Ancestral Fitness: the decision-making coin

Richard Feynman reminds us to make concerted efforts (we should "bend over backwards") to consider both sides of the decision-making coin (positive and negative) when selecting which options to pursue.

On the positive side, I view Ancestral Fitness as a cheap health option with high ROI in many respects, and I suspect that experimenting with this lifestyle/diet/nutrition/exercise/sleep pattern framework is a worthwhile endeavor. The logic is simple: we are foreigners in our modern ecologies, living in a world that we do not understand; yet, thanks to people like Art DeVany, we are now exposed to and aware of an emerging (r)evolutionary perspective on health via Ancestral Fitness that allows us to tap into the roots of our heritages and save our physiologies from the devastating effects that modern, sedentary grain-based agrarian societies have inflicted upon us - we can revive the healthy X-look with Ancestral Fitness (see Art DeVany's post on Evolutionary Fitness body aesthetics), and we can turn our increasingly spherical (globular) body types (which suffer from diabetes, heart problems, chronic diseases, severe inflammation, and others) into healthy, energetic, dynamic, and lean physiological systems that allow us to live happier, more productive, and longer lives.

Here is a thought experiment: To start, what would our world look like tomorrow if all grain-based agriculture disappeared over night - a world sans pasta, wheat, corn, rice, flour, etc. ? No more high-fructose corn syrup! Would diabetes (and possibly obesity) follow suit and go extinct with the exit of grain-based agriculture? Simple carbohydrates appear to be one of the most dangerous substances that we encounter each day, yet we continue to eat them in conjunction with unhealthy fats (see french fries) in increasing proportions. Rising alongside this demise in nutrition is the US's % of GDP spent on healthcare costs (about 17% of GDP currently, which is quite a bit of money!). In short, the positive side of the Ancestral Fitness option decision-making coin appears valid and fruitful (at least worth pursuing, minimally) - our health states are in peril, and we desperately need a public health modality with far-reaching impact.

The negative side of this decision-making coin touches topics like (1) social impact - it may be difficult for A ncestral F itness ( AF ) practitioners to socialize with vegetarian friends - (2) increased costs - the typical AF meal may cost more than the typical high-carbohydrate meal does - (3) cognitive function - high-carbohydrate diets may improve cognitive function.

(1) Social Impact: Practicing AF requires a lot of explaining; constant explaining - "Why don't you eat whole-grains?" is a question that you may have to answer, among many others, on a recurring basis, for instance. I see these opportunities as public health moments - I simply explain my reasoning (it is all about insulin sensitivity and fractals, ultimately) always ending with an empirical statement, "regardless of the theories, my personal experiment has gone surprisingly well, and that is all that matters to me. So, I will continue the experiment." The costs of these social situations could be captured in terms of energy expenditure, sticking out from the crowd (awkwardness, perhaps) and simply being different (embarrassment, possibly). Some view these factors negatively; others (like me) view them positively. In addition, vegetarians may question your choice to eat meat (I don't question vegetarians' choices not to eat meat, however), and this engagement may reflect another negative cost associated with practicing AF. Humans have consumed meat forever, granted in different forms than occur today: read Art DeVany's post, "I have had quite a few questions from vegetarians," by clicking here to learn more (no need for repetition - read his splendid work). Moreover, upon learning about your lifestyle choices, some may tag you as a "caveman" or "cavewoman" or as "Tarzan." Cavemen and Tarzan were quite fit (healthy, strong, lean, and dynamic); so, simply respond, "Thank you!" and take this comment as a compliment. Clearly, from a social perspective, operating in a word so accustomed to sedentary, grain-based living can make practicing AF challenging, but remember, our contemporary society rewards healthy, symmetric (see Denzel Washington), and fit looking and energetic individuals as well (studies on leadership indicate this reality repeatedly).

(2) Increased Costs: Concerns about cost are valid in the short-run, but they appear to fade in the long-run. In the United States, our healthcare costs are spiraling out of control as a direct result of our increasingly poor lifestyle choices. The cost of these choices is in the Trillions! The short-term cost increases of eating the AF way are, I suspect, negligible in comparison to the long-term cost savings that could result from the improvements in health that people would enjoy from practicing AF. Think about how much money people spend on tobacco, sodas / soft drinks, and alcohol - what if these funds were funneled towards berries, nuts, salads, lean meats, oils, spices, and other AF diet / nutritional goodies? Moreover, healthy AF practitioners may counter these costs by being more energetic and dynamic and thus more productive at work, leading to pay raises and income increases. Plus, given the high-intensity, low-time commitment training that AF encourages, you will spend less time pounding away on tread mills and more time pursuing other activities (this free-time has a valuable price tag as well). These types of cost studies have not been performed robustly (to my knowledge), but, at the end of the day, the fuel that you feed your body is a pretty important component of your life - view AF eating as an investment in yourself. Finally, intermittent fasting could also save money as it calls for skipping meals once and awhile. These cost considerations must be weighed, but savvy shoppers develop "tricks of the trade" (eggs are cheap, for example) to eating the AF way on tight budgets (buy blueberries, not acai berries!).

(3) Cognitive Function: Data points exist that point to improved cognitive function, in the short-term (at least), from high-carbohydrate intake. The logic behind these studies is based on the notion that our bodies "spare glucose for the brain." I have reviewed these studies, and I do not think we know the definitive answer to the short-term debate over whether AF eating is inferior to simple-carbohydrate consumption in regards to cognitive performance. The cognitive tests performed in these studies are sterile, and they lack ecological intelligence. Certainly, hypoglycemia impairs cognitive function, but since living the AF way, I have never come close to experiencing hypoglycemia. AF reiterates intermittent patterns (intermittent fasting and intense/bursty exercising, to name a few) and avoiding chronic states; AF is about insulin sensitivity, not hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia arises in chronically diseased patients; interestingly, many times in patients who have conditions as a result of poor health due to sedentary, grained-based agrarian lifestyle choices. Furthermore, some may argue that sedentary, grain-based agrarian societies trump hunter-gatherer societies in terms of "intellectual output." However, if humans are bottom-up tinkerers, and if we take this reality seriously, I suspect that access to resources represents the biggest limitation to hunter-gatherer societies' "intellectual outputs." Many AF investigative studies (tracking health changes in populations that return to their native diets, for instance) that demonstrate the tremendous benefits of eating like our ancestors have been conducted on hunter-gatherer populations. In comparison, sedentary, grain-based agrarian societies, some may argue, produce higher "intellectual outputs" because of their high, simple-carbohydrate diets. To this statement, I would argue that hunter-gatherer societies may produce less "intellectual output" because they lack exposure to the same execution frameworks that sedentary populations plug into (computers and wireless technologies, to name a few). If it were true that high-carbohydrate loads provided short-term boosts in cognitive performance, ramping up fruits and vegetables intake would be an easy (and healthier) way to boost carbohydrates in hopes of spurring intellectual output, if that goal was desired and that theory seemed persuasive.

Personally, my AF experiment points in the other direction: AF (thanks to Art DeVany, most notably) has enhanced my intellectual output (both quality and volume). If I had to make a recommendation on diet and cognitive performance, I would argue pro-AF in enhancing intellectual output because I take a wider view of cognition and strongly believe that we have tunneled on the brain as the cognitive center for humans simply because the platonic notion of associating "thinking" with our heads is crisp and clean; thinking must occur inside our skulls, right? Yet, heart research shows that the heart, among other physiological body systems, could play a tremendous role in cognitive function; ganglia in the heart appear to regulate cognitive processes tremendously. If AF supports and enhances the multi-fractal, power-law characteristics of healthy human hearts, then I suspect AF could also bolster cognitive performance along the way.

In sum, the cost/benefit coin flip that each individual must make in deciding whether or not to experiment with Ancestral Fitness involves weighing the known positive health benefits (decreased risk for diabetes, etc.) with the potential drawbacks of decreased short-term cognitive performance (highly uncertain, we lack robust studies), potentially negative social impact (having to constantly explain your lifestyle choices), and the chance of increased costs in terms of food expenses and others. Other considerations arise as well; Art DeVany addressed some of these in his response to a post on Bryan Appleyard's wonderful blog:

Among all the health options out there (and there are a lot!), Ancestral Fitness, although considered radical by some, appears to be a step in the right direction toward developing a new science and perspective on health and fitness in the information age. There is the argument from evolution (take the long-view on human development), the argument from mathematics (fractals drive our physiologies), and other arguments as well, but none of these arguments matter in the face of empirical, experimental evidence: life is an experiment; experiment with Ancestral Fitness, monitor the costs and benefits along the way, and make a decision for yourself, based on the results that you experience, on whether AF is right for you.

To good health.