Warren and Sanders on Environmentalism

I’m not normally impressed by Elizabeth Warren. I don’t have any particular reason to dislike her, but I haven’t felt convinced that she has what it takes. Still, she is able speak strongly at times that perks up my ears. At CNN’s climate town hall, she responded with exasperation to a question about energy-saving lightbulbs:

“This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we’re all talking about…They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers.”

That was refreshing. I’m very much in support of the environment. As an example, I’d like for life on earth to continue. And if possible, it might be nice to maintain human civilization without collapsing in ecological catastrophe and mass suffering. On the other hand, I hate how environmentalism can get used as a political football on both sides that distracts from actually doing anything that makes a difference, which is precisely what big biz wants.

Giving a far different kind of response while in North Carolina, when asked about a meat tax, Bernie Sanders refused to give a straight answer. He talked in vague generalities by not making any statement that would offend anyone or commit him to anything. Unlike Warren, he didn’t challenge the premise of the question. It was quite disappointing to hear this kind of waffling.

To be fair, the right-wing media was being dishonest in reporting that he supported a meat tax. He didn’t say that. He simply said as little as possible. But it is true that he accepted the framing without challenging or questioning it. His was an answer one expects from a professional politician pandering to potential voters, in allowing people to hear what they want to hear while not stating any clear position:

“All that i can say is if we believe, as i do and you do, that climate change is real, we’re going to have to tackle it in every single area, including agriculture. Okay?

“And in fact, one of the things we want to do with our farmers out there is help them become more aggressive and able to help us combat climate change rather than contribute to it.

“So we will certainly.. — you’re right, we got to look at agriculture, we got to look at every cause of the crisis that we face.”

I understand. There was no way for him to come out looking good in that situation. He has never shown any evidence of wanting to tax food in order to control the dietary habits of Americans. It’s certainly not part of his political platform. Yet when confronted with a direction question, it put him in a corner that he didn’t want to be in. Disagreeing with a supporter can lead to all kinds of problems, especially in how the media would spin it and obsess over it.

Still, it is disheartening that we so rarely can have honest political debate where people speak their minds. If campaign season doesn’t force public awareness into uncomfortable issues, then what good does it serve? Very little. That is why Warren’s short but effective tirade against the fossil fuel industry was a breath of fresh air. She shifted the focus away from artificially-created division and toward the problems that are common among us.

Felice Jacka Defends Boundaries of Allowable Dietary Thought

Felice Jacka is an Australian professor of epidemiology. In her official capacity as an expert, she made a public health warning from her Twitter account: “If your/an MD is advocating an extreme diet of any type, please understand that they may NOT be the best person to listen to.” In her other tweets that followed, it was made clear that doctors had no right to recommend any diet other than whatever is officially declared healthy by the appropriate government and medical institutions.

She made this statement after watching a video of Dr. Shawn Baker informally discuss the carnivore diet, as if in doing so he was a public threat and an immoral actor who must be publicly called out and shamed. Her professional assessment was that he wasn’t being scientific enough. Fine. If she wanted a more scientific analysis of the evidence, she could have turned to talks given by Georgia Ede, Zoe Harcombe, Amber L. O’Hearn, and Paul Saladino. Her damning indictment of the carnivore diet was rather strong after watching a single Youtube video of a casual talk. That doesn’t seem like a scientific response.

Or she could have checked out the informal survey that Dr. Baker himself recently did in exploring people’s experience with the carnivore diet. Her complaint was that his experience was merely anecdotal. Sure. But he isn’t alone, which was the purpose of the survey he did. Look at the carnivore groups on social media, some of which have hundreds of thousands of members.

Carnivore is not a minor diet. She calls it “extreme”. It’s no more extreme than veganism and certainly far less extreme than the modern industrial standard American diet (SAD). I’d also go so far as to say, in terms of history and evolution, carnivore is also not nearly as extreme as the diet advocated by the AHA and USDA, the diet that the data shows Americans have been mostly following and that has led to a disease epidemic.

It’s not only the carnivore diet Jacka targets. In her book Brain Changer, she has a small section on the ketogenic diet in relationship to schizophrenia. She writes that, “Until we have the evidence from such studies, however, we would definitely not recommend such a diet, as it’s extremely strict and demanding and requires close medical supervision.” There she goes again: “extremely” — as if she were talking about potentially violent political activists. Her language is consistent in talking about any diet that dares to cross the line.

Let me set one thing straight. No, the ketogenic diet isn’t extremely strict or particularly demanding. Those who go on it often find it to be the easiest diet they ever tried, as hunger and cravings tend to decrease. It still allows for a wide variety of animal and plant foods. If ketosis is all you care about, you don’t even have to worry about the quality of the food, as long as it is low enough in carbs. Go out to fast food and eat the hamburger but without the bun. And if you want snack foods, have a bag of pork rinds instead of a bag of potato chips. Plus, there are all kinds of prepared products now marketed as keto, from protein bars to cauliflower pizzas, and nearly all stores carry them.

So, why all this fear-mongering about alternative dietary approaches? In response to Jacka, Dr. Ara Darakjian tweeted, “This seems overly restrictive on a physician’s freedoms. Why should there be a gag rule? If a physician believes differently they have to stick to the party line? I’ve never recommended carnivore but I don’t think it’s wrong for other MD’s to advocate based on anecdotal evidence” That is a good point. Why not allow doctors to use their best judgment based on their own professional experience?

A light went off in my head when I saw that mention of a “gag rule”. The specific doctor she is criticizing, Dr. Shawn Baker, was the target of a witch-hunt that involved a several year legal battle and resulted with the state board temporarily taking away his license to practice. So, it seems like no accident that he still is being targeted. It turns out he was vindicated and his license was reinstated. Still, he was forced out of work during that time and, along with severe disruption in his life and his family, because of legal costs he lost his house.

His sin in that earlier situation, however, wasn’t about the carnivore diet. He was simply recommending lifestyle changes as a prevention for surgery. By the way, he doesn’t only recommend a carnivore diet but also keto and moderate low-carb, even plant-based in some cases. He treats his patients as individuals and seeks the best treatment according to his knowledge. Sometimes that involves a particular dietary approach or another, but according to Felice Jacka that should not be allowed, a powerful message considering the doctor she chose to use as an example.

When I first saw her tweet, I didn’t know she was Australian. It occurred to me to see where she was from. I wondered this because I knew some other major cases of witch-hunts. The moment I saw that she is employed at an Australian university, another light bulb went off in my head. One of the worst witch-hunts against a low-carb advocate sought to destroy the career of the Australian doctor Gary Fettke. I don’t know if she was involved in that witch-hunt or supported it in any way, but it seems likely she wouldn’t been on the side defending Dr. Fettke’s rights.

I also left some tweets in that thread she started. I brought up some criticisms of the field of nutrition studies itself. She defended her field of expertise since, after all, her authority rests upon it. She said to me that, “I don’t agree that there is (largely) not consensus among nutrition professionals and researchers. But it’s not the point I’m making. MDs are charged with practising evidence-based medicine. Whether or not you or they dont agree with the evidence for whatever reason.”

Responding back to her, I wrote: “Consensus from evidence-based medicine in a field suffering from one of the worst replication crises in scientific history is precisely part of the problem.” That was a tougher criticism than it might seem, since the main replication failure of nutrition studies has been epidemiology, Jacka’s sole area of expertise. After that simple comment, she blocked me. There was nothing else I said that was mean or trollish. The closest I came to being antagonistic was in saying that I’d rather trust the expertise of those who are world-leading experts in keto and low-carb diets: Benjamin Bikman, Jason Fung, etc; also, Tim Noakes (another victim of a witch-hunt, as shown in the documentary The Magic Pill, in Daryl Ilbury’s book The Quiet Maverick, and in Noakes’ own book Lore of Nutrition). She obviously is not in favor of open scientific debate and inquiry.

There are powerful interests seeking to maintain the status quo. A simple tweet might not seem like anything to be concerned about. Then again, Tim Noakes troubles began with a single innocent tweet that was used as evidence. He fought back, but it also took years and immense amounts of money. If he wasn’t such a brilliant and determined guy, the powers that be might have been successful. Still, the attack did effectively make Noakes into an example. Few people could have stood up to that kind of organized and highly funded onslaught. When someone like Felice Jacka complains about someone like Dr. Shawn Baker, there is always an implied threat. Most doctors probably remain silent and keep their heads down. Otherwise, the consequences might mean the ending of one’s career.

 

Dr. Catherine Shanahan On Dietary Epigenetics and Mutations

Dr. Catherine Shanahan is a board-certified family physician with an undergraduate degree in biology, along with training in biochemistry and genetics. She has also studied ethno-botany, culinary traditions, and ancestral health. Besides regularly appearing in and writing for national media, she has worked as director and nutrition consultant for the Los Angeles Lakers. On High Intensity Health, she was interviewed by nutritionist Mike Mutzel (Fat Adapted Athletes Perform Better). At the 31:55 mark in that video, she discussed diet (in particular, industrial vegetable oils or simply seed oils), epigenetic inheritance, de novo genetic mutations, and autism. This can be found in the show notes (#172) where it is stated that,

“In 1909 we consumed 1/3 of an ounce of soy oil per year. Now we consume about 22 pounds per year. In the amounts that we consume seed oils, it breaks down into some of the worst toxins ever discovered. They are also capable of damaging our DNA. Many diseases are due to mutations that children have that their parents did not have. This means that mothers and fathers with poor diets have eggs/sperm that have mutated DNA. Children with autism have 10 times the number of usual mutations in their genes. Getting off of seed oils is one of the most impactful things prospective parents can do. The sperm has more mutations than the egg.”

These seed oils didn’t exist in the human diet until the industrial era. Our bodies are designed to use and incorporate the PUFAs from natural sources, but the processing into oils through high pressure and chemicals denatures the structure of the oil and destroys the antioxidants. The oxidative stress that follows from adding them to the diet is precisely because these altered oils act as trojan horses in being treated by the body like natural fats. This is magnified by a general increase of PUFAs, specifically omega-6 fatty acids, with a simultaneous decrease of omega-3 fatty acids and saturated fats. It isn’t any difference in overall fat intake, as the 40% we get in the diet now is about the same as seen in the diet at the beginning of last century. What is different is these oxidized PUFAs combined with massive loads of sugar and starches like never seen before.

Dr. Shanahan sees these industrial plant oils as the single greatest harm, such that she doesn’t consider them to be a food but a toxin, originally discovered as an industrial byproduct. She is less worried about any given category of food or macronutrient, as long as you first and foremost remove this specific source of toxins.** She goes into greater detail in a talk from Ancestry Foundation (AHS16 – Cate Shanahan – Bad Diet, Bad DNA?). And her book, Deep Nutrition, is a great resource on this topic. I’ll leave that for you to further explore, if you so desire. Let me quickly and simply note an implication of this.

Genetic mutations demonstrates how serious of a situation this is. The harm we are causing ourselves might go beyond merely punishment for our personal sins but the sins of the father and mother genetically passing onto their children, grandchildren, and further on (one generation of starvation or smoking among grandparents leads to generations of smaller birth weight and underdevelopment among the grandchildren and maybe beyond, no matter if the intervening generation of parents was healthy).

It might not be limited to a temporary transgenerational harm as seen with epigenetics. This could be permanent harm to our entire civilization, fundamentally altering our collective gene pool. We could recover from epigenetics within a few generations, assuming we took the problem seriously and acted immediately (Dietary Health Across Generations), but with genetic mutations we may never be able to undo the damage. These mutations have been accumulating and will continue to accumulate, until we return to an ancestral diet of healthy foods as part of an overall healthy lifestyle and environment. Even mutations can be moderated by epigenetics, as the body is designed to deal with them.

This further undermines genetic determinism and biological essentialism. We aren’t mere victims doomed to a fate beyond our control. This dire situation is being created by all of us, individually and collectively. There is no better place to begin than with your own health, but we better also treat this as a societal crisis verging on catastrophe. It was public policies and an international food system that created the conditions that enacted and enforced this failed mass experiment of dietary dogma and capitalist realist profiteering. Maybe we could try something different, something  less psychopathically authoritarian, less psychotically disconnected from reality, less collectively suicidal. Heck, it’s worth a try.

* * *

** I’d slightly disagree with her emphasis. She thinks what matters most is the changes over the past century. There is a good point made in this focus on late modernity. But I’d note that industrialization and modern agriculture began in the prior centuries.

It was in the colonial era that pasta was introduced to Italy, potatoes to Ireland, and sugar throughout the Western world. It wasn’t until the late 1700s and more clearly in the early 1800s that there were regular grain surpluses that made grains available for feeding/fattening both humans and cattle. In particular, it was around this time that agricultural methods improved for wheat crops, allowing it to be affordable to the general public for the first time in human existence and hence causing white bread to become common during the ensuing generations.

I don’t know about diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis. But I do know that the most major diseases of civilization (obesity, diabetes, cancer, and mental illness) were first noticed to be on the rise during the 1700s and 1800s or sometimes earlier, long before industrial oils or the industrial revolution that made these oils possible. The high-carb diet appeared gradually with colonial trade and spread across numerous societies, first hitting the wealthiest before eventually being made possible for the dirty masses. During this time, it was observed by doctors, scientists, missionaries and explorers that obesity, diabetes, cancer, mental illness and moral decline quickly followed on the heels of this modern diet.

Seed oils were simply the final Jenga block pulled out from the ever growing and ever more wobbly tower, in replacing healthy nutrient-dense animal fats (full of fat-soluble vitamins, choline, omega-3 fatty acids, etc) that were counterbalancing some of the worst effects of the high-carb diet. But seed oils, as with farm chemicals such as glyphosate, never would never have had as severe and dramatic of an impact if not for the previous centuries of worsening diet and health. It had been building up over a long time and it was doomed to topple right from the start. We are simply now at the tipping point that is bringing us to the culmination point, the inevitable conclusion of a sad trajectory.

Still, it’s never too late… or let us hope. Dr. Shanahan prefers to end on an optimistic note. And I’d rather not disagree with her about that. I’ll assume she is right or that she is at least in the general ballpark. Let us do as she suggests. We need more and better research, but somehow industrial seed oils have slipped past the notice of autism researchers.

* * *

On Deep Nutrition and Genetic Expression
interview by Kristen Michaelis CNC

Dr. Cate: Genetic Wealth is the idea that if your parents or grandparents ate traditional and nutrient-rich foods, then you came into the world with genes that could express in an optimal way, and this makes you more likely to look like a supermodel and be an extraordinary athlete. Take Angelina Jolie or Michael Jordan, for instance. They’ve got loads of genetic wealth.

Genetic Momentum
 describes the fact that, once you have that extraordinary genetic wealth, you don’t have to eat so great to be healthier than the average person. It’s like being born into a kind of royalty. You always have that inheritance around and you don’t need to work at your health in the same way other people do.

These days, for most of us, it was our grandparents or great grandparents who were the last in our line to grow up on a farm or get a nutrient-rich diet. In my case, I have to go back 4 generations to the Irish and Russian farmers who immigrated to NYC where my grandparents on both sides could only eat cheap food; sometimes good things like chopped liver and beef tongue, but often preserves and crackers and other junk. So my grandparents were far healthier than my brother and sisters and I.

The Standard American Diet (SAD) has accelerated the processes of genetic wealth being spent down, genetic momentum petering out, and the current generation getting sick earlier than their parents and grandparents. This is a real, extreme tragedy on the order of end-of-the-world level losses of natural resources. Genetic wealth is a kind of natural resource. And loss of genetic wealth is a more urgent problem than peak oil or the bursting of the housing bubble. But of course nobody is talking about it directly, only indirectly, in terms of increased rates of chronic disease.

Take autism, for example. Why is autism so common? I don’t think vaccines are the reason for the vast vast majority of cases, since subtle signs of autism can be seen before vaccination in the majority. I think the reason has to do with loss of genetic wealth. We know that children with autism exhibit DNA mutations that their parents and grandparents did not have. Why? Because in the absence of necessary nutrients, DNA cannot even duplicate itself properly and permanent mutations develop.

(Here’s an article on one kind of genetic mutation (DNA deletions) associated with autism.)

Fortunately, most disease is not due to permanent letter mutations and therefore a good diet can rehabilitate a lot of genetic disease that is only a result of altered genetic expression. To put your high-school biology to work, it’s the idea of genotype versus phenotype. You might have the genes that make you prone to, for example, breast cancer (the BRCA1 mutation), but you might not get the disease if you eat right because the gene expression can revert back to normal.

Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food
by Dr. Catherine Shanahan
pp. 55-57

Guided Evolution?

In 2007, a consortium of geneticists investigating autism boldly announced that the disease was not genetic in the typical sense of the word, meaning that you inherit a gene for autism from one or both of your parents. New gene sequencing technologies had revealed that many children with autism had new gene mutations, never before expressed in their family line.

An article published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states, “The majority of autisms are a result of de novo mutations, occurring first in the parental germ line.” 42 The reasons behind this will be discussed in Chapter 9.

In 2012, a group investigating these new, spontaneous mutations discovered evidence that randomness was not the sole driving force behind them. Their study, published in the journal Cell, revealed an unexpected pattern of mutations occurring 100 times more often in specific “hotspots,” regions of the human genome where the DNA strand is tightly coiled around organizing proteins called histones that function much like spools in a sewing kit, which organize different colors and types of threads. 43

The consequences of these mutations seem specifically designed to toggle up or down specific character traits. Jonathan Sebat, lead author on the 2012 article, suggests that the hotspots are engineered to “mutate in ways that will influence human traits” by toggling up or down the development of specific behaviors. For example, when a certain gene located at a hotspot on chromosome 7 is duplicated, children develop autism, a developmental delay characterized by near total lack of interest in social interaction. When the same chromosome is deleted, children develop Williams Syndrome, a developmental delay characterized by an exuberant gregariousness, where children talk a lot, and talk with pretty much anyone. The phenomenon wherein specific traits are toggled up and down by variations in gene expression has recently been recognized as a result of the built-in architecture of DNA and dubbed “active adaptive evolution.” 44

As further evidence of an underlying logic driving the development of these new autism-related mutations, it appears that epigenetic factors activate the hotspot, particularly a kind of epigenetic tagging called methylation. 45 In the absence of adequate B vitamins, specific areas of the gene lose these methylation tags, exposing sections of DNA to the factors that generate new mutations. In other words, factors missing from a parent’s diet trigger the genome to respond in ways that will hopefully enable the offspring to cope with the new nutritional environment. It doesn’t always work out, of course, but that seems to be the intent.

You could almost see it as the attempt to adjust character traits in a way that will engineer different kinds of creative minds, so that hopefully one will give us a new capacity to adapt.

pp. 221-228

What Is Autism?

The very first diagnostic manual for psychiatric disorders published in 1954 described autism simply as “schizophrenic reaction, childhood type.” 391 The next manual, released in 1980, listed more specific criteria, including “pervasive lack of responsiveness to other people” and “if speech is present, peculiar speech patterns such as immediate and delayed echolalia, metaphorical language, pronominal reversal (using you when meaning me, for instance).” 392 Of course, the terse language of a diagnostic manual can never convey the real experience of living with a child on the spectrum, or living on the spectrum yourself.

When I graduated from medical school, autism was so rarely diagnosed that none of my psychiatry exams even covered it and I and my classmates were made aware of autism more from watching the movie Rain Man than from studying course material. The question of whether autism (now commonly referred to as ASD) is more common now than it was then or whether we are simply recognizing it more often is still controversial. Some literature suggests that it is a diagnostic issue, and that language disorders are being diagnosed less often as autism is being diagnosed more. However, according to new CDC statistics, it appears that autism rates have risen 30 percent between 2008 and 2012. Considering that diagnostic criteria had been stable by that point in time for over a decade, increased diagnosis is unlikely to be a major factor in this 30 percent figure. 393

Given these chilling statistics, it’s little wonder that so many research dollars have been dedicated to exploring possible connections between exposure to various environmental factors and development of the disorder. Investigators have received grants to look into a possible link between autism and vaccines, 394 smoking, 395 maternal drug use (prescription and illicit), 396 , 397 , 398 organophosphates, 399 and other pesticides, 400 BPA, 401 lead, 402 mercury, 403 cell phones, 404 IVF and infertility treatments, 405 induced labor, 406 high-powered electric wires, 407 flame retardants, 408 ultrasound, 409 —and just about any other environmental factor you can name. You might be wondering if they’ve also looked into diet. But of course: alcohol, 410 cow’s milk, 411 milk protein, 412 soy formula, 413 gluten, 414 and food colorings 415 have all been investigated. Guess what they’ve never dedicated a single study to investigating? Here’s a hint: it’s known to be pro-oxidative and pro-inflammatory and contains 4-HNE, 4-HHE, and MDA, along with a number of other equally potent mutagens. 416 Still haven’t guessed? Okay, one last hint: it’s so ubiquitous in our food supply that for many Americans it makes up as much as 60 percent of their daily caloric intake, 417 a consumption rate that has increased in parallel with rising rates of autism.

Of course, I’m talking about vegetable oil. In Chapter 2 , I discussed in some detail how and why gene transcription, maintenance, and expression are necessarily imperiled in the context of a pro-inflammatory, pro-oxidative environment, so I won’t go further into that here. But I do want to better acquaint you with the three PUFA-derived mutagens I just named because when they make it to the part of your cell that houses DNA, they can bind to DNA and create new, “de novo,” mutations. DNA mutations affecting a woman’s ovaries, a man’s sperm, or a fertilized embryo can have a devastating impact on subsequent generations.

First, let’s revisit 4-HNE (4-hydroxynonanol), which you may recall meeting in the above section on firebombing the highways. This is perhaps the most notorious of all the toxic fats derived from oxidation of omega-6 fatty acids, whose diversity of toxic effects requires that entire chemistry journals be devoted to 4-HNE alone. When the mutagenicity (ability to mutate DNA) of 4-HNE was first described in 1985, the cytotoxicity (ability to kill cells) had already been established for decades. The authors of a 2009 review article explain that the reason it had taken so long to recognize that HNE was such an effective carcinogen was largely due to the fact that “the cytotoxicity [cell-killing ability] of 4-HNE masked its genotoxicity [DNA-mutating effect].” 419 In other words, it kills cells so readily that they don’t have a chance to divide and mutate. How potently does 4-HNE damage human DNA? After interacting with DNA, 4-HNE forms a compound called an HNE-adduct, and that adduct prevents DNA from copying itself accurately. Every time 4-HNE binds to a guanosine (the G of the four-letter ACGT DNA alphabet), there is somewhere between a 0.5 and 5 percent chance that G will not be copied correctly, and that the enzyme trying to make a perfect copy of DNA will accidentally turn G into T. 420 Without 4-HNE, the chance of error is about a millionth of a percent. 421 In other words, 4-HNE increases the chances of a DNA mutation rate roughly a million times!

Second, 4-HHE (4-hydroxy-hexanal), which is very much like 4-HNE, his more notorious bigger brother derived from omega-6, but 4-HHE is derived instead from omega-3. If bad guys had sidekicks, 4-NHE’s would be 4-HHE. Because 4-HHE does many of the same things to DNA as 4-HNE, but has only been discovered recently. 422 You see, when omega-6 reacts with oxygen, it breaks apart into two major end products, whereas omega-3, being more explosive, flies apart into four different molecules. This means each one is present in smaller amounts, and that makes them a little more difficult to study. But it doesn’t make 4-HHE any less dangerous. 4-HHE specializes in burning through your glutathione peroxidase antioxidant defense system. 423 This selenium-based antioxidant enzyme is one of the three major enzymatic antioxidant defense systems, and it may be the most important player defending your DNA against oxidative stress. 424 , 425

Finally, there is malonaldehyde (MDA), proven to be a mutagen in 1984, but presumed to only come from consumption of cooked and cured meats. 426 Only in the past few decades have we had the technology to determine that MDA can be generated in our bodies as well. 427 And unlike the previous two chemicals, MDA is generated by oxidation of both omega-3 and omega-6. It may be the most common endogenously derived oxidation product. Dr. J. L. Marnett, who directs a cancer research lab at Vanderbuit University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and who has published over 400 articles on the subject of DNA mutation, summarized his final article on MDA with the definitive statement that MDA “appears to be a major source of endogenous DNA damage [endogenous, here, meaning due to internal, metabolic factors rather than, say, radiation] in humans that may contribute significantly to cancer and other genetic diseases.” 428

There’s one more thing I need to add about vegetable-oil-derived toxic breakdown products, particularly given the long list of toxins now being investigated as potential causes of autism spectrum disorders. Not only do they directly mutate DNA, they also make DNA more susceptible to mutations induced by other environmental pollutants. 429 , 430 This means that if you start reading labels and taking vegetable oil out of your diet, your body will more readily deal with the thousands of contaminating toxins not listed on the labels which are nearly impossible to avoid.

Why all this focus on genes when we’re talking about autism? Nearly every day a new study comes out that further consolidates the consensus among scientists that autism is commonly a genetic disorder. The latest research is focusing on de novo mutations, meaning mutations neither parent had themselves but that arose spontaneously in their egg, sperm, or during fertilization. These mutations may affect single genes, or they may manifest as copy number variations, in which entire stretches of DNA containing multiple genes are deleted or duplicated. Geneticists have already identified a staggering number of genes that appear to be associated with autism. In one report summarizing results of examining 900 children, scientists identified 1,000 potential genes: “exome sequencing of over 900 individuals provided an estimate of nearly 1,000 contributing genes.” 431

All of these 1,000 genes are involved with proper development of the part of the brain most identified with the human intellect: our cortical gray matter. This is the stuff that enables us to master human skills: the spoken language, reading, writing, dancing, playing music, and, most important, the social interaction that drives the desire to do all of the above. One need only have a few of these 1,000 genes involved in building a brain get miscopied, or in some cases just one, in order for altered brain development to lead to one’s inclusion in the ASD spectrum.

So just a few troublemaker genes can obstruct the entire brain development program. But for things to go right, all the genes for brain development need to be fully functional.

Given that humans are thought to have only around 20,000 genes, and already 1,000 are known to be essential for building brain, that means geneticists have already labeled 5 percent of the totality of our genetic database as crucial to the development of a healthy brain—and we’ve just started looking. At what point does it become a foolish enterprise to continue to look for genes that, when mutated, are associated with autism? When we’ve identified 5,000? Or 10,000? The entire human genome? At what point do we stop focusing myopically only on those genes thought to play a role in autism?

I’ll tell you when: when you learn that the average autistic child’s genome carries de novo mutations not just in genes thought to be associated with autism, but across the board, throughout the entirety of the chromosomal landscape. Because once you’ve learned this, you can’t help but consider that autism might be better characterized as a symptom of a larger disease—a disease that results in an overall increase in de novo mutations.

Almost buried by the avalanche of journal articles on genes associated with autism is the finding that autistic children exhibit roughly ten times the number of de novo mutations compared to their typically developing siblings. 432 An international working group on autism pronounced this startling finding in a 2013 article entitled: “Global Increases in Both Common and Rare Copy Number Load Associated With Autism.” 433 ( Copy number load refers to mutations wherein large segments of genes are duplicated too often.) What the article says is that yes, children with autism have a larger number of de novo mutations, but the majority of their new mutations are not statistically associated with autism because other kids have them, too. The typically developing kids just don’t have nearly as many.

These new mutations are not only affecting genes associated with brain development. They are affecting all genes seemingly universally. What is more, there is a dose response relationship between the total number of de novo mutations and the severity of autism such that the more gene mutations a child has (the bigger the dose of mutation), the worse their autism (the larger the response). And it doesn’t matter where the mutations are located—even in genes that have no obvious connection to the brain. 434 This finding suggests that autism does not originate in the brain, as has been assumed. The real problem—at least for many children—may actually be coming from the genes. If this is so, then when we look at a child with autism, what we’re seeing is a child manifesting a global genetic breakdown. Among the many possible outcomes of this genetic breakdown, autism may simply be the most conspicuous, as the cognitive and social hallmarks of autism are easy to recognize.

As the authors of the 2013 article state, “Given the large genetic target of neurodevelopmental disorders, estimated in the hundreds or even thousands of genomic loci, it stands to reason that anything that increases genomic instability could contribute to the genesis of these disorders.” 435 Genomic instability —now they’re on to something. Because framing the problem this way helps us to ask the more fundamental question, What is behind the “genomic instability” that’s causing all these new gene mutations?

In the section titled “What Makes DNA Forget” in Chapter 2 , I touched upon the idea that an optimal nutritional environment is required to ensure the accurate transcription of genetic material and communication of epigenetic bookmarking, and how a pro-oxidative, pro-inflammatory diet can sabotage this delicate operation in ways that can lead to mutation and alter normal growth. There I focused on mistakes made in epigenetic programming, what you could call de novo epigenetic abnormalities. The same prerequisites that support proper epigenetic data communication, I submit, apply equally to the proper transcription of genetic data.

What’s the opposite of a supportive nutritional environment? A steady intake of pro-inflammatory, pro-oxidative vegetable oil that brings with it the known mutagenic compounds of the kind I’ve just described. Furthermore, if exposure to these vegetable oil-derived mutagens causes a breakdown in the systems for accurately duplicating genes, then you might expect to find other detrimental effects from this generalized defect of gene replication. Indeed we do. Researchers in Finland have found that children anywhere on the ASD spectrum have between 1.5 and 2.7 times the risk of being born with a serious birth defect, most commonly a life-threatening heart defect or neural tube (brain and spinal cord) defect that impairs the child’s ability to walk. 436 Another group, in Nova Scotia, identified a similarly increased rate of minor malformations, such as abnormally rotated ears, small feet, or closely spaced eyes. 437

What I’ve laid out here is the argument that the increasing prevalence of autism is best understood as a symptom of De Novo Gene Mutation Syndrome brought on by oxidative damage, and that vegetable oil is the number-one culprit in creating these new mutations. These claims emerge from a point-by-point deduction based on the best available chemical, genetic, and physiologic science. To test the validity of this hypothesis, we need more research.

Does De Novo Gene Mutation Syndrome Affect Just the Brain?

Nothing would redirect the trajectory of autism research in a more productive fashion than reframing autism as a symptom of the larger underlying disease, which we are provisionally calling de novo gene-mutation syndrome, or DiNGS. (Here’s a mnemonic: vegetable oil toxins “ding” your DNA, like hailstones pockmarking your car.)

If you accept my thesis that the expanding epidemic of autism is a symptom of an epidemic of new gene mutations, then you may wonder why the only identified syndrome of DiNGS is autism. Why don’t we see all manner of new diseases associated with gene mutations affecting organs other than the brain? We do. According to the most recent CDC report on birth defect incidence in the United States, twenty-nine of the thirty-eight organ malformations tracked have increased. 438

However, these are rare events, occurring far less frequently than autism. The reason for the difference derives from the fact that the brain of a developing baby can be damaged to a greater degree than other organs can, while still allowing the pregnancy to carry to term. Though the complex nature of the brain makes it the most vulnerable in terms of being affected by mutation, this aberration of development does not make the child more vulnerable in terms of survival in utero. The fact that autism affects the most evolutionarily novel portion of the brain means that as far as viability of an embryo is concerned, it’s almost irrelevant. If the kinds of severely damaging mutations leading to autism were to occur in organs such as the heart, lungs, or kidneys, fetal survival would be imperiled, leading to spontaneous miscarriage. Since these organs begin developing as early as four to six weeks of in-utero life, failure of a pregnancy this early might occur without any symptoms other than bleeding, which might be mistaken for a heavy or late period, and before a mother has even realized she’s conceived.

American Heart Association’s “Fat and Cholesterol Counter” (1991)

  • 1963 – “Every woman knows that carbohydrates are fattening, this is a piece of common knowledge, which few nutritionists would dispute.”
  • 1994 – “… obesity may be regarded as a carbohydrate-deficiency syndrome and that an increase in dietary carbohydrate content at the expense of fat is the appropriate dietary part of a therapeutical strategy.”*

My mother was about to throw out an old booklet from the American Heart Association (AHA), “Fat and Cholesterol Counter”, one of several publications they put out around that time. It was published in 1991, the year I started high school. Unsurprisingly, it blames everything on sodium, calories, cholesterol, and, of course, saturated fat.

Even hydrogenated fat gets blamed on saturated fat, since the hydrogenation process turns some small portion of it saturated, which ignores the heavy damage and inflammatory response caused by the oxidization process (both in the industrial processing and in cooking). Not to mention those hydrogenated fats as industrial seed oils are filled with omega-6 fatty acids, the main reason they are so inflammatory. Saturated fat, on the other hand, is not inflammatory at all. This obsession with saturated fat is so strange. It never made any sense from a scientific perspective. When the obesity epidemic began and all that went with it, the consumption of saturated fat by Americans had been steadily dropping for decades, ever since the invention of industrial seed oils in the late 1800s and the fear about meat caused by Upton Sinclair’s muckraking journalism, The Jungle, about the meatpacking industry.

The amount of saturated fat and red meat has declined over the past century, to be replaced with those industrial seed oils and lean white meat, along with fruits and vegetables — all of which have been increasing.** Chicken, in particular, replaced beef and what stands out about chicken is that, like those industrial seed oils, it is high in the inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids. How could saturated fat be causing the greater rates of heart disease and such when people were eating less of it. This scapegoating wasn’t only unscientific but blatantly irrational. All of this info was known way back when Ancel Keys went on his anti-fat crusade (The Creed of Ancel Keys). It wasn’t a secret. And it required cherrypicked data and convoluted rationalizations to explain away.

Worse than removing saturated fat when it’s not a health risk is the fact that it is actually an essential nutrient for health: “How much total saturated do we need? During the 1970s, researchers from Canada found that animals fed rapeseed oil and canola oil developed heart lesions. This problem was corrected when they added saturated fat to the animals diets. On the basis of this and other research, they ultimately determined that the diet should contain at least 25 percent of fat as saturated fat. Among the food fats that they tested, the one found to have the best proportion of saturated fat was lard, the very fat we are told to avoid under all circumstances!” (Millie Barnes, The Importance of Saturated Fats for Biological Functions).

It is specifically lard that has been most removed from the diet, and this is significant as lard was a central to the American diet until this past century: “Pre-1936 shortening is comprised mainly of lard while afterward, partially hydrogenated oils came to be the major ingredient” (Nina Teicholz, The Big Fat Surprise, p. 95); “Americans in the nineteenth century ate four to five times more butter than we do today, and at least six times more lard” (p. 126). And what about the Mediterranean people who supposedly are so healthy because of their love of olive oil? “Indeed, in historical accounts going back to antiquity, the fat more commonly used in cooking in the Mediterranean, among peasants and the elite alike, was lard.” (p. 217).

Jason Prall notes that long-lived populations ate “lots of meat” and specifically, “They all ate pig. I think pork was the was the only common animal that we saw in the places that we went” (Longevity Diet & Lifestyle Caught On Camera w/ Jason Prall). The infamous long-lived Okinawans also partake in everything from pigs, such that their entire culture and religion was centered around pigs (Blue Zones Dietary Myth). Lard, in case you didn’t know, comes from pigs. Pork and lard is found in so many diets for the simple reason pigs can live in diverse environments, from mountainous forests to tangled swamps to open fields, and they are a food source available year round.

Another thing that has gone hand in hand with loss of healthy, nutrient-dense saturated fat in the American diet is a loss of nutrition in general. It’s not only that plant foods have less minerals and vitamins because of depleted soil and because they are picked when not ripe in order to ship them long distances. The same is true of animal foods, since the animals are being fed the same crappy plant foods as us humans. But at the very least, even factory-farmed animals have far more bioavailable nutrient-density than plant foods from industrial agriculture. If we ate more fatty meat, saturated fat or otherwise, we’d be getting far more fat-soluble vitamins. But when looking at all animal foods, in particular from pasture-raised and wild-caught sources, there is no mineral or vitamin that can’t be obtained at required levels. The same can’t be said for plant foods on a vegan diet.

Back in 1991, the AHA was recommending the inclusion of lots of bread, rolls, crackers, and pasta (“made with low-fat milk and fats or oils low in saturated fatty acids” and “without eggs”); rice, beans, and peas; sugary fruits and starchy vegetables (including juices) — and deserts were fine as well. At most, eat 3 or 4 eggs a week and, as expected, optimally avoid the egg yolks where all the nutrition is located (not only fat-soluble vitamins, but also choline and cholesterol and much else; by the way, your brain health is dependent on high levels of dietary cholesterol, such that statins in blocking cholesterol cause neurocognitive decline). As long as there were little if any saturated fat and fat in general was limited, buckets of starchy carbs and sugar was considered by the AHA to be part of a healthy and balanced diet. That is sad.

This interested me because of the year. This was as I was entering young adulthood and so I was becoming more aware of the larger world. I remember the heavy-handed propaganda preaching that fiber is good and fat is evil, as if the war on obesity was a holy crusade that demanded black-and-white thinking, all subtleties and complexities must be denied in adherence to the moralistic dogma against the sins of gluttony and sloth — it was literally a evangelistic medical gospel (see Belinda Fettke’s research on the Seventh Day Adventists: Thou Shalt not discuss Nutrition ‘Science’ without understanding its driving force). In our declining public health, we were a fallen people who required a dietary clergy for our salvation. Millennia of traditional dietary wisdom and knowledge was thrown out the window as if it was worthless or maybe even dangerous.

I do remember my mother buying high-fiber cereals and “whole wheat” commercial breads (not actually whole wheat as it is simply denatured refined flour with fiber added back in). And along with this, skim or 1% fat dairy foods, especially milk, was included with every major meal and often snacks. I had sugary and starchy cereal with skim milk (and/or milk with sugary Instant Breakfast) every morning and a glass of skim milk for every dinner, maybe sometimes milk for lunch. Cheese was a regular part of the diet as well, such as with pizza eaten multiple times week or any meal with pasta, and heck cheese was a great snack all by itself, but also good combined with crackers and one could pretend to be healthy if one used Triscuits. Those were the days when I might devour a whole block of cheese, probably low-fat, in a single sitting — I was probably craving fat-soluble vitamins. Still, most of my diet was most starches and sugar, as that was my addiction. The fiber was an afterthought to market junk food as health food.

It now makes sense. When I was a kid in the 1980s, my mother says the doctor understood that whole fat milk was important for growing bodies. So that is what he recommended. But I guess the anti-fat agenda had fully taken over by the 1990s. The AHA booklet from 1991 was by then recommending “skim or 1% milk and low-fat cheeses” for all ages, including babies and children, pregnant and lactating women. Talk about a recipe for health disaster. No wonder metabolic syndrome exploded and neurocognitive health fell like a train going over a collapsed bridge. It was so predictable, as the failure of this diet was understood by many going back to earlier in the century (e.g., Weston A. Price; see my post Health From Generation To Generation).

The health recommendations did get worse over time, but to be fair it started much earlier. They had been discouraging breastfeeding for a while. Traditionally, babies were breastfed for the first couple of years or so. By the time modern America came around, experts were suggesting a short period of breast milk or even entirely using scientifically-designed formulas. My mother only breastfed me for 5-6 months and then put me on cows milk — of course, pasteurized and homogenized milk from grain-fed and factory-farmed cows. When the dairy caused diarrhea, the doctor suggested soy milk. After a while, my mother put me on dairy again, but diarrhea persisted and so for preschool she put me back on soy milk again. I was drinking soy milk off and on for many years during the most important stage of development. Holy fuck! That had to have done serious damage to my developing body, in particular my brain. Then I went from that to skim milk during another important time of development, as I hit puberty and went through growth spurts.

Early on in elementary school, I had delayed reading and a diagnosis of learning disability, seemingly along with something along the lines of either Asperger’s or specific language impairment, although undiagnosed. I definitely had social and behavioral issues, in that I didn’t understand people well when I was younger. Then entering adulthood, I was diagnosed with depression and something like a “thought disorder” or something (I forget the exact diagnosis I got while in a psychiatric ward after a suicide attempt). No doubt the latter was already present in my early neurocogntive problems, as I obviously was severely depressed at least as early as 7th grade. A malnourished diet of lots of carbs and little fat was the most probable cause for all of these problems.

Thanks, American Heart Association! Thanks for doing so much harm my health and making my life miserable for decades, not to mention nearly killing me through depression so severe I attempted suicide, and then decades of depressive struggle that followed. That isn’t even to mention the sugar and carb addiction that plagued me for so long. Now multiply my experience by that of at least hundreds of millions of other Americans, and even greater number of people from elsewhere as their governments followed the example of the United States, across the past few generations. Great job, AHA. And much appreciation for the helping hand of the USDA and various medical institutions in enforcing this anti-scientific dogma.

Let me be clear about one thing. I don’t blame my mother, as she was doing the best she could with the advice given to her by doctors and corporate media, along with the propaganda literature from respected sources such as the AHA. Nor do I blame any other average Americans as individuals, although I won’t hold back on placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of demagogues like Ancel Keys. As Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz have made so clear, this was an agenda of power, not science. With the help of government and media, the actual scientific debate was silenced and disappeared from public view (Eliminating Dietary Dissent). The consensus in favor of a high-carb, low-fat diet didn’t emerge through rational discourse and evidence-based medicine —  it was artificially constructed and enforced.

Have we learned our lesson? Apparently not. We still see this tactic of technocratic authoritarianism, such as with corporate-funded push behind EAT-Lancet (Dietary Dictocrats of EAT-Lancet). Why do we tolerate this agenda-driven exploitation of public trust and harm to public health?

* * *

 * First quote: Passmore, R., and Y. E. Swindelis. 1963. “Observations on the Respiratory Quotients and Weight Gain of Man After Eating Large Quantities of Carbohydrates.” British Journal of Nutrition. 17. 331-39.
Second quote: Astrup, A., B. Baemann, N. . Christenson, and S. Toubre. 1994. “Failure to Increase Lipid Oxidtion in Response to Increasing Dietary Fat Content in Formerly Obese Women.” American Journal of Physiology. April, 266 (4, pt. 1) E592-99.
Both quotes are from a talk given by Peter Ballerstedt, “AHS17 What if It’s ALL Been a Big Fat Lie?,” available on the Ancestry Foundation Youtube page.

(It appears that evidence-based factual reality literally changes over time. I assume this relativity of ideological realism has something to do with quantum physics. It’s the only possible explanation. I’m feeling a bit snarky, in case you didn’t notice.)

** Americans, in the prior centuries, ate few plant foods at all because they were so difficult and time-consuming to grow. There was no way to control for pests and wild animals that often would devour and destroy a garden or a crop. It was too much investment for too little reward, not to mention extremely unreliable as a food source and so risky to survival for those with a subsistence lifestyle. Until modern farming methods, especially with 20th century industrialization of agriculture, most Americans primarily ate animal foods with tons of fat, mostly butter, cream and lard, along with a wide variety of wild-caught animal foods.

This is discussed by Nina Teicholz in The Big Fat Surprise: “Early-American settlers were “indifferent” farmers, according to many accounts. They were fairly lazy in their efforts at both animal husbandry and agriculture, with “the grain fields, the meadows, the forests, the cattle, etc, treated with equal carelessness,” as one eighteenth-century Swedish visitor described. And there was little point in farming since meat was so readily available.” (see more in my post Malnourished Americans). That puts the conventional dietary debate in an entirely different context. Teicholz adroitly dismantles the claim that fatty animal foods have increased in the American diet.

Teicholz goes on to state that, “So it seems fair to say that at the height of the meat-and-butter-gorging eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, heart disease did not rage as it did by the 1930s. Ironically—or perhaps tellingly—the heart disease “epidemic” began after a period of exceptionally reduced meat eating.” It was the discovery of seed oils that originally were an industrial byproduct, combined with Upton Sinclair’s muckraking journalism about the meatpacking industry (The Jungle), that caused meat and animal fats to quickly fall out as the foundation of the American diet. Saturated fat, in particular, had been in decline for decades prior to the epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Ancel Keys knew this data, which is why he had to throw out some of his data to make it fit his preconceived conclusions in promoting his preferred dietary ideology.

If we were honestly wanting to find the real culprit to blame, we would look to the dramatic rise of vegetable oils, white flour, and sugar in the 20th century diet. It began much earlier with the grain surpluses and cheap wheat, especially in England during the 1800s, but in the United States it became most noticeable in the first half century following that period. The agenda of Keys and the AHA simply made a bad situation worse, albeit much much worse.

Is Ketosis Normal?

Humans are born into ketosis and will remain in ketosis while breastfeeding, whether or not the mother is in ketosis. For hunter-gatherers, breastfeeding commonly lasts for the first couple of years, the most important time for growth and development, especially the brain. So, evolution has created ketosis as a protected state for infancy. But it goes far beyond that.

Unlike other carnivores, evidence indicates humans remain in ketosis even while eating higher amounts of protein. We are capable of gluconeogenesis, a necessary function turning protein into glucose, but we don’t so heavily rely upon it. Under normal evolutionary conditions, humans would spend much, probably most, of their time in ketosis. No other species so easily goes into and remains in ketosis. The human brain, in fact, preferentially uses ketones. And it is probably because of our large, energy-hungry brains that we are so ketosis-prone in the first place. That is likely why babies are born so fat, so that they can have a ready supply of ketones.

It was a trade-off of the human brain growing larger as the gut grew smaller, as it requires a lot of energy to digest plant matter and that energy was needed for the evolutionary development of a larger brain. So, humans turned to eating fat from animals, to replace a digestive system needed to break down fibrous plants to produce fat. Herbivores are forced to spend all day eating vast amounts of plant matter and it is energy intensive work. Ketosis freed humans from this activity and simultaneously freed up immense energy to be used for other purposes, specifically greater neurocognitive functioning and higher thought.

The benefits and advantages of ketosis are amazingly numerous. It protects against or improves epilepsy, along with other neurocognitive disorders and mental illnesses, from bipolar disorder to ADHD, not to mention much more serious diseases such as Alzheimer’s. It also shows benefit for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and trauma. There is no health condition I can think of, besides type 1 diabetes, that would be worsened by ketosis. And if one were on a ketogenic diet in the first place, one would be unlikely to develop type 1 diabetes and so that is moot.

One would be forgiven for thinking that ketosis might be the natural state of the human species. Still, whatever one thinks of evolutionary arguments, no one can deny that ketosis is a far healthier state to be in, or at least there is no evidence to the contrary. That said, one doesn’t have to be in constant ketosis to see many of these benefits. Even in epilepsy, after a period of healing, some patients can stop a ketogenic diet and stay free of seizures. There are many mechanisms for this healing power of ketosis, such as the related autophagy, but the general anti-inflammatory effect might be more important considering inflammation is found in so many diseases.

* * *

By Amber L. O’Hearn:

Babies thrive under a ketogenic metabolism

Optimal Weaning from an Evolutionary Perspective

Ketosis Without Starvation: the human advantage

I’d love to see this question approached systematically, but the survey does at least suggest that protein levels above our minimum needs based on positive nitrogen balance still support ketosis. […]

Obligate carnivores are always on very low carb diets, so you might think they are always in ketosis, but that’s not at all the case. In fact they are specialised at gluconeogenesis, that is, getting all their energy needs met by converting protein into glucose. Protein needs tend to be high.

Cats have much higher protein needs than omnivores and surprisingly, they don’t adapt well to reduced protein or fasting [Cen2002]. They don’t seem to have good mechanisms to compensate for the various amino acid and vitamin deficiencies that develop, so they suffer from ammonia toxicity, methylation problems, and oxidative stress. They do produce ketones fasted, but they don’t seem to use them in a productive way. and they actually accumulate fatty acids in the liver when fasted; the opposite of what humans do, Because they are still producing glucose, they become like human type two diabetics.

Dolphins are particularly interesting because they have really large brains, and they eat a diet that would be expected to be ketogenic if fed to humans. However, they don’t seem to even generate ketone at all, not even when fasting. Instead, they ramp up gluconeogenesis [Rid2013].

They keep their bodies and their brains going by increased glucose.

When faced with this observation that humans use ketosis even when they don’t have to for glucose production, one obviously wonders how this happens from a mechanistic standpoint. I have never seen the question raised in the literature, let alone answered. If I were to take a guess, I’d say it probably happens somewhere in this process.

CPT1A is a kind of gatekeeper, transporting fatty acids into the mitochondria for oxidation. This is normally a necessary step in the creation of ketone bodies. The coenzyme malonyl-CoA inhibits CPT1A [Fos2004]. The functional reason it does that is because malonyl-CoA is a direct result of glucose oxidation and is on the path to de novo lipogenesis. It could be inefficient to be both generating fat and oxidizing it. So this is a convenient signal to slow entry of fat into the mitochondria.

However, its action is not stictly linear. It uses hysteresis. Hysteresis is a way of preventing thrashing back and forth between two states at the threshold of their switch. For example, if you set your thermostat to 20°C, you would not want the heater to be turned on when the temperature drops to 19.999 and turned off again at 20. This would result in constant switching. Instead, a thermostat waits until the temperature drops a little lower before activating the heater, and heats it a little more than required before deactivating it.

Hysteresis is implemented in CPT1A by its becoming insensitive to malonyl-CoA when levels of it are low [Ont1980][Bre1981][Gra1988][Gre2009][Akk2009]. That means that once CPT1A becomes very active in transporting fatty acids, it takes time before the presence of malonyl-CoA will inhibit CPT1A at full strength again. That means that fluxuations in glucose oxidation, or small, transient increases in glucose oxidation don’t disturb the burning of fatty acids or the production of ketones.

It could be the case that humans develop more insensitivity to malonyl-CoA under ketosis than other species do, allowing them to metabolise more protein without disturbing ketosis. Among humans, this is case in populations such as some Inuit with the Artic variant of CPT1A. That mutation slows down CPT1A activity immensely. This was permitted by their diet which was very high in polyunsaturated fats from sea mammals. Polyunsaturated fats upregulate fatty acid oxidation by a large proportion compared to saturated fats [Cun2002][Fra2003][Fue2004], so this mutation would not necessarily have been disruptive of ketosis in that population when eating their natural diet [Lem2012]. But a second effect of the same gene further decreases the sensitivity of CPT1A to inhibition by malonyl-CoA. That means they are less likely to be knocked out of ketosis by high protein intake. […]

But it’s not just epilepsy that ketosis is good for. Epilepsy is just the condition with the most research, and the widest acknowledgment.

Other conditions for which at least some evidence supports improvement via a ketogenic diet include neurological disabilities in cognition and motor control [Sta2012]; the benefit here may have to do with the proper maintenance of brain structures such as myelination (Recall phases: tear down damage, rebuild)

Survival after brain damage, the hypoxia of stroke or blows to the head is improved in animal models [Sta2012]. There is even animal evidence that brain damage due to nerve gas is largely mitigated by being in a state of ketosis during the insult [Lan2011]. Again, this suggests a structural support and resilience provided by a ketogenic metabolism. Resilience comes in part from not being as susceptible to damage in the first place, and that could be from reduced oxidative stress when using ketones for fuel.

Ketogenic diets as a treatment for cancer are controversial, but some of the best evidence in support of it comes from glioblastomas. See e.g. [Zuc2010][Sch2012]. This could be due mostly to the hypoglycemia stalling the rate of tumour development.

And to venture into an area less well studied, but of critical importance given the epidemic that would be more apparent were it less taboo, there is preliminary evidence in the form of case studies that ketogenic diets may be promising treatments for many psychiatric illnesses too, for example, [Kra2009][Phe2012]. Given that anticonvulsants are also used to treat bipolar, and the solid results of ketogenic diets on epilepsy, this may not be surprising. Additionally, the enhanced availability of AA and DHA may play a crucial role Because these fatty acids are critical for the brain, and dysregulation in their flux has been associated with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. See e.g. [McN2008] and [Pee1996].

I would almost like to call a ketogenic diet a brain-growth mimicking diet.

The question of how and why humans are so ketosis prone may lead to interesting new insights about us as a species. We seem to avoid giving up ketosis as long as possible. only halting it when we take in so much glucose exogenously that we have to store it.

It seems likely that it facilitated the evolution of our brains, that organ that makes us so different from other animals that we sometimes forget we are animals.

Healthy Diet Made Simple

Let me share the Cosmic Secret of Dietary Success™. It cannot fail! Money back guaranteed.

I’ve studied and experimented with various diets. And I’ve observed many others in their own experiences and results. One begins to see patterns across all dietary regimens and strategies. There is a basic consistency to what works for most people.

Here it is — the official DICE Dietary Protocol© (not in order of priority):

  1. Don’t eat fat and carbs together, limiting one or the other or both. That is to say, do a low-carb/moderate-to-high-fat diet or a low-fat/moderate-to-high-carb diet. In either case, it can be done as plant-based, animal-based, or fancy-free omnivory. In practice, this would mean, for example, eating the bread or eating the meat but not eating a sandwich with the two combined. This is the standard strategy for any health issue related to metabolic syndrome, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and fatty liver. This is because lots of starchy carbs and added sugar combined with lots of fats, especially industrial seed oils (oxidized and high in omega-6 fatty acids), causes all kinds of havoc in the body. Going one way or the other will effectively improve health, at least in the short term of counteracting the accumulated harm of the Standard American Diet (SAD). Debates about what is the best long-term diet is a separate issue.
  2. If struggling, try an elimination diet in order to determine specific allergies or intolerances: wheat gluten, dairy lactose, egg whites, plant oxalates, and many other potentially problematic foods and categories of foods (such as the nightshade family and anything high in histamines). There are many versions of the elimination diet. The most conventional one is to remove from the diet everything besides rice. However, a downside to this is that a significant percentage of people have a high glycemic response to rice, which is a problem with 88% of the American population with one or more symptoms of metabolic syndrome. So, some might find using meat, instead of rice, as a better starting point (Like water fasts, meat fasts are good for health). Few people have any problems with fresh meat from ruminants. In fact, some find this so beneficial with all that ails them that they remain carnivore or else decide to use plant foods sparingly. Sure, others might instead choose to go the vegetarian or vegan route, but I’ve never heard of anyone trying an elimination diet with rice and deciding to eat nothing other than rice for the rest of their lives.
  3. Change metabolic functioning with fasting, calorie restriction, portion control, protein leveraging, hormonal hunger signaling, etc. This is one of the most powerful and effective tools, especially for fat loss and weight maintenance. Some of these methods have the added benefit of curbing appetite, cravings, and addictions while improving mood, energy, and stamina. This is specifically true with ketosis that can be achieved by numerous means, not limited to the ketogenic diet. Many diets, intentionally or unintentionally, increase ketone levels and, simply put, that makes one feel good. There are way more ketogenic and lower-carb diets than is generally acknowledged in how they are labeled or marketed (e.g., Weight Watchers’ Paleo Diet). This is a natural tendency in the dieting world because low-carb, especially ketogenic, is a powerhouse strategy. It’s not the only strategy, but it’s hard to go wrong with it. Even on higher carb diets, many people will turn to other methods that promote ketone production — the above mentioned fasting, calorie restriction, and portion control or else long periods of aerobic exercise. People intuitively seek out ketosis, whether or not they know anything about it.
  4. Exclude highly processed foods with chemical additives, refined carbs, added sugar, and seed oils. Basically, avoid junk food and fast food: candy, chips, crackers, commercial breads, pop, fruit juice, and other such crap. So, eat whole foods or else those prepared in traditional ways: lightly cooked or steamed vegetables, soaked and rinsed legumes, long-fermented breads, real sauerkraut, yogurt, raw aged cheese, homemade bone broth, naturally-cured meat, etc (ignoring minor disagreements over details, as there are always disagreements). Generally, avoid packaged foods, especially those with long lists of ingredients that you don’t recognize and can’t pronounce. And when possible, cook your own meals with ingredients procured from trustworthy sources.

Some combination and variation of this set of guidelines will solve basic diet-related health concerns for almost anyone. For bonus points, eat foods that are locally produced, in season, organic, pasture-raised, wild-caught, nutrient-dense, and nutrient-bioavailable. You’re welcome!

“Now we know.”
“And Knowing is half the battle.”
“G.I. Joe!!!”

Dietary Health Across Generations

It’s common to blame individuals for the old Christian sins of sloth and gluttony. But that has never made much sense, at least not scientifically. Gary Taubes has discussed this extensively, and so look to his several books for more info about why applying Christian theology to diet, nutrition, and health is not a wise strategy for evidence-based medicine and public health policy.

Yes, adults would be wise to do something about their health in a society where 88% of the population has one or more symptoms of metabolic syndrome with about three-quarters being overweight and about half diabetic or prediabetic. But let’s put this in context. It’s not only that each generation is unhealthier than the last for this declining health is being inherited from before birth. There is now an obesity epidemic among 6 month old babies. I doubt anyone thinks it’s reasonable to blame babies. Should babies eat less and exercise more?

This goes back a while. European immigrants in the early 1900s noticed how American children were much chubbier than their European counterparts. By the 1950s, there was already a discussion of an obesity epidemic, as it was becoming noticeable with the younger generations. We are several generations into this modern industrialized diet of highly processed starchy carbs, added sugar, and seed oils. Much of this is caused by worsening environmental conditions, from harmful chemicals to industrial food system. The effects would begin in the womb, but the causality can actually extend across numerous generations.

This is called epigenetics, what determines which genes get expressed and how. And this epigenetic effect is magnified by the microbiome we inherit as well, since microbes help determine some of the epigenetic effect, involving short-chain fatty acids that can be obtained either through plant or animal foods (Fiber or Not: Short-Chain Fatty Acids and the Microbiome). This is important, as it is easier and more straightforward to manipulate our microbiome than our epigenetics, or at least our knowledge is more clear about the former. By changing our diet, we can change our microbiome. And by changing our microbiome, we can change our epigenetics and that of our children and grandchildren.

The dietary aspect is the most basic component, in that some diets seem to have an effect directly on the epigenome itself, however the microbiome may or may not be involved — for example, there is “recent evidence that KD [ketogenic diet] influences the epigenome through modulation of adenosine metabolism as a plausible antiepileptogenic mechanism of the diet” (Theresa A. Lusardi & Detlev Boison, Ketogenic Diet, Adenosine, Epigenetics, and Antiepileptogenesis). It’s been proven for about a century now that the ketogenic diet is the most effective treatment for epileptic seizures, but there has been much debate about why. Now we might know the reason. The mechanism appears to be epigenetic.

This is not exactly new knowledge (Health From Generation To Generation). Such cross-generational influences have been known since earlier last century, but sadly such knowledge is not epigenetically inherited by each succeeding generation. Francis M. Pottenger Jr studied the health of cats on severely malnourished and well-nourished diets — by the third generation the malnourished cats were no longer capable of breeding and so there was no fourth generation. This doesn’t perfectly translate to the present human diet, although it does make one wonder. Many of our diseases of civilization seem to be at least partly caused by malnourishment.

Here is the question that comes to mind: In this modern industrialized diet, what generation of malnourishment are we at now? And if as a society we changed public health policies and medical practice right now, how many generations would it take to reverse the trend and fully undo the damage? To end on a positive note, we could potentially turn it around within this century: “Dr. Pottenger’s research also showed that the health of the cats could be recovered if the diet were returned to a healthy one by the second generation; however, even then it took four generations for some of the cats to show no symptoms of allergies” (Carolyn Biggerstaff, Pottenger’s Cats – an early window on epigenetics).

So, what are we waiting for?

* * *

To give you some idea of how long our society has experienced declining health, check out some of my earlier posts:

Malnourished Americans
Ancient Atherosclerosis?
The Agricultural Mind

* * *

Videos, podcasts, and articles on epigenetics as related to diet, nutrition, microbiome, health, etc with some emphasis on paleo and ketogenic viewpoints:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nutriepigenomics
from Wikipedia

Changes in the diet affect epigenetics via the microbiota
from EurekAlert!

Diet and the epigenome
Yi Zhang and Tatiana G. Kutateladze

Dietary Epigenetics: New Frontiers
by Austin Perlmutter

RHR: The Latest Discoveries in Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, and Epigenetics
by Chris Kresser

Epigenetics, Methylation, and Gene Expression
by Kevin Cann

Epigenetics: Will It Change the Way We Treat Disease?
by Kissairis Munoz

Hacking Your Genes Through Epigenetics and Targeted Nutrigenomics
by Daniel Rash

The Promise of Paleo-Epigenetics
by Jennifer Raff

Dawn of Paleoepigenomics
by Zachary Cofran

37: Robb Wolf – Diets, Epigenetics, Longevity, and Going Foodless for 9 Days
by Andy Petranek

Epigenetics and the Paleo Diet
from The Paleo Diet

Paleo, Epigenetics, and Your Weight
from Paleo Leap

EP157: Improving Mental Health with Epigenetics, Diet & Exercise with Alex Swanson
from Paleo Valley

Epigenetics Warning: Are You Wrecking Your Kids’ Health?
by Louise Hendon

EPISODE 64: Epigenetics 101 with Bailey Kirkpatrick
from Phoenix Helix

Episode 90 – Dr. Lucia Aronica studies keto and epigenetics
by Brian Williamson

Can Keto Affect Your Genes?
from KetoNutrition

Energy & Epigenetics 1: The Infant Brain is Unique
by Jack Kruse

Dr. David Perlmutter: Intermittent Fasting, Epigenetics & What Sugar Really Does To Your Brain
by Abel James

Epigenetic Explanations For Why Cutting Sugar May Make You Feel Smarter
by Caitlin Aamodt

Eating Sweet, Fatty Foods During Pregnancy is Linked to ADHD in Children
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

High Fat, Low Carb Diet Might Epigenetically Open Up DNA and Improve Mental Ability
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

A Child’s Mental Fitness Could Be Epigenetically Influenced by Dad’s Diet
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

Dad’s Drinking Could Epigenetically Affect Son’s Sensitivity and Preference for Alcohol
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

B Vitamins Protect Against Harmful Epigenetic Effects of Air Pollution
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

Vitamin D Adjusts Epigenetic Marks That Could Hinder A Baby’s Health
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

Could We Use Epigenetics and Diet to Fix Binge Eating?
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

Early Epigenetic Nutrition ‘Memory’ Could Program You for Obesity Later in Life
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

The Consequences of a Poor Diet Could Epigenetically Persist Despite Improving Eating Habits
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

Epigenetic Transfer of Nutrition ‘Memory’ Ends Before Great-Grandchildren
by Bailey Kirkpatrick

How your grandparents’ life could have changed your genes
by Tim Spector

Nutrition & the Epigenome
from University of Utah

The epigenetics diet: A barrier against environmental pollution
from University of Alabama at Birmingham

How Epigenetics May Help Explain the Complexity of Autism Spectrum Disorder
from Zymo Research

Epigenetics, Health and the Mind
from PBS with John Denu

Eating for two risks harm to the baby
by Laura Donnelly and Leah Farrar

Micronutrients in Psychiatry: Sound Science or Just Hype?
by Seth J. Gillihan

Epigenetics: A New Bridge between Nutrition and Health
by Sang-Woon Choi and Simonetta Friso

Role of diet in epigenetics: a review
by Abhina Mohanan and Raji Kanakkaparambil

The science behind the Dutch Hunger Winter
from Youth Voices

Epigenetic Marks From Parents Could Influence Embryo Development and Future Health
by Tim Barry

Can Your Diet Epigenetically Shape Your Child’s Health?
by Janeth Santiago Rios

Epigenetic Insights on Nutrition, Hormones and Eating Behavior
by Janeth Santiago Rios

Paternal Environmental and Lifestyle Factors Influence Epigenetic Inheritance
by Estephany Ferrufino

How Diet Can Change Your DNA
by Renee Morad

Food that shapes you: how diet can change your epigenome
by Cristina Florean

The Unknown Link: Epigenetics, Metabolism, and Nutrition
by Nafiah Enayet

Obesity, Epigenetics, and Gene Regulation
by Jill U. Adams

Epigenetics and Epigenomics: Implications for Diabetes and Obesity
by Evan D. Rosen et al

Epigenetic switch for obesity
from Science Daily

Epigenetics between the generations: We inherit more than just genes
from Science Daily

Low paternal dietary folate alters the mouse sperm epigenome and is associated with negative pregnancy outcomes
by R. Lambrot et al

Diet-Induced Obesity in Female Mice Leads to Offspring Hyperphagia, Adiposity, Hypertension, and Insulin Resistance
by Anne-Maj Samuelsson et al

Maternal obesity increases the risk of metabolic disease and impacts renal health in offspring
by Sarah J. Glastras

Transgenerational Epigenetic Mechanisms in Adipose Tissue Development
by Simon Lecoutre et al

Your Grandma’s Diet Could Have Made You Obese, Mouse Study Suggests
by Kashmira Gandery

Your Diet Affects Your Grandchildren’s DNA, Scientists Say
by Christopher Wanjek

You Are What Your Grandparents Ate
by Maria Rodale

People who eat too much fast food could cause heart disease in their great grandchildren by Jasper Hamill

Eating Badly When Pregnant Might Make Your Kid Fat
by Zak Stone

Perinatal Western Diet Consumption Leads to Profound Plasticity and GABAergic Phenotype Changes within Hypothalamus and Reward Pathway from Birth to Sexual Maturity in Rat
by Julie Paradis et al

A Maternal “Junk Food” Diet in Pregnancy and Lactation Promotes Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Rat Offspring
by S. A. M. Bayol et al

Exposure to a Highly Caloric Palatable Diet during the Perinatal Period Affects the Expression of the Endogenous Cannabinoid System in the Brain, Liver and Adipose Tissue of Adult Rat Offspring
by María Teresa Ramírez-López et al

A maternal junk food diet alters development of opioid pathway in the offspring
from Science Daily

‘Junk food’ moms have ‘junk food’ babies
from Science Daily

Born to Be Junk Food Junkies
by Linda Wasmer Andrews

Reality check: Do babies inherit junk food addictions from their moms?
by Carmen Chai

Bad Eating Habits Start in the Womb
by Kristin Wartman

Could Over-Snacking While Pregnant Predispose Children to Be Obese?
by Natasha Geiling

Overeating in pregnancy could lead to child obesity
by John von Radowitz

Eating for two puts unborn child at risk of junk addiction
by James Randerson

Craving for junk food ‘inherited’
from BBC

Craving for junk food ‘begins in the womb’
by Fran Yeoman

Hooked on junk food in the womb
by Fiona MacRae

How pregnant mums who ‘eat for 2’ can make their babies fat
by Victoria Fletcher

 

A Fun Experiment

I’ve written a lot about diet lately, but let me get personal about it. I’ve had lifelong issues with diet, not that I thought about it that way when younger. I ate a crappy diet and it was the only diet I knew, as everyone else around me was likewise eating the same basic crappy diet. Even my childhood sugar addiction didn’t stand out as all that unique. Though I didn’t know it at the time, looking back at it now, I’m sure an unhealthy diet with nutrient-deficiencies and food additives (maybe along with environmental toxins or other external factors) was likely contributing factors to my learning disability and word finding difficulties (WFD) — see previous posts: Aspergers and Chunking; and Specific Language Impairment. As early as elementary school, there were also signs of what would later be diagnosed as depression. I knew something was wrong with me, but felt at a loss in that there was no way to explain it. I was just broken, inferior and inadequate. I didn’t even understand that I was depressed during my youth, although my high school art teacher once asked me if I was depressed and, in my ignorance, I said I wasn’t. Being depressed was all I knew and so it just felt normal.

I didn’t have the insight to connect my neurocognitive and psychological struggles to physical health. The crappiness of my diet only became apparent to me in adulthood, although I’m not sure when I started thinking about it. I grew up in churches where people were more health-conscious and my mother tried to do what she thought was healthy, even as good info was lacking back then. Still, a basic mentality of healthfulness was instilled in me, not that it initially did me much good. It took a while for it to lead to anything more concrete than doing what was the height of “healthy eating” in those day, which was skim milk poured over bran cereal and an occasional salad with low-fat dressing. That simply would’ve made my depression and learning disabilities worse as it surely was fucking up my neurocognition precisely as my brain was developing, but mainstream advice asserted that this USDA-approved way of eating would cure all that ails you. Fat was the enemy and fiber was a health tonic. Few at the time realized that fat-soluble vitamins were key to health nor that a high-fiber diet can block nutrient absorption.

Everything fell apart after high school. I despised life and wanted to escape the world. I dropped out of college and seriously considered becoming a hermit, but the prospect was too lonely and after moving out to Arizona I felt homesick. Then in going back to college, I attempted suicide. I failed at that as well and earned myself a vacation in a psychiatric ward. I was bad off, but having been raised in New Thought Christianity I was always looking for answers in self-help books and similar things. It would’ve been maybe in my early to mid 20s when I first read books that were explicitly about diet, nutrition, and health. I do recall, for instance, a book I picked up on low-carb diets and it wasn’t about the Atkins diet — it might have been an old copy of Vilhjalmur Stefansson’s Not By Bread Alone or it could have been something else entirely. Around that time, there was a minor incident that comes to mind. I told my friend that fast food was unhealthy and he didn’t believe me. It sounds odd now, but this was back in the 1990s. His mother was a nurse and regularly bought him fast food as a child. So how could it be bad? Many people at the time didn’t have much sense of what made food healthy or not, but obviously something had got me thinking about it. I knew that some foods were not healthy, even as what a healthy diet should look like was a bit hazy in my mind, beyond the nostrum of eating more fruits and veggies.

I lacked knowledge and there weren’t many sources of knowledge prior to my getting internet. Still, based on what limited info I could glean, I did start experimenting during that period. I began trying supplements to deal with my depression with the related low energy and low motivation, as therapy and medications had failed to put a dent in it. Around 1998, four years after graduating high school and a couple years after the suicide attempt, I tried vegetarianism for a time, maybe for a year or so, but it mainly involved eating as a regular meal a mix of Ramen noodles, eggs, and frozen vegetables cooked in the microwave — it was a poverty diet as I was living in poverty. I probably also was eating plenty of junk food as well, considering most cheap processed foods are vegetarian. Avoiding meat certainly doesn’t guarantee health — it didn’t fill me with joy and vitality. A bit later on I did finally try a low-carb diet, but it mainly consisted of eating processed meat because I was too depressed to cook. Even then, I might not have been getting many fat-soluble vitamins, as I didn’t understand nutrient-density. I wasn’t procuring pasture-raised meat, much less emphasizing organ meats, bone broth, wild-caught fish, etc.

My experiments weren’t well-informed and so weren’t done under optimal conditions. There was no one around to offer me guidance and so it didn’t work out all that well. I don’t give up easy, though. I went looking for guidance from dozens of psychiatrists, therapists, energy healers, body workers, and even a shaman. In my desperation, I’d try anything. Then I went to massage school where I learned Shiatsu massage and traditional Chinese theory, along with some other modalities. Even that didn’t change anything. My massage teachers were alternative health practitioners, one being a naturopath, but it seemed like no one understood what was wrong with me and so nothing could make a difference. My depression was an incomprehensible mystery. Rather than something being wrong with me, I was the problem in being inherently defective, so it seemed in my lingering dark mood.

The only thing that made much of a difference was exercise. I found that I could keep the worst symptoms of depression at bay through jogging, if only temporarily. At some point, I learned to jog before eating anything in the morning and I found that my hunger and cravings were less for the rest of the day. I had accidentally discovered ketosis and didn’t know what it was. It didn’t make sense that physical exertion minus food would lead to such results — rather counterintuitive. I was also occasionally fasting around then which also would’ve contributed to ketosis. That isn’t to say ketosis while in nutrient deficiency is a good thing. I’d have been better off in having avoided ketosis entirely and, instead, having filled up on nutrient-dense fatty animal foods. I needed healing and only high dosage of nutrition was going to accomplish that. I had been too malnourished for far too long at that point. Ketosis would’ve been great after a period of deep nourishment, but I didn’t understand either the significance of key nutrients nor how to implement ketosis in a more beneficial way.

At some point, I read Sally Fallon Morrell’s Nourishing Traditions (1995) where I was introduced to nutrient-density and fat-soluble viatmins along with traditional food preparation, but I was too depressed and too isolated to fully and successfully implement what I was learning. Depression is a real kick in the ass. Still, I was slowly accruing basic knowledge and making small changes when and where I felt able. I was limiting some of the worst problematic foods. In particular, I began cutting back on junk food, especially candy. And I replaced sugar with such things as stevia. Simultaneously, I increased healthier foods like probiotics and Ezekiel bread, although I’m not sure that the latter really is all that healthy (it has vital gluten added to it and it mostly starchy carbs). I tried to limit my sugar intake to foods that were relatively better, such as yogurt and kefir. I still was experimenting a bit with supplements, but wasn’t getting any clear results. My depression persisted and I see now that, even with these changes, I continued to lack nutrient-density. It just wasn’t clicking together for me. Maybe my depression had moderated ever so slightly, to the degree that I was a functional depressive and not in the total gloom and doom of my late teens to early twenties. I figured that was as good as it was going to get. I had survived that far and figured I’d be depressed for the rest of my life. Let me put this in perspective. This slightly lessened depression was, nonetheless, chronic and severe. For example, suicidal ideation persisted — maybe more as a background noise to my thoughts, but there, always there. I had this suspicion that eventually depression would catch up with me and then that would be the end of me. Suicide remained a real possibility in my mind, a persistent thought. It was hard for me imagine myself surviving into old age.

I carried on like this. I managed my life at a bare minimal level. I held down a job, I sort of kept my apartment clean, I fed my cats and sometimes changed their litter, and I more or less paid my bills on time. But depression had kept me working minimal hours and barely staying above poverty. There wasn’t only the depression for, over the decades, a crippling sense of shame had accumulated. I felt worthless, a failure. I wasn’t taking care of myself or at least wasn’t doing it well. Everything felt like a struggle while nothing I did seemed to make a difference. It was shitty and I knew life was just going to get worse as I aged and thinking about that made me feel more hopeless. To add to that general anxiety and despair, as I drifted through my thirties, I began gaining weight. I had always thought of myself as athletic. I played soccer from 1st grade to 11th grade and was always slim and trim, although I remember at one point after high school having been so inactive for a number of years that I felt winded just by walking up a hill — that was a strange experience for me because I had never been out of shape before that time. That was why I came to focus so much on exercise. Yet with age, mere exercise wouldn’t stop the weight gain, much less help with weight loss… nor any of the other symptoms of declining health. I was jogging multiple times a week for long periods, sometimes while wearing a heavy backpack as I hoofed it out to my parent’s place on the far edge of town. Still, the excess fat remained. That was rather dispiriting. Yet from a conventional viewpoint, my diet was balanced and my lifestyle was generally healthy, at least by American standards. I was doing everything right, as I understood it. Just the expected results of aging, most doctors would likely have told me.

I realize now that insulin resistance probably had set in quite a while back. I was probably prediabetic at that point, maybe even in the early stages of diabetes (I sweated a lot, in the way my grandmother did before her diabetes was managed with insulin shots). I know that I no longer handled sugar well, which helped keep my sugar addiction in check. About a decade ago, my friend and I visited a nearby donut shop and I got several fine specimens. Upon eating them, I felt sick with a slight headache. No more donuts for me. Sugar or not, my diet was still fairly high-carb, but I wasn’t yet fully aware of how starches and sugars sneak into everything. Then last year I randomly came across the paleo documentary The Magic Pill and watched it without any expectation. I suppose it was just basic curiosity, as is my habit. Something about it resonated with me. I showed it to my parents and they too found it inspiring. So, we all set about changing our diets — having mutual support from family was surely an important factor for motivation. The diet portrayed is standard paleo with a combination of low-carb and nutrient-density. What made the documentary compelling was how a wide variety of people were followed as they tried the paleo diet: a woman living alone with various health problems, a family with a young daughter with severe autism, and an Australian Aboriginal community that had lost their traditional way of life. It demonstrated the significant changes that could occur through diet. The transformation of the autistic girl was particularly impressive. The entire documentary was motivational. After that, I looked for some other documentaries to watch with my parents: The Perfect Human Diet, Carb Loaded, etc. Learning more reinforced this new view and brought together all that I had learned over the decades. I finally had a broader framework of understanding.

It was this low-carb paleo diet that was the starting point for me, although my mother never was quite on board with it. After looking online, she was drawn to the FODMAP diet in hoping it could help with her gut issues, specifically GERD and belching, but also osteoporosis (and indeed it did seem to work for her, as her former high-fiber diet apparently was the source of her problems), although her diet had some overlap with paleo. Going into my typical obsessive-compulsive mode, I gathered dozens of books on the subject, voraciously took in all the info I could find online, and began following various people on social media. I quickly figured out the basics and what was most essential while determining the points of disagreement and uncertainty. What I liked about the paleo and low-carb community was the attitude of curiosity, of exploration and experimentation. Try something and see what happens. And if it doesn’t work, try something else. There was no failure, a much more positive attitude about health. Within three months of implementing the paleo diet, I had lost 60 pounds of fat and I did it without starving myself. I simply figured out how to tap into the body’s natural mechanisms for fat-burning and hunger signalling. As I switched from general low-carb to ketogenic, my experience improved even further. It finally dawned on me that my depression had gone away, simply and utterly disappeared, decades of depression along with a lifetime of sugar addiction no longer an issue. I didn’t need to struggle against it. I wasn’t even trying to cure my depression, not that I realized this even was a possibility. It was a complete surprise.

It’s been a little over a year now. I’m still coming to terms with this new state of being. It’s strange. Depression had become part of my identity, as had sugar addiction and the roller coaster hangriness of insulin resistance. I now simply wake up in the morning feeling perfectly fine. It’s not that I go around feeling ecstatic, but the extreme low moods and funks no longer happen. I feel more balanced and relaxed. I used to fall into long periods of apathy and despair where all I could do was isolate myself until it passed, sometimes requiring days or weeks before I could rejoin humanity. How I functioned at all in such a state is kind of amazing, but not nearly as amazing as the miracle of its drama-free disappearance. Depression was there and then it wasn’t. I didn’t really notice it going away, until after it was gone. This leaves me in a strange position, as the decades of depressive thought and behavioral patterns remain. It’s hard for me to know how to not be a depressed person. I can’t quite wrap my mind around it. I don’t remember the last time I had any suicidal tendencies or fantasies. Yet the decades of damage to my body also remains as a reminder.

That hasn’t stopped me from getting back in shape and beyond. In fact, I’m in better shape now as I move toward middle age than ever before in my life. It’s not simply that I’ve been working out but that I enjoy working out. It feels good to me and I enjoy doing physical activity, pushing myself to the point of exhaustion. Unsurprisingly, I’m looking better. People notice and tell me. This sometimes makes me uncomfortable, as I’m not used to getting compliments. Just today I went to a picnic with a large crowd, some people I knew and some I didn’t. I met a friendly young woman and she was obviously flirting with me as we talked. It was a nice day and, having been out in a kayak, I had my shirt off. She told me that I looked “gorgeous” — the exact word she chose.* I’ll be blunt about this. No one has ever said anything like that to me in my entire life. I had never been a buff guy before and now I actually have muscles. It changes how I carry myself, how I feel.

It makes me realize why some fat people, after losing a bunch of weight, will sometimes gain their weight back just to feel normal again. The person I am now is not the person I’ve known myself for as long as I can remember. And I don’t know what to do with people relating to me differently. I’m sure people treat me differently not only because I look different but probably because I’m putting off a different vibe. I’m less sullen and dissociated than I used to be. An easygoing friendliness comes more naturally to me now. I don’t feel so crappy in no longer being on a crappy diet, but I’m not sure what it might mean to be healthy and happy. That is an odd concept to my mind. What if I could really be different? I take this seriously. In the past, I didn’t feel capable of being different, but all of that has changed. I don’t feel so irritable, frustrated, and angry. In place of that, I find myself wanting to be kinder and more forgiving. I want to be a good person. I realize that, in the past, how I could be an asshole and I was often open in admitting this basic fact of my former state, sometimes apologizing for my antagonistic moods. My life didn’t always feel like a net gain for the world and I’m sure some people might have agreed with that assessment. I could be harshly critical at times and that doesn’t make others feel better — I seriously harmed a number of relationships.

Now here I am. It’s a bit late in my life, but I have a second chance to try to do things differently. It will take some further experimentation beyond diet to find better ways of relating to others and to myself. That said, I’ll go on tinkering with my diet and lifestyle. It’s an ongoing experiment, all of it. Most importantly, it’s a fun experiment. The idea that I can try various things and discover what works is new to me. I’m more used to failure, but now I’m starting to see ‘failure’ as simply part of the experiment. There is no failure. Life doesn’t have to be hard. And I’m realizing that I’m not alone in this, as I’ve come across hundreds of stories just like mine. Sometimes simple changes can have profound effects.


* I must admit that it was a disconcerting experience. A young beautiful woman telling me in no uncertain words that I’m attractive. That is not the kind of thing I’ve grown accustomed to. I handled the situation as well as I could. It was kind of an amusing scenario. She was with her family. Along with her parents, she was visiting from Tunisia in order to see her sister who now works at the local university.

So, this young woman wasn’t going to be around long. Developing a romantic relationship didn’t seem to be in the cards, even if I had wanted it, but I feel ambivalent about romantic relationships these days. I’ve become comfortable in my bachelorhood with its lack of complications. Even so, I played along with the flirtation. As I sat near her with her family at the picnic table, she kept wanting to feed me. And how I could I decline food offered by a beautiful woman, even when she offered me carbs. That is my new plan for carb cycling — I’ll eat carbs every time a beautiful woman feeds them directly to me.

Anyway, combined with introversion and shyness, the lifetime of depression has made me reticent. I’m not confident around the opposite sex, but I’ve had long years of training in hiding any anxieties. Still, I didn’t know what purpose there was in flirting with this nice-looking person who would soon be gone. She said she might be back to visit again in a few years and that seems like a long time when you just met someone. I convinced myself there was no point and didn’t give her my contact info or ask for hers. But now I feel some regret.

I was acting according to my old self, the one who was ruled by his depression. Maybe it was irrelevant that I might not see her again. I should have left the door open for the possibility. These are the kinds of habits I need to learn.

Right-Wing Political Correctness, Censorship, and Silencing

It’s been a while since I’ve posted about this topic. But it seems maybe we need to be reminded of it, beyond an occasional opinion piece in the back pages of your local newspaper. I’m not going to offer a complex analysis, as I could. I simply want to throw out some quick thoughts and then gather together some previous thoughts, along with links to the writings of others. The purpose is to give a sense of the many the ways right-wing rhetoric is used as social control. I’ll share a few examples that are representative, if not exhaustive. I wanted to do so because I realized that my previous posts tended to be narrow in focus by looking at specific areas (e.g., climate change denialism). Not that I’m going to presently attempt a survey.

Right-wing rhetoric is an amazing thing to observe, most of all right-wing political correctness. And I’m amazed how rarely others are amazed by it or even notice it, as if we’ve become numb to the constant noise of it. The one thing I’ll give them credit for is that they are highly effective propagandists in controlling narratives and policing allowable language. Sometimes it comes in blunt forms of authoritarian social control, but typically it is much more insidious. Part of why they are so talented is that they know how to manipulate what already so dominates in a society, to such a degree that it is hard for anyone to speak about it openly, what Noam Chomsky refers to as the propaganda model.

For example, identity politics is only directly called out when the powerless and underprivileged challenge those the identities that are well established and given favor within the ‘mainstream’ structures and institutions. And it is often a minority that polices what is allowable, a tiny percentage of whites, Christians, etc who control the platforms of speech in getting heard while the majority of whites, Christians, etc are treated as if they don’t exist (it ends up being social control all around for even most people within the majority aren’t free to define their own identity). Within the systems of control, including the so-called liberal media, certain identities simply are accepted with little question (sometimes in the universities as well, such as when professors are fired or otherwise forced out for supporting the equality of Palestinian rights). It is built into the framework of every public debate and political narrative exactly who are considered real Americans, what they look like, and what the positions they hold.

For centuries, garden variety race realists, fundamentalists, and other varieties of right-wing authoritarians have been so common in the American elite of politics, media, business, etc that they have mostly been taken as the social norm or at least well within it, even when the positions they hold are extremist in only being held by a small minority (e.g., the official NRA position of anti-regulation radicalism that isn’t even supported by the majority of NRA members). Their identity is a given and when it motivates their politics it isn’t called identity politics, much less political correctness when they seek to silence those other voices that have been historically excluded and victimized. And such silencing can be dangerous when it is used in defense of violence, such as denying the long history of right-wing terrorism and oppression… or, worse yet, in using a politically correct false equivalency to pretend its equal on all sides.

Now finally, albeit slowly, society is shifting away from some of the worst forms of bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, and all manners of prejudice. So, yeah, Jim Crow style racism is no longer acceptable. Neither is pinching your female secretary on the butt and then firing her when she refuses to have sex with you. Likewise, giving expression to hateful ignorance through rants in public forums is generally frowned upon and might not be a great career move. There are many things that have become considered morally wrong in respectable society, the kinds of language and behavior that were normalized by abusive systems of power not that long ago, well within living memory.

The loss of power and privilege among certain demographics has been hard for some to adapt to. What they could get away with when younger might entail less than happy responses in their older age. It’s hard to learning new ways of relating to others, especially when it requires admitting that one’s past behavior looks shameful in hindsight. It is hard to save face and, instead of letting the past go, some turn reactionary in wanting to double down in their embrace of crudity and cruelty, as if it demonstrates their strength, but in reality it shows their weakness, their desperation. So, they lash out. And one of the ways they do so is by attempting to enforce old systems of political correctness by projecting their desire for oppression onto those they hope to put back in their places. And so they play games of rhetoric to muddy the waters, such as claiming that the Civil War was about freedom rather than slavery.

It can be a powerful move, especially when the corporate media joins in the attack, scapegoating college students or even the entire young generation for finding it offensive that there has been a consistent pattern of right-wing authoritarians promoting harm to our society and I’m talking about literal harm where people sometimes get killed. To fight against the powerful seeking to do you harm is portrayed as being overly sensitive. And when those on the political left call it for what it is (e.g., those who make racist comments are racist), the political right basically argues that it’s politically incorrect to call them mean names, albeit they never call it political correctness

Even the ‘liberal’ media rarely challenges them on this bullshit. This right-wing strategy, sadly, gets many ‘moderates’ on board in their desire to be fair and balanced. So, liberalism gets once again hijacked to punch left, and it’s not hard to accomplish since liberals have always feared the left-wing more than the right-wing, which is why for generations now liberals have pushed hard right. This is why the liberal class is always prepared to silence left-wingers so as to defend the next right-wing project, such as beating the war drum for Bush’s War on Terror — remember how Bill Maher was attacked all across the corporate media for stating the obvious on a show called “Politically Incorrect”? Yet we never see the equivalent of conservatives attacking the right by policing the politically correct boundaries, this far right and no further. No. Instead, both conservatives join liberals in keeping the left-wing silenced. This has created an open field for right-wing rhetoric to dominate, a pattern that has been seen since before the Cold War. Liberals have always been an untrustworthy lot, capable of turning reactionary in an instant… or were they always reactionary?

This is how we got to the point where the president can attack the press and his supporters can talk about killing journalists, including a t-shirt worn at rallies that said “Tree. Rope. Journalist. Some assembly required.” and for a time was sold at Walmart. The message is that there are some things that the media or anyone else shouldn’t be allowed to talk about and, if they dare talk about them, the offending person should be made to never speak again (Robert A. Vella, Trump allies fear their white supremacist image, and that’s why they’re threatening journalists). This is the extremes to where right-wing political correctness takes us. And then when this is correctly labeled as right-wing authoritarianism, the right-wing authoritarians have a hissy-fit in claiming that accurately describing their words and behavior is unfair, that is to say politically incorrect. No one should state the obvious or else they will suffer the consequences.

Sadly, there are always liberals ready to quickly jump in to say that all sides are equally guilty or, if anything, that the political left is worst in their politically correctness. Well, fuck that bullshit! It is not the political left repeating hate-filled speech advocating violence, as seen with the right-wing media. When Bill O’Reilly repeatedly called Dr. George Tiller a “baby killer” until one of his viewers killed the good doctor, whose speech was silenced? When right-wingers have killed people in hate crimes and terrorism, in a way not seen among left-wingers, why is it the political left that gets verbally attacked for being politically correct in defending against these dangerous people? This is not a time for liberals to pander to the right because of lacking a moral spine. One of these days liberals will be reminded once again, as happened in Germany after liberals backed the Nazis, that maybe, just maybe the right-wing authoritarians are to be feared far beyond the left-wing bogeyman. Free speech is more than a nice-sounding idea. And for God’s sake! Beware of rhetoric of free speech used to undermine free speech. One thing that reactionaries, be it right-wing reactionaries or liberal reactionaries, are talented at is using democratic norms against democracy.

* * *

The Many Stolen Labels of the Reactionary Mind (comment)

Reactionaries are a dangerous enemy. This is because, as Faceless Men, they can be anywhere in any form and speaking in any voice. You can see this in how the political right has co-opted political correctness and wielded it against the political left, such as denying being racists even as they promote racism and then acting offended by the allegation. The smartest among them know how to say all the right things. They are chameleons. They know how to fit in, when it serves their purpose.

Right-Wing Political Correctness on Right-Wing Terrorism

Yet this largely went unnoticed. The media, especially the right-wing media, had little interest in focusing on domestic threats while the foreign “War on Terror” was going on. And it would have been hard for right-wing groups to argue for bias when right-wingers were in control of the federal government. This attitude changed, of course, when Barack Obama was elected. There was right-wing outrage when a DHS report came out in 2009 that highlighted right-wing terrorism, despite the fact that the research for the report began under the Bush administration. This forced a retraction, not because it wasn’t true but because it was politically incorrect.

Berkeley Scholar Doesn’t Admit He Is A Corporate Shill

Explain to me how scientific experts who support scientific consensus are ‘cultists’ because “I’m rubber and you’re glue, what bounces off of me sticks to you”. Besides being inanely stupid, that is false equivalency between the two sides. Why shouldn’t we label as science denialists those who deny science? And how does that justify declaring that respectable climatologists are cultists for simply stating scientific facts? Calling a spade a spade in calling a denialist a denialist isn’t unfair name-calling, since it is a objective description. It reminds me of racists who complain about being called racists and demand they be treated as respectable equals. Why should we play their game?

Conservatives seeing everything in terms of religion is nothing new. To their mind, everything on the political left is a cult, as every other religion is a cult. Their complaint isn’t about religion but that there can only be one true religion to rule them all (religiosity as authoritarian dogmatism by way of Social Darwinism) and all else is cultism. It’s similar to how conservatives deny having an ideology for only people they disagree with have ideologies. The labels of ‘cult’ and ‘ideology’ mean the same thing in the conservative mind. It seems like a whole lot of projection considering how hard conservatives push their political and religious ideologies onto others, including their own preferred versions of political correctness. That is what this comes down to, political correctness in defense of right-wing ideology. The right-wing snowflakes have their feelings hurt by words. And since they can’t win on the facts, they will try to make it a fight over language policing.

Racecraft: Political Correctness & Free Marketplace of IdeasRacecraft: Political Correctness & Free Marketplace of Ideas

Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life
by Barbara J. Fields and Karen Fields

In the controversy over Dr. James D. Watson’s remarks in London, some of his defenders charged his critics with a “politically correct” retreat from science, insisting that good science requires a free marketplace of ideas . Researchers must be free, they implied, to salvage the old bio-racist ranking of superior and inferior races, regardless of the collapse as science of its core concept, race. But it is doubtful that those foes of political correctness would wish to rehabilitate that part of bio-racism that once identified inferior white races.

If they took their own position seriously, they would applaud the writings of such eminent American scientists of the late nineteenth century as Edward Drinker Cope and Nathaniel Southgate Shaler (dean of Harvard’s Lawrence Scientific School during the 1890s) on the inequality of races, not simply their work on dinosaurs and the earth’s history. Cope advocated both “the return of the African to Africa” and restrictions on immigration by “the half-civilized hordes of Europe.” Shaler agreed, characterizing those hordes as inferior “by birthright ,” “essentially in the same state as the Southern Negro,” and distinct from “the Aryan variety of mankind.” […]

One of the present authors some years ago tested the limits of the free market in racist ideas. A crotchety yet likable right-wing colleague approached, looking disquieted and in need of moral support. He was “having trouble” with a certain black student in his bio-psychology class. What was wrong, he wondered, with saying that “black people may, or (mind you) may not, prove to be intellectually inferior to white people? In science, you frame a hypothesis, devise an experiment, find out.” The student raised her hand and, when recognized, blasted him. “Do you know So-and -So (the student in question)?” asked the bio-psychologist. (The author did happen to know the student in question, an eighteen-year-old single mother of twins who was as bright as they come and not one to brook insult.) “Why can’t she grasp that there’s a scientific approach to things , blah , blah?” Finally, the author put a question. “If, as you say, there is no hypothesis that science excludes, why not try this assignment ? Let your students pick any white ethnic group and any stereotype commonly applied to it, greedy, mendacious, dumb, drunken, gangsterish, and so on, then formulate a hypothesis, design the experiment, find out.” The colleague’s face froze.

Using Free Speech Rhetoric to Silence OpponentsUsing Free Speech Rhetoric to Silence Opponents

There is still a law on the book that makes belonging to the communist party illegal. In the right-wing media, there is talk about enforcing this law to silence opponents. Some petitions have been started for this purpose, specifically in the hope that Trump will back this attack on the political left. It’s nonsense, of course, and wouldn’t hold up in court. But I have yet to hear of any conservative, right-wing, or alt-right free speech advocate complain about, much less protest against, these authoritarian right-wingers. It’s the same reason why conservative colleges can get away with far more egregious silencing of free speech than can mainstream colleges, even though those conservative colleges also receive public funding.

Censorship of speech was far more dangerous and damaging in the past when it mostly targeted the political left. And censorship continues to target the political left, targeting workers, students and professors. If you don’t hear about censorship against left-wingers in corporate media, that is because corporate media is the mouthpiece of capitalism and doesn’t tend to bend over backwards to create a platform for Marxists, communists, and their fellow travelers (e.g., Palestinian rights advocates).

Those on the political right act as if there is a conspiracy against them, as if they are the only Americans who know oppression. They pretend that white conservatives are the ultimate oppressed minority in a country that is and always has been majority white and majority Christian. They apparently have no clue about the harsh realities that others face on a daily basis or else they are pretending to be ignorant. It’s mind-boggling. How could they be so obliviously ignornant to not know about the prejudices and hate crimes directed at minorities, the difficulty of being a Muslim or Middle Easterner (or mistaken for one), the professors who lose their jobs when they defend the rights of Palestinians and such, the historical and ongoing attack on left-wingers?

Sure, free speech is under attack, as it always has been. But it is a psychotic disconnection from reality to genuinely believe that this is all about the political right. Why the constant playing of the victim card when the tactics the political right has used against others are turned back the other way?

They should learn some history. Even in the past, some right-wing groups found themselves on the wrong side of political and corporate power. The government didn’t only systematically attack communist partisans, anti-war protesters, black radicals, and hippy drug users? The Second Klan was destroyed by the FBI, although the KKK had become quite corrupt at that point and was flaunting its own power through such things as political bribery and tax evasion.

The point is that those in the centers of power will always seek to silence and eliminate any individual or group that too effectively challenges the status quo or otherwise becomes problematic to establishment agendas and interests. That is true of those in power within the private sector. A company like Google would have been misogynistic in the past as most companies were in the past because misogyny was the norm, but times have changed and so all companies increasingly support gender equality because it is all about what is good for business (studies show that diverse companies have higher levels of innovation, profit, etc). Even the University of Iowa has as its president a guy from the business world, not some left-wing political activist. Colleges these days are run like businesses and having an anti-gay group causing trouble on campus isn’t good for business.

We live in a capitalist society, after all. Everything is about the flow of money. That pretty much sums up the entirety of American history.

As for all the protesters and counter-protesters, that also is nothing new. America has a long history of public outrage going back to not just protests but riots and revolts even before the American Revolution. We Americans are a vocal people about our opinions on public matters. And it occasionally turning to violence is even less of a shock. Actions committed by individuals and groups in the past, more often directed at left-wingers and minorities, were far more violent than what tends to be seen these days. If anything, it is amazing how non-violent of a time we live in, at least in the Western world (ignoring the violence we export to the rest of the world).

Besides, the most violent actions in recent history have not come from the political left. There is no American left-wing equivalent to generations of right-wing violence — the bombings, arson, assassinations, driving cars into crowds, etc (if you are unaware of this recent history, just ask some blacks, gays, Muslims, clinic doctors, etc about it and they can enlighten you). Not even the Weather Underground, terrorist bombers as they were, ever targeted people as there bombings were carefully planned to avoid human casualties. The government has officially labeled certain environmentalist groups such as Earth First! as terrorists, despite there never having killed a single person nor ever attempted to do so.

For decades, health clinics and doctors were targeted by anti-abortion militants. Even right-wingers in the mainstream media promoted this violent movement such as Bill O’Reilly’s helping to incite the murder of Dr. George Tiller, and O’Reilly never apologized or expressed remorse, much less got fired from his job. Sure, since Fox News backs this hateful bigotry, then those who spew it have their free speech protected. But what about the free speech of the victim who was silenced with a bullet? And what about all the thousands of other victims of prejudice, oppression, hate crimes, and right-wing terrorism?

Here is another point that gets lost in all of this. No matter how often the political right repeats its ignorance and lies, the conflation of liberals and left-wingers remains false and misleading. Going back to the early 20th century, there has rarely been love lost between these two ideological groups. Some of the gravest attacks on left-wingers have come from liberals or those pretending to be liberals. That is what Phil Ochs was going on about in his satirical song, “Love Me, I’m a Liberal”. Some of the most vocal and strident Cold War warriors were liberals, having done everything in their power to destroy the political left.

Even though the Cold War has ended, liberals continue to attack everyone to the left of them which is why the right-wing ‘liberals’ such as the Clinton Democrats are always seeking to eliminate and discredit all left-wing challengers, from Ralph Nader to Bernie Sanders. Where was most of the political right in defending Sanders’ free speech when Hillary Clinton and big biz media sought to silence him and keep him out of public awareness until late in the campaign season? And that isn’t even to get into how the alliance between big gov and big biz silences all of us Americans, not just outsider candidates… while the corporatists arguing for corporate ‘free speech’. As for campuses, left-wingers are no more safe there than anywhere else.

The only reason that Americans don’t hear more about oppression and censorship of left-wingers is because corporate media in a corporatist society, whether supposedly liberal MSNBC or conservative Fox News, rarely reports on it. But it not being regularly discussed in the mainstream is not the same thing as it not happening. Capitalist realism is the dominant ideology of our entire society and as such is taken as a given with protest against it being almost impossible — in the words of H. Bruce Franklin: “It is now easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.” We can’t have the freedom that we can’t imagine and we can’t fight against the oppression what we can’t see, which is why oppression of the mind is the worst possible oppression. That is what this is all about, the right-wing attempt to suppress all alternatives by censoring public debate, which first requires controlling the frame of allowable debate.

This touches upon the difference between negative liberty and positive freedom, the former allows for censorship of the powerless while the latter promotes free speech for all. The political right in the past advocated the one and dismissed the other, but now they are coming to realize or pretending to care that maybe positive freedom matters after all, at least when they portray themselves as oppressed and victimized minorities (that is why the anti-gay student group at the UI didn’t merely argue for negative liberty to be able to speak freely on campus but a positive freedom in demanding the university and taxpayer support and promote their free speech by giving them an official platform). A genuine public debate about free speech and freedom in general is needed. Unfortunately, that isn’t what the political right wants. It is simply a political game about power and influence, amplifying one’s own voice at the cost of others.

Even more problematic is that the same political and economic elites who own our government are seeking to own every aspect of our society, including colleges that because of loss of public funding have increasingly turned to corporate funding. The right-wingers funding the campus ‘free speech’ movement are also those who operate think tanks, lobbyist groups, front organizations, etc that promote the corporate ‘free speech’ of Citizens United, the neoliberal ‘free trade’ agreements of big biz corporatism, the protection of ‘freedom’ through voter ID laws that suppress voting rights, and the ‘freedom’ of the right-to-work which means the right for workers to have no protections. The whole point is to make ‘freedom’ a meaningless word.

The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education
by John K. Wilson

Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies
by Karri A. Holley

Conservative correctness
from Rational Wiki

From Political Correctness to Conservative Correctness
by Michael K. Fauntroy

Republican Political Correctness
by Woody

What are some examples of conservative forms of political correctness?
from Quora

Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions
by Zack Beauchamp

Political Correctness Has Run Amok — on the Right
by Aaron R. Hanlon

Donald Trump and the Sad Triumph of Right-Wing Political Correctness
by Nick Gillespie

The New Political Correctness
by Paul Krugman

‘Political Incorrectness’ Is Just ‘Political Correctness’ for Conservatives
by Ed Kilgore

Political correctness is rampant on the right wing — but no one ever admits it
by Cody Fenwick

Your Political Correctness Is Showing, Conservatives
by Maximillian Alvarez

The big problem with those conservative calls for ‘civility’
by Rachael Kraus

Always Projection: The Invention of Political Correctness
by Paul Campos

Time for equal media treatment of ‘political correctness’
by Joshua Adams

Conservatives have a version of political correctness, too
by Noah Berlatsky

Political Correctness Is A Right-Wing Myth
by Ward Anderson

Opinion: Conservatives politically correct too
by Jared Bailey

Choose Wisely: Political Correctness Or A Retreat To Conservative Censorship?
from The Pavlovic Today

The Phony Debate About Political Correctness
by Erica Hellerstein and Judd Legum

‘Political Incorrectness’ Is Just ‘Political Correctness’ for Conservatives
by Ed Kilgore

“Political Correctness” Is Social Conservative Code For Civil Rights
by Mark Baer

COLUMN: Political correctness is a conservative invention
by Zoe Cheng

Conservative Political Correctness and the Colin Kaepernick-Nike July 4th Controversy
by Jared Keller

Dixie Chicks Were Right
by Don Williams

 

 

Fiber or Not: Short-Chain Fatty Acids and the Microbiome

A common viewpoint among both conventional and alternative health practitioners is that fiber is good for you. Not only good but necessary. Millie Barnes, as an example, identifies her expertise as a chef and nutrition coach. She apparently comes from a functional medicine approach, common among those advocating traditional foods diet that is plant-based and fiber-heavy (another example is Dr. Terry Wahls).

Barnes wrote a post about fiber and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), Why Short-Chain Fatty Acids Are Key To Gut & Overall Health, Plus How To Get More — her position is typical: “SCFAs are produced when bacteria—the good kind—ferment fiber in the gut, thereby providing your body with energy, keeping your metabolism humming, and even thwarting a wide range of digestive disorders.” There is nothing necessarily wrong about this position, although the scientific evidence is severely limited and highly contested. The problem is in treating the science as settled.

I’m not against fiber. I eat some high-fiber vegetables, especially fermented, along with other cultured foods. I used to eat even more fiber and vegetables, back when I was doing a paleo diet. And there was benefits to it, at least in comparison to my prior high-carb diet of processed foods. But I’ve also tried the carnivore diet and felt freaking awesome! I never realized how hard to digest are most plant foods (Like water fasts, meat fasts are good for health.).

I’m much more cautious about the plants and hence plant substances, including toxins and anti-nutrients, I allow into my body. Still, I have nothing against plants on general principle and I’m persuaded by Siim Land’s argument for hormesis and antifragility, that is to say beneficial stress (in case you’re interested, there is an intriguing scientific paper to check out: Hagen, Roulette & Sullivan, Explaining Human Recreational Use of ‘pesticides’). I now think of plants as more medicine than food, but nonetheless quite useful as medicine.

SCFAs are a complex topic, as is the microbiome of which we know little. As aside note, while some SCFAs (acetate and butyrate) are ketogenic, others (propionate) is glycogenic. They play an important role in health. That much we can agree on. What is less understood or at least less acknowledged is that SCFAs can come from other sources besides fiber. Butyrate, for example, is found in dairy fat. The cow eats the fiber and makes the butyrate for us.

So butyrate deficiency shouldn’t be a problem for anyone on a reasonably healthy diet, plant-based or animal-based. That is assuming they are getting plenty of high-fat dairy, pasture-raised all the better, and most Westerners tend to consume tons of dairy. As for myself, I get plenty of ghee (clarified butter) which means I’m probably fine on butyrate levels. By the way, my preferred mode of ghee delivery is through coffee and tea, what has been made famous as Dave Asprey’s Bulletproof Coffee, but he got the idea from a Tibetan woman who served him tea with yak butter. This maybe is not such a foreign practice. My mother recalls her Kentuckiana grandmother regularly pouring coffee over butter, although she also mixed in saltine crackers — that latter part probably less traditional and certainly not low-carb.

To get back to our discussion of SCFAs, I’m not as familiar with acetate, but apparently you can get it from apple cider vinegar (ACV), something I also take on a daily basis. I assume that the microbes in the ACV produced the acetate and so bypasses the need of the microbes in your own gut to do the work. No fiber is required, at least not in the diet. Furthermore, one can get acetate from ketosis as well and ketosis is my preferred state. Acetate/acetoacetate sometimes is what is measured for ketone levels. Some amino acids such as leucine and lysine can be converted into acetoacetate through fatty acid synthesis. Acetoacetate then is reduced to beta-hydroxybutyrate and the latter gets turned into acetone and acetate.

Now on to propionate, even more fascinating. It is a food additive that the modern person is getting overdosed on and appears to be a causal factor behind such conditions as autism (The Agricultural Mind). Those on the autistic level tend to have high levels of the bacteria that produce propionate and tend to crave foods that are high in it. Rodents injected with propionate express autistic-like behaviors. And those on the autistic spectrum show decreased behavioral problems when propionate is removed from their diet or when an antibiotic kills off some of their microbiome. SCFAs are a key part of a health diet, but they are powerful substances not to be taken lightly. They potentially can do harm as well.

As a last comment, no studies have been done on the microbiome of those on a carnivore diet or near-carnivore diet such as the Inuit. Heck, there has been no research even on a more general healthy omnivore diet including meat — the studies on the Standard American Diet (SAD) don’t count. But from what we do know about biology in general, it appears humans have multiple pathways of producing or obtaining SCFAs. The microbiome, in particular, is probably extremely adaptable to a wide variety of diets that were necessary during evolution (e.g., the microbiome of some hunter-gathers completely alters from season to season). Dr. Paul Saladino has talked a lot about this kind of thing — take what he had to say in an interview with Geoffrey Woo (Nose-to-Tail Carnivore Diet: Organ Meat, TMAO Implications, & Reaching Ketosis ft. Dr. Paul Saladino; & video):

“There are many bacteria which can metabolize fat, protein and animal-based collagen. That’s the thing I think that most people are missing. That our gut microbiome can shift. There’s a study where they put people on what I would consider to be a very poor version of a carnivorous diet and they compare it a plant-based diet. What they see is a divergence in the gut flora within a week. The animal-based eater, again, it’s not an ideal diet. The animal-based eaters had more bile acid tolerant organisms and more organisms to ferment fat and protein. They made isobutyrate and they made acetate and they made propionate as short chain fatty acids.

“The plant-based eaters made butyrate as a short chain fatty acid and had different colonic and small intestinal microflora. The investigators in that study jumped to the conclusion. Look, we know what’s going on with the gut because they have this organism. What’s worthy of biophilia or they don’t have this organism. They clearly have an unhealthy gut microbiome and I think that is an extrapolation. We do not know that. Clinically, nobody is assaying anything clinically in that study. They didn’t do inflammatory markers. They didn’t follow those people moving forward. It was almost like a setup. They were just trying to prove that these bile acid tolerant organisms would show up when they gave people a bunch of foods, which promote the formation of bile.”

Dr. Paul Saladino was on the paleo diet before trying carnivore, but Dr. Will Cole went from vegetarian to a more paleo-style diet. Dr. Cole wrote a book, Ketotarian, about how to do a plant-based keto and so he is right in line with the likes of Millie Barnes. That didn’t stop him, in an interview with Vanessa Spina, from pointing to evidence that a high-fiber diet may not be necessary, even going so far as to mention the carnivore diet:

“Because we have an epidemic of gut problems in the United States and around the world and Europe as well that this is going take time. Sometimes some people can have it right out of the gate. Some people can’t. It’s important to know what’s right for your body and what’s not right for your body. But as you heal, what you used to not be able to have the goal is to be able to reintroduce these things as your body heals.

“So the carnivore diet, for example, it’s the ultimate elimination die because it’s removing a lot of these fibers. But the goal isn’t to be carnivorous forever and ever, even though maybe some people would prefer that. But the goal is to use something like that to drive down this inflammatory cascade to bring things back in, as long as it’s nutrient-dense. And there are studies to show like the Hadza tribe in Tanzania they have good bacterial diversity during those months where they are eating less vegetables. But they’re eating more raw meat or getting like drinking blood and doing things that most people that are on the carnivore diet in the West are not doing today.

“So there are other there are other ways to get back to our diversity beyond fiber. I would just say it is the most common, most well researched way to get back to our diversity.”

Vanessa Spina, in that interview, then added an important point, not all prebiotics are fiber or necessarily come from plants at all: “I found this list of prebiotic foods that were non-carbohydrate that included cellulose, cartilage, collagen, fructooligosaccharides, glucosamine, rabbit bone, hair, skin, glucose. There’s a bunch of things that are all — there’s also casein. But these tend to be some of the foods that actually have some of the highest prebiotic content. So it’s interesting, I think, if someone has less tolerance for fiber, they can also explore some of these other product prebiotics.” That is something I never hear anyone talk about.

This might explain why so many people do so well on a carnivore diet. They are still getting prebiotics. And we know those on entirely or mostly meat diets retain functioning microbiomes. But there has been so few scientists looking into this.