Posts Tagged ‘inflammation’

What causes allergies and autoimmune disease?

Posted 26 Mar 2013 — by Todd
Category Diet, Health, Hormesis

Unknown-1Allergies and autoimmune disease are reaching epidemic proportions — not just in the U.S. and Europe, but in the rest of the industrially developing world.  Asthma, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus — all are on the rise. Even certain conditions not previously considered immune disorders, such as autism, metabolic syndrome and obesity, are now seen as manifestations of immune dysfunction.

What caused all this?  Can the epidemic be reversed?  And what can you do if you suffer from asthma, allergies and autoimmune disease?

Many who follow this site are generally sympathetic to the “paleo” hypothesis: namely, that allergies, autoimmune disease , and other degenerative diseases are the spawn of neolithic agents — such as wheat and other grains, and legumes, introduced during the transition to an agrarian society  about 10,000 years ago.  These neolithic foodstuffs expose us to higher levels of carbohydrates and novel proteins and anti-nutrients — such as gluten, phytic acid and lectins — that our evolutionary history as primates did not adapt us (or at least many of us)  to tolerate.   There is a lot of evidence to support this idea — from archeology and comparative anthropology, to studies in genetics and immunology.

But is it true?

There is an alternative explanation that has now been put forward, based upon a revolution in immunology during the past decade.  Like the paleo hypothesis, this new theory is grounded in evolutionary biology, and it likewise sees our modern lifestyle as an evolutionary anomaly.  But this new perspective places the advent of the twin epidemics of allergy and autoimmunity — and more generally inflammatory disorders — not at the introduction of agriculture, but much more recently:  at the upswing and aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. And it identifies the causal agent not as the addition of neolithic foods, but rather the subtraction of a key protective factor that we’ve lived with since the beginning of human evolution, or even mammalian evolution.

The agent of our immunological misery is the disappearance of something we co-evolved with in a mutually beneficial relationships:  microbes and parasites that have lived inside our bodies for millennia.

This new hypothesis is brilliantly summarized in a recent book by Moises Velasquez-Manoff:  An Epidemic of Absence: A New Way of Understanding Allergies and Autoimmune Disease.  In 307 pages the author, a science writer, synthesizes a diverse range of research, interviews and adventures into a detective novel that ends with a quest to treat his own rare autoimmune disorder.  The book is both compelling and honest in probing both the promise and the limits of the arguments and evidence for this new perspective on practical immunology.

This new view leads to some unorthodox ideas about how to combat allergies and autoimmune diseases.  Some of the ideas being tested may seem wild to you.  But I’ll end with one very safe recommendation that makes good sense to me now, despite earlier doubts, and which I’ve already implemented with great gusto.

Read More

Why I don’t take vitamin D supplements

Posted 11 Nov 2012 — by Todd
Category Uncategorized

Vitamin D has been associated with numerous health benefits, including cardiovascular and immune health, bone strength, and prevention of cancer. However, studies claim that most of us are deficient in vitamin D, and thereby unnecessarily vulnerable to increased heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, infection and autoimmune disorders. According to a review of recent studies in Natural News, there is a woldwide epidemic of vitamin D deficiency:  59% of the population is “vitamin D deficient”.  The article goes onto to speculate that “What’s becoming increasingly clear from all the new research is that vitamin D deficiency may be the common denominator behind our most devastating modern degenerative diseases.”

Supplementation with vitamin D capsules is advocated even by “primal” advocate  Mark Sisson, normally one to take inspiration from our paleolithic ancestors, shunning medication and embracing a lifestyle of eating whole foods and engaging in moderately stressful, playful exercise:

We can’t all bask in the midday sun.. For those of us unable to run shirtless and shoeless through a sun kissed meadow…our option is oral intake… food will help, but it won’t suffice. You need something stronger. ..take a good D3 supplement if you can’t get real sunlight. As long as you don’t go overboard on the dosage, you’re good to go. If it’s not in an oil-based capsule, just take it with a bit of fatty food (not a stretch for an Primal eater). It travels the same pathway and results in the same benefits. It’s always easier to just let nature take its course, but it’s not always realistic. A good general rule is 4000 IU per day.

Therefore, we should supplement with vitamin D.  Right?

Not so fast.  A closer examination shows that low vitamin D levels may be a consequence, not a cause, of poor health.  And that supplementation with Vitamin D may actually be counterproductive.  Let me explain.

Read More

Obesity starts in the brain

Posted 25 Nov 2011 — by Todd
Category Diet, Health, Psychology

 

Where does obesity begin?  What drives you to eat too much or expend too little energy, and why has there been such a dramatic increase in obesity since 1980? Some recently popular explanations are the carbohydrate / insulin hypothesis (CIH), singling out the prevalence of carbohydrates in the diet, and the food reward hypothesis (FRH), putting the primary blame on the availability of “hyper-palatable” food.

In this post I will present evidence for new paradigm, which I call the  Hypothalamic Hypothesis (HH).  I think it provides a better explanation for the facts of obesity than the CIH and FRH theories, and leads to some different advice about how best to lose weight.

Some recent research suggests that obesity starts with specific physical changes to the brain. Appetite is regulated by the hypothalamus, particularly the arcuate nucleus (ARC), ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH) and lateral hypothalamus (LH). It turns out that two very specific changes to the brain cause us to get get hungry, overeat, burn less fat, and gain weight. And these changes to particular brain structures come about as a result of what you eat, eating frequency, and to some extent your activity level. The problem of obesity or overweight is often portrayed as a single problem, but it is really two problems, and each type of obesity corresponds to one type of brain alteration. Failure to distinguish these two types of obesity has resulted in much confusion. In part, the confusion comes about because these two types of obesity frequently occur together in the same individual, although one type is usually dominant. If you understand this, and you understand the role your brain plays, you can become more successful at losing excess weight.

I’ll spend a little time explaining the theory, provide some specific suggestions for how it can help you fine tune your weight loss program, and try to point out why I think the Hypothalamic Hypothesis overcomes some weaknesses of the other obesity theories.

Read More

Does tasty food make us fat?

Posted 09 Sep 2011 — by Todd
Category Diet, Psychology

Are we getting fatter because there is just a lot more irresistibly delicious food around us?  Does that explain the obesity crisis?

That theory has been around the block but it is in fashion again.   In 2009, David Kessler’s book, “The End of Overeating” put forward the thesis that food in contemporary American food has been deliberately engineered–by adding fat, sugar and salt–to exploit our neurochemistry and hijack our free will.

More recently, one of the luminaries of the Paleo movement, Stephan Guyenet, has formulated his own version of this theory, in a compelling series on his Whole Health Source blog, arguing that  ”food reward” is a main driver of obesity. His prescription:  eat a bland diet. Guyenet’s talk about this at the Ancestral Health Symposium last month is the buzz of the paleosphere.

But I think the theory is wrong, for the simple reason that it too blindly takes correlation for causation. And in doing so, it gets the causal direction mostly wrong. We don’t get fat because food has become too tasty. Rather, to a large extent, it is the metabolism and dietary habits of the obese that make food taste too good to resist, leading to insatiable appetites. And the good news is that we are not consigned to blandness.  If we eat and exercise sensibly, we can eat flavorful, delicious foods and enjoy life, without packing on the pounds.

Read More