Blog moving...

Blog being transferred to www.sb-pt.co.uk

Please update any links you have

Many thanks,

Steve.

Read more »

All red meat bad for health...whatever!

Ok so I have read and listened to a news report about "red meat being bad for your health". Other news headlines on google are saying "all red meat bad for health". Apparently one small piece of stead will give me a 13% greater chance of dying....really? Here are a few of my thoughts based on the limited info presented by the media....

• The study was apparently based on people in the states, that's right a place where some people may have poor food choices. And a place where for many years grains, flour, and sugar have been the foundation of our "diets".

• They mention a correlation between eating red meats particularly processed meats and death rates from cancer and heart disease. The question should be what is in the processed meats that correlates with increased risk?

• Also note the word "correlation". Correlation does not mean "cause". There is a difference. Lots of things correlate to other things, the reality a correlation is just something we don't understand properly....that's why it is not a cause.

• So they state where meats were substituted for more veg there was definately a reduction in cancer and heart disease. So we could turn this story around and say eating more veg correlates with reduction in mortality from disease.

• Is it the lack of veg that correlates with increased risk of death, or the increased red meats or the increased processed meat consumption?

• The government advisors may have to take note of this research and change our recommendations. The lady on the news stated we should consider looking at eating more carbohydrates.....yes that is exactly what our government need to push even more. Just what have the government achieved with existing guidelines?

Looks tasty to me!

I am very interested to hear how many people approach me while I'm eating my beef or steak and tell me it is bad for me.

Anyway I was just about to post the above when I found the study, I am sure there will be others (Chris Beardlsey or Brett Contreras perhaps) who will do a better analysis of the study...or at least I hope and look forward to their insight in addition to the many other professionals with a good grasp of interpreting such info. Forgiving my somewhat rapid scan through the document here are a few of my initial thoughts...

• What is a time dependant Cox proportional hazards regression model? I googled it and when I saw this I thought "wow"....they use something like that to predict whether eating meat correlates with mortality

Estimations is exactly what this means!

• The study reports..."Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index" Did they not think the smoking had an influence? The lack of exercise perhaps?

•  Apparently adjusting the results (more maths no doubt) did not vary the results of adjusted for other foods or nutrients. The results were also adjusted to account for BMI, smoking and physical activity level....no doubt more maths that I do not understand.

• Even adjusting for "husbands educational level as a surrogate of socioeconomic static in women" (their words not mine!) did not change the results....what?

• Apparently the saturated fat and cholesterol from red meat may partially explain the association shown. I look forward to resuming where I left off in "The Great Cholesterol Con" book.

When studies were released showing no correlation why did these not get the publicity? Also it would be nice to look at mortality rates in people who ate more veg, ate meat, got their fish oils, and exercised regularly. Perhaps comparing these people to those in this study using whatever mathmatical formula may show some other correlation. Remember it is a correlation or an association not a cause.

For me I am going to carry on eating red meat. What you choose to do is up to you.



.

Read more »

Breakfast preparation

But i don't have time to prepare such food in the morning?
If you have time to prepare porridge or cereal you have time to prepare a nutritious breakfast.

Preparation is key.


The image below shows my little beef steaks placed into freezer bags. I take a couple out of the freezer the night before I want them. The pan takes about a minute to get to temperature, the steaks take less than a minute to cook. If I want some more for the day I can cook them also, it takes the same time to cook 4 as it does 1. While the pan is getting to temperature I mix my greens powder in water, add my fish oil and get a multi vitamin and  vitamin d3 pills down me with the greens drink. I add some nuts to the beef, eat it and that's breakfast done for one day.

Some things you may be wondering...

What is greens drink? A bit like powdered veg only more nutrient dense. Nutrients are the things you do not get in a bowl of frosties. It also makes my fish oil taste nicer in a grassy kind of way.

Why a multivitamin? Insurance policy against any I could be lacking.

Why fish oil? I have kind of answered this before on a previous blog. Basically there are so many benefits! Some countries even use it as a prescription following heart attacks, it can reduce depression and help with fat burning!

What is vitamin d3? The solution to not getting enough sun - and a very good one too! It improves bone health, skin health, blood sugar regulation and much much more.

So there it is - my quick breakfast, far better than any breakfast cereals fortified with stuff that was taken out in a factory. This is a breakfast that is packed with protein and healthy fats...just as quick as cereal and better for you! Enjoy.

Read more »

The influence of breakfast cereal

Most people will likely go for cereal to start their day. The cereal industry is big business, it makes billions. There are cereals marketed strategically at kids, adults and even the health conscious. Is it really as healthy as the marketing behind it makes out? If it is fortified with vitamins and minerals it must be good, surely? Have we become brainwashed into just having cereal for breakfast? Do we actually decide things for ourselves any more or are their other influences at play.

Speaking of influences think about this for a second...do you ever notice how colleagues and friends influence each other? Someone may present an opinion to you about something, yet after they speak to someone else they realise that their opinions are conflicting. On many occasions you may have noticed these people automatically dismiss their previous opinion in favour of the new one presented to them. Does anyone actually have their own opinions anymore? You may observe such interactions all around you, and in different situations we can be the influencer or the influenced, the opinion giver or the opinion thief.

Anyway getting back to our choice of breakfast cereal such marketing to sway opinions on what to buy is no doubt designed in such a way to remove any internal conflicts of opinion, or rather to create cognitive consonance through the sea of dissonance.

Imagine just for one second the struggle internally that many will have when someone suggests they have healthy fats in their diet, when they have been told fat makes them fat and should go for the "low-fat" labelled produce in the supermarket. They believe fat is bad and have done for many years yet are struggling with this new "fat is good" message. It really does need a convincing strategy for people to be swayed to take another path, the path less trodden perhaps...yet the correct path.

Blueberries - low carb, but what are those flakes underneath???

I do believe cereal advertising plays on our vulnerabilities slightly, think about the billions of money this industry makes. The advertisers know that you want something "healthy". Here a few such healthy slogans...

"Contains half the sugar of the average breakfast cereal"

"No artificial colours"

 "Low in saturated fat"

"High in fibre"

So rather than presenting you with an alternative breakfast which may be a little too far to go to create a state of consonance or peace within, they present a similar product yet with a slightly more persuasive message. Picture walking down the cereal aisle, you are looking at your usual "corn frosted flakes of sugar" and notice a new brand next to it stating it "contains half the sugar of the average breakfast cereal with added fructose from organic apples".

You have found a reason to go for this new cereal and can leave your loyal brand, it was tough but you know having less sugar is better for you...you can now have two bowls instead of one! You also think if it has stuff from fruits it must be good and count towards your five a day. The discomfort from switching cereals was relived by presenting the supposedly more healthy option. Personally I think it is all lies and would rather keep my own opinions, or is it the opinion of someone else that I choose to believe???!

I am not a psychologist nor do I claim to know a great deal about cognitive dissonance and marketing and advertising, it is something I read a very little about many months ago when I heard the phrase mentioned. I know so little about it I wont get any dissonance if someone tells me my interpretation is flawed.

A couple of facts about me...

1. I used to add sugar to frosties!

2. I could easily eat a box of cereal in a couple of days.

This wasn't cheap, and in conjunction with other poor food choices led to weight gain (spotted a few years back fortunately)...the adage of "can't out train a bad diet" was true.

The past few months about 95% of the time I have ditched oats for various reasons and have been eating alternative breakfasts. I will eat small beef steaks, salmon slices, macadamia nuts, cashew nuts or mixed seeds, scrambled eggs, fried eggs or boiled eggs, even bacon. I don't eat it all, but one or two of those usually end up in my morning menu. It was Charles Poliquins various posts around the meat and nut breakfast that influenced me, and I have to say it works! No more cereal for me!

Later in the week or maybe next week I will post an article around efficient preparation of foods, challenges to healthier eating and a little insight into my weekly menu.

Read more »

Book Review - Why We Get Fat

I have recently finished reading Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It by Gary Taubes. Before the cynics start - no I am not on a "diet", and I am not planning on losing any weight. This book really explores the controversy or should i say science around why we get fat.

Before I delve into this book I want to present an example to you from my precision nutrition studies:

A cross country skier was advised by their nutritionist to reduce calories to around 1400 per day (the majority of which were carbohydrates). The reason they got this advice was because they had to lose weight for an Olympic event. It was carbohydrate dominated because they apparently needed energy to fuel the body when training.

The problem was they only lost a couple of lbs of fat weight...for several weeks on a calorie restriction, it hardly seemed worth the starvation. In came the precision nutrition team with an increase in calories, around 1500 extra. Healthy fats and proteins were increased, carbohydrates on the whole were decreased. When they were consumed they were timed around training. Having consumed around an extra 1500 calories a day, and eating more fat the athlete lost around 23lbs of body fat in an equivalent time to the calorie restricted diet.

Why did I bring in an example from another source? Well quite simply because Gary does an excellent job in Why We Get Fat of turning the calorie hypothesis upside down, completely turning on its head the statement that "reducing calories causes weight loss" and he explains why.

 The contents for the book include:

Book I / Biology, Not Physics
1. Why Were They Fat
2. The Elusive Benefits of Undereating
3. The Elusive Benefits of Exercise
4. The Significance of Twenty Calories a Day
5. Why Me? Why There? Why Then?
6. Thermodynamics for Dummies, Part 1
7. Thermodynamics for Dummies, Part 2
8. Head Cases

Book II / Adiposity 101
9. The Laws of Adiposity
10. A Historical Digression on "Lipophilia"
11. A Primer on the Regulation of Fat
12. Why I Get Fat and You Don't (or Vice Versa)
13. What We Can Do
14. Injustice Collecting
15. Why Diets Succeed and Fail
16. A Historical Digression on the Fattening Carbohydrate
17. Meat or Plants?
18. The Nature of a Healthy Diet
19. Following Through

- Plus Why Do We Get Fat answers to frequently asked questions, a "No Sugar, No Starch" diet, and full reference list relating to the books contents for those who like to know more.



Some interesting areas and thoughts from the book...

Why Were They Fat

A number of populations or tribes were referred to. One fascinating or perhaps upsetting example of what our "western food" has done was the demise of the Pima tribe. They had an abundance of food, stores of it, could eat what they wanted and were not obese. Changes in their environment led to starvation, and ultimately government handouts (flour, sugar). Now the malnutrition and undernutrition coexisted alongside obesity. They ate less total food, introduced flour and sugar and put weight on.

Before you even question the activity levels let me tell you that the Pima women were the most physically active. Now you will probably think that they were eating a little extra on the side, maybe going unnoticed...like eating whilst watching TV, before you know it that whole tub of pringles has gone! That argument doesn't stand up also. Remember the cross country skier, training lots, eating less and no real change in results...the carbohydrate heavy (nutrient lacking) foods were not helping.

People were getting fat through malnutrition, not over feeding. Gary made this example clear quoting an article on a nutrition paradox (underweight and obese people coexisting)...obese mothers with thin, stunted young children. Do we really think that the mothers would deprive their young? I don't think so.

The Elusive Benefits of Undereating and The Elusive Benefits of Exercise

20,000 women eating a low fat diet with regular counselling and motivation consuming on average 360 calories a day less would cause weight loss. Would it? Over 8 years some pretty dramatic changes should take place. Right? Dramatic yes, but not good dramatic you see they only lost an average of 2 pounds each!!!

Training for a marathon would cause weight loss. Surely a substantial weight loss? All that training in the fat burning zone should cause many many lbs to drop off. Not quite. 18 men, completing 18 months of training and running a marathon at the end lost an average of 5lbs body fat. One massive effort for little return!

Thermodynamics for Dummies

- We don't get fat because we overeat, we overeat because we get fat.

- Rats put on a diet get even fatter than rats that could eat when they want.

Profound statements, yet Gary justifies these well. Think about it, if you are starved your body will get energy from itself, yes even that lean muscle tissue you worked so hard to gain. Your body is lacking in essential nutrients used for many hundreds of enzymatic reactions (even fat burning will be compromised), all of which need to be working to optimise our internal engine. With the rats they still remained fat despite losing the very parts of their bodies they needed...some survival mechanism! Harsh!

It is the regulation of fat tissue that makes a lean person obese...something must drive the regulation of course.

A Primer on the Regulation of Fat

Gary makes it clear that we use fats for energy. However your body in the presence of higher blood sugar (carbohydrates) will use this first for energy so that it can bring blood sugar back down. So eating lots of carbs limits your ability to take energy from the fat cells.

Insulin helps the body keep up with the rise in blood sugar. You will release a little now even thinking about food, I apologise it is probably making you hungry. Insulin tells your body to increase the speed at which it can take glucose from the blood for storage in cells and energy use. Our fat cells as Gary puts it basically act as a temporary savings account, we can take money out and we can put it back. Insulin will also direct this storage of fat (and make sure we get protein to the right places too).

One enzyme called LPL is heavily influenced by insulin. Insulin makes LPL more active on fat cells, LPL encourages storage of fat therefore in the fat cells. Insulin will also reduce activity of a hormone called HSL. HSL breaks down fat in the cells to allow it to enter our bloodstream and be used as energy.  So with increased insulin, HSL is not working and fat is trapped in our cells. Not only that but LPL sends more fat to the cells. Insulin also sends more glucose to the cells by turning on little pumps. When these fat cells get full insulin works to create more!

Gary Taubes makes it simple - "Insulin works to make us fatter"

Some other useful snippets of information...

• Fruit may not be as good for you as you are led to believe. Biochemists 40 years ago referred to fructose as the carbohydrate we convert to fat most readily.
• Green leafy vegetables are absolutely awesome things to eat, get liking them.
• Healthy fats are a must, you need this fat to burn fat.
• Populations across the world add flour and sugar to their diets and diseases ("western diseases") appear
• Gary states that governments have got it wrong - telling everyone to go low fat was thought to reduce heart disease, a problem they felt was caused by eating fats and getting fat. That's why people go for low fat, which usually means high carb. Actually replacing fat with carbohydrates increases risk markers for having a heart attack - the good cholesterol actually goes down.
• Eating fats and proteins has been shown to reduce blood pressure, increase good cholesterol, reduce heart attack risk, lose weight.
• The more insulin we are exposed to the more resistant we become, and therefore require even more to be released. This means more fat and other problems.
• Sugar is addictive like cocaine, nicotine and heroin.
• The Atkins diet maybe isn't as bad as you may think (although the whole concept of dieting is flawed I believe)

Lower our insulin levels and secrete less insulin. People have known this for years. There is much stigma still associated with fats and proteins. If people see me eating protein they assume I am "bulking up", yet I maintain a relatively steady 74kg. If people see me eating veg or salad products they assume I am trying to "lose weight", yet I maintain a steady 74kg. If I had a bottle of coke, a chocolate bar and bowl of pasta they would not say a word for this has been accepted as the norm, yet is likely why peoples health is in such a bad state.

I recall reading something earlier in the week, only i forget where...those who repeatedly restrict "calories" following diets will always end up getting hungrier every year when they leave the diet. The more they cycle on and off diets, the hungrier they will get. Remember my initial example about the skier -  eating more quality food allowed their body to let go of its fat stores, assuming a reduction in carbohydrates and only eating them after training.

I recommend, Gary Taubes: Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It for anyone who wants to know the whats, whys and wheres of fat loss.

Read more »

Upper back mobility

Several years ago I never really cared much for upper back mobility, gave no consideration for it in exercise programming in my own training or that of others.

How times have changed. It is now a staple part of programs I write and something I work on frequently. If you want to prevent shoulder pain or even lower back pain I reccomend taking note of what I present below.

What causes poor upper back mobility?

Many of us spend our days sat down, hunched over the car steering wheel, computer or in front of the tv. As we are early in the year many of you have probably been doing your yearly quota of sit ups to "remove belly fat"....which it won't do by the way! Our body tends to adopt the postures it experiences most often, they become habits and we all know habits are tough to break. Our spines end up more flexed than they should be or at least forget how to extend and rotate. I am referring specifically to the upper back, or the thoracic spine.

Poor posture...

Why do I need upper back mobility and how will this influence my gym training?

Quite simply to improve performance in sport, lift more weight, reduce injury risk when lifting, breath more, have less shoulder pain and even have a bigger chest. Here are a few bullet points...

• Stuart McGill (2002) Low Back Disorders references data from White and Panjabi (1978) Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. The data indicates rotation of the upper back to be around 72 degrees total between T1-2 and T11-12. The lower back has around 15 degrees rotation from L5-S1 to T12-L1 vertebrae. Many people seem to train to increase lower back mobility, when they should really focus on upper back and hip mobility. If you play golf this will likely help you avoid injury.

• A slouched upper back compresses our breathing mechanism so we don't get as much oxygen in. I know some of you will try this now...slouch forwards (rounded upper back), and breathe in....hold it there...now straighten up and breathe the rest of the air in. We need oxygen to survive, lets not stop it getting into our bodies.

• If we can extend our upper back we can press overhead without arching our lower back. I have been working on this a lot lately, my colleague noticed my tendency to arch from the lower back. Having filmed my overhead barbell press recently I am happy I know how the better posture feels and can get there comfortably.

•If we cannot extend our upper back to press overhead the chances are we will not actually be pressing overhead, more like just in front of the head. That is not good for the shoulder joint. Slouch forwards and you will notice you can not get those arms overhead....not a good place to be pressing weights to. Anyone had any niggling shoulder pains lately? Because you may be restricted here your body can compensate by increasing lumbar spine extension (lower back)....again not a good solution. It kind of resembles an incline bench press whilst standing up.

• Improved mobility of the upper back can increase the recruitment of key back muscles, this means we may actually look better when standing as we will not be stuck with poor posture (shoulders forwards, rounded upper back) and people will see the muscular chest you have been working on as  a nice side effect. You will also squat better too....that is a good thing.

Note: Other factors obviously come into play here, tightness in chest and anterior shoulders and even the lats can influence posture.

So what exercises can I do for my upper back mobility?

A few of my favourites include thoracic extensions on the foam roller, kneeling thoracic rotations, and side lying windmills. If you see me in the gym just ask and I will show you, or if you would like to see a good video of either of these just let me know.

Pick a couple as part of your warm up, or even sequence one on rest periods between exercises. Or for better results add them in as part of your daily exercise fix....you do have one right?

Read more »

Does nutrient intake influence our appetite?

I have been doing a lot of reading lately specifically in relation to nutrition as it relates to fat loss. I came across a suggestion that maybe our appetite is somehow influenced by our nutrient intake. Let us take nutrients as the vitamins and minerals we need to survive, I should really include proteins and fats in with this as they all work together. What if poor nutrient quality or intake from processed artificial foods somehow drives us to eat more? What if the sugar content and inadequate healthy fat content are somehow influencing our cells ability to absorb and utilise what nutrients it can find? Perhaps many processed artificial foods dense in energy are actually lacking in nutrients?

<><> <><> <><>

Looks dull and plain = little benefit for the body

In a study titled: A high-protein diet induces sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and ghrelin concentrations, Weigle et al, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005 the researchers looked at the influence of substituting dietary fat for increased protein, whilst keeping carbohydrates constant amongst all trials. They found that increasing the protein intake corresponded with increased satiety levels. Increasing dietary protein from 15-30% of energy and maintaining a constant carbohydrate intake (same as control group who had less protein), and allowing participants to eat when they wanted resulted in a reduced caloric intake, and weight loss.

It is likely if calories were reduced, carbohydrates were also reduced – it is this reduction in carbohydrates that would have had the positive effect on weight loss. It is not just because calories were reduced – I will bust the “calorie hypothesis” in an upcoming book review. The study reduced fat intake to compensate for the changing protein intakes, the researchers state this reduction in fat intake may be what caused the weight loss. I am not convinced the reduction in fat was the main cause. They also do not specify the types or ratios of fat, because that can make a difference. The researchers do reference other work where high fat and protein with reduced carbohydrate shows a decrease in total calorie intake – and significant weight loss.

Back to my question – does nutrient intake influence our appetite? It appears so according to this, especially when protein intake is raised. Is our appetite purely governed by how full we feel after a meal? Or does our body somehow recognise the need for more nutrients to fuel all our bodily systems?

<><> <><> <><>

Much better for you and tastes great

Another study on the Biobehavioural Influences of Energy Intake and Adult Weight Gain, by McCrory et al, in the Journal of Nutrition, 2002 refers to data suggesting consumption of a greater variety of energy dense (lots) foods was associated with higher body fatness when compared with low energy foods (vegetables for example). That is nothing new, however it raises the question does high energy food in the form of sugar have less nutrients? The researchers go on to refer to studies suggesting that foods that cause a rapid rise in blood sugar (high GI) can accelerate the return of hunger and increase subsequent energy intake. Or perhaps the societal influence of eating in the presence of others causes us to eat more, perhaps combined with high energy, low nutrient density foods as suggested in this paper.

So what is driving the change in appetite? Do we eat more of the convenient snack type foods, sugary cereals or takeaways due to some inbuilt desire to replenish a nutrient deficiency? I am not convinced it is quite as simple as that as there are many many processes going on in the body, with a range of factors at play, both mentally and physically. One thing I am certain on is the affect that protein and good fat choices have. Recently in my studies I read about an Olympic skier who struggled to lose weight on a significant calorie deficit, with most dietary calories from carbohydrates. Working with the precision nutrition team they increased their total calories by 1500 through increasing protein and fat, and decreasing carbohydrates….no doubt timing of carbohydrates in relation to training was also involved! Anyway the result was 23lb fat loss in 12 weeks. Losing fat by eating more? Yes that is right.

Perhaps we can better meet our nutrient needs through better food choices and not starving ourselves…maybe then our appetite will be better regulated. Keep an eye out for my review of why we get fat and what to do about it…it may just persuade you not to bother with the latest fad “low fat” diet, or synthetic “powdered” food diets.

Read more »