a number of ways,
the picture about cooking is more unclear than I had thought at the time of the interview. And this is not only due to the
uncertainties over when cooking began. As I have since found, there have been no "review" papers summing up the
research on cooking in modern food science studies that have taken a unified look at the subject, and what other studies
there are, are fragmented and scattered widely. (But see Looking at the Science on Raw vs. Cooked Eoods on this site, as
a first attempt to remedy this lack.) This lack of unified study on the subject shows, in one way, just how new the
evolutionary perspectives embodied in Paleodiet research are to the field of mainstream nutrition. (Though of course, the
question of raw vs. cooked foods has been around in modern times in the alternative health movement, particularly
within Natural Hygiene, since probably at least the mid-1800s.)
Big picture is more clear: Impact of cooking is likely to be much less important than other overarching
considerations. One interesting observation here, however, which may serve to put the cooking question in more
realistic perspective is that studies of modern hunter-gatherers (many of whom seem to cook about half their food) that
have been performed show them to be probably among the most free of chronic degenerative diseases of all peoples on
the planet. This suggests that whatever negative (or positive) effects cooking may or may not have, it probably just does
not play a very large role adding to, or mitigating, the overall health factors that determine freedom from the
degenerative diseases of civilization.
Magnitude of effect from macronutrient ratios likely plays the most influential role. Indeed, as we outlined above,
more and more Paleodiet-relevant research seems to be showing that it is the overall macronutrient profile of a diet, in
terms of:
N 1ypes of fats, and their ratios and sources (which are considerations that seem to be more important than
former analyses emphasizing simply total amount of fat), and
N Factors that may precipitate Syndrome X. Just as crucially, the balance between proteins and carbohydrates in
avoiding hyperinsulinism. (As we have seen, substituting more protein for carbohydrate increases the "good"
HDL cholesterol while lowering the "bad" LDL cholesterol, and significantly reduces risk for other symptoms of
Syndrome X).
It seems likely that these factors plus avoiding to the degree possible known non-evolutionary foods play the largest role
in health, overshadowing what effect cooking may have. (Within reason, of course: There is evidence that overcooking
to the point of charring should definitely be avoided since taking it that far produces carcinogenic by-products in
fats/proteins such as meat. At the same time, however, it should be remembered that even raw uncooked plant foods also
contain a certain natural level of mutagens and carcinogens. Again, these two points about cooking taken together with
the fact cooking can also eliminate toxic antinutrients suggest that, as was pointed out in Part 2 of the interview itself, the
issue of potential toxic by-products from cooking is far from a clear or cut-and-dried one.)
Eating all natural foods or all -raw by itself does not automatically result in a prudent diet. The upshot is that the
obsession with a total raw-food diet in some sectors of the vegetarian community--while certainly not bad in the strictly
technical sense--is considerably overhyped, assuming, that is, that, say half the diet is raw to begin with (particularly
getting sufficient amounts of fresh vegetables and/or fruits). It is becoming more clear that the idea among vegetar ians
that if a person just eats all natural or all raw foods and they'll be okay ignores important factors, such as:
N Which foods are, in fact, the most natural for humans (certainly not just vegetarian ones--evolution shows
meat is important as well);
N Which natural foods can be important to minimize or avoid (i.e., legumes, grains, dairy--if they turn out to be
problematic--for those who otherwise consider them natural); and
N What balance of macronutrients, whether raw or cooked , best approximates the ancestral human diet and/or
results in the best mix of nutrients to support health over the long-term. (Using this standard for comparison, a
totally raw vegetarian diet may be too low in protein (it is often too low in calories to maintain weight for many
individuals without great effort), and markedly overabundant in carbohydrates, which in spite of eating an "all -
natural" diet, or an all-raw diet, can still lead to long-term health problems due to possible hyperinsulinemia,
particularly if the diet is too high in fruits.)
*** "Especially where people are avoiding flesh products which is our primary animal food adaptation, these
animal by-products cheese, eggs] may be helpful for some vegetarians]..."
Again, while this may be true enough in the short-term, long-term is a different story, although eggs are something of an
exception, and should not be lumped in with dairy when analyzing their effects. However, while eggs are native to the
human diet, they would have been consumed only seasonally and in limited quantities, not daily or year -round like
people do today. While the nutritional content of eggs is quite high and they contain complete protein of high
bioavailability, they also contain the antinutrients avidin and conalbumin in the egg-white, the former of which inhibits
biotin and other B vitamins; the latter of which binds iron. Egg-white is also allergic for some individuals. Thus not
everyone can benefit from eggs, and those who can should still keep in mind that while natural and a food early humans
would have eaten, they would only have been available in limited amounts.
*** "This differing adaptation between population groups to Neolithic practices begun 10,000 ye ars ago,
specifically grain consumption] means it is going to be more likely right now in this particular historical time
period that individuals will be somewhat different in their responses to diet. And as we saw above (with the two
genes ACE and apolipoprotein-B) these genetic differences may even confound attempts to replicate
epidemiological dietary studies from one population to another unless these factors are taken into account."
While this is of course true, the fact that most of the detrimental repercussions of grains that we have outlined above
hold across all population groups implies that--whatever genetic advantages there may be within certain groups--they
have apparently so far conferred only minimal (physiological) adaptive advantages, which, overall, fall well short of
complete genetic adaptation. Note, however, on the other hand, that grains have conferred considerable cultural selective
advantages. That is, they have built the agricultural base that has enabled the rise of settled, hierarchical civilizations,
which support the social stratifications and specialized pursuits that have given rise to the huge technological advances
since then.
The problem here, of course, where physical health is concerned is that genetic (physiological) adaptation always lags
behind cultural selection in the behavior/culture evolutionary feedback loop (see discussion on the feedback loop
between evolution and culture elsewhere on the site for more information on this evolutionary process). Even assuming
that civilizations worldwide were to remain based on grains indefinitely into the future, it would still probably be many
more thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of years before a fuller physiological adaptation can have taken place.
*** "In experimental settings, purified, isolated protein extracts do significantly increase calcium excretion, but
the effect of increased protein in natural foods such as meat is smaller or nonexistent."
A recent posting on the PALEODIET list by Staffan Lindeberg, M.D., Ph.D. about this concern citing more studies than
I had access to at the time of the interview |see next point for title and date of post| indicates that taken as a whole,
studies on calcium excretion due to increased protein intake do in fact indicate animal protein has a more pronounced
effect than other sources. (This is due primarily to the sulfates contained in animal protein |Breslau et al. 1988, as cited
in Barzel and Massey 1998|.)
Paradox of high bone mass in pre-agricultural skeletons despite large animal protein intake. As stated in the body
of the H&B interview, however--and as Lindeberg implies in his remarks--the debate as to animal protein's potential role
in osteoporosis continues since it seems that hunter-gatherers in equatorial and temperate zones (excluding those in
arctic regions such as Eskimos eating the highest levels of animal protein) have good bone mass parameters.
(Archaeological specimens prior to the Neolithic certainly substantiate the picture of robust skeletal development in
primitive hunter-gatherers.)
This would point to compensating factors in the complete picture of a Paleolithic diet that may render the
protein/calcium loss issue something of a non-concern when the diet as a whole is assessed. What the physiological
mechanisms are that lead to this net result, however, have not been fully worked out by researchers, although the role of
a number of other factors besides protein that also influence calcium balance is becoming more clear in recent years.
(Eor a more in-depth discussion of the paradox of high bone mass in Paleolithic skeletons despite high protein intake, see
"Are Higher Protein Intakes Responsible for Excessive Calcium Excretion?" elsewhere on this website.)
*** "Studies of Eskimos have shown high rates of osteoporosis eating an almost all -meat diet (less than 10 plant
intake) but theirs is a recent historical aberration not typical of the evolutionary Paleolithic diet thought to have
averaged 65 plant foods and 35 flesh."
I did not know at the time of making this statement that the modern studies showing Eskimos to have high rates of
osteoporosis are unfair because, in this case, the more recent epidemiological studies were performed with Eskimos
already partway along the road to Western habits and diets, which has not been generally noted. Thus these particular
studies are not reliable indicators of the effect of their native diet, for which one has to go back to observational reports
in the early part of this century and before. Unfortunately, information on the Eskimos from this era is limited to
observational reports from which no rigorous physiological data is apparently available.
On the other hand, studies of prehistoric Eskimo skeletons do show some degree of osteoporosis, although how much
may be due to diet vs. other lifestyle factors such as reduced sunlight exposure, compression fractures due to traumatic
vibrations from extensive sledding, etc., is not known. The rate of osteoporosis is increased i n prehistoric Eskimo
populations living furthest north, and among these furthest-north-living Eskimos, this rate increases as one moves further
east from Alaska, across Canada, and into Greenland compared to those living in the western end of their range. |See the
post of 7/29/97 on the PALEODIET list titled "Osteoporosis in Eskimos" by Staffan Lindeberg, M.D., Ph.D. for an
extensive discussion plus scientific references.|
*** "W.N.: I would say my diet right now is somewhere in the neighborhood of about..."
It should go without saying that given the above updates to the Paleodiet research discussed here, I have made at tempts
to bring my current diet more in line with what is now known, although I certainly don't claim to be perfect in my habits,
and recommend people make up their own minds about what to do. There is also the problem that economics, as well as
current agricultural practices in how animals are raised, slaughtered, processed, and made available for sale (the dearth
of organ meats available is one problem) introduce difficulties in approximating a true Paleolithic diet today.
*** "...low- or no-lactose cultured forms like goat cheese and yogurt."
While cultured forms of milk do indeed have little or no remaining lactose, the other drawbacks of milk products
outlined in the postscript above in all likelihood also would apply to goat dairy, even if the nutritional profile of goat's
milk may be somewhat closer to human milk than is cow's milk, as is often asserted. |See Loren Cordain's post of
10/15/97 on the PALEODIET list for a brief summary of what is currently known and unknown about the nutritional
composition of goat's milk compared to cow's milk.|
*** "...sprouted forms of grains, or breads made from them, that eliminate the gluten otherwise present in wheat,
barley, oats, and so forth."
Although I have not been able to confirm the following to my complete satisfaction with documentation, sprouting of
grains is probably as important for deactivating the antinutrients (presumably phytates) they contain. Whether sprouting
is as effective in reducing the gluten content as sprouting enthusiasts believe is something I am no longer so sure about.
Eor either process, however, much undoubtedly depends on how many hours or days the sprouts are allowed to
germinate and what stage the growth process is allowed to reach before consumption.
Next issue we conclude our 3-part interview series by taking an eye-opening look at "the psychology of idealistic diets," including lessons
learned from people's real-life experiences in the Natural Hygiene Many-to-Many.
GO 1O PAR1 3 OF IA1ERJIEW
(The Psvchologv of Idealistic Diets / Successes and Failures on Jegetarian Diets)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Shoot the hardman a piece of email
Lessons Learned from the Natural Hygiene Many-to-Many about
Successes and Failures of Vegetarian Diets
January 1997. Chet's website is located at: http://www.chetday.com/
I N T R O D U C T O R Y R E M A R K S
modifications necessary for the present web version. See the introductory remarks to Part 1 of the interview for specifics.
IN OUR PREVIOUS TWO INSTALLMENTS talking with Ward Nicholson, |former| Coordinator of The Natural
Hygiene M2M, we focused on his research into the evolutionary past of our ancestors, what they ate, and also what
chimpanzees, our closest living animal relative eat, as well as the genesis of fire and cooking, plus a brief look at hunter-
gatherer diets and changes in the human diet since the advent of agriculture. In this, our last of three installments, we
move on to discuss with Ward his insights about "The Psvchologv of Idealistic Diets and Lessons Learned from The
Natural Hvgiene M2M About Successes and Failures of Jegetarian Diets."
Problem: Finding unsanitized reports about the full spectrumof real-world results with vegetarian
diets
Health & Beyond: Ward, I briefly described what the M2M is in the first part of our interview, but why don't you
recap it for us here?
hard Nicholson. Sure. The term "M2M" is an acronym that stands for "many-to-many," and is something I sometimes
refer to as "group mail" because people can get pretty passionate about it. It's like a huge pen-pal group, except it's
operated as a newsletter. Ours is published bi-monthly, containing letters from participants that they send to me as its
Coordinator. Normally, you might call me the "Editor," except one of an M2M's operating principles is that we agree to
print what everybody says exactly as they send it in, with no editing other than setting a page limit for each person's
letters. So an M2M is a free-speech kind of thing.
Each issue, we set an optional topic to be discussed, usually relating to health or Natural Hygiene, but it's only a
suggestion, and people can ignore it if they want and talk about anything--which, believe me, they sometimes do! We
even encourage this, because sometimes you can glean the most interesting insights from what people say that is
supposedly "off topic," or only indirectly related, than by what they say directly "on topic." The conversation that
develops between everyone is this amorphous thing that continues to change in an organic sort of fashion, shifting with
the sands of who joins and drops out and what happens in the members' lives, and what things are said that hit a nerve
with folks.
How many people are in the M2M?
The membership has hovered around 30 to 50 "active participants" (those who agree to write in letters regularly) for the
last few years, plus about 10 to 20 "read-only" subscribers, some of whom become active themselves after seeing what
goes on. These numbers are about where we have to keep things because of logistics to keep the M2M from getting
unwieldy. But it's also a kind of revolving door, since usually a couple of people join and a couple of people tend to drop
out every issue or so, with a certain stable core of longer-term members.
This is just a rough guess, but I would say in the four years the M2M has been in operation, overall we have had maybe
75, perhaps as many as 100 people write in letters to the M2M telling something about their experiences with Hygiene.
The real value, though, is you get to know the people who stay on-board for some length of time on an ongoing basis,
and in considerable depth, which gives you much better insight into their Hygienic or other vegetarian or "radical diet"
experiences and experiments, the predispositions in their thinking, and thus a basis for judging what is really going on
with people.
I would not claim that the M2M is a scientific sample. However, I do think it is a unique forum for getting at the truth of
people's dietary and health experiences, because:
N Those who write in are enthusiastic about Hygiene or vegetarianism or other "natural food" diets based on some
kind of first principles, so you know they are trying hard.
N Their words are unfiltered and unedited, which I believe gives a much better glimpse of the truth of the rank-and-
file's results than what we get from the public statements made by the ANHS (the American Natural Hygiene
Society, the national organizing body) and the IAHP (the International Association of Hygienic Physicians), who
have an image to uphold.
N The ability to cross-examine people tends to elicit the truth from them over time, with the resultant honesty it
forces in people unless they are going to drop out. And,
N I think you can pretty reliably assume that even where they are not being completely honest about their level of
health and behavior, since people will tend to present even their failings in the best light, you can be pretty sure
that if they have problems to discuss, they are really experiencing them.
I do think, therefore, this allows you to draw some pretty fair conclusions about what is truly going on with a range of
Hygienic vegetarians in the real world, especially in the absence of any scientific studies.
So why did you start the M2M and what have you learned from it?
My original idea in doing the M2M was just to talk directly to "the horse's mouth" so to speak--to bypass "official"
channels of information--so I could find out what was really happening with Hygienists in the real world.
I learned plenty about this, of course. However, what surprised me--at first, anyway--is that I have learned far more
instead about what I call "the psychology of idealistic diets." I discovered that a sizable proportion of Hygienists are
experiencing problems and disappointing results--even pronounced problems--on the diet, often in spite of adhering
faithfully to the Hygienic program over considerable periods of time (many months or a number of years).
Not everyone does well on raw and/or vegan diets ("failure to thrive"). So the first thing I would say here to set the
stage for discussing the psychology of an idealistic health and dietary system is that in Natural Hygiene's case, while it
certainly works well for some people, it just doesn't for others, regardless, apparently, of the time span. Yet you don't
hear about this in mainstream Hygiene--not from the ANHS or in the books and magazines that are sold anyway. There
is a real see-no-evil, hear-no evil, speak-no-evil syndrome. (I have also been told by a Hygienist not connected with the
M2M, who has had contact with higher-ups within the ANHS, that they are aware of some of these failings, but simply
choose not to mention them.) If problems are acknowledged, they are attributed to lack of discipline in following the
program, or in screwing up the details, or not giving things enough time, or that one is focusing only on diet (even when,
in fact, they aren't) to the exclusion of other health factors. But never are they attributed to the idea that Natural Hygiene
could be incomplete in some way.
I know that I myself found this hard to believe initially, because having read many of the Hygienic books including those
by Herbert Shelton (whom I still have a tremendous amount of respect for as a great synthesizer and original thinker in
many areas) that were so very convincing as to the wonderful results that were gotten, I thought here at last was a system
whose logic and results both showed it to work. And the system was so logical and seemingly all -encompassing as laid
out by Shelton, how could it not work for evervone?
The controversies that arise over dietary failures provide an entry point for observing the psychology behind
idealistic diets. Eventually, however, I could no longer deny the obvious, and most who have been with the M2M any
length of time will tell you this is one of the more eye-opening things about participating in it and being exposed to lots
of different people: There really are numerous problem-cases on the Hygienic system of health and diet. Once faced with
this, you have to come to terms with it one way or the other. And of course, it is in how people explain the problems
where all the controversy lies. We will get into how people react to this state of affairs in depth, but for now I just want
to put this on the table here for people to think about.
(The Attractions and Pitfalls of Purist Black-and-hhite Dietarv Philosophies)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
The attractions and pitfalls of purist
black-and-white dietary philosophies
I take it, then, you have some other observations to introduce before we proceed further?
Yes. Let's back up at this point and set the context for why people get into Natural Hygiene or any other dietary system
in the first place.
PROBLEM #1: Confusion and contradiction in the marketplace of dietary ideas and research. I think most of us
have experienced before we got into Natural Hygiene how confusing the dietary world is these days. Ever yone has
something different to say and even the scientific studies on nutrition seem to contradict themselves every few years.
About the only things anyone seems to agree on right now are that lots of fresh fruits and vegetables are good, and too
much fat in the diet is bad--and some people don't even agree about the details of the latter. On most every other topic
there is divisive controversy. Most people are confused. There is nothing that leads to a good argument like food these
days. Of course, maybe it's always been that way, but in any event, confusion and contradiction about diet are rampant
and have been for a long time.
N THE APPEAL: The psychological attractions of emotional certainty. So the first thing to look at here is that
people stronglv crave a lot more certaintv in this area. This is important from the psychological standpoint: It
means there is going to be appeal in systems that make everything very simple, very black-and-white, systems
that offer some sort of kev litmus test by which you can assess everything and reduce it all to fundamental,
delineated concepts, hopefully with few ambiguous gray areas--even in spite of the fact the real world may turn
out to be far more complex.
N THE PITFALL: Oversimplifications and illusory truths. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with desiring
more certainty in and of itself. The problem comes in when the illusion of absolute certainty is so strongly
desired, and people become so sure of themselves, that everything becomes oversimplified and things start
getting left out of the equation. We'll talk more about this later too.
PROBLEM #2: Feeling powerless over microbes, genetics, or out -of-control authoritarian health-care. Another
part of the psychological climate to look at here is that with the dominant/submissive doctor/patient relationship that has
dominated the Western medical approach for decades if not centuries, people dont feel in control of their health. They
feel at the mercy of unknown forces--not only doctors, but microbes, inherited genetics, and so forth.
N THE APPEAL: Giving people tools to regain individual control over their own health. So here, there is an
inherent appeal in dietary systems that give back control to people by putting tools and methods in their hands
that give them more power to control their own health. Again, this is good, of course.
N THE PITFALL: Perceptual reframing of health factors can blind people to real dangers. But on the
downside, there can be the danger of a false sense of control that occurs when people are not as much in control
as they think they are, or think they know more than they do. This can cause one to view health or disease
symptoms through perceptual filters which distort one's vision of what may actually be going on, which can get
people into real trouble. We see this in the case of Natural Hygiene where all symptoms tend to be viewed as
"detox," blinding people to other possibilities that may go unaddressed as their condition worsens while the
person thinks they are getting better. This we will also discuss in depth.
PROBLEM #3: Thoughtful non-authoritarianism vs. mere reactionary rebellion.
N THE APPEAL: Casting off outmoded or oppressive authority, and thinking for oneself. Another
psychological backdrop for the appeal of Natural Hygiene and other give-control-back-to-the-people approaches
is that they are anti-authoritarian. There is an inherent and legitimate appeal in systems of thought that take
power away from oppressive systems like what much of our current modern health-care system has become. I
would hope most of us laud this trend.
N THE PITFALL: Myopia and self-delusion. However, there is also a danger here as well, in that if one becomes
so reactionary that they begin not to listen to feedback from others, they risk becoming lost in an emotionally
reactive, subjective world of their own. Eeedback is the only corrective to self-delusion, and the feedback of
information outside your own "self-certain" or myopic thinking processes can be vital if your world is not to
become solely self-oriented to the point you lose your bearings.
Okay, this gives us some insights into what psychological factors are appealing to people about a dietary system
like Natural Hygiene. However, people also usually get into health foods because of specific health problems. Why
Hygiene and not some other system?
Well, this is something I have done a lot of thinking about, including thinking back to why I personally was attracted to
Hygiene, and I've also observed what people new to the M2M talk about. And I don't think it would be exaggerating too
much to say that it is the paradigm of "detoxification" that captures peopl e's imaginations and satisfies their sense
of logic. It powerfully addresses the three psychological desires we talked about above, by:
N Number one, answering the desire for a feeling of certainty with a simple, powerful theoretical and practical
mechanism that appears to explain everything (or almost everything). It also gives a completely new perspective
for most health-seekers who--like most of the populace--have been absorbed in the make-sure-you-get-all-the-
right-nutrients approach or who have been mesmerized by the idea microbes are at the root of everything.
This is what I think is responsible for the statement you often hear by converts to Hygiene that "it just had the
ring of truth." What I think people are really describing here is the shift from one paradigm to another. Suddenly
you have the new explanatory paradigm that in one stroke simplifies the entire health equation, relegating
microbes to a secondary role and assuring you that if you just eat a variety of vegetarian natural foods, you will
get all the nutrients you need, so what you end up mainly needing to focus on is eating clean foods. It is this
simplicity that is partly what makes people feel so certain, along with the fact that this simplicity is so logically
black-and-white, a characteristic of Hygienic thought we will also look at more as we proceed.
N Second, just as convincingly, the need for control is answered by the fact one can actually see results by
eating cleaner foods. This part of the Natural Hygiene system definitely works for almost everybody who has
been eating what we call the "SAD" ("standard American diet")--at least at first, and up to a point--and so it is
what one could call the "conversion experience" or the "rite of initiation" that furnishes the proof people need to
be convinced of the validity of the entire system of Hygienic practice. Whether on the basis of initial symptom
disappearance due to detoxification the entire fabric of Hygiene merits unquestioned credence is an issue most
people don't think about. But the fact is, it does play the role of convincing people to follow the rest of the dietary
admonitions of the system too, by extension; i.e., if this is so powerfully true, how can the rest not be also?
N And third, of course, people love the anti-authoritarian blast-the-medicos rhetoric that blames their profession
for everything short of the fall of Greek and Roman civilization. It gives people something to stand for --the
underdog against Goliath, or the lone light of truth in a dark, SAD-eating world--and enables us to pump up our
egos by showing how ignorant most people are, especially the M.D.s, who know nothing about nutrition, and
who with their drugs are creating more toxification of people and creating the very problem that needs solving in
the first place. Even the scientists are seen as stupid too, who, in spite of all their knowledge, can't see the forest
for the trees like we Hygienists can see it, just by using a little common sense and breaking out of our previous
paradigms.
Other unconscious needs also met. Psychologically, all of this serves a lot of unconscious needs by giving people a
sense of identity, villains to fight against, Gentiles to convert to the cause, and so forth. One can even be a martyr and a
prophet not recognized in their own country (family) during holiday gatherings where they are ostracized for refusing to
partake in heathen rituals like turkey-eating. And of course, as I have personally experienced first-handedly, there are the
heretics such as myself who are upbraided for having abandoned the cause, or the backsliders who are pitied in their
weakness. It's a complete psychological package that people often get a lot more mileage out of than they realize.
(Success/Failure Rates of Jegan Diets in Natural Hvgiene)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Success/failure rates of vegan
diets in Natural Hygiene
All right, the preceding gives us a basic psychological framework for the appeal that Hygiene makes to people's minds in
the beginning. What I want to look at now are some of the actual results on people's bodies and health that we see in the
M2M to add the next layer of events, and upon which further stages of Hygienic psychology are built. Because it is in
dealing with or explaining the successes and failures that much of the psychology manifests itself.
Before you do that, let me slip in another question h ere to get the broad picture first: What is the percentage of
Hygienists in the M2M who do well on the diet compared to those who don't? What's the basic split?
It's hard to say with any precision since a number of Hygienists follow versions of the diet that don't strictly match the
traditional definition. But I'll make some very rough guesses here, as long as you understand that's what they are. If you
are defining the diet to include those who are very strict about their behavior--an important point--and who follow either
the all-raw regimen or the 80 raw/20 cooked plan, I would say perhaps 3 to 4 out of 10, maybe half if one is
generous, do well. |Note: "Cooked" foods in this context refers to grains, legumes, and tubers; the relative amounts
given would be by volume.| This is long-term, an important distinction we'll look at as we proceed. Significantly more
do well short-term.
Dropouts over time and "cheating" on the diet complicate the assessment. There is also a certain amount of attrition
of "strict-behavers" over time, so that the ranks of these individuals who do well long-term consist of those left after
others have liberalized their behavior. Again, the distinctions one makes change the answer, making it very difficult to
say. A real problem here in coming up with a number is that there are many who "cheat" a little (we'll discuss this
behavior later) and include haphazard but regular driblet amounts of cheese or butter, even eggs. If you were to include
these individuals, even more would be classed in the group doing well.
All-in-all, I would guess what you are left with after this is a quarter of Hygienists who are experiencing some kind of
difficulty, possibly up to half if one were being very tough about it. It all depends very much on just how you define
"difficulty," which we'll be doing shortly. I don't want to quibble over specific figures because they can be argued. But a
significant percentage--whatever it is--experience the problems we'll be listing, from minor to more troublesome.
The problem of vested interests among "official" sources in getting straight answers. Now admittedly the M2M is
not a scientific sampling, but frankly, one probably doesn't exist right now, so we have to go on what we hear from
people when they appear to be being straight with us. It would be better if we could get statistics from Hygienic
practitioners' caseloads, but since they are so heavily invested both monetarily and psychologically in Hygiene, it is
difficult to assess how unbiased they are. Even though I have a lot of respect for their knowledge about applying
currently accepted Hygienic practices to the circumstances of the lives of their patients, you have to admit that most are
not going to allow the possibility to enter their minds that failures in their patients might be failures of the Hygienic diet.
They are going to be more likely to see them as "failure to comply" or as due to other factors outside their control.
"Party line" views and ostracism of dissidents. I believe you know from having previously interviewed practitioners
Stanley Bass and Christopher Gian-Cursio here that when Gian-Cursio looked into the problems a number of his patients
were experiencing and came to the conclusion that it was because the Hygienic diet was not sufficient for all patients --
and that the problems were only turned around by carefully supplementing the diet with foods of animal origin such as
cheese--and wrote it up, he was essentially ostracized or at least ignored by professional Hygienedom for saying so.
Many of the Hygienic practitioners, as Dr. Bass has pointed out in one of your earlier interviews here in H&B, often are
dealing primarily with fasting patients, and thus not necessarily seeing how well all their patients do out in the real world
away from a fasting institution. Initially, you certainly cannot argue with t he empirical fact that very few people with
health problems will not improve considerably with a Hygienic fast followed by a cleaner diet than what they have been
used to eating. But what happens during a fast and the aftermath is only a small window into what goes on the rest of the
time on a Hygienic regimen. I myself have gotten decent results from fasting, but have not done my best on the Hygienic
diet itself. It was a repeating pattern of improve-on-a-fast followed-by-stagnation-and-eventual-downslide on the
traditional Hygienic diet that got me thinking along these lines.
Special measures that may make the diet work for more individuals argue against its naturalness. You also have
to remember that there is a certain amount of "plasticity" in organisms to what they can functionally adapt to, even if
they are not optimally adapted geneticallv to something. With enough accumulated experience--as many Hygienic
practitioners have--you can learn just what jots and tittles have to be followed in order for a Hygienic diet to work. Thus,
there may be some truth to the fact that if people aren't getting results from a Hygienic diet (assuming they are following
the other elements of the lifestyle such as proper rest, emotional poise, adequate exercise, clean air and water), then
"they aren't doing something right."
However, if you really have to follow so many dietary details down to the last iota, then that very strongly argues against
such a diet being our natural one, given all the rules for behavior that have to be so painstakingly followed. It seems to
me, most especially given the more rough-and-tumble evolutionary picture, that a "natural" diet will have more
allowance for give-and-take variation in one's basic food intake than that.
Gap between uncensored reports and officialdom rarely surfaces publicly in a way that gets widespread attention.
Bass and Gian-Cursio claim they were seeing some problems develop in Hygienists in real life, especially over
successive generations. However, their views were never allowed a forum by official Hygienedom, so very few have had
a chance to hear their contentions. What we get is the party line from the IAHP and the ANHS. What one can observe in
the M2M agrees more with what Bass and Gian-Cursio have said than what you hear officially.
What about those eating the all -raw-food version of the Hygienic diet? Don't they do better than this?
Unfortunately, no. As a group, they do worse. There are certainly some individuals who do well on the raw-food diet,
but they are a small minority. We do have a few individuals in the M2M on all-raw who have done well for 10/20/30
years or more. But my estimate from having seen people come and go in the M2M, and the stories they have told about
their attempts at sustaining an all-raw diet, is that somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10-15 of Hygienists are
truly able to thrive on an all-raw diet. The rest do better when they have added a certain amount of cooked tubers,
legumes, squashes, grains, etc., though they may of course be able to live in whatever condition they do on an all -raw
diet.
The distinction between short-term and long-term results is critical in evaluating "success." It is one thing to go on
a raw-food diet and do well for some months or a year or two or whatever, but most who take it beyond that point begin
to decline. The true test is long-term over a number of years. With the exception of those few who thrive, what we hear
in the M2M from people attempting the all-raw diet for any significant length of time (this applies in spades to those
attempting fruitarianism) is that over the long term they often start suffering from one or more of the following
symptoms: They may lack energy, or their stools will become chronically diarrhea-like, they feel hungry all the time,
they may not be able to maintain their weight without struggle, or they develop B-12 deficiency, lose sex drive, fatigue
easily, and/or develop insomnia or a hyperreactive nervous system. With some individuals, we also sometimes see
binge-eating develop when they try all-raw.
Are the rare all-raw success stories the "ideal," or simply "exceptions"? The all-raw diet works well for some few
individuals, but for these individuals to extrapolate (as most do) that therefore evervone would also do well if only they
were "doing it right" ("like I do it," following certain jot-and-tittle procedural details) is fallacious and self-serving. It
assumes that everybody is alike, or enough so for the same ideal diet to work for all --more black-and-white reasoning. If
there is one thing modern genetics is showing, it is that people can vary considerably in certain respects. Especially
given the evolutionary transition that the species has been in the midst of since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years
ago, you would expect there to be more variability at this time.
(Svmptoms of "Failure to Thrive" on Raw and/or Jegetarian Diets)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Symptoms of "failure to thrive"
on raw and/or vegetarian diets
All of this so far paints a disconcerting picture of the Natural Hygiene diet as one that works for some but not
others. Why? Do you really feel people are so different that we can't agree on certain basic fundamentals of diet?
No. But I don't think it's too mysterious why some succeed and some fail on Hygienic or other vegetarian diets. In Part 1
and Part 2 here, we went to great lengths to detail what the so-called "original" or evolutionary diet of humanity was.
What Hygienists miss is that the "basic fundamentals of diet" that you speak of comprise a wider varietv of acceptable
foodstuffs--including a certain percentage of foods such as cooked starches and lean animal game products --than have
been considered "kosher" within Hygiene to this point in time. It is within the set of foodstuffs common to our
evolutionarv heritage that you find individual differences and the need to tailor things somewhat.
Erom this standpoint, then, the Hygienic diet is not so much different from the evolutionary diet as it is simply a
restriction of it (as is true of all vegetarian diets). The foods we are eating are fine foods, but they are a subset of what
the human body evolved on, and some individuals with the right kind of constitution or genetic plasticity--say, closer out
toward the ends of the statistical "bell curve" of the average genetic make-up--can handle that restriction while others
can't. And as we said previously, there are jots and tittles that experienced Hygienists may know how to implement in
order to compensate to make the diet work for additional people. But they don't work for everyone.
So for the individuals who do not do well on a Hygienic diet --whether all-raw or the more mainstream 80
raw/20 cooked version--what are the symptoms they experience?
Well, I mentioned a few of them briefly above for the all-raw-fooders, but let's look at them in more depth, since they
often also apply to the mainstreamers who are not doing so well, just to a lesser degree. Also, in most cases, whether all -
raw or not, these individuals are more often total vegans, or close to it --no dairy or eggs gotten on the side occasionally. I
want to mention here that I am well aware that the traditional Hygienic explanation for some of these symptoms would
be that they are merely "detox" symptoms. Later I will go into just why I believe this idea is mistaken given the
circumstances in which these long-term symptoms usually manifest.
A look at the most serious potential problems. Eirst, here are a couple of severe problems we have seen. Keep in mind
these are the most severe we have seen, and they are individual cases, but they are real possibilities.
N Case of congestive heart failure in a decades-long Sheltonian hygienist. Probably the most sobering was that
a year or two ago one older member who ended up dropping out of the M2M wrote to us that they had developed
congestive heart failure. They said Hygienic practitioners told them it was due to lack of adequate protein and B-
12 over an extended period. |No comment here as to potential accuracy of this attribution.| We later heard word
from them through an intermediary in the M2M that it may have been due to having followed a diet too high in
fruits percentage-wise for many years prior to that.* This even though they were apparently not extreme about it
like a "fruitarian" would be, but had simply followed a traditional vegan Hygienic regimen over many, many
years, only one higher in fruits. This particular situation I don't think anyone in the M2M really had much of a
stock Hygienic explanation for. Most were simply stunned. I do think, however, it at least drove home the point
with most people that diets too high in fruits are wise to stay away from.
N Case of rickets in a vegan toddler eating a Natural Hygiene -style diet. Another sobering occurrence was that
in the most recent issue of the M2M, one of our participants reported that their two or three-year-old infant son--
who was still breastfeeding (or had been until recently) and who, along with the mother, was eating vegan
Hygienic foods, including getting sunlight regularly--had developed bowed legs as a manifestation of rickets due
to vitamin D deficiency.* After getting professional help that included an initial megadose of vitamin D, the
father began feeding the son raw goat's milk and cheese, and added a daily multivitamin/mineral supplement,
with the result that the son's legs are improving and areas in his teeth where enamel had been missing are now re-
enameling.
N Cases of vitamin B-12 deficiency. As a perhaps less severe problem, but one that occurs somewhat more
frequently, we have had several members on the Hygienic diet (even when not all -raw) report very low levels or
deficiencies of vitamin B-12. These have been discovered on blood tests not just by mainstream doctors but also
by Hygienic practitioners, the latter taking the problem seriously. To my knowledge, the low B-12 levels have so
far responded quickly to supplementation which is often recommended by Hygienic doctors these days.
Low-profile symptoms more commonly seen. The above are the most serious problems I can recall offhand without
going back and digging through back issues of the M2M to perhaps find a few others. Less severe but more frequent
than the above symptoms are the following:
N Continual diarrhea or poorly formed stools can develop in some individuals after some months on the diet.
This would occur mostly with people eating all-raw. This seems to be due to the very high roughage content
which some individuals simply cannot handle well.
N Some women's periods become quite erratic or may disappear.
N Some people experience insomnia or unrestful sleep on an all-raw |and/or vegan| diet and get run down and
chronically tired.
N Another contingent of people has very little energy eating all -raw and drag around all day. An alternate
manifestation of this would be feeling languid much of the time or sleepy during the day even with regular
nightly sleep.
N A mental effect sometimes seen may be lack of normal motivation to get regular daily tasks done --no "joie
de vivre" ("joy in living").
N Some individuals cannot maintain their weight well and become thinner than even they may think is
healthy. We have one individual in the M2M who had this problem and who was a huge eater, adhering to the
Hygienic diet since 1989, who has finally been gaining weight after having included regular raw animal flesh for
the past couple of years. The volume of food required has dropped dramatically.
N Most, although not all, athletic individuals, particularly endurance athletes, find they perform better when
they include cooked starches in their diet--and that relying primarily on the sugars in fruits on a raw-food diet,
and the calories in nuts and so forth, does not seem to provide the proper mix of carbohydrate fuels that provide
the sustained energy they want.
N Perhaps the most common complaint of all is that more than just a few people are "hungry all the time." Some
then become obsessed with eating and have to eat or piece all day long.
N Another common complaint is that sex drive decreases markedly for some, even to the point of virtually
disappearing. This can occur in both males or females, but the complaint is heard the most often from men,
many of whom are not accepting of, or happy with, the stock Hygienic explanation of a simple lack of
"overstimulation," or the typical vegetarian view that it is a "spiritual" advance.
N Some people experience more frequent respiratory problems and colds on an all-raw diet, even when they
have been on the diet long-term, which might indicate a lowered immune system. Eor example, one individual
who has been vegan since 1989, and Hygienic since 1991, has noted an increase in colds/respiratory problems
whenever the raw component of their diet has climbed above the 80-90 range or so. When they include cooked
grains and starches in their diet, they feel better, are not so hungry all the time, sleep more soundly, and the colds
cease.
N Some people's nervous systems become more reactive and subject to upset, which may be connected to the
insomnia problem that some experience.
How people get trapped by "pure" diets
that don't maintain long-term health
The "frog in slowly boiling water" syndrome: initial improvement followed by long -term decline. And the final
thing I want to look at here is not really a specific symptom, but a long-term syndrome that takes time to manifest. We
could call this the "better-for-awhile-at-first-followed-by-slow-decline" syndrome, or the "frog-in-slowly-boiling-water"
syndrome. In fact, this is the usual long-term pattern within which the above problems occur.
N How can things end up bad when they started out so good? As we mentioned earlier, the key conversion
mechanism for convincing people of the Natural Hygiene system--or other "clean-diet" approaches--is that when
they go on a cleaner diet, almost everyone improves initially because of the detoxification that takes place.
People often feel so incredibly good initially on a clean diet that they cannot believe--they do not want to believe-
-it could somehow go sour.
However, over the longer term, many people's bodies simply may not be extracting sufficient nutrition from the
diet and they begin to decline, or develop various symptoms even if they still feel okay, presumably due to
deficiencies after their reserves are exhausted. Except in the case of B-12, these are not usually your typical
"deficiency-disease" symptoms--like the case of rickets that was mentioned earlier. They are more subtle, but
they have their effect, and they can be slowly debilitating over long-enough periods of time.
N The lulling effect of imperceptibly slow declines in health. Erom a psychological standpoint, the most
interesting thing about this syndrome is that it occurs slowly enough that people often mentally adjust to the
lowered state of health and do not perceive it as such, particularly since they so strongly do not want to believe it
is happening. Instead, they continue to feel they are doing fine--sometimes even when they describe some of the
above symptoms, which they may interpret as improvements that indicate "continued detox"--while people who
know them may tell them otherwise. Yet because of the extreme anti-authoritarianism, they don't listen to what
others are telling them, until finally, the problems reach a point they can't deny them anymore.
N Emotional "certainty" shuts down one's ability to rationally assess symptoms. By the time this happens,
though, people have been so thoroughly convinced of the entire Hygienic dietary system by their initial
successes, and particularly are so won over mentally by the detoxification paradigm, that they are now
psychologically invested in the "rightness" of everything about the Hygienic system, and cannot believe there
could be any shortcomings in it, since it seems so internally self-consistent logically.
N The willingness to make sober judgments of current symptoms is perpetually displaced into the future.
Since they got results to start with, they feel their problems now must be only a temporary setback, or evidence
of further detoxification taking place or that further detoxification or patience for further healing is needed, or if
not that, if they can just correct a few details, all will be well again and they will be back on the road to superior
health. "The better you get, the more energy the body has to expel the toxins, and the more powerful and healing
the crises become!" This is the thinking, which in earlier stages of detoxification might be true, but is
increasingly questionable the longer one follows the program, which is the case for many of the sympt oms we
outlined above.
It sounds like you are saying people can become more concerned with "being right" about Hygiene than in
whether they are actually getting good results.
Basically, yes. That's a good way of putting it. The logic of Hygiene comes to captivate people and satisfies them as
much as results do--perhaps more so if they aren't getting the results desired.
The dynamic, of course, is a little different for those who are getting good results. They, too, are plenty interested in
being right about Hygiene, but since it has worked for them, they have a more solid sense of "certainty" about it, which
of course they project to others. And because they have this greater sense of certainty, these individuals tend to become
the repositories of traditional wisdom which is dispensed to the less fortunate. Those who are successful have a tendency
to blame the other persons' behaviors ("you aren't following all the itty-bitty details right") or to doubt the failures are
failures at all, seeing them rather as expressions of the truths of Hygiene at work when its principles are violated,
proving once again its rightness.
Those who are successful are partners in reinforcing the tendency not to see failures as real failures. That's one of
the biggest things holding all this in place: Those for whom Hygiene has worked cannot afford to consider failures as
failures of Hygiene either, because just like everyone, they uphold the ideal that it must work for all, and so if it does
not, it is also a threat to their own beliefs in spite of their success. This shared ideal is what binds the successes and
failures together in common cause. The less successful imbibe the certainty of the more successful to maintain the faith.
This syndrome is of course not unique to Hygiene, but occurs with any idealistic system where there are both significant
successes and failures. The important point to note here is that it shuts down the mind's openness to new interpretations.
And if the mind cannot look at alternative explanations, what you will often see is that the favored paradigm gets pushed
to extreme limits by those who are failing at it in order to try to reach some sort of resolution.
Such as?
Well, at this point, two things may happen, which are that:
N In order to prove that the system does in fact work, people redouble their efforts at detoxification, and often
attempt to go on an even stricter diet. And/or:
N Considering perhaps they may not be getting enough of some nutrient after all, they begin to get more
perfectionistic about the many vegetarian dietary details that are possible to manipulate. After all, one
characteristic of exercising more control is the need to pay attention to the additional details that are necessary in
order to implement such increased control. And if the details one used to pay attention to aren't working
anymore, one must become more attentive to even smaller details.
Thus, what is essentially a simple, logical system of garbage-in/garbage-out ("toxemia is the basic cause of all disease")
begins to increase in complexity. In the end, obsession and fanaticism may develop.
(How Absolute Dietarv Puritv Becomes a Fruitless "Grail Quest")
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
How obsessively striving for absolute dietary
purity becomes a fruitless "grail quest"
Significant parallels with religious behavior. In the introductory passages of Part 2 of the interview here, I was not
merely making a metaphorical comparison in saying that Natural Hygiene resembled a religion in some ways, because
the reaction of redoubled purification efforts in response to the better-for-awhile-but-then-worse syndrome has
interesting parallels with certain religious motivations. It serves some of the same psychological needs.
Let's go into this more. How so?
Well, in religion, at least in the West, you have the idea that people have sinned, and that there are prayers or rituals you
must go through to cleanse yourself of that sin. There is typically guilt or at least anguish over this state of assumed sin.
Even if one does not believe in original sin, still, all it takes is one slip-up to establish an ad-hoc fallen state, after which
you must redeem yourself. Guilt and redemption are strong motivators, because they go to the core of self -image.
The role of unseen and unverifiable "toxemia" as evidence of one's "sin." In Natural Hygiene, if one makes a
blanket assumption that "toxemia is the basic cause of all disease"--or at least the only one worth considering, since
dietary sufficiency eating natural vegan foods is usually assumed to be a given--then the psychological motivations often
cease to become merely practical and become coopted by a "redemptionist" quasi-religious quest. Eor those who are
prone to taking it to an extreme, what was practical can become imbued with an element of superstition, or at least an
unverifiable belief in unseen toxemia that one cannot really substantiate completely. So one's philosophy can begin to
obscure whatever realities to detoxification there may be and blow them out of proportion.
The "relativity" of absolute purification transforms it into an ever -receding goal and goad. One's overriding goal
becomes greater and greater purification toward the holy grail of complete detoxification that ever recedes as one's
perceived level of detoxification continually falls short of the postulated goal. One paints themselves into a corner where
because "no one is without sin" (we all goof up from time to time), one can never be sure after they have sinned if that
sin is really forgiven or not (cleansed from the body by normal processes). Thus to redeem oneself, one must always
either fast or go on some sort of cleansing program.
Eollowing from this is the idea that to remain pure and undefiled and also to serve as proof ("by their fruits ye shall
know them," or the signs that one is more evolved), one should go even further and be able to live on the most restricted
diet possible permanently. Such as not just a raw-food diet, but sometimes fruits alone (fruitarianism). And if one is not
able to do so, then it means one is not really purified, or evolved enough, and thus the only recourse is to do further
cleansing until one is really pure and evolved enough to do so.
Self-restriction becomes its own virtue as absolute purity recedes. After awhile, however, this easily becomes a habit
divorced from any real reason. Even if one did reach perfect purity, the urge toward self -restriction would continue
because of the psychological dynamics which have become ingrained. So for those not doing well on the Hygienic diet
who fault themselves, it can end up becoming a self-reinforcing vicious circle and one never reaches the "goal."
Because as we've noted, what often happens by this time is after being on the cleansing diets and restricted intakes for
long enough, instead of toxemia being a problem, deficiency (depletion of one's reserves) sets in. So what ensues if
people are really hooked into this dynamic is they go through a cycle of cleansing and sinning, cleansing and sinning
(because one's body is crying out for more nutrition and drives one to eat something different, anvthing different in an
attempt to make up the nutritional shortfall). Or if they do not sin, they continually feel they still must not have figured
the "system" out completely (whatever the system may be), and so they go on searching here, and searching there.
Endgame: fundamentalist obsessive-compulsiveness. Once this goes on long enough, because it is self-reinforcing,
many of these individuals become so locked into this way of thinking they are never again able to see food and eating
any other way. (Just as fundamentalists rarely ever change their minds.) This particular syndrome is a potential breeding
ground for obsessive-compulsives, and the individuals who fall into it often become the basket cases of Hygiene.
I realize, of course, all this may sound rather ridiculous taken to this extreme, but it is a real dynamic that we see in the
M2M in more individuals than you might think. Typically, of course, it's not nearly as extreme as painted above, but it's
not an uncommon undercurrent in behavior.
At some point a person has to decide between two perspectives: Is one going to take toxemia or detoxification to be all
there is to health--by taking the reactionary opposite of their former all-American "more and more and more is better"
outlook to its simplistic opposite of "less and less and less is better"? Or do we try to strike a balance point somehow?
Successful vegetarian diets require
more than simple dietary purity
So how do those who are successful on the Hygienic program go about striking that balance?
More attention paid to robust nutritional intake and other health factors. Well, we see a few different ways, but
they all boil down to two main areas, I think. Rather than getting so totally wrapped up in detox, successful Hygienists
more often seem to pay a lot of proactive attention to making sure they get sufficient nutrition, rather than just assuming
it will happen automatically if they eat all natural foods. But just as importantly, they also more often pay equal attenti on
to the other factors of a healthy lifestyle such as adequate exercise, sleep, rest, sunshine, stress reduction (including lack
of excessive mental stress), and even sometimes to living in more equable climates, which also reduces stress.
I don't think the attention paid to these other factors is any accident. Long-time Hygienists are more likely to be aware on
some level of the detrimental impact insufficient attention to these other factors can have, and intuitively seem to know
they must be paid attention. These factors are important to health in and of themselves for anybody, of course. However,
I believe there is an additional reason why they assume added importance for a Hygienic lifestyle in particular.
Stress and vegetarian diets. My own personal experience and observations corroborate what I have heard from some
other long-time former vegetarians outside Hygiene who have had the chance to observe successes and failures --both in
themselves and widely in the vegetarian community. And this is that stress makes a vegetarian diet more difficult to
thrive on--more so than for other diets. It just seems to be that when you look at a range of long-term vegetarians, the
ones doing better are more often living "easier" lives. Their lives are less demanding work-wise or stress-wise, or if not,
they have plenty of time to recharge. Again, I am not saying this is true of all, but it is a noticeable thread. Handling
stress of course hinges on several other factors in the Hygienic system, such as adequate but not excessive exercise to
create a state of fitness and better resilience to stress; and of course adequate rest and sleep to repair from stresses. And a
number of Hygienic practitioners are noted for continually reminding the rest of us not to shirk these factors.
Stress creates less margin for error for nutrition's contribution to physiological maintenance. Why should it be
that one may have to pay more attention than usual to alleviating stress factors on a vegetarian diet if it is to succeed?
Again, my opinion is that it goes back to the observation that compared to the "original" evolutionary diet of humanity,
the Hygienic diet is a restricted one. This leaves less margin for error with regard to nutritional intake. And that would
presumably also have the potential to affect any cellular rebuilding and repair necessitated by stresses. With less room
for error in this area, greater attention must be paid to other factors besides food that either reduce stresses that make
more demands on nutrition or on the stress-response system (adrenal glands, etc.), or that involve rebuilding or
recuperative activities. This expands the margin again to create a bigger cushion.
Successful Natural Hygiene diets are often less strict and more diverse than traditional/"offic ial"
recommendations. Of course that's not the only thing to expand one's safety margin. The second thing is that there is
more diversity in the way Hygienists in the real world actually approach the dietary aspect of the system than is publicly
acknowledged in the pages of ANHS's Health Science magazine, for instance. Some of the ones who are successful
occasionally include--if not regularly supplement the diet on a low level with--things like yogurt, or some cheese,
perhaps eggs. It may not be much, but the more-or-less even-if-haphazard continuing dribble of it is suggestive. Stanley
Bass, one of the Hygienic practitioners as you know from his interviews here, and who is a member of the M2M,
strongly recommends modest but regular amounts of cheese or eggs as necessary to complete the basic Hygienic diet
nutritionally--based not only on his mice experiments, but experiences with real-life patients as well.
Special nutritional practices added by some individuals. A few individuals in the M2M take special measures such as
making flaxseed preparations which they feel provide crucial nutrients to get |i.e., essential fatty acids (EEAs) and/or
their precursors|. Others may go in for BarleyGreen, such as yourself, Chet, or for the blended salads that Gian-Cursio
developed and thought essential to increase assimilation, which you and Bass have also recommended. We have also
heard privately from an individual who has consulted with one noted Hygienic practitioner who says they acknowledged
to them in person that there is nothing wrong with fish in the diet once a week or so--though of course this practitioner
cannot come out and say so publicly. Still other people go beyond the traditional Hygienic whole-foods idea that says
juices should be limited to a now-and-then basis, and regularly drink vegetable-juice preparations (carrot-celery-romaine
is one that seems to be favored) as a way of getting more concentrated doses of minerals and so forth.
And finally, of course, there are those such as myself and another individual or two in the M2M who have added modest
amounts of animal flesh to our diets, based on the evolutionary picture of humanity's original diet, and have seen
significant improvements over the results we got on the normal Hygienic diet. We still believe the basic Hygienic way of
eating is a fine way to eat as far as it goes, and we continue to follow many of the usual Hygienic eating patterns
including plenty of fruits, vegetables, and nuts; we just don't think it is quite sufficient, and have carefully added
reasonable amounts of these other items to round out the diet, paying attention to issues of quality. Those of us in this
last camp go along with those such as Bass in thinking that the paradigm of detoxification is valid to a point but only
half the picture, and that actually deficiencies are an equal if not greater cause of problems for those on long-term
vegetarian diets, accounting for many of the problems that arise and persist.
Potential role of involuntary "lapses" in filling nutritional gaps. Individuals like the above who supplement the basic
Hygienic diet, of course, do so consciously. In relation to this, there is another interesting, relatively unconscious,
behavior here we should also look at. While I don't mean to explain away all the successes in Hygiene as due to people
doing non-kosher things--because that isn't true--nevertheless it is interesting to observe that many Hygienists still
"cheat" a little or have periodic minor indulgences even when they do not really intend to do so as their "ideal" regimen.
Using butter or cheese on one's steamed vegetables on a weekly basis--or more often depending on the individual--isn't
uncommon to hear about in the M2M. Perhaps less frequently some eggs and so forth. Consciously, they really do not
"mean" to do it, but they do it anyway. Which raises the legitimate question of how much of a role these periodic low-
level "indulgences" may be playing in filling in potential nutritional gaps in people's diets.
The bottom line is, I don't think anyone really knows the answer. It's a question I doubt anyone has studied
systematically, and it would be very difficult to do so.
Lapses usually automatically interpreted as "addictions" instead by adherents. What is interesting from the
psychological standpoint, however, is that these so-called "lapses" are almost always viewed as discipline problems or
addictions. If the Hygienic diet is supposed to be so "natural," why are so many enthusiastic and motivated followers not
completely satisfied by it? One cannot help but get the strong feeling no one is interested in considering the possibility
the diet may not be satisfying people's physical needs as a primary underlying reason why they cannot, or are not,
sticking to the diet, and that their bodies may be making them do this. This is another "secret" of sorts that's not talked
about much publicly but you see in the M2M: Many people struggle with sticking to the diet, and not just for "social"
pressures, but because of cravings. After a point, while it may explain some of the cases, to blame it all on past
addictions or lack of discipline or poor-quality produce is too convenient.
(Rationali:ing Dietarv Failures with Circular Thinking and Untestable Excuses)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rationalizing dietary failures with
circular thinking and untestable excuses
This type of habitual pattern of theoretical explanation that exhibits the strong tendency to first fault results (or the
individual responsible) if they do not measure up to the philosophy suggests motivations rooted more i n idealism than in
practically evaluating one's philosophy by results.
Can you clarify that a little further?
Pat answers and mantras. If one's interpretation of a theory is overidealistic--even though the theory itself may
satisfactorily answer some number of things, as I agree that Natural Hygiene can--they will try to make their view of it
impregnable to criticism with a pat answer for everything, so that you could imagine no outcome of any circumstance or
test that they would accept as valid evidence against it.
Unfalsifiable excuses impervious to testability. In science there is a prohibition against explanations that are not
"falsifiable"--meaning those that cannot be subjected to a test where one outcome would negate ("falsify") the
explanation, and the other outcome would support it. Otherwise the assertion is impervious to a fair test and will not be
taken seriously by science because it is untestable. In other words, if in interpreting the results of an experiment you can
always twist them so that they support your theory, and you cannot allow or conceive of any result that would count
against the theory, then you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, and that is not allowed if you are going to be
scientific.
How about some examples here?
"You're too addicted." Well, the above idea that people cannot stay on the Hygienic diet because they are too addicted
to other things is a circular kind of argument as normally stated. There could perhaps be ways of testing it, if one wanted,
but not the way it is usually stated which is designed to deflect any possible criticism: Why can't one stay on the
Hygienic diet? Because they are too addicted to past foods. How do you know you are addicted to such foods? Because
if you weren't you could easily stay on the Hygienic diet! It goes round and round. You see, the way they are formulated,
you can't subject these contentions to a real test because they are supposed to be true by definition.
When you start hearing explanations like this given out as pat answers, then it indicates one doesn't want the theory to be
argued with or subjected to a fair test where there could be a risk of an answer you don't want.
"You just haven't given it enough time yet." There are other statements like this in Hygiene designed more to protect
belief than to truly explain. Eor example, another common one we hear a lot in Natural Hygiene is that if someone isn't
getting good results, then they "just haven't given it enough time yet." "Hey, you expect to get well in just a few months
or years from 20 or 30 years of prior bad living habits!?" That's the rhetoric.
Now we needn't deny the need for patience without also requesting some sort of reasonable criterion to determine if
there has been enough time. Because without it, you just don't know--you are clawing at the thin air of a foggy
explanation designed to obscure the issue.
If one were truly interested in being practical here, they could at least make the observation that if what one is doing is
working, then symptoms would tend to lessen in frequency or severity over time. (In other words, you would at least see
a trend, even if full results did require a much lengthier period.) If this were in fact observed, this would uphold such
reasoning, while if the symptoms are increasing or persisting over the long-term, then the hypothesis is falsified. But if
all you are doing is just telling people they haven't given it enough time no matter how long they have given it, then you
are obviously not very interested in putting things to a realistic test.
What we find in the M2M is that usually people don't require all that long to notice some kind of results trend after a
dietary change. A few months to several months is usually amply sufficient to see at least some kind of trend. Many
people see early results or trends within a few weeks to a month or two. If you are going longer than several months to a
year, and you have not gotten any better than when you started, or are experiencing persistent trends f or the worse,
something is probably wrong.
"Unnatural overstimulation." Here's another example, this one more of a double-standard explanation to discount
good results that other people get eating different diets than Hygiene. It's one I hear myself all t he time: If you are
someone who has chosen to start including meat in your diet again and you have been gradually feeling better, you
inevitably hear the mantra that it's not really better health, it's only "unnatural overstimulation" due to the supposed
excessive toxins or nasty animal protein in meat. Yet by the canon of Hygiene itself, the criteria for a stimulant as
contained in Shelton's "Laws of Life" contradict this. Law X, "The Law of Stimulation or Dual Effect," and XI, "The
Law of Compensation," together basically state that the energy from a stimulant saps the energy of the body for its effect
and requires a compensating recovery period.
In other words, stimulants result in a prostrating effect afterward during which you feel worse and have to recuperate
from. This is not what those of us adding meat to our diet in reasonable amounts in diets otherwise Hygienic in character
and who are experiencing improved health go through--quite the opposite, as it is a gradual response. Yet the mantra gets
repeated over and over again on autopilot without seeming comprehension of its lack of correspondence to the actual
circumstances. It is invoked as a pat answer simply to explain away the fact someone is getting better results on a
different diet one does not like.
When symptoms are always seen as "detox." The most important example, of course, of an untestable answer
repeated like a mantra that we need to address here would be when any symptoms encountered are alwavs explained as
symptoms of "detox"--while the alternative possibility that they could be indicative of a dietary deficiency, casting doubt
on the sufficiency of the Hygienic diet, is ignored totally. Again, that a symptom is due to detoxification might be true
depending on the circumstance, but without a way of reasonably assessing which might be the case, it's merely a
convenient, unfalsifiable, and untestable explanation.
How would you test such an explanation? Well, short of some sort of blood test that might pinpoint biomarkers
indicative of toxemia, you could at the least point out that, as we did above, the symptoms--detoxification in this case--
should begin to diminish in frequency over time. And on the other hand, if after these symptoms have diminished or
abated and you are left with other symptoms that have persisted at the same level or even increased, you would have to
admit to reasonable grounds for supposing that these symptoms may indicate deficiency or deterioration or metabolic
imbalance of some kind. But merely to say without any further attempt at clarification that any symptom indicates one is
"still too toxemic" or still too gunked-up--that it requires still further detoxification--shows that one is not very sincere in
their attempts to find out.
Eor these reasons I think that the stock explanation of "continuing detox" is erroneous in attempting to cavalierly dismiss
the symptoms I described earlier that are experienced by those who do not do well long-term on the Hygienic diet.
Because for these individuals, the symptoms are persistent and do not diminish over time. And as we have said, usually
these individuals had experienced improvement at first before the decline, which is why they are so loath themselves to
accept the idea that the Hygienic diet may be insufficient for them.
Other meaningless, unhelpful, or unfalsifiable excuses. And a little more on the humorous side here, when all else
fails, one can always bring out the even heavier artillery of such unanswerable assertions as: "too badly damaged by
prior living," "you weren't breastfed long enough," "degeneration of the race from prior generations' poor diet," or my
own favorite and one I was once personally accused of: "psychosomatically sabotaging yourself by trying too hard."
Could there be any possible validity to these excuses? Perhaps. Who knows? The point is, they could be given for anv
approach that fails, not just Hygiene, which shows just how relevant they really are in explaining why Hygiene shouldn't
give better results than all the rest.
Please understand, as I emphasized in the introduction to Part 2 of our interview, that in this critique I am not quibbling
with the basic principles of Hygiene, which I agree are valid for the most part. What I am saying is that they are often
interpreted in conveniently inconsistent, fallacious, or selective fashion to explain away detrimental results that threaten
emotional attachments to dietarv details or implementations they may believe stem from those principles. And that this
can get people into serious trouble by obscuring their vision of what may really be happening to them.
5 tips for staying alert to the traps
of excessive dietary idealism
What about ways of guarding against falling into these different traps of idealism? Are there things that can be
done to prevent going unconscious about it?
1. Self-honesty instead of denial. Well, number one, I would say simply acknowledging all that we've been looking at
here--at the least considering it as a real "possibility"--is a big first step. The big problem I see is that even where people
become aware of these problems, as happens in the M2M, they most often go into denial about it. Denial is the biggest
hurdle. Just be honest with yourself about how you feel and if you are pleased with the results you are getting or not.
2. Focus first on results rather than theoretical certainty. Second, becoming less set on arriving at a perfect theory
and more interested in getting good results helps one remain more objective. Be wary of the desire for too much
certainty about any one theory. Theories are very useful tools, but they usually change and become modified or at least
refined over time in response to scientific advances. Being too certain theoretically can override your ability to perceive
any detrimental results that might cast that certainty in doubt. If you think of a theory as an approximation subject to
modification by results--which is what science is all about--you'll be much less likely to get into trouble.
3. Utilize reasonable timeframes to gauge trends. Third, being willing to place reasonable time limits on one's dietary
experiments--say, a few to several months per dietary adjustment to assess at least some sort of trend--will help keep you
from falling into the frog-in-slowly-boiling-water syndrome if you don't get results.
4. Exercise at some activity that gently challenges your limits, to hone sensitivity to changes in your capacities and
health. Eourth, a regular exercise program doing something you enjoy, particularly one involving a high level of
activity--such as some type of endurance sport, or weight-lifting, or yoga--not just those particularly, but something
where you can accurately measure or get feedback about your results at a high level of activity, can be very helpful in
not only achieving health, but in more realistically assessing it. You don't have to put large amounts of time into it;
rather, intensity or focus is the key, where you play the edges of your capacities for at least brief periods of time without
too much undue strain. When you do this, you will notice shortfalls in results and the impact of diet or changes in health
much more quickly than if you are idling along far below what you are capable of.
5. Don't ignore feedback about how you are doing from people who know you well. And fifth, actively seek out the
opinions of other people whose judgment you trust about how they think you are doing. Maintain a dialogue with people
and don't isolate yourself from feedback and others' opinions, or be so ready with dogma that you drown out what they
are saying.
Ultimately, if you aren't feeling well, looking well, and doing well in your daily life, why are we bothering with any of
this?
Is there anything we haven't covered that you'd like to add before we close out this interview?
Yes. As much as I've tried to carefully document the scientific aspects in Parts 1 and 2 of these interviews, I have no
doubt newer science will inevitably supersede portions of it. Also, given the complexity of some of the research, it's
possible there may be a few instances where I overlooked differing interpretations of fact. I fully expect given the
controversial nature of what I am reporting and saying here that there will be those who will point out any such
inaccuracies that may have occurred, which I welcome. This is how knowledge advances, and I'm sure it will help me
refine my own thinking or look at new interpretations as well.
Big picture more important than disputes over details. I trust, however, people can judge for themselves that the
overall thrust of the views I have been presenting do not depend on a few specific details, but rather on how all of them
as a whole point to a larger overarching pattern. That's my real interest --the broad thrust of all this. I don't really expect
to convince very many people and I know many will be upset. I can well imagine as we speak that many of your readers
will be busy writing their own rebuttals. What I am interested in is starting a dialogue on these issues in the vegetarian
and Natural Hygiene communities, and generating awareness about t hem. I don't think most know yet that there is
considerable scientific data on humanity's "original" diet now, or that as we have discussed in Part 3 here, there are
significant numbers of Hygienists not doing well.
Tolerance for our own mistakes, tolerance for others. In this same vein, I'd also like to suggest to Natural Hygienists
and other "veg-raw" folks not to be too fundamentalist about their dietary beliefs and practices. Especially with other
people--but even yourself. Leave yourself open to the fact you could be wrong sometimes--because we all are. Don't
paint other people who don't believe the way you do about diet, fasting, and health as willful ignoramuses, or people
such as M.D.s as willfully evil promoters of bad or destructive information. Most of us are doing the best we know how
with what we've got. We need to stop making people into villains, and diet into a religion that we feel a need to identify
with as being somehow morally or socially "right" about. Because no matter how much you think you know about it,
you can always be humbled by new information.
I've really been razzed at times by close family and friends about the changes that have occurred in my thinking about
diet as a result of my experiences and research. I'm sure more changes will come. It's somewhat embarrassing how
overzealous I've seen myself be at times, even while considering myself open-minded and tolerant at the time. If you
want to create an environment where people will be forgiving of you when you change your mind about something, you
can't be coming across as an inflexible proselytizing zealot to them or they won't be tolerant of you either.
Open-mindedness is an ongoing process, not something one achieves and then "has." It's something you have to
continually pay attention to and engage yourself at. It doesn't happen automatically. In fact, the tendency if we do
nothing is for our minds to crystallize and become more closed as we age. We all die eventually no matter what diet we
eat. I would hope we can all stay forever young at heart even as our bodies inevitably age. That's the most important
thing.
Thank you for talking with us, Ward.
And thank you, Chet, for the opportunity to express these views with a wider audience.
GO 1O AEX1 SEC1IOA OF AR1ICLE COA1AIAIAG 1HE UPDA1ES 1O PAR1 3 with new information and
observations since it was first published.
(Further Observations about "Failure to Thrive" on Jegan Diets)
P O S T S C R I P T : S I G N I E I C A N T U P D A T E S T O
Lessons Learned from The Natural Hygiene Many-to-Many
about Successes and Failures of Vegetarian Diets
(EDITORIAL NOTE: Triple-asterisked items in boldface below refer either to passages in the interview as originally published, or to
additional topics that relate to the discussion, which are followed by further comments on the issues raised.)
Further observations about
"failure to thrive" on vegan diets
*** "...the most sobering was that a year or two ago one older member who ended up dropping out of the M2M
wrote to us that they had developed congestive heart failure. They said Hygienic practitioners told them it was
due to lack of adequate protein and B-12 over an extended period. We later heard word from them through an
intermediary in the M2M that it may have been due to having followed a diet too high in fruits percentage -wise
for many years prior to that."
As discussed in the postscript to Part 2, although this is admittedly speculative, symptoms of heart disease in this
situation would also be consistent with hyperinsulinism as a possible cause, given the high level of carbohydrate from
the excessive fruits, combined with low protein consumption.
*** "Another sobering occurrence was that in the most recent issue of the M2M, one of our participants reporte d
that their two or three-year-old infant son--who was still breastfeeding (or had been until recently) and who,
along with the mother, was eating vegan Hygienic foods, including getting sunlight regularly --had developed
bowed legs as a manifestation of ri ckets due to vitamin D deficiency."
Case of rickets in vegan toddler. This example of serious nutritional deficiency was criticized by one vegan raw-food
advocate online, who made the accusation that crucial information must have been purposely withheld from my account,
and suggested the rickets could have been due to an induced calcium deficiency from the binding action of phytates if
the diet were rich in grains. Eor the record, here are the particulars of the father's and his son's diets:
N Family environment and parents' dietary beliefs/practices. (Erom issue #23 of the N.H. M2M): The father
himself had been vegetarian for 13 years, and for the last four had maintained a diet of "80 living foods"--
which we can take to mean roughly no more than about 20 of the diet (probably by volume since calories were
not mentioned) would have been other than raw (but possibly juiced, or blended) foods. He also mentions eating
potatoes and rice occasionally in this and another issue of the M2M. If we are being fair in making an estimate,
we'd probably have to say that at most, rice would have constituted no more than, say, 10 of the father's own
diet (half of the 20 non-living foods, given the mention of potatoes as a similarly occasional item).
N Particulars of father's diet (reflected to some degree in toddler's diet). The father also gave the following
rundown of the particulars of his own diet (which, as we'll see, has an influence on the character of his son's as
well) and to some extent his family's diet. (Little information was available for the mother's diet, except that it
was influenced to some degree by her husband's diet, and the implication is hers too was likely vegan, or mostly
so.) A typical breakfast would consist of bananas or grated apples with reconstituted raisins and a little tahini. Or
alternatively a fruit smoothie consisting of fresh-squeezed apple juice, tahini, dates and bananas. Lunch was a
salad of various vegetables at hand such as the usual items we are all familiar with: tomatoes, bell peppers,
cucumbers, celery, onion, broccoli, carrots, lettuce, sprouts, all topped with a nut or seed dressing--often tahini--
and/or avocado dressing. Eruit was a favored item for snacks later. Dinner was another raw salad for the whole
family with the possible addition of steamed vegetables or potatoes.
N The son's diet was not much different, though perhaps heavier in fruit. Like the father's, his was "a mostly
living foods vegan diet." The father also states that his son was unvaccinated--a sign generally indicative in the
vegan community of serious commitment overall to these types of dietary/lifestyle regimes. The son was still
breastfeeding at the age of 2 years and 8 months. Dietary consumption consisted of "6-8 bananas a day, apple
juice, oranges, kiwis, apples, celery, dates, steamed potatoes, all sorts of vegetables, organic spelt bread,
ricecakes, and his favorite spread right now is made with avocado, raw tahini, lime juice, raw cider vinegar, kelp,
and a couple of capsules of bluegreen algae."
Note that the father's statements quoted above depict a diet with a regular though not excessive level of grain
consumption, would which tend to refute our critic's idea of an induced calcium deficiency stemming from
inappropriately high levels of phytate in the diet.
Calcium deficiency rather than vitamin D deficienc y as potential cause? The critic's suggestion that the attribution of
the rickets to vitamin D deficiency overlooks the possibility of calcium deficiency does have merit. The father's account
(in issue #28 of the N.H. M2M) of visits to the pediatrician, however, strongly implies the doctors diagnosed or at least
themselves believed the symptoms were due to vitamin D deficiency. In rechecking my sources here, it is worth noting
that the father does make a statement elsewhere in the M2M that at the time of an earlier childhood bout of illness, they
had a hair analysis done "that showed some heavy metal contamination and calcium levels in the blood at the low end of
normal." (At the same time, here, it should also be noted that the accuracy of hair analysis can be controversial due to
alleged problems with repeatability.) How much effect a low-normal calcium level (assuming it persisted, or existed in
the first place) may have had at the time of the rickets diagnosis is not discussed.
Elimination of problem using supplements/animal foods demonstrates insufficiency of diet, regardless of exact
cause. What all of this does suggest, however, is that regardless of the exact cause of the rickets, the particular diet
followed--one fairly typical of the way recent, and more sensible Natural Hygiene vegan diets in general are practiced--
was insufficient in some way. Our critic seems to ignore this general point.
Another criticism by the same raw-food vegan critic who took a dim view of our example here was that "fats will
impede mineral absorption as well. Babies fed on early formulas with too much linoleic acid |a fatty acid| become
anemic." This speculation is easily refuted by the father, as it turns out, who mentions in passing at one point (in issue
#23 of the M2M) that the family was once threatened with having their son taken away by the authorities "because we
wouldn't feed him formula and baby rice."
Tendency is to rationalize as to speculative possibilities while ignoring probability/plausibility. To wrap up this
example, it's worth pointing out that these kinds of speculative rationalizations are heard all the time in the vegan
community, and are a good illustration of how dietary extremists are almost without fail more interested in finding ways
"to explain things away" rather than simply accept that these things can and do happen on vegan diets. No matter how
strong the example, you can count on an extremist first looking for a way to rationalize it in preference to dealing with it
on its own terms. We see here another prime earmark of the idealist's (dubious) logical method of criticism and pep-
talking: engage in speculation as to numerous possibilities (to deflect attention from a more direct interpretation of the
evidence) that redirect attention away from the critic's favored regime as the cause, without regard for probabilitv,
reasonableness, parsimony of explanation, and plausibility in the equation of arriving at the most likelv explanation
given the evidence.
The lesson from our example of rickets above, again, is that even if we cede that we may not be able to pin down the
proximate cause with absolute certainty in such an anecdotal example (even one verified by mainstream doctors),
nevertheless the remedy of adding animal products in the form of goat dairy, plus a vitamin D and multivitamin
supplement solved the problem. The unavoidable implication is that the diet was deficient in some way, whatever those
deficiencies or their causes may have been.
Special measures to make vegan diets work can be seen as compensations for lack of evolutionary congruence. As
outlined in detail in Part 1 of these interviews, the evolutionary evidence makes it clear that vegan diets are not the
original, natural diet of humans, and never have been at any point in our hist ory. Nevertheless, we can cede the point that
with the right kind of manipulations, it may be possible in whatever number of cases to compensate for the unnaturalness
of leaving animal products out of the human diet by instituting various dietary practices that may be utilized in a
particular vegan diet.
That even informed advocates acknowledge vegan diets should be carefully planned suggests that less margin for
error is a real issue. Unfortunately, however, as we see above, some individuals simply don't do well on vegan diets
even when conscientious attempts may be made. Often, more scientifically oriented vegan advocates will object in such
cases that the diet wasn't "intelligently planned" enough. Yet if one must go to such lengths to be so conscientious and
careful, what does this suggest?
The most logical conclusion is that there isn't as much margin for error on vegan diets in terms of nutrient deficiencies,
while with the inclusion of animal products--a part of the natural human diet--or with the addition of artificial
supplements to compensate for their absence, there is. (I do not mean, of course, to suggest that milk is ideal as an
animal food. In view of the evolutionary and clinical evidence regarding potential long-term problems due to high
saturated fat levels in dairy (among other things), flesh food would be the logical choice as the animal food we are most
fit to eat. However, the vegetarian way of life does not permit this, so dairy (or eggs) often becomes the only choice
available for those vegetarians who are willing to consider any animal products at all.)
*** The yo-yo syndrome as potential indicator of failure to thrive on strict diets:
One behavioral type of symptom that may be experienced on raw-food diets that was not discussed at much length is
what could be called the yo-yo syndrome. Although in extreme cases this can be expressed as binge/purge or alternate
fast/feast behavior, more typically it is typified by on-the-wagon/off-the-wagon behavior. Those for whom vegan or raw-
food diets don't work well may blame themselves as a consequence of their idealism, and go through a continual cycle of
try/fail, try/fail, try/fail, attempting to get the diet to work, no matter how many times it is attempted. Typically, guilt
feelings ensue and become reinforced by such behavior, and blame is then laid on "addictions" or lack of self -discipline.
Since this type of behavior could potentially manifest itself with anv diet that one puts up as an ideal different from past
habits, however, I do not know at this time of any foolproof way one can tell for sure in any particular case whether it is
indicative of nutritional insufficiency as opposed to "lack of will," so to speak. However if it occurs in conjunction with
one or more of the physical symptoms mentioned in the interview, one would have to consider the strong possibility the
behavior is more likely biologically driven.
Viewing the yo-yo syndrome as valuable feedback to help pinpoint problems breaks the cycle of guilt over so -
called "lapses." At the least, one can use the presence of the behavior as a feedback signal that one is either not
physically satisfied by a diet, or alternatively that something about one's implementation of the diet is not satisfying
innate human needs for gustatory and emotional satisfaction from the foods eaten, over and above their nutritional
sufficiency. (Anyone who has experienced a fast of any length of time can attest to the fact that food and eating satisfy
not just physical needs, but also "feed" a certain human need for psychological or oral satisfaction in eating; not to
mention the role that food and "eating time" play in structuring a "day in the life" of human behavior.)
A "biological" view of this behavior, of course, would point out the likelihood that on-the-wagon/off-the-wagon
behavior may have little to do with "discipline" problems or "addictions," but could be the simple result of one's body
forcing them to eat other things in spite of their determination not to, in order to get needed nutrients not available (or
not in high enough quantity) from the "allowed" items in the diet. It also needs to be pointed out that even where one is
following a prescribed diet that might be supposedly "right" for them (for instance, perhaps an evolutionary-type diet
like we have discussed here), people still have individual needs that they will often have to arrive at individual solutions
for.
Unhooking from guilt frees attention to seriously consider and evaluate practical solutions one may have been
blind to before. A different approach, therefore--no matter what one's dietary philosophy or knowledge--is that one can
instead ask: What kind of drive toward satisfying some physical, emotional, or psychological need may have pushed
them into the "lapse"? The trick here of course is to figure out what the "indulgence" may be signaling. But at least one
is no longer blinded by the self-defeating cycle of guilt and recrimination, which frees up one's vision to look at serious
alternatives.
Eor example: Is there something in the food, or about the food itself that the body may be craving even if one has
previous conditioning the food is "bad"? Or, even if the food is bad, is there something in it that one is attracted to in
attempting to satisfy some other legitimate need one could get from another, better food they have been avoiding?
Perhaps there is even something about the experience of eating the food or the particular psychological satisfaction it
brings, rather than strictly the dimension of nutritional considerations that one finds satisfying about it: for instance,
texture, taste, the bodily feelings generated after eating it, etc.
Experimental attitude requires new mental relationship with the question of "certainty." Taking this perspective
can be a way out of the self-blame and reactiveness of guilt, or self-destructive and futile "discipline," into a mode where
one uses their behavior as a kind of feedback guide to better satisfy themselves on the way to reaching better health.
Doing this, however, requires taking an experimental attitude and being willing to temporarily suspend the tendency
toward instant judgment or wanting instant certainty, and to instead "live in the question" while realizing some answers
in life require that one find them on their own without the assurance of an external authority.
*** Why is being "hungry all the time" on a veg -raw-food diet such a problem for some individuals even in the
short-term before any deficiencies could have arisen?
Diet is lower in overall nutrient/energy-density than the one the human body evolved on. With the benefit of recent
studies indicating that the human gut evolved to be less energy-intensive in performing its functions, and more
dependent on higher-density, higher-energy foods with higher protein and fatty acid content (much of them animal in
origin) to support the evolution of the large energy-intensive human brain (see postscript to Part 1), it appears we have a
very likely explanation for why so many raw-foodists are so hungry all time: They simply aren't eating enough
concentrated food. (While it is true that some people's bodies seem to be able to functionally adapt to this t o one degree
or another, or they may be blessed with more efficient metabolisms to begin with, there are many more who can't make a
go of it very well.)
Human digestive system not optimized for maximum extraction of nutrition/energy from a diet of all hig h-fiber
foods. In avoiding animal foods and--if totally raw-foodist--also many of the more concentrated vegetarian foods like
cooked grains, legumes, tubers, etc., such individuals have relegated themselves to eating a diet significantly lower in
overall nutrient and energy-density. (See The Calorie Paradox of Raw Veganism for a detailed discussion and analysis of
the energy-density aspect of this equation.) When you combine this with the fact that the human gut is also not as
efficient in extracting nutrients from these higher-fiber foods as it is from denser foods (which is not to say sufficient
amounts of fiber do not have their rightful place as a valuable component of the diet), you have a good recipe for the
urge so many raw-foodists have to eat large volumes of food, while still remaining hungry much of the time.
The binge/purge or fast/feast behavior some raw-foodists get themselves into also becomes understandable as a
confluence of this underlying metabolic cause combined with mental overidealism. Thus, while the resulting syndromes
might be similar to bulimic-type behavior seen in more mainstream dieters, the underlying causes are somewhat
different.
Eating like a gorilla leads to a life centered around food like a gorilla. It is also worth noting that even gorillas, who
have the kind of intestinal fauna and flora to handle a very high-roughage diet more efficiently, still spend considerably
larger portions of their day eating than humans normally do. Humans by contrast have been evolving away from this to
some degree, towards a more active social existence, which itself takes time. By attempting to "eat like a gorilla," one to
some extent has no choice but to spend more of their day eating (or thinking about it, if they are going hungry). This in
itself tends to lead to a food-centered existence that breeds obsession, which is reflected in the perception among others
that raw-foodists often become fixated on food to the detriment of other aspects of human life.
*** Becoming highly dependent on "mainstay" foods in a veg -raw diet:
The frequency of dependence on avocados and/or nuts is explained by human digestive system's design for denser
foods. The smaller gut/dense, fattier foods/large-brain connection that arose during evolution also goes a long way
toward explaining why many veg-raw-foodists may become heavily dependent on foods like avocados and nuts to make
the diet actually work. Many raw-foodists have something of a guilt complex about the large numbers of avocados and
nuts they often eat. Intuitively they seem to feel that their diets contain disproportionate amounts of these items, yet at
the same time they cannot stop eating them. This dependence on these foods (sometimes not even realized as such) may
lead to guilt feelings, or may become expressed in strictures or rules meant to clamp down on what is felt are
"gluttonous" urges toward eating these foods. This is especially true in this day and age when the high-carbohydrate,
low-fat gospel reigns supreme, which casts something of a pall over the joys otherwise to be had for vegetarians in
eating these more-fatty, hunger-satiating foods.
Raw-foodist eating patterns and difficulties are predictable/understandable given evolutionary design of human
gut. Yet from the perspective of the evolution of the smaller human gut geared toward the digestion of denser, fattier
foods (in the past it was primarily animal flesh, of course) it is easy to see why raw-foodists often become highly
dependent on avocados and nuts in their diet and suffer without them. The only other alternatives--both ruled out for
raw-foodists--are to eat cooked grains, legumes, and tubers to get more concentrated nutrient intake, or dairy products or
eggs. Those having been eschewed, the choice occurs almost by default, though it's really probably almost a for egone
conclusion given the restrictions veg-raw-foodists live under, when analyzed from the perspective of the evolution of the
human diet and digestive system.
Once all other, more energy-dense foods are eliminated, "fruitarianism" is the logical/inevita ble outcome. To
make matters worse, many raw-foodists living under the above strictures and who actually do try to either eliminate nuts
and avocados, or at least seriously limit them, understandably tend to find the only remaining somewhat concentrated
foods--fruits--looming large as attractive taste treats, and often overindulge in these otherwise fine foods. But when
made too large a part of the diet--and given that modern fruits have been bred for higher sugar contents than their
ancestors--this can lead to another set of problems resulting either in hyperinsulinism or sugar addiction.
Of all the varieties of vegetarians and "living foodists" and raw-foodists, it is the so-called "fruitarians" who get into the
most health trouble the most quickly. And again, it is not hard to see how this can happen with the progressively more
limited set of foods allowed under the vegetarian raw-foods philosophy. It is not just the "ethical" consideration that
fruitarians put forth (as a motivating factor) that fruits are the only "karmaless" food that's obtainable without harming a
plant to obtain food from it. The digestive, metabolic (energy-producing), and satiation (hunger-satisfying)
characteristics of foods that play out based on the dietary limitations one lives under, in fact, inexorably lead to these
behaviors in logical, understandable ways.
(The Fallacv of Fruitarianism. hord Games vs. the Real horld of Practice and Results)
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
P O S T S C R I P T : S I G N I E I C A N T U P D A T E S ( c o n t .)
The fallacy of fruitarianism: word games
vs. the real world of practice and results
The following material on fruitarianism had to be cut from the original print interview due to space restrictions, but is
included here on the web in expanded and rewritten form, since fruitarianism has proven to be a seductive phil osophical
and behavioral trap that those who are particularly prone to idealism or extremism within the vegetarian movement
sometimes fall prey to. It can and often does lead to serious and long-lasting health consequences. (One unfortunate
member of the Natural Hygiene Many-to-Many, for example, lost all their teeth as a result of a high-fruit diet; although
the potential problems of high-fruit diets extend considerably beyond just loss of teeth.)
H&B: Let's hear more about the fruitarianism question--with regard to humans and apes both. I know you have
plenty of opinions on the thinking and behavior of those subscribing to this particular system of diet.
h.N.. Well, first there is the problem of defining just what you mean by the words "fruit" and "fruitarian." There is a lot
of gamesmanship, sleight-of-hand, and word redefinition that goes on among fruitarian advocates to redefine "fruit"
away from the common definition (soft, pulpy, sweet, juicy fruits from tree or vine) so that it includes the so-called
"vegetable fruits" like peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes and the like, or "nut -fruits" and so on, so as to broaden what is
considered "fruitarian." In a botanical sense, these foods can be considered fruits, and thus--if we stretch things a bit--
perhaps "technically" permissible in what might be called a "fruitarian" diet.
The problem, however, is that most fruitarians don't even stop there either. Most go further and allow or even
specifically recommend "greens" and/or "green-leafed vegetables" as essential, and of course neither of these qualify as
fruit even in the botanical sense. Once you get this far, any sense of integrity about what "fruit" really means has been
sacrificed to the realm of fast-talking slipperiness.
Word games over what qualifies as "fruit" usually expand the definition so far that the distinction means little.
But you have to look at the fact that most people don't normally think of these other items as fruits unless they are trying
to wiggle out of the straightjacket the normal definition creates when you really start to think about being able to survive
on nothing but fruits alone. So if one wants to play games and define a fruit as almost anything under the sun that is a
"seed-bearing mesocarp" or whatever, well, fine, but in my view that's losing touch with the reality of what people mean
in common parlance and mutual understanding of the language. Certainly if you define fruit broadly enough as a botanist
might, you may be able to make it as what I call a "technical fruitarian" (meaning extremely technically defined).
We should recognize that this is just a game, though, because it's a moving target that people trying to be fruitarians use
so it won't bother their conscience to use the label. Erankly, the way fruit is sometimes defined by fruitarians (to include
nuts, seeds, greens, and/or green vegetables) doesn't really distinguish the diet much, if any, from an all-raw version of a
Natural Hygiene diet of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds.
Were our evolutionary primate predecessors really true "fruitarians"? If you are defining fruit the way it is
commonly defined as relatively high-sugar-content, juicy tree fruits plus things like melons, berries, and so forth, then
we have something more concrete to talk about. As far as the normally defined fruits go, there is a partial grain of truth
to apes as fruitarians, and for the ancestor common to us both, but only if you remember we are talking what the greatest
percentage of the diet was. While over half may have been fruit at one time (perhaps with the gracile Australopithecines
3-4 million years ago, although I don't know of any data to confirm this with any surety or not), there were also
significant portions of other foods. To really make a case for anything approaching fruitarianism as ancestral to humans,
you would have to go back to at least the common ape-like ancestor ancestral to both chimps and humans approximately
7 million years ago, and even this would not have been total fruitarianism.
The closest approximation to fruitarianism (and not completely so, at that) in an ape-like species might have been in the
time period of around 40 million years ago, but you have to realize these creatures were apes and not human. Humans
themselves (the genus Homo, beginning with Homo habilis over 2 million years ago) have never been fruitarian. Even
chimps, who are the nearest modern ape species to fruitarianism, do not eat above 2/3 fruit or so in the case of the
common chimp, or perhaps as high as 80 in the case of the bonobo chimp--in either case still a significant amount
short of 100, especially when you consider they both also eat leaves, pith, insects, and a bit of meat too.
Simply put: Humans are not apes. As a number of Natural Hygiene practitioners have noted, however, few humans
can eat even 2/3 fruit over long periods of time without getting into serious difficulties. We had several M2M folks try
near-fruitarian diets, and no one had any lasting success with it, although some have done fine for several months at first,
perhaps even a year or two. In fact, those that we knew of in the M2M reported getting into trouble trying to do so and
later regretted their naivete in attempting it, due to the problems that eventually followed. The two most common
repercussions of long-term attempts at fruitarianism are usually that the teeth are the first to go, then people's blood-
sugar processing abilities, along with deficiencies.
People may do well at first, but this is because they are living off of past nutritional reserves , and when the stored
reserves run out, the game's over. This is a theme we've probably beaten to death here, but it warrants repet ition,
especially with regard to fruitarian diets: It is not enough for a diet to be "clean"--it must also be a sufficient diet.
Eruitarianism and near-fruitarianism are the worst possible case, because in addition to progressive long-term
deficiencies, the body's insulin-production capabilities are being simultaneously overwhelmed with the high
carbohydrate load in the form of higher glycemic-index foods containing simpler sugars like glucose, sucrose, and
fructose.
Advocates of "fruitarianism" frequently change their definition of it over time. Most people who initially promote a
total fruitarian diet are forced to back off and begin allowing the use of some nuts, seeds, and green vegetables from
experience. This may extend the period over which a "fruitarian" can maintain their regimen, but it doesn't remove the
underlying problem of the long-term consequences of excessive sugar consumption and/or hyperinsulinism, not to
mention low intake of B-vitamins, certain minerals, etc., that are likely to result if the diet is continued long enough.
(Although the following is just speculation, and there may certainly have been other potentially causative factors, it is
worth considering that the relatively early death of near-fruitarian advocate T.C. Ery at age 70 recently--from
atherosclerotic plaques in his legs that led to a coronary embolism--might possibly have been due at least in part to
hyperinsulinism, which can promote atherosclerosis and heart disease. See Chet Day's investigative article, "The Life &
Times of T.C. Ery" at the Health & Bevond website for more on Ery's life and the events leading up to his death. Caveat.
You will need the helper app Adobe Acrobat Reader for your web browser to read the PDE fi le that you'll be served up
while online.)
Noteworthy 1970s-era expos of numerous alleged fruitarians found no successes, and widespread
misrepresentation of diets actually eaten.
4-Part "Fruit for Thought" article series, by the American Vegan Society's 1ay Dinshah. An interesting little piece
of Hygienic history here that most are probably unaware of is that Jay Dinshah, a long-time vegan who was previously a
staffer with ANHS (the American Natural Hygiene Society) many years ago, published an extensive article series on
fruitarianism in the late 1970s, titled "Eruit for Thought," in his own newsletter Ahimsa--the most in-depth piece of
journalism on the subject I have ever seen. |Dinshah 1976-77|
Fruitarian gurus weren't actually practicing what they preached, but followers who did ran aground. As part of
the series (ordering information), Dinshah told of his investigations, ranging over many years, of all the fruitarian
advocates he knew of at the time claiming to live on fruitarian diets. He originally thought himself that fruitarianism
seemed theoretically possible. But over the years, what he discovered was that none of them--and this included famed
fruitarian advocates like Johnny Lovewisdom, Walter Siegmeister (pen name Raymond Bernard), and Viktoras
Kulvinskas--were actually living on fruitarian diets, even as they defined the diet for themselves. Yet there were many
others Dinshah met who had taken the advice of these people quite seriously and had gotten themselves into very serious
health troubles.
Excuses, excuses. Lovewisdom was eating plenty of vegetables but made the excuse his orchards and gardens in the
Ecuadorian tropics were not in the right place to enable the fruit to be of the qualit y to support him in good health.
Breatharian advocate Siegmeister was living not even as a fruitarian but as a vegan. And Kulvinskas was basically eating
as a garden-variety raw-foodist vegetarian with periodic lapses back to cooked food--while he had previously
championed liquitarianism (juices only), fruitarianism, and even breatharianism. |I am not aware of what Kulvinskas'
living-food-type recommendations and practices are these days, many years later.|
Through another route, I've seen reporting on Wiley Brooks |Mapes 1993| a reputed, so-called "breatharian," who
readily admits to eating Big Macs and Twinkies now and then, but claims those are not what actually sustai n him--it is
really the air sustaining him in spite of what he is eating! (Now there is some truly creative, totally untestable, idealistic
logic for you!)
Failures the rule, no successes ever came to light. Of the people who had lived on truly restrictive (soft/sweet, tree-
fruit-type) fruitarian diets, Dinshah's article series brought to light that their practices had put them in a bad way health-
wise. Also included in Dinshah's article series was the substance of a conversation he had once had with Dr. Gerald
Benesh |who has been previously interviewed in Health & Bevond| who reported that "in all his years of practice, in
fasting, rebuilding, and advising people in even that wonderful climate |near Escondido, CA in the 1960s| and with the
fine fruits available in the area and from below the Mexican border, he had nonetheless never been able to bring even
one of his people to the point where they could live in good health on just fruits." |Dinshah 1976-77, Part 1, p. 7|
Little change in fruitarian movement between now and then. As well, Dinshah took a long, hard look in his series at
the rationale and reasoning behind fruitarianism as published in books on the subject at the time--echoing claims and
propositions very similar if not identical to what we hear today--and found the literature of the time rife with logical as
well as outright factual errors and assumptions. (Eor a look here on Bevond Jeg at these types of errors, see the material
available in Selected Myths of Raw Eoods, and in our Waking Up from the Eruitarian Dreamtime section.)
Notable Natural Hygiene practitioner at the time related specific problems seen in numerous fruitarian patients.
Printed in tandem with the article series was also a separate reprint of an article by Benesh himself |Benesh 1971| that
had previously been published in Herbert Shelton's Hvgienic Review, detailing a few of the serious problems he had seen
develop in people he had cared for who attempted a fruitarian diet--even on high-quality fruits available in season--for
more than a few to several months. Benesh listed the following symptoms of people on long-term fruitarian diets that he
had seen in his own Natural Hygiene practice, which we should note are not so very different from those mentioned
earlier in this interview for the majority of other total-raw-foodists who experience long-term troubles:
|R|idged nails, gingivitis, dental caries, dry skin and brittle hair, lowered red blood cell count and low
hemoglobin percentage. Over a long period of time (at least one year or more) the blood serum level
drops to a point of an impending pathological state if not corrected.
Many of them display serious signs of neurological disorders, while some experience emotional upsets
and extreme nervousness and often complain of insomnia. When their nutritional program is corrected
these signs disappear and the patient finds himself in a much improved state of health.
I recently spoke with a health-minded medical doctor, who embarked on this lopsided program and did
very well, experiencing a high state health for about a year, when almost suddenly a loss of weight was
experienced and neurological signs were evident. This doctor took a series of blood and serum tests plus
other pertinent tests, which verified what I have observed in fruitarians and excessive fruit -eaters, and
corroborates my findings.
Another cardinal lack that occurs quite often is a distinct lack of vitamin B-12. This lack of B-12 gives
rise to the neurological signs that indicate a serious deprivation of this vital element needed to keep the
nervous system operating at a so-called normal level.
Potential explanation for digestive difficulties in long -term fruitarians. Long-term attempts at fruitarianism can also
lead to other problems. According to Benesh, the excessive amounts of organic acids from a fruitarian diet are unable to
be adequately buffered by the digestive system, with the result that these acids end up in the lar ge colon where they
interfere with proper balance and/or amount of intestinal flora. The ultimate result can be compromised bowel function,
which in a few cases can result in serious health problems such as colitis, if the person continues to persist on the diet.
Benesh theorizes that the excessive acids cause salts to be drawn from the cells of the colon resulting in flaccidity and
interference with peristalsis. (Note that if a similar process occurred in the small intestine as well, this might be a
possible explanation for why extended attempts at fruitarianism sometimes result in the apparent inability to digest so-
called "heavier" foods |nuts, cooked potatoes or rice, etc.|, which may pass through the digestive tract relatively little
digested, as reported by some fruitarians. See Tom Billings' bio on this site for a brief mention of his experiences in this
regard as a former fruitarian.) Benesh also notes that hemorrhoids are not uncommon, and that fecal analysis may reveal
occult blood as a result of minute petechial hemorrhages of the small blood vessels in the mucosal lining of the intestine.
Beyond the myth of fruitarianism is the empowerment that freedom from fantasy brings.
Eruitarianism is a myth that dies hard, but the price of the illusion is having to learn the hard way. If the reality seems
disillusioning, consider what is gained instead: freedom from a deceptive, if well -intentioned, fantasy that ends up
hurting people. Ereedom from fibs that people tell themselves and others that only compromise the capacity for self -
honesty and the ability to more objectively assess how their health is actually being affected.
When evaluating claims, look beyond the word games. What you should do when you encounter those advocating
fruitarianism is to look at what they actually eat. To find out the truth, look at what they do, not what they say. So far,
what has inevitably been found is that such fruitarians are either in poor health if they have truly been eating solely sweet
and succulent fruits for any length of time; or if in seemingly good health, they invariably include other foods that the
rest of us would consider vegetables or "greens"; and most often also nuts and avocados as well (which are hard to do
without and still obtain sufficient fat and protein on this kind of diet). In some cases the game-playing can reach rather
absurd levels to where even things like sea vegetables and dulse, steamed potatoes or rice on occasion (eggs have even
been called "hen-fruit" before) are somehow defined as fruits or technically "permissible" in a fruitarian diet.
So when you find fruitarians splitting hairs over what technically qualifies as a fruit, you should be honest enough to
recognize fruitarianism for the word game it actually is, instead of getting carried away by idealistic fantasies. There is
no empirical support for successful fruitarianism (as it would be commonly thought of) either in hominid evolution and
just as importantly in the real world of results for people who have tried it. If you run across people who do claim to be
successful, you should be very skeptical, since fibbing, prevaricating, and word-gamesmanship have proven upon
investigation to constitute a necessary pillar of support in the lore and history of fruitarianism.
A more "evolved" path, or only more extreme? So if it is true that the "successful" fruitarians are so only because
they define fruit very broadly as any "seed-bearing mesocarp," what real difference does it make? Why are they so
concerned to define themselves as one? In the end, it usually comes down to an ideal that fruitarianism is somehow more
physically "pure" or more spiritually "evolved" than garden-variety vegetarianism. People want to think of themselves as
special (which in itself is natural and understandable, of course), and fruitarianism is painted as being the "next step" in
dietary evolution. What it really is, however, is a next step toward extremism, philosophical dishonesty, and ultimately
failure of health.
1udge the diet, not yourself--by bottom-line results, not high-sounding philosophy. Think very seriously before
giving credit to those who claim the mantle of fruitarianism or other extremist/idealist dietary programs, and especially
before putting your health at risk based on their advice. Instead, put the power of reality-based thinking and knowledge
to work in opening up workable avenues for dietary experimentation based on honesty. Rather than judging yourself and
your behavior by a dietary philosophy, turn the equation around and evaluate the worth of a diet by the concrete results it
gives.
END PART 3
Aote: After four vears of running the Natural Hvgiene Manv-to-Manv, hard passed on the Coordinatorship of the N.H. M2M to long-time
member and raw-foodist Bob Averv, who took over publication with the Februarv 1997 issue. To learn more about the N.H. M2M (now called
the Natural Health M2M), or for information about getting a sample copv, vou can find out more here.
SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY
If vou found this material disturbing, perturbing, or its simplv reverberating around in ve olde skull for other reasons,
dont be shv' Give the hardman a piece of vour mind like evervbodv else did.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y E O R
Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism:
What Was Humanity's Original Natural Diet?
Abrams, H. Leon Jr. (1979) "The relevance of Paleolithic diet in determining contemporary nutritional needs." Journal
of Applied Nutrition, vol. 31, nos. 1 & 2, pp. 43-59.
Abrams, H. Leon Jr. (1980) "Vegetarianism: an anthropological/nutritional evaluation." Journal of Applied Nutrition,
vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 53-87.
Abrams, H. Leon Jr. (1982) "Anthropological research reveals human dietary requirements for optimal health." Journal
of Applied Nutrition, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 38-45.
Abrams, H. Leon Jr. (1983) "Salt and sodium: an anthropological cross cultural perspective in health and disease."
Journal of Applied Nutrition, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 127-158.
Aiello, Leslie C.; Wheeler, Peter (1995) "The expensive-tissue hypothesis: the brain and the digestive system in human
and primate evolution." Current Anthropologv, vol. 36, no. 2 (April 1995), pp. 199-221.
American Dietetic Association (1993) "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets." Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, vol. 93 (Nov. 1993), pp. 1317-1319.
Ames, Bruce (1983) "Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens. Oxygen radicals and degenerative diseases." Science,
vol. 221 (Sept. 23, 1983), pp. 1256-1264.
Ames, Bruce N.; Magaw, Renae; Gold, Lois Swirsky (1987) "Ranking possible carcinogenic hazards." Science, vol. 236
(Apr. 17, 1987), pp. 271-280. (Discussions follow in vol. 237 (Jul. 17, 1987), p. 235; vol. 237 (Sep. 18, 1987), pp. 1399-
1400; vol. 238 (Dec. 18, 1987) pp. 1633-1635; vol. 240 (May 20, 1988) pp. 1043-1047.)
Andrews, Peter; Martin, Lawrence (1992) "Hominoid dietary evolution." In: Whiten A. and Widdowson E.M.
(editors/organizers), Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of Monkevs, Apes, and Humans. Proceedings of a Roval
Societv Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. (pp. 39-49)
Angel, Lawrence J. (1984) "Health as a crucial factor in the changes from hunting to developed farming in the Eastern
Mediterranean." In: Cohen, Mark; Armelagos, George J. (eds.) Paleopathologv at the Origins of Agriculture. Orlando:
Academic Press. (pp. 51-73)
Aoki K. (1991) "Time required for gene frequency change in a deterministic model of gene culture coevolution, with
special reference to the lactose absorption problem." Theoretical Population Biologv, vol. 40, pp. 354-368.
Audette, Raymond V.; with Gilchrist, Troy (1995) Neander-Thin. A Cave Mans Guide to Nutrition. Dallas, Texas:
Paleolithic Press.
Barzel, Uriel S.; Massey, Linda K. (1998) "Excess dietary protein can adversely affect bone." Journal of Nutrition, vol.
128, pp. 1051-1053.
Benditt, John (1989) "Cold water on the fire: a recent survey casts doubt on evidence for early use of fire." Scientific
American, May 1989, pp. 21-22.
Benesh, Gerald (1971) "Excessive fruit eating." Ahimsa, vol. 17, no. 3 (May/Jun. 1976), pp. 1-2. (Reprinted from Dr.
Shelton's Hygienic Review, Apr. 1971)
Berglund and Bjrck (1993) "Ice through the ages." In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.) The First Humans. Human Origins and
Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (pp. 82-83)
Bidwell, Victoria (1990) The Health Seekers Yearbook. A Revolutionists Handbook for Getting hell and Staving hell
without The Medicine Men. Ereemont, California: GetWell StayWell America.
Blumenschine, Robert J. (1992) "Hominid carnivory and foraging strategies, and the socio-economic function of early
archaeological sites." In: Whiten A. and Widdowson E.M. (editors/organizers), Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of
Monkevs, Apes, and Humans. Proceedings of a Roval Societv Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Oxford,
England: Clarendon Press. (pp. 51-61)
Bodmer, W.E.; Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1976) Genetics, Evolution, and Man. San Erancisco, California: W.H. Ereeman &
Co..
Bower, Bruce (1989) "A world that never existed: researchers debate the pervasive view of modern hunter -gatherers as a
window to humanity's past." Science News, vol. 135 (Apr. 29, 1989), pp. 264-266.
Breslau, N.A.; Brinkley, L.; Hill, K.; Pak, C.Y.C. (1988) "Relationship of animal-protein rich diet to kidney stone
formation and calcium metabolism." J Clin Endocrinol Metab, vol. 66, pp. 140-146.
Brody, Jane E. (1979) "Studies suggest a harmful shift in today's menu." New York Times (Science Section). May 15,
1979, p. C1 and following.
Burch, Ernest S. Jr.; Ellanna, Linda J. (eds) (1994) Kev Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Oxford, England;
Providence, Rhode Island: Berg.
Burenhult, Goran (ed.) (1993a) The First Humans. Human Origins and Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-
Collins Publishers.
Burenhult, Goran (ed.) (1993b) People of the Stone Age. Hunter-Gatherers and Earlv Farmers. New York: Harper-
Collins Publishers.
Burenhult, Goran (1993c) "Towards homo sapiens: habilines, erectines, and neanderthals." In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.),
The First Humans. Human Origins and Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (pp. 55-59, 62-64,
66-67)
Burenhult, Goran (1993d) "Modern people in Africa and Europe." In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.), The First Humans. Human
Origins and Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (pp. 77-81, 84-85, 88-93, 95)
Campbell, T. Colin; Chen, J. (1994) "Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China." American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 59, pp. 1153S-1161S.
Catassi, C.; Ratsch, I.-M.; Eabiani, E. (1994) "Celiac disease in the year 2000: exploring the iceberg." The Lancet (North
American edition), Jan. 22, 1994, vol. 343, pp. 200-203.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; Piazza, Alberto (1994) The Historv and Geographv of Human Genes.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Cinque, Ralph C. (1976) "Man's natural diet." Ahimsa, vol. 17, no. 3 (May/Jun. 1976), pp. 1-2, 4. (Reprinted from Dr.
Sheltons Hvgienic Review, Jun. 1976)
Coursey, D.G. (1975) "The origins and domestication of yams in Africa." In: Arnott, Margaret L. (ed.), Gastronomv.
The Anthropologv of Food and Food Habits. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Distributed in U.S. by Aldine Publishing
Co., Chicago, Illinois. (pp. 187-212)
Crawford, Michael A. (1992) "The role of dietary fatty acids in biology: their place in the evolution of the human brain."
Nutrition Reviews, vol. 50, no. 4 (April 1992, part 2) pp. 3-11.
Cridland, Ronald (1988) "Dr. Ronald Cridland replies," in "Truth, Not Tradition, Is the Basis of Natural Hygiene."
Health Science, March/April 1988, pp. 7-9. (on food combining, antibiotics, vaccines, and infectious disease, including
ANHS conf where many N.H. attendees came down with flu-like symptoms)
Cridland, Ronald (1994a) "Ultimate in vegetables." Health Science, May/Jun. 1994, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 21. (on gas to due
raw broccoli and cauliflower)
Cridland, Ronald (1994b) "Unwanted natural gas." Health Science, July/Aug. 1994, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 22-23. (on gas
even while following food combining, etc.)
Davidson, Iain; Noble, William (1993) "When did language begin?" In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.) The First Humans.
Human Origins and Historv to 10,000 B. C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (p. 46)
Davis, Devra Lee (1987) "Paleolithic Diet, Evolution, and Carcinogens." Science, vol. 238, pp. 1633-1634 (includes
response by Bruce Ames).
DeEoliart Gene R. (compiled by) (1995a) "Eood insects hold prominent place in international symposium on biodiversity
in agriculture for a sustainable future, Beijing, China, September 19-21, 1995." The Food Insects Newsletter, November
1995, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 1-4.
DeEoliart Gene R. (compiled by) (1995b) "The human use of insects as food in Uganda." The Food Insects Newsletter,
March 1995, Vol. 8, No. 1., pp. 1, 10.
Diamond, Jared (1996) "Why women change." Discover, vol. 17 (July 1996) no. 7, pp. 130-137. (on the evolution of
menopause, and selection for longevity in humans)
Dinshah, Ereya (1976) "Menstruation." Ahimsa, vol. 17, no. 2 (Mar./Apr. 1976), p. 6.
Dinshah, H. Jay, (1976-77) "Eruit for thought: should man live by fruit alone?" (a 4-part article series). Ahimsa, Part 1 in
vol. 17, no. 2 (Mar./Apr. 1976), pp. 1, 4, 7-8; Part 2 in vol. 17, no. 3 (May/Jun. 1976), pp. 1, 7-8; Part 3 in vol. 17, no. 4
(Jul./Aug., Sept./Oct., Nov./Dec. 1976 combined issue), pp. 1-9, 11-12; Part 4 in vol. 18, no. 1 (Jan./Mar. 1977), pp. 1-3,
5-8.
Eaton, S. Boyd, and Konner, Melvin (1985) "Paleolithic nutrition: a consideration of its nature and current implications."
The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 312, no. 5 (Jan. 31, 1985), pp. 283-289.
Eaton, S.B.; Konner, Melvin; Shostak, Marjorie (1988a) "Stone-agers in the fast lane: chronic degenerative diseases in
evolutionary perspective." American Journal of Medicine, vol. 84, pp. 739-749.
Eaton, S. Boyd; Shostak, Marjorie; Konner, Melvin (1988b) The Paleolithic Prescription. A Program of Diet and
Exercise and a Design for Living. New York: Harper & Row.
Eaton, S.B.; Nelson, D.A. (1991) "Calcium in evolutionary perspective." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol.
54, pp. 281S-287S.
Eaton, S. Boyd (1992) "Humans, Lipids, and Evolution." Lipids, vol. 27, no. 10 (1992), pp. 814-820.
Eaton, S. Boyd; Eaton, Stanley B. III; Konner, Melvin J.; Shostak, Marjorie (1996) "An evolutionary perspective
enhances understanding of human nutritional requirements." Journal of Nutrition, vol. 126 (1996), pp. 1732-1740.
Eaton, S. Boyd; Eaton, Stanley B. III (1998) "Evolution, diet and health." Presented in association with the scientific
session, "Origins and Evolution of Human Diet," at the 14th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences in Williamsburg, Virginia. (See the symposium's website for other papers presented.)
Eldredge, Niles (1995) Reinventing Darwin. The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionarv Theorv. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ember, C.R. (1978) "Myths about hunter-gatherers." Ethnologv, vol. 17, pp. 439-448.
Eischman, Joshua (1996a) "A fireplace in Erance." Discover, Jan. 1996, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 69.
Eischman, Joshua (1996b) "Oldest Europeans reign in Spain." Discover, Jan. 1996, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 66-67.
Eoley, Robert, (1995) Humans Before Humanitv. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Eorni, Gaetano (1975) "The origin of grape wine: a problem of historical ecological anthropology." In: Arnott, Margaret
L. (ed.), Gastronomv. The Anthropologv of Food and Food Habits. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Distributed in U.S.
by Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois. (pp. 67-78)
Gittleman Ann Louise (with James Templeton and Candelore Versace) (1996) Your Bodv Knows Best. The
Revolutionarv Eating Plan That Helps You Achieve Your Optimal height and Energv Level for Life. New York: Pocket
Books, a division of Simon & Schuster Inc.
Goldfinger, Stephen E. (1992) "Celiac disease: a cereal mystery." Harvard Health Letter, vol. 17, no. 4 (Eeb. 1992), pp.
6-8.
Goodall, Jane (1986) The Chimpan:ees of Gombe. Patterns of Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: The
Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press.
Goudsblom, Johan (1992) Fire and Civili:ation. London, England; New York, New York: Penguin Books.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1996) "Creating the Creators." Discover, vol. 17, no. 10 (Oct. 1996), pp. 43-54.
Gray, Hope; Taylor, Susan; Lennon, James Michael (1992) "Diet and disease: the China study." Health Science, vol. 15,
no. 5 (Sept./Oct. 1992), pp. 6-9.
Greco, Luigi (1995) "Erom the Neolithic Revolution to Gluten Intolerance." This article, dated 6/30/1995 was published
on a website with this address: http://www.hooked.net/users/sadams/history.html, and contains footnotes and
bibliographic references. (Update: Unfortunately, a recent check showed this URL to no l onger be working. Greco is a
Ph.D./M.D. in pediatrics at the University of Naples, Italy, and a European authority on gluten intolerance. He can be
reached via email at this address.)
Gross, Jane D.; Rich, Thomas H.; Vickers-Rich, Patricia (1993) "Dinosaur bone infection." Research and Exploration,
vol. 9, (Summer 1993), pp. 286-293.
Groves, Colin (1993) "Our earliest ancestors." In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.), The First Humans. Human Origins and
Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (pp. 33-40, 42-45, 47-52)
Health magazine (1996) "Are mushrooms really carcinogenic?" Health, vol. 10, no. 6 (Oct. 1996), p. 116.
Hitchcox, Lee (1996) Long Life Now. Strategies for Staving Alive. Berkeley, California: Celestial Arts.
Ho, Kang-Jey et al (1972) "Alaskan Arctic Eskimo: responses to a customary high-fat diet." American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, vol. 25, no. 8 (Aug. 1972), pp. 737.
Hoggan, Ron B. (in press, late 1996 or 1997) "Considering Wheat, Rye, and Barley Proteins as Aids to Carcinogens."
Medical Hvpotheses.
Hunt, J.R.; Gallagher, S.K.; Johnson, L.K.; Lykken, G.I. (1995) "High- vs. low meat diets: effects on zinc absorption,
iron status, and calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc balance in
postmenopausal women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 62, pp. 621-632.
James, Steven R. (1989) "Hominid use of fire in the lower and middle Pleistocene. A review of the evidence." Current
Anthropologv, vol. 30, pp. 1-26.
Jerome, Norge, W.; Kandel, Randy E.; Pelto, Gretel H. (eds.) (1980) Nutritional Anthropologv. Contemporarv
Approaches to Diet and Culture. Pleasantville, New York: Redgrave Publishing Co.
Johnston, Erancis E. (ed.) (1987) Nutritional Anthropologv. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc.
Jones, Nicholas B.; Hawkes, Kristen; Draper, Patricia (1994) "Differences between Hadza and !Kung children's work:
original affluence or practical reason?" In: Burch, Ernest S. Jr.; Ellanna, Linda J., Kev Issues in Hunter Gatherer
Research. Oxford, England; Providence, Rhode Island: Berg. (pp. 189-215)
Kopytoff, Verne G. (1995) "Meat viewed as staple of chimp diet and mores." New York Times, Jun. 7, 1995.
Kulvinskas, Viktoras (1975) Survival into the 21st Centurv. Wethersfield, Conn.: Omangod Press.
Lewin, Roger (1993a) The Origin of Modern Humans. New York: Scientific American Library, a division of HPHLP.
Lewin, Roger (1993b) "Shock of the past for modern medicine." New Scientist, vol. 140, (Oct. 23, 1993), pp. 28-32.
Liljegren, Ronnie (1993) "Animals of ice age Europe." In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.) The First Humans. Human Origins
and Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (pp. 86-87)
Lutz, W.J. (1995) "The Colonisation of Europe and Our Western Diseases." Medical Hvpotheses, vol. 45, pp. 115-120.
Mann, George V.; Spoerry, Anne; Gray, Margarete; Jarashow, Debra (1972) "Atherosclerosis in the Masai." American
Journal of Epidemiologv, vol. 95, no. 1 (Jan. 1972), pp. 26-37.
Mapes, Lynda V. (1993) "Breatharian proves you are what you eat." The Spokesman-Examiner, unknown issue date, but
apparently late 1993 sometime. This article, datelined "Seattle," was forwarded to me in Nov. or Dec. 1993, by a
participant in The Natural Hygiene M2M who included only partial source data. Given the M2M participant was living
in Washington state at the time the article was forwarded, we are assuming the piece was clipped from a local or regional
paper at the time it was published. The article has clear earmarks of having been published in a Seattle metropolitan-area
newspaper, but unfortunately I cannot trace it more specifically than this.
Martin, Glen (1996) "Keepers of the oaks." Discover, Aug. 1996, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 44-50.
Mazess, Richard B. and Mather, Warren (1974) "Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos." American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, vol. 27, no. 9 (Sept. 1974), pp. 916-925.
McArdle, John (1996) "Humans are omnivores." In: Vegetarian Resource Group (ed) (1996) The Jegan Handbook.
Vegetarian Resource Group, P.O. Box 1463, Baltimore, MD 21203.
McGrew, W.C. (1992) Chimpan:ee Material Culture. Implications for Human Evolution. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Megarry, Tim (1995) Societv in Prehistorv. The Origins of Human Culture. New York: New York University Press.
Menon, Shanti (1996) "Oldest Asians in China." Discover, Jan. 1996, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 66.
Milton, Katharine (1993) "Diet and Primate Evolution." Scientific American, Aug. 1993, pp. 86-93.
Mogelonsky, Marcia (1995) "Milk Doesn't Always Do a Body Good." American Demographics (Jan. 1995). Online
version available at: http://www.demographics.com/publications/ad/95ad/9501ad/9501ab07.htm.
Montgomery, Sy (1991) halking with the Great Apes. Jane Goodall, Dian Fossev, Birute Galdikas. Boston; New York;
London: Houghton Mifflin Co.
National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Diet and Health. (1989) Diet and Health. Implications for Reducing
Chronic Disease Risk. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Natural Hygiene Press (1982) Fit Food for Humanitv. Bridgeport, Connecticut: Natural Hygiene Press.
O'Dea, K. (1992) "Traditional diet and food preferences of Australian Aboriginal hunter-gatherers." In: Whiten A. and
Widdowson E.M. (editors/organizers), Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of Monkevs, Apes, and Humans.
Proceedings of a Roval Societv Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
(pp. 73-81)
Palmqvist, Lennart (1993) "Eirst Earmers of the Western World." In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.) People of the Stone Age.
Hunter-Gatherers and Earlv Farmers. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (pp. 17-21, 24-26, 28-29, 32-35)
Patel, Tara (1995) "Burnt stones and rhino bones hint at earliest fire." New Scientist, June 17, 1995, p. 5.
Peters, Charles R.; O'Brien, Eileen M. (1984 or 85?) "On hominid diet before fire." Current Anthropologv, vol. , no.
, pp. 358-360. |I am missing the issue date on this one. The article was a response to Ann Brower Stahl's "Hominid
dietary selection before fire," which had earlier appeared in Current Anthropologv, vol. 25, no. 2 (April 1984), pp. 151-
168.|
Plowright, Walter (1988) "Viruses transmissible between wild and domestic animals." In: Smith, G.R.; Hearn, J.P. (eds)
Reproduction and Disease in Captive and hild Animals. Oxford, Oxfordshire; New York: Oxford Univ. Press. (pp. 175-
199)
Rensberger, Boyce (1979) "Teeth show fruit was the staple." New York Times, May 15, 1979, p. C1 and following.
Robson, John R.K. (ed) (1988), Food, Ecologv and Culture. Readings in the Anthropologv of Dietarv Practices. New
York: Gordon and Breach.
Rowley-Conwy, Peter (1993a) "Mighty Hunter or Marginal Scavenger?" In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.) The First Humans.
Human Origins and Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (pp. 60-61)
Rowley-Conwy, Peter (1993b) "What do the Zhoukoudian finds tell us?" In: Burenhult, Goran (ed.) The First Humans.
Human Origins and Historv to 10,000 B.C. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. (p. 65)
Ruff C.B., Trinkaus E., Holliday T.W. (1997) "Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo." Nature, vol. 387,
pp. 173-176. (Eigures for brain mass across human evolutionary time can be found in Table 1 on p. 174.)
Scarre, Chris (ed.) (1993) Smithsonian Timelines of the Ancient horld. A Jisual Chronologv from the Origins of Life to
A.D. 1500. New York: Dorling Kindersley.
Seamens, Dan (1992) "Eating for optimum health: is there a place for animal food in a healthy diet?" Natural Health,
Nov./Dec. 1992, pp. 62-69.
Sears, Cathy (1990) "The chimpanzee's medicine chest." New Scientist, vol. 127 (Aug. 4, 1990), pp. 42-44.
Shnirelman, Victor A. (1994) "Cherchez le Chien: perspectives on the economy of the traditional fishing-oriented people
of Kamchatka." In: Burch, Ernest S. Jr.; Ellanna, Linda J., Kev Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Oxford, England;
Providence, Rhode Island: Berg. (pp. 169-188)
Sillen, A. (1992) "Strontium-calcium (Sr/Ca) ratios of Australopithecus robustus and associated fauna from Swartkrans."
Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 23, pp. 495-516.
Simoons, Erederick J. (1988) "The determinants of dairying and milk use in the old world: ecological, physiological, and
cultural." In: Robson, John R.K. (ed) (1988) Food, Ecologv and Culture. Readings in the Anthropologv of Dietarv
Practices. New York: Gordon and Breach. (pp. 83-91)
Simoons, Erederick J. (1994) Eat Not This Flesh. Food Avoidances from Prehistorv to the Present (2nd Ed.). Madison,
Wisconsin: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
Smith, G.R.; Hearn, J.P. (eds) (1988a) Reproduction and Disease in Captive and hild Animals. Oxford, Oxfordshire;
New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Smith, G.R. (1988b) "Anaerobic bacteria as pathogens in wild and captive animals." In: Smith, G.R.; Hearn, J.P. (eds)
Reproduction and Disease in Captive and hild Animals. Oxford, Oxfordshire; New York: Oxford Univ. Press. (pp. 159-
173)
Southgate, D.A.T. (1992) "Nature and variability of human food consumption." In: Whiten A. and Widdowson E.M.
(editors/organizers), Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of Monkevs, Apes, and Humans. Proceedings of a Roval
Societv Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. (pp. 121-128)
Spencer, H.; Kramer, L.; DeBartolo, M.; Norris, C.; Osis. D. (1983) "Eurther studies on the effect of a high-protein diet
as meat on calcium metabolism." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 37, no. 6 (Jun. 1983), pp. 924-929.
Stahl, Ann Brower (1984) "Hominid dietary selection before fire." Current Anthropologv, April 1984, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.
151-168.
Stanford, Craig B. (1995) "To catch a colobus." Natural Historv, January 1995, pp. 48-54.
Thiessen, Del (1996) Bittersweet Destinv. The Stormv Evolution of Human Behavior. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.
Tutin, Caroline E.G.; Eernandez, Michel; Rogers, M. Elizabeth; Williamson, Elizabeth A.; McGrew, William C. (1992)
"Eoraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lope Reserve, Gabon." In: Whiten A. and
Widdowson E.M. (editors/organizers), Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of Monkevs, Apes, and Humans.
Proceedings of a Roval Societv Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
(pp. 19-26)
Ulijaszek, Stanley J. (1992) "Human dietary change." In: Whiten A. and Widdowson E.M. (editors/organizers),
Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of Monkevs, Apes, and Humans. Proceedings of a Roval Societv Discussion
Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. (pp. 111-119)
Walker, Alan and Shipman, Pat (1996) The hisdom of the Bones. In Search of Human Origins. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Whiten A. and Widdowson E.M. (editors/organizers) (1992) Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of Monkevs, Apes,
and Humans. Proceedings of a Roval Societv Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press.
Wilford, John N. (1996) "Three Human Species Coexisted On Earth, New Data Suggest," New York Times, 12/13/96.
|The original reference paper (title unknown to me) was published in the 12/13/96 issue of the journal Science. Wilford's
article gives a summary of the major points.|
Williams, George C.; Nesse, Randolph M. (1991) "The dawn of darwinian medicine." The Quarterlv Review of Biologv,
Mar. 1991, vol. 66, pp. 1-22.
Wrangham, R.W.; Conklin, N.L.; Chapman, C.A.; Hunt, K.D. (1992) "The significance of fibrous foods for Kibale
Eorest chimpanzees." In: Whiten A. and Widdowson E.M. (editors/organizers), Foraging Strategies and Natural Diet of
Monkevs, Apes, and Humans. Proceedings of a Roval Societv Discussion Meeting held on 30 and 31 Mav, 1991. Oxford,
England: Clarendon Press. (pp. 11-18)
Wrangham, R.W.; Holland Jones, J.; Laden, G.; Pilbeam, D.; Conklin-Brittain, N.L. (1999) "The raw and the stolen:
cooking and the ecology of human origins." Current Anthropologv, Dec. 1999, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 567-594.
Wu Rukang and Lin Shenglong (1983) "Peking man." Scientific American, June 1983, vol. 248, no. 6, pp. 86-94.
Yesner, David R. (1994) "Seasonality and resource 'stress' among hunter gatherers: archaeological signatures." In:
Burch, Ernest S. Jr.; Ellanna, Linda J., Kev Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Oxford, England; Providence, Rhode
Island: Berg. (pp. 151-167)

Paleolithic Diet Vs Vegetarianism PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Paleolithic Diet Vs Vegetarianism PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Paleolithic Diet vs.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen