Another Example of the Replication Crisis

A Waste of 1,000 Research Papers
by Ed Yong

Between them, these 18 genes have been the subject of more than 1,000 research papers, on depression alone. And for what? If the new study is right, these genes have nothing to do with depression. “This should be a real cautionary tale,” Keller adds. “How on Earth could we have spent 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars studying pure noise?”

“What bothers me isn’t just that people said [the gene] mattered and it didn’t,” wrote the psychiatrist Scott Alexander in a widely shared blog post. “It’s that we built whole imaginary edifices on top of this idea of [it] mattering.” Researchers studied how SLC6A4 affects emotion centers in the brain, how its influence varies in different countries and demographics, and how it interacts with other genes. It’s as if they’d been “describing the life cycle of unicorns, what unicorns eat, all the different subspecies of unicorn, which cuts of unicorn meat are tastiest, and a blow-by-blow account of a wrestling match between unicorns and Bigfoot,” Alexander wrote. […]

“We’re told that science self-corrects, but what the candidate gene literature demonstrates is that it often self-corrects very slowly, and very wastefully, even when the writing has been on the wall for a very long time,” Munafo adds.

Many fields of science, from psychology to cancer biology, have been dealing with similar problems: Entire lines of research may be based on faulty results. The reasons for this so-called “reproducibility crisis” are manifold. Sometimes, researchers futz with their data until they get something interesting, or retrofit their questions to match their answers. Other times, they selectively publish positive results while sweeping negative ones under the rug, creating a false impression of building evidence.

Beyond a few cases of outright misconduct, these practices are rarely done to deceive. They’re an almost inevitable product of an academic world that rewards scientists, above all else, for publishing papers in high-profile journals—journals that prefer flashy studies that make new discoveries over duller ones that check existing work. People are rewarded for being productive rather than being right, for building ever upward instead of checking the foundations. These incentives allow weak studies to be published. And once enough have amassed, they create a collective perception of strength that can be hard to pierce. […]

Similar debates have played out in other fields. When one group of psychologists started trying to reproduce classic results in much larger studies, their peers argued that any failures might simply be due to differences between the new groups of volunteers and the originals. This excuse has eroded with time, but to Border, it feels familiar. “There’s an unwillingness to part with a previous hypothesis,” he says. “It’s hard to wrap your head around the fact that maybe you were on a wild goose chase for years.”

Keller worries that these problems will be used as ammunition to distrust science as a whole. “People ask, ‘Well, if scientists are publishing crap, why should we believe global warming and evolution,’” he says. “But there’s a real difference: Some people were skeptical about candidate genes even back in the 1990s. There was never unanimity or consensus in the way there is for human-made global warming and the theory of evolution.”

(Credit to Nina Teicholz for bringing my attention to this article.)

Climate Catastrophe In Slow Motion

Let me cheer you up. I came across an article on the rise of heat-trapping methane. In the comments section, I noticed someone link to another article about plants absorbing carbon dioxide, although there is a limit to how much plants can store. Here is the kicker. As plants take in carbon dioxide, it acts like a super-fertilizer for many of them. They grow larger, produce more leaves, and foliage becomes greener. “So on average, the poison ivy plant of, say, 1901, can grow up to 50 to 60 percent larger as of 2010 just from the change in CO2 alone, all other things being equal,” explained Dr. Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s agricultural research service.

This is seen in the spread of poison ivy, a plant my mother recalls as being relatively uncommon in her childhood, to such a degree that she rarely noticed it. It has since proliferated with climate change and deforestation, a combination that creates the perfect conditions for this invasive species. Poison ivy (and poison oak, along with other vining plants like kudzu) loves both higher heat and higher levels of carbon dioxide. Poison ivy, more than other plants, thrives under these conditions. Also, in response, it produces more of the irritant that gives it its name. Poison ivy toxicity has doubled since 1950, that is to say since my parents’ childhood. This likely explains the phenomenon of why some people who didn’t react to poison ivy as children do so as adults. My mother may have not noticed poison ivy as a childhood not only because it was less widespread but, more importantly, because it was less poisonous to skin contact. Another climate-change-loving plant is giant hogweed (along with its cousin wild parsnip) that can cause third degree burns.

Dandelion and some other invasive species are also fond of mass climatological and ecological disruption (eat more dandelion salads and drink more dandelion wine?). Furthermore, sources of allergens such as pollen from ragweed and certain trees (as oaks and hickories replace pines, spruces, and firs) will become more of a problem and so allergies and asthma might become a more common affliction with increasing costs to society. Mosquitoes, along with deer ticks and red fire ants, have likewise been increasing their territory and population density (the Asian tiger mosquito can carry Dengue Fever and the painful virus Chikungunya, and don’t forget about West Nile virus, not to mention the lesser known Eastern equine encephalitis). The same pattern of spread is seen with bed bugs, kissing bugs, and killer bees. The warmer climate might be assisting the quickened pace of emerald ash borer infestation, and maybe also helping gypsy moths and the southern pine beetle.

I don’t know if it has anything to do with alterations in climate, but this has been one of the greenest springs I can remember. There is a dramatic increase of garlic mustard, one of the most invasive species — it is taking over the town like a 1950s movie about an alien invasion. Many other invasive species are growing like gangbusters across the country — hydrilla, purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, oriental bittersweet, milfoil, fanwort, etc — and likely shifting climate is a major factor, not only greater warmth but also changes in precipitation with some areas drier and others moister (ticks love moist and they are precisely moving into areas that have increased rainfall and humidity). The insects killing native species further aids the spread of the invasive plants that quickly take over disturbed ecosystems. And combined with farm runoff, there will be more toxic algae blooms.

The pervasive growth of invasive species and noxious weeds is a nuisance. A friend of mine will no longer walk off trail because of concern for poison ivy, something he never thought about as a child and in fact he didn’t even know how to identify it until adulthood. But it’s more than a mere nuisance. With the spread of pests, there is also the spread of diseases, from Lyme disease to malaria to chagas disease parasite, since over time there are fewer deep freezes to kill off the pests and so they can move further north. There are many other “vector-borne diseases” like schistosomiasis and keep in mind how “thawing permafrost in Polar Regions could allow otherwise dormant age-old viruses to re-emerge.” And don’t think that there is a silver lining to this cloud of doom, as there is “a somewhat paradoxical finding that although carbon dioxide may fertilize plants, many crops show decreased growth (due to changes in rainfall, aggressive weed growth, plant diseases, and other factors), and the nutritional value of the resulting primary production is lowered. Flooded with carbon, crops can become deficient in other elements, resulting in a 10-20 percent decrease in protein levels and anemic iron and zinc concentrations.”

The dramatic superstorms and droughts get most of the attention. They create mass catastrophes and refugee crises, and that in turn causes political instability and contributes to conflicts and wars. But as we head toward existential crisis of the global order and as civilization is threatened by collapse, there will be a worsening that will impact people in small and less obvious ways that make life more difficult and uncomfortable with strains on the social fabric and public health, strains on the food system and economy. A worsening of the conditions and quality of life, this will happen even in the American Heartland that feels so far away from the catastrophes elsewhere in the world. I’ve barely touched upon the diverse challenges and disruptions that will harm humans in numerous other ways. Life will get ever more shitty and this will cause people to act in disturbed and disturbing ways. We are already seeing the increase of terrorism likely with climatological stress and trauma as a contributing factor. Mental health will certainly involve further precipitous declines, with heat waves and societal stress but especially with rising inequality where ecological and societal consequences will be disproportionately found among the poor, not that the rich will be able to forever escape the consequences of the externalized costs they’ve benefited from.

As a society, how long will we be able to ignore the climate crisis, to pretend nothing is going on? Why do we act like ecological collapse and the sixth mass extinction won’t affect us? This is insane and the insanity is going to get far worse. Pests and diseases, noxious weeds and invasive species will be the least of our worries, although I wouldn’t count out the possibility of the first global plague to decimate the human population. We are unprepared for the world we are creating for ourselves or else for our children and grandchildren. Our descendants will curse us for the living hell that will be forced upon them. But on a positive note, if you’re an older adult, you might die peacefully before the shit storm begins. Let the future survivors of the coming collapse deal with the mess later. The joke is on them and humanity is the punchline.

* * *

Here is an example of too little too late. But it’s still better than nothing. At least, it’s an acknowledgment of how bad it’s got. Speaking honestly and accurately is a massive step forward. Still, more than a style guide, what we need is a reality guide or rather a reality slap upside the head.

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment
by Damian Carrington

The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.

Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned. […]

Other terms that have been updated, including the use of “wildlife” rather than “biodiversity”, “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks” and “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”. In September, the BBC accepted it gets coverage of climate change “wrong too often” and told staff: “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”

Earlier in May, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for climate around the globe, said: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

Calcium: Nutrient Combination and Ratios

Calcium is centrally important, as most people already know. Not only is it necessary for the health of bones but also for the health of the heart, nerve cells, gut microbiome, hormonal system, skin, etc and will affect such things as grip strength and fatigue. As usual, there is a lot of misinformation out there and newer information that has changed our understanding. Let me clear up the issue to the degree I can. The following represents my present understanding, based on the sources I could find.

We can store calcium when we are younger, but lose this ability as we age. On the other hand, it turns out we don’t need as much calcium as previously assumed. And too much calcium can be harmful, even deadly as can happen with hardening of arteries. In fact, the healthiest societies have lower levels of calcium. It’s not so much about the calcium itself for, as always, context matters. Calcium deficiencies typically are caused by a health condition (kidney condition, alcohol abuse, etc), rather than lack of calcium in the diet. Importantly, other nutrients determine how the body absorbs, processes, utilizes, and deposits calcium. Furthermore, nutritional imbalances involving deficiencies and excesses create a cascade of health problems.

Let me explain the interrelationship of micronutrients. There is a whole series of relationships involved in calcium processing. Vitamin B6 is necessary for absorption of magnesium; and magnesium is necessary for absorption of vitamin D3 — zinc, boron, vitamin A, bile salts, and a healthy guy microbiome are all important as well. Of course, cholesterol and sunlight are needed for the body to produce it’s own vitamin D3, which is why deficiencies in these are also problematic. Statins block cholesterol and sunscreen blocks sun; while stress will block vitamin D3 itself whereas exercise will do the opposite. Then vitamin D3 is necessary for absorption of calcium. But it doesn’t end there. Most important of all, vitamin K2 is necessary for regulating where calcium is deposited in the body, ensuring it ends up in bones and teeth rather than in joints, arteries, brain, kidneys, etc.

About on specific issue, the often cited 2-to-1 ratio of calcium and magnesium is actually on the high end indicating the maximum calcium levels you don’t want to exceed as part of your total calcium intake from both diet and supplementation. So, if you’re getting a 2-to-1 ratio in your supplements combined with high levels of calcium from food, such as a diet with plenty of dairy and/or greens, your calcium levels could be causing you harm. Speaking of magnesium deficiency is a relative assessment, as it depends on calcium levels. The body is rarely depleted of magnesium and so, on a superficial level, your body is never deficient in an absolute sense. Yet the higher your calcium levels go the greater your need of magnesium. Nutrients never act alone, such as how vitamin C requirements increase on a high-carb diet.

Here is another example of nutrient interaction. With more salt in your diet, you’ll need more potassium and magnesium to compensate. And potassium deficiency is associated with magnesium deficiency. But that isn’t to say you want to decrease sodium to increase these others, as research indicates higher salt intake is associated with greater health (Dr. James DiNicolantonio, The Salt Fix) — and I’d recommend getting a good source of salt such as Real Salt (although natural forms of salt lack iodine and so make sure to increase iodine-rich foods like seaweed, that being a good option since seaweed is extremely nutrient-dense). As an interesting side note, calcium helps your muscles contract and magnesium helps your muscles relax, which is why muscle cramps (also spasms, twitches, and restlessness) can be a sign of magnesium deficiency. Plus, excess calcium and insufficient magnesium will increase cortisol, the stress hormone, and so can interfere with sleep. There is yet another dual relationship between these two in the clotting and thinning of blood.

Macronutrients play a role as well. Higher protein ensures optimal levels of magnesium and is strongly linked to increased bone mass and density. Fat intake may also play a role with these minerals, but I couldn’t find much discussion about this. Certainly, fat is necessary for the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. If you’re eating pastured (or grass-fed-and-finished) fatty animal foods, you’ll be getting both the protein and the fat-soluble vitamins (A as beta-carotene, D3, E complex, & K2). Even greater, with cultured, fermented and aged foods (whether from animals or plants), you’ll get higher levels of the much needed vitamin K2. Assuming you can stand the taste and texture of it, fermented soy in the form of natto is the highest known source of K2 as the subtype MK7 which remains in the body longer than other subtypes. By the way, some multiple vitamins contain MK7 (e.g., Garden of Life). Vitamin K2 is massively important. Weston A. Price called it Activator X because it controls so much of what the body does, specifically in relationship to other nutrients, including other fat-soluble vitamins. And all of the fat-soluble vitamins are central in relationship to mineral levels.

Another factor to consider is when nutrients are taken and in combination with what. Some minerals will compete with each other for absorption, but this probably is not an issue if you are getting small amounts throughout the day, such as adding a balanced electrolyte mix (with potassium, magnesium, etc) to your water or other drinks. Calcium and magnesium are two that compete and many advise they should be taken separately, but if you take them in smaller amounts competition is not an issue. Some research indicates calcium has a higher absorption rate in the evening, but magnesium can make you sleepy and so might also be taken in the evening — if taking a supplement, maybe take the former with dinner and the latter before bed or you could take the magnesium in the morning and see how it makes you feel. By the way, too much coffee (6 cups or more a day) will cause the body to excrete calcium and salt, and yet coffee is also a good source of potassium and magnesium. Coffee, as with tea, in moderate amounts is good for your health.

As a last thought, here is what you want to avoid for healthy calcium levels: taken with iron supplements, high levels of insoluble fiber, antacids, excessive caffeine. Also, calcium can alter the effects of medications and, in some cases, should be taken two hours apart. Keep in mind that many plant foods can be problematic because of anti-nutrients that bind minerals or interfere with absorption. This is why traditional people spent so much time preparing plant foods (soaking, sprouting, cooking, fermenting, etc) in order to eliminate these anti-nutrients and hence increase nutrient absorption. It is irrelevant the amount of nutrients in a food if you’re body can’t use them. For example, one of the highest concentrations of calcium is found in spinach, but the bioavailability is extremely low. Other foods, including other leafy greens, are a much better source and with any leafy greens always cook them.

This problem is magnified by the decreased nutrient content of most plant foods these days, as the soil itself has become depleted. Supplementation of many micronutrients is maybe necessary for almost everyone at this point, although great caution should be taken with supplementing calcium.

* * *

Sometimes I write posts about diet and health after doing research for my own purposes or simply for the sake of curiosity about a topic. But in many cases, I have family members in mind, as my own health improvements have gone hand in hand with dietary changes my parents also have made, and my brothers are health-conscious as well although with a vegetarian diet quite different than my own. This particular post was written for my mother.

Just the other day she was diagnosed with osteoporosis. She had osteopenia for decades. Now looking back, she realizes that her bone loss began when she started taking fiber and antacids, both of which block calcium. And all the years of calcium supplementation were probably doing her no good because, even to the degree she was absorbing any of the calcium, it wasn’t balanced with other needed nutrients. I gathered this information in order to help her to figure out how to improve her bone health, as her doctor was only moderately informed and her recent appointment was rushed.

This was researched and written on Mother’s Day. I guess it was my gift to my mother. But I hope it is of value to others as well.

* * *

Without Magnesium, Vitamin D Supplementation May Backfire
by Joseph Mercola

Calcium with Magnesium: Do You Need the Calcium?
from Easy Immune System Health

Expert cites risk of calcium—magnesium imbalance
from Nutritional Magnesium Association

Optimum Calcium Magnesium Ratio: The 2-to-1 Calcium-to-Magnesium Ratio
by A. Rosanoff

Nutritional strategies for skeletal and cardiovascular health: hard bones, softarteries, rather than vice versa
by James H O’Keefe, Nathaniel Bergman, Pedro Carrera-Bastos, Maélan Fontes-Villalba, James J DiNicolantonio, Loren Cordain

Why You Need To Take Vitamin K With Calcium Supplements
by Stacy Facko

For Bone Health, Think Magnesium
from Harvest Market Natural Foods

Calcium Deficiency: Are Supplements the Answer?
by Jillian Levy

Calcium to Magnesium: How the Ratio Affects Your Health
from Juvenon Health Journal

How to Correct Your Calcium-to-Magnesium Ratio
by Sandra Ketcham

Calcium & Magnesium: Finding the Right Ratio for Optimal Health
by Dr. Edward Group

Magnesium, NOT Calcium, Is The Key To Healthy Bones
by Jackie Ritz

Calcium Supplements: Things to Consider before Taking One
by Chris Kresser

How to Get Enough Calcium Without Dairy
by Katie Wells

Is The Paleo Diet Deficient In Calcium?
by Michael Ofer

Paleo & Calcium | Friendly Calcium Rich Foods
by Irena Macri

Mineral Primer – The Weston A. Price Foundation
by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig

The science of salt and electrolytes (are we consuming enough?)
by Will Little

13 Signs Of Magnesium Deficiency + How To Finally Get Enough
by Dr. Will Cole

Top 10 Magnesium-Rich Foods
by Rachael Link

Vitamin K2, Vitamin D, and Calcium: A Winning Combo
by Joseph Mercola

Vitamin K2: Everything You Need to Know
by Joe Leech

The Ultimate Vitamin K2 Resource
by Chris Masterjohn

Vitamin K2: Are You Consuming Enough?
by Chris Kresser

Promoting Calcium Balance Health On A Paleo Diet (Easier Than You Think)
by Loren Cordain

Calcium: A Team Sports View of Nutrition
by Loren Cordain

How To Keep Your Bones Healthy On A Paleo Diet
by Chris Kresser

Bicameralism and Bilingualism

A paper on multilingualism was posted by Eva Dunkel in the Facebook group for The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: Consequences of multilingualism for neural architecture by Sayuri Hayakawa and Viorica Marian. It is a great find. The authors look at how multiple languages are processed within the brain and how they can alter brain structure.

This probably also relates to learning of music, art, and math — one might add that learning music later improves the ability to learn math. These are basically other kinds of languages, especially the former in terms of  musical languages (along with whistle and hum languages) that might indicate language having originated in music, not to mention the close relationship music has to dance, movement, and behavior and close relationship of music to group identity. The archaic authorization of command voices in the bicameral mind quite likely came in the form of music and one could imagine the kinds of synchronized collective activities that could have dominated life and work in bicameral societies. There is something powerful about language that we tend to overlook and take for granted. Also, since language is so embedded in culture, monolinguals never see outside of the cultural reality tunnel they exist within. This could bring us to wonder about the role played post-bicameral society by syncretic languages like English. We can’t forget the influence psychedelics might have had on language development and learning at different periods of human existence. And with psychedelics, there is the connection to shamanism with caves as aural spaces and locations of art, possibly the earliest origin of proto-writing.

There is no reason to give mathematics a mere secondary place in our considerations. Numeracy might be important as well in thinking about the bicameral mind specifically and certainly about the human mind in general (Caleb Everett, Numbers and the Making of Us), as numeracy was an advancement or complexification beyond the innumerate tribal societies (e.g., Piraha). Some of the earliest uses of writing was for calculations: accounting, taxation, astrology, etc. Bicameral societies, specifically the early city-states, can seem simplistic in many ways with their lack of complex hierarchies, large centralized governments, standing armies, police forces, or even basic infrastructure such as maintained roads and bridges. Yet they were capable of immense projects that required impressively high levels of planning, organizing, and coordination — as seen with the massive archaic pyramids and other structures built around the world. It’s strange how later empires in the Axial Age and beyond that, though so much larger and extensive with greater wealth and resources, rarely even attempted the seemingly impossible architectural feats of bicameral humans. Complex mathematical systems probably played a major role in the bicameral mind, as seen in how astrological calculations sometimes extended over millennia.

Hayakawa and Marian’s paper could add to the explanation of the breakdown of the bicameral mind. A central focus of their analysis is the increased executive function and neural integration in managing two linguistic inputs — I could see how that would relate to the development of egoic consciousness. It has been proposed that the first to develop Jaynesian consciousness may have been traders who were required to cross cultural boundaries and, of course, who would have been forced to learn multiple languages. As bicameral societies came into regular contact with more diverse linguistic cultures, their bicameral cognitive and social structures would have been increasingly stressed.

Multilingualism goes hand in hand with literacy. Rates of both have increased over the millennia. That would have been a major force in the post-bicameral Axial Age. The immense multiculturalism of societies like the Roman Empire is almost impossible for us to imagine. Hundreds of ethnicities, each with their own language, would co-exist in the same city and sometimes the same neighborhood. On a single street, there could be hundreds of shrines to diverse gods with people praying, people invoking and incantating in their separate languages. These individuals were suddenly forced to deal with complete strangers and learn some basic level of understanding foreign languages and hence foreign understandings.

This was simultaneous with the rise of literacy and its importance to society, only becoming more important over time as the rate of book reading continues to climb (more books are printed in a year these days than were produced in the first several millennia of writing). Still, it was only quite recently that the majority of the population became literate, following from that is the ability of silent reading and its correlate of inner speech. Multilingualism is close behind and catching up. The consciousness revolution is still under way. I’m willing to bet American society will be transformed as we return to multilingualism as the norm, considering that in the first centuries of American history there was immense multilingualism (e.g., German was once one of the most widely spoken languages in North America).

All of this reminds me of linguistic relativity. I’ve pointed out that, though not explicitly stated, Jaynes obviously was referring to linguistic relativity in his own theorizing about language. He talked quite directly about the power language —- and metaphors within language —- had over thought, perception, behavior, and identity (Anke Snoek has some good insights about this in exploring the thought of Giorgio Agamben). This was an idea maybe first expressed by Wilhelm von Humboldt (On Language) in 1836: “Via the latter, qua character of a speech-sound, a pervasive analogy necessarily prevails in the same language; and since a like subjectivity also affects language in the same notion, there resides in every language a characteristic world-view.” And Humboldt even considered the power of learning another language in stating that, “To learn a foreign language should therefore be to acquire a new standpoint in the world-view hitherto possessed, and in fact to a certain extent is so, since every language contains the whole conceptual fabric and mode of presentation of a portion of mankind.”

Multilingualism is multiperspectivism, a core element of the modern mind and modern way of being in the world. Language has the power to transform us. To study language, to learn a new language is to become something different. Each language is not only a separate worldview but locks into place a different sense of self, a persona. This would be true not only for learning different cultural languages but also different professional languages with their respective sets of terminology, as the modern world has diverse areas with their own ways of talking and we modern humans have to deal with this complexity on a regular basis, whether we are talking about tax codes or dietary lingo.

It’s hard to know what that means for humanity’s trajectory across the millennia. But the more we are caught within linguistic worlds and are forced to navigate our way within them the greater the need for a strong egoic individuality to self-initiate action, that is to say the self-authorization of Jaynesian consciousness. We step further back into our own internal space of meta-cognitive metaphor. To know more than one language strengthens an identity separate from any given language. The egoic self retreats behind its walls and looks out from its parapets. Language, rather than being the world we are immersed in, becomes the world we are trapped in (a world that is no longer home and from which we seek to escape, Philip K. Dick’s Black Iron Prison and William S. Burroughs Control). It closes in on us and forces us to become more adaptive to evade the constraints.

The Elite Know What Makes Democracy Work

“Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government.” ~Friedrich A. Hayek

That might have been one of the truest statements ever made by Hayek. Yet he didn’t state this with the assumption that, therefore, we the public should seek nor that the ruling elite like him should allow for “a great measure of local self-government.” Instead, he supported authoritarian regimes such as that of Augusto Pinochet.

He believed that democracy should be sacrificed every single time, even if it required violent oppression and mass death, in order to ensure the dominance of capitalism, that is to say of plutocratic corporatism and cronyism. He understood the precise conditions under which democracy thrives and he feared it.

Freedom must be prevented at all costs, according to his vision, at least freedom of everyone other than the capitalist class in a highly unequal society where the few horde the concentrated wealth. Our present lack of democracy isn’t for a lack of understanding democracy. Those seeking to destroy democracy understand full well what they’re doing.

Think about the next time you hear a self-proclaimed expert, not limited to the political right (Democratic professional politicians are among the worst), warns against too much democratic populism, warns against the mob — advising instead for lesser evilism, paternalistic moderation, centrism of an Overton window shifted far right. They are not defending your freedom but their own power, privilege, and profit.

Those like Hayek hoped to prevent democracy. They envisioned an authoritariasm of totalitarian proportions, such that social control would be absolute. Anyone who questioned or challenged, anyone who dared to speak with an honest and moral voice would be eliminated as untold numbers did under Pinochet. But other elites like John Sherman understood another threat, as he said of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890:

“[P]eople are feeling the power and grasp of these combinations, and are demanding of every State Legislature and of Congress a remedy for this evil, only grown into huge proportions in recent times… You must heed their appeal, or be ready for the socialist, the communist and the nihilist.”

Theodore Roosevelt echoed this thought when he warned that the elite should take heed of the problems the left-wing points to because they are real problems. Otherwise, the masses would turn to those who would do what needed to be done. More than a century on, Nick Hanauer, yet another white male elite of the capitalist class, warned of the pitchforks coming for the plutocrats.

If the elite don’t allow for basic democracy, the left-wingers will gain power. Hayek simply personified why radicalism was necessary, made clear that this is a fight to the death. And the death that the authoritarian elites have in mind is your death and that of your loved ones, your neighbors. This is why we find ourselves with a police state with the largest mass incarceration in history. The Hayekian elite haven’t quite figured out how to implement a Pinochet-style regime, but they’re working on it.

Now if the general public only understood democracy as well as did Hayek. Then we would have a revolution.

(Source: REAL Democracy History Calendar: May 6 – 12)

Boredom in the Mind: Liberals and Reactionaries

“Hobsbawm was obsessed with boredom; his experience of it appears at least twenty-seven times in Evans’s biography. Were it not for Marx, Hobsbawm tells us, in a book of essays, he never would “have developed any special interest in history.” The subject was too dull. The British writer Adam Phillips describes boredom as “that state of suspended anticipation in which things are started and nothing begins.” More than a wish for excitement, boredom contains a longing for narrative, for engagement that warrants attention to the world.

“A different biographer might have found in Hobsbawm’s boredom an opening onto an entire plane of the Communist experience. Marxism sought to render political desire as objective form, to make human intention a causal force in the world. Not since Machiavelli had political people thought so hard about the alignment of action and opportunity, about the disjuncture between public performance and private wish. Hobsbawm’s life and work are a case study in such questions.”

That is another great insight from Corey Robin, as written in his New Yorker piece, Eric Hobsbawm, the Communist Who Explained History. Boredom does seem key. It is one of the things that stood out to me in Robin’s writings about the reactionary mind. Reactionaries dislike, even fear, boredom more than almost anything else. The rhetoric of reactionaries is often to create the passionate excitement of melodrama, such as how Burke describes the treatment of the French queen.

The political left too often forgets the power of storytelling, especially simplistic and unoriginal storytelling, as seen with Trump. Instead, too many on the left fear the populist riling up of the masses. I remember Ralph Nader warning about this in a speech he gave in his 2000 presidential campaign. There is a leftist mistrust of passion and maybe there is good reason for this mistrust, considering it forms the heartbeat of the reactionary mind. Still, without passion, there is no power of persuasion and so all attempts are doomed from the start. The left will have to learn to fight on this turf or simply embrace full resignation and so fall into cynicism.

The thing is that those on the political left seem to have a higher tolerance for boredom, maybe related to their higher tolerance for cognitive dissonance shown in social science research. It requires greater uncertainty and stress to shut down the liberal-minded person (liberal in the psychological sense). I noticed this in myself. I’m not prone to the reactionary maybe because I don’t get bored easily and so don’t need something coming from outside to motivate me.

But it might go beyond mere tolerance in demonstrating an active preference for boredom. There is something about the liberal mind that is prone to complexity, nuance, and ambiguity that can only be grown amidst boredom — that is to say the open-mindedness of curiosity, doubt, and questioning are only possible when one acknowledges ignorance. It’s much more exciting to proclaim truth, instead, and proclaim it with an entertaining story. This is problematic in seeking political victories, if one is afraid of the melodrama of hard fights. Right-wingers might burn themselves out on endless existential crises, whereas left-wingers typically never build up enough fire to lightly toast a marshmallow.

The political left doesn’t require or thrive with a dualistic vision of opposition and battle, in the way does the political right. This is a central strength and weakness for the left. On the side of weakness, this is why it is so hard for the left to offer a genuinely threatening challenge to the right. Most often what happens is the reactionaries simply co-opt the left and the left too easily falls in line. See how many liberals will repeat reactionary rhetoric. Or notice how many on the political left turned full reactionary during times of conflict (e.g., world war era).

Boredom being the comfort zone of liberals is all the more reason they should resist settling down within its confines. There is no where to hide from the quite real drama that is going on in the world. The liberal elite can’t forever maintain their delusion of being a disinterested aristocracy. As Eric Hobsbawm understood and Karl Marx before him, only a leftist vision can offer a narrative that can compete against the reactionary mind

* * *

“Capitalism is boring. Devoting your life to it, as conservatives do, is horrifying if only because it’s so repetitious. It’s like sex.”
~William F. Buckley Jr., in an interview with Corey Robin

Violent Fantasy of Reactionary Intellectuals

The last thing in the world a reactionary wants is to be bored, as happened with the ending of the ideological battles of the Cold War. They need a worthy enemy or else to invent one. Otherwise, there is nothing to react to and so nothing to get excited about, followed by a total loss of meaning and purpose, resulting in dreaded apathy and ennui. This leads reactionaries to become provocative, in the hope of provoking an opponent into a fight. Another strategy is simply to portray the whole world as a battleground, such that everything is interpreted as a potential attack, working oneself or one’s followers into a froth.

The Fantasy of Creative Destruction

To the reactionary mind, sacrifice of self can be as acceptable as sacrifice of others. It’s the fight, the struggle itself that gives meaning — no matter the costs and consequences, no matter how it ends. The greatest sin is boredom, the inevitable result of victory. As Irving Kristol said to Corey Robin, the defeat of the Soviet Union “deprived us of an enemy.” It was the end of history for, without an enervating battle of moral imagination, it was the end of the world.

The Fad of Warning About Fad Diets

Over at the Hurn Publications blog, the author warns against “fad diets”, specifically ketotarian diet, snake diet, and peganism. Let me clear up a few misconceptions. First off, none of these diets are exactly a fad. Various populations have been following diets like these for as long as humans have been around. There are many anthropological and historical examples that can be pointed to.

One-meal-a-day (OMAD) diets like the snake diet were practiced by the Spartans and Romans, but OMAD is common among hunter-gatherers as well. It is the three-meals-a-day-with-multiple-snacks-between diet that is bizarre by the standards of history and evolution. OMAD is one way to dispose the body to ketosis, especially if the diet is at least somewhat low-carb as were most diets in the past. Many populations would be ketogenic for long periods of time, such as during winter when starchy and sugary plant foods were scarce. Mongol warriors under Genghis Khan did extended fasts before military campaigns that would’ve put them into ketosis and then following that typically only ate meat, blood, and milk paste; although they might eat any food available in a city once conquered.

It’s not unusual for hunter-Gatherers like the Piraha to eat all the food they can take in at a time, sometimes until their stomachs are distended, as food can’t easily be stored, and then sometimes not eat for days. This is the standard feast and fast style of eating that was common throughout human evolution and remained far from uncommon around the world until the agricultural surpluses of past century or two. Fasting was a typical and regular practice among Europeans into the Middle Ages. On a related note, most Europeans and Americans didn’t start fattening up their cattle and themselves with grains until the 1800s. By the way, the Piraha’s fasting, intermittent and extended, would have left them in ketosis fairly often. There wasn’t much that would kick them out of ketosis since starchy plant foods are limited in their diet, such as occasional tubers. Ninety percent of their calories come from animal foods, mostly fish.

I might add that nothing equivalent to a baked potato, french fries, or potato chips were a part of the human diet until agriculture. the few wild tubers hunter-gatherers had access to were extremely tough and fibrous, hard to obtain, prepare, and eat (with chewing each bite being a slow process followed by spitting out a big wad of indigestible fiber)— and not nutrient or energy dense for all the work that went into using them in the diet. Most wild plants are extremely fibrous which is why hunter-gatherers got so much fiber in their diet, even when they didn’t eat a lot of plants. Modern plant foods have far less fiber and far more starch and sugar, not to mention nutrient-depleted.

Peganism would be the closest to a fad diet. But it really is rather moderate. It’s mostly about balancing foods for optimal nutrient content and bioavailability while eliminating the foods most often problematic for people. If followed carefully, there is no nutrient one would lack. It fits well within the evolutionary boundaries of human eating. The diet emphasizes food quality including large amounts of nutrient-dense plant foods and does allow moderate amounts of meat, fish, and eggs; but like paleo diet, it restricts foods not eaten for most of human evolution: grains, dairy, and legumes. I should point out that peganism is far from being the only paleo-style diet that heavily emphasizes a plant-based approach. There is Dr. Terry Wahl’s protocol and Dr. Will Cole’s ketotarian diet, both former vegetarians who now recommend ketosis. Like Mark Hyman with his peganism, Wahl’s protocol and ketotarianism allow moderate amounts of animal foods and Wahl’s protocol only recommends ketosis for some people.

Consider that all of these diets fit the profile of what we know of hunter-gatherer and other traditional diets from historical accounts, the anthropological record, and from archaeological evidence. There have even been dietary studies that have measured the macronutrients and micronutrients of hunter-gatherers. We still need to know a lot more, but we are far from merely speculating in ignorance. We do know, for example, that after everywhere agricultural foods were introduced there was a deterioration in height, cranial size, and general health. The vast majority of humans survived and thrived for hundreds of millennia without agricultural foods, without nutritional deficiencies, and without diseases of civilization. Sometimes people point to the high infectious rates of hunter-gatherers, but the infectious rates of agriculturalists was much higher and, besides, many of the infectious diseases harming hunter-gatherers were introduced by agriculturalists (e.g., malaria). Excluding high death rates from infections in childhood, the average lifespan of hunter-gatherers is about the same as a modern Westerner.

Ketosis has always been a normal state and, until quite recently, a state that humans entered into on a regular basis — since constant and unlimited access to carbs was unusual in the past. Ketosis doesn’t trick the body into a pseudo-fasted state. It is its own physiological state, one of the ways of fueling the body, what some argue as being the original preferred fuel in how the body uses it so well. So many diseases are related to glucose and insulin resistance, in a way not seen with ketones and ketosis. Quite the opposite in fact, since ketosis has been used to treat numerous diseases: epileptic seizures, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, autism, ADHD, etc. In particular, a ketogenic diet is one of the best options in the world for blood sugar conditions and one would be insane to not advise cutting out carbohydrates. And there isn’t necessarily a reason to worry about problems with eating disorders, as ketosis is well known to make cravings disappear and improve diverse psychiatric disorders, but it would have to be decided on an individual basis in working with a doctor. Since the Hurn Publications article appears to be written for or promoted by the Cancer Wellness Center, I’m surprised the author didn’t bring up the contentious debate over cancer’s relationship to glucose, specifically in relationship to diet — there are recent books that discuss the science. No matter which side of the debate one falls on, the debate should at least be mentioned.

There is a lot of research out there right now and it is accumulating quickly (including that of Dr. Terry Wahls and Dr. Dale Bredesen, both with books out). It’s been studied for almost a century at this point and it is well understood. I might suggest not worrying about being in ketosis in the scientific sense, unless you have a serious medical condition. The scientific measurement for the amount of ketones to be called ‘ketosis’ is somewhat arbitrary. Even at lower levels of ketones, many of the same benefits are seen. And any significant level of carb restriction will produce more ketones. It doesn’t matter if one occasionally slips out of ketosis. But if one is concerned about this, there are multiple ways of measuring ketones at home.

Even millennia ago, physicians would use ketosis to treat some conditions, although they didn’t have the knowledge of what ketosis was and they were mostly limited to using fasting to induce it. The Chinese observed how the Mongols on their ketogenic diet could ride and fight for days without stopping to eat. That is the power of beta-hydroxybutyrate, the human superfuel. It’s the reason humans were able to cross deserts and oceans with little food or else go without while tracking down, sometimes over days, the next meal. You can’t do that with carbohydrates. Even more awesome is that ketosis creates the conditions for autophagy, which is how your body heals from damage and, by activating stem cells, building new cells, including in the brain. Both ketosis and autophagy reduce inflammation, a major reason for the health benefits, but reversing insulin resistance and bringing diabetes under control is no small feat.

More broadly, low-carb diets are even less of a fad. They’ve been discussed by medical professionals and scientific experts going back to the 1700s and have been well known and widely used since the 1800s. Compare that to fad diets like that of the high-carb/low-fat that has been recommended in the mainstream only for about a half century now. If you are worried about “essential vitamins, minerals, fiber, as well as anti-oxidants and phytochemicals in a healthy diet to support wellness”, then these supposed “fad diets” can be a major part of it. Most people focusing on these kinds of diets tend to be highly informed about potential nutritional deficiencies and about the sources and bioavailability of nutrients. Their obsession with nutrient-density might turn some people away. Peganism explicitly is about nutrient-density as are other forms of the paleo diet, but the ketogenic and snake diets are easily adapted to nutrient-density (e.g., ketotarian). This sector of the diet community is one of the last places one would expect to find malnourishment.

As for the fear-mongering about side effects, there is far less to worry about health-wise on any of these diets than what you are likely to experience from what is recommended in the mainstream. Few people experience side effects and most people experience dramatic improvements, unlike seen on conventional diets. And these dramatic improvements tend to be permanent, not transitory. Ketosis, OMAD, peganism, etc are about changing your dietary lifestyle and fundamentally changing how your body functions. Opposite of what the Hurn Publications article warns, you are less likely to feel “hangry” (hungry and angry) on the snake diet, as you’d be spending most of your time in ketosis. It’s on a diet of constant carbs that people tend to get hangry. These kinds of diets aren’t merely or primarily about losing weight. They can transform the way you feel and even the way your brain operates. There are plenty of people who explain the science behind why this happens, if you’re motivated enough to dig into the details.

The author is right about focusing on nutrient-density, but that is an irrelevant point in terms of criticizing these diets, as I already explained. Even less relevant is the continued focus on calories. If you are eating satisfying and satiating nutrient-dense foods while avoiding carbs that cause cravings, you probably won’t need to worry about calorie counting and portion control. There is a good chance you’ll naturally find yourself only eating the amount of food your body needs. These “fad diets” readjust your taste and hunger. There is nothing simpler and easier than that.

* * *

This post is critical of what I perceived as unfair criticism. But it wasn’t intended to be mean-spirited. As for many people, diets touch upon the personal for food is central to life. And as with others, I’ve used diets in seeking health.

The reason I started following the Hurn Publications blog is because of a piece on the EAT-Lancet that I appreciated. I think I linked to it in my own writing about the topic. That brings me to a concern. We were both critical of EAT-Lancet and so there was some basic agreement. But this latest post of mine is about disagreement.

So what exactly bothered me? One thing is that the attack on fad diets is precisely what turns people toward such things as EAT-Lancet that, in the end, is simply a repackaging of status quo dietary ideology. The advice given in the recent Hurn Publications post fits perfectly in with the EAT-Lancet diet, despite their earlier post rightly discrediting EAT-Lancet.

There is an inconsistency there. But also it puts the two posts at the same blog at cross-purposes. No one can serve two masters. Challenging and defending the status quo are separate positions. Speaking of fad diets is to use the language of the status quo, which is simultaneously misleading since the closest to a fad diet is the status quo.

Trump’s Corporatism Is Not New

Donald Trump as president is promoting corporatism, if not corporatocracy. It is the same old corporate welfare and corporate socialism, but even greater. He did promise to make America great again. His supporters forgot to ask about the details, though.

He is giving out subsidies and bailouts to particular companies and sectors, which means picking the winners and losers. It doesn’t even follow an ideological pattern, as he has simultaneously criticized wind energy while quietly subsidizing it. On top of that, he is using tariffs and trade war as economic protectionism, more akin to how the old empires used to operate — with about 12 percent of US imports during 2018 having fallen under Trump’s trade protectionism. Nor did Trump eliminate any of the subsidies and tariffs he inherited. He even had the audacity to present adding even more farm subsidies as if they were his own original idea, never before tried.

If a Democratic president did a fraction of this, Republicans would call it communism, although it would be more fair to call it fascism or well down that path. Instead, some supposed “fiscal conservatives” (a meaningless term even at the best of times) are proclaiming Trump’s policies as defending “free trade” (which in turn demonstrates how meaningless that is as well) — not unlike how constitutional conservatives will complain about Democrats for judicial activism and so use that complaint as a justification to vote for Republican politicians who promote their own preferred judicial activism. This psychotic disconnection from reality is impressive, to say the least.

I’m neither for nor against government regulation on principle, and so I’m not critical of Trump for being an economic interventionist — the entire system is the problem from my perspective. But I do like to label things correctly, in order to promote rational and fair debate (such intellectual ideals sound quaint these days). It is dishonest and plain depressing to call Trump’s policies anti-regulatory because he has helped further empower corporate rule within the political system and has attempted to use the US government to enforce US economic might throughout the world. If this is deregulation, I wonder what regulation looks like?

In the end, the rhetoric of neoliberalism always translates as the policies of neoconservatism. Something like NAFTA, for example, was always intended as economic interventionism and corporate protectionism — actual free trade would disallow corporate charters and international trade agreements militarily enforced by imperial-style governments, instead requiring each business to freely determine its own trade relations. It is why the rhetoric of “free trade” always goes hand in hand with trade sanctions, wars of aggression, CIA covert operations, etc — along with the numerous forms of corporate welfare (e.g., natural resources on public lands being sold at below market prices). That is to say it is about the wealthy and powerful maintaining and extending their wealth and power by any means necessary. This form of nationalism is what tends to get ramped up more overtly before major international conflicts, maybe at present indicating the early stages of World War III. I don’t doubt that Trump wants to be a war president with war powers.

Trump doesn’t care about economics, much less the American people. He is a narcissist. It’s a power game to him. He has threatened other countries to do what he wants and when they refused his ego was hurt and so he is retaliating. As president, he now sees the US government and economy as an extension of himself. And he has never experienced real consequences for any action he has taken in his entire life. It’s all a game, until it suddenly becomes real. After everything goes to hell, I wouldn’t mind seeing footage of Trump being pulled out of a hiding hole like Saddam Hussein.

It’s not really about Trump, though. He isn’t doing anything now that Republicans and right-wingers haven’t been supporting and inciting for decades. Trump is simply a version of Ronald Reagan in having began his presidency already in a state of dementia — one might call it late stage Reaganism. Even Trump’s bigotry is simply a more open expression of the dog whistle rhetoric that got so many Republicans elected over American history. Democrat’s have played their role as well with Jimmy Carter’s fiscal policies and anti-labor stance and later Bill Clinton’s corporatist ‘deregulation’ and racist crime bill (a speech about which Clinton gave in front of a KKK memorial with black prisoners chained behind him). Worse still, executive power has been increasing in every administration for decades with full support of Congress, and Barack Obama could have reversed this course but he didn’t and so opened the door for Trump.

This situation has been a long time coming. Trump is simply the fruit of bipartisan corruption and corporatism. This is the American Empire, what it always has been and becoming worse (inverted totalitarianism is what America will likely become, assuming we aren’t already there). The sad state of affairs only stands out for what it is because of the distorting lens of Trump’s personality, his unintentional way of speaking bluntly that almost approximates honesty on occasion. He has revealed what for so long remained hidden in the mainstream mind. But now that we have been forced to see what so many of us didn’t want to see and can’t unsee, what should we do as a society?

* * *

Protectionism was threatening global supply chains before Trump
by Chad Bown

Trump’s Protectionist Con Is Not New: Remembering The Bush Steel Tariff
by Bill Scher

Trump’s Allies Say He Really Wants Free Trade. Fat Chance.
by Ramesh Ponnuru

Trump Is a Protectionist — But Who Is He Protecting?
by Robert A. Blecker

Steel Profits Gain, but Steel Users Pay, under Trump’s Protectionism
by Gary Clyde Hufbauer (PIIE) and Euijin Jung

Trump’s corporate welfare problem
by Timothy P. Carney

Measuring Trump’s 2018 Trade Protection: Five Takeaways
by Chad P. Bown and Eva (Yiwen) Zhang

The High Price of High Tariffs
by Tori K. Whiting

Trump’s Tariffs Grow Government
by Jordan Bruneau

Trump Administration Issues 30% Solar Panel Import Tariff
by Julia Pyper

Trump’s $12 Billion Bailout Is No Remedy for Farmers Caught in Trade War
by Keith Johnson

 

The American Paradox

Primal Fat Burner
by Nora Gedgaudas
pp. 101-103

You’ve likely heard of the “French paradox”—that, despite the French people’s high consumption of saturated fat, their rates of heart disease are lower than ours in the United States. Here in our country we’re stuck in an unfortunate situation that I call the American paradox: the more closely you follow official dietary government guidelines, the worse your health is likely to be! 11 The USDA is busy telling Americans to base their daily diets upon low-fat, starchy carbohydrates and get more exercise; meanwhile, the obesity epidemic and related health challenges continue to grow. (This paradox is global, by the way—countries such as India are seeing skyrocketing rates of diabetes, and the vegetarians of southern India have literally the world’s shortest life span.)

Trying to make sense of all this is a bit like Alice falling down a rabbit hole; everything seems upside down and nonsensical. Let’s take a brief look at the stats. According to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), after decades of being subjected to government guidelines promoting a low-fat and high-carbohydrate diet, Americans show the following problems: 12

  • 68.5 percent of adults are overweight or obese; 34.9 percent are obese. (Compare this to the 1971 overweight statistic of 42 percent.)
  • 31.8 percent of children and adolescents are overweight or obese; 16.9 percent are obese.
  • 30.4 percent of low-income preschoolers are overweight or obese.

Yet another study published in May 2015 examining the impact of dietary guidelines on the health of US citizens yielded some shocking but undeniable conclusions: rates of obesity and diabetes have increased dramatically. 13 The official government dietary recommendations were intended to prevent weight problems and obesity, along with diabetes, cancer, and other chronic diseases. The fact that this has not happened—and that the reverse is true—is officially rationalized in a number of ways. 14 But the underlying message is that we are dumb and lazy. That’s right—the party line about why official dietary recommendations (such as from the American Heart Association and the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services) have failed is that Americans are to blame because we don’t follow the guidelines and we don’t work out enough. 15 In other words, if we’re sick, it’s our own fat, stupid fault.

This is such a persistent, morale-killing, and completely misleading message that I want to address it directly before we move on.

First, we have collectively and diligently followed the guidelines. Here’s what official guidelines recommend for our daily diets versus what we are currently doing in reality (RDA stands for Recommended Daily Allowance):

Total fat consumption. RDA says a maximum of 35 percent of calories; reality says about 34 percent. (Let’s not pat ourselves on the back, though—the number one source of those fat calories is partially hydrogenated oil from genetically modified soybeans, one of the worst things for the body!)
Saturated fats. RDA says a maximum of 10 percent saturated fat; reality says just under 11 percent (not terribly naughty or rebellious relative to established government recommendations).
Carbs. RDA says 55 to 65 percent, with 45 percent the smallest amount necessary to meet the (unfounded) “optimal dietary requirements”; reality says over 50 percent. This is more than enough to create a health-compromising, sugar-burning metabolism.
Protein. RDA says between 10 and 35 percent; reality says 15 percent.

As you can see, Americans are meeting the established dietary requirements, and we have largely eschewed our national interest in protein in favor of far more addictive carbohydrates. Isn’t it strange, then, that the predominant health messages we hear are that we eat too much animal protein and saturated fat for our own good, and that those are the things that make us overweight and cause heart-related and other health problems?

Meanwhile, FRAC looked at historical shifts and found that the consumption of fats dropped from 45 to 34 percent of total caloric intake between 1971 and 2011, while carbohydrate consumption jumped from 39 to 51 percent. In the same time, obesity has surged by over 25 percent. We have diligently increased our consumption of carbohydrates and reduced our intake of animal fat and cholesterol for over five decades, according to the rules—and we have gotten fatter. Processed foods that contain chemicals such as MSG, Frankenfoods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), hydrogenated and interesterified vegetable oils, and other damaging ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup are to thank for a good part of this disaster. But the promotion of higher-carb, low-fat diets has also undeniably served to push everyone in the wrong direction. (FRAC concluded, as many scientists have, that the increased consumption of carbohydrates is what has caused the huge increase in overweight and obesity.)

Human Adaptability and Health

What makes humans unique? There are many answers that can and have been offered. My own dietary experimentation, from paleo to keto to carnivore, has led to certain thoughts. After two months of carnivory (and before reintroducing plant foods), I ended it with an extended fast, three days to be precise, as inspired by Siim Land. There is something impressive about fasting, far beyond its intermittent variety. Yes, ketosis is involved, but lengthening the fasting state steps it up to a whole other level, specifically to be scientific what is called autophagy along with stem cell activation. With autophagy, your body cannibalizes damaged and dead cells in order to build entirely new cells, including in the brain, and in the process of three days of fasting every cell in your immune system will be replaced. That is pretty kick ass!

More basically, fasting simply feels good or it can, assuming one isn’t sick or stressed. It’s not as hard as one might think, assuming one begins it in a state of ketosis and fat-adaptation. That is the way it has been for me, in the several extended fasts I’ve done. I’ve even done part of the time in dry fasting, that is to say not even water. With fasting, energy doesn’t necessarily decline and sometimes there is a boost of energy, specifically when ketones kick into high gear. And even without water, the body shifts into a different mode and one doesn’t get thirsty, at least not for many days (breathing through one’s nose helps as well), since the body stores water similar to how it stores fat. Fasting has been a practice among probably every traditional society that has ever existed, from early Native Americans to early Europeans, and is found in diverse religions, from Buddhism to Christianity — fasting only became uncommon since vast food surpluses were created in recent generations.

I’ve done fasting in the past, but I always limited myself to one-day fasts. It was never difficult and, even though few people ever do it, I never considered it an impressive feat of personal strength and willpower. It simply meant not eating food for a time. More interesting on a personal level was a different kind of fasting. Maybe a couple of decades ago, I got into the habit of jogging before eating and I would sometimes go for hours. I never lacked energy and, if anything, I had more energy than before I began. A strange side effect was that my hunger also decreased for the rest of the day, a rather counter-intuitive result as one would think exercise would make one hungry to make up for the calories lost.

I didn’t understand it at the time, but I had independently discovered ketosis. Once you run out of glucose in your blood and glycogen in your muscles, your body switches to turning fat into ketones. As long as you have enough fat (not a problem for most people), you can continually produce ketones for long periods of time without any food. Even the small amount of glucose your body needs can also be produced by the body without any need of dietary intake of carbohydrates. For a fat person, they literally can go months without food, as the body doesn’t only store energy in body fat but also nutrients. Cole Robinson of Snake Diet fame is an advocate of this method of fat loss — as he puts it, If you want to lose weight, fatty, stop stuffing food in your mouth. While in this state, you can remain active. The Piraha, according to Daniel Everett, would regularly go without eating on some days for no particular reason and at times would dance for several days without stopping for a meal. Cole Robinson talks about continuing his heavy weight lifting routine many days into fasting, not that most modern people with inferior health would want to try this. Under Genghis Khan, Mongol warriors began their war campaigns with an extended period of fasting, maybe to prime their body for ketosis that they maintained with their low-carb and animal-based diet (mostly meat, blood, and milk).

This relates to our evolutionary needs. Early humans survived as a hunting pack. We aren’t the fastest animal, among either predators or prey. We are rather slow actually and our lack of claws and fangs are a disadvantage, but we are endurance runners with the capacity to develop immense tracking skills. Along with ketosis that puts our large brains into overdrive, particularly the use of the pseudo-ketone beta-hydroxybutyrate, we have a special knack for sweating that keeps us cool, partly because of our lack of fur. Also, because of our upright position, our lungs aren’t constricted by our running gait and so our breathing is free to follow it’s own rhythm. Humans did all this while being barefoot for most of our existence, often running across rough ground. In particularly harsh environments such as Australia, the natives would develop thick callouses on the soles of their feet. We run better and more safely without shoes than with them — barefoot running (or using thin footwear such as sandals or moccasins) forces us to use good running form with impact shifted toward the toes rather than the heels. As natives observed, most animals move with the weight put on their toes. This is also what we humans are designed for.

Running is what humans do. Hunter-gatherers can track animals for days without having to stop for food and water and, as long as there is a water supply, could go on for weeks without food. This is natural. This was once the norm. This is how the human species managed to travel across deserts and oceans, how our ancestors survived starvation and ice ages. For hundreds of millennia, humans maintained such high levels of physical strain typically without harm to their health and rarely with injury. Fasting and feasting. Extended activity and periods of rest. And we are able to retain our physical capacities well into old age. Hunter-gathers in their sixties have the same level of running ability as they had in their late teens, with the developmental peak hitting around the late twenties. Many individuals in traditional societies go on running as their normal mode of travel until the day they die and, excluding early deaths from infection (infections, I might add, that mostly were introduced through colonialism), traditional people live as long as do modern Westerners. As said by Geronimo, a man who lived and fought under fierce conditions into older age, “My only friends are my legs. I only trust my legs.”

Even cold weather is not a big issue. An intriguing side of ketosis is that it has a built-in inefficiency. Burning fat produces excess heat, that is to say wasted energy. As Benjamin Bikman has speculated, this is likely because ketosis most often has occurred in the winter. The extra heat was a side benefit. So, fasting will not only give you immense energy from the superfuel of ketones but keep you warmer as well. Cold temperatures, like fasting, also promote autophagy which is healing. The body goes into its most optimal mode of functioning. Humans who are adapted to it can swim in freezing cold water for long periods of time or hike barefoot and half-naked in the snow as Wim Hof has demonstrated and, shown in research, all humans have such capacity for cold adaptation — it’s related to meditation techniques of warming the body where one sits in snow or on ice until it melts. Cold bathing and sleeping out in the open on cold nights, including with little clothing has been done by numerous populations: Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, etc. Make it a practice to take cold showers and you’ll get some small sense of the effect this can have — something I’ve been doing for a while and, to say the least, it is invigorating, but I’ve always been one of those crazy people who will go outside in the winter underdressed. By the way, Wim Hof at the other extreme has also run a half marathon through a desert without water. He has set many other world records, twenty-six in total.

Humans are adaptable, but a too easy and comfortable lifestyle has caused modern people to lose their adaptability. We aren’t meant to always be at the same temperature, always eating, always sedentary, or always anything else. Pushing the biological boundareies is a good thing to do on a regular basis. Consider hormesis — small amounts of stress actually increase our health. A similar thing is seen with exposure to bacteria and parasites when younger that can strengthen the immune system for life and alter how our bodies function. Even in seeking health, we moderns often get it wrong. We aren’t meant to continually do the same exercise in the same way over and over. Variety isn’t only the spice of life for it is also the meat of life. If we don’t use it, we lose it. This is why we should alternate how we exercise.

One method designed for this purpose is high-intensity interval training (HIIT) which is alternating between strenuous activity to exhaustion with periods of rest and repeating this multiple times. It forces the rhythm of your heart rate to expand its variability and that is good thing. Continuous exercise at the same pace, such as typical long distance running does the opposite in decreasing this variability. This is what can sometimes cause seemingly health long distance runners, once reaching the finish line, to drop dead from a heart attack. The lack of heart rate variability strains their heart too much in going from running to stopping. But this could be easily prevented by doing some HIIT exercise such as wind sprints, something I did a lot as a kid during soccer practice. Sometimes walk, sometimes jog, and sometimes run as fast as you can. That is what most of us did as children when playing and often we did it barefoot — I recall running on gravel alley barefoot, walking through the woods barefoot, and climbing trees barefoot. Why do we forget such natural behavior as we become mature, respectable adults? Don’t exercise. Just go play outside.

Our loss of connection to our species inheritance has cost us our health. But this loss isn’t an inevitable fate of modern civilization. We should take advantage of what we now know about human physiology. We humans are amazing creatures. There is a reason we have survived and thrived and spread all over the earth in nearly all environments and ecosystems. Even with all the unnatural strain and harm we put ourselves under, we still somehow manage to keep many of our physiological abilities. Imagine what we could accomplish if, rather than being sickly, our society operated with optimal health.

* * *

Persistence hunting
from Wikipedia

Endurance running hypothesis
from Wikipedia

Endurance Running and Persistence Hunting
by David Carrier

Running After Antelope
from This American Life

Running After Antelope
by Scott Carrier

Born to Run
by Christopher McDougall

Why We Run: A Natural History
by Bernd Heinrich

Becoming the Iceman
by Wim Hof

The Way of the Iceman
by Wim Hof

What Doesn’t Kill Us
by Scott Carney

Science Explains How the Iceman Resists Extreme Cold
by Joshua Rapp Learn

Breathe Like The Iceman: How To Use The Wim Hof Method
by Harry J. Stead