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...
No comments:
Post a Comment