Let me take an aside, because as a libertarian who's very supportive of free markets, there's one thing I've always noted. You know how with politics and religion, ideology matters so much -- to the extent that loathing, hatred, fantasies of murder, dismemberment and general blood lust are all part of the game? Well, when was the last time you did business with a Muslim? How about an atheist? How about an anarchist? How about a democrat, republican, or a commie who goes by different euphemistic names in the U.S.? How many have you traded with that you'd loath and hate in the context of politics or religion?

You don't know, and why? Because you don't really care. It's within a defined context of the value-for-value business transaction. So I've always thought that the more free trade and less force and religious moralizing (that leads to force), the more general peacefulness.

Alright, let's move on to Half Foods, formerly Whole Foods...

I first got wind of this a while back, but my buddy Jimmy did super homework. ...You, who dis him constantly, can you not see the value in this?

An obvious uproar has ensued within the high-fat, low-carb diet community this week as a result of the seemingly sudden decision by the most well-known health food retailer in the world to actively market and promote a low-fat, vegetarian diet in their 289 stores. Whole Foods Market has strongly branded itself as the go-to place for people desiring to make healthier food choices for themselves and their family and they have long offered customers with a variety of dietary choices that ability to select what best meets their specific needs. But all of that has changed now that they are pushing what they are calling their “Health Starts Here” campaign.

Go read the whole damn disgrace, and pay particular attention to the huge effort Jimmy put into getting quotes from more than a dozen respected sources. Thank you, Jimmy.

So now I'm riled up. As a fist step, I popped off a vicious email, and per the promise, I'll edit out the f-bombs.

Whole Foods:

Here's my latest tweet:

I will quit spending $100 or so per week @wholefoods and suggest my 60,000 blog readers do likewise #F***wholefoods

I'll add: #F***johnmackey, and I'm a libertarian and have been a fan for years, for Christ's sake. I publicly defended him on his stance on health care.

http://freetheanimal.com/2009/08/whole-foods.html

So why turn on you now? I don't spend money to be f**ing preached to about eating meat while being encouraged to embrace The F***ing Vegetarian Menace.

My blog:

http://freetheanimal.com

See here for the sort of traffic & influence I have:

htttp://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s20sense&r=33

Unique readers are at about 60,000. I was just interviewed by Der Spiegel, Maclean's, and the Columbia News Service serving 400 newspapers. I have other interviews scheduled. And in case you think I'm fooling, here's the Der Spiegel run; look for my name:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,677121,00.html

So, from here out, Whole Foods is my enemy. I'm blogging about it, agitating my readers, and I'll be sure and mention it in future interviews. I go to Whole Foods to do good food business and not to support an ideology, either way. I've always been willing to co-exist with the vegan morons in your stores, because one always felt Whole Foods welcomed and embraced both. Now you're taking sides, getting preachy...so you can have the f***ing Vegans all to yourself.

You're dismissed.

So maybe there's some merit in just getting attention. I'd have not used the language unless I could back it up with credentials, and I think I did. Many retailers are getting wise to the potential thunderstorm of social medial and that was my aim. I'm pissed off. Your mileage may vary and I get it. I'm just always who I am.

Here's why I'm pissed, out to you. First, perhaps you might question why I'd support Mackey in his public health care proclamations, but not now. Why? Because, just like any other business that lobbies politically or regulatory wise from the board room or from individual board members, it's not part of the deal when you do business with them. How would you like to go into your nearest auto dealership and be assaulted with literature in support of the UAW? And maybe you like the UAW just fine, but isn't it a bit out of context with regard to the purpose of your visit, like, maybe, buying a car?

Now, if I'm in a pinch and have to go down to Safeway (insert whatever popular big market exists in your area), would I be surprised at them having some healthfood campaign, however orchestrated or focussed? No, not really, because they're everyone's market and kinda any effort towards eating real food -- even vegetarian focussed -- is tolerable to me, even if it's not representative of my choices.

But this is way different, because I'm principled. You see, nobody goes to Whole Foods Market unless they are already health and quality conscious and willing to pay extra for extra care. And so, this is not a campaign over general quotidian-median health awareness, it's an ideological campaign. The getting skinnier, less-vital, more pitifully looking Mackey is pushing a personal, guilt-driven agenda upon you -- and is using your own money to do it.

So, John: what the eff are you doing, man? Tryptophan deficiency, or what? Is this payback to the very commies outraged at your public health-care ideas and who'd see your capitalist ass strung up in the village square if they had their way?

I will not stand for it, and neither should you, readers. Have your own values, John, but shoving them in our faces when we just want to trade good values is not what the hell we're paying you for. Hell, the veg-heads have been putting up with your meat department forever -- smart enough to see the big picture.

Then again, they didn't have pamphlets and books extolling the virtues of meat eating shoved in their faces and shopping bags -- nor should they have, and nor should we.

Have you considered politics? Seems like you're getting adept at pitting one agains the other...

Update: On my twitter this morning, from @WholeFoods:

@rnikoley The goal is not to promote vegetarianism, but the consumption of more vegetables - something we believe everyone can benefit from.

Update 2: An email response from Whole Foods:

Hello Richard,

Thank you for contacting Whole Foods Market with your concerns. Our Health Starts Here program is not intended to promote a completely plant based diet. Although the program does offer an option for those who wish to follow a vegan diet, there are also options for those who wish to consume animal products. The Health Starts Here program encourages a higher consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts and legumes for people of all dietary preferences.

We understand that our customers follow a variety of dietary paths. The Health Starts Here program is voluntary and is simply being made available to customers who are interested. Our stores will continue to offer a variety of high quality products such as meat, dairy and seafood. We appreciate your feedback.

Best regards,
Carijane Grigsby-Etter

Global Customer Information Specialist | Whole Foods Market | 550 Bowie Street | Austin, Texas 78703

But, as I made clear in my three tweets back to them (Twitter is limited to 140 characters per tweet:

@WholeFoods You are demonstrating an ideological preference for your veg/vegan customers over your meat & animal fat loving customers.

@WholeFoods Imagine the shitstorm if you put out books & pamphlets promoting the superiority of meat & animal fat eating.

@WholeFoods If you wouldn't do that to your veg/vegan customers why would you do it to your meat-loving customers?

Why should you reward them to treat you like an unhealthy second-class customer, especially if you can source other options?

Related posts:

1. Whole Foods
2. Downtown Campbell Farmers’ Market
3. Trouble in Raw Vegan Paradise?
4. John Mackey: “We sell a bunch of junk.”
5. The San Pedro Square Farmer’s Market

You're weird! You're a geek! Don't you understand that unlike all other animals, humans dropped out of the sky a few thousand years ago and operate on principles totally foreign to wild animals; such as unlike the folks who work in the feeding units of your local zoos -- where they somehow understand fully that they have to derive feeding regimes that model the animals in nature that are under their care ?

We're above that fray, right? ...And doing even so much better than your average zoo animal. Look around you. Observe how well it's working...

...I was a geek. In high school, my passion was chess. I even won tournaments and placed third in a state-level competition. I had a library of more than 20 chess books as a 10th grader. Geek! Be cast out! To this day, I can pretty much take anybody in short order who hasn't played really seriously (but a pro could take me easily as well). It's really about relative experience. Or, relative "geekiness."

Do you see the disconnect? For the first part -- about our paleo life ways -- something's "wrong." We're subject to a Matrix of conformity or, at very best, a mythology of "proper behavior" that nearly everyone is just drawn to. For the second part, some of us are naturally repelled by at least aspects of the world as it is, and in ignorance or partial fear, seek other ways to rebel. I always wanted to be somewhat distinctive, different, and I was always willing to bear the consequences of my choices. There was more than chess. I won a California state championship in table tennis in an association of private schools numbering in the dozens. Table tennis. It's even a funny name, and for what it's worth, I always called it ping pong. What a weirdo I was, but I never faltered in confidence. (I'd have an eff bomb here, if I hadn't sworn them off in posts.) I've always done fine and well, so my essential message is that you really want to be pleased with yourself, as I always was and am -- without ever much of a moment's doubt or reservation beyond minimal demands. How effing easy is it to be like everyone else? And trying to be just like everyone else wastes your life, and not caring about it to the extent you don't strive to be unique...just treads water. In fact, you may have to search for ways to be different, unique...weird.

Who knows? Maybe I was lucky. But I'd advise anyone to just toss it to the wall and see what sticks. In hindsight, I wish I had been even more weird, more geek, more in-face, and less caring about what anyone thought about it. But I also wish I had taken a few more minutes, here and there, to commune with the few genuine friends I did have.

I was  always weird. From the very first day I began to really understand what world was set before me by powers who came before me, I hated it. I loathed them who did that, for whatever reasons they had, and if I could go back in time -- like way back -- I'd be pleased to slit throats and eat livers. Oh...to just live in a rational and just world...

The essential message is this: don't conform; and the simpleton morons who would cast you out: they're inferior on all levels except one: lying and deception. Your focus might always be on undercutting that. I'm lazy, so brutal honesty has been working for me going on two decades. Parasites generally run like cockroaches in its light. You'll often look like an ass, but only those with undue and inexplicable fear care, and they don't matter.

Related posts:

1. Logical Simplicity
2. “Loving Lard”
3. Mind-Body Dichotomies — The Evolutionary Approach
4. One Man’s Vices are Another Man’s Virtues
5. Vitamin Supplements – Part Two

The promo is done buy a guy named Chris Rose and features Taco Bell's new Subway-esque mascot, Christine Dougherty, who supposedly lost 54 pounds eating Taco Bell crap. Even worse is the typical haul out of the "Registered Dietitian" useful idiot -- in this case Ruth Carey -- who's the typical dispenser of conventional "wisdom" that's been working oh-so well. "...Having skim milk instead of whole." Moron.

So if you check the "Nutritional" Information (oxymoron alert) and run some numbers you'll see that the average calories per item is 166 and the average carbohydrate 33 grams. At a recommended caloric intake of 1250 per day, that's basically all seven items per day (how convenient!) with a total carb intake of 231 grams. So, jack you're insulin all day on fast-"food" crap, stay ravenously hungry, yet starve yourself on 1250 calories. That's gonna be really healthy for your metabolism.

And then there's the obvious question: what do you eat after you've starved yourself, enriched Taco Bell, and lost the weight? Or, do you just eat from the drive thru for life?

Check out the comments. So far, uniformly negative. Maybe there is some hope.

Related posts:

1. Primal Tacos
2. Meme Roth is Bullshit!
3. All The Stupid Stuff in My Face from the Grant Whores
4. Vitamin Supplements – Part Three
5. The Latest Nonsense

This should be fun.

Ok, I'm going to call stupid right off the bat. No; just ignorant, and this includes some top names. Why? I figure it like this: if Dean Ornish, Joel Fuhrman, John McDougall, T. Collin Campbell and others are ignorant about this when little ole' layman-me can find this info 'cause I look, then what? Do they prefer pricks & crooks?

This shouldn't take long. I'm going to give you a single word: Butyrate. The highest source of it in the diet is butter, particularly rancid butter. And guess what else? It's a short-chain saturated fatty acid. It's saturated fat (OMG!). ...Whew, the vegans, veggies & high-fiber priests can take a breather. Is that all? Finished now? Was it just a disjointed, out-of context rant, or what? Well, no; but I'll get to that later.

First, let's realize that much of the veggie, vegan, high-fiber (there's your BIG CLUE) catechism is designed to appeal to those who want to loose weight. How many commenters here have you read who tried the veg / vegan approach to fat loss before they went paleo? Lots. Experiences ranges from added weight gain to weight loss -- but with diminished well being. (I realize those who get good results don't typically comment here; so, yea, selection bias.)

Alright, so on that score, let's address fat loss first -- in keeping with the title & theme. I have previously blogged that for fat loss, there's no such thing as a "low-fat" diet, and this is irrefutable. It's simple math. My previous posts.

• All Diets Are High-Fat Diets
• Losing Weight is Pretty Much Like Eating Lard

In the first post, I show how that if you want to lose 50 pounds in six months, then 1,000 calories per day is going to come in the form of your own released fat stores and that if you're following a "low-fat" diet to the tune of 20% kcal from fat, then your total fat metabolized is going to be 50% of your total energy metabolized. Watch out: you'll clog your arteries just by the process of losing weight!

...Uhhhh...too many ignoramuses, to little time...

The second post serves to tell you that it's even worse; because, your own body is trying to kill you: 35% of those 1,000 kcals per day are arterycloggingsaturatedfat, and that's added to the saturated fat you're eating via diet.

So now what? What about those many human skeletons following a high-fiber vegetarian or vegan diet? They consume almost no arterycloggingsaturatedfat, so what's my point? Ignorance and an unwillingness to research reality vis-a-vis humans as wild animals who evolved eating copious saturated fat -- just as all other carnivorous and omnivorous animals do -- that's my point.

Let's return to the topic of butyric acid, and for those of you who like, you can jump ahead, because it's Dr. Stephan Guyenet who came up with this monumental find.

Turns out that fiber in the diet gets digested by gut bacteria into butyrate, i.e., saturated fat.

In most animals, the highest concentration of butyrate is found in the gut. That's because it's produced by intestinal bacteria from carbohydrate that the host cannot digest, such as cellulose and pectin. Indigestible carbohydrate is the main form of dietary fiber.

...Excuse me while I effin laugh right out loud...

...Ok, continuing on -- and there's really not a lot to add because Stephan has all the goods and you should read his post.

But first, one more thing:

In industrialized countries, fiber may contribute 5 to 10 percent of total calorie intake, due to its conversion to short-chain fatty acids like butyrate in the large intestine (free full text). This figure is probably at least twice as high in cultures consuming high-fiber diets. It's interesting to think that "high-carbohydrate" cultures may be getting easily 15 percent of their calories from short-chain fats. Since that isn't recorded in dietary surveys, they may appear more dependent on carbohydrate than they actually are. The Kitavans may be getting more than 30 percent of their total calories from fat, despite the fact that their food is only 21 percent fat when it passes their lips. Their calorie intake may be underestimated as well.

Would that also include the high-carb, high-fiber veggies & vegans? OK, now you get to laugh your asses off!

Related posts:

1. Losing Weight is Pretty Much Like Eating Lard
2. Saturated Fat and Coronary Heart Disease, Part IV: The Smell Test
3. The Latest Nonsense
4. All Diets Are High-Fat Diets
5. I Know What I’m Doing

In a nutshell, from one of his comments:

HED = high-carbs + high-fat + high-calories

HED = SAD - sugar - HFCS - PUFAs - TFAs

I'm not going to recount all the specifics, as those are contained in the comments -- over and over -- if you're interested.

I've said before that I don't think carbohydrate is the primary problem (for those without type 2 or borderline, or obsese), and the Kitavans and other H-G groups seem to prove that. In that regard, this HED does seem to eliminate at least some of what migh destroy a high-carb munching Kitavan's health, i.e., refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, processed vegetable oils (HEDers seem also not too fond of omega-3 PUFA -- the Ray Peat influence) and trans fatty-acids.

He has also posted that lots of the low-carbers ignore the Kitavans, which is true. I don't think that's the case for all the paleo-like eaters, and certainly not true for me, as I've often written that healthful diets exist from equator to arctic circle, from high carb intake (Kitavans, Kuna and others -- mostly from starch) to virtually zero carb (Inuit).

What I think is of far more importance is to find the diet or life way that works for you. First, begin with a principle: Real Food and nothing but Real Food. Next, attempt to determine where your genetic ancestry evolved in the last 50,000 years since coming out of Africa. Did your ancestors evolve in tropical regions with plenty of starches and fruits available year round, in regions with limited starches and fruits only seasonally, or with pretty much nothing but meat and animal fat most of the time?

Start there and go with how you feel as your first and primary authority. It's a process. There is great variability, so you may be more adaptable to one macronutrient mix than another, or, it may not make much of a difference. Some are going to feel better on high carb, and some on zero carb, and some in-between.

But never forget the Real Food principle. That's a safe haven and you just can't go wrong.

The HED people are saying, in essence, that if you don't eat grains in abundance (e.g., replacing the cals with more meat, fat, veggies, fruits, nuts), that you're "stupid" and that you're damaging your health. That's nonsense. It violates a sound and proven principle (Real Food), it's -- so far -- based on short term anecdotes and nothing more, and it proposes a one-size-fits-all diet.

Perhaps most annoying of all is that -- at least in the case of the comment crusader -- they seem to take great stock in each and every anecdote of great health achieved (over the last weeks and couple of months) on this HED, yet discount the thousands of low-carb and paleo anecdotes recounted over decades. Everyone here knows my story, including that I've lost 50ish pounds so far, dropped my BP from 160/100 to normal ranges, have HDLs in the 130s, Trigs in the 40s, cured and reversed gum disease, and have rid myself of a number of prescription medications that I have been on for years, and in one case, decades.

But I'm not munching on unlimited bread, pasta, bagels, pizza and pancakes, so I've actually damaged my health, you see. I am unclean; unwashed; unsaved. I'm ruined. I need salvation: HED, I repent; please save me.

A final note about that last paragraph. He -- over and over -- stipulates that those things are only a problem in a low fat environment and that eating them with plenty of animal fat solves the problem. Well, I was never a low fat dieter, and have probably been over 40% fat most of my entire life, mostly from animal sources. I was never much of a candy or junk food muncher, but I certainly did eat lots and lots and lots of bread (with huge mounds of meat, cheese, and veggies between), pizzas (all meat, usually), always used lots of butter and drank plenty of milk and other dairy sources of fat.

Grains ruined my health, and getting away from them while eating unlimited meat, fowl, fish, animal fat, coconut milk & oil, veggies and reasonable fruits and nuts restored my health.

This post is intended as a public service announcement, aimed primarily at those who, for lack of a good explanation, seem to be influenced by religious crusades. So just remember: Animals don't need gurus. Be your own Master and Control your own life.

Related posts:

1. Paleo Diet in US News & World Report
2. Carbs Kill and Eating Animals Saves Lives
3. Richard Nikoley has a “Low Body Temperature” and “Edema?” You be the judge.
4. The “Groan” Diet
5. A Physicist on Paleo Eating

100-calorie nibbles

For the dieter who's looking to lose a few, the market wants to help you.

For the past couple of years, certain companies have offered small portions of snack foods bundled in 100-calorie packs. Roughly 175 products -- among them Nabisco's Oreos and Teddy Grahams, Hershey's Dark Chocolate and, yes, even Hostess' Twinkies, in the form of Twinkie Bites -- come in small sizes. Do they work?

Weight loss surgery's complications devastate some patients

Sandi Krueger of Turlock dropped 120 pounds with weight-loss surgery, but she is hardly a success story.

The 2002 surgery led to chronic malnutrition and anemia. As the pounds melted away, so did her life.

With a sunken face and protruding collar bones, she is too weak to work and spends most afternoons on the couch wrapped in a blanket.

She has thoughts of giving up, but wants to be there for 12-year-old daughter Megan and 19-year-old son Dustin.

"It's not acceptable leaving me like this," said the 103-pound Krueger, who at 38 looks closer to 50. "I've gone to doctor after doctor and basically they don't help me."

This is a very tragic story and I consider Ms. Krueger and victim of people who should have taken care of her.

Wouldn't it just be so much easier to eat all the meat, natural fat (animal, coconut, olive), vegetables (swimming in fat is A-OK too), fruit (smoothies blended with eggs and lots of fat -- heavy cream and/or coconut milk -- is also A-OK -- (are you detecting a theme, here?)) that you want, get the highest nutrition possible, and watch the pounds melt away, widespread inflammation reduce, and moderate of correct most health problems, particularly those of an autoimmune nature?

Do you know why America is fatter than ever? It is squarely and precisely because its fear of fat is greater than ever. Fat (natural fat) is king. Once you learn this, everything falls right into place.

Related posts:

1. A Good Doc
2. Quick Reader Question
3. Lottsa Links
4. Way More Important Than… (106 Pounds Lost in 7 Months)
5. Reader Real Results

But I haven't even gotten to the best part yet.

Well, just click on over to get the whole thing. Nothing I can add, except perhaps the comment I posted concerning his correct, first-hand (like mine) identification of the faux in "Mediterranean Diet" here in America. What we think it is and it's reported to be; it aint.

I'll add this. Even as fat as I was, when Bea and I did our whirlwind three-week Europe tour a couple of years back (France, Spain, Italy), I took off 2-3 pounds in spite of the fact that we ate good and lots.

It's the food, folks. There are Good Calories Bad Calories.

Related posts:

1. Paleo v. Mediterranean — Curing Type 2 Diabetes
2. Mother Earth News…
3. Paleo Trumps — the Science
4. It’s Gotta Be The Fat…
5. King Fat

I tried that diet (Zone) for a couple of months back in the mid-90's when the original book came out. I soon knew it would never work for me. Mark's section on "hunger" is really the essential point.

In the end, it suffers from the same deficit as I think the Paleo diet does. Fat is king. It's more than twice as efficient by volume than either protein or carbohydrate, and it's what really makes the difference in dietary success, and I'm thoroughly convinced of that. Fat (animal, coconut --avoid vegetable oils) is what makes the difference between giving in and dialing Pizza Hut, setting off a cascade of diminished-self-image failure, and going in and fixing a cheese omelet cooked in butter.

At least it was for me.

I said "was." Funny thing is, and you may have noticed: I don't blog nearly as much about the wonders of fats. That's because I don't eat nearly as much, anymore. And it was completely natural. Once I reset my genes, over months and months, I've come to now eat far more "normally." I'd call it something, like: "The Intermittent Diet." The key is intermittency in obsession or excess, and moderation. In a sense, scarfing down loads of fat seems, to me, just about as compulsive and unnatural, in the end, as eating an extremely stupid low-fat diet. But sometimes I eat extremely low fat -- over a period of some hours. Just the other night around the campfire, for instance: there were some carrots. So, I munched on carrots to the exclusion of all else. Sometimes I gorge on fruit. Sometimes I gorge on fat. But I don't do any one thing chronically. It can be meal-to-meal, or even day-to-day, but never longer than a few days in a row. And the shift is natural. Once you discover the wonder of Real Food and get out of the processed food crack-house, everything changes (but it takes months). The point is that you can be a true "foodie," as am I, and yet become highly indifferent to any particular dish or any particular meal. You simply look at the whole thing differently, which, I understand mystifies lots of skinny people and gets knowing nods from lots of fat people.

This is key to the whole approach: Primitive man had zero control over the environment. He generally had primary control only over locomotion, which is why they moved around a lot. That's fundamental; and so we have, by modern convenience, removed the most fundamental aspect of primal existence from our quotidian motivation: most of us can easily live in one spot our entire lives. I really wouldn't want it any other way, but the point is that our genes don't know or understand the difference. They are either active (expressed), or dormant. The good news is that we can simulate the stressors and expressers through intermittency. I think that eating in the whole range, from extreme low fat to extreme high fat, within the confines of Real Food, is really the way to go. The constraint implies that the diet is usually going to be of a rather low carb nature (in calories or relatively), and certainly free of most grains, wheat in particular. But the real point is that by switching it up, you fool your genes into "thinking" that you're migrating, experiencing varying bounty along the way. And then they do their job, like they were evolved to do.

In the end, Dr. Sears misnamed his diet. It's far too restrictive, prescriptive as to have the concept of a "zone" applied. "The Range Diet" would have been more apropos, implying a linear range. A diet proscribed by a fully spacial geometry (zone) would of necessity be one of intermittency in multi-variable macro-nutrients, probably with a big edge for animal fats, given their high-value energy efficiency.

Related posts:

1. A Great Email (FTA tops Zone; Medical Professionals)
2. More on Fasting
3. HED: High Everything Diet (If eating garbage is your problem, just eat more of it)
4. Paleo Diet in US News & World Report
5. Idiocracy: The Dirty Side of Evolution

So, why is an evolutionary approach so essential?

From Loren Cordain's free Paleo Diet Update.

The graph below illustrates the magnitudes of the time our ancestors ate a Hunters and Gatherers' (H-G) Diet versus when our ancestors consumed a Mass-Agriculture Diet. The specific times used in this graph are 2,000,000 for the H-G Diet and 10,000 years for the geologically recent Mass-Agriculture Diet. Although exact dates and amounts can be argued, and would change some among different ethnic groups and regional histories, the graph would always look very much the same - because regardless of the specific dates you utilize, it always would very definitively involve magnitudes of change difference.

Bar graph illustrating a ratio of geologic time: 2,000,000 years vs. 10,000 years. These times are good representations of the magnitude of time of the Paleolithic Era foodstuffs of our ancestors as compared to the time our ancestral lineages have been on a Mass-Agriculture Diet. It is startling to see the Mass-Agriculture Diet as a nearly flat, non-existent bar. In a mathematical sense one could almost say it is approaching the inverse of infinity ... or that it is "infinitesimally small" in comparison to our earlier foodstuffs. It is more than a full 2 magnitudes smaller. As a decimal ratio of 2,000,000: it is .005.

While we can continue to debate (and we should) the exact amounts and rates of change in human physiology and the dietary amount of animal products vs. fruits/vegetables, etc. - an obvious fact is that the amount of time we and our ancestors have had mass agriculture and industrial era food is incredibly small indeed ... and not debatable.

When we talk about "evolutionary discordance" in regard to our modern diet vs. the Paleo Diet, this is what it means in one very real sense. A diet based on the way humans ate for a couple million years will lead to optimimum health and reduce the risk of degenerative disease.

Related posts:

1. IsAgenics
2. Paleo Diet in US News & World Report
3. Got Milk?
4. Do You Need to Gain Weight? Try Paleo
5. All Diets Are High-Fat Diets

How would you compare the methods / products promoted by IsAgenics as a route to maintained weight reduction and increased sustained energy versus your program?

A quick bit of Googling got me to the main company website (it appears to be an MLM, so there's lots of "affiliate" websites out there).

OK, where to start? How about with the most obvious: this is simply not an evolutionary approach in the slightest. Can it work for you? Sure, anything can work for you, even low fat high carb -- if mere weight loss is your goal. The question, the only question as far as I'm concerned, is does it hold up to scrutiny from the standpoint of 2-4 million years of bi-pedal hominid evolution prior to the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago? Taking that approach eventually begins to express genes that you already have, and begins to transform your body into the lean and attractive one designed by nature.

I have begun to think that the one very fundamental problem in all of the diet fad world is the notion of "losing weight." Why do you want to lose weight? Because you're fat? OK, then why not think of it as losing fat, which, of necessity, implies preserving (or even building) lean mass? If you're at 20%+ body fat, for example, you're too fat, which is to say, you have too much body fat as a percentage of your overall mass. Merely "losing weight" could involve a number of things. It could even involve weighing less and actually increasing your body fat percentage. Muscle is denser than fat. If you diet in a chronic calorically deficient mode, while munching on lots of high glycemic index carbs, you're setting yourself up precisely for this sort of "weight loss."

This is not activating and expressing the genes that want you to be lean, attractive, and looking years younger. It's making you into a smaller version of your fat self -- one that weighs less. "Skinny fat." Yippee!

So that's the most obvious and essential judgment I'd render, and it applies generally to just about everything out there that's not integrating a primitive (or "Paleo") evolutionary, pre-agricultural diet, along with simulating the sorts of activities our hunter-gatherer ancestors would likely have participated in while using their own bodies and minds exclusively in the struggle for survival (so, less emphasis on the aerobics or "cardio," more emphasis on brief and intense resistance training).

Imagine living in a group of 25 people, in some natural mix of men, women, and children, and you all had to cooperate together to ensure your survival. You're all alone. Stop and consider the enormity of that task, and what kind of man or woman that would make of you, and what you'd likely look like. Well, that's the way it was for eons and eons and it's only in recent history that people have been able to abdicate authority for what to eat to suits in corporate boardrooms, Madison Avenue marketing firms, Departments of Agriculture, and Food & Drug Administrations around the globe. The results are disastrous. Look around you.

And back to the subject at hand, the very last thing in the world I'm going to do is shift responsibility from those "authorities" to a whole new set in the form of a processed / packaged food and supplement company (IsAgenics) or their multi-level-marketing network of "affiliates."

Related posts:

1. Losing Weight is Pretty Much Like Eating Lard
2. How’s Your Blood Pressure?
3. Is There Really Any Such Thing As Low-Fat Eating?
4. Why All Diets and Exercise Programs are Fads and Usually Wrong
5. “Cold Shower”