What If Meat Was Good For You?

Wouldn’t that be nice? Imagine steak being proclaimed as a health food…as it once was. Sigh. Will those days ever return? Not if certain researchers have anything to say about it!

I’m sure that many of you saw the recent article in the NY Times about a study that showed the bacteria in our guts converts the carnitine found in red meat into an evil, deadly substance, and how this might be the reason why meat is responsible for heart disease.

The researchers argument was that our intestinal bacterial convert carnitine into a toxic substance called trimethylamine oxide (TMAO) in the liver which then may be the cause or one cause of atherosclerosis in humans. Earlier work by the two main researchers found that choline coverted to TMAO in mice genetically modified to get heart disease and are now extending this idea to humans via the carnitine found in red meat.

Not that red meat is the only food that causes such a conversion mind you. In another study researchers found that lots of the foods tested caused this conversion to happen including heart healthy vegetables. But as we all know, red meat is bad for us and veggies are definitley good for us. So, it’s the red meat that’s to blame!

If you haven’t read the article yet, Here it is. The abstract of the study here. Notice the title of the abstract:

Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis.

Wow. How damning. Is this really true? Does the study show that red meat promotes heart disease? And if so, just red meat? I can hear my doting mother in-law’s fingers banging away at the keyboard now composing an urgent email to make me stop eating steak:

My dear SON – please did you see it? The study by the doctors?! They know meat is bad now!! Please don’t eat meat anymore!! Love you Mom. PS – did the sweater fit?

Oy veyishameer.

As I see it, the idea itself is total nonsense for several reasons. For one, humans have been eating meat for, well, a very long-ish time. If eating meat didn’t kill us all off several hundred thousand years ago, why would we think that meat would try to kill us now? Hmmm. I know that is not a very scientific explanation but think about it.

For those of you who are religious and at the same time think that your evening steak is killing you, if you recall from your Bible studies God said we could and should eat meat. I have read the Bible and nowhere in it do I recall the big man tossing in any caveats about meat in general being deadly like:

Fear thou my children TMAO – a by-product of eating my fleshy creations and thus limit the amount you consume. The same goes for my plant matter creations but these are heart healthy so worry not!

It’s true that certain animals were forbidden to the Jews (but God never says why exactly). Still, meat is clearly on God’s menu for all of us. If it was so bad, why advise us to eat it? Food for thought for my religious brothers and sisters…

The unfounded bias against meat in the world of nutrition is, to me at least, shockingly blatant. It pervades the thoughts of virtually every nutritionist’s dietary recommendations. Statements like, “Even though there is no conclusvie evidence to support the idea that red meat or meat in general is harmful, common sense tells us to limit our intake of meat, especially red meat,” are rampant in popular nutritional press.

On page one of the study the researchers state:

However, a recent meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed no association between dietary saturated fat intake and CVD, prompting the suggestion that other environmental exposures linked to increased meat consumption are responsible

Yeah, OK, so the fat in meat is now found innocent in the court of nutritional law, but it’s STILL the meat that’s to blame. Of course, we should all feel free to go face down in vegetalbes as often as we like, even though studies have shown that peas produce far more of the supposed harmful, artery-clogging substances than meat. But vegetables are healthy for us so there can’t be any meaningful association there, right?

Again, research has shown that the cholesterol and saturated fats in meat can no longer be wrongly tormented as criminals to our health. You can see this fact for yourself here. But I don’t notice anyone apologizing for the years of false accusations and shunning tactics made about meat as if they were Amish children gone rouge. Why? Because there STILL must be something about meat that is bad for us. There just must be. We were wrong about the fat, but we’re right about it being meat.

A really brilliant PhD friend wrote the following referring to the study:

I think it (referring ot the paper) has some interesting things however irrelevant for human health. It is a kind of microcosm of what’s wrong with medical science, exaggerating minor points and using statistics to hide rather than explain the truth. For those who don’t have time, I provide a synopsis of the introduction:

…is linked to…presumably…prompting the suggestion …the suspicion…may not be sufficiently high enough …has been linked … raise the possibility …may … have not been fully clarified … has not been evaluated.

I agree.

I think quite soon the registered dieticians of the world will suddenly snap out of their curse of the mummy approach to nutrition, unravel their blinding bandages and start denouncing vegan diets while eating a leg of lamb with their bare hands. I just can’t wait. But it’s not for today.

In the mean time, smarty pants people like Chris Kresser and Chris Masterjohn have written about this study with much greater expertise and brain power than I ever could, so, I won’t even try to explain it better. In his blog post, which you must read if you want to be able to explain the thing to your own mother in-law, Masterjohn exposes the following confounder (of which there are dozens):

Adjusting for body weight, this is like a human eating a thousand steaks per day. This is beyond the capacity of even the most die-hard meat-lovers.

Well, maybe not Jimmy Moore (Oh, c’mon, I KID Jimmy). This of course got me to thinking…why didn’t the researchers come to the same conclusions as Masterjohn (and Kresser) and state the same points in their discussion? Why didn’t they express the same caveats and confounders? Why instead did they come to the conclusion that meat promotes heart disease? I think I know why.

On the last page of the paper, the researchers state:

Our studies reveal a new pathway potentially linking dietary red meat ingestion with atherosclerosis pathogenesis. The role of gut microbiota in this pathway suggests new potential therapeutic targets for preventing CVD.

Ahhhhhhhhhh. Medicines. New drugs. Big profits. Since the good Lord knows that people will keep eating red meat regardless of our brilliant findings, let’s just kill the gut bacteria with a new, powerful antibiotic and viola! Heart disease will vanish. Good thinking. Like a famous boxing trainer once said “Kill the body and the head will die.”

Titles of papers like this one:

Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis

are the very fodder that the press love to pretzel into statments like:

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it! Another Deadly Nail in the Coffin for Red Meat – and You! Eat Meat and Your Heart Will Die.

Both of the lead researchers have ties to big pharma by the by. How surprising.

And if after reading this blog post and all the links therein you still think eating meat will kill you, you can always enjoy Denise Minger’s mind on the matter of meat and heart health.

So there you have it. Now I have to go write a response to my doting mother in-law’s forthcoming email – I know it’s on the way. How shall I start it…

Dear Mom – thanks for the sweater. Of course it fits! Now, as for meat…

ADDITION: I neglected to add the Science Friday radio piece on this subject. After reading this and Chris Masterjohn’s blog, listen to the show. You’ll hear how biased – or clueless – the scientist being interviewed truly is.

Even more!

You’re Seven Feet Tall Because You Eat Too Much

Or, do you just eat a lot when you’re seven feet tall? Think this is a dumb point to make?

When this young man walks into a room, does anyone think “Wow – that is one tall kid! He must be eating too much!”

No. Of course not. We know that he has a hormonal disorder. And yes, he eats more food than a five foot tall kid of the same age. But he didn’t grow to be seven feet tall because he stuffed his face with excess calories.

But when an obese kid (or adult) walks into a room, does anyone think “Wow – that is one obese person! He must be eating too much!”

Yes. Everyone does.

And while in most cases the obese person is eating more than a lean person, just like the super tall person eats more than the normal sized person, the cause of the excess intake is the same – a hormonal disorder.

Fat gain is the cause of obesity – not caloric consumption.

Obesity is a hormonal issue – not a numbers issue. Repeat after Gary Taubes – It’s biology, not physics.

Food for thought.

How Often Should We Lift Weights?

As many of you already know, strength training produces many positive health benefits including but not limited to increased strength, endurance, muscle and bone mass, decreased blood pressure, body fat, risk of injury and falls. Recently, research has revealed that strength training improves cognitive function and reverses certain genetic markers of aging. No longer is lifting weights just something you do to make your muscles bigger. We now know that it makes you smarter and younger!

At Serious Strength Personal Training (my strength studio), we have always advocated two weekly strength training sessions for best results. One weekly session does indeed provide good benefits, but not as good as two for the vast majority of people I have trained over the past 25 years and more than two has never seemed to produce significantly better benefits if any at all.

Below is a table sent to me from my friend Dr. Wayne Westcott. Dr. Westcott is one of the countries foremost experts in exercise science. He just completed a large scale study involving over 1600 subjects comparing 1,2 and 3 strength training sessions a week over a 10 week period. His training methods are very similar to ours – 20-30 minute sessions, single sets of each exercise, multiple exercises per body part, slow repetition tempo continued to total muscle exhaustion or as we describe it “muscular success.”

Table 2: Baseline to Post Test Changes (M±SD) by Training Frequency

1XWk Group 2XWk Group 3XWk Group

(n=81) (n=845) (n=693)

Percent Body Fat

(%)

-1.43a

(±1.35)

-1.85b

(±1.49)

-2.19c

(±1.52)

Fat Weight

(kg)

-1.34a

(±1.72)

-1.47a

(±2.04)

-2.01b

(±2.61)

Lean Weight

(kg)

0.33a

(±3.57)

1.40b

(±3.21)

1.40b

(±2.53)

Systolic Blood Pressure

(mmHg)

-4.19a

(±12.13)

-3.14a

(±13.53)

-4.63a

(±14.63)

Diastolic Blood Pressure

(mmHg)

-1.97a

(±8.33)

-1.36a

(±9.89)

-2.15a

(±8.89)

Values that significantly differ (p<.05) are denoted by different superscripts.

As you can see, 2 weekly training sessions produced significantly better gains in lean weight than one session a week (3lbs. vs. <1lbs.) and better losses in fat mass. What is probably most interesting to many, is that three strength sessions a week did not produce better gains in lean tissue.

And though 3 weekly sessions did produce better fat loss than 2 sessions a week, since diet was not part of the study, we cannot attribute any amount of the fat loss to the training. It may have had an effect, but the added fat loss could not have been caused by the few extra calories burned in one, 20 minute strength session since most of the energy used when exercising come from stored muscle glycogen and not body fat. And even if it was pure fat being used, the math just doesn’t add up. It could just have been caused by continued preoccupation, meaning, they didn’t eat as many sugary, fat promoting foods since they were exercising.

Benefits to blood pressure were statistically equal for all groups. That’s nice to see!

If you look at the table up top on over training, since there is no evidence that more exercise is better, you can save yourself from the above mentioned symptoms. I mean, if three sessions is not better than two, do you think four sessions will be any better? Me neither.

So, it behooves you to try and squeeze in two weekly strength sessions for best overall results. This is one reason why we created the Serious Strength Lite, 15 minute strength training session at our studio. Short, but really sweet. A little can go a long way. Even training 3 times in a two week period will benefit you to a greater degree than one session a week.

For fat loss, just eat right which research suggests is a low sugar, adequate fatty protein diet.

Now go get strong! Your thoughts?

Nutrition Science or Science Fiction?

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyu42JQ9dJw&w=425&h=350]

Here we go again. Yet another nutritional “scientist” claiming that carbohydrates are the main source of fuel for the body and a required macronutrient. Sigh.

In this incredibly frustrating and full-of-baloney video, we hear scientist Bridget Benelam say, right from the get go:

I’m going to talk about carbohydrate and why it is an important nutrient for our bodies.

Important? Really? Are you sure there Bridget?

Let’s take a look at what the DRI’s (dietary reference intake devised by the National Institute of Health) have to say about carbohydrate:

The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.

This is a very biased and convoluted statement.

But before I explain that, we can see carbohydrate is NOT an important nutrient since we don’t need any of it at all.

It would on the other hand be correct to say that fat and protein are important nutrients since we need a certain amount of both to live. But how can carbohydrate be an important nutrient when we can do without it? Important = required. Unimportant = not required. Am I wrong?

As I mentioned, the statement is deeply biased to begin with. Since adequate amounts of protein and fat must be consumed to survive and thrive, in their absence a boat load of carbs won’t do you much good. You still need the fat and protein. So why say “provided that…”?

The next sentence reads:

However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal health in humans is unknown.

It is also unknown what “optimal health” is in the first place. The bias in favor of carbs appears to be everywhere.

I posted a comment on the You Tube page of the video (as did a few other well-educated folks that I know) and they have yet to post them. They won’t of course. It’s not nice to ruin pretty stock-notions with cruel and ugly facts.

OK I can hear what your thinking – there are exceptions to this Fred! Some people need dietary carbs. Yes, it appears that athletes who deplete their stores of muscular glycogen very rapidly and deeply (high intensity efforts like sprinting, mixed martial arts, etc. can do this) require some dietary carbs in order to rapidly replenish their intramuscular glycogen stores so that they can continue to train like maniacs.

Most of these athletes are, in my opinion, wildly over training. But far be it from me to tell them or their coaches how to train (ahem). BTAIM (be that as it may), for the vast majority of people who are performing high intensity resistance training and other sports to improve their strength and health, there is no need to worry about too low muscle glycogen levels. Nuh uh.

Rather than focusing on carb intake as the USDA and other organizations would have you do, focus instead on getting in your protein requirements which can be found here. Always add a nice array of green, leafy, non-starchy vegetables and/or seasonal fruits to your proteins. Eat like this and you’ll be lean, strong, energetic and you’ll sing good too!

My Post Workout Strength Potion

There is some pretty convincing evidence that post workout protein intake improves muscle recovery and growth. This is just one of many research studies that support the notion of taking in a good protein potion before and after your workouts.

I’ve certainly seen and felt a difference in my body doing so.

Over the years I and my blender (bought for me by my loving troupe of trainers) have been best buds. We’ve mixed and blended all sorts of concoctions to see what sort of he-man building brew we could come up with. But more than just my interest in muscle growth and recovery, I have also been interested in reducing systemic inflammation.

My laboratory

As many of you who read my blog know, I have had the unfortunate luck of intermittent but often terrible arthritic knee pain which resulted in a partial knee replacement two years ago which I am happy to say, was a total success. But the process was something I never want to go through again.

So in my efforts to keep the other knee free from such medieval butchery (as Dr. McCoy would call it), I’ve tested and tried all kinds of anti-inflammatory agents. Some worked, some didn’t.

Anyhow, I thought I’d share with you my current muscle building/recovery/anti-inflammatory concoction. And don’t worry – there is no wolves-bane or eyes of a newt included. And it’s only mildly flammable. But to be safe, keep it away from your Bunsen burner.

Here’s how to make it:

Fill a blender with 18 ounces of water. Mix in:

1 scoop (30 grams) of your favorite protein powder. I use a product that contains both whey and casein for immediate and long term protein uptake. I weigh 170 pounds. Use more or less depending on your size. Refer to my last blog Protein: How Much You Need and Why.
1 tsp glutamine powder. Glutamine is good for the gut lining and for facilitating nitrogen metabolism which is essential for building muscle.
One scoop (5 grams) of creatine. I’ll be honest – the research is mixed. Some research shows that creatine monohydrate aids strength production and recovery and some say it doesn’t do diddly. Nowadays its pretty inexpensive so I include it.
One scoop of Critical Aminos (berry flavor). It adds all the essential amino acids and offsets the yucky flavor (to me at least) of…
A dropper full of tumeric. Tumeric has been used for billions of years as an anti-inflammatory agent. OK not billions but thousands. And while there is not a lot of convincing scientific evidence, I can tell you it helped me when I started to use the liquid form of it in my shakes. And it’s not expensive.
A teaspoon of cinnamon. Makes the shake taste super yummy and is considered an powerful anti-inflammatory/anti-viral agent. Also cheap.
A 1/2 teaspoon of leucine. Leucine is an essential amino acid that is thought to aid muscle recovery and growth. My co-authors Drs. Eades discuss this in their book The 6 Week Cure for the Middle Aged Middle. (NOT an affiliate link).
A tablespoon of MCT oil or coconut oil. Fat helps the absorption of nutrients.
A drop (1,000 IUs) of vitamin D liquid.
A dropper (serving size) of green tea liquid extract). It is thought that the polyphenols in green tea might be able to prevent inflammation and swelling, protect cartilage between the bones, and lessen joint degeneration.
1 scoop of collagen peptide. This product is great for achy joints. Read the description on the link and you’ll probably want to bathe in it.
1 scoop MSM powder. MSM is for, well, read here. Good stuff.

Mix it up and drink it down after a short but sweetly intense Slow Burn workout.

I’d love to hear your experiences with this.

NOTE: This elixir is intended for people who are weight training. It may also be beneficial for those who are not but it’s probably overkill on the amino acids. I’m not saying its dangerous. It just might be a waste of your hard earned cash.

And since I have to say it, consult with your doctor before taking these products because your head might pop off and you might wake up with tentacles and flippers where you once had arms and legs.