Month: April 2015

It is completely true that a statistical average of peoples during the Palaeolithic era may have been approximately 30, but this does not mean it was normal to die at that age. ‘Cave men’ who survived past puberty had a great chance of being fit and healthy until they were 60-70 years old.

Based on evidence from existing hunter-gatherer populations and anthropological findings, child mortality is estimated to have been as high as 40%. As a hunter there was a high chance of injury and with little shelter from the elements, exposure and starvation is likely to have been common. See the example of a possible 10 person scenario to illustrate the point.
Evidence suggests that our hunter – gatherer ancestors were in fact much healthier than we are now. It seems that pre – agriculture 10, 000 years ago there was little evidence of the diseases such as
obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, autoimmune diseases, osteoporosis, acne, myopia, macular degeneration, glaucoma, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, diverticulosis, gastric reflux and gout.

Our current high average lifespan is greatly influenced by the benefits of modern medicine. The current passing generation are reaching a record high average age, these robust individuals are from an era of ‘meat and two veg’. During the life of this generation, ‘whole’ foods where generally eaten, these foods came from nutrient rich soils and were grown locally, meat and milk was from grazed animals, food was rarely processed and sugar was an occasional treat. These people on the whole had far more active lifestyles than we do today which kept their bodies lean and muscular.

I think it is wrong to assume that modern medicine can fix all the wrongs that a poor diet and lifestyle can create. With our modern diets full of refined ‘junk’, sugar and cheap meat is it likely that the next generation will live to such an old age?

Just imagine what could be possible if we listened to the lessons of our ancestors’ good diet and life habits and reaped the benefits of modern medicine as well!

Caroline x

Firstly I think it is important to remember that contrary to common opinion, the paleo and primal diet are not just ‘high protein diets’. The main emphasis of paleo and primal diets is to increase fruit and vegetables and reduce refined foods including grains. The meat eaten should come from high quality grass fed or organic animal protein (including offal and bonebroth etc).

This is VERY different from just eating loads of cheap burgers and sausages!

To address the first part of the argument we need to look at the China Study by T. Colin Campbell, for those who do not know, the ‘China Study is a book popularised by passionate vegans and vegetarians that examines the relationship between the consumption of animal products (including dairy) and chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and cancers of the breast, prostate and bowel.

There are many convincing counter arguments to this study. An example is an incredibly well researched campaign against the China study and its VERY questionable interpretation of results (http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/) which (in my opinion) effectively debunks the connection they make between protein consumption and various diseases.

Other studies showing correlation between high protein diets and disease are mainly observational studies and overlook that many people that eat high protein diets also have other VERY bad dietary habits and it could in fact be those habits that relate to their poor health. (for example people who eat high quantities of meat often also eat high quantities of refined carbohydrates i.e surrounding grain fed burgers with a sugary refined bread bun and washing it down with a gallon of coke, or beer!)

Spinning scientific research one way and another is frankly of limited use, and who said we have to have empirical evidence to make sound judgements anyway? In these situations I personally try and bring it back to good common sense. My qualifying questions is this – does it make sense that the very food that we are designed to eat readily, and lived healthily on, for 100, 000 years would suddenly cause a wide range of diseases? I think not!

Now onto heart attacks and fat. We have been told for so long that food like meat and eggs raise our cholesterol levels that we now consider it a fact. But this ‘fact’ is based on a study conducted 50 years ago called the ‘diet-heart hypothesis’. More recent (and higher quality) studies have found no such connection in most people, unfortunately many health professionals have not updated their knowledge. Read more

Does high cholesterol even matter? The second ‘fact’ is that high cholesterol levels in the blood leads to an increased risk of heart disease. Modern studies show that this is simply not the case and in fact there has been studies which suggest that low cholesterol can increase the risk of death especially in the elderly and women. A more important marker is the number of LDL (low-density lipoprotein) particles in your blood NOT the concentration of cholesterol in your lipoproteins. Read More

There was a breakthrough a few years ago with the discovery that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease. It is now apparent that the overuse of simple, highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and all the products made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods is a huge contributory factor in inflammation. These are the very foods many medical professionals have been recommending for years!

Heart surgeon Dr. Dwight Lundell says –

‘The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suffering and dire economic consequences’

A diet made up of organic vegetables, 100% grass fed meats, organic fruits, nuts and seeds laced with healthy fats, will go a very long way to reducing your likelihood of heart disease and many other health issues. Read more

In conclusion, the paleo and primal diets are based on 100,000 years of trials into how to produce a healthy body, perhaps we should use our common sense a little more and TV adverts a little less when making our food choices!

Caroline x

I hope to simplify a complex debate; the biggest environmental ‘beef’ with beef, is usually about methane. Methane is potent greenhouse gas and is harmful to the environment; In very oversimplified terms, the beef and methane argument goes something like this:

Ruminants eat grass and other plant species which are very hard to digest, cattle have adapted and can thrive off this diet however unfortunately they ‘burp’ methane as a by-product of their clever but inefficient digestive system.

The general assumption then made, is that, in order to make beef more environmentally friendly, we need to ‘finish’ the animals for slaughter as quickly as possible. This argument suits some farming companies very well, it apparently provides ‘green’ justification for grain feeding, the quicker the time to slaughter = less methane.

Grain feeding is a BIG BADDY in my books for environmental sustainability, health of the animal, human nutrition and for many other ethical reasons. We also need to dispel the illusion that UK ‘grass fed or free range’ meat is grain or GM free –not always so. But I shall refrain from that particular rant here!

I think the ‘efficient methane’ standard of measuring sustainable meat is wrong, and is only actually relevant if you accept the assumption that we all NEED to eat large volumes of cheap meat. Some points I hope illustrate this are:

• It is generally accepted that we eat twice as much meat as we did in 1950, and much more of the ‘prime cuts’ and less of the offal, broths etc.

• We shouldn’t be feeding good ‘human food’ to animals. It takes 6- 8kg of grain to produce 1kg beef, if we need more food globally this does not make sense!

• The methane output is only part of the overall environmental impact picture – grain production has a large, long term negative impact on the planet.

• An area almost the size of Wales would be needed to grow all of the food we throw away from our homes each year. Of that waste 7% is meat – we are clearly not placing a high enough value on meat.

• Of the total UK land mass 70.1% is agricultural land, 24.3% is arable and therefore capable of growing crops and 11.9% is forest. Therefore 33.9% of the UK is potential or actual grazing land.

• Some experts have calculated if we ate half the meat we could produce most of it from grazing land and food waste.

So what am I suggesting?

Eat half as much meat and ensure it is 100% grass/pasture fed

Why?

Because the land is here anyway; the land grows pasture better than anything else; we can’t eat grass but cows can; it is a drought and flood hardy, it is an all year round food source that locks carbon out of the atmosphere and improves the nutritional quality of the meat and milk the cows produce.

But shouldn’t we manage it for nature conservation?

Absolutely, but it is important to have a range of habitats that support a broad diversity of species, it’s no good allowing all land to revert to scrub and woodland – great if you’re a woodland bird or animal, not so good if your bog asphodel and need a moist acidic moorland! Habitats need managing.

Some of the UK’s most fragile and important upland habitats have been damaged by overgrazing in the post war period. Sheep quota subsidies encouraged many farmers to increase sheep numbers. Unfortunately the way that sheep graze on higher ground is selective towards many of the more sensitive species, they find the rough and coarse grasses unpalatable. Many conservationists advised the total removal of livestock from many fell, heath and moorland areas.

What they failed to realise was, that a mixed farming system – particularly cattle grazing – is what actually created these important habitats in the first place!

In the absence of any grazing, many upland habitats become smothered by coarse and rank grass through which nothing else can grow. Eventually the penny dropped and after many studies and trials, most conservationists now accept you need some controlled grazing by cattle or other less selective grazers in order to restore and maintain a great upland habitat.

We are working with an amazing couple who work with conservationists to manage their internationally important limestone grassland in the Dales using their herd of Belted Galloway cattle. You can clearly see the progress that Neil and Leigh’s farming methods have made to restore this remarkable habitat. See Neil on Country file talking about his animals with Adam.

I really hope this gives you an insight into the issue and it would be a huge help if you could help us raise awareness by passing this on to anyone you know who also cares about the impact of the food they chose.

Caroline x