Fight or Flight Fitness

With the holiday season upon us many people will be looking at how to avoid gaining too much weight, and probably in the new year how to lose some weight. Then the question turns to how to lose weight: exercise, exercise and reduce calories, low-fat diet, low-carb diet, then which of the many diets out there trying to give you a detailed prescription of what to eat.

Gary Taubes the author of the book, Good Calories, Bad Calories (where he rattled the scientific establishment and challenged the low fat dogma that has dominated diet theory), and soon to be released, Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It, has a new blog. He had some interesting things to say in this blog post. It is a long post and worth reading, but here are a few nuggets.

Simply put, anyone who tries to diet by any of the more accepted methods (i.e., Weight Watchers), and anyone who decides to “eat healthy” as its currently defined, will remove the carbohydrates from the diet that may be — if the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis is correct — the most fattening. And if they’re trying to cut calories, they’ll be removing some number of total carbohydrates as well. And if these people lose fat on these diets, this is a very likely reason why.

The above quote is after a long discussion on which diet is best to lose weight.

So here’s the lesson, the moral of this story: before we assume that low-carbohydrate diets are just one tool in the dietary arsenal against overweight and obesity, and before we assume that everyone is different and that some of us lose weight and keep it off because we eat less fat (and more carbohydrates) and some because we cut carbs (and so eat maybe more fat),  we should make an effort to understand the concept of controlling variables and look to see which variables are really changing and by how much. Because it’s quite possible that the only meaningful way to lose fat is to change the regulation of the fat tissue, and the science of fat metabolism strongly implies that the best way to do that, if not the only meaningful way, is by reducing the amount of carbohydrates consumed and/or improving the quality of those carbs we do consume.

This line of thinking would be consistent with some form of a paleo diet, I have written about previously.

Some food for thought going into the high weight gaining period, and maybe something to keep in mind if your goal is to lose weight starting in the new year.

.

If you are over 40 according to a professor who studies longevity you might want to make a switch to a paleo diet.

You have all probably heard of the paleo diet in which you return to a pre-agriculture diet. No grains, no dairy (depending on the exact version of a paleo diet you choose to follow) and you stick to fish, meat, vegetables, fruits (but not huge amounts), and nuts. The is the diet more or less.

But now comes an interesting hypothesis about why if you are over 40 you might have to even more seriously consider a paleo diet. I say hypothesis since I couldn’t find any science backing it up even though it is being suggested by Michael Rose a professor from University of Irvine California.

Dr Rose’s logic is:

…for people of Eurasian ancestry, he disagrees with the age a paleo diet should be adopted as advised by main proponents of the paleo diet, such as evolutionary nutrition researchers Loren Cordain and S. Boyd Eaton. He said that young people of Eurasian ancestry have actually adapted well to new environments brought on by the agricultural revolution.

“But at later ages,” he added, “you will lose that adaptation to a novel environment and you will revert back to a condition to which you are better conditioned to a long ancestral environment.”

He explained that after age 40, the physiology of people of Eurasian ancestry appears to return to a pre-adapted state with age to one that is better off with the same foods our pre-Neolithic ancestors ate: meat, seafood, nuts, fruits and vegetables.

It is not just over 40 Eurasians that he is advocating a paleo diet actually he thinks if your non-Eurasian you might need to start the diet earlier.

Adopt a hunter-gatherer lifestyle after 35 to 40 if Eurasian, earlier if ancestry is less Eurasian.

I have been experimenting with a paleo diet over the last couple months before coming across this article and can report positive results, at least observationally. And since I am over 40 maybe even more reason to continue. However, as with most things you have to exercise some caution as there is a concern it you eat a misguided paleo diet and only concentrate on meat consumption and forgo vegetables and fruits it might be bad for your health. So if you choose to try a paleo diet do it correctly.

And you could say that if you are going to do caveman training you might as well be on a caveman diet.

Lots more nutrition and fueling articles to come in the coming weeks.

Now many companies are lined up with big advertising budgets to convince you to buy X, Y, of Z sports drink.

Well Alan Argon over on body recomposition give a very thorough post on what drink is best when comparing a well know high-end energy recovery drink and chocolate milk – I think you might be surprised of his answer. You can read it by clicking here.

Price

Chocolate milk by the half gallon (64oz, or about 2000 ml) is approximately $3.00 USD. Sticking with our 340 kcal figure, this yields 3.7 servings, which boils down to $0.81 per serving. A tub of Surge costs $36.00 and yields 16 servings (3 scoops, 340 kcals per serving). This boils down to $2.25 per serving. That’s 277% more expensive than chocolate milk. Even on a protein-matched basis, Surge is still roughly double the price. Bottom line: chocolate milk is many times easier on your wallet.

Cost is not the only criteria, but here is the conclusion:

I have no vested interest in glorifying chocolate milk, nor do I stand to benefit by vilifying Surge. My goal was to objectively examine the facts. Using research as the judge, chocolate milk was superior or equal to Surge in all categories. The single exception was a win for Surge in the convenience department. So, if the consumer were forced to choose between the two products, the decision would boil down to quality at the expense of convenience, or vice versa. I personally would go for the higher quality, lower price, and strength of the scientific evidence. Chocolate milk it is.

For all the details and rationale go read the complete article here. Now this article compares Surge and chocolate milk, but I think the overall conclusion would also hold for most other sports drink – chocolate milk wins.