2.07.2010
EPIC Superbowl Food Pr0n coming soon
Hit me up on the forums or at willsnoble@gmail.com and let me know what you made for Superbowl to be shown to the world... or Better yet, show me any high end food manufacturing, because we at PL&BBQ would love to see it!!!!
1.29.2010
Low Carb Dogma
By Jamie Hale
Commentary by Alan Aragon
Low carb diet enthusiasts claim their diet is supreme to other methods. They claim their diet offers a metabolic advantage-"metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many or more calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches" (Atkins, 1992). In addition, advocates claim overproduction of insulin, stimulated by high CHO intake, is the cause of obesity. Other claims include: low carb diets result in weight loss, fat loss, improved body comp, and improved health. Simply put, low carb dieting is superior to other forms of dieting, according to many low carb advocates.
Low carb diets have been shown to improve the conditions previously mentioned, but isn’t it true other diets offer some of the same benefits? And in some cases aren't low carb diets successful due to calorie manipulation and not some metabolic advantage? Or are low carb diets simply the way to go across the board
Low carbs and weight loss
Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition (Hill et al.,1993)
In all cases, individuals on high-fat, low-CHO diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories (Freedman et al. 2001)
Alford et al. (1990) manipulated CHO content of low calorie diets (1200 kcal/d) to determine possible effects on body weight and body fat reduction over 10 weeks. Women in each diet group consumed either a low-, medium-, or high-CHO diet. The low-CHO diet was 15% to 25% CHO (75 g/d) (30% protein, 45% fat), the moderate-CHO diet was 45% CHO (10% protein, 35% fat), and the high-CHO diet was 75% CHO (15%protein, 10% fat). Weight loss occurred in all groups, but there was no significant difference in weight loss among the groups. Percent body fat loss, based on underwater weighing was similar among the groups. Alford et al. concluded, “there is no statistically significant effect derived in an overweight adult female population from manipulation of percentage of CHO in a 1200-kcal diet. Weight loss is the result of reduction in caloric intake in proportion to caloric requirements.” (Freedman et al., 2001)
Golay and colleagues (1996) followed 43 obese patients for 6 weeks, who received a low cal diet (1000 kcal), and participated in a structured, multidisciplinary program that included physical activity (2 h/d), nutritional education, and behavioral modification. The diet contained either 15% CHO (37.5 g), or 45% CHO. Protein content of the diets was similar (approx: 30%) and fat made up the difference. After 6 weeks, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the different diet groups. Significant and similar decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratios were seen in both groups.
Wing and colleagues (1995) confined 21 severely obese women to a metabolic ward for 31 days. They were randomly assigned to a non-ketogenic or ketogenic (10 g CHO) liquid formula diet (600 kcals) for 28 days. At end of study weight losses were similar.
A portion of weight loss in the early stages of low carb dieting is due to water losses (Bell et al., 1969; Van Itallie et. al. 1975), however, the majority of weight loss in the early stages of a mixed diet is primarily due to loss in body fat (Yang and Van Itallie, 1976); other studies support this finding. Losses of protein and fat are about the same when following a ketogenic, or isocaloric, non-ketogenic diet (Golay et al. 1996)
"In the short-term, low-CHO ketogenic diets cause a greater loss of body water than body fat." (Freedman et al. 2001)
"Low-CHO diets are high in fat, especially saturated fat, and cholesterol. They are also high in protein (mainly animal), and provide lower than recommended intakes of vitamin E, vitamin A, thiamin, vitamin B 6, folate, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium and dietary fiber." (Freedman et al. 2001). In these instances supplementation is required for proper nutrition.
Do Low Carbohydrate diets decrease hunger?
Low carb advocates claim no hunger is experienced when following a low carb diet. Various studies support this claim, however, not all studies.
Baron and colleagues (1986) found similar complaints of hunger in low CHO and low fat dieters. Rosen and colleagues (1985) found no support for the claim that a minimal CHO, protein-supplemented fast decreased appetite in comparison with an isocaloric CHO- containing diet that minimized ketosis. The idea that eating an ad-lib low carb diet leads to decreased calorie consumption in everyone is a logical fallacy- Hasty Generalization.
Do other diets decrease hunger?
Studies indicate subjects consuming an ad-lib low fat diet don't complain of hunger but complain there is too much food (Freedman et al. 2001). Siggaard (1996) reported a high degree of satisfaction when Danish workers consumed low fat ad-lib diet.
"Stubbs et al. (1995) provided normal weight male subjects ad libitum access to one of three covertly manipulated diets: low-fat (20% energy as fat, 67% as CHO), medium-fat (40% energy as fat, 47% as CHO) or high-fat (60% energy as fat, 27% as CHO). They reported that energy intake increased with percent fat, and that lower fat, lower-energy diets were more satiating than higher fat, higher energy diets." (Freedman et al. 2001)
Is overproduction of insulin, driven by CHO consumption, the primary cause of obesity?
Carbohydrates and protein stimulates insulin release. Holt and colleagues (1997) found “protein rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrates) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses [blood sugar responses]”
Golay et. al. (1996) showed that subjects consuming 15% CHO had significantly lower insulin levels compared with those consuming 45% CHO, yet there was no difference in weight loss between the groups. "Grey and Kipnis [1971] studied 10 obese patients who were fed hypocaloric (1500 kcal/d) liquid-formula diets containing either 72% or 0% CHO for 4 weeks before switching to the other diet. A significant reduction in basal plasma insulin levels was noted when subjects ingested the hypocaloric formula devoid of CHO. Refeeding the hypocaloric, high-CHO formula resulted in a marked increase in the basal plasma insulin. However, patients lost 0.75 to 2.0 kg/wk irrespective of caloric distribution." (Freedman et al. 2001)
This is what nutritionist & author Anthony Colpo had to say (They're All Mad, pg. 14):
http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf
"[T] ake a close look at the studies in which the low-carb diet caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al, Miyashita et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the isocaloric low-carb diets – but no difference in fat loss … . Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al, Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the low-carb diets – but again, no difference in fat loss… . The participants in these free-living studies were given dietary advice intended to make the high- and low-carbs isocaloric. If insulin, and not calories, was the key factor in fat loss, then there should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower-carb group every single time. There wasn’t. The reason for this is that the insulin-makes-you-fat theory is rubbish. It is calories, not insulin, that determine whether or not you will lose fat."
"Insulin, in addition to its effects in the central nervous system to inhibit food intake, acts in the periphery to ensure the efficient storage of incoming nutrients. The role for insulin in the synthesis and storage of fat has obscured its important effects in the central nervous system, where it acts to prevent weight gain, and has led to the misconception that insulin causes obesity [Schwartz 2000]. It has recently been shown that selective genetic disruption of insulin signaling in the brain leads to increased food intake and obesity in animals [Bruning et al. 2000] demonstrating that intact insulin signaling in the central nervous system is required for normal body weight regulation" (Freedman et al. 2001).
Furthermore, insulin plays an indirect role in body regulation through Leptin stimulation. Both of these hormones are transported in the CNS, where they may interact with neuropeptides that affect food intake. Decreased leptin levels have been shown to be related to increased hunger sensations (Keim et al. 1998). Freedman and colleagues (2001) said, "Increased insulin secretion has been suggested to protect against weight gain in humans [Schwartz 1995]. Because insulin also stimulates leptin production, which acts centrally to reduce energy intake and increase energy expenditure, decreased insulin and leptin production during the consumption of high-fat diets could help contribute to the obesity promoting effects of dietary fat [... Astrup, 2000]."
Other diets affect health parameters?
The following excerpts are taken from MR. Freedman et al. Popular Diets a Scientific Review Obesity Research, vol. 9, Suppl 1, March 2001.
"Blood lipid levels (e.g., total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein [LDL], high-density lipoprotein [HDL] and triglycerides [TGs]) decrease as body weight decreases' [...Yu-poth, 1999]. 'Moderate-fat, balanced nutrient reduction diets reduce LDL-cholesterol and normalize the ratio of HDL/TC."
"Plasma TG levels also decrease with weight loss'. 'Although they increase in response to short-term consumption of a VLF, high-CHO diet [1998 Lichtenstein & Van Horn], the type of CHO consumed must be considered. High-fiber foods, including vegetables and legumes, do not lead to hypertriglyceridemia [Anderson et al. 1980], and may easily be incorporated into moderate-fat, balanced nutrient reduction diets to help normalize plasma TG levels."
"Energy restriction independent of diet composition improves glycemic control."
In addition: When body weight decreases so does insulin and leptin levels. Blood pressure drops with weight loss, regardless of diet composition.
Sports nutritionist, Alan Aragon had this to say:
“A key point that must be made is that the research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low-carbing in the first place. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it's not lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage, it's the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage.
Furthermore, the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high-carb/low-fat/low-protein versus low-carb/high-fat/moderate protein). The funny part is, the majority of long-term trials (12 months or more) STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.
There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the 'metabolic advantage' folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always either-or for them, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists.
What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes. The minute someone says that EVERYONE should severely restrict carbohydrate, it's obvious that you're dealing with a cherry-picking low-carb zealot who is unfamiliar with the totality of research evidence, and has limited field experience.”
Conclusion
A low carb diet is not necessarily the best diet. Research has found low carb diets to be successful for many people, but other diets have also proven successful. This article is not meant to suggest that low carb dieting is inferior or bad; it is meant to dispel some of the common dogma often perpetuated by low carb dogmatists. The idea that low carb dieting offers unique benefits that cannot be acquired by other diets, is true in some cases, - possibly, treatment for some forms of cancer, and specific neurodegenarative disorders, etc.- however the idea of low carb diets being the panacea of diets is false.
This was a short review of some of the scientific data concerning low carb dieting. To reiterate, my intent was not and in-depth discussion of the various issues surrounding dieting, but to give readers a brief glimpse of some of the popular misconceptions associated with low carb dieting.
There is a plethora of scientific literature showing the benefits of low carb dieting. There is also a plethora of data showing benefits from other types of diets. Which is better? It depends.
References
Alford BB, et al. (1990). The effects of variation in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. J AM Diet Assoc. 90:534-40.
Atkins RC. (1992). Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. New York: Avon Books, Inc
Baron JA, et al. (1986). A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. AM J Public Health. 76:1293-6.
Bell JD, et al. (1969). Ketosis, weight loss, uric acid, and nitrogen balance in obese women fed single nutrients at low calorie levels. Metabolism. 18:193-208.
Colpo A. (2009). They’re All Mad. Anthony Colpo.
Freedman MR, et al. (2001). Popular Diets A Scientific Review. Obesity Research. Vol.9 Suppl. 1 March
Golay A, et al. (1996). Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 20:1067-72.
Golay A, et al. (1996). Similar weight loss with low or high carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 63:174-8.
Hill JO, et al. (1993). Obesity treatment: can diet compositon play a role? Ann Intern Med.;119:694-7.
Holt S, et al. (1997). The insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. AM J Clin Nutr. 66:1264-76.
Keim NL, et al. (1998). Relation between circulating Leptin concentrations and appetite during a prolonged, moderate energy deficit in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 68:794-801.
Rosen JC, et al. (1985). Mood and appetite during minimal-carbohydrate and carbohydrate-supplemented hypocaloric diets. AM J Clin Nutr. 42:371-9.
Siggaard R, et al. (1996). Weight loss during 12 weeks carbohydrate-rich diet in overweight and normal-weight subjects at a Danish work site. Obes Res. 4:347-56.
Stubbs RJ, et al. (1995). Covert manipulation of dietary fat and energy density: effect on substrate flux and food intake in men eating ad libitum. AM J Clin Nutr. 62:316-29.
Van Itallie, T..B et al. (1975). Dietary Approaches to obesity: metabolic and appetitive considerations. In: Recent Advances in Obesity Research. London: Newman Publishing pp.256-69.
Wing RR, et al. (1995). Cognitive effects of ketogenic weight-reducing diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 19:811-6.
Yang MU, Van Itallie TB. (1976). Composition of weight loss during short term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets. J Clin Invest. 58:722-30.
Visit Jamie Hale's website at www.maxcondition.com
Visit Alan Aragon's website at www.alanaragon.com
Commentary by Alan Aragon
Low carb diet enthusiasts claim their diet is supreme to other methods. They claim their diet offers a metabolic advantage-"metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many or more calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches" (Atkins, 1992). In addition, advocates claim overproduction of insulin, stimulated by high CHO intake, is the cause of obesity. Other claims include: low carb diets result in weight loss, fat loss, improved body comp, and improved health. Simply put, low carb dieting is superior to other forms of dieting, according to many low carb advocates.
Low carb diets have been shown to improve the conditions previously mentioned, but isn’t it true other diets offer some of the same benefits? And in some cases aren't low carb diets successful due to calorie manipulation and not some metabolic advantage? Or are low carb diets simply the way to go across the board
Low carbs and weight loss
Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition (Hill et al.,1993)
In all cases, individuals on high-fat, low-CHO diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories (Freedman et al. 2001)
Alford et al. (1990) manipulated CHO content of low calorie diets (1200 kcal/d) to determine possible effects on body weight and body fat reduction over 10 weeks. Women in each diet group consumed either a low-, medium-, or high-CHO diet. The low-CHO diet was 15% to 25% CHO (75 g/d) (30% protein, 45% fat), the moderate-CHO diet was 45% CHO (10% protein, 35% fat), and the high-CHO diet was 75% CHO (15%protein, 10% fat). Weight loss occurred in all groups, but there was no significant difference in weight loss among the groups. Percent body fat loss, based on underwater weighing was similar among the groups. Alford et al. concluded, “there is no statistically significant effect derived in an overweight adult female population from manipulation of percentage of CHO in a 1200-kcal diet. Weight loss is the result of reduction in caloric intake in proportion to caloric requirements.” (Freedman et al., 2001)
Golay and colleagues (1996) followed 43 obese patients for 6 weeks, who received a low cal diet (1000 kcal), and participated in a structured, multidisciplinary program that included physical activity (2 h/d), nutritional education, and behavioral modification. The diet contained either 15% CHO (37.5 g), or 45% CHO. Protein content of the diets was similar (approx: 30%) and fat made up the difference. After 6 weeks, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the different diet groups. Significant and similar decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratios were seen in both groups.
Wing and colleagues (1995) confined 21 severely obese women to a metabolic ward for 31 days. They were randomly assigned to a non-ketogenic or ketogenic (10 g CHO) liquid formula diet (600 kcals) for 28 days. At end of study weight losses were similar.
A portion of weight loss in the early stages of low carb dieting is due to water losses (Bell et al., 1969; Van Itallie et. al. 1975), however, the majority of weight loss in the early stages of a mixed diet is primarily due to loss in body fat (Yang and Van Itallie, 1976); other studies support this finding. Losses of protein and fat are about the same when following a ketogenic, or isocaloric, non-ketogenic diet (Golay et al. 1996)
"In the short-term, low-CHO ketogenic diets cause a greater loss of body water than body fat." (Freedman et al. 2001)
"Low-CHO diets are high in fat, especially saturated fat, and cholesterol. They are also high in protein (mainly animal), and provide lower than recommended intakes of vitamin E, vitamin A, thiamin, vitamin B 6, folate, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium and dietary fiber." (Freedman et al. 2001). In these instances supplementation is required for proper nutrition.
Do Low Carbohydrate diets decrease hunger?
Low carb advocates claim no hunger is experienced when following a low carb diet. Various studies support this claim, however, not all studies.
Baron and colleagues (1986) found similar complaints of hunger in low CHO and low fat dieters. Rosen and colleagues (1985) found no support for the claim that a minimal CHO, protein-supplemented fast decreased appetite in comparison with an isocaloric CHO- containing diet that minimized ketosis. The idea that eating an ad-lib low carb diet leads to decreased calorie consumption in everyone is a logical fallacy- Hasty Generalization.
Do other diets decrease hunger?
Studies indicate subjects consuming an ad-lib low fat diet don't complain of hunger but complain there is too much food (Freedman et al. 2001). Siggaard (1996) reported a high degree of satisfaction when Danish workers consumed low fat ad-lib diet.
"Stubbs et al. (1995) provided normal weight male subjects ad libitum access to one of three covertly manipulated diets: low-fat (20% energy as fat, 67% as CHO), medium-fat (40% energy as fat, 47% as CHO) or high-fat (60% energy as fat, 27% as CHO). They reported that energy intake increased with percent fat, and that lower fat, lower-energy diets were more satiating than higher fat, higher energy diets." (Freedman et al. 2001)
Is overproduction of insulin, driven by CHO consumption, the primary cause of obesity?
Carbohydrates and protein stimulates insulin release. Holt and colleagues (1997) found “protein rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrates) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses [blood sugar responses]”
Golay et. al. (1996) showed that subjects consuming 15% CHO had significantly lower insulin levels compared with those consuming 45% CHO, yet there was no difference in weight loss between the groups. "Grey and Kipnis [1971] studied 10 obese patients who were fed hypocaloric (1500 kcal/d) liquid-formula diets containing either 72% or 0% CHO for 4 weeks before switching to the other diet. A significant reduction in basal plasma insulin levels was noted when subjects ingested the hypocaloric formula devoid of CHO. Refeeding the hypocaloric, high-CHO formula resulted in a marked increase in the basal plasma insulin. However, patients lost 0.75 to 2.0 kg/wk irrespective of caloric distribution." (Freedman et al. 2001)
This is what nutritionist & author Anthony Colpo had to say (They're All Mad, pg. 14):
http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf
"[T] ake a close look at the studies in which the low-carb diet caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al, Miyashita et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the isocaloric low-carb diets – but no difference in fat loss … . Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al, Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the low-carb diets – but again, no difference in fat loss… . The participants in these free-living studies were given dietary advice intended to make the high- and low-carbs isocaloric. If insulin, and not calories, was the key factor in fat loss, then there should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower-carb group every single time. There wasn’t. The reason for this is that the insulin-makes-you-fat theory is rubbish. It is calories, not insulin, that determine whether or not you will lose fat."
"Insulin, in addition to its effects in the central nervous system to inhibit food intake, acts in the periphery to ensure the efficient storage of incoming nutrients. The role for insulin in the synthesis and storage of fat has obscured its important effects in the central nervous system, where it acts to prevent weight gain, and has led to the misconception that insulin causes obesity [Schwartz 2000]. It has recently been shown that selective genetic disruption of insulin signaling in the brain leads to increased food intake and obesity in animals [Bruning et al. 2000] demonstrating that intact insulin signaling in the central nervous system is required for normal body weight regulation" (Freedman et al. 2001).
Furthermore, insulin plays an indirect role in body regulation through Leptin stimulation. Both of these hormones are transported in the CNS, where they may interact with neuropeptides that affect food intake. Decreased leptin levels have been shown to be related to increased hunger sensations (Keim et al. 1998). Freedman and colleagues (2001) said, "Increased insulin secretion has been suggested to protect against weight gain in humans [Schwartz 1995]. Because insulin also stimulates leptin production, which acts centrally to reduce energy intake and increase energy expenditure, decreased insulin and leptin production during the consumption of high-fat diets could help contribute to the obesity promoting effects of dietary fat [... Astrup, 2000]."
Other diets affect health parameters?
The following excerpts are taken from MR. Freedman et al. Popular Diets a Scientific Review Obesity Research, vol. 9, Suppl 1, March 2001.
"Blood lipid levels (e.g., total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein [LDL], high-density lipoprotein [HDL] and triglycerides [TGs]) decrease as body weight decreases' [...Yu-poth, 1999]. 'Moderate-fat, balanced nutrient reduction diets reduce LDL-cholesterol and normalize the ratio of HDL/TC."
"Plasma TG levels also decrease with weight loss'. 'Although they increase in response to short-term consumption of a VLF, high-CHO diet [1998 Lichtenstein & Van Horn], the type of CHO consumed must be considered. High-fiber foods, including vegetables and legumes, do not lead to hypertriglyceridemia [Anderson et al. 1980], and may easily be incorporated into moderate-fat, balanced nutrient reduction diets to help normalize plasma TG levels."
"Energy restriction independent of diet composition improves glycemic control."
In addition: When body weight decreases so does insulin and leptin levels. Blood pressure drops with weight loss, regardless of diet composition.
Sports nutritionist, Alan Aragon had this to say:
“A key point that must be made is that the research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low-carbing in the first place. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it's not lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage, it's the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage.
Furthermore, the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high-carb/low-fat/low-protein versus low-carb/high-fat/moderate protein). The funny part is, the majority of long-term trials (12 months or more) STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.
There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the 'metabolic advantage' folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always either-or for them, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists.
What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes. The minute someone says that EVERYONE should severely restrict carbohydrate, it's obvious that you're dealing with a cherry-picking low-carb zealot who is unfamiliar with the totality of research evidence, and has limited field experience.”
Conclusion
A low carb diet is not necessarily the best diet. Research has found low carb diets to be successful for many people, but other diets have also proven successful. This article is not meant to suggest that low carb dieting is inferior or bad; it is meant to dispel some of the common dogma often perpetuated by low carb dogmatists. The idea that low carb dieting offers unique benefits that cannot be acquired by other diets, is true in some cases, - possibly, treatment for some forms of cancer, and specific neurodegenarative disorders, etc.- however the idea of low carb diets being the panacea of diets is false.
This was a short review of some of the scientific data concerning low carb dieting. To reiterate, my intent was not and in-depth discussion of the various issues surrounding dieting, but to give readers a brief glimpse of some of the popular misconceptions associated with low carb dieting.
There is a plethora of scientific literature showing the benefits of low carb dieting. There is also a plethora of data showing benefits from other types of diets. Which is better? It depends.
References
Alford BB, et al. (1990). The effects of variation in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. J AM Diet Assoc. 90:534-40.
Atkins RC. (1992). Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. New York: Avon Books, Inc
Baron JA, et al. (1986). A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. AM J Public Health. 76:1293-6.
Bell JD, et al. (1969). Ketosis, weight loss, uric acid, and nitrogen balance in obese women fed single nutrients at low calorie levels. Metabolism. 18:193-208.
Colpo A. (2009). They’re All Mad. Anthony Colpo.
Freedman MR, et al. (2001). Popular Diets A Scientific Review. Obesity Research. Vol.9 Suppl. 1 March
Golay A, et al. (1996). Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 20:1067-72.
Golay A, et al. (1996). Similar weight loss with low or high carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 63:174-8.
Hill JO, et al. (1993). Obesity treatment: can diet compositon play a role? Ann Intern Med.;119:694-7.
Holt S, et al. (1997). The insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. AM J Clin Nutr. 66:1264-76.
Keim NL, et al. (1998). Relation between circulating Leptin concentrations and appetite during a prolonged, moderate energy deficit in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 68:794-801.
Rosen JC, et al. (1985). Mood and appetite during minimal-carbohydrate and carbohydrate-supplemented hypocaloric diets. AM J Clin Nutr. 42:371-9.
Siggaard R, et al. (1996). Weight loss during 12 weeks carbohydrate-rich diet in overweight and normal-weight subjects at a Danish work site. Obes Res. 4:347-56.
Stubbs RJ, et al. (1995). Covert manipulation of dietary fat and energy density: effect on substrate flux and food intake in men eating ad libitum. AM J Clin Nutr. 62:316-29.
Van Itallie, T..B et al. (1975). Dietary Approaches to obesity: metabolic and appetitive considerations. In: Recent Advances in Obesity Research. London: Newman Publishing pp.256-69.
Wing RR, et al. (1995). Cognitive effects of ketogenic weight-reducing diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 19:811-6.
Yang MU, Van Itallie TB. (1976). Composition of weight loss during short term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets. J Clin Invest. 58:722-30.
Visit Jamie Hale's website at www.maxcondition.com
Visit Alan Aragon's website at www.alanaragon.com
PL & BBQ's primary author, Jamie Hale
Coach Hale instructing Forrest Griffin (UFC Ultimate Fighter Winner and Champion)
About Jamie Hale:
Jamie Hale is Sports Conditioning Coach, author, outdoor enthusiast, fitness and nutrition consultant. He has contributed to numerous exercise and sports publications (nationally and internationally). He has authored six books. Jamie is a member of the World Marital Arts Hall of Fame in recognition of his conditioning work with Martial Artists. He is considered by most in the fitness industry as a specialist in agility and comprehensive fitness training. He is also known for his ability to get bodybuilders lean and dry as a bone for competition. To learn more abut Jamie visit his website at www.maxcondition.com . He is available for seminars and camps as well. Jamie can be reached by phone at 859-737-2753.
What people are saying about Jamie Hale's products:
"This book is a must in any practitioner or enthusiast's library. It's the most in-depth work I've read on the subject." -Alan Aragon, author of Girth Control: The Science of Fat Loss and Muscle Gain, nutritional counselor, continuing education provider (www.alanaragon.com)
"I'm very impressed with your book and with your knowledge about the science of protein nutrition. It's great to know that there is someone else advising people on the basis of scientific research rather than canned recommendations." -Gerda Endemann, PhD, author of Fat Is Not The Enemy (www.healthyfat.com)
"One of the most useful books and tools you will ever find on the topic of protein. An excellent collection of facts outlined in detail. Very highly recommended to athletes, who will find this book an incredible study. In simple terms.it's the perfect guide to everything you need to know about protein." -MMA Sports Magazine
"One of the best trainers in the USA." -Gary Bliss, editor Massive Lifestyles magazine
Jamie is:
· freelance researcher who researchrs data for papers, books, articles, news pieces, seminars, television projects, debates, and research projects as well fitness and nutritional information
· official member of the World Martial Arts Hall of Fame (inducted April 4, 2003). He is recognized for his strength and conditioning work and nutritional work with martial artists and his writings pertaining to the arts. He is also Vice Chair for the World Martial Arts Hall of Fame and a member of the International Black Belt Federation (IBBF).
· former co-promoter of the Kentucky Fighting Challenge (mixed martial arts event)
· former United States America Weightlifting (USAW) club coach 2003-2005
· Former member of the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA)
· board member of the Kentucky Strength and Conditioning Association
· founder and former director of Kentucky Strength and Conditioning Association roundtable (a non-profit research and educational group)
· founder of HNE Research Group
· strength and conditioning forum moderator at www.MMA.tv
· honorary member and adviser to Karate International Council of Kickboxing (K.I.C.K.)
· founder and owner of Hales In Home Training (1991-1995)
· trainer and kickboxercise instructor at Body Investment and Four Seasons (1995-1997)
· independent trainer at Shape's Fitness (2002)
· owner of Total Body Fitness (1997-present)
· certified fitness trainer through International Sport Sciences Association (May 1997-May 2003)
· owner of www.maxcondition.com
· 1984 Seishin Kai, Kumite and Kata USA champion
· founder and owner of MaxCondition Combat team
· author of Optimum Physique, XDL Diet, The Carbohydrate Files, MaxCondition, Protein Essentials, Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise, Combat Strength CD, Combat Nutrition CD, Dietary Supplement Myths: R.I.P.(mp3)
· owner of Winchester Golden Gloves Boxing 2003
· owner of MaxCondition Sports Conditioning
· competitive bodybuilding consultant
· nutrition consultant and researcher
· founder of the Xtreme Density Leanness (XDL) diet
· contributor to Conditioning Handbook by Brian Jones
· USA amateur boxing judge, coach, and referee (2000-2002)
· founder and former president of Eastern Kentucky University's boxing team.
· trainer for numerous amateur and professional athletes
· research associate for Torque Athletic
· member of Kentucky Association of Science Educators and Skeptics
. member of Lexington Society for Skeptical Inquiry
· nutrition advisor Hybrid Fitness
. advisory board Core Concepts Wellness
· writer for Razm Avar (an international martial arts publication)
· USA representative and writer for Massive Lifestyles Magazine (a former British publication)
· Has Written for Men's Health, MMA Sports Magazine, Planet Muscle, Mind and Muscle magazine, Speed Strength and Sport Athlete, Successful Coaching, Winchester Sun, and Steele Jungle Publications, Wilderness Way, Kentucky Explorer, Goonagoon (Persian publication), University of Louisville Sciboard
· Has Written for www.kettlebelltrainer.ca, www.fightauthority.com, www.kettlebellsnz.com, www.combatathletics.com, www.undergroundstrengthcoach.com, www.hypetrophy-research.com, www.bodybuilding.com, www.renegadetraining.com, www.dolfzine.com, www.qfac.com, www.anabolicextreme.com, www.biohazard849.com, www.biggerbodies.com, www.torqueathletic.com, www.protraineronline.com, www.redwhiteandbluefitness.com, www.ballisticstrength.com, www.ironlife.com, www.athletes.com, www.kettlebell.com, www.elitefts.com, and www.bodybuilding-source.com, www.johnnymolloy.com and more
Jamie also:
· develops comprehensive training programs for all facets of physical preparation
· is acclaimed for his work with combat athletes
· trains people of all body types and fitness levels
· develops numerous training techniques
· provides numerous consultation services including phone consults, program design, personal training, nutritional design, camps, and seminars
· Earned a bachelors degree in psychology with a research emphasis in sports psychology from Eastern Kentucky University
· has conducted over 40 camps and seminars regarding fitness, nutrition, sports conditioning, and logic
· has studied various martial arts including Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Seishin Kai, and Thai boxing
· is an award winning bodybuilder
. Jamie's gym Total Body Fitness was featured in Men's Health Mar. 2008 issue as one of the top 30 gyms in America
. WOMAA (World Organization of Martial Arts Athletes-Team Canada) Nutrition & Conditioning Advisor
My fitness and nutritional studies (brief-scientific as well as practical)
My involvement with competitive sports and fitness started when I was 10 years old. I played numerous sports as a kid including baseball (which I was very good at), basketball, skateboarding, and martial arts. I was also a daredevil, performing whatever stunts my friends dared me to do. I was really fascinated with jumping from rooftops, jumping from houses into swimming pools, being tied with rope, and dropped into the water (no worries though-my friends were close by), and rolling down hills while inside a barrel. You get the point-I liked anything dangerous. I'm paying for this now though because my son, Reece, seems to be just like his dad with regards to the daredevil attitude.
As I got older I participated in boxing, MMA, tennis, fencing, bodybuilding, Olympic weightlifting, and various other physical activities. I was the founder and president of Eastern Kentucky University's boxing team. I have accomplished many things in the field of fitness. For now though, I'm discuss my studies in the nutritional sciences.
Over the last 18 years, I have personally experimented with about every type of eating plan that you can imagine. Some of these protocols include high carb-low fat, high fat-low carb, multiple carb leverage loading, 100 percent protein, caffeine fasting, protein sparing modified fast, isocaloric diets, anabolic bursting cycles, the XDL diet, the XDL2 diet, whey protein diets, fish diets, and more. I first became interested in nutrition because I needed to make weight for competitive boxing. I found that the nutrition classes offered in the college I was attending were outdated, not in accordance with current research, biased in the direction of study, non-eclectic, and very basic in nature. They also didn't stress various factors related to nutrition (biochemistry, individuality, etc.) and were simply incorrect in many instances.
I also became interested in nutrition because type 2 diabetes runs in my family. With exercise and proper nutrition, I realized that this condition could be managed fairly easily. I tried many diets and always lost the weight necessary, although I didn't look or feel that good. I have experienced a wide array of different body compositions in my journey for nutritional excellence. When I was a competitive boxer, I competed at 132-147 lbs at 7 percent body fat. When I was seriously training for MMA, I weighed 160 lbs at 7-8 percent body fat. At the peak of my bodybuilding stage, I weighed 216 lbs at 18 percent body fat and competed at around 150-155 lbs at 4.5-5.5 percent body fat. Post-XDL diet, I was around 150-155 lbs at a little over 3 percent body fat (according to calipers for what good that is) and dry as a bone. Currently, I weigh 170-175 lbs at 5 percent body fat. I have a few new ideas and experiments that I'm currently working on. People always ask me how I have altered my physique so much over the years. My resounding response is by altering my nutritional regimens.
I worked at a facility called Castlewood Group Home, which housed Prader-Willi patients. One of the key characteristics with Prader-Willi patients is that they have insatiable appetites. My job was to regulate their living habits and incorporate sound nutritional and exercise practice into their everyday lives. Their calories and food intake were strictly regulated because obesity creates the biggest health problem with Prader-Willi patients. Recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of growth hormone treatment in causing accelerated growth and decreasing body fat percentage. Growth hormone has also been shown to improve physical strength and agility in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome. Some studies also indicate abnormally high levels of ghrelin (high levels of ghrelin are appetite stimulating, which is often referred to as orexigenic) in Prader-Willi patients. Prader-Willi patients have everything stacked against them as far as weight loss goes, but in our institution, they all lost weight. Dietary intake varied among the Prader-Willi patients, but the caloric intake for all of them was between 8-10 calories per day, per pound of body weight.
I have never met an individual who could not lose weight assuming that the proper protocol was followed. Of course, it is harder for some people to lose weight than others, but weight loss can occur if approached properly.
I've had the pleasure of consulting and working with some of the most respected authorities in the field of fitness, nutrition, and sports. I have a large network of coaches and fitness professionals (from professional level to weekend warrior level) that I consult with on a daily basis. One of those authorities is Jon Davies, founder of Renegade Training, author of Renegade Training for football, and sport conditioning specialist (www.renegadetraining.com). In the past few years, Davies and I have conducted seminars together, designed training regimens, and compared our ideas as they apply to fitness and sports conditioning. Coach Davies is one of the many coaches from around the world who I have worked with regarding fitness and sports conditioning.
I've also done a fair amount of work with Torque Athletic (www.torqueathletic.com) regarding product design and various aspects of fitness. In the nutrition field, I have worked and consulted with Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, and Gerda Endemann. I'm currently researching applications of nutrition 10-12 hours per day. I consulted with Lyle when writing XDL Diet as well as when I designed my "Low Carb Dieting (The Truth)" seminar. I need to give thanks to Dan Moore because he has served as my research associate for numerous projects. Check out Dan's site at www.hypertrophyresearch.com. I have extensively studied the work of other authorities including nutrition researchers Tipton, Rennie, Kramer, Miller, Wolfe, Volek, and Lemon to name a few. I'm still working on getting that interview with KD Tipton that he promised me some time ago (he is a very busy guy and tops when it comes to dietary protein research and knowledge). I have also had some in-depth conversations with Henning Fritz Kramer (via email) that has inspired my research.
I recently started the HNE Research Group, a group of analytical thinkers and primary and secondary researchers who share primary and secondary research for analysis, discussion, and debate. The group is made up of individuals from around the globe. To be a member, each participant must demonstrate their ability to collect research data, understand advanced concepts, and offer input into group discussion. There is an initiation process that each member must go through before joining the group (no monetary cost).
I'm the founder of MaxCondition Nutrition, a multidisciplinary team providing personalized nutrition design. My advisory board includes Alan Aragon (www.AlanAragon.com) and Gerda Endemann (www.healthyfat.com). MaxCondition Nutrition is willing to debate any statements made by them in an formal or in-formal setting.
I'm the author of The Practical Scientist column in Mind and Muscle Magazine. The column tales an in-depth look at old and current nutritional research. It provides key points found in the study for practical use. Most people don't like to read through an entire study so I do the work for them and point out some of the practical implications provided in the paper. The information is easy to reference because it is written in bullet style format. At the end of the article, I give my thoughts on the work reviewed.
11.12.2009
Is Bottled Water Safer?
By Jamie Hale
“Much is being made of the benefits of natural water but all water needs to be
processed so that we can drink it.” Kevin Prior, water and wastewater chemical scientist
I was watching 60 minutes last night and Andy Rooney came on and began discussing different types of bottled water. He pointed out that there were hundreds of different types of bottled water on the market. Rooney’s questions were was bottled water safer than tap water and was there a difference in expensive bottled water versus cheap bottled water? He also spoke to a researcher whose specialty was investigating water purity and content. The researcher told Rooney that there was very little difference in the contents of bottled waters that he had tested. He told Rooney that he personally drinks tap water.
What’s funny is that we make lemonade, Kool-aid, and coffee with tap water, but we are afraid to drink plain tap water (at least some of us who insist on consuming bottled water).
We are obsessed with drinking all-natural water, however when we find water during our outdoor excursions we run the water through a man-made purifier or treat it with purifying tablets. When drinking water from streams we are generally advised to purify water even if it appears crystal clear. Why do this? Why not take advantage of all-natural water? Because all-natural water may contain harmful microbes.
A study conducted by Lalumandier and Ayers (2000) looked at the fluoride level and bacterial content of commercially bottled waters versus municipal tap water. Fifty-seven samples of five categories of bottled water were purchased from local stores. Samples of tap water were collected in sterile containers from the four local water-processing plants. Fluoride levels were determined, and water was cultured quantitatively. Levels of bacteria were calculated as colony-forming units (CFUs) per milliliter. Fluoride levels within the range recommended for drinking water by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio—0.80 to 1.30 mg/L—were found in only three samples of bottled water tested. The fluoride levels of tap water samples were within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00 mg/L. The bacterial counts in the bottled water samples ranged from less than 0.01 CFU/mL to 4900 CFUs/mL. In contrast, bacterial counts in samples of tap water ranged from 0.2 to 2.7 CFUs/mL. Five percent of the bottled water purchased in Cleveland fell within the required fluoride range recommended by the state compared with 100 percent of the tap water samples, all of which were also within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00 mg/L. The researchers concluded that drinking bottled water based on the assumption of purity could be misleading.
Americans really love their bottled water, spending approximately 6.5–7 billion dollars a year on it. Prices of bottled water range from 75 cents to $6.00 per gallon.
The price of tap water generally runs between 80 cents and $6.40 per 1000 gallons.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published the results of a four-year study in which they tested more than 1000 samples of 103 brands of bottled water. The study indicated that approximately 25 percent or more of bottled water is really just tap water. The NRDC also found that 18 of the 103 brands tested had more bacteria than allowed under microbiological-purity guidelines. About one fifth of the waters contained synthetic organic chemicals, but these were generally at levels below state and federal standards.
Bottled water is subject to less rigorous purity standards and less frequent tests for bacteria and chemical contaminants than those required for tap water. Bottled water plants test for coliform bacteria once a week, and city tap water is tested 100 or more times a month. (These are supposed standards. I’m not sure if we can always rely on this actually occurring.)
“Unsafe drinking water is the world’s no 1 killer according to the UN. There are 250 million cases a year of water borne diseases and 5-10 million deaths a year from water borne diseases arising from untreated water. Simple filtration and disinfection with chlorine solution (household bleach) can prevent most of these diseases being passed on through drinking water.” Sense About Science, Making Sense of Chemical Stories
“There is also no convincing evidence of beneficial effects from consuming high or low mineral content bottled waters.” WHO, No.256, October 2000
The biggest advantage of bottled water is the bottle itself. It makes drinking water more convenient and is easier to carry than a water fountain.
References
Hale J (2007) Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise. Maxcondition.
Lalumandier JA, Ayers LW (2000) Fluoride and bacterial content of bottled water vs. tap water. Arch Fam Med 9(3):246–50.
Sense About Science. Making Sense of Chemical Stories. [Online] October 16, 2009. http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/MakingSenseofChemicalStories.pdf
Shermer M. Bottled Twaddle: Is bottled water tapped out? [Online] 30 October 2007. http://mail.colonial.net/~rpavlik/pavlikweb/pdf/handouts/water/bottledwater.pdf.
Copyright 2009 Jamie Hale
“Much is being made of the benefits of natural water but all water needs to be
processed so that we can drink it.” Kevin Prior, water and wastewater chemical scientist
I was watching 60 minutes last night and Andy Rooney came on and began discussing different types of bottled water. He pointed out that there were hundreds of different types of bottled water on the market. Rooney’s questions were was bottled water safer than tap water and was there a difference in expensive bottled water versus cheap bottled water? He also spoke to a researcher whose specialty was investigating water purity and content. The researcher told Rooney that there was very little difference in the contents of bottled waters that he had tested. He told Rooney that he personally drinks tap water.
What’s funny is that we make lemonade, Kool-aid, and coffee with tap water, but we are afraid to drink plain tap water (at least some of us who insist on consuming bottled water).
We are obsessed with drinking all-natural water, however when we find water during our outdoor excursions we run the water through a man-made purifier or treat it with purifying tablets. When drinking water from streams we are generally advised to purify water even if it appears crystal clear. Why do this? Why not take advantage of all-natural water? Because all-natural water may contain harmful microbes.
A study conducted by Lalumandier and Ayers (2000) looked at the fluoride level and bacterial content of commercially bottled waters versus municipal tap water. Fifty-seven samples of five categories of bottled water were purchased from local stores. Samples of tap water were collected in sterile containers from the four local water-processing plants. Fluoride levels were determined, and water was cultured quantitatively. Levels of bacteria were calculated as colony-forming units (CFUs) per milliliter. Fluoride levels within the range recommended for drinking water by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio—0.80 to 1.30 mg/L—were found in only three samples of bottled water tested. The fluoride levels of tap water samples were within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00 mg/L. The bacterial counts in the bottled water samples ranged from less than 0.01 CFU/mL to 4900 CFUs/mL. In contrast, bacterial counts in samples of tap water ranged from 0.2 to 2.7 CFUs/mL. Five percent of the bottled water purchased in Cleveland fell within the required fluoride range recommended by the state compared with 100 percent of the tap water samples, all of which were also within 0.04 mg/L of the optimal fluoride level of 1.00 mg/L. The researchers concluded that drinking bottled water based on the assumption of purity could be misleading.
Americans really love their bottled water, spending approximately 6.5–7 billion dollars a year on it. Prices of bottled water range from 75 cents to $6.00 per gallon.
The price of tap water generally runs between 80 cents and $6.40 per 1000 gallons.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published the results of a four-year study in which they tested more than 1000 samples of 103 brands of bottled water. The study indicated that approximately 25 percent or more of bottled water is really just tap water. The NRDC also found that 18 of the 103 brands tested had more bacteria than allowed under microbiological-purity guidelines. About one fifth of the waters contained synthetic organic chemicals, but these were generally at levels below state and federal standards.
Bottled water is subject to less rigorous purity standards and less frequent tests for bacteria and chemical contaminants than those required for tap water. Bottled water plants test for coliform bacteria once a week, and city tap water is tested 100 or more times a month. (These are supposed standards. I’m not sure if we can always rely on this actually occurring.)
“Unsafe drinking water is the world’s no 1 killer according to the UN. There are 250 million cases a year of water borne diseases and 5-10 million deaths a year from water borne diseases arising from untreated water. Simple filtration and disinfection with chlorine solution (household bleach) can prevent most of these diseases being passed on through drinking water.” Sense About Science, Making Sense of Chemical Stories
“There is also no convincing evidence of beneficial effects from consuming high or low mineral content bottled waters.” WHO, No.256, October 2000
The biggest advantage of bottled water is the bottle itself. It makes drinking water more convenient and is easier to carry than a water fountain.
References
Hale J (2007) Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise. Maxcondition.
Lalumandier JA, Ayers LW (2000) Fluoride and bacterial content of bottled water vs. tap water. Arch Fam Med 9(3):246–50.
Sense About Science. Making Sense of Chemical Stories. [Online] October 16, 2009. http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/MakingSenseofChemicalStories.pdf
Shermer M. Bottled Twaddle: Is bottled water tapped out? [Online] 30 October 2007. http://mail.colonial.net/~rpavlik/pavlikweb/pdf/handouts/water/bottledwater.pdf.
Copyright 2009 Jamie Hale
9.09.2009
Congratulations to Travis Willingham
ONLY THE 5th AMERICAN TO EVER HOIST THE DINNIE STONES
From Brad:
To give you guys an idea of exactly what he's done, he's became only the 4th American in history to lift the 730+ Dinnie Stones without straps. He's been pulling every week for the past 16 weeks on replica dinnie rigs, adding weight each week. Last week he went to 800lbs for several pulls with straps. His hands have been absolutely destroyed by this thing b/c the stones must be pulled with small iron rings, one of which is so small only 3 fingers can fit through it.
Yep, he called to say he pulled them without straps. He said the handles had been polished smooth and he was standing in pea gravel so there were some extra obstacles. He's the 4th American to do so and the 27th person in the world to pull without straps. Got his name on the list at the pub where the stones sit.
Congrats to one of 1-0-7's Finest!!!
From Brad:
To give you guys an idea of exactly what he's done, he's became only the 4th American in history to lift the 730+ Dinnie Stones without straps. He's been pulling every week for the past 16 weeks on replica dinnie rigs, adding weight each week. Last week he went to 800lbs for several pulls with straps. His hands have been absolutely destroyed by this thing b/c the stones must be pulled with small iron rings, one of which is so small only 3 fingers can fit through it.
Yep, he called to say he pulled them without straps. He said the handles had been polished smooth and he was standing in pea gravel so there were some extra obstacles. He's the 4th American to do so and the 27th person in the world to pull without straps. Got his name on the list at the pub where the stones sit.
Congrats to one of 1-0-7's Finest!!!
8.25.2009
Popular diets: Hale’s Review
Popular diets: Hale’s Review
By Jamie Hale
With so many diet plans and books on the market how do you choose which one to follow? Which diets will work for you? In this review I will give a brief review of some of the most popular diets on the market today. After reading the review you will be able to decide which plans are appropriate for you. The following is an excerpt from Knowledge and Nonsense and also appeared in Planet Muscle.
Atkins’ New Diet Revolution
Robert C. Atkins is the founder of Atkins’ New Diet Revolution. Atkins is also the founder and former director of the Atkins Complimentary Medicine in New York City. The diet is a low carb high fat diet with no restrictions on fat intake. The diet begins with an induction phase (ranging from 2-36 weeks) limiting carb intake to only 20 g/d. The consumption of fruit, bread, pasta, grains, starchy vegetables, and dairy other than cheese, cream or butter are prohibited in this phase of the diet. There are two phases following the induction phase where daily carb intake is increased in weekly increments of 5gms & 10gms. Then, comes the maintenance phase. Proponents of high-fat, low-CHO diets dismiss the notion that caloric intake is important to either weight gain or weight loss (this is a ridiculous statement). They claim that “most overweight individuals do not overeat” (if you believe this you need a brain transplant), even as they suggest that high-CHO meals leave individuals less satisfied than meals that contain adequate fat, resulting in increased hunger and increased food intake. With respect to weight loss, Atkins claims that on a low CHO diet there are “metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches”. Furthermore, proponents contend overproduction of insulin, driven by high CHO intake, is the cause of the metabolic imbalance that underlies obesity (the over exaggeration of insulin’s role in obesity is commonly promoted by many of today’s most popular nutrition gurus, needless to say this issue has been blown out of proportion and is only one factor in weight gain).
My thoughts:
Atkins’ New Diet Revolution Studies cited by Atkins to support his contentions were of limited duration, conducted on a small number of people, lacked adequate controls, and used ill-defined diets. Some of these, as well as other studies, actually refute the contention that low-CHO diets, in the absence of energy restriction, provide a metabolic advantage. Early studies on a limited number of obese men and women indicate individuals consuming low-CHO diets reduce overall caloric intake and lose weight. High protein in combination with low calcium intake could be detrimental to bone health. Another important consideration is the water loss that occurs with the Atkins plan. In the early stages of the diet you can expect a substantial loss in water (due to glycogen depletion, for every gram of glycogen you store you also store 2.8 – 3.5 gms of water). Believing there are some magical metabolic advantages to this diet is a fallacy and not supported by Primary Scientific data. Numerous studies have indicated a big reduction of calories (below maintenance requirements) when following low carb diets. The newest version of the diet promotes the intake of high-fiber foods; which is a good thing. The diet also made many people realize dietary fat is not the sole reason people are fat. In conclusion, if you can stick to the food recommendations and function well while following a ketogenic diet the Atkins diet may be for you. Athletes using the Atkins’ diet should be highly cautious as performance may suffer (primarily this occurs in glycolytic athletes, yet not always). Any diet that results in weight loss generally enhances health markers. If you are following the Atkins plan and are not dropping weight pay close attention to lipid levels. Numerous studies have shown that in absence of weight loss ketogenic diets may be detrimental to blood lipids levels, while ketogenic diets that result in weight loss are good for blood lipid levels. If you are gaining weight (yes it is possible) reduce calories further or try something different.
South Beach Diet
Arthur Agatston, MD, created this diet. His specialty is heart imaging and he is an associate professor of medicine at the Miami School of Medicine. The first phase of the diet includes a 14-day initiation to “rid yourself of your sugar addiction”. Consumption of fruit, bread, pasta, baked goods, dessert and alcohol are prohibited in the initiation phase. In the second phase lower GI-fruit and lower GI-starches are permitted. Once target weight is reached you go into the maintenance phase. If weight gain occurs while in the maintenance phase repeat phase one.
My thoughts:
South Beach DietThe diet relies too much on the glycemic index of foods in an attempt to control obesity. When you look at the studies comparing low-GI diets to high-GI diets there appears to be little difference in weight loss assuming the calories are the same. The satiating affects of single meal low-GI foods compared to high-GI meals are indecisive. There is a wide individual variance factor when considering a food’s affects on appetite. Also remember the glycemic index of a food changes when eaten with other foods, and when you eat that food in a non-fasted state (you are still absorbing nutrients from other meals). David Jenkins originally created the glycemic index to help diabetics modulate blood sugar levels. The diet allows a good balance of foods (good nutritional profile) once you get pass the initiation phase. The plan is relatively easy to follow for most people once they pass the initiation phase (no counting carbs, weighing food, or measuring food). . Expect a substantial amount of weight loss in the initiation phase (generally creates big calorie deficit, and significant water losses) with weight loss slowing thereafter. Even though lower GI-fruits and starches are non-calorie dense you can eat too much of these foods; therefore decreasing the diet’s effects on weight loss.
Enter the Zone
Enter the Zone was created by Barry Sears, PhD. The plan suggests that every meal should be composed of 40% carb, 30% protein and 30% fat. The goal is to control insulin levels and prevent the overproduction of bad eicosanoids (group of compounds derived from polyunsaturated fatty acids that have several biologically important actions). Sears claims high GI Index foods cause obesity.
My thoughts:
There is no magic macronutrient percentage. People have done fine (weight loss and functionally) using a wide array of different macronutrient percentages while dieting. The information regarding insulin is incomplete and mis-leading (insulin has numerous roles in metabolism). Suggesting that high Gi- carbs per se make you fat is incorrect. Most people find it difficult and time consuming to calculate the macro percentage of every meal The diet is generally nutritious. The diet also promotes the consumption of monounsaturated fatty acids, which can have numerous health benefits.
Very Low Fat Diets
VLF diets contain 10% or less fat, very high carbohydrates, and low-moderate protein. Representative VLF diets are those promoted by Dr. Dean Ornish (Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease), and Nathan and Robert Pritikin (The Pritikin Program).VLF diets are based primarily on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and beans, with moderate quantities of egg whites, nonfat dairy or soy products, and small amounts of sugar and white flour. Ornish’s diet is vegetarian; Pritikin allows a limited amount of low-fat animal protein daily (no more than 3.5 ounces of lean beef, fowl or fish-my comment: this suggestion completely ignores individual needs and requirements). Each plan includes a nutrition and exercise component; Ornish’s plan includes stress reduction and emotional support as well. Pritikin also claims medications for heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure may be reduced or completely eliminated by following these plans.
My thoughts:
Nutritional analysis of a VLF diet indicates that VLF diets are inadequate in vitamin E, B12, and zinc. Some VLF diets, based on poor food choices, may mean lower than recommended levels of other certain nutrients such as iron, phosphorous, and calcium. Other nutritional questions that occur when following a VLF is the uncertainty about compromised absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, and the impact of increased dietary fiber on the absorption of minerals. VLF diets that result in weight maintenance often cause increases in blood triglycerides and decreases in HDL levels. In general, with weight loss decreases in triglycerides and LDL levels occur with no change in TC/HDL ratios.VLF diets are often low in protein for athletes and active individuals (although this depends).Most people following very low-fat diets will probably lose weight (especially if they follow the guidelines prescribed by Ornish and Pritikin). These diets lack in overall optimal nutrition and the lack of dietary fat can lead to numerous problems.
UD2
Lyle McDonald created UD2. McDonald suggests if you are a male planning to follow the UD2 Diet you should have no more than 15% body fat, and if you are female you should have no more than 22% bodyfat.The title of the book is a tribute to Duchaine and Zumpano’s original Ultimate Diet that was released in 1982. The book is an update to the same diet incorporating new findings about metabolism, fat loss and muscle gain. As with computers newer versions get new numbers (thus we have 2.0). McDonald says he hopes it is the last diet you will need thus the name ultimate. Basically the diet has two parts: a catabolic/low-carbohydrate phase to maximize fat loss and an anabolic/high-carbohydrate phase to rebuild and gain muscle. Day 1 and 2 are both low-carbohydrate days, coupled with high rep, short rest period workouts. Day 3 is nutritionally a repeat of Day 1 and 2. No weight training occurs on day 3. On Day 4 you will have both low and high-carb meals. Day 4 AM: During the day, you’re going to stay with your normal low-carb/low-calorie diet but you only get to consume 75% of the total calories that you were eating on days 1-3. Day 4 PM: Consume 25-30 grams of carbs, with about 15 grams of whey before the workout (approximately 30-60 minutes before workout). The workout is a full body heavy duty/ high intensity workout. Following the workout on Day 4 until Day 5 at bedtime consume 7-8 grams of carbs/ lb of Lean body mass. Day 6 train the full body with heavy weights. Consume at least 1 meal before the workout with moderate protein and carbs. A carb intake of 2-2.5 g/lbm is suggested for daily carb total. Day 7 is another day of rest. Carb ingestion is about 1-1.5 g/ lbm for daily total. The book gives the details on protein and fat intake as well.
My thoughts:
UD2 I used the diet a couple of years ago with great success. I have found that for some people (particularly general fitness crowd) the diet is too technical and they simply won’t follow it. Most bodybuilders and athletes that I have suggested use the diet seem to be pleased with the results. I have found there are numerous ways to vary the diet set-up.
THE ANABOLIC DIET
The basis of the Anabolic Diet is to carb-deplete during the weekdays, then carb-load on the weekends. This involves 5 days of high fat, high protein, low carbs and 2 days of high carbs, moderate fat, and low protein. This diet was developed by Dr. Mauro Dipasquale. Dipasquale is a former world-class power lifter who won the World championships in power lifting in 1976 and won the world games in 1981.
My thoughts:
Anabolic Diet I used the diet in the late 90’s and lost a fair amount of weight initially. After about three weeks the weight loss stopped. I was eating too many calories on the weekend. Most of my clients seemed to get similar results. I also used a multi-vitamin mineral and fiber supplement when utilizing the diet. I think most people tend to go overboard and eat too much during the weekend carb load. I generally recommend 1 day for the all out eat feast (depends on person) when using the Anabolic Diet. I also like to see a little more emphasis on comprehensive nutrition and fat type through out the week. I would also recommend a fiber supplement (or non starchy vegetables) and multi-vitamin mineral. Another thing to think about is some people’s weakness for trigger foods (foods that trigger overeating). The 1 or 2 days of carb loading for these people can often cause them to blow the diet completely. They have a hard time returning to the more strict food consumption guidelines on the day following the free eating day (or days). For these people the carb load days should be more structured. Stay tuned for part 2 coming soon.
References:
Aragon A. (2007). Girth Control: the science of fat loss and weight gain 1st edition. Alan Aragon.Gropper S. (2000).
The Biochemistry of Human Nutrition: A Desk Reference. Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Hale J. (2007). Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise. MaxCondition Publishing.
Visit Jamie Hale’s site and purchase his new book (Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise) at www.maxcondition.com. Knowledge and Nonsense Reviews over 40 different diets read more… http://maxcondition.com/page.php?103
Used with permisson from Author: www.PowerliftingandBBQ.com
By Jamie Hale
With so many diet plans and books on the market how do you choose which one to follow? Which diets will work for you? In this review I will give a brief review of some of the most popular diets on the market today. After reading the review you will be able to decide which plans are appropriate for you. The following is an excerpt from Knowledge and Nonsense and also appeared in Planet Muscle.
Atkins’ New Diet Revolution
Robert C. Atkins is the founder of Atkins’ New Diet Revolution. Atkins is also the founder and former director of the Atkins Complimentary Medicine in New York City. The diet is a low carb high fat diet with no restrictions on fat intake. The diet begins with an induction phase (ranging from 2-36 weeks) limiting carb intake to only 20 g/d. The consumption of fruit, bread, pasta, grains, starchy vegetables, and dairy other than cheese, cream or butter are prohibited in this phase of the diet. There are two phases following the induction phase where daily carb intake is increased in weekly increments of 5gms & 10gms. Then, comes the maintenance phase. Proponents of high-fat, low-CHO diets dismiss the notion that caloric intake is important to either weight gain or weight loss (this is a ridiculous statement). They claim that “most overweight individuals do not overeat” (if you believe this you need a brain transplant), even as they suggest that high-CHO meals leave individuals less satisfied than meals that contain adequate fat, resulting in increased hunger and increased food intake. With respect to weight loss, Atkins claims that on a low CHO diet there are “metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches”. Furthermore, proponents contend overproduction of insulin, driven by high CHO intake, is the cause of the metabolic imbalance that underlies obesity (the over exaggeration of insulin’s role in obesity is commonly promoted by many of today’s most popular nutrition gurus, needless to say this issue has been blown out of proportion and is only one factor in weight gain).
My thoughts:
Atkins’ New Diet Revolution Studies cited by Atkins to support his contentions were of limited duration, conducted on a small number of people, lacked adequate controls, and used ill-defined diets. Some of these, as well as other studies, actually refute the contention that low-CHO diets, in the absence of energy restriction, provide a metabolic advantage. Early studies on a limited number of obese men and women indicate individuals consuming low-CHO diets reduce overall caloric intake and lose weight. High protein in combination with low calcium intake could be detrimental to bone health. Another important consideration is the water loss that occurs with the Atkins plan. In the early stages of the diet you can expect a substantial loss in water (due to glycogen depletion, for every gram of glycogen you store you also store 2.8 – 3.5 gms of water). Believing there are some magical metabolic advantages to this diet is a fallacy and not supported by Primary Scientific data. Numerous studies have indicated a big reduction of calories (below maintenance requirements) when following low carb diets. The newest version of the diet promotes the intake of high-fiber foods; which is a good thing. The diet also made many people realize dietary fat is not the sole reason people are fat. In conclusion, if you can stick to the food recommendations and function well while following a ketogenic diet the Atkins diet may be for you. Athletes using the Atkins’ diet should be highly cautious as performance may suffer (primarily this occurs in glycolytic athletes, yet not always). Any diet that results in weight loss generally enhances health markers. If you are following the Atkins plan and are not dropping weight pay close attention to lipid levels. Numerous studies have shown that in absence of weight loss ketogenic diets may be detrimental to blood lipids levels, while ketogenic diets that result in weight loss are good for blood lipid levels. If you are gaining weight (yes it is possible) reduce calories further or try something different.
South Beach Diet
Arthur Agatston, MD, created this diet. His specialty is heart imaging and he is an associate professor of medicine at the Miami School of Medicine. The first phase of the diet includes a 14-day initiation to “rid yourself of your sugar addiction”. Consumption of fruit, bread, pasta, baked goods, dessert and alcohol are prohibited in the initiation phase. In the second phase lower GI-fruit and lower GI-starches are permitted. Once target weight is reached you go into the maintenance phase. If weight gain occurs while in the maintenance phase repeat phase one.
My thoughts:
South Beach DietThe diet relies too much on the glycemic index of foods in an attempt to control obesity. When you look at the studies comparing low-GI diets to high-GI diets there appears to be little difference in weight loss assuming the calories are the same. The satiating affects of single meal low-GI foods compared to high-GI meals are indecisive. There is a wide individual variance factor when considering a food’s affects on appetite. Also remember the glycemic index of a food changes when eaten with other foods, and when you eat that food in a non-fasted state (you are still absorbing nutrients from other meals). David Jenkins originally created the glycemic index to help diabetics modulate blood sugar levels. The diet allows a good balance of foods (good nutritional profile) once you get pass the initiation phase. The plan is relatively easy to follow for most people once they pass the initiation phase (no counting carbs, weighing food, or measuring food). . Expect a substantial amount of weight loss in the initiation phase (generally creates big calorie deficit, and significant water losses) with weight loss slowing thereafter. Even though lower GI-fruits and starches are non-calorie dense you can eat too much of these foods; therefore decreasing the diet’s effects on weight loss.
Enter the Zone
Enter the Zone was created by Barry Sears, PhD. The plan suggests that every meal should be composed of 40% carb, 30% protein and 30% fat. The goal is to control insulin levels and prevent the overproduction of bad eicosanoids (group of compounds derived from polyunsaturated fatty acids that have several biologically important actions). Sears claims high GI Index foods cause obesity.
My thoughts:
There is no magic macronutrient percentage. People have done fine (weight loss and functionally) using a wide array of different macronutrient percentages while dieting. The information regarding insulin is incomplete and mis-leading (insulin has numerous roles in metabolism). Suggesting that high Gi- carbs per se make you fat is incorrect. Most people find it difficult and time consuming to calculate the macro percentage of every meal The diet is generally nutritious. The diet also promotes the consumption of monounsaturated fatty acids, which can have numerous health benefits.
Very Low Fat Diets
VLF diets contain 10% or less fat, very high carbohydrates, and low-moderate protein. Representative VLF diets are those promoted by Dr. Dean Ornish (Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease), and Nathan and Robert Pritikin (The Pritikin Program).VLF diets are based primarily on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and beans, with moderate quantities of egg whites, nonfat dairy or soy products, and small amounts of sugar and white flour. Ornish’s diet is vegetarian; Pritikin allows a limited amount of low-fat animal protein daily (no more than 3.5 ounces of lean beef, fowl or fish-my comment: this suggestion completely ignores individual needs and requirements). Each plan includes a nutrition and exercise component; Ornish’s plan includes stress reduction and emotional support as well. Pritikin also claims medications for heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure may be reduced or completely eliminated by following these plans.
My thoughts:
Nutritional analysis of a VLF diet indicates that VLF diets are inadequate in vitamin E, B12, and zinc. Some VLF diets, based on poor food choices, may mean lower than recommended levels of other certain nutrients such as iron, phosphorous, and calcium. Other nutritional questions that occur when following a VLF is the uncertainty about compromised absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, and the impact of increased dietary fiber on the absorption of minerals. VLF diets that result in weight maintenance often cause increases in blood triglycerides and decreases in HDL levels. In general, with weight loss decreases in triglycerides and LDL levels occur with no change in TC/HDL ratios.VLF diets are often low in protein for athletes and active individuals (although this depends).Most people following very low-fat diets will probably lose weight (especially if they follow the guidelines prescribed by Ornish and Pritikin). These diets lack in overall optimal nutrition and the lack of dietary fat can lead to numerous problems.
UD2
Lyle McDonald created UD2. McDonald suggests if you are a male planning to follow the UD2 Diet you should have no more than 15% body fat, and if you are female you should have no more than 22% bodyfat.The title of the book is a tribute to Duchaine and Zumpano’s original Ultimate Diet that was released in 1982. The book is an update to the same diet incorporating new findings about metabolism, fat loss and muscle gain. As with computers newer versions get new numbers (thus we have 2.0). McDonald says he hopes it is the last diet you will need thus the name ultimate. Basically the diet has two parts: a catabolic/low-carbohydrate phase to maximize fat loss and an anabolic/high-carbohydrate phase to rebuild and gain muscle. Day 1 and 2 are both low-carbohydrate days, coupled with high rep, short rest period workouts. Day 3 is nutritionally a repeat of Day 1 and 2. No weight training occurs on day 3. On Day 4 you will have both low and high-carb meals. Day 4 AM: During the day, you’re going to stay with your normal low-carb/low-calorie diet but you only get to consume 75% of the total calories that you were eating on days 1-3. Day 4 PM: Consume 25-30 grams of carbs, with about 15 grams of whey before the workout (approximately 30-60 minutes before workout). The workout is a full body heavy duty/ high intensity workout. Following the workout on Day 4 until Day 5 at bedtime consume 7-8 grams of carbs/ lb of Lean body mass. Day 6 train the full body with heavy weights. Consume at least 1 meal before the workout with moderate protein and carbs. A carb intake of 2-2.5 g/lbm is suggested for daily carb total. Day 7 is another day of rest. Carb ingestion is about 1-1.5 g/ lbm for daily total. The book gives the details on protein and fat intake as well.
My thoughts:
UD2 I used the diet a couple of years ago with great success. I have found that for some people (particularly general fitness crowd) the diet is too technical and they simply won’t follow it. Most bodybuilders and athletes that I have suggested use the diet seem to be pleased with the results. I have found there are numerous ways to vary the diet set-up.
THE ANABOLIC DIET
The basis of the Anabolic Diet is to carb-deplete during the weekdays, then carb-load on the weekends. This involves 5 days of high fat, high protein, low carbs and 2 days of high carbs, moderate fat, and low protein. This diet was developed by Dr. Mauro Dipasquale. Dipasquale is a former world-class power lifter who won the World championships in power lifting in 1976 and won the world games in 1981.
My thoughts:
Anabolic Diet I used the diet in the late 90’s and lost a fair amount of weight initially. After about three weeks the weight loss stopped. I was eating too many calories on the weekend. Most of my clients seemed to get similar results. I also used a multi-vitamin mineral and fiber supplement when utilizing the diet. I think most people tend to go overboard and eat too much during the weekend carb load. I generally recommend 1 day for the all out eat feast (depends on person) when using the Anabolic Diet. I also like to see a little more emphasis on comprehensive nutrition and fat type through out the week. I would also recommend a fiber supplement (or non starchy vegetables) and multi-vitamin mineral. Another thing to think about is some people’s weakness for trigger foods (foods that trigger overeating). The 1 or 2 days of carb loading for these people can often cause them to blow the diet completely. They have a hard time returning to the more strict food consumption guidelines on the day following the free eating day (or days). For these people the carb load days should be more structured. Stay tuned for part 2 coming soon.
References:
Aragon A. (2007). Girth Control: the science of fat loss and weight gain 1st edition. Alan Aragon.Gropper S. (2000).
The Biochemistry of Human Nutrition: A Desk Reference. Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Hale J. (2007). Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise. MaxCondition Publishing.
Visit Jamie Hale’s site and purchase his new book (Knowledge and Nonsense: the science of nutrition and exercise) at www.maxcondition.com. Knowledge and Nonsense Reviews over 40 different diets read more… http://maxcondition.com/page.php?103
Used with permisson from Author: www.PowerliftingandBBQ.com
8.08.2009
Gable's BBQ Joint of the week
Smitty's - Lockhart Texas -
http://www.smittysmarket.com/
Being a native Texan, born and raised in Austin I tend to think I know Texas BBQ. When it comes to the highest quality Texas BBQ, Smitty's may just well be the number one in the state.
Brisket - (marbled / aka- fat)
It's called Fat, because the best brisket is the marbled or fat cuts. The smoke ring is deep and nicely pinked. The crust is well caramilzed and crunchy, hints of brown sugar, black pepper and sweet Texas Oak and Pecan wood smoked into it.
The brisket is always tender and juicy, you do NOT need bbq sauce, and they don't put it on the tables anyhow.
Pork Ribs -
Slightly sauced off the pit, these are Pork spare ribs, full of flavor and juice. The meat is mild and tender, nicely smokey and full of unctuous fatty pieces.
The Spread - Brisket, Ribs, Sausage, Big Red, white bread and crackers, avacado, jalapeno and cheese:
Smitty's has been, and will most likely remain my favorite Texas BBQ joint. I try to get to a new place once a month, and I'll be writing a review for each place I hit.
In BBQ we trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
