I was shopping for coconut milk the other day. I checked the label and saw two E-numbers and, by the miracle of modern technology, was able to immediately check them on Google. I didn't like what I read and put the can back on the shelf. I finally settled for desiccated coconut.
This question of additives - and it is a serious problem for anyone interested in their long-term health, despite what food scientists tell us - is covered in Joanna Blythman's book, "Swallow This".
http://www.joannablythmanwriting.com/books.html
Taking us behind the scenes of the food industry (as far as she was allowed to go, for it is a closed world of secrets, jealously guarded), Blythman tells us about the oils, sweeteners, colours, preservatives, improvers and enhancers which give the supermarkets' "food-like substances" an edible or wholesome appearance. Many of these same chemical preparations are used in shampoos, paints, nail polishes and other industrial products.
Indeed, while the supermarket industry depends upon the food factories for their products, those food factories, in turn, depend on a complex chemical industry which specialises in providing formulations for the food industry, to give their products some resemblance to food and more critically to extend product shelf-life..
The supermarkets themselves, do not wish to sell those low-profit products found around the periphery of most stores i.e. fish and meat and especially fruits and vegetables, because these foods spoil, even when they are picked weeks before ripening. As Blythman discusses in another book, Shopped, the supermarkets much prefer to sell us "food" in boxes, tins and jars, with a long shelf-life, which keeps its appetising appearance long after the natural version has rotted.
Consider one delicious natural food - mayonnaise. This can be made using just two ingredients - egg yolks and olive oil, beaten together. For additional flavour, a little salt, pepper and vinegar or lemon juice may be added. It takes about 5 minutes to prepare and is natural and wholesome.
On the other hand, a typical processed version of mayonnaise, found in any supermarket, will contain 15 ingredients and perhaps another 10 in sub-categories. The first ingredient will usually be water. Instead of olive oil (there may be a trace - "made with real olive oil") inferior oils may be used with corresponding "enhancers" to assist the formation of an emulsion with the water. Then there has to be preservatives, flavourings and colourings, so that the finished product looks and tastes as if it is real food.
Thinking of another common product, what about the delicious, enticing smell of fresh bread that we notice as we approach the "bakery" department? Well, actually no, this is not a bakery in the usual sense of the word, as Blythman explains, because there is probably no flour present. Instead, the supermarket has frozen, pre-prepared dough with a shelf-life of months, delivered to its premises from a central depot which may supply several supermarkets. This dough is defrosted and cooked in ovens following a strict formula. There may be "hand-made", finishing touches - the sprinkling of sugar over doughnuts or some spreading of icing on top of pastries, but that is the limit of artisanship or human contact. However, this product is marketed as "fresh bread, baked on our premises".
Toward the end of her book, Blythman reminds us of the Dutch art still-life genre, tables laden with food and drink, fruit and vegetables, as well as rabbits and pheasants, game birds and huge ripe cheeses. All of these foods are recognisable to us today and would have been known by all our ancestors, going right back to the ancients.
But what do we have now? Jars, cartons, tubes, bottles, tins, plastic bags, frozen foods, processed ready-meal concoctions containing "food-like substances" which bear no relation to anything from history and which depend for their existence on a battery of chemicals to colour, "enhance", flavour, "improve" and preserve them.
Another very informative investigator of the food industry is U.S. writer Michael Pollan, who coined the best way to eat in just seven words; "Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants". Forgive me, Michael, I can improve that by replacing the middle sentence with "Moderately", to give five words in total. What an excellent summation for good, healthy eating!
See Pollan's work here;
http://michaelpollan.com/books/
Sunday, 21 June 2015
Sunday, 14 June 2015
Low Carbs Athletic Performance
This week, I cycled a total of 120 miles with the longest ride at 47 miles.
In the past, when cycling more than 25 miles, I used to carry a snack with me - a muesli bar or scone and an apple plus water. This was for refuelling, so that I would not "hit the wall" after a couple of hours' cycling. This usually occurs after about two hours, when the body's carbohydrate reserves (glycogen) are depleted. It's most commonly seen at the end of running marathons. But suppose it was possible to use a different fuel, one that wouldn't run out? How would that affect performance?
On my long ride on Tuesday, I took a snack along, as usual, but instead of a carbs snack, I took some raw nuts and cheese because I am on a low carbs, high fat diet, but this snack remained untouched.
Earlier, I had eaten a breakfast of coffee, cream with a 100g apple and 100g of nuts - walnuts, Brazils and almonds. That was just before 9 a.m. Then I cycled for four hours and finally ate again at 3 p.m. I had only a little water halfway round. Why did I have the energy to keep going? I had virtually no glycogen reserves, but had plenty of energy and never felt unable to continue. That is because I have adapted recently, to using fat as my primary fuel.
I was cycling at a steady 70-80% HR max, (70-80% of 220-age) so there was plenty of oxygen available for fat burning.
In the morning, before breakfast, I analysed my urine and the result showed I was still in ketosis i.e. my liver is converting fat to ketones. This means in effect, I had an almost unlimited fuel supply from my fat reserves. It probably explains why I needed no food until 6 hours after my breakfast, despite burning about 2000 kcals. I may also have burned some muscle, but this would be negligible, as my protein consumption is adequate.
If you are an athlete and would like to learn more about endurance training on a High Fat diet, compared to the more typical High Carbs regime, look at this recent lecture from the American College of Nutrition which explains the science behind this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgU8z-h3IKY
More athletes are successfully competing on low carbs diets, including Dr. Peter Attia, a cyclist and distance swimmer. See him here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB7aGnfLB-8
Then there are these athletes (I was looking for one particular example, but found several on this page, so I haven't read them all yet). See their experiences here:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/?s=lchf+athletes&submit.x=0&submit.y=0#
In the past, when cycling more than 25 miles, I used to carry a snack with me - a muesli bar or scone and an apple plus water. This was for refuelling, so that I would not "hit the wall" after a couple of hours' cycling. This usually occurs after about two hours, when the body's carbohydrate reserves (glycogen) are depleted. It's most commonly seen at the end of running marathons. But suppose it was possible to use a different fuel, one that wouldn't run out? How would that affect performance?
On my long ride on Tuesday, I took a snack along, as usual, but instead of a carbs snack, I took some raw nuts and cheese because I am on a low carbs, high fat diet, but this snack remained untouched.
Earlier, I had eaten a breakfast of coffee, cream with a 100g apple and 100g of nuts - walnuts, Brazils and almonds. That was just before 9 a.m. Then I cycled for four hours and finally ate again at 3 p.m. I had only a little water halfway round. Why did I have the energy to keep going? I had virtually no glycogen reserves, but had plenty of energy and never felt unable to continue. That is because I have adapted recently, to using fat as my primary fuel.
I was cycling at a steady 70-80% HR max, (70-80% of 220-age) so there was plenty of oxygen available for fat burning.
In the morning, before breakfast, I analysed my urine and the result showed I was still in ketosis i.e. my liver is converting fat to ketones. This means in effect, I had an almost unlimited fuel supply from my fat reserves. It probably explains why I needed no food until 6 hours after my breakfast, despite burning about 2000 kcals. I may also have burned some muscle, but this would be negligible, as my protein consumption is adequate.
If you are an athlete and would like to learn more about endurance training on a High Fat diet, compared to the more typical High Carbs regime, look at this recent lecture from the American College of Nutrition which explains the science behind this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgU8z-h3IKY
More athletes are successfully competing on low carbs diets, including Dr. Peter Attia, a cyclist and distance swimmer. See him here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB7aGnfLB-8
Then there are these athletes (I was looking for one particular example, but found several on this page, so I haven't read them all yet). See their experiences here:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/?s=lchf+athletes&submit.x=0&submit.y=0#
Saturday, 13 June 2015
Doctoring the Data (book review)
"Think of a number between one and ten. Add 10, then double it. Now take away 7 and take the square root of that. What's your answer? Five? Wonderful! Excellent! Right, so it's agreed, 'Five a Day' is our recommendation?".
Now, that is not actually how the Five-a-Day dogma for fruit and vegetable consumption came about (or at least, I don't think so), but it may as well have been. A lot of the numbers that are recommended to us by health and science experts - cholesterol levels, alcohol consumption, BMI -, which we are sure must have received weighty consideration, are simply plucked arbitrarily from the air.
This is the theme of the final chapter of Dr Michael Kendrick's "Doctoring the Data". He covers ten subjects in all, revealing to us the unreliability of modern medical science; in some areas, it has hardly advanced since the Middle Ages, when innovators like Galileo were silenced by the Church, as they innocently challenged orthodoxy.
When we read statistics in newspapers and journals, are we aware of their significance? For example, why is the difference between "relative" and "absolute" risk important? This is the subject of Kendrick's first chapter. He looks also at policies and decision-making in medicine, showing us why they are often unreliable. Science is stuck in a rut, from which only brave souls, who are willing to question the Establishment, can free us.
Another driving factor in the doctoring of data is money. University research departments are very dependent on grants. Those who fund the grants for research may not appreciate the "wrong" results, so some adjustment has to be made. This may not be downright lying, but data can be gently masssaged and presented in a different way. which is intentionally deceitful. Those who do not comply find their grants "put on hold" or their department moved to a dingy basement, never to be seen again.
Pharmaceutical companies are experts in submitting data in the most flattering light. Persuading the medical profession of the efficacy of their drugs yields multi-million pounds profits and they are very generous in rewarding those who promote and support their products.
If we think that early scientists and philosophers had a difficult time turning over ideas of their time, the situation is no less serious today. Only the Inquisitors have changed. But how can science progress if free thinking is not allowed? That is the subject of chapter 8, Challenges to the status quo are crushed - and how!
Other chapters include; Doctors can seriously damage your health (as I found myself with statins), Things that are not true are often held to be true, Lives cannot be saved; we are all going to die and Reducing numbers does not equal reducing risk.
If you read the health sections of newspapers or are currently under medication for any reason, this is a book that you should read. Kendrick doesn't tell us what to do or what to think. He sets out his case and encourages us to make our own decisions, after being informed.
Today, I heard a weekly BBC radio programme - More or Less - which examines statistics used in the media. Coincidentally, the programme was reviewing the recent news that "more people under 40 in the U.K. are suffering strokes". Discuss!
Look below to hear programmes again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd
Exercise Effective for Weight Loss? - Review of Personal Data
In a previous article, I said that exercise alone is ineffective for weight loss because it takes a long time to burn fat and it makes us hungry.
This week, on Monday, I did a short stair-climbing session with strength training. Then I cycled 120 miles in four days, with the longest ride at 47 miles, on Tuesday.
"Calories out v. calories in".
My total calorie deficit for five days, was 3700 kcals. I had burned about 6500 in total, just from cycling. My macro food consumption percentages were the same each day.
I gained 1 kg in scale weight.
My body fat percentage is probably the same (under 20%), but it is difficult to measure accurately, using bathroom scales or a hand meter - I just had two different results three hours apart!
Conclusion: I have re-gained leg muscle from past years and perhaps some fat. The muscle is holding fluid, hence the net gain in scale weight.
Time: I wonder how many people would actually have the time to devote to exercise, as I did this week? The cycling alone took me nearly ten hours and I was quite tired afterwards.
Calories: If I had kept very strictly to my usual calorie intake, I am sure I would have lost body fat and scale weight, but I would have been very hungry indeed, which is a point I made previously. You will notice that I was eating in cycles - one day more and the next, less.
The above reminds me of an interesting point in Gary Taubes' books; weight gain does not come simply from the calories we ingest. Rather, our calorie intake is driven by the body's demands.
So, if we are growing or producing new muscle or if we are under particular stress (intense exercise), we will be driven to ingest more food. We see this in the ravenous appetites of our children when they have growth spurts or the increased appetite that we have after exercise.
Similarly, if obese people cannot gain nourishment from the food they consume because of hormonal factors (insulin) which partition calories from carbohydrate into fat storage, then they too, will be driven to ingest more.
This week, on Monday, I did a short stair-climbing session with strength training. Then I cycled 120 miles in four days, with the longest ride at 47 miles, on Tuesday.
"Calories out v. calories in".
My total calorie deficit for five days, was 3700 kcals. I had burned about 6500 in total, just from cycling. My macro food consumption percentages were the same each day.
I gained 1 kg in scale weight.
My body fat percentage is probably the same (under 20%), but it is difficult to measure accurately, using bathroom scales or a hand meter - I just had two different results three hours apart!
Conclusion: I have re-gained leg muscle from past years and perhaps some fat. The muscle is holding fluid, hence the net gain in scale weight.
Time: I wonder how many people would actually have the time to devote to exercise, as I did this week? The cycling alone took me nearly ten hours and I was quite tired afterwards.
Calories: If I had kept very strictly to my usual calorie intake, I am sure I would have lost body fat and scale weight, but I would have been very hungry indeed, which is a point I made previously. You will notice that I was eating in cycles - one day more and the next, less.
The above reminds me of an interesting point in Gary Taubes' books; weight gain does not come simply from the calories we ingest. Rather, our calorie intake is driven by the body's demands.
So, if we are growing or producing new muscle or if we are under particular stress (intense exercise), we will be driven to ingest more food. We see this in the ravenous appetites of our children when they have growth spurts or the increased appetite that we have after exercise.
Similarly, if obese people cannot gain nourishment from the food they consume because of hormonal factors (insulin) which partition calories from carbohydrate into fat storage, then they too, will be driven to ingest more.
Monday, 8 June 2015
Brevity is the Soul of Fit #2
For those of you who don't have time for the gym midweek, here's another short session I did today, which is a great workout for your butt !
Stairs
I climb the stairs in the stand at the local stadium where I work. There are about 100 steps. I finished with strength-training for 15 minutes.
On the first climb, I take two steps at a time, then I walk downstairs (safety first!) and run up again immediately. I say "run" - this can be anything from a sprint, to a steady brisk walk upstairs as I tire. The main point is, keep going without stopping.
After each two ascents, I take 30-60 seconds' walking recovery. I repeat this five times, for ten total climbs. Total time taken is about 15 minutes.
The first climb will strengthen your leg muscles and the second, your cardiovascular capacity.
If you are younger or fitter, then these times and speeds can be adjusted.
If you work in a tall building, it should be obvious that the above can be adapted to your work environment, during lunch break. You don't need special clothing or equipment.
Go to the main staircase or fire-escape and climb those stairs! Keep away from the hand-rail. Stay on the wall-side, so that you are using leg muscle power without assistance from your arms. Leave your arms free to swing, as you climb.
If you are not very fit, try just 4 or 5 ascents to start and add one or 2 each week. Alternate these climbs with a brisk, 15 minutes walk the following day. If you walk or cycle to work or home, that's even better.
If you exercise like this several times each week, you can save your precious weekend gym time for a class or a strength-training session, rather than spending an hour or so on a treadmill at the gym. You will soon start to see the benefits in afternoon productivity and well-being.
If you enjoyed this article, please notify your Facebook or Twitter friends, using the link button below.
Stairs
I climb the stairs in the stand at the local stadium where I work. There are about 100 steps. I finished with strength-training for 15 minutes.
On the first climb, I take two steps at a time, then I walk downstairs (safety first!) and run up again immediately. I say "run" - this can be anything from a sprint, to a steady brisk walk upstairs as I tire. The main point is, keep going without stopping.
After each two ascents, I take 30-60 seconds' walking recovery. I repeat this five times, for ten total climbs. Total time taken is about 15 minutes.
The first climb will strengthen your leg muscles and the second, your cardiovascular capacity.
If you are younger or fitter, then these times and speeds can be adjusted.
If you work in a tall building, it should be obvious that the above can be adapted to your work environment, during lunch break. You don't need special clothing or equipment.
Go to the main staircase or fire-escape and climb those stairs! Keep away from the hand-rail. Stay on the wall-side, so that you are using leg muscle power without assistance from your arms. Leave your arms free to swing, as you climb.
If you are not very fit, try just 4 or 5 ascents to start and add one or 2 each week. Alternate these climbs with a brisk, 15 minutes walk the following day. If you walk or cycle to work or home, that's even better.
If you exercise like this several times each week, you can save your precious weekend gym time for a class or a strength-training session, rather than spending an hour or so on a treadmill at the gym. You will soon start to see the benefits in afternoon productivity and well-being.
If you enjoyed this article, please notify your Facebook or Twitter friends, using the link button below.
Wednesday, 3 June 2015
Brevity is the Soul of Fit #1
For those of you who "don't have time for the gym", think about shortening the time spent and improving the quality.
Many people think that "more is better" in exercise, but if you are faced with a 90 minutes jogging session, plus shower and travelling time, it's no wonder that you decide to miss!
Here is my work-out for today;
Warm-up 300m jog
10 sprints
Indoor Rower
4 minutes - 8 x 20 sec sprints with 10 sec recovery between each
The whole session, including a few stretches and a shower, took me 30 minutes. The cardiovascular benefit of this High Intensity session, far exceeds jogging for an hour or more.
The following applies to folks who are fairly fit already:
First, warm up!
The sprint distance can be anything that suits you. I usually do 80m, but one trainer I know prefers 200m. Remember, it's not a competition!
Choose a distance that leaves you panting at the end, then walk back to the start and go again.
I do ten, monitoring how I feel after each. I stop before pulling a muscle, if I feel any tightness.
Again, don't think that "if 10 is good, then 20 must be better". Ten is fine, but run each sprint faster!
The same session can be done right outside your home. Run and walk alternately between lamp standards.
Many people think that "more is better" in exercise, but if you are faced with a 90 minutes jogging session, plus shower and travelling time, it's no wonder that you decide to miss!
Here is my work-out for today;
Warm-up 300m jog
10 sprints
Indoor Rower
4 minutes - 8 x 20 sec sprints with 10 sec recovery between each
The whole session, including a few stretches and a shower, took me 30 minutes. The cardiovascular benefit of this High Intensity session, far exceeds jogging for an hour or more.
The following applies to folks who are fairly fit already:
First, warm up!
The sprint distance can be anything that suits you. I usually do 80m, but one trainer I know prefers 200m. Remember, it's not a competition!
Choose a distance that leaves you panting at the end, then walk back to the start and go again.
I do ten, monitoring how I feel after each. I stop before pulling a muscle, if I feel any tightness.
Again, don't think that "if 10 is good, then 20 must be better". Ten is fine, but run each sprint faster!
The same session can be done right outside your home. Run and walk alternately between lamp standards.
Tuesday, 2 June 2015
Fathead - Food Movie
I saw an amusing film the other day - "Fathead" - with a message on nutrition. Do you recall "Supersize Me!"? It featured Martin Spurlock, who spent a month eating at McDonald's, gaining a lot of weight. Despite appearances, this was not a very scientific experiment, even allowing for its limited population study and humour! Apparently, there was some cheating going on........
When comedian Tom Naughton saw it, he determined to make another film, giving a fairer view. His aim was to lose weight eating at McDonald's for one month. Was he successful? How did it affect him? See it on Netflix.
Find out more here;
http://www.fathead-movie.com/
As a result of making this film, Naughton became so incensed by the current misinformation in nutritional science, that he went on to write and deliver some well-informed lectures about science, to the public. Follow links to his website.
When comedian Tom Naughton saw it, he determined to make another film, giving a fairer view. His aim was to lose weight eating at McDonald's for one month. Was he successful? How did it affect him? See it on Netflix.
Find out more here;
http://www.fathead-movie.com/
As a result of making this film, Naughton became so incensed by the current misinformation in nutritional science, that he went on to write and deliver some well-informed lectures about science, to the public. Follow links to his website.
"It Works for Me", but is n=1 Valid?
Sometimes people in the gym say to me, "It works for me", when talking about a particular training principle. I say that, if it works for you, it will work for me also, unless I am a monkey or you come from Planet X ! Principles are not to be confused with methods.
If I lift heavy weights, my muscles will respond by getting bigger and stronger within my genetic limits. The size of my skeleton or the length of my tendons will make some exercises more favourable to me in producing results, than to you, but the general principle of muscle overload always applies. The fact is, what affects one healthy human should apply to all others, with minor variations for size or genetics or age or gender, otherwise there would be no medical science.
Before we make general statements about all human beings, we need to test our hypotheses on as wide a sample as possible, It is important in a scientific study to create a large population for testing. The larger the study group and the longer the study and the fewer the variables tested, the more reliable will be the results. We would also require a double-blind study with controlled placebos. Most scientific studies are limited by cost and practicability. The ideal test sample might be all of humankind, but this is virtually impossible to realise, so large samples are usually taken and the results are extrapolated to all people, using statistical analyses.
Recently, I have noticed a few folks on the internet who have run their own experiments. Some are continuing and quite meticulous in their efforts to be accurate and unbiased. While the experimenters carefully and accurately measure and record various biological data e.g. 30 day fasts or nutrition studies followed by photos and detailed graphs of cholesterol, blood and urine tests etc., the fact that there is a study population of n=1, immediately leaves the study's scientific worth open to question.
Critics object that these are not scientifically controlled studies and that is valid, but these experiments have turned up results which should provoke more than criticism. They deserve further study under controlled laboratory conditions, by scientists. Instead, they roll out the usual suspects to explain away the results. Unfortunately, the state of current nutritional / medical science seems to be bogged down in fixed ideas which date back to the 1970s. I think if I was a PhD nutrition student, I'd be looking more closely.
One of my favourites among these is by Sam Feltham, who self-experimented on various diets over 21 day periods. It's the kind of testing I'd try myself if I wasn't (certainly) older and (perhaps) wiser. I'm unsure whether I would have recovered so well as he has done! Anyway, I have great admiration for anyone who furthers the cause of science by self-experimenting. Sam, you stand with James Young Simpson, Benjamin Franklin, Jonas Salk, Werner Forssmann and Dr Jekyll (by RLS), to name a few!
Sam followed four diet plans. First, he tried a low carbs, high fat diet, eating much more than his daily calorie requirement. How much weight should he have gained, according to the "calories in, calories out" formula? Second, was a high carbs, low fat diet, similar to the typical U.K. recommended diet. Again, he consumed the same number of calories. Next, he ate his regular diet, modifying his calorie intake to his personal metabolic requirements. Finally, he tried vegan for 21 days. The results are interesting, giving food for thought, despite the population size of one.
You can find Sam's experiments and results here;
www.smashthefat.com
Look at the foot of Sam's main page for the 5,000 calorie challenge..
If I lift heavy weights, my muscles will respond by getting bigger and stronger within my genetic limits. The size of my skeleton or the length of my tendons will make some exercises more favourable to me in producing results, than to you, but the general principle of muscle overload always applies. The fact is, what affects one healthy human should apply to all others, with minor variations for size or genetics or age or gender, otherwise there would be no medical science.
Before we make general statements about all human beings, we need to test our hypotheses on as wide a sample as possible, It is important in a scientific study to create a large population for testing. The larger the study group and the longer the study and the fewer the variables tested, the more reliable will be the results. We would also require a double-blind study with controlled placebos. Most scientific studies are limited by cost and practicability. The ideal test sample might be all of humankind, but this is virtually impossible to realise, so large samples are usually taken and the results are extrapolated to all people, using statistical analyses.
Recently, I have noticed a few folks on the internet who have run their own experiments. Some are continuing and quite meticulous in their efforts to be accurate and unbiased. While the experimenters carefully and accurately measure and record various biological data e.g. 30 day fasts or nutrition studies followed by photos and detailed graphs of cholesterol, blood and urine tests etc., the fact that there is a study population of n=1, immediately leaves the study's scientific worth open to question.
Critics object that these are not scientifically controlled studies and that is valid, but these experiments have turned up results which should provoke more than criticism. They deserve further study under controlled laboratory conditions, by scientists. Instead, they roll out the usual suspects to explain away the results. Unfortunately, the state of current nutritional / medical science seems to be bogged down in fixed ideas which date back to the 1970s. I think if I was a PhD nutrition student, I'd be looking more closely.
One of my favourites among these is by Sam Feltham, who self-experimented on various diets over 21 day periods. It's the kind of testing I'd try myself if I wasn't (certainly) older and (perhaps) wiser. I'm unsure whether I would have recovered so well as he has done! Anyway, I have great admiration for anyone who furthers the cause of science by self-experimenting. Sam, you stand with James Young Simpson, Benjamin Franklin, Jonas Salk, Werner Forssmann and Dr Jekyll (by RLS), to name a few!
Sam followed four diet plans. First, he tried a low carbs, high fat diet, eating much more than his daily calorie requirement. How much weight should he have gained, according to the "calories in, calories out" formula? Second, was a high carbs, low fat diet, similar to the typical U.K. recommended diet. Again, he consumed the same number of calories. Next, he ate his regular diet, modifying his calorie intake to his personal metabolic requirements. Finally, he tried vegan for 21 days. The results are interesting, giving food for thought, despite the population size of one.
You can find Sam's experiments and results here;
www.smashthefat.com
Look at the foot of Sam's main page for the 5,000 calorie challenge..
Sunday, 31 May 2015
Is Fasting the Key to Weight Loss?
Several years ago, I watched a BBC Horizon documentary, "Eat, Fast, Live Longer".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lxyzc/horizon-20122013-3-eat-fast-and-live-longer
Michael Mosley was looking at diets which may increase longevity. Some of the diets didn't look too appetising. Perhaps eating them just makes one feel as if life is longer!
The focus of the programme was on calorie restriction and fasting. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory that decreasing calorie intake leads to longer life in some animals. This may appliy to humans too.
After looking at low calorie diets, Mosely tried fasting. He discussed intermittent fasting, suggesting that eating normally for 5 days with a 2 days fast each week would have similar, achievable benefits as a permanent, low calorie regime. Unfortunately, this has evolved into the 5:2 fad diet which was never intended (I hope), since the programme was not about weight loss, but longevity. This 5:2 diet has really taken off, with books, cookbooks and God knows what else, making a lot of money for those jumping on its bandwagon.
Anyway, the programmme prompted me to try a 3 day fast, just to see its effect. I'm not quite sure why, but a thin consomme soup of about 50 kcals was permitted each day, so I had this each evening.
On the first day, I cycled 35 miles and felt fine afterwards. On the second day, I cycled the same route. Curiously, I did not feel hungry at all, but the soup on this day tasted absolutely delicious. By noon on this second day, I was already planning my first breakfast meal and lunch on day four. On the third day, I knew that my liver glycogen Ievels would be depleted, so I did not go out cycling, which is a pity because I am sure I would have coped very well. At that time, I wasn't fully aware of the body's mechanism for surviving in an absence of carbohydrates in the diet.
Although I still wasn't hungry, I was thinking of food constantly. By now, I had a mental plan of the following week's menus and the evening mug of soup, which I ate slowly with a spoon, was the most delicious I had ever tasted! Finally, after 78 hours, I broke my fast on a Saturday morning, eating a normal breakfast and a lunch about 5 hours later. I can't say I lost any body weight in such a short time (I wasn't looking for that), but clearly, a number of internal changes would have occurred.
When a human starves (and a fast is simply voluntary starvation) the body goes into survival mode. Firstly, we are constantly bombarded with thoughts of food, a I was. Food becomes an obsession. In Kurt Vonnegut's collection of short stories about war, "Armaggedon in Retrospect", he describes his fellow prisoners-of-war, discussing and fantasising about food, planning future meals constantly. This is the experience of most people in similar situations. The brain is constantly reminding us, "Eat!! Eat! Eat!"
When it is obvious that there is no food available (or very little), the liver starts giving up its glycogen reserves and fat burning mechanisms are switched on, to burn the body's fat. This would have been happening to me by the third day. The liver converts fatty acids to ketones, which can be utilised by the muscles and brain instead of glucose. Both acetoacetic acid and beta-hydroxybutyric acid are used in the heart and brain. Acetone is a by-product of acetoacetic acid's degradation. These ketone molecules are used for energy in the body's cells The vital organs and muscles run on these very successsfully.
There is also a requirement for protein to maintain and repair vital organs. Skeletal muscle is relatively expendable, so the muscles are gradually consumed. Muscle protein, like meat in our normal diet, can be converted to glycogen via gluconeogenesis, if necessary, so people who criticise low carb diets, saying that the brain requires carbohydrate to function, are missing the point. The body can manufacture its own carbohydrate, if required, by gluconeogenesis.
So, if there is sufficient water available, the body organism can survive in this state, feeding itself on fat and muscle, very efficiently for several weeks. But there are two serious drawbacks to this fasting; firstly, the body is wasting away. Mental processes and sexual libido will fail and extreme lethargy will result, as the body's metabolism slows down in an effort to conserve energy.The other drawback is slightly more serious - death will soon occur, as the body is unable to sustain vital functions. However, if food becomes available soon enough, the effects of starvation can be reversed and recovery to normal weight and health can occur.
We can learn some important things about weight loss diets from the experience of starvation. Clearly, the body can survive very well for a short time on its own resources - protein and fat, without carbohydrate. This mechanim to survive when food was not ever-present, originates in the very beginning of human development. Humanity has survived food shortages for millions of years. We know this because we are still here!
If then, we could find an eating plan today, which mimics our prehistoric, starvation survival mode, it would be the ideal reducing diet. It would leave us satisfied after eating, providing enough protein to prevent muscle and organ deterioration, while encouraging the body to use up its own excess fat. Well, the good news is, such a diet exists already. It is variously known as LCHF, Banting or Atkins diet. It is probably the most successful weight loss system in history, based as it is on protein and high fat (prehistoric survival food), with very low amounts of carbohydrate.
As early as 1862, the idea of eating just fat and meat, with some leafy green vegetables was promoted in a leaflet by William Banting, a retired English undertaker, who had been struggling with obesity all his life. You can read about him here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
A century later, in U.S.A., Dr Robert Atkins came to similar conclusions and made millions of dollars selling books explaining his plan, much to the chagrin of his envious peers.
Since then, there has been much research on Low Carb, High Fat diets. Not only are they effective in weight loss, but they are also now being proven to be healthy, despite their high percentage of fats. Notice, an LCHF diet is not a high protein diet. It always irritates me when dieticians don't listen before quickly defending the orthodox diet, consisting of 50% carbs and rush off into unnecessary warnings about the perils of "too much protein".
An LCHF diet provides most of its energy in fats (65-80%) with about 20% from protein. As we have seen above, in the absence of food, humans can live perfectly well without carbohydrates, which are a non-essentail macro-nutrient. However, the LCHF diet allows for about 5-15% of total calories from carbohydrate. This is made up mostly of green vegetables, berries, a few nuts and some cheeses.
In its initial stage, to stimulate weight loss, there is a very low carbohydrates intake - about 20g per day - to start nutritional ketosis (ketone burning). This continues for a few weeks, then as excess fat is steadily lost, a very gradual increase in carbohydrates to a moderate level can be sustained, without stopping fat burning. Ketone sticks can be used to detect ketones in the urine, to ensure that ketosis is continuing.
Unless you become an athlete or a very physically active worker, you will continue to have a very moderate carbohydrate level thereafter, eating mostly home-cooked, natural foods.
If you would like to learn more about LCHF diets, look here;
www.dietdoctor.com/lchf
Update:
Previously, I recommended the Atkins website, until I saw promotion of their own-brand, processed crap in the guise of "healthy, low-carb food". Some folks just cannot resist making profit from the weaknesses and gullibility of others. Look here to see what I mean:
www.dietdoctor.com/atkins-greed-and-the-fairy-tale-cookies
This site below, has some good info;
www.authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-diet-meal-plan-and-menu/
My personal favourite is Diet Doctor, which is actually a translated Swedish website run by Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt.
NOTE for DIABETICS
Reducing dietary carbohydrates has an effect on blood sugar levels and insulin requirements. Therefore, it is essential that you monitor and modify your insulin medication carefully in consultation with your Doctor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01lxyzc/horizon-20122013-3-eat-fast-and-live-longer
Michael Mosley was looking at diets which may increase longevity. Some of the diets didn't look too appetising. Perhaps eating them just makes one feel as if life is longer!
The focus of the programme was on calorie restriction and fasting. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory that decreasing calorie intake leads to longer life in some animals. This may appliy to humans too.
After looking at low calorie diets, Mosely tried fasting. He discussed intermittent fasting, suggesting that eating normally for 5 days with a 2 days fast each week would have similar, achievable benefits as a permanent, low calorie regime. Unfortunately, this has evolved into the 5:2 fad diet which was never intended (I hope), since the programme was not about weight loss, but longevity. This 5:2 diet has really taken off, with books, cookbooks and God knows what else, making a lot of money for those jumping on its bandwagon.
Anyway, the programmme prompted me to try a 3 day fast, just to see its effect. I'm not quite sure why, but a thin consomme soup of about 50 kcals was permitted each day, so I had this each evening.
On the first day, I cycled 35 miles and felt fine afterwards. On the second day, I cycled the same route. Curiously, I did not feel hungry at all, but the soup on this day tasted absolutely delicious. By noon on this second day, I was already planning my first breakfast meal and lunch on day four. On the third day, I knew that my liver glycogen Ievels would be depleted, so I did not go out cycling, which is a pity because I am sure I would have coped very well. At that time, I wasn't fully aware of the body's mechanism for surviving in an absence of carbohydrates in the diet.
Although I still wasn't hungry, I was thinking of food constantly. By now, I had a mental plan of the following week's menus and the evening mug of soup, which I ate slowly with a spoon, was the most delicious I had ever tasted! Finally, after 78 hours, I broke my fast on a Saturday morning, eating a normal breakfast and a lunch about 5 hours later. I can't say I lost any body weight in such a short time (I wasn't looking for that), but clearly, a number of internal changes would have occurred.
When a human starves (and a fast is simply voluntary starvation) the body goes into survival mode. Firstly, we are constantly bombarded with thoughts of food, a I was. Food becomes an obsession. In Kurt Vonnegut's collection of short stories about war, "Armaggedon in Retrospect", he describes his fellow prisoners-of-war, discussing and fantasising about food, planning future meals constantly. This is the experience of most people in similar situations. The brain is constantly reminding us, "Eat!! Eat! Eat!"
When it is obvious that there is no food available (or very little), the liver starts giving up its glycogen reserves and fat burning mechanisms are switched on, to burn the body's fat. This would have been happening to me by the third day. The liver converts fatty acids to ketones, which can be utilised by the muscles and brain instead of glucose. Both acetoacetic acid and beta-hydroxybutyric acid are used in the heart and brain. Acetone is a by-product of acetoacetic acid's degradation. These ketone molecules are used for energy in the body's cells The vital organs and muscles run on these very successsfully.
There is also a requirement for protein to maintain and repair vital organs. Skeletal muscle is relatively expendable, so the muscles are gradually consumed. Muscle protein, like meat in our normal diet, can be converted to glycogen via gluconeogenesis, if necessary, so people who criticise low carb diets, saying that the brain requires carbohydrate to function, are missing the point. The body can manufacture its own carbohydrate, if required, by gluconeogenesis.
So, if there is sufficient water available, the body organism can survive in this state, feeding itself on fat and muscle, very efficiently for several weeks. But there are two serious drawbacks to this fasting; firstly, the body is wasting away. Mental processes and sexual libido will fail and extreme lethargy will result, as the body's metabolism slows down in an effort to conserve energy.The other drawback is slightly more serious - death will soon occur, as the body is unable to sustain vital functions. However, if food becomes available soon enough, the effects of starvation can be reversed and recovery to normal weight and health can occur.
We can learn some important things about weight loss diets from the experience of starvation. Clearly, the body can survive very well for a short time on its own resources - protein and fat, without carbohydrate. This mechanim to survive when food was not ever-present, originates in the very beginning of human development. Humanity has survived food shortages for millions of years. We know this because we are still here!
If then, we could find an eating plan today, which mimics our prehistoric, starvation survival mode, it would be the ideal reducing diet. It would leave us satisfied after eating, providing enough protein to prevent muscle and organ deterioration, while encouraging the body to use up its own excess fat. Well, the good news is, such a diet exists already. It is variously known as LCHF, Banting or Atkins diet. It is probably the most successful weight loss system in history, based as it is on protein and high fat (prehistoric survival food), with very low amounts of carbohydrate.
As early as 1862, the idea of eating just fat and meat, with some leafy green vegetables was promoted in a leaflet by William Banting, a retired English undertaker, who had been struggling with obesity all his life. You can read about him here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
A century later, in U.S.A., Dr Robert Atkins came to similar conclusions and made millions of dollars selling books explaining his plan, much to the chagrin of his envious peers.
Since then, there has been much research on Low Carb, High Fat diets. Not only are they effective in weight loss, but they are also now being proven to be healthy, despite their high percentage of fats. Notice, an LCHF diet is not a high protein diet. It always irritates me when dieticians don't listen before quickly defending the orthodox diet, consisting of 50% carbs and rush off into unnecessary warnings about the perils of "too much protein".
An LCHF diet provides most of its energy in fats (65-80%) with about 20% from protein. As we have seen above, in the absence of food, humans can live perfectly well without carbohydrates, which are a non-essentail macro-nutrient. However, the LCHF diet allows for about 5-15% of total calories from carbohydrate. This is made up mostly of green vegetables, berries, a few nuts and some cheeses.
In its initial stage, to stimulate weight loss, there is a very low carbohydrates intake - about 20g per day - to start nutritional ketosis (ketone burning). This continues for a few weeks, then as excess fat is steadily lost, a very gradual increase in carbohydrates to a moderate level can be sustained, without stopping fat burning. Ketone sticks can be used to detect ketones in the urine, to ensure that ketosis is continuing.
Unless you become an athlete or a very physically active worker, you will continue to have a very moderate carbohydrate level thereafter, eating mostly home-cooked, natural foods.
If you would like to learn more about LCHF diets, look here;
www.dietdoctor.com/lchf
Update:
Previously, I recommended the Atkins website, until I saw promotion of their own-brand, processed crap in the guise of "healthy, low-carb food". Some folks just cannot resist making profit from the weaknesses and gullibility of others. Look here to see what I mean:
www.dietdoctor.com/atkins-greed-and-the-fairy-tale-cookies
This site below, has some good info;
www.authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-diet-meal-plan-and-menu/
My personal favourite is Diet Doctor, which is actually a translated Swedish website run by Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt.
NOTE for DIABETICS
Reducing dietary carbohydrates has an effect on blood sugar levels and insulin requirements. Therefore, it is essential that you monitor and modify your insulin medication carefully in consultation with your Doctor.
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Today's cycling session
It's was a pleasant, sunny day here in Edinburgh, but there was a strong westerly wind which slowed me down as I cycled along by the sea (Edinburgh is on the River Forth estuary).
I followed one of the city's cycle paths (former local railway lines) which are primarily recreational, for most of this route.
Here, in U.K., we have to share the road with motor vehicles, so we are way behind countries like Netherlands and Germany in our cycling safety!
My route today;
www.endomondo.com/users/7277781/workouts/529896185
I followed one of the city's cycle paths (former local railway lines) which are primarily recreational, for most of this route.
Here, in U.K., we have to share the road with motor vehicles, so we are way behind countries like Netherlands and Germany in our cycling safety!
My route today;
www.endomondo.com/users/7277781/workouts/529896185
What You Need to Know about Carbohydrates and Insulin
The skeletal muscles have a capacity of about 300g of glycogen storage. That glycogen sits there in the muscles until it used for vigorous exercise, so that "sink" has no more capacity. The liver stores about 100g of glycogen, but this can be released to the blood stream when blood sugar is low – if it ever gets low enough in a person who is continually snacking. (Keep reading to end for some important facts on insulin’s effect on protein intake)
When these liver and muscle reservoirs are full, the body does not waste any incoming excess available energy (food). It is very efficient in using valuable fuel. Excess glucose is converted to fatty acids and stored in fat tissue.
We can see that, for a sedentary person, a meal containing starchy vegetables, sweet fruits or flour products or sugar (and particularly sugary drinks like cola or fruit juices), will be an excess of carbohydrates for them and will be stored as fat.
Some will say, "but I drink Diet Coke", artificially sweetened. Sorry, but the same thing applies – the pancreas responds to any sweetness as if it is receiving sugar and secretes insulin.
If we ingest too much carbohydrate in one meal, there will be an insulin rush,overshooting the required amount, lowering our blood glucose too much. Soon, you will feel hungry again. Think of the popular "Chinese meal", high in simple carbohydrates (white rice) and probably sugar (sweet and sour) followed by banana fritters with syrup.
The above problems are increased by alcohol. All digestion is stopped, until it is broken down in the liver.
Over time, many of us become immune to insulin because the pancreas becomes over-worked by a life-time of high carb meals, so we need to keep producing more and more insulin. Then, the body becomes less efficient in converting glucose to glycogen and, instead, stores it as fat. Carbohydrates, not fats, make you fat.
If most of your carbohydrate is being shunted off into fat reserves, a lot of your food intake is lost to you. But what about your fat reserves? Well, if your body is used to burning carbohydrate, which it will always burn first, when available, fat will not be utilised. Also, when insulin is present in the bloodstream (and that’s most of the time when a person is always snacking), our fat is not released into the blood.
In view of the foregoing, it is rather disingenuous of doctors and dieticians (and exercise instructors!) to tell their patients to "eat less and exercise more". Many obese people will tell you that they "hardly eat anything" and that is probably true. Then, as I’ve said before, exercise makes us hungry! So, while I believe that many people become overweight initially through greed (second helpings or huge portions), once they start becoming insulin resistant because of over-consumption of carbs, they are losing half of their food intake to their fat stores. Obesity may start as occasional over-indulgence, but it soon becomes a hormonal problem.
Protein also stimulates insulin secretion. It is digested to peptides and finally, amino acids, which are used for growth and repair of tissues. Despite what many bodybuilders may think, our requirements for protein are fairly modest, at somewhere between one and two grams per kilogram of body weight per day. So a 75kg athlete might need 100-150g per day. This doesn't require huge consumption of flesh because virtually all natural foods contain protein. Even fruits and vegetables contain 2-3 g of protein, which adds to our total for the day. Although these proteins are from plants, the liver can reassemble their amino acids to form proteins useful to us.
Proteins, like fats and carbohydrate, are chains of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, but with a vital difference; there is a nitrogen molecule attached. If we ingest an excess of protein, the energy is not wasted. The amino acids are de-aminated in the liver i.e. the nitrogen molecule is removed and expelled in the urine. And what are we left with? A carbohydrate chain - and you know what's going to happen to that, if there is no room in the glycogen stores......... It will be stored as fat. So, the myth that "we can eat as much protein as we like, without getting fat" is untrue.
In a future post, I’ll discuss an enjoyable, proven diet that actually works for weight reduction and long-term, healthy maintenance of body weight.
Your Food Choices - Why do You make Them? (and recommended books)
The obvious answer to the above question is , “I eat what is available” or “I eat what I enjoy”, but subliminally, our food choices are often made as a result of health articles that we have read in newspapers and other media.
From time to time, we see articles or documentaries warning us about eating too many eggs, or too much fat, “eat fatty fish”, “eat the right fats“, “eat more nuts, but not too many” or “eat more fruit and vegetables” or “this makes us live longer” and so on.
The most influential piece of dietary advice in the last 70 years was the recommendation on reducing fats in the diet. This started in the 1960s in USA and particularly with scientist Ancel Keys, who was later featured on Time‘s front cover. Since then, we have seen an increase in the numbers of overweight and obese people who have followed that advice.
Gary Taubes’ book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” explores the science behind the low-fat dogma, examines many of the studies made and shows that much of the nutritional science that we take for granted today is based on very unsound scientific studies. It’s quite a weighty book, with its emphasis on science and statistics (it took him five years to write, I believe) and its 600pp contain over 100pp of references alone, but it’s well worth the effort.
If you're not of a scientific bent, requiring detailed proofs, you may find this book by the same science journalist more approachable. It carries a similar message, but in less detail; "Why We get Fat and What to Do about It". An audio version of this book is available on Youtube.
For those of you who prefer seminars and interviews on Youtube, follow this link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEuIlQONcHw
To find out more about this journalist, see; www.garytaubes.com/
From time to time, we see articles or documentaries warning us about eating too many eggs, or too much fat, “eat fatty fish”, “eat the right fats“, “eat more nuts, but not too many” or “eat more fruit and vegetables” or “this makes us live longer” and so on.
The most influential piece of dietary advice in the last 70 years was the recommendation on reducing fats in the diet. This started in the 1960s in USA and particularly with scientist Ancel Keys, who was later featured on Time‘s front cover. Since then, we have seen an increase in the numbers of overweight and obese people who have followed that advice.
Gary Taubes’ book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” explores the science behind the low-fat dogma, examines many of the studies made and shows that much of the nutritional science that we take for granted today is based on very unsound scientific studies. It’s quite a weighty book, with its emphasis on science and statistics (it took him five years to write, I believe) and its 600pp contain over 100pp of references alone, but it’s well worth the effort.
If you're not of a scientific bent, requiring detailed proofs, you may find this book by the same science journalist more approachable. It carries a similar message, but in less detail; "Why We get Fat and What to Do about It". An audio version of this book is available on Youtube.
For those of you who prefer seminars and interviews on Youtube, follow this link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEuIlQONcHw
To find out more about this journalist, see; www.garytaubes.com/
Reversing Type 2 Diabetes
I saw an interesting Youtube video by a medical doctor specialising in obesity and diabetes treatment, the other day. The key point of the short lecture by Dr Sarah Hallberg of Indiana was the reduction of carbohydrates in the diet.
I wrote to a diabetic friend, asking if lowering her carbohydrate intake might allow her to reduce her insulin dose. She replied that her doctor said it’s important to eat carbohydrates “to make the insulin work”. Really? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what happens in the body?
When we consume carbohydrate, it is all eventually digested to glucose, and this promotes excretion of insulin from the pancreas, to remove toxic sugar from the bloodstream. I say “toxic” because an excess of sugar in the blood is the very condition which exists in diabetes, hence the need for insulin injections.
But notice, the insulin secretions come in response to carbohydrate. The insulin doesn’t come first, so that we need to eat carbohydrate to modify the insulin release. This advice, to eat a lot of carbohydrates, is given to diabetics routinely.
So, are doctors missing the point? Are they really overlooking the problem which causes the diabetes? i.e. carbohydrates consumption? If there is very little carbohydrate present in the digestive system, then there is very little glucose, so the requirement for insulin by injection is reduced. Simples?
Let’s suppose that, instead of prescribing a drug, the doctor simply advised patients to reduce their carbohydrates intake, thus by-passing the need for high doses of insulin. Wouldn’t that save the National Health Service and health insurances a lot of money? Wouldn't it eventually help people to get well, instead of simply managing their sickness? I think so.... But then, what would happen to pharmaceutical profits? Is there something else going on here?
If you would like to see Dr. Sarah Hallberg’s short presentation on Youtube, follow this link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ
If you have Type 2 diabetes, viewing this video may change your life.
I wrote to a diabetic friend, asking if lowering her carbohydrate intake might allow her to reduce her insulin dose. She replied that her doctor said it’s important to eat carbohydrates “to make the insulin work”. Really? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what happens in the body?
When we consume carbohydrate, it is all eventually digested to glucose, and this promotes excretion of insulin from the pancreas, to remove toxic sugar from the bloodstream. I say “toxic” because an excess of sugar in the blood is the very condition which exists in diabetes, hence the need for insulin injections.
But notice, the insulin secretions come in response to carbohydrate. The insulin doesn’t come first, so that we need to eat carbohydrate to modify the insulin release. This advice, to eat a lot of carbohydrates, is given to diabetics routinely.
So, are doctors missing the point? Are they really overlooking the problem which causes the diabetes? i.e. carbohydrates consumption? If there is very little carbohydrate present in the digestive system, then there is very little glucose, so the requirement for insulin by injection is reduced. Simples?
Let’s suppose that, instead of prescribing a drug, the doctor simply advised patients to reduce their carbohydrates intake, thus by-passing the need for high doses of insulin. Wouldn’t that save the National Health Service and health insurances a lot of money? Wouldn't it eventually help people to get well, instead of simply managing their sickness? I think so.... But then, what would happen to pharmaceutical profits? Is there something else going on here?
If you would like to see Dr. Sarah Hallberg’s short presentation on Youtube, follow this link;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=da1vvigy5tQ
If you have Type 2 diabetes, viewing this video may change your life.
Saturday, 23 May 2015
Why I Stoppped Taking Statins - a Warning for Men over 40
IMPORTANT NOTE
Do not stop taking medication without doing thorough research first and consulting with your doctor. However, you should certainly ask your doctor a lot of questions before starting any medication and you should monitor your own symptoms carefully, in a diary.
=======================
Each day in U.K, about 8,000,000 people swallow a statin tablet. Let's suppose each one gives just one penny net profit to a pharmaceutical company; that means that, in one year, drug companies are making about £29,000,000 net profit on this one drug alone. The cost to NHS is enormous.
Atherosclerosis is" a disease of the arteries characterized by the deposition of fatty material on their inner walls". Doctors are taking a prophylactic approach to this disease, by prescribing statins to middle-aged men because these drugs lower blood cholesterol which, they say, is the reason for the fatty deposits. They reason that, since middle-aged men are most at risk of heart attacks and stroke because of high cholesterol, administering a pill to lower cholesterol must be a good idea. Some go so far as to say that statins prevent heart attacks, which is untrue.
Heart disease and stroke can be avoided by leading a physically active life. People who exercise regularly, are at less risk. While there are correlations between lowered heart attack/stroke incidents and statins, there is certainly no definitive proof. Quoted figures of increased life expectancy sometimes amount only to extra days of life, which is not a high return when we consider the side-effects of statins.
Cholesterol is a precursor for the biosynthesis of hormones, bile acids and vitamin D in the human body. It is the principal sterol synthesized by animals. All kinds of cells in animals can produce it, but particularly hepatic cells.
Statins work by blocking chemical pathways in the liver, which produces more cholesterol than we consume in our diets. The problem is, by blocking those pathways, other important chemicals are blocked too, further down the line. One of these is Co-Enzyme Q10 which is essential for heart health and generation of ATP for energy in our cell mitochondria. In some countries where statins are prescribed, Co-Q10 is prescribed with the statins, but not in Scotland, as I found out.
Here now, is my experience with statins;
Two years ago in March, I visited my friend's new house near Crieff on a Tuesday and stayed overnight. The next morning, I enjoyed a large, delicious breakfast of muesli, milk, wholemeal bread with honey and black coffee (I'll explain my reason for mentioning this shortly). About an hour or so later, we went for a walk in a wood nearby. Suddenly, I felt dizzy and my eyes wouldn't focus. I was afraid to take a step because I felt as if I couldn't plant my feet safely, so I stopped for a minute or so and the dizziness passed.
On the Thursday, I went to my optician. She could find nothing wrong with my sight. She advised me to see my GP which I did. I was lucky to get an appointment at such short notice. The locum doctor decided I had had a mini-stroke episode and, after talking to a professor at a local hospital, he prescribed Simvastatin and Aspirin. He also arranged an appointment for me at Edinburgh's Western General on the following Tuesday, to see a stroke specialist. This was a Friday night at 6 p.m. and I was due to fly to Madrid at 8 a.m. the next morning. I cancelled my holiday flight, very reluctantly, because I had felt fine since Wednesday evening.
On attending the hospital, I was given a brain scan and thorough checks. It was decided that I had some atherosclerosis, which is not uncommon in later life. In his report, the doctor described my incident as "a very curious case" because there was no evidence of a stroke. Anyway, he advised me to continue the Simvastatin and he prescribed Clopidogrel, instead of Aspirin.
At this time, I was working toward one million metres on an indoor rower, so I was training several times each week for 30 minutes or so and strength training twice. I also changed my diet overnight (not that it was particularly bad). I decided to eat at least 10 portions of fruit/veg each day and I cut animal fats right down.
It was only after a few weeks that I started noticing side effects of the drugs. These may include loss of memory and depression, but as I said to my doctor later, how is one supposed to know when memory is lost or if one is depressed?
Anyway, the most obvious thing was extreme fatigue. This is not surprising (see Co Q10 above). I was awakening each day, after a sound night's sleep exhausted, wiped out. With this, came severe muscle pain. This was not due to DOMS (delayed on-set muscle soreness), with which I am familiar.
Next, I noticed that my urine was brown. I don't mean dark yellow due to dehydration. It was the colour of cola. On researching this, I realised I probably was suffering rhabdomyolysis. This condition is so serious that I'd like you to read about it yourself.
Essentially, it is due to damage to skeletal and heart muscles and can lead to kidney failure
Then, one morning I woke up to go for a wee (as one does, first thing) and noticed that something was missing........ You gentlemen will know what I mean when I say there was no stiffness (and I don't mean my back). I thought about this and realised it had been some time since I had been functioning normally, at least a week or two, I guessed. Another side-effect is sexual dysfunction.
Well, I went to my doctor, told him all of this, asked for Co Q10 ("we don't do that here" he said) and insisted on a lowering of the statin dose. He ignored my concerns about the other symptoms, virtually patted me on the head and told me to "keep up the diet and the exercise".
Meanwhile, I was doing more research and was extremely lucky to come across this article by Dr Stephanie Seneff of MIT
I wrote to her, explaining my symptoms and history and she kindly replied the very next day, attaching three research papers and advising me that people who exercise are at most risk from statins.
I thought about this for a few days and, three months after starting statin medication, I stopped taking them and decided to be responsible for my own future health, by continuing exercise and diet.
Today, I am fit and in good health (so far, as I always say now.......)
As for my "mini-stroke" episode, I don't think it was a stroke at all. I believe I had an insulin surge due to too much carbohydrate in my breakfast, combined with strong coffee, which stimulates insulin production further. This would have lowered my blood sugar levels quickly, inducing a hypoglycaemic episode, making me fatigued and dizzy.
Friday, 22 May 2015
A Tale of TwoTwins
Bill and Ben are twins aged 30. They both weigh 80 kgs and their height is 1.8m (that’s about 5’11” and 176 lbs or 12 st 8 lbs in old money)., so their BMI is 24.7. Genetically, they are identical and their interests are similar, but they have very different tastes in food.
Bill is very health conscious and follows current trends and advice. He keeps an eye on his calorie intake because he has noticed his clothes are getting tighter. His calorie intake is less than 2500 per day, but his waist is getting thicker. He carefully reads product labels when he makes food choices, to ensure that he is eating a low-fat diet, without added sugar. He knows that fat and sugar are bad for us because he keeps up with food articles and documentaries on TV. He works in an office and goes to the gym quite faithfully, three times each week, where he trains with weights, because he knows that improving muscle mass burns calories by increasing the metabolic rate. He also does some cardiovascular training. At weekends, he goes hill-walking or cycling with his brother.
Ben doesn’t worry too much about his calorie intake. His weight seems to be stable and he has plenty of energy. Like his twin, he works in an office (in the same company and building, in fact) and attends the gym three times each week, training with his brother, combining strength training with brief HIT cardiovascular training. In terms of strength, they are very similar and sometimes competitive on exercises like Bench Press and Pull-ups. As for fitness, Ben seems to have a slight edge. Bill has been suffering more, to keep up with Ben when running or cycling.
On a typical day, Bill’s breakfast consists of the following;
200 ml orange juice
50g Bran flakes
200 ml Semi-skimmed milk
2 slices wholemeal bread
5g low fat olive oil spread
10g marmalade or jam
Coffee with milk
Mid-morning, he is always ready for a snack, which he eats at his desk. This is usually a low fat yoghurt and an apple.
Ben’s breakfast is as follows:
2 slices back bacon
2 fried eggs
2 “home-made” pork sausages from his favourite local butcher
1 fried tomato
100g fried mushrooms
Coffee with 25ml double cream
He cooks the above himself, frying it in lard.
Mid-morning, Ben goes to the water cooler and chats to his colleagues. He doesn’t eat anything. He is simply not hungry. He doesn’t even think of food.
The brothers meet at lunch-time. Bill has a bowl of tomato and basil soup with one slice of pizza and coleslaw and coffee with milk.
Ben usually watches Bill eat his meal because he doesn’t feel hungry enough to eat. Sometimes, if he doesn’t feel hungry on rising, he will miss breakfast, but have coffee with thick cream, then eat an all-day breakfast from the canteen at mid-day, drinking black coffee or water. He always gives the toast and hash browns to his colleagues, who love to sit at his table!
Mid-afternoon, if Bill is going to the gym, he has a banana, to “keep up his blood sugar”, before training at 5.30 p.m. He usually has a Zero Calories Coke too. By this time, Ben is ready to eat, so he has a snack of 50g pecans and 50g cheese. He doesn’t always have this and never, if he’s had lunch.
After his work-out, Bill has a whey protein shake mixed with water. Ben has an apple.
On arriving home, Ben does the cooking. He grills one chicken breast for Bill and fries another in 75g butter and quickly boils 1000g broccoli. The portion sizes are the same, but Ben eats Bill’s chicken skin and pours the butter from his fried chicken over his own 500g broccoli.
After dinner at about 7 p.m., which include a multivitamin for each man, Bill has 250ml of bottled beer and 25g of salted peanuts. Ben had 75ml of dry red wine with his meal. Sometimes, he has 25ml malt whisky with a little water, afterwards, instead of the wine.
By 10 p.m., Bill feels hungry, so he has two small tangerines for supper. The brothers relax in the evening and go to bed at 10 p.m.
Before I discuss this, let me just say that each twin has consumed very close to 2400 kcals of energy this day. Does that surprise you?
Bill’s diet closely mirrors current government recommendations;
48% carbohydrates (50%), 24% protein (20%) and 28% fats (30%).
Ben’s intake, by contrast, is 9%, 19% and 72%.
Is one diet better than the other? What do you think? If they have both eaten the same number of calories, why is Bill hungry? Why has he had more meals than Ben? Is he just greedy? What is going on here? If “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie” and all these energy units are the same, why does one man’s calorie intake satisfy him, while the other does not? And why has Bill been gaining weight while carefully following government guidelines and doing exactly the same amount of physical and mental activity as his twin?
If I tell you that this is the way they always eat, in terms of macro nutrients and calorie intake, what might we expect for their immediate and future health?
I shall address these questions in another post, by which time, I hope you will have made some conclusions of your own.
Bill is very health conscious and follows current trends and advice. He keeps an eye on his calorie intake because he has noticed his clothes are getting tighter. His calorie intake is less than 2500 per day, but his waist is getting thicker. He carefully reads product labels when he makes food choices, to ensure that he is eating a low-fat diet, without added sugar. He knows that fat and sugar are bad for us because he keeps up with food articles and documentaries on TV. He works in an office and goes to the gym quite faithfully, three times each week, where he trains with weights, because he knows that improving muscle mass burns calories by increasing the metabolic rate. He also does some cardiovascular training. At weekends, he goes hill-walking or cycling with his brother.
Ben doesn’t worry too much about his calorie intake. His weight seems to be stable and he has plenty of energy. Like his twin, he works in an office (in the same company and building, in fact) and attends the gym three times each week, training with his brother, combining strength training with brief HIT cardiovascular training. In terms of strength, they are very similar and sometimes competitive on exercises like Bench Press and Pull-ups. As for fitness, Ben seems to have a slight edge. Bill has been suffering more, to keep up with Ben when running or cycling.
On a typical day, Bill’s breakfast consists of the following;
200 ml orange juice
50g Bran flakes
200 ml Semi-skimmed milk
2 slices wholemeal bread
5g low fat olive oil spread
10g marmalade or jam
Coffee with milk
Mid-morning, he is always ready for a snack, which he eats at his desk. This is usually a low fat yoghurt and an apple.
Ben’s breakfast is as follows:
2 slices back bacon
2 fried eggs
2 “home-made” pork sausages from his favourite local butcher
1 fried tomato
100g fried mushrooms
Coffee with 25ml double cream
He cooks the above himself, frying it in lard.
Mid-morning, Ben goes to the water cooler and chats to his colleagues. He doesn’t eat anything. He is simply not hungry. He doesn’t even think of food.
The brothers meet at lunch-time. Bill has a bowl of tomato and basil soup with one slice of pizza and coleslaw and coffee with milk.
Ben usually watches Bill eat his meal because he doesn’t feel hungry enough to eat. Sometimes, if he doesn’t feel hungry on rising, he will miss breakfast, but have coffee with thick cream, then eat an all-day breakfast from the canteen at mid-day, drinking black coffee or water. He always gives the toast and hash browns to his colleagues, who love to sit at his table!
Mid-afternoon, if Bill is going to the gym, he has a banana, to “keep up his blood sugar”, before training at 5.30 p.m. He usually has a Zero Calories Coke too. By this time, Ben is ready to eat, so he has a snack of 50g pecans and 50g cheese. He doesn’t always have this and never, if he’s had lunch.
After his work-out, Bill has a whey protein shake mixed with water. Ben has an apple.
On arriving home, Ben does the cooking. He grills one chicken breast for Bill and fries another in 75g butter and quickly boils 1000g broccoli. The portion sizes are the same, but Ben eats Bill’s chicken skin and pours the butter from his fried chicken over his own 500g broccoli.
After dinner at about 7 p.m., which include a multivitamin for each man, Bill has 250ml of bottled beer and 25g of salted peanuts. Ben had 75ml of dry red wine with his meal. Sometimes, he has 25ml malt whisky with a little water, afterwards, instead of the wine.
By 10 p.m., Bill feels hungry, so he has two small tangerines for supper. The brothers relax in the evening and go to bed at 10 p.m.
Before I discuss this, let me just say that each twin has consumed very close to 2400 kcals of energy this day. Does that surprise you?
Bill’s diet closely mirrors current government recommendations;
48% carbohydrates (50%), 24% protein (20%) and 28% fats (30%).
Ben’s intake, by contrast, is 9%, 19% and 72%.
Is one diet better than the other? What do you think? If they have both eaten the same number of calories, why is Bill hungry? Why has he had more meals than Ben? Is he just greedy? What is going on here? If “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie” and all these energy units are the same, why does one man’s calorie intake satisfy him, while the other does not? And why has Bill been gaining weight while carefully following government guidelines and doing exactly the same amount of physical and mental activity as his twin?
If I tell you that this is the way they always eat, in terms of macro nutrients and calorie intake, what might we expect for their immediate and future health?
I shall address these questions in another post, by which time, I hope you will have made some conclusions of your own.
Exercise for weight loss - does it really work?
Scotland has a growing obesity epidemic, which stood at about 27% in 2013, with 60% of our population overweight. This is
estimated to cost the nation between
£600 million (NHS costs) and £4 billion (loss of productivity, early deaths
etc). Either way, it is a lot of money!
At any gym in January, you’ll see the same scene every
year; the room is crammed with overweight people trying to lose weight in
preparation for spring weddings and holidays or for wake-up calls to health.
It occurred to the cynical side of me that their effort may be
futile. Exercise is less effective for fat loss than we think. You don't believe me? Well, most people
trying to lose weight are very conscious of calorie expenditure, but I have
some bad news for you all.........
Let's suppose you jog for 30 minutes, at 10 kph (~6 mph), assuming that an overweight,
unconditioned person can do that. The calorie charts and the treadmill will tell you that you have burned about 400 kcals, depending on your size (big people burn more energy than small). Now, if you stop jogging and sit down, you will burn ~150 kcals in 30 minutes, just sitting
there. Why? Because
your metabolism - all the necessary things to maintain life, such as breathing, blinking, digestion, heart-beat,
thinking etc -
requires energy. In other words, the 400 kcals burned is actually a net deficit of only ~250 kcals after 30 minutes of hard effort. Sorry!
There is more bad news; exercise may make us gain weight because it makes us hungry. Some may
object - doesn't exercise suppress appetite? Well yes, while you are exercising, but when we stop, the body's first priority is to re-establish the status quo. This is a biological
necessity for survival. The organism's first priority is restoration and
repair. If, like me, you keep a food diary (www.myfitnesspal.com), you may notice
that your calorie intake and appetite increases after exercise, either later
that day or the next.
I was talking to a client the
other day. about his running across the Pentland Hills, which lie to the south
of Edinburgh. That morning, he had run for over 2 hours over rough ground in a stiff, cold wind. I asked him how he felt and how hungry he
was. He wasn’t hungry because he'd had a huge post-running meal a couple of hours before coming to the gym for
strength training. He agreed that his appetite was increased by running, but he
said also, he had lost weight running in the past and his female colleagues
were glad to either maintain their weight and eat well, or lose weight, by hill running.
So, that contradicts me, right? Well, in the man's case, he admitted that his
previous weight loss had only been achievable through this repeated intense effort with hunger. He had continually and strictly under-eaten, below his appetite, in the past, after running, to achieve a particular weight goal. He was constantly hungry during that period because he was on a low-calorie
die, relative to his needs. This is the experience of most people who try to lose weight by exercise and/or by low-calorie diets. Eventually, the body wins the fight and the
weight is regained to safeguard its equilibrium.
Does this mean that exercise
is a waste of time in weight loss programs? Not at all. Long-distance cyclists and runners are examples of
leanness through exercise, but their training requires hours of steady state
activity every day, combined with shorter periods of intense effort. This is
something which requires dedication and motivation beyond the reach of most
overweight people.
It is clear that we are
designed for movement - we have muscles and a cardiovascular system to support them. The gym industry is growing because it replaces the activity that is lost in our lives by sedentary "work", sitting all day, moving a computer mouse or
holding a pen or telephone. People who do real work, in the physics sense,
don't need gym memberships because they are walking, climbing, lifting, carrying, moving, all day long, using their muscles, burning energy and depleting their muscle glycogen levels, unlike their sedentary counterparts.
If moderate exercise three times per week (the usual formula) has little effect on weight loss, then how can we lose excess fat? In future posts, I shall address this problem and explain why counting
calories doesn't work , then I'll tell you about a weight loss diet that
actually works - even without exercise.
Please go to my Update on 13 June.
Please go to my Update on 13 June.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)