Being strong physically helps you to be strong financially.
There’s a confidence that comes with the territory of improving your physical strength. You feel younger. You walk taller. You move more easily and with more grace. It puts a glint in your eye.
And people notice.
And all it takes is just 15 – 30 minutes a week. Tops.
What are you waiting for?
Is this food plate valid or not? Let your voice be heard!
Harvard school for public health is holding an open Q&A tomorrow at 2:30 PM to discuss your thoughts and ideas on their food plate.
Dr. Feinman, President of the Nutrition and Metabolism Society has written a blog on this that you should all read. After reading the good doctor’s blog, go to the Harvard site, register, send in your questions and participate tomorrow afternoon.
Change only happens when you get involved and change is sorely needed in the field of nutrition.
Here are the questions I submitted to give you an idea:
1. The National Institute of Health’s DRI report states (on page 275 of their online journal) the following: “The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed. However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations that ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928).” Given this, why then does the Harvard Food Plate consist of three quarters carbohydrate? Why is your plate based primarily upon a macronutrient that we need the least of and possibly none at all? Should not the plate be based on the macronutrients we need the most of?
2. Why does the protein section plate say “healthy protein instead of just protein?” Why isn’t the word “healthy” used before the names of the foods in all of the sections? Also, why doesn’t the protein section say meats instead of protein and/or, why doesn’t the fruits, vegetables and grains section say carbohydrates?
3. What evidence are you using to support your statement that people need to “limit red meat and to avoid bacon”? Is this recommendation based solely on epidemiological surveys or is there actual controlled research to support your recommendations? Do you mean to say to avoid the nitrates and other chemical additives in processed meats? Some processed meats do not contain these substances and are purely meat.
4. What is your definition of processed? Uncured bacon is a far less “processed” food than a loaf of whole wheat bread or pasta. Shouldn’t you be recommending that Americans avoid all foods that are processed? If not why not?
5. Why do you say “eat plenty of fruit…” and not say eat plenty of meat when the protein section is larger? Why use such a suggestive determiner as the word plenty for one group of foods and not others?
6. Do you feel that this food plate is healthful for diabetics since it is three quarters carbohydrate and diabetes is a condition of severe intolerance to carbohydrates?
7. What scientific evidence are you using to support the statement in the healthy oils section to “limit butter?” And why do you say that canola oil is healthy? Where is the evidence to support this statement?
8. Are you aware of this 2010 paper by Krauss et. al. on saturated fats? Their conclusion: “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.” Given this, why then does your food plate limit saturated fats? What research are you using to support your recommendations to limit saturated fats?
9. I’m unclear why you placed beans and nuts in the protein section. They are not pure proteins. They contain significant carbohydrate and starch. Broccoli has protein too. Why aren’t nuts and beans in the vegetables section?
10. Since there is ample scientific research to support a low carbohydrate/sugar diet for improvements in diabetes and other maladies associated with metabolic syndrome, why is your food plate three quarters carbohydrate? Has your group evaluated what the typical person’s blood sugar levels are after eating a meal that consists of three quarters carbohydrate in the proportions you suggest?
Here is my version of the “Plate:”
Not perfect but closer to the truth.
So don’t delay! Change is in your hands.
Why so many nutritionists and registered dietitians don’t know this is a mystery. And the removal of most carbohydrates from our diets would come as close to a cure for virtually all symptoms of what’s called the metabolic syndrome as you can get.
There is an idea floating around that a low carb diet is a high protein diet. I have clients say this to me all the time. But as far as I know, no low carb guru has ever said such a thing. As I see it, many newbie low-carbers think this because of their fear of fat. They cut the carbs but simultaneously cut out as much fat as possible assuming it’s healthier to eat that way. They’ll buy lean meats, fat free cottage cheese, yogurt, etc.
Big mistake.
I find it surprisingly easy to persuade people to cut down on their sugar and starch intake to lose fat and get healthier, but impossibly difficult if not virtually impossible to persuade people to replace the calories with fat – even the good fats.
Virtually every client I talk to is completely brainwashed about the subject. The “fat-is-evil” torch was lit by Dr. Ancel Keys and is being kept aflame by Dr. Oz, Ornish, McDougall, Esselstyn and a host of others who mistakenly lump fat in with processed carbs. They’ll shun a fatty cheeseburger blaming the fat in the meat and cheese rather than the bun that encompasses it – or even the combination of all of it. Researchers make this blunder all the time (emphasis mine):
Study design
Subjects were asked to avoid alcohol, caffeine, and strenuous exercise for 24 h and antioxidants and vitamins for 1 wk before the studies. Subjects presented at 0800 h after a 12 h fast on two occasions, separated by at least 4 d. Subjects were provided with a high-fat meal or water control (50 ml/h of room temperature water) in random order. The meal consisted of a bacon and egg muffin, two hash browns, and caramel-flavored milk drink [4136 kJ: 57.5 g fat (19.8% saturated), 35 g protein, and 83 g carbohydrate].
See what I mean? Why call this a high fat meal? If the outcome of a study feeding people this fare is good or bad, you can’t pin it on the fat now, can ya?
Here is what Dr. McDougall suggests you eat. These are his products. Yes doctor, we should all be eating your wonderful, processed food products:
Yummy real foods from nature!
But we should steer clear of these nasty foods made from actual living things:
Real food
OK that was a little snarky.
Anyway, too little fat in your diet is bad for many reasons. You need fats to help absorb vitamins and minerals. You need fats for proper hormone production. There is even some evidence that too little saturated fatty acid levels can lead to Alzheimer’s.
And then there’s nasty old protein poisoning. This condition, also known as Rabbit Starvation, occurs not from too much protein, but too much lean protein (and perhaps other conditions as well). You can read about this here.
From the Wiki page:
Vilhjalmur Stefansson wrote as follows:
The groups that depend on the blubber animals are the most fortunate in the hunting way of life, for they never suffer from fat-hunger. This trouble is worst, so far as North America is concerned, among those forest Indians who depend at times on rabbits, the leanest animal in the North, and who develop the extreme fat-hunger known as rabbit-starvation. Rabbit eaters, if they have no fat from another source—beaver, moose, fish—will develop diarrhoea in about a week, with headache, lassitude and vague discomfort. If there are enough rabbits, the people eat till their stomachs are distended; but no matter how much they eat they feel unsatisfied. Some think a man will die sooner if he eats continually of fat-free meat than if he eats nothing, but this is a belief on which sufficient evidence for a decision has not been gathered in the North. Deaths from rabbit-starvation, or from the eating of other skinny meat, are rare; for everyone understands the principle, and any possible preventive steps are naturally taken.
Fat in your protein is essential in other words. I think this is one reason why many who adopt a low carb diet find themselves feeling a little funky.
Before I move on, take a look at these low carb myths from the Nutrition and Metabolism Society (which everyone who reads this blog should join if you really want folks like the ADA and the AHA to either vanish or start getting with the scientific program).
Did you learn anything useful reading this page? I sure do hope so. I did in re-reading it, that’s for sure.
So when adopting a low carb diet for health and fat loss, make sure to make your protein choices fatty and adequate. If you do, satiety will be high. Think about it – how many eggs can one really eat in one sitting? I’m 5’10” and 160 pounds and at best I can eat 4 eggs at one time.
Now sing a long with me: “A spoon full of butter helps the medicine go down, the medicine go dow-own, medicine go down. Just a spoonful of butter helps the medicine go down, in the most delightful way…”
Sounds better, right?
The Slow Burn Repetition Cycle
When you lift weights, there are two things you have to do:
1. Lift the weights up (a.k.a the positive)
2. Lower the weights back down (a.k.a the negative)
The chart above is what we use at Serious Strength to give clients a basic idea of how to perform a repetition when exercising. The repetition is the nucleus, if you will, of any weight training program. If the quality of your rep is high, the quality of your set will be high and thus, the quality of your session will be high.
We always tell our clients, it’s quality over quantity. We’re not Nazi’s about clients keeping to this chart perfectly, but we feel that sticking to it closely gives clients a good, solid foundation for performing a quality rep. Like I say to the naysayers, how and why is it better to move faster?
Some argue that there is indeed an ideal lifting and lowering tempo, while others could care less and spout meat-heady things like: “Just lift the damn thing and lower it! Oo,oo,oo,oo,ah,ah,ah,ah grunt, scratch.”
I don’t think that there is an “ideal” or perfect weight lifting tempo. But I think some discussion on this issue is important in order to understand the issue more clearly. And a little science couldn’t hurt us.
In traditional resistance training, lifting a weight as quickly as possible results in a very fast or explosive motion – if the weight being lifted is light that is. If it results in a very slow lifting tempo, then the weight is very heavy – heavy for that particular individual.
When using good lifting form and not attempting to duck underneath a weight to lock out your joints into an infinite lever position (as on Olympic lifting), you can’t move a heavy weight quickly. Even in O lifting, the weight doesn’t really move fast – the lifters body does.
Take a look-see:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUl7UqbL3uc&w=540&h=360]
You can’t push your broken down, out of gas Hummer off the road lickety-split. If you can even move it at all, it will be slow going.
I’ve argued with trainers ad-infinitum as to whether or not lowering a weight slowly is better than quickly. While I believe that there is not perfect lowering tempo, lowering a weight slowly requires more energy output.
From Brunnstrom’s Clinical Kinesiology, page 144:
Thus less energy is required to lower a given load quickly than to lower it slowly.
A trainer friend once said to me that performing the negative quickly allows for more total positive contractions and since the positive is harder than the negative, this makes for a more intense set. Intensity (i.e., a high degree of muscular effort – not grimacing and grunting like a wild boar) is key to recruiting all of the available muscle fibers. Volume of work is not the stimulus for increases in strength and muscular growth. Intensity is the key.
Performing the negative slowly requires more energy expenditure and this makes the subsequent positive contraction harder, meaning, more intense. So the question is what’s better – more total positives contractions, or more intense positive contractions? I vote for the latter.
Also from Brunnstrom’s:
At slower speeds, the maximum number of cross-bridges can be formed. The more rapidly the actin and myosin filaments slide past each other, the smaller number of links that can be formed between the filamnets in a unit of time and the less amount of force is developed.
So it’s really better to perform both the positive and the negative slowly. But dropping the negative is not such a great idea.
In the study by Farthing and Chilibeck, The effects of eccentric (positive) and concentric (negative) training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy, the researchers conclude that fast negative training is the most effective method for improving muscle growth.
Not so fast rabbit!
This researchers used what’s called an isokinetic training machine for the strengthening protocol. An isokinetic machine (isokinetic means “same speed”) delivers resistance via a servo motor that you can set to different velocities. It has a screen that shows you how much torque you are producing at each given speed.
An isokinetic exercise machine
For example, a velocity of 30 degrees per second on the positive (lifting) means that the trainee has to produce enough force to engage the motor at 30 degrees per second. This would be a challenging amount of force to have to produce to engage the motor. 180 degrees per second would allow you to move your limb much more quickly producing far less torque or force on the machines monitor.
When performing the negative, the servo motor acts on the limb by itself and so a faster speed will impart more resistance to the limb. So it’s sort of the opposite. The researchers didn’t think their conclusion through very thoroughly. It’s not the speed of movement that causes better strength gains, but the degree of muscular effort/tension or intensity that matters most. A more intense negative is better and a slower negative is more intense than a fast one.
How fast can you run up a really steep hill?
We all know the song by Mercer and Arlen, Accentuate the Positive. But if you don’t, take a listen:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUdFIPknB_Y&w=540&h=390]
While the songs title is a terrific way to look at life, it’s not a good recommendation for weight lifting. So do indeed accentuate the positive, but don’t eliminate that negative by going fast. Accentuate it by going slow!
Wheat Belly is a new book by William Davis, M.D., a brilliant cardiologist who will tell you to your face that saturated fat and cholesterol are good for you and that a low carbohydrate, real food diet is the go-to approach for human health.
He is a breath of fresh air.
His book describes in incredible detail how bad wheat is for you and how, like a swarm of locusts, gets into everything you eat.
Here is my review:
Read this book. It could save you and your family’s life.
Now, scroll up, click, buy, read, know.
‘Nuff said.
