This narrow view limits the progress we can make. When scientists are skeptical of practitioners’ wisdom, and when practitioners ask scientists to speculate, we all loose. It is much better for us respect each other and learn from what each can bring to the table. There are some outstanding examples of cooperation between scientists and practitioners: some coaches constantly put biomechanics research into practice, and certainly scientists are trying to create useful models for the effect of exercise and diet on gene expression. Mark’s posts on gene expression and health are great for helping everyone see the whole picture.

Genes constantly change their expression levels in response to their cellular environment. In many cases, we do not know yet which environmental changes have the greatest influence on each gene, or which genes have the greatest influence on the healthy function of each tissue type. We also do not know which actions we can take to most influence the cellular environment of different tissues. All of these environmental changes are extremely difficult to measure in a statistical sense, and studies like this are expensive to conduct. I look forward to the day when we overcome these obstacles, and we begin to develop useful biological models for diet, exercise, and health.

Alex, sorry you feel the references were a “waste of time” and understanding gene expression is “useless”. The book will explain all this in detail. I guess I missed Bonnie’s comments earlier as well. She suggests that there is no “good” or “bad” gene expression; and she is correct. Genes don’t know or care when they switch on or off. They simply respond to the signals they are given by other genes or by chemical signals in their immediate environment. Type 2 diabetes happens when some specific genes are desperately responding to a chronic excess of toxic sugar in your bloodstream. They don’t know or care that you get sick in the long term because they are only responding in the short term (to keep you alive or to try to maintain homeostasis). Autoimmune dieases are the result of genes associated with your immune function over-reacting to perceived threats (which may or may not be real). Mesenchymal stem cells “decide” to become fat cells or muscle cells or bone cells depending on signals you (through your diet and/or other behavior) send the genes that are involved in their maturation or transformation. When I talk about “good” or “bad” gene expression, I have “anthropomorphosized” the discussion with an understanding that my readers get what I mean by good and bad – that some gene direction is favorable to health, longevity, fitness, etc and that some is not.

Genes are being switched on (or not) every second of every day of your life. You reference working out. Your workout choices most assuredly direct which genes involved in muscle growth, energy production, bone density, etc get switched on (or not). That’s why marathoners look different from body-builders. It’s not magic. It all comes down to the signals generated by YOUR choice of activity (as well as your choice of what you eat in fueling that activity). Genes respond to everything we do. Not all, of course, but many more than most people could ever imagine. That’s the personal power that we wield and what we at MDA find so fascinating.

I have great respect for your dietary advice and the outstanding results that you and others have when following the primal blue print. I also suspect that you are correct in thinking that good diet may influence gene expression in a good way.

As a scientist, I would ask that you please refrain from discussing ‘good’ and ‘bad’ gene expression, as science has yet to establish what these mean. There is no such thing as negative gene expression, and there are only a few well established examples of ‘bad’ genes or ‘bad’ gene expression. And even for those examples, the gene may be both good and bad, and the mechanisms controlling gene expression are unknown. Truth be told, scientists look at changes in gene expressions and can make little sense of them beyond a few unexplained patterns and correlations.

It is interesting to see how scientific inquiry gets translated into polarized popular opinion. Please remember that science is a human process; it is NOT objective and NOT unbiased. Scientific results can be published, but remain unaccepted by the research community. Meaning, don’t believe everything you read, even if you read it in a scientific journal.

I apologize for standing on my soapbox for a minute. You have an outstanding blog and great advice for people. Keep up the good work!

Best Wishes,
Bonnie

Though this is trekking and not your form of athletics, you might note the mathematical smarts that went into these guys betting the 700-mile across Antarctica by over 6 days. They did it on bacon, butter, and cheese.

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2009/01/theory.html

Do the math.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-to-the-primal-eating-plan/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-primal-blueprint/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-athlete-compromises/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/glycogen/

Is it really one or the other, or can I incorporate the Primal Eating lifestyle into my athletic lifestyle? Also, didn’t our ancestors eat whole grains? What’s so bad about whole grains like millet, spelt, whole wheat, and oats? I hear everywhere how great they are for you. Also, how does your approach differ from “The Maker’s Diet” by Jordan Rubin?

Anyway, thanks for listening to my confusion. Maybe I’ll find the answers with a bit more research on your site.

Sincerely,
Jen