Phil's Laundry and Other Outlandish Things; The Great Health Debate Days 6 & 7

Phil really ought to be the subject of a TV show: almost daily, being around him ensures you'll get exposed to things you'd never imagine otherwise! A little later in this post, I'll share a story about what we took to the laundromat today. Stay tuned! Or, if you're not interested in the Great Health Debate, scroll down to the bottom of the post...

It's a crisp 13 degrees downtown, which means that a little farther from the coast it's well below zero here. Beluga Lake, on which I've been doing my driving practice had more cars on it today than I'd ever seen before! More on that shortly also.

First, though, I hope that my summaries of the talks so far on the Great Health Debate have been useful and interesting. Tonight will be the last night, with Mike Adams and Sean Croxton wrapping things up and also two pre-recorded talks, from T. Colin Campbell and Charlotte Gerson. (Obviously), I haven't listened to those yet, and I'll be back in a day or two with comments about those and some general summaries of what was offered throughout the event. Today, I want to share some thoughts on night 6, with Mark Sisson and Frederic Patenaude, and night 7, with Dr Will Tuttle and Sally Fallon. These were the two most polarized pairs of talks so far: each pitted an advocate of animal products (Sisson and Fallon) against a vegan speaker (Patenaude and Tuttle). However, on night 6 the focus of the debate was  high- versus low-carb and insulin, whereas on night 7 the focus was on the ethics of veganism versus the claimed necessity of consuming animal products.

All four speakers had some admirable things to offer and also some points that seemed highly questionable, to say the least. Perhaps this is because of my personal proclivities, but I didn't come away feeling any more confused as a result of what these speakers had to say, but I think it may partly have had to do with the fact that, as Sally Fallon herself confessed at the beginning of her talk, she--and they all--are secondary researchers: they're not physically present in labs designing and carrying out experiments, nor are they in clinical practice. Additionally, I felt that neither Mark Sisson nor Will Tuttle added a lot to the debate in terms of nutritional discussions, whatever the other merits of what they had to say. Now for some specific remarks on each pair of speakers.

Mark Sisson and Frederic Patenaude
First of all, kudos to Frederic for bringing together such a coherent talk at what was apparently short notice. If he and Kevin hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have realized that he'd had less time to prepare than the other speakers. And kudos to Mark for his light-hearted and humorous approach.

I mentioned above that the main point of difference presented between these two was that Sisson was advocating a low-carb diet (less than 100g of carbs/day, which isn't actually that low, but precludes grains, sugar, more than a little fruit, etc) with animal products, and Patenaude was advocating a high-carb, low-fat, vegan, whole-foods, high-fruit diet. Each was clearly very convinced of the rightness of his own position, and each was also clearly convinced that high amounts of fat and carbohydrate cannot coexist in a diet and have health be maintained: one or other macronutrient has to be restricted. Before I go on to their reasons for this, I should say that this throws up a red flag for me right away. As I shared in my 'this much I have learned' post, my experience has led me to believe that all fats are not created equal and all carbs are not created equal, and therefore to reduce the whole picture of health to a need to restrict a whole class of macronutrient seems like an oversimplification.

Mark Sisson, somewhat like Daniel Vitalis, advocates an atavistic strategy: a return to hunter-gatherer-type food choices, with the belief that this includes exclusion of grains and reliance on a high amount of protein and fat. Aside from the fact that research has been emerging to show that hunter-gatherer societies generally ate a lot of carbohydrate in the form of root vegetables, my question here is the same one I had for Daniel: what of the possibility that our rapid evolution with the rise of agrarianism means that we are no longer 'epigenetically' equipped for a step backwards like that? Sisson agrees with Mercola and Cousens that keeping insulin low is the key to longevity and health, and claims that eating high-carb inevitably raises insulin.

Frederic Patenaude points out that the human body's motor is glucose: that's the source of our fuel, and claims that it makes most sense to derive that fuel from complex carbs and lots of fruit (he claims that the latter is not a problem because of the fiber and minerals accompanying the fruit sugar). His further claim, that we should eat carbs because they are 'what taste good to us' derives from the Natural Hygiene and Instinctotherapy schools of thought. Although I agree that whole foods taste great to a clean palate, I think this claim is a minefield in this day and age of hyperstimulated tastebuds. You end up having to distinguish between what tastes good 'naturally' and what is part of the 'Pleasure Trap,' and can easily be misunderstood by people who think that twinkies and cheeseburgers 'taste good' as arguing for those! So, his first claim, which is essentially a claim of economy (get glucose from carbs rather than by gluconeogenesis from proteins or going into ketosis) is more attractive. Speaking of ketosis, he quoted a newspaper report that mentioned as axiomatic that ketosis slows down brain function. I'll say something in the next post about the credibility of sources like that, but although there are certainly problems associated with being in ketosis for extended periods of time, I think it's very unlikely that people eating the kind of diet Sisson described are in ketosis much of the time.

Sisson's and Patenaude's respective incredulity over the macronutrient ratio opposite from what they favored was amusing. Sisson suggested that the Ornish patients who had lowered insulin with whole grain diets may still have had net elevated levels of insulin 'under the curve' over the course of the day and implied that much of the improvement in readings was due simply to reduced calories. Patenaude cast doubts that low-carb advocates are really eating low-carb, including a personal query against Mark Sisson's cream in coffee and occasional beer! His claim that it's actually impossible to eat low-carb was clearly incorrect, since whole populations have done it (although perhaps he's correct that this wouldn't have been their first choice): also, as I've already mentioned a couple times, you can actually eat quite a lot of carbs on what is still called a 'low carb' diet. Patenaude claims to maintain low blood sugar while eating a lot of fruit but minimizing fat: we don't know what his insulin levels are, however. And while it's great that he feels good eating fruit, he didn't really address the possible problems with fructose. Recent research has suggested that the fact that fructose does not spike blood sugar levels (because it's processed through the liver) does not necessarily mean that it's healthier for the body overall.

Some people took exception to Sisson's philosophy of 'not getting into it with vegetarians:' of accepting that there are vegetarians who are very sure that they are 'right,' and he's very sure of his opposite position. I actually think that this is a sane way to go (of course I think that, living with someone with a very different diet to my own), and overall I enjoyed the level of openmindedness and acceptance of other perspectives displayed by both Sisson and Patenaude: a rare thing where each is a strong believer in a polarized position.

Will Tuttle and Sally Fallon
Acceptance of other perspectives was a feature not much in evidence last night in Tuttle's and Fallon's talks. Sally Fallon said several variations of 'there is no right/healthy way to be a vegetarian or vegan' and went as far as to implore vegan women not to have children. Will Tuttle said that humans continuing to eat meat would destroy the planet in short order. Tuttle's perspective was spiritual (he has traveled in Asia and has a doctorate in Comparative Religion: he was a very passionate, charismatic, inspiring speaker (although he definitely had a tendency to get carried away, rant, lose focus). Fallon was equally sure of her views and forthright, but in a more 'earthy' way. It was interesting that aside from the 'animal products/no animal products' polarity, Tuttle was focused on our need to evolve away from our historical ways of being and move to another level, whereas Fallon was focused on the need to return to traditional ways, meaning pre-Industrialization, small-farm-based food production and including grains and dairy: i.e., not an atavistic/'primal' regression a la Sisson or Vitalis.

I think those two polarities sum up the two talks fairly handily, but each speaker said a few shocking things that I want to mention.

Tuttle's claim that using animal manure in food production is 'absurd' and that animals should not be part of our sphere of influence was problematic. Although I agree philosophically with his claim that we cannot 'own' another animal, where are all the animals going to go if they're all set free? Presumably, as we always did, we need to coexist with them. His picture of veganic farming sounds like a call to create an ecosystem in which we have cut ourselves off from animals and I believe that that is impossible. Even the health of the soil is crucially dependent on earthworms and smaller micro-organisms, and I don't think anyone is going to recommend that we remove them from the ecosystem. Animal poop--including our own--has been a building block of the soil for all time. And although an argument over who got to keep the humanure when someone left a farm was legendary in the community I used to live in in HI, it really is possible to take animal poop without exploiting or dominating the animal. You can go to the beach and collect guano, or go out in the woods...

I've met vegans before who eschewed pets and abhorred companion animals because of that argument against domination, and I understand what they're saying but think it's an oversimplification. It also doesn't say anything against the practice of hunting. Daniel Vitalis might say (and I might agree) that the genetic modification of plant crops is an even worse, and more environmentally detrimental, form of domination. Small-scale polyculture farms are a wonderful thing to strive toward, as is reforestation, but I think that Tuttle's estimation of how much food can be grown on a homestead and how many people it might feed was unrealistically high. Reforestation won't necessarily be compatible with growing a lot more plant food for human consumption: one of things that we struggle with, gardening up here, is getting enough light on the garden plants in the Boreal Forest. Plus, like I said, all the animals have to go somewhere.

Up here, where it's relatively wild, coming through our homestead we have moose, pheasants, eagles, various corvids and songbirds, an explosion of snowshoe hares, squirrels, and the occasional visit from our neighbors turkeys and dogs! When they're not hibernating, we have black bears right here too. And when they come through, they all poop! My point is that we coexist with animals and that treating them with respect shouldn't have to mean an artificial sequestering of them from our ecosystem.

The most shocking thing that Sally Fallon said was that animals raised for human consumption die more humanely than they would in the wild. Having just read Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals, I find it hard to accept the claim that farmed animals die quickly and instantly--and what about the quality of their life prior to slaughter?

The other shocking thing that she said was that she is not concerned about mercury levels in fish (although she is concerned about mercury fillings): that a healthy gut has the enzymes and other protective agents to escort mercury from the body and allow fish to be eaten without concern. It's true, she was talking about her personal choice, but since so many people nowadays do not have healthy guts; since we are 'bombarded with toxins' from so many sides; since even the FDA warns of the dangers of mercury levels in certain fish, it seemed like a potentially irresponsible claim. Otherwise, most of what she said was about what one would expect: that a whole-foods-based, omnivorous diet, preferably from organically raised livestock, is essential to good health. Some of the scare-mongering stories about vegetarian babies growing in rotten teeth were startling, but of course there are likely just as many positive stories from those who advocate for vegetarian diets. [Edit and afterthought: I agree with some other commenters that her allegation that vegetarianism is responsible for such epidemic health problems seems unrealistic given that in actuality, the percentage of vegetarians in the population is so low! Another fallacy that she perpetrates is the implication that all vegetarians eat tons of soy. Most health-conscious vegetarians are pretty careful about soy, I think. While the story of the prisoners in Illinois being fed soy in an uncontrolled experiment is truly horrific, it doesn't fit the story of most plant-based eaters.]

What else would you like to hear about the Great Health Debate? I will share some closing thoughts in my next post, and then during the week that follows, I'll share some of my personal perspectives and the ways in which it has confused me! And I'll be happy to address any other requests too.


Back to Phil's Laundry...
Anyone who's spent any time around Phil knows that their freezer is at risk of being populated with dead birds and crustaceans, assorted roadkill, and pelts. Phil is endlessly curious and avid to possess the essence of beings that he encounters. This means that when he comes across a dead animal when he's out hiking, he's likely to either bring it all home and put it in the freezer or skin it and bring home the pelt! (Yes, this is a contentious bone sometimes when I need to put food in the freezer!)

Well, this winter Phil has had mercy on me and decided that it's time to tan some of the pelts.
Remember that juvenile eagle that was in our yard? 

He was on cleanup duty! Phil had put out a hide and he cleaned the remaining pieces of meat off. A nice supplement for the eagles in a lean season.

Afterwards, Phil poured kerosene on the hide and rubbed baking soda into it, as much as it would take. He left it overnight and then in the morning thawed it out, washed all the kerosene and baking soda off with some cheap shampoo... And then we took it all to the laundromat! Hopefully no one was looking. We had to put them through twice: still a distinct stink of kerosene when it came out.

Phil has a story of a caribou hide that he took to a laundromat one time years ago, where things went horribly wrong and the hair came off all over the washing machine. I don't think he ever went back there! I was so relieved that nothing like that happened today.

...and Other Outlandish Things
It's outlandish because it's a frozen lake! I've never seen so many people and cars on a body of water before. Here are little kids racing their snow-machines. (For non-Alaskans, snow machines are like all-terrain vehicles for winter: fast, noisy, with runners instead of wheels, enabling rapid access to all kinds of places that would otherwise demand an arduous hike or a day of snowshoeing. Adult-sized ones run around $10k and are the ultimate testosterone toy.)

Speaking of testosterone toys, the adults get their fun too. This is ice-racing--an assortment of beat-up but souped-up vehicles racing around the ice in a circle. Lots of skidding and sliding.

What's the strangest thing you've put through the laundry?