Translation: By embracing eggs, beef, wild salmon, chicken, lamb, pork, kale, chard, romaine lettuce, spinach, blackberries, blueberries, raspberries, apples, broccoli, sweet potatoes, beets, carrots, oranges, sardines, organ meats, shellfish, fennel, onions, garlic, asparagus, seaweed, butternut squash, yellow squash, zucchini, tomatoes, strawberries, cantaloupe, almonds, macadamia nuts, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, pecans, walnuts, and tuna, you’re at risk of missing out on a lot of nutrients. All those foods might taste nice and look pretty on a plate, but they are incredibly nutrient-sparse.

There is nothing more controversial in the nutrition world then carbohydrates. There are some people/groups that condemn carbohydrates as a terrorist infiltrating our society. At the other end of the spectrum we have people/groups that condemn fat in the same manner and preach a higher carbohydrate diet for the masses. There is research that supports both arguments so who are we supposed to believe? The answer lies in your genome.

Our gene pool began to differentiate between one another when we began to settle in various locations around the globe. Some hunter-gatherer groups settled in cold climates, some in warm climates, and everything in between. Each location offered its own challenges and evolutionary pressures, one of them being diet.

For example, colder climates may have relied more heavily on animal meats for food and warmer, wetter climates may have relied more heavily on plant food (Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation). This led to diversity in one specific gene responsible for the breakdown of carbohydrates, alpha-amylase (AMY1). AMY1 is a salivary enzyme that begins the breakdown of starch in the mouth and makes it taste sweet.

AMY1 variation exists between different members of the human species. This may be a major reason why there is so much variation from person to person when it comes to carbohydrate intake. Some people thrive on a higher carbohydrate diet and others thrive when carbohydrates are kept in check. This is also a reason why there will never be just one perfect human diet.

The USDA recommends that the entire population consumes 45% to 65% of their daily calories in the form of starch. Is this a correct recommendation to the part of the population that contains fewer copies of the AMY1 gene? It is not only unfair, but may be setting them up for a future filled with weight issues and all the diseases that accompany increased weight.

Abigail Manell and Paul Breslin have done some amazing research at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. One study in particular looked at starch digestion between differing AMY1 groups. The experimental group was healthy, non-obese individuals and they were divided into a high amylase group and a low amylase group. They came into the lab twice, once to ingest starch (experiment) and glucose (control). The low amylase group had higher blood glucose levels then the high amylase group during starch consumption. This increase in blood glucose levels lasted for the two hours that the participants remained at the lab! Interestingly, when the low amylase group consumed the glucose blood sugar levels remained relatively consistent with the high amylase group and the blood sugar did not stay elevated as long as when they ingested the starch (High Endogenous Salivary Amylase Activity Is Associated with Improved Glycemic Homeostasis following Starch Ingestion in Adults).

Recommending a high starch diet to people with low amylase gene copies is setting them up for insulin resistance and diabetes. Another thing to think about is the diversity within each group. Humans can contain anywhere between 2 and 15 copies of the AMY1 gene (PLOS ONE: Individual Differences in AMY1 Gene Copy Number, Salivary). This means there is a wide difference from person to person on blood glucose levels following the exact same intake of starch.

The research by Manell and Braslin was published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2012. This is an extremely new phenomenon when looking at the individuality of carbohydrate digestion. All we know about this topic is that some people respond to the same meal of starch differently. We do not know optimal starch intake for each variation yet. 45% to 65% of calories coming from starch may still be too much for even the people that contain 15 copies of AMY1 gene, we do not know the tolerable upper intake level.

Underlying inflammation is also going to be a variable. Carbohydrate metabolism gets dysfunctional when inflammation is present. Someone with 15 copies of the AMY1 gene that exercises, sleeps well, has friends, and manages stress may respond more favorable to the same starch meal that someone with 15 copies that is sedentary. Also, food quality is still going to play a role. Just because someone has a higher number of AMY1 copies does not mean eating a high grain diet will be beneficial, remember the inflammation piece.

Who knows where the future of this information will take us. It does bring to light a few things. Everyone is truly their own unique snowflake. It also brings to light that there is a lot we do not know about the human body. We need to remain humble and actually listen to our patients/clients. They know more about their body then science does.

The concept of metabolic adaption is scary to me. Not because it’s right or wrong, but because it’s often prescribed to dieters without any examination.

People are told that if they have been dieting for a long period of time and are now having problems losing weight, then their hormone levels have been compromised by all the dieting and therefore they must ‘eat up’ for a length of time to restore their hormone levels.

And this *MAY* be true, but it also may not be true.

The problem with telling a person that their hormones levels are up or down is that you typically do not have any kind of baseline measurements.

It’s rare to hear that a person has a record of their blood profiles that were recorded when they were at their healthiest or at their ideal (ie. not overweight and not dieting).

Even if blood samples were taken right before a diet started, these numbers would be confounded by the fact the person most likely has extra fat to lose (so the levels may not be a true ideal, but instead depressed or elevated by the extra fat).

Most of the time, ‘metabolic adaptation’ is being diagnosed, and changes in hormone levels are being blamed, without a baseline measurement to compare to. And without a baseline, you’re just guessing.

Yes, we do have population averages – but typically these are wide ranges, sometimes very wide. And while coming in high or low of a population average is reason for further check up, it does not automatically indicate that this is the cause of your weight loss problems.

This is my problem with prescribing metabolic adaptation – you’re guessing when you should be measuring.

To be clear, there is NOTHING wrong with ‘eating up’. Generally I like people on Eat Stop Eat to be on no more than a 15% calorie deficit on the days they are not fasting, and I’d even like them closer to ‘maintenance’ the leaner they get. I don’t mind large caloric deficits for short periods of time (in people who can afford to be in a large deficit), but in general I like people to eat and then occasionally take a break from eating. People often hear the last part of that statement, but seem to want to ignore the first part icon wink The Dangers of Metabolic Adaptation

S0 my problem with ‘eating up’ isn’t the application or idea (which I like), but the reasoning (which concerns me).

This happens to a lot of good ideas in health and nutrition – We figure out that something helps, then we guess at why it helps, then when those guesses are questioned or proven wrong we throw the whole thing out, ignoring the fact that even if the ‘why’ was wrong, whatever you were doing WAS somehow helping.

The danger in guessing is that self-diagnosing could actually cause you to become a crazy fanatic worrier (because you’re worrying without facts), or worse, it could cause to you miss the diagnoses of a larger, potentially more dangerous problem.

If you think something is wrong, get it checked, compare it to some kind of baseline then move forward.

When it comes to dieting either go by feel (You feel tired and lethargic so you’re going to up calories a bit), go by measurements (Your Testosterone or Thryoid or Cortisol measurements are drastically lower then they were when you had them measured before you started this new diet, it’s time to change something), but don’t go by guessing (I’m feeling tired, therefore my adrenals are fatigued).

- See more at: The Dangers of Metabolic Adaptation | Brad Pilon's 'Eat Blog Eat'

~ With all due respect, Michael, nearly all of your "suggestions" are the very CORE of what Paleo living is all about--consuming pastured animals, adding in fermented foods, learn to get back in the kitchen and cook again, etc. While most Paleo peeps don't agree with him that bread is necessarily a healthy part of the human diet, even his logic with that runs exactly opposite his position on consuming meat. What's most disappointing is the fact that Pollan probably has a lot more in common with the supporters of Paleo than not. So why this antagonistic article? Makes no sense at all.

and removing industrial seed oils.