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.
No comments:
Post a Comment