tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70930081075932600452024-02-20T21:28:35.568-08:00Functional WellnessThe thoughts of a left-handed, colour-blind Canadian on the topics of Heath, Fitness & LongevityCraig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-4953880055899228572008-02-18T15:26:00.001-08:002008-02-18T15:26:44.427-08:00Low-Carb diets & EntropyBack in October of last year, Dr. Michael R. Eades wrote an interesting <a href="http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/">post</a> about one way in which low-carb diets work by providing a metabolic advantage over any isocaloric diet of different macronutrient proporitions (ie. a high carb diet). Proponents of the "A Calorie is a Calorie" concept argue that suggesting such an advantage exists defies the laws of thermodynamics and therefore can not be true. The law that they are talking about is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states:<br /><br />"<span style="font-style: italic;">The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.</span>"<br /><br />Simply stated, and in reference to the body and nutrition, energy can neither be created or destroyed, so Calories in (food) must = Calories out (metabolism, exercise, etc.). Unfortunately, the universe isn't that simple. Eades uses the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to show this. This law, which states:<br /><br />"<span style="font-style: italic;">The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.</span>"<br /><br />What this means is that you can't turn 100kcal of pasta into 100kcal of activity, some of that 100kcal is lost as heat, which depends on what type of calorie it was (carb, protein, fat). This changes the Calories in = Calories out equation to Calories in = Calories out + Entropy (the energy lost to the universe, usually as heat, during any chemical reaction).<br /><br />How all of this applies to weight loss and low-carb diets is that the entropy created in converting non-carbohydrate macronutrients (fat, protein) into blood sugar for energy is much greater than that created by carbohydrates into blood sugar (carbs = sugar). Fat and Protein doesn't convert to blood sugar easily. It takes many steps and many different chemical reactions, all of which result in a loss of heat to the universe. All of these extra steps means that your body has to expend more energy, and the lost heat results in a higher basal metabolic rate, which means that you burn more calories at rest. This result has been shown in the following <a href="http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/55">study</a> which Eades provided reference to.<br /><br />The bottom line: if you take two people, put them on isocaloric diets, one that is low-carb, and one that is high-carb, the person on the low-carb diet <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> lose more weight because they are having to expend more energy to convert fat and protein to sugar.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-43183119705495851102007-10-22T11:32:00.000-07:002007-10-22T11:35:23.973-07:00Gary Taubes on Larry King LiveGary Taubes appeared on Larry King Live last Friday to talk about his new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787">Good Calories, Bad Calories</a>. Unfortunately, the zealots that they brought on the show to debate with him don't ever give him a chance to speak, so the message falls flat and on deaf ears. It's at least worth checking out, here's the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/21/lkl.diet.debate.cnn">link</a>.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-31087329668854344532007-09-20T10:43:00.000-07:002007-09-20T10:58:29.618-07:00Correlation Does Not Equal CausationGary Taubes, author of "<a href="http://www.nasw.org/awards/2001/01Taubesarticle1.htm">The Soft Science of Dietary Fat</a>", "<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63&sec=health">What if it's all been a big fat lie?</a>", and the forthcoming book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes/dp/1400040787/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-2962911-6209251?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190310506&sr=1-1">Good Calories, Bad Calories</a>", recently wrote an excellent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2&adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1190226082-0tH5zJLDYh3Qqb9YAw6sdg">article</a> for the New York Times entitled "Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?". The article discusses the successes and failures of epidemiological studies, the kind that produce results like "Saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease" or "H.R.T. in post-menopausal women decreases the risk of osteoporosis". They are broken down into two types of studies. The first, which are strictly observational, are the kinds that you hear about the most in the media, and which provide the foundation for the majority of public health "knowledge". The second, which are ideally double-blind, randomized clinical trials, try to control as many variables as they can to either prove or disprove an observation or set of observations obtained from the first study. The issue, as Taubes elegantly explains, is that neither can determine causation, and the types that would provide meaningful results are so costly, time consuming, and likely un-ethical, that it is unrealistic to expect that they will ever be performed. It's a great read, and really puts the issue of public health information into perspective. His book comes out at the end of this month; I am anxiously awaiting its release.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-7813945130924419872007-07-31T07:17:00.000-07:002007-07-31T07:52:46.008-07:00Oxidative Stress, Aging, and Endurance TrainingI always wondered why endurance athletes looked older than they should, I had a theory developed, and now I found someone who seems to agree with that theory. Mark <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Sisson</span>, a former endurance athlete himself, <a href="http://slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/health_doping_slowtwitch2.html">wrote a great piece</a> in his blog about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">pre</span>-mature aging amongst <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">endurnace</span> athletes. Here are the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">cliffnotes</span>:<br /><br />- Carbohydrate metabolism is costly and inefficient. Your muscles and liver can only hold 500-600g of glycogen, which will only fuel about 2 hours of endurance activity at best. Therefore endurance athletes need to consume lots of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">carbs</span>.<br /><br />- Lots of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">carbs</span> means lots of insulin, which means lots of inflammation.<br /><br />- Chronic glycogen depletion means chronically high levels of Cortisol, which <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">suppresses</span> immune function, reduces calcium uptake, and reduces lean mass in addition to many other negative side effects.<br /><br />- Beta-Oxidation of fats during training generates free-radical damage at a rate of up to 20 times what is possible at rest.<br /><br />If you need further explanation of why all of these effects are bad, and how they add up to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">pre</span>-mature aging, cancer, heart disease, and massive lean tissue <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">degradation</span>, read the entire article.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-3399699441801322502007-07-27T09:22:00.001-07:002007-07-27T09:43:26.711-07:00Unhappy MealsMichael <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Pollan</span>, author of <a href="http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php">The Omnivore's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Dillema</span></a>, wrote a great common sense article for the New York Times back in January (I know, it was 6 months ago, but if you haven't already noticed, I don't keep up with the times very well). The article, titled <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?amp;amp;en=a18a7f35515014c7&ei=5090&ex=1327640400&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1185553390-Gvj5K+yWwlQy/TFobdUx3w">Unhappy Meals</a>, has a simple message:<br /><br />Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.<br /><br />While I don't agree with his meat-as-a-side-dish views, the key to his message is the Eat food portion. What is meant by this is simple:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"...you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">foodlike</span> substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat."</span><br /><br />It seems pretty common sense, but I'm constantly amazed when clients bring me food products that they think are healthy because they have some health claim printed on their package. This is why I love the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Paleo</span> Diet so much, it's simple. If you stick to eating meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts, you don't have to worry about what effects all of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">un</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">pronounceable</span> ingredients on the package of your food are going to have on your body, because real food doesn't come in a package with a list of ingredients.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-36793605911425425662007-06-07T18:08:00.001-07:002007-07-11T09:58:30.139-07:00Paleo TodayI found this great article on <a href="http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/JANA%20final.pdf">The Paleo Diet website</a> that provides an example of what the paleo diet would look like using modern foods, complete with a nutritional profile of the diet detailing macro and micronutrient content. What was found is that it is entirely possible to consume a nutritionally balanced diet using modern foods that mimic the food groups and types that were available to paleolithic man. The relative contribution of various foods (plant and animal) to the diet was based on average values previously determined in numerous hunter gatherer societies. This data was used in combination with the 20 most common fruit, vegetables, and fish sold in the United States to determine the composition of the diet, detailed to the point of creating a mock 1 day menu. The diet was then analyzed for macro and micronutrient content. What is most interesting to note is the the macronutrient content of this diet turned out to be 38% Protein, 39% Fat, and 23% Carbohydrate, which closely mimics Zone proportions with a few carbs replaced with fat. The only visible shortcoming of the diet was lack of Vitamin D, which Paleolithic man would have obtained from the sun.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-79704882593736616212007-04-19T10:28:00.000-07:002007-04-19T10:34:14.317-07:00Ketogenic Diets & Physical PerformanceI've been experimenting with low carb eating for several months now, and there have definitely been a few bumps in the road. Whenever I attempt an intense CrossFit workout during the first few days of low carbing, I tank. The reason seems clear: I'm not eating enough carbs. Afterall, carbs are what supply the fuel for intense exercise, so it seems foolish to try to workout without them. Fortunately, there's some hope. Thanks to Robb Wolf over at <a href="http://www.performancemenu.com/">The Performance Menu</a>, I stumbled across this jewel of a study:<br /><a href="http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2"><br /></a><a href="http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2"><span class="xpapertitle">Ketogenic diets and physical performance</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Introduction</span><br /><br />The study is a discussion of the <span class="bodytext" style="font-size:100%;">juxtaposition of clinical research results favoring carbohydrate against observed functional well-being in traditional cultures consuming none. It begins by giving a brief history of how carbohydrates came to dominate our diet, then cites a few studies that seem to confirm the necessity of carbs for optimal physical performance.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="subHead">The hunter's counterpoint – practical observations on ketogenic diets</span><br /><span class="bodytext" style="font-size:100%;"><br />The author begins to provide some insight into how ketogenic diets can sustain performance by citing a couple of real world examples in which explorers were forced into ketosis during their travels without any noticeable performance detriments after a period of adaptation.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="subHead">Modern ketogenic diet performance studies</span><br /><span class="bodytext" style="font-size:100%;"><br />This is where most of the value in the study lies. The author details a couple of studies that he has performed investigating the effects of ketogenic diets on physical performance:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">1st Study:</span><br /></span><br /><em>...a study of subjects given a very low calorie ketogenic diet for 6 weeks in a metabolic research ward. The protein for this diet, along with a modicum of inherent fat, was provided by lean meat, fish, and poultry providing 1.2 grams of protein per kg of reference ("ideal") body weight daily. In addition, mindful that the natriuresis of fasting could reduce circulating blood volume and cause secondary renal potassium wasting, the subjects were prescribed 3 grams of supplemental sodium as bouillion and 25 mEq (1 g) of potassium as bicarbonate daily.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Treadmill performance testing of these subjects included determinations of peak aerobic power (VO2max) after a 2-week weight maintenance baseline diet, and again after 6 weeks of the ketogenic weight loss diet. Endurance time to exhaustion was quantitated at 75% of the baseline VO2max. This endurance test was repeated again after one week of weight loss and finally after 6 weeks of weight loss. Other than these tests, the subjects did no training exercise during their participation in this study. To compensate for the fact that the average subject had lost over10 kg, the final endurance treadmill test was performed with the subject carrying a backpack equivalent in weight to the amount lost.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>The energy expenditure data (expressed as oxygen consumption) and exercise times across this 8-week inpatient study are shown in Table <a name="IDAIFW4L"></a><a onclick="window.open('/content/1/1/2/table/T1','T1','width=800,height=470,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,copyhistory=no'); return false;" href="http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2/table/T1">1</a> <span style="font-weight: bold;">(I was unable to link to the table, but you can link to it directly from the study via the link that I provided above)</span>. That these subjects'peak aerobic power did not decline despite 6 weeks of a carbohydrate-free, severely hypocaloric diet implies that the protein and mineral contents of the diet were adequate to preserve functional tissue. As can be noted, endurance time to exhaustion was reduced after one week of the ketogenic diet, but it was significantly increased over the baseline value by the 6-week time point. However the interpretation of this endurance test is confounded by the fact that the oxygen cost (ie, energy cost) of the treadmill exercise had significantly decreased following the weight loss, and this occurred despite the subjects being made to carry a backpack loaded to bring them back to their initial exercise test weight.</em><em><br /></em><em><br />This question of improved efficiency notwithstanding, it is clear that our subjects experienced a delayed adaptation to the ketogenic diet, having reduced endurance performance after one week followed by a recovery to or above baseline in the period between one and six weeks. Given the reduced energy cost of the exercise despite the backpack, the extent of this adaptation cannot be determined from this study. To explain this improved exercise efficiency, we can speculate that humans are more efficient carrying weight in a modern backpack than under their skin as excess body fat. It is also possible that these untrained subjects became more comfortable with prolonged treadmill walking by their third test, and therefore improving their overall efficiency.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2nd Study</span><br /><br />...study utilized competitive bicycle racers as subjects, confined to a metabolic ward for 5 weeks. In the first week, subjects ate a weight maintenance (eucaloric) diet providing 67% of non-protein energy as carbohydrate, during which time baseline performance studies were performed. This was followed by 4 weeks of a eucaloric ketogenic diet (EKD) providing 83% of energy as fat, 15% as protein, and less than 3% as carbohydrate. The meat, fish, and poultry that provided this diets protein, also provided 1.5 g/d of potassium and was prepared to contain 2 g/d of sodium. These inherent minerals were supplemented daily with an additional 1 g of potassium as bicarbonate, 3 grams of sodium as bouillon, 600 mg of calcium, 300 mg of magnesium, and a standard multivitamin.<br /><br />The bicyclist subjects of this study noted a modest decline in their energy level while on training rides during the first week of the Inuit diet, after which subjective performance was reasonably restored except for their sprint capability, which remained constrained during the period of carbohydrate restriction. On average, subjects lost 0.7 kg in the first week of the EKD, after which their weight remained stable. Total body potassium (by 40K counting) revealed a 2% reduction in the first 2 weeks (commensurate with the muscle glycogen depletion documented by biopsy), after which it remained stable in the 4th week of the EKD. These results are consistent with the observed reduction in body glycogen stores but otherwise excellent preservation of lean body mass during the EKD.<br /><br />The results of physical performance testing are presented in Table <a name="IDAZIW4L"></a><a onclick="window.open('/content/1/1/2/table/T2','T2','width=800,height=470,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,copyhistory=no'); return false;" href="http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2/table/T2">2</a> </em><em><span style="font-weight: bold;">(I was unable to link to the table, but you can link to it directly from the study via the link that I provided above)</span></em><em>. What is remarkable about these data is the lack of change in aerobic performance parameters across the 4-week adaptation period of the EKD. The endurance exercise test on the cycle ergometer was performed at 65% of VO2max, which translates in these highly trained athletes into a rate of energy expenditure of 960 kcal/hr. At this high level of energy expenditure, it is notable that the second test was performed at a mean respiratory quotient of 0.72, indicating that virtually all of the substrate for this high energy output was coming from fat. This is consistent with measures before and after exercise of muscle glycogen and blood glucose oxidation (data not shown), which revealed marked reductions in the use of these carbohydrate-derived substrates after adaptation to the EKD.</em><br /><em></em><br />What is most interesting about these studies, particularly the second, is that sprinting capability (CrossFit Workouts) was the only performance parameter that wasn't restored after the keto-adaptation period. This is what I have observed from my own experience and through talking with others. Also, the keto-adaptation period must be strictly low carb, as the author points out:<br /><br /><em>There are to date no studies that carefully examine the optimum length of this keto-adapataion period, but it is clearly longer than one week and likely well advanced within 3–4 weeks. The process does not appear to happen any faster in highly trained athletes than in overweight or untrained individuals. This adaptation process also appears to require consistent adherence to carbohydrate restriction, as people who intermittently consume carbohydrates while attempting a ketogenic diet report subjectively reduced exercise tolerance.</em><br /><em></em><br />This is where I've screwed up several times in the past. I can successfully go 5 days (M-F) strictly adhering to low carb eating, but somehow manage to indulge on the weekends. It's a vicious cycle in which I never become keto-adapted, and have to constantly supplement my diet with carbs in order to maintain high levels of performance. Even after becoming keto-adapted, unless I keep my exercise intensity low by focusing on strength routines and steady-state cardio, my performance will suffer, as the author notes in his conclusion:<br /><br /><em>Therapeutic use of ketogenic diets should not require constraint of most forms of physical labor or recreational activity, with the one caveat that anaerobic (ie, weight lifting or sprint) performance is limited by the low muscle glycogen levels induced by a ketogenic diet, and this would strongly discourage its use under most conditions of competitive athletics.</em><br /><br />The question now becomes: Can you STAY keto-adapted while adding in some post-workout carbs to replenish your glycogen stores? I'll be sure to write a post on that as soon as I figure it out.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-28729738066533825842007-04-17T11:30:00.000-07:002007-04-17T16:15:08.984-07:00Grain Consumption, an InvestigationAccording to <a href="http://www.mypyramid.gov/">MyPyramid</a>, the new Food Guide Pyramid created by the USDA, a 25 year old male of my height, weight and activity level should be consuming 10oz of grains, half of which should be whole grain, everyday. This amounts to roughly 90grams of carbohydrate, depending on the source, which would constitute 13% of my daily calories, as recommended by MyPyramid. In today's world of endless grain supply, this level of consumption is easily attainable. In fact, I would venture a guess that the majority of us consume far more than our MyPyramid recommended level of grains. Let's face it, a meal just isn't complete unless there is some form of starch in it, and it has always been that way, or at least as far back as written history dictates. Besides, without grains, where would we get all of the carbohydrates that we NEED in our diet for energy?<br /><br />Without delving deeply into the many reasons why <span style="font-style: italic;">I</span> think that grains are unnecessary, I will instead review Dr. Loren Cordain's research paper "<a href="http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal%20article.pdf">Cereal Grains: Humanity's Double Edged Sword</a>". While the paper is certainly not an exhaustive investigation into the need for grains in the modern human diet, it provides some great insight on the topic.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Introduction<br /><br /></span>Cordain begins his paper by illustrating just how widespread and overwhelming grain consumption is in the modern world:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">....it can be shown that the world’s four major cereal grains (wheat, maize, rice and barley) contribute more tonnage to humanity’s food supply than the next 26 crops combined. Eight cereal grains: wheat, maize, rice, barley, sorghum, oats, rye, and millet provide 56% of the food energy and 50% of the protein consumed on earth.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span><br />He uses this data to point out just how dependent man has become on grains, but quickly points out that it hasn't always been that way:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">For the vast majority of mankind’s presence on this planet, he rarely if ever consumed cereal grains. With the exception of the last 10,000 years following the agricultural ‘revolution’, humans have existed as non-cereal-eating hunter-gatherers since the emergence of Homo erectus 1.7 million years ago.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Consequently, we have had little time (=500 generations) since the inception of the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago to adapt to a food type which now represents humanity’s major source of both calories and protein.<br /><br /></span>This information, combined with the fact that <span style="font-style: italic;">"the human genetic constitution has<br />changed little in the past 40,000 years"</span> is pretty compelling evidence to me that grains aren't necessary for optimal nutrition. The most common argument against this line of thinking is that Paleolithic Man led a considerably shorter life than modern man. Thankfully, Cordain covers this in his paper "<a href="http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Counter%20Arguments%20Paper.pdf">Evolutionary Health Promotion: A Consideration of Common Counterarguments</a>".<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Archaeological Perspective</span><br /><br />Cordain traces the origins of grain consumption, where-upon he finds that:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Generally, in most parts of the world, whenever cereal-based diets were first adopted as a staple food replacing the primarily animal-based diets of hunter-gatherers, there was a characteristic reduction in stature, an increase in infant mortality, a reduction in lifespan, an increased incidence of infectious diseases, an increase in iron deficiency anemia, an increased incidence of osteomalacia, porotic hyperostosis and other bone mineral disorders and an increase in the number of dental caries and enamel defects.<br /><br /></span>This observation has been documented in various sources, including "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Also, as in Diamond's book, Cordain discusses how we wouldn't have been able to sustain increasing population densities without the adoption of grains as a staple food source, since they allowed for social stratification and the ability to abandon nomadic lifestyles:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Cereal grains truly represent humanity’s double-edged sword, for without them we likely would not have had an agricultural ‘revolution’. We surely would not be able to sustain the enormous present-day human population (>6 billion), nor would there likely have been societal stratification which ultimately was responsible for the vast technological/industrial culture in which we live. The enormous increase in human knowledge would probably never had taken place had it not been for the widespread adoption of agriculture by humanity, and our understanding of medicine, science and the universe is a direct outcome of the societal stratification wrought by the agricultural ‘revolution’.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Dietary Imbalances of Cereal Grains<br /><br /></span>We all know that grains are certainly not a nutritional panacea. However, in addition to their obvious shortcomings, Cordain points to other lesser known deficiencies:<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Many nutritionists consider cereal grains to be good sources of most of the B vitamins except for vitamin B12... of more importance is the biological availability of the B vitamins contained within cereal grains and their B vitamin content after milling, </span><span style="font-style: italic;">processing and cooking.<br /><br /></span>What he demonstrates, which most of us already knew, is that processing grains removes a lot of the vital nutrients contained within them. What most of us don't know, however, is that even if you include the outer coating of the grain (Whole Grain Products), a certain amount of processing and cooking is necessary to make them edible, which diminishes their nutritional content significantly. In addition to that, grains contain certain anti-nutrients that further diminish their nutritional quality:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Corn, like all cereal grains, is rich in antinutrients including lectins which are known to decrease intestinal absorption of many key nutrients.<br /><br />Because of the high phytate content of whole grain cereals much of the calcium present is unavailable for absorption because the phytate forms insoluble complexes with calcium.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Antinutrients in Cereal Grains<br /><br /></span>Cordain uses this section to delve deeper into the source of antinutrients and their effect on humans:<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">...plants face an </span><span style="font-style: italic;">evolutionary tradeoff; they must grow fast enough to compete, yet they must</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">also divert enough energy for the synthesis of secondary metabolites required </span><span style="font-style: italic;">to ward off pathogens and herbivores. Defense is not the only role of secondary </span><span style="font-style: italic;">metabolites, and other functions include attraction of pollinators, protection </span><span style="font-style: italic;">from ultraviolet light, structural support, temporary nutrient storage, phytohormone </span><span style="font-style: italic;">regulation, facilitation of nutrient uptake and protection of roots </span><span style="font-style: italic;">from acidic and reducing environments.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Cereal grains which are the seeds of grasses (gramineae) contain a variety of secondary metabolites which can be either toxic, antinutritional, benign or somewhere in between, dependent upon the physiology of the consumer animal... </span>Many birds, rodents, insects and ruminants can clearly consume cereal grains </span><span style="font-style: italic;">in high quantities with minimal undue effects. Because primates evolved in </span><span style="font-style: italic;">the tropical forest, all of their potential plant food was derived from dicotyledonous </span><span style="font-style: italic;">species; therefore, the primate gut was initially adapted to both the</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">nutritive and defensive components of dicotyledons rather than the nutritive </span><span style="font-style: italic;">and defense components of monocotyledonous cereal grains... Consequently, humans, like all other primates have had little evolutionary experience in developing resistance to secondary<br />and antinutritional compounds which normally occur in cereal grains.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span>He then goes on to discuss the many antinutrients present in grains and their potential effects on humans. Most notable of these is:<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Lectins - Lectins are proteins that are widespread in the plant kingdom with the unique property of binding to carbohydrate-containing molecules, particularly toward the sugar component. They were originally identified by their ability to agglutinate (clump) erythrocytes which occurs because of the interaction of multiple binding sites on the lectin molecule with specific glycoconjugate receptors on the surface of the erythrocyte cell membranes. Because of this binding property, lectins can interact with a variety of other cells in the body and are recognized as the major antinutrient of food.<br />The best studied of the cereal grain lectins is wheat germ agglutinin (WGA)<br />...there is suggestive evidence that high wheat gluten diets induce jejunal mucosal architectural changes in normal subjects without celiac disease</span>.<br />...<span style="font-style: italic;">Because of their resistance to digestive, proteolytic breakdown,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">the luminal concentrations of lectins can be quite high, consequently </span><span style="font-style: italic;">their transport through the gut wall can exceed that of other dietary antigens </span><span style="font-style: italic;">by several orders of magnitude. Additionally, WGA and other lectins, </span><span style="font-style: italic;">may facilitate the passage of undegraded dietary antigens into the systemic</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">circulation by their ability to increase the permeability of the intestine. </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Consequently, dietary lectins represent powerful oral immunogens capable of </span><span style="font-style: italic;">eliciting specific and high antibody responses</span>.<br /><br />The take-home message: Lectins are bad.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Autoimmune Diseases and Cereal Grain Consumption<br /><br /></span>Cordain attempts to explain the process of autoimmunity (lengthy and wordy), and then links grain consumption to the formation of various autoimmune diseases including Celiac Disease, Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, and Rheumatoid Arthritis.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion<br /><br /></span></span>Frankly, after reading the entire paper numerous times, I realized that the majority of the information contained within is relatively useless to the average consumer, especially those of us who consume a supposedly "balanced" diet, and don't have an autoimmune disease. I think that most of the value in it can be obtained from reading just the conclusion. Cordain sums things up well:<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">From an evolutionary perspective, humanity’s adoption of agriculture, and hence cereal grain consumption, is a relatively recent phenomenon... Cereal grains represent a biologically novel food for mankind, consequently there is considerable genetic discordance between this staple food, and the foods to which our species is genetically adapted.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Cereal grains lack a number of nutrients which are essential for human health and well-being; additionally they contain numerous vitamins and minerals with low biological availability. Furthermore, the inability of humans to physiologically overcome cereal grain antinutrients (phytates, alkylresorcinols, protease inhibitors, lectins, etc.) is indicative of the evolutionary novelty of this food for our species. This genetic maladaptation between human nutrient requirements and those nutrients found in cereal grains manifests itself as vitamin and mineral deficiencies and other nutritionally related disorders, particularly when cereal grains are consumed in excessive quantity. More disturbing is the ability of cereal grain proteins (protease inhibitors, lectins, opioids and storage peptides) to interact with and alter human physiology.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Cereal grains obviously can be included in moderate amounts in the diets </span><span style="font-style: italic;">of most people without any noticeable, deleterious health effects, and herein </span><span style="font-style: italic;">lies their strength. When combined with a variety of both animal- and plantbased </span><span style="font-style: italic;">foods, they provide a cheap and plentiful caloric source, capable of </span><span style="font-style: italic;">sustaining and promoting human life. The ecologic, energetic efficiency </span><span style="font-style: italic;">wrought by the widespread cultivation and domestication of cereal grains</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">allowed for the dramatic expansion of worldwide human populations, which </span><span style="font-style: italic;">in turn, ultimately led to humanity’s enormous cultural and technological </span><span style="font-style: italic;">accomplishments. The downside of cereal grain consumption is their ability </span><span style="font-style: italic;">to disrupt health and well being in virtually all people when consumed in </span><span style="font-style: italic;">excessive quantity. This information has only been empirically known since </span><span style="font-style: italic;">the discovery of vitamins, minerals and certain antinutrients in the early part </span><span style="font-style: italic;">of this century.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Cereal grains are truly humanity’s double-edged sword. For without them, our species would likely have never evolved the complex cultural and technological innovations which allowed our departure from the hunter-gatherer niche. However, because of the dissonance between human evolutionary nutritional </span><span style="font-style: italic;">requirements and the nutrient content of these domesticated grasses, many of the world’s people suffer disease and dysfunction directly attributable to the consumption of these foods.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span><br />From personal experience, I find it much easier to control my body composition when I don't eat grains. Since it is easy to consume too many of them, and they don't provide me with anything that I can't obtain from a more nutritionally dense food source, I don't eat them. Also, since the potential interactions of many of the antinutrients present in grains are not well researched, I would rather not take any chances.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-29973818680174541112007-02-14T10:21:00.000-08:002007-03-05T11:56:13.256-08:00What is Functional Training?<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Functional</span> Training has become a popular catch phrase in the fitness industry. Personal trainers and coaches strive to make their programs functional to best serve the needs of their clients/athletes. You're likely to run across a number of different definitions and interpretations of functional <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">training</span>, but how are you to separate the truly <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">knowledgeable</span> from those who are just trying to keep up with the Jones'? I will attempt my definition and interpretation of this popular concept in the hopes of shedding some light on the issue.<br /><br />If you look up functional in the dictionary, you are presented with the following definition:<br /><br /><strong>Capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed.</strong><br /><em></em><br />Applied literally to training, this could mean anything. If the function of a bicep curl is to increase the strength of the biceps muscle, then yes, it is functional. If a client's goal is weight loss, then the protocol that does this the most effectively is arguably the most functional approach. In fact, any trainer that succeeds in having their clients meet their goals is arguably implementing functional training principles.<br /><br />So if meeting your immediate goals is all you desire, then implementing functional training is easy. I <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">encourage</span> you to look a little deeper. What if, beyond getting stronger biceps, you also want to be able to <em>use </em>that biceps strength in a variety of real world activities? What if, beyond losing weight, you want to maintain the weight loss indefinitely and not burn out in the process? The definition of functional doesn't change, but the training method probably does. Those same bicep curls that produced massively <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">strong</span> biceps probably won't help you out when you need to pull yourself up over a ledge. Why? The principle of specificity provides some insight:<br /><br /><strong>The training effect (change in performance level) on an individual as a result of performing any particular exercise or drill is very specific to the action practiced. The training effect can be expected to be different if the same action is practiced at a different speed, level of intensity, body position or under different environmental or psychological conditions.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />What does that mean, you ask? Well, specifically, it means that performing bicep curls makes you better at performing bicep curls! <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Neuro</span></span>-muscular pathways that you create are very specifically "learned", so trying to apply the biceps strength that you gained from doing bicep curls to any other exercise that is not a bicep curl, but involves the biceps muscle, will not produce the expected result of increased strength in that movement. The following statement from <a href="http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol12/rushall1.htm"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Rushall</span></span> Thoughts </a>sums this up well:<br /><br /><strong>When training has occurred on a relatively simple activity, the benefits of that training are specific and do not transfer to more complex activities. Specific weight exercises do not cause improvements in the more complicated Olympic lifts (which, incidentally, require a high degree of complex skilled movement). Thus, when a coach considers auxiliary training exercises that are supposed to benefit a particular sport, if those exercises are simple, they will not be beneficial for an athlete. If they are performed with sustained intensity, they actually could prove to be counter-productive, primarily because of the development of unnecessary fatigue that could hinder more beneficial recovery.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Simply stated, in order to improve your performance at a given task, you must perform that task and/or tasks as closely related to that task as possible. Remember, it's all about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">neuro</span></span>-muscular pathways. Your body remembers movements (like riding a bike) because it remembers the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">neuro</span></span>-muscular connections, in sequence, that comprise the movement that it performed. The challenge then becomes determining which movement patterns are the most appropriate for your sport, and then designing your workout regimen around them.<br /><br />Beyond sport we are left with the segment of the population that has no sport, that is interested in Functional Training for general health and/or injury prevention purposes. Luckily, we can use the same principles outlined above and apply them to your everyday life, your activities of daily living. The movement patterns most important in daily life are those that are going to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">encourage</span> functional independence, that are going to keep you upright and physically able for the rest of your life. Your training program should consist only of those exercises that are going to improve your ability to perform activities of daily living, by closely mimicking movement patterns found in life. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Crossfit</span> founder Greg <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Glassman</span> says it well in the <a href="http://www.crossfit.com/cf-download/Foundations.pdf"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CrossFit</span> Foundations </a>article:<br /><br /><strong>There are movements that mimic motor recruitment patterns that are found in everyday life. Others are somewhat unique to the gym. Squatting is standing from a seated position; <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">deadlifting</span> is picking any object off the ground.They are both functional movements. Leg extension and leg curl both have no equivalent in nature and are in turn nonfunctional movements. The bulk of isolation movements are non-functional movements. By contrast the compound or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">multi</span>-joint movements are functional. Natural movement typically involves the movement of multiple joints for every activity.</strong><br /><br />By creating a program that consists only of compound, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">multi</span>-joint movements that mimic motor recruitment patterns found in everyday life, you are ensuring the most bang for your training buck. This is what defines functional training for me. If you can't think of a functional application of the exercise that you are performing in real life, then it's not functional. Plain and simple. That being said, I believe that the <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1eNNCs3LRgMmsE3g0QG8KSVSk_b0xbjzADwgemFcZSiG_o_LilT4CY6amNvTYNRnC2i9iRzIgk1zHtyT-o9kJjL8DoFNc9RLKWRv1JjIdaWAugWJJ6NSgaw7eOSD0GCgIQ7_scoJ5xHI/s1600-h/Air+Squat,+Lateral.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5038530483046477378" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1eNNCs3LRgMmsE3g0QG8KSVSk_b0xbjzADwgemFcZSiG_o_LilT4CY6amNvTYNRnC2i9iRzIgk1zHtyT-o9kJjL8DoFNc9RLKWRv1JjIdaWAugWJJ6NSgaw7eOSD0GCgIQ7_scoJ5xHI/s200/Air+Squat,+Lateral.JPG" border="0" /></a>squat (free standing, see picture), is the MOST functional exercise you can perform. In my experience as a trainer, I have seen the most back pain relieved, knees healed, and improvements in performance from simply teaching my clients how to squat properly. It can take up to 3 years to fully develop a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">functionally</span> sound squat, but trust me, it's worth it.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-51049522319616783262007-01-22T16:01:00.000-08:002007-01-22T16:24:26.657-08:00Workouts in the MeantimeSince I'm currently between clubs right now, and I would hate for any of my loyal clients to lose any progress, I will post a series of workouts that you can perform on your own until I figure my situation out.<br /><br /><strong>Workout #1:</strong><br /><br />4 rounds:<br />400m run (or 3min on TM or other piece of cardio equipment)<br />15 Pullups (hanging rows if you can't pullup)<br />15 Box Jumps (step-ups if you can't jump)<br />15 Burpees (mountain climbers if you can't burpee)<br /><br /><strong>Workout #2:</strong><br /><br />As Many Rounds in 20min:<br /><br />6 Pushups<br />9 Swings<br />12 Jumping Pullups (holding bar entire time)<br /><br /><strong>Workout #3:</strong><br /><br />21/18/15/12 reps:<br /><br />Push Press (65# for men, 35# for women, or pick an appropriate weight)<br />Back Extension (supermans if you haven't done back extensions yet)<br />Knees to Elbows (just get your knees as high as you can, situps if you can't hang)<br />Dips (Jump to support if you can't dip, bench dips if you can't jump to support)<br />Deadlift (squat with medicine ball or weight between legs if you can't deadlift)<br /><br />If you have any questions about any of these workouts, don't hesitate to email me, or you can ask Heather if you see her in the gym.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-71946893467801009042007-01-02T12:52:00.000-08:002007-01-21T15:44:23.436-08:00Soy, The New Corn<p>"Just imagine you could grow the perfect food. This food not only would provide affordable nutrition, but also would be delicious and easy to prepare in a variety of ways. It would be a healthful food, with no saturated fat. In fact, you would be growing a virtual fountain of youth on your back forty. This ideal food would help prevent, and perhaps reverse, some of the world's most dreaded diseases. You could grow this miracle crop in a variety of soils and climates. Its cultivation would build up, not deplete, the land. . . this miracle food already exists. . . It's called soy." This was written by Dean Houghton for <em><a href="http://www.deere.com/en_US/ag/furrow/index.html">The Furrow</a></em>, a magazine published by the John Deere tractor company.<br /><br />With 3/4 of all processed foods containing some form of soy in them these days, soybeans are quickly becoming a huge cash crop in the U.S., right behind corn, which is already in everything. Manufacturers have found ways to maximize the use of the bean, generating consumer goods from every part of the plant and by-products of all the steps of processing. Most of the public thinks of soy as a heath food, which is exactly how the soy industry wants it to be perceived. Is soy really good for you? Is it the miracle food that can reverse a host of disease states? This entry will attempt to shed some light on the issue.<br /></p><p><strong>A Brief History Of Soy Use</strong> </p><p>Soybeans first appeared for use during the Chou Dynasty (1134 - 246 BC) where they were not used for food, but frequently in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_fixing">nitrogen fixing</a>. The soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, sometime late in the Chou Dynasty. The first soy foods were thus fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and shoyu (soy or tamari sauce). At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century B.C., Chinese scientists discovered that a puree of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of Asia, notably Japan and Indonesia. Although the highly flavored fermented products have elicited greater interest among scientists and epicures, it is the bland precipitated products that are most frequently used, accounting for approximately 90% of the processed soybeans consumed in Asia today. <em>(The human genome adapts to new proteins, chemicals or toxins slowly. Since soy has only been used as a food source for a couple thousand years, it is not likely that our genes have adapted to massive soy consumption, given that grains have been consumed for roughly 10,000 years and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celiac_disease">celiac disease</a> is still rampant in this country).</em><br />Large scale cultivation of the soybean in the United States began only after the Second World War. Most of the crop is made into animal feed and soy oil for hydrogenated fats (margarine and shortening). During the past 20 years, the industry has concentrated on finding markets for the byproducts of soy oil manufacture, including soy "lecithin", made from the oil sludge, and soy protein products, made from defatted soy flakes, a challenge that has involved overcoming consumer resistance to soy products, generally considered tasteless "poverty foods". "The quickest way to gain product acceptability in the less affluent society," said a soy industry spokesman, " ... is to have the product consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society." Hence the proliferation of soy products resembling traditional American foods: soy milk for cows milk, soy baby formula, soy yogurt, soy ice cream, soy cheese, soy flour for baking and textured soy protein as meat substitutes, usually promoted as high protein, low-fat, no cholesterol "healthfoods" to the upscale consumer increasingly concerned about his health. The growth of vegetarianism among the more affluent classes has greatly accelerated the acceptability and use of these ersatz products. </p><p><br /><strong>Is Soy Safe For Human Consumption?</strong> </p><ul><li>Soybeans contain potent enzyme inhibitors which block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus in tofu and bean curd, these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in quantity, but not completely eliminated.</li><li>Soybeans contain hemaglutinin, a clot promoting substance. Fermenting soybeans eliminates these substances. </li><li>Soybeans are high in phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds, which blocks the uptake of essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc in the intestinal tract. The soybean has a higher phytate content than any other grain or legume that has been studied. Furthermore, it seems to be highly resistant to many phytate reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans. Thus fermented products such as tempeh and miso provide nourishment that is easily assimilated, but the nutritional value of tofu and bean curd, both high in phytates, is questionable. When precipitated soy products are consumed with meat, the mineral blocking effects of the phytates are reduced. Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. </li><li>Much of soy today is genetically modified, which means that the gut has no history what-so-ever with such organisms. Therefore, the immune system, not recognizing such GM plants as foods, will treat such food antigens in the same manner it would an invasive virus, parasite, bacteria or fungi - it will try to eliminate it. Repeated exposure to such foodstuffs will sensitize the immune system, which may encourage autoimmune disorders.</li><li>Soybeans contain isoflavones callled genistein and daidzein. Isoflavones are one of two primary groups of <a title="Phytoestrogens" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogens">phytoestrogens</a>, plant-based estrogen mimicking organic chemicals with antioxidant properties. The safety of these estrogen mimics is questionable at best. While most of the soy industry claims that these chemicals prevent certain types of cancer, studies have actually shown them to <em>promote</em> cancer. Women with current or past breast cancer should be aware of the risks of potential tumor growth when taking soy products. Some studies indicate a correlation between a soy-rich diet and a decrease in testosterone levels in men, and have linked soy to male infertility. The safety of phytoestrogens present in soy infant formula has been repeatedly called into question, with studies linking soy formula consumption to a number of developmental disorders, including early onset of puberty in girls, learning disorders, lack of development of male sexual organs, asthma, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome. The bottom line is that the phytoestrogens in soy are endocrine disruptors because they mimic a horomone naturally found in the body. The soy industry argues that the level of phytoestrogens that must be consumed to make their effect physiologically significant is astronimically high. This seems like a valid arguement until one considers just how prevalent soy is in the food supply, making this physiologically significant level of consumption easily attainable. Levels of physiological significance vary per the individual, with some people displaying thyroid dysfunction with as little as 38mg of ingested isoflavones/day, which is less than the amount found in two glasses of soy milk, two servings of tofu, or a handful of soy nuts.</li><li>The process of producing soy protein isolate requires many processes that reduce the nutrient density and quality of the protein. In order to isolate the protein in soybeans from the carbohydrate and fatty acid components that naturally occur in the bean, they are first ground and subjected to high-temperature and solvent extraction processes to remove the oils. The resultant defatted meal is then mixed with an alkaline solution and sugars in a separation process to remove fiber. It is then precipitated and separated using an acid wash. Finally the resultant curds are neutralized in an alkaline solution and spray dried at high temperatures to produce high protein powder. This method destroys most of the anti-nutrients, but also denatures the proteins, rendering them difficult to digest and much reduced in effectiveness. The alkaline soaking solution produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, and reduces the cystine content, which is already low in the soybean. Lacking cystine, the entire protein complex of the soybean becomes useless unless the diet is fortified with cystine-rich meat, eggs, or dairy products.</li></ul><p><strong>Confused Yet?</strong></p><p>If soybeans are so bad for you, then why is the soy industry relentlessly pushing the product as a health food, claiming numerous health benefits supposedly backed by scientific evidence? While I won't delve into the political and economical drivers behind this multi-billioin dollar industry, I will refute the most common argument FOR the safety of soy consumption: How can soy be bad for you if Asians have been and continue to consume massive quantities of the bean and all its products, yet display low incidence of most of the maladies that soy is supposed to cause?</p><p>Soy proponents claim that soy is a staple in Asia. A "staple" is defined as a major commodity, one that provides a large portion of calories in the diet, such as rice and fish in Japan, or rice and pork in China. The Japanese consume 150 pounds of fish per person per year, or almost one-half pound per person per day. A 1977 dietary survey in China determined that 65 percent of calories came from pork, including the pork fat used in cooking. By contrast, overall consumption of soy in Asia is surprisingly low. The average soy consumption in China is about 10 grams or 2 teaspoons per day. Levels are somewhat higher in Japan, averaging about 50 grams or 1/4 cup per day. In both countries, soy is used as a condiment or for flavoring, and not as a substitute for animal foods. Seafood and seaweed in the Japanese diet provide sufficient iodine to counteract the negative effects of the isoflavones in soy. The majority of soy products consumed in Asia are of the fermented type, containing the least amount of anti-nutrients. These levels of consumption amount to approximately 28mg of soy isoflavones per day. The lowest amount of isoflavones shown to cause endocrine dysfunction after just one month of consumption in American women is 45mg per day.</p><p> </p><p>This post is by no means an exhaustive review of soy consumption and its relative risks. Information (backed by peer reviewed studies) is plentiful and free on the net. Here are a few resources where I pooled my information from that provide more information about soy than you ever thought you wanted to know. I urge you to educate yourself and come to your own conclusions:</p><p><a href="http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm">http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html">http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html</a></p><p><a href="http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/">http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.wholesoystory.com/">http://www.wholesoystory.com/</a></p>Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-91997657915141618182006-12-28T18:53:00.000-08:002006-12-28T21:05:16.027-08:00Fast HealthAs I mentioned in my <em>Eating Simple </em>post, I made some other pretty dramatic lifestyle changes 6 months ago besides switching the content of my diet to strictly <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">paleo</span></span> food. One of these changes was adopting a new eating schedule; I started intermittent fasting. What this means is that I started compressing my eating window, leaving 15-19 hours between my last and first meal. If I ate my last meal at 2pm, I wouldn't eat again until at least 5am the next morning. Why would anyone want to do this? Good question.<br /><br />Scientists have known for years that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction">caloric restriction </a>(aka eating less) produces a plethora of health benefits, including lowered cholesterol, fasting glucose, and blood pressure. Studies on animals have even shown lifespan extension through caloric restriction. The problem is that the level of caloric restriction necessary to produce these benefits is difficult to implement long-term, resulting in increased irritability and depression. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Restricting</span> caloric intake also threatens to place the body in a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">catabolic</span></span> state, promoting the degeneration of muscle tissue, including the heart. Gaining muscle in a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">catabolic</span></span> state is next to impossible, and exercise is out of the question, because caloric restriction doesn't provide enough calories to support high levels of activity.<br /><br />Fortunately, one can gain the benefits of caloric restriction through intermittent fasting, without having to restrict caloric intake. The landmark studies on IF were performed on animals, mostly rats and mice, in which they were divided into three groups: those that were fed ad <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">libitum</span></span>, those who ate a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">calorically</span> restricted diet, and those that alternated between eating and fasting days. Results from these studies showed that the rats/mice that alternated between eating and fasting days ended up eating just as much as their ad <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">libitum</span></span> counterparts, but procured all of the health benefits that the caloric restriction group did. A few studies have been performed on humans, and the results look promising:<br /><br /><a href="http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/6/2128">Effect of intermittent fasting and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">refeeding</span> on insulin action in healthy men</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Neuroprotective</span> potential of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Bahadori</span> leanness program: A "mini-fast with exercise" strategy.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15802901&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum">Effects of intermittent fasting on serum lipid levels, coagulation status and plasma <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">homocysteine</span> levels.</a><br /><br />My own experience with IF has been great. When I'm following an IF eating schedule, I have more energy, sleep better, and have reduced cravings compared to when I'm not <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">IFing</span>. I also notice that it's easier to lean out when I'm <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">IFing</span>, and I perform better in workouts. I've never found the eating schedule difficult to maintain, as long as I make it through the initial 2-3 days.<br /><br />If you think about this from an evolutionary perspective, IF was probably the way Paleolithic man ate. Society has taught us that we should be eating 3 meals/day. Current nutritional science preaches the 5 small meals throughout the day dogma, leaving no more than 4 hours between each meal. Animals in the wild, particularly carnivorous animals, don’t eat this way. They eat when they kill, and I would think that Paleolithic man did the same. I would think that a day in the life of Paleolithic man would look something like this: hunt down and kill animal (exercise), gorge on animal (post-workout meal), sleep, repeat when hungry. Data gathered from humans still living in non-Westernized cultures in the last century supports this theory. The theory behind the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Paleo</span> diet is that it is the optimal diet for us today because it is the diet we were molded by the forces of natural selection to perform best on. If you believe that, then you should probably believe that a Paleolithic eating schedule is also optimal.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-19453353815753266472006-12-13T14:32:00.000-08:002006-12-13T15:50:05.321-08:00Protein?It's a prevailing topic in most strength and conditioning circles, a great concern to athletes in general, and I'm sure the rest of the populace has thought about it at one time or another: How much protein do I need? The answer is anything but simple, and I wouldn't dare suggest that I'm qualified to give out that kind of advice. What I do offer is a synopsis of a debate that I recently read from <a href="http://www.theperformancemenu.com/">The Performance Menu </a>on this very topic:<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">THE PROTEIN DEBATE</span><br />Loren <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span>, PhD & T. Colin Campbell, PhD<br /><br />Protein plays a litany of roles in living systems: structural elements, peptide hormones, cell recognition, antibodies… the list is staggering and continues to grow as our understanding of biology expands. What, however, is the role of dietary protein in health and disease in humans? Is the source, type and quantity intimately and directly tied to optimal physical development and continued <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">wellbeing</span>? Is it causative or preventative of disease? How do we know, and how can we know? One would think this question should be straightforward and easily answered; as you will soon see the question is anything but simple! In the pages that follow, two scientists at the top of their respective fields—Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Jacob Gould <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Schurman</span> Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, author of The China Study and Dr. Loren <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span> Professor, Department of Health & Exercise Science, Colorado State University, author of The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Paleo</span> Diet—make their competing cases for the role of dietary protein in health and disease.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.performancemenu.com/resources/proteinDebate.php">Full text article available for free download</a><br /><br /><br /><strong>Warning!! Spoilers!!</strong> Only read on if you have read the article (or if you don't want to read the article and just want to know what I think about it)<br /><br />In my opinion, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span> owned Campbell in this debate. Campbell's <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">arguments</span> were weak and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">un</span>substantiated (he provided absolutely no references), and his protein recommendations were based on the assumption that the only physiological significance of protein is to replenish excreted nitrogen. He attacked animal protein as the cause of numerous diseases, without providing a shred of evidence as to why that's so. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain's</span> discussion about the evolutionary basis for the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">therapeutic</span> effects of high protein diets was informative and well written. While I don't agree with everything that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span> has to say, mostly surrounding saturated fat (another great topic for a future post), I find his insights compelling, and he always backs up whatever he has to say with numerous references that are easily accessible. A few highlights from the debate:<br /><br /><em>"...it should be noted that there is a physiological limit to the amount of protein that can be ingested before it becomes toxic. A byproduct of dietary protein metabolism is nitrogen, which in turn is converted into urea by the liver and then excreted by the kidneys into the urine. The upper limit of protein ingestion is determined by the liver’s ability to synthesize urea. When nitrogen intake from dietary protein exceeds the ability of the liver to synthesize urea, excessive nitrogen (as ammonia) spills into the bloodstream causing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">hyperammonemia</span> and toxicity. Additionally excess amino acids from the metabolism of high amounts of dietary protein may become toxic by entering the circulation causing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">hyperaminoacidemia</span>.</em>"<br /><br />Sounds like a pretty good determinant for how much protein is too much, doesn't it? Dr. Campbell didn't think so:<br /><br />"<em>If this is an inference that all could be well until this limit is reached, it is grossly misleading."</em><br /><em></em><br />I don't think that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span> ever meant to infer that all is well up to this limit of protein consumption. In fact, he goes on to say that this level of protein consumption is unrealistic to expect in all but the most drastic situations, such as when humans were forced to rely upon the fat depleted, lean meat of wild animals in times of harsh weather conditions and resource scarcity. His protein recommendations are genetically based, pulling from isotopic fossil and ethnographic evidence, and he concludes that:<br /><br />"<em>The evolutionary evidence indicates that so called “high protein diets” (20 – 30 % total energy) and “very high protein diets” (30- 40 % total energy) actually represent the norm which conditioned the present day human genome over more than 2 million years of evolutionary experience. The evolutionary template would predict that human health and well being will suffer when dietary intakes fall outside this range... There is now a large body of experimental evidence increasingly demonstrating that a higher intake of lean animal protein reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease, hypertension, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">dyslipidemia</span>, obesity, insulin resistance, and osteoporosis while not impairing kidney function.</em>"<br /><br />And now, Campbell's recommendations:<br /><br />"<em>Probably the simplest method of determining recommended intakes, at least conceptually, has been the N balance study. An experimental determination is made of how much protein, analyzed according to its N content, must be consumed in order to compensate for the average daily amount of N lost from the body. After adjusting for the 16% N content of protein and after adjusting upward the experimental mean by two standard deviations to include the needs of about 98% of the larger population, this gives an ‘allowance’, or recommendation, of 0.8 gm of protein to be consumed per day per kg of body weight, for both sexes... The question, then, should not be how much protein is needed but how much protein in excess of the 10% dietary level can be safely consumed.</em>"<br /><br />That's it. Protein is nothing but a nitrogen vehicle, and extreme caution should be used when handling it. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain's</span> response:<br /><br />"<em>nitrogen balance studies have been extensively used to predict the <u>minimal</u> human protein requirements. Because all protein contains 16.6% nitrogen, then the measurement of nitrogen serves as a proxy for protein. Colin’s argument is that optimal health occurs when we are in zero nitrogen balance (e.g. when our daily nitrogen intake = daily nitrogen excretion), and that excessive protein intake and hence negative nitrogen balance (nitrogen intake <>minimal</u></u> protein requirements provide no information about optimal protein requirements.</em>"<br /><br />And this is where I think that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span> has hit the nail on the head. Where as Campbell seeks to demonize protein (particularly animal-based) and claim that it is the cause of numerous diseases when consumed in excess (which he provides zero evidence for), <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span> attempts to establish parameters for optimal protein requirements, based on the success of peoples with no influences over what to eat except for what was available to them and what their DNA told them was right (WARNING, oversimplification).<br /><br />I have to admit, I consider myself an evolutionary biologist. Although I have no formal education on the topic (I have read some really good books on the topic however), it's just what makes the most sense to me. Because of this, my opinions are in no way an objective analysis of this debate.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-21046809410330585692006-12-12T09:19:00.000-08:002006-12-12T12:08:31.228-08:00Eating SimpleApproximately 6 months ago, I walked into the charting office at the PRO Club and exclaimed, frustrated: "Why am I always hungry?! I'm eating almost 4000<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">kcal</span>/day, but it's not enough! I think about food all day!" To my surprise, I received a response, from at that time an unlikely candidate, <a href="http://coachgibbons.blogspot.com/">Heather Gibbons</a>: "What are you eating?"<br /><br />I had been working at the PRO Club for about 1 1/2 years at this point, and I was fairly certain that I had my nutrition figured out. Through what I had learned in University in the few nutrition courses that I had taken, plus wisdom that I had gained through training clients in the club's metabolic disorders program, I was certain that I was eating an effective and highly <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">nutritious</span> diet. I ate 5 small meals/day, dispersed every 4 hours, with each meal consisting of approximately equal parts carbohydrate, protein, and fat (or so I thought, I really wasn't that diligent). I ate plenty of vegetables, fruits, lean protein, low-fat dairy, and whole grains. I limited my saturated fat and sugar intake, and tried to stay away from highly processed foods (although I never really questioned what it meant to be processed). The problem was, with all that I had learned, through implication, I wasn't seeing the results that I had come to expect. Although I was by no means overweight, I still had some annoying abdominal fat that I couldn't get rid of, I felt soft, and I was never satiated. I was frustrated, and willing at this point to accept a radical paradigm shift. Luckily for me, that shift was about to land on my lap, as Heather introduced me to the <a href="http://www.thepaleodiet.com/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Paleo</span> Diet</a>.<br /><br />The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Paleo</span> Diet, created by <a href="http://www.thepaleodiet.com/aboutus/profile.shtml">Dr. Loren <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span></a>, is based on the concept that the optimal diet for ideal body weight, optimal health, and peak athletic performance is one consistent with human genetic evolution. What does this mean in practice? Very simply, if it wasn't available to man prior to the Agricultural Revolution (approximately 500 generations ago, a blink of an eye by evolutionary standards), it shouldn't be eaten. This means no refined sugar, no processed food, no dairy, no grain, no legumes. The diet consists of lean meats, seafood, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.<br /><br />The results that I saw were sudden and drastic. My energy levels increased and remained consistent throughout the day, I slept better, my hunger was manageable, and I lost approximately 20 pounds in a mere 6 weeks (I made some other dramatic changes to my lifestyle at this point, which I will discuss in future posts, but for the time being I would like to focus on the benefits of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Paleo</span> Diet).<br /><br />The mechanism through which the diet provides it's benefit is fairly simple: by eliminating foods from your diet that your body more than likely isn't equipped to digest properly, you optimize the health of your digestive system, improving the quality of your digestion. Combined with the fact that you are eliminating nutritionally sparse, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">calorically</span> dense foods from your diet and replacing them with nutritionally dense foods, it's easy to see how and why the diet works so well. <br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Cordain</span>, a member of the faculty of the Department of Health and Exercise Science at Colorado State University, has been researching the effects of diet on human health and specifically the links between modern diet and disease for the past 20 years. His <a href="http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/">published research</a> is impressive, and I recommend that anyone interested in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">achieving</span> optimal health at least browse though it.<br /><br />When trying to grasp the concept of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">Paleo</span> Diet, don't get caught up in semantics. The value lies not in constantly questioning "would <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">paleo</span> man do this?" or "what would <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">paleo</span> man do in this situation?", relying on the diet as THE answer to all of your nutritional questions. The diet serves best as a template for determining food quality standards. The timing of meals and quantity of macronutrients that you should be consuming is governed by other concepts, which will be discussed in future posts.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7093008107593260045.post-1406958098066708472006-12-07T12:40:00.000-08:002006-12-07T12:48:16.993-08:00A New BeginningThe Idea for this blog actually came from <a href="http://coachgibbons.blogspot.com">Heather</a>, who started her own of similar content. My intentions here are to provide a resource through which my family, friends, and clients can have access to all of the information that I throw at them, sometimes all at once. I can't remember how many times I've wanted to provide references for information that I share, but been unable to because I didn't have it on hand. Well, no more! Now I can just tell everyone to check it out on my blog and Voila! Instant Access!<br /><br />If you'll notice, on the right side of the page, I have posted a link to my original blog, started for the purpose of keeping track of my own progress with my fitness regimen.Craig Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02028910692051554371noreply@blogger.com0