Eat Meat And Stop Jogging: 'Common' Advice On How To Get Fit Is Keeping You Fat And Making You Sick (7 page)

Animal products reduced risk by 26%, while the starch-rich diet i
ncreased it by 34%!

Many
forget to acknowledge that having extra body fat is a health risk in itself.  Not only does it disrupt regular hormone function and favor additional fat storage but it’s harder on our entire system.

“An increase of one unit of BMI
(Body Mass Index) increases the risk of developing heart failure by an average of 20 per cent.”

“Ads are what we know about the world around us.”

― James Twitchell

Mistake #7

Falling For The Fiber Fallacy

The majority of us naturally associate fiber intake with increasing the speed of digestion.  Generally, one thinks that the longer food is in our gut, the higher the likelihood that toxins and harmful bacteria will be absorbed and cause damage. The picture you’re likely envisioning becomes increasingly prominent when the food sitting in your colon is meat.  Not only is animal protein digested slower to begin with, but when we think of harmful bacteria and toxins we generally think of decaying meat.  Add the processed, factory-farmed, GMO crop fed, antibiotic pumped meat we wrongfully assume is all that’s available, and you get a pretty accurate picture of what a lack of fiber can do…supposedly.

You’ve already learned that ‘Not All Meat is Created Equal,’ so the negative vision can be partially eliminated, but there’s still a disconnect for most in understanding why slower digestion is not necessarily a bad thing. The reason we all believe we need fiber, and can easily envision the harmful effects of slow digestion, is because it’s been driven into our heads for the last 50 years!

The
Fiber Fallacy

North Americans were first
instructed to increase their fiber intake after research from Dr. Denis Burkitt and Dr. Hugh Trowell in the early 70’s. They were studying the associations between diet and health status and wanted to determine why the diseases plaguing individuals in the Western World were not affecting secluded tribes in Africa. According to their observations, lower colon cancer and heart disease rates in the African’s could be attributed to a higher fiber intake.  Burkitt and Trowell supplied evidence that the indigestible roughage (fiber) North Americans were removing from their food was providing additional health benefits to the tribesmen.  Similar to your vision from earlier, the research suggested that this fiber was increasing digestive flow and preventing the absorption of toxins for the Africans.  Very much like the way the ‘lipid hypothesis’ became a common household recommendation despite insignificant evidence, this ‘hypothesis’ quickly became fact.

The main reason Burkitt’s work was (and is) so believable is that it aligns perfectly with Ancel Keys theory that saturated fat causes heart disease.  The world was already leaning towards replacing animal fat and protein with low-fat whole grains to prevent heart disease, and Burkitt’s ‘proof’ helped them make the leap.  Unfortunately, Burkitt’s work is flawed.  He conveniently withheld research on African tribes that had low incidences of cancer and heart disease, but were consuming low amounts of fiber and relying heavily on saturated fat and animal protein. The Masai in Kenya and Tanzania are virtually disease free, yet they eat predominantly animal foods with a great deal of fat and an extremely low amount of fiber (if any). Additionally, the tribes from Burkitt and Trowell’s research that were consuming small amounts of grains were putting them through intensive fermentation and preparation methods that REMOVED the indigestible fiber.  Thirdly, there’s more than fiber to consider when analyzing secluded populations and comparing them to Western culture. In North America, we are (generally) less active, experience different stress (chronic instead of acute), and deal with more toxins on a daily basis. If you compare groups like the Mormons, that eat a low-fiber diet by government standards (less than 25g), but experience similar daily environments to these tribes, their cancer rate is just as low (22% lower than the average) and their mortality rate from colon cancer even lower, at 37%!

High Fiber Does NOT Lower Disease Risk

Aside from the holes in Burkitt and Trowell’s work, there’s ample evidence indicating no correlation between dietary fiber and cancer risk.  For instance, a 1999 study on 89,000 U.S. Nurses published in the New England Journal of Medicine stated:

"Our data do not support the e
xistence of an important protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal cancer or adenoma."

With respect to heart disease, companies manufacturing products with whole grains love to promote that their product ‘lowers ch
olesterol,’ or is ‘heart healthy.’  In actuality, there is no proven association between fiber intake and heart disease.  The only evidence that produced a positive correlation attributed the lower risk to a ‘slight’ decrease in total cholesterol.  As we’ve learned, this is more of a detriment than a benefit, especially if the drop is accredited to a reduction in HDL cholesterol.  Unfortunately, consumer products high in carbohydrates run with these insignificant findings and use statements in their marketing that continue to mislead the general public:

"Foods high in fiber and low in saturated fat reduce the risk of heart disease and certain cancers."

Faster Not Always Better

When you look at the long-term effects of eating more fiber, r
esearch points to an increased mortality rate.  In the DART study from 1989:

The group eating twice as much fiber
ended up with a 23% greater risk of heart attack, and a 27% increased risk of dying.

This research is especially
significant because it tests high-fiber intake over an extended time period.  Generally, any research pointing to positive health outcomes from a high fiber diet have been across short timelines, which isn’t surprising.  When you add indigestible fiber to a poor diet, the individuals will absorb less of the toxic garbage and eat less in general because of the perceived ‘fullness’ that fiber provides.  As the curve from the DART study illustrates, an increase in fiber negatively affects health progressively over time.

Short-term success is usually short-lived, unless a full change in lifestyle is em
braced…and it’s no different with fiber!

Whole Grains = Inflammation

Prior to the introduction of whole grains, we lived without many of the degenerative diseases that have unfortunately become common in today’s world.  The misconceptions surrounding whole grains have been so strong for so long that I often hear this response:

“Wheat and crops have been consumed for 100’s of years.  I’ve eaten them, my parents ate them, and their parents ate them, and we all survived just fine.”

You may have survived, but how many of those family members died of heart disease or cancer?  More importantly, would you say that your physique is the epitome of health and fitness?

Just because they’ve been around since you were a baby, doesn’t mean they are necessary or healthy.  Similar to the points made in the saturated fat section, agriculture and modern food processing techniques are not old, they’re extremely young:

"Physicians and nutritionists are increasingly convinced that the d
ietary habits adopted by Western society over the past 100 years make an important etiologic contribution to coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and some types of cancer.  These conditions have emerged as dominant health problems only in the past century and are virtually unknown among the few surviving hunter-gatherer populations whose way of life and eating habits most closely resemble pre-agricultural human beings.”

The most eye-opening study is one comparing low-carbohydrate
diets with and without grains on diabetic and pre-diabetic volunteers. After 12 weeks, both groups lost fat and improved their blood sugar, but:

T
he grain-free group lost 70% more body fat and were at non-diabetic blood sugar levels at the end of the study.

Other than ‘many sugars,’ grains (whole o
r not) contain foreign proteins and natural defenses that induce inflammation.  Gluten, found in wheat and other grains, is the most common offender. Regardless of whether there’s an obvious allergic reaction (like celiac disease), someone can still experience an immune response to gluten. Several well-respected researchers have suggested that tens of millions of Americans experience this immunogenic response, knowingly or not.  After consuming wheat, or any other gluten containing grain, the immune system releases cytokines to handle the foreign substance and this produces inflammation.  Unfortunately, this immunogenic reaction usually goes unnoticed, and it becomes less and less detectable every time the inflammatory food is consumed.

Big Jimbo with the ‘Iron Stomach,’ who can eat 12 hot dogs and drink 10 beers and feel fine, is likely in worse shape on the i
nside than his outside leads on.

The signaling from his digestive system turned off a long time ago, and unfortunately he may not experience any real co
nsequences until it’s already too late.

Unfortunately, it’s not just intolerances to immunogenic foods in specific individuals as all grains are suspected to cause inflammation. The fiber from whole grains and their popular flour counterparts are classified as acellular carbohydrates, while fruits and vegetables are known as cellular carbohydrates.  With cellular carbohydrates, the walls of the cells remains intact, so our body needs to effectively breakdown the food (fruit or veg) in order to access the glucose inside.  Conversely, with acellular carbohydrates the cell walls are broken down immediately producing unfriendly bacteria in our gut, and an instant blood sugar response.  This bacteria causes inflammation, while the breakdown of root vegetables, leafy greens, and fruits stimulate beneficial bacteria and no inflammation.  This difference in carbohydrate type is so impactful that groups like the Kitavan Islanders of Oceania can get away with eating a diet as high as 60-70% carbohydrates because they rely solely on cellular options.  When acellular sources are introduced to tribes like the Kitavan (even in very small amounts) it produces extreme inflammation and sensitivity.

Aside from being a major contributor to most degenerative diseases (cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, etc.), inflammation specific to the gut appears to predict obesity.  DIABESITY (obesity + diabetes) caused by chronic inflammation has been strongly correlated with the negative effects of circulating LPS (lipo-polysaccharides), from the gastrointestinal tract.  These LPS molecules are elevated when the typical high-carbohydrate grain dominant meal is consumed and can lead to the development of leptin resistance.  Sadly, researchers suggest that this situation is heightened when there is a lack of saturated fat.

Whole Grains = Intestinal Damage & Poor Absorption

The lectins and phytates found in legumes are also found in whole grains.  In large quantities these plant defenses decrease the absorption of key nutrients and can damage the walls of the intestinal tract.  This tissue damage makes us more susceptible to immunogenic reactions and digestive issues.  Although, many will suggest that soaking and cooking will eliminate the majority of lectins and phytates from grains and legumes, many contain lectins that are resistant to heat.  Furthermore, as I outlined in the section on plant-based proteins, an 18hr soak only removes 50% of phytates.  Bran, which is the most popular fiber recommendation, contains phytates that harm iron, calcium, magnesium, and zinc absorption.

When someone demonizes meat because of factory-farming and antibiotics, these characteristics can be changed.  We have the ability to choose or produce a higher quality and non-toxic product.  The same cannot be said for grains and legumes, as these ‘natural’ defenses are present in all varieties and can’t effectively be removed.  More importantly, as companies continue to create more-resistant varieties of crops to support greater yields, these defenses will only grow in number and power.

As the quality of our food and the soil it grows in continues to diminish, the proper breakdown and absorption of the remaining nutrients in foods grows in importance.  All nutrients are absorbed through the walls of our gut, which is why the integrity of our intestinal lining is so important, and why we must avoid foods that compromise it.  Although the standard recommendation is to consume a high fiber diet, full of cereal grains like Bran, this results in damage to our intestinal lining and compromised digestive health.  The digestive damage from lectins becomes increasingly detrimental with frequent consumption, as is characteristic of the majority of the population who eats some form of grains at every meal.  The cereal for breakfast, sandwich for lunch, pasta for dinner regimen we discussed earlier, introduces toxic lectins frequently and continuously. When there’s constant irritation it leaves no opportunity for repair, which can result in a higher severity of damage over time. For instance, if the intestinal lining is compromised and more lectins are introduced our risk of leptin resistance is elevated.