Corrupt and Integral Tradition present the hottest book on radical environmentalism this year:
Pentti Linkola's "Can Life Prevail?"
Reader's comments about the book:
Environmentalism does not make sense when approached from most angles. Linkola's version makes perfect sense.
Linkola's cry, "Can Life Prevail?," does not just ask the question--it provides us with an answer to how we can win.
by Frank Azzurro
There is much debate over natural diet and what that means for our current consumption. Obviously, our ancestors didn't have McDonald's, but we should also be questioning very basic assumptions about what governments tell their respective people in regard to a safe and healthy diet:
For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don’t look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly plant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite as much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet.
To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.
If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far
less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed.
There are more great points brought up in this article, mainly surrounding how cows are treated, and simple analyses showing that cow milk is for cows and human milk is for humans.
In Europe, local cultures brought us niceties like Italian and French cheeses, Polish and German sausage, etc., but when all of those customs were picked up in the United States, suddenly there was a huge influx of dairy and meat consumption that is far beyond what is necessary. Our decadent lifestyles in "developed" nations have led us to consume the richest products of these cultures instead of developing a sane and healthy diet mostly free of dangerous chemicals and unnatural ingredients. Throw in fast food and one can understand just how damaging our modern diets can be.
Farmer subsidies encourage the production of cow's milk in the US, and government-sponsored initiatives follow through by encouraging US citizens to drink more milk and eat more beef (yes, even recently, where obesity has become a huge problem). This has resulted in hormones and penicillin making its way into our diets, abnormal growth patterns, and perhaps even higher incidents of disease and cancers – caused by continued consumption of something that not only was unnatural to begin with (cow's milk for humans), but is only supposed to occur in infancy.
The point we should take from this information is that nature and traditional culture typically know what's best for our bodies. Anything unnatural that's introduced into our diets is only going to be harmful down the road, especially if we are told to consume vast quantities of such things.
One extreme form of following a natural diet is the Paleo diet. Some examples of what to eat and what to avoid when following this diet include:
Eat none of the following:
• Grains- including bread, pasta, noodles
• Beans- including string beans, kidney beans, lentils, peanuts, snow-peas and peas
• Potatoes
• Dairy products
• Sugar
• SaltEat the following:
• Meat, chicken and fish
• Eggs
• Fruit
• Vegetables (especially root vegetables, but definitely not including potatoes or sweet potatoes)
• Nuts, eg. walnuts, brazil nuts, macadamia, almond. Do not eat peanuts (a bean) or cashews (a family of their own)
• Berries- strawberries, blueberries, raspberries etc.Try to increase your intake of:
• Root vegetables- carrots, turnips, parsnips, rutabagas, Swedes
• Organ meats- liver and kidneys (I accept that many people find these unpalatable and won’t eat them)
There may be some debate over the specifics – certainly, bread and aged cheese are parts of the diet in traditional European culture - but there probably isn’t any harm in following the diet, as it’s grounded in common sense when considering our genetic makeup has not changed significantly in thousands of years.
Cows, chickens, eggs, milk – none of this was ever meant to be consumed in exactly the same absurd quantities across millions of people and different geographical locations. Corporate farming may have brought us equality on the supermarket shelf, but has certainly messed with our diets, and now we're seeing serious consequences.
Comments
No, No, No.
What a funnily modern perspective.
"Traditional Europeans" had one goal in mind when choosing food: stay alive. Can you imagine it freezing outside, and a bundled up pagan mother is going out to milk the cows, when suddenly in a green flash a citizen of the future appears through time travel to tell her "Sorry mam, cow's milk is for cows."
Meanwhile her 11 children go without sustenance and die.
Your extremely diverse food options in this age may make it entertaining to think like this about food, but it's really much simpler when you start living self sufficiently. Your choices are dictated by what keeps you alive, and what is available to you. And the truth is, ancient Europeans didn't always every item on the dainty paleo diet available to them, and modernity is the very force that brings all of those ingredients within your grasp. Hence, the paleo diet is really a modern diet.
The diet is supposed to
The diet is supposed to mimick what our ancestors ate before agriculture. I suggest you try to milk a wild animal, my guess is it isn't very easy.
Re: No, no, no.
Really - cow's milk keeps people alive? grains, beans, stuff that is generally poisonous unless cooked or baked keeps you alive? This simply isn't true. You're not going back far enough apparently, when you speak of the "ancients". Paleo = essentially what man would eat prior to modern agriculture. Hence this is far from a modern diet heavy on milk, grains, beans, etc. Eat what's natural and what our bodies are wired for - makes perfect sense.
Good, but...
...this Paleo-diet seems to me like overkill. Granted, our current dietary habits leave much to be desired, but why go back to eating like our ancestors in the Paleolithic, when humans did fairly well with their changes in nutrition from the Neolithic onwards?
Not like there aren't a few tidbits on the Paleo-diet that I find to be worthwhile. In the end, there's no point in taking *any* particular dietary advice alone and dogmatically stick with it. Instead, try various diets and see which combination fits with you. Depending on you and your daily habits, you'll need different chemicals in your body, whether you want to run a marathon or work on a complicated math problem.
Overall, it's not rocket science - It all comes down to simple common sense: eat more fruits, vegetables, beans, grains, fish and drink more water and cut on red meat, empty carbs, fast food, sodas and the like.
In modern nutrition, we see a particular manifestation of the central problem of Modern Society: we lost touch to traditional leanings toward healthy habits, became hedonistic and, when in trouble, delegated our responsibility on particular authorities, to tell us what is healthy / good to us. So, when we get a few extra pounds, we start drinking diet Coke, when common sense tells us that if you want to be in shape you should quit Coke all together.
In the end, good shape and a healthy living are easily obtainable by anyone willing to combine discipline and common sense.
Good article, but with problems
There's some problems though.
These Africans have high levels of vitamin D, considered essential to bone health (http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html). The Inuit probably don't, as they live quite far North. Also, this article does not make it clear if they are studying the traditional Inuit diet, or a modern one (which tends to be high in grains and sugar, both rich in phytic acid, which binds to essential minerals to block their digestion; it's a defense mechanism). It's probably a modern one, since traditional Inuits wouldn't get that insane amount of calcium (even from broths).
There's little proof that protein leads to osteoporosis. It's based on correlation, with some vegan/holist bias. The best thing seems to be to find out what traditional diets (who produced excellent people) have in common, and then study each factor. Vitamin K2, A and D appears to be the "holy trinity" of good, strong bones, at least according to the Weston A. Price Foundation.
Follow the links, please
As is the case with all of these articles, I'm cherry picking - follow up by reading the entire article on the paleo diet. The results are fairly astounding and will answer many of your questions.
I'm not saying it's the bible, but it makes a lot of sense. Why eat carbs, refined sugars, etc. when you don't have to? Common sense. As far as milk goes, sure, cheese is yummy, but it's more the general idea that Americans in particular take the richest of traditional diets and pretend to be "cultured" when what they're really doing is eating the least healthy items of those traditional diets.
Good article, Mr. Azzurro.
Good article, Mr. Azzurro.
We humans have evolved a certain diet and dietary needs that are not being met by our current way of life. We are introducing foreign substances that our body is not adjusted to metabolizing or properly clearing out from our body, leading to disease.
A rejection of consumerist diets and a return to a healthier meals based on holistic interpretations of our body is in order. And as the first article you cite hints at, one's diet can be relative to his cultural background/history.
I love to eat properly
I am convinced there is something abou this Paleo diet thing. I've been practising it for about two or three months and in a combination with excercising in a gym my skin is finally becoming to look more "adult" (I'm 23 now). I've excluded bread, pork, fast food, dairy products, sweet soft drinks, beans, candy, potatoes (including chips, crisps and fries), alcohol and a lot more junk. On the other hand I eat much more fruits, namely apples and bananas, a lot of salad, tuna and chicken. I only drink still mineral water and green tea nowadays. I still can't resist a cup of coffe a day though, but I don't think it's so bad. As I'm a student and as eating only quality food comes a bit more expensive I still eat some pasta sometimes because it is quite filling, but I'm going to cut that too. Will see if it dumbs me down. If so, I'll let you know, if I don't forget the name of the site. I've suffered from acne for ages even despite my life style and my diet wasn't that terrible, but still I couldn't get rid of bad skin anyway. Now it seems it's continually getting better.
There is a thing I'm curious about though. What about corn? Is it allright to continue to eat it or is it just another growth - accelerating stuff for cattle?
Low carbohydrate diet linked with poor memory function
I agree with much of what Frank wrote but it may be important to add this information.
The paleo diet is low in carbohydrates. I was intrigued to see this article on the effects of low carbohydrate consumption published on Dec 12 this year:
'Scientists found that dieters who cut out high energy foods such as pasta, bread and potatoes could end up starving their brain of the fuel it needs to function properly.
Their study on women aged 22 to 55 showed that those on a low carbohydrate meals suffered impaired memory function after just one week.
Psychology professor Holly Taylor, of Tufts University, Massachusetts, said that when carbohydrates were re-introduced the women's mental function returned to normal.
She added: "This study demonstrates that the food you eat can have an immediate impact on cognitive behaviour. The popular low-carb, no-carb diets have the strongest potential for negative impact on thinking and cognition." '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3724768/Low-carb-diets-can-...
Actually, this is a fairly
Actually, this is a fairly weak study. It's too short term, and in the short term, low carb diets often impair memory. They don't seem to have a placebo or control group, and becaus the study isn't double blind (i. e. neither the researchers or the volunteers know who gets what), there might be bias.
Yes, the brain needs some carbs to fuel itself. But on a high-fat diet, muscle is stuffed with fatty acids, making them insulin resistant. Thus carbs cannot go into muscle, but are preserved for use by the brain. This insulin resistance is different from the modern one, where you have high insulin and a lower sensitivity to insulin's effects (moving sugar/amino acids into muscle + some other things). Here you have a temporarily lowered sensitivity to insulin, without a high insulin level. But since this study is short term, these people probably have high insulin levels while insulin resistance kicks in from the low carb diet.
Obviously there is no point in our evolution where we would rely on carbs as our main energy source. We would sometimes eat tubers/root vegetables, and if we were lucky, some fruit (which had to be shared with the rest of the group), and honey. We did have a special strain of proto-humans who ate a coarse diet (sand-riddled tubers), which made in impact on their teeth (ours are different), and eventually became extinct.
Dubious Study
Equally, I should point out the dubious conclusions of the study. The tests should have been run longer.
Fats are structurally similar hydrocarbons as carbohydrates. Both are used as energy. Our bodies are normally geared nowadays to digesting carbs far more easily than fats, but given at least a week a person's body can switch their energy source from carbohydrates to the more energy rich fats.
If one makes this switch, he has to pass through a liminal phase of not just mental but physical fatigue (and probably some rough digestion problems) lasting about a week. After this period, a person's body begins downregulating carb metabolizing enzymes and upregulating fat metabolizing enzymes. This is the period when this same test should be run.
The low-carb diet is still detrimental to one's health in the long run due to some omissions of logic, but there are similar diets that emphasize fats as a main source of energy, and these are not bad to one's cognition.