2/19/2020 0 Comments Vitamin Cheat SheetFat solubleNeed dietary fat to be absorbed, but are stored long-term
Water solubleAre not stored in the body (except for B12) so must be consumed regularly
0 Comments
2/13/2020 0 Comments Meat Nutrition ComparisonsWhich type of meat is best? Well, that depends on your goals... Weight Loss: Lower calories Fat Loss: Low fat Better Cholesterol: Low saturated fat High Blood Pressure: Low sodium, high potassium Muscle Gain: High percentage of calories from protein Anemic: High iron, high vitamin B-6 Brain Function: High vitamin B-6
Values are in 100 grams of each product 2/12/2020 0 Comments Debunking Myths About Your Sweat
Imagine you’re washing the dishes, and the sponge is full of hot water. When you squeeze it and water escapes, the sponge will feel cooler because most of the heat left with the water. This is exactly what sweat is doing to our skin. If it wasn’t for sweat, our body would overheat and our nerve cells (which are the type of cells that make up most of our brain!) get damaged. This causes confusion, lethargy, headaches, nausea, or even loss of consciousness. Despite its essential role in our health, it has become very misunderstood by the general population. And buying into many of the misconceptions can distance you from your exercise goals and possibly even put you in danger. So here are four common myths about sweating, and why they’re not true: Myth #1: Sweating Means We Exercised Harder
Therefore, increasing our body temperature (and therefor sweat rate) is accompanied by an increase in heart rate. Our heartrate increases by 10 BPM for every 1 degree the body’s internal temperature rises. However, it’s important to realize that heart rate and sweat rate are two symptoms of muscle effort, and do not have a cause-and-effect relationship with one another. In fact, over time, our bodies can acclimate to a rise in body temperature if it happens frequently enough by increasing sweating automatically when the body senses that a temperature spike is coming. In other words, the body gets a head start on cooling itself off. Here are some studies that explain it better than I can: “Heat acclimatization is an important strategy to mitigate the risk of heat-related injuries. Heat adaptation refers to the physiologic adaptations that occur in response to recurrent elevations in temperatures from exercise. The common adaptations are marked increases in skin vasodilation and sweating, reduced core and skin temperatures, as well as improved fluid balance and cardiovascular stability. The level of physiologic adaptation is dependent on the type, intensity, duration, frequency, and number of heat exposures.” Kenny, Glen P, and Naoto Fujii. “Thermoregulation: From Basic Neuroscience to Clinical Neurology, Part II.” Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 2018, doi:10.1016/c2017-0-01623-3. “Lowering of sweating threshold body temperatures in long-distance runners is not due to an increased fitness level, but is essentially identical with heat adaption.” Hessemer, Volker, et al. “Effects of Passive Heat Adaptation and Moderate Sweatless Conditioning on Responses to Cold and Heat.” European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, vol. 55, no. 3, 1986, pp. 281–289., doi:10.1007/bf02343800. This means that a person who has worked out for years, and whose body routinely sweats, may have a very light workout day, but sweat a great deal more than someone who just started working out, but burned a greater amount of calories and lifted much heavier weight in relation to their capabilities. Instead of how gross your gym shirt is at the end of a workout, focus more on how many calories you burn and doing movements properly to avoid injury. Myth #2: Sweating Improves Weight Loss
It’s true that this can shed pounds fast, but not in the way that exercisers would hope. All of the weight lost is water… because that’s what your sweat is. The weight will be regained once you re-quench your thirst. Not only are these products distracting you from the real cornerstone of sustained weight loss—calories in versus calories out—but they can also cause damage. Increasing sweat dehydrates you, which can tire your body and mind well before you could regularly begin to fatigue from a workout. Furthermore, strapping on tight, thick bands can restrict your range of movement, decreasing your capability to burn calories, and putting you at greater risk for injury. A caveat to this may be saunas or sweat lodges: “Beyond its use for pleasure, sauna bathing may be linked to several health benefits, which include reduction in the risk of vascular diseases such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and neurocognitive diseases; nonvascular conditions such as pulmonary diseases; mortality; as well as amelioration of conditions such as arthritis, headache, and flu.” Laukkanen, Jari A., et al. “Cardiovascular and Other Health Benefits of Sauna Bathing: A Review of the Evidence.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 93, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1111–1121., doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.008. This article never specifically mentions weight loss. But the goal of weight loss is often to avoid heart disease, so this is a worthwhile mention. “During sauna bathing, precipitation can lead to significant loss of bodily fluids…. Body mass loss cannot be entirely attributed to dehydration, and it also results from the utilization of energy stores (glycogen, triglycerides).” Podstawski, Robert, et al. “Sauna-Induced Body Mass Loss in Physically Inactive Young Women and Men.” Biomedical Human Kinetics, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 1–9., doi:10.1515/bhk-2016-0001. I would like to note that I tried to follow the citation attached to this claim of saunas utilizing energy stores, and the study it took me to made no mention of saunas or sweating, which is very suspect. From the evidence that’s available online, I cannot confidently report that sweating from saunas burns calories. There are only unsubstantiated mentions of saunas aiding weight loss that have no counter-evidence. However, it does seem safe in periodical doses, and does have many other health benefits. So carry on. Myth #3: Sweating Releases Toxins
However, these practices don’t hold up under physiological scrutiny. An important follow-up question I have for anyone trying to detoxify their body is… exactly what are these “toxins” you’re trying to remove? And please don’t say, “chemicals.” Everything is a chemical. You are a chemical. For purposes of the topic at hand, our sweat is 99% water. The leftover 1% is a mix of salt, proteins, carbohydrates, and urea. Sodium is not a “toxin,” but an important electrolyte that happens to be too widely available in our diets. The best way to get rid of sodium is not to sweat it out or even to eat less sodium, but actually to balance the electrolyte levels in your kidneys by increasing your potassium consumption. Protein and carbs are important macronutrients that you need for tissue building and energy, respectively. Urea is the leftovers of protein metabolism. Ammonia, one of its precursors, is toxic to our cells, but urea is not, as it is safely transported through the bloodstream to the kidneys for excretion without adverse effects. Sweat contains no toxins. I began this article claiming that we desire to “hack our bodies,” and this is exactly what I mean. Our body is self-detoxifying, and not through our sweat, but through our lungs, colon, liver, and kidneys. This fallacy extends to juice cleanses or the like, but that’s a completely separate article. Admittedly, “detoxifying” sounds really good, as if we can somehow get ahead of our biology. But our body needs no help to function as it has evolved to do for thousands of years. Myth #4: Ammonium in Deodorants
The truth is that aluminum is all around us and cannot be avoided. Food processing adds aluminum to flour and baking agents, manufacturers of antacids and aspirins include aluminum in the medicine formulations, and everyday cosmetics rely on the thickening properties of aluminum. In other words, cutting out antiperspirants to avoid aluminum is like swerving around a puddle while it’s raining to keep your car from getting wet. Antiperspirants are a very small fraction of our aluminum exposure. Some have raised concerns not about the ammonium coming into our skin, but about the sweat not being able to escape. This has led to a rise in aluminum-free deodorants that, instead of preventing sweat altogether, will neutralize the odor when we do sweat, literally de-odorizing our bodies. This allows the harmless bacteria under our arms to function normally, leaving our microbiome undisturbed. In 2016, researchers from North Carolina set out to see if this had any health benefits. They realized easily that there is, “an initial negative effect of antiperspirant, but not deodorant, on bacterial abundance.” So does that automatically equal health issues? “The broader health consequences,” they continued, “of antiperspirant and deodorant use are not well studied. Although it has been suggested that deodorant and/or antiperspirant use is associated with incidence or age of breast cancer diagnosis, support for this association is equivocal at best. Recent work indicates that the microbial community structure of the skin, including its commensal/symbiotic residents, exerts significant influence on human health and disease.” Six months after this article was published, the National Cancer Institute released their findings on the issue: “Because underarm antiperspirants or deodorants are applied near the breast and contain potentially harmful ingredients, several scientists and others have suggested a possible connection between their use and breast cancer. However, no scientific evidence links the use of these products to the development of breast cancer.” Three years later still, Penn Medicine announced their same conclusion: “The American Cancer Society found claims linking breast cancer and deodorants do not have a solid scientific grounding, and the National Kidney Foundation cautions only people with extremely weak kidney functions about the health risks of using antiperspirants.” If new evidence was to emerge confirming the link between antiperspirants and breast cancer—or any negative health effects in normal populations—I will be full team aluminum-free. However, at this time, the fear simply isn’t based in science, but, instead, in trendy marketing.
However, there are many healthier snacks that can do just as well! You just have to have a plan before you head to the grocery store. Here is a list of foods that (1) are nutritious, (2) don’t need to be refrigerated, (3) can last for a few work weeks, and (4) are easy to store:
1/27/2020 3 Comments Are Supplements a Scam?
Unverified Claims Supplement manufacturers can make “functional” claims, such as marketing lingo regarding how an ingredient or nutrient will improve health. For example, “Folic acid is great for pregnant mothers because it decreases the risk of birth defects.” While their labels may be true and grounded in research, as this one is, the FDA does not verify these claims. This means that a supplement label can promise to prevent a disease or enhance health/athletic performance/longevity/what have you without having any research to back that claim up. And no one is going to hold them accountable (1, 2). Trust the Seal? Many supplement manufacturers will submit their product to an independent quality tester such as the U.S. Pharmacopeia or ConsumerLab. If the product passes the independent organization’s testing, they can receive a seal of approval claiming the product was “properly manufactured” and is not “harmful.” However, these phrases have no solid definition, and even these flashy seals that may attract consumer confidences are not regulated, and do not guarantee safety (2).
“The active pharmaceutical ingredients identified in dietary supplements are present at unknown concentrations and have not been characterized as safe and effective by the FDA, making them unapproved drugs. These products have the potential to cause severe adverse health effects (3).” In other words, these ingredients receive government approval at concentrations present within a labeled medication. But then, a supplement developer increases the dose or mixes it with other ingredients to create a new formulation that has not gone through the same regulatory testing (because, again, supplements are considered a food, not a medication). Alternatively, dietary supplements can also contain brand new ingredients that have no basis in medicine and thus zero research backing. The law states that the manufacturers must report the new ingredient to the FDA, but the FDA does not approve its safety (4). For Athletes One of the most common realms for supplementation is within athletic groups, especially those concerned with muscle building. In an effort to constantly exceed limits, trainees look for solutions beyond the gym and their diet, and have found great solace in supplements. Unfortunately, even the best products only have modest efficiency. The National Institutes of Health published a summary of the available research that exposed the following supplements: I don’t think anyone will be surprised to learn that, out of their whole list, protein was the clear winner. The literature could find no safety issues when up to 2 g/kg (or 3 oz/90 lbs) of body weight are consumed daily, yet muscle training response and recovery period were optimized. So kudos to the protein powder! In Conclusion All of this is not to overshadow the reality that some underlying health conditions are best solved by an increase in a concentrated nutrient or ingredient that cannot be provided through diet. Therefore, an obvious disclaimer should follow that these concerns can be overridden by suggestions from your doctor. In fact, the only safe reason to add supplements to your routine is with recommendation from your doctor. And you should only consume a brand that your doctor recommends in the amount that your doctor recommends at the frequency your doctor recommends. Never ever self-diagnose, or take label claims at face value. Sources
1/27/2020 0 Comments Why I’m a Little Salty About the Sodium Myths: Does Lowering Your Sodium Levels Really Protect You From Heart Disease?
The Research However, in the case of sodium, this cause-and-effect relationship seems to be skewed. Researchers from across Australia came together to review the available literature in 2016, and were surprised to find that “the association between sodium intake and cardiovascular outcomes cannot be based on blood pressure alone…. The current dietary sodium guidelines have been challenged because there is emerging evidence to suggest an associated increase in morbidity and mortality with lower dietary sodium intake in high-risk groups, including those with diabetes.” A year earlier, a systematic review conducted in Canada criticized the previous studies for being too limited, concluding that “current evidence would suggest a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population, with targeting the lower end of the moderate range among those with hypertension.” The reason for this may be the mechanism by which sodium causes high blood pressure. Traditionally, blood pressure is caused by plaque buildup in our arteries, which makes our heart work harder to get the blood through a thinning pipe. I mentioned before that sodium is an electrolyte (along with chloride and potassium), which means that its function in our bodies is water regulation.
Excess sodium impairs the kidney’s ability to do its job of filtering the blood. Through osmosis, well-functioning kidneys will draw the excess water out of the blood before shipping the vessels off to the rest of your body. However, when the proportion of sodium : potassium is out of whack, too much water remains mixed in with the blood vessels, and that water then puts the extra strain on your arteries. Implications The lack of research to support the previously-held belief that cutting sodium protects our heart despite the well-recorded association with high blood pressure leads us to the hypothesis that arterial pressure caused by water may be less concerning than that caused by plaque. Of course, almost every source I’ve come across does agree that, while cutting out sodium altogether is worse for health than an excess of it, hypertension patients should aim to reduce their salt intake to less than 1,500 mg per day. None of the information I’ve provided should ever substitute advise from a personal physician. 1/27/2020 0 Comments Should You Be Carb Free? “Keto” has become a household term in the developed world as more and more people embrace a diet free of carbohydrates. The reasons most go carb free include weight loss, energy gain, and hunger management.
Not far behind in ideology is another popular fad, the Atkins diet. It does not completely eliminate carb intake, but does drastically reduce it then steadily re-introduce carbs until each person finds their personal balance. But, like many food fads, the effectiveness of low-carb living is widely debated. The Research A 2004 study that lasted 24 weeks believed that “a long-term ketogenic diet significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol.” Unfortunately, six months is not what the medical community generally considers “long-term,” and researchers have had a very hard time tracking impacts of low carb consumption past one or two years because the diet is so hard to stick to. And a more recent review of six studies conducted since then suggests it may not even be worth it. Published in the Fall 2019 issue of the Journal of Clinical Lipidology, here’s what that review said: “Despite favorable effects of low-CHO and very-low-CHO diets on energy expenditure and intake, long-term effects on weight loss may not be superior to more conventional strategies. According to the 2013 American Heart Association/American Cardiology/The Obesity Society Guideline for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults, research has not demonstrated any advantage of a very-low-CHO diet on weight loss at 6 months compared with a calorie-restricted, low-fat diet. Participants assigned to both low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) and high-carbohydrate, low-fat (HCLF) diets achieved clinically meaningful weight loss.”
“With the popularity of low-carb diets, many people are afraid to eat any carbohydrates, but it is important to distinguish between the health-robbing effects of simple sugars and other carbs, and the health-giving properties of complex carbohydrates. Complex carbohydrates are high-fiber foods, which improve your digestion. They help stabilize the blood sugar, keep your energy at an even level, and help you feel satisfied longer after your meal. In contrast, sugar and other simple carbohydrates can alter your mood, lead to cravings and compulsive eating, cause wide swings in your blood-sugar levels, and cause weight gain in most people.” Bad News And the benefits do not come without the cost. In June of 2019, The University of Chicago Medicine reported that, “the keto diet could cause low blood pressure, kidney stones, constipation, nutrient deficiencies and an increased risk of heart disease. Strict diets like keto could also cause social isolation or disordered eating. Keto is not safe for those with any conditions involving their pancreas, liver, thyroid or gallbladder.” In Conclusion As always, I never mean for my article to override the advice of a personal physician. In the case of using ketosis to reduce seizures in children, the science is very sound in support of the diet. However, for the purpose of weight loss, this diet just doesn’t live up to the hype, and is difficult to sustain. Instead of restricting certain foods based on surface macronutrients, we should be considering each type of food for the positive nutrients, especially micronutrients, it does provide, instead of writing off entire food groups as bad. Additional ResourcesHarvard Health: Ketogenic diet: Is the ultimate low-carb diet good for you? Northwestern Medicine: What You Need to Know About Keto 1/27/2020 0 Comments Quit Building Muscle to Burn Fat In essence, it’s true that the process of building strength reduces fat. Obviously, doing squats and lifting dumbbells burns calories, and that’s the key to shedding pounds. And the more muscle mass you have, the faster your metabolism works. But a common problem is that people believe building a muscle burns fat around that muscle. Not true
Strength is Still Important Please understand, I’m not saying don’t work out your core or build muscle generally. Do. And do often. To stick with our flat stomach example, Harvard points out that a strong core is one of the greatest assets toward functional fitness that will make you more capable for everyday activities such as housework and light lifting. Additionally, core strength relieves lower back pain, improves balance and stability (preventing falls as we age), and even improves breathing! So while core-strengthening exercises might not be the shortest route to fat burning, they’re still a road worth exploring on regularly. Aerobic vs. Resistance Understanding all of this, we see how both aerobic (cardio) and resistance (strength training) activities are necessary for a healthy lifestyle. But the aerobic route is much more targeted at fat loss. And research confirms this. A 2018 study published in the Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness found that subjects who dieted and did aerobic training, on average, lost 12% more weight, reduced their BMI by 18% more, and lost 1.6% more fat (BFP) than did the group that dieted and did resistance training. A 2006 study published in the Journal of Exercise Science and Physiotherapy measured data that was drastically more pronounced, writing that subjects who underwent aerobic training lost 262% more weight, including 159% more weight from fat than subjects who only did resistance training. A 2012 study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology reported that “aerobics training decreases both body weight and fat mass significantly more than does resistance training.”
No processed ingredients. Chemical free. All natural. These phrases sound pretty great and have been big hits with consumers when featured in marketing campaigns. But the shocking truth is that they have no meaning… and are actually impossible! Say what?! Hang with me for a second…
When we think of processed foods, we of course think of canned beans or frozen dinners, but we don’t think of products that can fit into other parts of this very broad definition. When you bag a bunch of carrots at the grocery store… they become processed food. When lettuce is rinsed… it becomes processed food. When an onion is chopped… yep, you guessed it! Processed. The reality is that unless you pull the apple right off the tree and bite into it with no rinsing, or drink the milk right out of the tank before it’s pasteurized (which some do), every ingredient of every meal you eat is processed. Filtered water is processed. And that’s okay. Making Sense of the Broad Definition Many organizations have tried to clarify which processed foods are good or bad by organizing processing methods on a spectrum, arranging the products into what’s called the NOVA classification. It goes like this: So it’s “Ultra-Processed” That’s the Problem? Following this categorization of processing methods, media outlets switched their attacks from the broad realm of “processed foods” to the much scarier sounding “ultra-processed foods.” Foods from the ultra-processed category comprise 60% of the average American’s calorie intake. But you may or may not be surprised to learn that those are not empty calories. In 2014, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition featured an article that put numbers to the specific nutrients that form those calories. They found “that processed foods provide both nutrients to encourage and constituents to limit as specified in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Of the nutrients to encourage, processed foods contributed 55% of dietary fiber, 48% of calcium, 43% of potassium, 34% of vitamin D, 64% of iron, 65% of folate, and 46% of vitamin B-12.” In acknowledging the struggle to define what food is processed and what food isn’t, the researchers poked holes in the “ultra-processed” label. “Admittedly,” they said, “all classification schemes are somewhat arbitrary, but a subjective definition based on extent of processing is value-laden and does not characterize foods in a helpful manner. Rather, a reproducible and useful scheme for assessing the role of processed foods in the diet is to define the characteristics of the food by use of objective, government-determined nutritional terms for dietary standards.” Still, this same article reported that 43% of consumers are concerned about processed foods. Maybe it’s instead the compounds that the authors dubbed, “constituents to limit”?
Additionally, supplementing nutrients into foods they would not naturally occur in can be a big win for sustainability. Instead of having to transport an ingredient that is our best source of certain vitamins and minerals thousands of miles to a part of the world it does not naturally grow in, we can chemically engineer the compounds to synthetically incorporate that nutrient into foods we do have on hand. While a lot of attention has been given to increasing the yield of raw products, often neglected is the role that processing those products will play in making what we already have go farther. Processing agricultural commodities will be the key to feeding our world. Salt Unfortunately, processing does have a dark side. The salt that protects our food supply also makes us want too much of a nutrient that can harm us by enhancing palatability, making the food’s taste and texture more desirable. And many would claim that food manufacturers use this knowledge to exploit our own taste buds at the expense of our health. I wrote an entirely separate article about sodium’s complex relationship with heart health where I discussed that, although there is a clear link between excess sodium intake and high blood pressure, that surprisingly doesn’t automatically raise our heart disease risk. In fact, going without sodium altogether is more dangerous than an excess of it. Nevertheless, health professionals have held tight to the general advice that limiting our sodium intake to less than 1,500 mg a day is a step worth taking.
But a common misconception is that the more “processed” a carbohydrate is, or the farther away from its natural form, the more unhealthy it becomes. What exactly makes a spaghetti noodle more or less processed than a chocolate bar? Consumers have more difficulties answering these types of questions, and we begin to see some holes in the anti-processed mantra. Surprisingly, the processing of carbohydrates can actually make them more healthful. In 2017, the Journal for Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition said, “Although industrial food processing generally tends to be negatively perceived by the general population, it is often key for preservation by achieving reductions of anti-nutritional factors, toxins, or pathogenic microorganisms…. The impact of food processing on the physicochemical properties of carbohydrates is very complex and, contrary to popular belief, can contribute significantly to the consumption of healthful carbohydrates by providing means to create them during the manufacture of the product.” Additionally, the 2017 issue of the Journal of Nutritional Science reported that Australian studies found “high added sugar consumers were likely to have a different intake pattern of many foods such as lower intakes of wholemeal bread and fruit, higher intake of non-alcoholic beverages, but meat and poultry consumption not differing according to added sugar intake level. In a [different] study concerning 14 709 Americans, daily servings of meat, poultry and fish decreased with increasing added sugar level. Therefore, high added sugar intake may compromise dietary quality, which is not necessarily shared by naturally occurring sugar.” In other words, it’s not the added sugars that we should be concerned about, but, instead, going without the foods that are being replaced with “sweets.” Still, this is a stark contrast to the fearful perception of the “highly-processed” snack foods that come to mind when we hear the phrase, “simple sugar.” I’m obviously on team complex carb, but that should not be thought of to exclude foods with that underwent more intense manufacturing.
And there does seem to be substantial evidence to back such concerns. In 2016, Dutch researchers had an article published in the Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism that concluded “dietary saturated fatty acids, when compared to carbohydrates and cis-unsaturated fatty acids, raise plasma LDL-C, a causal risk factor for heart disease…. The effect of reducing dietary saturated fatty acids is most strongly affected by the macronutrients that replace them. The greatest reduction in heart disease risk occurs when cis-polyunsaturated fatty acids replace dietary saturated fatty acids.” In 2011, researchers from India reviewed the available literature, finding that “trans fat increases low density lipoproteins (LDL), triglycerides and insulin levels and reduces beneficial high density lipoproteins (HDL). The overall picture of trans fatty acids (TFA) implies a detrimental effect of TFA on health…. Relative risk for cardiovascular disease was increased by 27% as a result of consumption of TFA.” In Conclusion As you can see, avoiding processed foods in pursuit of more natural living is both impractical and unnecessary. Although I will always advocate for consumers to investigate the processes behind their food, considering anything that’s not a raw product as processed and therefore unhealthy has been the default position of far too many grocery shoppers. Considering the wide range of activities that food processing encompasses, including everything from rinsing an apple to refining grains, we realize that everything we eat is processed to some degree. You can’t escape processed foods, and you shouldn’t want to. Instead of this black and white interpretation, we need to direct our attention to the nutrition label to see exactly what is in our food. Food processing plays an important role in supplementing ingredients with paramount nutrients and reaching our food security goals. However, the good is also accompanied with additives that do have very real health concerns. The solution should be to abandon the fear of food processing altogether and instead pursue ingredients that meet our nutrition goals. |
|