Domestication, Semi-Natural Selection, and the Neolithic

Ever wonder why you don't see corn in the wild? Ever see a dog too pitiful for the test of nature? This kind of thing has fascinated me for some time. That is, (gasp) the Neolithic has fascinated me.

One of the hardest things to come to terms with in Paleo is that there is almost nothing we can eat that "our ancestors ate." You hear it a lot -- hell, it's a sales pitch on the covers of half the paleo books out there ("Eat what your ancestors ate") -- but the truth is that what we eat is a faint genetic echo of what our ancestors ate.

But before I get off topic, I want to point out what's truly fascinating about all of this: it's evolution at play. And it helps to refine exactly what we should mean when we say 'Paleo'.

In May of this year, the New York Times ran an article tracing the ancestry of corn back 9,000 years to the "cradle of Maize" in southern Mexico. It reads like a palegomaniacal wet dream:

"For most of human history, our ancestors relied entirely on hunting animals and gathering seeds, fruits, nuts, tubers and other plant parts from the wild for food. It was only about 10,000 years ago that humans in many parts of the world began raising livestock and growing food through deliberate planting. These advances provided more reliable sources of food and allowed for larger, more permanent settlements. Native Americans alone domesticated nine of the most important food crops in the world, including corn, more properly called maize (Zea mays), which now provides about 21 percent of human nutrition across the globe.

But despite its abundance and importance, the biological origin of maize has been a long-running mystery. The bright yellow, mouth-watering treat we know so well does not grow in the wild anywhere on the planet, so its ancestry was not at all obvious. Recently, however, the combined detective work of botanists, geneticists and archeologists has been able to identify the wild ancestor of maize, to pinpoint where the plant originated, and to determine when early people were cultivating it and using it in their diets."

The study that the article is based on ultimately concludes that rather than the multiple-origins theory, all forms of maize originated in a single location. There are two things worth interpreting here.

First, the example of corn highlights the fact that even among a tremendously diverse range of genetic expressions, genetic heritage can be strikingly simple (one place, one time, relatively recent). What this means is that all the human beings around you are not only remarkably different from each other, but they are remarkably different from their common ancestors, Evolutionary Adam and Evolutionary Eve (that's National Geographic's verbiage for our East African Savannah-dwelling ancestors from 60,000 years ago, not my words). This doesn't mean that we're so different as to render 'paleo logic' useless, because the adaptive pressures of the last several thousand years are identifiable (more on this below). On average, we got short, pale, and weak at the same time that we got smart, adventurous, and innovative. But we still can't chronically consume pizza without consequences.

Second, note the rapid pace of neolithic evolution. Go ahead and take another look at the corn/teosinthe picture above. That's just 9,000 years of artificial selection (reproductive selection by man, rather than by nature). Melissa McEwen's recent post on the book, The 10,000 Year Explosion, went over how human evolution was 100x faster in the Neolithic than in the Paleolithic. Now, that's still three million years of paleo versus ten thousand years of neo, but neolithic evolution can't just be dismissed. Plant and animal domestication, sedentary living and farming, and the rise of civilization should be considered as part of the big picture (NeoPaleo Diet, anyone?).

Another helpful example of neolithic evolution is the animal component of domestication. Take dogs, for example. Just like corn, all domesticated dogs descend from a single ancestor, but this time it's an ancestor way more badass than teosinthe: the gray wolf. Even wild wolves today have been tamed, but it's difficult. The reason that some dogs are easy to tame and train is because those genetic traits (friendly, social, smart) were artificially selected for by humans over thousands of years, just like the traits of big, tender, and sweet were selected for corn. Notice that friendly, social, and smart are non-physical traits. Most people think of evolution as physical change, but genetic variation includes psychological/neurological triggers too (emotion, intellect, etc.). The question is: how does this apply to humans? Well, get ready, because I'm about to coin a phrase.

Natural selection: the reproductive preference of certain genetic traits, selected for by nature.

Artificial selection: the reproductive preference of certain genetic traits, selected for by humans.

Semi-natural selection: the reproductive preference of certain genetic traits, selected for by civilization (the Neolithic's version of nature).

The Implications of Semi-Natural Selection and Neolithic Evolution

We've been evolving rapidly over the last 10,000 years while we thrived and multiplied on corn and wheat, so we evolved to eat them right? The answer is a general no, but a partial yes.

Some people today have tremendously negative reactions to neolithic foods (gluten, for instance), and it's sensible that the most severe cases at the turn of the Neolithic may have resulted in the removal of those genes from the gene pool (death, I mean), especially in times of challenge (food scarcity, disease, etc). The number of people who suffer immediately after grain consumption is small (celiacs, for instance), but the number who suffer from chronic grain consumption is high (obese, autoimmune?, diabetic).

Beyond acute suffering, the adaptive pressure to digest neolithic food wanes due to the time scale required. The chronic diseases take so long to develop that they don't significantly affect health until after reproductive age. So all the genes that lead to chronic health conditions stay in the gene pool. This is one major reason why we are not evolved to tolerate neolithic food on a chronic basis.

With the fall of hunting tribes and the rise of unstable societies, the reproductive advantage shifted away from the physical and toward the intellectual. In a Neolithic world of monetary systems, socio-political hierarchy, and generally unprecedented complexity, the genes that fared better in survival/reproductive terms were not the ones with advanced physicality, but those with advanced intellectuality. Political and social maneuvering, mastering advanced professional specialties, and innovative ideas were required for reproductive success and, in many cases, survival. Anthropologists universally confirm that we got shorter and weaker, but the paleo community seems to only attribute this to a less nourishing diet of Neolithic foods. I would add the dwindling importance (adaptive pressure) of physicality to that hypothesis.

As social success shifted away from the tribe, Neolithic evolution saw new genetic traits that were favored and thereby selected for through what I call semi-natural selection (see above). The development of a monetary system created a zero-sum world, one based on materials, wealth, and economic status. Clearly, the genes that win out in this world are ones that are not only intelligent, but conniving, selfish, and over-competitive to the point of deceit. To be clear, I am arguing that the Neolithic world may inherently favor those that are individualistic rather than social, autonomous rather than empathetic, and competitive rather than cooperative, for the adaptive pressure of the Neolithic world has shifted, however slight or profound, in these directions. I covered the adaptive pressure of empathy in the Paleolithic. It's reasonable to surmise that the same mechanisms of evolution would apply to the Neolithic if the adaptive pressures sufficiently changed.

It is vitally important to note the influence of geography on Neolithic evolution, because almost all variation in the species today is the result of geographic-specific adaptation. The reason that skin color changed among humans was because of an adaptation to low UVB levels in latitudes away from the equator. In order to manufacture more Vitamin D from UVB rays, skin lightened and became more sensitive to the less available light. The reason that Eskimos have more subcutaneous fat on their cheekbones and lips is because their evolutionary process took place in very cold climates. The reason that higher rates of Northern Europeans retain the ability to digest milk is because they developed lactase persistence (through Neolithic evolution), which is the enzyme that breaks down lactose. They do so remarkably better than people across the globe, and even better than they did themselves 4,000 years ago. They were among the first humans to rely on dairy as a substantial nutrient source; the Northern European climate provided significant adaptive pressure due to the lack of stable food alternatives, unlike other dairying cultures. Again, the pace of evolution is strikingly clear. Evolution occurs as fast as genes can vary, but as slow as the adaptive pressures dictate.

We can also run with the idea of geographic-specific Neolithic adaption in order to shed light on modern anthropology. For sure, many folks hinge hypotheses (and even conclusions) on the anthropological study of remote hunter-gatherer tribes. However, there is no doubt that geographic-specific adaptation has taken place for these modern hunter-gatherers. Looking at the carb-loading, coconut fat-gorging Kitavans can definitely be a helpful example for exploring a healthy lifestyle, but you have to take this information with a grain of salt, because you can't assume that your body will react the same way their geographically adapted bodies will. This isn't to discount anthropology. We're simply broadening our thought process to include Neolithic evolution in the consideration of what constitutes the big picture.

Paleo or Faileo?: The Bicycle

Before I get down to brass tacks, let's get people's sensitivities out of the way. Yes, the bicycle is the messiah of environmental restoration. Yes, the bicycle is the best invention since the wheel. Yes, biking is still a great way to go long distances. And yes, biking is a far better choice than driving.

Call me extreme, but I like to look at the facts before making up my mind. But sometimes, things are so ingrained into my day-to-day life that I don't even think about questioning it. Until I get a wakeup call. So it was with the bicycle when one nearly took me out of the gene pool.

I have heard plenty of horror stories about the bike throughout my life, always shrugging them off as freak occurrences or misinformation, things that could have happened whether or not the bike was involved. The story that should have opened my eyes was the one about my girlfriend's father. He took a big white work truck head-on at about 30 mph while going 15 mph himself rounding a blind turn on a quiet mountain road. He was nearly killed.

Even when Andrew at Evolvify recently broke his clavicle mountain biking I thought, "Terrible news, but it could've happened anywhere, anytime -- bike or no bike." I'm writing this post in admission of my previously faulty logic.

Every method of transportation has costs. The problem is that many of those costs are hard to measure, and some are hard to think of measuring in the first place. I believe strongly that risk of personal injury and the opportunity cost of bicycling are two of those things.

I'm not talking about erectile dysfunction or arterial iliac endofibrosis, which has been argued compellingly before; I'm talking broken bones, missing teeth or -- lord forbid -- a curb to the temple. Helmet or not, you're screwed. Most people don't even wear their helmet correctly to begin with.

The very first car-related death in our country's history was in 1896 when a car crashed into a bicyclist. And per mile, a bicyclist is 3 to 10x more likely to die at any given moment than a motorist. Under a thousand bicyclists die each year and 90% of them are men, which may imply speed and/or risk-taking as major factors. That's Lesson #1: Understand the real dangers.

But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the bike debate is the opportunity cost, something that I didn't consider until I threw a disc with an avid cyclist. He was the pillar of youth and health: sun-kissed skin, powerful calves, a lean physique. I was a little nervous to display my rusty Frisbee-throwing skills ... until I saw him attempt to run and jump. It was a little bit like actual running and jumping, except he never left the ground with stride or hop, and he just looked old, like he was manipulating the skeleton of a decrepit elderly man. I'm not exaggerating. This guy ran with shoes on over grass like it was hot coals on his bare feet. It was shocking to see such lethargy from someone who looked so fit.

And then it hit me: If you spend all your exercise time on a bicycle, you are replacing time that could be spent moving naturally, developing useful and lasting strength and body coordination. You know, things like lifting, running, jumping, throwing, etc. Things that are paleo. So Lesson #2: Don't let bicycling replace real exercise.

I don't think die-hard fans of the bicycle should quit, but the dangers should be known and the alternatives should be flushed. Consider walking instead. Long walks are the base of the paleo exercise pyramid. The benefits are profound, the dangers are nil, and the opportunity cost is little. It's better for fat burning, too. But don't take my word for it.

"If the body be feeble, the mind will not be strong. The sovereign invigorator of the body is exercise, and of all the exercises walking is best. A horse (read: bicycle) gives but a kind of half exercise, and a carriage is no better than a cradle. No one knows, till he tries, how easily a habit of walking is acquired." - Thomas Jefferson

Saprotrophs, Apex Predators, and the Circle of Life

Plants eat sunlight. Herbivores eat plants. Carnivores eat herbivores. And saprotrophs eat everything. They are the decomposers, the living things that consume dead organic matter. They are earthworms, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa. They are what complete the ignoble Circle of Life.

Please excuse my simple illustration of the delicate complexity of nature, but hey -- at least it's not as simple as yin and yang. Anyway, the moral discourse begins and ends with the ecosystem, so we have to speak in terms that everyone understands.

The apex predator (lion, bear, human) plays an integral role in the balance of an ecosystem. In particular, they control prey species' population dynamics, the impact of which ripples down to the level of plant ecology.

Ecological systems are naturally self-balancing, but they can be dynamic. Even without human interference, plant and animal species can still disappear due to changing climate, changing food sources, competing species, etc. Oddly, the very chaos and dynamism of nature is the 'balance' that sounds so warm and fuzzy off the tongue.

But just because nature is dynamic does not mean that we should sit at the sidelines. There are ecological principles that will bolster entire ecosystems in a way that increases net life -- that is, more lifeforms at all levels, all giving and taking within a robust circle of life.

Organic farming is one great example. But to understand organic farming, we need to first understand industrial farming (where you get you're grains).

Industrial farming first wipes out all life from the given plot of land. Including bacteria. Then, they plant a crop that is genetically altered to tolerate a specific herbicide/pesticide that will continue killing all life on that plot of land, until... Boom. You got grains. So you cut 'em down utilizing cheap labor (migrant illegal labor), ship it across the country on a big truck with a huge engine, and sell them to unsuspecting customers. This is great for grain prices, but bad for human health and the environment.

On the other hand, organic farming uses manure and compost to naturally create nutrient-rich soil that grows healthy vegetables. It uses biological pest control to control pests. Lastly, it's sold locally so it doesn't spoil or make a big carbon footprint. The end result is more lifeforms, no toxins, and better health.

So what about animals? Well, harmony in nature cannot be achieved without predation, and human beings are ancient apex predators. We rely on animals for a complete array of fats and proteins, and it is our duty to participate in this vast, interconnected ecosystem. It only makes sense to hunt overpopulated species and protect endangered ones, and to farm in a way that promotes life at all levels, where each animal lives healthily and happily, and in turn provides nourishment to the next member of the food chain. Pain on an individual level pales in comparison to life on a comprehensive level.

Building Ideological Bridges

A handful of fringe disciplines relate to the ancestral/evolutionary paradigm in some interesting ways, and I'd like to discuss them a bit here. By no mean is what I have to offer conclusive; rather, I simply find the ideas fascinating and want to explore these complex topics with you. So please share your thoughts in the comment section below about any or all of these.

Feminism. Uncomfortable word for some, I know. And I thought so too, until I took Feminist Theory and Literature (honors-level) at university. I'll say this: Once you read the foundational scholarship yourself and get to know the actual philosophy behind it's early leaders, you'll realize pretty easily that true feminism is unlike the popular notion of man-hating bra burners. It's an intellectual movement at it's core, and is what eventually evolved into Gender Studies, which intersects with race, class, queer, and other

minority studies to be the foundational scholarship for social justice today. 'Gender equality' is the more common, acceptable word used today, but it's just a different brand for the same product.

It's relevant to the ancestral paradigm because feminism is about personal freedom and inherent rights. It's a sociocultural dissection and critique that looks at women AND men. Most notably, it took the idea of gender and defined it against sex (man vs. male). The distinction: I was born a male, but acculturated a man. So gender covers the cultural impact on learned behaviors, not instinctual ones.

And that's why it's important. Today still, we are taught cultural values, norms, and ideals that vie with our nature and limit our freedoms. Acknowledging how culture forms gender might shed light on how your own life can be improved. I think immediately of the He-men out there that don't dance or hug because it's girly, or the anemic standard of female beauty, and the list goes on. Looking at gender from a paleo perspective can make things much more clear.

Urbanization. A good friend of mine introduced me to the concept of 'urban sprawl' and the 'rise of surburbia'. In Europe, urbanization worked out: walkable towns and cities, tight communities. In America, during the age of oil, we constructed our communities around extensive suburbs. Nice to live out by the countryside right? Yeah, 'cept it's not actually the countryside and the 'burbs are anti-social and isolationist by design. Most urban public space serves only to fragment communities.

What can evolution tell us about urban design? We are social creatures that require positive social interaction. Big concrete cities induce psychoses on the cultural level and pollution on the environmental level, which is certainly not the ideal. But small or moderately-sized, tightly-knit, well-designed communities might be a step in the right direction for social well-being.

Gay rights. Whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature is an non-issue from the scientific perspective. Ask any naturalist and the answer is clear. A nearly unanimous: gay happens. (I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's gay bearorist, ha!) Moreover, this is an issue about freedom. And what is more natural than freedom?

Veganism. Ultimately, everyone wants social justice and environmental restoration. But getting there is gonna take a long look at the facts and the acknowledgement of some admittedly dark truths about reality. We already agree about factory farming and corn subsidies. The detriments of agribusiness are not a far cry. Vegans can totally get on board with respecting nature's harmony and striving to keep balance in the world's ecosystems.

Politics. I'm not gonna take a position here, but this is fascinating. When you think about politics in terms of a vast political spectrum, you get anarchy on one end and socialism on the other. Zero government all the way to pure government. Libertarians would be right next to anarchy (minimal government). This is interesting to me because some paleo leaders are outwardly libertarian, but that seems at first to vie with an evolutionary perspective. If tribes share resources and America is just one big tribe, then socialism would be the paleo model for the modern world.

So why the difference? Perhaps because America is not one big tribe, but millions of little ones. Contemporary culture defines the tribe as the nuclear family (rather than the extended family in the Paleolithic). So in a political sense, we only share resources with our own 'nuclear tribe'. And perhaps libertarianism is a way to make sure government doesn't interrupt that model.

What do you think?

Hunted-Gatherer? Lucy, Compassion, and Cooperation

You might be as fascinated as I am by the recent finding of stone tool butchering 3.4 million years ago, pushing back the earliest meat-eating of our pre-human ancestors by about a million years. Well, in my preliminary research on the topic, I came across this gem about a 2006 book by anthrolopolist Robert Sussman. But instead of touting the 'Man as Hunter' paradigm, he went about demonstrating why we are not simply killers, but agents of compassion, cooperation, and caring. Turns out our ancestors help to highlight why. This great quote concerns Australopithecus afarensis (you may know her as 'Lucy'), the pre-human ancestor of (first human) Homo habilis:

"Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species," adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators," Sussman argues.

The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors. Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact, all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living. In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to being preyed upon."

By all means, it's important to note the timeline of scavenging and hunting to the evolution of our species and the implications for modern day health. But I think that the 'Man as Hunter' idea is well understood in most cases, and taken to extremes in some cases. We are not simply the selfish, solitary man-sharks that modern culture teaches us to be.

Especially for men, I've noticed a degree of machismo that seeps into the evolutionary interpretation -- an unnatural alpha-male complex. Man as unemotional. Man as tough. Man as killer. Believe me, Clint Eastwood and John Wayne are lone wolf archetypes that wouldn't have lasted long in the Paleolithic. This is worth reiterating: Don't be subject to unnatural Neolithic social isolation or a dramatic misrepresentation of your true nature. We are compassionate, expressive, social beings in addition to the selfish, competitive ideal you know so well. The effort to heal our fragmented communities and work cooperatively to solve big problems requires this simple recognition.

Food Ethics: Sense and Sentience

Sentience refers to the ability of an entity to have subjective perceptual experiences. It is distinct from consciousness, which covers the mind and thought. Why is this important?

In animal rights philosophy, sentience means that animals have the ability to experience pleasure and pain. They feel pain, therefore killing and eating them is wrong. The problem is that scientists consider plants to be sentient too, since they can feel, touch, taste, smell, and respond to their environments.

Indeed, the biochemical pathways are different, but that's true of every living thing: a daffodil is not quite a venus fly trap is not quite a honey bee is not quite a goldfish is not quite an octopus is not quite alligator is not quite a monkey is not quite a human. All life (plant and animal) varies in fundamental biochemistry. The point is that plants and animals have fundamental biochemistry, and are sentient. If an animal is sentient, wrong to hurt; if a plant is sentient, wrong to hurt. Clearly, under this ethical model, we have nothing to eat.

Some vegans argue that plants are not sentient, but that would never fly with a scientist. Smarter vegans argue that plants are sentient but still unconscious, which is true, but takes the issue away from sensation and into complex neurological thought, which is just an attempt to confuse the topic. The best vegan rebuttal I found:

Even if it’s true that plants are the most sentient life on Earth, veganism would still be the minimum standard of decency. This follows from the simple fact that animals are reverse protein factories, consuming multiple times the protein in plant food that they produce in protein from their flesh and bodily fluids.

Of course, this is nonsense on multiple levels. First, animals are not just made out of protein. Second, a harmonious biotic community requires inconsistent "factories" to maintain the circle of life. Third, if animals are 'wasting' the essence of life, then the ethical thing would be to kill the animals. Clearly, this argument is flawed.

As for the idea that plants are less sentient than animals? This statement would be due to identification bias; in essence, we confuse their consciousness with their sentience and conclude that plants don't appear to be as sentient as we are. But looks can be deceiving. According to the Human Genome Project, we have about 25,000 genes -- the rice grain has twice that. Truth is: as lifeforms, we didn't evolve more. We evolved differently. Plant species exhibit vast diversity and powerful sophistication in response to and engagement with their natural environments. They can smell smoke, see sunlight, and -- you guessed it -- feel a limb get ripped off.

Pain and sentience are incomplete arenas to conduct a moral discourse. We need big picture morality, one that takes into account the health of the biotic community, weighs opportunity costs, and questions underlying assumptions.

Must see video:

Food Chemistry and the Narrative Fallacy

"... far too often, we scientists focus on details while ignoring the larger context... we pin our efforts and our hopes on one isolated nutrient at a time... We oversimplify and disregard the infinite complexity of nature." - Colin T. Campbell, The China Study (pp. 19-20)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is no chump. The Times calls his book, The Black Swan, one of the 12 most influential since World War II. The popularly revered author Malcolm Gladwell credits him as a central influence. Taleb cast warnings all the way up to the 2008 financial crisis, and then made a fortune from it. It's an irony that such a wise mind's message to the world is that the world is unwise. In his own words:

We love the tangible, the confirmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotional laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced, the cosmetic, the official, the scholarly-sounding verbiage (b******t), the pompous Gaussian economist, the mathematicized crap, the pomp, the Academie Française, Harvard Business School, the Nobel Prize, dark business suits with white shirts and Ferragamo ties, the moving discourse, and the lurid. Most of all we favor the narrated.

Alas, we are not manufactured, in our current edition of the human race, to understand abstract matters — we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions. We respect what has happened, ignoring what could have happened. In other words, we are naturally shallow and superficial — and we do not know it. This is not a psychological problem; it comes from the main property of information.

At the core of this philosophical abstraction is one very key point: We don't know, but want to know so badly that we force it. We need to own complex information so badly that the truth is lost in translation. You see this in the financial world all the time: "The Dow Jones fell today

due to rising oil cost in the Middle East." The truth is that the Dow went through a myriad of unpredictable events that depended on a myriad of unpredictable environments so complex that no mathematical model could describe it. But the next day oil costs will fall and the Dow will too, so they'll try to find some other factor to explain it all. This is oversimplification, an arrogant display of command over information when the simple truth is that we will never truly control intricately complex systems like world financial economics or, as I'm arguing, food chemistry and its interaction with the human body.

To pompously declare that we can test tube our way to good health is to ignore the infinitely complex nature of food, the human body, and the synergistic effects of nutrient combinations. Science should be a part of the big picture, not the big picture itself. Thankfully, its beginning to sound like people are waking up to a better paradigm.

"People don't eat nutrients, they eat foods. And foods can behave quite differently from the nutrients that they contain... But while nutritionism has its roots in a scientific approach to food, it’s important to remember that it is not a science but an ideology, and that the food industry, journalism, and government bear just as much responsibility for its conquest of our minds and diets… Thirty years of nutritional advice have left us fatter, sicker, and more poorly nourished." -Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food

Revisiting Human Evolution: Part 2

In Part 1 I went over how reproduction is at the heart of evolution in order to clear up any misconceptions about what evolution means for the modern lifestyle. Now I'd like to turn to an equally important and foundational topic that will further what evolution means for our bodies.

The Human Timeline

A lot of dates get thrown around about our hunter-gatherer past. I want to tackle this topic strategically, so I'll start with the most conservative interpretation first. This is from Geoff Bond's Deadly Harvest:

We have our humanlike beginnings with East African Homo erectus over 1,000,000 years ago. Out of that population, Homo sapiens arose and existed for 190,000 years before leaving Africa about 60,000 years ago. This period, from over 1,000,000 years ago to 60,000 years ago is critical—it is our formative era. It is the time when the African environment forged the bodies that we possess today...

Geologists have a convenient, often-used epoch for this approximate time period—the Pleistocene, which runs from 1,600,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. However, I want to conclude the formative era earlier, at about 60,000 years ago. Since our ancestors spent this time entirely in Africa, I will call this critical formative era the “African Pleistocene.”

Now, you might be thinking that this time period ignores a huge chunk of significant history, but I want to highlight the importance of this message. This was a long time that a relatively small number of humans -- all of them -- evolved in a relatively small corner of the world. Many conditions were relatively stable throughout this million-year period compared to what happened to our species after the African Pleistocene, 60,000 years ago, when we left Africa and spread slowly throughout the rest of the world. The takeaway: our species is a tropical one whose homeland was a small pocket of Africa in what is now Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia. Bond's "formative era" is the most indisputable core of human history that cannot be nit-picked or challenged. This is why it's worth noting before moving on to a more moderate, but still significant, timeline.

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution dates humans according to the genus Homo, starting with Homo habilis. This is the 2.4 million year number that you've probably heard. Homo habilis had a slightly different physique more adapted to tree climbing, due to its tree-dwelling ancestor, Australopithecines. The takeaway: habilis used stone tools, foraged plants, and scavenged animal foods. That's right, we ate paleo two and a half million years ago.

Now lets talk about the time period after the African Pleistocene, 60,000 to 10,000 years ago. This was the time when our species left Africa and spread over the world, entered new geographies and climates, and saw some degree of differentiation, what we now call 'race'. While there was a great deal of differentiation in terms of adaptation to climate/environment, many important things stayed the same, but I'd like to highlight two: our hunter-gatherer diets and the physical movements necessary for survival. Thus, throughout all of human history in the Paleolithic we ate specific types of foods and performed specific types of natural movements all the way up to the agricultural revolution (the Neolithic).

So hopefully now you can recognize a million-year core of indisputably formative human history, but also the preceding million and a half years and how that's relevant, and finally the tumultuous 50,000 years before the agricultural revolution and how that doesn't contradict diet or exercise either.

Revisiting Human Evolution: Part 1

I've noticed some arbitrary dates and misconceptions about evolution being thrown around, and I admit that I've done so myself during heated discussions with Paleolithic nay-sayers. Make no mistake: evolution and ancient human history are the linchpins of the modern paleo lifestyle philosophy. The foundational science must be indisputable; more importantly, it must be clearly understood by its adherents, who are the ambassadors for the cause. The paleo lifestyle is only as legitimate as the rationale that flows from its foundational science.

This may seem like a trifling distinction from what is already known, but people in both the paleo and vegan camps hold false notions. There is the ridiculous notion held by some people that one day we humans can evolve into pure vegetarians if we would just eat veggies for an eon or two. I've also heard paleo leaders state that we haven't yet evolved to eat grains, because it's too new to our diets. This line of thought displays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Allow me to demonstrate why we will never evolve into vegetarians, and why we will never develop the ability to fully tolerate Neolithic foods.

Reproduction and the Phenomenon of Random Variation

Consider siblings. They come from the same genetic heritage, but have vastly different genetic expressions. My own brother is taller and heavier and has much lighter skin than I do. This is pretty easy to understand. Genes vary slightly in the offspring of all species, and that variation is random. This is true for all life on earth, even bacteria.

The reason that a species changes over time (evolves) is because certain small variations give certain genes an advantage at reproducing. To be clear, the 'success' or 'strength' of a gene depends entirely on it's ability to reproduce, and to reproduce at a higher frequency.

So unless meat-eating genes cause certain death before sexual maturity (reproduction), natural human vegetarians will never exist. And since grain consumption does not affect rates of human reproduction, those celiac genes won't disappear either.

Barefooting

NYC Barefoot Run

What a weekend! The 1st Annual NYC Barefoot Run was a huge success, and it was great to celebrate the sport with other enthusiasts. I had the chance to meet some great leaders in the movement, including John Durant, Erwan Le Corre, Jason Robillard, Daniel Howell, and Barefoot Ted. Thanks to the volunteers and sponsors that made this awesome event a reality.

The star of the show was Dan Lieberman, the Harvard University scientist who studies the anatomical efficiencies of human locomotion. In a truly remarkable presentation, he covered the science behind the sport from early human history up to Newtonian physics. Here are some fascinating points from his presentation:

We evolved to run. Endurance running was essential to Paleolithic humans in order to procure big game animals for food. (Persistence hunting is the running down of an animal through tracking and chasing, where the animal is literally run to death. It was a major turning point in our physical and mental development.)

In nature, humans are especially remarkable distance runners. By almost any measure, mankind sucks. We are simply slow and weak compared to most animals, but when it comes to endurance, we shine. Our sweat glands, and the beautifully precise mechanisms of our legs and cardiovascular system, allow us to do things other animals can't, which is why we are able to literally run an antelope to death. Prey animals cannot gallop and pant at the same time and they do not sweat like we do, which means they lose the ability to thermo-regulate (death by heat stroke). Here's a modern example:

We evolved to run. Barefoot. Nike rose to popularity in the 1970s and revolutionized the way humans run. They put big soft heels on their shoes that led to people favoring the heel strike instead of the ancient and original forefoot strike. Turns out, our bodies respond to heel striking with serious chronic injuries (7 in 10 runners per year), and shoes disallow proper muscle and bone development of the lower leg. Improper form effects the entire body; your foot is your foundation!

For another great recap of the run, check out this blog post from my main caveman, Colin Pistell: http://www.fifth-ape.com/blog/2010/10/12/1st-annual-nyc-barefoot-run.html

Correct Running Technique

Forefoot strike. Yes, you should land with the ball of the foot. It should land softly and gently and should help absorb impact throughout the body. The goal is to make the impact silent.

Run underneath your center of gravity. In other words, do not reach out in front of you or push off the ground at the end of your stride.

Short stride, quick cadence. This means making abrupt movements with your legs, and bringing your back leg up to the front much more quickly.

Less bounce, more glide. Your head should not be bobbing much at all. The movement instead should be smooth and elegant.

Tall, straight torso. Arms help to balance, but should move with minimal energy expended.

It will take some time to relearn how to run, but have fun with it and don't be scared to experiment to see what works for you. If something hurts, stop and evaluate. Also, expect a long period of muscle development in the feet, so start slow.

Many experts this weekend advised starting with no shoes at all rather than using minimalist shoes. Daniel Howell says the tactile feedback of a bare foot will help the process.

Beyond Barefoot Running

Erwan Le Corre highlighted the fact that running is only one of many natural movements that are meant to be performed barefoot. Your body will also benefit from lifting, crawling, climbing, jumping, and walking sans shoes. Check out these awe-inspiring videos of Erwan Le Corre himself:

Achieving Natural Posture

An anthropological perspective on posture is almost impossible to ask for, but we have a heroine in Stanford grad Esther Gokhale. Just a stone's throw from where I grew up, Gokhale has been practicing perhaps the only anthropologically-focused pain center in the USA. She traveled the world looking closely at tribal cultures that are devoid of back problems and now teaches natural posture solutions for people struggling with chronic pain. Turns out, the way we were taught, by parents and doctors alike, is the way that leads to complications all over the body, from the foot to the back to the neck. Here are some key points for achieving a more natural posture:

Forget the S-curve. A true spine forms more of a J, where the bottom part of the J is your butt sticking out, and your upper spine is flat up all the way through the neck. Years of sitting unnaturally and carrying backpacks are the likely culprit of our modern incorrect posture.

Yes, stick out your butt. A bent-over posture looks timid and unattractive. Not only does natural posture make you a tiny bit taller, but it also makes you look confident and healthy, and it's better for all your working parts, including muscle development and safe movement.

Use your inner corset. In order to correctly pop it like its hot, experiment with lightly wrapping your core muscles to form a tight cylinder around your stomach and lower back. If breathing is impeded, you're wrapping too tightly. Instead, tighten your obliques while relaxing the rectus abdominus (the front of the stomach).

Breathing is an essential part of your posture. In fact, breathing will change the size and structure of your rib cage. People are told all kinds of things: breathe deep in the chest, breathe with your stomach, etc. The truth is that natural breathing is a combination of stomach, chest, and upper back. Go ahead and play around to find your comfort zone.

Hinge at the hip. Bending should not change the 'core' of your back. Simply hinge at the hip rather than the waist.

EXERCISE: Raise your hands in front to elbow height then move them slowly away from each other while breathing in slowly, filling your stomach mostly, and your chest and back, all the while imagining that the top of your head is being pulled skyward. Feel yourself get taller and taller, and then let the air fall out of your chest while maintaining the position in your back and stomach. Drop your hands, breathe freely, and feel the straight line of your spine and the firmness in your core.

For more detail from the expert herself, check out her talk at Google:

Lectins

As I mentioned in the About Me section, I'm highly sensitive to lectins. In fact, much of Loren Cordain's latest work has been in highlighting the danger of this particular toxin in the formation of autoimmune disease -- a very scary thought. Lectins are present in many foods, but are found at toxic levels in the following:

Grains (wheat, rye, barley, malt)

Legumes (soy, peanuts, beans)

Nightshades (potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant)

You can find an extensive scholarly discussion here.

And a video of Loren Cordain himself discussing both the background of the paleo diet and the science behind the dangers of lectins (this is part 1 of 7, you can link to the rest from Youtube):

Clouds and Vitamin D

As I pulled the splinter from my chest this morning, I wondered if the rainy cloud cover in yesterday's workout meant that I didn't get my daily dose of vitamin D. I did the workout shirtless, hence the splinter from no-arm Turkish Getups with a log on my chest, Fifth-Ape style. Luckily, I found this article in the NY Times that says clouds reduce UVB, the radiation needed to make vitamin D, by about half, which means that I got plenty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15qna.html

Alcohol: the Best Choices

There are only a few things about most alcoholic drinks that are bad for you: the alcohol, the sugar, the gluten. Therefore, avoiding or minimizing these things is what leads to the best choices. After much trial and error, here's what I've found to be the healthiest.

Sangria. Everyone knows that a little red wine is good for you. Well, if you add fruit and skip the brandy, it's even better.

Wine spritzer. These are great for hot summer days, when you want to drink a lot of fluid. Just add a lot of soda water/seltzer/club soda to wine (red or white), good amount of lemon, a splash of pomegranate juice, all over ice, and you've got yourself a drink.

Norcal margarita. A Norcal man myself, I have a great deal of affection for this invention by none other than Robb Wolf. It's just 100% agave tequila, plenty of fresh squeezed lime, and splash of soda water, but it's scientifically formulated to keep your blood leaning alkaline and to blunt the insulin response.

Gluten-free beer. Hard to find, but it's out there and doesn't taste bad at all. Brands include St. Peter's, Bard's, and Red Bridge.

P.S. I built that wine rack myself, all paleo. Literally carried that log out of the woods. Fits into the 'hobby' part of my exercise pyramid :)

Work Vs. Play: Purposeful Movement in the Neolithic

I'm making an effort to remove the word 'workout' from my vocabulary. I dismiss it not because of the blatant etymology ('work'), but because the word is symptomatic of an unnatural paradigm, a man-made way of thinking about fitness.

Let's begin with the evolutionary role of exercise. Relocating, hunting, gathering, fighting, and building shelter were all forms of necessary work in the paleolithic. Our species likely performed rituals and played, but raw physical labor was the bulk of exercise. It was stressful, dangerous, and most important: vital to survival.

We may crave vigorous exercise for the very reason that it was part of our ancestry, but that's another matter, because those activities are no longer vital to our survival. We now live in modern times. Farmers hunt and gather for us and specialists build our houses. These paleolithic activities have been replaced with our own man-made professional specializations that arose with the development of civilization. Thus, there is no need to mimic the stress or danger of intense physical exercise. We have the opportunity instead to replace aspects of work with the ample benefits of play.

I grant that vigorous exercise has a place in a healthy fitness pyramid, but some contemporary fitness enthusiasts push too hard. They stress their bodies, their minds, and ultimately their spirits by succumbing to unnatural motivators: hyper-hierarchy, elitism, and the excesses of competition.

Why explore natural movement or natural diet without pursuing natural purpose for that movement?

I was a Division I athlete at the college level, rowing for Santa Clara University. By all means, we engaged in high-level training two and sometimes three times per day. I fought hard with my body to overcome barriers, win personal records, and get the edge over the competition. I want to be clear that I understand the drive to excel, the thrill of victory, and the pride of accomplishment. But these things come at a terrible price.

During my period of competition, I developed a back and shoulder problem that persists to this day. I slept little due to early wakeup times and worried constantly about my performance. Our boat lost more than it won, as will always be the case when multiple competitors means only one winner. That period of my life stands as a time when I was unhealthy, unhappy, and blind to my long-term needs.

Not long after competition, I developed an autoimmune disease that requires constant management of inflammatory response. It's unrelated to competition, but it's what affirmed the validity of the paleo diet (almost overnight), the discovery of which was the beginning of my transformation into a happy, healthy human being.

A Better Food Pyramid

Some of the food pyramids I've seen include marginal foods and confuse the essential elements of the diet. Here's my take on the heart of the paleo diet:

*This pyramid represents volume, not calories. The bulk of calories comes from animal sources.

I certainly eat outside of this pyramid from time to time, but this is the model of perfection that I strive for and that helps me stay true to the core food categories. A few notes:

Fresh is best. Homegrown > Local Farm > Grocery > Canned

Raw maximizes nutrient delivery. Many foods lose nutrient value when cooked, and many foods that require cooking are starchy, which negatively affects insulin response over time.

Grass-fed AND grass-finished. It's important to clarify this with your local farmer, as grain-finished meat compromises its nutrient profile for 'better' flavor.

Focus on food quality. Being new to North Carolina, I'm taking time to learn the local farms and their methods before selecting where my meat comes from.

Hopefully this pyramid will be a helpful interpretation that is easier to understand.

Play-based Fitness Pyramid

I've seen a few fitness pyramids out there that attempt to either represent the work done by our paleolithic ancestors or to alter the paleo model to reach peak 'weight loss' (more later on why weight loss is the worst idea in health). But I suggest a better pyramid that takes into account natural complex movement, strength training, and play.

Unlike the others, this one touts profound psychological and neurological benefits for the average person who wants to maximize happiness and escape unhealthy competition and elitism. Soon, I'll cover the detriments of high-intensity training, but here's what I strive for:

There are a few things worth noting in this pyramid:

Exercise is group-based. Social dynamics mean real and lasting value for the health and happiness of the individual. We are social creatures, after all.

Exercise is mostly non-competitive, and playfully so. Competition is healthy, but not when people become obsessed with winning to the point of stress, or when they start thinking hierarchically about their abilities or worth in the social context.

Fitness is productive individually, cooperative socially. Working on a hobby requires healthy movement and leads to measurable success when the project is complete. Likewise, cooperating with others in a team, rather than competing, is fun and stress-free. Persistence hunting is an anthropological example of healthy, non-competitive teamwork in the paleolithic.

Ultimately, this pyramid is preferable to others because fun is a whole lot more sustainable. It emphasizes play and cooperation over work intensity and competition. In a state of natural play, like working on a hobby or dancing, the individual will instinctively reach comfortable limits of output without affecting health or happiness. In fact, play advances health and happiness on a psychobiological level.

Sleep like a Cavebaby

It's important to think of health as a synergy of elements. All the different aspects of health (diet, exercise, stress, etc.) work together in order to maintain optimal health and happiness. But the most important of all is sleep, and here's why:

Sleep is recharging. When you sleep, the body enters an advanced state of repair across certain biological levels. That means not just muscle repair, but also hormonal regulation and other vital processes that are hindered if the quality and quantity of sleep is disturbed, such as from toxins in the diet or noise from the neighbor or light from the window. So how can we sleep paleo? Here are some key points:

Wake with the sun. In nature, our paleolithic ancestors slept at night and rose when bright. There's a body of evidence that light sensors on our body trigger hormonal regulation throughout the day.

Pitch black. That means blackout curtains or better. Even artificial light will confuse the delicate rhythms of hormonal regulation.

Cool as a cave. A hot night will interrupt REM cycles and dehydrate you. Too cold won't work either.

Perfect silence. When I buy a home, I plan to soundproof the bedroom from noisy neighbors. If REM sleep is interrupted, you have to start all over with Stage I sleep again.

Eat right. Toxins of all sorts may be adversely affecting the quality of your sleep so avoid them all: gluten, dairy, lectins, alcohol, sugar, salt.

Be hydrated, but not too hydrated. Basically this means drinking water after dinner, but not right before bedtime. This is to avoid waking mid-sleep to pee.

Sleep a lot. Eight hours should be the bare minimum. Our ancestors were likely in a state of sleep-rest the entire night.

The issue of bedding will depend on the type of sleeper and will have to be trial and error. If you like firm, go for it. If not, then go ahead with plush. It makes sense that cavemen would have taken some time to procure a comfortable spot in the wild.

There are some 'natural' supplements out there, but the only one that caught my interest was magnesium (by a friend's recommendation). I've only taken it for a few days, but so far I've had great sleep. Plus, the bottle is cheap ($7 for a year's supply). Hope this helps!

How the Colbert Report Saved My Life

After a year's worth of doctor visits, a thousand dollars down the drain, and unnecessary and invasive testing, I was feeling worse than ever, in such pain and discomfort that I could not bring myself to exercise or sleep, which further worsened the problem. Doctors of all sorts advised me to eat plenty of fiber, naming whole grain breads and beans as the best sources. Now I can only laugh about it.

I didn't know at the time, but I'm highly sensitive to the gluten in whole grain breads and the lectins in certain plants like tomatoes and beans.

I had all but given up hope when I heard John Durant of Hunter-gatherer.com pitch the paleo diet on the Colbert Report. He compared us to animals in the zoo and explained how they thrive on their natural diet. Humans are animals too, he argued, and should therefore eat their natural diet. I was sold immediately and did some follow up research to get the details before starting. It made perfect evolutionary sense.

So I chose the strictest form of the paleo diet: no grains, no legumes, no dairy, no nightshades, no alcohol, low lectins, no processed food. In two days, I was a new man. The pain and discomfort was gone for the first time since I could remember. I woke with renewed vitality, yearning to get outside and play.

I see the discovery of this philosophy as nothing short of personal salvation, and I owe much to the many voices who have developed the philosophy into what it is now. My determination to advance the boundaries of the paleolithic philosophy are rooted in my own story of misguided science and the wrongs of conventional wisdom. I only hope that I can help others find true health and happiness the natural way.