The Big Debate: Are Carbs or Fats Our Primary Fuel?

We know a few things for sure - no debate on certain critical points:

1) Both work more optimally as fuel sources when they are not mixed to any great degree in the same diet.

2) Both keto and high carb dieters report increased well being and reversal of certain diseases.

So the answer to the question which is best comes down to just that, which is best, and there are several measures that can apply:

1) Sustainability
     a. emotional - which is easier to stick with? Are we instinctually more attracted to high fat or high carb foods?
     b. nutritional - is either more likely to crash for physiologic reasons?
     c. does either introduce higher levels of toxicity?
     d. is conversion of food to fuel more efficient with either? (Ratio of calories burned to get fuel calories).

2) Longevity - does either support longer disease free life?

3) Freedom from discomfort - which feels better day to day? (Optimal health is "invisible", we are not aware of physiologic functioning until there is a problem.)
     a. Digestion is a critical function - is it "invisible"?
     b. Sleep is a critical function - is it easy and good?

4) Freedom from common diseases - are colds and allergies less likely on either?

5) When used for disease reversal
     a. which is more efficient in terms of rapidity?
     b. in terms of degree of reversal?

6) Cognitive performance - is either better?

7) Athletic performance - is either better?

8) Recovery from stressors
     a. emotional - are psychological markers better on either?
     b. physical - do high level athletes recover more quickly on either?

From everything I have seen to this point, the weight of scientific evidence (controlled trials and long term population studies) is clearly on the side of high carb. It would be interesting (but time consuming) to organize the evidence that does exist on a point by point basis.

My own anecdotal experience, what I have seen among the paleo dieters vs the high carb dieters I have had personal contact with, also leans clearly toward high carb.

The question itself, which is better, seems to have only come into clear focus recently, and further study of the specifics would clearly be helpful. Impediments to that process may be (or continue to be) the industries whose interests might be damaged by further study, including meat and dairy, pharmacology and medicine, processed food, and health care insurance.

Any of these questions could be the topic for a single blog post. I may attempt some of that going forward, meanwhile I'll let them hopefully serve simply as food for thought.

Does our physiology prefer fat or sugar as it's primary source of energy?

Interesting question, hotly debated these days.

We know healthy blood sugar level falls into a relatively narrow invariant range (becoming "Paleo" doesn't change it).

We know dietary sugar in the blood does not interfere with the delivery of fat from the blood to the cells, but dietary fat in the blood dramatically interferes with the delivery of sugar from the blood to the cells.

We also know the body has two immediate invariant needs for "fuel", oxygen and sugar. A very short time without either and we're dead.

As blood sugar drops below normal range we begin to get into trouble...initially basic functioning becomes difficult, if they continue to drop we lose consciousness, and if it drops further death will result:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-your-blood-sugar-is-zero

Blood lipid levels are typically associated with levels of cholesterol, the building block fat, where according to this article there are no immediate pronounced effects to low levels, and long term effects are as yet not all that clear:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/lite.201000070

Serum triglycerides are the fats burned as energy, this article says among other things there are no particular day to day symptoms associated with either high or low levels of triglycerides.

https://www.belmarrahealth.com/low-triglycerides-causes-symptoms/

Why didn't anyone tell me this, pt 2

In the previous post video Cyrus and Robbie say they can demonstrate over and over that a whole food plant based diet reverses diabetes quickly and efficiently. They also feel this diet is the healthiest long term diet possible for humans, and is essentially the same diet detailed in the book "The Blue Zones of Happiness: Lessons From the World's Happiest People"

https://www.amazon.com/Blue-Zones-Happiness-Lessons-Happiest/dp/1426218486/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1522244209&sr=1-1

But if this is true, and it becomes clear and obvious when applied by real people, why haven't we heard more about this so-called science? Where is it?

The science is there, and voluminous. What we tend to hear about and see however is "conflict science" (like conflict diamonds), which is what makes it into popular media reports.

Can we just call a spade a spade, and say "big science" (fueled by the big money of big ag, big pharma, big food, big health care, and big insurance) has worked tirelessly to obscure the authentic science on the pivotally critical role of diet in health?

Authentic science also shows funding for studies heavily influences conclusions. And this problem is compounded by our culturally induced eagerness to believe the best about our bad habits.

What's a person to do? Well, perhaps begin by taking "the latest science" with a grain of salt. And then, if so motivated, look for what works, and then compare how well it works relative to other approaches that produce better health.

Robbie and Cyrus have put together a plant based health education initiative called "Mastering Diabetes" which is currently presenting an excellent online "symposium" featuring some of the best thought leaders, scientists, doctors and medical professionals in the plant based health movement, free to watch for another several days as of this writing 3/30/18 (and after which it goes behind a paywall), and well worth the investment of time!

I just watched the David Katz MD presentation, which I recommend very highly. The work Dr Katz is doing gives me hope we may be closer to "universal" reversal of the chronic disease epidemic than I thought.

https://masteringdiabetes.teachable.com/

Why didn't anyone TELL me this?

Like...maybe my doctor?

Everyone deserves to know the truth about insulin resistance, the precursor condition not only to type 2 diabetes, but also the atherosclerotic family of diseases and the autoimmune family of diseases.

Here ya go:

The page at the link below might give some clue as to exactly why we've been "left in the dark" (and continue to be), and it's only the tip of a (much) larger iceberg that also includes medications for the atherosclerotic family of diseases and the autoimmune family of diseases - high blood pressure and rheumatoid arthritis meds each generate more revenue than diabetes meds.

Not to mention cancer, which also implicates "bad diet" as a significant causal factor in current epidemic levels in developed world populations.

10 highest selling diabetes drugs 2016:

The total comes to 17.294 billion. This figure represents US only, 2016 only, for the top selling diabetes meds only.

Now start multiplying.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/top-10-diabetes-drugs-by-2016-sales

Farm Extensively, Not Just Intensively

A friend sent an article called "The Last Conversation You’ll Ever Need to Have About Eating Right" by cook book author Mark Bittman and MD David Katz which I found sensible, and based on actual nutrition science (the less biased variety of nutrition science) and human history.

http://www.grubstreet.com/2018/03/ultimate-conversation-on-healthy-eating-and-nutrition.html

While reading the thought occurred to me there's an easy way to think about this:  how to eat when we're literally surrounded by food technology is how our early ancestors ate. There's a lot of debate about what that was, but it's basically quite simple - they ate what was available. What was available was what nature "forced" them to eat, which varied depending on location on the planet, season, year, etc. But it was all real food. Some of it was considerably more nutritious than most of the rest of it. The people lucky enough to be where that was did better.

There's a line in the article "fish is unquestionably the healthiest animal protein to eat" Which reminded me of a Ted Talk I came across recently by fish lovin chef Dan Barber titled "How I Fell in Love with a Fish", that I found both funny, very insightful, and where the title of this post "Farm Extensively, Not Just Intensively" was borrowed:

Quit Fckin Around

Tired of writing this blog! (kidding:)

Get lean and super healthy for the rest of your life.

Contrary to common experience and popular opinion it's actually really easy. You just have to know what the right choices are, and start making them.

Anxiety vs Whole Plant Nutrition and Physical Activity

We're familiar with the idea that physical activity is at least as effective in treatment of depression and anxiety as psychiatric medications. The idea of psychiatric medication is essentially to mask symptoms long enough to do the psychotherapeutic work of ego integration. The potential problem with this approach is that "masking" can become the "good enough" solution where problems are complex...the usual case with ego integration work, as denial mechanisms are active, and unconscious. So "masking" can delay integration, sometimes indefinitely, neither of which is the more desirable outcome.

Integration is essentially becoming simultaneously comfortable with both the "good and bad" aspects of our human character (animal and spiritual), instead of rejecting, or "splitting off" the "bad" aspects that we all (somewhere in there) have in full measure. It's an idea that can initially be difficult for a variety of reasons, but it's the beginning of true "self love", and important.

We, many of us, need all the help we can get in this process of integration, and coming to maturity. I did, and I owe debts of gratitude to many who have helped me immeasurably along my path. And I'm not trying to say we become perfect at some point...no, we remain flawed and frequently unconscious, but better.

So the idea that physical activity is as or more effective a tool as psychiatric medication for depression and anxiety (the primary two symptoms of the non-integrated personality), is quite interesting. Another equally interesting idea has surfaced more recently, one we are not as familiar with yet, and that is that whole plant food nutrition can also be as or more effective a treatment for depression and anxiety than psychiatric medication.

And an even more interesting idea is that the two in conjunction are potentially the most effective non-psychotherapeutic treatment for anxiety and depression extant. (As an aside let me also say that meditation activities fall into the category of psychotherapeutic treatment. Much more can be said about that, and by others more qualified than me.)

So the combo of nutrition, activity, and meditation would seem a potent blend, with active psychotherapy an option also.

Whole plant nutrition gives your brain (and body) the fuel and nutrient chemistry it's designed for. Activity "stirs things up", like changing the stale air in a room. Together they amplify each other, and the sum becomes greater than the parts.

"All the help you can get" means coupling the most effective "non-masking" treatment modalities you can get your hands on.

So how do we integrate "whole plant nutrition" exactly? I'm going to let a video do the heavy lifting on that topic for me, a compilation of how some of the experts do it.

Mop up the floor...or turn off the faucet?

The title of this blog is a metaphor used by many, and it's a good one....I'll get back to it.

We are in the midst of an unfortunate regressive political backlash situation that has emerged against all we've learned from the range of nutrition/health science over the past few decades, which is just emerging as a coherent "whole" quite recently as a result of the seminal work by T Colin Campbell, and published (Jan 2005) for all to see in the China Study, the book that got the ball rolling in a big way...and still rolling, and huge backlash continuing.

(See the book "Proteinaholic" by reformed bariatric surgeon Garth Davis for a comprehensive survey of the science.)

And of course the health/nutrition debate is hugely important, with potential to affect constructive continuation of human life on the planet in ecologic, cultural, and individual terms.

In case it's not crystal clear, on one side of the health/nutrition debate you have:

the longevity diet -or- the disease reversal diet -or- the species specific diet for humans -or- the high carb low fat diet -or- the whole food plant based diet

all terms pointing basically to the same diet.

On the other side you have the reactionary backlash movement:

the paleo diet -or- the high fat low carb with (varying) consumption of animal products diet -or- the functional medicine diet

again, all terms pointing basically to the same diet.

The latter group continues by virtue of a distorted view of the science on insulin resistance, basically, mixed with a good sized dollop of denial.

And then of course you have everyone else who are not aware there is a debate raging on health and nutrition with clear "battle lines" drawn.

These are the majority still confused by all the (profit motivated) conflicting information who as a result throw up their hands and eat whatever tastes good (the "Pleasure Trap" health disaster).

These are the consumers of the standard western diet, the diet that creates massive profits for growers/producers/purveyors of toxic "food-like" substances.

Which then creates the massive profits going to the health care/medical/drug/insurance industries that mop up the mess created by mass consumption of those toxic substances.

Back to the metaphor - if someone had accidently left a water faucet on and the sink was overflowing all over the floor would you get busy mopping up the floor, or simply turn off the faucet?

Functional medicine turns the flow of water down considerably, but does not turn it off, and the sink continues overflowing onto the floor, giving the cleaning service hired to keep up with continuing overflow an opportunity to "keep their job".

This is the least disruptive choice in terms of the elephant in the room (The Economy), and will almost certainly be government's choice due to the "GDP problem".

A better choice for our personal health remains available to us! I recommend a "real" study of the literature (Proteinaholic an excellent place to begin), followed by a transition diet.

https://www.amazon.com/Proteinaholic-Obsession-Meat-Killing-About/dp/0062279319

NYTimes.com: Big Sugar Versus Your Body

I'm going to make some controversial points below related to the battle against "big sugar". But don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm for sugar, I'm not at all and never use the stuff in or on anything, and avoid it to the extent possible in social situations.

The NYT article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/opinion/sugar-industry-health.html

My response:

Unfortunately there is a huge lack of true understanding about nutrition, and the lack of same as the cause of chronic diseases (as opposed to infectious diseases). Why? The food industry wants the public to remain confused about basics of nutrition, which really aren't very hard to understand.

- vegetable oils are a fairly benign empty calorie to a high fat paleo

- just as sugar is a fairly benign empty calorie to a high carb low fat person

Both are completely empty calorie substances (not foods) that should not be in any diet! How can anyone mount a solid argument for substantial amounts of empty calories in ANY diet? The vitamin pill diet? Substandard at best.

Here is a report on an early (and crude) version of the plant based high carb diet where patients were actually fed sugar! Read about what happened to them:

https://www.drmcdougall.com/2013/12/31/walter-kempner-md-founder-of-the-rice-diet/

Which diet is faster and more effective in reversing disease, high fat low carb, or high carb low fat?

High carb low fat, no question.

Which diet is better as a maintenance diet? Population studies on longevity and health in centenarian societies give us the same answer. Animal products are used sparingly, and average calo nutrient ratio is still within the 80/10/10 ballpark.

Insulin resistance is the real problem, which occurs where there is a combination of high fat and high carb in the same diet.

And the cause of insulin resistance? High fat in the diet is the precondition, carbs in the diet is the onset where the precondition exists.

We are so acclimated to a high fat diet there is little realization (and much resistance, economic and cultural) that a plant based whole food high carb diet is the species specific diet for humans.

I don't see this state of affairs changing any time soon (cultural habit pattern combined with the GDP problem). The precondition for insulin resistance is present in (guessing) maybe 90-95% of developed world citizens?

But we can be smarter about it on an individual level.

Functional medicine docs such as Mark Hyman get "close enough" by reversing the primary problems of modern diets with a wholesale switch to "real food", and the complete elimination of junk, processed, toxic "food-like" substances. It allows us to retain some animal products in our diets, while controlling for the "insulin resistance precondition" problem by limiting fruits and starchy vegetables, keeping percent of calories from carbs relatively low.

Is it the best diet? The best diet is the one you can follow and sustain over time. It's not the best diet for me, but I've had the benefit of intervention and education most folks will not experience.

So looks to me like the handwriting on the wall says the functional medicine docs will hold sway, and I'm all for it on practical levels because it achieves several goals simultaneously: it fixes the chronic disease problem, which is huge and of primary importance, it does not blow up GDP and destroy already damaged and delicate developed world economies, the healthcare industry remains profitable, and the status quo continues more or less intact with the exception of "goodbye big sugar" (I will not miss you).

Bullet Points

an email to a friend who was asking if "breaking down cell walls" with a blender is "good":

--------------------------------
if a little bit of something is good is a lot more better?

we could go on a diet of all necessary supplements, and refined fiber (psyllium husk) for bulk, and refined calories (oil or sugar) for energy

we could call it the science diet

and it wouldn't work.

we humans have a very hard time thinking we really can't improve on biology, and the foods we are adapted to by evolution

and to confound that impulse the path back to that "model" has been completely obscured by wishful thinking (we can improve on nature)

and marketing bullshot (to profit on wishful thinking)

primary sources of confusion about health and nutrition

1) wishful thinking

2) "junk" science (which is pretty much all we are exposed to through media)

3) absolutely no profit to be made on the nature model

i watched a ted talk recently by a nobel physicist (can remember name at the moment) who was speaking on good vs junk science. he used nutrition studies as the best example of junk science "you can get any result you want"

however...a paradigm shift in consciousness of health is underway, with focus on "cause of health" as opposed to "prevention of disease".

the disease reversal diet is very close to the nature model. there is much greater consensus as to what it is than you'd think, and most folks still have heard nothing about it.

the difference between it and "juice fasting" or any of the many other methods of disease reversal that have emerged over time is that it's sustainable.

it provides sufficient nutrition + sufficient pleasure - toxins  =  sustainability.

the end of the search for answers about health is at hand.

sounds simple cause it is.

it's the way pre-industrial humans  >living in conducive conditions<  ate. i have living in conducive conditions in brackets because it's important. the disease reversal diet is not what humans living in hostile conditions and barely hanging to life ate. it's the natural (instinctive) diet humans ate who lived in conducive conditions.

how do we know this?

1) read The Blue Zones and/or Healthy at 100.

2) study the work of the increasing numbers of docs reversing the diseases western medicine has no clue about (auto-immune, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure etc). look at their success rates! compare that to any other modality. They all use a very similar model. reversal rates with "incurable conditions" is near 100%.

what is that model?

1) whole plant foods, exclusively or nearly exclusively.

2) off all meds as quickly as possible, they are actually damaging to health

3) no "shotgun" or megadose supplements, potentially damaging to health, minimal supplementation may be needed case by case.

4) no fruit juice

5) caution on juicing and blending in general

6) eat whole fruits and veggies "ad libitum" (as much as you want)

7) add nuts and seeds and other fatty foods in moderation

8) clean air and water

9) "whole body" activity at least 3-4 times a week (use it or lose it)

10) find and pursue your interests (follow your bliss)

11) social activity (love the ones you're with)

12) relaxation activity (meditation)

and last but not least - sufficient sleep! insufficient sleep is one of the fastest ways to destroy health.

Circadian Rhythm
https://sleep.org/articles/circadian-rhythm-body-clock/

Finding Common Ground

I've been spending a little time watching discussions between working doctors who represent the two significant "camps" of "healthy diet and lifestyle" medicine, which are the paleo leaning docs (who call themselves Functional Medicine docs), and the docs who are leaning toward a low fat high carb vegan diet, which is also known as the 80/10/10 diet (I have been calling the disease reversal diet on my blog).

These two camps have much more in common than not, expressed most simply by the food writer Michael Pollan, who in his book "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto" sums it all up saying "eat food, mostly plants, not too much". It probably goes without saying when Pollan says "eat food", he means real food, which is defined most broadly as "whole food", that is food in it's whole natural form (as many plants can be used), or ideally no more than one step away from whole and natural in terms of "processing" (cooking is the most common form of food processing.) To that I would add keep recipes simple, with fewer ingredients. We are biologically adapted to a hunter gatherer mono meal approach (find a food source, eat it until full), and when food becomes overly complex our biome doesn't recognize it or know what to do with it.

Eat (real) food, mostly plants, not too much.

In other words what they agree on is a whole food plant based approach. But there are variations within that basic approach, and this is where those of us more inclined one direction or the other begin to find differences that can seem (perhaps) larger than they are, at least compared to the the standard western diet that is killing us in large numbers. And both camps agree insulin resistance is the cause of the diseases of inflammation and so-called metabolic syndrome. My guess is that diseases of this sad diet prematurely kills about 80% of developed world citizens, a particularly ironic fact in light of the fact the solution to this problem is something as simple as dietary change.

And as as aside, but a critically important one to understand IMHO, is that the crux of the "diet change problem" is that "sick diets" are hugely profitable. And when I say hugely, I mean HUGELY: the sum profit between the various industries that develop, produce, and sell these "foods" (using the term loosely), and the industries that develop, produce, and sell so-called "cures" (that don't work), we find ourselves in a very odd situation...I call it "The GDP Problem".

Our government has become dependent for the bulk of it's revenue on the sum of profits from all these various "disease induction" and "disease management" industries. Food borne disease have literally become a disease of "the body politic", a particularly ironic and difficult problem that most of us, for the most part, remain blissfully unaware of, which is exactly where the primary benefactor, our government, wants us to remain for reasons of vested interest.

Clearly the solution to this problem will be bottom up "grass roots": improving your own health is not only possible, but also is actually pretty easy, pleasurable, and even fun. Until we are exposed to these better diets ourselves we tend to see them as "deprivation diets", but nothing could be further than the truth. They are actually approaches to personal liberation (not too strong a term!) and happiness.

I'm including one of the various "doctor debates" I've been watching (it's a good one), and I'm struck by one thing. Everyone agrees the condition of insulin resistance is basically the root of all this "disease diet" problem. What is missing in the conversations I've seen is a clear understanding of the cause of insulin resistance, or at least an avoidance of clear discussion about it. Perhaps if we broke the term "insulin resistance" into two terms the actual process for it becomes more clear. One term could be "insulin resistance precondition", and the other "insulin resistance onset".

This is a critical distinction, and without it insulin resistance remains a murky topic, and misunderstanding and potential for biased misinformation (and even overt disinformation) abounds. And this lack of distinction is also the reason the debate on "how much fat in the diet" remains murky. With a better understanding of insulin resistance it becomes clear both approaches work, and the reasons they both work becomes obvious. There are vibrant folks in both camps, and we need better language for the problem of insulin resistance to understand why.

So obviously, I have to give it a quick go at this point. High fat low carb diets, and the opposite high carb low fat diets, can both work for the same (but opposite) reason. Here it is as simply as I can say it: the precondition for insulin resistance is fat in the diet, and the onset of insulin resistance is consumption of carbohydrates when the precondition exists.

It's really a simple and easy to understand relationship, but culturally difficult (and culture is powerful) because almost all post-industrial developed world citizens consume diets that have sufficient levels of fat to cause the precondition for insulin resistance to exist on an ongoing "all the time" basis. We all grew up eating that diet, it's the diet we know and are comfortable with, and more importantly (culture again) feel safe with. The irony of course is that we have been anything but "safe" with that diet because it's causing us all sorts of physical and financial pain.

So first, to find common ground, we have to better define insulin resistance, and then accept there are healthier versions of whole food plant based diets, some that include more animal product and some that don't. And the key to success on either depends in the first case on the level of fat in the diet, as measured as percent of calories coming from fats, carbs, and proteins. And fortunately there is a free website that easily allows us to see exactly what those levels are, along with all other known nutrition variables: https://cronometer.com/

Meanwhile the debates rage on, and ultimately that's a good thing. Unfortunately there's (GDP Problem) resistance to doing studies that would better define and clarify the debate. For example, let's see a study of heart disease reversal using the Ornish-Esselstyn method where one control group has 5% good quality animal product added. And another control group with 10% added, and so on, until we find that point where the result (rapid and complete disease reversal) is compromised.

And so on. Fortunately as we embark on our personal journeys of health recovery we have our own progress as a marker. Certain foods will make us feel worse, and certain combinations of food will make us feel worse. The latter condition, being "overdetermined", can be difficult to pin down, but we continue to work toward what works best for us. And I'm confident we will arrive at the point the doctors on this discussion panel agree on as a baseline: that a diet of at least 80% whole food plants (by volume) is the baseline for vibrant health.

An Engaging & Objective Review of Decades' Worth of Published Medical Research

Well I've never linked a book review on my blog, but this one is so informative I just can't help myself. Without further ado:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RMEHGY8UIQK7T/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00KVI4HLO

What's Your Pleasure? Happiness?

There's overlap and difference between pleasure and happiness, and it's important to understand because all pleasure all the time has another name (addiction) and will destroy happiness. And, as we all know, even relatively small amounts of the "wrong" kinds of pleasure can also reduce happiness quite significantly.

Pleasure is short term and is what instinct continuously drives us toward. Instinct always drives us toward short term reward, and in "nature" works as a system of behavior perfectly, but in "civilization", unimpeded and uninformed, is a bit of a disaster.

The reason for that is that technology allows us to concentrate substances and experiences that stimulate the pleasure center of our brain. Ever wonder why bugs "off themselves" on the porch light? It's because there ain't no electric light bulb in nature, and their "pleasure receptors" (necessary for survival) are (ironically) greatly overstimulated by the "technologic concentration" of the bulb.

In the book "The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Hidden Force that Undermines Health & Happiness" authors Goldhamer and Lisle put forth the idea that a "motivational triad" for instinctual behavior is to seek pleasure, avoid pain, and conserve energy. To get some idea how effectively they've managed to put this idea across, and what to do with it once understood, quickly sample some of the reviews of the book on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570671974/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1#customerReviews

They are not trying to disparage pleasure however, only to understand better how to direct the impulse so that we do not ourselves become the equivalent of bugs on a porch light.

On my own bumpy progression to understanding better how to produce health in my own life, it only became obvious to me gradually that any so-called "healthy" diet that was not also pleasurable was also not sustainable. We need comfort and pleasure, without them we will slowly go crazy. But being driven toward "unhealthy" pleasures will drive us crazy more quickly.

So I came to understand how important it is to feed "the pleasure monster" a proper diet. And that the formula for a diet that is both healthy and sustainable is "sufficient nutrition + sufficient pleasure - toxic substances = long term health and happiness".

So how, you may ask, does one make a diet of "rabbit food" (fruits and vegetables) more pleasurable? Well the answer is actually pretty obvious, because fruit is perhaps the most pleasure inducing unaltered whole food there is, but there is a trick to doing a diet high in carbohydrates that has to be understood (not difficult), and I will address that in a future blog. (Hint: it has to do with keeping insulin resistance, the precursor to weight gain and so many other problems, at vanishingly low levels.)

And some who discover the "pleasure of fruit" do not balance it properly with vegetables, which can also be an unguided pleasure impulse that will not produce the goal of long term health and happiness. Like so many other things it's about balance...but we have to have the scales handy, and know how to use them.

The Pleasure Trap - a telling concept

We are collectively only beginning to realize how the majority of our behavior is driven by instinct as opposed to reason. There's a ton of neuroscience in the last two decades studying this phenomenon, an excellent lay introduction to this material is put forward in the book "Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ".

We don't really like to think we are driven by "primitive" impulses, it goes against the fundamental precepts that allows us (hubristic) humans to think we are so different from the "lower" animals. Most of the time we don't like to think we are basically just animals, and we have technology to prove it.

But if we are so smart, how did it come to pass that with all the technology we have at our fingertips we came to be so sick from something as simple as diet?

If at this point we need a quick reminder that this is in fact the case (that we are collectively "food sick"), the fact more developed world people die of heart disease than any other single thing can serve as quick illustration. How does that work? Heart disease is not the intractable condition we have come to think it is, but is in fact one easily and quickly reversed with a simple change of diet.

If you didn't know yet that heart disease is easily and quickly reversed I recommend to you the book "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease", written by one (of the many) who has run clinical trials showing exactly that.

And a mountain of other clinical trials point to reversals of too many other "food sick" conditions to quickly name, which also comprise most of the other major causes of death in the developed world population.

So back to the original question: if we are so smart, how did it come to pass with all the technology we have at our fingertips we are so sick from something as simple as diet?

The answer is something called the pleasure trap, which is as perfect an example you'll find of how we are primarily driven by instinctual impulse as opposed to reason.

And don't get me wrong...I'm not going to advocate a future of genetically modified humans who no longer have the characteristic of driven primarily by instinct, a disaster that would "self-extinct" our species IMHO.

"Smart evolution" lies in another direction, that of simply becoming more consciously aware that we are driven primarily by instinct, and how that works in various sets of the most common conditions. Like diet and food for example, and the direct and profound consequences of those choices on health.

This blog is already longer than I intended it to be, so I won't try to summarize the basic points of the brilliant little book "The Pleasure Trap: Mastering the Hidden Force that Undermines Health & Happiness", but I will say reading it is one of the smartest things one can do for their health. And yes the authors are vegan, but please don't let that stop you. Paleos will get a lot from it also.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570671974/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1