Racing Animals

Remember the whole Art De Vany / Dan Lieberman dustup over whether humans are -- from the standpoint of evolutionary biology -- "born to run"?

The (frankly crappy) Time Magazine article about Paleo stirred up the pot by pointing out that De Vany (like many other Paleo luminaries) believes that "no caveman ever jogged for miles while pursuing dinner or being chased by a predator." Rather, humans are best suited for "short bursts of cardiovascular exertion that may also include hauling a heavy weight, as you might after a successful hunt."

But Lieberman and his fellow barefoot running advocates (Christopher McDougall included) take the opposite view: Humans, they say, have a unique knack for endurance running because our genetic ancestors engaged in long-range persistence hunting.

We can run all day, the theory goes, because there was once a caloric advantage to it. Our two human legs, packed as they are with long slow-twitch muscle fibers, make us better runners over long distances than most quadrupeds. And our three million sweat glands give us the ability to cool our bodies with perspiration. An antelope, by contrast, sprints -- for up to 15 minutes -- while wearing a fur coat and relies on respiration (panting) to release the heat that builds up with exertion. Add to the mix our ability to organize and strategize and, well, you can see how persistence hunting might actually work.

So who's right?

Outside Magazine just published an article featuring nine elite marathoners who put the persistence hunting theory to the test. Powered by their own feet, they chased a pronghorn antelope -- the world's second-fastest land animal -- to see if they could wear it down and kill it.

By the end of their attempt at persistence hunting, the marathoners had each covered 20 miles -- not quite a marathon, but close. Did they succeed in bagging the antelope? Read the article and see for yourself.

Regardless of the results of this test, my take is that John Durant is right: To a certain extent, both camps are right. Yes, humans evolved to be capable of covering long distances -- but the optimal way to improve your overall fitness is through intermittent sprinting and lifting heavy stuff. After all, "high-intensity training and strength training can improve performance in endurance activities, but the reverse doesn't hold.  You can get better at marathons by doing CrossFit, but you can't get better at CrossFit by running marathons."

[Image]

"The Caveman Diet" on ABC's Nightline

Last night, ABC aired its long-postponed Nightline segment about "The Caveman Diet" -- and unlike some media outlets -- didn't make Paleo adherents look like the lunatic fringe. Watch it here:



My favorite part was watching Robb Wolf, Art Devany, John Durant, Melissa McEwen -- the Justice League of Paleo! -- all eating rodizio at Churrascaria Plataforma. Bonus: CrossFit South Brooklyn struts its stuff! w00t!

I Was Born to Run -- But I Don't Feel Like It.

In a way, Christopher McDougall is responsible for sparking my interest in evolutionary fitness and Paleo nutrition. Even though his focus is on barefoot running, McDougall's book, "Born to Run," presented a compelling argument that applies equally to running and eating:

If hunter-gatherers (both ancient and modern) can run/eat/live more healthfully than their "civilized" counterparts who heel-strike in cushioned running shoes and fatten up on super-refined low-fat junk, why the hell do we think that these modern conveniences are so great for us?



I read "Born to Run" in the fall of 2009, when I was still in my first round of P90X. The book didn't just get M and me out of our chunky cross-trainers and into Vibram FiveFingers and Terra Plana Vivo Barefoot shoes -- it made me think about fitness and nutrition in an entirely new way. The transition wasn't always smooth -- remember how I said I'd never give up grains? -- but McDougall's book opened a new door for me.

It's a little disheartening, then, to see that there's some internecine warfare a-brewin' between the barefoot endurance running camp and the disciples of Art De Vany's "less is more" approach. The former say that humans are built to run long distances; the latter say that endurance running is a recipe for disaster. But I see more similarities than differences: Both espouse a philosophy of going back to evolutionary basics, and eschewing the crutches of Western civilization that turn out to be more harmful than helpful. John Durant has a nice write-up that tries to reconcile the two viewpoints, but for me, it boils down to this:

If you're someone who loves endurance running, go for it (provided you're not in footwear with a big-ass cushioned heel). But while humans may be "born to run," I'm not planning to go on any super-long runs because: (1) I'm lucky enough to have access to grassfed meat and wild game without having to engage in persistence hunting, (2) I get bored easily, and (3) endurance running ain't necessary -- or even optimal -- for fitness. Analogy: Just 'cause the Masai can thrive on milk and blood doesn't mean I need to get in touch with my inner vampire to eat healthfully. Just as with Paleo nutrition, the way we run should be based on "a logical framework applied to modern humans -- not a historical reenactment."

Okay. Getting off my soapbox now.

Time After Time

There is so much wrong with this slanted article in Time Magazine about the Paleo lifestyle, it made my head hurt. But I shouldn't be surprised; this is, after all, the same publication that put Ancel Keys on its cover and fed his low-fat, high-carb message to the masses.)



I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hopefully, ABC's Nightline feature on Paleo (airing tomorrow night and featuring both Art De Vany and Robb Wolf) won’t be quite as smugly dismissive and uneven. Set your DVRs.

[UPDATED: The Nightline segment didn't run 'til March 1. You can view it here.]

Art De Vany on Fox & Friends

Is it really that hard to pronounce the word "Paleolithic"? And is it truly necessary to crack a joke about your male co-anchor "looking at another man awfully closely"?

Whatever. Here's the video:

The Beast Weighs In

The Daily Beast just put up a review of both "Why We Get Fat" and "The New Evolution Diet." (Check it out here.)

But why is the article accompanied by a photo of the books' covers and a woman with a single piece of uncooked broccoli on her plate? I'm reading both books right now (along with a few others -- probably why I can't seem to finish any of 'em) -- and I'm fairly certain neither book advocates a raw vegetarian starvation diet. Quite the opposite, in fact.

On second thought, is she sneering at the broccoli? But that'd be weird, too. It's not like Art De Vany and Gary Taubes are anti-vegetables.

I'd have been happier with a stock photo of a woman cracking up over a bowl of salad. At least then, we could add it to this list.

Give It a Rest

At the start of a new year, it's easy to get amped up about attacking one's fitness goals, but don't overdo it.

From Art De Vany's just-released "The New Evolution Diet":

I fail to see how anyone can train 5 or 6 days a week in the gym and for hours at a time. That is factory or agricultural work, not anything human beings were evolved to do. And the paradox is that you will gain less strength and fitness if you overtrain. You will join the thousands who quit exercising out of sheer boredom. Overtraining increases your stress level, interferes with your sleep, raises your level of stress hormones, and reduces your level of growth hormones and testosterone. It leads to less muscle gain, not more, along with loss of fitness and boredom. Boredom is one way your brain stops you from harming yourself.

Chris Highcock says the same thing. Listen to them. Those guys know their stuff.

New Evolution Diet: Go or No Go?

Art De Vany's new book, "The New Evolution Diet," hits bookstores next week, but the Kindle version's already available. De Vany's one of the pioneers of the modern caveman lifestyle -- plenty of folks first learned about the Paleo eating and evolutionary fitness from his website (before much of the content was hidden away behind a paywall). De Vany continues to be a prominent leader in the Paleo community, and I'm looking forward to checking out his book. I mean, the guy's in his seventies and maintains 8% bodyfat. He's obviously doing something right.

I was a bit disheartened, however, to read on Melissa McEwen's blog that De Vany's views hew closer to the Loren Cordain "eat only what cavemen ate" approach rather than the Robb Wolf/Mat Lalonde "Paleo isn't about historical reenactment -- science is the ultimate arbiter" approach. Surprisingly, De Vany cautions against consumption of red meat, fat (but recommends canola oil rather than coconut oil) and egg yolks -- none of which jives with what I've found to be true. Of course, my conclusions are based only on personal experience, my bloodwork, and what I've gleaned from folks like Wolf and Lalonde. Perhaps De Vany's got it right. But a diet without grassfed butter, big steaks and deliciously gooey egg yolks? Thanks, but no thanks.

Still, I'm going to buy the book to decide for myself. I can't wait to dig into De Vany's sections on evolutionary fitness and exercise. And if (1) you're relatively new to Paleo, (2) you've already read Robb Wolf's book but want more, and/or (3) you've got ten bucks burning a hole in your pocket, you'll likely get some good stuff out of De Vany's book, too. Just keep an open mind about the whole saturated fat thing.

[UPDATED: De Vany's none too pleased with McEwen's post.]