Nutristrength: An Objective Look at Organic Foods ⇒

Ask anyone around you and I’m willing to bet the majority will tell you that organic is somehow superior to conventionally grown crops. Whether it be the taste, the micronutrient quality, the overall freshness and safety, or the gaping hole it burns into your wallet, organic foods have been touted as “nutritionally superior” almost everywhere you look.

But is this true? Is there really any benefit from eating organic as opposed to conventionally grown crops? I hope this blog post will help shed some light on the topic and hopefully by the end of this, I’ll be able to answer those questions. Let’s jump right into it.

Most people preach going organic for the simple reason that there aren’t any synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, food additives, GMOs, etc. used when growing them [1]. Conventional crops, however, allow for growing out of season, greater resistance, and a much higher yield of crops.

Read more at Nutristrength

If you don’t think that “buy organic” is a marketing ploy to take more of your money then you need a serious wake up call. Don’t be sheep when it comes to your health.

Let the take away from the post be about how there is negligible difference in nutrient composition, but a major difference in price. Being healthy isn’t costly. Understand that you’re paying for the word “organic” being on a product.

Don’t like the article? Read the studies (like you should be doing) and develop your own opinions. Don’t be sheep.

Interval Sprints More Effective Than Steady State Cardio For Fat Loss ⇒

Testing showed that men and women doing 4-6 bouts of 30 second all-out sprints with a 4 minute recovery in between had a more significant loss in fat mass than endurance training (steady state cardio) performed for 30-60 minutes at 65% VO2 max. Both were done 3 times a week for 6 weeks.

Want to burn more fat? Do sprint intervals and be done in a fraction of the time.

Interview With Nutrition Expert Alan Aragon by Brad Schoenfeld ⇒

Great interview of Alan Aragon posted up at workout911.com by Brad Schoenfeld today. It touches on a multitude of topics and well worth the read for some beneficial information.

Those of you who follow this blog undoubtedly know about Alan Aragon. Fact is, there’s no one in the field of nutrition I respect more. Alan holds a master’s degree in nutrition, consults with a legion of famous clients (including Pete Sampras, Derek Fisher, and “Stone Cold” Steve Austin), and serves as the nutritional expert for Men’s Health Magazine. He also edits the excellent newsletter, Alan Aragon’s Research Review.

Most importantly, though, Alan Aragon is the epitome of an evidence-based professional. First and foremost, he is a student of the literature; a veritable walking encyclopedia on nutritional research. Ask him a question about a given nutritional topic and he’ll answer not only by rattling off the results of relevant studies, but also cite the names of the authors and the year of publication as well. It’s quite amazing, actually.

Yet what really sets Alan apart from the pack is his keen understanding as to how research should be applied in practice. He has an astute ability to sift through the body of literature and provide practical recommendations based on a person’s individual needs. His approach is always thoughtful and balanced; a voice of reason. That’s why when I need a get an opinion on a given nutritional topic, Alan’s the guy I turn to for answers. I’ve taught nutrition at the university level. I stay abreast of current dietary research. But Alan is on another level. Call him the “Yoda of nutrition”!

So it goes without saying that I’m pleased to have interviewed Alan for this blog post. Here he shares his knowledge on some of the most controversial and heavily debated topics in nutrition today. As always, Alan is not afraid to speak his mind. Sit back, read, and enjoy!

First, thanks so much for consenting to this interview Alan. For those who might not be aware of your work, can you tell the readers a little about your background.

Thanks for inviting me to unleash hell on your audience, Brad. Anyone who doesn’t know who I am has not done enough trolling through the seedy corners of the internet…. In all seriousness though, I’m an educator more than anything else. I have a passion for getting the truth out and seeing learners find their way out of the dark, so to speak. My main vehicle for this is writing, so I guess you could say I’m like Gary Taubes, except I’m not afraid to report the totality of evidence instead of choosing the bits that fit my brand. I used to do fitness training and counseling full-time, but now I maintain a small stable of clients to keep a foot in the trenches while the rest of me is immersed in the research.

You have written about post-exercise protein intake and state that it might not be as important as some claim. But you also discuss that the relative importance is a function of a person’s goals. Can you explain your position?

Let’s first set the stage with some background. Postexercise protein intake has been promoted in both lay and academic circles as an urgent, universally imperative tactic, but it’s rarely ever put in the proper perspective. The origin of the postexercise “anabolic window of opportunity” began with research examining postexercise carbohydrate timing on the rate of glycogen resynthesis after depletion. Delaying carbohydrate intake resulted in significantly less glycogen replenishment, but this finding was limited to an observation period of only a few hours. On a related tangent, subsequent research showed no difference in the amount of post-depletion glycogen replenishment at the 24-hour mark, despite major differences in dietary fat content (originally presumed to impede the process).

Protein got lumped into the supposed ‘magic’ of the postexercise period after studies showed that protein expedited glycogen resynthesis when co-ingested with carbohydrate (particularly in the case of insufficient carbohydrate). Furthermore, research has also shown that protein consumed in the postexercise period can work synergistically with the trained state to stimulate muscle protein synthesis (MPS). However, these studies have two main limitations. First off, in most studies the protein was given to subjects who trained after an overnight fast, minus a pre-exercise meal. Secondly, the bulk of the research showing the benefit of immediate postexercise protein is acute (short-term). The majority of chronic (long-term) studies lasting several weeks has failed to corroborate the acute findings. Many people – even smart folks in the industry – are unaware of this, probably because the bulk of the research with null findings began in 2009 & onward.

This isn’t to say that the body of research on this topic is vast or comprehensive enough to be adamant about the unimportance of protein timing. However, it does provide grounds to assume a wider margin of timing flexibility as long as the total for the day is hit. Hopefully future investigations will compare the timing effects of carbohydrate co-ingested with larger protein doses that max-out acute MPS in trained subjects on diets that provide sufficient total protein that’s matched (including supplemental protein) between groups. Thus far, the research in this vein is scarce, but would help provide an important puzzle piece. In the mean time, hitting the total protein target for the day remains the primary objective, while timing and distribution of its constituent doses is the distantly secondary concern. At best, specific timing is the icing on the cake. But, you have to have the cake down-pat, otherwise the icing means crap.

Any benefit to consuming one type of protein over another (i.e. whey vs. casein)?

In the larger picture, the answer for the most part is no. Assuming that someone is consuming sufficient total daily protein from a variety of high-quality sources, then their bases will be covered, regardless of differences in protein type. Short-term data indicates the superior effects of whey (compared to casein or soy) on MPS at both the resting & postexercise periods. It’s been speculated that this is due to the greater overall rise in circulating amino acid (particularly leucine) levels yielded by whey. However, studies that dragged this type of comparison out for several weeks have shown equivocal outcomes. Whey, as opposed to casein or soy, has not emerged as the dominant winner for improving muscular adaptations to training. This serves to reinforce the principles that a) total daily amount of high-quality protein is of prime importance, b) differences seen shortly postexercise will not automatically translate to long-term adaptations, and c) the body of evidence is subject to evolve.

How important is macronutrient ratio with respect to weight loss?

People have varying total energy demands, and this can differently influence their macronutrient requirements. Ratios per se shouldn’t be the focus since they’re merely a default result of figuring absolute needs. For example, those with a moderate to high energy output (through formal training, non-exercise activity, or both), can typically consume a higher amount of carbohydrate and still lose weight. In contrast, sedentary or barely active folks have lower overall energy demands, thus a high carbohydrate intake wouldn’t likely be optimal. Nevertheless, there’s rather interesting, yet unreplicated research examining the effects of insulin sensitivity on weight loss (low-carb worked better for insulin-resistant subjects while high-carb worked better for insulin-sensitive subjects). Unfortunately, body composition wasn’t assessed, nor was there any structured exercise protocol. My hunch is that a well-designed, progressive training program would greatly diminish the influence of pre-existent differences in insulin sensitivity on weight loss.

Are you a proponent of cutting carbs for someone who wants to get really lean?

For losing fat past the initial stages, I’m a proponent of imposing a calorie deficit, and depending on the individual situation, this can involve a decrease in caloric intake, an increase in caloric output, or a combination of both. In the case of intake reduction, it doesn’t make sense to hack into critical nutrients – especially protein, whose requirement actually increases in a caloric deficit. So, for the most part, it’s carbs that will get the brunt of the reduction when it’s time to cut calories, while protein & fat remain somewhat stable (I typically set protein slightly higher than it needs to be). The degree of carb reduction varies individually, but the underlying aim is to consume the highest amount of carbs that still allow a satisfactory rate of fat loss. This approach accomplishes two main things – it enables the highest possible training performance (in terms of both strength & endurance), and also the lowest chance of undue hormonal downregulation from prolonged bouts of dieting. Carb reduction can then be strategically positioned as a trump card. In other words, carbs can always be incrementally reduced on an as-needed basis, depending on how results are proceeding. Starting off with minimal carbs from the get-go leaves fewer options in the toolbox to break through progress plateaus once training volume is maxed-out.

Intermittent fasting has gained popularity recently. What are your thoughts? Panacea or fad?

I think the popularity of intermittent fasting (IF) is, for the most part, a good vindication of science. Academics have known for a while now that research has not supported the lore of frequent, small meals to stoke the metabolism better than the equivalent in larger, fewer meals. Furthermore, research has not supported the idea that small, frequent meals are necessary for preserving muscle mass. The evidence as a whole has not indicated any threat to muscle preservation during dieting when meal frequency is reduced – either daily or intermittently through the week. In fact, some studies have shown superior lean mass retention with IF during hypocaloric conditions. However, this could have been due to measurement error inherent with bioelectrical impedance analysis. It should also be noted that the IF research thus far has not involved structured exercise protocols.

At the same time that IF has vindicated science, it also created its own over-zealous following who preaches its universal necessity for optimizing body composition and health. Viewed more objectively, IF presents an effective option for those who prefer the convenience and luxury of larger meals – not to mention, less preparation & transportation of meals through the day. Any special or superior metabolic effects of IF compared to conventional meal patterns are speculative at this point. While IF has consistently shined in the department of lean mass retention while dieting, its comparison to conventional meal frequency on gains in muscular strength & hypertrophy is uncharted ground, at least in formal research. There are plenty of hypotheses flying around this area, but nothing demonstrated under controlled conditions. For the time being, meal frequency for optimal size & strength gain remains mysterious. This mystery is likely to begin unfolding with short-term data that one camp will excitedly embrace. If history means anything, the acute data will be followed by long-term data that shakes the confidence in former beliefs. Either way it goes, I’ve got my popcorn ready.

On a final note, I’ve seen the greatest client success come from letting individual preference dictate meal frequency. Some people do great on small frequent meals, others do great on the opposite (and all points in between). The theoretical advantages of any given dietary approach go straight out the window if it’s at odds with someone’s personal preference & adherence capability.

Tell us a little about your research review and how you came to start the service.

In a nutshell, my research review (AARR) is a monthly romp through the current and past research on nutrition, training, and supplementation. I do my best to present both the theory and application of the concepts and findings. The idea to start AARR was born from my own dissatisfaction with my knowledge level despite having vast client experience, multiple training certifications, a graduate degree in nutrition, and being active in attending & presenting continuing education lectures. I felt like there had to be some way to further “force” myself toward the top tier of expertise. Putting AARR together each month was the logical solution for my self-directed learning tendencies. I’m now enjoying the process of sharing my ongoing enlightenment with like-minded folks inside and outside of the field.

Great stuff, Alan. Really appreciate you taking the time to share your views!

Check out Alan’s blog Here

Check out Alan’s excellent research review (AARR) Here

Visit Brad Schoenfeld’s website at workout911.com.

Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review ⇒

Click the link above to read the study put out by Stanford University.

Organic food is not more nutritious than conventional food, but it does make people more pompous acting. Ever met someone that talks about eating only organic? Do they ever shut up about it?

Yes you are exposed to less pesticides eating organic produce, but guess what? Even with some organic produce you are consuming pesticides.. just at a smaller percentage. It’s not harmful to you either way, so I wouldn’t worry about it.

Organic is not better than non-organic in regards to being more nutritious. The same goes for gluten-free being any better for you than foods containing gluten — the only exception here would be those people with a food allergy or celic disease being medically advised to avoid gluten.

Eat the food that fits your budget and nutritional goals.

edit: Please take note of this form if I have offended you.

Is a Calorie Truly Just a Calorie? By Layne Norton ⇒

“To say that obesity is caused by merely consuming too many calories is like saying that the only cause of the American Revolution was the Boston Tea Party.” -Adelle Davis

This quote gets to the core of a basic question that is the topic of much discussion in bodybuilding circles. What’s more important: what you eat or how much you eat? A study conducted by the Institute for Nutrition and Cancer Research (INCR) discovered that 78% of adults agreed with the statement “the kind of foods you eat is more important than the quantity of food you eat” in regards to weight management. Very good arguments can certainly be made for and against the statement. It is true that your overall caloric balance during a given day will determine whether or not your weight changes. On the other hand, food choices can influence that caloric balance by influencing metabolic rate, the thermic effect of food (TEF), and satiety. In order for one to lose weight, and hence, body fat, one’s caloric expenditure must exceed their caloric intake and this requires energy intake control, and thus the quantity of food must be controlled (1).

It is pertinent to state that one should eat healthy foods when on a weight loss diet. Fruits, vegetables, low fat meats, and the like are good sources of vitamins, minerals, and fiber (in the case of fruits and vegetables) and these can certainly impact one’s health. However, one can not simply eat as many “good” foods as they like with reckless abandon and expect not to gain weight. It is certainly easier to achieve a caloric surplus eating twinkies all day than it is to achieve that same surplus though fruits, vegetables, and lean meats, however if the person eating only twinkies makes a conscious effort to limit their twinkie intake to a caloric level that is less than the amount of calories they expend per day, they will lose fat whereas a person who eats an unlimited amount of “good” foods will still gain weight if they consume more calories than they expend. Don’t get me wrong, eating only twinkies is not a good strategy for losing fat, but it is an extreme example to support my points.

There are plenty of meatheads gurus out there who would have you believe that consuming chicken, rice, and broccoli cannot make you fat no matter how much you eat of it. They will most likely try to argue that the specific foods you eat are more important than the quantity that you eat will use the argument that “a calorie is not a calorie” to support their stance. In other words, they believe that certain foods may provide an advantage over other foods. There certainly is ample evidence to support this stance. For example, diets higher in protein are less “energy efficient” as the conversion of alanine to glucose during gluconeogenesis (production of glucose from amino acids and other substrates) requires 6 ATP molecules and the conversion of pyruvate to glucose also consumes 6 ATP molecules (2-3). Furthermore, 4 molecules of ATP are required to dispose of the nitrogen as urea (3). Now before you throw up your hands and say “what the hell does all that mean?” realize that it’s only a scientifically correct way of saying that turning protein into energy requires more energy input by your body compared to carbs or fats. Maintaining the protein turnover is also energetically very costly (4). In fact, the thermic effects of nutrients are approximately 2-3% for lipids, 6-8% for carbohydrates, and 25-30% for protein (5)! This increased thermic effect of food seems to cause increased weight loss in high protein diets compared to diets equal in calories but higher in carbohydrates (6). The fiber content of a diet is also another issue to consider. Dietary fiber contains far less metabolizable energy than starchy carbohydrates due to incomplete absorption of fiber and the amount of energy extracted from fiber is less than that of other carbohydrates (7).

This information has led many meatheads to deduct proudly that by consuming a high protein/low carbohydrate/increased fiber diet you need not concern oneself with calorie intake because there is a far smaller net energy gain when consuming such a diet as compared to a typical higher carbohydrate diet. Although the net energy gain is much smaller on a high protein/low carbohydrate/increased fiber diet, the fact remains that it is still quite possible one can consume more calories than they expend if they fail to control the quantity of food that they take in. Controlling food intake and self monitoring is crucial in any weight loss or weight maintenance regime. In fact, Hill et. al, found that the majority of people who successfully lost fat and maintained it for at least one year practiced some form of restraint, including restricting certain foods, portion sizes, and counting calories (8). So while it may require a greater quantity of food on a high protein/low carbohydrate diet to exceed one’s caloric expenditure, it can still be done, and therefore the quantity of food must be controlled. While controlling the quantity of food one eats may be more important than the types of foods one eats in regards to weight maintenance/loss, it is important to note that the types of foods that one eats will impact the quantity of foods that one will consume as well. Diets high in protein and high fiber have both shown to reduce hunger compared to a higher carbohydrate or reduced fiber diet (8,9). Additionally, research has demonstrated that high protein diets have an increased thermic effect of food, allowing for greater weight loss at ‘equal’ calorie intakes when compared to higher carbohydrate diets. The big take home points however, are that eating ‘good’ foods will allow you to keep total calories higher but eating the occasional ‘bad’ food won’t wreck your diet as long as it controlled within the context of total caloric intake. Therefore, the most successful strategy in achieve limiting fat gain/maximizing fat loss is to practice cognitive restraint while consuming a diet high in protein and dietary fiber.

References

1) Wardlaw GM, Kessel M. Energy Production and Energy Balance. In: Perspective in Nutrition 2nd Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2002. p. 535-537.

2) Feinman RD and Fine EJ. A calorie is a calorie violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutrition J. 2004, 3:9.

3) Hue L. Regulation of gluconeogenesis in liver: In: Jefferson L, Cherington A, eds. Handbook of physiology: the endocrine system. Vol 2. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2001:649-57.

4) Bier DM. The energy cost of protein metabolism: lean and mean on Uncle Sam’s team. In: The role of protein and amino acids in sustaining and enhancing performance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999:109-19.

5) Jequier E: Pathways to obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002, 26 Suppl 2:S12-7.

6) Westman EC, Mavropoulos J, Yancy WS, Vlek JS: A review of low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2003, 5:476-483.

7) Buchnolz AC and Schoeller DA. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr, 2004:79(suppl): 899S-906S.

8) Nickols-Richardson SM, Coleman MD, Volpe JJ, Hosig KW. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight pre-menopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs. high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2005 Sep;105(9):1433-7.

9) Howarth NC, Saltzman E, Roberts SB. Dietary fiber and weight regulation. Nutr. Rev. 2001 May;59(5):129-39.

People exposed to organic foods are more judgmental, self-righteous: study ⇒

Participants in organic food group were ‘kind of jerks,’ says study author.

A Half Squat Is Not A Squat ⇒

I just don’t understand why people think it’s okay to do partial reps of anything, much less in squatting. Muscular development or strength is achieved by working muscles through a full range of motion. Squatting, benching, or curling through half of the ROM only trains the musculature through that given ROM and typically subjects it to injurious forces. For example, a half squat will not utilize the adductors, hamstrings, gluteals, or external rotators and as a result place excessive stress on the anterior aspect of the knee. This is why ignorant people claim that squats are bad for the knees. And why would someone want half a muscle?

Ego lifting is such a joke. Aside from the “let’s see how many plates I can put on the bar”, it isn’t quantifiable whatsoever. There’s no way to determine if one rep is comparable to another.

Happy Squaturday!

Influence of squatting depth on jumping performance. ⇒

Abstract

It is unclear if increases in one repetition maximum (1-RM) in quarter squats result in higher gains compared to full depth squats in isometric force production and vertical jump performance. The aim of the research projects was to compare the effects of different squat variants on the development of 1-RM and their transfer effects to Countermovement (CMJ) and Squat Jump (SJ) height, maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and maximal rate of force development (MRFD). Twenty-three women and 36 men (mean age: 24.11±2.88) were parallelized into three groups based on their CMJ height: deep front squats (FSQ, n=20), deep back squats (BSQ, n=20) and quarter back squats (BSQ¼, n=19). In addition a control group (C, n=16) existed (mean age: 24.38±0.50). Experimental groups trained 2 d·wk for 10 weeks following a strength-power periodization, which produced significant (p≤0.05) gains of the specific squat 1-RM. FSQ and BSQ attained significant (p≤0.05) elevations in SJ and CMJ without any interaction effects between both groups (p≥0.05). BSQ¼ and C did not reveal any significant changes of SJ and CMJ. FSQ and BSQ had significantly higher SJ scores over C (p≤0.05). BSQ did not feature any significant group difference to BSQ¼ (p=0.116) in SJ, whereas FSQ showed a trend towards higher SJ heights over BSQ¼ (p=0.052). FSQ and BSQ presented significantly (p≤0.05) higher CMJ heights over BSQ¼ and C. Post-test in MVC and MRFD demonstrated no significant changes for BSQ. Significant declines in MRFD for FSQ in the right leg (p≤0.05) without any interaction effects for MVC and MRFD between both FSQ and BSQ were found. Training of BSQ¼ resulted in significantly (p≤0.05) lower RFD and MVC values in contrast to FSQ and BSQ. Quarter squat training elicited significant (p≤0.05) transfer losses into the isometric maximal and explosive strength behavior. Our findings therefor contest the concept of superior angle specific transfer effects. Deep front and back squats guarantee performance-enhancing transfer effects of dynamic maximal strength to dynamic speed-strength capacity of hip and knee extensors compared to quarter squats.

tl;dr - Form > weight. Squatting deep increases explosiveness and vertical jump ability. Get low with full range of motion for best results.

The Paleo Manifesto, Pt. I: Idiot Ideology ⇒

Opening Comments

In keeping with the theme of evolution and nutrition, today’s article is going to be the first installment of a two-part series on the Paleo diet (also called hunter-gatherer, Stone-Age, or ancestral dieting). Even if you are not familiar with Paleolithic nutrition per se, you most likely are familiar with Atkins, The Zone, or South Beach, which are essentially less-strict versions of ancestral eating. However, given their differences, we won’t concern ourselves with them and will therefore just stick to looking at Paleo.  Part 1 will solely place emphasis on the Paleo diet and some of the inherent biases/contradictions it contains. Part 2 will strictly be reserved for a research review on the literature supporting the Paleo diet, wherein I will make some final comments and sum things up. My goal for today is to show you all why Paleo is a flawed and inflexible diet system comprised of ideologues who cement themselves in assumptions while blindly disregarding scientific literature that opposes their own views about nutrition. So, without further ado, let’s begin by taking a look at what Paleolithic nutrition actually is. 

Enter Paleo: Society’s Stone-Age Solution

In essence, the Paleolithic period – some 2-million years ago – marked the start of humanity, most notably, with the advent of stone tools in order to facilitate food consumption. During this time period, it is assumed that grain and sugar consumption (other than fruit) was virtually nonexistent, maybe except for occasional honey here and there. Taking this into account, Paleo dieters believe that the Paleolithic “style” of eating – i.e. a diet devoid of grains, starches, sugar and dairy – is best suited to our current genetics because we have changed little – if at all – since the emergence of agriculture and its products some 5,000-10,000 years ago. To quote Dr. Loren Cordain – “the world’s leading expert on Paleolithic diets” – directly from his book, The Paleo Diet: 

Literally, we are Stone Agers living in the Space Age; our dietary needs are the same as theirs.”

It is from this rationale that Paleo fanatics believe that obesity, diabetes and the other“diseases of civilization” are caused from the consumption of grains – or as they like to call them, “the double-edge sword of humanity” – because these diseases were not a problem back then when grains were unavailable. However, today, both an overabundance of grains and diseases are available. Therefore, no post-agricultural foods are to be consumed because they somehow contradict our genetic disposition. As extremist as this is, many people are taken in by this philosophy because it does offer a very logical explanation for the current health crisis we are now witnessing. What most Paleo nuts choose toforget is that we also did not evolve with television, computer, cars, etc. that lowers our energy expenditure and potentially leads to weight gain and certain diseases when combined with poor dietary habits. Yet, most of them continue to use these things on a daily basis; hypocrisy? I’ll let you decide. That’s another article for another time; today’s focus is strictly nutrition. 

Now, I have to say that I am in agreement with the idea that a diet which is full of McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, and other processed foods is not the healthiest diet to consume; no argument there. However, if you’re trying to debate that oatmeal, milk and a little bit of sugar here and there are bad for me, then Ihave a problem. But, before I get ahead of myself, let’s see if we can actually quantify what a “caveman” actually ate all those years back.

What did a Caveman Actually Eat?

In a few words: we can’t be sure and probably never will. However, even crazier than the people themselves are their claims that they, the Paleo proponents, actually know what a caveman ate. In one of the first papers talking explicitly about Paleolithic nutrition, authors Eaton and Konner provided some general ranges for the types of food sources a person might have eaten back then based off of some more recent hunter-gatherer societies which lasted into the late 20^th Century [1]. Although this serves as a rough estimate for Paleolithic nutrition, one must keep in mind that a hunter-gatherer culture living in the 1960’s is extremely different from that of a Paleolithic society living hundreds of thousands of years ago. Any suppositions made from these observations are purely speculative and far from conclusive. Nevertheless, using these contemporary hunter-gatherer societies (living mainly inland and in semi-tropical climates), Eaton and Konner saw that anywhere from 20-50% of their diet was obtained from meat and anywhere from 50-80% of their diet came from vegetation. However, populations in artic regions – like that of the Eskimos – derive as little as 10% of their diet from plant-based sources. Therefore, if my calculations serve me right, the ranges of nutrients potentially run anywhere from 20-90% meat-based and anywhere from 10-80% plant-based. To me it seems as though there was not one single hunter-gatherer-type diet. In fact, a well-written review by evolutionary archaeologist, John Gowlett [2], argues that in no way there could have been only one “Stone-Age diet.” This is due to various geographical limitations, such as food variety and climactic changes, which would require various nutritional adaptations to be undertaken in order to survive in a given region. Therefore it can be determined that humans did not evolve eating any one type of diet, but rather an all-encompassing and extremely varied diet that would allow for adaptive survival given their geographic location/conditions. This is exactly what was seen in our more recent hunter-gatherer proxies. But does that stop the Paleo zealots from prescribing strict nutritional guidelines?   

Blog Updates ⇒

Updated the side links this morning on the main page to include the following articles for easier access:

• Whole Eggs vs. Egg Whites
• Creatine: What Is It And Why You Should Supplement It

Also, the article Supplements: What’s The Deal? has been updated.

Don’t forget that you can keep up with my day to day journal through my training log here or follow/interact with me on Twitter (@tswdan).

Hope all of you out there are training hard, making great progress and educating yourselves on proper nutrition science and practices. Again, thank you for your continuing support to bring truth to the public about fitness and nutrition here on my blog.

-Dan

Lift-Run-Bang: Darksidin'... Obsessions... Pt. 3 - The Big Empty ⇒

Your training life, just like your personal or professional life, is a journey.  Or let me say, it’s supposed to be.  People are in such a hurry to arrive at their destination that they never enjoy the trip, or even bother to ask themselves, what happens when or if I arrive at that destination?  

Quit?  

Make a new goal?  

Obsess over fat on their big toe?  

Want another inch on your bicep?  What do you think happens when you add that inch?  Yeah, it’s not all you thought it would be is it?  Now, you just need arms another inch bigger.

People that spend a lot of time trying to develop their body, often don’t see themselves as they really are.  They are stuck in the fun house.  Looking into mirrors where they are too fat, or too skinny.

A few years ago a good friend of mine was in the gym training, and he was the leanest I’d ever seen him.  And the biggest maybe too.  He was getting ready to go on vacation for a week to Virginia Beach and wanted to look good.  

“You look awesome dude.” I told him.  

He just kinda “meh’d” me.  

“No seriously, I’ve never seen you this lean.  You’re definitely ready for that vacation.”  

But I could tell he didn’t think too much of himself at the time.  

Some years later he told me “I was looking back at old pictures the other day, and I pulled up those Beach pics.  I couldn’t believe that was me.  I looked like that!  That was the best I ever looked.”

“I told you that at the time.”  

“I know man.” he said “but the thing is, you never enjoy it when you’re in it, because you don’t see yourself for how you really are.”

It was, without a doubt, the most poignant statement I’d ever heard in regards as to how people see themselves in this little sub-culture.

You don’t get to enjoy it while you’re in it, because you never see yourself for how you really are.  

Read the entire article by Paul Carter on LIFT-RUN-BANG.

A Calorie Isn't A Calorie (?) ⇒

Ever since Nicholas Clement defined the calorie as a unit of heat back in the 19th century, we’ve used it as a measure for the energy available to our bodies in the food we eat. The so-called “kilogram calorie” (or kilocalorie), which you see on nutritional labels, equates to the energy needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.

These capital-C Calories serve as an approximation for the amount of energy we take in from our food, as well as the amount of energy we expend over the course of our day, through a combination of essential life-processes and any additional physical or mental activity we add on top of the baseline.

Later on in the 19th century, chemist Wilbur Atwater used oxidation reactions to test the energy content of various nutrients, inclusive of corrections for rates of digestion and the production of urea. Atwater’s values, roughly 4 calories per gram for protein and carbs and 9 kcals/gram for fats, remain in use today.

Lately, however, there’s been a trend towards rejecting this model. Not only are calories thought to be insufficient — or outright irrelevant — in explaining the continuing rise in obesity, but the deeper reason is that “a calorie isn’t a calorie”.

The bomb calorimeter, used by Atwater in deriving his original values, isn’t an accurate representation of the body, dissenters say. We don’t just “burn” food and extract calories from it in that way.

They’re quite right in that sense. While our cells do oxidize nutrients in a process much like burning, there’s no real analogy between those chemical processes and the image of burning a piece of bread in an open flame.

More importantly, living organisms do things with the material they ingest, independent of its energy value. Protein, for example, is a metabolically costly entity. Many things our bodies do with protein require energy, such as protein turnover in muscle, and as such it’s not always evident that the net energy derived from a gram of protein is identical to the net energy derived from a gram of carbohydrate, even though they have the same value on paper.

There are inefficiencies in digestion and absorption that distort the picture as well. Fiber and cellulose are poorly handled by our GI tract and thus we don’t obtain the on-paper Atwater value of energy for those foods.

It would seem that calories aren’t calories after all. Right?

Not quite. As a unit of energy available to our bodies, a calorie is always a calorie. The issue here isn’t really about calories, but about nutrients and the way living organisms put them to use, including the extraction of energy from them.

Read more at Myosynthesis

Most Weight Loss Supplements Are Not Effective (duh!) ⇒

It took every ounce of my self-control to not just type, “duh!” as my only comment for this article today.

Normally I would not have posted up an article that I feel is so blatantly obvious, but I truly feel that there are so many people out there that still search for the secret to their weight loss in a pill bottle or through a specific, special diet.

Weight loss is achieved through the creation of an energy deficit. Repeat it. Weight loss is achieved through the creation of an energy deficit. If your body is outputting more energy then it is taking in then you will attain loss of body weight. In the simplest terms this means if you consume less calories then your body uses to produce energy then ta-freaking-da — weight loss!

Alright, we’ve gotten the absolute most important point out of the way, but before I let you jump into the article I want to point out a few other things of importance when it comes to losing weight.

1. Eat a diet that is comprised of a majority of whole/nutrient-dense foods.

2. Consume a caloric amount under what your body uses for energy.

3. Get active. Lift weights. Run. Dance. Do gymnastics. It doesn’t matter what you do as long as what you’re doing is something that you enjoy, can make a habit and gets your heart rate up. — Now, I could go on to mention that some things can be a bit more beneficial and effective than others to maximize weight loss, but that’s breaking into something a little bit more in depth than I’d like to go into for my comment on this article.

That’s it, seriously. Move more and eat less.

The research reviewer, Melinda Manore, does provide some basic tips for beginners at the bottom of the article that I do happen to agree with which is why I’ve left them included. — Oh, but of course I am against ever completely eliminating or scapegoating any specific foods and/or macronutrients from a person’s diet if they provide benefits to the person physically, mentally or emotionally. This seems to be the case with carobhydrates and processed foods for many, myself included.

Just remember, it’s all about moderation with your diet people!

ScienceDaily (Mar. 6, 2012) — An Oregon State University researcher has reviewed the body of evidence around weight loss supplements and has bad news for those trying to find a magic pill to lose weight and keep it off — it doesn’t exist.

Melinda Manore reviewed the evidence surrounding hundreds of weight loss supplements, a $2.4 billion industry in the United States, and said no research evidence exists that any single product results in significant weight loss — and many have detrimental health benefits.

The study is online in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism.

A few products, including green tea, fiber and low-fat dairy supplements, can have a modest weight loss benefit of 3-4 pounds (2 kilos), but it is important to know that most of these supplements were tested as part of a reduced calorie diet.

“For most people, unless you alter your diet and get daily exercise, no supplement is going to have a big impact,” Manore said.

Manore looked at supplements that fell into four categories: products such as chitosan that block absorption of fat or carbohydrates, stimulants such as caffeine or ephedra that increase metabolism, products such as conjugated linoleic acid that claim to change the body composition by decreasing fat, and appetite suppressants such as soluble fibers.

She found that many products had no randomized clinical trials examining their effectiveness, and most of the research studies did not include exercise. Most of the products showed less than a two-pound weight loss benefit compared to the placebo groups.

“I don’t know how you eliminate exercise from the equation,” Manore said. “The data is very strong that exercise is crucial to not only losing weight and preserving muscle mass, but keeping the weight off.”

Manore, professor of nutrition and exercise sciences at OSU, is on the Science Board for the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition. Her research is focused on the interaction of nutrition and exercise on health and performance.

“What people want is to lose weight and maintain or increase lean tissue mass,” Manore said. “There is no evidence that any one supplement does this. And some have side effects ranging from the unpleasant, such as bloating and gas, to very serious issues such as strokes and heart problems.”

As a dietician and researcher, Manore said the key to weight loss is to eat whole grains, fruits, vegetables and lean meats, reduce calorie intake of high-fat foods, and to keep moving. Depending on the individual, increasing protein may be beneficial (especially for those trying to not lose lean tissue), but the only way to lose weight is to make a lifestyle change.

“Adding fiber, calcium, protein and drinking green tea can help,” Manore said. “But none of these will have much effect unless you exercise and eat fruits and vegetables.”

Manore’s general guidelines for a healthy lifestyle include:

• Do not leave the house in the morning without having a plan for dinner. Spontaneous eating often results in poorer food choices.
• If you do eat out, start your meal with a large salad with low-calorie dressing or a broth-based soup. You will feel much fuller and are less likely to eat your entire entrée. Better yet: split your entrée with a dining companion or just order an appetizer in addition to your soup or salad.
• Find ways to keep moving, especially if you have a sedentary job. Manore said she tries to put calls on speaker phone so she can walk around while talking. During long meetings, ask if you can stand or pace for periods so you don’t remain seated the entire time
• Put vegetables into every meal possible. Shred vegetables into your pasta sauce, add them into meat or just buy lots of bags of fruits/vegetables for on-the-go eating.
• Increase your fiber. Most Americans don’t get nearly enough fiber. When possible, eat “wet” sources of fiber rather than dry — cooked oatmeal makes you feel fuller than a fiber cracker.
• Make sure to eat whole fruits and vegetables instead of drinking your calories. Eat an apple rather than drink apple juice. Look at items that seem similar and eat the one that physically takes up more space. For example, eating 100 calories of grapes rather than 100 calories of raisins will make you feel fuller.
• Eliminate processed foods. Manore said research increasingly shows that foods that are harder to digest (such as high fiber foods) have a greater “thermic effect” — or the way to boost your metabolism.

Journal Reference:

1. Melinda M. Manore. Dietary Supplements for Improving Body Composition and Reducing Body Weight: Where is the evidence?International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2012 [link]

Anyone that bashes IIFYM clearly doesn't understand the concept. It is healthy eating that lets you indulge in the foods you enjoy on occasion without the guilt. ⇒