by Robert Crayhon, MS
Reprinted by permission from Life Services
Can fifty thousand years of human evolution be wrong? What are
we really "designed" to eat? Are high carbohydrate "Food
Pyramid" diet standards a health disaster? What do paleolithic
fossil records and ethnographic studies of 180 hunter/gatherer
groups around the world suggest as the ideal human diet? Find
out in nationally acclaimed author and nutritionist Robert Crayhon's
interview with paleolithic diet expert, Professor Loren Cordain,
Ph.D.
Robert Crayhon, M.S. is a clinician, researcher and educator who
was called "one of the top ten nutritionists in the country"
by Self magazine (August 1993). An associate editor of Total Health
magazine, he is the author of best-seller Robert Crayhon's Nutrition
Made Simple and the just published The Carnitine Miracle (M. Evans
and Company).
Dr. Loren Cordain is a professor of exercise physiology at Colorado
State University in Ft. Collins, Colorado, and is a renowned expert
in the area of Paleolithic nutrition.
Robert Crayhon: I'm very happy to welcome Dr. Loren Cordain. He
is a professor of exercise physiology at Colorado State University
in Ft. Collins, Colorado, and an expert in the area of Paleolithic
nutrition. Dr. Cordain, welcome.
Loren Cordain: My pleasure to be here.
Robert Crayhon: There has been in the past 40 years or so much
interest in the area of low fat diets, and it seems that the media
and USDA with its food guide pyramid is now convinced that a healthy
diet is one that is predominantly carbohydrate, low in fat and
protein. There is also little regard for the quality of the fat
or protein.
But are we really just in some great agricultural experiment?
Has the last 10,000 years of agriculture really been the bulk
of what the human nutritional experience has been? And is this
grain-based, high carbohydrate diet truly ideal for humans?
Loren Cordain: There is increasing evidence to indicate that the
type of diet recommended in the USDA's food pyramid is discordant
with the type of diet humans evolved with over eons of evolutionary
experience. Additionally, it is increasingly being recognized
that the "food Pyramid" may have a number of serious
nutritional omissions.
For instance, it does not specify which types of fats should
be consumed.
The western diet is overburdened not only by saturated fats, but
there is an imbalance in the type of polyunsaturated fats we eat.
We consume too many Omega-6 fats and not enough Omega-3 fats.
The Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio in western diets averages about 12:1.
Whereas data from our recent publication (Eaton SB, Eaton SB 3rd,
Sinclair AJ, Cordain L, Mann NJ Dietary intake of long-chain polyunsaturated
fatty acids during the Paleolithic Period. World Rev Nutr Diet
1998; 12-23) suggests that:
For most of humanity's existence, prior to agriculture, the Omega-6/Omega-3
ratio would have ranged from 1:1 to 3:1.
High dietary Omega-6/Omega-3 ratios are associated with increased
risk for cardiovascular disease, some types of cancer, and tend
to exacerbate many inflammatory disease responses.
Further, the USDA food pyramid places breads, cereals, rice and
pasta at its base and recommends that we consume 6-11 servings
of these items daily. Nutritionists at the Harvard School of Public
Health (Willett WC. The dietary pyramid: does the foundation need
repair? Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;68: 218-219) have recently publicly
criticized this recommendation.
It fails to distinguish between refined and complex carbohydrates
and their relative glycemic responses. Dr. Willett further pointed
out that there was little empirical evidence to support the dominant
nutritional message that diets high in complex carbohydrate promote
good health.
Both the fossil record and ethnological studies of hunter-gatherers
(the closest surrogates we have to stone age humans) indicate
that humans rarely if ever ate cereal grains nor did they eat
diets high in carbohydrates.
Because cereal grains are virtually indigestible by the human
gastrointestinal tract without milling (grinding) and cooking,
the appearance of grinding stones in the fossil record generally
heralds the inclusion of grains in the diet.
The first appearance of milling stones was in the Middle East
roughly 10-15,000 years ago.
These early milling stones were likely used to grind wild wheat
which grew naturally in certain areas of the Middle East. Wheat
was first domesticated in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago
and slowly spread to Europe by about 5,000 years ago. Rice was
domesticated approximately 7,000 years ago in SE Asia, India and
China, and maize (corn) was domesticated in Mexico and Central
America roughly 7,000 years ago.
Consequently, diets high in carbohydrate derived from cereal grains
were not part of the human evolutionary experience until only
quite recent times.
Because the human genome has changed relatively little in the
past 40,000 years since the appearance of behaviorally modern
humans, our nutritional requirements remain almost identical to
those requirements which were originally selected for stone age
humans living before the advent of agriculture.
Robert Crayhon: What happened to our health when we switched from
a hunter-gatherer diet to a grain-based one?
Loren Cordain: The fossil record indicates that early farmers,
compared to their hunter-gatherer predecessors had a characteristic
reduction in stature, an increase in infant mortality, a reduction
in life span, an increased incidence of infectious diseases, an
increase in iron deficiency anemia, an increased incidence of
osteomalacia, porotic hyperostosis and other bone mineral disorders
and an increase in the number of dental caries and enamel defects.
Early agriculture did not bring about increases in health, but
rather the opposite. It has only been in the past 100 years or
so with the advent of high tech, mechanized farming and animal
husbandry that the trend has changed.
Robert Crayhon: Did we move from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle by
choice, or were we forced into the shift due to animal extinction?
Loren Cordain: If we examine the fossil record, it suggests that
a number of environmental pressures may have forced humans to
adopt agriculture, including increases in human population densities
and the depletion of easily hunted game. The extinction of large
mammals all over Northern Europe, Asia, and North America coincide
with the adoption of agriculture.
It is quite likely that pre-agricultural man had sufficient knowledge
of his environment to know the life cycle of plants, to be able
to sow seeds and grow plants. However, ecologically, it was not
necessary, nor energetically efficient to do so when human population
numbers were low and game was plentiful. Although agriculture
is a vast science and can encompass numerous disciplines, early
agriculture essentially involved the domestication, growing and
harvesting of cereal grains.
Robert Crayhon: Is there enough evidence to suggest that a diet
that includes a large amount of grains is a step down nutritionally,
and one that is far from optimal for humans? And how much of the
prehistoric diet was animal, and how much was vegetable?
Loren Cordain: The fossil evidence as well as the ethnographic
evidence from groups of hunter-gatherers studied in historical
times suggests that the diet of pre-agricultural humans was derived
primarily from animal based foods.
It is difficult to quantitatively determine from the fossil record
the proportion of plant to animal food that was included in the
diet of prehistoric humans. However, we do know that hunting of
game was an important part of all pre-agricultural societies.
Most prehistoric humans followed large game herds, and manufactured
tools and weapons which were used to regularly kill and butcher
these animals.
Ethnographic studies of living hunter-gatherer societies represent
the best surrogate we have for estimating quantitatively the plant
to animal subsistence ratios of stone-age humans. We have recently
compiled ethnographic data from 181 worldwide societies of hunter-gatherers
showing that the mean plant to animal subsistence ratio in terms
of energy was 35% plant and 65% animal.
Thus, the fossil and ethnographic data suggests that humans evolved
on a diet that was primarily animal based and consequently low
to moderate in carbohydrate, high in protein and low to moderate
in fat. This is in contrast to the low fat, high carbohydrate,
plant based diet which is almost universally recommended by modern
day nutritionists.
Clearly, humans can adapt to many types of diets involving multiple
macronutrient combinations with varying amounts of fat, protein
and carbohydrate. However, our genetic constitutions, including
our nutritional requirements were established in the remote past
over eons of evolutionary experience.
Human health and well being can be optimized when we use the
evolutionary paradigm as the starting point for present day nutrition.
Obviously, humans have had little evolutionary experience with
the modern high carbohydrate, high fat, cereal based diet which
is omnipresent in western, industrialized countries, and there
is considerable evidence to suggest that these types of diets
have the potential for creating health problems in some, but not
all people.
Robert Crayhon: How much cereal grain is too much?
Loren Cordain: That varies by the person. Some people can handle
more cereal grains than others. For a celiac patient a single
teaspoonful of gluten containing grains is too much.
Generally, health begins to noticeably be disrupted when cereal
grains provide 70% or more of the daily caloric intake.
The human dietary staple for more than 2 million years was lean
game meat supplemented by fresh fruits and vegetables. Including
lean meats (seafood, fish, game meat-if you can get it, lean cuts
of poultry & domestic meat) more fruits, vegetables at the
expense of cereal grains is a good starting point for improving
nutrition.
Robert Crayhon: How does someone know if they can tolerate cereal
grains? How do they know which ones suit them best?
Loren Cordain: I suspect that for most people, a simple subjective
test can be conducted in which they reduce the amount of cereal
grains in their diet and replace the grains with more fresh fruits,
vegetables and lean meats and seafood.
I do know that all human beings don't do very well when the total
caloric intake of cereal grains approaches 70%.
The high phytate content of whole grain cereals can impair mineral
metabolism i.e. iron, calcium, and other anti-nutrients have the
potential to interact with the gastrointestinal tract and perhaps
the immune system as well. The high lectin content of whole grain
cereals can bind enterocytes in the small intestine and cause
villous atrophy in addition to changing tight junction characteristics
thereby allowing intestinal antigens (both dietary and pathogenic)
access to the peripheral circulation.
Robert Crayhon: Those who recommend very high grain diets have
no scientific basis?
Loren Cordain: Whole grain cereals are devoid of vitamin C and
beta carotene (except for yellow maize). They have poorly absorbable
vitamin B6, and the phytate levels in grains impairs the absorption
of most of the divalent minerals.
Additionally, they contain low levels of essential fats and have
quite high omega 6/omega 3 fatty acid ratios. Excessive consumption
of cereal grains are associated with a wide variety of health
problems. In animal models, rickets are routinely induced by feeding
them high levels of cereal grains. Hypogonadal dwarfism is found
more often in populations consuming high (~50% of total energy)
from unleavened whole grain breads (i.e. in Iran where they consume
an unleavened bread called tanok).
Robert Crayhon: ....and where there's widespread zinc deficiency....
Loren Cordain: It is thought that the high levels of phytate in
unleavened whole grain breads cause a zinc deficiency which in
turn is responsible for hypogonadal dwarfism, along with other
health problems associated with zinc deficiencies. In Europe,
where immigrant Pakistanis consume high levels of unleavened whole
grain breads, rickets among their children remains a problem.
Robert Crayhon: So this is rickets that has nothing to do with
vitamin D deficiency, but with mineral deficiency?
Loren Cordain: No, both. Cereal grains seem to have a simultaneous
influence on vitamin D and Ca metabolism.
Robert Crayhon: How do they alter vitamin D metabolism?
Loren Cordain: Epidemiological studies of populations consuming
high levels of unleavened whole grain breads show vitamin D deficiency
to be widespread. A study of radio-labelled 25 hydroxyvitamin
D3 (25(OH)D3) in humans consuming 60g of wheat bran daily for
30 days clearly demonstrated an enhanced elimination of 25(OH)D3
in the intestinal lumen.
The mechanism by which cereal grain consumption influences vitamin
D is unclear. Some investigators have suggested that cereal grains
may interfere with the enterohepatic circulation of vitamin D
or its metabolites, whereas others have shown that calcium deficiency
increases that rate of inactivation of vitamin D in the liver.
This effect is mediated by 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D)
produced in response to secondary hyperparathyroidism, which promotes
hepatic conversion of vitamin D to polar inactivation products
which are excreted in bile. Consequently, the low Ca/P ratio of
cereal grains has the ability to elevate PTH which in turn stimulates
increased production of (1,25(OH)2D) which causes an accelerated
loss of 25 hydroxy vitamin D.
Robert Crayhon: So it doesn't get activated by the kidneys if
there are a lot of cereal grains in the diet? The hormone version
of vitamin D doesn't come into existence if people are eating
70-80% of their diets as cereal grains?
Loren Cordain: The mechanism still is unclear, however, the clinical
response remains the same (overt rickets) in animal and human
models. Here are some of the references if you are interested:
(1. Batchelor AJ, Compston JE: Reduced plasma half-life of radio-labelled
25 hydroxyvitamin D3 in subjects receiving a high fiber diet.
Brit J Nutr 1983; 49:213-16. 2. Clements MR, Johnson L., Fraser
DR:
A new mechanism for induced vitamin deficiency in calcium deprivation.
Nature 1987; 325: 62-65. 3. Dagnelie PC et al. High prevalence
of rickets in infants on macrobiotic diets. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;
51: 202-8.)
Robert Crayhon: Are there particular grains that are more of a
problem than others?
Loren Cordain: Wheat, rye, barley, and perhaps oats are problematical
for individuals with celiac disease. Wheat seems to be associated
with many auto-immune diseases.
Ironically, whole grain cereals (which are thought to be more
healthful than refined cereals because of their greater nutrient
and fiber content) have a greater potential to disrupt mineral
metabolism because of their higher phytate and anti-nutrient content.
Although high grain cereals intrinsically contain higher nutrient
levels than do refined cereal grains, the biological availability
of nutrients in whole grain cereals remains paradoxically low
because of their high anti-nutrient content. On the plus side,
whole grain cereals, because of their high fiber content tend
to have superior glycemic indices than do their refined counterparts.
Obviously, low to moderate amounts of cereal grains in the diet
presents little or no health problems to most people. The majority
of the grain products consumed in this country are refined, and
consequently many of the anti-nutrients are milled out.
Robert Crayhon: Such as the bran?
Loren Cordain: Yes, exactly. There's a tradeoff. Milling takes
out the anti-nutrients, but it also lowers the levels of vitamins
and minerals.
Robert Crayhon: Some assert that too much protein, even beyond
60-70 grams per day, is bad for people, will damage the kidneys
and liver and cause bone loss. Yet we find people groups around
the world who eat a pound or more of meat per day and don't seem
to have any of these problems. What does you're research suggest?
Loren Cordain: Epidemiological studies have suggested that increased
animal protein intake is associated with higher rates of osteoporotic
fracture, and many metabolic trails have demonstrated increased
urinary calcium losses with increased protein intake.
However, in order to firmly establish cause and effect, and hence
proof, that a certain variable is responsible for a certain effect,
scientists conduct intervention trails. To my knowledge intervention
studies have not been able to show that a change from low/moderate
to high protein intake increases that rate of kidney stones or
bone loss in either humans or animals.
Stone age diets clearly were characterized by extremely high protein
intakes by modern standards, yet bone robusticity and density
(determined from fossil paleolithic humans) were greater than
or equal to that of most modern humans despite the total absence
of dairy products in stone age diets.
This seeming paradox (low calcium intake, high protein intake
yet strong dense bones) may probably be explained by multiple
factors. Stone age humans were more active than modern people
and consequently the everyday work they did resulted in greater
bone loading, which in turn can influence bone density.
Further, they lived outside most of the day so their sunshine
exposure and hence vitamin D status would likely have been superior
to most modern people who work indoors and get little sunshine
exposure.
Lastly, and most importantly, the critical dietary factor influencing
bone metabolism and hence osteoporosis is not calcium intake,
nor calcium excretion, but rather calcium balance.
The acid base status of the total diet rather than calcium intake
or excretion determines calcium balance (Barzel US. The skeleton
as an ion exchange: implications for the role of acid-base imbalance
in the genesis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 1995; 10: 1431-36).
Foods which yield a net acidic load mainly as sulfates and phosphates
cause the kidneys to respond to this dietary acid challenge with
net acid excretion, as well as ammonium and titratable acid excretion.
Concurrently, the skeleton supplies buffer by active resorption
of bone. Consequently, calciuria is directly related to net acid
excretion (Barzel US, Massey LK Excess dietary protein can adversely
affect bone. J Nutr 1998; 128:1051-53).
Foods which cause a net acid excretion include meat, fish, cheeses
and grains (Remer T, et al. Potential renal acid loads of foods
and its influence on urine pH. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jul; 95:
791-97). Fruits and vegetables have a net alkaline value and consequently
reduce acid excretion and hence reduce calciuria thereby halting
bone resorption and actually allowing bone accretion to occur.
Although the dietary calcium to protein ration in stone age diets
would have been quite low, the large amount of fruits and vegetables
(35% of total energy) included in the diet would have produced
a net dietary acid-base status which would have favored bone accretion
even in the face of enormous protein intakes.
Similarly, nephro and urolithiiasis would have been reduced from
the high levels of fruit and vegetable consumption via their ability
to reduce the potential renal acid load.
Robert Crayhon: ...and they thrived and were very healthy on that.
Loren Cordain: The fossil record and modern day studies of hunter
gatherers suggests this. Many populations around the world consume
low fat, high carbohydrate diets with little or no animal protein,
yet paradoxically suffer high rates of diseases of insulin resistance
and high levels of cardiovascular disease.
For example, epidemiological studies of largely vegetarian Hindu
populations from the Indian sub-continent have shown mortality
rates from cardiovascular disease that are similar or greater
than those rates found in European countries, despite their vegetarian
diet.
Robert Crayhon: And this is apparently due to the imbalance in
their macronutrients?
Loren Cordain: Yes, these populations tend to have very characteristic
blood lipid parameters indicative of syndrome X. They tend to
have elevated triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol and reduced HDL
cholesterol.
Also, the oxidative profile of their lipids tends to be worse
than the oxidative profile of some westerner populations because
cereal grains which have no vitamin C or no pro-vitamin A beta-carotene
may sometimes displace fruits and vegetables which are a rich
source of both of these antioxidants.
Further, cereal grains tend to have a high Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio
because they are high in linoleic acid and low in linolenic. The
oxidizability of the LDL molecule increases when it's loaded up
with Omega-6 fats (linoleic acid primarily).
Robert Crayhon: ...even though the Omega-3 fats are technically
more delicate fats?
Loren Cordain: Recent in vivo studies suggest this may not be
the case.
Robert Crayhon: This brings us to the enormous topic of the shift
in the kinds of fats in the Paleolithic even through the last
centuries favoring the Omega-6's...safflower, sunflower, corn
oil, and arachidonic acid rich meats devoid of EPA/DHA as opposed
to...
Loren Cordain: This shift has only occurred in the last 80 years
or so.
Robert Crayhon: And what has happened because of that shift?
Loren Cordain: The types of fats that you eat influence the type
of fats that are incorporated in the cell membrane. They can also
influence hormonal profiles, and eicosanoid function. We tend
to see a more inflammatory eicosanoid profile with elevated levels
of Omega-6 fats.
Robert Crayhon: And also arachidonic acids?
Loren Cordain: The information is equivocal on arachidonic acid.
Initial experiments indicated that arachidonic acid had mainly
deleterious effects. A recent metabolic ward study of arachidonic
acid indicates otherwise (Nelson GJ, et al. A human dietary arachidonic
acid supplementation study conducted in a metabolic research unit:
rationale and design. Lipids. 1997; 32: 415-420).
Arachidonic acid is an essential fatty acid in virtually every
cell of the body, and it is an important precursor for prostanoid
synthesis and tissue function.
More recent data suggests that the balance of arachidonic acid
to long chain Omega-3 fatty acid may be more important in influencing
health than absolute dietary intakes of arachidonic acid.
Robert Crayhon: How much Omega-3 to Omega-6 should we have in
our diet?
Loren Cordain: In our laboratory, we have analyzed various tissues
in wild game meat and we have found that muscle tissue contains
Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio of 3.5-4 to 1.
This ratio is higher in storage fat and bone marrow, and slightly
lower in certain organs. In the brain, this ratio is 1 to 1. Pre-agricultural
humans, as opposed to modern humans, enjoyed eating the organs
of wild animals. Certainly, they were eating the brains of the
animals that they killed.
The Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio couldn't have been much lower than
4 to 1 if we only ate the meat. If we only ate the brain, it would
have been roughly 1 to 1. If fish were included in the diet, it
would have further reduced the 4:1 ratio found in the muscle of
terrestrial animals.
Additionally, the inclusion of most plant foods (but not all)
would have also reduced the 4:1 ratio. The conclusion I have come
to is that:
The average Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio in pre-agricultural humans would
have always been lower than 4 to 1, but probably not lower than
2 to 1 depending upon season, locale and macronutrient intake.
Robert Crayhon: Looking at the food guide pyramid now with the
Paleolithic perspective that you've helped create, what would
you do if you were to design an eating guide for humans as a species?
Loren Cordain: The evolutionary paradigm should be used a starting
point for designing optimal nutrition guides.
Clearly, it is not practical nor economically possible for all
of the world's people to eat wild game, fruits and vegetables.
However, the macronutrient and trace nutrient levels that typically
occur in reconstructed Stone Age diets should be emulated in the
design of healthful diets for modern people. Humanity is totally
dependent now upon cereal grains for survival.
Cereal grains provide 56% of the food energy and 50% of the protein
consumed by all of the world's peoples.
Without them, there would be worldwide starvation of an unprecedented
proportion. we have wandered down a path of absolute dependence
upon cereal grains, a path from which there is no return.
Robert Crayhon: So instead of 6-11 servings of these kinds of...well,
on the pyramid I think it's not just grain products but also potatoes
and other sorts of carbohydrates that are thrown in there. Would
you recommend keeping 2-3 servings per day of grain products or
less? Or is it really hard to make any guidelines?
Loren Cordain: I think that there is a significant amount of genetic
variability among people which may influence how well they do
on various types of diets. Insulin-resistant individuals do not
seem to do well on high carbohydrate diets, particularly if the
carbohydrate has a high glycemic index.
Generally, most people do quite well healthwise on 2-3 servings
of grain products per day. Clearly, cereal grains and agriculture
allowed for the dramatic worldwide human population expansion
that has occurred in the past 10,000 years since the advent of
agriculture.
I think what the USDA is trying to do with its Food Pyramid is
to give general dietary guidelines that are beneficial for most
people and which are economically feasible. I think my work is
not necessarily practical for making recommendations to all of
the world's people, but rather it points out how human diets may
be improved from an evolutionary perspective.
Robert Crayhon: If you could speak to the modern health care practitioner,
nutritionist, or physician and tell them the key things Paleolithic
research has taught us, what might those be?
Loren Cordain: Animal based diets can be healthful if designed
with macronutrient and trace nutrients that emulate those of our
pre-agricultural ancestors. Low fat, high carbohydrate cereal
and legume-based diets are not necessarily healthful.
The implications of a Paleolithic diet are that humans tend to
do quite well on high protein animal-based diets in many regards
including vitamin, minerals, and fatty acid profiles. The whole
concept of animal-based foods as deleterious needs to be rectified.
And the idea that if a little bit of whole grain is good for you,
then a lot should be better, needs to be reconsidered.
Robert Crayhon: Why is it that so many people are so adamant about
the negative effects of animal products? Is it because of the
extraordinary difference in quality between a piece of wild game
meat that may have 7-10% fat and fat of a high-quality, vs. cornfed
cattle that have 40% fat of a completely different nature? Is
it the pesticides or hormone residues in the meat? Is it all of
the above?
Loren Cordain: Wild game muscle averages about 2% fat by weight
which translates to about 15% by energy. Lean cuts of domestic
meat may contain 5-7% fat by weight and 30-35% fat by energy.
Robert Crayhon: Even the well-marbled meats?
Loren Cordain: Fatty cuts of domestic meat contain about 20% fat
by weight and about 63% fat by energy.
Robert Crayhon: Quite different from Paleomeat. Would a nice lean
flank steak from your supermarket be 7-10% fat?
Loren Cordain: It could be slightly lower than that. There have
been a couple of studies that have shown that we are looking at
the 5 to 7% range in a lean cut of steak that has been cut of
all visible fat, but remember this value is by weight. Fat as
a percent of total calories would be approximately 30-35%. As
far as growth hormones and pesticide residues, I think the evidence
is equivocal and may not be as important as the differences in
fat content in terms of health and nutrition. Because pesticides
and heavy metals occur in areas that wild animals inhabit, they
are not entirely free of these toxins either.
Robert Crayhon: What's the best way to cook meat? How and when
did Paleopeoples start cooking their meat?
Loren Cordain: Organized stone hearths (and hence the first concrete
evidence for the control of fire) probably did not occur until
the appearance of Neanderthals roughly 200,000 years ago. So prior
to this time, humans probably did not cook their meat. I do not
recommend, however, eating raw or slightly cooked meat because
of potential bacterial contamination.
Robert Crayhon: What is the best way to cook meat?
Loren Cordain: The way we tend to cook meat these days is very
different from the ways of hunters and gatherers who tend to slow-cook
meats over a long period of time. A favored cooking procedure
was digging a pit and putting in hot stones, putting in the whole
animal or portions of it, putting in vegetable matter and other
stones above the vegetable matter and cooking the meat all day
long.
So what is suggested is slow cooking at low heat.
Robert Crayhon: Throw out the microwave and get a crock pot.
Loren Cordain: Well, yes. If you take a lean cut of venison, elk,
or buffalo, and throw it on the barbecue, you'll find it's as
tough as rubber but if you put it on a crock pot or a Dutch oven
and cook it all day long, you'll find that it will come out quite
tender and also, the nutrient content remains relatively high.
Also, you don't have to worry about bacterial problems.
Robert Crayhon: I know you're doing some groundbreaking work right
now looking at the role of high consumption of grains as a possible
trigger for many auto-immune diseases. Can you comment on that?
Loren Cordain: We don't have any clinical data at this point.
We have a theoretical model which points in many directions towards
exactly what you're saying.
Robert Crayhon: Are multiple sclerosis, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis
rare in populations where no grain products are consumed?
Loren Cordain: Some epidemiological evidence would indicate exactly
that. Part of the problem in getting epidemiological evidence
like this is that there are very few populations on this planet
that don't eat cereal grains...
Prior to acculturation, Eskimos and peoples of the far North were
reported to have a low incidence of auto-immune diseases. With
acculturation, the prevalence of auto-immune diseases are increasing
in these populations and may approach Western levels.
Experimentally, we know that the expression of certain auto-immune
diseases (e.g. insulin dependent diabetes mellitus IDDM) increases
in animal models when they are fed high cereal grain diets.
We believe that cereal grains may influence immune function by
the ability of their lectins (specifically wheat germ agglutinin-WGA)
to allow passage of undegraded dietary antigens and antigens derived
from intestinal pathogens (viruses and bacteria) to peripheral
tissue.
Through a process called molecular mimicry, in which there are
structural similarities between the body's own tissue and that
of the dietary antigen and/or the intestinal pathogen antigen,
the immune system loses the ability to distinguish self tissue
from non-self tissue and mounts an immune attack upon the body's
own tissue. Many of these structural similarities between cereal
grain peptides and the body's own tissues seem to involve collagenous
tissues.
Robert Crayhon: Which grains have protein sequences closest to
human collagen tissue?
Loren Cordain: The literature suggests that the alcohol soluble
portion of wheat contains peptide sequences that may mimic peptide
sequences in the body. But it's a more complicated issue than
that. It has to do with the genetics of the person with the auto-immune
disease as well.
Robert Crayhon: The upshot of all this is that it couldn't hurt
if you've got an auto-immune disease to try a grain-free diet.
Loren Cordain: Well, it's more than grain-free. We found again
from a Paleolithic perspective that humans didn't drink a lot
of dairy, nor did they consume legumes or yeast-containing foods.
Dairy, legumes, and yeast contain peptides with amino acid sequence
that are homologous to amino acid sequences in a variety of human
tissues as well.
Robert Crayhon: What about other foods such as fowl, fish, and
fruits and vegetables? Are these foods that are relatively free
of these similar proteins?
Loren Cordain: Generally speaking, most people don't have trouble
with land based flesh foods. Some people have trouble with shellfish
or seafood from an immunological perspective. Elimination diets
tend not to use shellfish or fish, as some people have trouble
with these.
Robert Crayhon: But as you've said, the grains, the dietary products,
the legumes, and yeast are the much more likely suspects. Any
closing comments on the immune problems caused by the agricultural
revolution before we close our discussion?
Loren Cordain: I think we need to have clinical trails obviously
eliminating these kinds of foods: cereal grains, dairy products,
legumes, and yeast. This would be difficult for people who have
been weaned on a Western diet, but humans throughout most of the
course of our stay on this planet did not eat those foods or rarely
ate those foods.
These proteins are alien to our immune system. We would hope that
clinical trails involving elimination of these suspect peptides
will be done in the future and hopefully may be of benefit to
people with auto-immune problems.
Robert Crayhon: Dr. Cordain, thank you for spending time with
us today and sharing these groundbreaking ideas with us. Your
work embodies Stravinsky's phrase that "revolution means
going back all the way around to where you started from".
Loren Cordain: My pleasure, Robert.
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
The major objection that many experts have to implementing this
type of diet is that the meat is not readily available. Most meat
is full of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. BUT that is not
the worst of it.
The WORST aspect is that the animals are fed grains just like
us. So there omega 6 to omega 3 ratios are terrible. Even if the
meat were organic the ratio is about 20:1 not the ideal 2-3:1.
Well I am in the process of making that type of meat available
through this newsletter. Very shortly we will be offering GRASS
FED beef that has the ideal ratio. Even with the shipping the
price should also be very reasonable.
So keep your eyes posted on the newsletter. I hope to announce
the details in a few weeks. I am in the process of completing
a short book on the subject and have already compiled about 75
pages to help more fully explain the benefits and the reason behind
the recommendation.
Dr. Cordain is one of the leading expert proponents in the use
of low grain and natural meat diets for the promotion of health.
I have never met him but will have the great privilege of lecturing
with him in Chicago this spring and then again in Boulder Colorado
in the summer. I am greatly looking forward to that and will share
the updates I learn in this newsletter.
Robert Crayhon (soon to be Dr. Crayhon as he completes his PhD
requirements in the next few months) is also one of my absolute
favorite nutritional biochemists. We will likely be working together
to implement nutritional support groups later this year to assist
people in implementing these types of diets.
