This Free the Animal blog post pretty much covers it.
Anyone delved into 180degree health?
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Its not far way from primal, and I am hardcore primal, but its got some key topics to debate with strong evidence to back it up.
An interesting one was the idea that starch dominated diet (root veg, potatoes etc not sugars) do a better job of raising body metabolism and building lean mass over fat than a fat dominated diet.
His main philosophy:
and a bit of his evidence:
Please don;t just throw in an opnion here, Im looking for hte people who have delved deep into technicalities and understand it inside out.
In always open to new ways of thinkin as is Mark
No more diets. No more stress. Health made easy. Living made incredible.
OK, I won't throw in an opinion about the guy's theories. I like his style though. He has a sense of humor and is not rigid. My personal experience is that most grains, especially wheat, cause lots of problems for me. As I have mentioned before, I do eat rice, potatoes and corn in moderation. This has not prevented me from having much improved health.
Edit: The above was based entirely on the link Rockstar posted. I see that there is another side to Stone. But I stand by my statement.
Last edited by Hedonist; 10-06-2010 at 02:30 PM.
I was on a similar diet for a year (T Factor). I stayed thin, ran many miles, had cravings for fat the entire time and started feeling older rapidly. When I went off it, and back to SAD, I felt years younger. I think the high carb, low fat diet was slowly killing me.
I was low-carb primal for about 6 months, when I read Stone's work. My body temperature was low-ish at the time (96 f), so I did RRARF for a little over a month. Overfeeding, with an emphasis on carbs will can certainly raise body temperature. I gained about 0.9-1.2 f in body temperature during that time (and put on about 5 lbs of weight).
I felt like I had better recovery after RRARF, although that was fairly subjective. I also think I'm more resistant to getting cold, I was outside walking with my lowish carb paleo buddy yesterday and he said, "Brr, it's getting really cold out!" and was shivering a little bit. I hadn't really noticed the cool temperatures. Again, a pretty subjective measurement.
So how does starch stack up versus fat as a fuel source:
* Starch is cheaper and convenient. It's cheap and easy to cook up a bunch of potatoes.
* High-starch diet is easier to make a low omega-6 diet. A problem I had with low-carb primal was that it didn't always have the time and funds for good, large primal meals. My fallback food was frequently nuts, which I think was problematic in that I was getting in too much omega-6 in the diet.
* There are populations eating high-starch diets with very good health. Is it optimal health? Debatable for sure, but they have good health, and far superior to the health of someone on a SAD diet. Quechua, Kitavan, Yuzurlhara, Pima all had good health on high starch. There is definitely a strong case to say that starch from vegetables is superior to refined carbohydrates, sugar or starch from whole grains.
* Starch is good for mass gain. I'm currently trying to build muscle and eat lots of calories, so starch works well for this goal.
There is the theory that the insulin released from a carbohydrate meal isn't the problem, but rather the insulin resistance which keeps insulin levels elevated far longer than they should be.
Peronsally, I've done intermittent fasting on low-carb, and done it on high-starch, and didn't notice a difference in terms of hunger levels. When I was on a SAD diet, there was no way I would have been able to do IF, it would have been miserable. So I put weight behind the theory that you don't need to be low-carb in order to be a fat burner when you haven't eaten a meal in a long time.
Robb Wolf was asked about low-body temperature (a dude had 96.3 f), and he said unless you had symptoms of hypothyroidism (low energy, dry skin, etc.), then he didn't see a problem with it ("put on a sweater"). He cited the fact that low metabolism has a lower body temperature, and so lower oxidative damage and stress on the body. In micro-organisms with a lowered metabolism, they live quite a bit longer. In mice, it's not so cut and dried, some studies show longer life, others put this into question. Of course, in humans, that's the big question!
The counter-argument for a higher body temperature, despite the greater oxidative stress, is that this correlates with greater mitochondrail activity. This in theory means a greater ability for your body to deal with toxins (expelling mercury from a diet high in wild salmon for example) - I haven't seen anything that attempts to measure this ability though, so it's speculative as to whether this is an important promoter of health or a negligible variable. White blood cell count also correlates with metabolism, the greater the white blood cells, the greater the ability to ward off pathogens. In starvation experiments, white blood cell count was reduced by 35%. I haven't seen numbers on white blood cell counts where body temperature is only slightly reduced (1 or 2 f) though. If there is a measurable difference, the ability to keep pathogens in check within the digestive system would make a case for starch being a promoter of health.
On Stone vs Nikoley: Stone was a dick in many of his accusations and probably way over-the-top with a lot of that stuff. Whatever, I'm not going to let a cat fight between some nutritional bloggers sway my own dietary decisions.
In defense of fat: Stone, nor the high-metabolism advocates, have anything bad to say about fat (other than high omega-6) other than it's not as effective at raising metabolism during a period of rest and overfeeding. Fat is pretty wonderful stuff. I like lots of coconut oil or butter with my starch
Bottom line: I think there are large variations in people's response to starch. Just like people gave primal or paleo a 30 day shot, and at the end of the time said, "Wow, I feel great! I can't believe I ever doubted the advice to avoid grains and eat saturated fat." I think it's worth giving a RRARF-type high-starch diet a 30 day shot. I found that I was happier overall on a higher starch content (so far, it's only been four months of higher starch ... I reserve the right to change my fat/carb ratios in the future :P).
I was caught up with his bullshit for a little while. Thankfully I gained some sense and left. He tends to borrow good ideas from the paleo sphere and mix it up with silly ideas.
And Buffalo thankyou for that well thought out response, I appreciate your feedback of your experience. I'm staying primal but might add in a few more yams here and there. Atm Mark still covers far more issues and offers a more compelte picture of what optimal health should be. However 180degree is stil miles ahead of anyone on SAD
No more diets. No more stress. Health made easy. Living made incredible.
I've had blood sugar issues all my life, and I've become more sensitive to carbs as I've gotten older, especially starch. If Matt's system works for some folks, that's fine. But, it would be idiocy for me to believe that eating lots of starch is going to somehow fix what has always been broken. Hell, eating lots of starch for years is what made me fat and lethargic as I hit my late 30s. For me, Matt's system would be going back to the same starch-laden diet but expecting a different result, and I'm not stupid enough or insane enough to try it. Eating a low-starch, lowish carb diet has been working great for six years. Why change it?