How Bad Do You Really Want It?

How Bad Do You Really Want It?

The other day I saw a YouTube video about motivation, which particularly asked the question about how bad you want it and what are you willing to do to accomplish your goals, aspirations, dreams, success.  I have seen it in the past and you may have also seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsSC2vx7zFQ&feature=related

It is worth a look, definitely made me want to go train. This video shows an athlete intensely training, which was portrayed nicely with great narration and music. I often here lots of clichés about motivation and sacrifice. Reality shows are produced so that  the sacrifice necessary to truly realize something can become melodramatic  because it makes good TV.  There is no longer an Olympic Athlete who doesn’t have some story to make the struggle greater, as if the training and sacrifice is not enough.  So I thought I would write about things that I have seen through the eyes of a strength coach that may help you to accomplish your fitness goals.

I regularly see a large number of people who speak from two sides of their mouth.  On one side they talk about their desire to change and how motivated they are to make change; out of the other side of their mouth they have a regular list of excuses as to why they never accomplish these changes and all the reasons (excuses) as to why they can’t do what it takes to be successful. In the video, a lesson is taught about success by holding a young man’s head underwater until he starts to fight to breathe. Of course this is an extreme example.  However, it demonstrates that if you want something bad you will fight for it.    This example really just states that you have to be willing to fight hard if you really want to overcome the obstacles that are in the way of success. If you are unwilling to make that type of effort you will never accomplish something truly great.

 Here are some real life tips:

 

•  First, there must be a sense of urgency!  Most people realize that good health and fitness is necessary, but they do not make it urgent.  It is your health!!  If you are an athlete you MUST realize you have very little time.  It is urgent!  Don’t make the mistake of “I will do it after the holidays,” etc.  The holidays just keep coming.   I will do it next season.  THERE IS NO TIME BUT NOW!  Look at what you value in life and how much health and fitness impacts those experiences.  NOW IS THE TIME! NOW IS THE TIME! NOW IS THE TIME!

 

• Do not diminish or let someone else diminish the value of your goals.  People who cannot make the sacrifice to accomplish a given goal often times diminish the value of the goal so that failure is not a real loss. These same people will try to sabotage your pursuit of the goal so that they are in good company and do not feel as bad about their own failure.

 

• You climb a mountain one step at a time.  Work backwards and layout a simple framework that has dates and each step.  KEEP IT SIMPLE BUT HAVE DATES!  Create small victories and focus on the steps not the top of the mountain.  It will be there before you realize it.  Celebrate the small victories.

 

• Now the hard part. How do you maintain the motivation?  People ask me all the time about how I fit my training into my crazy life.   ELEVATE THE GOAL AND REFRAME THE ISSUE!  You must elevate the importance of the goal in your life.  This goes back to the video.  The example in the video shows that you will have lots of motivation to get your head above water when you run out of air and are drowning.  You will fight hard for that breath because it is urgent and necessary.  Health and fitness do not come without sacrifice.  Elevate the value of feeling good about yourself and your health to such a level that you will be able to maintain your motivation to get out and train and eat well.  Revisit these reasons regularly and reinforce the value of eating and training and how it impacts your life.  Everyone always says “at least you have your health”.  So put some value on what health means to your life.

 

• The Holidays are here and there are a million excuses as to how it is so hard to eat well, not drink too much, workout etc.  Of course the holidays will make it more difficult!  But elevate your goals and you will get through them. Fighting for a breath of air is hard, fitting in a quick workout, or passing on a desert is not asking for much.

 

Train smart, have fun, and you will prevail!

Jacques DeVore, CSCS

President Titan Sports Performance and Sirens Fitness

www.titansb.com  www.sirensfitness.wordpress.com

Have a great holiday!

 

New Sirens Workout Room

Sustainability: Some Thoughts on How to Sustain a High Level of Training and Performance

Wikipedia defines sustainability as the capacity to endure.  For humans, sustainability is the long-term maintenance of well being.  How do you more effectively accomplish sustainability in fitness?

When training for peak performance sustainability is of great importance to reaching the highest level of performance and health.  Whether you are an Olympic Sprinter or just the average person, we all encounter similar obstacles when it comes to sustainability.  I recently consulted a competitive 100 meter sprinter about his training.  He indicated that he was losing his motivation to train and was concerned about the impact on 2012 and the Olympics.  He was recovering from injury and the clock was ticking and with each passing day his level of stress was increasing.  This is common with many competitive athletes.  Many are more driven by the fear of failure.  You ask any successful athlete and most hate to lose.

The advice I gave him applies just as well to someone who is just trying to improve fitness and overall health.  I suggested to him that he not allow himself to look so far ahead.  I could see in our conversation he was already looking ahead over a year away as if he was in the blocks racing tomorrow.  The anxiety was palpable.  I suggested that he focus on what he could control in his training right now.  Focus on getting the most out of his next training session measuring the outcome of the session.  Did he get a great workout?  Did he focus on the pure joy of being able to run fast?  I asked him to focus on some goals that would be attainable in the training.  We discussed sustainability and how difficult it can be, even for the most motivated of athletes to sustain the discipline to train effectively.

Most people are unable to sustain good diet and exercise because their perception of the effort creates an obstacle that is insurmountable.  This perception is what creates an environment that will lead to failure.  It also can allow the individual easily find a reason to fail.

So if you want to sustain a healthy exercise and eating plan, do not create an environment that raises anxiety.  Start with little steps and soon you are able to handle more.  If you start attempting Everest on your first climb you may never climb again.  In exercise, I call it “post traumatic exercise” syndrome.  You expose yourself to an exercise and eating change that is so stressful no human will ever want to continue forward.

Focus on the outcome first and the goals second.  Be in awe of what your body can do at any level and then slowly challenge yourself until the athlete or champion emerges.

Train smart, have fun, and you will prevail!

Jacques DeVore, CSCS

President Titan Sports Performance and Sirens Fitness

www.titansb.com  www.sirensfitness.wordpress.com

Exercise Progression: How Much, How Fast?

Progression is one of the most important concepts in training.  I personally think it is even of greater importance when athletes begin to reach an elite level of fitness.  There is a lot of study on periodization and the management of progression on a macro and micro level.  The majority of lower level athletes will follow a linear progression.  This is a simple straight line increase in intensity and volume of exercise based on maturity and sport.   It is actually not a bad place to start because of the simplicity.  The only risk can be that increases are too great and the risk of injury can become higher. At Titan www.titansb.comwe prefer an undulation of volume and intensity with constant monitoring of recovery.  We utilize as many methods to speed recovery as possible to
increase the ability to overload the athlete again and increase the progression where possible.

The biggest problem with much of the training of an elite athlete is the lack of regular progression.   Progressions become smaller and smaller as athletes get closer to their genetic potential. However, the impact of gains in performance become bigger and bigger on the difference between winning and losing.  Unfortunately, the systems that
are employed to monitor these progressions are flawed.  In many cases where progression is most important less time is spent on fine tuning this strategy. Poor planning and monitoring of performance loses precious time and results in lesser gains and breakthroughs for the elite athletes.

Let’s take a look at this concept of time for a moment and you can see the impact of the loss of time on an athlete’s career.  I have said in the past that what a strength and conditioning coach really charges for is time.  If an athlete in the early part of their career could possess the fitness that they obtain from years of training how much better would they be early in their career?  This is not possible, however a good strength coach shortens the time that it is required  to  reach high levels of fitness by understanding how to progress the athlete,  what areas of training will elicit the greatest impact on athletic performance, and understanding the science, past and present, that will produce the highest level of athletic performance for an athlete.  This is all coupled with the underlying premise of not increasing the risk or causing injury.

Let’s look at the math.  An athlete trains from the age of 10-20 and builds an athletic base and matures during this first ten years.  This time is most often spent on building a good athletic base.  Unfortunately in today’s environment of specialization many athletes become one dimensional and will start to develop injuries or potential for injury if they do not balance out their training and address any weakness that may have developed as a result of the specialization.  The next 10 years of training are the most important.  The athlete’s athletic gains are made with greater difficulty because they are now closer to their genetic potential.  The impact of good progression becomes critical at this time because time needed for big improvement is greater and there is a diminishing ability to produce greater gains as the athlete becomes older.  So there is a greater need for performance and a clock that is always running as the athlete ages.  This is a difficult balancing act.

At Titan understand the impact of wasted training time is greater in these critical years.  If a program does not address progression and address optimum progression rates then the athlete will never become as good as they could have been.  In addition the mental frustration begins to take its toll.  Athletes want to see gains.  It is the nature of sport.

There are many studies on progression.  However this concept is very dynamic and individual.  All the ingredients of rest and recovery, fuel, stress etc become of much greater importance and must be addressed to optimize progression.  It is very easy to not address this on a long term basis and the athlete wastes the best years for huge gains.  Lance Armstrong lived like a monk in order to accomplish this.  Food, training, rest, recovery, are managed like a battle campaign.  Wining a war is all about preparation.

So pay attention to progression and make sure you are making the changes that result in the fastest, safest performance gains.  At Titan we spend a great amount of time monitoring and developing progressions that work most effectively for a particular athlete.  If you want great performance gains you   should spend the time to look at your
progressions and make sure this important aspect of your training is being addressed thoroughly and effectively.

Train smart, have fun, and you will prevail!

Jacques DeVore, CSCS

President Titan Sports Performance

www.titansb.com

Low Glycogen Training

Below is a great article on Low Glycogen Training from Peak Performance. This is a must read for cardio athletes and discuss the most recent research on this concept.  Once again the concept of epigentics and exercise comes into play.

Sports nutrition: the latest research into low glycogen training

Could training when muscle carbohydrate stores are low be advantageous to athletes?

Andrew Hamilton looks at the very latest research in this area and how it translates into training recommendations for athletes…

When it was first proposed as a useful nutritional approach to training, the ‘train low, race high’ theory ruffled plenty of feathers because it stood conventional wisdom about carbohydrate feeding on its head. To briefly recap, train low, race high is a theory born out of genetic evolution of the human race, and which suggests that training when muscle carbohydrate stores are low might actually be advantageous for performance.

The reasoning behind the theory goes something like this: our gene selection in the Late Palaeolithic era (when our ancestors roamed the plains as hunter-gatherers) would have been strongly influenced by the need to ensure survival during periods of famine, with certain genes evolving to regulate efficient intake and utilisation of fuel stores – so-called ‘thrifty genes’.

These genes would have enabled our forebears to utilise energy more efficiently, enabling them to forage for food and escape predators even when enduring famine conditions. As hunter-gatherers, without agriculture, they wouldn’t have had access to abundant supplies of ‘carbohydrate-dense’ crops and cereals but in order to survive, physical endurance and the occasional high-intensity burst of energy would still have been needed.

Thrifty genes and exercise

What’s fascinating is that there’s convincing evidence that our genetic makeup has remained essentially unchanged over the past 10,000 years and certainly not changed in the past 40-100 years(1), which almost certainly has profound implications for the 21st century athlete. In recent years, a number of ‘exercise genes’ involved in the adaptation to exercise and training have been identified, and some it seems are also affected by the biochemical environment in the muscle – eg how much muscle glycogen is present or circulating levels of hormones and other signalling molecules released when exercise is performed(2-4).

The obvious question, then, is this: given that these genes have evolved to help us maximise our adaptation to and physical capacity in a low-carbohydrate environment, is the almost universally recommended high-carbohydrate diet for athletes disadvantageous in any way? Or to put it another way, could vigorous activity in a carbohydrate-depleted state (as would have been the norm for our ancestors) possibly produce better training adaptations in the modern athlete? A number of scientists are increasingly confident that (thanks to our thrifty genes), lower levels of muscle glycogen during training might stimulate certain metabolic pathways in the body, resulting in better muscular adaptation to training(5).

Twice daily, alternate day endurance training

One of the earliest and most well respected studies to look into the effects of low-glycogen training compared the training adaptations in muscle produced by performing leg extension exercise either twice a day on alternate days, or once a day on consecutive days(6). Exercising twice daily resulted in muscles performing an identical volume and intensity of training, but doing so in a low glycogen state during the second session of the day.

The striking finding was the very significant gain in both time to exhaustion and total work performed in the twice daily, low-glycogen trained muscles compared to daily trained muscles (see table 1). In addition, the Danish researchers discovered that the low-glycogen trained muscles became better at burning fat for energy and soaking up carbohydrate to store muscle glycogen once carbohydrate feeding was resumed.

Table 1: Maximal power output and time until exhaustion at 90% of maximal power output before and after 10 weeks of training and total work before and after 10 weeks of training

The implications of these findings were startling because they seemed to completely contradict one of the most universally accepted tenets of sports nutrition – that muscle glycogen depletion should be avoided at all costs. In plain English, this research indicated that although low muscle glycogen content is known to blunt performance on the day, when it comes to training adaptation, this might not be a reason to avoid glycogen depletion.

New research, new questions

Very recent human studies have added weight to the notion of train low, race high theory, particularly for producing desirable metabolic effects such as increased fat burning. However, they have also raised important questions because these metabolic effects didn’t seem to translate directly into increased performance (see box 2).

For example, Australian scientists have recently studied the effects of a cycling programme in which selected sessions were performed with low muscle glycogen content on training capacity and subsequent endurance performance(9).

In the three-week study, seven endurance-trained cyclists/triathletes trained once daily, alternating between 100-min steady-state aerobic rides (AT) one day, followed by a high-intensity interval training session (HIT; 8 x 5 minutes at maximum self-selected effort) the next day. Another seven subjects trained twice every second day, first undertaking AT, then 1-2 hours later, the HIT. In this second group of course, the HIT session was completed in a low-glycogen state.

Forty-eight hours before and after the first and last training sessions, all subjects completed a 60-minute steady-state ride followed by a 60-minute performance trial. Muscle samples were taken before and after the steady-state ride and rates of fat and carbohydrate oxidation were measured.
The results showed that, compared to the daily training group, the low-glycogen group experienced favourable metabolic changes, including higher levels of resting muscle glycogen, higher rates of whole body fat oxidation, and higher levels of key enzymes involved in fat oxidation and aerobic energy production. However, unlike the rat study (see box 1)(7), levels of a similar gene transcription activator (PPAR-gamma) remained unchanged. More importantly perhaps, while cycling performance improved by approximately 10% in both groups, there was no additional improvement whatsoever in the twice daily, low-glycogen group.

Meanwhile, similar results were obtained in a study that used running as a training model, carried out by scientists at Liverpool John Moores University earlier this year(10). Although this study did not have subjects following a strict low-glycogen training regime, it did examine the effects of reduced carbohydrate availability, by restricting carbohydrate drink use.

Three groups of recreationally active men performed six weeks of high-intensity intermittent running, four times per week. Groups 1 and 2 consumed a 6.4% glucose or placebosolution respectively. Both groups trained twice a day, two days per week. Drinks were taken immediately before every second training session and at regular intervals throughout exercise. Group 3 meanwhile trained once daily per day, 4 days per week and consumed no beverage throughout training.

Those in group 2 (who were training in a low-glycogen state during their second run) had significantly higher post-training levels of an enzyme called succinate dehydrogenase, a key enzyme in aerobic metabolism and one which indicates that the low-glycogen training had induced a greater level of aerobic adaptation. However, when the researchers looked at performance such as improvements in maximal oxygen uptake and distance covered on the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test, there were no significant differences between the groups. The researchers concluded that ‘training under conditions of reduced carbohydrate availability provides an enhanced stimulus for inducing oxidative enzyme adaptations of skeletal muscle, but this did not seem to translate into improved performance during high-intensity exercise’.

Low glycogen and strength

Finally, it’s worth reiterating that (as we reported in PP254) there still doesn’t seem to be any evidence that low-glycogen training is beneficial for very high-intensity exercise, such as resistance training. When Australian scientists examined the influence of pre-exercise muscle glycogen content on the activity of several genes involved in the regulation of muscle growth in seven male strength-trained subjects, they found that low muscle glycogen content had variable effects on the activity of these genes involved in glycogen synthesis and importantly, any differences in the activity rates were completely abolished after a single bout of heavy resistance training(11). The scientists concluded that ‘commencing resistance exercise with low muscle glycogen does not enhance the activity of genes implicated in promoting muscle hypertrophy’.

This notion also finds favour with a leading scientist in this field, Dr Keith Baar. He believes that if anything, weight training in a glycogen-depleted state may decrease training adaptations. This is because the transcriptional changes (activating genes) following resistance exercise are no different in a glycogen-depleted state (unlike endurance training) and the greater metabolic stress of training with low glycogen can actually reduce muscle protein synthesis. Therefore, strength training in a glycogen-depleted state should be avoided!

Should you train low and compete high?

If you’re new to the ‘train low, race high’ concept, there’s a lot of information to take in here, so let’s begin by summarising what the current research says about the subject:

1. Training with lower levels of glycogen in the muscles appears to elicit greater endurance adaptations in muscles, such as improved aerobic efficiency and increased capacity to burn fat compared to training with high levels of muscle glycogen;
2. This greater metabolic adaptation almost certainly occurs as a result of enhanced activation of so-called ‘thrifty’ genes;
3. There is no such advantage when strength training; indeed, low-glycogen training may actually be disadvantageous for strength and power athletes;
4. High levels of muscle glycogen are always recommended for maximum performance on any given day (eg during competition); while training with low glycogen stores may enhance long-term adaptation, actual performance during this training will not be enhanced and may well be diminished;
5. It’s still unclear as to the exact performance benefits of low-glycogen training. Although there are undoubtedly favourable metabolic changes after low-glycogen training, the results are rather mixed as to whether these changes translate into performance gains.

The last point is worth reiterating. Although the initial evidence is looking promising, there are a number of questions that we need to answer before we know categorically whether a train low, race high approach offers real performance advantages over conventional training approaches (see box 2).
It’s also worth adding that low-glycogen training carries with it a number of risks and drawbacks (see box 3) and these should be considered carefully before plunging headlong into a train low, race high strategy.

Despite all these caveats, however, a number of exercise physiologists are convinced that some low-glycogen training can yield real benefits for endurance athletes. There’s no doubt that for maximum performance on the day of a competition, you need to start your event with maximum glycogen reserves. However, training is about trying to teach your body to become as efficient as possible at producing energy – your actual performance during training is of lesser importance. So this is the time when it might be worth including some regular low-glycogen workouts. By doing so, you can stimulate your ‘thrifty genes’ to enhance your energy efficiency and production, which when combined at a later date with high-glycogen stores, could help you achieve a PB. Box 4 and table 2 below give some suggestions on how to introduce some low glycogen training into your routine.

Remember, though, to be cautious. If you do decide to experiment with some low-glycogen training, only do so once or twice a week and for limited periods. Be sure, too, to watch very carefully for symptoms of overtraining and fatigue.

Rebuttal to U.S. News and World Top 20 Diets

Rebuttal to U.S. News and World Top 20 Diets
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet ; http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

The writer of this article suggests that the Paleo Diet has only been scientifically tested in “one tiny study”. This quote is incorrect as five studies (1-7), four since 2007, have experimentally tested contemporary versions of ancestral human diets and have found them to be superior to Mediterranean diets, diabetic diets and typical western diets in regards to weight loss, cardiovascular disease risk factors and risk factors for type 2 diabetes.

The first study to experimentally test diets devoid of grains, dairy and processed foods was performed by Dr. Kerin O’Dea at the University of Melbourne and published in the Journal, Diabetes in 1984 (6).

In this study Dr. O’Dea gathered together 10 middle aged Australian Aborigines who had been born in the “Outback”. They had lived their early days primarily as hunter gatherers until they had no choice but to finally settle into a rural community with access to western goods. Predictably, all ten subjects eventually became overweight and developed type 2 diabetes as they adopted western sedentary lifestyles in the community of Mowwanjum in the northern Kimberley region of Western Australia.

However, inherent in their upbringing was the knowledge to live and survive in this seemingly desolate land without any of the trappings of the modern world. Dr. O’Dea requested these 10 middle-aged subjects to revert to their former lives as hunter gatherers for a seven week period. All agreed and traveled back into the isolated land from which they originated. Their daily sustenance came only from native foods that could be foraged, hunted or gathered. Instead of white bread, corn, sugar, powdered milk and canned foods, they began to eat the traditional fresh foods of their ancestral past: kangaroos, birds, crocodiles, turtles, shellfish, yams, figs, yabbies (freshwater crayfish), freshwater bream and bush honey. At the experiment’s conclusion, the results were spectacular, but not altogether unexpected given what’s known about Paleo diets, even then.

The average weight loss in the group was 16.5 lbs; blood cholesterol dropped by 12 % and triglycerides were reduced by a whopping 72 %. Insulin and glucose metabolism became normal, and their diabetes
effectively disappeared.

The first recent study to experimentally test contemporary Paleo diets was published in 2007 (5). Dr. Lindeberg and associates placed 29 patients with type 2 diabetes and heart disease on either a Paleo diet or a Mediterranean diet based upon whole grains, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines. Note that the Paleo diet excludes grains, dairy products and margarines while encouraging greater consumption of meat and fish. After 12 weeks on either diet blood glucose tolerance (a risk factor for heart disease) improved in both groups, but was better in the Paleo dieters.

In a 2010 follow-up publication, of this same experiment the Paleo diet was shown to be more satiating on a calorie by calorie basis than the Mediterranean diet because it caused greater changes in leptin, a hormone which regulates appetite and body weight.
In the second modern study (2008) of Paleo Diets, Dr. Osterdahl and co-workers (7) put 14 healthy subjects on a Paleo diet. After only three weeks the subjects lost weight, reduced their waist size and
experienced significant reductions in blood pressure, and plasminogen activator inhibitor (a substance in blood which promotes clotting and accelerates artery clogging). Because no control group was
employed in this study, some scientists would argue that the beneficial changes might not necessarily be due to the Paleo diet. However, a better controlled more recent experiments showed similar results.

In 2009, Dr. Frasetto and co-workers (1) put nine inactive subjects on a Paleo diet for just 10 days. In this experiment, the Paleo diet was exactly matched in calories with the subjects’ usual diet. Anytime people eat diets that are calorically reduced, no matter what foods are involved, they exhibit beneficial health effects. So the beauty of this experiment was that any therapeutic changes in the subjects’ health could not be credited to reductions in calories, but rather to changes in the types of food eaten. While on the Paleo diet either eight or all nine participants experienced improvements in blood pressure, arterial function, insulin, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. What is striking about this experiment is how rapidly so many markers of health improved, and that they occurred in every single patient.

In an even more convincing recent (2009) experiment, Dr. Lindeberg and colleagues (2) compared the effects of a Paleo diet to a diabetes diet generally recommended for patients with type 2 diabetes. The diabetes diet was intended to reduce total fat by increasing whole grain bread and cereals, low fat dairy products, fruits and vegetables while restricting animal foods. In contrast, the Paleo diet was lower in cereals, dairy products, potatoes, beans, and bakery foods but higher in fruits, vegetables, meat, and eggs compared to the diabetes diet. The strength of this experiment was its cross over design in which all 13 diabetes patients first ate one diet for three months and then crossed over and ate the other diet for three months. Compared to the diabetes diet, the Paleo diet resulted in improved weight loss, waist size, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c (a marker for long term blood glucose control). This experiment represents the most powerful example to date of the Paleo diet’s effectiveness in treating people with serious health problems.

So, now that I have summarized the experimental evidence supporting the health and weight loss benefits of Paleo Diets, I would like to directly respond to the errors in the U.S. News and World Report article.

1. “Will you lose weight? No way to tell.”
Obviously, the author of this article did not read either the study by O’Dea (6) or the more powerful three month crossover experiment by Jonsson and colleagues (9) which demonstrated the superior weight loss potential of high protein, low glycemic load Paleo diets. Similar results of high protein, low glycemic load diets have recently been reported in the largest randomized controlled trials ever undertaken in both adults and children.
A 2010 randomized trial involving 773 subjects and published in the New England Journal of Medicine (8) confirmed that high protein, low glycemic index diets were the most effective strategy to keep weight off. The same beneficial effects of high protein, low glycemic index diets were dramatically demonstrated in largest nutritional trial, The DiOGenes Study (9), ever conducted in a sample of 827 children. Children assigned to low protein, high glycemic diets became significantly fatter over the 6 month experiment, whereas those overweight and obese children assigned to the high protein, low glycemic nutritional plan lost significant weight.

2. “Does it have cardiovascular benefits? Unknown.”
This comment shows just how uninformed this writer really is. Clearly, this person hasn’t read the following papers (1 – 6), which unequivocally show the therapeutic effects of Paleo Diets upon cardiovascular risk factors. Moreover, as we have already reviewed elsewhere (10-12), high protein
diets have been shown to improve dyslipidemia and insulin sensitivity, and are potential effective strategies for improving metabolic syndrome. Furthermore, mounting evidence suggests that a reducedcarbohydrate
diet (which is obviously lower in sugars and cereal grains) may be superior to a western type low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, especially in metabolic syndrome patients, because it may lead to better improvement in insulin resistance, postprandial lipemia, serum fasting triglycerides and HDL-C,
total cholesterol/HDL-C ratio, LDL particle distribution, apo B/apo A-1 ratio, postprandial vascular function, and various inflammatory biomarkers (13, 14).

Finally, the evidence for recommending whole grains to reduce cardiovascular disease risk is based on epidemiological studies or intervention trials with soft end-points, while randomized controlled trials
with hard end points do not seem to support it. For instance, the DART study, found a tendency towards increased cardiovascular mortality in the group advised to eat more fiber, the majority of which was derived from cereal grains (15). And of relevance, this non-significant effect became
statistically significant, after adjustment for possible confounding factors, such as medication and health state (16). “And all that fat would worry most experts.” This statement represents a “scare tactic” unsubstantiated by the data. As I, and almost the entire nutritional community, have previously pointed out, it is not the quantity of fat which increases the risk
for cardiovascular disease or cancer, or any other health problem, but rather the quality. Contemporary Paleo Diets contain high concentrations of healthful omega 3 fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids that actually reduce the risk for chronic disease (10-12, 17-22).

3. “Can it prevent or control diabetes? Unknown.”
Here is another example of irresponsible and biased journalism, which doesn’t let the facts speak for themselves. Obviously, the author did not read the study by O’Dea (6) or Jonsson et al. (2), which showed dramatic improvements in type 2 diabetics consuming Paleo diets. “but most diabetes experts recommend a diet that includes whole grains and dairy products.” If the truth be known, in a randomized controlled trial, 24 8-y-old boys were asked to take 53 g of protein as milk or meat daily (23). After only 7 days on the high milk diet, the boys became insulin resistant. This is a condition that precedes the development of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, in the meat group, there was no increase in insulin and insulin resistance. Furthermore, in the Jonsson et al. study (2) milk and grain free diets were shown to have superior results in improving disease symptoms in type 2 diabetics. Finally, in an interventional study including 2263 postmenopausal women, participants were assigned to a low-fat (<20% en), high whole-grain fiber (>6 servings per day), high fruit (>5 per day) and high vegetable (>5 servings per day) diet or comparison group with no advice. After 6 years of follow-up, those women with diabetes at the start of the study, and allocated to the low-fat/high whole-grain fiber, actually worsened their glucose control (24). Notwithstanding, the majority of the evidence, supports the beneficial effect of soluble fiber, found mainly in vegetables and fruits, while the evidence supporting the beneficial effects of insoluble fiber, found in whole grains, seems less evident (25-28).

4. “Are there health risks? Possibly. By shunning dairy and grains, you’re at risk of missing out on a lot of nutrients.”
Once again, this statement shows the writer’s ignorance and blatant disregard for the facts. Because contemporary ancestral diets exclude processed foods, dairy and grains, they are actually more nutrient
(vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals) dense than government recommended diets such as the food pyramid. I have pointed out these facts in a paper I published in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition in 2005 (11) along with another paper in which I analyzed the nutrient content of modern day Paleo diets (19). In addition, micronutrient analysis derived from the two studies performed by Lindeberg, et al. (5) and Jönsson et al. (2) shows that, except for calcium, a Paleolithic type diet, not only meets all of the micronutrients DRI, but in some cases exceeds that of the whole grain and dairy food diets. Regarding vitamin D, as we have already pointed out in a recent paper (12), except for fatty ocean fish, there is very little vitamin D in any commonly consumed natural (that is, not artificially fortified) food, and throughout history, almost all hominids (except for those living in the far North, such as the Inuit people) depended on the sun to satisfy their vitamin D requirements. Moreover, most nutritionists are aware that processed foods made with refined grains, sugars and
vegetable oils have low concentrations of vitamins and minerals, but not all have realized that dairy products and whole grains contain significantly lower concentrations of the 13 vitamins and minerals most lacking in the U.S. diet compared to lean meats, fish and fresh fruit and vegetables (11, 19). Interestingly, although micronutrient intake is important, intestinal absorption is even more impactful. It is widely known that some antinutrients contained in cereal grains, such as phytate, binds to divalent minerals (i.e., zinc, iron, calcium and magnesium) compromising their absorption (29). “Also, if you’re not careful about making lean meat choices, you’ll quickly ratchet up your risk for heart problems” . Actually, the most recent comprehensive meta-analyses and reviews do not show fresh meat consumption whether fat or lean to be a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease (30-34), only processed meats such as salami, bologna, bacon and sausages (30).

Are Carbs More Addictive Than Cocaine?

Your body is virtually defenseless against a dependency on carbohydrates—the substances that really make you fat—and it’s time for an intervention.

By Paul John Scott

I’m sitting in a comfortable chair, in a tastefully lit, cheerfully decorated drug den, watching a steady line of people approach their dealer. After scoring, they shuffle off to their tables to quietly indulge in what for some could become (if it hasn’t already) an addiction that screws up their lives. It’s likely you have friends and family members who are suffering from this dependence—and you may be on the same path yourself. But this addiction is not usually apparent to the casual observer. It has no use for the drama and the carnage you associate with cocaine and alcohol. It’s slower to show its hand, more socially acceptable—and way more insidious.

I’m in a Panera Bread outlet. The company is on Fortune‘s 2010 list of the 100 Fastest Growing Companies and earned more than $1.3 billion in 2009, mainly from selling flour and sugar by the railcar. Last year, Zagat named it the most popular large chain in the United States and ranked it second in the Healthy Options category. The company responded by touting its “wholesome” food. Sure, Panera sells a few salads. But why do the scones, pastries, baguettes, and bear claws get all the good lighting? Why are the grab-and-go packs of cookies and brownies next to the register? What need is fulfilled by serving soup bowls made of bread, with a mound of bread for dipping, and then offering more bread on the side? How come it’s noon and the couple behind me are eating bagels while the guy to my right is sawing into a cinnamon roll with a fork and a knife like it’s a steak?

The answer is that fast-burning carbohydrates—just like cocaine—give you a rush. As with blow, this rush can lead to cravings in your brain and intrusive thoughts when you go too long without a fix. But unlike cocaine, this stuff does more than rewire your neurological system. It will short-circuit your body. Your metabolism normally stockpiles energy so you can use it as fuel later. A diet flush with carbohydrates will reprogram your metabolism, locking your food away as unburnable fat. When you get hungry again you won’t crave anything but more of the same food that started you down the path to dependency. Think of this stuff as more than a drug—it’s like a metabolic parasite, taking over your body and feeding itself.

You aren’t supposed to talk this way about carbohydrates. According to USDA dietary recommendations, they are not only healthy but are supposed to make up the majority of the food we eat—45 to 65 percent of all calories. Carbs, which are classified as starches and sugars, make up the essence of bread, cereal, corn, potatoes, cookies, pasta, fruit, juice, candy, beer, and sweetened drinks—basically anything that isn’t protein or fat. Our government’s recommendations were established in the 1970s and have since been accompanied by an explosion of obesity and diabetes. The advice came about as early nutrition scientists rallied around a misguided maxim that remains embedded in the fabric of our attitudes toward food to this day: Eating too much fat makes you fat. But science never bore out this pre-Galilean view of nutrition. What is now clear is this: At the center of the obesity universe lie carbohydrates, not fat.

“You could live your whole life and never eat a single carbohydrate—other than what you get from mother’s milk and the tiny amount that comes naturally in meat—and probably be just fine,” says Gary Taubes, the award-winning author of Good Calories, Bad Calories, which is helping to reshape the conversation about what makes the American diet so fattening.

If all you knew about food is what you read in the USDA guidelines, you’d think our bodies conveniently come into the world seeking the one nutrient that is cheap and amenable to commercial mass production: carbohydrates. “Sugars and starches provide energy to the body in the form of glucose, which is the only source of energy for red blood cells and is the preferred energy source for the brain,” says the latest edition of the guidelines. Wrong, says Taubes, who just released Why We Get Fat, a layman’s version of his influential scientific tome. In the absence of carbs, your body will burn fatty acids for energy. It’s how you sleep through the night without eating for eight hours. “The brain does indeed need carbohydrates for fuel,” Taubes says, “but the body is perfectly happy to make those out of protein, leafy green vegetables, and the animal fat you’re burning.” As a pair of Harvard doctors (one an endocrinologist and one an epidemiologist) wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association last summer, carbohydrates are “a nutrient for which humans have no absolute requirement.”

The Diets That Work

You wouldn’t know it from reading the latest dietary headlines, but all of the popular diets—from Atkins to Dean Ornish (Bill Clinton’s weight-loss plan) to the diet-of-the-moment, Paleo—are successful because the most important change they advise is the same: stop eating refined carbohydrates. This only reminds us of what had been the conventional wisdom in medicine for hundreds of years before the USDA stepped in: that sugar, flour, potatoes, and rice are what make a person fat, not meat and milk.

Forty years into the low-fat, high-carbohydrate way of eating—we can thank it for “diabesity,” shorthand for the societal prevalence of type II diabetes paired with obesity—it seems clearer than ever that our problem lies not simply in carbohydrates, but in their fundamental addictiveness. They sidestep our defenses against overeating, activate brain pathways for pleasure, and make us simultaneously fat and malnourished. They keep us coming back for more, even as they induce physical decline and social rejection. They achieve this more effectively than the controlled substances that can get a guy thrown into jail. Maybe the question isn’t whether carbohydrates are addictive, but whether they are the most addictive substance of all.

In 2007, researchers at the University of Bordeaux, France, reported that when rats were allowed to choose between a calorie-free sweetener and intravenous cocaine, 94 percent preferred the sugar substitute. The researchers concluded that “intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward. . . . The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction.” Nicole Avena, an expert in behavioral neuroscience at the University of Florida in Gainesville, has spent many hours analyzing the behavior of rats enticed into sucking up sugar. She says that feeding on sugar can, like snorting coke, lead to bingeing, withdrawal, and craving. It does this by lighting up the same circuitry within the brain triggered by cocaine and amphetamines, the dopamine center.

But a carbohydrate addiction is potentially more destructive than an 8-ball-a-day habit, because it hijacks your metabolism. If you eat a low-carb diet, you are able to remain satiated between meals, because the body will burn its fat stores. But eating carbs, especially refined varieties like sugar or flour, sweetened drinks, or starches, causes the body to release the hormone insulin. The body secretes insulin as a response to high blood sugar—a serious, even potentially lethal health risk over time. The hormone directs cells to extract sugar from the blood and store it as fat, and what’s worse, in order to get sugar out of the blood as efficiently as possible, insulin makes it extremely difficult for the body to burn its fat stores. Over time, the presence of insulin in our carb-heavy diet causes diminishing returns. As our cells become resistant to the effects of insulin, our bodies frequently release even more of it to compensate. The result is a blood-sugar vacuum: The body craves more of what the hormone feeds on and triggers our hunger mechanism, which works subconsciously, to direct us toward the nutrient causing all the problems in the first place—carbohydrates. You get fatter and your body craves even more carbs in order to maintain your increasing weight. Drug cartels can only dream of a narcotic with an addiction cycle this powerful.

Once hooked, can you quit your carb addiction? It’s not like there’s a carb-cessation program at Promises, after all. Taubes says it won’t be easy, but given the alternatives, you simply have to try. And cold turkey is as good a method as any. “Anecdotal evidence suggests that the craving for carbs will go away after a while,” he says, “although whether a while is a few weeks or a few years is hard to say.” And frighteningly like an addict in recovery, you’re unlikely ever to be totally cured, and you’ll always be tempted to relapse when the opportunity arises. Be warned: The number of Panera Bread outlets is 1,421 and counting.

How You Get Hooked (Over Time)

1. When you take in carbs, like Gatorade or whole-wheat bread, you secrete the hormone insulin. Even thinking about carbs causes this to happen.

 

2. Refined carbs spike blood sugar, and this is a big problem. The first result is that your body immediately stops burning its existing fat stores.

 

3. Too much blood sugar is a dangerous situation, and in response, insulin, a hormone, rips it from your blood and tells the body to store the energy as fat (in men this first happens around the waist).

 

4. Normally your liver controls blood sugar, but because you eat so many carbs you have a constant supply of insulin circulating. This turns out to be bad—very bad. This causes you to become resistant to insulin.

 

5. Insulin resistance means your body pumps out more insulin to make up for the deficit. Now you’re getting fat, but what’s worse is that your body desires even more carbs as fodder for the excess insulin.

 

6. You get fatter and fatter and your body craves more carbs to feed your increasing girth. This destructive cycle is why Americans are so overweight (the process doesn’t happen overnight).

 

Read More http://www.details.com/style-advice/the-body/201103/carbs-caffeine-food-cocaine-addiction?printable=true#ixzz1OXF2Hm4J