Marks Daily Apple
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.
19 Jul

Ancient Wisdom Confirmed by Modern Science

This is a guest post from Jonathan Bailor of The Smarter Science of Slim and JonathanBailor.com.

checklist3

Executive Summary

Short Version: Primal has been proven right.

Longer Version: Endorsed by the world-wide scientific community including top doctors at the Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins, and UCLA, and approved as curriculum for registered dieticians (RDs) by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the single largest meta-analysis of health and fitness ever conducted shows that conventional “eat less, exercise more” approaches are far less effective than going Primal, harm our health, and lead to fat gain 95.4 percent of the time.

I Had to Stop Doing The Same Thing Over and Over and Expecting Different Results

Much like Mark, my journey into the science of wellness started because I was fed-up with the counterproductive nature of conventional wisdom. Over a decade ago I worked as a personal trainer and spent my days helping people eat less and exercise more. It didn’t take long for me to see the now proven fact that this conventional wisdom fails long-term over 95% of the time. Sure, as long as my clients paid me to “force” them to starve themselves and exercise obsessively, they’d lose weight. Then life would happen and 19 out of 20 of them would gain it all back and then some. Worse off than before they trained with me, they were disappointed and I was frustrated. Everything I was taught as a trainer said that I was doing the right thing. But how could this conventional wisdom be right if it was failing 19 out of 20 times?

General Rule: If something fails more than 95% of the time, it’s not right.

Determined to help rather than hurt my clients, I decided to leave my job as a personal trainer and spend my time researching a sustainable approach to health and fitness.

Geeking My Way To Grok

Having exhausted conventional wisdom, I turned to the only resource I had left: Raw science. Not what magazines published. Not what the news reported. Just dense, dry, and difficult to acquire academic studies from all around the world. If an academic researcher didn’t write it in a peer-reviewed journal or in an email to me or explain it to me over the phone, I wasn’t interested in it. I wanted to know what the actual experts—aka scientists/researchers…people who spend their lives in labs vs. on television—had proven about long-term fat-loss and health.

Ten years of collaboration with top medical researchers around the world, over 1,100 studies, and more than 10,000 pages of scientific research later, I realized—to my surprise and delight—that the proven key to practical and permanent wellness is to eat more and exercise less—but smarter. I then picked up a copy of The Primal Blueprint and realized that a gentleman named Mark Sisson had also discovered this smarter science…and here we are today.

More and Mainstream Support for You

In my experience, those who go Primal know it’s right since the results speak for themselves. What I hope to do here and in future posts is to reinforce your resolve with massive collection of science previously unavailable to the public. As an added bonus, we’ve been fortunate enough to receive endorsements from world-wide scientific community including top doctors at the Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins, and UCLA, and have been approved as curriculum for registered dieticians (RDs) by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, so let’s just say that you’ll be quite equipped to assist those who haven’t yet seen the science.

Let’s get started.

The Best of the Ancient World Confirmed by the Best of Modern Science

Mark and I may use different words, but our about eating and exercise findings are essentially the same. Here’s a quick overview. I’ll dig more into the science in future posts.

Reprogramming Our Genes

Mark speaks to the body’s wisdom and desire to keep us healthy automatically. We didn’t evolve to be heavy and sick. My research confirms this by digging into the endocrine and neurological signals of the metabolic regulatory system that control how much we eat, how many calories we burn, and how much body fat we store. It also shows that when we “eat poisonous things,” this system gets clogged up and begins to regulate us around a higher set-point weight. Thus, long-term fat loss has nothing to do with counting calories and everything to do with restoring our body’s natural ability to regulate our weight appropriately.

Consider a study done at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Researchers examined both heavy and thin people to see how their metabolism behaved when they were given no calories. As expected, everyone’s system slowed down and everyone burned body fat, but here’s the kicker: Thin people burned off nearly 50% more body fat than heavy people.

Think about that for a second. Despite having more body fat, the heavy people burned less body fat. In the words of the researchers, “Obese patients could not take advantage of their most abundant fat fuel sources but have to depend on the efficient use of…the breakdown products of body protein [muscle].”

Where Patients’ Metabolisms Got Energy

1 1

The heavy people needed to burn body fat, but did not burn body fat effectively. This is just one of many clinical examples of losing our natural ability to regulate weight appropriately. The researchers put the problem like this: “Profound metabolic disturbances exist in the obese state that constantly interfere with normal hormonal responses [the ability to burn body fat].”

We don’t have to manually regulate breaths in and breaths out, nor do we have to manually regulate calories in and calories out, as long as we adhere to the ancient wisdom of our ancestors and modern wisdom of the most rigorous metabolic research available: Eat more—but higher quality food and do less—but higher quality exercise.

[The simplistic notion] that weight can be controlled by ‘deciding’ to eat less and exercise more…is at odds with substantial scientific evidence illuminating a precise and powerful biologic system that maintains body weight within a relatively narrow range.

– Dr. J.M. Friedman, Rockefeller University

Millions of naturally thin people and millions of years of evolution demonstrate that our body can keep us thin automatically. The key question is how can we “reprogram our genes” to make our bodies work more like the bodies of naturally thin people? There’s a lot of science showing us exactly how to do this. We just haven’t had access to it…until now.

Eat More High-Quality Food

Mark has soundly debunked the myth that “a calorie is a calorie,” and shows that food quality matters immensely. There’s no shortage of studies supporting this. The academic research community has long proven that the quality of a calorie depends on four factors:

  1. Satiety
  2. Aggression
  3. Nutrition
  4. Efficiency

Satiety is how quickly calories fill us up. Aggression is how likely calories are to be stored as body fat. Nutrition is how many vitamins, minerals, amino acids, essential fatty acids, etc., calories provide. Efficiency is how easily calories are converted into body fat. SANE—or high quality, fat burning, and health promoting foods—are rich in water, fiber, and protein and are the basis of a Primal lifestyle: non-starchy vegetables, seafood, meat, eggs, berries, citrus, nuts, seeds, etc.

More good news: Study after study confirm that we can achieve what Mark calls “effortless weight loss” by eating more of these SANE Primal foods. For example, in all of the studies that follow, everyone ate the exact same quantity of calories, but one group’s calories were of much higher quality (aka more Primal, more SANE):

  • University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
  • C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
  • In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
  • Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.

Heal Your Hormones

We all know about the importance of hormones when it comes to long-term wellness. We’re not alone. The most brilliant minds in the research community have proven that the sooner we heal our hormones, the sooner our body will do what it’s designed to do: keep us healthy and fit. Dr. P.J. Havel from the University of California presents the scientific explanation of how hormones handle our love handles:

Short-term signals are primarily from the GI tract (e.g., CCK and GI stretch receptors) and are involved in promoting sensations of satiety that lead to meal termination. These short-term signals by themselves are not sufficient to regulate energy balance and body adiposity. The long-term signals insulin and leptin are produced and circulate in proportion to recent energy intake and body adiposity. Together, the short- and long-term signals interact to regulate energy balance in that insulin and leptin appear to determine the sensitivity of the brain to the satiety-producing effects of the short-term signals from the GI tract.

In other words, our digestive system, muscle tissue, and fat tissue are constantly communicating with our nervous system and brain via hormones. As long as we do not interfere with this communication, millions of years of evolution ensure that our weight and health will take care of itself.

2 1

“Insidious fat gain,” as Mark calls it, occurs when we lose our natural ability to stay slim, that is, when our hormonal system breaks down. J. Le Magnen in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews puts it like this: “Humans that become obese gain weight because they are no longer able to lose weight.” Le Magnen’s statement is brilliant. Gaining body fat because we lost the ability to burn body fat thanks to straying from our primal blueprint and creating hormonal havoc is totally different than gaining body fat because we eat too much or exercise too little. And if we are gaining body fat because we’ve veered away from that blueprint, the solution is not to eat less or exercise more. It’s to move back in line with our ancestry by eating more and exercising less—but smarter.

Lift Heavy Things

These three primal words summarize thousands of pages of exercise physiology research. The science is clear: When it comes to ­long-term fat loss and health, we do not need to exercise more. We need to exercise smarter. We need to increase the quality/intensity of our exercise, not the quantity of our exercise. In fact, the higher the quality of our exercise, the less of it we can do. But more on that and resistance training in a later post. For now let’s focus on high-quality brief cardiovascular exercise…aka “sprinting once in a while.”

University of Virginia researcher B.A. Irving took two groups of women and had them do conventional low-quality cardiovascular exercise or high-quality brief cardiovascular exercise. The two groups burned the same number of calories exercising, but the high-quality brief cardiovascular exercise group spent significantly less time exercising while losing significantly more belly fat.

McMaster University researcher M. Gibala separated people into high quality brief cardiovascular exercise and traditional cardiovascular exercise groups. Over the course of the two-week study, the brief cardiovascular group exercised for two-and-a-half hours while the traditional cardiovascular exercise group exercised for ten-and-a-half hours. At the end of the study both groups got the same results even though the high-quality brief cardiovascular exercise group spent 320% less time exercising than the traditional cardiovascular exercise group. The researcher put it like this: “We thought there would be benefits, but we did not expect them to be this obvious. It shows how effective short intense exercise can be.”

Many more studies show the same encouraging results and further prove that hours of conventional exercise per week are not needed. Consider this small sample:

  • “Vigorous activities are associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, whereas moderate or light activities have no clear association with the risk of coronary heart disease,” says H.D. Sesso at Harvard University.
  • “The intensity of effort was more important than the quantity of energy output in deterring hypertension and preventing premature mortality,” found R.S. Paffenbarger Jr. of Stanford University.
  • “There is an inverse association between relative intensity of physical activity and risk of coronary heart disease,” states I.M. Lee, also at Harvard University.
  • “Vigorous-intensity activities may have greater benefit for reducing cardiovascular disease and premature mortality than moderate-intensity physical activities,” noted the American Heart Association.
  • “Exercise training reduces the impact of the metabolic syndrome and that the magnitude of the effect depends on exercise intensity,” discovered P.M. Haram of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Even day-to-day cardiovascular benefits like not being out of breath after walking up a few flights of stairs are achieved faster with high-quality exercise. Edward Coyle’s research at the University of Texas found: “Interval training in untrained people can markedly increase aerobic endurance…. This serves as a dramatic reminder of the potency of exercise intensity…. Interval training is very time efficient with much ‘bang for the buck.’” Old Dominion University researcher D.P. Swain adds: “Vigorous intensity exercise has been shown to increase aerobic fitness more effectively than moderate intensity exercise, suggesting that the former may confer greater cardioprotective benefits.”

Living Better Through Primal Thinking and Smarter Science

authorphoto2

There’s a famous quote along the lines of dissatisfaction is the mother of innovation. Mark’s dissatisfaction led to The Primal Blueprint. My dissatisfaction led to The Smarter Science of Slim. Take our collective dissatisfaction with convention and add in Primal wisdom, modern science, the support of the world-wide scientific community, and a growing percentage of the mainstream dietetic community, and we should all be proud to be part of a movement that will leave a legacy as vital as the ancestral legacy we’re living.

Genes provide the blueprint, modern science confirms it, and now we get to live a life that will keep us healthy and slim practically and permanently. As we “honor our genes,” we can smile even bigger and let our eyes shine even brighter knowing that we have the single largest meta-analysis of wellness ever conducted supporting us, and that the mainstream will be along shortly.

Jonathan Bailor
The Smarter Science of Slim
Trailer: Jonathan Bailor’s Smarter Science of Slim (VIDEO)

You want comments? We got comments:

Imagine you’re George Clooney. Take a moment to admire your grooming and wit. Okay, now imagine someone walks up to you and asks, “What’s your name?” You say, “I’m George Clooney.” Or maybe you say, “I’m the Clooninator!” You don’t say “I’m George of George Clooney Sells Movies Blog” and you certainly don’t say, “I’m Clooney Weight Loss Plan”. So while spam is technically meat, it ain’t anywhere near Primal. Please nickname yourself something your friends would call you.

  1. Great guest post.

    Kate M. wrote on July 19th, 2012
  2. That is a lot of research to plow through Jonathan – nice job man!

    For those of you that are interested in digging into a scientific study, but don’t have the background, I wrote a multi-part article on how to read scientific research: http://myathleticlife.com/scientific-research-101-tutorial/

    …Tim

    Tim Huntley wrote on July 19th, 2012
  3. This is a good summary, but doesn’t cite the sources with enough detail to enable us to look them up ourselves. Links to the PubMed abstracts would be ideal.

    Orielwen wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Second.

      MOAR science!

      Graham wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • You’re supposed to buy the book. Duh! :)

        Kate M. wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Well spotted Kate!

          If you read the book, as I have done, it all comes across as carefully crafted to fill a marketing niche and achieve the maximum number of high profile endorsements – sadly not to be recommended.

          Richard wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Mark has a book too, and it doesn’t stop him from linking to his sources.

          Orielwen wrote on July 20th, 2012
        • Yeah, regardless, sources would definitely add credibility. And more credibility would help his book sales, so win-win really.

          TokyoJarrett wrote on July 21st, 2012
      • “Tell me more, tell me more!” My history teacher used to quote Grease when instructing the class to be pedagogical with our essays. He demonstrated a Grok squat and said that the ancient Greeks could hold the position for hours so they could remain clean as they sat. Sometimes to snap everyone to attention he’d hammerfist the top of a desk and he frequently yelled, not angrily. He had some entertaining teaching tactics.
        According to a study ( article here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/247006-Confusion-can-be-beneficial-for-learning ) researchers “found that by strategically inducing confusion in a learning session on difficult conceptual topics, people actually learned more effectively and were able to apply their knowledge to new problems.”

        Animanarchy wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Ah, the “Wait, WTF?” strategy.

          em wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • very interesting and to the point.

          Alain D, wrote on July 20th, 2012
      • Hi Orielwen & Graham – All of the information shared here is covered in greater detail in the book, which provides detailed endnotes to the studies. Also, you can find the references online broken down by topic/blog post at the book’s site. For example:

        SANE – http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/category/eat-more-smarter/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie

        Set-point weight – http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/category/set-point-weight

        I hope this helps. Thank you for your interest in the research!

        – Jonathan Bailor

        Jonathan Bailor wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Jonathan has it in his book. Every statement in Smarter Science of Slim comes with a PubMed reference. Sound way over board, but he actually did it.

      Andriy wrote on July 19th, 2012
  4. Just like my mentor always said, “Let the data drive the decisions”

    Ham-bone wrote on July 19th, 2012
  5. Truly what is old becomes new again. I cannot wait until zubaz pants come back in vogue!

    Paleo Bon Rurgundy wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • I’ll see your zubaz pants and raise you a Zardoz one-piece banana hammock/suspenders combo.

      Back on topic: This post made me sigh. One would think that trying multiple methods until something worked would naturally lead to an ancestrally centered approach (as is the case with the overwhelming majority of the success stories I have read on paleo blogs). Yet, rather than trust ourselves, we seek out authorities to tell us what the all mighty science says (which is what we already know). We have to see someone name dropping Harvard and Stanford before we pay attention. What is the purpose of the prestigious name dropping, to impress our coworkers? To puff out our chests with pride and WIN that argument against the stubborn Vegan? Bah… stuff like this make me want to associate myself with paleo less, not more.

      I realize I’m likely in the minority with this sentiment.

      -Tim

      Tim wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • Tim, I see where you are coming from. However, in this day and age, the only way that paleo will get recognition is through hard science. When it comes down to it, the paleo community wants to be able to help others find the path to healthiness.

        The only way others can trust us, is to be backed by scientists, and bigger names. People can question Mark and Rob Wolff, and even Loren Cordain, but they can’t question Large scale, university studies.

        Max Ungar wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • For me, the big thing about having the science is not to shove it in the vegan’s face or bash someone for losing weight eating low-fat.

          I like to have these things to show the people who come to me with real questions and concerns about what is best for their health.

          I’ve found that when someone has a firm foundation on which to base their belief in their efforts, their weight comes off faster, healthier, and stays off.

          So, I’m with you, Tim, in that the dogma and “so there!” part of this kind of thing is annoying.

          Graham wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Every ‘side’ has their studies to tout, their links to show. Ask those in the oil industry what they think of climate science (it’s junk science). Ask McDougall what he thinks of studies that show the benefits of animal foods (it’s junk science) and then ask yourself what you think of the studies Mcdougall likes/links to.

          I didn’t end up here because of the studies Mark points to. I ended up here because my personal experiences with low carb showed me it was beneficial and I wanted to learn more.

          I’m expecting someone to call me anti-science or insinuate I’m a luddite (like that nice fellow who makes the fitbit did) but I am neither of those things. I’m trying to keep us focused on how we actually convince people that something as complicated as a lifestyle (like paleo/primal) is a good one… and that’s surely not by sending them links to studies. We do that by living it, being humble about it, and communicating with compassion and understanding.

          -Tim

          Tim wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • I just finished reading Good Calories, Bad Calories and it seems clear that part of the reason we’re in this mess is because we listened to “experts”.
          I’m torn on the whole “Paleo needs hard science” front. Yes, “proof” would be good, but I also think personal experience is very powerful. I personally don’t think science will ever “prove” Paleo, so I tend to think that personal experience is more important generally.
          Yeah, I know that was a lot of quotes. :)

          Meesha wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Tim, I tend to agree with you! What got me into paleo wasn’t science, it was a friend asking me to try paleo for 30 days. I was about to go vegetarian out of frustration seeing my energy and work-out strength continue on a downward spiral. It worked! I’m hooked.

          With that said, I certainly do hope the science catches up with what we already know. I do get frustrated when I see the current food pyramid or trainers giving bad advice! I think only through the science community can we make a large scale change. Just my $.02!

          Liz wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Tim – I appreciate your point of view but I would stress that we SHOULD question large scale university studies; despite any scientist’s best efforts the science can become biased. In my research (for college coursework and for personal curiosity) I have found time and again that it pays to dig even DEEPER and discover WHY the research was conducted in the first place.

          I have found studies which–on the surface–were VERY convincing however when I discovered who funded the research all credibility was lost for me; for instance, can you really trust a paper asserting there is no such thing as global climate change once you realize the research was funded by an oil company?

          Anyway – I will get off my soapbox now…I just wanted to remind everyone that scientists are people too, and can be swayed by money as readily as you or I. :) I love learning about the connections between the different systems and impulses in our bodies whether from scientific papers, anecdotes from others or personal exploration; which is why I love reading all the comments here :)

          Tam wrote on July 20th, 2012
      • I don’t think this post is so much for us (Primal and loving life), but for those still in doubt and thinking about going Primal.

        I still enjoyed reading it, though.

        Nicole wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Yeah, I was wondering if I should post it to a doctor friend. Doctor “friend”. He’s more likely to double-take if he see’s all the credential-bashing.
          Or not.

          Ma Flintstone wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Agreed Nicole – this is a nice gateway article into the paleo mindset – for those that need ‘Science’ to hold their hands past the scary notion that there’s more to getting fit and healthy than counting calories, diet coke and hours of treadmill…

          I posted it on Facebook and the floodgates of Friday afternoon debatage appear to be opening…

          Pirate Jenny wrote on July 20th, 2012
      • We name-drop because that is the only thing people listen to… who is going to listen to an argument made by a guy who posited a blog on a random website?

        When somebody is skeptical and being bombarded by info on all fronts, the only way to get their attention is to demonstrate: “This guy is an expert. Here are his credentials. Here is what he says, and how he can make that claim”

        Ben wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • I agree. The problem of veracity isn’t within the group of believers. That’s a case of “preachin’ to the choir.” The dilemma is in shifting a 35+ year paradigm of unwellness.

          The advantages of having recognition and support from people in, ahem, so called, “esteemed positions of authority” is mainly in being able to shift nutritional dogma and paradigms but even more,shifting nutritional POLICY.

          Here’s a real-world example of what I’m referring to: I went to a mainstream nutritionist on the advice of my internist to receive counsel on my “so called unbalanced” style of eating.

          The nutritionist informed me immediately that he did not prescribe or endorse low carb nutrition and that Paleo nutrition showed some bit of promise but as yet was an “untested” theory existing in test tubes only and not tested long term on human subjects. So he would not recommend Paleo nutrition.

          The nutritionist advised me and send me home with an ADA diet with 5 servings of “healthy complex grains and starches such as whole wheat pasta and bread or brown rice and other grains”, 2 servings of low fat dairy, 3 servings of fruits, 6oz of low fat protein and 3tsp of added “healthy oils” per day.

          Within 2 days of following his plan, I reverted to having asthma symptoms again, blood sugars were elevated, food cravings were re-activated, sleep became more disrupted, arthritic pain and inflammation increases, I felt like I’d aged 10 years and had to go back on inhaled steroids and nebulizer treatments…long story short, I fired the nutritionist and resumed my low carb lifestyle, eliminating gluten and continued my evolution into Paleo nutrition.

          It’s taken me almost a month to get back to the point of where I was health-wise, pre-nutritionist. I’m still on inhaled steroids, still have sleep disruption and elevated levels of pain, but at least have been neb-free for a week.

          So how much easier would it be for people who aren’t familiar with the advantages and superiority of Paleo nutrition if they had informed doctors, allied health care,nutritionists and the media helping to educate and raise awareness of a better way of eating?

          People would no longer be subjected to ADA style – antiquated nutritional advice that contributes to their disease progression and sickness.

          The results would be a slimmer nation/world and perhaps a decrease in the pandemic growth of diseases of civilization such as diabetes, hyperinsulinemia, heart disease, and cancer.

          Susie wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Argumentum ad Authoritatum. People with letters after their name and special titles, I’ve met many of them. I even have a few myself, but I’d much rather trust my own feelings and my own body, than the pronouncements of an ‘expert’ but maybe that’s just me. Generally when I hear or see credentials being tossed around I assume someone is planning to sell me something.

          -Tim

          Tim wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Tim, your comment makes me think of an old “In Living Color” skit where people are dropping titles. One guy speaks up and says, “I once got VD in DC”. ;)

          Kiki wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • “Argumentum ad Authoritatum. People with letters after their name and special titles, I’ve met many of them.”

          One of the things I respect Mark for is the fact he has a Ph.D in biology but doesn’t call himself Dr. Sisson, Ph.D.

          Animanarchy wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • It’s not a fallacious appeal to authority to say “look, this guy who is actually skilled in the relevant areas of expertise has published, peer-reviewed, and accepted scientific papers that support claim X and the results have been independently replicated and others skilled in these areas do not have substantive claims that the findings or methodologies are in error”.

          That is what science is all about, when it’s done correctly. And no, not all science is done correctly. Just because a paper is published does not mean it is correct. But it is extremely difficult, as a layperson, to do the proper due diligence to evaluate a published paper – and if the findings in the paper haven’t been independently replicated then they are on shaky ground. This is the case for the vast majority of “run of the mill” research. Only extraordinary and/or powerfully compelling claims really get that kind of attention (such as faster-than-light neutrino’s — which was found to be due to a loose cable).

          It is only a fallacy to say some claim is true BECAUSE the person is an Authority. If the data and findings are published then there is no fallacy to cite them.

          And if you aren’t extremely well-educated so that you can properly evaluate such claims yourself, then you are in a real pickle because we are poor self-evaluators of our own cognitive abilities.

          It is, however, virtually always a complete waste of time to dig through someone’s argument when they are NOT educated in the relevant fields and cannot make cogent arguments and do not have data supporting their conclusions and they are using factual errors or fallacious arguments in support of their conclusions.

          If you cannot do the necessary math and you cannot make a sound formal argument, then your pet opinion on Magic Quantum Healing is irrelevant. Not because you are a nobody but because you’ve demonstrated that you don’t actually know what you are talking about.

          So, it’s not about the degree or the formal education — it’s about the demonstrated ability, the data, the methodology, and the consensus building processes that are part of “science”. Nailing all those down is a hard fought battle against our innate cognitive shortcomings — that is why and where the education come into play.

          Think of it like this — science, in some given field, is the best methodologies that have been identified for removing sources of factual error, illogic, and biases from conclusions. If those methodologies are not applied, then your conclusions are virtually worthless. And there are a LOT of them, even top scientists screw it up.

          How many of these do you know off the top of your head and know how to protect against them and take specific steps to do so?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

          The most common errors people make are Confirmation Bias, Selection Bias and the Hasty Generalization.

          And I definitely see some Hasty Generalizations being made (“it worked for me”), which exclude the data points where there are non-primal/paleo eaters who do NOT seem to have a problem with their diet.

          Just some thoughts.

          DarkStar wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • I agree that name-dropping is important. If not to entice others to at least read one’s scientific claims, then to add credibility to the claim itself. Authority does not cause credibility, but there is a correlation – I would trust a Harvard researcher more than just some average joe, unless Joe can go to greater lengths to prove his scientific ability.

          As for Marky-Mark, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he has a BS in Biology from Williams, not a PhD. He has, however, proved his worth by constant reference-citing and measured analyses of data (like not saying wheat is addictive, even though the literature suggests it and anecdotal evidence supports it – an incredibly mature take on research, one which McDougall would do well to learn). I would rank Mark at the level of Dr. or PhD, or even at the much sought-after title of “guru”. Keep workin’ the studies, because I’m Lovin’ It (wouldn’t it be ironic if that became a Paleo slogan?).

          Adam wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • I think the science is important to non-believers because they have heard so much erroneous “science” over the last few decades that is not CW in our society.

        For example, I can tell someone that I was a CW super-healthy vegetarian for 25 years, but after switching to a paleo diet, I effortlessly lost 15 pounds that I thought were a natural part of aging and ended up with more energy than ever. But invariable their reply is, “Sure you look better and feel better NOW but in 10 years you’ll be dead from clogged arteries from all that fatty meat!” I can’t prove the “in 10 years” argument wrong without scientific evidence that it won’t happen because high-fat diets and/or meat isn’t the cause of clogged arteries.

        Decaf Debi wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • For people who are unsure about the best way to be healthy, or who are used to looking to experts, I think it helps to have a person in authority, who has data to back them up, assert that something like a paleo diet has benefits that are measureable, and predictable.

          I am a person who tries things for myself to see how I feel doing/eating XYZ, and I venture to say many commenters here are the same. Many people are not like this though; they don’t want to do something that will damage their health in the long run (oh the irony), and after all the CW reversals (on transfats, HRT, etc) they may not be sure what to believe. Perhaps they feel like they were duped before – some of my relative sure have felt like this – and don’t want to fall prey to some kind of snake oil.

          I think especially with the astonishing (some would say) results of healing long-standing and previously-thought-to-be permanent chronic health problems, for many people it looks too good to be true, unless you have proper scientific studies to back it up.

          Joanne wrote on July 20th, 2012
      • Relax. Name dropping a bunch of scientists is not like name dropping someone famous.
        Science is essential to develop a broader understanding of our universe and ourselves. I think this post speaks more to the fact that scientists are discovering what should have always been obvious (but modern times has forgotten), and less about name dropping to prove something to vegans. This is good news because one day this will start translating to better medicine and a better health system. We need science to investigate and understand this lifestyle so that the knowledge can be passed on. I’m sorry, some random guy on the street who wears a paleo shirt proves nothing – even if he looks good.

        Casey wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • I’m quite relaxed actually. I have no quarrel with science as a process and/or method. It us a very useful tool. My issue is with how people use science.

          For some it is a method of self promotion. “See? I can link to all these people with letters after their name, I’m important and so are my ideas, because these expert letter laden people believe like I do.”

          For others it is a sword to slash at others arguments. “Ha! Take that you with your bogus single blind study link… I shall one up you with THIS much better link to a double blind study with twice as many people in it!” The funniest part being that people expect this process to then convert that person, rather than anger them because they’re being attacked.

          And no, I don’t own a paleo shirt but I’m not looking to prove anything, so maybe I should.

          -Tim

          Tim wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • Tim, every diet/lifestyle has its crowd with enthusiastic followers with their success stories.

        Furthermore, personal experience is nice, but it does not tell you how you will feel in a decade or so. Fruitarians are enthusiastic about eating only fruits and short term it is probably an improvement only in the long term you start missing the fat dissolved vitamins as the body has large stores of them.

        Are you prepared to life in every aspect the way our ancestors lived? I must say, I like modern life.

        We need science to tell us which aspects of ancestral life are important for health, especially long term.

        Victor Venema wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • That being said, the guest post was a bit too much name dropping to me. Science is not about authority, it counts whether you are right, not what title you have.

          Victor Venema wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • @Tim – so basically you’re telling any doubters to try it themselves in order to prove that it works. you point to yourself as proof that it works, because you did it and it worked. maybe you point to all the people who write in and comment on MDA as proof.

        so… what’s so bad about having some other well-documented groups people who it worked for? what is so different about expecting somebody to be convinced based on seeing something work for some test group of 100 people vs expecting them to be convinced based on the results of your test group of 1?

        josh wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Josh, I’d say you used the words ‘prove’ and ‘proof’ a few too times for my liking. I’m not trying to prove anything. I point to myself and say that it worked for me only to help the other person have hope and consider trying it for themselves. Will it work for them? I don’t know, they aren’t me, but I think it’s worth a shot. And even if it doesn’t end up working for them (for any number of reasons) those weeks where they buy grass fed beef will help support a few local farmers and I can’t say I’m unhappy about that.

          I ask you… what is more likely to convince someone to try something? I’m sitting at the allergist and the poor lady next to me, who is literally struggling for breath enough to speak to me, asks me how I have had such amazing results that I’m off my asthma meds. Should I quote her a litany of peer reviewed studies? Or should I describe how having one slice of pizza will have me wheezing for the entire next day? Hard data is nice to have, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it… but when it’s the thrust of your communications with others, well, you might come off as a pretentious know it all.

          -Tim

          Tim wrote on July 20th, 2012
      • I dont remember where I read it, but someone once likened modern nutrition science with surgery during the Renaissance (or something to that effect). We are still pretty much in the dark and there is alot of conjecture. We are going to make alot of mistakes on the way. But ultiately it’s for the good becuase the beauty of science is that it will always correct itself in the long run. Nutrition is an especially difficult topic to research i think because there are so many variables involved. At this point it’s probably best to make educated guesses and find out what works best for you.

        Agi wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • Tim, I know a number of women who are starving themselves on low-fat, high carb, fake food diets and burning out on cardio because they believe Calories In / Calories Out. These are beautiful women who are fat or skinny fat or ashen and haggard beyond their years; they are depressed and anxious, and tortured by “their” “failure” to just eat less or exercise more. I’m still morbidly obese (but everyone tells me I don’t look anywhere near 35), so I’m not exactly a poster child for success (yet!). These articles aren’t about smug points for me. They are about helping women, whom I care for and who are suffering physically and psychologically, to understand that this is not a fad or a fluke.

        em wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Hi em,

          I completely agree with helping people, women, men, children, all trapped like hamsters in the perpetual wheel of ‘eat eat eat, run run run, eat eat eat’, they all need help. I’m only trying to say that how we deliver a message can be as important as the message we deliver, even more so.

          That said, there are some for whom loads of links to Hardvards and Stanfords and is exactly what they’re looking for from a website. More power to them I suppose.

          -Tim

          Tim wrote on July 20th, 2012
        • Tim, EXACTLY. These are stubborn women who pride themselves on their nutrition knowledge and healthy choices, and have never been forced to re-evaluate what they think they know. They’re unwilling to experiment on themselves, because “everyone knows…” tautology. Eat more, do less seems like an outrageously extraordinary claim, so they hold out for extraordinary evidence. An article like this, with the appeals to authority, is precisely the sort of thing they’re holding out for. Until then, I might as well be a climate change denier. Oh that em, and her crackpot theories… she’s going to kill herself… I feel so sorry for her kids.

          em wrote on July 21st, 2012
        • Also, now I feel nostalgic for my hamster. She died a few months ago. We fed her all our left over organic whole grains, and she lived a nice long healthy hamster life. Heart healthy whole grains ftw! ;)

          em wrote on July 21st, 2012
      • I followed paleo with my heart, and have been spectacularly successful. My spouse, while supportive, wants to see the science. I dont care which route you take- filled with emotion or reason or something in between. Just join us!

        Kathy wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • The percentage of people who don’t read any dietary info at all other than what literature is in their doctors waiting room would probably be surprising. I would always ask my Mom, does your doctor tell you anything about diet or exercise? She has rheumatoid arthritis, my Dad has ankylosing spondylitis, brother, he has psoriatic arthritis, WTF! They all go to the same rheumatologist. I have always been an outside person, running, walking, cycling sports in the sun, maybe that has helped me not wind up like them. Anyway, after I discovered primal and realized so many personal bennies I talked my mom into trying it out, it’s changing her life and my dad’s life. So much less pain and inflammation. They have both lost 20 and 30 lbs. respectively. What does the dr. say? Keep doing whatever you are doing… Anyhow, friends and family have a real impact on those who maybe don’t know what else to do.

        Amy wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • Yea, I understand your point of view. It was in fact the disgust I felt at the bazillions of “doctor experts”, all of whom disagree on a whole boatload of subjects that caused me to toss my volumnous and extremely deep library of “diet” books and physiology studies – and go with my own personal physical reactions after having undergone a cleanse.
        Since no doctor can predict what the combination of factors: age, physiology, personality, current medicines, and food intake can do to our bodies – they can only surmise based on some numbers of study results gauged and exponentially presented as “fact”.
        Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater – it’s not about “science” – it’s about you, how healthy you are, and in the end – how you feel.

        Red wrote on July 23rd, 2012
      • “One would think that trying multiple methods until something worked would naturally lead to an ancestrally centered approach (as is the case with the overwhelming majority of the success stories I have read on paleo blogs).

        This is a false statement. All the success stories specifically credit Mark or others for their turnaround. Mark’s principles are thoroughly grounded in science via studies and observation. He has changed his stance on various things based on science. Perhaps you are new to MDA but it’s very science driven. As you are a “dystopic writer” it makes sense that you would take an antagonistic position so I can understand your positions a bit better though that lens. However, I’m not sure why additional confirmation makes you uncomfortable. The fact that you assume that people want this information to fight with Vegans is a bit odd and a bit telling. This blog gives confirmation that helps people stay on track and that is afterall the point of MDA (that and pay for Mark’s lifestyle in Malibu). That you can win arguments against Vegans is simply a pleasant side effect.

        David Cole wrote on July 25th, 2012
    • I can’t wait for this! got my pair stashed deep in the closet waiting for their revival

      Ted wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • To Susie above…

        I thoroughly understand the problem of responding or seeking advise from a nutritionist. By the way, a nutritionist and a Registered Dietition are very different by way of lots more education required of the Registered Dietition.

        Having said all that, my daughter is a Registered Dietition and I battle her daily concerning the Paleo/Hunter Gatherer lifestyle.

        Hopefully, after years of testimonials going to their local nutritionist or Registered Dietition with their own personal health journey, maybe just maybe, all the “health guru’s” will start to listen and see the overwhelming results in this lifestyle.

        Donna J. wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Hi Donna! Yes, he is an RD, PhD…blah, blah, blah and not to besmirch his name,nor cast derogatory aspersions on professional letters, but having met him, I’m pretty sure he would be one of the guys out there dropping cred to which someone would reply, “Hey, I once got VD in DC!” :)

          Susie wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Wait, what? They went out of style? Next thing they will be telling me my mullett likes out of place

      Mike wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • The mullet isn’t a hairstyle, it’s a way of life, according to Jared Allen.

        Trav wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • You hit the nail on the head Trav, it is a lifestyle. So is wearing a matching velour jump suit with sandals. (Which I do- all black with a white pin stripe on the sides. It’s more of a late fall outfit. For added class, say out for a Sunday morning brunch on a crisp day, I wear my tuxedo t-shirt under the zip up top. Often worn with sandals. No socks! Socks with sandals, now THAT is a major fashion faux pas).

          Paleo Bon Rurgundy wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • +1

          mars wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • “Socks with sandals, now THAT is a major fashion faux pas).”

          Depends on where you live — in Seattle?! It’s de rigeur!

          Elenor wrote on July 20th, 2012
    • History repeats itself and we can always learn from it. The past is a wonderful thing to learn from. You only learn from your past experiences.

      Andrew wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Paleo Bon–

      I had to look up what Zubaz pants are! They’re great! Think I’m going to buy some…..maybe we can launch a resurgence…

      ZippyChick wrote on July 21st, 2012
  6. Awesome!

    Nikhil Hogan wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • All class.

      Ma Flintstone wrote on July 19th, 2012
  7. “Endorsed by the world-wide scientific community including top doctors at the Harvard Medical School, John Hopkins, and UCLA, and approved as curriculum for registered dieticians (RDs) by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics…”

    This makes me so happy.

    Kristina wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Now, we just need to get people to listen to the experts, not their next-door neighbor or the guy in Men’s Health magazine.

      Ben wrote on July 19th, 2012
  8. Guest posts are often hit or miss but this one was an out-of-the-park hit!

    Groktimus Primal wrote on July 19th, 2012
  9. I wanted to do a back flip after reading this.

    zack wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Backflip

      here’s a helpful tutorial to get you started on doing backflips. i’m sure mark approves of having fun while exercising. remember to be careful and use a spotter!

      jensen wrote on July 19th, 2012
  10. “eat more and exercise less” love it.

    One question though, you say you did all of this scientific research, and read all fo these scientific papers. Had you heard of the paleo/primal approach before you started your research? If so, were you against it? You say you were a personal trainer with CW on your side. Did this effect your pre-researched view on paleo/primal? How so?

    Awesome Post.

    Max Ungar wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Hi Max – Thank you.

      I had not. I started this research over a decade ago…so it was a bit before primal/paleo became as pervasive as it is today. My first exposure to it was the work of S. Boyd Eaton, Marjorie Shostak and Melvin Konner

      Regarding my pre-researched view: One of the reasons I am now so passionate about sharing this research is because of how different it is from the CW I was taught as a trainer. I was telling my clients to eat less and exercise more and leaving them worse off than when they started. This made me try to–as much as is humanly possible–start from scratch and see what the studies showed…as what I thought going in clearly wasn’t working. Interestingly that lead me to a very primal conclusion :)

      Thanks again for your kind words

      – Jonathan Bailor

      Jonathan Bailor wrote on July 19th, 2012
  11. Fantastic article!

    JennaRose wrote on July 19th, 2012
  12. I’ve always thought that deciding to eat less was like deciding to have less blood or deciding to keep sleeping once you’re wide awake or deciding to have more money…

    Graham wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • +10!

      Elenor wrote on July 20th, 2012
  13. This was so awesome. It sounds like Jonathan will be a regular guest poster in the coming weeks?

    I can not wait to learn more. This is exciting stuff!

    Primal Toad wrote on July 19th, 2012
  14. Interesting acronym: SANE – considering I was always insanely hungry eating a low-fat high-carb “eat less, exercise more” diet. Gross!

    Hello delicious, body shredding fats :)

    Helen wrote on July 19th, 2012
  15. Loved this – concise, clear and very well-researched. Hooray to eating better and exercising smarter. They should print this in school textbooks.

    Cat wrote on July 19th, 2012
  16. This is really great, but I REALLY want to see the citations of these articles/studies.

    cTo wrote on July 19th, 2012
  17. I believe it, but need the references please.

    Carol wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • He does have a book out you can buy. Since he has done a lot of work, those who want to see the data links can support him by purchasing the book, just as I support Mark, Robb Wolf and others.

      Pure Hapa wrote on July 19th, 2012
  18. Great post Jonathan …looking forward to future posts.

    John wrote on July 19th, 2012
  19. Well, I don’t know when Mark actually started his research so he really may be leading the way, but Dr. Gundry’s Diet Evolution was written almost 10 years ago. Dr. Gundry, a notable heart surgeon and inventor of a special heart pump, did his own journey of research
    for heart health, losing weight and going very Primal.
    I just wish any of these “newcomers” that are “spring boarding” their “new, I discovered a better way of eating and it’s Paleo” give
    Credit where Credit is due in research and who really was a forerunner of this information.
    I follow Mark daily because I thought he was first in this information, but he may not be.
    At any rate, Dr. Gundry and Mark Sisson will be the ONLY two I follow as they seem to be the frontrunners as tested, tried and survived in their research.
    All others are just jumping on the “bandwagon” of their success and hard work.

    Donna J. wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • I don’t care who was first. Mark is reasoned, informative and inspiring. That’s what counts with me.

      Orielwen wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • Word.

        em wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • If what you say IS true than there is only ONE way to choose a winner.

      [Channeling my inner Billy Zane]: It’s a walk-off!

      Paleo Bon Rurgundy wrote on July 19th, 2012
  20. I work at UCLA and participate in their employee health improvement program. Through the program is how I found this site (and I am eternally grateful to my employer!!). After nearly 10 weeks of “boot camp,” I’ve learned for myself what the benefits are of quality exercise as well as the benefits of going primal with my diet (cutting out wheat, especially!) It’s great to have studies to back it, but honestly, doesn’t eating whole, non-processed, chemical/hormone free foods and exercising in short bursts with a “heavier” load make sense? Sure beats counting points on Weight Watchers while stuffing my face with their little one point, processed snack cakes and running on a treadmill like a hamster for an hour every day! (

    Mary wrote on July 19th, 2012
  21. I eat less eating primal than any other way. Sometimes I find it hard to eat 2000 calories but, like they said, quality counts. I’m never hungry, have tons of energy, and feel great. Even on days that I only end up eating 1000 calories. I know primal is the way to go just from doing it, but I like to have these study’s to prove to my friends and family that I’m not going to have a stroke or heart attack from “all that terrible food.”

    Draz wrote on July 19th, 2012
  22. Not enough citations and no mention of the role of dietary fat in SANE acronym…avoidance on purpose? Please advise. :)

    Kati wrote on July 19th, 2012
  23. Loved the guest post, but there was a small repeated grammatical error. While John Hopkins is a fine name, the are actually spelt Johns(notice the extra s) Hopkins. And while it seems unbelievable, his parents really did decide to call him that…

    Hunter wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Is “spelt” a word?

      lol

      mars wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • Yes. British variant. Also, a grain.

        em wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Hi Hunter – Thank you for catching that. Fixed! :) – Jonathan Bailor

      Jonathan Bailor wrote on July 19th, 2012
  24. Gosh, I would sure like to see a link to the the “single largest meta-analysis of health and fitness ever conducted.” Or at least the title of the study and the journal where it was publushed, Without that info, I’m sorry, but this whole article comes across as a little skeevy.

    Erica wrote on July 19th, 2012
  25. *published*

    Erica wrote on July 19th, 2012
  26. Shared — had to keep myself from being preachy on FB, but if a couple of people read it and the message truly resonates with 1 person, I’ll call it a success!

    Kris wrote on July 19th, 2012
  27. I’d be more impressed if you actualy listed the specific references, rather than saying ” a study done at”.
    Some of us actually like to go over the specific methods and data to confirm the quality of the data.

    Jeffrey P. Leake M.D. wrote on July 19th, 2012
  28. Thank you for all of your kind words and wonderful comments! :)

    I will reply more usefully asap…in the meantime, references can be found:

    – In total: http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/the-book/bibliography/

    – Broken down by topic: in the book & in relevant blogs…for example:
    SANE – http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/category/eat-more-smarter/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
    Set-point weight – http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/category/set-point-weight/

    Thank you again and I will be back asap. – Jonathan Bailor

    Jonathan Bailor wrote on July 19th, 2012
  29. Vigorous-intensity activities… CrossFit

    lockard wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • I occasionally Cross Fit. They say it is for everyone but that is not true. If you are really fit and want to compete with ours, okay, cool. If you don’t give a hoot about competing against others and work at your own pace then also cool. If you are the average joe and not really fit then I say no- even WITH the mandated ON-RAMP. Why?

      Lack of flexibility.
      Weak tendons and joints.
      Too much too fast.
      AMRAPs will destroy you.
      Cost.

      For real strength and conditioning- not to mention affordable- that you can do almost anywhere is with your own body weight. I greatly recommend the book “Convict Conditioning”.

      The book covers it all: history, joints, the nervous system, form all coupled with a well defined 6 by 10 exercise program (with variants) to get you on the path to functional and affordable power.

      Side note: Cross Fit concerns me regarding the long term impact on my joints due to competitive time limits. Form can suffer, cause injury, etc. And yes, they can be the case with any exercise/physical activity. I just think the competitively timed rounds are not health friendly to the average Joe or Jane.

      For those who say nay, well, agree to disagree.

      Paleo Bon Rurgundy wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • I don’t want to post too many replies, so I am limiting myself to this one, regarding your Side Note … one of the main points of CrossFit is scalability. When I do AMRAPS, I realize up front that I am nowhere near fit enough to do them as quickly as some other folks do. What I *can* do is *my* best. I can follow my coach’s advice and instructions. I can do more than I think I can, but she actually does know my limits and makes sure I’m safe. Maybe your experience with CrossFit has been at a different type of box than mine, but this 57-year-old woman knows it’s good functional fitness if taught correctly!

        Becky wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • I can respect your feelings on CrossFit – however I don’t want CrossFit to get a bad rep so here are $.02- part of CrossFit is knowing where your at and not going too far to the point of hurting yourself- like you said any gym/workout has the possibility to cause injury- and yes it is costly – i have been trained be the “experts” and now do it on my own to avoid the cost- you will see me doing pull-ups from the lil kids swing set and box jumps on the picnic tables in the local park

        lockard wrote on July 20th, 2012
  30. Awesome analysis of what Mark has already discovered! My biggest challenge is lifting heavy things although I do like to hoist the wife occasionally! (125lbs)

    Yes I’m a pastor and yes I am not at all prudish– I have preached to my congregation of heavyweights about walking, sprinting, and even not bringing carb laden dishes to the church potlucks. So far they have not totally repented but neither have they defrocked me and chased me from teh pulpit!

    Pastor Dave wrote on July 19th, 2012
  31. Someone! Please! Post list or links to mentioned studies… NEED SCIENCE …HURRRY.

    THIS ARTICLE NEEDS CITATIONS!!!!

    Sarah wrote on July 19th, 2012
  32. Eating primal for the last year and a half has improved my health immensely even though I’ve spent that time living like it’s all one continuous party, much of it spent scraping a living on the streets. That’s enough proof for me.
    People used to say things like, “You do oxys or something eh?” Not so anymore. Occasionally I get told I look healthy and get compliments on my physique and climbing / maneuvering in nature skills. Going to the beach is a self-esteem enhancing experience these days. ;)

    Animanarchy wrote on July 19th, 2012
  33. I only wish I could have read something like this 3 or 4 years ago…but now that I DO know I’m taking full advantage. I think we have a long way to go before the general public will accept this, but this is a step forward. Thanks to both you and Mark for all the work you do…it’s so comforting to know that SOMEONE out there actually cares about our health!

    Stacie wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • To be honest I think Jonathan is a step BETWEEN Conventional Wisdom and Primal. Jonathan is saying “cut out processed food” but he’s also saying “avoid animal fat”. I think it would be a step backwards for Primal people to start following Jonathan but would perhaps be an easier way of getting more people off the SAD diet in the first place. I’d call it Semi-SAD personally.

      JonnyPrimal wrote on July 20th, 2012
  34. Great post. Glad to see another person brought primal by science.

    CMHFFEMT wrote on July 19th, 2012
  35. Kind of thing that leaves you scratching your head

    rob wrote on July 19th, 2012
  36. My wifes grandma died a few years back and as we were going through her old recipes, I found a 3×5 card with a paleo/low carb diet written on it. It was for weight loss. The date was something like 1948. I cracked up. Nothing new under the sun. Oh, she lived to be 100 yrs.old. Older then Jack Lalane. Go figure.

    Dave wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • My mom and grandma have always cut carbs when they wanted to lose weight. They’d just not eat potatoes or pasta or bread with dinner. Transitioning into Paleo for me seemed a logical extention of what they knew all the time.

      Jen wrote on July 19th, 2012
  37. Hi. I enjoyed Mr. Bailor’s post and am quite glad for the street cred of the endorsements from major scientific institutions. However, it is unclear whether the studies meta-analyzed were looking at whole food natural, lower carb, grain free diets or CW plus more protein, veggies, and fruit? I’m guessing due to the relative dearth of the former, that the studies meta-analyzed were generally of the latter type diet. Would this confound results for using it to promote the SoS or PB approach? Just curious, even if that was the case, it still sounds like a great study and it is still an extremely important finding to note that the more SANE foods included, the better the participants did. Also, from what I could glean on Mr. Bailor’s Web sites and the Amazon link to the book, he is adamantly against the fear of fat and Ancel Keys hysteria but then recommends “as little oil” as possible and what appears to be predominantly lean meat in the program. Wondering why.

    Ms. Zing wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Ingesting refined sugar requires the utilization of micronutrients. It stands to reason ingesting refined fat or protein would too.

      Animanarchy wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • That does make sense as oils are more refined than fat in whole foods. I would assume this is worse the more processed the oil and type of oil and perhaps the author refers more to the highly processed and damaged PUFAs and resultant trans fats (at high heat) of seed, soy, and vegetable oils. I generally think of cold-pressed olive oil, coconut oil and grass fed butter as healthy.

        Ms. Zing wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Jonathan Bailor wrote on July 19th, 2012
      • Hi Jonathan, I’m a bit confused. In that FAQ you linked, you say to use as little butter as possible, and also to have 4-6 meals a day. You also mention using low-fat Greek yogurt; you say full-fat milk is inSANE while skim milk is okay; you’re arguing for lean meats (chicken breasts?)… none of this stuff strikes me as being very primal.

        Dan wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Bailor’s recommendations may not be Primal, but are they Primal enough…? There is disagreement about the fat content of paleolithic diets. And there is also some evidence that some people respond better to fat restriction than carb restriction (Google “genotype-appropriate diet”). If Bailor’s data backs up 60% percent of strict Primal tenets, that’s more in common than not. No need to go splitting hairs — especially not on a diet that emphasizes self-experimentation and customization over strict adherence.

          em wrote on July 19th, 2012
        • Sorry, the title of this post is: “Ancient Wisdom Confirmed by Modern Science”. Seems to me the only primal thing about SANE is that he’s recommending carbohydrate-reduction, but other than that there’s almost no convergence. He even states that vegetarians can be SANE, and if that’s primal I no longer know what is primal.

          Dan wrote on July 20th, 2012
        • Let me try again. Bailor’s point is that Calories In / Calories Out isn’t the whole picture, and creating a calorie deficit doesn’t work. I think that message is important enough (and Primal enough) on its own. So he recommends a different diet. Loren Cordain recommends a different diet, and so does WAPF. It doesn’t bother me. We have Primal folks who can’t do dairy even as a sensible indulgence and Paleo guys (Robb Wolf!) who do. You gotta find what works for YOU… But people never will if they’re stuck on a completely erroneous model of nutrition and weight maintenance. So I say, Meh! Close enough!

          em wrote on July 20th, 2012
      • “Note: Eating reduced fat/low-fat anything is only desirable if the fat is not replaced with sugar. Low-fat food that is chock-full of sugar is terrible for health and fat loss.”

        lol.. don’t eat low fat dairy then.

        mars wrote on July 20th, 2012
    • Both Cordain and Wolf, stress “lean meat” and even Mark’s book avoids the whole “fat burner” issue. I suspect it is a bow to CW to avoid being compared to Atkins.
      I thought this article was perfect for sharing on Facebook, and I did.

      Greg wrote on July 22nd, 2012
  38. I checked out the first page of the book, and this is in the forward:

    “For example, we’ve published papers from the Nurse’s Health Study indicating that at least 90% of cases of type 2 diabetes and at least 80% of heart attacks can be prevented by lifestyle changes, including being physically active, maintaining a healthy weight, and following a diet high in fruits, vegetables and *whole grains*, and *low in saturated* and trans fats and refined carbohydrates.” (emphasis mine)

    That doesn’t exactly sound like the medical community has embraced the Primal Blueprint to me. It doesn’t sound very different from the CW at all, actually.

    I don’t think adding in “refined carbohydrates” at the end of that sentence is enough to warrant the headline of this post. It actually just sounds like more of the same old tune to me. Low fat, lots of whole grain, exercise. You’ll be fiiiiiiiiine.

    merryish wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • I found the portion of the forward you quoted as I was starting to read the book. I note that it refers to older papers published by the author of the forward, not previous or current papers by Jonathon Bailor. I will continue to read the book before deciding that this is just CW in disguise.

      BJML wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • Read on only a few pages and you’ll find recommendations to consume no/low fat cottage cheese, no/low fat greek yoghurt and lean meat. Eek, what’s Mark doing allowing this guy space on The Apple?

      JonnyPrimal wrote on July 20th, 2012
  39. As a researcher and confirmed data geek AND 100% Primal, I sincerely appreciate this article. Well written!

    mars wrote on July 19th, 2012
    • If you’re 100% Primal then you won’t appreciate this article once you read the book!

      JonnyPrimal wrote on July 20th, 2012
      • Yeah.. I’m not understanding the recommendations for low fat dairy and 40/20/20 either… hmmmm

        mars wrote on July 20th, 2012
  40. This guy is OBNOXIOUS! Is he even qualified to conduct such a rigorous scientific analysis (if it can even be called that)? The fact that he doesn’t even site his sources is a terrible sign (please at least correct this if you can before the academic integrity lords get too angry). Why would we need his book when we have Mark’s?

    Tarantula wrote on July 19th, 2012

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

© 2014 Mark's Daily Apple