Echinacea: Reclaiming this powerful plant

Echinacea

Botanical name: Echinacea angustifolia, E. purpurea, E. pallida

Family: Asteraceae (Aster)

Common names: purple coneflower, Rudbeckia, Kansas snakeroot, hedgehog, black sampson

Parts used: whole plant, flowers, roots, leaves

Properties: cool and dry, immunomodulator, sialagogue, anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial, vulnerary, lymphagogue, alterative, anti-pyretic, circulatory stimulant

Used for: infected wounds, colds and flu, acne, boils, abscesses, septicemia, mouth infections, warts, venomous bites, fevers

Plant preparations: tincture, tea, decoction, mixed with clay, mouth wash, poultice

‎"Under the older classification of remedies, echinacea would probably be classified as an antiseptic and alterative. Strictly speaking, it is practically impossible to classify an agent like echinacea by applying to it one or two words to indicate its virtues. The day is rapidly approaching when these qualifying terms will have no place in medicine, for they but inadequately convey to our minds the therapeutic possibilities of our drugs." 

King's American Dispensatory 1898

King’s American Dispensatory is an Eclectic materia medica book first published in 1854. Echinacea boasts quite a long entry in this book and it certainly was a darling of the Eclectics. Reading the above quote we can see the author was very opposed to simplifying one of their greatest herbs to an “antiseptic” and an “alterative”. 

That kind of makes me wonder if they are rolling over in their graves now that their beloved herb has been mass marketed around the world as the “cold and flu” herb. 

Egads! 

Echinacea is endemic to North America and before it was over-harvested it grew abundantly through the east to the middle of the continent. First used by many native tribes in a wide variety of ways, it became an official part of the botanical medicine in the 1880‘s. Its use became popularized and within decades it was considered one of the most important herbs in practice. 

Were people impressed with its ability to fight off a cold or flu? 

Actually, the first popularized use of echinacea was for rattlesnake bites! 

Historical references say Dr. Meyer had learned about using Echinacea for snake bites from a Native American woman. He then experimented with it for a number of years before going to John King and John Uri Lloyd with his findings. He claimed he had treated 613 cases of rattlesnake bites in animals and humans using his special blend of herbs (Echinacea, hops and wormwood). At first he was brushed aside and ridiculed for making such outrageous claims. 

Dr. Meyer offered to send John King a rattlesnake so that he could experiment with treating animals who had been bitten. Dr. King declined. Dr. Meyer then offered to travel to Dr. King and allow himself to be bitten by the snake to prove the efficacy of his herbs in person. Dr. King again declined, but the persistence of Dr. Meyer inspired him to take a closer look at this plant. 

Although Dr. Meyer didn’t get bit by the rattlesnake in Dr. King’s presence, there are reports of him willingly submitting to this venomous reptile in order to prove his remedy’s effectiveness. In 1919 the Eclectic physician Ellingwood reported that Dr. Meyer willingly injected himself with the venom of a rattlesnake on his right hand. After six hours significant swelling had reached his elbow. He then dosed himself with his blend of herbs, taking them both internally and externally, went to sleep and woke up four hours later to find the pain and swelling was gone. 

In this day and age, if you are hiking through rattlesnake country, certainly take your echinacea tincture along for the ride. If you happen to get bitten by this venomous creature, take your echinacea tincture liberally - on your way to the hospital. 

Echinacea - some serious medicine

Dr. Meyer popularized Echinacea through his rattlesnake exploits but he also claimed it could cure a wide range of ailments. Besides ameliorating the bites and stings of venomous creatures (including snakes, scorpions, spiders, bees, etc) he also used it for serious infections like typhoid and malarial fever, cholera, trichinosis, and what would later be known as strep. He used it for a variety of “bad blood” conditions such as boils, carbuncles, acne, hemorrhoids, eczema and abscesses. And yes, he even used it for what could be cold and flu symptoms, nasal and pharyngeal catarrh. 

Sounds too good to be true? 

During this time in history it was common to sell “snake medicine,” patented medicines making claims of outrageous miracle cures. And it was for this reason that Dr. Meyer was at first brushed aside as a quack. 

But after the Eclectic physicians really started to work with Echinacea, all of Dr. Meyers’ claims were proven true. 

For twenty to twenty-five years, echinacea has been passing through the stages of critical experimentation under the observation of several thousand physicians, and its remarkable properties are receiving positive confirmation... All who use it correctly fall quickly into line as enthusiasts in its praise. 

Ellingwood, 1919

Echinacea angustifolia with a tiny little spider. Can you see it?

The Eclectics later wrote extensively about Echinacea and used it for many of the same ailments that Dr. Meyer did, as well as rabid dog bites, rheumatism, syphilis, uterine infections, vaginal infections, gonorrhea, blood poisoning and cerebral meningitis. They also used it for prolonged infections due to poison ivy/oak poisoning. 

Pretty amazing for a plant pigeon-holed as the cold and flu herb! 

How does Echinacea work? 

Undoubtedly Echinacea works in a myriad of ways that we can only begin to comprehend. But modern science has been able to figure out some of the miraculous ways of this magical plant. 

One way that it works is to increase phagocytosis. Phagocytosis means “to devour” and is an immune response that includes the engulfing and destruction of micro organisms as well as damaged or old cells and other cellular debris. This is a major way that the immune system removes various pathogens, bacteria and other cellular debris. 

Eclectics considered Echinacea, above all, to be an alterative. In his book on Echinacea, herbalist Paul Bergner says of alterative, “The term comes from the word “to alter,” meaning to change the composition and quality of the extracellular fluid and blood.” He then goes on to quote Dr. Harvey Felter as stating, “If there is any meaning in the term alterative, it is expressed in the therapy of Echinacea.” 

Herbalists also classify Echinacea as a lymphagogue, which means it promotes the flow of the lymphatic fluids and can also include the process of phagocytosis. 

Bergner maintains that Echinacea not only promotes the flow of lymph and stimulates the immune system at the level of white blood cells but that it also promotes blood circulation. So it not only increases the actions of the immune system, it also delivers those natural defenses to the area where it is needed. 

When you taste Echinacea you’ll immediately notice a tingly sensation on your tongue followed by profuse saliva. This action is called a sialagogue. By promoting the flow of saliva, Echinacea can address mouth infections and promote digestion. According to Paul Bergner, Echinacea was used as a dental remedy by many Native American tribes, including the Omaha Ponca, Oglala Dakota, Cheyenne, Crow and Commanche. 

Echinacea can lower fevers by stopping the spread of infection. It was used extensively by the Eclectics as an antiseptic and they used it to clean wounds, to sterilize the skin and surgical instruments before surgery. 

How we can use Echinacea today

Chances are that most of you probably won’t be using herbs to combat typhoid or malaria or rattlesnake bites or rabid dog bites. 

Echinacea angustifolia growing on a farm

However, there are lots of indications for Echinacea that we can commonly use it for. Keep in mind that energetically it is cooling and drying and is specific for signs of heat, ulcerations and fetid tissues. 

Common health complaints that fall under these categories are ulcers that won’t heal, acne, infections and boils (Echinacea is my favorite remedy for boils). It is commonly used for vaginal and urinary infections. 

There are a couple of considerations when dosing Echinacea. One, if you are dealing with something on the external surface such as bug bites, wounds, acne, boils etc. then it’s most effective when applied externally as well as taken internally. I personally like to take the tincture internally while applying a fomentation of the decocted root. You can also dilute the tincture for external use. 

Secondly, consider how often you dose Echinacea. Eclectics used Echinacea in smaller doses frequently; the exact amounts and frequency varied by practitioner. When dealing with an acute condition, taking 30-60 drops only three times a day is not ideal. Echinacea is better taken every hour or every couple hours. 

What about using Echinacea for colds and flu? No doubt that taken at the first sign of a cold or flu it can stop the illness from progressing. However, one thing to consider is that we don’t want to use Echinacea as a band-aid for a weakened immune system brought on by poor diet and lifestyle choices. If someone is frequently coming down with colds and flu, consider addressing the weakened immune system with building therapies such as rest, a nutrient-dense diet, regular exercise, joy and tonic immune-building herbs like astragalus.




In Volume 14, Number 2 of the Medical Herbalism Journal, herbalist Paul Bergner suggests this protocol when working with Echinacea for abating upper respiratory infections: 

A typical protocol of a contemporary North American medical herbalist for the use of Echinacea in the common cold:

1) A well-made tincture of the root of E. angustifolia or E. purpurea.

2) The medicine administered at first onset of symptoms.

3) A high dose of a teaspoon or more per hour for the first few hours, then tapering to 4 tsp per day on the second day and continuing while symptoms are present.

4) Aggressive treatment with Echinacea especially for those with chronic immune weak- ness rather than those in generally good health who happen to have a minor respiratory infection.

Fact or Fiction? 

Does one need to stop taking Echinacea after a certain number of days? This once popular belief came about from a misinterpreted German study. The Eclectics used Echinacea for 9 months or more without any problems. 

Should Echinacea be avoided by those with auto-immune diseases? There have been some problems associated with those who have auto-immune conditions and some herbalists say it should be avoided by those populations. However, this is a contentious issue in the herbal world and, in reality, while Echinacea may not work for some people with autoimmunity, it may work for others. 

Echinacea angustifolia

Is Echinacea angustifolia better than the other varieties? I don’t think there is a black and white answer to this. Some herbalists maintain that E. angustifolia root is the best material to make Echinacea products from. But plants are hard to pin down and you can find many differences between plants of the same species (depending on growing conditions, etc). For me, the most important thing is that whatever plant you are using it has that strong special Echinacea zing when you taste it. 

One thing to note is that Echinacea angustifolia is harder to grow than E. purpurea and grows less robustly. Therefore it costs more. 

Botanically Speaking

There are around nine plants in the Echinacea genus and all are herbaceous perennial plants. Recently Echinacea plants have been hybridized into cultivars for gardeners. 

Echinacea angustifolia and E. purpurea are the most commonly used species for medicine and E. pallida is sometimes used. For this botanical exploration we’ll look at E. angustifolia and E. purpurea. 

The term for the genus “Echinacea” is derived from the Greek word meaning hedgehog or sea urchin and refers to the center cone of the flower. 

First, let’s look at E. angustifolia, which grows up to 30 inches tall. 

The composite flowers of E. angustifolia bloom from summer to early fall. The pale pink ray flowers are less showy than E. purpurea. You’ll notice the spiky center of the flower, which is likened to a hedgehog. 

The leaves are narrow (angustifolia means narrow leaf).  

Both the stems and leaves are significantly hairy. 

The roots are taproots. 

Here is the Range Map for Echinacea angustifolia

Echinacea purpurea
Echinace purpurea grows more readily and robustly than E. angustifolia. The showy composite flowers have purple ray flowers. Purpurea means purple. 

The leaves of E. purpurea are broader than E. angustifolia. 

The roots grow from a caudex with fibrous roots. 

Photo by Luanne Marie

Here is the Range Map for Echinacea purpurea

The Future of Echinacea

The widespread use of Echinacea during the time of the Eclectics as well as the current market in North America and Europe has led to this plant’s demise in the wild. Never, ever buy wildcrafted Echinacea. There is no longer a way for anyone to wildcraft this plant sustainably. Instead, consider growing this beautiful plant in your own garden or buy it from organic cultivated sources. And if you live in this plant’s natural habitat, go on walks, spread seeds. 

Echinacea harvest on a biodynamic farm

I hope after reading this article you’ll have a new appreciation for this “cold and flu” herb. Remember, anytime marketing sums up a plant with a couple of words there is going to be a much larger picture of what it does as well as how we use it. Echinacea offers us a treasure chest of important remedies - let’s reclaim their varied uses and support the growth of this plant, both in our gardens and in the wild. 

Book Resource

Paul Bergner wrote THE book on Echinacea that I highly recommend if you are interested in learning more about this plant. You can find this book for super cheap at used book stores. 

The Healing Power of Echinacea & Goldenseal, Paul Bergner


This monograph was originally written for HerbMentor.com. If you love herbs then I highly recommend subscribing to the site. 

The Chinese Medicinal Herb Farm: A Review

The Chinese Medicinal Herb Farm: A Cultivator’s Guide to Small-Scale Organic Herb Production by Peg Schafer

Over the past few years I’ve started to grow some Chinese medicinal herbs. Astragalus, codonopsis and baical skullcap were herbs I just couldn’t imagine being without. This year was my first harvest and I was a little disappointed about the yield. Two years of effort brought forth very little roots. If only I had had this beautifully photographed and incredibly informative book to guide me, I would have easily avoided mistakes! 

This book is written for both the casual home gardener interested in growing a few plants and the farmer interested in entering the market of Chinese Medicinal Herbs. 

Authored by Peg Schafer, who is not only a pioneer and authority on the subject (after having been an organic Chinese medicinal herb farmer for over a decade), but also who has a gift for writing in an engaging and very clear manner. 

Part I of this book starts off by addressing many common concerns about growing Chinese Herbs. Why would someone be interested in growing Chinese herbs? Are they as potent as plants grown in China? Will the grower be introducing invasive species? Is there a market for these herbs? 

In her concise yet thorough manner, Schafer addresses all these concerns. 

Why grow Chinese plants?

As Schafer points out, there are many reasons to grow Chinese herbs. First, there is a lot of concern about the quality of herbs coming from China. Plants in the wild are being over-harvested and all plants coming out of China could potentially be exposed to pesticides and other harmful chemicals. Secondly, there is a growing concern about the availability of herbs from overseas. By learning to grow our own we ensure our access to these plants no matter the political climate. 

Are Chinese plants cultivated in the west medicinally potent?

I often hear from practitioners that the most potent Chinese herbs only come from their native habitat. Peg Schafer has an interesting analogy about this hypothesis in relation to wine. Not too long ago it was thought that the best wines could only be grown in the French terroir. However, after years of experimentation, the western coast of the United States has proven its ability to grow wines just as coveted as the French. 

Moving beyond analogy, Schafer addresses the concern of cultivated vs. wild plants by sharing her specific ways of growing potent plants. (Tip: growing medicinal herbs is nothing like growing vegetable crops!) She backs up her claims with scientific testing (her herbs vs. imports) as well as organoleptic testing by Chinese Medicine Practitioners. 

Covering the basics

Although this book is mainly geared towards Chinese herbs, any herb gardener will find the first part of this book full of interesting tips. From building the soil, to managing the crops, to harvesting, to seed collecting, Schafer expertly covers many areas of organic herbal gardening. 

Fresh codonopsis root

Specific Plants (79 of them!)

In part 2 Schafer delves into specific cultivation techniques for 79 different Chinese plants. This section covers germination requirements, troubleshooting techniques, harvesting methods, processing methods, beautiful photos and even medicinal information for each plant. 

All of the information presented in the book comes from Schafer’s years of direct experience on her own farm and is a treasure for western dwellers who have grown fond of Chinese herbs, although I wouldn’t limit this book to strictly Chinese herb growers as the western herbalist will also find many familiar plants among the pages, such as Angelica sinensis and burdock (Arctium lappa). 

I’ve been pouring over this book for the past couple of weeks and, while the ground is covered in snow, I am already dreaming of my spring garden and the Chinese plants I will grow there. With Schafer’s informative book in hand I know I’ll have a lot more success growing my favorite Chinese herbs. I am looking forward to a garden full of peonies and codonopsis and skullcaps and on and on. 

To purchase this book and support Schafer’s important work (and farm), buy it from her directly at: 

http://chinesemedicinalherbfarm.com/index.html

Contents:

Part One: Cultivating to Conserve Connecting with Quality Asian Botanicals

Chapter One: Farming to Be Part of the Solution

Evolving Herbal Traditions

Risks to the Future of Herbalism

Solutions for Continued Availability

Chapter Two: Herb Quality

Wild Quality

Assessing Herb Quality

Regulating Herbs

Like Fine Wines . . .

Chapter Three: Cultivation in the Nursery, Garden, and Field

Planning

Seed Starting and Propagation

Managing Your Soil

Planting

Seasonal Care

Managing Invasive Plant Risk

Chapter Four: The Harvest and Marketing

Harvesting Medicine

Drying Herb Crops

Storing Dried Herbs

Shipping Fresh or Dry Herbs

Collecting and Saving Seed for Sowing

Selling What You Grow

Good Agricultural Practices

Make Alliances

Chapter Five: Conservation and Global Trade in Medicinal Plants

Current Status: Factors and Reasons for Concern

Who Needs Protection?

Protective Measures

How Effective Are the Protective Strategies?

Cultivate to Conserve

How to Be Part of the Solution

Part Two: 79 Medicinal Herb Profiles

BOOK DATA 

ISBN: 9781603583305 Year Added to Catalog: 2011

Book Format: Paperback

Book Art: Full Color Throughout

Dimensions: 8 x 10

Number of Pages: 336

Book Publisher: Chelsea Green

Pub Date: December, 2011

Retail Price: U.S. $34.95 / Canada $38.50

Category: Gardening & Agriculture

Baical Skullcap

Primitive Nutrition Critique Parts 4 and 5

In The Protein Debate, Loren Cordain wrote the following:

He seems to be saying two things:

1)  Nutrition as a science suffers from “chaos, disagreement, and confusion.”

And

2) Use of ‘an evolutionary model’ would elimate “chaos, disagreement, and confusion”  by providing “coherent way to interpret the data.”

With regard to the first statement, I don’t know where he finds the “chaos, disagreement, and confusion” in nutrition science.  I can’t find this in any standard nutrition textbooks, in the National Academy of Sciences Food and Nutrition Board Dietary Reference Intakes publications, or among various expert panels making dietary recommendations to the public.  Among these scientific sources, I find very little or no debate as to human requirements for protein, fat, carbohydrate, vitamins, and minerals.   Also, the general guidelines for diet vary little from expert panel to expert panel.  Do I see a straw man here?

Or is Cordain preoccupied with the confusion among lay people, generated by the profusion of fad diet books?

Or is the disagreement he refers to the disagreement between his recommendation for a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet, and the science which shows that humans only require a small amount of protein (one-third of what Cordain advocates) and lots of carbohydrates?

With regard to the second statement above, this implies that we should find even greater agreement among those who profess to use “an evolutionary model” to evaluate nutrition than we do among the conventional sources that Cordain derides. 

So let’s take a look.

Fruits and Vegetables

Regarding consumption of fruits and vegetables, expert panels of the USDA,  American Heart Association, National Cancer Institute, American Institute for Cancer Research, World Cancer Research Fund, and many others generally agree that we benefit from eating fruits and vegetables.

In contrast, among those using an evolutionary model, Cordain believes that we should eat them because they provide important phytochemicals that protect against cancer and inflammation, but evolutionary model advocate and radiologist Kurt Harris, M.D. has once expressed the view that “plants and plant compounds are not essential or magic,” stating:

"Show me a randomized intervention that shows the benefits of fruits and vegetables. Such trials have been done and they have not shown a benefit." 

Unfortunately I do not know to which trials he refers as he provided no reference.  In that essay, Harris added that the idea that a particular plant compound is essential is inherently implausible and in need of a rigor of proof suitable for establishing the idea that there exists some extraterrestrial intelligence:

"To overcome the inherent implausibility of a particular compound or plant being essential or uniquely beneficial to health, there must be a high standard of proof.

"Similar to the level of proof there that there is extraterrestrial intelligence. It's implausible, so good evidence is needed."

Dr. Harris has amended his view on this topic somewhat since those words, and has written a blog indicating he believes that some plant compounds may provide benefits and "that eating some veggies is a hedge against going without unspecified beneficial compounds."

My question is, if the evolutionary model is so helpful for eliminating chaos and confusion, why didn't it clearly favor one or the other of these views about plants and plant compounds? 

Nutrition science recognizes many plant compounds essential to health (although apparently not those that Dr. Harris had in mind in his 'plant compounds are not essential' essay).  Those include, minimally, the vitamins thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, pyridoxine, pantothenic acid, folate, ascorbic acid, phylloqunione (vitamin K1), tocopherols (vitamin E); the essential fats linoleic and linolenic acids; and the essential amino acids isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, and histidine.

All of these compounds are originally synthesized by plants and, except for niacin, appear in animal tissues only because the animal ate plants directly or ate another animal that ate plants.  The evidence that we require these plant compounds is thoroughly discussed in the various Dietery Reference Intakes publications of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences as well as numerous standard nutrition textbooks.

Amazingly, nutritional scientists discovered the essentiality of these nutrients for modern humans without speculating about the habits of stone age hunter-gatherers, consulting archaeologists, or asking anthropologists what isolated hunter-gatherers eat. Am I to believe that all of this talk of essential nutrients is nonsense because it was discovered without applying an evolutionary model?

In addition, while I would agree that it is implausible that any particular plant (e.g. spinach) is essential to health, plants world-wide have similar constituents (including non-vitamin phytonutrients).  For example, polyphenols occur in many species of plants world-wide.  To my knowledge, no nutrition scientist is arguing that any particular plant is essential or uniquely beneficial to human health, but many would suggest that humans have adapted to (possibly to become reliant upon) consumption of families of plant compounds (e.g. polyphenols).  I find this considerably more plausible than the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence (I don't know if Dr. Harris has changed his opinion here), since we already have established a human need for the plant compounds I have listed above.

So far as I can tell, except for vitamin D, which our own bodies synthesize if exposed to sunlight, not one nutrient mentioned in those FNB documents as an essential dietary component for humans is originally synthesized only by animals; i.e. all are originally synthesized by plants or microbes, or present as inorganic components of the earth's crust.  This table lists the essential nutrients and their original sources:

Nutrient	Original Source(s)
Essential amino acids (9)	Plants
Linoleic acid	Plants
Linolenic acid	Plants
Glucose	Plants
ß-carotene (provitamin A)	Plants
Tocopherols (vitamin E)	Plants
Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)	Endogenous synthesis after sunlight exposure
Phylloquinone (vitamin K)	Plants
Thiamine (B1)	Plants and microbes
Riboflavin (B2)	Plants and microbes
Niacin (B3)	Plants
Pantothenic acid (B5)	Plants and microbes
Pyridoxine (B6)	Plants and microbes
Folate	Plants and microbes
Cobalamin (B12)	Microbes
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C)	Plants
Minerals	Rocks, soil (brought into the food chain by plants)

Cholesterol

Regarding dietary and blood cholesterol, scientific bodies consistently agree that dietary cholesterol is not beneficial or essential, and reducing cholesterol levels is desirable and necessary for avoiding cardiovascular disease (atherosclerosis).  For example, the NAS Food and Nutrition Board writes:

"There is much evidence to indicate a positive linear trend between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). A Tolerable Upper Intake Level is not set for cholesterol because any incremental increase in cholesterol intake increases CHD risk. Because cholesterol is unavoidable in ordinary diets, eliminating cholesterol in the diet would require significant changes in patterns of dietary intake. Such significant adjustments may introduce undesirable effects (e.g., inadequate intakes of protein and certain micronutrients) and unknown and unquantifiable health risks. Nonetheless, it is possible to have a diet low in cholesterol while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet. Dietary guidance for minimizing cholesterol intake is provided in Chapter 11."

Let me emphasize some lines from this passage:

"There is much evidence to indicate a positive linear trend between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD)."

"....any incremental increase in cholesterol intake increases CHD risk."

Of interest, this paragraph illustrates my previous point that the dominant nutrition paradigm includes Cordain's belief that elimination of animal foods from the diet "may introduce undesirable effects (e.g., inadequate intakes of protein and certain micronutrients) and unknown and unquantifiable health risks."  This passage documents that Cordain's perspective is conservative, not revolutionary, compared to Campbell's, because, unlike Cordain and the Food and Nutrition Board, Campbell does not believe that eliminating cholesterol from the diet would result in protein or micronutrient deficiencies or 'unknown and unquantifiable health risks.'  

Nevertheless, the  Food and Nutrition Board maintains that dietary cholesterol (i.e. animal food) intake increases coronary heart disease risk.  The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute concurs and adds that "the higher your blood cholesterol level, the greater your risk for developing heart disease or having a heart attack."    Their publication "High Blood Cholesterol: What You Need To Know" includes this:

Again, no confusion or chaos apparent in the nutrition science Cordain has attacked.

In contrast, among those using the supposedly ‘unifying’ evolutionary model, Cordain believes that LDL cholesterol should be less than 70 mg/dL, but Kurt Harris, M.D. has expressed an opposing opinion of no confidence at all in any version of the lipid hypothesis:

"I do not believe in any of the versions of the lipid hypothesis, ranging from Ancel Keys' original idea that cholesterol or dietary fat clogs the arteries, to the currently fashionable one that “small, dense” LDL particles are like microscopic rodents that are designed to burrow under the intima of your blood vessels and kill you."

Why didn't their common use of an evolutionary model eliminate this disagreement?

Saturated Fat

Regarding saturated fat, scientific consensus documents such as the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the NAS clearly state that we have no requirement for dietary saturated fat and any incremental increase in dietary saturated fat increases heart disease risk.  Here again I quote the FNB Dietary Reference Intakes for Fats:

"Saturated fatty acids are synthesized by the body to provide an adequate level needed for their physiological and structural functions; they have no known role in preventing chronic diseases. Therefore, neither an AI nor RDA is set for saturated fatty acids. There is a positive linear trend between total saturated fatty acid intake and total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration and increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). A UL is not set for saturated fatty acids because any incremental increase in saturated fatty acid intake increases CHD risk." [emphasis added]

You will find that all major expert panels around the world maintain this position. 

In contrast, among those claim to use the supposedly ‘unifying’ evolutionary model, Cordain believes the evolutionary model prescribes lean meat and low intake of dietary saturated fat, while Michael Eades, M.D. thinks that the evolutionary model prescribes fatty meat and high intake of saturated fat.

Should I really believe that the members of the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board, composed of individuals who have invested their whole lives in studying nutrition both as scholars and bench scientists, do not understand the effect of nutrition on CHD risk, because they failed to use an evolutionary model?  Do you think the members of the FNB know the difference between correlation and causation?  Or did they get to the top of their field without mastering this concept presented in any undergraduate course in statistics or science?

Fitness 

Regarding fitness, at least one advocates of looking at things with an evolutionary model, Art DeVany believes that the scientific data proscribes distance running (note:  in the comments below Dr. Harris disavows using an exclusively evolutionary model to come to this conclusion), while Daniel E. Lieberman, a Harvard evolutionary biologist, and Dennis M. Bramble, a biologist at the University of Utah,  believe that an evolutionary model prescribes distance running.  If the evolutionary model is so powerful for eliminating chaos and confusion, why don't advocates of an evolutionary model agree on this point?

Confusion Within the Evolutionary Model

The ‘evolutionary model’ offered by Cordain and low-carbers also seems to introduce some confusion into the ‘evolutionary model’ itself.

According to this model, we should eat the imagined meaty low-carbohydrate diet of stone age mammoth hunters in order to increase our metabolic rates and lose body fat.    

Does this make evolutionary sense? 

I mean, would a high metabolic rate induced by a high protein/lean meat intake really benefit to a stone age hunter gatherer who already had difficulty getting hold of enough food to meet his metabolic needs?  

And would a low body fat level  achieved by a meaty low carb diet be an evolutionary advantage to humans dealing with extremely cold winters during the ice ages? 

Groking the Source of Confusion

Could it be that Paleo advocates are confused and confusing because they rely on an imaginary Grok for their guidance rather than science?   

By that I mean that the paleo diet ‘evolutionary’ model is based on largely imagining what stone age people did.  In case you didn’t notice, we don’t have any body composition data, diet or medical records, photos, or videos from the stone age people the paleo crowd wants to emulate.  

 This means you have to use your imagination to come up with any picture of them and their diets and lifestyles.   My imagination is different from yours, so we just might come up with different Groks to emulate. 

Cordain and his colleagues used their imaginations when they published "Estimated macronutrient and fatty acid intakes from an East African Paleolithic diet"  in the British Journal of Nutrition.  

I have realized that few if any of the conclusions in this document are subject to either confirmation or falsification.  You can invent any number of 'models' of paleolithic diets and none can be either confirmed or falsified simply because we have no direct access to or records of East African Paleolithic human diets.

Let me put it this way.  If I estimate that present-day Italian farmers consume 400 g of wheat bread and 3000 kcal per day in the winter, I can test my estimate by going to Italy, collecting diet records, and doing the math.  Others can test my estimate by the same procedure.  I could be proven wrong by someone else.  But if I estimate that Neanderthal females consumed 1200 kcal, 500 mg of DHA, and 30 mg of vitamin C daily in the summer, neither I nor anyone else can test my estimate against reality because neither Neanderthals nor their habitat exist any longer. 

And that is my introduction to these two videos:

Primitive Nutrition Critique of Paleo Diet Conceptual Framework, Part 2

Paleo diet proponents promote their viewpoint as a scientific revolution akin to the Copernican revolution.
 

In his contribution to The Protein Debate , Loren Cordain claims that “The study of human nutrition remains an immature science because it lacks a universally acknowledged unifying paradigm." Apparently he thinks other sciences are "mature," i.e. virtually completed, which would be news to physicists, astrophysicists, chemists, and biologists, most of whom know that we have only scratched the surface of the world we study.

He goes on to claim that “nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory, much less human evolution. Nutritionists face the same problem as anyone who is not using an evolutionary model to evaluate biology: fragmented information and no coherent way to interpret the data.”

I don’t know why he thinks nothing in nutrition seems to make sense.  Does he really think that if you open a textbook of nutrition, nothing in that book makes sense?  Are those chapters telling us about the scientifically established nutrient requirements of humans just gibberish to him?

Perhaps he thinks this because there seems to be a general scientific consensus that we can improve our health prospects by reducing animal food consumption, but he prefers to eat a lot of meat.  The American Heart Association, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and numerous other scientific medical organizations recommend eating more plant-based diets rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, while reducing intake of animal products. Naturally, for someone who fervently believes in a low carbohydrate, high meat diet, the recommendations of the American Heart Association and the American Institute for Cancer Research don’t make sense.

 

Cordain sees his mission as providing a “universally acknowledged unifying paradigm”  through his paleo diet hypothesis.   According to him, we can ‘make sense’ of all the ‘confusing’ information he sees “By carefully examining the ancient environment under which our genome arose.”  Here's a snapshot of his claim in The Protein Debate: 

Certainly, nothing can be easier to do than examine the ancient environment under which our genome arose. We'll just get into our handy time machine that will take us back 200 million years to the emergence of the first mammals (a large part of the human genome emerged that long ago; we are a variation on a biological theme, not a totally unique entity) so we can “carefully examine” that environment first hand, rather than examine imaginary reconstructions offered by various creative minds.   

Similarly Rob Wolf refers to non-believers in the paleo diet paradigm as similar to members of the “flat-earth society,” implying that paleo believers are akin to Copernicus, while non-believers are akin to those who still believe that the earth is ‘flat.’

Paleo advocates also claim to be bucking ‘conventional wisdom,’ again implying that they have the advance take on diet and everyone else is in the dark ages believing in the nutritional equivalent of a ‘flat earth.’

So let’s see, which of these two statements is more aligned with ‘conventional wisdom’ and which is more ‘revolutionary’ in the context of historical and recent beliefs about human nutrition, biology, and medicine?

Loren Cordain’s Paleo Belief:  Humans must eat meat to obtain adequate protein and other nutrients, to build muscle mass and excel athletically, to maintain intelligence, and to maintain health.  People can reverse disease by eating more animal products and less plant foods.

T. Colin Campbell’s Vegan Belief: Humans do not need to eat any animal products to obtain adequate protein and other nutrients, to build muscle mass, to excel athletically, to maintain intelligence, or to maintain health.  We can reverse diseases by eating more plant foods and avoiding animal foods.

Given that approximately 98 percent of people in the U.S.A. eats meat on a daily basis, and many (including many paleo diet adherents) will immediately ask a vegan advocate “But where do you get your protein?”  I submit that the paleo diet belief is far from revolutionary, indeed I might consider it reactionary. 

Let me put it this way.  At this present time, very few people accept the idea that a vegan diet can adequately provide protein and general nutrition to the average human, which explains why very few people eat vegan diets.   Most people ‘believe’ that we need to eat meat, the way that, at the time of Copernicus, most people believed in a flat earth at the center of the sun’s orbit. 

This belief in the importance of meat to human nutrition has a long history.  I know of no time in Euro-American history when Campbell’s vegan belief was as widely accepted as the belief in a geocentric universe was at the time of Copernicus. On the contrary, the vegetarian perspective has been accepted by only a minority of people, mostly philosophers (e.g. Plato, Pythagorus) and medical doctors (e.g. Christoph Hufeland), throughout the history of Western civilization since the time of the Greeks.

In fact, T. Colin Campbell himself was initially indoctrinated to believe in meat and animal protein as critical to human health.  It was only through research that he came to reject this widely accepted belief.  That makes him more like Copernicus, challenging the widely held assumptions of his generation, whereas Cordain is simply agreeing with the long widely held belief that we have to eat meat to be healthy, smart, strong, and human.

Further, the idea that a vegan diet can reverse degenerative diseases contradicts the long-held belief of Western medical scientists that diet alone is inadequate for treatment of disease.  The orthodoxy believes in eating meat and using drugs and surgery to treat disease.  The revolutionary believes in avoiding meat and using a vegan diet as the primary tool in treatment of disease.

It seems to me that Cordain's paleo diet view aligns more with conventional wisdom and has more in common with the 'flat earth society,' and Campbell's vegan view bucks conventional wisdom and has more in common with Copernicus.

That’s my introduction to these two videos from PrimitiveNutrition which explore in greater depth the poor reasoning behind the paleo 'paradigm' starting with the fallacious appeal to nature (i.e. Eating meat is natural, therefore eating meat is optimal) which itself is based on a short-range view of 'natural' behaviors and their consequences (homicide is also natural, but if we all acted homicidal, we would be suicidal).

Primitive Nutrition Critique of Paleo Diet Part 1

 A much needed critical look at the fundamentals of paleo diet logic as offered by its leading proponents.  I truly wish I had had the acumen to have done this degree of critical thinking before I got involved in, let alone invested in, paleo dieting.