Carrie and I are lucky enough to have a hot tub in our back yard, overlooking a pretty spectacular ocean and mountain view. We often soak for a while and talk about the day’s activities just before retiring to bed (I sometimes alternate with a quick plunge or two into our unheated pool). Last night we were taking advantage of the break between winter storms to “jacuze” when I noticed that the cloud cover had so dispersed the city lights of L.A. and Santa Monica that it lit up the sky even 20 miles out into Malibu. On an otherwise moonless night, it had become light enough to simulate dusk all over L.A.. Can you imagine the amount of manmade light it takes to have that effect? Of course, that got me thinking about all the ways in which light permeates our lives in ways both good and bad.

These days, mentioning the words “pollution” or “environment” raises hackles in some, perhaps most people. Political blinders go up, knee-jerk responses engage. Support for classically green renewables like wind or solar power usually comes with unequivocal and emotional disdain for any and all variations of nuclear. On the same token, those who question the legitimacy of anthropogenic global warming often display a lack of concern for the effects of fracking, industrial pollution, or rampant use of agricultural pesticides. Now, I’m not wading into that morass, mind you. This isn’t the place for that. I am, however, calling to attention the fact that both (albeit amorphous, roughly defined) groups have a major blind spot: light pollution. And it’s not that they reject it as a problem. It’s that they are simply unaware it even exists (maybe it’s all the bright lights).

So what exactly is light pollution?

Well, it’s not light as in mild, harmless, or barely-there. It’s not gentle pollution, and it’s nothing like “light to moderate drinking.” Light pollution is characterized by excessive amounts of artificial light. Light that shouldn’t be there, light that you can’t escape from. It’s light that fills city streets at night – all night – and extends upward to obscure our view of the stars. It’s the blinding white and blue light streaming from big screen TVs, laptops, and lamps, and it’s the little niggling lights that pepper the interiors of our homes, winking at us from Blu-ray players and gaming consoles and clock radios even as we (try to) sleep.

In other words, light pollution exists inside and outside our homes. It affects both the environment at large and the individual inhabitants within. It is micro and macro. In the modern world it is, for the most part, inescapable.

I won’t delve too deeply into the negative effects of artificial light on human health as it relates to circadian rhythm, because I’ve already covered those. Quickly, though, some of the research:

Night time exposure to blue (artificial) light can suppress melatonin production, thereby disrupting sleep, reducing quality of sleep, throwing off circadian rhythm, and even promoting certain cancers.

Computer light exposure at night affects circadian rhythm and cognitive performance.

Continuous light exposure might hamper our ability to process carbohydrates, particularly in the liver.

According to a large review titled “The Dark Side of Light at Night,” (PDF) shift workers (a proxy for night time light exposure) get more cancer, heart disease, and are more likely to be obese. They also experience great oxidative stress loads and have compromised immune systems. Shift workers might represent the extreme end of nighttime light exposure, but they show the potential negative ramifications of even constant low-level exposure for everyone else.

But besides all the measurable, objective, physiologically-harmful effects of too much artificial light, there are the intangibles. That’s what this post is really about. Who else was lucky enough to spend their childhood summer nights on the roof or in the open field, gazing up at the millions of stars set against the backdrop of eternity? I was, and it’s what I still look forward to most of all about camping. When I sneak away from the fire and catch a break in the canopy, I stop and stare up above at the stars, those same heavenly mysteries that got our ancestors thinking, poking, prodding, and striving for more. Though today I know that they represent far flung galaxies of eons past and that that reddish “star” is actually Venus, a planet covered by volcanoes and rocky deserts – while thirty thousand years ago mankind looked up and concocted wondrous tales of gods and celestial beasts – that knowledge is suddenly meaningless once I begin to gaze. I’m caught up, emotional, dare-I-say “spiritual” – a lot like how our ancestors must have felt when they looked up at night. I’m lost in the limitlessness. I’m a kid again, suddenly struck with the realization of just how small I am and of the extrinsic meaninglessness of it all. Nature, remember, is neutral, and it becomes evident that we create our own meaning – it’s actually intrinsic, it comes from within – and set our own path. It’s all on us, and I’m reminded of this essential fact because of that brief brilliant moment with the stars.

If we allow light pollution to progress unabated, we lose that relationship. Many of us have, for all intents and purposes, already lost it – if we ever had it at all. But at least the opportunity remains. I mean, the stars are still there, if you get the heck out of Dodge. And if you can drag your kid outside city limits to shift his gaze from smart phone upward toward the relatively untouched sky, he might learn something about what it means to be human. Strip away all the luxuries and technology and just stick a modern city dweller in an open meadow in the middle of nowhere in the black of night and direct his or her attention skyward. If only for a moment, he’ll be like Luke Skywalker staring out at the night sky in “A New Hope” (with fewer suns) and thinking of rebel fleets and hyperspace travel.

That brings me to my final beef with light pollution: the extinguishing of a potent source of inspiration for greatness. From the ancients using astronomy to align their superstructures, to Newton drawing on the movement of celestial bodies to formulate basic theories of physics, to poets and authors and other artists (“Starry Night,” anyone?) creating work after a night spent stargazing, we do and have done great things with regular access to unfiltered night skies. I tend to think we have a lot ahead of us, too, if we’d give ourselves the chance. Misappropriation or lack of funding is the oft-cited cause of the US space program’s sorry state, but I feel like a lack of public fervor for all things stellar is at the root of it. People just don’t – or can’t – look up and marvel at the amazing ocular feast residing above anymore, and so they don’t dream of visiting it. Public officials don’t feel pressured to support it (besides, there are far more lucrative things to be doing with our tax money, like subsidizing their friends). Kids don’t seem to dream about becoming astronauts. I dunno about you, but that’s sad to me. The childhood version of Mark Sisson figured there’d be interstellar commercial travel and permanent bases on Mars by 2012. Adult version of Mark Sisson is highly disappointed that there is neither (but he hasn’t quite lost hope).

But we can’t go out and bust street lights with slingshots; we’re not extreme Luddite/Dennis the Menace hybrids. We can, however, make changes to the immediate environment. Our homes and our habits can change. So, if there’s an action item to be derived from this post, I guess it’s this: turn off the lights, go outside, preferably somewhere remote, look up, and take it all in. Take your kids with you. Foster the innate human obsession with the stars. Watch young eyes light up and mind-expanding thoughts of eternity and possibility germinate in growing brains. Then, set them loose and see where they go and what they do. I bet it’ll be pretty good.

Who else loves – nay, needs – the stars? Who else imagines how great things would be if we could actually step outside our living quarters, look up, and see the galaxies laid out before us in excruciating detail? Who else wishes that stargazing was no longer the strict province of campers and hunters and country-living? I realize that progress is inevitable and civilization butts heads with nature, but there’s got to be a better way.

Right?

Chime in the comment section. Let everyone hear about your love for the stars. And if your relationship with the cosmos has grown stale (or you’re a stargazing virgin), then get out and see them (so you know what we’re all blabbering about)!

Get the Primal Blueprint Fitness eBook, Free Health Tips and Primal Recipes Delivered to Your Inbox

Today’s Dear Mark question and answer post is a quick one – a two parter. First, I discuss the anti-allergy merits of real, raw, unprocessed local honey and include my own harrowing experience with using raw honey to combat a pollen allergy. Then, I address the fall-from-grace of a prolific resveratrol researcher shown to have fabricated his data, and I discuss what it means for resveratrol research at large.

As a side business, I sell local, raw, unpasteurized honey. I would love to see a Daily Apple column on honey and honey production (local vs large-scale (esp. from China), natural hive treatment vs antibiotic use on hives, filtering, non-homogenized vs homogenized, etc.). I often have people who are reluctant to buy my honey because it crystallizes and is cloudy.  These are natural processes and desirable characteristics as the pollen and propolis are left in the honey.  Once explained, many people are quite happy to buy the product.

I know you have written about honey throughout the site, especially as it relates to insulin but I would love to see people have a little more knowledge as to the benefits of local, raw honey for allergy relief, antibacterial properties and just great taste.  :-)

All the best,

Anita

I don’t eat honey very often, but when I do, I prefer crystallized, cloudy honey. I’d definitely be a happy customer of yours.

As for the merits of honey itself, I think it deserves its own post sometime in the future. Honey and humans share a long and storied history together, and it isn’t “just sugar.” Right now, though, I’ll discuss the question of raw honey and allergies.

There’s very little formal research on the subject. Last year, Finnish researchers found that eating preseasonal (taken before hay fever season commences) birch pollen honey reduced birch pollen allergy symptoms and resulted in less usage of antihistamines when compared to eating preseasonal regular honey. And then there’s this German study from 1956 that has no abstract, but the title is quite promising: “Resultant therapeutic method variations in pollen allergy with special consideration of oral desensitizing of pollen-allergic children with honey.” Sounds like they found something to me. Any German readers with access to research literature want to chime in?

But my personal opinion is that it can really work for seasonal, pollen allergies, because I’ve experienced it firsthand. On a family camping trip to Big Sur, I got a horrible case of hay fever. It was insanely windy all week, so all sorts of allergenic plant compounds were blowing around. It was like I had a tiny cloud of dust and pollen following me around, a la Pigpen from Peanuts. I’d never had it that bad – headache, stuffy nose, bleary red eyes – and it hit me about three hours after our arrival. I felt like I had the worst cold in the history of the world. I actually wanted to go home. On our second day, however, while on a hike, I came across an old guy selling raw, local wildflower honey by the side of the road. A handcrafted cardboard sign read “Good for hay fever.” I thought, “Why not?” and bought a pint. The guy was nice and enthusiastic about his product, and I always like to support small apiaries.

I took a big glug of it and continued on the hike. It was real good, not too sweet and with a raw floral quality to it. Again, I don’t eat a lot of honey, but this stuff was legit – even through my clogged nasal passages. We got back to camp, made dinner, and I went to bed soon after darkness fell. Nose was still stuffy, head was still congested, misery level was still elevated.

And then I woke up, and while things were still backed up, I could tell it was better. A thin jet of air even squeaked through my clogged right nostril, allowing me to breathe and (most importantly) taste the bacon that morning. Another glug of honey down the hatch. Overall, I’d say things were 25% better at this point. By late afternoon, I was 75% better. I kept taking hits of honey and by next morning, I was perfectly fine. Now, I suppose it’s possible that the honey acted as a placebo and my hay fever was already on its way out – I didn’t control for variables, there were no placebos involved, and I randomized absolutely nothing, so there’s no telling for sure. But I doubt it had no effect. Too many other people report similar experiences to make me dismiss my own experience as nonsense or coincidence.

I will say that if you’re going to use raw honey to fight pollen allergies, you’ll want to buy honey that comes from bees who deal with the same plants and flowers that produce the allergenic pollen in question. That means buying local, preferably wildflower honey. Unless you know for sure that your allergy is caused by a specific pollen from a specific plant, wildflower will give you the most bang for your buck by covering a large assortment of plants. So, while raw, unfiltered honey lovingly puked up by bees who subsist only on wild edelweiss growing in the Swiss Alps might taste amazing, it probably won’t do much for your allergies if you’re not allergic to edelweiss pollen.

Hey Mark,

Was able to get my parents eating according to the Primal Blueprint, and one of the things that really helps my mom is being able to eat the chocolate and the red wine (although she is saying that she is starting to feel pretty good). Then all of a sudden, this comes out:

Red wine researcher Dr. Dipak K. Das published fake data: UConn

What do you think of this? Is the reservatrol just one thing in the red wine, and it still has other antioxidants? What are a couple of winos to do?

Thanks,

Steven

Well, first of all, she’s feeling good, eating Primal, and that’s about all that matters.

Second of all, this guy who apparently fabricated a lot of his research on resveratrol, Dipak Das, isn’t the only resveratrol researcher in the world. He’s not even the foremost resveratrol researcher. He’s prolific, but others have done more. What I’m saying is that one guy fabricating his research doesn’t invalidate all the other research others have conducted on resveratrol.

Let’s put it into perspective with some actual numbers. He’s accused of fabricating data on 145 papers. That sounds pretty damning (and it is for his career and any research that relies on his) until you realize that a search for “resveratrol” on Pubmed alone returns 4, 479 papers. Subtract those 145 (and maybe another 145 to represent those papers that might have relied on Das’ research for some of their conclusions) and you’re still left with over 4,000 resveratrol papers. That remains an impressive body of research.

And red wine remains a delicious (potentially healthy) beverage. Besides, the potential health benefits of red wine extend beyond resveratrol (which isn’t actually present in very large amounts in wine). Red wine, being the product of grapes and grape skin, contains a bevy of phenolic compounds, many of which have antioxidant properties. Grape skins are particularly rich in flavonoids, including flavonols, anthocyanins, and tannins like proanthocyanidins. There’s even a Wiki page devoted to the phenolic compounds present in wine, and there are over three dozen individual compounds (depending on varietal and method of production). Some of the benefits of drinking red wine:

• Reduction of oxidized LDL in vivo (PDF).
• Increases antioxidant status while reducing oxidative stress.
• Marinating meat in red wine can reduce lipid peroxidation during cooking (PDF) (all the more reason to add red wine to your braising pan).
• Drinking red wine while eating cooked meat can reduce some of the oxidative products (all the more reason to have a glass of Syrah with that ribeye).
• Tastes great, lowers inhibitions ever so slightly, goes well with aged gouda (sorry, no references for these outrageous claims).

I don’t know about you, but I’m opening a bottle tonight. I suggest your mother continue to do the same (maybe with dark chocolate, too) if it pleases her.

That’s all for today, folks. Keep sending along your questions, and I promise to try to get to all of them. Thanks for reading!

Get the Primal Blueprint Fitness eBook, Free Health Tips and Primal Recipes Delivered to Your Inbox

Both Robb Wolf and I made yet another Greatist list, this time for two of the “must-read” health and fitness blogs for 2012. I would tend to agree.

Vibram Five Fingers popped up at a recent award show. Or, in old timey gossip rag speak: Sassy Starlet Sports Showstopping Simian Shoes!

My good friend Richard Nikoley has just released his book, and it’s a great no-holds-barred introduction to the paleo lifestyle. Go pick up a copy.

The top ten reasons why you should(n’t) run barefoot, an exhaustive list of the most popular excuses for never trying, including my personal favorite: the mythical piles of broken glass, rusty nails, and perpetually-ripe dog poop that apparently litter every square inch of every city.

The FDA acknowledges the dangers of continuing to feed buckets of antibiotics to livestock in this country, yet refuses to do anything about it. What are we paying them for, again?

PaleoFX is the inaugural “who’s who” gathering of the paleo, Primal and Physical Culture worlds, encompassing a theory-to-practice look at Ancestral Wellness and features more than 40 industry experts. I happen to be one of them. The event will occur March 14th to 17th at the University of Texas Austin. Take a peek.

Did a group of scientists just simulate the evolution of multicellular life from unicellular life in a lab dish?

Scientists revisit “The Carnivore Connection.”

The difference between an active 40-year old, an active 70-year old, and a sedentary 74-year old, in pictures (of cross-sections of quadricep muscle mass). It doesn’t get much more visceral than that. Excuse me while I go lift something heavy.

Recipe Corner

• How to make liver palatable for everyone, because who doesn’t like crispy?
• Everyday Paleo offers up yummy Greek meatballs.

Time Capsule

One year ago (Jan 16 – Jan 22)

• How to Make Red Wine Vinegar – Now you don’t have to toss your half empty bottles of red wine from two nights ago.
• High Fat Diet Linked to Breast Cancer? – Denise Minger swoops in with yet another patented take-down of a scary-sounding headline.

Comment of the Week

 

One week ago I got my first tattoo. I’m 39 years old. I’d been wanting one for a few years but could never settle on something I’d want on my body forever. And then I saw all the tattoos of Grok and I knew that’s what I wanted. So I did it. Tattooed Grok on my arm!

It was suggested to me to send you a link of the pic, so here it is.

Thank you Mark, for writing the book and putting the information out there, and helping SO many people find True Health and Happiness.

- Longtime reader Kimelah got some work done. I approve.

Grab a Copy of The Primal Blueprint 21-Day Total Body Transformation and Start Getting Primal Today!

Although its reputation is improving, British food isn’t exactly known for being haute cuisine. Unpretentious comfort food is more like it. Some might argue that it’s a little bit too unpretentious – would a few more spices and a color scheme that wasn’t brown or beige really be so wrong? However, the lack of pretension is exactly what some find so charming about British food. This might explain why a traditional dish like Scotch Eggs is suddenly enjoying a new burst of popularity. It might also just be that a hardboiled egg wrapped in sausage meat and deep-fried until crispy is pure genius.

Really, what could be better for breakfast or an afternoon snack than a Scotch Egg? Let’s rephrase that…what could be better for breakfast or an afternoon snack than a Primal Scotch Egg? The difference is slight – a Primal Scotch Egg doesn’t roll around in flour and breadcrumbs before being fried. The result is an egg that’s slightly less crunchy on the outside but no less delicious because the ingredients that really matter – a creamy, smooth hardboiled egg and seasoned meat that’s cooked until crisp – are still intact.

If there’s a brand of store-bought sausage you love and trust, this recipe is even easier. If not, make your own sausage meat and season it how you like.
As for the frying, you can go all the way and deep-fry the egg into an extra-crispy golden nugget or instead, just pan-fry in a generous amount of oil. Pan-frying the Scotch Egg is the easier route since it involves less mess, although you might have to finish the egg off in the oven to make sure the sausage is cooked through.

With this recipe the Scotch egg, once just a staple of pubs and the lunchboxes of British schoolchildren, can now be a part of a Primal lifestyle, too.

Servings: 4 Scotch Eggs

Ingredients:

• 4 eggs
• 3/4 pound sausage meat
• Oil for frying

Instructions:

To hard boil the eggs, place in a pot and cover with water. Bring to a boil over high heat. Once the water is boiling rapidly, turn the heat off and cover the pot with a lid for 10 minutes.

Then transfer the eggs to a bowl of ice water to stop the cooking. When cooled, peel the eggs.

Divide the sausage met into 4 equal portions.

Use your hands to form each portion of meat into a flat pancake a few inches wide. Wrap the meat around an egg, gently shaping it so there are no cracks and the egg is completely hidden.

For pan-frying, preheat the oven to 375. Then, pour just enough oil/fat into a deep pan to coat the bottom of the pan. Heat for 2-3 minutes over high heat on the stove until the oil is shimmering.

Cook two eggs at time. Roll the eggs around every few minutes in the oil so all sides of the meat become nicely browned. Cook each egg for about 8 minutes total.

Transfer to the oven and cook for 6-8 minutes more until the sausage is cooked through.

Eat the eggs warm or cold. Serve alone or with pickles, mayonnaise or hot sauce.

Grab The Primal Blueprint Cookbook Today and Receive Free S&H and a Free Primal Blueprint Poster

Over the years I’ve received questions about the Pill on a pretty steady basis. As one female reader put it, if you go Primal and do all the work of normalizing your hormones, does taking the Pill undo all the good? Are the cautionary rumors I hear just overblown, or are there substantial risks? What about taking the Pill for a longer period of time? Does it matter if I’m 45 as opposed to 25? Clearly, there are a lot of questions and nuances here. Let’s do what we can to unpack this subject.

Before I begin, let me offer the reasonable caveats. Yes, I’m a guy writing about a women’s medication – a rather personal one at that. I get it. I want to tread gently in these arenas. To be sure, the Pill marked a revolution in reproductive planning. It was the first convenient contraception choice over which women had full control. I don’t want to diminish the personal and social impact of that option. Nor do I want to overlook the convenience and effectiveness that the Pill (when taken as directed) offers to a woman/couple who aren’t looking to start (or increase) a family. There’s a reason some 100 million women around the globe turn to the Pill.

That said, I think most would agree we’re looking at a legitimate health question as well as intimately personal one. From my own humble perspective, I’ll go so far as to say the medical community has done a disservice to women by not being more transparent about oral (and other hormonal) contraception over the years. (Allow me to focus on oral contraceptives today, which are the oldest and most studied form of hormonal birth control.) Women understandably have a lot of questions, important questions. The problem is, the issue too often gets simplified by often well-intentioned practitioners whose main priority is respecting a woman’s choice on the issue. Yes, many personal factors go into the decision, but the conversation between a doctor and patient shouldn’t stop before it’s even begun. Physicians need to acknowledge that women care about the health implications of the decision.

As you all know, I’m first and foremost a supporter (okay, maybe diehard, soapbox, scream from the rooftops, full-on advocate) of full disclosure. People should have access to all of the details for choices they’re obliged to make – whether it be choices involving food, medical procedures, or medications. Although there’s a lot just on the medical side of oral contraceptives, let me do what I can (in the modest scope of a blog post) to at least get the ball rolling.

The fact is, when we’re dealing with matters of the body, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. I think we all know that. Taking hormones on a daily basis (whether natural or synthetic or both) will undoubtedly have repercussions. The body is a finely tuned machine of collaboration and interaction. The shifting amount of one hormone will have a corresponding effect on other hormones, which in turn influences a whole host of other physiological functions and biochemical secretions. But onward with the details….

First a little historical perspective… The dosage of today’s Pill (as many versions as there are) is minute compared to what was initially produced in those very early years. Formulations have changed over time to include lower levels of hormones. The so-called “mini-Pill” contains no estrogen at all. Nonetheless, side effects still exist in part because the human body hasn’t changed (the stubborn vessel it is) and because new formulations contain new versions of the hormones that appear to be riskier than the older versions. As for post-Pill fertility, the evidence suggests taking the Pill doesn’t impair future fertility. I can understand, however, that women would be wary of this possibility especially with new ingredients being added to formulations. I would hope the studies and reviews on this subject continue.

Now for the rundown of health risks – what you’ve heard and what’s true. There’s a lot to cover. Although I don’t claim that a single blog post can cover every study and nuance, let me hit on as much as I can.

First, the “good” news. You’ve likely heard that taking the Pill can lower a woman’s risk for ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, uterine cancer, and endometriosis. These appear to be true. That said, I obviously wouldn’t suggest a woman take on other risks (forthcoming of course) to slightly lower the chance of developing these conditions.

Breast Cancer

According to research analysis, data from 50+ studies suggest the Pill confers a 10-30% higher risk for breast cancer. Higher estrogen pills are implicated more in this data as is prolonged use of the birth control pill and family history of cancer. Although this heightened risk is definitely worth considering, it is significantly lower than the risks of hormone therapy for post-menopausal women.

Cervical Cancer

In the last few years, there’s been some talk about abandoning pap smears (the procedure that tests for abnormal cervical cells) in exchange for an HPV DNA test. The problem is, HPV is not the sole cause of cervical cancer. The birth control pill is also considered another major risk factor, especially for women who have taken the Pill for five years or more (PDF). If this plan is ever adopted, here’s the message to millions of women on the Pill who are HPV negative: good luck catching any cervical changes early. It’s inflammation at work here, folks. The Pill, particularly estrogen containing versions, causes inflammation.

Gastrointestinal Issues

It’s a known but little publicized fact that increased estrogen can contribute to irritation of the stomach lining and aggravation of existing gastrointestinal conditions like GERD and Crohn’s. Some women are more sensitive to the effect of the Pill on gastrointestinal health. Hint: if your doctor tries to put you on the Nexium (a.k.a. “the purple pill” or any of its assorted relatives), try going off the Pill first.

Cardiovascular Risks

The Pill, particularly traditional estrogen-progestin combination formulations, can raise blood pressure in some women, particularly those who already have high blood pressure. Research also shows that the Pill very slightly raises the risk of stroke in women without stroke risk factors (e.g. migraines and high blood pressure). The difference adds up to approximately a single added stroke per 25,000 women.

Blood Clots

This is one of the risks that’s gotten the most press over the last few years and for good reason. It’s an issue that has dogged the Pill since almost the very beginning. As formulations changed, people assumed the risk would be reduced. But there’s a wrinkle. Newer types of progestins (e.g. drospirenone, desogestrel or gestodene) heighten a woman’s risk for blood clots compared with the older form of progestin (levonorgestrel). Research has shown that women who take a birth control pill with one of these newer progestins have six times the risk of blood clots compared to women who don’t take the Pill. Women who use a Pill with an older form of progestogen have three times the risk of blood clots compared to non-users. The risk for traditional progestin is approximately 10 women in 10,000 each year.

Other Side Effects

• Overall higher CRP levels (inflammation marker)
• Lower total antioxidant activity as well as specifically measured lower blood levels of many micronutrients. (B6, E, CoQ10, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, and magnesium)
• Impaired thyroid function (Estrogen can influence the availability of thyroid hormone in the body because it increases a specific thyroid “binding” protein.)
• Potentially negative effect on lipid levels – particularly LDL
• Adverse mood symptoms
• Lower testosterone levels, which can decrease libido and make it harder to build muscle mass
• Increased risk of prostate cancer in partners (This is fairly new research that will undoubtedly get more attention in the coming years.)

Finally, then there’s the more sensitive research that’s come out in the last few years about the Pill’s effect on partner choice. Women’s monthly shift in hormones has implications for their attraction to certain traits in males. Women who met their partners while on the Pill were happier with their partners’ parenting and care taking and were less likely to separate than those who weren’t; however, they “scored lower on measures of sexual satisfaction and partner attraction” and “experienced increasing sexual dissatisfaction during the relationship.” (No comment here, btw.)

So, what’s the take home message? Readers have asked my overall opinion of oral/hormonal contraception. I know what you might infer from the course of evidence here, and you’d be mostly correct. Is there enough medical risk to give a woman pause? Absolutely. Is it enough to discount the Pill as a birth control option for a woman who is otherwise healthy, has no significant family history or risk factors in the relevant areas, and strongly prefers this contraceptive form? No, I can’t say I’d entirely take it off the table. The heightened risks for the above conditions were indeed measurable but generally not dramatic in otherwise healthy, non-smoking subjects who didn’t have significant family histories of relevant diseases. Age doesn’t appear to raise one’s risk except in the case that other risk factors develop (e.g. high blood pressure, etc.).

That said, let me throw in some caveats. I’d certainly favor the lower dose versions. I’d suggest close monitoring by a physician who acknowledges the risks of a hormonal contraceptive. I’d also strongly suggest regular exercise (not the inflammation boosting chronic cardio kind), a consistent anti-inflammatory diet (I think you know one I can recommend.), anti-inflammatory supplementation (fish oil, turmeric, etc.), and vitamin and mineral supplementation. And – although this bumps up against some rather personal factors – I’d recommend looking at other contraceptive options for the longer term. In other words, I wouldn’t suggest being on the Pill indefinitely as some physicians and medical groups say is just fine and dandy to do. Some of these heightened risks (e.g. blood clots, breast cancer) only diminish over a ten-year period after discontinuation. That’s pretty far-reaching.

Yet, I also won’t go so far as to completely count out oral contraceptives because I know every other method has its drawbacks (major or minor) as well. The reality is, there’s no 100% perfectly safe, astoundingly convenient, wholly unencumbered, completely foolproof way to dupe or circumvent nature on this front. It’s not about making a particular choice. It’s about making an informed decision. Not everyone is able to track their cycles with perfect precision. Not everyone tolerates an IUD or diaphragm or spermicides well. Not everyone wants to solely depend on the use of condoms for a host of reasons. Not everyone is ready to go the sterilization route yet. Take all of this, and that’s a whole other ball of wax – and another blog post than this one….

Thanks for reading today, everyone. Share your thoughts on the Pill. What information did your practitioner offer? Have the benefits outweighed the negatives for you, or the other way around? Do you have thoughts/suggestions for women who are considering the Pill? Have a good end to the week, everyone!

Get the Primal Blueprint Fitness eBook, Free Health Tips and Primal Recipes Delivered to Your Inbox