NerdFitness is a nice site that covers a lot of stuff.
A Nerd's Introduction to Mental Health
Also a lot of other pages with good info.
Here is a sampling:
Everything You Need to Know About Body Fat Percentage
The Beginner’s Guide to the Paleo Diet
Meet Staci: Your New Powerlifting Super Hero - Why you should build muscle rather than try to "tone"
The also have a free app for iOS called Paleo Central.
Showing posts with label Framework. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Framework. Show all posts
01 August 2016
16 August 2014
Sub Optimizing Your Health
Those of you who have read my personal blog know that I am interested in planning and real asset portfolio management. When I say portfolio, it is about understanding how assets interact or correlate and how they affect the whole enterprise. For example, if a company is doing a large project, there is a system cost in doing the project that is seldom considered--when you put people or capital into a large project, there are other projects that do not get done or get delayed.
This work has caused me recently to think about a couple of things.
Maximizing the Health of an Individual at the Expense of Society
Years ago, I had a conversation with my dad who was a doctor. I was feeling pretty smug because I had read about how over-prescription of antibiotics was giving rise to the super-bugs. So I asked him what he does when a patient comes in with flu-like symptoms, but nothing definitive (or some such scenario). He said he would prescribe an antibiotic. Aha I said, you are contributing to the rise of superbugs.
His response was a little startling to me. He said that he didn't know about super-bugs, but he did know that he had a responsibility to his patient and that would be the best course of action for her.
I wrote about the super-bugs and this conversation here as well.
In essence his responsibility was to maximize the health of his patient without regard for overall public health.
Maximizing the Health of an Individual Organ at the Expense of the Body
There is a parallel in the medical specialties. Dermatologists recommend people to minimize sun and use high SPF sun block. When people do this, it minimizes the chances of getting skin cancer, especially carcinoma, the most common form of skin cancer. Their focus is on skin health. It makes sense that they would make these recommendations. In our litigious society, we all need to protect ourselves.
But, in avoiding sun, we reduce the production of vitamin D in our bodies. Vitamin D is important for immune function, and there is evidence that adequate levels of vitamin D can help prevent colds, flu, many other types of cancer, including possibly melanoma--the more deadly form of skin cancer.
So your skin might be in better shape if you minimize sun exposure, but you get the flu or something worse. Important: I do not recommend getting sunburned. Sunburn especially for those under 18 does cause damage to the skin without giving any extra vitamin D benefit. People with light complexions need to be especially careful.
The point of this is that like my father who was focused on his patient at the expense of society at large, medical specialists focus on their organ specialty at the expense of the rest of the body. Drugs work the same way. They focus on doing some very specific thing, e.g. lowering LDL in the blood, then create systemic effects. Remember side-effects are effects.
An Important Role of Government
Who then watches over the whole body and the whole of society. Well for society in the US, we have, in theory, the government. Government entities like the EPA ensure that companies and individuals do not, while pursuing their own enrichment, exact cost on the rest of society. I believe that guarding our shared resources to prevent Tragedy of the Commons is an important role of government. We have seen that with previous systems in place, industry poisoned the environment. Was it because of lack of regulation, protection of the culprits through the anonymity of incorporation, government protections such as limitation of liability, greed, or all of the above? I don't know, but it didn't work. EPA seems to be working better.
A Bad Role of Government
When it comes to the whole body though, remember that it is your body. Nobody has a greater stake than you in ensuring that your body's system is in good health and working well. You are responsible and accountable for what goes into your mouth.
The USDA (department of agriculture) is a great example of what government agencies should not be doing. Their main goal historically has been to support the agricultural sector of the US economy. I don't know the rationale for having a department with a cabinet secretary to do that, but whatever. In 1894 they got into the personal nutrition business publishing nutrition guidelines. Until 1956, grains were just one of 7 food groups given equal weighting. In 1992 the first food guide pyramid came out emphasizing grains. Separately the United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, aka the McGovern commission, in 1974, changed the focus of our diet towards carbohydrates and away from fats. The health of our nation has been in decline ever since. Food manufacturers bear blame as well.
Don't even get me started on the FDA.
Conclusions
This work has caused me recently to think about a couple of things.
Maximizing the Health of an Individual at the Expense of Society
Years ago, I had a conversation with my dad who was a doctor. I was feeling pretty smug because I had read about how over-prescription of antibiotics was giving rise to the super-bugs. So I asked him what he does when a patient comes in with flu-like symptoms, but nothing definitive (or some such scenario). He said he would prescribe an antibiotic. Aha I said, you are contributing to the rise of superbugs.
His response was a little startling to me. He said that he didn't know about super-bugs, but he did know that he had a responsibility to his patient and that would be the best course of action for her.
I wrote about the super-bugs and this conversation here as well.
In essence his responsibility was to maximize the health of his patient without regard for overall public health.
Maximizing the Health of an Individual Organ at the Expense of the Body
There is a parallel in the medical specialties. Dermatologists recommend people to minimize sun and use high SPF sun block. When people do this, it minimizes the chances of getting skin cancer, especially carcinoma, the most common form of skin cancer. Their focus is on skin health. It makes sense that they would make these recommendations. In our litigious society, we all need to protect ourselves.
But, in avoiding sun, we reduce the production of vitamin D in our bodies. Vitamin D is important for immune function, and there is evidence that adequate levels of vitamin D can help prevent colds, flu, many other types of cancer, including possibly melanoma--the more deadly form of skin cancer.
So your skin might be in better shape if you minimize sun exposure, but you get the flu or something worse. Important: I do not recommend getting sunburned. Sunburn especially for those under 18 does cause damage to the skin without giving any extra vitamin D benefit. People with light complexions need to be especially careful.
The point of this is that like my father who was focused on his patient at the expense of society at large, medical specialists focus on their organ specialty at the expense of the rest of the body. Drugs work the same way. They focus on doing some very specific thing, e.g. lowering LDL in the blood, then create systemic effects. Remember side-effects are effects.
An Important Role of Government
Who then watches over the whole body and the whole of society. Well for society in the US, we have, in theory, the government. Government entities like the EPA ensure that companies and individuals do not, while pursuing their own enrichment, exact cost on the rest of society. I believe that guarding our shared resources to prevent Tragedy of the Commons is an important role of government. We have seen that with previous systems in place, industry poisoned the environment. Was it because of lack of regulation, protection of the culprits through the anonymity of incorporation, government protections such as limitation of liability, greed, or all of the above? I don't know, but it didn't work. EPA seems to be working better.
A Bad Role of Government
When it comes to the whole body though, remember that it is your body. Nobody has a greater stake than you in ensuring that your body's system is in good health and working well. You are responsible and accountable for what goes into your mouth.
The USDA (department of agriculture) is a great example of what government agencies should not be doing. Their main goal historically has been to support the agricultural sector of the US economy. I don't know the rationale for having a department with a cabinet secretary to do that, but whatever. In 1894 they got into the personal nutrition business publishing nutrition guidelines. Until 1956, grains were just one of 7 food groups given equal weighting. In 1992 the first food guide pyramid came out emphasizing grains. Separately the United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, aka the McGovern commission, in 1974, changed the focus of our diet towards carbohydrates and away from fats. The health of our nation has been in decline ever since. Food manufacturers bear blame as well.
Don't even get me started on the FDA.
Conclusions
- Systems thinking is important; a holistic perspective can give important insights.
- Listening only to experts with a very narrow perspective can lead to sub-optimization
- Government tries, with mixed results, to look after the systemic good of our nation.
- Some of the agencies in the US government seem very closely aligned with industry to the detriment of individuals.
- Ultimately you are responsible for yourself. Consider the source, not just their degrees, but also their incentives in providing advice or guidance.
08 August 2014
Blood Pressure - The E4E View
Blood pressure is the range of pressures in your cardiovascular system exerted by the heart pumping blood through your system. it is normally expressed in units of mmHg (millimeters of mercury). So a value of 120 is enough to support a column of mercury 120 mm high. Blood pressure has two values diastolic and systolic. The systolic (higher value) is the transient pressure in your arteries experienced during a heartbeat. The diastolic (lower value) is the recovery or resting pressure experienced in-between heartbeats. Blood pressure is normally expressed as systolic over diastolic, e.g. 120/80.
It is very common to find articles that talk about how high blood pressure is associated with heart disease. It is also common to see articles that say that high blood pressure causes stroke and heart disease. E4E wonders about this and set out to research it.
High Blood Pressure from an Engineering Perspective
Think of the circulatory system and the heart as a pump--perhaps something like a diaphragm or a peristaltic pump. It pushes out the fluid with one stroke, then brings in fluid with the next. Each time the heart pushes out fluid, there is pressure created downstream from the heart. This rapidly dissipates for two main reasons: the arteries themselves are elastic and therefore expand when they receive pressure, the blood flows out of the arteries and into tissue and through the kidneys (and ultimately into the veins for return to the lungs and heart)--it's like having a hose without anything to stop the flow.
From this simplistic perspective then, removing the elasticity of the arteries or restricting the flow from the arteries can cause high blood pressure. Arteriosclerosis, the thickening, hardening, and loss of elasticity of the walls of arteries reduces the elasticity of the arteries, and so is a cause of high diastolic blood pressure. The loss of elasticity can be from either changes in the structure of the artery walls or by deposition of plaques inside the innermost lining of the artery, a condition known as atherosclerosis.
Additionally, renal artery disease, a blockage of the artery that brings blood to the kidneys for filtering, prevents the blood from exiting freely from the arterial system.
After the pulse of pressure from the heart, there is then a brief period for the pressure to dissipate before the next beat. So the systolic pressure indicates your body's ability to handle and dissipate the initial pressure pulse, while the diastolic pressure indicates a more general dissipation of blood into the capillaries.
Is High Blood Pressure Bad?
Medical people have said that high blood pressure (hypertension) increases the risk of kidney failure, stroke, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and events such as an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). From what I can determine, there is actually very little evidence that high pressure by itself is the cause of those issues.
The problem is more likely with the factors that cause the high blood pressure; the pressure is just a symptom. There is something called hypertensive heart disease, which is a thickening of the heart muscle caused by high blood pressure. The heart has to work harder to pump blood, so it bulks up. This larger heart needs a larger blood supply, and if it can't get it, problems ensue. From what I interpret in my readings, it is unclear if the enlarged heart is a primary cause, or if obstructed coronary blood vessels are what prevents the heart from getting blood supply. Wikipedia has a good article on Hypertension.
The hypothesis that hypertension causes these issues goes something like this from MedicineNet:
"High blood pressure makes your heart work harder and, over time, can damage blood vessels throughout your body. If the blood vessels in your kidneys are damaged, they may stop removing wastes and extra fluid from your body. The extra fluid in your blood vessels may then raise blood pressure even more. It's a dangerous cycle."
E4E Take
E4E thinks that the arrow of causality may be reversed. The above quote never addresses what caused hypertension in the first place. I believe that blood factors damage arteries (inflammation), which causes hypertension. The damage to the blood vessels also damages the blood vessels in the kidneys. Once the blood vessels are damaged, I suspect that elevation of blood pressure can rupture blood vessels, leading to events like AAA and stroke. So if your blood vessels are already damaged, it might be worth using drugs to lower BP. In my paradigm, though, that does not prevent further damage to the blood vessels, but might prevent a catastrophic event in the short term.
I would guess that the "high blood pressure causes bad things" paradigm is a relic of the history of medicine. They could measure it, so they did. They found a correlation, and then rationalized a causality story.
I wonder if somewhere, there is primary research, perhaps in animals, in which the researchers elevated blood pressure prior to causing damage to the circulatory system, for example, with a small pump just past the exit from the heart to somehow elevate overall pressure. That might give us a sense of whether elevated BP actually causes damage to otherwise healthy blood vessels.
[Edit: For several days after this post, the issue of blood pressure has been rattling around in my brain. There is a circularity that has confounded me somewhat, so here is what I am thinking:
A damaged vascular system causes high blood pressure. Damaged blood vessels are more prone to failure. The damage creates the danger, and also elevated blood pressure. High blood pressure can, in turn, cause failure and further damage in damaged blood vessels.
In the absence of damage, high blood pressure is not dangerous; after all, systolic blood pressure can go over 300 in times of intense exercise. Moderately high blood pressure, e.g 140/90, is indicative that there is damage, but it may not have progressed to dangerous levels. It is important to do everything you can to prevent further damage that would drive your BP higher. Clean up your diet, lay off junk food, eat naturally nutritionally dense foods (not barren foods that are enriched), stick with natural fats (rather than highly-processed ones), layoff sugar, exercise.
Drugs that lower BP do not repair or reverse the damage. They may help prevent or delay the catastrophic failure, but they do not fix the real problem, which is the damage to your arteries.
When a water main blows and floods city streets, we don't blame the pumps for creating the pressure, we blame the pipes. Blood pressure is analogous.]
Notes and Sources
Malcolm Kendrick's series on cardiovascular disease no 57 - He writes on blood pressure - to be continued.
Kendrick seems to be well aligned with this post Heart disease No 58. Yay!
Blood Pressure During Exercise
Salt and Blood Pressure
The press and medical establishment have, for years, warned us to reduce salt intake to reduce our incidence of high blood pressure. Unless you have some kind of physical problem processing salt, your blood pressure might rise by up to 6 mm Hg after ingesting salt. Notice "might" and "up to" in the last sentence. Salt is not what causes your pressure to go from 120/80 to 160/100.
Recent New England Journal of Medicine paper on reductions of death that could result from a reduction in salt intake.
This paper on the Hypertension Paradox addresses the fact that despite improved means to treat hypertension, it continues to increase in the population. It seems they are considering hypertension as a disease rather than as a symptom. This is the problem with aggressive drug treatment of cholesterol as well.
Gary Taubes
wrote an article in Science magazine entitled "The (Political) Science of Salt." (That is a free link. Science charges for the article.) The article is written in the vein of Good Calories, Bad Calories, and Taubes received the 1999 National Association of Science Writers' Science in Journalism Award award for writing it. His conclusions were that the research supports the concept that salt is, at most, the cause of a few point of blood pressure.Here's what he said in this article in the Daily Bell:
"Daily Bell: Can you explain more about salt in diet and blood pressure, etc?"
"Taubes: For fifty years, researchers have been trying to causally link salt consumption to hypertension and the data has continued to be, at best, ambiguous. It's a nice hypothesis, but it just hasn't panned out in human trials or even, really, in the observational studies. On the other hand, it's been known since the 1870s that carbohydrates cause water retention and the more water you retain, simplistically speaking, the higher your blood pressure will be. It's been known since the 1950s that when people go on carbohydrate-restricted diets their blood pressure drops dramatically because of that water loss, and it's been known since the 1980s that one of the many things insulin does is regulate blood pressure. Moreover, hypertension is associated with obesity and diabetes so, in one sense, whatever causes obesity and diabetes also causes hypertension, and obesity and diabetes, as I explain in GCBC, are almost assuredly caused by the quality and quantity of carbohydrates in our diet."
From everything I can tell, high blood pressure is associated with cardiovascular disease--it is not a cause of the disease. Tom Naughton (creator of Fat Head
) expressed a number of alternative hypotheses on the Fat Head blog.- "Refined carbohydrates produce high blood sugar and high levels of insulin, which in turn are both bad news for your arteries. Refined carbohydrates also cause water retention, which raises your blood pressure. (So if you really want to reduce your blood pressure, give up the sugar and starch.)"
- "Blood pressure tends to go up as we get older. (Mine hasn’t, but bear with me here.) We’re also more likely to suffer heart attacks and strokes as we get older.
- "Stress causes your body to produce more cortisol, which can damage your arteries. Stress also raises your blood pressure.
- "Eating lots of vegetables may be good for your heart. Vegetables are also high in potassium, which lowers blood pressure."
John Briffa - Blood pressure is a symptom. Fixing the symptom may not fix the underlying problem.
John Briffa - is lower blood pressure always better? This report on a study that shows that lowering blood pressure below140/90 did not result in any changes to outcomes. The pressure was changed through chemical/medicinal means.
There has recently been a call to arms to reduce salt in food, under the premise that doing so will save "between 44,000 and 92,000" lives every year. The articles I read didn't go into detail, but the thinking in the past has gone something like this. (WebMD, New York Times, LA Times)
1. Salt causes high blood pressure
2. High blood pressure causes heart attack and stroke
3. Reduction in blood pressure of x points reduces the probability of heart attack or stroke by y%
4. Therefore, reduction of salt will reduce deaths by total susceptible population * y%
Of the above points, the basic premises (1 and 2) are not supported by research and science. The extrapolation (3) is based on a correlation in the data with no implicit causality. The conclusion is just speculation that follows from 1, 2, and 3. Repeat after me "Correlation is not Causation."
The Diet Doctor blog
Bad Science Leads to Bad Government
A related subject is the link between high blood pressure and heart disease and stroke. The latest class of anti-hypertensives, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, which includes such brands as Benicar, Cozaar, and Valtran, do a great job reducing blood pressure but the scientific evidence shows they do not decrease the incidence of myocardial infarction (heart attacks). The older ACE inhibitors, such as lisinopril, reduce blood pressure and also reduce the incidence of heart attacks and death, and they are also available for $0.11 a day. Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/why-cholesterol-may-not-b_b_290687.html
Recent Research
The British Medical Journal published a paper recently called Hypertension: empirical evidence and implications in 2014. Their finding is that there is no evidence that reducing blood pressure in people with mild hypertension with antihypertensive therapy will reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
Some Additional Links:
Chris Kresser post on Blood Pressure and how to lower it naturally
Insulin and Hypertension from an evolutionary perspective
Tierney NYT article
Blood Pressure reduction does not reduce cardiovascular risk in Diabetics
There is a question about the impact of Isolated Diastolic hypertension, i.e. the high number's low and the low number's high. The Wiley article below concludes that there is little evidence of danger from IDH. There is evidence that using aural measurement of BP (with a stethoscope) can result in systematically higher readings of BP. E4E wonders whether, with accurate readings of the diastolic, this might be shown to have a high risk.
Isolated Diastolic Hypertension -
Another Isolated Diastolic Hypertension (Wiley) article - doesn't find much association with adverse issues.
Recent Research
The British Medical Journal published a paper recently called Hypertension: empirical evidence and implications in 2014. Their finding is that there is no evidence that reducing blood pressure in people with mild hypertension with antihypertensive therapy will reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
Some Additional Links:
Chris Kresser post on Blood Pressure and how to lower it naturally
Insulin and Hypertension from an evolutionary perspective
Tierney NYT article
Blood Pressure reduction does not reduce cardiovascular risk in Diabetics
There is a question about the impact of Isolated Diastolic hypertension, i.e. the high number's low and the low number's high. The Wiley article below concludes that there is little evidence of danger from IDH. There is evidence that using aural measurement of BP (with a stethoscope) can result in systematically higher readings of BP. E4E wonders whether, with accurate readings of the diastolic, this might be shown to have a high risk.
Isolated Diastolic Hypertension -
Another Isolated Diastolic Hypertension (Wiley) article - doesn't find much association with adverse issues.
08 August 2011
Ancestral Health Symposium Notes
I have just attended an amazing event--the Ancestral Health Symposium. It was an incredible few days. I want to tell you all about it, but have no idea where to start, so I'll just wade in.
What Is It?
A two day conference held on the UCLA Campus on August 5 and 6. The conference featured many presentations about the "Paleo" diet and exercise (all the talks will be put online over the next few months). In some of my posts on diet, I have mentioned this philosophy, so I'll start with some of the basics.
Ancestral Framework
There is not at present a standards committee that declares what is and isn't paleo. I think of it more as a framework for thinking about what is healthy for us. The idea is that, fundamentally, humans are the product of millions and millions of years of evolution. We have both very primitive and very sophisticated chemical signaling systems in our body. Our bodies evolved through many different environments and circumstances.
In the last few hundred years, and especially in the last 30 or so years, we seem to be falling apart as a species. Worldwide, obesity and diabetes are skyrocketing. A key hypothesis behind this ancestral health movement is that the foods introduced into our collective diet, since the dawn of agriculture, and especially in the past few hundred years is literally killing us. It is becoming increasingly evident that although we are living longer, we are doing so with lower health than ever before.
Much of the press and publicity for this approach to health have focused on caveman re-enactment and Fred Flintstone slabs of beef. That is simply not the point of the Ancestral Health movement. In any event
Ancestral Diet
Defining the paleo diet is easiest to do by exclusion:
1. Eliminate refined sugar, limit highly concentrated natural natural sugars
2. Eliminate grains in general
3. Eliminate oils from seeds, e.g. canola, cottonseed, and corn oil
Within the paleo community, some say you should go further and
4. Eliminate legumes i.e. beans
5. Eliminate dairy and dairy products
What remains then is animal products (muscle, organs, and fat from animals including fish, fowl, beef, pork), vegetables (both starchy and green leafy), fruit (whole fruit, not juice), nuts.
Because so many foods have changed so much in the last 10,000 years, (the advent of agriculture), we can really only guess at the specific nutrients in paleo-man's diet. There is a general consensus in the community that it is best if the animals that you eat, eat their natural diets, e.g. grass fed beef, wild-caught fish. The community also seems to believe that omega-6 oils are more prone to oxidation than other oils, so fish oil supplementation or reduction of the omega-6 oils in the diet are important. Let's not forget the importance of sunshine.
The community tends towards some degree of variability to mimic ancient patterns e.g. there were not strawberries year round in our distant past, so eating seasonally may have value; periodic fasts without food whether for 16 hours or a few days are probably something we can handle without undue problems and that might even have benefits.
In its current incarnation the paleo community has rallied around a self-experimentation paradigm. It's not "anything goes", but rather within the above guidelines, try different approaches and see what works for you.
I will put out some more details on diet and some revisions to the E4E recommendations in the near future.
Ancestral Exercise
There is much less consensus around and focus on what constitutes true paleo exercise and how to gain benefits related to that. I would say that in general, there is less emphasis on "chronic cardio" and more emphasis on periodic intensity in exercise, as well as natural movement (running, jumping, climbing).
Interesting Talks
The conference was announced about a year ago and when tickets went on sale, I started to try to arrange my schedule, etc. I waited a little too long, so by the time I tried to buy a ticket, the conference was sold out. However, they needed volunteers, so I was able to participate as a volunteer. I was present but working for many of the talks and had down time as well to focus on them.
Here is a list of the talks that I really liked and that people seemed to be buzzing about:
Denise Minger - How to Argue with a Vegetarian
Nora Gedgaudis - lots of amazing stuff on mind-body integration
Tom Naughton - entertaining talk on bad science
Erwan LeCorre - moving naturally
Melissa McEwen - clues from the colon (humans are unique)
Emily Deans and Jamie Scott - the rainforest in your gut
Dr. BG and Tim Gerstmar - curing autism through diet
Pedro Bastos - Dairy
Robert Lustig - Fructose and Leptin
Mat Lalonde - heavy chemistry talk, but the real message was that paleo needs to go beyond caveman and have really good science
Andreas Eenfeldt - Sweden's experience with lower carb as their national paradigm
Richard Nikoley - representing the blogosphere, how he has used self-experimentation to lose 70 pounds and become a better animal
All the talks will go on the internet. They will first be uploaded in raw form, but later with some editing and polish. I have little information beyond these talks. I was either not in on the buzz, they were rehashing old material, or possibly were not well received.
In the meantime, here are some other bloggers' takes on the event.
http://ethicaleats.blogspot.com/2011/08/woodstock-of-evolutionary-medicine-part.html
http://naturallyengineered.com/blog/?p=4725
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/must-hear-podcast-interviews-after-attending-the-2011-ancestral-health-symposium/11446
http://jackkruse.com/my-very-fresh-initial-thoughts-of-ahs-2011/
http://www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/2011/08/back-from-ahs.html
http://whole9life.com/2011/08/whole9-goes-to-the-ahs/
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/08/reflections-on-ancestral-health.html
http://www.wildnessandwonder.com/2011/08/initial-thoughts-from-the-ancestral-health-symposium/
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=4244
http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/08/ahs-people-post.html?spref=tw
E4E Experience
I met and spoke with a lot of people while there. I was extremely gratified and thrilled at how many were familiar with this blog. I have no illusions about its place in the blogosphere, but there were a few conversations of note.
J. Stanton of gnolls.org, author of The Gnoll Credo
, saw my name tag and told me that he had sent someone to my gout post and that a month later the man was free of gout. The person had made a number of changes, but my gout post was a reference for him.
Another person I met was Krista Scott-Dixon, whose work I have perused for years. She has long been a proponent of women lifting actual weights (not the pink ones). Her dork to diva series is really good and she has put out lots of good information through the years. She is also editor-in-chief of Spezzatino. I introduced myself to her, she told me that she knew about E4E and in fact had used one of my posts (I think this one) with one of her clients. I was totally thrilled that someone who I have followed through he years was familiar with my stuff.
Finally, I shared a house for the three nights with a really cool group of people from the Bay Area including a few fellow bloggers, so check out An Omnivore's Decision and Primal Girl in a Modern World. Thanks to Tess for doing all the work to get the house lined up.
I will also thank US Wellness Meats for saving my (figurative) bacon from the fast food in the student union at UCLA. The beef sticks and jerky made me tingle in the best possible way.
I feel really energized after hearing the E4E feedback from people, listening to the amazing talks, and all the geeky discussions. Over the coming months, as the edited lectures become available, I plan to highlight some of the key ones.
Stay tuned.
What Is It?
A two day conference held on the UCLA Campus on August 5 and 6. The conference featured many presentations about the "Paleo" diet and exercise (all the talks will be put online over the next few months). In some of my posts on diet, I have mentioned this philosophy, so I'll start with some of the basics.
Ancestral Framework
There is not at present a standards committee that declares what is and isn't paleo. I think of it more as a framework for thinking about what is healthy for us. The idea is that, fundamentally, humans are the product of millions and millions of years of evolution. We have both very primitive and very sophisticated chemical signaling systems in our body. Our bodies evolved through many different environments and circumstances.
In the last few hundred years, and especially in the last 30 or so years, we seem to be falling apart as a species. Worldwide, obesity and diabetes are skyrocketing. A key hypothesis behind this ancestral health movement is that the foods introduced into our collective diet, since the dawn of agriculture, and especially in the past few hundred years is literally killing us. It is becoming increasingly evident that although we are living longer, we are doing so with lower health than ever before.
Much of the press and publicity for this approach to health have focused on caveman re-enactment and Fred Flintstone slabs of beef. That is simply not the point of the Ancestral Health movement. In any event
Ancestral Diet
Defining the paleo diet is easiest to do by exclusion:
1. Eliminate refined sugar, limit highly concentrated natural natural sugars
2. Eliminate grains in general
3. Eliminate oils from seeds, e.g. canola, cottonseed, and corn oil
Within the paleo community, some say you should go further and
4. Eliminate legumes i.e. beans
5. Eliminate dairy and dairy products
What remains then is animal products (muscle, organs, and fat from animals including fish, fowl, beef, pork), vegetables (both starchy and green leafy), fruit (whole fruit, not juice), nuts.
Because so many foods have changed so much in the last 10,000 years, (the advent of agriculture), we can really only guess at the specific nutrients in paleo-man's diet. There is a general consensus in the community that it is best if the animals that you eat, eat their natural diets, e.g. grass fed beef, wild-caught fish. The community also seems to believe that omega-6 oils are more prone to oxidation than other oils, so fish oil supplementation or reduction of the omega-6 oils in the diet are important. Let's not forget the importance of sunshine.
The community tends towards some degree of variability to mimic ancient patterns e.g. there were not strawberries year round in our distant past, so eating seasonally may have value; periodic fasts without food whether for 16 hours or a few days are probably something we can handle without undue problems and that might even have benefits.
In its current incarnation the paleo community has rallied around a self-experimentation paradigm. It's not "anything goes", but rather within the above guidelines, try different approaches and see what works for you.
I will put out some more details on diet and some revisions to the E4E recommendations in the near future.
Ancestral Exercise
There is much less consensus around and focus on what constitutes true paleo exercise and how to gain benefits related to that. I would say that in general, there is less emphasis on "chronic cardio" and more emphasis on periodic intensity in exercise, as well as natural movement (running, jumping, climbing).
Interesting Talks
The conference was announced about a year ago and when tickets went on sale, I started to try to arrange my schedule, etc. I waited a little too long, so by the time I tried to buy a ticket, the conference was sold out. However, they needed volunteers, so I was able to participate as a volunteer. I was present but working for many of the talks and had down time as well to focus on them.
Here is a list of the talks that I really liked and that people seemed to be buzzing about:
Denise Minger - How to Argue with a Vegetarian
Nora Gedgaudis - lots of amazing stuff on mind-body integration
Tom Naughton - entertaining talk on bad science
Erwan LeCorre - moving naturally
Melissa McEwen - clues from the colon (humans are unique)
Emily Deans and Jamie Scott - the rainforest in your gut
Dr. BG and Tim Gerstmar - curing autism through diet
Pedro Bastos - Dairy
Robert Lustig - Fructose and Leptin
Mat Lalonde - heavy chemistry talk, but the real message was that paleo needs to go beyond caveman and have really good science
Andreas Eenfeldt - Sweden's experience with lower carb as their national paradigm
Richard Nikoley - representing the blogosphere, how he has used self-experimentation to lose 70 pounds and become a better animal
All the talks will go on the internet. They will first be uploaded in raw form, but later with some editing and polish. I have little information beyond these talks. I was either not in on the buzz, they were rehashing old material, or possibly were not well received.
In the meantime, here are some other bloggers' takes on the event.
http://ethicaleats.blogspot.com/2011/08/woodstock-of-evolutionary-medicine-part.html
http://naturallyengineered.com/blog/?p=4725
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/must-hear-podcast-interviews-after-attending-the-2011-ancestral-health-symposium/11446
http://jackkruse.com/my-very-fresh-initial-thoughts-of-ahs-2011/
http://www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/2011/08/back-from-ahs.html
http://whole9life.com/2011/08/whole9-goes-to-the-ahs/
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/08/reflections-on-ancestral-health.html
http://www.wildnessandwonder.com/2011/08/initial-thoughts-from-the-ancestral-health-symposium/
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=4244
http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/08/ahs-people-post.html?spref=tw
E4E Experience
I met and spoke with a lot of people while there. I was extremely gratified and thrilled at how many were familiar with this blog. I have no illusions about its place in the blogosphere, but there were a few conversations of note.
J. Stanton of gnolls.org, author of The Gnoll Credo
, saw my name tag and told me that he had sent someone to my gout post and that a month later the man was free of gout. The person had made a number of changes, but my gout post was a reference for him.Another person I met was Krista Scott-Dixon, whose work I have perused for years. She has long been a proponent of women lifting actual weights (not the pink ones). Her dork to diva series is really good and she has put out lots of good information through the years. She is also editor-in-chief of Spezzatino. I introduced myself to her, she told me that she knew about E4E and in fact had used one of my posts (I think this one) with one of her clients. I was totally thrilled that someone who I have followed through he years was familiar with my stuff.
Finally, I shared a house for the three nights with a really cool group of people from the Bay Area including a few fellow bloggers, so check out An Omnivore's Decision and Primal Girl in a Modern World. Thanks to Tess for doing all the work to get the house lined up.
I will also thank US Wellness Meats for saving my (figurative) bacon from the fast food in the student union at UCLA. The beef sticks and jerky made me tingle in the best possible way.
I feel really energized after hearing the E4E feedback from people, listening to the amazing talks, and all the geeky discussions. Over the coming months, as the edited lectures become available, I plan to highlight some of the key ones.
Stay tuned.
04 July 2010
Very Quick Post on Free Will
I have been looking for a way to describe a seeming contradiction in my thinking about free will or our lack thereof. That is the whole chicken and egg thing around if one has no free will, how can they possibly ever effect change in their own life. Ultimately, it comes down to rewriting our electro-chemical programs by changing the people we associate with, the food we eat, the exercise we do, the sleep we get, etc.
I think it comes down to something to nudge you in a different direction, then that nudge becomes a cascade of positive (or negative) results.
Nicholas Nassim Taleb who wrote The Black Swan
and Fooled by Randomness
(the better of the two IMHO), tweeted something that I think says it well."Unless we manipulate our surroundings, we have as little control over what & whom we think about as we do over the muscles of our hearts."
So it's not simply deciding to do something differently, we have to change our environment, i.e. do something in order to set up the conditions to make a change.
I would add that external forces can change the surroundings as well. Think of the woman who tells her husband that his breathing is broken at night.
OK. That's it. Happy Independence Day weekend for those in the US, Belarus, Argentina, Algeria, Burundi, Malawi, São Tomé and PrÃncipe, Solomon Islands, and Venezuela.
21 April 2010
Short Term Personal Healing vs. Long Term Public Health
The Rise of the Superbugs has been in the news lately.
Dave at Spark of Reason tweeted an article about disinfectants promoting the growth of superbugs.
The New York Times had an op-ed piece on antibiotics in the the food supply (Cows on Drugs).
Nicholas Kristof at the NY Times did a good article about this. The Rise of the Superbugs the view expressed in that column is that the large scale use of antibiotics that we feed to cattle is the leading cause of the evolution of the antibiotic resistant bacteria.
The articles are about microevolution in action, and more broadly about the tragedy of the commons.
In simple terms, it works like this. If you clean something with a disinfectant, there is a chance that some of the bacteria and germs will survive. The ones that survive are, in principle, those best adapted to repel the disinfectant. Their offspring will then be more fit, meaning that we would need stronger or different disinfectants to kill them, etc. The Kristof article goes further, and in fact, the microbes become more immune to antibiotics as well.
This is one of the reasons that when you get antibiotics from your doctor they tell you to finish the prescription. If you take a few pills and it kills only some of the microbes--enough to make you feel better--the remaining microbes will be those most immune to the drug.
It's escalation at a microscopic level. The more people that use disinfectants and clean the beejeezus out of themselves, the more likely that strong bugs will proliferate. So for all of us, keeping ourselves clean with soap and other anti-bacterial agents is, at some level a disservice to society. Just sayin'.
Many workplaces have taken to putting out alcohol based hand cleansers to help prevent the spread of colds and flu. Is there an unintended consequence waiting to happen. I would recommend vitamin D, over using sanitizers.
There is also an idea that our children are more prone to disease and autoimmune issues because of the relatively sterile environments in which we live today (hygiene hypothesis). There is even a type of therapy called helminthic therapy in which you are infected with hookworms, which has the effect of reducing allery symptoms.
My father was a doctor. Some years ago, I asked him about antibiotics and strengthening the enemy. His response was that if a patient came to him with a disease that could be treated by antibiotics, he would not hesitate to prescribe them. His focus was on treating the person, and for him a worse case scenario was something like, person comes in, he doesn't prescribe, and that person dies.
In my own mind, I have arrived to the conclusion, after reading the articles above that fundamentally, my father's view is a good perspective.
Judicious treatment of large numbers of symptomatic people with antibiotics, may result in some cases of creating stronger bugs, but the benefit to individual humans can't be ignored. However, blanket antibiotic treatment, as happens in the meat and dairy industry, is not good for anyone.
E4E Recommendations:
1. Keep adequate vitamin D levels in your body. It strengthens your body's ability to repel the invaders.
2. Consider organic and grass fed meat raised without the use of antibiotics. Corn is not a normal diet for cattle, and they tend to get sicker on that diet, thus the antibiotics. If you're worried about some of the recent press around beef and global warming, Spark of Reason has something to say about it.
3. I won't recommend hookworm (helminthic) therapy, don't worry. It is intriguing though.
4. If you are sick, and your doctor recommends antibiotics, take them, get yourself well. Consume the entire bottle, don't stop partway through the course.
5. You should still wash your hands with soap after using the toilet and before cooking. There are nasty bugs that can live in the digestive tract and nether regions.
6. Consider going soapless. I don't do it myself, but personally know one person who has done it, and Richard over at Free The Animal has also done it. Wash yourself, but use cloths, brushes, and water to get clean, not soap.
Thanks for reading. I hope you follow my tweets on twitter as well. My tweet handle is ee4ee.
Dave at Spark of Reason tweeted an article about disinfectants promoting the growth of superbugs.
The New York Times had an op-ed piece on antibiotics in the the food supply (Cows on Drugs).
Nicholas Kristof at the NY Times did a good article about this. The Rise of the Superbugs the view expressed in that column is that the large scale use of antibiotics that we feed to cattle is the leading cause of the evolution of the antibiotic resistant bacteria.
The articles are about microevolution in action, and more broadly about the tragedy of the commons.
In simple terms, it works like this. If you clean something with a disinfectant, there is a chance that some of the bacteria and germs will survive. The ones that survive are, in principle, those best adapted to repel the disinfectant. Their offspring will then be more fit, meaning that we would need stronger or different disinfectants to kill them, etc. The Kristof article goes further, and in fact, the microbes become more immune to antibiotics as well.
This is one of the reasons that when you get antibiotics from your doctor they tell you to finish the prescription. If you take a few pills and it kills only some of the microbes--enough to make you feel better--the remaining microbes will be those most immune to the drug.
It's escalation at a microscopic level. The more people that use disinfectants and clean the beejeezus out of themselves, the more likely that strong bugs will proliferate. So for all of us, keeping ourselves clean with soap and other anti-bacterial agents is, at some level a disservice to society. Just sayin'.
Many workplaces have taken to putting out alcohol based hand cleansers to help prevent the spread of colds and flu. Is there an unintended consequence waiting to happen. I would recommend vitamin D, over using sanitizers.
There is also an idea that our children are more prone to disease and autoimmune issues because of the relatively sterile environments in which we live today (hygiene hypothesis). There is even a type of therapy called helminthic therapy in which you are infected with hookworms, which has the effect of reducing allery symptoms.
My father was a doctor. Some years ago, I asked him about antibiotics and strengthening the enemy. His response was that if a patient came to him with a disease that could be treated by antibiotics, he would not hesitate to prescribe them. His focus was on treating the person, and for him a worse case scenario was something like, person comes in, he doesn't prescribe, and that person dies.
In my own mind, I have arrived to the conclusion, after reading the articles above that fundamentally, my father's view is a good perspective.
Judicious treatment of large numbers of symptomatic people with antibiotics, may result in some cases of creating stronger bugs, but the benefit to individual humans can't be ignored. However, blanket antibiotic treatment, as happens in the meat and dairy industry, is not good for anyone.
E4E Recommendations:
1. Keep adequate vitamin D levels in your body. It strengthens your body's ability to repel the invaders.
2. Consider organic and grass fed meat raised without the use of antibiotics. Corn is not a normal diet for cattle, and they tend to get sicker on that diet, thus the antibiotics. If you're worried about some of the recent press around beef and global warming, Spark of Reason has something to say about it.
3. I won't recommend hookworm (helminthic) therapy, don't worry. It is intriguing though.
4. If you are sick, and your doctor recommends antibiotics, take them, get yourself well. Consume the entire bottle, don't stop partway through the course.
5. You should still wash your hands with soap after using the toilet and before cooking. There are nasty bugs that can live in the digestive tract and nether regions.
6. Consider going soapless. I don't do it myself, but personally know one person who has done it, and Richard over at Free The Animal has also done it. Wash yourself, but use cloths, brushes, and water to get clean, not soap.
Thanks for reading. I hope you follow my tweets on twitter as well. My tweet handle is ee4ee.
30 December 2009
Interpreting Science Writing
Note to readers: This column is coming out much later than I had intended. I apologize for that. I think I may have blown my resolution from earlier this year to put out one post per month. I really struggled with this one. As I wrote, the article kept getting longer and more detailed. There is no shortage of bad science coverage out there. I was stalled and my wife helped me break out of it (thanks). Ultimately, I probably should treat this as an overview post, then put in detailed posts in the future on some of the individual points.
So please let me know in the comments if you are interested in reading more detail about any of the points made in this post. --e4e
Writing about science writing is like writing about vocabulary or word usage. There is a really good chance that you will find inconsistencies in some of your own practices. Shame and ridicule have never stopped me though, so here goes.
Sensational headlines call to us to stop eating saturated fat. Or to stay out of the sun. Do more cardio (or less). How can we make sense of this hodge-podge?
First, research has a well-defined and specific structure and process. The researcher states a null hypothesis, e.g. saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Then they determine a protocol for testing that hypothesis. Run the research and analyze the results. In standard scientific method, the results do not prove the hypothesis--they either reject it or fail to reject it. This is similar to a court case, where a defendant is found guilty or not guilty. A "Not guilty" verdict does not prove innocence, only that there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt.
Repeating studies and testing variations of the hypothesis are an important part of this as well. For example, if the researchers use palmitic acid (a saturated fat) in the original protocol, someone else might try a similar experiment with lauric acid (another saturated fat) to see if the result is generalizable to another saturated fat. Or perhaps they would try a similar test with fewer refined carbohydrates in the diet to test a suspected interaction.
In the final analysis, only when a hypothesis has been tested multiple times with valid well-designed studies, along with reasonable variations, and has been peer-reviewed, can we begin to say that the hypothesis or its evolved state is very likely. This is even more true in human studies, where numerous factors can confound results.
Sadly, in the current state of our society and even perhaps in research communities, we take as given, hypotheses that are much less well-founded. A typical flow is more like this. A researcher analyzes a data set and looks for relationships in the data. If he or she finds one, he builds a hypothesis that rationalizes what he thinks he sees in the full data set, or even worse, a filtered or smoothed one. So far, it's not too bad. If he then takes his analysis and designs a good intervention study he may be on to something.
Unfortunately, too often, a science writer gets wind of his hypothesis (the researchers are not innocent in this), and publishes a sensational story before the real work begins.
As always, you are your own n = 1. Read carefully, learn voraciously, and caveat emptor.
Following are some considerations to think about when reaing and interpreting science writing.So please let me know in the comments if you are interested in reading more detail about any of the points made in this post. --e4e
Writing about science writing is like writing about vocabulary or word usage. There is a really good chance that you will find inconsistencies in some of your own practices. Shame and ridicule have never stopped me though, so here goes.
Sensational headlines call to us to stop eating saturated fat. Or to stay out of the sun. Do more cardio (or less). How can we make sense of this hodge-podge?
First, research has a well-defined and specific structure and process. The researcher states a null hypothesis, e.g. saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Then they determine a protocol for testing that hypothesis. Run the research and analyze the results. In standard scientific method, the results do not prove the hypothesis--they either reject it or fail to reject it. This is similar to a court case, where a defendant is found guilty or not guilty. A "Not guilty" verdict does not prove innocence, only that there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt.
Repeating studies and testing variations of the hypothesis are an important part of this as well. For example, if the researchers use palmitic acid (a saturated fat) in the original protocol, someone else might try a similar experiment with lauric acid (another saturated fat) to see if the result is generalizable to another saturated fat. Or perhaps they would try a similar test with fewer refined carbohydrates in the diet to test a suspected interaction.
In the final analysis, only when a hypothesis has been tested multiple times with valid well-designed studies, along with reasonable variations, and has been peer-reviewed, can we begin to say that the hypothesis or its evolved state is very likely. This is even more true in human studies, where numerous factors can confound results.
Sadly, in the current state of our society and even perhaps in research communities, we take as given, hypotheses that are much less well-founded. A typical flow is more like this. A researcher analyzes a data set and looks for relationships in the data. If he or she finds one, he builds a hypothesis that rationalizes what he thinks he sees in the full data set, or even worse, a filtered or smoothed one. So far, it's not too bad. If he then takes his analysis and designs a good intervention study he may be on to something.
Unfortunately, too often, a science writer gets wind of his hypothesis (the researchers are not innocent in this), and publishes a sensational story before the real work begins.
As always, you are your own n = 1. Read carefully, learn voraciously, and caveat emptor.
1. Many, or perhaps most, mainstream science writers are much stronger at writing than science. They do not have the ability, inclination, or motivation to discriminate between important and unimportant results. Question mainstream media (MSM) reports of science. Gary Taubes is seen by many as one of the better science writers around. Who are some others?
2. Correlation does not imply causation, however, lack of correlation does imply lack of causation - If you are reading about an epidemiological (observational) study it proves nothing. Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations. Not long ago they tracked thousands of people over 10 years based on what they reported eating, then said that eating more red meat was "linked to early death." That's fine as far as it goes, but then the reporting (and the "scientists") took the next step and said that therefore, eating meat causes cancer. That's not science.
In a similar vein, beware the expression, "...is a risk factor for...", e.g. "Obesity is a risk factor for diabetes." When I read that I interpret causality, as in obesity causes diabetes. The truth of the matter is more like, "people who have diabetes tend also to be obese, both conditions are related to a insulin-resistant metabolic defect."
The epidemiological studies can point you in the direction of something to test further, i.e. they can generate a hypothesis, but it can not establish causality. A great comment by "seyont" from Dr. Eades' blog. "An observational study is sort of a triple-blind study. The researchers do not know what experiment was performed, on whom it was performed, or even if it was performed. They grab a bunch of people and dream up an experiment which could plausibly have produced the correlations they see."
3. Mouse studies are similar. They can point you in a direction for further study, but are not conclusive. I'm sure you get that mice are not people (although some people are rats). Here's an example and an alternate hypothesis.
4. Look out for the word "adjusted." There are always confounding factors in studies that researchers want to adjust for. It is impossible to adjust accurately and there is always slop in it. If there is an adjustment factor applied there is doubt in the conclusions. This is especially an issue when the size of the adjustments (the noise) is of a similar order of magnitude to the quantity being measured (the signal). It doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong necessarily, but the basis of the adjustments has to be really strong for the conclusions to be valid.
5. Watch out for weasel words like "probably," "potentially," and "may." It doesn't mean that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, but often those words are inserted to make the sensational headlines true. Brad Pilon of Eat Stop Eat fame talks about an article with plenty of weasel words here.
6. Details are important and usually not covered in a 1,000 word article.
7. Randomized double-blind placebo controlled intervention studies are the gold-standard for nutrition research. Unfortunately they can be extremely expensive, especially for long term effects.
8. Follow the money - Look to see who paid for the research. If the results fit their commercial or social agenda, doubt the conclusions. There is a very strong bias in research publications that results that do not support the sponsors agenda do not get published or get spun. This article hammers the statin people for treating their agenda as science.
9. Focus on what you care about. Many studies support a very narrow agenda. For example, the American dermatologists association says to always protect your skin from the sun with sun screen. Their agenda is to prevent skin cancer. However, lack of sun can cause lack of vitamin D, which is associated with (causality?) higher incidence of other cancers, flu, and colds.
10. Question results that are not consistent with how mankind has lived for two million years. Using sun exposure as an example again, our bodies are finely tuned to an ancient lifestyle. It seems crazy in that framework to think that exposure to "normal" amounts of sun would be overall detrimental to health. Your mileage may vary if you are very fair for example, but keep things in perspective.
11. Beware statistical significance. Statistical significance is a term that tells how sure you are that a difference or relationship exists. If a relationship between to variables is found to be "statistically significant", it means that it is unlikely that the observed relationship is random. The relationship may be small or meaningless, but they are highly likely (generally 95%) to be linked.
12. Paradoxes aren't paradoxes. They are information that disproves the hypothesis of some preconceived notion or prejudice. Perhaps the most famous paradox is the "French Paradox." the French eat more saturated fat, yet have better heart health than Americans. Lots of hypotheses have been generated to explain this (more smoking, more red wine, etc). Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket. Drinking and smoking actually protect you from heart disease. Oh, but not too much. That will kill you. Dave at Spark of Reason wrote this article on paradoxes. Tom Naughton of Fat Head fame had this to say.
Let's apply Occam's Razor. There is a much simpler conclusion--the original hypothesis is wrong: saturated fat does not cause heart disease. From Dave at Spark of Reason: "A true paradox would indicate inconsistency in the rules and assumptions used to build the system."
13. Many intervention studies do not test the reported factor, but rather something entirely different. As an example, if you want to test the impact of a low carbohydrate diet on lipid profiles, there should be control of the actual ingestion of carbohydrates. However, some studies are actually designed to test compliance to that type of diet as well as the impact. It then becomes difficult to draw conclusions about the physical effect of the diet.
14. Statements of certainty, e.g. "the science is settled" or "it is universally accepted that..." can be used to bully people into alignment. It takes a gutsy and very confident person to argue against the "consensus." This doesn't mean that the predominant view is wrong, just raises a red flag to the possibility that people are trying to cut off additional inquiry.
15. It is possible that most published research is wrong. Bayesian analysis of false positives and negatives, combined with human nature and biases conspire to place a scary-high likelihood that any given research results are incorrect. Here's the original paper for anyone interested.
16. Look at the logic. If the author is simply focusing on the qualifications (or lack thereof) of someone. It may indicate that the substance is weak.
Some Examples of Analysis of Science Writing
1. This article, "A High Fat Diet During Pregnancy Can Lead To Severe Liver Disease in Offspring," as skewered here by Chris Masterjohn is an excellent example of several of the points above. First, the article talks about the mother or the woman or the child in several places, the headline talks about high fat, while the researchers talk about high saturated fat. Incredibly, they fail to mention that the "woman and mother" in question is a mouse. Oh and by the way, that low fat control diet was higher in saturated fat as a percentage than the high fat diet.
From Masterjohn:
"...less than seven percent of the calories from the 'unhealthy saturated-fat-enriched diet' actually came from saturated fat.
"The "unhealthy saturated fat-enriched diet" actually contained 44 percent of its fat as polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and almost twenty percent of its total calories as PUFA. This is in great excess of the PUFA consumption seen even in the Standard American Diet (SAD), loaded in processed PUFA-rich vegetable oils."
2. Design of experiments, Hypothesis Testing and Bayesian Inference are critical aspects of understanding the validity of ideas. It seems that many researchers are not skilled in the application of those aspects, especially in nutrition and exercise. We're left then with unskilled reporters and broscience.
One of the more famous occurred some years ago when an epidemiological studies demonstrated a correlation between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women and better cancer rates. For years after that millions of women were put on HRT, post-menopause. Only recently did they actually perform a placebo-controlled study and find that (oops), HRT actually increases breast cancer and heart attack and can lead to early dementia. It can also have some positive effects such as decrease in hip fracture and colorectal cancer. It seems that in the early epidemiological studies, the women on HRT tended to be more health conscious in general. This then masked the negative impact of the HRT.
But, here are some of the details in this. Even with the good study, the timing of starting the HRT made a difference, and it showed age variation in the impacts. Also, it could be that it was an indictment of the specific hormones used in the study and not HRT in general.
3. Another significant epidemiological study that is looking worse every day is the Ancel Key's Seven Nations Study. This may be of the most devastatingly believed studies in the history of the world. In a nutshell, Keys plotted cardiovascular disease against animal fat consumption in seven countries and found a very high correlation. However, he omitted 14 countries with data that did not support his hypothesis. This in turn led directly to higher sugar and carbohydrate intake and to reduced fat consumption. Some believe that this is one of the main causes of the obesity and cardiovascular disease epidemic in the world today.
4. Read Gary Taubes' article on epidemiology or better yet, buy Good Calories, Bad Calories
5. Here's another Taubes interview on Good and Bad Science
6. Michael Eades on epidemiological research
6. Details are important and usually not covered in a 1,000 word article.
7. Randomized double-blind placebo controlled intervention studies are the gold-standard for nutrition research. Unfortunately they can be extremely expensive, especially for long term effects.
8. Follow the money - Look to see who paid for the research. If the results fit their commercial or social agenda, doubt the conclusions. There is a very strong bias in research publications that results that do not support the sponsors agenda do not get published or get spun. This article hammers the statin people for treating their agenda as science.
9. Focus on what you care about. Many studies support a very narrow agenda. For example, the American dermatologists association says to always protect your skin from the sun with sun screen. Their agenda is to prevent skin cancer. However, lack of sun can cause lack of vitamin D, which is associated with (causality?) higher incidence of other cancers, flu, and colds.
10. Question results that are not consistent with how mankind has lived for two million years. Using sun exposure as an example again, our bodies are finely tuned to an ancient lifestyle. It seems crazy in that framework to think that exposure to "normal" amounts of sun would be overall detrimental to health. Your mileage may vary if you are very fair for example, but keep things in perspective.
11. Beware statistical significance. Statistical significance is a term that tells how sure you are that a difference or relationship exists. If a relationship between to variables is found to be "statistically significant", it means that it is unlikely that the observed relationship is random. The relationship may be small or meaningless, but they are highly likely (generally 95%) to be linked.
12. Paradoxes aren't paradoxes. They are information that disproves the hypothesis of some preconceived notion or prejudice. Perhaps the most famous paradox is the "French Paradox." the French eat more saturated fat, yet have better heart health than Americans. Lots of hypotheses have been generated to explain this (more smoking, more red wine, etc). Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket. Drinking and smoking actually protect you from heart disease. Oh, but not too much. That will kill you. Dave at Spark of Reason wrote this article on paradoxes. Tom Naughton of Fat Head fame had this to say.
Let's apply Occam's Razor. There is a much simpler conclusion--the original hypothesis is wrong: saturated fat does not cause heart disease. From Dave at Spark of Reason: "A true paradox would indicate inconsistency in the rules and assumptions used to build the system."
13. Many intervention studies do not test the reported factor, but rather something entirely different. As an example, if you want to test the impact of a low carbohydrate diet on lipid profiles, there should be control of the actual ingestion of carbohydrates. However, some studies are actually designed to test compliance to that type of diet as well as the impact. It then becomes difficult to draw conclusions about the physical effect of the diet.
14. Statements of certainty, e.g. "the science is settled" or "it is universally accepted that..." can be used to bully people into alignment. It takes a gutsy and very confident person to argue against the "consensus." This doesn't mean that the predominant view is wrong, just raises a red flag to the possibility that people are trying to cut off additional inquiry.
15. It is possible that most published research is wrong. Bayesian analysis of false positives and negatives, combined with human nature and biases conspire to place a scary-high likelihood that any given research results are incorrect. Here's the original paper for anyone interested.
16. Look at the logic. If the author is simply focusing on the qualifications (or lack thereof) of someone. It may indicate that the substance is weak.
Some Examples of Analysis of Science Writing
1. This article, "A High Fat Diet During Pregnancy Can Lead To Severe Liver Disease in Offspring," as skewered here by Chris Masterjohn is an excellent example of several of the points above. First, the article talks about the mother or the woman or the child in several places, the headline talks about high fat, while the researchers talk about high saturated fat. Incredibly, they fail to mention that the "woman and mother" in question is a mouse. Oh and by the way, that low fat control diet was higher in saturated fat as a percentage than the high fat diet.
From Masterjohn:
"...less than seven percent of the calories from the 'unhealthy saturated-fat-enriched diet' actually came from saturated fat.
"The "unhealthy saturated fat-enriched diet" actually contained 44 percent of its fat as polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and almost twenty percent of its total calories as PUFA. This is in great excess of the PUFA consumption seen even in the Standard American Diet (SAD), loaded in processed PUFA-rich vegetable oils."
2. Design of experiments, Hypothesis Testing and Bayesian Inference are critical aspects of understanding the validity of ideas. It seems that many researchers are not skilled in the application of those aspects, especially in nutrition and exercise. We're left then with unskilled reporters and broscience.
One of the more famous occurred some years ago when an epidemiological studies demonstrated a correlation between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women and better cancer rates. For years after that millions of women were put on HRT, post-menopause. Only recently did they actually perform a placebo-controlled study and find that (oops), HRT actually increases breast cancer and heart attack and can lead to early dementia. It can also have some positive effects such as decrease in hip fracture and colorectal cancer. It seems that in the early epidemiological studies, the women on HRT tended to be more health conscious in general. This then masked the negative impact of the HRT.
But, here are some of the details in this. Even with the good study, the timing of starting the HRT made a difference, and it showed age variation in the impacts. Also, it could be that it was an indictment of the specific hormones used in the study and not HRT in general.
3. Another significant epidemiological study that is looking worse every day is the Ancel Key's Seven Nations Study. This may be of the most devastatingly believed studies in the history of the world. In a nutshell, Keys plotted cardiovascular disease against animal fat consumption in seven countries and found a very high correlation. However, he omitted 14 countries with data that did not support his hypothesis. This in turn led directly to higher sugar and carbohydrate intake and to reduced fat consumption. Some believe that this is one of the main causes of the obesity and cardiovascular disease epidemic in the world today.
4. Read Gary Taubes' article on epidemiology or better yet, buy Good Calories, Bad Calories
5. Here's another Taubes interview on Good and Bad Science
6. Michael Eades on epidemiological research
7. Staggeringly good 4-part example (1), (2), (3), (4) of analyzing a study and generating an alternate hypothesis from Whole Health Source
8. Interesting perspective on good science from OvercomingBias
A quote from one of the commenters, daublin
"There is a lot of confusion in both the cited article and in this article about what science is. For sure, it’s not the “scientific method”. That doesn’t mean science doesn’t happen, but that it’s being misdescribed. Here’s what science means, in the tradition descending from the Enlightenment. Science is study with the following properties:
"1. It’s about objective claims. There is no place in science for claims that different observers will, by definition, never agree on.
"2. It’s about falsifiable claims. There is no place in science for claims that could never possibly be decisively proven false.
"3. The evidence must be repeatable by other scientists. In particular, experiments must be communicated in enough detail that other scientists can repeat the experiment so as to verify the result.
"4. It follows Occam’s Razor. Simple theories are better than complex ones."
A quote from one of the commenters, daublin
"There is a lot of confusion in both the cited article and in this article about what science is. For sure, it’s not the “scientific method”. That doesn’t mean science doesn’t happen, but that it’s being misdescribed. Here’s what science means, in the tradition descending from the Enlightenment. Science is study with the following properties:
"1. It’s about objective claims. There is no place in science for claims that different observers will, by definition, never agree on.
"2. It’s about falsifiable claims. There is no place in science for claims that could never possibly be decisively proven false.
"3. The evidence must be repeatable by other scientists. In particular, experiments must be communicated in enough detail that other scientists can repeat the experiment so as to verify the result.
"4. It follows Occam’s Razor. Simple theories are better than complex ones."
08 July 2009
Some Sample Correlations
We all know that correlation is not causation. Causation arrows are not always clear, and sometimes two factors that correlate to each other are actually caused by a third factor.
My favorite example of correlation not proving causation is that it is not appropriate to say that firemen cause fires because every time there's a fire there are firemen there.
Correlation is expressed as a decimal between -1 and 1.
1 is a perfect positive correlation. An increase in one variable yields a proportionate increase in another one.
-1 is a perfect negative correlation. An increase in one variable yields a proportionate decrease in another one.
0 is no correlation. A change in one variable has no relation to changes in another one.
Tom Naughton, who made the movie Fat Head
writes a blog. A recent one discussed a large study called the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. A number of correlations between diet and health outcomes were observed with varying levels of correlation. He discusses the significance of the study and correlations and there are some really good comments after the post.
He talks about some of the correlations found in the study, and I realized that I didn't have a really good sense of what these correlations look like, so I generated some.
Here are the correlations assuming underlying uniform distributions between two variables. Note that even a 0.6 correlation has a lot of variability.
Here are the correlations assuming underlying normal distributions between the two variables. These points are more centrally grouped because of the nature of the underlying distributions.
A fun allegory on correlation and causation
My favorite example of correlation not proving causation is that it is not appropriate to say that firemen cause fires because every time there's a fire there are firemen there.
Correlation is expressed as a decimal between -1 and 1.
1 is a perfect positive correlation. An increase in one variable yields a proportionate increase in another one.
-1 is a perfect negative correlation. An increase in one variable yields a proportionate decrease in another one.
0 is no correlation. A change in one variable has no relation to changes in another one.
Tom Naughton, who made the movie Fat Head
writes a blog. A recent one discussed a large study called the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. A number of correlations between diet and health outcomes were observed with varying levels of correlation. He discusses the significance of the study and correlations and there are some really good comments after the post.He talks about some of the correlations found in the study, and I realized that I didn't have a really good sense of what these correlations look like, so I generated some.
Here are the correlations assuming underlying uniform distributions between two variables. Note that even a 0.6 correlation has a lot of variability.
Here are the correlations assuming underlying normal distributions between the two variables. These points are more centrally grouped because of the nature of the underlying distributions.
A fun allegory on correlation and causation
Correlation is not causation
31 March 2009
Live in the Now
It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end." --Ernest Hemingway
I have been living in the now recently (mostly at work) and as such, have had little time to focus on e4e this month.
The good news is that my job has been a big focus. That's also the bad news.
So this will be simply a short reminder to know what you want as your destination in life or in your tasks, but to live in the present as well. Sometimes your focus is drawn very much to one narrow aspect of your life. You can do that for a short time, but it is not sustainable for most people. Your loved ones want you to be a part of their lives. Take time out from the workday world. Find the correct balance between urgent and important, long and short term, physical and mental/spiritual.
I have been living in the now recently (mostly at work) and as such, have had little time to focus on e4e this month.
The good news is that my job has been a big focus. That's also the bad news.
So this will be simply a short reminder to know what you want as your destination in life or in your tasks, but to live in the present as well. Sometimes your focus is drawn very much to one narrow aspect of your life. You can do that for a short time, but it is not sustainable for most people. Your loved ones want you to be a part of their lives. Take time out from the workday world. Find the correct balance between urgent and important, long and short term, physical and mental/spiritual.
Finding that balance is life's journey.
15 January 2009
Open Letter to Oprah Winfrey
I have been thinking about the nature of this blog and have a few thoughts on the direction. First, I don't want it to be simply a tip blog. I want to capture principles that can be applied to life, which keeps it all at a higher level. The other thing is, I don't want it to be a news digest blog. I want the content to be more or less timeless. Not something based on today's news or gossip.
Having said that, I will now go against those principles and publish a letter I sent to Oprah Winfrey about her diet. OK, I believe the principles are timeless, but it is a little newsier than I am interested in.
I also said I would go lighter on diet articles, but here I am with another diet article. I have developed a bit of an obsession around diet. Starting next month, Feb 2009, I will be going back to more general topics. Thanks for staying with me.
Letter to Oprah
I sent a letter to Oprah through her website. That site limited me to 2000 characters and I had much more to say. So following is the original note that I wrote that has much more detail. Any bets on whether she'll leave a comment here?
Dear Oprah,
I have been reading about your weight loss efforts. I am sure you have received thousands of letters of advice and encouragement. I would like to add one more voice to the din.
First, I want to say that I admire you and your accomplishments. You have found ways to connect with large numbers of people in ways that are meaningful to them. You have been a source of inspiration and information for millions.
But this weight loss thing...
I know you have received lots of advice from leading nutritionists and trainers, but they all have the simple calories-in minus calories-out approach.
While that is mathematically correct and in accordance with the laws of physics, it misses a key point; starving oneself is not a sustainable lifestyle. Your body needs energy to live. It can obtain that energy from outside through food, or it can literally eat itself by burning its own fat, muscle, and carbohydrates.
To lose weight, you limit the amount of food coming in from the outside so that the body uses itself for energy. You have only about 400 grams of carbohydrate stored in your body, so that is not a significant source of weight loss. You do NOT want to lose muscle, so you therefore want your body to be using its fat stores.
You achieve this state by setting your body up hormonally to burn fat.
Something for you to think about. Many people believe that binge eating or unhealthy eating is a symptom of poor mental health and represents a failure. People start on diet and exercise programs, then when they fail, blame themselves for being weak or "emotional eating." That is not the reality.
Think about it. People who kick themselves for emotional eating are often already on a diet and overweight. They feel hungry all the time and struggle to find the energy and time to exercise. Then something happens. Maybe their kid gets sick or their spouse loses a job. Suddenly, the stress level ramps up. Well you may not be able to control the course of sickness or your spouse's job search, but you can reduce the hunger and exercise stress. In a way then, going off a diet may be a very HEALTHY response, not a sick one. In times of stress, your body needs sustenance. Not providing it can lead to your own ill-health.
Gary Taubes has written Good Calories, Bad Calories. Many people mistake it for a diet book. Others mistake it for a scientific treatise. It is neither. It is a documentation of how poor science has led to misconceptions about healthy diets. He also lays out an alternative hypothesis about diet.
The key in all this is to eat foods that allow your body to use its own fat as fuel. An important key to this is the hormone, insulin. Insulin is, in essence a storage hormone. It takes nutrients out of your blood and stores them in muscle and fat cells. Fat and sugar are stored as fat, while proteins are either put into muscle or converted to glucose in the liver for use as a fuel. Insulin also prevents fat from leaving fat cells. This is really important so I'll say it again. The presence of insulin prevents fat from leaving fat cells.
So, in general terms, carbohydrates, especially sugars and highly processed flours induce your body to release insulin. This in turn traps the fat cells in your body. When you run out of fuel in your system from the previous meal, an obvious choice to refuel your body's cells immediately is to eat more carbs. This sets up a vicious circle. you feel hungry so you eat carbs for a pick-me-up. Insulin cleans out your blood stream, you feel hungry again. Your body never has a chance to burn those fat cells.
This is the deal with the lower carb diets. They shut down the insulin response to food and let the fat come out of your tissues to be used for fuel. When the fat can flow freely you tend not to feel hunger because your body's cells are fueled.
You have to be careful not to overdo it a diet though. Research indicates that your body can burn about 31 calories of its own fat per pound of body fat per day. So you can maintain a caloric deficit of about 31 calories per pound of body fat without cutting into muscle. As an example, a 200 pound person at 35% body fat is therefore carrying about 70 lb. of fat. 70 lb. times 31 calories per pound is 2,170 calories of potential fat loss per day. If you diet harder than that you will cut into muscle. As you lose fat, your maximum daily loss will also decrease. This is one of the reasons that a rate of weight (fat) loss is difficult to maintain.
My Story
The things I have written above come from a fair amount of research and my own experience in weight loss. In 2007, I weighed 240 lb. (I'm 5'10 and was 50 years old). I had tried losing weight in the past, typically by cutting back on fats, cutting back on calories, and exercising like a maniac. I could lose 15 lb. or so, before beginning to feel weak, lose muscle, and feel hungry all the time. Inevitably, I would then fall off the wagon and gain it back.
At Thanksgiving of 2007, I got gout in my left foot. I started to research that, and for some reason stumbled across Gary Taubes lecture at Berkeley. That lecture (http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216) changed my life.
I dialed back pasta and bread (I had already cut out sweet sodas) and the weight simply disappeared over the next four months. I lost about 30 pounds with almost no effort. I am now working on the next phase of my weight loss where I will lose another 15 lb. I will be using a very similar approach with a few modifications. Specifically, I will be doing a periodic (weekly or so) carbo load to induce leptin secretion. This follows some of the ideas that Lyle McDonald has laid out at his website (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com).
So I urge you to consider a lower carb diet in your fat loss efforts. In the long run, it is more sustainable, it seems likely that it is a more healthful way of life than low-fat,
I have written about diet and other issues at my blog. I invite you to check out Emotions for Engineers at http://www.emotionsforengineers.com.
Best regards,
Tony
The following is the letter as submitted to O.
I admire you and your accomplishments. You have found ways to connect with people in meaningful ways. You have been a source of inspiration and information for millions. But this weight loss thing.
Simple calories in minus calories out misses a key point; starving oneself is not a sustainable lifestyle. Your body needs energy to live. When it doesn't get it, it sends hunger signals. We obtain energy from outside through food, or it can literally eat itself by burning its own fat, muscle, and carbohydrates. You want your body to be burning fat. You achieve this state by setting your body up hormonally.
People who kick themselves for emotional eating are often already on a diet They feel hungry and struggle to find the energy and time to exercise. Then maybe their kid gets sick. Stress increases. You can't control the sickness, but you can reduce the stress from hunger. Going off a diet may be a very HEALTHY response, not a sick one. In times of stress, your body needs sustenance.
Gary Taubes lays out another diet hypothesis diet in "Good Calories, Bad Calories." The key is to eat foods that allow your body to use its own fat as fuel by limiting insulin release. It takes nutrients out of the blood and stores them as fat. It prevents fat from leaving fat cells and can cause you to feel hunger.
Carbs induce insulin. This is why lower carb diets work. By limiting the insulin response, your body uses its fat as a fuel without hunger.
Dietary fat has been vilified by the government and press. It is not bad for you. In fact, when your body burns its own fat, you are burning the equivalent of a high fat diet.
I urge you to consider a lower carb diet in your fat loss efforts. In the long run, it is more sustainable and it seems likely that it is a more healthful way of life than low-fat.
I have written about diet and other issues at my blog. I invite you to read at a more detailed version at http://www.emotionsforengineers.com.
Regards, Tony
Having said that, I will now go against those principles and publish a letter I sent to Oprah Winfrey about her diet. OK, I believe the principles are timeless, but it is a little newsier than I am interested in.
I also said I would go lighter on diet articles, but here I am with another diet article. I have developed a bit of an obsession around diet. Starting next month, Feb 2009, I will be going back to more general topics. Thanks for staying with me.
Letter to Oprah
I sent a letter to Oprah through her website. That site limited me to 2000 characters and I had much more to say. So following is the original note that I wrote that has much more detail. Any bets on whether she'll leave a comment here?
Dear Oprah,
I have been reading about your weight loss efforts. I am sure you have received thousands of letters of advice and encouragement. I would like to add one more voice to the din.
First, I want to say that I admire you and your accomplishments. You have found ways to connect with large numbers of people in ways that are meaningful to them. You have been a source of inspiration and information for millions.
But this weight loss thing...
I know you have received lots of advice from leading nutritionists and trainers, but they all have the simple calories-in minus calories-out approach.
While that is mathematically correct and in accordance with the laws of physics, it misses a key point; starving oneself is not a sustainable lifestyle. Your body needs energy to live. It can obtain that energy from outside through food, or it can literally eat itself by burning its own fat, muscle, and carbohydrates.
To lose weight, you limit the amount of food coming in from the outside so that the body uses itself for energy. You have only about 400 grams of carbohydrate stored in your body, so that is not a significant source of weight loss. You do NOT want to lose muscle, so you therefore want your body to be using its fat stores.
You achieve this state by setting your body up hormonally to burn fat.
Something for you to think about. Many people believe that binge eating or unhealthy eating is a symptom of poor mental health and represents a failure. People start on diet and exercise programs, then when they fail, blame themselves for being weak or "emotional eating." That is not the reality.
Think about it. People who kick themselves for emotional eating are often already on a diet and overweight. They feel hungry all the time and struggle to find the energy and time to exercise. Then something happens. Maybe their kid gets sick or their spouse loses a job. Suddenly, the stress level ramps up. Well you may not be able to control the course of sickness or your spouse's job search, but you can reduce the hunger and exercise stress. In a way then, going off a diet may be a very HEALTHY response, not a sick one. In times of stress, your body needs sustenance. Not providing it can lead to your own ill-health.
Gary Taubes has written Good Calories, Bad Calories. Many people mistake it for a diet book. Others mistake it for a scientific treatise. It is neither. It is a documentation of how poor science has led to misconceptions about healthy diets. He also lays out an alternative hypothesis about diet.
The key in all this is to eat foods that allow your body to use its own fat as fuel. An important key to this is the hormone, insulin. Insulin is, in essence a storage hormone. It takes nutrients out of your blood and stores them in muscle and fat cells. Fat and sugar are stored as fat, while proteins are either put into muscle or converted to glucose in the liver for use as a fuel. Insulin also prevents fat from leaving fat cells. This is really important so I'll say it again. The presence of insulin prevents fat from leaving fat cells.
So, in general terms, carbohydrates, especially sugars and highly processed flours induce your body to release insulin. This in turn traps the fat cells in your body. When you run out of fuel in your system from the previous meal, an obvious choice to refuel your body's cells immediately is to eat more carbs. This sets up a vicious circle. you feel hungry so you eat carbs for a pick-me-up. Insulin cleans out your blood stream, you feel hungry again. Your body never has a chance to burn those fat cells.
This is the deal with the lower carb diets. They shut down the insulin response to food and let the fat come out of your tissues to be used for fuel. When the fat can flow freely you tend not to feel hunger because your body's cells are fueled.
You have to be careful not to overdo it a diet though. Research indicates that your body can burn about 31 calories of its own fat per pound of body fat per day. So you can maintain a caloric deficit of about 31 calories per pound of body fat without cutting into muscle. As an example, a 200 pound person at 35% body fat is therefore carrying about 70 lb. of fat. 70 lb. times 31 calories per pound is 2,170 calories of potential fat loss per day. If you diet harder than that you will cut into muscle. As you lose fat, your maximum daily loss will also decrease. This is one of the reasons that a rate of weight (fat) loss is difficult to maintain.
My Story
The things I have written above come from a fair amount of research and my own experience in weight loss. In 2007, I weighed 240 lb. (I'm 5'10 and was 50 years old). I had tried losing weight in the past, typically by cutting back on fats, cutting back on calories, and exercising like a maniac. I could lose 15 lb. or so, before beginning to feel weak, lose muscle, and feel hungry all the time. Inevitably, I would then fall off the wagon and gain it back.
At Thanksgiving of 2007, I got gout in my left foot. I started to research that, and for some reason stumbled across Gary Taubes lecture at Berkeley. That lecture (http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216) changed my life.
I dialed back pasta and bread (I had already cut out sweet sodas) and the weight simply disappeared over the next four months. I lost about 30 pounds with almost no effort. I am now working on the next phase of my weight loss where I will lose another 15 lb. I will be using a very similar approach with a few modifications. Specifically, I will be doing a periodic (weekly or so) carbo load to induce leptin secretion. This follows some of the ideas that Lyle McDonald has laid out at his website (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com).
So I urge you to consider a lower carb diet in your fat loss efforts. In the long run, it is more sustainable, it seems likely that it is a more healthful way of life than low-fat,
I have written about diet and other issues at my blog. I invite you to check out Emotions for Engineers at http://www.emotionsforengineers.com.
Best regards,
Tony
The following is the letter as submitted to O.
I admire you and your accomplishments. You have found ways to connect with people in meaningful ways. You have been a source of inspiration and information for millions. But this weight loss thing.
Simple calories in minus calories out misses a key point; starving oneself is not a sustainable lifestyle. Your body needs energy to live. When it doesn't get it, it sends hunger signals. We obtain energy from outside through food, or it can literally eat itself by burning its own fat, muscle, and carbohydrates. You want your body to be burning fat. You achieve this state by setting your body up hormonally.
People who kick themselves for emotional eating are often already on a diet They feel hungry and struggle to find the energy and time to exercise. Then maybe their kid gets sick. Stress increases. You can't control the sickness, but you can reduce the stress from hunger. Going off a diet may be a very HEALTHY response, not a sick one. In times of stress, your body needs sustenance.
Gary Taubes lays out another diet hypothesis diet in "Good Calories, Bad Calories." The key is to eat foods that allow your body to use its own fat as fuel by limiting insulin release. It takes nutrients out of the blood and stores them as fat. It prevents fat from leaving fat cells and can cause you to feel hunger.
Carbs induce insulin. This is why lower carb diets work. By limiting the insulin response, your body uses its fat as a fuel without hunger.
Dietary fat has been vilified by the government and press. It is not bad for you. In fact, when your body burns its own fat, you are burning the equivalent of a high fat diet.
I urge you to consider a lower carb diet in your fat loss efforts. In the long run, it is more sustainable and it seems likely that it is a more healthful way of life than low-fat.
I have written about diet and other issues at my blog. I invite you to read at a more detailed version at http://www.emotionsforengineers.com.
Regards, Tony
03 September 2008
Models and Paradigms
This is really a side note to talk about the posts that I have made and will continue to make.
Most of the books on behavior, communications, and emotions have at their core a model or a way of thinking (paradigm). That is, it is a representation of reality from some perspective. One of the best quotes I have ever heard about models is that "All models are wrong, some are useful."
The same holds true of most of my posts on Emotions for Engineers. I attempt to condense things I have seen written and learned and put it into a context that make sense to logical thinkers, e.g. engineers.
A good example of a model is the diagram for communication. The diagram shows a sender with some intent, encoding into a language, transmission, decoding into the receiver's language, and message received. All that is followed by a feedback loop to ensure accuracy.
Is that exactly what really happens? Not normally. People are notorious about not using the feedback loop. There are multiple messages and paths (actual words, tone of voice, body language and seeing and hearing). The actual diagram of a conversation would be much more complex.
But, importantly, it's a useful model. We can use it to debug conversations that go awry, and learn to do better next time.
Likewise, the concept that love is defined by a set of actions, not a feeling. If you look up the word love in the dictionary you might find a definition that says something like, "A feeling of extreme fondness." This is fine, but not a particularly useful perspective. If we think of love as a feeling, it sets up unrealistic expectations--for example, that true love will never die. After all look at all the old married couples. This perspective means that people can "fall out of love." It's not in their control.
Setting up that unrealistic expectation makes the model less than useful. On the other hand, defining love by one's actions, does provide some guidance to us. It gives us a sense of what we need to do in our relationships in order for them to work. Love is then defined by what we do to or for each other. It therefore give us a guide to something over which we have control. Love becomes a choice, not an uncontrollable outcome.
Most of the books on behavior, communications, and emotions have at their core a model or a way of thinking (paradigm). That is, it is a representation of reality from some perspective. One of the best quotes I have ever heard about models is that "All models are wrong, some are useful."
The same holds true of most of my posts on Emotions for Engineers. I attempt to condense things I have seen written and learned and put it into a context that make sense to logical thinkers, e.g. engineers.
A good example of a model is the diagram for communication. The diagram shows a sender with some intent, encoding into a language, transmission, decoding into the receiver's language, and message received. All that is followed by a feedback loop to ensure accuracy.
Is that exactly what really happens? Not normally. People are notorious about not using the feedback loop. There are multiple messages and paths (actual words, tone of voice, body language and seeing and hearing). The actual diagram of a conversation would be much more complex.
But, importantly, it's a useful model. We can use it to debug conversations that go awry, and learn to do better next time.
Likewise, the concept that love is defined by a set of actions, not a feeling. If you look up the word love in the dictionary you might find a definition that says something like, "A feeling of extreme fondness." This is fine, but not a particularly useful perspective. If we think of love as a feeling, it sets up unrealistic expectations--for example, that true love will never die. After all look at all the old married couples. This perspective means that people can "fall out of love." It's not in their control.
Setting up that unrealistic expectation makes the model less than useful. On the other hand, defining love by one's actions, does provide some guidance to us. It gives us a sense of what we need to do in our relationships in order for them to work. Love is then defined by what we do to or for each other. It therefore give us a guide to something over which we have control. Love becomes a choice, not an uncontrollable outcome.
Another example is nutrition. I have, for most of my adult life been in the "Eat Fat, Get Fat and Die" school of thought. After all, the American Heart Association and the US Government said or implied that was how it worked. Gary Taubes' lecture at Berkeley changed the way I think about it. Many months later, I am coming to realize that his lecture and book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (soon in paperback) are incomplete. They do not cover some of the biochemical pathways, or the role of some of the other hormones besides insulin. But... They were right enough to be useful and get me started down the right path. A more complete treatment would likely have lost me.
Finally, models can also be simple quantitative representations of processes. I posted a spreadsheet a few weeks ago that helps a person think about how much to eat and exercise in order to lose fat. Is it right? No. There are a number of approximations involved. For example, 31 calories per pound of body fat, fat loss, is an average and is representative of people who are basically sedentary. It also does not take into account changes in metabolism over time and as a person's body composition changes. Your hormonal environment changes based on body fat percent, calorie balance, activity level, and diet. However, it is reasonably close and gives some guidance around the limits of exercise, eating, and fat loss.
So keep in mind, what you see and read here is a way of thinking about life, emotions, and physical and mental well-being. Any given post that I put up has a textbook written about it. My purpose is to give you a useful perspective and some reasonable references to follow-up.
21 August 2008
Emotions for Engineers Guest Blog on MizFit Online
Welcome to any followers of the MizFit blog where I have a guest post appearing today.
First, thanks to MizFit for featuring my thoughts in her valuable space. And thanks to all people for whom that writing resonates and have come here as a result.
The following links are to some of my best and/or most popular posts.
Introductory Post - I Are Engineer
Diet Post - Unified Feed Theory
Diet Post - Healthful Eating
Relationships - Emotional Needs In A Relationship
Relationships - The Nature of Love Part 1, Falling In Love
Relationships - The Nature of Love Part 2, Staying In Love
Relationships - In Praise of Joy Toys
Communication - Communication 101
Communication - Communication 201
Communication - Active Listening and Feedback
General Framework - Does Free Will Exist?
General Framework - Feeling are Facts
Miscellaneous - The Importance of Vacations
Please make yourself at home here, sign up for updates and feel free to leave comments.
First, thanks to MizFit for featuring my thoughts in her valuable space. And thanks to all people for whom that writing resonates and have come here as a result.
The following links are to some of my best and/or most popular posts.
Introductory Post - I Are Engineer
Diet Post - Unified Feed Theory
Diet Post - Healthful Eating
Relationships - Emotional Needs In A Relationship
Relationships - The Nature of Love Part 1, Falling In Love
Relationships - The Nature of Love Part 2, Staying In Love
Relationships - In Praise of Joy Toys
Communication - Communication 101
Communication - Communication 201
Communication - Active Listening and Feedback
General Framework - Does Free Will Exist?
General Framework - Feeling are Facts
Miscellaneous - The Importance of Vacations
Please make yourself at home here, sign up for updates and feel free to leave comments.
25 July 2008
Healthful Eating
Part of what makes us tick emotionally is our physical state. I believe that our responses in any given moment are driven by the complicated balance of the chemistry of our bodies combined with how it interconnects through our neural network. So in a sense, we are big complicated computer programs that are constantly being recast by our experiences, learnings, and interactions.
From Pink Floyd Eclipse:
...All that you eat
And everyone you meet
All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come
and everything under the sun is in tune..."
It follows that if we want to change outcomes in our lives, we have to change either the inputs to our body, change our body, or both (because changing the inputs changes our bodies—reprograms it).
I have written about communication, the nature of love, vacation, and other issues dealing with emotions and relationships, but only recently have I delved into the physical side, specifically diet. These have proven to be my most popular writings since I started writing Emotions for Engineers about a year ago.
After a run-in with gout right before Thanksgiving in 2007, I decided I really needed to do something about my diet. I set out on my voyage of discovery. I chanced across Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and this lecture that he gave at Berkeley. It completely changed my views on eating and diet. Since Thanksgiving, I have lost 30 lbs of mostly fat, and for the first time in my life feel in control of my body.
Why we want so much to “be thin” troubles me. Most of us have two competing emotions—love and fear—that drive our decisions. If we want to lose weight because we want to look good for our spouses, that’s love. If we think that he or she will leave us for that ditzy young secretary if we don’t lose weight, that’s fear. Eating right because you don’t want to die is fear. Eating right because you want to be active and live long to see your grandkids is love. It can only be good if eating right and being at a healthy weight helps you feel better about yourself.
Fear is a harmful emotion that is driven by unknowns and doubts. As such, when we feel out of control concerning weight and fitness, as many do, the lack of control leads to fear, which can lead to depression, anxiety, co-dependence, and other bad things (not to mention the dark side). At the foundation of all we are, is our physical health. If you can gain some degree of control over that, the world will be better. You will have less fear in your life and allow room for love and growth.
My message is to look deep and be brutally honest with yourself. M. Scott Peck
says that mental health is “Commitment to reality at any cost.” Find your motivations and if they are negative, try to recast them in a positive light.
Then take control...
Disclaimer: I have done a lot of independent study on this material and believe it to be true, safe, and effective, but I am a blogger, not a doctor. I am my own guinea pig and am not recommending anything that I have not done myself. Nonetheless, everyone is different. Your mileage may vary on this. If problems develop from any recommendations, seek professional help.
It's Not About Losing Weight--It's About Losing Fat
Weighing yourself may or may not be a good indicator of progress. Our bodies are made up of muscle, fat, water, and everything else. When most people talk about losing weight, they are hoping to lose fat. Water weight is easy. You can gain or lose five pounds in a day. But then you can't repeat it the next day. If you think you're overweight and want to shrink your muscles because you're too bulky, you are kidding yourself. Those aren't muscles—that’s the marbling making you big. Shrink the muscles and you'll be left with fat.
You want to convert your body and lifestyle into one that encourages usage of fat stores for fuel and discourages storage of fat.
So here are the two steps to a more healthy relationship with food.
1. Learn how to eat right.
2. Eat right.
Education
Most people blow it at step one. They read the government's food pyramid, follow weight watchers, or just cut back on portions. That might work for some people, but not most. So here are some facts.
1. You do not need carbohydrates to live and thrive.
2. Fat is an excellent fuel for low intensity activity (99.9% of the day for most of us).
3. Dietary protein and some fats (essential fatty acids or EFAs) are necessary for good health.
4. To lose weight you have to ingest fewer calories than you burn. (No surprise).
So there's the education part. Now here’s what to do about it.
Eat Mindfully
Now that you know what you need, you have a basis for acting on it.
First, make sure you get plenty of protein (shoot for 1 gram per lb of desired body weight). If you weigh 150, this means at least 150 grams (600 calories) of protein. Lean meat has 7 grams of protein per ounce. [Edit: I think that for active people probably 0.5 to 1 gram is ok. If you are actually trying to lose weight, i.e. restricting calories, cheat towards the high end on protein. Finally, if you are very obese (e.g. more than 50% above your target weight), you might want to think more in terms of desired weight rather than current weight.].
Second, limit carbohydrates, but get plenty of vegetables. Eat non-starchy vegetables like greens, cabbage, and peppers. Generally stay away from grain products including corn, bread, and pasta. If you must eat grains, eat whole grains in limited amounts. Definitely stay away from anything with added sugar, including High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Limit you total grams of carbohydrate to about 50 - 100 per day (200 to 400 calories). Sadly, ironically, artificial sweeteners, although they do not hurt you from a calorie standpoint may induce an insulin response, which can slow down your metabolism or make you hungrier. If you engage in high intensity activities, you can handle higher levels of carbohydrates.
Third, make sure you get some fats, especially omega 3s (fish oil). Don't worry too much about saturated vs. unsaturated, but stay away from hydrogenated oils (trans fats). The remainder of the calories needed should come from fat and more protein. There are lots of places on the web that will help you calculate your base metabolic rate.
Fourth, eat only when you are hungry. People eat for reasons besides sustenance. Sometimes there is an emotional attachment to eating in which food is used to medicate one’s psyche. This is a type of addiction. Other times people eat because it just tastes sooooo good or they simply don’t want to waste food. If you find yourself using food for emotional support or overeating at special events, try to find a way to stop that.
Fifth, keep an eye on the scale or your measurements or some other objective measure. If you are eating as above it will be hard to gain fat. Most weight loss would be from fat. Gains would more likely be muscle than fat. If you are gaining unexpectedly, cut back on carb and fat calories. You still need a calorie deficit to lose weight. I like to look at my weight on Thursday or Friday morning because it’s right before the weekend. Keep a log or spreadsheet if you wish.
Sixth, do resistance exercises that challenge your muscles. Exercise by itself is not an effective way to lose weight for most people. You should exercise anyway. It is good for you in many ways. Resistance exercise is good for everyone. It makes you stronger and sends a chemical message to your body to maintain muscle, even as you lose weight. Lift heavy enough to challenge yourself. If you can lift a weight more than 12 times, go to a heavier weight. The word “toning” has no meaning.
Following the above, most people should be able to maintain weight. The good news is that if you do want to lose weight, most of it would be from fat, not muscle. Your body will lose its reliance on sugar as a fuel and you will start to burn fat.
Seventh, limit weight loss to what your body can support. If you want to lose weight, the amount of fat you can lose is limited by the amount of fat you carry. You can burn approximately 31 calories per pound of bodyfat (bodyfat percentage times weight, e.g. 150 lbs at 30% bodyfat is 45 pounds of fat). Restricting calories more than that will lead to loss of non-fat weight. So in the example, total calories should be no less than your daily metabolic rate minus 1395 calories). The implication is that, at 3500 calories per pound of fat, this person can lose a maximum of about 2.8 pounds per week before crossing into non-fat weight loss. As you lose fat, this loss capacity diminishes.
Eighth and last, stick to the basics until you are on the right track. Once you do that, think about more details. There is an infinite amount of information on foods and supplements that you can pursue. Grass-fed vs corn-fed beef, farmed vs wild salmon, are thermogenics (like an ephedrine-caffeine stack) ok, sodium-potassium balance, meal frequencies, food combinations, etc. These things may make a difference in the long run, but you can be overwhelmed by the details, and at the beginning these issues are probably lost in the noise for most people.
Why Does This Work?
Nobody disputes the facts in the education section. But note how little resemblance there is to the food pyramid. When people follow the food pyramid recommendations, strange things happen to the body. The excess carbohydrates (grains especially) induce an insulin response, which drives nutrients into your fat and muscle cells. After a short time you feel hungry again. Even though you may have had a big meal, your cells are starving for energy. My grandmother used to talk about foods “sticking to your ribs.” Carbs do not do that; Protein does.
The body has many compensatory mechanisms, but excess carbs throw off the homeostatic mechanisms enough to cause fat gain. It doesn’t take much. Averaging 10 calories of fat deposition per day will add a pound in a year. Until my recent weight loss effort, I had been gaining about 3 lbs per year. That is only 30 calories per day.
This low carb approach has proponents and detractors. The problem I had with the other approaches is that I would lose muscle mass and energy. My experience with low carb has been incredible. I have lost 24 lbs since Jan 1, 2008, my weight lifts have stayed the same or improved, and I have seldom felt hungry. This has been close to an automatic program for me.
Some people say that losing weight is simply willpower. I don’t believe it. With low fat-high carb diets, people set up conditions that literally starve the cells in their bodies. In this starvation lies the seed of failure. Nobody can willingly starve himself or herself indefinitely. I don’t care how much willpower you have. You can’t hold your breath to death either. There’s too much science showing that these semi-starvation diets will not work. You need to give your cells enough fuel to keep them powered with the approach outlined above, the fuel not in your diet will come mainly from the fat in your body.
Eating a lower carbohydrate diet does have some potential side effects. At times, you may deplete your body’s stores of glycogen. This is especially true if you do high intensity exercise, which needs the sugar to fuel your muscles. At these times many people feel light-headed and foggy. I get the shakes a little and get a metallic taste in my mouth. It is called ketosis. Your body will adapt to this, but many people find it uncomfortable and stop the diet. The purpose of ketosis in this plan is to convert your body from needing sugar to fuel your low intensity needs, to using fat to fuel low intensity efforts. This is what the Atkins diet does in the induction phase. Some diets have a carbohydrate refeed day to refuel muscle glycogen and help reset the body’s metabolism.
The main takeaway for you is that most people can control their physical state. It is a question of positive motivation and the knowledge of how to do it. Removing health risks will allow you to focus on higher values. That can only be good. Happy trails.
In January 2010, I updated the recommendations in this post. target="_blank" It's quite similar, but there are some insights worth considering.
Links:
Emotions For Engineers
Gary Taubes' Berkeley Lecture
Good Calories, Bad Calories Book
Lyle McDonald
Protein Power Book
, Protein Power Lifeplan Book
, and Blog
Cross Fit – a combination of resistance and aerobic activity – if you dare
Ketogenic Diets – Comprehensive summary of advantages
Fat Loss Troubleshooting Guide from ProjectFit.org
Recent research comparing Low Carb, Mediterranean, and Low Fat diets
The following link is to a tool that can help you measure your progress on the road to better health.
From Pink Floyd Eclipse:
...All that you eat
And everyone you meet
All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come
and everything under the sun is in tune..."
It follows that if we want to change outcomes in our lives, we have to change either the inputs to our body, change our body, or both (because changing the inputs changes our bodies—reprograms it).
I have written about communication, the nature of love, vacation, and other issues dealing with emotions and relationships, but only recently have I delved into the physical side, specifically diet. These have proven to be my most popular writings since I started writing Emotions for Engineers about a year ago.
After a run-in with gout right before Thanksgiving in 2007, I decided I really needed to do something about my diet. I set out on my voyage of discovery. I chanced across Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and this lecture that he gave at Berkeley. It completely changed my views on eating and diet. Since Thanksgiving, I have lost 30 lbs of mostly fat, and for the first time in my life feel in control of my body.
Why we want so much to “be thin” troubles me. Most of us have two competing emotions—love and fear—that drive our decisions. If we want to lose weight because we want to look good for our spouses, that’s love. If we think that he or she will leave us for that ditzy young secretary if we don’t lose weight, that’s fear. Eating right because you don’t want to die is fear. Eating right because you want to be active and live long to see your grandkids is love. It can only be good if eating right and being at a healthy weight helps you feel better about yourself.
Fear is a harmful emotion that is driven by unknowns and doubts. As such, when we feel out of control concerning weight and fitness, as many do, the lack of control leads to fear, which can lead to depression, anxiety, co-dependence, and other bad things (not to mention the dark side). At the foundation of all we are, is our physical health. If you can gain some degree of control over that, the world will be better. You will have less fear in your life and allow room for love and growth.
My message is to look deep and be brutally honest with yourself. M. Scott Peck
says that mental health is “Commitment to reality at any cost.” Find your motivations and if they are negative, try to recast them in a positive light.Then take control...
Disclaimer: I have done a lot of independent study on this material and believe it to be true, safe, and effective, but I am a blogger, not a doctor. I am my own guinea pig and am not recommending anything that I have not done myself. Nonetheless, everyone is different. Your mileage may vary on this. If problems develop from any recommendations, seek professional help.
It's Not About Losing Weight--It's About Losing Fat
Weighing yourself may or may not be a good indicator of progress. Our bodies are made up of muscle, fat, water, and everything else. When most people talk about losing weight, they are hoping to lose fat. Water weight is easy. You can gain or lose five pounds in a day. But then you can't repeat it the next day. If you think you're overweight and want to shrink your muscles because you're too bulky, you are kidding yourself. Those aren't muscles—that’s the marbling making you big. Shrink the muscles and you'll be left with fat.
You want to convert your body and lifestyle into one that encourages usage of fat stores for fuel and discourages storage of fat.
So here are the two steps to a more healthy relationship with food.
1. Learn how to eat right.
2. Eat right.
Education
Most people blow it at step one. They read the government's food pyramid, follow weight watchers, or just cut back on portions. That might work for some people, but not most. So here are some facts.
1. You do not need carbohydrates to live and thrive.
2. Fat is an excellent fuel for low intensity activity (99.9% of the day for most of us).
3. Dietary protein and some fats (essential fatty acids or EFAs) are necessary for good health.
4. To lose weight you have to ingest fewer calories than you burn. (No surprise).
So there's the education part. Now here’s what to do about it.
Eat Mindfully
Now that you know what you need, you have a basis for acting on it.
First, make sure you get plenty of protein (shoot for 1 gram per lb of desired body weight). If you weigh 150, this means at least 150 grams (600 calories) of protein. Lean meat has 7 grams of protein per ounce. [Edit: I think that for active people probably 0.5 to 1 gram is ok. If you are actually trying to lose weight, i.e. restricting calories, cheat towards the high end on protein. Finally, if you are very obese (e.g. more than 50% above your target weight), you might want to think more in terms of desired weight rather than current weight.].
Second, limit carbohydrates, but get plenty of vegetables. Eat non-starchy vegetables like greens, cabbage, and peppers. Generally stay away from grain products including corn, bread, and pasta. If you must eat grains, eat whole grains in limited amounts. Definitely stay away from anything with added sugar, including High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Limit you total grams of carbohydrate to about 50 - 100 per day (200 to 400 calories). Sadly, ironically, artificial sweeteners, although they do not hurt you from a calorie standpoint may induce an insulin response, which can slow down your metabolism or make you hungrier. If you engage in high intensity activities, you can handle higher levels of carbohydrates.
Third, make sure you get some fats, especially omega 3s (fish oil). Don't worry too much about saturated vs. unsaturated, but stay away from hydrogenated oils (trans fats). The remainder of the calories needed should come from fat and more protein. There are lots of places on the web that will help you calculate your base metabolic rate.
Fourth, eat only when you are hungry. People eat for reasons besides sustenance. Sometimes there is an emotional attachment to eating in which food is used to medicate one’s psyche. This is a type of addiction. Other times people eat because it just tastes sooooo good or they simply don’t want to waste food. If you find yourself using food for emotional support or overeating at special events, try to find a way to stop that.
Fifth, keep an eye on the scale or your measurements or some other objective measure. If you are eating as above it will be hard to gain fat. Most weight loss would be from fat. Gains would more likely be muscle than fat. If you are gaining unexpectedly, cut back on carb and fat calories. You still need a calorie deficit to lose weight. I like to look at my weight on Thursday or Friday morning because it’s right before the weekend. Keep a log or spreadsheet if you wish.
Sixth, do resistance exercises that challenge your muscles. Exercise by itself is not an effective way to lose weight for most people. You should exercise anyway. It is good for you in many ways. Resistance exercise is good for everyone. It makes you stronger and sends a chemical message to your body to maintain muscle, even as you lose weight. Lift heavy enough to challenge yourself. If you can lift a weight more than 12 times, go to a heavier weight. The word “toning” has no meaning.
Following the above, most people should be able to maintain weight. The good news is that if you do want to lose weight, most of it would be from fat, not muscle. Your body will lose its reliance on sugar as a fuel and you will start to burn fat.
Seventh, limit weight loss to what your body can support. If you want to lose weight, the amount of fat you can lose is limited by the amount of fat you carry. You can burn approximately 31 calories per pound of bodyfat (bodyfat percentage times weight, e.g. 150 lbs at 30% bodyfat is 45 pounds of fat). Restricting calories more than that will lead to loss of non-fat weight. So in the example, total calories should be no less than your daily metabolic rate minus 1395 calories). The implication is that, at 3500 calories per pound of fat, this person can lose a maximum of about 2.8 pounds per week before crossing into non-fat weight loss. As you lose fat, this loss capacity diminishes.
Eighth and last, stick to the basics until you are on the right track. Once you do that, think about more details. There is an infinite amount of information on foods and supplements that you can pursue. Grass-fed vs corn-fed beef, farmed vs wild salmon, are thermogenics (like an ephedrine-caffeine stack) ok, sodium-potassium balance, meal frequencies, food combinations, etc. These things may make a difference in the long run, but you can be overwhelmed by the details, and at the beginning these issues are probably lost in the noise for most people.
Why Does This Work?
Nobody disputes the facts in the education section. But note how little resemblance there is to the food pyramid. When people follow the food pyramid recommendations, strange things happen to the body. The excess carbohydrates (grains especially) induce an insulin response, which drives nutrients into your fat and muscle cells. After a short time you feel hungry again. Even though you may have had a big meal, your cells are starving for energy. My grandmother used to talk about foods “sticking to your ribs.” Carbs do not do that; Protein does.
The body has many compensatory mechanisms, but excess carbs throw off the homeostatic mechanisms enough to cause fat gain. It doesn’t take much. Averaging 10 calories of fat deposition per day will add a pound in a year. Until my recent weight loss effort, I had been gaining about 3 lbs per year. That is only 30 calories per day.
This low carb approach has proponents and detractors. The problem I had with the other approaches is that I would lose muscle mass and energy. My experience with low carb has been incredible. I have lost 24 lbs since Jan 1, 2008, my weight lifts have stayed the same or improved, and I have seldom felt hungry. This has been close to an automatic program for me.
Some people say that losing weight is simply willpower. I don’t believe it. With low fat-high carb diets, people set up conditions that literally starve the cells in their bodies. In this starvation lies the seed of failure. Nobody can willingly starve himself or herself indefinitely. I don’t care how much willpower you have. You can’t hold your breath to death either. There’s too much science showing that these semi-starvation diets will not work. You need to give your cells enough fuel to keep them powered with the approach outlined above, the fuel not in your diet will come mainly from the fat in your body.
Eating a lower carbohydrate diet does have some potential side effects. At times, you may deplete your body’s stores of glycogen. This is especially true if you do high intensity exercise, which needs the sugar to fuel your muscles. At these times many people feel light-headed and foggy. I get the shakes a little and get a metallic taste in my mouth. It is called ketosis. Your body will adapt to this, but many people find it uncomfortable and stop the diet. The purpose of ketosis in this plan is to convert your body from needing sugar to fuel your low intensity needs, to using fat to fuel low intensity efforts. This is what the Atkins diet does in the induction phase. Some diets have a carbohydrate refeed day to refuel muscle glycogen and help reset the body’s metabolism.
The main takeaway for you is that most people can control their physical state. It is a question of positive motivation and the knowledge of how to do it. Removing health risks will allow you to focus on higher values. That can only be good. Happy trails.
In January 2010, I updated the recommendations in this post. target="_blank" It's quite similar, but there are some insights worth considering.
Links:
Emotions For Engineers
Gary Taubes' Berkeley Lecture
Good Calories, Bad Calories Book
Lyle McDonald
Protein Power Book
, Protein Power Lifeplan Book, and BlogCross Fit – a combination of resistance and aerobic activity – if you dare
Ketogenic Diets – Comprehensive summary of advantages
Fat Loss Troubleshooting Guide from ProjectFit.org
Recent research comparing Low Carb, Mediterranean, and Low Fat diets
The following link is to a tool that can help you measure your progress on the road to better health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)