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..
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)