Nutrition
This article is intended to serve three purposes:
The first purpose is a kind of refresher course for experienced exercisers. Sure, deep down you'll already know everything presented here, but since it's been a long time since you first read about it, you may have forgotten some of the reasoning behind it. The second purpose is to provide information to readers who have only just moved on from the magazines you find on newsstands. Perhaps these readers have been reading nothing but "Muscle and Fitness" and similar magazines for the past few years and thus know quite little about the science underlying the sport - except perhaps for the "science" of glute training by former Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman. Last but not least, this article is also intended for complete beginners who have accidentally landed on this site and initially thought they had landed on a strange planet of weight-training scientists who occasionally use surfer slang. By reading this article, newcomers can slowly acclimatize to the sophisticated atmosphere without being immediately dazzled.
If the saying is true and I am what I eat, then I am a mass monster of protein powder, chicken breast, raw salmon, hard boiled eggs, turkey burgers and the occasional steak. Instead of hair, I have strips of beef jerky on my head. Instead of hands, I have pork knuckles. My butt? Two pieces of grade A sirloin steak. Yes, protein is my passion, my comrade. Even though fat and carbs are also important, they are often just side effects of my foraging. It's the protein content that drives every meal I make - every choice from the menu and every reach into the fridge or pantry.
If it doesn't contain a useful amount of protein, then it won't have the pleasure of making acquaintance with my digestive tract. I'm sure this is similar for pretty much all other strength athletes and bodybuilders. Protein is king, but like many kings before it, it is misunderstood and rumors abound. Hence this article that answers 8 of the most frequently asked questions about protein.
How much protein can I eat at once?
Read any of those bodybuilding or fitness magazines (the difference between these two categories of magazines is that bodybuilding magazines target those who look like they work out, while fitness magazines target those who don't look like they work out) and you'll see the one "truth" regarding nutrition that has stood the test of time "You can only digest 30 grams of protein per meal." Eat more protein at once and you'll overload your poor digestive system. Your guts will rebel and the extra protein will be spit back out like a crumpled bill from a bitchy Coke machine. It's an absolute - like the speed of light.
The problem, however, is that there is absolutely no scientific data to suggest that this 30 gram limit really exists. Where this figure comes from is a question that no one can answer conclusively.
The truth is that no one knows where this limit really lies - it could be 30 grams or it could be 60 or 80 or even 100 or more grams - and whether such a limit exists at all. Much probably depends on things like time of passage through the digestive tract (generally, the slower the better), length of the digestive tract and perhaps even enzyme efficiency.
However, based on what most of us have seen and experienced, there is no reason to believe that your body would have problems coping with quantities of up to 60 grams per meal - especially if those 60 grams are consumed in liquid form (making the protein easier to digest than a large piece of beef).
Are protein bars good sources of protein?
Well, they could be if the manufacturers put a little more effort and intelligence into their products, but unfortunately many do not. Most of us grab a protein bar when we're on the go and lugging around a shaker bottle would be impractical. There are many choices for snacks and our choice is usually most influenced by how much protein such a snack provides. In fact, a real competition has developed around the amount of protein in grams, with each company trying to outdo the others to pack as much protein as possible into their bars.
First there was the 10 gram bar, then the 20 gram bar, then the 30 gram bar and finally even the 40 and 50 gram bars. Soon there will be bars on the market that come with one of those things that used to be used to press gunpowder into the barrel of a cannon.
The problem here is that it is not so easy to pack more and more protein into a bar. This protein acts like sawdust in that it soaks up moisture, often resulting in a bar that resembles what you'd find in a careless dog owner's backyard after a few days in the sun. So to get around this problem, bar manufacturers have started putting gelatin in their bars. This provides moisture and is recognized by food authorities as a source of protein.
Unfortunately, gelatine consists of an incomplete protein that neither contributes to protein synthesis nor prevents protein breakdown and, apart from a generally poor amino acid balance, is completely lacking in one essential amino acid (methionine). So if you look at the list of ingredients of your favorite protein bar and see gelatin in second, third or even fourth place on the list of ingredients, there is a high probability that this bar contains 20 to 30% or more of the protein it contains in the form of worthless gelatin.
Should I use a time-release protein before bedtime?
We once thought that time-release proteins would change the world of bodybuilding. Our theory was that by using these products before bed, you could escape the whole "two steps forward, one step back" tango that normally takes place during sleep. The 6 - 8 hours you spend asleep at night is the longest period of the day during which you don't eat anything - and especially not protein. Let's say you were a good bodybuilder and ate some protein before bed. That's great, but after about 4 hours your body will start to use stored nutrients for energy. Your body will start to draw on glycogen stores from your liver and muscles to meet its glucose and amino acid needs - and this will continue until you get up and eat breakfast.
So, in our naivety, we thought that a time-release protein that would supply the body with amino acids throughout the night would be a great idea. Well, we were guilty of one-dimensional thinking. Instead of looking beyond the horizon, we've only seen a small part of the whole picture. And that's why many manufacturers have tried to develop a time-released protein using a liposomal technology. Eventually we managed to do that, but once we did, we realized that we had something that was actually unnecessary.
Something we hadn't considered changed our way of thinking. Let's say you give someone intravenous amino acids over an extended period of maybe 6 hours. Well, the rate of protein synthesis will increase from the 30 minute mark to the two hour mark. After that, the protein synthesis rate will drop back to baseline. Translation: Keeping your protein intake constantly elevated will not lead to an increased protein synthesis rate. However, if you eat a portion of protein at time zero and then another portion 4 hours later, you will get a strong increase in protein synthesis twice.
Second translation: You need large, phasic protein surges every few hours to maximize protein synthesis.
While it would be nice to have a protein supplement that releases a large amount of protein every 4 hours after consumption like a protein time bomb, this is currently beyond what is possible with today's technologies. So what's a protein lover to do? Well, you really only have one option and that is to drink a protein shake before going to bed and wake up about four hours later and drink another protein shake.
But if that's too cumbersome or pedantic for you, then you can eat some slow-digesting protein like cottage cheese before bed or drink a protein shake consisting of casein and whey protein. Both will achieve the same thing as the slow-release proteins on the market, but at a much lower price.
How much protein should you eat?
The German Nutrition Society says that you only need 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. This recommendation also applies to grasshoppers, toasters and tree stumps. As you've probably already guessed, we don't agree with this recommendation. Here's why: by definition, these recommendations apply to roughly 95% of the population. With over 80 million people in Germany, that means there are probably a whole lot of people who need more protein - a lot more - and most of those people are labeled athletes.
However, the German Nutrition Society and other official bodies seem to have had something of a divine inspiration recently and have since grudgingly admitted that athletes might need a bit more protein. They have widened the scale slightly and now recommend that endurance athletes consume between 1.2 and 1.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight and strength athletes between 1.4 and 1.75 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day.
Now, that's not bad, but those of us who have been around a little longer have generally observed that profound things happen when you increase your protein intake to 3 to 4.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. Muscle bellies get rounder, fat loss increases, stock prices rise and rain showers disappear. Okay, the last two points are of course not meant seriously, but the first two are.
Are there any studies that support these significantly higher recommendations? No. The closest thing to these values are some Romanian studies that suggest that 3.5 to 4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight might work well for shot-putters. Other studies, such as those conducted by Tarnopolsky, suggest that endurance athletes - but not bodybuilders - need about 1.7 times the officially recommended daily protein intake.
Keep in mind, however, that what scientists call "bodybuilding" is the same as what you or I would call warm-up training. In other words, the three sets of bench presses that scientists often use as a training program do not correspond exactly to what most of us do in the gym, which means that such studies will not lead to any realistic results.
Regardless, once you observe over and over again that increased protein intake leads to bigger and stronger muscles, you will almost inevitably come to the conclusion that more - at least up to a point - is better. Our general recommendation for normal phases of training is at least 2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight and 3.5 to 4.5 grams per kilogram of body weight during heavy training phases when you want to make rapid progress.
Should I eat soy protein?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration seems to think you should. They allow the following statement on soy products:
"25 grams of soy protein per day as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart disease."
Unfortunately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't know - or doesn't dare tell us because of the financial interests of influential soy manufacturers - that soy is probably not all that great when consumed in amounts of 35 grams or more per day. The statement on the effects of soy on health should perhaps read more like this: "25 grams of soy protein per day as part of a generally modest lifestyle can lead to an underactive thyroid, increased estrogen levels, reduced sperm count, testicular cell death and reduced testosterone levels."
Oh yeah, what about that claim about reducing the risk of heart attack? At least one study has shown that soy can lower HDL (good cholesterol) levels and increase lipoprotein levels (lipoprotein levels are considered an indicator of increased risk of heart disease) in healthy men. The main culprit for this is most likely the isoflavones found in soy protein: Daidzein and genistein. And I can't imagine any company making the complicated and expensive attempt to remove these isoflavones from their product. If a company did, the product would probably be so expensive that no one would buy it. Apart from that, soy protein can't hold a candle to proteins like whey protein or casein in terms of anabolic properties. If you are a woman who has already gone through the menopause, then you can eat soy protein without worrying too much about it. Everyone else should stay away from it.
Which is better: casein or whey protein
Now, casein often wins head-to-head races in research studies, but it probably doesn't matter that much whether you're eating casein or whey protein to support your muscle building efforts. I'm of the opinion that if you took 10 clones and trained and lived the same way for a year, you wouldn't see much difference if the only difference was which protein they used.
However, I will admit that studies have shown that consuming casein leads to more protein retention than consuming whey protein. Casein also prevents protein breakdown to a certain extent better than whey protein. When you consume casein, it obviously forms a gel-like mass in your stomach, which means that your body takes longer to absorb the protein, ensuring a fairly long-lasting constant flow of amino acids into your bloodstream.
In contrast, the gastric passage of whey protein is much faster, which leads to an increase in the rate of protein synthesis without altering protein breakdown. Various studies have also shown that casein leads to superior gains in strength compared to whey protein. In addition, casein contains the highest amount of glutamine of any protein source commonly consumed by strength athletes. However, whey protein still has its raison d'être. As mentioned earlier, whey protein is quickly digested and causes a rapid increase in protein synthesis rates, making it the ideal protein source to consume immediately after training. The best advice we can give is to use both casein and whey protein as part of your bodybuilding efforts.
There are so many types of whey protein. Which one is the best?
The average whey protein consumer will likely encounter three different types of whey protein, which differ from each other in how the protein has been processed.
The first of these types is whey protein hydrolysate. Hydrolysate is a protein in which long chains of amino acids have been broken down into either small groups of amino acids or single, free amino acids. When you eat any protein, it will eventually be hydrolyzed in your digestive tract by the appropriate digestive enzymes, as your body cannot absorb complete protein molecules through the gut, only free amino acids or peptides (protein building blocks) consisting of a maximum of 2 to 3 amino acids. If you consume your protein in hydrolyzed form, this means that your digestive tract has been relieved of a lot of work. For this reason, these types of proteins are absorbed by your body much faster than non-hydrolyzed proteins. The second type of whey protein you will find on the market are whey protein isolates and concentrates. Whey protein isolates and concentrates are made from whey using ceramic filters. The end product is a high quality protein that has not been exposed to heat during processing and therefore still has its full immune system supporting properties. The primary difference between isolates and concentrates is a difference in protein, lactose and fat content based on the exact manufacturing process. While whey protein concentrates can contain between 60 and 75% protein and up to 20% carbohydrate, particularly high quality isolates can contain close to 90% protein and less than 5% carbohydrate. The third type of whey protein found on the market is called ion-exchanged whey protein. This is a whey protein that is produced by changing the chemical charges of the protein. Chemicals are used to achieve this, which results in the protein being slightly chemically altered or denatured compared to its natural state, but the end product is the purest of all whey proteins with the highest protein content and the lowest fat and carbohydrate content.
Does it matter what type of whey protein you use?
Probably not, except during the post-workout phase. This is the period when a fast and easily digestible protein such as a whey protein hydrolysate is beneficial.
I keep hearing from supposed nutrition experts that excessive protein consumption can lead to serious health problems. Is this true?
We hear this kind of thing all the time from college freshmen who are just taking their first nutrition class. Most of these claims have something to do with high protein consumption supposedly damaging the kidneys. However, this conclusion is the result of misguided logic. While it is true that a high protein diet is not healthy for people suffering from kidney disease, there is no reason to conclude that the same high protein intake could damage the kidneys of healthy men and women. Think about it this way: if high-protein diets were really damaging to the kidneys, shouldn't we see a higher incidence of kidney damage in athletes who started training with weights and eating a high-protein diet in their fifties, sixties and seventies? This is not the case. High-protein diets are also said to result in calcium being leached from the bones. This is true. However, consuming a single glass of milk per day (or taking an equivalent amount of calcium from other sources) would already provide enough calcium to replace the amount of calcium lost from a high-protein diet.
And last but not least, it is claimed that a high-protein diet correlates with the incidence of heart disease. This may have been true in the days before protein powders existed and strength athletes had to rely solely on large amounts of animal protein, which is often high in saturated fat, but this is no longer the case. There are probably many more frequently asked questions about protein, but we think we've covered the most important ones.
By TC Luoma
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/8-questions-about-protein
Tuna and mercury?
Q: What's the final word on tuna and mercury? Tuna is a bodybuilding staple, but I'm starting to worry about eating too much of it.
A: The short answer: don't worry about this. I say this as someone who worries as much as anyone about the toxic effects of mercury - not to mention the government's half-hearted efforts to control this problem. There is no doubt that mercury is found in many fish. Where it gets complicated is when we try to define the level at which it really poses a risk to our health. This depends on a number of different factors. A pregnant woman and the developing fetus are much more susceptible to the toxic effects of mercury than the average bodybuilder. Many of the warnings about high levels of mercury in fish were in fact aimed at this population (pregnant women, not bodybuilders).
Then there is the question of how we define a "safe" amount. Many people believe that the official standards are too lax. To them, this is like saying that speeding only becomes a problem when you're going over 180 km/h. If this is the standard, then almost all of us are driving safely. But let's look at this from a different angle. If you stop eating fish, you pay a price for it. Most experts believe that the consequences for general health of giving up fish completely are far more serious than any potential problems caused by mercury in our bodies. There are two things you can do: First, you should take plenty of selenium, which seems to have a chelating effect on mercury. Secondly, you can try to find tuna that contains less mercury.
Overall, I think the benefits of cold water fish like tuna and salmon, which are such excellent sources of protein and omega-3 fatty acids, more than outweigh the potential dangers. If you are pregnant, then my advice will be slightly different, but not that much different.
Eat a lot, die young?
Q: I have a problem. I want to build as much muscle as possible and that means eating a lot and training hard. But I also want to live long and it seems like calorie restriction might help with that. Does calorie restriction work? Do bodybuilders like me die young?
A: Good question and I wish I had a perfect answer. As in many areas of life, the best strategy for one goal (training for a marathon or the Arnold Classics) may not necessarily be the best strategy for another goal (living as long as the soy-loving people of Okinawa). I don't know of any study that has looked at how long professional bodybuilders live, but it might make sense to look at a few examples. You might remember Chris Dickerson, the winner of the Mr. Olympia title in 1982.
When I lived in New York in the mid-nineties, I trained at the same gym where Chris worked as a trainer. He didn't look like he did on stage in 1982, of course, but he looked fit, healthy and robust. And a friend of mine, former Mr. America Tom Terwilliger is the prime example of good health. He's a successful motivational speaker, but he's a slim reflection of the man who once graced the cover of Muscular Development. While I can't speak for these guys, I'm assuming none of them continue to use the same "supplement program" from before or continue to train as hard. The same goes for Lee Labrada. But these guys are in very good shape and live a healthy and active lifestyle. It's hard to find a reason why they should die early. Quite the opposite.
That being said, science shows that calorie restriction is a potentially effective strategy for prolonging life. A reduction of 25 to 33 percent seems to be sufficient. It's not the kind of strategy you'd follow if you want to build muscle, but you don't have to look like a vegan beanstalk to reap the benefits. Personally, I'd say that as long as your calories are coming from really good sources, you're not abusing your body (you know what I mean), you're getting adequate amounts of rest, sun and sleep, and your life is balanced, you should be fine. And remember that our goals change as we get older. As you approach 60, looking like Dorian Yates probably won't be as important to you. A low body fat percentage, plenty of energy, nice muscles and well-functioning sexual organs will probably be enough for you. Being the most muscular guy in the neighborhood will be less important than being alive and healthy.
Chia
Q: I've seen claims that chia seeds are better than flaxseed or even fish oil. What do you think about this?
A: I would take a guess: You heard these claims from someone trying to sell you chia. Chia appears to be a good food and a viable substitute for flaxseed as a source of plant-based omega-3 fatty acids. The USDA database shows that chia seeds contain slightly more fiber and slightly more calcium and phosphorus, while flax seeds contain slightly more protein and more undifferentiated polyunsaturated fatty acids. All in all, they are not that different from each other. In the quantities you are likely to consume - a few tablespoons here and there - it shouldn't make much difference whether you use flaxseed or chia seeds, apart from convenience. Flaxseeds need to be hulled as they have a hard shell, whereas chia seeds do not.
To be fair, it should be mentioned that there are a few studies on chia - a member of the mint family with the Latin name Slavia Hispanica L. - which show that chia can lower blood pressure, reduce inflammation and improve blood sugar control in diabetics. But there is also a lot of research on the benefits of flaxseed. One thing that flaxseed has over chia seeds is the presence of lignans, which have numerous health benefits including anti-cancer effects. There has been a lot of press coverage about a particular brand of chia seeds called Salba, whose manufacturer claims that they are far superior to regular chia seeds. These Salba chia seeds were also used in the study mentioned above.
But Wayne Coates, a professor at the University of Arizona and author of a book on the subject (Chia: Rediscovering a Forgotten Crop of the Aztecs) believes that Salba's marketing is nothing more than pure marketing, as Salba is nothing more than ordinary white chia. His website compares white and black chia and you can see at first glance that there is no difference. So there is no grind to pay a higher price for Salba. As for comparing chia to fish oil, this is completely ridiculous. Chia seeds and flaxseed are sources of alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 fatty acid, so it's not fair to compare chia to fish oil. Fish oil contains EPA and DHA, two completely different omega-3 fatty acids that are not comparable to alpha-linolenic acid. The body will produce EPA and DHA from alpha-linolenic acid, but the conversion rate is not particularly high. If alpha-linolenic acid is your only source of omega-3 fatty acids, then you should make sure to take at least one or better several tablespoons of linseed oil or a few tablespoons of linseed or chia seeds every day. On the other hand, you can also stick chia seeds on a silly little clay figure and give it as a Christmas present to someone who doesn't know video games.
Stressed out? How about L-theanine
Q: Is it true that the amino acid theanine can help you relax?
A: I wrote about the amino acid theanine in my book The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth, which is said to have the ability to relieve anxiety, which it does.
Theanine is an amino acid not found in normal dietary protein and is found in green tea, which may be one of the reasons why green tea does not cause anxiety despite its caffeine content. I find theanine very helpful and always have some on hand when dealing with publishers and editors. Theanine blocks the binding of L-glutamic acid, a stimulating neurotransmitter, to the glutamate receptors in the brain. If you imagine glutamic acid molecules as lamps and the receptors as electronic connections on a wall, then theanine switches off some of these connections. Fewer lamps are switched on, there is less bright light and the brain is less "excited". Does that make sense?
A 1999 study examined the brain activity of volunteers who were given 50 to 200 mg of L-theanine. The supplement helped to generate alpha waves in the brain, which have a relaxing effect. Theanine also increased levels of the calming neurotransmitter GABA.
Does Diet Coke make me fat?
Q: Will light drinks make me fat, as some studies claim? How can something with no calories have this effect?
A: We don't know for sure that they will make you fat, but they have been linked to obesity in several ways.
Two years ago, a University of Texas Health Science Center study found that there was a 41 percent increased risk of obesity per can of light drink consumed. "We observed that the more light drinks a person drank, the more likely they were to gain weight," said Sharon Fowler, an epidemiologist representing the American Diabetes Association.
We don't know why this happens, but we have a few theories. One is psychological. Many people unconsciously consume more food because they think it's okay since they're drinking Diet Coke. I call this the Disneyland theory - go to Disneyland and watch people with a huge portion of fries in one hand and a Diet Coke in the other.
A second theory is that the sweet taste could cause an insulin response through classical conditioning - like Pavlov's dog - even though the drink actually provides no calories. (Translator's note: this theory has been clearly refuted by numerous studies, as at least in humans an insulin release can only occur as a reaction to an increase in blood sugar levels. Animal studies are not conclusive here, as in some species insulin secretion can also be stimulated by other factors). The most promising theory, however, is that calorie-free drinks that taste like they are supposed to provide calories somehow interfere with the brain's regulatory mechanisms for controlling appetite and calorie control.
No one yet knows the real reasons. It could all turn out to be a coincidence - fat people simply drink more light drinks. But I doubt it. Either way, there are plenty more reasons to avoid the chemicals and artificial sweeteners in light drinks - regardless of whether they actually have an effect on weight.
Is it all for the drain?
Q: I've been hearing more and more lately that vitamins and other supplements do nothing more than generate "expensive urine". Is that true? Am I really peeing it all out again?
A: The next time some idiot tells you something like this, ask them to explain the concept of the cocaine addict who spends a week's wages on coke or a Mr. Olympia contestant whose medicine cabinet is full of Deca and Dianabol.
If one of these guys pees in a cup, you will find traces of his drugs. Does this mean that these substances have no effect between ingestion and excretion? Of course not. If no traces of these drugs showed up in the urine sample, then the dealers would have some explaining to do.
Expensive urine? Give me a break with that nonsense.
By Jonny Bowden
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/question-of-nutrition-4
Pomegranate: The hard facts
Q: Pomegranate has recently been called "natural Viagra". What's that all about?
A: What's it all about? Rats fed pomegranate extract as part of a scientific experiment showed a spontaneous increase in sexual behavior. The scientists believe that the high antioxidant content in pomegranate juice could help protect against physical damage that can cause erectile dysfunction. A human study conducted by Christopher Forest at the University of California at Los Angeles showed that men who drank 250 ml of pomegranate juice daily for a month were more easily able to achieve an erection, which may be related to the fact that pomegranate juice may improve blood supply to the male genitals. It does this by increasing nitric oxide levels, which relax muscles in the walls of blood vessels.
High fructose corn syrup
Q: It looks like high fructose corn syrup is getting a PR boost. Is high fructose corn syrup really the "sweet surprise" it's being touted as, or is it as bad as we previously believed?
A: The manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup have indeed been battling bad publicity for years. The advertising is everywhere. One of those commercials where a hot girl offers a dorky guy an ice lolly and he stammers something like "But it contains something like high fructose corn syrup" is unfortunately no longer online, which is a real shame. I particularly like the bit where she explains to him, in her best "I'm talking to a slightly retarded adult" tone, that high fructose corn syrup is a natural thing because it's made from corn. And that it is perfectly fine when consumed in moderate amounts. Silly boy.
Now, if this tempting gal offered me a tuber leaf mushroom, I might fall for her too, but that doesn't change the facts - and high fructose corn syrup is still that piss-poor garbage it's always been. But since this topic is causing so much confusion, I'll try to shed some light and clear things up. Several problems come into play here, which overlap with each other.
First things first: in the beginning there was simple table sugar, also known by the scientific name sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide, which means that it is made up of two simple saccharides or sugars, which are glucose and fructose. Take one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose, join them with a chemical bond and you get one molecule of sucrose. Put a few of these molecules in a bowl, put the bowl on the table with a small spoon and you're in business. It's a generally accepted fact that high sugar consumption is bad for you and a list of all the reasons why is beyond the scope of this article. Let's save that for another day. What's interesting for our purposes is the fact that a huge amount of research has been done detailing which of the two components of table sugar is worse for you - and fructose is the clear "winner." Don't get me wrong: fructose, which is naturally found in an apple, is perfectly fine. But the difference between the fructose in an apple and the fructose in soft drinks is the same difference as the difference between a beautiful pelt on a wild fox and the same pelt on the back of a fat lady at the opera. It is beautiful on its original owner - not so much on the fat lady. In its original environment, fructose is surrounded by healthy nutrients, phytochemicals and fiber. When it's extracted and turned into a liquid sweetener, it's a nightmare.
Interestingly, fructose does not raise blood sugar levels very much, which has led to the absolutely inane idea that fructose is a good sugar for diabetics. However, studies have now shown that fructose leads to insulin resistance. It is also the sugar that raises triglyceride levels the most, which is a serious risk factor for heart disease. In short, this is bad news. There's something else to consider: table sugar is expensive. The average person can afford sugar, but for food manufacturers who want to sweeten their products, table sugar is a high-priced product. This high cost was one of the reasons you couldn't find sugar in every food product you could buy.
Due to situations that involved all kinds of political cronyism and resulted in high sugar prices and corn subsidies, food manufacturers were highly motivated to find a solution to the problem of expensive sugar. Welcome to the world of high fructose corn syrup.
Take a subsidized grain like corn, perform some chemical surgery and voila you have something that is even sweeter than sucrose and costs only a fraction. It can be added to almost anything and makes these foods tastier and, of course, more profitable. This is where things get a little more complicated. Chemically speaking, high fructose corn syrup is not that different from regular table sugar. Just in case you didn't take your ginkgo this morning and have forgotten the first part of this story, it's worth repeating that sucrose is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. High-fructose corn syrup - at least the most common variety you'll find in soft drinks - is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose.
That's not a huge difference, but the problem is that you'll find high-fructose corn syrup everywhere - even in foods that have never been sweetened before. It's the most commonly used sweetener in soft drinks (it's been used in Coca Cola since 1985, for example), and accounts for a double-digit percentage of the calories we consume. A form of high fructose corn syrup used in baked goods contains an even higher percentage of fructose.
So we are consuming more fructose today than ever before. Even though high fructose corn syrup contains only slightly more fructose in percentage terms than table sugar, people who consume a lot of soft drinks can easily consume 20 to 30 grams of additional liquid fructose per day.
The association's advertising campaign promoting the use of high fructose corn syrup includes two arguments:
- High fructose corn syrup is no worse than sugar. Okay, maybe that's true, but you could just as easily say that Marlboro cigarettes are no worse than Camel cigarettes.
- High fructose corn syrup is natural because it is made from corn. That may be so, but so is ethanol and I don't drink that either.
Vitamin D
Q: The information about vitamin D from your first interview with T-Nation was fascinating. What are your recommendations? Do we need to supplement more vitamin D in the winter? And how much sun exposure is safe in the summer?
A: If you're a model hanging out by the pool at the Delano Hotel in South Beach all day in August, then you can probably do without your vitamin D pill that day. But for the rest of us, I think vitamin D supplementation is a good idea, even in the summer.
Studies have clearly shown that 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day is perfectly safe and even the very conservative Institute of Medicine considers 2,000 IU to be a safe upper limit. Incidentally, many nutrition experts believe that the safe upper limit is much higher. Ultimately, the body can easily produce 10,000 to 20,000 IU per day with the help of sunlight without any toxic effects on the body. But for legal and political reasons, no more is officially recommended than is considered completely safe and harmless by official bodies. So let's be conservative and count on the 2,000 IU. The potential benefits are so many and the potential risks so small (and purely theoretical anyway) that I see no reason not to take vitamin D even in summer unless you spend a lot of time in the sun every day.
When it comes to how much sun is "safe", the answer depends on who you ask. On the one hand, you have mainstream medicine urging you to slap an SPF 50 on your skin even if you're just going to Starbucks if you don't want to die of skin cancer. On the other hand, there are many people who say that we are too afraid of the sun. I tend to agree with the second group. But make up your own mind. Read the book The UV Advantage by Michael Holick, a professor of medicine and dermatologist who was fired from Boston University after his book was published.
Or read the book Your Best Health Under the Sun, by Al Sears, M.D. Neither of these experts is advocating going back to the days when we spent all day in the sun without protection, but both think we're taking our fear of a little sun exposure a little too far.
The best nuts for healthy nuts
Q: Is there a best nut? I've heard that peanuts are the worst due to allergens. Are walnuts, almonds or macadamia nuts the best?
A: Peanuts are not strictly speaking nuts, but legumes. And they are perfectly fine for you as long as you are not allergic to them. If you have a serious allergy, they can even kill you. Apart from that, they are perfectly fine. They contain some potassium, a few grams of fiber, some iron and even some resveratrol - the anti-aging compound found in the highest concentrations in red wine and grape skins (not to mention some highly concentrated supplements). Walnuts, almonds, macadamias, pistachios, cashews, hazelnuts and pecans are all real nuts and all of these are great for you if you're not one of those people who are allergic to nuts. All of these nuts have an excellent nutritional profile, although these profiles vary from nut variety to nut variety.
Walnuts are a good source of omega-3 fatty acids. Most of the fat in the other nuts, as well as peanuts, is monounsaturated and is the same type of fat found in large quantities in the typical Mediterranean diet. Hazelnuts contain beta-sitosterol, a plant sterol that can alleviate the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cashews are loaded with minerals and contain a respectable 5 grams of protein per 30 grams. Pecans contain a ton of minerals combined with three grams of fiber per serving. Pistachios contain one of the highest concentrations of phytosterols of any snack food and also boost immune system function. Brazil nuts are one of the best sources of selenium. Selenium is a superstar mineral and a powerful antioxidant that has been linked to reduced cancer rates.
The bottom line on nuts is this: They're all good. Several of the most important long-term studies, including the Iowa Women's Health Study and the Nurses Health Study, consistently show a 30 to 50 percent lower risk of heart disease when nuts are consumed several times a week. Be guided by your taste preferences. Remember, however, that nuts are very high in calories, so it's important to watch your portion sizes.
The other kind of juice
Q: Over the years, I've tried drinking more juice several times, but I've always ended up quitting because I didn't like the taste. What do you think of juice? And do you have any favorite recipes?
A: I think juicing is a quick and painless way to get a ton of vitamins, minerals, enzymes, phytochemicals and other good stuff that you wouldn't get without juicing.
If you're smart, you can mask some of the flavors you don't like. For example, use some apple or pear as a base and you can easily mask the taste of some nutrient-rich broccoli. The only thing you lose when you use juice is the fiber found in fruits and vegetables. This is a big loss, but you can make up for it through your diet and supplements. This is a good compromise for many people due to the amazing concentration of nutrients in a glass of fresh juice. (Make sure the juice is really fresh. The nutritional components break down quickly, which is why you should drink your juice immediately after making it). Something else to bear in mind if you are diabetic or suffer from insulin resistance is that juices rich in fruit or carrots can raise your blood sugar levels significantly.
Finally, remember that fruit and vegetables contain carotenoids and other valuable phytochemicals that are best absorbed with a little fat. So take a few fish oil capsules with your fruit and vegetable juice or add a dash of organic linseed oil to your juice. You won't notice the taste and you'll absorb the nutrients better.
My favorite combinations include:
- Pear, celery, cucumber, ginger
- Apple, spinach, carrot, ginger
- Bell bell pepper, apple, radish, tomato, frozen cranberries
Mix and experiment.
The magic fruit ...
Q: I've always avoided beans because of their carbohydrate content. But in your book The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth, you mention that beans are the ultimate blood sugar regulator. So are beans good or not? And is there a best kind of bean?
A: Beans are a great thing. Remember that it's not just about the carbohydrate content, but also whether they are fast or slow digesting carbohydrates. Beans contain such slow-digesting carbohydrates that if you eat beans on a Monday morning, your blood sugar won't spike until Tuesday night. Okay, that was an exaggeration, but the carbohydrates in beans are digested more slowly than most other carbohydrates. Part of this is due to the high fiber content, which is between 11 and 17 grams per serving.
Beans contain all kinds of compounds that prevent cancer cells from multiplying or protect your cells from certain types of genetic damage that can lead to cancer. One study showed that men who consumed the most beans had a 38 percent lower risk of prostate cancer. The Nurses Health Study showed that women who ate the most beans or lentils had a significantly reduced risk of breast cancer. And it only took two or more servings per week to reap these benefits.
I see different types of beans as more or less interchangeable from a nutritional standpoint, even though some beans like adzuko beans contain more fiber than other beans. All types of beans are good, but if you buy canned beans, check the label for added sugar and added salt. Some brands are overloaded with both. One dissenting opinion on beans in general, from my respected colleague Loren Cordain, author of The Paleo Diet and The Paleo Diet for Athletes, is worth noting. He is concerned about substances found in beans known collectively as lectins. Lectins are a mixture of protein and carbohydrates that are not digested and broken down and can bind to tissue types in the body, which can cause problems in people who are susceptible to them. This is why all types of beans are on his list of foods to avoid, along with grains.
I think Cordain is a very smart guy, but I don't agree with all of his recommendations. Obviously some people might have problems with beans, but if you're not one of those people, I don't think you need to worry about this. (Incidentally, Cordain's list of foods to avoid includes eggs). A final thought: eating beans is a dietary habit shared by people in three of the four "blue" zones - the parts of the world where people live the longest. This information comes from the book by Dan Buettner, who studied the eating habits and lifestyles of people living in these regions, who live the longest and healthiest lives on the planet.
References
1 Khan, MS, PhD, Alam, Safdar, MS, Mahpara, Ali Khan, MS, PhD, Mohammad Muzaffar, Khattak, MS, Khan Nawaz, and Anderson, PhD, Richard A. "Cinnamon Improves Glucose and Lipids of People With Type 2 Diabetes." Diabetes Care 26(2003): 3215-3218.
Mass building nutrition
Q: Most weight training coaches agree that you need extra calories to build muscle. But the question is, how many extra calories? On one side you have those who say you should eat a few hundred calories more than your maintenance calories and on the other side you have those who say you should eat a ton of food and train hard. What do you think is best for a man who wants to build muscle?
Dr. Bowden: "Train hard and eat a ton of food" sounds like a great philosophy.... if you're working towards becoming a sumo wrestler.
I think the "eat a ton of food and train hard" approach is kind of like practicing clay pigeon shooting with a blindfold on. You might hit the target, but you might also hit one of the other shooters. I think it's much smarter to start with a controlled amount of extra calories and see if that amount is enough to hit the target. Ask yourself what your performance looks like, what your energy levels look like and whether you like the results in the mirror. If you are not happy with the results, keep adjusting the calories until you are satisfied.
If you're a bodybuilder, you're going to be training hard anyway, so it's just a matter of how much you should eat to ensure that most of the extra calories are used to build muscle rather than fat. "Eat a ton of food" is way too unscientific for most bodybuilders today.
How healthy is fasting?
Q: What do you think about intermittent fasting? I've read about plans that involve periodic 24-hour fasts. Other plans involve fasting on alternate days. It is claimed that this type of fasting can improve insulin sensitivity and prolong life expectancy, among other things. What are your thoughts on this topic?
Dr. Bowden: The idea of fasting as a strategy to improve health has been around since the days of Hippocrates - the man who is considered the father of modern medicine. Fasting is used in the religious realm as a spiritual discipline and many spa clinics use some form of fasting - often referred to as a detoxification program - as part of their treatment program.
"Fasting and detoxification are the missing pieces of the Western diet," says my friend Dr. Elson Haas, author of "The New Detox Diet." Haas has been using detox programs as part of his medical treatments for over 30 years. "Fasting is by far the best natural healing therapy I know of," he told me. "People need a break from what they eat every day. Fasting can give the body a break during which it can restore its balance." But true fasting - even for just one day - can be really hard on the body. "A more widespread and looser definition of fasting includes juices from fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as herbal teas," Haas says. "Fresh juices are easily absorbed by the body and require minimal digestion, while still providing lots of nutrients. They can encourage the body to eliminate waste products. Juice fasting is healthier than water fasting because it supports the body nutritionally while cleansing the body and maintaining your energy levels."
You've probably heard about all this fasting on alternate days because of some experiments done on mice at the University of California at Berkeley. The scientists starved the poor mice on alternate days and allowed them to eat whatever they wanted on the days in between. "We found that fasting can reduce the proliferation rate of cells in the skin and breast area," lead researcher Krista Varady told me. "This resulted in a reduced risk of breast and skin cancer."
I won't bore you with the details of the research, but just mention that the scientists also found that you don't have to completely abstain from all food intake on fasting days. You can maintain 25 percent of your normal food intake on these days - which is roughly equivalent to one meal - and still reap the benefits.
But don't use fasting as a weight loss strategy. It never works. Even in the mouse experiments, the animals overcompensated for their fasting days by eating more on the non-fasting days and ended up consuming the same amount of calories as they would on a normal diet.
Since the only life-extension strategy that has ever worked in the lab is calorie restriction, and some theorists suggest that downregulation of insulin signaling may be part of the reason for this, consuming fewer calories in the context of a nutrient-dense diet makes sense. So occasionally taking a day off from your regular diet and giving your digestive system a break is not a bad idea.
Food allergies and the elimination diet
Q: Is it true that if you eat a certain food all the time, you can develop an allergy to that food?
Dr. Bowden: It is true that both allergies and hypersensitivity (which is much more common) can develop later in life and this can be the case even with foods that you have been able to eat for a long time without obvious reactions. This problem seems to be more prevalent with foods that contain ingredients (such as wheat) that are found everywhere and that we consume in far greater quantities than ever before in the history of the human diet. A very good way to find out if your body is reacting to a particular food, or to identify a possible "suspect", is to use a so-called elimination diet, which I have described in more detail in my book "The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth".
Such an elimination diet is simple detective work. You simply eliminate a potentially intolerable food from your diet for a few weeks. If certain symptoms such as headaches, concentration problems or tiredness disappear as a result, then you have identified the culprit. It is often possible to reintroduce this food into your diet periodically, e.g. once every four days, without any problems.
An alternative sweetener?
Q: I recently read that xylitol powder can be used as a sweetener. What is xylitol and do you recommend it?
Dr. Bowden: Xylitol is often referred to as birch sugar and is made from birch bark. It is my favorite sweetener that has quite a specific taste. Xylitol has no real drawbacks - except that it can be lethal to pets. It tastes like sugar, but has 40 percent fewer calories. Xylitol can be used in hot drinks such as coffee and has virtually no glycemic impact. It also has the added benefit of preventing certain bacteria from sticking to body tissues, making it the perfect sweetener for healthy chewing gum. You can also use xylitol in baking, using the same amount as sugar. This makes xylitol the perfect sugar substitute for diabetics and as part of a low-carb diet.
Is my microwave trying to kill me?
Q: Is a microwave really dangerous or is this just another conspiracy theory?
Dr. Bowden: I'm torn on this question. The general consensus is that microwaves are perfectly safe, but they say the same thing about cell phones...and I don't think the last word has been said on the subject. Among natural food advocates, it is considered a kind of given fact that microwaving changes the "energetic" nature of food, but this is very difficult to prove and easy to dismiss as the gobbledygook of the aluminum hat faction. There was a lawsuit in 1991 in the case of a hip surgery patient who died after a simple blood transfusion after a nurse heated the blood in a microwave. (Blood is normally warmed before a transfusion, but not in a microwave). This has given new impetus to the argument that more happens during microwave heating than we previously believed. But who really knows? It's hard to get really good information on this topic - much like cell phone radiation. Most of the arguments come from obscure European studies that are almost impossible to find, but still, the whole thing is a little scary. I'm of the opinion that microwaved food tastes pretty awful. If heat from any source was the same, then a microwaved potato should taste the same as a baked potato, but it doesn't - and this supports the suggestion that there's more going on here than we realize. You can try this out for yourself by microwaving a sweet potato. Horrible.
Personally, I rarely use a microwave for cooking.
Fish oil for depression
Q: Does fish oil really help with depression? I don't suffer from clinical depression, but who couldn't benefit from a mood booster?
Dr. Bowden: There is some ongoing research by Dr. Andrew Stoll at Harvard University regarding the use of fish oil for depression in people who suffer from bipolar disorder. These studies are using really high doses - 10 grams - but even lower doses are showing an effect, which is especially true when combined with nutrients like folic acid and a low-sugar diet. That's good for a lot of things, but also for depression? It would seem so. While it's not proof, it is a fact that almost every behavioral or cognitive disorder that has been studied has been found to have really low levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the bloodstream.
As omega-3 fatty acids are incorporated into cell membranes, making them more porous and flexible, it could make it easier for neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which have mood-enhancing effects, to enter the cells, which would be reflected in a better mood.
Alli to support fat loss
Q: My wife insists on trying this Alli weight loss drug now that it is available over the counter. This seems like pretty garbage to me. What's really going on with Alli?
Dr. Bowden: Well, no one has ever called me a marriage counselor and certainly not someone who is always politically correct, so I'll be blunt and direct: You're right and your wife is wrong. Alli is total garbage. But it's a lesson for us. Salespeople - including salespeople in the drug manufacturing business - love to throw percentages around because they can be accurate and dishonest at the same time.
For example, let's say there's a 1 in 10 million chance of winning the lottery and I have a system that I can guarantee to increase your chances of winning the lottery by 100%. However, this only increases your chances of winning from 1 in 10 million to 2 in 10 million! Think about this the next time you read about how people who took a certain weight loss drug "lost 43 percent more weight." Or that someone who took a certain bodybuilding supplement "built 37 percent more muscle. This can be accurate but still bullshit. Often this means that the control group lost one pound of weight per month, while the group that used the drug lost 1.43 pounds per month.
Alli is nothing more than an over-the-counter, weaker version of the long-standing drug Xenical (the generic name of the active ingredient is orlistat). It already didn't work very well as full strength Xenical. I'm not sure why changing the name and reducing the dosage would solve this problem, but what do I know.... Alli is a member of the group of weight loss drugs called digestive inhibitors. It prevents some of the fat you eat from being digested and absorbed by your body. It does this by inhibiting the digestive enzyme lipase, which breaks down fat.
The result? About 30 percent of the fat you eat doesn't end up on your hips. A side effect of this drug is euphemistically called "anal leakage" and describes what happens to the fat you don't digest. Any more questions? How about this one: "What happens to the fat that's already on your hips?" The answer is: nothing.
The first major study to publicize Xenical was a two-year European study that showed that patients using Xenical lost between two and three percent more weight than members of the placebo group. A second two-year study put overweight patients on a calorie-restricted diet and gave them 120 mg of Xenical three times a day. At the end of the year, these patients had lost 9 pounds more than the control group. Look closely at these figures. Nine pounds within a year - that's three quarters of a pound per month. A similar study from the US produced a weight loss of 1.5 pounds per month in Xenical users.
People lose weight when they use Xenical or Alli because these drugs basically reduce calorie intake automatically. For example, if you consume 2,500 kcal per day and 30 percent of those calories are fat, then you would normally consume 750 kcal in the form of fat. By taking Xenical, a third of these fat calories are not absorbed, so that 750 kcal theoretically become 500 kcal. So you save 250 kcal while eating the same meals (note the word "theoretically"). Stick with this plan for a week and you will have saved 250 kcal times seven or 1,750 kcal or about half a pound of fat.
Of course, you could easily cut unhealthy calories and unhealthy simple carbs and give up Alli, but that idea is not supported by a 150 million dollar marketing budget.
So is Alli the answer? Probably not, unless you own shares in Glaxo.
Is brown rice healthy?
Q: I don't do well with carbohydrates, which is why I strictly control the carbohydrates in my diet. However, I have been thinking about adding brown rice to my diet. What's the real story behind brown rice: is it good for me or is it overrated?
Dr. Bowden: Brown rice is not the worst thing, but it is overrated. The glycemic index and glycemic load of brown and white rice are very similar and brown rice is quite poor nutritionally. It contains more fiber, which is good - 3.5 grams per cup compared to half a gram for white rice - and slightly fewer carbohydrates and calories. That said, there is not that much difference. Nutritionists love brown rice, but they also love whole wheat bread, which is pretty much the same garbage as white bread. Brown rice is not the worst thing in the world. If you want to add some carbs to your diet, small portions are fine - especially if it's not the main course and is combined with fat, protein and vegetables in a relatively low-calorie meal.
Apple cider vinegar: Quackery?
Q: Is there any truth to all the hype about apple cider vinegar? I've heard everything from weight loss benefits to acne prevention.
Dr. Bowden: Ah, apple cider vinegar. You can be sure that if this stuff had been developed at the time of multi-level marketing, it would be selling for $40 a bottle with claims ranging from curing cancer to regrowing hair on balding people.
I also wrote about apple cider vinegar in my book "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth". Why? Because foods (or medicines) that have lived up to their reputation for hundreds or sometimes even thousands of years should get attention - even if there is no "hard" evidence of their value. If there is no evidence of an effect, this is not proof that something has no effect.
So it looks like this: Apple cider vinegar is probably a good thing, but there is little scientific evidence for its effects. This does not mean that apple cider vinegar is worthless. First of all, it's a real thing, made from natural foods and loaded with many of the same phenols found in apples.
Second, a study published in the journal Diabetes Care suggests that apple cider vinegar may promote healthy blood sugar levels. A friend of mine, Dr. Jeff Volek, a highly respected scientist, believes that salad with apple cider vinegar at the beginning of each meal has the potential to help control blood sugar levels. Unpasteurized vinegar is overloaded with nutrients and contains up to 50 different minerals, vitamins and amino acids, depending on the raw material used in its production. Is apple cider vinegar a cure-all? Probably not and it is definitely not a cure for obesity. But I always have a bottle of apple cider vinegar in the fridge. When you buy apple cider vinegar, look out for terms like unpasteurized, unfiltered, traditionally fermented or something along those lines. The process of pasteurization destroys many of the heat-sensitive vitamins and enzymes that make apple cider vinegar so healthy.
by Jonny Bowden, PhD
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/question-of-nutrition-2
What kind of load
Q: I've read that the glycemic index is overrated and that what we should really be looking at is the glycemic load. What is the difference between the two?
A: The glycemic index is overrated. You should focus on glycemic load instead. There is a big difference here:
The glycemic index is a way of measuring the impact that a given amount of carbohydrate has on your blood sugar levels - something you should definitely be interested in. However, in order to make a fair comparison, a fixed amount of carbohydrate must be used. In the case of the glycemic index, it is a standard amount of 50 grams of carbohydrates in the form of a food. The problem, however, is that very few carbohydrate foods are consumed in a portion size of 50 grams of carbohydrate in real life. Imagine that you go to the store to buy spices and there is a spice that costs 500 euros per pound, which of course sounds like a lot of money. However, if you only buy half a teaspoon of this stuff, then the price is quite irrelevant. What you care about is what you pay at the checkout and not necessarily what it would cost if you bought a pound.
Similarly, you should care very little about the impact 50 grams of a food has on your blood sugar - you care about the impact of the amount you actually eat. The glycemic load is based on a more sophisticated formula that takes into account the amount of carbohydrates in grams that you eat - in other words, the portion size. The glycemic index of carrots is high, which is why a lot of people think that you should never eat carrots, which is of course a silly conclusion. The fact is that the average carrot contains only 3 grams of carbohydrates. So you'd have to eat carrots like a giant rabbit for them to have a significant impact on your blood sugar levels. The glycemic load of a carrot is only 3, which makes it a very low-glycemic food - as long as you don't drink pure carrot juice or eat 13 carrots at once.
Pasta, on the other hand, has a moderate glycemic index, but is almost never eaten in small portions. If you consider the portion size of a typical serving of pasta, your blood sugar levels will skyrocket and stay there for a week. It is therefore not surprising that the glycemic load of pasta is very high. The technical formula for the glycemic load is the GI (glycemic index) multiplied by the amount of carbohydrates in the portion in grams, after which the result is divided by 100. A low glycemic load is between 1 and 10, a medium glycemic load is between 10 and 20 and anything over 20 is considered a very high glycemic load. In all these considerations, however, you should also bear in mind that both the glycemic index and the glycemic load only refer to a food consumed on its own. Add some fat or protein and the overall impact will decrease. And many high glycemic foods are good for you (e.g. carrot juice), while many low glycemic foods are not (e.g. fried donuts).
So you should take your glycemic load into account, but not be a slave to it. It is merely a value that you should take into account when planning your diet. Athletes who train intensively can even benefit from high-glycemic foods, especially if you train twice a day. But Mrs. Schmitt with metabolic syndrome... please not so much!
The best fat loss supplement
Q: You once wrote that fiber is the best supplement for fat loss. What do you mean by that? And how much fiber does the average athletic man need per day?
A: High blood sugar levels and insulin are the enemy of fat loss, and a high-fiber diet helps keep blood sugar levels (and insulin levels) in a healthy range. The more fiber you eat, the lower the glycemic impact of the food. And the slower the sugar enters your bloodstream, the less damage it is likely to do.
Fiber also keeps you fuller for longer, which means you're less likely to binge eat. And since fiber keeps your blood sugar levels in a nice comfortable range, you're less likely to suffer from nighttime cravings. And then there's the added fact that fiber is primarily found in foods that tend to be rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds.
As great as protein and fat are, both provide zero fiber. Nearly all of us - including athletes - need more fiber than we typically consume. Our paleolithic ancestors - a good population model for the ideal diet - ate between 50 and 100 grams of fiber per day. The average American and Western European, on the other hand, consumes just 4 to 11 grams of fiber per day. I don't usually agree with mainstream conventional health organizations when it comes to dietary advice, but in this case, most of them are right. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends between 25 and 38 grams of fiber per day, with the recommended amount for "active" people being even higher. Active men between the ages of 14 and 50, for example, should consume between 42 and 45 grams of fiber per day.
If you're not eating loads of vegetables and beans, then this probably means you could benefit from a fiber supplement such as cellulose fiber, psyllium husk or bran.
However, when increasing your fiber intake, make sure to drink more water. If you don't do this, then you'd better get used to constipation.
Turmeric: the super spice
Q: You wrote in your book 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth that the spice turmeric deserves a whole book to itself. What's so great about this stuff - apart from the fact that it makes Indian food so delicious?
A: The active ingredient in turmeric is curcumin, a member of the class of plant chemicals known as curcuminoids. Curcumin has anti-cancer properties and even the very conservative American Cancer Society says on its website that curcumin "has demonstrated some anti-cancer effects."
Different types of cancer cells have been inhibited by curcumin in the laboratory and it has been shown to slow the spread of cancer in some animal studies. It is a powerful antioxidant with strong anti-inflammatory effects and since inflammation is a component of almost every degenerative disease on the planet, this is quite an impressive resume.
And as if that wasn't enough, curcumin is one of the most liver-friendly compounds on the planet, which is one of the reasons you'll find curcumin in almost every liver detox supplement.
The best oils
Q: We all know that extra virgin olive oil is very healthy and after reading your interview on T-Nation, I started using coconut oil as well. What other oils do you recommend?
A: I'm glad to hear that you've started using coconut oil, which is the most underrated oil in my opinion. I consume at least a jar of organic coconut oil every month. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but I use it for everything from roasting vegetables and shrimp to scrambling eggs.
Even though I wrote a cookbook called "The World's Healthiest Meals", I'm not much of a cook, but I can tell you that for high-heat frying, macadamia oil - which contains even more oleic acid than olive oil - avocado oil and hazelnut oil are the best.
Heating extra virgin olive oil to a temperature at which it starts to smoke is not a particularly good idea. This destroys the delicate compounds that are retained when the oil is cold-pressed - and then what is the point of using extra virgin olive oil? Peanut oil only starts to smoke at a very high temperature, which is very good from a cooking point of view, but unfortunately peanut oil also contains a very high proportion of omega-6 fatty acids. Omega-6 fatty acids are not necessarily bad, but we generally consume too many omega-6 fatty acids and not enough omega-3 fatty acids anyway, so using peanut oil for frying can further contribute to this imbalance.
Diet and acne
Q: I am in my late twenties and still suffer from acne. I have heard for years that our diet has no effect on acne. Is that true?
A: That's about as true as saying you can't get pregnant the first time.
The notion that diet has nothing to do with acne is an old wives' tale put out there by some very dubious studies funded by the chocolate industry in the late sixties.
I talked about some of the causes of acne in my book "The Most Effective Cures on Earth", the conclusion being that very few people suffered from acne in the time of hunter-gatherer societies, whereas a large percentage of people who follow a Western diet suffer from acne.
And in 2002, Loren Cordain, PhD, dealt the final blow to the theory that there is no link between diet and acne with a study in which not a single case of acne was found in two societies that did not eat a Western-style diet. These people ate tubers, fruit, fish and coconuts. In other words, the Paleolithic diet of our hunter-gatherer ancestors is the best diet for people who suffer from acne. This diet includes what I call the four food groups: Foods you can fish, hunt, gather and pick.
The bottom line is that the Western diet, with all its sugar and starch and white junky carbs, can activate the same genes and upregulate the same hormones that can exacerbate acne. You can easily test this for yourself: if your food doesn't resemble anything you might encounter on the savannah in Africa, then you shouldn't be eating it.
The truth about potatoes
Q: What about normal potatoes? Are they a healthy vegetable? Are sweet potatoes better?
A: Regular potatoes are garbage.
I had this discussion with Dr. John McDougall of Vegetarian-Diet fame and I told him that the "body" looks at a bowl of white potatoes the same way it looks at a large serving of sugar. He argued that this was nonsense and I told him to go back and retake his biochemistry course. But to be fair, of course potatoes can be part of a "healthy overall diet" as those idiots at the American Dietetic Association would call it. But they'd say the same thing about M&Ms.
And of course they're better than Twinkies, and of course they contain small amounts of healthy things. But for the most part, they are a nutritional lightweight and anyone who suffers from blood sugar problems should stay away from potatoes. The fact that, in America at least, they're usually served with low-quality cheese products and bacon doesn't necessarily make it any better.
Sweet potatoes are definitely a better choice. At least they contain good nutrients. Of course, they're not much better from a blood sugar perspective, but this needn't be a cause for concern for everyone - especially bodybuilders. If you do, you're better off avoiding sweet potatoes too, or at least eating smaller portions of them.
Eating at night
Q: What do you think of the idea of stopping eating at a certain time of the day when it comes to fat loss? I've read of people not eating after 5pm, while others stop eating at 8pm. Is eating before bedtime a bad thing if you want to lose fat?
A: Adele Davis, one of the early pioneers of nutrition and the first to support the use of supplements, had a motto: "Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a beggar."
Which, as you know, is the exact opposite of how most people eat. While those Neanderthals from the American Dietetic Association claim that it makes no difference when you eat, it's worth noting that sumo wrestlers eat a big meal before they go to sleep. While I don't think there's anything magical about the exact time (5pm, 7pm or 9pm), the concept of not going to bed on a full stomach when your pancreas is flooding your body with fat-storing insulin is a very good idea.
Instead of obsessing too much about the exact time, simply leave a few hours between your last meal and bedtime. And eat something lighter in the evening.
The perfect snack
Q: I need an evening TV snack that includes some of the healthiest foods around. Do you have any ideas?
A: Frozen blueberries and some full-fat yogurt or raw milk (if you can find it anywhere) would be a good idea. The raw milk or yogurt will freeze slightly over the blueberries and you'll have a fantastic antioxidant-rich dessert that tastes like a sorbet. Sprinkle a few slivered almonds on top for the finishing touch.
The radiation debate
Q: What is your opinion on food irradiation?
A: I'm still forming my opinion on this topic. If you promise not to hold anything I say today against me later, before I've looked into it further, I'll tell you about my current impressions on the subject.
- The whole thing is far more complicated than it seems at first glance. Economic, political and social issues are involved and it is not just about the obvious issues of nutritional value and health (e.g. trade is affected).
- Irradiation destroys a large amount of pathogens contained in food. But it's also a bit like pouring perfume over garbage. You can kill some microbes, but you don't change the bad conditions that are responsible for the development of those microbes such as fecal matter, manure and other agricultural contaminants.
- And irradiated meat - while it may be free of certain pathogens - is still the same inferior product that contains steroids, hormones, antibiotics and more factory farm additives. It's just free of e-coli bacteria. Great...
- And then, of course, there are all the unknowns. I'm not sure it's really as dangerous as the critics claim, but I'm also sure it's not as harmless and safe as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration claims. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and I wish we could hold off on this until we at least know a little more.
by Jonny Bowden, PhD | 09/09/08
Source: https://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/question-of-nutrition-1
