Thursday, May 29, 2014

The Problem with Primal

I have had a number of people ask me about primal diets, and whether my diet is "primal." Here's my answer: I am a huge advocate for people looking into the scientific studies themselves, experimenting with different things, and ultimately discovering what works best for them. We're all different. In fact, this is a cornerstone of the Optimized Fat Metabolism (OFM) diet. Sure, if the diet is based on anything, it's at the very least high(er) fat intake, but ultimately its main goal is to individualize a program for someone based on their frequency and intensity of activity, genetic tolerance to certain foods, and other such factors. My diet, rich in whole foods and usually absent of concentrated sources of carbohydrate, has many people lumping me into the "primal" or "high fat" realm. It is true that if you look at my food choices you will find a plethora of foods that would fall into the primal approach. However, if you look outside the dietary aspects of the primal approach, you will see I present a stark contrast. Here is why:

Primal, in it's truest form, advocates humans to not partake in what they would term "chronic cardio." The thought process here is that extensive amounts of cardio often result in sky-high levels of cortisol, low testosterone—and in the worst of cases, full-on adrenal fatigue. The primal way would argue that an approach utilizing high intensity interval training (HIIT), minimal amounts of cardio, and lots of walking/standing time is the optimal state for the human body. The general, or at least stereotypical, explanation to this is that early man did lots of walking (scavenging), moving heavy objects occasionally, and at times extreme anaerobic activities, such as running from a lion or other large predator. Hmmmm... sounds less than ideal. I would argue against this. As far as I'm concerned, if a lion in the wild wanted to make a meal of even the fastest human alive, it could do so easily. We weren't designed to flee from lions. Another comparison: Take the strongest man alive and match him up against an average gorilla. My money is on the gorilla, every time. Of course, it's not much of a stretch; have you seen how massive they are?

What am I getting at? Just as lions are really fast, gorillas are really strong. We, on the other hand, are comparatively slow and weak. But we must be good at something, right? What physical advantages do we have? What can we do that other creatures, superior in other ways, cannot do?

Endurance. Man has the combined abilities to sweat, run incredibly long distances (albeit relatively slowly), and convert stored fat to energy (even when already incredibly lean), for very long periods of time. We are the ultimate self-sustaining road trip. What other land animal can travel the distance, pace, and through the various environmental extremes that humans can? I'd be willing to bet there is no land-dwelling creature on this planet that could beat a well-trained human across diverse geography on foot across substantial distance. Especially if the climate is warm, which was the situation for our earliest ancestors.

And now I'll get to the point. Humans are meant to travel long and slow. We aren't meant to fight off or catch other creatures by sprinting. Our strength is adapting to diverse environments, which we navigate with long, slow distance. So why are all these previously mentioned "issues" given as results of "chronic cardio"? If my theory is correct, shouldn't we thrive on it?

The problem, in my humble opinion, is how we currently fuel and study ourselves. Most, if not all, of studies that I have seen that show the detrimental effects of "chronic cardio" have been performed on individuals following a diet that I would argue is more at fault than the actual activity of running (processed foods void of any real nutrients or, just as bad, "fake" foods pumped with synthetic nutrients). I agree that training at levels as high as I do is probably above that of what would be considered necessary for general survival in our early existence, and that I am fighting an uphill battle in terms of recovery. However, I think it can be a battle that is ultimately won if nutrition is a key aspect of the training program. I also believe that doing what you truely love is equally as important as trying to live as long as your body will physically let you. Personally, I'd rather live to be 70 and enjoy every minute of it doing what I am passionate about, than live to be 90 having led a life that didn't allow me to realize my passions. What about you?

11 comments:

  1. Great post! And I couldn't agree more; If I could choose how to leave this place, it'd be climbing a mountain, chasing a dream, not just sitting and waiting for it to end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post. I agree our only advantage is sweating and withstand the heat, we are terrible sprinters and our only advantage is the we can go long distances.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ditto what the others here are saying Zach!.....and add to it I owe you big time!

    Now to further bolster your perspective here are few more points...

    To those who say chronic cardio is "bad".....let's throw them a bone and say "yes, it is bad if you are doing chronic cardio burning glucose as the main energy source which is what most endurance athletes have been led to believe is the "best" way.....however, doing cardio, especially the OFM way like you are doing where you are expanding the fat-burning aerobic envelope to levels not currently thought possible (i.e. the data Jeff Volek et.al. are getting with fat-adapted athletes in the FASTER Study) then there is a complete paradigm shift and the athletes becomes human on another level in terms of health performance and resilience.

    as I say; "If you are doing endurance sports or any volume of exercise burning CHO for most of your energy source you are probably doing your self more long-term harm than good, however, if you are burning fat as your fuel it will make you a lot stronger....

    The oxidative stress and lactate load induced by a high and prolonged level of burning glucose as fuel actually is very stressful to the mitochondria. In fact, in certain diabetes research circles the concept of insulin resistance being the body's way of slowing down the rate of glucose entering the cells to prevent further degradation of mitochondria is gaining ground....the body is doing what it can do to deal with what are toxic levels of glucose...if some say I am being over the top by using the word "toxic" simply ask them what would happen to a T1 diabetic if they consumed the levels of CHO a conventional endurance athletes does in a meal or before a race, or even in a race WITHOUT titrating themselves with the appropriate level of insulin......they would fall into a diabetic coma and probably die....so these levels are literally toxic yet a healthy body can easily deal with them on the occasional basis....Chronic insults of this sort eventually compromise the body's ability thus the potential for the development of some sort of dysfunction whether it is weight gain, insulin resistance, heart disease, cancer, metabolic syndrome etc.....

    Second point for you Zach is because you know how and have access to nutrient dense foods all the time you CAN train and be at a higher level of fitness/performance than primitive man who probably did not have that easy access 24/7 and had to generally hunt it down which carried some risk.

    Third point is that OFM uses a HUGE , fat-burning cardio base to help the athlete also improve their strength ....when you have this base and the development of SUPER high numbers of mitochondria in the cells to make aerobic energy one then uses this base to gain strength and lean body mass for higher performance including strength training without having to bulk up with a lot of muscle mass with poor mitochondria numbers....so for all but 100 Meter sprinters and power lifters OFM is probably the way to go for overall performance and health.

    Your point of our ability to cover distances is very good and I have given this a fair amount of thought....you are dead on....this is why humans are so spread out across the globe yet genetically very very close as a species, so close humans of different "races" can interbreed and several millenia ago this included the interbreeding of Homo Sapiens with Neanderthals as we are learning now. Dogs/Canine are close in this regard of interbreeding and it is no surprise many adapted to the co-existence with humans.....and, most interestingly, dogs and humans have VERY similar digestive tracts even when compared to a gorilla!

    What you are doing shows exactly what the human potential is capable of when approaching things from the fat as fuel with high volume of aerobic exercise! Again, great job!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great post Zach! I completely agree with your theories. Info have a question about your personal diet choice. So you intentionally avoid whole foods that are rich in carbohydrate (carrots, sweet potatoes, etc) or do you just focus on eating real food regardless of nutrient make up?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post, Zach. I was lucky enough to have this conversation with Mark Sisson and Dan Lieberman at the Ancestral Health Symposium a couple of years ago. Mark's come around a lot in the couple of years before that. I think he'd fully support your approach to training.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Funny, how the "experts" still don't "get it" : http://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-for-runners/should-runners-adopt-a-high-fat-diet?cm_mmc=Facebook-_-RunnersWorld-_-Content-Nutrition-_-HighFatDiet

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great post, fully agree that we are meant to be endurance runners and we are meant to eat high fat. I am on the same page as Primal/Sisson when it comes to nutrition, but not so much when it comes to exercise.
    Check out the cover of Time Magazine: http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on-fat/?pcd=hp-magmod

    ReplyDelete