Optimum Sustainable Health

Well I have been playing hookey from my blog for a variety of reasons (a few of them actually good ones:), but have been collecting ideas and fragments along the way. Something popped up this morning however that I feel the need to get "on paper"... oh wait, "in digits".

Hummm, this "library" of digits will too one day be torched
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

Meanwhile... thoughts for the day:

I am not into supplements, herbal or otherwise. I am not into concentrated agents in general. Nature has put the full spectrum of optimum nutrition for us in our native foods *in the correct balances*. Supplements are essentially refined food, and all refined foods are not in correct balance with the body's needs, and can (and do) throw our systems off balance.

The idea that foods have become so "denatured" and lacking in nutrition in recent times as to be inadequate, and therefore requiring supplementation, is an incorrect idea conceived and promulgated by people who have never eaten correctly (SAD) to begin with, and have no idea that optimum sustainable health is well within reach. These folks are "so near and yet so far".

Supplements and "medications", however well intentioned, are pathogenic agents.

The Alternative Medicine model is still in the final analysis just another medical model. But any medical model is faulty because it looks at things in pieces, and does not recognize that concentrated substances throw the body's innate critical health balances into disarray. So optimum health will never be achieved via the supplement/medication model -- the creator is smarter than us:)

There are course times and situations that call for medical intervention (whether standard western or alternative), but you have to be smarter than the model if you want to achieve sustainable optimum health.

Credit for the above goes completely to Dr. Doug Graham, the most innovative and brilliant thinker on sustainable optimum health I am aware of. He may be most famous for coining the term 80/10/10, referring to a caleo nutrient ratio of 80% carbohydrate, 10% protein, and 10% fat, and his book of the same title. But Dr. Graham is so much more than a calo nutrient ratio, and I recommend him unreservedly.

On a somewhat related note, you may find this brief video clip from a presentation by Dr. Joel Furman interesting. The key line is "about 80 years ago science discovered vitamins and minerals".

Well that's not really all that long ago is it? here's the vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x38WyAVTvYk

Dr. Lissa Rankin, again

In July I did a post "It's Not All About the Food!" with a link to a Ted Talk by Dr. Lissa Rankin. A friend just sent a link to an interview with Dr. Rankin that is also very much worth our time:

http://www.thesacredscience.com/screening_lissarankin/

The Standard American Diet

If you aren't sure what to think about all the bashing the "standard American diet" comes in for lately, can I suggest you watch these five video clips of a lecture delivered by Dr. Steven Nissen, Department Chair of Cardiovascular Medicine at Cleveland Clinic. That position at that institution means Dr. Nissen is among the very top cardiologists in the world today, and in my humble opinion his lecture is worth every minute of your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7UCgDLauWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N0bstymScU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Yhscb8ewc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4NUa9iacvs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OoYSQYzNJw

This one's for you Mom

Virginia Ruth Munger, my sweet mother, was progressively less healthy her last 30 years, with the last five a particularly difficult passage. She had no clue all of her maladies could have been reversed (if caught early enough) with lifestyle changes, and while I was beginning to have an inkling was not coherent enough to overcome her skepticism. My early karmic role was the rebel, misfit, and angry young man, which tortured the poor woman intensely. In the final analysis, having survived that tumultuous period, and matured a little bit (with a little outside help), I can see her better qualities carried the day. Bravissima beautiful Virginia.

According to my fitbit gizmoidal, I did a run earlier today of 9 miles in 2 hours. That's not screaming fast (OK it's pokey), but I jogged or ran the entire distance, and managed to stay on the balls of my feet for most of it. I really have no idea how long ago it last was I could have done that. I suppose it was the summer I spent in Colorado hiking 5 of 7 days a week. I was 32, now I'm 62. OK, so I can remember, it was 30 years ago. My goodness.

we range north

I'll tell you what, when I realized we humans are on one level nothing more than furless animals, and the implications of that, it broadened my appreciation of the modern state of the human condition considerably.

In the first place I realized if it weren't for our tool making capability (our human intelligence), we would be limited to living in the tropics, or near tropics. Without fire and the ability to make warm clothing, we'd be sunk in colder climates. Humans would not have been able to range north (or south) away from warmer climes.

This led me also to thinking more about what sort of bodies we have in terms of diet. We mammals can be either herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore. I grew up thinking we humans were omnivorous, but now I wonder. Or more precisely, obviously we can be omnivorous, the question should be what is the optimum human diet... which diet contributes most to good health? Clearly, the world is not universally ready to agree there is an optimum human diet, or if there is one, what it is. We see experts of every stripe disagree on this. But curiously, there is little debate about the idea all other species on the planet have optimum "species specific" diets.

But again, similar to the "lack of fur" question, if it weren't for our intelligence and tool making capability, it seems we would clearly be more of the herbivore persuasion, with potential for opportunistic omnivorism. We clearly do not have the physical makeup of a carnivore - no claws, fangs, or digestive system of the carnivore. Without tools we would find hunting difficult. That probably goes some way to explaining why our tool less anthropoid ape cousins are nearly exclusively herbivore. There is some opportunistic omnivorism in some of the species, but when we consider total intake by calories, the insect and animal consumption are arguably negligible. The vast majority of calories of all anthropoid apes come from plant sources, except certain human populations (most humans are predominantly plant eaters however).

Unquestionably our brains expanded our capacity for adaptation tremendously, allowing us to range beyond the tropics, where it is thought first humans originated. We ate from the tree of knowledge and were cast from the garden of eden. Never looked at it that way before.

So we can adapt to some degree to any condition almost anywhere on terrestrial earth. Modern technology helps a lot too. No one would want to live at the research station in Antarctica wrapped only in fur pelts huddled by fire!

None of this, however, addresses the question of optimal conditions or diet: what diet would produce the best health, disease resistance, athletic performance, and longevity, other things equal (activity, sleep, etc.)? Too complex to be examined in total at once, studies break the question into component parts and extrapolations are made to the whole, not a true scientific "answer" to the question. As a result science isn't really asking this specific question. But we have a lot of anecdotal experience and opinion... and more debate and disagreement.

As an aside, Campbell, the topic of a previous post here, and his "China Study", is the only scientific study that I'm aware of attempting to answer the larger "optimum diet" question. But of course, there is much debate about his conclusions. I'm going to repost the link to an overview lecture of his life's work, titled "Resolving The Health Care Crisis", it's well worth 20 minutes of your time IMO, if you haven't yet, food for thought, if nothing else:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CN7PF10RKo

One thing is pretty clear, the official extrapolations we have been living by since the advent of industrialized food production have needed recent modification, and that (slow) process may still be underway. There has been a definite shift toward a greater quantity and variety of plants in our diets. It may not be coincidence given our biology, if we take adaptability out of the equation. Indeed, by that measure, it might be argued we are strongest and best with a predominantly plant sourced diet.

Oh, and that smaller population of humans I mentioned previously that does not source most of their calories from plants? That would be us, the inhabitants of the industrialized world. The ones with soaring rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

Unconscious Process

This post will serve as bookend to "Scientific Process", a couple of posts ago. It's the other side of the coin, the same issue really, only the other side of it. At question is how do we know anything, and how do we make decisions? This is an issue that affects health, and pretty much everything else too.

My parents had some interesting books, one of them was the collection of Einstein's letters. He spoke out on the issues of the day, and corresponded with other thinkers and colleagues. I read this so long ago my memory of it is not specific (I want to remember to remember to re-read it:), but as I recall he had an interesting correspondence with Freud. Perhaps their correspondence was not mere happenstance, both of these great scientists had a strong interest in unconscious process. And they both have many wonderful quotes attributed to them, one of my favorites of Einstein's goes something like: many things that can be measured aren't important, and many things that can't be measured are. That's an interesting thing for a scientist to say, since science is basically the art of measurement.

That's a funny way of putting it, that science is the art of... anything. We normally don't think of it that way. But I guess that explains the evolving nature of scientific knowledge - it's a creative process, and process can be precise, but it can be messy too.

There's an old saw about science kicking around, I don't know who said it first, but it is repeated often enough: "if it can't be measured it doesn't exist". Clearly Einstein didn't see it that way. But there is the idea that measurement is the foundation of science, the first step, and repeated throughout the process.

Before that however there must be the inductive leap, the flash of recognition of what might be true, and what to try to measure in the first place. Induction is one of the more interesting things the human mind does, but it's a bit of a mystery because it happens in the unconscious, and we still do not understand the unconscious very well (some things that are important can't be measured). We've certainly made inroads, and we have rough maps that probably are about as accurate as early maps of the globe were. But a precise model of that landscape we do not have.

So the unconscious is basically "dark" to us, it's happening all the time, but we have limited "view" of it. If that weren't true, it wouldn't be unconscious at all! It is thought the unconscious accounts for most of our mind/brain activity - we know part of what it's doing are "background chores" like keeping the blood pumping, and all the rest of it. The body is a complex machine... good thing we don't have to remember where all those switches and knobs are! - can you imagine?

We go completely unconscious when we're asleep, except in dreaming, which seems to happen on the border of conscious and unconscious activity. The autonomic part of the unconscious mind is also directing a lot of "repair work" on the body while sleeping, and perhaps dreams are a part of the "emotion body" house cleaning process, keeping us sane and whole.

We also get ideas in dreams, and when we're awake inductive leaps seem to come out of "nowhere". But they are not really out of nowhere, they are out of our mind/brain's large capacity - most of which is on the unconscious level. We know we remember a lot more stuff than we can think of at any given moment - it can take a day or longer to remember certain things, and "sleeping on it" sometimes helps. In a hypnotic state people can often be brought to recall everyday things from decades past and long since forgotten. And Jung and others have suggested we even have collective memory, the "collective unconscious" of all of mankind. Wow, maybe we potentially remember "everything"! Now that would be worth writing home about:) In any case, a large part of the brain appears to be, in effect, a very large and complex (but gooey) RAM chip.

Creative process is another name for inductive leap. Artists learn to trust this, and value it almost as their "stock in trade". Scientists trust measurement, and since they are measuring "the new" in original research, discovering just how to measure accurately frequently takes place in stages, perhaps even over years and decades. Meanwhile we sometimes see inaccurate conclusion drawn on initial measures, and "interim realities" constructed along the way, which can be problematic when these interim stages are not benign. Ah well, two steps forward and one step back is the order of the day, the path is not a straight line or perfectly linear.

At bottom of every process is unconscious formation, the ongoing collating, sorting, and synthesizing all the disparate bits of memory we all have in there, until finally, fully formed, it manifests as conscious thought. It's one of the more amazing things about being human really.

here's the thing

That last post was too long, too dry, too boring, and tooo heavy! This one will be much lighter in tone.

losing weight is difficult right? It's not only a matter of getting on the right track, it's also a matter of staying on it, which may require a little intrapersonal work. Beyond that it's actually not all that difficult, in terms of how it's accomplished. It is basically calories in vs calories burned.

but here's a neat trick. if you limit your diet to the foods with a high nutrient to calorie ratio, you're more than halfway there. You can eat till full, have your calorie and nutrient needs met, and lose weight slowly but consistently, probably about a pound a week on average. It takes a while because you're eating till full, but that's actually a good thing - you really want to lose the excess weight gradually and consistently, so the body's autonomic metabolic reference points are adjusting along with the body. (This is the reason crash diets don't work.)

so what are the high calorie foods most responsible, the culprits? some are obvious, members of the carb family like alcohol and refined (concentrated) sweeteners of any kind. What may not be as obvious is how high refined fats are in calories. Even "healthy" vegetable oils like olive oil are 100% fat, and very high in calories on a proportional basis. The less oil you put in and on your food the better.

Fats are of course essential, one of the three macronutrients, but we may not need as much fat for good health as we've been led to believe. Here's another trick - if you get 100% of your fat requirement from whole foods, you automatically cut calories. And It can be argued also if you get that fat from whole plant sources like nuts, seeds and avocados, you automatically raise the nutrition to calorie ratio at the same time.

Meats and other animal sources are relatively high in fat, and the conventional wisdom at this point is "not the good kind", although there is much debate over what the "good kind" of fats are, so I'll only say if you consume animal products be sensible about it, and think about how large quantities can spike calorie intake undesirably, and keep it to small portions.

I have a vegan bias, so I'll say something about that approach. Many folks find that by just going vegan, and nothing else, they lose weight easily and automatically, without even really trying. Obviously they are getting less calories. There can be a few reasons for that, 1) when people do go vegan they are frequently trying to eat healthier, and they start making choices that are higher on the nutrient to calorie ratio scale. 2) and in doing so, they find they have less cravings for empty calorie junk food. You could try to live on wonder bread alone, and get plenty of calories, but your body will still say - I'm hungry!

So we can make a case that if we begin to concentrate on the quality of our calories we can pretty much forget about counting them, junk food cravings will lessen automatically (the body will feel nourished, because it is), and the weight will just come off gradually, as it should, until we reach the correct weight for us.

There's plenty of junk vegan food out there too, and there are plenty of overweight vegans. How do we weed out the bad stuff? there's a simple way to approach this, and it's true whether you are vegan or not. When you are at the grocery, stick to the outside of the store, most of the stuff in the middle will end up there, around yours. Minimize the boxes, cans and packages to the extent possible. You will find that after awhile it's really not that difficult to cut way back on that stuff. If you're vegan do the vast majority of your shopping on the fresh produce aisle. I notice even at Whole Foods, where there are very good fresh produce sections, how few carts have much produce in them.

Thinking you can lose weight just by exercise alone, without improving your diet, is difficult in my experience. This is not true for someone already in a very good condition and weight - those folks can do a longer and/or more intense exercise session and knock of the pounds quickly by exercise alone. We can get there too, a step at a time.

But just by raising your nutrient to calorie ratio you will begin losing weight staying with your current activity routines, in the vast majority of cases. And as your body gets lighter it wants to move more, and that begins the virtuous cycle of regular activity and good diet, the ultimate condition of optimum health.

Scientific Process

When it comes to nutrition, scientific process is important for a number of reasons, some good, some not so good. We know the benefit of science and technology in our general lives, it has created, and continues to create, much of our human environment. We no longer have to deal with the harsh elements of nature, and lifespan has been greatly extended. There are too many benefits to even begin to count here.

Let's talk about the limitations of scientific process for a moment, because I think it relates to much of the information we are presented with concerning nutrition. First, a disclaimer - I am not a scientist. But I am a technologist of sorts, in my previous profession, and as an amatuer. I'm an interested observer, let's say, and the following are my opinions.

What is scientific process? It can be said to be objective process, whereby aspects of the physical world can be examined for repeatable pattern by constructing a model that can be brought into laboratory and observed under dynamic conditions. But problems can crop up that create erroneous conclusion, which is most of the reason, if you've noticed, scientific "truth" seems to change quite a bit over time.What are those problems?

First, and primarily, testing models are reductions of very complex reality. Best efforts are made of course to accurately identify the relevant dynamic elements. That is not always accomplished however. When we are looking for repeatable pattern under lab conditions, models for testing are designed according to theory - what we think may be happening. We may be, frequently enough are, incorrect in our assumptions, on the margins of dynamic envelope, or at the core of it. When incorrect at core, repeatable pattern will not be found and conclusions cannot be reached.  But when at the margins, pattern may well be found, but it may not result in accurate conclusion. Why is that?

Reality is dynamic and continually self-changing on an endogenous basis, but models of reality are static and only changed exogenously (by re-design). It's a little bit like the grammar of language, which compared to a living language, changes slowly. The need to find certainty in this complex and uncertain life contributes to a kind of flipping effect of priorities, where the model becomes more important in some ways than the dynamic reality. In school we are taught to speak "correctly", according to a model many years old. I won't argue this sort of societally imposed structure has no good function, but that's another discussion. Suffice it to say, most kids leaving the classroom revert immediately to the colorful living language of their peer group. This analogy serves to illustrate how static models of reality might operate "on the margins" - most of the model is accurate, but important parts are not identified for one reason or another, leading to partially erroneous conclusions where an accurate study of dynamic reality is the goal.

It's not easy to study dynamic reality, it's complex, and it may be changing in real time in ways that are difficult or impossible to identify.

There is another problem with controlled studies called expectancy bias. This is where, going back to model design, a favored "pet" theory (invented here, it has to be good) is the dominant reason for going into controlled study phase to begin with. This may be especially relevant when a potentially commercial outcome is at stake. New drugs that cure difficult disease for example can (and do) also create billions of dollars income for the developer group. But that is only the most obvious example, favored theory status is always conferred to one degree or another, with status of public recognition more than sufficient motive.

Expectancy bias is a problem that manifests as potentially incorrect conclusions when conditions at the margin of the dynamic envelope are not sufficiently defined, or simply not identified to begin with.

But we don't throw scientific process out, baby with bathwater, as a result. On whole it's a very valuable process, we only have to look around the room to see the proof of that. Why is it so important?

Placebo effect and the unreliable nature of anecdotal experience is the very reason scientific process was needed, and why it was developed (necessity mother of invention), and why it works so well, when it does. If we don't like the idea of living in primitive conditions, scientific process is a very good thing, it's the one thing that makes this difference in our lives. So, and perhaps I should have said this earlier (better late than never:), it is a very good thing! Blessed are the searchers, and the re-searchers, of the truth. (In the first instance, we also need the searchers - the thinkers, the poets, the philosophers, and even the rebels and misfits, to ask the questions that lead to new theory.)

So anecdotal experience is an obvious phenomena on one level, but complex on another. It's where mind and body intersect and overlap. It's where dreams become real and the real becomes dreams. It's where art happens, and where we live our daily lives. The problem with using anecdotal experience as measure, or should I say, precise measure, is best illustrated perhaps talking about placebo effect. This is where, when we think something is going to happen (expectancy bias again), the probability it does happen becomes greater in some measurable way. There are many many examples, here's a hypothetical: in a double blind controlled study of a hair restoration formula, the control group is given a fake, which could in no way have any effect on hair growth, and the test group is given the real stuff. Both groups grow more hair by the same amount. Since the test group did not grow more hair than the control group, the effect is not greater than placebo, and the formula is a failure.

As an aside, this kind of thing may well make us wonder if we are asking the right questions - if the placebo effect is so powerful and consistent, why don't we find ways to put it to consistent methodical use? The answer is if method is too transparent, if we can see behind the curtain, we no longer believe "the magic". But placebo is used consistently in less transparent ways - every health care professional, credentialed or not, is imbued with this power if we trust them. In fact everyone we perceive to be of higher power than us is imbued with this "magic" power, to one extent or other. This is why we say children are equal in dignity but not power, and as adults we must endeavor to remain cognizant of this so as to minimally damage. And this is why as adults, IMO, it is good to question authority and the established order, and what passes as "truth", which may be no more than a grammar that is past its "use by" date. Modern democracies are founded on the principle of the importance of preserving the right to question the established order, unfortunately that right is being eroded... but I digress.

Placebo has obvious limits. It will not save you if for example you are given a powerful toxin but simultaneously assured by a trusted source that it is Vitamin A, you have a deficiency shown on your recent blood work, and you need Vitamin A to heal a health problem you've been experiencing. Seeming miracles do happen and I believe in them, but I would not also expect an individual to be protected from toxicity in the above scenario, in a controlled study or otherwise.

Science not only has it's place, in many ways it IS this place, the environment created by industrialized man, our brothers and sisters. We have become so dependent on it, in so many ways that we are mostly unconscious of, that it can give one pause... for example, how many of us could really survive, not to mention thrive, if for some hypothetical reason, there were suddenly no grocery stores? Kinda scary to think about isn't it?

Reality IS anecdotal experience, as messy and unfocused, and dreamy, as it is. We are spiritual beings at core, one with nature, and we must, in my humble opinion, endeavor to remain conscious of that transcendent fact. Ultimately we learn to trust our own experience above all - it's all there really is in the final analysis, on the most foundational level.

One thing is pretty clear by now...

If you want to reverse heart disease, really reverse it for the long haul, veganism is the answer. I'm not aware of any other effective treatment protocol. Bypass and stent surgeries are a temporary fix if lifestyle issues are not addressed, and statin drugs while marginally effective cause undesired side effects. Here's President Clinton giving his experience and perspective in a brief 2:30 minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ied_AD4iE

This research is so widely known by now you'd be hard pressed to find a cardiologist unaware of it, but my impression is the majority are still not on board. I guess that's understandable, the world might need a lot fewer cardiologists if there was widespread adoption of veganism.

The potential for the reversal of many other common disorders is also compelling. Dr Campbell (mentioned by Clinton here) considers the idea of a vegan diet cure for many diseases in the video link in my earlier post "T Colin Campbell".

weeding the garden....

This will be a fairly long post, so I'm beginning with this punch line: "For good health, do not mix high levels of fat and protein with high levels of carbohydrate in your diet, on an ongoing basis". Keep reading to see how I got there.

In the previous post we've seen it's not all about the food, healing and caring for heart and mind are as, or more, important. It's really just another angle on the body/mind connection, the two halves of the whole. In my experience changes to either affect the other - better food in the body opens the heart, and as we become more conscious we desire cleaner fuel. We are what we eat, in both body and consciousness.

But nutrition is a complex topic, right? From the outside looking in, the only thing immediately apparent about nutrition is the experts all seem to disagree with each other. Many of the major schools of thought in nutrition claim improved health, and even reversal of disease. And it seems also to be true (at least from the anecdotal perspective), people do seem to improve their health following different approaches.

Since I mentioned anecdotal perspective, let me offer a quick perspective on the science of nutrition. It's getting there, but it is far from a clear picture as yet. Each school of thought points to studies that "prove" their perspective, heated debate ensues, and the overall picture becomes cloudier to the neutral observer. It also doesn't help that studies are expensive, and funding entities tend to be the vested corporate interest groups with deep pockets. I'm optimistic the truth will out eventually, meanwhile the immediately notable feature on this landscape is a pervasive fog.

But... if different approaches seem to improve health, might we find common features among them? And if so, might they be meaningful? Perhaps... let's take a look.

It seems to me the two most divergent current schools of thought are the Paleo Diet, and the 80/10/10 Diet, with most other approaches falling somewhere between. Oversimplifying by necessity, Paleo might be said to be a refinement of the Atkins Diet, popularized with publication of "Dr Atkins Diet Revolution" in 1981, and 80/10/10 coming out of a school called Natural Hygiene, popularized by a 1985 book "Fit for Life". 80/10/10 is vegan, the Paleo approach is not - what could they have in common?

Strangely enough, both schools seem to be saying essentially the same thing, but I doubt proponents of either would be happy to look at it that way. Simplifying again, Paleos say "eat all the fat and protein you want, as long as you minimize carbohydrate consumption", and 80/10/10 proponents say "eat all the carbs you want, as long as you minimize consumption of fat and protein".

The common thread being, "for good health, do not mix high levels of fat and protein with high levels of carbohydrate in your diet, on an ongoing basis".

It seems to work - there are plenty of good looking examples from both camps. Let's tease out the difference between them a bit more. 80/10/10 is by definition vegan because it is difficult to consume no more than 10% of your daily calorie requirement as protein unless your diet is exclusively plant based, where it becomes a matter of course. And Paleos do not emphasize the calo-nutrient ratio so much, except to reduce percent of calories from carbs to about 20%. Keep in mind there are divergences in both camps, I'm being very general.

So all the foregoing begs The Big Question - which "camp", if either, produces the better result? Which looks better, performs better, is the more disease resistant, and has the higher longevity?

First I'll propose the idea that the science is sorely lacking on this point - to my non-expert eye it's a jumble at best, making the whole of it more anecdotal than "hard" (science). And as importantly, science, when it works, teases out the placebo effect - ie you think you're going to get better because you are doing a protocol, so you do (proving the mind/body connection). So without consistent good science, ultimately, this comes down to individual opinion at this point. I have mine, you have yours, and viva la difference. I'll close by expressing mine, briefly.

To some extent it comes down what sort of body type you think is most healthy and attractive. 80/10/10 folks tend to be lean, Paleos less so. I kind of doubt anyone will reach absolute best levels in bodybuilding or absolute strength competitions doing 80/10/10. On the other hand, if strength to weight ratio is the more relevant measure, 80/10/10 will probably outperform the high protein approach. The lean sprinter's body is easily achieved with 80/10/10 (perhaps I shouldn't say easy, it takes a lot of training regardless of diet), but the bulk of the shot putter's body, not so much.

In terms of disease resistance, I find recent research on excess protein as disease catalyst to be interesting, and think it may well become the more prevalent view. This research is even affecting the Paleo camp, many of whom are reducing total protein consumption as a result. The longevity question is more complex, but would seem to be related to the disease resistance question, so I will leave that one there for now, to be revisited at some point looking at "calorie restriction", another possible common thread between dietary approaches that "work".

To end where we started, diet is one part of the complex whole that creates good health. How important? It is very important, it's the fuel that drives our experience of everything. We know the obvious - for good health we need certain "mechanical" needs met on an ongoing basis, in approximate order of importance: clean air and water, sufficient sleep, clean fuel, strenuous physical activity, and moderate sun on bare skin. And we need to fuel and care for the emotional/spiritual body too, with love for self and others, in contemplation, art, meditation, play, movement, exploration, reverence, ad infinitum...

Mark Bittman's VB6 (Vegan Before 6:00)

I just learned about Mark Bittman's Book "VB6: Eat Vegan before 6:00". So I went to Amazon to check it out, and it looks like an excellent and practical approach. One thing I've learned as I've transitioned to full-time vegan - it's much easier to eat "clean" all day when you know dinner "as you like it" is waiting for you. And as your body and brain begin to "notice" the benefits to mood and energy, cravings for highly processed and junk foods subside, and your body begins to desire healthier "reward food" at dinner too. On the Amazon page Bittman talks about this and other good things that happen "automagically" in the transition to Vegan - it's great overview info, and it's free:) Check out "Book Description", and "Excerpt":
http://www.amazon.com/VB6-Before-Weight-Restore-Health/dp/0385344740

It's Not All About the Food!

Given a reasonable diet and exercise baseline, the more important aspect of health may well be emotional and spiritual. Journey with this young allopathically trained physician as she comes to discover the limits of conventional wisdom, and the true cause of health. Another excellent 18 minute Ted Talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tu9nJmr4Xs

T Colin Campbell, Nutrition and Cancer Researcher

In an earlier post I said I would post links showing a possible relationship between high levels of protein consumption, and Cancer, and other diseases. Although many alternative health practitioners have felt this to be true for some time, T Colin Campbell is the scientist who brought it to wider attention. His major work "The China Study", published in 2006, is quite recent in terms of major changes in scientific viewpoints. You can imagine the firestorm of controversy in the field of nutrition science the publication of his research caused, and Campbell continues to be a lightning rod for controversy. Recently however other researchers are finding support for his conclusions in a variety of ways, and it seems the number of studies showing this link are increasing quite rapidly.

For now I'm going to keep it simple by only posting a link to a recent Campbell Ted Talk, probably the best overview of his work and perspective. It's less than 20 minutes, you may find it interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CN7PF10RKo

the question should be... where do you get your GREENS

And why do I say that, you may ask... Let's consider some factoidals:

We know that bodies can only be formed from protein consumption. Yes we do need our protein for healthy bones and bodies, it's one of the three essential macro nutrients (the other two being fat and carbs). But we all know the largest terrestrial animals are herbivore, and have a diet of grass and/or leafy greens. Where did they get their protein?

Did you know that green plants have the most protein of all foods, on a per calorie ratio basis? And many nutrition experts now speak of "bio-availability", the degree to which our bodies utilize the nutritional content of a given food? It seems some food types have nutrients that are more easily digested, broken into constituent parts, and then assimilated to the cells. Vegan oriented nutrition experts tend to believe greater bioavailability of plant sourced nutrition is the reason for the health and performance benefits they feel we receive with this lifestyle choice. If bioavailability is in fact a valid concept, then the reason would be efficiency - the machine of the body runs more efficiently because the fuel given is cleaner, and more efficiently taken up and utilized.

Now I will admit that consumption of greens is an acquired taste for most of us, and not one we are taught by our society! Go to an average restaurant and order a salad, and what do you get? (Almost) nothing! It's difficult to acquire a taste for nothing! (I think there may be a Buddhist joke in here, somewhere... but that's not the nothing I'm talking about:)

Fortunately there are more and easier ways to cultivate the taste for greens, and it sneaks up on you. I can now totally enjoy a salad based on half Romaine and (gasp) half Kale! Yes, totally raw Kale. I never thought that would happen, but it happened in stages.

Green smoothies smoothed my transition, and can be the beginning and end of it - green smoothies can be the sum total of your greens consumption if you add enough greens and have them often enough. Some will say eating the whole unprocessed raw plant food is still the more optimal way to fuel the body, and others will say blending (and juicing) "pre-digests" the foods and make them more available. It's the minor point. Whatever works, works.

To my way of thinking a green smoothie has a base of at least half Kale (it blends down) or other dark green leafy, by volume not weight, so half is not really half, and that is why a relatively high amount of greens are necessary for said smoothie to really be "green". To which you add your pleasure of choices of other raw plant foods, like fruit for flavonoid and phytonutrio, and perhaps some nuts or seeds for a nut milk base to give a creamy texture, like a "shake". All of that is personal preference, and it changes. At one point I was adding a raw egg or two "for protein", but I have found my body no longer needs that. Same with protein powder, I no longer feel I need to add the protein since upping the greens, and I like (love actually) the difference in how I feel.

Unlike many vegans I am not morally offended by consuming animal products, although I do have concerns about current practices in the industrial production of any food, be it plant or animal. But that's another blog.

The blender you use is important. There are some cheap ones that are pretty good. Oster brand comes to mind. But VitaMix is best, by a country mile. And I'm going to tell you the very best way to save a few bucks, because they are expensive. It's the VitaMix "certified reconditioned" program. Everyone who buys them this way says "what gives this thing is new". I think what VitaMix does is use the motor base over if it tests good, and put new everything else on it. And it comes with a 5 year warranty, so it's hard to go wrong. The motors rarely wear out, in fact I can't recall ever hearing of one that did. I suppose in heavy commercial use, restaurants, bars, juice and smoothie bars maybe they do. Anyway! Here's the link:
https://secure.vitamix.com/Certified-Reconditioned-Products.aspx

And you can easily find promotional codes on the internet that give free shipping too. The basic machine is then $329 total, still not cheap. But I now consider the VitaMix one of the essential kitchen appliances, along with juicer, knives, and cutting board.

but... where do you get your protein?

This is the question vegans hear most frequently about their lifestyle choice, so why not start there. Here are some basics.

Most plants have all three of the macronutrients - fats, carbs, and protein, as opposed to the micronutrients such as vitamins, minerals, recently discovered bioflavonoids and other antioxidants, and potentially others not discovered as yet. (And many plants have many or most of the micronutrients also.)

If you ate only a variety of fruits and vegetables, along with moderate amounts of nuts and seeds, you would be getting a calo nutrient ratio of 80/10/10 carbs/fat/protein.

Not enough protein? Check out latest cancer research (links coming in a subsequent post) showing excess protein may be a root cause for cancer epidemic, along with all the other so called "metabolic" disorders - diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, arthritis... to name a few.

Check out the growing body of serious athletes who prefer lean muscle to bulk to achieve a higher strength to weight ratio, and have gone vegan. Those same athletes typically blow right thru previous personal best performance records.

Here for example, Rich Roll, one of my favorite vegan atheletes, did a blog on getting enough protein on a plant "powered" diet

http://www.richroll.com/nutrition/my-top-7-sources-of-plant-based-protein/

Check out the vid on that page too. Let me know if you think Rich is missing out on nutrition:)

High level athletes are going vegan in increasing numbers for one reason only, increased performance, clarity, focus. The rest of us, well, we do it to feel better, also clarity and focus, and to be disease resistant.

I have two friends who tell me their docs have told them not to eat greens. That causes the red light to go on, it does not make sense to me. I am now convinced with a little luck one should be able to recover and heal completely from any disease by intervening with the healthiest lifestyle choices. But you gotta make luck come to you.

There is a lot of debate out there about what those healthy choices are exactly, and it's still a problem. It's not like science has figured it all out and has all the answers. Like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle. I have come to believe that green plants are at the very base of the healthiest possible lifestyle choices, the bottom rung of the ladder. So yeah, if a doc says you shouldn't be eating greens, I wonder if that doc has something wrong in their approach. Just maybe.

Hello, my name is Dave, and I am Vegan...

Yes I am. When I was 37 I reversed my health by going mostly vegan, and I lost a ton of weight. But that's not all that happened, I had been a physical and emotional mess for years - anxiety prone, migraines, low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), and just generally felt crappy most of the time. I'm not a tall guy and have fairly small bone structure. A good weight range for me is 140-150, I was over 200 and moving up-scale fast - when Grace intervened - a JuiceMan juice maker one Christmas.

I did not know who Jay Kordich was, but I watched the video tape that came with the juicer, and stroking my (double) chin said to myself - you know this makes sense. Humans are the only animal species that cooks their food... Hummm....

When I made the first fresh uncooked (unpasteurized) juice (sort of a V-8 concoction as I recall) I had an immediate strong reaction. And it was not just the sugar or something like that (believe me I ate plenty of desserts, and being hypoglycemic, knew exactly what getting sugar feels like). I felt an amazing rush of vitality and energy for the first time in years. Actually, probably for the first time ever. You tend to notice stuff like that! Now I no longer get that amazing rush when I eat or juice fruit and vegetables, but I was severely depleted and didn't know it. I will never forget that moment, my eyes were opened, the light went on.

So after a few years of this relative bliss state, where my weight went to 140 and my energy and vitality soared, I gradually slid back into old ways. Not uncommon. In my case I was not getting something, a certain nutrient, or nutrients, but I had a couple of likely suspects in mind from the reading I had done. Omega 3, vitamin B12, or protein. I knew something was missing, but was not sure what. I backslid almost out of necessity, but ended back in the land of pain... by 55 or so I was a mess again, overweight, and worse, the early symptoms of heart disease had shown up. I knew something had to be done, and I had a pretty good idea where to start... back to the fresh juice.

It worked, and it's different this time. The internet changed everything - now there is the support of others on similar journeys, and as importantly, the deep knowledge of true experts, all on tap in real time. The so-called raw food community has undergone a green revolution of it's own. We now know green plant foods have the highest nutrient to calorie ratio of all the foods available to us. Previously, I was not getting (enough of) my greens! It's that simple.

A very good friend commented recently I should start blogging my explorations of health. So encouraged, here I am. I hope it can help others in some way.