A Tale of Two Three Keenans

A few weeks ago, Mark Sisson over at Mark’s Daily Apple posted an article about having Washboard Abs on a High-Fat Diet, No Ab Workouts and No Cardio even while in his 50′s and coming back from a knee injury. A discussion about different approaches to diet started in the comments, and the claim was made that the better dietary approach to building a good physique is lots of whole grains, lots of complex carbohydrates, lean meats, essential fatty acids, vegetables, and fruits (but not many nuts) coupled with lots of cardio and long weight-training sessions. This is more or less the “mainstream” viewpoint on nutrition and exercise right now, and most bodybuilders adhere to this type of plan religiously. I myself followed the bodybuilding advice all throughout high school and for the first half of college but now I know better. The commenter was mainly interested with bodybuilding (improving his physique), so I looked for pictures that showed me back in the bodybuilding “bulking” days and another of me, recently, living the evolutionary fitness way. The transformation between the two pictures reminded me of how much I’ve changed since then, and I was inspired to leave the following comment:

I have two pictures of me and two stories. The first was taken in 2005 at age 20 after I finished a big bulking session. I had spent the previous 4 years working out like a bodybuilder. I ate little to no sugar, only “complex” carbs (brown rice, baked/sweet potatoes, wheat bread, etc) and followed typical bodybuilding low-fat high-carb diet. I worked out 4-5 times/week, did steady state cardio (swimming, usually), etc. This picture is here:

Around this time, I started developing severe anxiety and panic attacks, both of which are disorders of serotonin regulation. Serotonin is largely affected by insulin and messed up serotonin often goes hand in hand with insulin resistance. You can barely tell from the picture that I had substantial musculature, because it is so covered by fat. A week after that picture was taken, I had appendicitis and then an appendectomy,followed by the mother of all panic attacks. For over a month, I was completely incapacitated (mentally) and could only sleep for 1-2 hours each night.

After months of trying to figure out what the hell was wrong with me, I stumbled upon the Paleo diet on Art DeVany’s website. I dropped the “complex carbs”, upped my fat consumption, worked out less, and did less cardio. After only 2 years of this, here’s a second picture taken a few months ago at age 22:

I weighed about 160 in the 2nd picture, and my lifts are the same as when I was 175, except that I have more power and control of them now. Panic attacks are non-existent because my insulin levels are low and regular, keeping my serotonin levels low and regular. There is much, much more to the paleo lifestyle and diet then “getting big”; it’s about physical and mental health, sustainability, and quality of life.

The point of my reply to the commenter – who was most interested in building a great physique – was to show that there’s no comparison between evolutionary fitness and the bodybuilding way in that respect. Lean, dense muscle looks better and you don’t have to trade mental or physical health to get it.The idea that one can be healthy diet very high in carbohydrates as long as the sources are “clean” just doesn’t have a lot of weight or evidence behind it. Sure, some people such as endurance athletes can down absurd levels of carbohydrate without getting fat, but that doesn’t make them healthy at all. Bodybuilders do get into shape as well, but they spend endless hours in the gym and on the treadmill to do it. The evolutionary fitness way is so much easier. The real beauty of evolutionary fitness is that you don’t have to choose between being mentally healthy, physically healthy, and fit. It all comes together perfectly.

While I’ve known evolutionary fitness has been great for me, I was still shocked by the physical changes that occurred in just two years. I look like a different person. I’m stronger and faster, my lipid profile has improved, my acne is gone, and I sleep better. I no longer have panic attacks, my thinking is clear, and I’m calmer and far less angry than I was at 20. Of course, I can attribute some of that to simply maturing, mellowing out a bit, and gaining some wisdom from Buddhist philosophy and even that weird realm of statistics and chaos theory. But I don’t think I would have changed like that in the midst of constant sugar and hormonal lows and highs. During high school and early college, I remember getting weird mood swings and occasionally feeling dizzy, hot, and tired. As it turns out, that was my blood sugar going nuts and my poor pancreas trying to keep up by dumping insulin into my bloodstream. My pancreas did keep up, fortunately, but my brain didn’t. I was always tired during the day, my mood was highly dependent on how recently I’d eaten, and I was angry. Never “loud and yelling” angry, but I just held irrational hostile and angry viewpoints that permeated my personality in a negative way. Sure, I’m still pretty cynical (in a mostly comical way) but I don’t hold on to anger and negativity the way I used to. Once my brain chemicals were in the right place, I’ve was better able to live in the here and now.

I imagine many people think I “obsess” (though, one could argue over what exactly that entails) over my diet and workouts for vanity reasons, but the reason for starting and adhering to this was and is mental health. The physical effects came along as a great side effect but I promise that when I’m turning down dessert and asking for veggies instead of potatoes, it’s not my weight I’m concerned about. Instead, I’m avoiding the ensuing brain fog, nausea, panic attacks, sluggishness, heartburn, and digestive problems. When I do go for something carby/sugary, I always feel physically bad and mentally foggy afterwards. It’s usually not worth it. I want to emphasize that I don’t feel guilty afterwards; I feel an acute physical response to something my body now recognizes as toxic.The only things I’m giving up by eating and living this way are those negative physical and mental side effects.

You don’t have to sacrifice anything – “bulkiness” or sugar or whatever – to be fit and healthy. Giving up these things means gaining energy, mental clarity, and a better build. It’s never too late to start and it can be sustained for your whole life, as people like Mark Sisson (54), Art DeVany (70), my dad (51), and numerous other people have shown. Physical and mental health go hand in hand and I have no doubt that the paleo way is the best path to both. It’s certainly been good to me.

Update, four years later: I’ve made a lot of progress in four years. I kept the paleo diet (though I did add protein supplements and post-workout carb-ups) but changed my workout style to focus on progressive overload. I started doing more powerlifting-style workouts in ’08 and since then have increased my strength and muscle mass significantly. Here’s a picture taken a couple days before I turned 26 in July:

Me in 2011 @ 185lbs

I weigh about 185 in that picture and clearly have not gained much fat since my picture taken in 2007. While I typically recommend that people gain muscle first and then go back and “cut”, I did the process in reverse because my goal from 2005-2007 was to eliminate my panic/anxiety and digestive troubles. A paleo diet and lots of brief, intense exercise did that quite readily, but I wanted to add some muscle while maintaining that new-found health. 4 years later, my comment to that poster is more true than ever, as I’ve increased my muscle mass by almost 20lbs without sacrificing my health. Mission accomplished.

Atheist A-holes

A popular quote on the internet reads: “If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.” Because the definition of health is simply “the absence of disease,” health is considered the default status of human health. In other words, you are considered healthy until you have disease. The same is true of atheism. Atheism is not a religious belief; it is the absence of such beliefs. The composition of the word itself makes this quite clear: the negative prefix “a” placed in front of the word “theism” literally means “without theism.” You are born – and remain – an atheist until you acquire a religious belief of some kind.

Despite this simple definition, many talk about atheism as though it were a religion. I used to think that only theists were guilty of this, but I’m now noticing that many self-described atheists are starting to talk about atheism in such a manner. I’m not sure how or why this started, but it needs to stop.

To clear things up, I should explain that there are two types of atheism: strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit belief that “God does not exist.” Weak atheism is a catch-all term for all atheist beliefs (or lack thereof, to be correct) that do not make such a statement. A weak atheist is someone – such as myself – who rejects most religious beliefs because they have not seen sufficient evidence for believing them. This healthy skepticism is a far cry from asserting unprovable statements as truisms. We weak atheists are not arguing that the existence of supernatural entities is impossible, but that we remained unconvinced of it based on the evidence we have seen or reasoned through. As an atheist in the classical sense, I’m mildly ashamed that “strong” atheism is even called atheism (since it makes positive assertions) and I am further disappointed that it is done so by people claiming to be rational.

What has become of the rational, skeptical atheist? Where did these people disappear to? Then again, I suppose you wouldn’t hear about many atheists because, by definition, they don’t go asserting statements related to theism. Bear in mind, I’m not saying that rationality should be the supreme goal of all human action. I long ago realized that man is not an entirely rational creature and that trying to pretend that we humans are or can be purely rational is an extremely irrational thing to do. However, I do believe that, in principle, man should try to be logical and rational whenever possible and thus I use rationality as a general standard for belief systems. By that standard, the typical debate between an atheist (what I consider a rational atheist) and a theist (we’ll assume one of Christian/Abrahamic faith) should go like this:

Christian: Do you believe in God?

Atheist: Define “God”.

Christian: (note: I have yet to ever have a Christian answer this question in a satisfiable manner, so I’m going to interject with all the half-responses I’ve received in the past 8 years): God is… the creator of the universe (Genesis), Jealous (Exodus 20:4), Light (1 John 1:5), Love (1 John 4), spirit (4 John 24), a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:28-29), -insert description from random book of bible here-. The bible never explicitly defines God – it just lists attributes… repeatedly. The general consensus seems to be that he is an all powerful being that exists independently of all things and is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He seems to have human attributes such as jealousy, anger, love, and he gets pissed when we don’t pay attention to him. Really pissed.

Atheist: So.. you’re asking me if I believe in… wait, what?

Christian: I’m asking if you believe a being or entity that is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, who created the universe, and who has a marked interest in our earthly activities.

Atheist: An entity? Who said anything about the existence of an entity? And why do you think he created the universe? What are your reasons for choosing to believe these things?

Christian: The Bible says they are true.

Atheist: The what?

Christian: The Bible, the word of God.

Atheist: The word of whom?

Exactly. This should be the stance of the rational skeptic: refusal to acknowledge the existence of something one has not seen credible evidence for. While most atheists are aware of what Christians (or other theists) generally mean when they say “God”, agreeing with the theistic definition of the word during such a debate causes a whole bunch of epistemological problems because you are acknowledging something for which you’ve seen no evidence and is not even defined in a perceivable or coherent way in the first place. Usually the only evidence presented is the word of a fellow man, whose beliefs can generally be traced at some point to the Bible. The Bible, of course, has supposed merit because it is the word of “God”. But that merit only exists if you believe in God in the first place. This thinking is circular logic and only a leap of faith can propel one into the circle. The atheist is perfectly content with this and sees no valid reason to make a leap of faith.

The “strong” atheist, however, makes the absurd claim that “God does not exist” and states it as a known fact. In doing so, the “strong” atheist makes the exact same irrational leap of faith that he denounces the theist for! How he fails to see the logical disconnect of his thought process or the blatant hypocrisy of ridiculing such thinking is beyond me. These atheists have become as irrational and obnoxious as their proselytizing theistic counterparts. The only advantage strong atheists have over evangelical Christians is that don’t try to scare me into believing what they’re saying by telling me all of the ways in which I will burn for eternity in a lake of fire. While that may count for something, I’d certainly prefer if both groups would sit down and quietly keep to themselves.