After reading the following email, my heart couldn’t have been warmer:

Hi Frederick,
I contacted you awhile back in regards to my father having lower back problems to the point where the lower part of his spine has shifted over and he could barely walk. This discomfort happened suddenly when he was around 78. I asked you if doing the slow burn was OK at his age and you highly recommended it.

My father first tried Bikram yoga and did it religiously for two years with no improvement. He paid $3000 for PT and that also did not work. After reading your book I noticed how skinny his legs had gotten and he had absolutely no muscle tone. He is now 81 and after bugging him for months he finally read your book and is now doing part of the slow burn- more for his legs and glutes.

After only two months of doing it, he walks straighter and with more distance, and he no longer “schleps” when he walks. His back has even gotten straighter. This is after only 2 months!! This is the most improvement anyone has seen in regards to all of the therapy he has done. He even has muscle tone in his legs now. He is also very happy!

I just find it amazing that with all of the schooling that I have had in nutrition and exercise science, slow burn is NEVER taught. When I finally graduate and become a personal trainer I would love to implement your program. Seeing the results from my father has totally convinced me!

Sincerely,
Erika

I immediately called her and we had a lovely conversation.

After the call, she sent another email:

Hi Fred,
I wanted to add that my dad’s physical strength was deteriorating so quickly he was probably going to be in a wheel chair by the end of this year. He got so depressed and literally became a grumpy old man! He was crawling up the stairs on both hands and feet. Now he can walk up the stairs no problem.

It’s sad that so many doctors, physical therapists and other health professionals do not focus on making seniors stronger. In this article on the benefits of strengthening muscle, you can see how traditional physical therapy has lost it’s way, focusing too much on passive modalities (ultra sound, electirc stim, etc.) and balance tasks instead of improving muscular strength.

Back in 1992 when working as a PT aide at the Hospital for Joint Diseases in NYC, I was putting a 70 yeard old woman throught an intense set of leg presses. A PT  took me aside and said: “Fred, what are you trying to do to her? Turn her into a body builder?”  I thought for a second and said: “I wish I could.”

If…you are eating crap and getting fatter and you start eating more crap, you’ll get even fatter.

Probably.

If…you are eating really well and becoming leaner and you start eating more (of all the right stuff), you’ll stop getting leaner and get fatter.

Probably.

This is how calories count.

But…

Eating more or less calories is not the mechanism by which we get fatter or leaner.

FACT: You can eat the same amount of calories and by altering how much fat, protein or carbohydrate you eat, you can lose fat, gain fat or stall fat loss. Same total calorie intake, but because the combination of foods affects our hormones differently, the response (fat loss, fat gain, energy output, etc.) will be different.

Probably.

Take a look at this graphic, created by and graciously lent to me by Dr. Richard Feinman, professor of cellular biology at SUNY Downstate Medical School. He uses this slide to teach medical students nutrition:

• Carbohydrate and fat are different metabolically.
• Carbohydrate is not just a fuel but a control element (directly and via insulin).
• Glucose is the major stimulus for the secretion of  insulin (dietary fat does not stimulate insulin).
• Insulin controls disposition of dietary fat. Insulin is primarily anabolic and favors deposition of TAG.

(NOTE: You don’t get to have an opinion on this by the way. There are some things that are known in nutritional science and the above is several of them.)

So even when your carb intake is low (which keeps insulin low) which makes it harder to store fat, if you eat more than you were eating before you might stall your fat loss and even increase your fat stores.  After all, the extra has to go somewhere.

Remember, excess caloric intake is not a mechanism by which fat is stored. But more energy in can and will contribute to how the mechanisms are affected, resulting in excess fat storage.

Probably.

So, as the saying goes, too much of even a good thing can be “bad.”

Wouldn’t that be nice? Imagine steak being proclaimed as a health food…as it once was. Sigh. Will those days ever return? Not if certain researchers have anything to say about it!

I’m sure that many of you saw the recent article in the NY Times about a study that showed the bacteria in our guts converts the carnitine found in red meat into an evil, deadly substance, and how this might be the reason why meat is responsible for heart disease.

The researchers argument was that our intestinal bacterial convert carnitine into a toxic substance called trimethylamine oxide (TMAO) in the liver which then may be the cause or one cause of atherosclerosis in humans. Earlier work by the two main researchers found that choline coverted to TMAO in mice genetically modified to get heart disease and are now extending this idea to humans via the carnitine found in red meat.

Not that red meat is the only food that causes such a conversion mind you. In another study researchers found that lots of the foods tested caused this conversion to happen including heart healthy vegetables. But as we all know, red meat is bad for us and veggies are definitley good for us. So, it’s the red meat that’s to blame!

If you haven’t read the article yet,  Here it is. The abstract of the study here. Notice the title of the abstract:

Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis.

Wow. How damning. Is this really true? Does the study show that red meat promotes heart disease? And if so, just red meat? I can hear my doting mother in-law’s fingers banging away at the keyboard now composing an urgent email to make me stop eating steak:

My dear SON – please did you see it? The study by the doctors?! They know meat is bad now!! Please don’t eat meat anymore!! Love you Mom. PS – did the sweater fit?

Oy veyishameer.

As I see it, the idea itself is total nonsense for several reasons. For one, humans have been eating meat for, well, a very long-ish time. If eating meat didn’t kill us all off several hundred thousand years ago, why would we think that meat would try to kill us now? Hmmm. I know that is not a very scientific explanation but think about it.

For those of you who are religious and at the same time think that your evening steak is killing you, if you recall from your Bible studies God said we could and should eat meat. I have read the Bible and nowhere in it do I recall the big man tossing in any caveats about meat in general being deadly like:

Fear thou my children TMAO – a by-product of eating my fleshy creations and thus limit the amount you consume. The same goes for my plant matter creations but these are heart healthy so worry not!

It’s true that certain animals were forbidden to the Jews (but God never says why exactly). Still, meat is clearly on God’s menu for all of us. If it was so bad, why advise us to eat it? Food for thought for my religious brothers and sisters…

The unfounded bias against meat in the world of nutrition is, to me at least, shockingly blatant. It pervades the thoughts of virtually every nutritionist’s dietary recommendations. Statements like, “Even though there is no conclusvie evidence to support the idea that red meat or meat in general is harmful, common sense tells us to limit our intake of meat, especially red meat,” are rampant in popular nutritional press.

On page one of the study the researchers state:

However, a recent meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed no association between dietary saturated fat intake and CVD, prompting the suggestion that other environmental exposures linked to increased meat consumption are responsible

Yeah, OK, so the fat in meat is now found innocent in the court of nutritional law, but it’s STILL the meat that’s to blame. Of course, we should all feel free to go face down in vegetalbes as often as we like, even though studies have shown that peas produce far more of the supposed harmful, artery-clogging substances than meat. But vegetables are healthy for us so there can’t be any meaningful association there, right?

Again, research has shown that the cholesterol and saturated fats in meat can no longer be wrongly tormented as criminals to our health. You can see this fact for yourself here. But I don’t notice anyone apologizing for the years of false accusations and shunning tactics made about meat as if they were Amish children gone rouge. Why? Because there STILL must be something about meat that is bad for us. There just must be. We were wrong about the fat, but we’re right about it being meat.

A really brilliant PhD friend wrote the following referring to the study:

I think it (referring ot the paper) has some interesting things however irrelevant for human health. It is a kind of microcosm of what’s wrong with medical science, exaggerating minor points and using statistics to hide rather than explain the truth. For those who don’t have time, I provide a synopsis of the introduction:

…is linked to…presumably…prompting the suggestion …the suspicion…may not be sufficiently high enough …has been linked …  raise the possibility …may … have not been fully clarified … has not been evaluated.

I agree.

I think quite soon the registered dieticians of the world will suddenly snap out of their curse of the mummy approach to nutrition, unravel their blinding bandages and start denouncing vegan diets while eating a leg of lamb with their bare hands. I just can’t wait. But it’s not for today.

In the mean time, smarty pants people like Chris Kresser and Chris Masterjohn have written about this study with much greater expertise and brain power than I ever could, so, I won’t even try to explain it better. In his blog post, which you must read if you want to be able to explain the thing to your own mother in-law, Masterjohn exposes the following confounder (of which there are dozens):

Adjusting for body weight, this is like a human eating a thousand steaks per day. This is beyond the capacity of even the most die-hard meat-lovers.

Well, maybe not Jimmy Moore (Oh, c’mon, I KID Jimmy). This of course got me to thinking…why didn’t the researchers come to the same conclusions as Masterjohn (and Kresser) and state the same points in their discussion? Why didn’t they express the same caveats and confounders? Why instead did they come to the conclusion that meat promotes heart disease? I think I know why.

On the last page of the paper, the researchers state:

Our studies reveal a new pathway potentially linking dietary red meat ingestion with atherosclerosis pathogenesis. The role of gut microbiota in this pathway suggests new potential therapeutic targets for preventing CVD.

Ahhhhhhhhhh. Medicines. New drugs. Big profits. Since the good Lord knows that people will keep eating red meat regardless of our brilliant findings, let’s just kill the gut bacteria with a new, powerful antibiotic and viola! Heart disease will vanish. Good thinking. Like a famous boxing trainer once said “Kill the body and the head will die.”

Titles of papers like this one:

Intestinal microbiota metabolism of l-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis

are the very fodder that the press love to pretzel into statments like:

EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it! Another Deadly Nail in the Coffin for Red Meat – and You! Eat Meat and Your Heart Will Die.

Both of the lead researchers have ties to big pharma by the by. How surprising.

And if after reading this blog post and all the links therein you still think eating meat will kill you, you can always enjoy Denise Minger’s mind on the matter of meat and heart health.

So there you have it. Now I have to go write a response to my doting mother in-law’s forthcoming email – I know it’s on the way. How shall I start it…

Dear Mom – thanks for the sweater. Of course it fits! Now, as for meat…

ADDITION: I neglected to add the Science Friday radio piece on this subject. After reading this and Chris Masterjohn’s blog, listen to the show. You’ll hear how biased – or clueless – the scientist being interviewed truly is.

Even more!

Or, do you just eat a lot when you’re seven feet tall? Think this is a dumb point to make?

When this young man walks into a room, does anyone think “Wow – that is one tall kid! He must be eating too much!”

No. Of course not. We know that he has a hormonal disorder. And yes, he eats more food than a five foot tall kid of the same age. But he didn’t grow to be seven feet tall because he stuffed his face with excess calories.

But when an obese kid (or adult) walks into a room, does anyone think “Wow – that is one obese person! He must be eating too much!”

Yes. Everyone does.

And while in most cases the obese person is eating more than a lean person, just like the super tall person eats more than the normal sized person, the cause of the excess intake is the same – a hormonal disorder.

Fat gain is the cause of obesity – not caloric consumption.

Obesity is a hormonal issue – not a numbers issue. Repeat after Gary Taubes – It’s biology, not physics.

Food for thought.

As many of you already know, strength training produces many positive health benefits including but not limited to increased strength, endurance, muscle and bone mass, decreased blood pressure, body fat, risk of injury and falls. Recently, research has revealed that strength training improves cognitive function and reverses certain genetic markers of aging. No longer is lifting weights just something you do to make your muscles bigger. We now know for sure that it makes you smarter and younger!

At my strength studio, we have always advocated two weekly strength training sessions for best results. Research seems to bear this out time and time again. One weekly session does indeed provide good benefits, but not as good as two for the vast majority of people I have trained over the past 25 years (25? Sheesh).

Below is a table sent to me from my friend Dr. Wayne Westcott. Dr. Westcott is one of the countries foremost experts in exercise science. He just completed a large scale study involving over 1600 subjects comparing 1,2 and 3 strength training sessions a week over a 10 week period. His training methods are very similar to ours – 20-30 minute sessions, single sets, slow repetition speed continued to total muscle exhaustion or as we describe it “muscular success.”

Table 2: Baseline to Post Test Changes (M±SD) by Training Frequency

1XWk Group                          2XWk Group                   3XWk Group

(n=81)                                   (n=845)                                 (n=693)

Values that significantly differ (p<.05) are denoted by different superscripts.

As you can see, 2 weekly training sessions produced significantly better gains in lean weight than one session a week (3lbs. vs. <1lbs.) and better losses in fat mass.  Note that three strength sessions a week did not produce better gains in lean tissue. More exercise is not always better!

And though 3 weekly sessions did produce better fat loss than 2 sessions a week, since diet was not part of the study, we cannot attribute any amount of fat loss with the training. It may have had an effect, but the added fat loss could not have been caused by the few extra calories burned in a 20 minute strength session since most of the energy used when exercising come from stored muscle glycogen and not body fat. And even if it was pure fat being used, the math just doesn’t add up. It could just have well been continued preoccupation, meaning, they didn’t eat as many sugary, fat promoting foods since they were exercising.

Benefits to blood pressure were statistically equal for all groups. That’s nice to see!

So it behooves you to try and squeeze in two weekly strength sessions for best overall results. This is one reason why we created the Serious Strength Lite, 15 minute strength training session at our studio. Short, but really sweet. A little can go a long way. Even training 3 times in a two week period will benefit you to a greater degree than one session a week.

Now go get strong! Your thoughts?

Here we go again. Yet another nutritional “scientist” claiming that carbohydrates are the main source of fuel for the body and a required macronutrient. Sigh.

In this incredibly frustrating and full-of-baloney video, we hear scientist Bridget Benelam say, right from the get go:

I’m going to talk about carbohydrate and why it is an important nutrient for our bodies.

Important? Really? Are you sure there Bridget?

Let’s take a look at what the DRI’s (dietary reference intake devised by the National Institute of Health) have to say about carbohydrate:

The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.

This is a very biased and convoluted statement.

But before I explain that, we can see carbohydrate is NOT an important nutrient since we don’t need any of it at all.

It would on the other hand be correct to say that fat and protein are important nutrients since we need a certain amount of both to live. But how can carbohydrate be an important nutrient when we can do without it? Important = required. Unimportant = not required. Am I wrong?

As I mentioned, the statement is deeply biased to begin with. Since adequate amounts of protein and fat must be consumed to survive and thrive, in their absence a boat load of carbs won’t do you much good. You still need the fat and protein. So why say “provided that…”?

The next sentence reads:

However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal health in humans is unknown.

It is also unknown what “optimal health” is in the first place. The bias in favor of carbs appears to be everywhere.

I posted a comment on the You Tube page of the video (as did a few other well-educated folks that I know) and they have yet to post them. They won’t of course. It’s not nice to ruin pretty stock-notions with cruel and ugly facts.

OK I can hear what your thinking – there are exceptions to this Fred! Some people need dietary carbs. Yes, it appears that athletes who deplete their stores of muscular glycogen very rapidly and deeply (high intensity efforts like sprinting, mixed martial arts, etc. can do this) require some dietary carbs in order to rapidly replenish their intramuscular glycogen stores so that they can continue to train like maniacs.

Most of these athletes are, in my opinion, wildly over training. But far be it from me to tell them or their coaches how to train (ahem). BTAIM (be that as it may),  for the vast majority of people who are performing high intensity resistance training and other sports to improve their strength and health, there is no need to worry about too low muscle glycogen levels. Nuh uh.

Rather than focusing on carb intake as the USDA and other organizations would have you do, focus instead on getting in your protein requirements which can be found here. Always add a nice array of green, leafy, non-starchy vegetables and/or seasonal fruits to your proteins. Eat like this and you’ll be lean, strong, energetic and you’ll sing good too!

There is some pretty convincing evidence that post workout protein intake improves muscle recovery and growth. This is just one of many research studies that support the notion of taking in a good protein potion before and after your workouts.

I’ve certainly seen and felt a difference in my body doing so.

Over the years I and my blender (bought for me by my loving troupe of trainers) have been best buds. We’ve mixed and blended all sorts of concoctions to see what sort of he-man building brew we could come up with. But more than just my interest in muscle growth and recovery, I have also been interested in reducing systemic inflammation.

My laboratory

As many of you who read my blog know, I have had the unfortunate luck of intermittent but often terrible arthritic knee pain which resulted in a partial knee replacement two years ago which I am happy to say, was a total success. But the process was something I never want to go through again.

So in my efforts to keep the other knee free from such medieval butchery (as Dr. McCoy would call it), I’ve tested and tried all kinds of anti-inflammatory agents. Some worked, some didn’t.

Anyhow, I thought I’d share with you my current muscle building/recovery/anti-inflammatory concoction. And don’t worry – there is no wolves-bane or eyes of a newt included. And it’s only mildly flammable. But to be safe, keep it away from your Bunsen burner.

Here’s how to make it:

Fill a blender with 18 ounces of water. Mix in:

• 1 scoop (30 grams) of your favorite protein powder. I use a product that contains both whey and casein for immediate and long term protein uptake. I weigh 170 pounds. Use more or less depending on your size. Refer to my last blog Protein: How Much You Need and Why.
• 1 tsp glutamine powder. Glutamine is good for the gut lining and for facilitating nitrogen metabolism which is essential for building muscle.
• One scoop (5 grams) of creatine. I’ll be honest – the research is mixed. Some research shows that creatine monohydrate aids strength production and recovery and some say it doesn’t do diddly. Nowadays its pretty inexpensive so I include it.
• One scoop of Critical Aminos (berry flavor). It adds all the essential amino acids and offsets the yucky flavor (to me at least) of…
• A dropper full of tumeric. Tumeric has been used for billions of years as an anti-inflammatory agent. OK not billions but thousands. And while there is not a lot of convincing scientific evidence, I can tell you it helped me when I started to use the liquid form of it in my shakes. And it’s not expensive.
• A teaspoon of cinnamon. Makes the shake taste super yummy and is considered an powerful anti-inflammatory/anti-viral agent.  Also cheap.
• A 1/2 teaspoon of leucine. Leucine is an essential amino acid that is thought to aid muscle recovery and growth. My co-authors Drs. Eades discuss this in their book The 6 Week Cure for the Middle Aged Middle. (NOT an affiliate link).
• A tablespoon of MCT oil or coconut oil. Fat helps the absorption of nutrients.
• A drop (1,000 IUs) of vitamin D liquid.
• A dropper (serving size) of green tea liquid extract).  It is thought that the polyphenols in green tea might be able to prevent inflammation and swelling, protect cartilage between the bones, and lessen joint degeneration.
• 1 scoop of collagen peptide. This product is great for achy joints. Read the description on the link and you’ll probably want to bathe in it.
• 1 scoop MSM powder. MSM is for, well, read here. Good stuff.

Mix it up and drink it down after a short but sweetly intense Slow Burn workout.

I’d love to hear your experiences with this.

NOTE: This elixir is intended for people who are weight training. It may also be beneficial for those who are not but it’s probably overkill on the amino acids. I’m not saying its dangerous. It just might be a waste of your hard earned cash.

And since I have to say it, consult with your doctor before taking these products because your head might pop off and you might wake up with tentacles and flippers where you once had arms and legs.

Protein is the major structural component of every cell in the human body. The word “protein” is thought to come from the Greek word proteios which means “the first quality.” Protein is a very important dietary nutrient and many people do not eat adequate amounts of it or the most nutritious forms of it on a consistent basis. This is not such a good idea as you’ll learn shortly.

Of all the foods that contain protein, animal protein (like those pictured above) are the only sources that provide all of the essential amino acids (EAA) and in their proper ratios. This is not a debatable issue. It is a fact.

Essential Amino Acids
EAAs are used throughout the body to repair and build muscle as well as other cells and tissues. They function as enzymes, and hormones that control and regulate many of the body’s critical functions. These little powerhouses cannot be synthesized (created) by your body and therefore must be supplied in the diet.

While non-animal protein foods like beans, broccoli, etc. contain protein, they do not, as I stated before, contain all of the essential amino acids or in their proper ratios. Because of this, it is vitally important that you make sure you are getting your daily protein minimums to meet your EAA needs from animal sources. If you don’t eat enough protein, your body will eat its own muscle tissue to make up for the shortfall – the heart muscle too!

The Protein Intake Chart

Take a look at the chart above. It gives you your daily protein needs in grams and ounces to help you figure your individual minimum (EAA) and maximum (GNG) protein needs by body weight. This chart is designed specifically for those people who are over fat or obese and not exercising.

For example, if you are a 160 pound man or woman, you should aim to take in about 69 to 82 grams of protein which equates to 10 to 12 ounces from whatever choice of animal protein you prefer. If you look at the protein sources list below, you’ll see it’s pretty easy to accomplish this. Remember that animal protein sources contain all the EAA’s and in their proper ratios, so if you eat the minimum protein for your weight (EAA column) from animal based foods (meat, poultry, game, fish, eggs, cheese), you’re off to a good start.

If you perform strength training exercises (and you should be!) and especially if you want to build  a good deal of muscle,  you’ll need a bit more protein but not much more. If you have, say,  10+ more pounds of muscle than the typical person or want to build it, bump yourself up to a higher body weight level. So if you weigh 160 pounds, follow the recommended protein intake for a 170 pound person. Best thing is to shoot for one gram of protein per pound of body weight if you’re lean.

The GNG column on the chart is the maximum amount of protein you should eat if fat loss is your primary goal. GNG stands for gluconeogenesis which is the process of converting digested proteins into blood sugar (glucose). All humans require about 150 grams of glucose per day for a healthy, functioning nervous system. You can get this by eating 150 grams of carbohydrate per day or via gluconeogenesis (GNG) or a combo of the two.

On a properly formulated low carbohydrate diet (see the menu below) which is shown in numerous research papers to be a smart approach for shedding excess fat and for improving overall health, GNG supplies you with all the glucose your brain and nervous system needs. So strive to take in enough protein to meet your GNG requirements. If you exceed GNG, that’s OK. It’s certainly nothing to worry about. However, falling under your EAA needs is a whopping no-no for everybody.

Here’s a list of animal foods that will give you an idea of the choices you can make to eat to meet your protein requirements:

Beef
• Hamburger patty, 4 oz – 28 grams protein
• Steak, 6 oz – 42 grams
• Most cuts of beef – 7 grams of protein per oz

Chicken
• Chicken breast, 3.5 oz – 30 grams protein
• Chicken thigh – 10 grams (for average size)
• Drumstick – 11 grams
• Wing – 6 grams
• Chicken meat, cooked, 4 oz – 35 grams

Fish
• Most fish fillets or steaks are about 22 grams of protein for 3 ½ oz (100 grams) of cooked fish, or 6 grams per oz
• Tuna, 6 oz can – 40 grams of protein

Pork
• Pork chop, average – 22 grams protein
• Pork loin or tenderloin, 4 oz – 29 grams
• Ham, 3 oz serving – 19 grams
• Ground pork, 1 oz raw – 5 grams; 3 oz cooked – 22 grams
• Bacon, 1 slice – 3 grams

Eggs and Dairy
• Egg, large – 6 grams protein
• Cottage cheese, ½ cup – 15 grams
• Yogurt, 1 cup – usually 8-12 grams, check label
• Soft cheeses (Mozzarella, Brie, Camembert) – 6 grams per oz
• Medium cheeses (Cheddar, Swiss) – 7 or 8 grams per oz
• Hard cheeses (Parmesan) – 10 grams per oz

Below is a sample day’s menu (hat tip to the brilliant Regina Wilshire for this) for an average sized person (160 pounds). It contains ALL of the micronutrients you need and in their proper ratios. Smaller people would reduce the amount of eggs, chicken, and shrimp in the meals. Again, refer to the protein chart to determine your specific needs.

Breakfast: Florentine Omelet made with 2-3 large eggs, 1/4 cup cooked spinach, 2 slices bacon and 2 tablespoons feta cheese, cooked in butter.

Lunch: Chicken Caesar Salad made with 2 cups shredded romaine, 6 cherry tomatoes, 1/2 sliced medium cucumber, 1 cup grilled chicken breast diced, 1 tablespoon ground flax seeds, 1 ounce macadamia nuts chopped (in place of croutons for the crunch), 1/2 avocado sliced and creamy Caesar (wheat and flour free) dressing.

Dinner: Salad made with 1 cup shredded romaine, 3 cherry tomatoes, 4 sliced cucumber, 1TBS shredded carrots, 1TBS shredded red cabbage, topped with creamy dressing. Shrimp Scampi made with 6-ounces cooked shrimp, sautéed in butter, garlic and herbs (oregano, basil and parsley), with 12 sliced baby zucchini and a side dish of 3/4 cup cooked spinach. Healthy additions to salads are sea vegetables like Nori, dulse, etc.

The above menu is just a sample of course. Make substitutions to the food choices listed using the types of foods that you prefer. That said you shouldn’t substitute your lamb chops for spinach or vice versa. You must make substitutions using the same types of foods – meats for meats, veggies and fruits for veggies and fruits.

Don’t Fear Fat
And in case you’re worried about how much fat and cholesterol there is in this diet, don’t be. Cholesterol and saturated fats are actually essential to your good health. There is virtually no scientific evidence to support the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol are detrimental to your health or that when you eat fat and cholesterol they make a beeline directly into your arteries and stick there. In fact the opposite is true – we need these very important substances. All the negative information you hear about saturated fat and cholesterol spewing from the mouths of experts like Dr. Oz, Dr. Ornish and others of their misinformed ilk are largely unsubstantiated.

In fact, a 2010 meta-analysis (meaning a compilation of many studies on the subject) conducted by Ronald Krauss M.D. (one of the country’s leading nutritional researchers) and his team titled “Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease,” concluded the following:

“A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”

Not only did the researchers not find any direct evidence, there wasn’t even an association! The idea that animal fats are unhealthy is baloney (I just had to say that). It’s hype and marketing to scare you into buying loads of fake, non-fat, low cholesterol foods – the real contributors to heart disease. Don’t buy it or buy into it.

So to sum it all up, to maximize health, fat loss and muscle and bone strength, make sure you at least meet your minimum protein requirements via animal sources and try your darnedest to take in all the protein you need.

Popeye was wrong – that should be meat coming out of that can!

Kathleen Hays

I’m thrilled and honored to announce that my client (and friend) former CEO of AIG and CEO of Starr International Maurice “Hank” Greenberg and I will be appearing on Bloomberg Radio’s show The Hays Advantage hosted by one of top-rated financial journalists and broadcasters in the nationKathleen Hays on February 12th at 2 PM.

We’ll be discussing why and how exercise, specifically strength training, can help improve a business’s bottom line by making people healthier and more energetic. Engaging in regular strength training reduces the chance of debilitating illnesses, chronic low back and neck pain, obesity, diabetes and many other ailments that often cost companies mucho dinero each and every year.

I’ll be providing some statistics that will hopefully convince companies that investing in their employees health and strength is well worth the money spent. And it requires just 30 minutes a week of a person’s time. Heck, it can be accomplished on an employee’s break time!

There will also be discussions about AIG and other business issues related to one of the greatest CEO’s in American history. A full hour of fantastic listening will be in store for you! You’ll be able to Tweet in questions and possibly email them as well.

I hope you tune in. Please share!

The purveyor of the potato/starch diet, John McDougall M.D., strikes again with more starchy gobbledy-gook nonsense about low carb/paleo diets.

There is so much to dissect and render inert in his article that it may take me three parts to accomplish the task. Perhaps I can lick it in two. But whether it takes two or twenty parts, lick it I will. I sure ain’t no Denise Minger, but I just can’t let this guy get away with such nonsense. His misinformation must not go un-blogged. (BTW, after you read this blog, DO go back and read Denise’s wonderful dissection of the China Study. Have coffee in hand.)

OK, now, I know the doctor means well. I know he wants the best for his patients. I know that deep down inside he truly feels he’s Dr. PotatoMan to the rescue. The question is, is he willing to concede and admit that the majority of the information in the article in question is in error? Can a man like Dr. McDougall take it on the chin and reverse his position stand on paleo/low carb nutrition?

I hate to say it but I seriously doubt it. He’s got too much invested in it already to say “I’ve been wrong.” And as we all know this is typical of many doctors and experts in the nutritional field like Dean Ornish, Caldwell Esselstyn, T. Colin Campbell, Joel Fuhrman, etc. who spew forth more nutritional misinformation than the wind passed at a bean festival.

But we can hope, right?

I know that a lot of people reading this will think “But Fred – who cares about Dr. McWho? He’s not even on the radar screen of most people.” But it seems to me that when you let these unknowns go unassailed, they wind up on Dr. Oz and the world follows their every syllable. Given what Dr. McDougall is uttering, that can’t be allowed to happen!

Alrighty then, let’s get to it. Dr. McDougall states the following:

Low-carbohydrate (low-carb) diets are fueling the destruction of human health and our planet Earth. “Low-carbohydrate” means a diet high in animal foods and low in plant foods. Only plants synthesize carbohydrates (sugars). The body parts of animals, including red meat, poultry, seafood, and fish, and eggs, contain no carbohydrates. Animal secretions (like mammalian milk) contain sugars synthesized by plants (the cow eats the grass that made the sugar). The original Atkins Diet is the ultimate in low-carb eating. This diet works by starving the human body of carbohydrates in order to induce a state of illness (ketosis), which can result in weight loss. People become too sick to eat too much.

Wowee. Where does one begin? And this is just the very first paragraph!

OK sportsfans, how exactly does tossing the bun off your burger or saying “No thanks” to the bread basket at your favorite restaurant equate to fueling the destruction of human health?

But of course his point is that attempting to feed every single human being on earth enough daily grams of quality animal protein per day would have us seeing cows and chickens roaming the highways and bi-ways of the earth and sleeping next to you in your bed. Of course this is nonsense. Truth is, there’s plenty of seafood in the sea (as long as we stop polluting it) as well as larva and insects for us all. A lobster is nothing but a giant sea bug right? Even the bible says (Leviticus 11:22) it’s OK to eat all kinds of bugs:

These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.

Ya hear that?! And luckily, no where in the Bible does it forbid us to fry them in coconut oil and/or drizzle them with dark chocolate! And there’s plenty of these little suckers to go around - trillions of them in fact – especially come plague time.

The largest known swarm covered 513,000 km², comprising approximately 12.5 trillion insects and weighing 27.5 million tons.

And that’s just the locusts. We can eat all the crickets and beetles too.

Like idiots, we try to wipe these little high quality protein morsels out of existence in order to save crops of soy and corn – the very foods that are arguably a strong contributor to what makes us fat and diabetic. I think we have our heads screwed on backwards.

I say, let the little fiends feast on the fields. Let them land on the crops and allow them to sink their little mandibles in for a minute or two. Let them think they’re in like Flynn. Then, when they’re not looking, BAM! We gather them up and feed the world! We’d have to develop some kind of giant whale-like, baleen aircraft to scoop them all up at swarm time. Then we put all 70 trillion of them into a huge machine that mashes them all up and makes locust loaves and cricket cakes out of them.

Why, I daresay I think I just cured world hunger.

OK sure – it might seem gross to eat such things, but soy burgers and tempeh cakes are pretty gross too. Blah. Give me a katydid crisp drizzled with milk chocolate any day. And for those of you who believe that the bible is the one, true word of God, seems to me eating animal matter is pretty OK:

These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Of all that are in the waters you may eat these: whatever has fins and scales you may eat. You may eat all clean birds.

And this is just for the Jews. Non-Jews can eat a host of other things like animals that died naturally, pigs, camels and other animals that do not cheweth the cud. So if meat was so bad for us, why would God himself screw it up?

I’m jumping around the article like a grasshopper here, but McDougall states at the end of his article:

Dr. Cordain finishes his 2011 revision of his national best-selling book The Paleo Diet by warning, “Without them (starches, like wheat, rice, corn, and potatoes), the world could probably support one-tenth or less of our present population…” (p 215) Choose 10 close friends and family members. Which nine should die so that the Paleo people can have their uncivilized way?

Uncivilized? Pshaw. Here Dr. McDougall misses the point entirely. Even if it were true that the world could not survive eating mostly animals, its overpopulation that is the problem, not an animal-based diet. Personally, I am not going to eat like a gorilla and destroy my meat-oriented digestive system and watch my muscles wither away because there are currently too many people on the planet. No thank you very much.

Take a look at this paper. It’s mostly biased drivel, but go to page 490 or the third page. Look at the difference between the human small and large intestine and the other apes. Big difference wouldn’t you say?

But Dr. McDougall thinks we should be eating like them:

I know of no large populations of primates who have been strict vegans (ate no animal foods at all). However, plants have, with very few exceptions, provided the bulk of the calories for almost all primates.

And that exception is US. Humans. Homo Sapien Sapien.

Second, a low carb diet is not, as Dr. McDougall states, low in plant food. It’s low in grain “food” tis true. But this statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a paleo/low carb diet is. Not even the Atkins Diet save for the first two weeks of the induction phase limits non-starchy plant foods.

McDougall says: “only plants synthesize carbohydrates (sugars).” Hmm. This statement confused me so much it made me look up the word synthesize to make sure I wasn’t losing my mind. Synthesize means to “produce.” OK. So, what’s the point of this statement I wonder? Why does it matter? Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Dr. McDougall states the obvious when he says that the body parts of animals don’t contain carbohydrates.) Well, they do a little.) But again, so what? He seems to think that carbohydrates are necessary in the human diet when they are not. The are, in fact, the only nonessential macronutrient for humans.

He says that the Atkins diet is the ultimate low carb diet. I don’t think so. I think the traditional Inuit got Atkins beat by a mile. Nary a leaf or a fruit is found in their world.

And now for the kicker:

“This diet (referring to Atkins) works by starving the human body of carbohydrates in order to induce a state of illness (ketosis), which can result in weight loss. People become too sick to eat too much.”

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Moses.

He means ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis and ketosis are not the same thing. Says Dr. Peter Attia:

Ketoacidosis (DKA) is a pathologic (i.e., harmful) state that results from the complete or near absence of insulin. This occurs in the setting of type 1 diabetes or very end-stage type 2 diabetes, and often as the result of a physiologic insult (e.g., an infection) where the patient is not receiving sufficient insulin to bring glucose into their cells. A person with a normal pancreas, regardless of how long they fast (including the fellow I reference above who fasted for 382 days!) or how much they restrict carbohydrates, can not enter DKA because even a trace amount of insulin will keep B-OHB levels below about 7 or 8 mM, well below the threshold to develop the pathologic acid-base abnormalities associated with DKA. Let me reiterate, it is physiologically impossible to induce DKA in anyone that does not have T1D or very, very, very late-stage T2D with pancreatic “burnout.”

And in case you’re wondering, this is not a question of which doctor is right. It’s a question of fact. And McDougall has got his facts wrong. I love getting the chance to insert this quote:

Here’s what’s actually so. Dr. Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D., has done countless amounts of research focused on physiological adaptations to low carbohydrate diets with emphasis on outcomes related to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Here is what he says:

When you reduce your carbohydrate intake significantly – typically to less than 50 to 75 grams per day -you enter a metabolic state known as ketosis. Ketosis is a term used to describe the NORMAL process of using ketones for energy. Ketones aren’t bad. They’re actually a fat breakdown product. That is, whenever fat is burned, ketones are created. So they’re always present in the body.

On a high carb diet, your body uses glucose, the simplest form of carbohydrates, as its primary fuel. But when glucose isn’t readily available to your body for energy your body begins burning fat at an accelerated rate, producing more ketones. These ketones are really just storage units, holding the excess energy that’s produced from the rapid breakdown of fat so that it can be used later as fuel. As ketone levels rise, your body’s reliance on glucose decreases.

In the simplest terms, ketosis is just a shift from using carbohydrates (glucose) as the body’s main energy source, to using fat (ketones). It’s NOT a dangerous condition; it’s simply your body adjusting to your diet so that it’s using the most efficient form of fuel.

Unfortunately many health professionals believe ketosis to be a dangerous metabolic condition. Why? Because over a hundred years ago, physicians discovered an overabundance of ketones in the urine of diabetics who were unable to control their disease. Naturally, the association of high levels of ketones with poorly controlled diabetes led to negative views of ketones. The high level of ketones in diabetics was given the name diabetic hyperketoacidosis (now known simply as diabetic ketoacidosis).

Diabetic ketoacidosis, which represents extremely high levels of ketones, is a life-threatening state that can occur in type-1 diabetics who aren’t treating their condition appropriately. While diabetic ketoacidosis is serious, the mere presence of ketones is not. The point here is that sometimes a lot of something causes problems, but a little can be advantageous. Sort of like your heart beating 300 times a minute might be bad, but your heart beating 60 times a minute is ideal – and certainly better than not at all. Now consider: the ketone levels in people with diabetic ketoacidosis are 8 times higher than those following a low carb diet.

Interestingly, ketones have many benefits. In fact, they may be the perfect fuel for dieters. Since ketones spare the use of carbohydrates for energy, they prevent the protein from your muscles from being broken down and converted to glucose. And that ensures that the calories you’re burning are far more likely to be fat, compared to typical diets where muscle loss almost always accompanies fat loss. Ketones also suppress your appetite. Research shows that increased levels of a compound called betahydroxybutyrate – the primary ketone in the blood -act as a satiety signal , meaning that it tells your brain that you’re full.

Of course, the other knock on ketosis is that even if it burns fat faster, it deprives your brain of glucose, reducing your mental capacity. However, your brain only requires a small amount of glucose, which can be met through gluconeo-genesis, the process of converting protein to glucose. Although not high in protein, by it’s nature a low-carb diet provides ample incoming protein. So there’s plenty available for the small amount of glucose that your brain needs, without having to breakdown muscle. In addition, encouraging new research from National Institutes of Health scientist Richard Veech MD, PhD, has found that ketones may help both your brain and heart run 25 percent more efficiently.

So as you can see, Dr. McDougall is sorely mistaken. Nutritional ketosis is not only not harmful, but a natural and beneficial state to be in. This is not a matter of one mans opinion vs. anothers. This is a matter of fact vs. fiction.

In part II we’ll tackle the other nonsense remarks about low carb/paleo diets that Dr. McDougall makes. Stay tuned and stay ketotic!