Disclaimer
• Your life and health are your own responsibility.
• Your decisions to act (or not act) based on information or advice anyone provides you—including me—are your own responsibility.
Anyone who makes a serious effort to understand the science behind nutrition will understand immediately that news items—most of which simply reprint the press release—are usually pure baloney. In order to learn anything interesting, we require access to the papers themselves.
Is there any way to deal rationally with the unending onslaught?
This approach, though satisfying, is discouraged by our legal system.
How To Get The Results You Want
First, I’ll walk through a few examples of studies carefully designed to produce a result opposite to what happens to all of us in the real world. Please note that I am not accusing anyone of scientific fraud! What I’m showing is that you can ‘prove’ anything you want if you set up your conditions and tests correctly, and choose the right data from your results.
This paper, which purports to be an objective review of the evidence, claims with a straight face that “Foods high in fat are less satiating than foods high in carbohydrates.”
Wait, what?
The authors cite two sources. One is a book I don’t have access to. The other is:
“Isoenergetic 1000 kJ (240 kcal) servings of 38 foods separated into six food categories (fruits, bakery products, snack foods, carbohydrate-rich foods, protein-rich foods, breakfast cereals) were fed to groups of 11-13 subjects. Satiety ratings were obtained every 15 min over 120 min after which subjects were free to eat ad libitum from a standard range of foods and drinks. A satiety index (SI) score was calculated by dividing the area under the satiety response curve (AUC)…”
Only the abstract is available online, but here’s the list of foods they tested, each with its measured ‘satiety index’—from which we find the surprising ‘facts’ that oranges and apples are more satiating than beef, oatmeal is more satiating than eggs, and boiled potatoes are 50% more satiating than any other food in the world!
This is obviously nonsense…but what’s going on here?
Upon reading the abstract, we can see the problem right away: they only measured satiety for two hours! Last I checked, it was more than two hours between breakfast and lunch, or between lunch and dinner. In fact, if you have any sort of commute, two hours doesn’t even get you to your morning coffee break! And given that a mixed meal of protein, carbohydrate, and fat hasn’t even left your stomach in two hours, we can see that this data does not support the breathtakingly bizarre conclusion drawn by Swinburn et. al.
In fact, it’s hard to see what conclusion this study supports beyond “when you don’t let people drink any water with their food, foods that are mostly water take up much more room in their stomach.” This is why oatmeal makes you feel so full…
…for about two hours, until the glucose is all absorbed and your sugar high wears off.
“Fat, not carbohydrate, is the macronutrient associated with overeating and obesity…Although more data are required, currently the best dietary advice for weight maintenance and for controlling hunger is to consume a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with a high fiber content.”
Really? And what evidence are we supporting this with?
“The most direct way to assess how these differences in post-ingestive processing affect hunger, satiety, and food intake is to deliver the nutrients either intravenously on intragastrically. Such infusions ensure that taste and learned responses to foods will not influence the results. Thus, to examine in rnore detail the mechanisms involved in the effects of carbohydrate and fat on food intake, we infused pure nutrients either through intravenous or intragastric routes.”
And the author goes on to cite her own study to that effect, found here:
“When soup was administered intragastrically (Experiment 1) both the high-fat and high-carbohydrate soup preloads suppressed appetite ratings from baseline, but there were no differences in ratings of hunger and fullness, food intake from the test meal, or rate of gastric emptying between the two soup preloads.”
That’s what the Rolls study above also found. Yet…
“When the same soups were ingested (Experiment 2), the high-fat soup suppressed hunger, induced fullness, and slowed gastric emptying more than the high-carbohydrate soup and also tended to be more effective at reducing energy intake from the test meal.”
Oops! Apparently when you eat fat (as opposed to injecting it into your veins or stomach), it is indeed more satiating than carbohydrate. Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
“Twenty-four women each consumed a sequence of three 2-wk dietary treatments in which 15-20%, 30-35%, or 45-50% of the energy was derived from fat. These diets consisted of foods that were similar in appearance and palatability but differed in the amount of high-fat ingredients used. Relative to their energy consumption on the medium- fat diet, the subjects spontaneously consumed an 11.3% deficit on the low-fat diet and a 15.4% surfeit on the high-fat diet (p less than 0.0001), resulting in significant changes in body weight (p less than 0.001). A small amount of caloric compensation did occur (p less than 0.02), which was greatest in the leanest subjects (p less than 0.03). These results suggest that habitual, unrestricted consumption of low- fat diets may be an effective approach to weight control.”
This study looks much more solid at first glance: test subjects were given prepared foods which theoretically differed only in fat content, and which were theoretically tested to have equal palatability. Let’s take that at face value for the moment, and ask ourselves: why were they eating more on the high-fat diet?
First, let’s look at what made the diet “high-fat”. They helpfully list the ingredients added to each meal to make it higher in fat in Table 1.
Notice what’s been added in the right column? I see a lot of n-6 laden “vegetable oil” (store-bought mayonnaise is made with soybean oil) and margarine. Since this study was done back in 1987, the margarine would be absolutely loaded with trans fats, which we now know are strongly associated with obesity, heart disease, inflammation, and…disrupted insulin sensitivity. (Research review.)
So they’re testing what happens when carbohydrates are replaced primarily with seed oil and trans fats—which makes this study irrelevant to anyone considering a healthy diet.
Second, we have the problem that both breakfast and lunch were served in unitary portions.
“All foods, including those served as units (eg, muffins, sandwiches), could be consumed entirely or in part. … Sandwiches were available in whole or half units.”
Though the study doesn’t say explicitly, it’s probably a good assumption that the higher-fat versions contained far more calories, since the researchers tried to make them as similar as possible in appearance. It’s well-known that offering people larger portions causes them to eat more…especially since unlike breakfast and dinner (which were eaten in the laboratory), lunch was taken out. (If you take a sandwich with you, what are the odds you won’t finish it that afternoon, regardless of size?)
That’s not the worst part, though. The worst part is that their data is completely worthless because of interaction between the different diets!
Normally, controlled trials are done on separate, statistically matched groups of subjects, in order to make sure that effects from one treatment don’t bleed over into another.
However, in some cases, “crossover trials” are conducted, where each group is given each treatment in sequence—separated by a “washout period” that is supposed to let any effects of the previous treatment dissipate. This is less desirable (how do you know all the effects have ‘washed out’?), and is usually done because it allows the experimenters to screen and follow a smaller group.
However, Lissner et. al. didn’t even follow a crossover protocol. Instead, they employed a complicated “latin square” design, in which each test subject consumed a different meal type each day! A typical subject would consume a low-fat meal one day, a high-fat meal the next, a medium-fat meal the third day, and the sequence would repeat.
Can you imagine a drug trial where patients took one drug on odd days, and another drug on even days? How could you possibly disentangle the effects?
All of us have eaten a huge dinner and not been hungry the next morning…or gone to bed hungry and been ravenous when we awakened. In this insane design, each high-fat meal was guaranteed to be surrounded by two days of lower-fat meals. Yet in Figure 2, they graph energy intake for each day as if it were the same people eating each diet for two weeks!
In conclusion, this study is triply useless: first, due to using known industrial toxins for the “high-fat” diet, second, due to unequal portion size, and third, due to an intentionally broken design that commingles the effects of the three diets.
Holding Back The Ocean
The purpose of this article—and of gnolls.org—isn’t to debunk silly press releases, misleading websites, or even misleading scientific papers. I’ve given you some useful debunking weapons for your arsenal, but they’re not enough—because trying to dodge every slice of baloney thrown at us on a daily basis is like trying to hold back the ocean with a blue tarp and some rebar.
The usual strategy is to find a belief we like and stick with it, regardless of the evidence—but that way lies zealotry. What we need is a higher level of understanding. We need knowledge that lets us rationally dismiss the baloney and junk science, while conserving our time and attention for the few nuggets of real, new, important information.
We need to understand how human bodies work.
In other words, we need to understand ourselves.
We need to understand the basics of human biology and chemistry, how it was shaped from ape and mammal biology and chemistry, and how much it shares with all Earth life. We need to understand our multi-million year evolutionary history as hunters and foragers, how we were selected for survival on the African savanna, and how that selection pressure turned little 80-pound apes into modern humans.
And once we’ve used this understanding to answer basic questions like "How is food digested?" and "How are nutrients converted into energy?", we can use those answers to dismiss the baloney and junk science, allowing us to spend our valuable time and attention on real information. Because while it’s blindingly obvious to anyone who’s tried both that eating eggs for breakfast is more satiating than eating a bagel, it’s important to know why.
Conclusion: There Is No Easy Way, But There Is A Better Way
“Here’s a study that says so” isn’t a reason: it’s just a set of observations. We need to know how our bodies work. Only then can we rationally judge the meaning of these observations.
There is no shortcut to this knowledge. If there were one, and I knew it, I would already have told you. The best I can do is to continue to hone my own understanding—and I’ll continue to share what I know (or think I know) with you.
Live in freedom, live in beauty.
JS
As this upcoming weekend is a holiday, I may not have time to write an article for next week.
In the meantime, you can occupy yourself with my “Elegantly terse”, “Utterly amazing, mind opening, and fantastically beautiful”, “Funny, provocative, entertaining, fun, insightful” novel, The Gnoll Credo. (More effusive praise here, and here.) It’s a trifling $10.95 US, it’s available worldwide, and you can read the first 20 pages here.
The world is a different place after you’ve read The Gnoll Credo. It will change your life. This is not hyperbole. Read the reviews.
Did you find this article useful or inspiring? Don’t forget to use the buttons below to share it!
Remember back when “Are white potatoes paleo?” was the biggest question facing the paleo community? Now we’re seeing perfectly respectable paleo bloggers advocating butter and heavy cream…and some are even experimenting with white rice.
What sort of caveman diet is that?
And just what is the “paleo diet”, anyway? Is the term becoming diluted because we just can’t stop eating delicious cheat foods—or is it still a valid concept?
First, we need to define the paleo diet. Here’s one attempt, which I’ve chosen because it’s typical:
“With readily available modern foods, The Paleo Diet mimics the types of foods every single person on the planet ate prior to the Agricultural Revolution (a mere 500 generations ago).” -Dr. Loren Cordain, “The Paleo Diet”
This is a simple and concise definition, and it avoids the common pitfall of “eat only what cavemen ate”: we hunted mammoths, mastodons, gomphotheres, glyptodonts, wisents, and most other megafauna to extinction, so “what cavemen ate” is no longer an option. And the fruits and vegetables found in a supermarket have little to do with ancestral, wild varieties: they’re products of agricultural domestication. Paleolithic humans didn’t wander around the African savanna picking Paleolithic broccoli.
They probably tasted delicious, too: otherwise we wouldn't have hunted them to extinction.
Unfortunately, this definition is also misleading. “Every single person on the planet” didn’t eat the same diet during the more recent times (Upper Paleolithic, 10,000-40,000 years ago) for which we have good evidence—and during earlier times (Lower/Middle Paleolithic, 2.6 million-140,000 years ago), the direct evidence is too sparse to make specific recommendations.
Clearly we must do better.
Surviving Lean Times Is What Defines Us
The ability to survive lean times is what defines a long-lived, slowly-reproducing species like humans. It doesn’t matter how successful we are during good times if bad times kill everyone off.
Even if we thrived during “normal” years, but 90% of us died off during each 100-year drought, we would have gone extinct long ago—because hunter-foragers don’t reproduce quickly enough to grow their population ten-fold in 100 years. Even a terrible disaster that happens once every thousand years is basically a continual condition on the scale of millions of years of hominid evolution.
Nomadic hunter-foragers are hard-pressed to have more than one child every four years or so. Lacking blenders and convenient jars of pablum, hunter-forager children are typically breastfed for years; it’s very difficult to care for a second child until the first is big enough to keep up with the tribe on foot; and it takes a long time for the mother to build her nutritional reserves back up.
In contrast, one mosquito can lay thousands of eggs in just a few weeks, and bacterial generations are often measured in minutes.
Humans can’t depend purely on genetic selection to adapt us to droughts, floods, volcanic eruptions, hard winters, prey dieoffs, and other dramatic, short-term crises: each of us, as individuals, must change our behavior to survive the situation.
Adaptability: Why Intelligence And Omnivory Are Both Important
I’ve made the point before that general-purpose intelligence is selected for during times of change, which basically defines the entire Pleistocene…a repeating cycle of glaciation and warming that caused sea levels to fluctuate by over 150 feet and pushed ice sheets down to what is now southern Illinois. The combination of tool-using and general-purpose intelligence has allowed hominids to adapt to a bewildering variety of ecological niches, from the high Arctic to the jungles of Central America to the deserts of Arabia to the endless grasslands of the Great Plains.
However, intelligence does no good without the ability to digest and metabolize a variety of food sources. If mountain lions could speak, they still couldn’t live off of bamboo or eucalyptus leaves. If wildebeest could reason and make Gravettian stone tools, they still couldn’t live off of hunted meat.
Our Ancestral Diet: Just Because We Can And Did, Doesn’t Mean We Should
This poses an interesting question: which of our dietary adaptations simply allowed us to struggle through bad times, and which are our “ancestral diet”? To choose a modern example, humans can clearly survive and reproduce on a diet of donuts, Taco Bell, and Red Bull—but we all know such a diet isn’t optimal for health or long life.
To answer this, we need to ask a question: “How continual was this source of food during our evolutionary history?” If we only needed to eat something mildly poisonous (but not fatal) during the driest seasons of 500-year droughts, resistance to the poison might only have been weakly selected for—whereas tolerance to something we ate regularly would have been strongly selected for.
To choose one example, this is why a few thousand years of agriculture have only weakly and incompletely selected us for gluten tolerance: intolerance won’t kill you outright, and even celiac kills you very slowly.
Therefore, humans are likely to be well-adapted to dietary patterns for which we have frequent and robust evidence over a long span of evolutionary time.
The case for infrequent and weak evidence is less clear, because there are several possibilities. One, of course, is that we’ve simply not found very many such sites yet. Another, however, is that we’ve found evidence of crisis behavior: foods eaten only in extreme periods of hunger, and to which we’re not well adapted.
Try going without food for two days—if you can—and take a walk through the woods or your local park. I guarantee you’ll start wondering whether tree bark is edible, and if you can really catch those squirrels. Anyone living in a First World nation, and reading this article on their computer, is extremely unlikely to have a meaningful conception of hunger.
Then imagine what would happen if you had to fast for another day, or an entire week, and still maintain all your regular responsibilities. (Going on a retreat and sitting on a beach doesn’t count…and “juice fasts” aren’t fasting at all.) You’re going to eat anything that will fit in your mouth and doesn’t immediately kill you.
Another possibility is medicinal use: modern hunter-foragers collect a variety of plants that are never eaten, and which are only used occasionally in small quantities. And there is a final, more disturbing possibility: not every ancient group of hominids survived, and not all experiments are successful. Infrequently eaten foods could have been the last-ditch survival effort of a tribe that starved to death and left no descendants, or a failed experiment that slowly poisoned the tribe that depended on it. Human population was small, thinly distributed, and most branches of the hominid line went extinct. There’s no way, from looking at one single archaeological site, of knowing whether the remains came from successful or unsuccessful tribes or cultures.
For instance, sorghum residue in one cave, found 70,000 years previous to any other evidence of regular seed processing, could be a trace of a thriving culture of grass-eaters; it could be a temporary response to a drought or a crash in prey population; or it could be the final meals of a starving family. (“Early homo sapiens relied on grass seeds” is, in my opinion, a transparently silly assertion to make from such limited evidence.) And as Dr. Cordain points out in his response, there’s no evidence of all the other technologies necessary to make sorghum edible to humans. (Original paper, Dr. Cordain’s response.)
For some perspective on life in the wild during hard times, see the incredible National Geographic documentary “Last Feast of the Crocodiles”. It’s in four parts: here’s Part 1.
(I’ve linked you to Youtube because NatGeo has never released it on DVD, let alone released a downloadable or streamable version. If they ever make it available for sale again, I’m glad to link to that.)
Dietary Conclusions From Archaeology: Not As Robust As We Might Hope
In order to claim that archaeological evidence represents typical human behavior, or that its remains are representative of an ancestral diet to which we are well adapted, we need robust evidence throughout the time when selection pressure was shaping hominids into anatomically modern humans, but before we spread out from Africa—approximately 2.6 Mya to 65 Kya.
Stone tools are found in profusion, all throughout the Paleolithic: first the Oldowan industry, which are just round, easily grippable rocks with an edge smashed into one side. Then came the Acheulean biface industry, which lasted for well over a million years. Then the Mousterian and Aurignacian industries, and the microlithic technologies that allowed hunting with spears and projectiles…
…and from their earliest traces 2.6 million years ago, at Bouri and Gona, through to the present, they have been frequently associated with cutmarked animal bones, and frequently feature wear patterns consistent with skinning and butchering of game.
So the evidence for consumption of meat (and its associated fat) is robust. The evidence for eating anything else is relatively indirect, since plant matter doesn’t tend to fossilize, and we’re generally limited to inference based on things like tooth shape, jaw musculature, estimations of local weather and climate, and unambiguous evidence of controlled fire and hearths. Furthermore, evidence of any kind is extremely thin the farther we go back in time: entire ancestral hominid species are implied by a few reassembled bone and skull fragments.
Click for an article by the redoubtable John Hawks about these skeletons.
In conclusion: archaeology tells us that the ancestral hominid diet involved cutting meat off of bones and eating it. Beyond that, we’re a bit foggy on the details until we get into the Upper Paleolithic, where we can perform isotopic analysis of proteins, analyze plant residues, and run DNA analyses that connect the sites to modern populations of which we have historical knowledge.
And during the Upper Paleolithic, humans expanded to inhabit such a wide range of environments, from Siberia to the African rainforest, that the concept of “what Paleolithic humans ate” is dismayingly broad.
Direct Evidence: The Takeaway
Beyond meat, we don’t know that much about what Lower and Middle Paleolithic humans really ate from day to day. Direct archaeological evidence is extremely thin until perhaps 140,000 years ago.
The evidence in the Upper Paleolithic (40,000 years ago and newer), and from the few remaining Neolithic hunter-foragers, doesn’t point to a single “paleo diet”: it only allows us to speak of “a paleo diet”.
It’s impossible to recreate historical paleo diets anyway, because most of the meat animals are extinct, and the plants commonly available to us have all been domesticated.
Fun fact: Herd animals were domesticated long before cabbage was bred into its modern forms. Therefore, humans have been drinking milk for longer than we’ve been eating broccoli!
In short, it’s clear that the concept of “paleo re-enactment” has just been triangle-choked into unconsciousness.
Why Call It Paleo, Then?
We call it “paleo” for the same reason that we call it “Latin”, even though we have absolutely no idea how it was spoken. Just as Latin scholars attempt to maintain something syntactically analogous to written Latin, paleo dieters attempt to maintain something nutritionally analogous to an ancestral human diet.
This is where we have to start using science to draw tentative conclusions from the evidence we have. And while it’s tempting to get into speculative arguments about human prehistory, at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves: What is the biochemistry of humans? How does human metabolism work, today, right now?
So it is absolutely valid to question whether strictly Neolithic foods, such as butter or rice, have a place in the paleo diet. Eating butter because it’s nutritionally similar to animal fat is no different than wearing clothes you bought at the store because they’re functionally similar to animal skins.
That is why the paleo community is asking all these questions about clearly neolithic foods. Should we eat butter or cream? Should we eat white potatoes or white rice? And do snow peas really count as a legume?
This Is Not N=1/”Whatever Works For You”
There is an important difference between “We don’t know all the answers yet” and “Do what feels right, man.”These questions have answers, because humans have biochemistry, and we should do our best to find them and live by the results. Oreos are delicious, but there’s no contingency by which they’re even remotely paleo.
Wrapping It Up: Is There A Definition Of The Paleo Diet?
Here is my best attempt at a definition. If you can improve it or think of a better one, leave a comment!
Eating foods that best support the biochemistry of human animals with a multi-million year history of hunting and foraging, primarily on the African savanna.
Avoiding foods, such as grains, grain oils, and refined sweeteners, that actively disrupt the biochemistry of these human animals.
“A fantastic read.”
“Packs more thought-provoking ideas and emotion-wrenching fun into its brief pages than many novels five times as long.”
“Funny, Provocative, Entertaining, Fun, Insightful”
“Thank you so much for writing this utterly amazing, mind opening, and fantastically beautiful book.” “The short review is this – Just read it.”
-reviews of The Gnoll Credo
Postscript: As several commenters have noted, there’s a useful intermediate step that involves only the second part of my definition, “avoiding foods … that actively disrupt the biochemistry of these animals”. Usually this means going gluten-free, sugar and HFCS-free, and eliminating heavily processed snack foods, i.e. Sean Croxton’s JERF. Often it’s softened to “minimizing foods …”: an example would be the WAPF, which advocates sprouting grains and beans to reduce their toxin and antinutrient load.
“First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.”
The paleo movement grew slowly for many years in the obscurity of Stage 1, and spent perhaps a year in Stage 2 being mocked as the “caveman diet”. Now, after several years of exponential growth and a stubborn refusal to be co-opted, we have finally achieved Stage 3, “Then they fight you.”
The latest example, of course, is the dismissive baloney pushed by the “experts” hired by US News and World Report, which ranks paleo dead last among 20 different diets—behind such food-free nutritional gimmicks as Slim-Fast and the Volumetrics Diet.
Also, the reader votes for “Did this diet work for you?” show that paleo is by far the most successful of the diets, with several thousand “Yes” votes and under 100 “No” votes. The only other diets to win more “Yes” than “No” votes were Weight Watchers and Atkins!
Update: The above is no longer true, as the Birdseed Brigade has apparently decided not only to upvote vegan and vegetarian diets en masse…they’ve decided to downvote all the meat-based diets, including Paleo, Atkins, South Beach, and Zone! (Thus illustrating the difference between our communities: we don’t attempt to silence or censor those who disagree with us.)
Previous to that, we’ve seen the repeated hatchet jobs on grass-fed beef by John Stossel (one in print and one on video), both of which use as their sole source non-peer-reviewed “research” from a scientist sponsored entirely by Elanco—a subsidiary of Eli Lilly that manufactures antibiotics and hormonal growth promoters for feedlot cattle, pigs, and chickens! President Obama’s personal trainer, in a breathtakingly stupid article, has called paleo “the newest nutritional fad”. (Solid rebuttal here.) And the avalanche of anti-paleo articles by “qualified experts” has justbegun.
We might expect this sort of offensive from the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetic Association, because anyone eating any variation on the paleo diet is essentially telling them “All of you have been completely wrong for decades, and your bad advice is killing millions of people each year.” And we might expect this sort of offensive from the PCRM, because they’re just a front for vegans and animal rights activists.
But why such hostility from the mainstream press? The paleo movement doesn’t have the anti-establishment politics of, say, the vegan movement—or, as far as I can tell, any clear politics at all. If anything, it tends towards a casual sort of conservative libertarianism, but that’s probably just because so many paleo bloggers are semi-retired techies. It seems unlikely that “going paleo” is the cause of anyone’s political beliefs.
The answer, of course, lies in the age-old admonition:
“Follow the money.”
Adding Value: The Foundation Of Functional Economies
An economy based entirely on selling the same things back and forth to each other for ever-increasing amounts of money is doomed to eventual collapse. As we found out just a couple years ago, flipping houses isn’t the same as having a manufacturing base and a world that wants to buy what we make.
Stated more generally, an economy is only sustainable to the degree that its participants add value by their actions. Factory workers add value by turning raw materials into clothes and cars and electronics; farmers turn seeds and soil and sunlight into crops; ranchers turn calves and grass into beef; engineers turn ideas into buildable products; truckers move things from where they are to where they’re wanted; cashiers and stockers and managers and janitors turn a locked building full of things into a system by which you can find what you want and exchange money for it; and so on. Added value – cost of design – cost of production = profit.
This is not to be confused with the labor theory of value, which claims that labor has intrinsic value, and indeed, is the only ‘fair’ measure of value. This is hogwash. It’s easy to spend years of effort and not add a single penny of value—because value is determined by the buyer, not the seller. It doesn’t matter how much time I’ve spent making a coat rack if it’s ugly and no one wants to buy it!
Moving ahead: the more value we can add, the more profit we can make. It should be obvious that one way to add value is to transform cheap raw materials into an expensive finished product.
Adding Value: Why Grains (And Soy) Are Profitable
There’s one big reason that industrial food manufacturers like Kraft (Nabisco, Snackwells, General Foods, many more), Con-Agra (Chef Boy-Ar-Dee, Healthy Choice, many more), Pepsico (Frito-Lay, Quaker), Kellogg’s (Kashi, Morningstar Farms, Nutrigrain, more) are huge and profitable.
It’s because grains are cheap, but the “foods” made from them aren’t.
One reason grains are so cheap in the USA, of course, is gigantic subsidies for commodity agriculture that, while advertised as helping farmers, go mostly to agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland ($62 billion in sales), Cargill ($108 billion), ConAgra ($12 billion), and Monsanto ($11 billion)—and result in a corn surplus so large that we are forced to turn corn into ethanol and feed it to our cars, at a net energy loss!
“There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”
-Dwayne Andreas, then-CEO of Archer Daniels Midland
“At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10.” (Source.)
That cheapness, however, doesn’t translate to profits for farmers or cheap food at the supermarket. Let’s do some math!
(Note: these are regular prices from the CBOT and my local supermarket, as of today. Supermarket prices will be somewhat cheaper on sale or at Costco.)
A bushel of corn weighs 56 pounds and costs $6.85. That’s 12.2 cents per pound. A bag of Tostitos contains about 10 cents worth of corn, and costs $4.00.
That’s a 4000% increase.
A bushel of wheat weighs 60 pounds and costs $7.62. That’s 12.7 cents per pound. A loaf of Wonder Bread contains about 16 cents worth of wheat, and sells for $4.40.
That’s a 2700% increase.
A bushel of soybeans weighs 60 pounds and costs $13.64. That’s 22.7 cents per pound. A box of “Silk” soy milk contains about 4.5 cents worth of soybeans, and sells for $2.90.
That’s a 6400% increase.
In other words, it’s highly profitable to turn the products of industrial agriculture—cereal grains and soybeans—into highly processed “food”.
It’s not the snack aisle, the cereal aisle, or even the bread aisle...it’s the profit aisle.
Note that the profit for the processors and middlemen comes out of the pockets of the producer and the consumer. Farmers are squeezed by the 12 cents per pound, and consumers are squeezed by the $4.40 per loaf.
In contrast, pork bellies cost $1.20 per pound today. A pound of bacon costs about $5.
That’s a 400% increase…
…which looks like a lot until you compare it with 2700%-6400% for grains. Also, unlike grain products, bacon must be stored, shipped, and sold under continuous refrigeration—and it has a much shorter shelf life.
It’s clear that it’s far more profitable to sell us processed grain products than meat, eggs, and vegetables…which leaves a lot of money available to spend on persuading us to buy them.Are you starting to understand why grains are encased in colorful packaging, pushed on us as “heart-healthy” by the government, and advertised continually in all forms of media?
And when we purchase grass-fed beef directly from the rancher, eggs from the farmer, and produce from the grower, we are bypassing the entire monumentally profitable system of industrial agriculture—the railroads, grain elevators, antibiotics, growth hormones, plows, combines, chemical fertilizers (the Haber process, by which ammonium nitrate fertilizer is made, uses 3-5% of world natural gas production!), processors, inspectors, fortifiers, manufacturers, distributors, and advertisers that profit so handsomely by turning cheap grains into expensive food-like substances.
Conclusion: You Are A Radical (And So Am I)
Simply by eating a paleo diet, we have made ourselves enemies of the establishment, and will be treated henceforth as dangerous radicals.
This is not a conspiracy theory. By eschewing commodity crops and advocating the consumption of grass-fed meat, pastured eggs, and local produce, we are making several very, very powerful enemies.
The medical and nutritional establishments hate paleo, because we’re exposing the fact that they’ve been wrong for decades and have killed millions of people with their bad advice.
The agribusinesses and industrial food processors hate paleo, because we’re hurting their business by not buying their highly profitable grain- and soy-based products.
The mainstream media hates paleo, because they profit handsomely from advertising those grain- and soy-based products.
The government hates paleo, because they’re the enforcement arm of big agribusinesses, industrial food processors, and mainstream media—and because their subsidy programs create mountains of surplus grain that must be consumed somehow.
Is anyone surprised that a government which spends billions of dollars subsidizing the production of corn, soy, and wheat, would issue nutritional recommendations emphasizing the consumption of corn, soy, and wheat?
And this is why, despite all their rhetoric, the vegans end up on the same team as Monsanto and Pepsico: their interests are aligned.
I agree: this does look familiar.
In summary:
Expect more hatchet jobs against “paleo” in the media.
Expect more statistical manipulation marketed as “science”.
Expect outright scientific fraud in support of “hearthealthywholegrains” and in opposition to meat and eggs—particularly grass-fed, pastured, and local meats.
Expect subtle attempts to subvert “paleo” by packaging ancestral varieties of grain (e.g. kamut, spelt, amaranth) and obscure fruit extracts (mostly made of apple and grape juice), and selling them back to us in colorful packaging.
Expect even more regulations and restrictions that destroy local, sustainable farming by forcing their nutritionally superior products into the commodity system, instead of allowing us as individuals to buy them directly—which, in the case of meat, we already can’t. (The regulations have got even worse since Joel Salatin wrote this woefully true article, “Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal.”)
Expect bogus scare stories in the media about the dangers of local meat, eggs, cheese, and produce from small farmers. Expect bogus salmonella scares and fraudulent inspections that claim meaningless or nonexistent bacterial contamination.
Expect school lunches to become even more disgusting and empty of nutrition. If you want your child to grow up healthy, expect to help them pack a lunch every day. Expect to be grilled by suspicious administrators who think you’re damaging your child by feeding them real food.
Expect friends and co-workers to see and believe this propaganda. Expect that you will have to defend your dietary choices against a steadily increasing chorus of suspicion and hostility.
None of this should discourage any of us from continuing to do what’s right for ourselves, our families, our children, and the Earth. We are healthy, we are happy, we are strong, and we will win because everyone else wants to be as healthy as we are.
Be proud of your health and how you’ve attained it. Do not be pushy, but do not apologize for how you eat and live. And, most importantly, be prepared for the storm.
Support gnolls.org by making your Amazon.com purchases through this affiliate link:
It costs you nothing, and I get a small spiff. Thanks! -JS
.
Subscribe to Posts
Gnolls In Your Inbox!
Sign up for the sporadic yet informative gnolls.org newsletter. Since I don't update every day, this is a great way to keep abreast of important content. (Your email will not be sold or shared.)
IMPORTANT! If you do not receive a confirmation email, check your spam folder.
