Category: Nutrition

Nutrient Density: The Magic Of Zero

Old internet joke: what happens when you divide by zero? You destroy a city, that’s what.

divide-by-zero3

You can’t divide by zero in euclidean space…well you can but your outcome will be wrong. However, in nutrition you can and this magic leads to “correct but meaningless” statements like “kale is the most nutrient dense food on Earth.”

The Demon in the Denominator

So how is nutrient density calculated? It’s pretty simple:

The amount of a nutrient (vitamin, mineral, etc) in a serving of food divided by the total calories of a serving of food

Veggies just don’t have a lot of calories, so if you’re dividing by nearly zero, the nutrient density score will approach infinity…or at least by a large number relative to, say, meat.

The problem becomes how that sways decision making in food stuffs. Dividing a food’s nutrient content by nearly zero kcal equals very high nutrient density (again, a ratio of vitamins, minerals, etc. to its kcal), but that’s not total nutrient content. The absolute is low per serving, even if the relative amount of said nutrient is quite high. So you have to eat a LOT of kale to get enough off the good stuff. Kale’s rad, but I don’t want it to be the ONLY thing I eat.

Why do I mention this? Because this is where animal products shine.

Nutrient Richness

Absolute nutrient content is where meats shine. Look in almost any college textbook for sources of key vitamins and minerals, and you’ll almost always find meat near the top of the list.

I love fruits and veggies. Beyond vitamins and minerals, they’re packed with thousands of phytochemicals (phyto = plant) in complex combinations that help our health and physique, often through a hormetic response (for a really complex explanation, read this). But researchers are increasingly coming back to meat, basically animal muscle, because it’s rich in “zoochemicals”.

Never heard of “zoochemicals”? Zoochemical is general term for the many chemicals found in animal products that can have health promoting properties. Further, they’re found only in animal products or found in relatively high amounts compared to most plant foods. And the biggest thing? It’s not a silly “denominator-approaching-zero” thing, meat has meaningful amounts of these zoochemicals per serving, making meat nutrient rich. So if nutrient density is a relative measure, nutrient richness is an absolute measure. It’s either there or it isn’t.

Speaking of there, what sort of things are we talking about? Here are a few zoochemicals found in nutrient-rich meat and some of their potential benefits:

  • Quality protein (lean tissue building, metabolic function)
  • Vitamin B12 (essential nutrient, red cell formation, energy)
  • Heme Iron (readily absorbed form, fights fatigue in some persons)
  • Zinc (readily absorbed, most diets are deficient)
  • n-3 fatty acids (potent EPA and DHA, especially compared to the plant’s n-3, linoleic acid)
  • Creatine (muscular power,cell volume)
  • Carnosine (cellular buffering, antioxidant effects)
  • Coenzyme Q10 (antioxidant effects, energy generation)

So am I saying it’s time to go all carnivore? No, not at all. I’m underlining the fact that we’re omnivores and that both plant and animal foods have different beneficial properties for health and fitness. Demonizing “carbs” when you mean “processed junk food” is the same thought error as demonizing “meat” when you mean “processed foods that happen to contain meat.” Human animals need both and now you know why.

So next time you’re at your local organic grocer and they’re carrying on about nutrient density, you’ll crack a little smile because you know.

 

Let our team create your custom workout today.

Get My Free Workout!

The Middle Way

EE_graphics-02

 

Health and vitality is the birthright of everyone on Earth. It’s not just the United States that is experience an obesity epidemic, and the health implications that come with it, but the rest of the world as well. Locally, this is a function of being the “Great Experiment,” where a melting pot society allows those to live however they choose. This means that one is free to follow, or ignore, cultural norms as they choose.

However, cultural norms have stood the test of time for a reason: they’re a directionally accurate answer to many of the societal problems encountered by a group. When it comes to health and vitality, long standing cultural norms are a constant reminder of the steps needed to keep healthy. I’ve discussed this a number of times in previous posts (here and here).

Most of us learned eating habits from our parents, who came of age in a TV Dinner/Fast Food nation that valued access and volume over quality and health. It’s no wonder we continue to get fatter!

In the absence of culture, you can pay to have someone do all the work for you. A personal chef controls the portions, food stuffs, and shopping, so you don’t have to think about that. Last I checked, none of my clients are in a position to afford such a luxury.

We’ve been trying to solve this dilemma at EE for a while now: how do you help people to learn how to eat better (not what to eat, necessarily) while making the information actionable without breaking the bank?

I had trouble putting it together until my last bit of graduate school, where my Health Education coursework introduced me to theories and frameworks that had already been used to create lifestyle habit change in the real world for things like smoking cessation, AIDS education, as well as alcohol reduction. By comparison, dietary habit changes should be quite doable!

So I’ve been referring to this as a “Middle Way”: all of the cultural and research-based lifestyle components that can get you lean and healthy without an obsession or an overly restrictive life bent to the will of your diet. Sounds good to me!

We’re calling it “Concierge Coaching” and here’s what you get:

  • Daily Content delivered and personalized just for you
  • Full Access to Exclusive Concierge Content
  • Only 10 minutes of reading 6 days per week
  • Actionable items to implement and practice
  • Weekly check-ins with your personal coach
  • A strong and effective community

The goal is the leverage all of the power and proven success of the health education foundation with a program delivered to you, that you can actually stick with. It’s a re-education program, not a diet. When you’re done, you should never have to “diet” again!

Sound interesting? Click here to find out more and inquire about getting on board.

 

It’s still about lifestyle, mostly.

I’ve examined a number of studies on how important lifestyle factors are in health and longevity. With this post I wanted to tie the threads together to get a big picture.

It’s easy to get hung up on tiny variables, on nerding out with the bleeding edge of science. I get it; I’ve been there. It makes it sounds really tough, like you have to time everything by an Atomic Circadian Clock. Really, this stuff isn’t that hard. If you’re on the bleeding edge of the BMI scale, you likely need some very specialized help. If you’re not, you don’t need daily mental masturbation about minutia that probably doesn’t make that much of a difference. Not in practice.

And that’s really it: things that can be done in the controlled lab environment are very rarely externally valid. Controlled meals and metabolic chambers? Nay. Metabolic carts and a perfectly timed bolus of amino acids? Nope. You get none of these, free-living human.

The fact of the matter is that the leanest, longest-lived cultures on Earth aren’t accounting for any of that crap!

A quick rundown, shall we?

The Aladema Study

The Blue Zones studies attempted to tease out a defacto longevity formula from the longest lived cultures on Earth. I’ll talk more about them in a minute, but if you back the longevity train up a bit further, you’ll find a researcher by the name of Lester Breslow. In 1965, Breslow started a study in Alameda country, California that examined the health habits of 6,928 people, with an eye toward 7 health habits he deemed most important (which is why the study is referred to as the “Alameda 7″). Their behavior was examined over intervals of up to 20 years and the data was parsed with quantitative analysis (which at the time didn’t happen with longevity studies). As a result, Breslow found that a 45 year old who followed at least 6 of the 7 habits had a life expectancy 11 years longer than that of a person who followed 3 or fewer. And these were good, strong, functional years free of major disease or complication, because what does it matter that you live longer if you can’t do anything with it?

What were the habits? Here’s his original list of the Alameda 7:

  1. Avoiding Smoking
  2. Exercising regularly
  3. Maintaining a healthy body weight
  4. Sleeping 7 to 8 hours per night
  5. Limiting consumption of alcoholic drinks
  6. Eating Breakfast
  7. Avoiding snacking between meals.

…That’s it. You were expecting some sort of lifestyle calculus? Something only the “chosen few” could accomplish? There’s nothing sexy here and that’s the point: what is done consistently, albeit imperfectly, is what makes changes in the long term. Interventions require rigidity and high effort; lifestyles do not.

Don’t believe that this one study was enough? The good news is that the research has been followed and examined many times over the years. More recently, Dr. Jeff Housman (one of my graduate school professors) and colleague put together a review of the data that came from the study and subsequent reviews. Check this tidbit:

 The linear model supported previous findings, indicating regular exercise, limited alcohol consumption, abstinence from smoking, sleeping 7–8 hours a night, and maintenance of a healthy weight play an important role in promoting longevity and delaying illness and death.

So really the “Alameda 7″ is the “Alameda 5,” meaning that 1-5 on my list above are the big lifestyle “tricks” you need to attempt to do in order to set yourself up for a longer, stronger life.

So what happened to Lester Breslow? He died quietly in his home in 2012…at the age of 97. Maybe there’s something to this stuff after all?

Blue Zones

The main thrust of the Blue Zones starts with a study, known as the Danish Twin Study. This study followed 2872 Danish Twins born between 1870 and 1900. After all of these pairs had died, statistical analysis was performed and determined that ~25% of the variance in longevity can be attributed to genetic factors. Later studies give a slightly larger range, from a high of one-third to a low of 15%. So if we’re pessimistic, only one-third of our longevity is related to genetic factors, thus the remaining 70% is due to lifestyle. This was the thrust of the Alameda 7 study: follow some simple habits and you’ll gain quality years of life.

The book is based on the work of Michel Poulain, who identified a mountainous region of Sardinia where men lived longer than women, but both live longer than the rest of Sardinia. Fun fact: it’s a “Blue Zone” because that’s the color they used to identify the region. Really, take a look:

After the statistical analysis was found to be accurate, that there was in fact a positive longevity outcome, the search for more of these places around the world began.

So after digging and intense statistic analysis, these 5 zones have been confirmed:

bluezonesmap

From these 5 spots, the authors attempted to “tease out” a de facto longevity formula, which is this:

Now I won’t spend time unpacking those, but I would suggest that they’re directionally accurate and very similar to what was found in the Alameda 7 (5?) study. If you were able to follow the above list regularly, then you’d likely be in a good place to maximize your longevity free of chronic diseases.

I have some problems with the conclusions derived from the Blue Zones. Not enough to throw it out (it’s really a great piece of work) but to bring attention to things that I feel are worth reducing the importance of when compared to the authors of the book:

  1. It’s also noted that all of these groups are isolated, which means that there is a significant “Founder Effect” to consider. That is when a population splinters off from a larger population, thus reducing genetic variation. While the Blue Zones demonstrate a founder effect that selects for a genetic maximization of these good habits (e.g. phenotypic expression), other founder effects lead to things like the incredibly high rate of deafness on Martha’s Vineyard, leading to things Martha’s Vineyard Sign Language. Remember that while genes play a relatively small part of longevity, these populations may have the most important reduced genetic variation to maximize the longevity effects of their lifestyles.
  2. It’s hard to prove a negative. In the New York Times article about the Ikarian blue zone, Gary Taubes asks this question: “Are they doing something positive, or is it the absence of something negative?” So while they are eating more vegetables than your average American, they’re also eating very little white flour and sugar compared to your average American. If it’s not there, you can’t see its effect. What is being contributed to veggies might actually be the lack of sugar and flour. It’s especially hard to compare the lifestyle effect; again these are isolated populations. Would the lifestyle-credited longevity benefits remain if sugar and flour were added?
  3. Much of the book is hooked on the dietary component and emphasizes movement, though not “exercise.” Fine, but  a recent analysis showed that the variable that most correlated with the longevity of the Sardinia blue zone men was *drumroll*… physical activity.  Not training, but “pastoralism,” grade of the terrain, and, distance traveled to a place of work. Not magic legumes, not red wine, not cheese, not a super-secret workout…physical activity!

Adventists & Mormons: It was never about meat

Going back to my whine about isolating small variables and attempting control them, remember that our bodies aren’t these time-dependent output machines. That is, an input will not always give you the same output, in the same amount of time…there’s a constellation of variables all in flux that affect the final outcome.

This is the problem with any self experiment: humans tracking inputs into our biology leaves all sorts to be desired…the margin of error is just too much for any sort of meaningful information to be derived:

nancy-qs

We’re not machines; if we were, we could expect a given input to yield a linear, time-consistent response. X volume of powder A yields Y response in Z minutes. But it doesn’t and we don’t. Not only are we not machines, but some of the greatest advances in phlebotomy and proteomics research have come when we get the human element out of the way, mostly for the “unreliable/distractions/kittens” element mentioned above.  Examples:

So just live all Dionysian and  attempt to not control anything? No, but you must understand that the inputs are signals…they are stimuli. The stimuli is directionally accurate and dose-dependent. Further, the dose will have varying outcomes depending on the state of your physiological milieu at the moment of input. You can be sure ingesting protein will lead to new amino acids being available for protein synthesis, but the standard deviation of the response will vary depending on a variety of factors that you can never hope to control.

Further, the body is directionally set by the stimuli…it doesn’t care nearly as much by the context of delivery as much as by the quality of the content. This is especially true in the “paleo” community, with the idea that “Caveman X was on the savanna, therefore only could lift heavy rocks and get thorns in their ass when they screwed. I must mimic this for maximum health!” Here’s the thing:

The body doesn’t care about concepts; it only cares about stimuli.

The SAID principle (specific adaptation to imposed demand) referred to the type, quantity, and frequency of a stimuli. So while our hunter-gatherer ancestors trained their posterior chain by hauling an animal, we might dead lift or use a good lumbar extension. The stimuli is similar, no hauling required. The mismatch was never “We’re not hauling bison out of a ditch and eating mongongo nuts”; it was “we’re never exerting to a sufficient intensity while eating lots of processed garbage.” You mimic the stimuli while reducing the risks.

Why mention all of that? Well I think the above is largely the root of why people get hung up on a single dietary variable like meat (for instance). Never mind that so many studies lump meat in with, say, “fatty” foods like potato chips and ice cream (really!); the food stuffs are just one variable in a larger picture, going back to the title of this post. If the totality of the lifestyle is in order, the inputs hold less weight because the whole spinning plate is much more balanced.

Example: Seventh Day Adventists are often credited for their longevity, which is always reduced to diet. However, the most thorough studies never claim it’s just the diet: they’re always looking at the total lifestyle to draw their conclusions.

Similarly, studies that look at a similar population (California Mormons & California Adventists) show similar improvements in longevity due to the totality of the lifestyle:

  • Adventists: 7.28 years in men and by 4.42 years in women from age 30
  • Mormons: 9.8 years in men and by 5.6 years in women from age 25

Now it’s important to note that this isn’t a comparison between groups…or rather, it’s between one religion and the average Californian of the same age. And the statistics used in each study may be slightly different (like which inputs & variables they found most valuable, etc. I have no interest in unpacking them). The point is that if a single variable, meat, was a keystone/linchpin/cornerstone in the longevity equation, then the statistics should indicate some change. And since it’s often cited as “the” culprit, the statistic should jump out and punch you in the face, the same way cancer rates in those who smoke isn’t a tiny statistical anomaly.

Here’s the point: all of the nerding out in service of the big picture, the lifestyle, is great. A regular sanding of the details leads to a better overall picture. However, nerding out in order to replace the big picture is a fools errand, a big distraction that keeps one focused on a “big secret” that simply doesn’t exist.

251505_10151024760092405_1633409149_nSkyler Tanner is an Efficient Exercise Master Trainer and holds his MS in Exercise Science.  He enjoys teaching others about the power of proper exercise and how it positively affects functional mobility and the biomarkers of aging.

Exercise Science: A Translational Science?

My wife likes to take the piss out of me. When I was working through my graduate degree, and people asked her what I’m studying, she’d say, “Exercise science. I know, it sounds like a made up degree.”

She’s not wrong; “exercise science” does sound a bit nebulous to the point of gnostic wisdom. However it’s important to understand that most people think they have a clue about exercise and they simply do not. It’s a bit like Parkinson’s Law of Triviality: people have bodies, therefore they think they know how to exercise said body. Given the state of health in the United States, it should be clear that we have little in the way of cultural norms to maintain fitness, and even less cultural wisdom to get people on the right track.

Frankly, exercise is complicated stuff by the simple fact that you have to account for so many variables in so many subjects (body of knowledge subject, not human being subject). This is why exercise science is actually a translational science, a cross disciplinary, scientific research driven by the need for practical applications of science.  This type of science is often used in medicine and pharmaceuticals, because you need people to figure out how to take lab discoveries to trial as quickly as possible, and also to take these discoveries into best practice perhaps even faster. This came about because it takes an average of 24 years for a lab discovery to primary care setting, so long that “breakthroughs” that can save many lives leave so many dying before they can be applied.

The same seed is what has created a movement in health and human performance departments at universities to move away from terms like “exercise physiologist/biomechanist/kinisiologist” toward a unifying umbrella of “Exercise science.” This is because those are all part of what you study at the graduate level and then some. I made a picture with a mouse to illustrate the breadth of subject matter I learned in my studies (click for full size):

Exercise Science DIagram

Now if I walked into a lab that was devoted to any of those pursuits, I’d be dangerous. In the context of the human body and how it responds to an exercise stimulus, I’m better than any of those experts. I’m taking what they’re studying, mixing it with what others from totally different fields are studying, and attempting to mold a best practice that gets at the good stuff as efficiently as possible. I’ve been trained to be the ultimate generalist when it comes to understanding the human body and its response to exercise, which is exactly what an exercise science curriculum should do.

Yes, it sounds made up, but it’s really the shortest description of what it is we do!

251505_10151024760092405_1633409149_nSkyler Tanner is an Efficient Exercise Master Trainer and holds his MS in Exercise Science.  He enjoys teaching others about the power of proper exercise and how it positively affects functional mobility and the biomarkers of aging.

On Growth Hormone, Muscle Gain, And Recovery

 

Such is the cascade

This is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to growth hormone function in the face of diet and exercise. Rather, I’m going to suss out some of the misconceptions that clients are laboring under, based on some questions I’ve recently had.

Growth hormone (GH) is a hormone which has an effect on both tissue growth and fuel mobilization. GH is released in response stressors like exercise, reductions in blood glucose, and both carb restriction or fasting. Shock of shocks, GH is a growth promoting hormone, increasing protein synthesis in the muscle and liver. GH can only carry out these actions through Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), which it stimulates the liver to release in the presence of insulin. To put it another way: high GH without high insulin equals little to no IGF-1.

So what about GH as it pertains to training and recovery? Well, before I get into research on how GH is released throughout the day and in response to training, I want you to know that at the end of this article I attached a list of studies that show the result of injecting GH on muscle mass and performance. Give it a look after this article.

So training does result in a GH increase. In fact it’s big in untrained subjects (10 fold increase above baseline), it’s not quite as big in trained guys (4-5 fold increase) (1,2). The thing is that it’s super brief, like back to baseline levels in an hour brief (3). Sounds great though, right? Five times higher than baseline? Here’s the thing: GH released during sleep is up to 20 times above baseline and lasts a lot longer, up to 3 hours (4). Finally, I’ll just quote this meta analysis on the subject of GH and athletics:

Claims that growth hormone enhances physical performance are not supported by the scientific literature.

What about GH’s role in fat loss? Doesn’t GH need to be elevated to move fatty acids for energy use?  Well, take a look at this study of individuals with hyperinsulimia in which they lost 20lbs in 60 days.  The drastically elevated insulin *should* have blunted the GH, which *should* have trapped the FFA’s for all eternity…but it didn’t seem to matter because they were eating less. This is why all of those “GH Diet” scams are successful: if your calories are low enough AND you’re injecting GH you’ll lose a bunch of fat. But it’s the low calories that let this happen, not the GH per se.

But I hear you all the way through the internet: I want to make sure I get whatever tiny cookie of benefit GH has to offer…should I avoid carbs after a workout to keep GH high?

Did a caveman tell you this? I really with this paleo myth would die, be buried, and be discovered by Jack Horner’s great^20 grandchild as an anthropological study of how little we knew.

Here’s the thing: GH is made higher post workout with the inclusion of carbs. So am I suggesting a big huge spike in insulin, meaning a metric ton of carbs post workout? Nay, but since you no longer have to worry about blunting GH, why not ensure protein synthesis occurs? A very small increase in insulin is needed to start protein synthesis, which is to say that a whey shake would get the job done very adequately.

Books have been written on this subject, but there’s not been Earth-shattering changes to this suggestion: if muscle gain and recovery are really really important to you, just eat a nice meal sometime soon after you train. You don’t have to rush it either; the post-workout window of opportunity is large enough to drive a truck through…just don’t decide to fast for 16 hours after the workout and you’ll cover your bases

251505_10151024760092405_1633409149_nSkyler Tanner is an Efficient Exercise Master Trainer and holds his MS in Exercise Science.  He enjoys teaching others about the power of proper exercise and how it positively affects functional mobility and the biomarkers of aging.

(more…)

Iatrogenesis: A Response From Dr. Phillip Alexander

In the January 27th post entitled, “Small Health Habits Make a Big Difference,” I laid out the 10 leading causes of death in the United States according to the CDC. I recently received a response from Dr. Philip Alexander on this very topic:

Skyler…on the CDC’s own website, they freely admit that the list of the Top 10 Leading Causes of Death always leave out the real #3 cause. I’ve added it below. Sometimes hospitals can be very dangerous places!

 

  • Heart disease: 597,689
  • Cancer: 574,743

 

The medical profession: 225,000

Non-error drug adverse events 106,000

Medication errors in hospitals 7,000

Other errors in hospitals 20,000

Unnecessary surgery 12,000

Hospital-acquired infections 80,000

 

  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
  • Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494
  • Diabetes: 69,071
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
  • Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

 

Incidentally, in 1990 Alzheimer’s Disease wasn’t even in the top 20. In 1999 it was #7, in 2004 it was #6, and is now #5. Medicare says that by 2020 50% of the long-term facility beds in the US will be Alzheimer’s Disease. It’s 50% now. All the others are stable or slightly improving (as in the graph below), but with a frightening increase in Alzheimer’s.

It’s all lifestyle, and we know how it happens and how to prevent it.

Disease Changes

So we’ve learned two things: 1) Dr. Alexander never does anything halfway and, 2) treatment is a serious killer. What Dr. Alexander is talking about is called Iatrogenesis, which is where harm comes from the healer. The human body is incredibly complex, as discussions with my physician clients always elucidates. Historically we’ve take a statistical approach to treatment and treatment methods, that is a clinical trial shows that X percent of patients respond to Y treatment, and side effects were less than the benefit, so the treatment is viable. No clinical trial, no matter how huge, can account for the ever growing number of patients physicians are seeing, especially as boomers age into Medicare. There will be somebody who, because of their unique makeup, responds exceedingly poorly to a treatment and becomes part of the statistic above.

However, there is also the patient side of the equation, expecting the physician to “Do Something” when they see them. This is made worse by social ranking systems like Yelp where a patient can boil a physician’s ability down to a 5 star rating system based on one visit. If you’re in a position where you’re effectively arguing with a patient who expects to be prescribed something, you may very well just write the most benign script available and move onto the next patient in your overcrowded day. That’s “Murica for you: give me drugs or I’ll have your head on Yelp.

The human body is not beholden to our temporal expectations as much as we’d like it to be. What may take weeks we want in days, and this leads to some of the ill-advised treatment that results in harm above. To quote my friend Doug McGuff:

My favorite mantra is….”Don’t just do something, stand there!”. We must always be cautious about intervening when mother nature is not taking her course as fast as we would like it. The greater your sense of urgency to act, the more you should wait.

This is not to say that you should do nothing, but that you should understand that not everything has a clean, linear treatment or recovery process and sometimes waiting is the most prudent course of action. That’s why they call it the “art and science of medicine,” folks.

251505_10151024760092405_1633409149_nSkyler Tanner is an Efficient Exercise Master Trainer and holds his MS in Exercise Science.  He enjoys teaching others about the power of proper exercise and how it positively affects functional mobility and the biomarkers of aging.

 

Fun With Numbers: Fat Intake and Life Expectancy

Now, as much as I love the idea of The Economist (the magazine, not Ben Bernanke), I’ve never actually read a full issue. An informal survey of my (relatively affluent, highly intellectual, very good looking) client base confirms that nobody on planet Earth has read a whole issue of The Economist. I believe there is a job that pays just to read the whole issue every week.

That said, every year The Economist does us a solid and releases the “Pocket World in Figures” which has all sorts of crazy stats, like who had the highest rate of inflation (Belarus, 59.2%) or who produces the most cocoa (Côte d’Ivoire, 1,486,000 tons). However the figures that I’m interested in are fat consumption and longevity per country.

There is a list of countries by fat consumption, noting who has the highest average  percent in the world. It looks like this:

  1. Australia 41
  2. France 41
  3. Spain 41
  4. Belgium 40
  5. Bermuda 40
  6. Cyprus 40
  7. Iceland 40
  8. Italy 40

Now if we compare their fat intake to their life expectancy in years (and rank) it looks like this:

7. Australia 82.1 yrs

8. Iceland 82.0 yrs

Italy 82.0 yrs

11. Spain 81.8 yrs

12. France 81.7 yrs

21. Bermuda 80.8 yrs

33. Belgium 80.0 yrs

36. Cyprus 79.9 yrs

Now unfortunately they do not list the fat intake for all countries, but this begs the question: how can similar fat intake result in such different life expectancies? The short version: there’s a whole lot more to life expectancy than just fat intake.

This is where the model breaks down: when a country (typically France) eats a lot of fat and lives a long time, they call it a “paradox.” It’s only a “paradox” because it doesn’t fit the model, which is that “high fat intake leads to heart disease leads to death.” So instead of changing the model, the label a country “paradoxical” and move on trying to prop up a faulty model.

A great example of this is the clip below, where Dr. Malcolm Kendrick looks at the data compiled from the WHO MONICA study, which is the largest heart disease study ever undertaken. Have a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE

So what’s the take away? There is a LOT that can happen between when you eat food and what your body does with it. It is very difficult to pin health and longevity on one single data point. It’s interesting in creating better questions for investigation, but there is too much noise between that first point and an outcome of lifespan changes.

251505_10151024760092405_1633409149_nSkyler Tanner is an Efficient Exercise Master Trainer and holds his MS in Exercise Science.  He enjoys teaching others about the power of proper exercise and how it positively affects functional mobility and the biomarkers of aging.

 

Water Intake: You (and your clients) don’t need as much as you think

Have you ever wondered how your dog has never become dehydrated? I mean, without a lululemon water bottle that has perfectly measured markings so they know *exactly* how much water they’re getting everyday, how can you be sure your dog hasn’t been on the brink of death this whole time?

I’m going to tell you why and it’s not, despite your claims to the contrary, because your dog is smarter than your neighbor’s child.

I-have-no-idea-what-Im-doing

 

I had noted that I would do a post like this a few weeks ago when a colleague of mine chided me to get it done because his clients wouldn’t listen to him about fluid intake. Namely, he’s a high-intensity guy who trains clients in a controlled environment (~65* F, humidity controlled), but his clients are probably wearing tennis skirts and drinking water like they’re crossing the Sahara. So let’s start there.

Water Recommendations

Have you ever wondered why 8 glasses of 8 ounces of water per day has been recommended? Well, the truth is that there’s not good evidence for this claim as a concept, as evidenced by a research review published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Researchers concluded “There is no clear evidence of benefit from drinking increased amounts of water.” The notion of consuming 64oz of water per day dates back to the 1945, where what is now the Institute of Medicine recommended drinking once milliliter of water per calorie of food consumed. Based on average consumption estimations at the time, this worked out to almost 64oz of water per day. The problem was that they didn’t account for the fact that food gives you tons of water and counts toward your water intake. Take a look:

Water Balance

You’ll notice in the diagram above that water intake from food accounts for nearly as much water as water from fluid intake. So if you’re getting adequate nutrition, you’re getting a lot of water. How do you make up the water differences in your daily life? You get thirsty and, despite what you’ve heard, thirst does not mean you’re already dehydrated. On the contrary, thirst begins when the concentration of blood (an accurate indicator of our state of hydration, because remember blood is filled with other things) has risen by less than two percent, whereas most experts would define dehydration as beginning when that concentration has risen by at least five percent.

This is why your dog isn’t dead in the backyard after trying to get that squirrel obsessively and why you, despite years of never paying attention to your hydration status before you started exercising, are reading this. Drink when you’re thirsty and you’re covered.

Fluid during exercise

Exercise is a slightly different animal. Take a look at the diagram above and you’ll see significant increases in fluid output in the form of sweat. This is because sweating is our main mechanism of cooling, as evaporation of the sweat is wickedly efficient at keeping us from dying. This is important because the human organism handles drops is body temperature far better than it handles increases in body temperature. So not only are you sweating like a pig, but you’re breathing more heavily, which forces more water out of you as vapor, further cooling your body.

Under these circumstances, more water is necessary, but not as much as you think. In fact, too much water with all of that sweating leads to a condition called hyponatremia, which is where the blood is diluted to the point where electrolyte concentration falls to the point where the normal osmotic balance at the brain is altered. As a result the brain swells and you could end up with fun outcomes like death. Another name for this? “Water Intoxication.” It’s basically why “oral rehydration” products like Gatorade were invented.

But this is if you’re sweating like a pig in an environment that is hot and humid…basically worst case scenario stuff. What if you’re training in one of our studios? If you’re in my studio, you might not sweat at all as I keep fans blowing and the temperature at 67* F. If you train at Rosedale, it’s likely to be higher but not hot room yoga levels. So if we account for water loss through vapor, which is about 3-4 mL per minute given our example, then you’d exhale 90 to 120 mL of water during a half our session that needs replacing. That’s 3 to 4 ounces, folks. Paltry stuff. If you doubled that 8 ounces, you’d likely account for most of the sweat lost during that time given controlled conditions. Drink to thirst the rest of the day; your body is smarter than you.

Takeaways

  1. Your body is smarter than you and thirst is an accurate indicator of water demands.
  2. During strenuous activity in the heat where intense sweating is occuring, a fluid intake of up to 250mL (~8 ounces) every 15 minutes is recommended, but not more than 1000mL. At that point, an oral rehydration supplement would be appropriate.
  3. If you’re training at Efficient Exercise, or in any other climate controlled environment, much less water, to the tune of 8 ounces per 30 minutes, is appropriate.

251505_10151024760092405_1633409149_nSkyler Tanner is an Efficient Exercise Master Trainer and holds his MS in Exercise Science.  He enjoys teaching others about the power of proper exercise and how it positively affects functional mobility and the biomarkers of aging.

 

 

Coffee: The Blackest Magic Known To Man

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nsQqY1R92mA/Uls7YAn5VfI/AAAAAAAAA80/ArrvLrBS5QQ/s1600/Goldenstate_2013_CowboyCoffee.jpg

Ahh, coffee, how we love thee. Or rather how we should love thee. If you poke around on the internet, you’ll see people noting everything from coffee being a favorite beverage of supercentenarians (people who live over 100) or that coffee will turn your blood acidic, dehydrate you, damage your kidneys, and is a gateway drug to harder beverages. Alright, I made that last one up but let’s take a look at some of the evidence for what we can genuinely say coffee can and cannot do and correct a few folks, shall we?

duty_calls

Dehydration and Kidneys

Let’s start with the big one here, or at least the zeitgeist-y concern amongst clients over the years. Not unlike how people burp up the “21 day” answer to the question of “How long does it take to form a habit?“, people will burp up the “dehydration” concern when it comes to coffee. From the perspective of someone who has been in the fitness industry for over 15 years, I find the concern amongst clients toward dehydration funny because they ALWAYS have a water bottle. If anything, I’d suggest that many of our clients are OVER hydrated (it is such a thing; another post for another day).

Regardless, there’s a grain of truth in the concern, that is because caffeine IS a diuretic agent. However, when you drink coffee, you’re drinking very little caffeine. In fact, you’re drinking very little coffee in your cup of coffee. A “good” cup of coffee, as measured by how much coffee is extracted from the ground beans and suspended in hot water, is 1.15 -1.35% dissolved solids. Meaning that over 98% of your coffee in the morning is water.

The research is clear on this as well. Recently, British researchers demonstrated that moderate coffee consumption, in this case 3 to 6 cups per day, did not alter total body water status nor did it demonstrate an increase in water excretion by urine measure. Now, the only guy I know drinking the upper limit of that number is Keith, so the 1 – 2 cup per day clients have nothing to be concerned about when it comes to coffee dehydrating them.

What about those with kidney issues. I’m no doctor, but I can tell you that people often make the mistake of confusing the consumption of a food or beverage that’s problematic for a person with a certain disease or health problem as causing the problem in health individuals. This is where we get the “coffee is hard on the kidneys” argument.

You know who is a doctor though? Leslie Spry at the National Kidney Foundation. What does he say? To quote: “Overall, there is no reason to restrict moderate consumption of caffeine-containing beverages (for individuals with chronic kidney disease).” So if you have kidney disease and you enjoy coffee, keep it to a couple cups a day after checking with your doctor. Otherwise healthy folks? You need not worry.

Longevity

As noted, coffee has health benefits far beyond just perking you up in the morning. Specifically, coffee is a bit of a “superfood” (note: I hate that word) in that it provides the highest amount of antioxidants in the Western diet. Way ahead of fruits and vegetables in the study I cited. As noted above, there is very little “coffee” in your coffee but what you’re getting is a relatively large amount of a variety of compounds that contribute to antioxidant status.  The short version of why this is important is that, owing to a small amount of free radicals produced by our on metabolic processes, antioxidants scavenge or chemically eradicate these radicals before they can damage things like DNA and our cell membranes. Antioxidants are often the excuse for excessive wine consumptions (another post for another day).

From a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that those who drank the most coffee had the lowest risk of death from all causes. The sweet spot seems to be 4-5 cups per day, as shown below:

Important to note is that a “cup” of coffee is actually 6 ounces and since this study was performed via questionnaire and survey followup for medical conditions over the 13 year follow period, it’s highly likely that each person was drinking slightly more coffee than they reported…all the better. Remember, this study was observational and cannot prove the coffee resulted in the reduced risk reduction. However, it also shows that if coffee is killing you it’s doing a very bad job of it.

Drink It Black

So why might people say that coffee is the responsible for health problems or at the very least just a cheap thrill? I would suggest that it’s what a person puts in the coffee and how it is prepared that makes up the difference. If you’re drinking 4 to 5 cups of black coffee each day, that’s a very different animal than if you’re drinking 4 to 5 grande lattes from Starbucks every day. We’re talking 800+ extra calories per day in liquid form, which provides zero satiation. If my informal observation is correct, it’s not the coffee that’s to blame, but all the damn milk and sugar people load their drinks up with to enjoy the stuff. So my first suggestion is that, if you only like coffee when filled with dairy and sugar, maybe you should switch to tea. That’s great for you as well, assuming you don’t fill that with cream and sugar.

But if you like black coffee, how should you prepare it to get the most out of it? Based on the data, all of the good stuff is in the oily compounds that can only be kept if you prepare unfiltered coffee, including press, espresso, cowboy, and Turkish coffee.

These compounds, diterpenes known as kahweol and cafestol, seem to be associated with reductions in cancer in humans. Another compound, chlorogenic acid, and the actual coffee solids that aren’t totally removed from unfiltered coffee, have been correlated with reductions in colorectal cancer.

Takeaways

So let sum it up for you, if you like drinking coffee, here’s my suggestion: drink enough and drink it black, and you may very well be drinking it for a long lifetime!

251505_10151024760092405_1633409149_nSkyler Tanner is an Efficient Exercise Master Trainer and holds his MS in Exercise Science.  He enjoys teaching others about the power of proper exercise and how it positively affects functional mobility and the biomarkers of aging.

 

Let’s Get Started

Enter your email to join the EE newsletter and claim your free training session and consultation.

You'll receive a newsletter once or twice per month, and we'll never spam you.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Stay Up to Date

Sign up for our email newsletter and we'll send you special deals, diets and other exciting news.