This blog is about the intersection between evolutionary biology and food. But also about practical applications, sustainable agriculture, and general tasty things.
Recently I've been researching Southern food in the 1800s for a dinner that I'm cooking for. Weirdly, this style of cooking is somewhat in revival in Chicago with restaurants like Big Jones and Carriage House serving fairly authentic period foods. I was at Big Jones recently and all their biscuits are made with pastured lard. That's pretty hard to find in the South these days. In fact, recently a Southern relative said that "our family worked hard so our children wouldn't have to eat offal, and now you enjoy it?"
I grew up in the South and part of my family has lived there for a very long time. The states we are from, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi consistently rank very poorly in health markers.
I didn't grow up on lard. When I visited my grandmother, she had a tub of modern "healthy" margarine. But Grandpa still cooked with bacon grease. And there was always lots of shellfish and fish, which I hated as a youngster.
So when 23andme introduced its beta of a family tree feature and I started filling it out, I was dismayed to realize that on that side of the family at least, lifespan has dropped rather significantly over time, particularly if you exclude people who died in wars, accidents, at birth, or in childbirth. And even more if you exclude those who were not well to do. Most died in their 80s. Many were in their 90s. It goes along with this post I read some time back on Ryan Koch's blog on American lifespans. Nehemiah Manning of Bogalusa, who was my great-great-great grandfather, died when he was 99.
Interestingly, Bogalusa has been the site of a major heart disease study and an intervention program that promotes low-fat "heart healthy" diets for children.
Based on my research, that's not exactly what Nehemiah grew up on I would guess. It's hard to find much on that side of the family, but I have a lot more information on the family members from Arkansas. They weren't rich, but they were fairly well off. They owned cows, pigs, and sheep. They hunted bears and deer. And fished. My grandmother said her grandmother ate anything that moved. Living outside major cities was probably a boon for them since cities were so unhygienic back then and doctors did more harm than good. I calculated average lifespan of all some generations in my family that I had data for, excluding deaths in war, childbirth, and people who lived in very bad conditions (the McEwens when they first came from Scotland, for example, lived in crowded urban tenements), though I included some people who were rural poor (estimates would probably be higher without them).
Average lifespans for great grandparents was 74, for great x 2 it was 78, for great x 3 it was also around 78. There were plenty of nonagenarians. For people not living in obviously awful conditions or dying from things modern medicine does a good job preventing (typhoid, childbirth deaths, etc.), lifespans weren't so dramatically different it seems. Some lines of my family I can trace back into the 1700s, and I can assume a lot of them were wealthy considering they left records of all the land and livestock they owned. Plenty of nonagearians there too.
As for other things they ate, I know at least one of my great great great grandfathers, who died in a flu epidemic at the old age of 91, owned a flour mill. But those days flour was at least freshly milled and the varieties of wheat they grew were probably pretty different. I think that's why a lot of really old Southern cookbooks don't seem to contain very large sections of baked goods and buns that we think of Southern now, because heritage wheat is much more of a challenge to bake with.
The main cookbook I've been using for my research is The Virginia Housewife, which is available for free on Google. It's thrifty and luxurious at once. The upper and upper middle classes at the time were influenced by fine French food, but the cookbook is nose-to-tail and includes a lot of instructions on preserving.
this diet looks AWESOME to me
As far as eating like your grandmother, this stuff was long out of fashion by the time she was born. People started eating industrial margarine, low quality canned foods, and other processed foods even in the 20s and 30s in the South. In many ways they were probably worse than some of today's processed foods since many were adulterated or contaminated. Cotton took a heavy toll on the region. Cottonseed margarine, possibly the worst kind of margarine you could possibly eat, was present in many kitchens. Cotton mills and farms polluted the soil, a legacy still affecting us today as the recent arsenic in rice controversy has shown. Agriculture was consolidated and regulated. Households no longer kept their own hogs and cows.
And people blame the traditional southern diet on the region's health problems. Well-meaning reformists like Jamie Oliver attempt to introduce culturally alien low-fat and Mediterranean diets. Meanwhile in the cities in the North, svelte urban folks dine on butter and pork fat. It's kind of hilarious that I can find pimento cheese made with good pastured local eggs and dairy in Chicago, whereas the stuff I knew growing up in Georgia was often processed store-bought stuff. Lard? I can buy pastured lard at the corner store here. It would be a big effort to get that in the South these days in many places, particularly outside major cities where it is now popular with the bourgeois. Most hog farmers in the South are the Smithfield factory farm sort.
It isn't helped by what I would refer to as industrial pseudo-tradition, the same phenomenon responsible for fried bread being "traditional" Native American food. In the South I would say Paula Deen would be the perfect example of that. Her recipes are those of a region in decline, one in which processed flour, canned food, and refined sugar replaced the foods of the woodlands and rivers.
Even worse, many Southerners I've spoken to seem to firmly believe the Southern diet is "bad" and that foods like offal, game and animal fat are for "low-class" uneducated people.
As for fried foods, I also don't think deep fried food was that common. A good lard breed pig, which is what most families had back in the day, gives you a lot of lard, but that was precious and often had to last a year. These days, many families in the South use a deep fryer daily, mainly reliant on cheap processed reusable oil. In the Virginia Housewife, frying seems to mainly refer to pan frying.
I'm looking forward to exploring more about true traditional Southern cooking. I'll probably need to take a trip down South to see some family, including some distant relatives of mine who live mainly off of local fish and game.
When I was first becoming a foodie in college I decided to switch my major to food science. I registered for most of the required basic science courses, as well as the intro class for majors. Unfortunately that class is why I'm not a food scientist. It was taught by a former head food scientist from Kraft and you could have retitled it "how to sell massive and ever increasing amounts of garbage commodity foods to Americans." I remember in one lab we toured they were making crispy puffs out of some soy byproduct that they told us would otherwise go to waste. I ate my bag and went back for more, but I otherwise remember nothing about that "food."
Some of my friends in neuroscience study how to prevent addiction, food scientists at these labs were studying how to encourage it. The End of Overeating documents their extremely successful methods.
I decided food science was not for me and ended up not switching my major. In fact, I decided that food science was evil and I wanted nothing to do with it.
But is food science going to be saved? Since I've started getting into modernist haute cuisine, I've noticed a movement from within to turn food science back into quality rather than selling people mass quantities of commodities. Ferran Adria of elBulli was an early pioneer of using food science in the haute cuisine kitchen and Harold McGee brought food science to conscientious home cooks through On Food and Cooking. Now Ferran has retired from the restaurant business to teach a form of food science known as "culinary physics" at Harvard and research gastronomy there. Super rich internet entrepreneur Nathan Myhrvold funded the development of the "bible" of Modernist Cuisine, using his millions to assemble a team of chefs and scientists to figure out how to perfect food as an aesthetic experience. Here is a Ted talk from one of the authors, Chris Young, a biochemist.
And now there is a new open-access academic journal called Flavor that had an article that caught my eye yesterday: Seaweeds for umami flavor in the New Nordic Cuisine. Turns out it's a collaboration between a physicist at the University of Southern Denmark and the Nordic Food Lab, which was started by Rene Redzepi, who runs the restaurant Noma. Noma took the mantle of "best restaurant in the world" after Ferran entered academia. I suppose Rene is trying to do academia and restaurants at once, with some successful results from his own Nordic Food Lab.
I think now that the concept of "food reward" has come into popular consciousness in the evolutionary blogosphere, some people have confused high "food reward" with good. That's the interesting part- foods that are high "food reward" are not often particularly aesthetically pleasing. They are not "good" in any way. Few writers are going to wax poetic on a cheeto the way you can about ikura or fine wine. High food reward foods stimulate compulsion. They hit the parts of the brain that make you want to eat more.
As I wrote about in my Paleolithic Post-Modernist Cuisine post, Ferran conceptualized food that hit not only the taste buds, but also had intellectual value " in which other elements come into play, such as sense of humour, irony, provocation, childhood memories, or -- a very important point."
A major difference between the modernist cuisine* type of food science and the food science that has led to the creation of bran flakes and Cheetos is that the former is all about quality, whereas the later places more of an emphasis on creating foods people want to eat more of.
When your ingredients cost as much as $6000 a lb, the last thing you want to do is create dishes that make the eater crave more. I remember eating one of the rarest mollusks in the world, abalone, at Manresa. It was a tiny tiny sliver, but I'll remember more about it than I'll ever remember about the fried chicken I used to binge on in the dining hall in college.
This is why I think it's vital for the neuroscientists who study food reward to collaborate with the nascent scientists of the modern gastronomy movement. While I think Whole Health Source is one of the best blogs out there, the low-reward food diet seems kind of harsh to me.
"Eat only single ingredients with no flavorings added. No spices, herbs, salt, added sweeteners, added fats, etc. If you eat a potato, eat it plain." When I have tried a diet like that, it triggers anhedonia and I can't keep it up. I also simply don't think that "low-reward" has to mean miserable food. Reward is about triggering a system of compulsion, not about aesthetic reward.
Stephan says that "You may initially feel deprived, but you should become more satisfied by simple food over time." But I think for those of use who are very hedonic, this is unrealistic and why would I want to give up the pleasures of truly luxurious food if I don't have to? Maybe it's because I come from a family of people unusually attuned to risk and pleasure seeking and my dopamine receptors are insane.
The dishes I have eaten from the kitchens of the modern gastronomists have plenty of flavor and aesthetic reward. But they do not leave me craving more. They are not dishes that stimulate compulsion, but appreciation of beauty, complexity, and the unique flavors of each quality ingredient.
Here is a "dish" I ate at a 14-course meal at ElIdeas here in Chicago. It was titled "roe - katsuobushi / tapioca / coconut." katsuobushi is also known as "bonito fish" and is one of the foundations of traditional dashi, the broth that is the nucleus of Japanese cuisine. It is the quintessential "umani" ingredient, imparting savory flavors. But unlike purified umami, which is MSG, it has a complex heavy somewhat-fishy flavor. It's made of mackerel after all.
At ElIdeas the guests are invited to participate in the kitchen, where I happily saw that the chef was using the whole dried fish, shaving off flakes by hand. Most Japanese restaurants in the US use commercially-made "bonito flavored" flakes that are often mostly MSG. The real thing is not easy to find, it's not something you want to create a dish with where the eater will crave more, but one that highlights the unusual and rich flavors of each ingredient.
The food science that has dominated the industry and academia for so long is mainly concerned with making crap better. The new modernist food science is mainly concerned with getting the best out of wonderful things. I hope they can collaborate to work out culinary principles for food that tastes good AND doesn't hijack the senses in order to trigger compulsive eating. That's going to be hard, because everyone seems to have different triggers.
In my own kitchen, the practical applications of what I've learned from fancy food are pretty easy to spot. I cook with only the best ingredients and favor complex and unusual flavors, like spicy mustards, heavy misos, real high-quality fish sauce, seaweeds, and offal. Interestingly, haute cuisine shares elements and flavors with ancient peasant cuisine, probably because despite their divergent costs, they both have the same goal of making the most out of small amounts of things.
An simple recipe I enjoyed for breakfast today was Trader Joe's smoked wild salmon wrapped in roasted seaweed (I used seasnax), drizzled with some spicy mustard. Delicious, pretty, and satisfying.
* I would note that this movement is seperate from the gastropub and new american food movements, which often do feature compulsive little snacks like fries with aioli
I'm typing this on my rather nice Virgin America flight from LA to NYC, so maybe it won't be the most complete post ever. I'm sad I didn't get to spend much time in California, which is one of my favorite places in the United States, but it was a pleasure getting away from NYC even for a short while (hopefully I can someday make this permanent!). I had tons of fun at AHS, though it was overwhelming at times. It was surreal to be surrounded by so many interesting people and I wish I had been able to make time to talk to more of them! I think the next AHS needs a third day of mingling on a beach with a pig roast or something. I have a feeling this is just the beginning though and that further AHSs will been even more awesome. I saw a ton of presentations, but I couldn't see all of them, so I'm looking forward to them being posted online.
Yes, there were some controversial lectures! Surprisingly, Don Mastesz's was not one of them. If you stress balance you aren't going to make a lot of people angry. His presentation didn't have the know it all veneer that his controversial posts have had. Based on his latest posts, it seems he has learned a lot from the experience of writing them and reading people's responses.
The opening lecture by Boyd Eaton was much more controversial. He's quite the character and I was not sure what to expect. I liked how he stressed that we have to worry about the health of the planet, but found that he was dipping precariously into noble savage territory. Tucker Max did the opposite in his talk about martial arts. I think the anthropologists in the community need to be careful to stress the morally complex world in which our ancestors existed, in which we have evidence for cannibalism alongside evidence for people caring for incapacitated elders.
Cordain's lecture was more of the same. Mat Lalonde's seemed to be a response to some of the rather poorly thought-out ideas Cordain sometimes peddles. Lalonde was bitter at times. It's clear that some of the non-evidence based ideas in the paleo community can be disillusioning. I was personally feeling that after Cordain and Eaton's lectures, but it's also clear that there are lots of top-notch people defending truth in the community as well. Either way, Lalonde's main point was that when "core scientists" (chemists, biologists, physicists) see some of the common "paleo" ideas, they are laughing at the nonsense. We have to be really careful about complex topics like lectins and antinutrients.
One of the best moments for me was meeting Steffan Lindeberg. I think he's one of the top minds in this topic and I was excited that he came to my lecture and enjoyed it. It was surreal talking with some folks about Kitava and having him walk up and join in.
Carb-phobia was alive and kicking, but it seems to have lost its dominance. You may have heard that Gary Taubes made quite the fool of himself in Stephan Guyenet's lecture. Stephan certainly came out on top there. He needs to write a book! I did miss this myself though, because I was attending Emily Dean's and Jamie Scott's interesting lectures.
It was interesting to observe that among the low-carbers, there seemed to be an epidemic of puffy red skin, particularly in older men. I'm sure the pictures, when they are posted, will make obvious who these people are. The ones who had health complexions like the Eades and Nora are those espousing a high-fat diet. It goes very well with some of the anthropological stuff I've been working on showing that almost all cultures that eat meaty diets are doing so because they have access to high-fat game. More of that in another post
I'm also sure you've all heard that Denise Minger is incredibly beautiful AND funny. In fact, the conference was full of beautiful people, including plenty of women, so I admit I was wrong to predict that the sex ratio might mirror that of some of the tech conferences I attend.
A favorite lecture of mine was by Craig Stanford. It was nice to hear an actual physical anthropologist talk about our heritage. His area of research is meat-eating in chimpanzees. He didn't have any health advice, but his presentation was chock full of interesting facts about chimpanzee culture and metabolism, and how those differ from ours.
Sometimes it seems like NYC government isn't sure what to do about food. There is a push towards a more paternalistic food policy, but it's rather laughable. For example, the "food desert" issue. Some time ago, food policy researchers started talking about "food deserts", places where it's almost impossible to get fresh fruits and vegetables without traveling a great distance. Some places in NYC were pegged as food deserts and the city had a few insipid initiatives to "help" the situation. One of them was fresh fruit and vegetable carts, called "green carts." They subsidized these carts, hoping to encourage them in these "food deserts." The problem was that savvy folks were more than happy to take the subsidy and set up in a gentrified area on the edge of a "food desert," such as Morningside Heights near Columbia University. They set up near upscale grocery stores, who were unhappy that the city was subsidizing their competition. In the meantime, I wonder how well those food policy experts who study food deserts looked into the grey market here. Get off a subway in East New York and you'll usually find several hawkers of fresh mango and other fruit. The problem is that these carts are illegal for some reason. So at the same time the city has been subsidizing Green Carts in areas where they weren't needed, they have been cracking down on some of these sidewalk vendors. The crackdown has unfortunately also happened in my neighborhood, which is economically mixed. The government says the produce might be unsafe because of car exhaust from the roads. I wonder if the government has ever heard of pesticides? The government has also been cracking down on people gathering wild berries, greens, and mushrooms from parks, a hobby of both immigrants and locavores.
Either way, I think in urban areas like NYC, the idea that people are suffering from diabetes because they don't have fruit is delusional. Harlem is a diabetes hotspot and there is PLENTY of healthy fresh food in most of the same areas where diabetes, obesity, and heart disease is rampant. Every other store seems to have sidewalk displays of ample fresh produce, some very exotic
Display of fruits and vegetables in Hamilton Heights in Harlem, the restaurant next door is Dunkin Doughnuts
The problem here isn't lack of produce, the problem is that every other store that doesn't have produce seems to be a fried chicken joint or Dunkin doughnuts. People are so focused on the myth that produce is a magic bullet that they forget that plenty of unhealthy people eat fruits and vegetables. What's more important in making someone healthy? The inclusion of fresh produce or the exclusion of vegetable oil and sugar? Remember how much better the latter two taste anyway. In areas of the city with less of an immigrant population, efforts to get bodegas to sell fruits and vegetables have led to many bodegas having displays of rotting bananas and apples. If your store sells slurpies and apples, which one are the children going to pick? There is also the issue that in many immigrant communities vegetables might actually be a source of unhealthy eating, as they are frequently fried in the same way as in places like China, where produce consumption is connected with obesity. I find that in many immigrant communities there isn't much awareness about the health effects of using things like vegetable "ghee" or hydrogenated lard. Indeed, now that researchers are finally studying such immigrant communities, they are finding that access to produce doesn't have a connection with obesity. There have been some efforts in certain cities to limit the number of fast food restaurants, usually targeting chains, but a lot of restaurants serving fried sugary food are not chains, they are little mom and pops like the arepa stand in my neighborhood, where the well-meaning woman blissfully coats all her arepas with the cheapest margarine available. I have to wonder if she really knows that margarine isn't a good choice? The government certainly isn't about to tell her.
Some of my readers might be interested in The Atlantic's debate on "alternative medicine." Reading it, what amused me is that opponents of alternative medicine accuse it of not being "evidence-based." Unfortunately our "normal medicine" isn't really evidence-based either. What doctors and hospitals do often seems more about the status quo than science. That explains why my sister (a biologist) and I are not exactly our doctor's favorite patients. We don't accept treatments based on outdated science, particularly when they have harmful side effects.
For example, the idea that GERD is a disease of acid burning the esophagus is several years outdated, but doctors continue to hand out medicine based on that theory (proton-pump inhibitors) like it's Halloween candy, despite a growing body of evidence that it causes immune dysfunction and bacterial overgrowth!
The list really could go on and on, from unwillingness to adopt life-saving safety practices to the handing out of antibiotics to children for every little thing (even illnesses obviously caused by viruses!) to the use of questionable materials for hip-replacements just because they are "new."
Another example showed up in my RSS reader today: Keeping Mother and Baby Together – It’s Best for Mother, Baby, and Breastfeeding. I suggest you read that post, as it has great information. Basically, in our species, the time immediately after birth is critical. Direct skin to skin contact between mother and baby is important for establishing breast feeding, bonding, and regulating the baby's physical health. That's how our species evolved, it's the infant's natural ecology. This isn't about just doing what our ancestors did; science has confirmed that these practices have important functions. Despite that, hospitals often fight this practice and a woman who wants to simply do what is appropriate for her as a Homo sapians must exert an effort to convince the hospital staff, find a sympathetic birthing center, or arrange for a home birth.
Interestingly, NICU's (new born intensive care units) have been the first to adopt this practice. For babies on the edge, everything counts, but it's something all babies deserve.
However, despite treatment, many Type 1 diabetics die prematurely, often having suffered adverse effects from their diabetes, including blindness, nerve damage, kidney disease, skin ulcers, and amputations. Bob Krause, on the other hand, appears to be in great shape (especially bearing in mind his advanced years). What is clear is that Bob has managed his diabetes with meticulous care. What is especially noteworthy is that his eating regime contrasts sharply with the standard advice given to diabetics: Eat three meals a day and include starchy carbohydrates with every meal.
What is noteworthy here besides his success is his low-carb diet, which really honestly doesn't look what more low-carb bloggers eat:
Actually Bob normally eats twice a day. His breakfast is usually made up of nuts with some prunes. His dinner is protein plus salad. He doesn’t eat much. And critically, he doesn’t eat much carbohydrate.
It sounds like CRON (calorie restriction with optimal nutrition) to me.
When reading this I remembered Michelle, a young blogger I had read about in Loren Cordain's newsletter who was having success using the paleo diet. I wonder if many people noticed that she quit the paleo diet?
My sugars started increasing to the 140s-150s in March and I went back on insulin. The diet really wasn't helping. However, I stayed on the paleo diet for a few days but I couldn't take it anymore and started having dairy, grains, and legumes again.
My opinion is that the diet is too restrictive and is very difficult to follow (100%). You almost have to be obsessed with the food that goes in your mouth. I am very happy to have the freedom of my food choices.
Interestingly, Bob Krause's son, who also is type 1, couldn't follow his father's footsteps:
And though Tom Krause inherited his father's diabetes, he doesn't share his father's regimented control of the illness.
"My dad, he is just a machine in how well he cares and manages his diabetes, with his willpower and how long he's been doing it," Tom Krause said.
I get the sense that Bob is a person with unusual willpower and obsessiveness. It makes sense that he was an engineer. I understand why Tom and Michelle had trouble. I did CRON strict paleo for awhile and thought it was hell. Anyone who is even slightly disorganized or who actually likes food is going to have trouble on such a diet.
But here is a story from Robb Wolf's blog about a young man who did a strict paleo diet and eventually was able to eat more carbs. But the article notes that even Robb Wolf says that only 5% of his type 1D patients have that kind of recovery.
What do you think? Do you think you could follow an extremely strict diet where cheating means serious illness if it meant better long term health?
I tried it to be game and see if I could give orthodox paleo a chance. Most of you by now realize I'm not a fan of "orthodox" paleo. And doing it again reminded me why.
After a week the symptoms that I think caused me to be hospitalized last year with fainting came back. My doctor had said they were likely caused by low blood pressure, under 90/60, and if I didn't get them under control I would have to take drugs. I got them under control mainly with greater calorie consumption, which mostly involved adding potatoes, dairy, and rice back into my diet. Last week without those foods I started having trouble with things again. Dizziness, orthostatic hypotension, ringing in my ears, irritability, and fatigue were my main symptoms.
I'm convinced more than ever that an 80/20 approach is best for me. But with a different approach than the standard 80/20. I think of that 20% non-paleo as being whole real foods rather than "cheats." So butter, cheese, rice, and potatoes for me. Sometimes grits as a cultural concession, but I do think these muck my digestion up a bit.
I was talking with two other health bloggers, both young men who have never had a weight problem. Both of them have had similar issues with strict paleo. I think the calorie deficit is the main issue. It's hard for me to get enough calories from only meat even when presented with unlimited amounts because of lower appetite. Add on the fact that I sometimes have to eat out and most restaurants skip on meat...and you have me getting less than 1000 calories a day in some instances.
Perhaps that's good for people suffering from metabolic syndrome, but that's not me. Some other tips for those suffering from low blood pressure, besides eat MORE and stop being strict, are
1. Licorice and yerba mate tea in the morning
2. Lots of salt. I like to snack on Hawaiian red clay salt.
I would be a little concerned that these challenges are just going to make people feel hungry and irritable if done cold-turkey. It takes time to adjust to cooking and buying real foods. It's been four years for me and I'm still challenged sometimes.
But all wasn't a loss for me. I realized that I am a little sensitive to some "young" cheeses like my beloved ricotta. But I also realized that I wasn't even eating much butter and in fact my naughty roommates had eaten it all because I've had SO much tallow from my lamb.
I also became a big fan of coconut aminos, a soy sauce replacement that is actually really tasty. I braised some lamb shanks last night in the crock pot with a 1/4 cup coconut aminos, 1 cup coconut vinegar, 1 cup coconut milk, and a bunch of bird chilis, cilantro, and freshly ground black pepper. Mmm adobo.
I got this at my local convenience store for $7. Jealous? Well, I'm jealous of all the people who don't pay a gazillion dollars to share an apartment. Although if you can get together a group of like-minded paleos, the Amazon link above gets you 12 bottles for about $90 including shipping, which would make a good bulk buy.
Edit. So while I've done orthodox paleo before, I did it when I was unemployed and ate all my meals at home. I didn't say that orthodox paleo=calorie deficit. I said it was hard. And is it always unnecessary? Is butter really so much worse than tallow?
In the next few days something important is coming up. No, not Halloween. It's my own made-up holiday called NOvember. I thought about doing a 30-day-community total-paleo challenge, but with travel and general business it's just not feasible. Instead I'm looking to knock off some small bad habits. I'm just going to say no to them for one month and hope their spell is broken.
My workplace is right next to a gourmet grocery store, so lately I've been indulging in more chocolate than usual. Even if it's expensive dark chocolate, it's still sugar and my teeth will thank me for ditching them. I'd also like to see what happens to my energy levels.
Just Say NO BTW this is Dolfin, my fav chocolate ever :)
I'm also eliminating other marginal sugars that tend to sneak in like honey in tea and commercial kombucha. When I crave something sour like kombucha I'll go with kvass or pickles.
This is a challenge for those of us who have been following evolutionary nutrition for awhile. We know what to eat...we just have some bad habits hanging on.
Any takers? What would you say no to next month?
Thanks for all the kind words yesterday! I have learned so much recently and had to face up the fact that eating paleo isn't going to erase staying up until 4 AM. So far my plan to get better includes:
1. Blackout curtains
2. Going to bed at a normal time and working normal hours
3. Morning sunlight
4. Not pressuring myself to do something all the time (easier said than done)
6. Quitting the coffee treadmill
7. One alcoholic drink a week. This is a tough one, but I come from a family of people who had to quit drinking for very good reasons. Maybe in the future I can resume drinking again, but for now it seems like a bad idea.
8. Figure out what I want to do with my life. Right now I'm not exactly living my dreams. I have a love-hate relationship with my city and a mostly hate relationship with work. Honestly, there has to be something out there for me right? I'm not that happy sitting in front of the computer, even if I make more money and have more flexibility. I thought that was freedom— I was wrong.