How to Become Smarter (7 page)

The more similar a diet is to the ancestral diet, the greater the improvement of intelligence that this diet will provide.

A lower percentage of cooked food in the diet, a lower temperature of cooking, and the exclusion of artificial ingredients will all make a diet more similar to the ancestral diet. Therefore, people can modify and test the basic assumption of the theory
safely
if we replace the phrase “ancestral diet” with one of the “smart diets” in the italicized statements above.

One piece of evidence that supports the natural intelligence theory is the studies on the nutrition of infants. One study shows that infants who received “unnatural food” (i.e. baby formula) have an IQ when they grow up that is about 5 points lower compared to infants who consumed “natural food” (i.e. the mother’s milk) [
49
]. Another statistical study shows that infants who eat a healthy diet tend to have higher IQ scores at age 4 compared to infants consuming an average mixed diet [
846
]. There are other studies supporting the natural intelligence theory [
826
,
837
,
838
,
858
,
863
,
866
,
908
,
943
]; we will discuss them later in this chapter.

I developed the natural intelligence theory independently. After some research, I found that it has some similarities to the theory behind the Paleolithic diet developed by brilliant researchers S. Boyd Eaton, Melvin Konner, and Loren Cordain [
50
,
51
]. Both theories involve the concept of an ancestral diet that humans had adapted to in the course of evolution. Both theories imply that humans did not have sufficient evolutionary time to adapt to the modern diet, which is different from the ancestral diet. According to its authors, the Paleolithic diet (or Paleo diet) is the diet of humans during the Stone Age, or more than 11,000 years ago. It excludes foods that entered the human diet with the widespread adoption of agriculture: dairy, grains, legumes, and most food additives as well. The theory behind the Paleolithic diet suggests that the ancestral diet of humans consisted of cooked meat and fish, raw and cooked fruits and vegetables, and nuts. (Some evidence emerged recently that humans consumed cereal grains during the Stone Age, approximately 30,000 years ago [
923
].) Note that documented fossil evidence of meat consumption by hominids dates back 3.4 million years [
922
].

There are several differences between the Paleolithic diet theory and the natural intelligence theory. None of the statements below represent criticism or a desire to demonstrate that “my theory is better.” First, the natural intelligence theory deals with mental abilities and ignores physical health implications of the diet. Second, the natural intelligence theory does not prescribe any specific proportions of macronutrients (fat, protein, and carbohydrates) in the diet. On the other hand, the authors of the Paleolithic diet believe that the ancestral diet contained well-defined proportions of macronutrients that a person should comply with in order to achieve optimal health. The latest proportions published by these authors are the following (by calories): 35% fats, 35% carbohydrates, and 30% protein. As you will see in later chapters of this book, the natural intelligence theory allows for wide variations in the proportions of macronutrients. These proportions can range from protein-free and low-fat to high-protein and high-fat diets, depending on a task in question. Third, the Paleolithic diet ignores the implications of cooking. This position is justified because the switch from an all-raw diet to a partially cooked diet (about 300,000 years ago) occurred well before the adoption of agriculture (11,000 years ago). Fourth, the authors of the Paleolithic diet assume that saturated fat is bad for health and therefore lean animal products are preferable. The natural intelligence theory takes no position on saturated fat. As you will see in a later section of this chapter, there is plenty of evidence that saturated fat has no adverse effects on health. Thus, either exclusion or inclusion of foods that contain lots of saturated fat is optional, according to the natural intelligence theory. Fifth, the theory behind the Paleolithic diet suggests that dairy products and cereal grains are unnatural for humans because they appeared in the human diet recently (in the last 10,000 years, the agricultural era). The natural intelligence theory, on the other hand, suggests that a person can include novel foods of natural origin (plants, animals, mushrooms, milk, and so on) in the diet if one or more of the following conditions are true.

1. These novel foods do not contain substances toxic to humans in the raw form and are free of artificial ingredients.
   
2. You can cook or pasteurize them and this does not result in formation of undesirable chemicals. (There is evidence that this is true of fruits, vegetables, and dairy.)
   
3. Practical testing shows that these novel foods do not worsen psychological well-being or mental performance in the short term.
   

In most cases, one can verify the latter condition by following a monodiet for 3 days or longer (
Appendix III
). My personal experience suggests that raw extract of wheat and pasteurized milk (and pasteurized cultured milk) are nutritious and do not have negative effects on mental abilities. Yet these foods do not fit the strict definition of ancestral food. As explained later, boiled grains are useful for some mental tasks. Yet boiled grains contain undesirable chemicals and do not fit the criteria of either the natural intelligence theory or the Paleolithic diet.

The seeming simplicity of the natural intelligence theory is attractive, but careful examination reveals that it has a number of important limitations. (Readers can skip the detailed discussion of the limitations and read about them in the key points later: press the skip button or
this link
to jump to the end of this section.)

1. Humans may have adapted to cooked food, at least partially, through natural selection during the last 300,000 years (corresponding to the use of fire for cooking) [
   46
   ]. Nonetheless, humans most likely did not have sufficient evolutionary time to adapt to the numerous artificial chemicals that entered the human diet a few centuries ago [
   43
   ]. Put another way, cooked food may be “somewhat natural” to modern humans, while food additives are still “unnatural.” There are genetic differences among individual human beings, and some people can function very well on the modern “unnatural” diet. It is also impossible to determine with any degree of certainty what a “natural diet” of
   Homo sapiens
   is. Studies suggest that contemporary primitive diets vary in their composition, even when free of artificial ingredients. Examples include diets that consist mostly of plant foods and diets that consist almost exclusively of animal products (for example, the diet of Eskimos). These observations suggest that humans are adapted to diets that vary widely—both in their content of plant or animal food and in their proportions of macronutrients. There are segments of the world population consuming high-fat and low-fat, high-protein and low-protein, all-flesh and all-plant diets. For the sake of convenience, “natural nutrition” in the context of this book means a diet that is raw or almost raw and free of all artificial ingredients. Keep in mind, however, that many different diets can fit the criteria of “natural nutrition” as just defined. Some people can function exceptionally well on the modern conventional diet, as if it were a “natural diet” for them. Therefore, it is difficult to say what a “natural diet” for humans is.
   
2. Raw animal products carry a risk of serious infectious diseases [
   52
   -
   54
   ]. Thus, the risk of serious illness (
   Table 1
   ) may outweigh any possible benefits from this food source. During the last 300,000 years (the cooking era), the human immune system may have grown unaccustomed to the pathogens that occur in raw animal foods such as meat and fish. Therefore, the immune system cannot provide adequate defense against such pathogens. In other words, raw animal products may have become “unnatural food” for modern humans, at least for those living outside the Arctic Circle. Northern peoples such as Chukchas and Inuit consume raw animal foods on a daily basis and do well on this sort of diet [
   55
   -
   58
   ]. On the other hand, it is possible that the immune system of humans did not change during the last 300,000 years. In this case it is possible that cooking animal products provides more benefits for health (food safety and better digestibility of food) than negative effects. Thus, based on current medical science, humans will enjoy healthier and longer lives if they continue to cook all animal products. Nevertheless, the natural intelligence theory suggests that if raw animal products are free from pathogens, then this food should provide a sustained improvement of mental abilities. Another obstacle for the raw diet is that raw animal food is socially unacceptable in most cultures. This may change if and when this type of food becomes safe in the future.
   Endnote B
   describes possible technological developments that may ensure the safety of uncooked animal products.
   
3. The natural intelligence theory may sound similar to but is not the same as naturopathy or “natural medicine.” There are several differences. Unlike naturopathy, the natural intelligence theory is not intended for diagnosis, prevention, treatment, or cure of any disease. The natural intelligence theory falls under the jurisdiction of psychology, not medicine. Nevertheless, this theory may have some potential applications in psychiatry. So far, nobody has tested this in clinical trials, and therefore it is not known whether the theory is of any use to patients. A critical overview of naturopathy is available on the QuackWatch website. As an aside, in my view, a common misconception among advocates of “natural” healing methods is the following assumption. “An unnatural diet (or unnatural lifestyle) has caused a disease, so a return to the natural diet (or natural lifestyle) will cure the disease.” Although the first part of the statement is often true, the second part of the statement is seldom true. The assumption just stated is incorrect if the pathological changes are severe or irreversible. For example, if exposure to carcinogens caused a tumor, then a simple withdrawal of carcinogens will not cure the cancer. Chemotherapy, surgery, or radiotherapy will be necessary to cure the disease or to produce a significant clinical improvement. The assumption may be true, however, in some cases when the pathological changes caused by an “unnatural lifestyle” are minor or reversible
   ^C
   (e.g., vitamin deficiencies). It is noteworthy that adherence to Harvard’s Healthy Eating Pyramid can reverse the so-called metabolic syndrome [
   921
   ]. The latter is the combination of excessive belly fat, high blood pressure, and unhealthy levels of blood lipids and blood sugar.
   
4. At first glance, prescription drugs are “artificial ingredients” in the diet because most drugs are pure chemicals. The fourth limitation of the natural intelligence theory is that people with chronic illnesses who take medication will not improve their mental abilities if they discontinue the medication. This is because their general state of health is likely to deteriorate if they stop taking the medication. Illness usually causes a drop in IQ scores. Prescription drugs are an integral part of health care. One should never discontinue medication against medical advice in the hope that some unproven “natural therapy” will restore full health. It is true, however, that a number of physicians and biomedical researchers have expressed concern over how pharmaceutical companies are developing and marketing drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has some flaws, but prescription drugs are not one and the same as the pharmaceutical industry. If you dislike drug companies, there is no reason to oppose prescription drugs, especially older and cheaper generic drugs. Compared to patented drugs, generic drugs bring much smaller profits to drug companies. If you are concerned about these corporations getting rich from your suffering, you shouldn’t be. There are two excellent articles written on this subject by Dr. Arnold Relman, a former editor-in-chief of the
   New England Journal of Medicine
   [
   59
   ,
   60
   ]. Although prescription drugs can have side effects, so can other treatments, including “natural therapies.” Dietary changes and hydrotherapy techniques described in this book may appear to be “natural” treatments, but they can have side effects, as you will see later. Drugs do not always have side effects. Some people can take high doses of pain-killers, such as aspirin and acetaminophen, for weeks without any noticeable side effects. (This is not true for everyone.) The favorite phrase of the proponents of alternative medicine is that “drugs do not address the cause of an illness; they only treat symptoms.” There are several problems with this statement. First, the cause of many illnesses is either unknown or the result of an unknown combination of genetic and environmental factors. Wild animals suffer from many diseases that afflict humans, including viral and bacterial infections, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases. This observation rules out an “unhealthy lifestyle” as the only cause of human diseases. If the cause of an illness is unknown, it will be irrational to not treat symptoms and to subject the patient to unnecessary suffering. A cause of an illness is often known, for example, a genetic mutation or extreme old age, but uncorrectable. In some cases, doctors know the cause of an illness and can eliminate the cause, but this will have no effect on the disease in question. Other interventions will be necessary. An example is exposure to occupational or environmental carcinogens that causes cancer. Second, many drugs do deal with the cause of an illness, for example, antiviral drugs and antibiotics. Third, even when doctors know the cause of an illness (for example, influenza virus) and know how to treat it (e.g., with antiviral drugs), the treatment may not relieve symptoms right away. Again, it is irrational and cruel to not treat the symptoms and to thereby subject the patient to unnecessary suffering.
   
5. The natural intelligence theory implies that there are “natural” and “unnatural” types of food. One can argue that humans and everything they produce are a part and product of nature (according to the evolutionary theory). Therefore, all types of modern human food are “natural,” including junk food. For simplicity’s sake, “unnatural food” in this book means food that contains food additives, has gone through complex chemical processing, or has undergone cooking at temperatures above 100°C (212°F). This distinction is arbitrary and a convenience in the context of this book. Nonetheless, this definition of “unnatural food” is based on evidence presented in the next two sections of this chapter.
   
6. This book’s diets contain some food products that may appear to be “unnatural.” For example, adult animals in the wild do not consume dairy, but some of the proposed diets include milk. You could also say that buttermilk and kefir are “unnatural” because they are processed foods (cultured with special bacteria). Water extract of grains, vegetable oil, and cheese are “processed foods,” and thus may also appear to be “unnatural.” In my defense, I consider these food products “natural” because they are animal- or plant-source foods (natural origin) that did not undergo complex chemical processing. Culturing of milk with special bacteria (kefir and buttermilk) is “natural” because it can occur in dairy products without human intervention. Removal of insoluble indigestible components (for example, juicing; water extract of wheat lacks insoluble fiber) does not affect chemical composition of nutrients. Therefore, this method also belongs in the “natural” category.
   
7. Nutrition is a social activity in most cultures, and numerous conventions and implicit rules govern this activity. A diet, however attractive it may be in theory, can cause problems in social relations of the dieter if this diet violates acceptable norms of behavior in a given social context. The natural intelligence theory is consistent with the idea that a person does not have to follow a strict diet on a permanent basis. This is because even a temporary improvement of mental abilities can have long-term benefits. For example, a person may decide to follow a strict diet for several days and can come up with a detailed plan for the upcoming several months. Although good mental clarity is necessary for the planning phase, it is not as crucial for execution of the plan. Based on my experience, you can achieve sufficient improvements in mental abilities if you follow a strict diet for several days a week or several days per month. Most of the time, you can follow some conventional dietary regimen, such as Harvard’s Healthy Eating Plate [
   61
   ] or the USDA’s
   MyPlate
   . A diet should not create more problems than it is supposed to solve. Diets are not the only way to improve mental abilities. Other techniques include food restriction methods and cold and hot hydrotherapy.
   
8. Some types of raw food (for example, potatoes and mushrooms) contain toxic substances, which the cooking destroys. Thus, “raw” does not always mean “better.”
   
9. Fluoridation of water is not harmful [
   815
   ] and the same applies to iodination of table salt. You can add small amounts of salt to food if necessary (see
   Appendix I
   for recipes). There is no evidence that table salt impairs mental abilities. You can ignore the presence of dietary supplements in dairy (e.g., vitamin D [
   930
   ] or calcium) if your consumption of dairy is in the moderate range. (For example, if you drink one to two glasses of milk a day.)
   
10. Food that is free of artificial ingredients and is raw or cooked at moderate temperatures is not the most delicious food. (For somebody who is accustomed to this sort of nutrition, the taste can be pleasant.) With some resourcefulness and the right recipes (
    Appendix I
    ), you can make this “smart food” delicious. In other words, food can have both a pleasant taste and a beneficial effect on mental abilities—it does not have to be either-or. Nevertheless, despite their negative effects on mental abilities, food additives and sophisticated cooking methods can make food pleasurable. Enjoyment of tasty food is often a “social ritual” and is one of the important sources of pleasure in life. Therefore, you shouldn’t use strict diets for extended periods of time. The key is keeping appetite under control when consuming tasty food and keeping the proportion of junk food in the diet under 2 to 5%. The last section of this chapter describes some techniques for controlling appetite and restricting consumption of food.
    
11. Genetically modified food and food that is not “organic” may appear to be “unnatural.” In actuality, my experience suggests that there is no difference in taste and in subjective effects on mental state between genetically modified and genetically unmodified food. During digestion, the modified genes, carbohydrates, and proteins in genetically modified food break down into simple components such as nucleotides, nucleosides, amino acids, simple sugars, and so on. Digestion of genetically
    unmodified
    food produces virtually the same mixture of simple ingredients as that produced during digestion of genetically
    modified
    food. Therefore, there is no reason to be afraid of genetically modified food. There is no detectable difference between organic and nonorganic food either [
    842
    ]. Agricultural chemicals are present in the final product in extremely low amounts, which are undetectable by taste. In contrast, most artificial ingredients such as salt, sugar, and preservatives are present in food in amounts noticeable by taste. Thus, what you add to food and the way you cook it have more influence on chemical composition of food than the “organic” or “genetically unmodified” status of food.