Perfect Health Diet Evolving??

Note:  Some of the graphics I'm going to use in this post aren't great, but I don't think I need make much comment as to the changing picture of the so-called Perfect Health Diet.  

Paul Jaminet has called his diet the most scientifically sound version of the paleo diet (small caps).  In his tribute to Seth Roberts, Paul wrote:

The weaknesses of Seth’s approach to science show up best, I think, in how he ate. Although he considered ours the “sanest” diet book, he didn’t eat our diet. He prized his own experimental results above all else. If an experiment persuaded him that eating something would improve his health, he ate it.

To my mind, this led him on a somewhat fanciful peregrination through dietary parameter space. His approach risked two pitfalls:

• ...

• ...  most modern health problems take 60 years to develop. So there was no way for Seth to directly appraise whether his diet would generate good health or poor health; ...

It is because of these two problems that our book, Perfect Health Diet, rejected experimental approaches to dietary science, and relied upon novel approaches grounded in evolutionary biology, and molecular and cellular biology.

There can be no doubt that Paul believes his diet is backed by these principles, but if it indeed were, why has the diet changed in the span of around four years?    

[For some of the reasons I do not believe Paul's diet to be backed by the scientific evidence see:  No, Paul Jaminet, the LoBAG Diet Isn't "Close" to the Perfect Health Diet Either (this post contains links to other critiques and/or mentions of the diet).  Also this:  Perfect Health Diet Macronutrient Ratios ~ Part I: Breast Milk .]

from Fat Head Q&A
May 2014

There has been a definitive dialing back of the fat content and upping of the carb content -- a 10% swing.  Carbs are now 30% vs. 20% while fat has been decreased from 65% down to 55% .  This may not seem that consequential, but Paul goes to great lengths to specify optimal ranges for humans based on various rationales.  Further, an increase from 20% to 30% of total energy from carbs constitutes an increase in the absolute carbohydrate intake of 50%.  The decrease in fat content is less pronounced on an absolute level, but significant nonetheless.  

 The Evolution  

2010 e-book

Kindle Version (2011) of the Original Late 2010 Paperback 

'

New Late 2012 Scribner Edition

2014 Version from Perfect Health Diet Retreat

Now, to be fair, these recommendations are similar to the 2012 book ... but in contrast to the infographic presented several times on the pages of that book.  Indeed the ranges of macros in the book go even higher on the carbs and lower on the fat.  (Beginning at Kindle location 203)

The Perfect Health Diet in Brief The Perfect Health Diet is, by calories, a low-to-moderate-carbohydrate (20 to 35 percent), high-fat (50 to 65 percent), moderate-protein (15 percent) diet. However, by weight, the diet is about 65 percent plant foods, 35 percent meats and oils.

Again, it would be nitpicky in general were someone to point out inconsistencies in, say, the diet of a general population.  These are "edicts" for "perfect health" however, based on years of research of human evolution and physiology.  As such, they should not be evolving.

DO eat:  

• About one pound per day— roughly, four fist-sized servings —of “safe starches ”: white rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, taro, winter squashes, and a few others. Add up to another pound of sugary plants— fruits, berries, beets, carrots, and such— and as many low-calorie vegetables as you like. Be sure to include a bit of seaweed, for minerals. In total, you might eat 2 to 3 pounds of plant foods.

• At least a half pound, probably not more than one pound, of fatty meats, seafood , and eggs. Once a week, eat salmon or other cold-water fish for omega-3 fatty acids.

• Eat 2 to 4 tablespoons of healthful cooking oils and fats per day— enough to make your food delicious but not oily. Butter, sour cream, beef tallow, duck fat, coconut oil, olive oil, and tree nut butters are the best fats. Use spices, including salt. Liberally use acids such as vinegar, lemon juice, and lime juice.

• Adjust the amount of food to fit your appetite, but keep these relative proportions of plant and animal foods. Adjust the proportions of fat, starch, and protein to make your food as delicious as possible.

The new graphic is now 3 pounds plants, 1 pound meat on the top end, while meat minimums have been raised to 0.2 lbs from 0.5 lbs (an increase of 40% of the previous minimum).  

Some Strange Things:

• Honey, which is 50% fructose (calculated from sugar breakdown and assigning half of sucrose to fructose from here) is up there on the leaf with "non-fructose sweeteners".  Honey is a very recent addition to the PHD for sure!  PHD has always included verbiage on the toxicity of fructose, a la the man himself, Robert Lustig.  Combined with the specific 1 pound recommendation for sweet plants, it seems an odd turn.
• Butter is the first fat -- pay no attention to its dairy derivation I suppose.   Of all the so-called neolithic foods, dairy remains the one that we can be pretty sure humans rarely if ever consumed post weaning.
• Including fats in flavorings makes sense for a "balanced diet" (e.g. one where you use a pat of butter as a condiment).  But the high end of 4T refined fats to round out the caloric needs of a diet limited in carb and protein?   That's one-quarter cup of added fats.  Not paleo, and not backed by evolution.
• I just think it is hilarious that a line is drawn between a peanut and a walnut or almond.  One is a "never eat" legume, the others are "pleasure foods" alongside chocolate and dairy and sweets.  The nutritional profiles of these three foods are quite similar (from here, here and here) and all the so-called evils of legumes are present in nuts and other PHD approved foods.

So meanwhile ....

Paul has made PHD into a full blown business what with luxury health retreats and the like.   Ultimately, there is little science or basic human cultural evidence, to back up much of what is put forth in the books.  There is some solid stuff in there, but the part that makes it PHD?  That is just not there.  The diet  is really just another collection of  rules cobbled together from cherry picked studies and personal preferences.  Of all the paleos, he has least claim to the label given the foods advised.  That would be fine, but for the fact that he weaves "paleolithic" lore into the rationale for the diet, after all, most of paleo isn't authentic (as much as it even could be) anyway.

It is more than unfortunate that a promising "moderate" approach could go so far off the rails in the name of science.

Jimmy Moore and his wife are currently on one of the retreats, and reporting blood glucose readings that are disturbing to them.  There was a time when PHD seemed a great stepping stone out of the carbophobic rabbit hole:  paleo or otherwise.  But the more you look, the more you learn, and the books really paint a much more focused view than his website ever did.  It is silly to even think that the metabolic damage (and it is damage, though maybe not permanent) that has been brought on by Jimmy's diet since 2008 or so, exacerbated by the uber extreme hypercaloric high fat diet can be addressed in even a month of a less high fat diet like PHD.  Like others, PHD is only likely helpful coming from full on SAD-junk diet.  

I'll leave you with this graphic from the 2012 book.

I suppose the Inuit are missing here, but it is clear that nobody reporting data are consuming under 40% carbohydrate.  Contrary to Paul's claims, many traditional cultures from where he claims to glean food cues (e.g. Pacific Islanders),  traditionally consumed more carbohydrate rather than the high fat diet he espouses.  When it comes to self experimentation, it IS these high fat diets that are the self-experiment with no long term track record in free living humans to back up the claims of health ... let alone perfect health.