Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

14

I'll start with my question: Do you agree with Melissa McEwen's critique of Jack Kruse's (mis)use of evolutionary biology?

I should note that I am a fan of both McEwen and Kruse.

McEwen's blog post is here:

http://huntgatherlove.com/content/uses-and-misuses-evolutionary-biology-1

McEwen accuses Kruse of equivocating between two views of evolution - one static, the other malleable. She writes, "Therein lies an essential paradox - on one hand our genes are “paleolithic,” but on the other they are malleable simply by thinking differently."

Here are some initial thoughts toward answering my question.

I'm pretty sure that everybody who studies and thinks about genetics these days distinguishes between (i) the underlying DNA sequence - which often underlies 'static' views of genetics - and (ii) changes in gene expression that can be inherited by the previous 1-3 generations - this is the realm of epigenetics, which often underlies the 'malleable' view of genetics. Yet both the genome and the epigenome have static and malleable features that are relevant to us as seekers of health.

Over time both genes and epigenetics evolve - the DNA sequence evolves, but the nature or pattern of shorter term changes in gene expression also evolves.

My understanding is that Kruse believes that cold adaptation opens up an evolutionarily-old metabolic pathway that lies dormant in - and is thus available to - all of us. He made similar 'old pathway' speculations when he talked about rewiring the hypothalamus in the leptin reset series.

So epigenetic changes are short-term and thus not stable over 30+ generations. Yes, however, changes to the nature of how epigenetics works can and, in fact, must reflect the long-term evolution of our epigenome. There is a difference between (i) the evolution of the epigenome which delimits the scope of possible epigentic effects, and (ii) those epigenetic effects. The former evolves over the long term, the latter changes over a small number of generations.

My understanding is that epigenetic changes begin with changes in gene expression that occur in response to environmental inputs of one generation, and that these changes can transfer to the next 1-3 generations in the form of altered probabilities in gene expression. The thought that 'might just change your DNA' is the first generation of change in epigenetic gene expression.

I am clearly not an expert in genetics or epigenetics (nor do I think that McEwen or Kruse are). However, I see a pretty intuitive - though perhaps charitable - interpretation of Kruse that saves him from the charge of equivocation. Perhaps he is not 'having it both ways' - rather, he is just talking about the genome and epigenome as most do: Both 'systems' evolve, both effect probabilities of gene expression, and both thus have static and malleable features that are worth speculating about because they might be relevant to achieving health.

What do you think? Do you agree with Melissa McEwen's critique of Jack Kruse's (mis)use of evolutionary biology?

flag	asked Apr 1 2012 at 23:17 Eric S 5,606●12●44

8

Hey guys, who's down for another thread on this guy? – tonysolo Apr 2 2012 at 0:32

4

@eric. You are one of the few open minded people on PH. I tried Butter Oil and it worked, I tried ketogenic diet and it worked. I tried BBS "more is less" and it worked. I'll give Kruse's protocol a chance and see what happens. – shah78 Apr 2 2012 at 0:58

1

Yay! I was hoping we'd have yet another thread on this guy! – PaleoDel Apr 2 2012 at 1:30

Bread-Eating Beelzebub · Answer 1 · 2012-04-02 03:34:20Z UTC

You have no idea how hard that post was to write. I mean, it's so hard to read Dr. Kruse's writing and find consistant threads in it. He has references on the bottom of some post, but mostly they do not correspond to things in his posts that I wanted to check.

I have several more posts to write, but help me out here. I mean, Eric, can you find any evidence that epigenetic adaptations to the cold of 3 billion years ago are still conserved today? Of course epigenetics affects evolution, my point is that they are not conserved and they are not as malleable as Dr. Kruse makes them out to be.

I do have a post in the works on reasons why Dr. Kruse's theories do work for some people. I would note that Art De Vany has been touting almost the exact same recommendations for years. That doesn't surprise me since Dr. Kruse is a known plagiarist. Cold adaptation might work for you, but probably not for the reasons that Dr. Kruse says it works.

I will also say that some paleo bigwigs who are probably more respected than I am have a statement on Kruse in the works because they are deeply deeply concerned. I wish I could quote them.

Thermal hacking has a VERY long history and also has been known to be unsafe in certain situations for certain people.

I will also say that I have access to all those nice journals because I am enrolled in an evolutionary biology program, though I do not intend to complete it because I would like to enroll in a PhD program hopefully studying genetic adaptations to diet. I am not a geneticist and have so much to learn, but I have a year of college level genetics classes under my belt at this point and many more years of evolutionary biology classes, so I'm not really a layman or an expert at this juncture. But MDs currently are not required to take ANY ev bio or genetics now, so I highly doubt that Jack has ever done such a class.

Dr. Kruse should either commit to being really serious about learning evolutionary biology OR he should be like Dr. Rosedale and not rely on questionable just-so stories with little evidence. I think he just enjoys grand narratives.

Beth-WeightMaven · Answer 2 · 2012-04-02 00:21:06Z UTC

16

Two things: First I will take Melissa over Jack on the question of evolutionary biology every day of the week. Second, via Jack's TEDxNashville presentation, we learned that he intentionally gained 25 lbs, had elective plastic surgery without anesthesia and after injecting himself with MRSA, and went home and relieved his post-op pain with ice.

He is now practicing his protocol (save for the MRSA presumably) on his patients.

The man is committed to his vision that's for sure. But the Vegas odds on whether he will actually be committed may not be in his favor!

answered Apr 2 2012 at 0:21

Beth-WeightMaven
15.3k●1●11●55

2

I think we can go past choosing between McEwen and Kruse. Personally, I'd take McEwen for paleoanthropology, and Kruse for speculations on the mechanisms the constitute our evolved biology. That said, I think it would be more helpful if we focused on the issue at hand: is Kruse caught in a paradox? Or is there another plausible reading of his writings on evolutionary biology? – Eric S Apr 2 2012 at 0:26

3

Either he's making shit up or the authorities in his state should be informed. I'm hoping for making shit up. In the UWR interview we learn he's roughly my age which was why I asked about that here at PH a while back. I grew up outside of NYC, his endearing anecdotes about riding the subway solo to go to the museum do not mesh with reality. But that is not a subject of critical importance. His latest biohack with intentions to use this on his patients -- or even just suggest it -- is. – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 2 2012 at 0:29

2

If you're talking about the cold thermogenesis stuff, I'd be surprised if anyone could get hurt from slowly increasing their tolerance to cold water. – Eric S Apr 2 2012 at 0:42

2

Isn't unnecessary surgery where you cross the line from scientist to mad scientist? – Happy Now Apr 2 2012 at 8:43

4

Actually, like Nance, I've been one of those trying to cut Jack a bit of slack, thinking that the biggest problem was his difficulty in communicating. I hoped that, like Taubes, his efforts -- even if ultimately unsupported by the facts -- would lead to further explorations and new insights. But elective survery w/o anesthesia? Injecting MRSA? Kruse is either crazy like a fox or else he's the Martin Sheen character in the Dead Zone. – Beth-WeightMaven Apr 2 2012 at 12:36

show 4 more comments

score 14 · Answer 3 · 2012-04-02 01:22:14Z UTC

14

I could give a rat's ass as to who is "correct". The question for me is "Will cold thermogenesis+ketogenic diet+ seasonal eating help me finish my thirty year battle with fibro/cfs/adrenalfatigue/hypothyroid/depression/severe allergies/" After three weeks, my tentative opinion is the guy is on to something. I feel better. The pissing match is annoying! I'll update weekly if anyone cares. The program costs nothing.Let me repeat,nothing! The side effects= maybe the cold I got on the third day. Also I've hurt my back/neck twice because the cold adaption made me stronger, so I added weight and overdid it.I've been lifting weights since 1974.There is something to the "COLD". I don't care if it has anything to do with evolution or not!.....Have we all forgot about the concept of (n=1). Isn't (n=1) the basis of evolution?

edited Apr 2 2012 at 1:22

answered Apr 2 2012 at 0:52

shah78

Thanks for the kind word below. Did you click on the link to Normal Breathing? Even if we consider it fun reading, their article gives specific tips on how to work up carefully and test whether you're doing too much--with cold, not weights. The weights are a problem for me, because I have to guess since I never get any symptoms 'til the next day. – Nance Apr 2 2012 at 1:11

5

I'm playing with Theraflex gel ice packs and baths. Showers are the most brutal. I'll pass on them for a while. And you're absolutly correct. He didn't invent cold thermogenesis. He's probably a few thousand years late to the party.And so am I. So what!He pointed me toward a potential "coldmine". ....Or maybe he didn't!:) I'll let you all know. – shah78 Apr 2 2012 at 1:20

2

I like the way your mind's working. I'd call it "elegant self-focus" and if you have good results maybe I'll gutsy-up and try it too. :-)) – Nance Apr 2 2012 at 1:28

2

No, n=1 is not the basis of evolution. It's the basis of personal health. You have to reproduce in order to pass any favorable genetic mutations on to offspring, so that would be n=2, at least. And don't forget that evolution/natural selection is a very slow process. And you cannot alter your genome by thinking, no matter how big your thinking cap. If it works for you in the here and now, more power to you. But don't call it "evolution." That's Kruse's biggest failing, in my book. He co-opts scientific terminology and then gives it another pretty much unrelated meaning. Very confusing. – gydle Apr 2 2012 at 7:22

@sha78 - I find showers are easier if you literally plunge in head first. Tried hitting the cold water on legs or torso, it didn't work nearly as well. It's an annoying 2-3 seconds, but after that, it feels very tolerable, even warm though the temperature of the water hasn't actually changed. – raydawg Apr 2 2012 at 10:17

show 3 more comments

Coja · Answer 4 · 2012-04-02 10:03:40Z UTC

11

I think the fact that you have to do so much interpretation to make sense of what Kruse says is not a point in his favour.

You're right that neither McEwan nor Kruse are experts in genetics*. The difference is that McEwan knows she is not an expert, and therefore restricts her claims about genetics to what comes out of reputable scientific literature. Kruse apparently thinks he is an expert, and makes radical claims without the reputable science to back it up. In the words of Daniel J. Boorstin, "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge".

Admittedly, I'm seeing this mainly through the lens of Melissa McEwen's blog, but I've never heard anything but skepticism, from any paleo blogger I respect, about Kruse's theories. For example, Paul Jaminet seems to tacitly admit Kruse is a crank, but refuses to directly call him out because he doesn't want to be unpleasant.

*But see Melissa McEwan's comment below. McEwan does have academical credentials in the field of genetics, which Kruse lacks completely, so far as we know.

edited Apr 2 2012 at 10:03

answered Apr 1 2012 at 23:47

Coja
437●1●11

5

Kant, Habermas, and Quine are really hard to read without arduous interpretation, but we still read them fruitfully. The same with most scientific papers steeped in quantitative methodology. I prefer clarity too, but some thinkers find that it holds them back. Jaminet says that Kruse is much clearer in person. And Wolf calls him brilliant. That said, I appreciate your points. – Eric S Apr 2 2012 at 0:06

5

Eric, Jaminet still thinks he is a crank whether he is "clearer" in person or not, and maybe it speaks more of Wolf than anything else if thinks Kruse is brilliant. Being "hard to read" is different than continually making inane, false statements. – Paleo2.0 Apr 2 2012 at 0:17

5

His statements might often be elliptical and obtuse, but his critics generally do a poor job of finding examples that are inane and false. It's OK to not want to do the work of reading him charitably, but I also think that for those who decide not to, they shouldn't sling criticisms of his content from the hip (this doesn't describe what McEwen did, imo). If one stops at Kruse's style before reading him, then I think one should stop at his style when critiquing him. Seems like a fair expectation to me. – Eric S Apr 2 2012 at 0:39

8

I am more of an expert than Kruse is. The reason I have access to the journal articles I do is because I'm enrolled in an evolutionary biology program. I have had a year of college-level genetics, which is not required in any med school I know of, certainly not when Jack was in med school. – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Apr 2 2012 at 3:23

3

Eric S: Kant, Havermas and Quine didn't use the internet as their preferred medium. With the web, popular writers are immediately made aware of anything confusing in their writing, and therefore have no excuse for clarifying them. – Coja Apr 2 2012 at 9:58

show 4 more comments

Jay · Answer 5 · 2012-04-01 23:55:16Z UTC

8

I didn't read your full question because I'm not interested in anything having to do with Kruse. His target audience seems to be people that don't get it and assume that complicated = smart. Seems to me that he likes to pretend to be smart but he's not.

edited Apr 1 2012 at 23:55

answered Apr 1 2012 at 23:45

Jay
4,395●6●11

2

I think Kruse has two target audiences. One is laypersons - and those struggling with the paleo diet in particular - whom he claims to want to help. The second is doctors, and he claims to want to deeply change their thinking on health and nutrition in a more paleo direction. Most of us on PH share this desire to see the medical establishment shift - and Kruse's nerdy obscurities might serve him well on this front, especially once he organizes his thoughts into a technical book. For this audience, complicated won't = smart. The response will be interesting. – Eric S Apr 2 2012 at 0:09

2

Hmm, my impression from twitter is that Deans and Kruse are friends - but I don't think anything really hinges on this. Kruse has peer reviewed publications. They are quite different than his haphazardly written blog posts - that's why I think the response to his book will interesting. Note how most answers on this thread avoid the issue I asked about. Sure, that's largely Kruse's fault, but that don't make it right or helpful. – Eric S Apr 2 2012 at 0:34

6

Purposefully gaining 25 lbs to undergo unspecified surgery sans anesthesia and injecting MRSA (or claiming to) is a bit too much to tolerate as mere quirkdom. Don't ya think? – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 2 2012 at 2:18

8

BTW ... Kruse claims his cold therapy kills off fat cells. So ESPECIALLY then, why would he need lipo? – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 2 2012 at 3:20

4

ah, here is one. He is the second author thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/spi.2001.95.1.0088 it is in his area of expertise. It is properly formatted with real references. Maybe the other authors did most of the writing. Or his hacking has caused neurological damage since 2001. – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Apr 2 2012 at 6:16

show 10 more comments

Dylan · Answer 6 · 2012-04-02 00:01:31Z UTC

There are obviously a lot of Kruse skeptics and I think Melissa's article was just putting some actual material down rather than simply calling him a quack.

I think that the nature of Kruse's writing, being poorly written and substantially long, is going to inhibit anyone that could actually explain why it is wrong from wasting their time trying to do so (if such a thing is even possible).

My opinion of it is that he's probably wrong. Key word: probably. He could end up being onto something, but it's very unlikely. He tends to think that because a thought makes sense that it must be true. The banana in winter and "he's a mammal, you're a mammal" logic are horrible for his argument. But the strength of an argument can't always predict truth or fiction.

Is a leptin reset diet good for some (or maybe even a lot of) people? Probably. Are there benefits from exposing your body to cold? Yes. But that doesn't mean that a positive result from those things implies that what he says is factual.

It's probably just going to take time. As time goes on and his methods end up not producing the miraculous effects he claims, that's when we can definitively say he's wrong. Until then, you can never say for sure that the guy's absolutely not onto something.

pjnoir · Answer 7 · 2012-04-02 02:04:43Z UTC

4

I dont know or care- I follow what has been succesful for me and try out a few things that seem to fit but like Dr Atkins who still gets kicked around, it seems those close to the truth and outside the mainstream are always under the gun. Must be a reason for that.

answered Apr 2 2012 at 2:04

pjnoir
4,550●4●8

2

I love how some of the answers here, say something along the lines of "I didn't read your question" or "I don't know enough about the science, but X did a great job" but are willing to provide an answer anyway. And those get upvoted! Wow! If that doesn't indicate popularity contest, I'm not sure what would! This whole thread smells of politics, as usual. Thank you for having the mental clarity to point out what others have shamefully ignored, or forgotten. – raydawg Apr 2 2012 at 10:28

1

Have you read Atkins first book? The reason he still "gets kicked around" is that he made some rather outrageous claims in it. Atkins also clearly was a calorie guy -- his energy balance equation claimed you peed out thousands of calories as ketones. Also he spoke of some mythical fat mobilizing substance found only in the urine of low carbers. Low carb has a long history of quackery. – Evelyn aka CarbSane Apr 2 2012 at 13:49

I have read several of his books (several times), I think most people haven't. His books on diabetes control are outstanding. Low carbers that traveled into paleo as well as the entire diet world owes Dr Atkins a debt of gratitude for clearing the way. I started on Atkins and it saved my life, Paleo was the next step as it was dietry fat that was the key. I disagree with you but that is what sites like these are about on the internet. Lately Taubes is the dog to kick....and by people with NO credentials outside of an interent connection. – pjnoir Apr 3 2012 at 2:41

score 4 · Answer 8 · 2012-06-30 01:27:00Z UTC

In my view both McEwen and Kruse seem to struggle with the definitions of genetics and epigenetics in terms of evolution.

Firstly, in the current model, evolution is mediated by changes in the genome - not the epigenome. Genetic changes take many years, sometimes thousands and tens of thousands of years for changes in genes to have a phenotypic effect.

Epigenetics mediate gene expression changes within individuals and some epigenetic inheritance is evident parentally and grand-parentally (e.g. Dutch hunger winter).

There is no evidence of epigenetic information transmission extending further than a grand parent, i.e. 2 generations in humans.

Epigenetics is also why your neuron cells and muscle cells, whilst having radically different physiological function and gene expression, share the same genome.

Take home message: epigenetics is concerned with transient gene expression changes, intra and intergenerational reversible adaptations.

The biggest and most unappreciated confounder - that both McEwen and Kruse have failed to mention - is the effect of our other genome - that of the thousands of bacterial species that colonize the entirety of our gastrointestinal (GI) tract from birth. It is this genome that is capable of an astonishing degree of evolutionary adaptation and which also is able to dramatically influence the interaction with our environment.

AndrewK · Answer 9 · 2012-04-02 01:42:31Z UTC

I think McEwen did a good job in her critique. I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to make a statement on his accuracy. I do know enough to say that if Dr. Kruse is going to write about these ideas, he needs to make a better effort at making them clear to the audience. I think everyone would be better served if he provided more support from scientific literature.

Generating a hypothesis based on evolutionary biology (whether the biology is accurate or not) doesn't mean much without support based on our knowledge of our current biology. Even if he is right, it doesn't look good for the paleo community.

Rigton · Answer 10 · 2012-06-30 03:07:24Z UTC

The doctors I worked with also had more clinical experience than Melissa, medical training, and actually worked with ill people on a daily basis. And I'd trust HER opinion over 95% of them.

It's like Robb Wolf said at the Ancestral Health Symposium: he was considering the field of medicine until he started having to deal with doctors--after that, he didn't want to be associated with them anymore.

Kruse is a brilliant guy, no doubt. But that "doctors are infallible because they're doctors" ideology is the type of absent-minded, starched mitochondria thought process we want to avoid. Less we all become damn 811 indoctrinates...

...eat more fruit...Dr. Graham looks healthy...durianrider knows...something...drool

Nance · Answer 11 · 2012-04-02 00:53:38Z UTC

Melissa's post seemed pretty credible to me, but I keep reminding myself I'm not acceptably qualified to critique either of them--I can only choose whether either or both cause me to question my views/actions.

I will say this, to the extent that the benefits of cold adaptation are true they are not original to Dr. Kruse. Please be warned that the site I'll link to gives no research citations but it's clear that the recommendations for cold adaptation go back a long time. The site is called Normal Breathing..

There was also an article on Science Daily News recently about the benefits of cold adaptation--I didn't make it important so I don't have a link.

KAVU · Answer 12 · 2012-04-02 17:24:04Z UTC

I too believe it was a tummy tuck/skin removal due to the size of the incision he talked about. Usually with lipo you would not have that big of an incision. The skin removal wouldn't surprise me because most people who have lost that amount of weight have excess skin.

Wayne daniels · Answer 13 · 2012-04-02 12:28:33Z UTC

-9

Mcewen has nowhere near the knowledge or expertise to even dare to question kruse.

answered Apr 2 2012 at 12:28

Wayne daniels
321●2●1

6

Just like Denise Minger has nowhere near the knowledge to or expertise to even dare question T. Colin Campbell. And, just like Denise, Melissa is a only pretty young girl... what could she possibly know about anything? – Alex Apr 2 2012 at 12:59

3

Oh no you didn't! – Dave S. Apr 2 2012 at 14:18

i think she has every right to theorisise (ok i made up that word...i guess). she has a bright mind and good education - yes. BUT when it comes to working with thousands of patients and having handson experiments, i do think Kruse wins that one. – eva Apr 3 2012 at 5:39

I wouldn't be mentioning the name Denise Minger around Melissa. Just sayin'... – PH Mods Drink Haterade Jul 29 at 7:46

This isn't a WWF, and these aren't cage matches. Chill out with the hyperbole. – raydawg Jul 29 at 12:47

McEwen on Kruse: hack her critique of K’s use of evolutionary biology

13 Answers