The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one over at PaleoHacks. The issue is simple: if we remove grains from the diet, a staple of pretty much every poor country out there, then how can we realistically replace those calories with food that do meet paleo/primal standards. And really, the answer is simple: we can’t.

On a recent trip to rural Georgia, we realized just how different shopping for groceries is. While you can pick up some organic produce from grocery stores or local farmers, finding grass-fed meat is a total impossibility, save for maybe locating a specific farmer and sourcing meat through a non-traditional channel. The point is, for the average person, a paleo/primal diet is much more difficult to adhere to outside of certain geographic areas, and that’s within the United States. We consider ourselves fortunate to have a nearby Whole Foods market that makes acquiring most paleo/primal staples easy, without having to necessarily rely on farmers markets and direct customer-to-farmer bargaining. And if it’s more difficult to get paleo/primal foods outside the United States than it is in rural Georgia, then obviously transitioning to a worldwide diet that’s paleo/primal friendly isn’t easy. In fact, we’re not sure it’s possible at all.

At least, it’s not possible at the world’s current population levels. But should that stop you from eating paleo/primal?

Our argument is simple: if the food most nutritious for human survival is available to us, and not to everyone else, we will still eat it. Why should we abstain from the healthiest foods, and even eat damaging foods, simply to mimic what the rest of the world has access to? Should we really make rice and beans a staple in our diet simply because those foods are easiest for the masses to procure? After all, we don’t live in a shoddy hut that lacks electricity, we watch HD television, and spend too much money on redundant internet access¹.

So to those who would argue against paleo/primal merely because it’s unsustainable globally, you’re probably a hypocrite already. But for those who live in a first-world country that does have access to paleo/primal foods, or could, then the sustainability argument against paleo/primal foods isn’t even a good one. The current Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) that are the mainstay of US meat consumption could be replaced with a more sustainable method, and one that’s compliant with organic, sustainable agriculture. Atop the vapid consumption of processed fast food that’s literally destroying the population’s health at epidemic-level proportions, it’s unethical to argue a diet that could deliver considerable benefits to our population’s health on the grounds that it’s not a viably sustainable diet worldwide.

Similar Posts:

• Sustainability and beef. – Since switching to a “paleo” diet, we’ve increased our consumption of beef, and a common criticism w…
• Our paleo challenge. – While we’ve already been eating healthier in recent years than we used to, it wasn’t until we stumbl…
• The problem with “Paleo”. – We can probably go ahead and blame Dr. Loren Cordain for sticking us with “the Paleo Diet”, who publ…

Since switching to a “paleo” diet, we’ve increased our consumption of beef, and a common criticism we’ve heard as a result is that eating beef is not sustainable. Specific arguments include:

1. Raising cows is a direct cause of desertification.

2. The massive demand for beef promotes slash-and-burn of rain-forests.

3. By some estimates, 2500 gallons of water are needed to produce a single pound of beef.

4. The amount of methane produced by cows is a large contributing factor to the production of CO2 in our atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Plus, some of this methane seeps into groundwater, which poisons the earth.

At first glance, these arguments may seem valid, until you realize that they are primarily aimed at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), and not towards grass-fed, pastured livestock. That’s an important difference, because the paleo community’s emphasis on meat consumption is all about the latter. This then begs the question as to how we can respond to the aforementioned points from a paleo perspective, seeing as grassfed, pastured livestock doesn’t come with all the issues that meat derived from CAFO does.

Desertification.

Ethically-raised pastured cows have been shown to reverse desertification in several instances, thanks to the cow’s natural fertilizer that re-energizes the ground. In fact, it’s been shown in Africa that land previously devastated by agriculture (in which the land was no longer fertile enough to support further vegetation for agricultural purposes), could drastically change after the introduction of livestock. Livestock ate remaining grass/weeds, re-fertilized the earth with their feces, and ultimately restored the soil to support agriculture. Proper land management in which livestock and agricultural fields are iteratively rotated through grazing areas allows for a sustainable environment. Only when livestock are not rotated, or when restricted by CAFO, is there an issue of desertification. In fact, without livestock, the only way to prevent desertification in an agricultural environment is to rely on chemical fertilizers or less efficient crop rotations.

Slash-and-burn.

Destruction of rain-forests in order to propagate CAFO is an unethical practice that is counter to grass-fed meat production. The issue here is that corporate greed establishes poor practices that are bound in the CAFO philosophy. Arguably, there’s a lot of land that could be used domestically for animal grazing, a lot of which has undergone desertification due to poor agricultural practices. The destruction of rain-forests in order to support the meat industry is less an argument against meat, and more an argument against corporate greed and unethical animal treatment.

Water use.

Estimates for water use required to produce beef varies considerably. It’s not clear, however, which factors are involved in each computation. While they imply that the water use is based on what an animal needs to drink in its lifetime before it’s butchered, it actually includes the irrigation needs of corn crops.

There’s no indication that these studies differentiate between CAFO and grazing operations, and we have to assume they refer to the former, since that’s the conventional meat-producing method. While CAFO relies on large corn crops to feed animals, grass-fed, pastured operations do not, so we can deduct those water values from the equation. Further, since many small, independent farms slaughter their animals on-sight, we can further reduce water needs because the vast amounts of water used in commercial slaughterhouses is no longer relevant¹.

Methane.

Some argue that cow production of methane may pollute as much as a car, daily. However, this is in great part due to what we’re feeding cows; natural pasture does not result in the same amount of methane production, whereas ryegrass and other chemically-fertilized pasture is not as nutritious, and results in increased methane production.

As per our response to the issue of desertification, the concern over ground contaminants (ammonia, etc) is a non-issue as long as proper grazing rotations are utilized; cow fertilizer actually benefits the earth, and the resulting soil actually traps more carbon than the cows create. Obviously, this relies on proper herd and field management, but that’s the very practices that we need to support, instead of sourcing our meat from CAFO.

Eat grass-fed meat.

Many of the arguments about beef not being sustainable is in regards to conventional cow rearing, and not necessarily applicable to grass-fed cows. CAFO needs to be eliminated, even if that means not eating at McDonalds, or getting access to other cheap sources of meat.

But in the end, even if we begin replacing CAFO with grass-fed operations, is the system sustainable? It is insofar as as the production of nutritious meat goes, but ultimately, there’s no diet that’s both healthy and sustainable for the current human population. Growing grains to support the 6+ billion people on the earth today is only damaging the environment, and results in a growing autoimmune epidemic.

From the perspective of healthy eating domestically, however, there’s no reason that we can’t eat sustainable grass-fed beef at home, without worrying about negative environmental impact.

Similar Posts:

• Yes, paleo-eating is not sustainable. Big deal. – The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one …
• A Farm Corps? – In The New York Times, Nicolette Hahn Niman proposes [five things](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeb…
• Meat-eating fish on the prowl. – Some guy could no longer care for two Japanese meat-eating fish, so he dumped them into a Maryland p…

While we’ve already been eating healthier in recent years than we used to, it wasn’t until we stumbled across the “hunter-gatherer” diet that we really started to evaluate our food intake. Our goal has never been to lose weight, but from an overall health perspective, we found it fascinating that western foods aren’t particularly good for you. We’re not just talking processed foods and the fast-food western diet, but the general neolithic diet that formed after the introduction of agriculture, which would fuel the human population boom.

There are many sites that provide information on such hunter-gatherer diets, but we’ve found a perfect synopsis in Loren Cordain’s “The Paleo Diet.” Among the tenets of the paleo “philosophy” is eating high-protein foods like lean meats, and avoiding processed foods, sugars, grains, legumes, and milk products. There’s more, but that’s the gist. The book does a fine job of explaining why certain foods should be avoided, and why a high-protein diet is good for you. While most people break hunter-gatherer diets down to, “eat only what cavemen ate,” it’s only until you understand why caveman diets are good that you can get behind this simple motto.

The self-experiment.

By the time December was half-over, we decided that we’d recover from holiday indulgence by taking on the “Paleo Challenge,” which comes down to adopting a hunter-gatherer diet for one month to see whether there are any noticeable improvements. So as of January first, we would attempt to adhere to the paleo philosophy. Not to lose weight (as that’s not an issue for us), but for general health reasons. (We say “philosophy” rather than “diet” because the latter has a negative connotation usually associated with fad weight-loss programs and tends to imply a weight-loss goal. We’re on-board with neither.)

This self-experiment has now been going on for 11 days, and we’ve generally been successful. We say “generally” because we’ve lapsed a couple times: we ate sweet dessert made with flour at a group restaurant outing this past weekend; we still have a morning espresso daily, albeit with a smaller amount of sugar than usual; we had two cappuccinos, which were sweetened with sugar and made with whole milk; we have a small portion of dark chocolate every couple days; we’ve had a glass of wine several nights; we ate cheese; and, on work travel, we ended up getting two slices of pizza for lunch because we didn’t want to go hungry, and we took a couple of sips of soda. (We realize we could have fasted instead of eating pizza, as fasting is supposedly good when done intermittently, but given this was a working lunch, we deferred to appearance over our new dietary regimen).

The big problem with “cold turkey” changes is that they’re big, so it’s easy to get derailed by such transgressions. Knowing that we intended to “eat paleo” the majority of the time, but that we likely couldn’t do it every day, for every meal, while this experiment was going on, it eased the guilt of minor transgressions, and makes it easier for us to continue the experiment instead of calling it off just because we veered here or there; we don’t consider the aforementioned lapses apocalyptic to the Paleo Challenge, since we still generally adhere to the diet.

Obstacles.

The hardest part with this experiment is sticking to it when around other people. If you’re making every meal yourself, sticking to a plan is easy, but if you’re going out to eat with other people, then it’s not always an option to choose a paleo meal from the menu – you might end up with pizza.

We haven’t given in to most cravings, but that’s certainly something that needs addressing. We’re fans of artisanal breads and cheeses, and giving up both has been difficult. (We may very well resume eating dairy products per other “primal” diets, since we’re not lactose intolerant. Breads will sadly remain off our list, however.)

Results?

In many ways, it’s too early to identify noticeable changes, since we’re only 10 days into the experiment. We did find, rather quickly, that with this diet, cutting out soda and other caffeinated beverages mid-day did not adversely affect how tired we were at the end of the day. In the past, weening ourselves off caffeine took a toll, resulting in headaches and significant tiredness in the afternoon. This time around, however, we didn’t notice any adverse reactions to giving up our mid-day caffeine intake.

We’re not eating less on the new diet, but obviously we’re not eating as many carbs. On the day we had pizza, we distinctly felt different than after meals since adopting the paleo philosophy. (Because of digestion, guilt, or both?) When we get hungry a couple hours after a meal, it’s a different type of hunger than in the past. With our typical high-carb meals, we later end up with a heavy growling stomach alerting us of a need to eat. Under this new diet, we generally stay satiated longer, with a slowly growing hunger that feels like a hole in our stomach – it’s a strange feeling, and noticeably different.

We’ve read that adopting a high protein diet may take a week or so to get used to, as many people are more tired initially, but after a short duration, then feel significantly more energetic compared to when they were on high-carb diets. We’ve yet to get that energy boost; we’re no more energetic than we were a month ago, and just as sluggish in the mornings. Hopefully by next week, we’ll have something more positive to report.

After eating, we do generally feel better than before; we’ve dealt with stomach issues (acid reflux?) in the past, but no paleo meal has prompted this to the extent that most high-carb meals do. This requires further exploration, but this benefit alone would warrant further adherence to the diet beyond the one-month “challenge.” We’ll continue reporting on our progress.

Similar Posts:

• Yes, paleo-eating is not sustainable. Big deal. – The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one …
• Weight loss (and health) by eating natural. – Lately, a number of people we know have gotten onto the weight-loss bandwagon, which to us seems abo…
• Week of tweets: 2011-02-27. – The Semiotics of Meat: a Paleo Deculturalization Program http://bit.ly/e4jFtS # The upcoming Smurfs…

Apparently, Pepsi realized that people love soda made with cane sugar, and would rather drink these types of variants than the mass-market versions made with high-fructose corn syrup. While more expensive to produce, there’s clearly a market for this, which is why people seek out Mexican Coke in the States when possible, despite the cheaper canned or plastic versions being more widely available. Heck, we even stopped drinking Coke once we couldn’t get the cane sugar version on the east coast.

Pepsi apparently intends to release Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback in the States soon, but whether these will be limited-run sodas remains to be seen. Hopefully this move will wake Coca Cola up, because we’re tempted to jump back on the soda bandwagon, siding with Pepsi, should Coca-Cola sit idly by. At least, until we find a local, direct-from-Mexico source of Coca Cola.

Similar Posts:

• Weight loss (and health) by eating natural. – Lately, a number of people we know have gotten onto the weight-loss bandwagon, which to us seems abo…
• Top mendax.org posts from Feb, 2009. – Haven’t been regularly reading mendax.org? In case you missed them, here’s a quick digest of the top…
• Fallout bottle opener: free. – When we ranted about “special” editions of video games last month, we mentioned the Nuka Cola bottl…

We’re not Starbucks whores as it were, but we certainly enjoy our fancy Starbucks espresso beverages, be that a simple latte, or a fancy seasonal like Starbucks’ exceptional Pumpkin Spice Latte. We’ve done the Starbucks card thing in the past, but unless the two-hours of free internet accompanying a drink purchase is what you’re after, the basic Starbucks card is a waste of wallet space: it’s just as easy to charge a drink to a credit or debit card, or pay in cash. That’s why when we heard about the Starbucks Gold Card, we were skeptical. Then we read more about it.

In short, the card costs $25 per year. It works just like a normal Starbucks card, only you don’t need to put any money on it at all. Instead, just hand the card to the cashier when you make a purchase, and you get 10% off. In addition, buying the card earns you a free drink of your choice that day, and registering the card earns you a coupon for a free drink on your birthday. For us, this means saving about $6.40 given current prices. In our case, we even lucked out and got two drinks for free the day we bought the card, so out-of-pocket at the end of the year, we’ve only spent $15.40 on the card. With 10% off on our usual drinks (saving $0.32), we need to buy 48 drinks in a given year to break even. That’s a mere four drinks per month, so even if one Starbucks drink at the end of the work-week is your reward for a job well done, the Gold Card is worth every penny.

We’re not quite sure how Starbucks is making money on this thing, but we’re glad we picked one up. Sounds like an exceptional stocking-stuffer for the upcoming holiday season, too.

Similar Posts:

• Starbucks dumps T-Mobile… kind of. – When I read on Daring Fireball that Starbucks was dropping T-Mobile as the carrier behind their hots…
• Why Starbucks is cooling down. – When news exploded about Starbucks shutting down 600 stores in the near future, we weren’t particul…
• Upgraded to a grande? – It’s bad enough when establishments charge the same price for a smaller item. Take Starbucks as an e…

Warning: spoilers below.

Apocalypto is the touching tale of an Indian a Mexican a Native American who changes colour. He comes from a small village that calls pigs “tapirs”, and hunts them with intricate booby traps that would make Indiana Jones jealous. The chameleone-sque Native American, named Jaguar Paw, is a practical joker, much like all the men in his village except for his exceptionally big neighbor, who we will call Little John.

The villain in the movie is the evil Mayan Empire, who sends an Einsatzgruppe to Jaguar Paw’s village to kidnap pretty much everyone but the children. The Mayans are masters-of-arms, and Jaguar Paw and his neighbors (hereafter “Jungle Dwellers”) are no match for them, despite the hulking mass of Little John. These children are later forced to fend for themselves in the jungle, and ultimately inspire the writing of Lord of the Flies, then presumably die, as we never see them again. Before the main battle sequence between the Mayans and Jungle Dwellers, Jaguar Paw stashes his wife and son away in a long-abandoned sarlacc pit, right before Jaguar Paw gets his ass-kicked. He is then force-marched, along with the rest of the Jungle Dwellers, to the dying lands of the evil Mayans. On the way, the war-band, with captured Jungle Dwellers, comes across a lone child with boils, who starts talking nonsense and then makes Nostradamus-like predictions. Only, the predictions aren’t neat little poems, nor in French, and are much creepier because they come from a diseased child.

In Maya-land, rich people wear green ink. They also have funky hairstyles and some, like the Emperor, have pieces of jade magically stuck to their faces. This is due to Mayan magic, which was once very potent, until the gods decided to punish the Mayans by killing their crops and spreading disease among the people. Making jade sticky enough not to fall off one’s nose, however, is still magically possible.

Jungle Dweller women are auctioned off to the green-skinned Mayans, while the men climb a Mayan temple to be sacrificed to the Mayan sun-god. This is the part where Jaguar Paw changes colour for the first time. He is painted blue to show that he is sad and hopeless. A fat kid laughs at him, and Jaguar Paw ponders how he can not die, and then he is miraculously saved by a freak solar eclipse. He and the Jungle Dwellers who haven’t been sacrificed are then forced to play a game of run-away-from-the-flying-objects-and-dodge-a-melee-weapon-at-the-end-of-the-field. Jaguar Paw beats this game using Indian Mexican Native American Jungle Dweller sneakery, along with the help of Little John (who never got to showcase his strength in the way we hoped before he was killed). This is when Jaguar Paw kills the son of the Einsatzgruppe leader with an arrowhead, then makes off across a mass grave and back to the jungle. (See what Mel Gibson did here? The Jungle Dweller returning to the jungle?) It should be pretty clear how the rest of this goes.

The ensuing chase scene lasts days, like some sort of freak Elvish/Dwarfish pursuit across Middle Earth where conveniently, everyone’s stamina is maxed out during an important plot element. After tricking a Jaguar into killing his pursuers, Jaguar Paw orphans a poor jaguar cub when the Einsatzgruppe kill the jaguar in revenge. One dude points out how the combination of a diseased, prediction-telling child, a freak solar eclipse, and the convenient jaguar-killing-a-man incident is a bad omen, but he is silenced not long thereafter by a snake-bite to the jugular, thus validating his concerns. The rest of his troupe press on nonetheless, whereupon they follow Jaguar Paw over the side of a waterfall, where one of the troupe members inconveniently bashes his head on a rock. This is where Jaguar Paw changes colour back to red brown Native American.

While Jaguar Paw has, at this time, shown an exceptional ability to dodge flying objects (despite being hit with a non-fatal arrow), he is not bright enough to not fall into a pool of quicksand. Nonetheless, he somehow manages to swim through it and climb out, whereupon he gains immense luck and shortly thereafter finds a poisonous toad. Now grey (see: Gandalf the Grey), Jaguar Paw pulls a MacGuyver and fashions poisonous blow-darts, which he uses to dispose of another pursuer. Having mastered the art of stealing bases in baseball during his tribe’s league games, he also manages to run at an attacker, slide beneath the attacker’s swinging weapon, and gracefully pick up a bludgeon which he uses to dispatch another enemy. There is glorious blood-mist in this scene.

Back at his old village, Jaguar Paw stumbles upon his wife in her watery hole (it’s raining at this point, and the sarlacc pit is steadily filling up with water). Oh, and Jaguar Paw is no longer grey now, but back to his original colour, just like he’s back at his village. (Gibson, you genius!) Here, Jaguar Paw uses boob-trappery to take out the Einsatzgruppe leader, just before stumbling upon Christopher Columbus and what we assume are boatloads of diseased blankets.

In the end, Jaguar Paw manages to pull his wife and now two kids (yeah, she had a baby while in the pit) out of the hole, whereupon they live happily ever after roaming through the jungle. With no shoes.

This BuzzCap brought to you by Dogfish Head’s 90 Minute IPA and Palo Santo Marron.

Similar Posts:

• Close encounters in India. – The Indians always have something interesting going on, and if it’s not monkey men killing people, i…
• Gaming on Macs alive, dead on OS X. – I don’t particularly get all the anger over Aspyr dropping the ball on Guitar Hero III. That is to s…
• The old Starbucks logo is better. – Somewhat surprised were we when we came across a post decrying the old brown Starbucks logo in favo…

When we ranted about “special” editions of video games last month, we mentioned the Nuka Cola bottle opener that gamers can pick up by pre-ordering Fallout 3 at Best Buy. Our annoyance over this pre-order bonus is that it’s a Best Buy exclusive, which may be good for Best Buy, but positively annoying for those of us who already pre-ordered the game elsewhere. Having an incentive to order from a particular retailer when a game developer makes an exclusive deal to give away a special bonus is one thing, but having two different retailers with different exclusives for the same game is just not fair. Are mega-fans supposed to buy the same game twice just to satiate their fandom?

Let’s be honest here: the Amazon “Survival Edition” of Fallout 3 is way cooler than the Nuka Cola bottle opener, and for the ridiculous price associated with the Survival Edition, there’s no reason Bethesda couldn’t have throw in the bottle opener which probably runs them less than a dollar to manufacture. So here we are with choices to make, but fortunately, one choice is simple: order the Survival Edition from Amazon, then pre-order the game at Best Buy for five dollars. That five bucks buys you the bottle opener and a five-dollar-off coupon towards the upcoming Fallout 3 strategy guide, so if you pick up the latter, you’re not out any money at all. If you don’t plan on picking up the strategy guide, or if you’re cheap like us, just hold onto your Best Buy pre-order receipt, and bring it in after the game is released, and just tell Best Buy that you’d like to put the five-dollar credit towards another title instead. That way, Best Buy still gets their money, and you get free Fallout swag.

With the bottle opener in hand, one last question remains: who at Bethesda do we need to kill to get a bottle of Nuka Cola?

Similar Posts:

• “Special” editions and pre-order bonuses have gone too far. Or not far enough. – There used to be a time when pre-ordering a game for a “bonus” item was a snazzy way for a company t…
• Amazon’s service apparently run by amazons. – I don’t use Amazon.com that often, in part because the prices aren’t that great compared to other on…
• Carbonating water at home. – We’ve had [an article from MAKE Magazine](http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2007/08/home_carbonat…

Somewhat surprised were we when we came across a post decrying the old brown Starbucks logo in favor of the censored, common-place green one. In said post, author Maxator doesn’t so much mind the bare breasts that most people complain about, but instead doesn’t like the idea of the Starbucks mermaid holding her “mer-legs” apart. Going so far as to call the whole thing “offensive”, Maxator’s comments appear without an understanding for the logo’s core theme, never-mind a mermaid’s anatomy.

The original logo, unlike the polished, cartoony new green one, is not meant to look refined. Rather, it’s designed to look like a 15th century European woodcut depicting a twin-tailed mermaid, which is also known as a melusine. In fact, many historical melusine drawings depict the creatures in a similar way as Starbucks has, and the only pornographic notions are those inferred, not directly implied. Perhaps that’s why the melusine is even seen in European heraldry, and why the image is quite appropriate as Starbucks’ logo given the corporation’s intent to sell their outlets as a patron’s “third place” outside work and home: the melusine’s alchemical representation is that of unity: earth and water, body and soul, etc.

As far as we’re concerned, Starbucks should bring back the old logo permanently. Those who think the old logo is hideous are clearly missing the point. We happen to like the old-world feel of the Pike’s Place Starbucks store, and wish that all newer stores embodied the same theme. Screw the spit and polish and unnecessary censoring of the new logo. It’s almost as though Americans want to be offended.

Similar Posts:

• Why Starbucks is cooling down. – When news exploded about Starbucks shutting down 600 stores in the near future, we weren’t particul…
• Starbucks Gold Card: totally worth it. – We’re not Starbucks whores as it were, but we certainly enjoy our fancy Starbucks espresso beverage…
• Starbucks dumps T-Mobile… kind of. – When I read on Daring Fireball that Starbucks was dropping T-Mobile as the carrier behind their hots…

Lately, a number of people we know have gotten onto the weight-loss bandwagon, which to us seems about six-months early since we’re not even close to the holiday season yet, but to each their own. The methods we’ve recently heard for losing weight range from crazy dietary restrictions (like no alcohol!) to long-winded work-out routines. Even more recently, our friend Maxator started what he calls the “hunter gatherer diet”, which effectively cuts out processed sugar and flour, and potatoes. The diet has worked for him, as he’s lost 20 pounds in 30 days, with no other major behavioral modifications other than the types of food he eats.

While some of Maxator’s friends may have been surprised at Maxator’s weight loss resulting from his modified diet, we were less surprised, as his modifications are very similar to those described by other individuals. For example, StrongLifts.com proposes a similarly healthy diet, albeit with the goal to fuel fast muscle growth by increasing protein intake. The core phlosophy at StrongLifts.com is simple: earlier generations didn’t struggle as much with weight because they were constantly working, and the more manual labor done, the greater muscle strength is, and those with greater muscle strength tend to burn fat much quicker/easier than those who are weak and flabby. In other words, by building muscle and not taking in carbs/sugars that can’t easily be burnt off, weight problems will be minimal.

Both Maxator and StrongLifts.com refer to prior generations and their food intake. These comments remind us of Mean Genes, an absolutely excellent book, which we would make required reading if mendax.edu were a reality. In short, Mean Genes is a reflection of man’s behavior as it relates to many years of genetic programming/evolution. In other words, the authors pinpoint why people tend to do certain things based on the things our ancestors had to do to survive. While the scope of the book exceeds the subject of this post, there’s a chapter on health and beauty that refers to the foods modern man is drawn to, and why that is. For example, the western world prizes sugar, to the point where high fructose corn syrup is in a significant percentage of the things we eat and drink. We’re drawn to such sugary substances because ancient man needed a desire for then-rare sugars that occur in nature, such as fruits. These sugars weren’t just tasty, but they were tied to foods that had nutrients necessary for survival. Unfortunately, programmed to seek out sugar, modern man indulges in all-too-accessible sugars, which corporations exploit easily.

The point? Cutting down on sugars that we don’t need will help us regain a healthy balance in regards to our food intake. The willpower to do so isn’t always easy, but as Maxator has shown, is quite possible to gather. What we find comment-worthy about his ordeal isn’t the focus on weight-loss, however, but rather in the premise that natural foods are inherently better for consumption that unnatural ones. For example, a major tenet of his diet is the lack of processed sugars and flour, which many organic eaters have touted for years.

For those who don’t know about processed sugars, we’re not simply talking high-fructose corn syrup, though that’s obviously one of the worst kinds of sweeteners. Rather, even table-sugar is processed, which is immediately evident in its coloration: “pure” sugar isn’t white, it’s brown-ish. In fact, cane sugar is bleached just like flour is, to give it that super-clean unnatural whiteness that people are so fond of. In the case of flour, the processing is even worse, because not only is flour bleached, but most of its nutrients are ripped clean in the process. That’s why ingredients like “whole wheat flour” are so important, whereas the lack of the words “whole wheat” tends to refer to a much less healthy product. As for sugar, if cancer-inducing Splenda is not one’s cup of tea (it’s certainly not ours), consider using raw cane sugar, which can be found in most grocery stores, and also served in little brown packets at many cafes (Peets and Starbucks included). For home use, there’s also organic blue agave nectar, a syrupy substance that sweetens foods and drinks beautifully.

The health benefits of eating naturally aren’t the only gains for an individual, however: natural foods tend to taste better than processed foods also. For example, while we grew up drinking milk, at one point we stopped drinking a glass of milk a day, and for decades never considered going back. Sure, we’d eat dairy products and even put milk in our espresso drinks, but we simply didn’t find milk tasty enough to drink solo. That is, until recently, when we first realized just how much better whole milk was than the needlessly skim milk most Americans buy, and later in just how much better organic (and especially raw) milk tastes than the processed crap found in most stores.

It’s easy enough to point at natural foods as hippy foods, but this is a misnomer: they’re legacy foods that technocrats deemed unnecessary in order to promote capitalism and production over time-tested health benefits. That’s not to say that processed foods are without nutrients entirely, merely that they’re sapped of many nutrients one could otherwise find in a natural counterpart. And that’s not hippy, it’s ancestral.

Similar Posts:

• Our paleo challenge. – While we’ve already been eating healthier in recent years than we used to, it wasn’t until we stumbl…
• Upgraded to a grande? – It’s bad enough when establishments charge the same price for a smaller item. Take Starbucks as an e…
• Yes, paleo-eating is not sustainable. Big deal. – The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one …

When news exploded about Starbucks shutting down 600 stores in the near future, we weren’t particularly surprised. That’s because since our patronage of Starbucks some five years ago, we’ve seen a general lack of consistency in the brand. Even in the same city, albeit the considerable city of San Francisco, consistency among Starbucks stores has lacked to the point where group outings for coffee once prompted discussion about which store to go to if we wanted the best atmosphere, versus the best drink.

When all Starbucks stores were closed a couple months back for the staff to be retrained, it made sense, since employees at different stores did things differently. For example, in some stores, a “zebra” mocha will be stirred with a spoon when it’s made, while in other stores, the unmixed concoction will be served as-is. Even the water used in the mocha mixture differs from store to store, and while some stores make their mixture fresh every morning, other stores complete the mixture in bulk, and then save it for days.

The differences mentioned above make the drinks taste different, and that’s poor form for a company whose widespread footprint across the nation implies consistency. This consistency is what we consumers expect to find in a store with the same name and decorating as the one across town, the State, the country, or even the world. When that consistency fails, consumers may as well go to a competing brand, especially one that does manage consistency better than Starbucks.

Then there’s the issue of potency, which is one of the chief reasons for running out to get coffee in the first place. Perhaps its the fact that we’re used to coffee in general, but on days where we’ve had coffee consecutively, Starbucks doesn’t offer the pick-me-up they used to, while competing brands like Peets simply offer a product with a higher caffeine content. In other words, for the same $3.50, we can get a stronger drink at Peets, and one whose taste we can expect, whereas at ye olde Starbucks, we’re over-charged for an espresso that’s weaker and possibly strange to our once-Starbucks-attuned taste-buds.

During a recent interview clip from NPR, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was correct in blaming Starbucks’ poor financial performance on the company itself, rather than on its competition. In other words, it’s not the competition that’s getting a leg up on Starbucks, but rather Starbucks putting a leg down out of hubris. Of course, as many have pointed out, the closing of 600 stores isn’t entirely significant when one realizes that there are around 10,000 Starbucks stores in the United States, and in many cities, not a problem to find multiple Starbucks stores within a block of one another.

Nonetheless, hopefully the closing of 600 stores will finally bring to the company’s attention the real problems, and bring back the consistency and buzz that its consumers want.

Similar Posts:

• Starbucks Gold Card: totally worth it. – We’re not Starbucks whores as it were, but we certainly enjoy our fancy Starbucks espresso beverage…
• Self-righteous cafes spoil my damn coffee. – I understand the pressure that Starbucks has put on its competition, what with their unstoppable gro…
• Carbonating water at home. – We’ve had [an article from MAKE Magazine](http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2007/08/home_carbonat…