Thank You,
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Positive News!!
Thank You,
Thou Shall NOT worship false idols !!
You shall not make for yourself an idol, you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God.
Whether we agree that God is jealous or not I think he made his point.
The last 15 years has seen a significant increase in the appearance of the perfect face, the perfect body, the perfect shape. As a society we have fallen victim to the mastery of the skill of "photo manipulating". It's obvious the effect of this behavior has transcended the the simple pages of the publications we are exposed to, but in turn influencing the fashion and dietary habits of our youth. This short clip speaks to the deception present in the media and serves to answer the question of what are we really investing our emotional energy into and are we becoming worshipers of false ideology? Is the pursuit, admiration and expectation of perfection, akin to idolizing perfection?
Hopefully this will provide fuel for your fire of disdain for the "accepted" and at least in your mind you will not fall victim to the worship of these false idols.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
"Fast Track to Elite Performance" Seminar
John Williams, C.S.C.S
Managing Director of EVO Sport
(Formerly Paradigm Performance Lab)
in conjunction with
Georgia Spine & Sports Rehab
Cordially invites...
The Parents, Coaches & Athletes of
To a private gathering of
Concerned parents and coaches
for the purpose of exploring the
latest technological breakthroughs in
Performance Training & Injury Prevention.
Come share and interact while enjoying the healthy
and rejuvenating juices & smoothies complimentary of our friends at Juices Wild.
In the
“Fast Track to Elite Performance”
seminar you will hear:
How we took a mediocre performing javelin thrower who was over trained and nonperforming from 50 in the world to
Sound interesting? How about a baseball catcher; who was able to catch for 16 straight innings in ninety-degree heat and was not only able to keep going, but still had enough power in the late innings to blast one over the fence.
What about the athlete who came into fall conditioning as the best conditioned player on the field by far, after training with us. Despite the fact that she Never did any running or Speed & Agility training!
There’s more….. We sent a freshman athlete to one of the top Division I athletics programs in the country and upon evaluation by the group hired to identify any performance weaknesses in both their incoming & returning players. The final report…
“We can’t find any area where you are weak; you’re clearly
the best prepared player on the team!”
Exclusive Seminar for parents and coaches of athletes who aspire to be among the Elite.
By accepting this FREE invitation, you join a select group that is united in a common cause:
To ensure your athletes are truly prepared for the rapidly changing highly competitive arena of high level sport.
This gathering offers you the ability to become instantly current with the latest technology, both Performance training and Injury prevention, as well as the
ultra-secret methodologies used by the Soviets to utterly Dominate
the world of athletics for over
20 years!
We have taken a quantum leap from outdated & often ill applied Speed Agility & Quickness training. To ultra advanced training systems which are designed to elevate the performance to previously unattainable levels
in a short period of time,while simultaneously reducing risk of injury.
You are being offered the opportunity to meet, interact
and be influenced by other parents & coaches in the system, all the while learning how this technology will give your athlete(s) a much needed competitive edge in the challenging years ahead.
If you would like to know more about this exclusive seminar,
or to RSVP,
please call John Williams directly at 770-815-3531.
In addition to the FREE refreshments…
As an added BONUS
I will include two of our
special reports a $49.00 value…
Bonus #1.
Why Sport specific training is slowly Destroying your players chances of excelling in sports.
Bonus #2.
Why it took me 10 years to figure out that Speed Agility & Quickness training doesn’t work!!
Date: November 21st, 2008
Time: 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm
Location:
Paradigm Performance Lab
770-815-3531
Please RSVP by November 14th, 2008
Here’s what other parents and coaches have had to
say about what we do:
We’ve been to other training facilities and been disappointed. "The staff at Paradigm has been better than we imagined; they are dedicated to the success of each one of their athletes and the system they use is amazing! It has produced such improvement in my daughter’s mental strength as well as her physical performance. Combined, it allowed her to go from #15 in the country to #1 As a parent, what more could I want."
- Sue Min
"As a professional coach, I thought I had seen everything under the sun when it came to training. These guys are way ahead of anything else out there and their ability to produce improvements in speed and power far surpass conventional systems."
– Rick Lewis
Head Coach Halifax Rainmen
"My son has made tremendous gains in his speed and strength over the last two months and I only wish we had found Paradigm sooner." - T. Echols
"We originally came to see John because our coach recommended him to improve my daughters first step quickness. After going through an assessment John quickly identified several areas in which my daughter was at a high risk for injury. He went on to explain that her body was preventing itself from moving at high velocity because it was not able to handle the stress. After two weeks of training, she was not only faster but she moved much better. Her coach said to her it’s obvious you’ve been running more because you’re definitely faster…. She then said, I have not been running at all. By the way, Ariel just got an invitation to Harvard for an official visit.
keep your fingers crossed"
– Lori Caldwell
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Cross Fit, or Crossed Out??
The Case Against CrossFit |
A closer look at this controversial workout program
by Charles Poliquin
"The best program is the one you're not using," is one of my favorite axioms. I say this because I've never believed that there is one perfect workout system. The high-intensity training methods of the late Arthur Jones work...for a time. Strongman training works...for at time. And weightlifting and powerlifting methods work...for a time. Variety, whether it be correcting a lack of it or too much of it, is one of the keys to making continual progress with your training and achieving your goals. And that brings up the topic of CrossFit, Inc. TM.
If you Google the words "Poliquin" and "CrossFit," you'll find that there has been a considerable amount of discussion about my recent comments on another website about this method of training. Although my intent was to make a few general comments about what I thought of this method of training - and throw in a few wisecracks in the process - it's obvious that a more in-depth discussion about CrossFit is in order. So, here it is.
What is CrossFit?
Founded by Greg Glassman nearly three decades ago, CrossFit is a militaristic type of workout that uses a variety of training methods, including gymnastics and Olympic lifting, using short rest intervals. CrossFit is very popular with the military, police forces and mixed martial artists. CrossFit offers certifications, and graduates can pay a fee to become an affiliate. And because the equipment used is relatively inexpensive, it's relatively easy to open a CrossFit gym.
Often with CrossFit you won't perform the same workout twice, and because CrossFit often facetiously uses feminine names to describe their workouts, your training schedule might look like this: Monday, "Fran"; Wednesday, "Grace"; Friday, "Helen." Here are some workouts I've found on a CrossFit website:
Linda
Perform the following circuit using this repetition scheme 10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3/2/1 - for time:
A1. Deadlift, 1 1/2 Bodyweight
A2. Bench Press, Bodyweight
A3. Clean, 3/4 Bodyweight
Nancy
Perform five sets of the following superset, for time:
A1. 400 meter run
A2. Overhead squat 95 lbs x 15
Diane
Perform three supersets of the following exercises, for time, performing sets of 21/15/9 reps.
A1. Deadlift 225 lbs
A2. Handstand push-ups
The CrossFit program is controversial. A New York Times article published on December 22, 2005, presented these quotes by Glassman: "It can kill you...I've always been completely honest about that," and "If you find the notion of falling off the rings and breaking your neck so foreign to you, then we don't want you in our ranks." The article also said that a popular axiom among CrossFit practitioners is "I met Pukey," which suggests they have vomited as a result of training so hard. Notes the author of the article, Stephanie Cooperman, "Some even own T-shirts emblazoned with a clown. Pukey. CrossFit's other mascot is Uncle Rhabdo, another clown, whose kidneys have spilled onto the floor presumably due to rhabdomyolsis." Rhabdomyolsis is a serious kidney disease, often associated with excessive exercise.
On the legal side, on October 9, 2008, the Associated Press filed this story:
“MANASSAS, Va. — A former Navy information systems technician has been awarded $300,000 after suing a Manassas gym over an exercise program he says left him permanently disabled.
“Makimba Mimms, 29, of Bristow says the CrossFit workout he did in 2005 caused him to urinate blood and his legs to swell.
“Mimms sued Manassas World Gym, where he did the workout; Ruthless Training Concepts, a CrossFit affiliate at the time; and a Ruthless employee who administered the workout. A Prince William County jury found all three defendants liable Wednesday.”
In the legal complaint, these were the specific breaches of duty (constituting negligence or gross negligence) cited against instructor Javier Lopez:
- He failed to exercise ordinary care.
- He failed to refrain from injuring plaintiff.
- He failed to give plaintiff proper and reasonable instruction.
- He gave plaintiff unreasonable and hazardous instructions, entreating and demanding that plaintiff exert extraordinary effort, not cease to rest, not cease to drink fluids or regain his strength, breath and resilience.
- He failed to refrain from exposing him to extraordinary hazards and actual injury to his person.
- He failed to observe and monitor plaintiff so as to guard and protect him from injury.
In the basic CrossFit certification, which costs $1,000, participants are introduced to numerous workout protocols and exercises, including the Olympic lifts. According to recent comments on a website from an individual who went through the certification, and from information that I viewed on their website, these certifications primarily consist of participating in workouts. There is no written exam to determine if the participants fully understand the material presented. Pay $1,000 and you are certified, and pay $1,000 and you can promote your business as an affiliate. The first CrossFit gym opened in 1995, and I've read where there are now over 600 CrossFit affiliates.
A Cause for Concern
Many individuals love CrossFit, and in fact it has been criticized as having a cultlike following. Many of these individuals believe it is the perfect program that will enable them to achieve their goals and are very satisfied with their progress. And I have no doubt that some individuals have never been injured from CrossFit. That being said, here are six of my major issues with this form of training.
1. Lack of Sufficient Testing Protocols. In looking over detailed notes from a CrossFit certification, I was concerned about the lack of testing for structural balance issues with trainees. There are protocols for beginning, intermediate and advanced workouts using multi-joint movements. But in my work with Olympians in 20 different sports and with numerous professional athletes, before having any athletes perform their first power clean or squat, I recommend a series of structural balance tests to red-flag muscle imbalances that could increase the athlete's risk of injury. And if there is a history of injuries with an athlete, those should be addressed in any workout design.
One reason Olympic shot-putter Adam Nelson could not perform power snatches before I started working with him was that he had adhesions in his rotator cuff muscles - after we addressed this injury with such treatments as Active ReleaseTM, Nelson was able to reintroduce this valuable exercise in his workout and within a month did 286 pounds for three reps. Jim McKenzie, a professional hockey player I've trained, went from a 280-pound close-grip bench press to 380 pounds in less than four months by focusing on corrective exercises - and for the first three months of this program Jim did not perform bench presses!
2. Focus on a Single Training Protocol. In regards to the concept of specificity, the protocols in CrossFit are not appropriate for developing the highest levels of strength or power or speed. It is doubtful that you will see any elite powerlifters, weightlifters or sprinters using CrossFit protocols as their primary method of conditioning. For example, I'm training Sam Baker, an NFL lineman who needed to dramatically increase his strength and muscle mass. Prior to Baker's entering the NFL, where he went as a #1 draft pick, in two months my training protocols enabled him to add 25 pounds of solid muscle, reduce his bodyfat by 8.1 percent, increase his vertical jump by four inches and significantly increase his strength. I didn't accomplish this by having him superset high-rep push-ups with mile runs.
Many sport coaches often overemphasize energy system training with athletes, often to the detriment of other physical qualities. Check out any exercise physiology textbook and look at the studies performed on elite athletes and their VO2 maxes. It is not necessary for a baseball player, or a basketball player for that matter, to have a VO2 max of 70. The promotional materials I've read about CrossFit imply that this type of training addresses all the strength and conditioning needs of an athlete, but the concept of specificity suggests that if you try to excel at everything it is unlikely that you will reach the highest levels at anything. This is why we don't see individuals who can run a mile in four minutes flat and also bench press 500 pounds.
3. Insufficient Instruction for Teaching Complex Training Methods. It takes more than a single weekend seminar to develop the competency to teach certain types of exercises or be able to adequately prescribe protocols for complex training methods. In this category I would include the classical Olympic lifts, strongman exercises and plyometrics. Often in the strength coaching profession these aforementioned training methods have been criticized as dangerous; but when you look at why athletes become injured from these training methods, it can often be traced to poor technique.
4. Inappropriate Repetition Brackets for Complex Exercises. Although high repetitions and short rest intervals can be used to develop muscular endurance, these protocols should not be used in some exercises. This is especially true with the Olympic lifts, as it is difficult to maintain proper technique when using high reps with these exercises - especially when supersetting them with other multi-joint exercises such as deadlifts. Simply watching CrossFit trainees performing these lifts in videos on their website will confirm this truth. Further, the Olympic lifting movements are most appropriate for developing power; if you want to develop muscular endurance, simpler movements should be used.
5. Inappropriate Exercise Order. To achieve specific responses from exercises, the exercise order should be addressed. As shown in the "Linda" workout described earlier, what is the logic in fatiguing the lower back with deadlifts prior to performing power cleans? To activate the high-threshold motor units with power cleans and to perform them with optimal technique, all the sets of the power clean should be performed before deadlifts. Further, combining weight training exercises with sprints places an athlete at a high risk of injury, especially to the hamstrings.
6. Endorsement of Controversial Exercises. On one website of a CrossFit affiliate, I saw video clips of athletes jumping onto cars and standing on Swiss balls. I appreciate having a wide variety of exercises to use with clients, but you have to question the logic of using such high-risk exercises in a program.
The principle of individuality suggests that not everyone will response equally to the same workout program, and that for optimal results a workout program should take into account those factors that are responsible for this difference. If you're an 18-year-old Army recruit about to be deployed to Iraq, then perhaps the CrossFit program might be appropriate for this individual. If you're an elite athlete trying to reach the highest levels in your sport, a CrossFit approach may not be the optimal way to train.
Because of these concerns, I cannot recommend CrossFit training, especially for those seeking the highest levels of athletic performance. But in the interest of being open-minded, let's leave it at this: Despite its many inadequacies, CrossFit is a workout system that is continually evolving. It'll be interesting to see how the program changes as more athletes, and non-athletes, participate in this program.
About the Author:
CHARLES POLIQUINFounder, Poliquin Performance Center
Charles Poliquin is a native of Ottawa, Canada. While completing graduate studies in Exercise Physiology in Canada, Charles began coaching athletes, a career move that has resulted in hundreds of medals, wins and personal bests of many elite athletes. He is known worldwide for producing faster athletes. When a country wants a Gold medal, they come to Charles.
Coach Poliquin has been hailed as the most successful strength coach in the world. He has spent years-researching European journals (he is fluent in English, French and German) and speaking to other coaches and scientists in his quest to optimize training methods. He has perfected the art of writing routines that produce results, and his books and courses are the culmination of his theories and knowledge.
Charles Poliquin has lectured extensively on practical and theoretical aspects of physical conditioning in eight different countries and in 3 different languages. Charles has also written over 500 articles for various web sites, magazines and journals. His work has been translated in 7 different languages. English, Swedish, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Japanese.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Read one Man's word about his Paradigm experience.
What makes Paradigm Performance Lab different from other "elite" level athletic training centers is its near surgical precision in eliciting the desired training effect.
When I returned home, after a few days of rest, I realized that my dynamic effort chin up was much more explosive (I can chin my bodyweight(135 lbs.) + 105 lbs, a one armed chin is my goal), despite never performing a chin up while I was at Paradigm. I can not wait to test mysquat, bench, vertical jump, and deadlift. I am continuing to use Paradigm's methods and miss the atmosphere of that small gym as well as John's expertise. Joe was also great as he fixed my nervous system in a matter of minutes. Chris'continuous support and coaching made sure that I learned the correct technique for every position. Thank you to everyone at Paradigm. I learned an incredible amount about training and myself.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
More perils of aerobic training....
Getting Maximum Results
As a Strength Coach and a Personal Trainer for 15 years, I’ve had a chance to see many fitness enthusiasts workout at many gyms in my local area and throughout the country. At any given gym or fitness center, the one thing that I notice is how you see the same people doing the same workouts month after month, year after year. The amazing thing is that these people continue to look the same or they are actually looking worse aesthetically. This is especially true with the constant performance of continuous aerobic work.
What’s sad about this is that they feel like they are doing everything necessary to get the result they are looking for. They are resigned to the fact that this is how it’s going to be and there isn’t anything that can be done to correct their deficiencies. If you were to ask them what results they would like to get out of their workout, the number 1 answer is “losing weight or getting thinner.”
When I am asked what it takes to look “fitter,” the first question I ask is: “How long have you been doing your current training program?”
The usual answer I receive is “somewhere between 6 and 12 months.” The typical program they follow is “30 – 60 minutes of continuous aerobic work 3 to 5 times per week.”
Our training tells us that this is not a good approach to take for the client seeking improving results over time. World renowned strength guru Charles Poliquin has identified 6 reasons why aerobic training is counterproductive to fat loss:
(1) Continuous aerobic work plateaus after 8 weeks of training so anything more is counterproductive.
This is quite an “eye opener” for most people who immediately recognize that they may have been wasting their time for such an extended period. To quote Charles, “using this principle in preparation for the 92 Olympics, the Canadian Alpine Ski team actually surpassed the Cross-country team on aerobic scores as measured by third party University labs.” Who wouldn’t want to perform as well as the Canadian Alpine ski team?
(2) Aerobic training worsens power locally and systemically – in other words, it can make you slower.
If you are an athlete or a “weekend warrior” who likes to participate in athletic events or team sports that require speed and jumping ability, this is the last thing you want from a cardiovascular training program. Coach Poliquin adds that “the more lower body aerobic work you do, the more your vertical jump worsens. The more upper body aerobic work you do, the more your medicine ball throws worsen.”
(3) Aerobic training increases oxidative stress which can accelerate aging.
According to Endocrinologist Dr. Diana Schwarzbein (author of The Schwarzbein Principle II ,) “oxidation” is a process that forms free radicals in the body. Normally the body can neutralize free radicals with substances known as antioxidants. It is only when there is an excessive build-up of free radicals that the body cannot neutralize all of the free radicals. This leads to changes to your metabolism which can accelerate aging.
(4) Aerobic training increases adrenal stress which can make you fatter and produce other undesirable health consequences
According to Dr. James Wilson (author of Adrenal Fatigue – The 21st. Century Stress Syndrome,) “normally functioning adrenal glands secrete minute, yet precise and balanced, amounts of steroid hormones”. When one does too much continuous aerobic exercise, the adrenal glands are stressed in a way that can upset this delicate balance which could lead to adrenal fatigue. Adrenal fatigue is associated with such symptoms as: tiredness, fearfulness, allergies, frequent influenza, arthritis, anxiety, depression, reduced memory, and difficulties in concentrating, insomnia, feeling worn-out, and most importantly- with respect to this article - the inability to lose weight after extensive efforts.”
(5) Aerobic training increases body fat in stressed individuals by contributing additional stress.
If you are already going through a lot of stress in your life then adding more “stress” by doing too much continuous aerobic work will actually add more body fat thus making it hard to reach a weight-loss/body fat goal.
(6) Aerobic training worsens testosterone/cortisol ratio which impedes your ability to add fat burning lean muscle.
When the testosterone/cortisol ratio is lowered your ability to add lean muscle tissue, which helps to increase caloric expenditure, is again hampered making weight loss much more difficult.
Keith Alpert is a well respected strength coach from the Boston area, who has a very strong record in the professional basketball area. Welcome to the blog, Keith!
Coming up in “Part 2” of this article: we’ll examine some alternative exercise strategies which can help you break through a plateau as well as being healthier for you.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
You have a problem with my Butt?
A: Maybe your butt is weak!
Q: HUH?
Weak buttocks ruin the athlete!
“The gluteus medius should be considered in every running injury because it largely affects the normal function of the posterior chain.”
“So many athletes with running overuse injuries of the lower limb present with poor gluteus medius function that I have come to the view that the strength and function of this muscle is probably the most important active component in the achievement of a biomechanically efficient running technique.” The deep-lying glut med muscle is normally associated with movement, but, its key role in running is to act as a stabilising force, to slow the downward drive of the pelvis on the opposite side during stance phase. This pelvic restraint prevents excessive hip sway or roll of the type that is classically known as “Trendelenburg gait”.
But even short of the tell-tale waddle of a Trendelenburg, there are various adaptations that runners make to compensate for weakness in gluteus medius.
How athletes cheat to compensate for weak buttocks Adaptations Areas at risk of structural overload
1. Excessive lateral pelvic tilt (Trendelenburg)Lumbar spine, sacroiliac joint (SIJ), greater trochanter bursa, insertion of muscle on greater trochanter, overactivity of piriformis and tensor fascia lata (TFL)
2. Medial knee drift Lateral tibiofemoral compartment (via compression), patellofemoral joint, patella tendon and fat pad, pes anserinus, iliotibial band (ITB)
3. Lateral knee drift Medial tibiofemoral compartment (via compression), ITB, posterolateral compartment, popliteus
4. Same-sided shift of trunk (lateral flexion of trunk) Lumbar spine (increased disc and facet joint compression), SIJ (increased shear)
All these various compensations can herald potentially chronic injury for the runner, including shin splints and Achilles tendinitis. The three tests he uses alongside video analysis to assess glut med strength, including this one, the “clam-shell”: “In side-lying, both hips are flexed to 30 degrees with knees bent and hips and feet stacked in line. The athlete has to open their knees while keeping heels together, and most importantly, holding the pelvis completely still. If the pelvis moves it means the athlete is unable to isolate the muscle and is trying to recruit ‘cheating’ muscles such as TFL.”
Begin with 2 sets of 30-50 repetitions per side and repeat three to four times weekly.
John Williams C.S.C.S, CARPT
Director of Paradigm Performance Lab
Suwanee, GA.
770-815-3531
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Are you in the three percent?
Only about 3 percent of adults have clear, written goals.
These people accomplish Five or TEN times as much as people of equal or better education and ability but who, for whatever reason, have never taken the time to write out exactly what they want.
There is a powerful formula for setting and achieving goals that you can use for the rest of your life. It consists of seven simple steps. Any one of these steps can double and triple your productivity if you are not currently using it.
1. Decide exactly what you want. Either decide for yourself or sit down with your coach, boss, or advisors and discuss your goals and objectives until you are crystal clear about what is expected of you and in what order of priority.
2.Write it down. Think on paper. When you write down a goal, you crystallize it and give it tangible form. You create something that you can touch and see. On the other hand, a goal or objective that is not in writing is merely a wish or a fantasy. It has no energy behind it.
3. Set a deadline on your goal; set sub deadlines if necessary. A goal or decision without a deadline has no urgency. It has no real beginning or end. Without a definite deadline, you will naturally procrastinate and get very little done.
4. Make a list of everything that you can think of that you are going to have to do to achieve your goal. As you think of new activities, add them to your list. Keep building your list until it is complete. A list gives you a visual picture of the larger task or objective. It gives you a track to run on.
5. Organize the list into a plan. Organize your list by priority and sequence. Take a few minutes to decide what you need to do first and what you can do later. With a written goal and an organized plan of action, you will be far more productive and efficient than people who are carrying their goals around in their minds.
6. Take action on your plan immediately. Do something. Do anything. An average plan vigorously executed is far better than a brilliant plan on which nothing is done. Resolve to do something every single day that moves you toward your major goal. Build this activity into your daily schedule. You may decide to read a specific number of pages on a key subject. You may call on a specific number of prospects or customers. You may engage in a specific period of physical exercise. Whatever it is, you must never miss a day.
7. Keep pushing forward. Once you start moving, keep moving. Don't stop. This decision, this discipline alone, can dramatically increase your speed of goal accomplishment and boost your personal productivity.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
High Intensity Exercise - Start Doing Some Here's Why - And How - Part 1by Ryan Andrews
Resistance Circuits
Body Weight Circuits
Rope Jumping (Skipping)
Running Hills
Burpees, Jumping Jacks, and Other Plyometrics
Medicine Ball Tosses and Rotations
Kettlebell Exercises
Tire Flipping, Fireman Carries, Farmers Walking and Other Strongman Activities
Increased activity of the heart and respiratory muscles
Elevated levels of hormones that increase metabolic activity
Energy absorbing pathways and the conversion of things like lactate into glucose or amino acids
Recovery of muscle damage
Thursday, April 10, 2008
NOW, NOT TOMORROW!
Shoes and socks off NOW!
Most of us consider running shoes essential.
But what happens when you decide not to lace 'em up?
By Amby Burfoot PUBLISHED 06/30/2004
As a teenager, I loved to run barefoot on the Connecticut beaches, splashing through the waves. A few years later, I often ran without shoes while training for the college cross-country season, completing workouts that were the hardest, fastest, most puke-able, and yet most enjoyable of my life.Those are strange bedfellows: extreme effort and high pleasure. I have wondered if someone was spiking my Kool-Aid, a popular sports drink of the time. Then I close my eyes and recall how my friends and I snuck onto Shennecossett Golf Course as dusk descended. How we giddily removed our shoes, and felt the fairway underfoot. How we ran an undulating six-mile fartlek loop, sprinting and jogging, sprinting and jogging, the summer sweat cascading off our bodies. How we finished, not another gasp of oxygen in our lungs, and flopped onto the 14th green. The kinesthetic memories are fullblown, from the slight chill of the grass on my feet to the heaving chest and the lightheaded dizziness of the effort. Was it the barefoot running that made the memory so vivid?
Famous runners had gone barefoot before us, of course. In 1960 Ethiopia's Abebe Bikila, the greatest Olympic marathoner of all time, won the first of his consecutive gold medals sans shoes in a world record 2:15:17. My high school coach, "Young John" J. Kelley, was the leading American finisher (19th, 2:24:58) in that 1960 Rome Olympic Marathon, and his descriptions of the torchlit race have always entranced me. Except the part about the stones. "On the ancient Appian Way, we had to run on huge, rounded cobblestones that were completely unyielding," Kelley says. "They had no 'give' at all. I remember that I was afraid of slamming down too hard on them, and I still can't imagine how Bikila did it."While Bikila was making Olympic history, England's Bruce Tulloh was running European record times from 1955 to 1967, almost always in bare feet. He ran 13:12 for three miles on grass, and 27:23 for six miles on cinders. Later, Tulloh taught in Africa, coached, wrote books, and ran solo across America (2,876 miles, albeit in shoes). At 68, his mind is as sharp as ever, and he is ever eager for a good barefoot jaunt. "I'll be running on the beach at Devon this weekend," he said in early summer. "The only reason that more people don't run barefoot is that they're afraid to be unconventional."
That wouldn't apply to either Charlie "Doc" Robbins or Zola Budd, both important contributors to barefoot running. Robbins, winner of two USA National Marathon Championships in the late 1940s, completed 50 straight Thanksgiving Day Road Races in Manchester, Connecticut, before calling it quits two years ago.
Most Thanksgivings, Robbins went shoeless, though he would resort to a pair of socks if the temperature dipped below 20 degrees. Budd set a track world record in January 1984 when, just 16, she ran 5000 meters in South Africa in 15:01.83, more than six seconds under Mary Decker's existing record. (Too bad Budd is better known for her fateful collision with Decker in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic 3000 race.
Decker was thrown horribly off-balance, and twisted and fell to the infield grass.) Interest in barefoot running seemed to wane until 2001, when Michael Warburton, an Aussie physical therapist and 2:42 marathoner, published an online paper titled, simply, "Barefoot Running." (You can view the paper at the sports science web site sportsci.org.) In his section on running economy, Warburton points out that the extra weight of shoes on your feet is much worse than a pound or two around your middle.
Weight on your feet is subject to constant acceleration and deceleration (runners call these movements "strides"), which have a high energy cost. According to Warburton, research has shown that 100 grams of extra weight on your feet decreases your running economy by one percent. Simple math says that two 10-ounce shoes will make you more than five percent less efficient. That's a big deal. When you add five percent to Paul Tergat's marathon world record 2:04:55, he's a 2:11 guy, which doesn't net him enough for a warm bowl of ugali in the Kenyan highlands.
But we don't think much about running economy when we buy a pair of new running shoes. First we want protection from harmful objects. And then we expect cushioning and/or motion control--the stuff of injury prevention. But this is where things get strange, because scientific studies have had a hard time proving that shoes represent a big step forward from the naked foot.
To learn what's going on inside the body, which, after all, is where we runners develop all our stress fractures, Achilles strains, and so forth, a medical team needs to take measurements from--ouch!--inside the body.
I've actually seen this take place in a biomechanics lab, and it's a blood sport. The combatants typically include a mad Ph.D. scientist and several grad students (a.k.a. the "volunteers") desperate to finish their degree work. ("Sure, I'll be happy to let you drill a metal accelerometer into my shin bone before my next treadmill run," says a grad student.) The results of several of these intrusive experiments have shown little change in shock absorption or motion-control in shod versus unclad feet. This apparent difference seems hard to believe.
All that foam padding and all those posts, bridges, and dual-density midsoles have to be doing something, right? Of course they are; they're deceiving the body. Here's an explanation, based on your body's proprioceptive abilities--that is, the way it can communicate up and down all pathways. When you run barefoot, your body precisely engages your vision, your brain, the soles of your feet, and all the muscles, bones, tendons, and supporting structures of your feet and legs. They leap to red alert, and give you a high degree of protection from the varied pressures and forces of running. On the other hand, when you run in socks, shoes, inserts, midsoles and outsoles, your body's proprioceptive system loses a lot of input. "This has been called 'the perceptual illusion' of running shoes," says Warburton. "With shoes, your body switches off to a degree, and your reaction time decreases."The way I see it, there's a simple explanation for the high IQ of barefoot running: We descended from the trees to walk and run this planet's surfaces six million years ago, and we've had time to get really, really good at it, from the soles of the feet to the top of the brain.By now, you might be worried about your Reebok stock or your friends who work at the local running store.
I wouldn't sweat it too much, at least not to judge from the number of bare feet I saw at my last big road race (zero). Even though a guy named Ken Saxton is running a marathon a month this year (barefootrunning.org), I doubt his preference will take off the way instant messaging, low-carb diets, and The Apprentice have. Besides, many podiatrists think it's dangerous. "Most of my patients aren't worldclass runners," says foot doctor Stephen Pribut, DPM. "It wouldn't make sense for them to risk getting twigs and glass in their feet. And I think some soft surfaces increase plantar fascia and Achilles problems. Of course, what doesn't kill you might make you stronger."This a-little-medicine-is-good-for-you perspective is shared by a number of other podiatrists, physical therapists, and coaches.
Their theory: Modern man does spend too much time in shoes, and this weakens many of the foot and leg structures. To correct this, you can walk barefoot around the house, do simple foot strengthening exercises, or run a few barefoot miles a week on safe, secure surfaces. And then put your shoes back on before you hit the pavement. Even Abebe Bikila gave up his barefoot ways. Four years after winning in Rome, he wore Pumas in the Tokyo Olympic Marathon. He won again, despite having had an appendectomy 40 days earlier, and set a new world record, 2:12:11.2. Apparently, the shoes didn't bother him at all.
Note from John ...............
There is a company which has created a virtual bridge between safety and functionality and its product is called the Vibram 5 fingers shoe.
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
Check it out and tell them we sent you.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
One man's Pipes of Passage
Everyone tells us we need it….we need more and more fiber, that’s the solution to all our problems. Ok, first thing I always like to ask when hearing something like this is “who” said we need it. The usual answer for most of these general health concepts are to respond doctors or scientists or some other random source. But do you even know why we need it? To have more bowel movements? Nope sorry…false assumption. To lower cholesterol? Nope sorry, never been proven. To lower the risk of colon cancer? Well….yes and no, and you will see that below in more detail. First let’s go over the 2 types of fiber:
Soluble - fiber that is “water soluble” (put it in water it expands into a large gel like substance). This is what expands in our guts, gives us a feeling of fullness, slows down digestion.
Insoluble - fiber that is NOT “water soluble”, this goes through us like sand through a long winding pipe. Simple enough huh?
Ok….so what are the main sources of fiber? Fiber is found in fruits, vegetables, beans, legumes and the most popular source nowadays of “bran fiber”. But what is Bran? Does it really improve our health? Why do we even need it? Let the games begin….
The belief that regular bowel movement is important for health is very ancient. But the present theory is based on Dr. Dennis Burkitt’s discovery that relatively few rural black Africans suffer from cancer of the colon. He attributed this to their relatively crude diet.
The theory was that, as fibre made food travel through the gut faster, it allowed less time for cancer-inducing agents to form. This, of course, presupposed that food became carcinogenic in the gut and there was no evidence that it did. Neither was there any evidence that moving food through the intestine at a faster rate decreased the risk of colon cancer. Moreover, the rural Africans’ lifestyle was far from that of the Western city dweller: their diet is different, but also they were not exposed to so many pollutants, toxins or mental stresses. Indeed, there were many factors that could have been responsible for a difference in disease patterns. Other communities - the Mormons of Utah, for example - also enjoyed a low incidence of colon cancer yet they ate a low-fiber diet.
Wait….so more fiber does not lower the rate of colon cancer? Other factors in their lifestyle could of been more important to preventing colon cancer? Hmmmm….go on…..
Commercial interests were quick to see the potential in the recommendation and jump on the bran wagon. Burkitt’s recommendation was based on vegetable fiber, but bran (cereal fiber) has a far higher fibre content and bran was a practically worthless by-product of the milling process that, until then, had been thrown away. Almost overnight, it became a highly priced profit maker. Although totally inedible, backed by Burkitt’s fiber hypothesis, bran could now be promoted as a valuable food. But Dr. Hugh Trowell, Burkitt’s partner and another strong advocate of dietary fiber, stated in 1974 that: “A serious confusion of thought is produced by referring to the dietary fiber hypothesis as the bran hypothesis, for many Africans do not consume cereal or bran”
So basically Fruits and Vegetable based diets are what all the health benefits of fiber are based upon yet Bran jumped on that bandwagon because manufacturers found a cheap way to make their cheap products healthy to the general public? Hmmmmmm……more?
It may be useful at this stage to consider the claims for fiber in curing or preventing other diseases. For example, bran has been a popular way to manage irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) for about thirty years, despite the fact that no placebo-controlled study of bran in IBS has yet shown any convincing beneficial effect. A study, published in 1994, found that while fruit fiber was effective, bran only made the situation worse. Far from being a cure for IBS, they found that it was the bran that was causing it! Bran also caused bowel disturbances, abdominal distension and pain.
Again….”Yeah” for Fruits and Vegetables….but Bran? “Booooooo…….”.
Tests into the supposed benefits of dietary fiber soon showed that there could be other harmful side effects. All the nutrients in food are absorbed through the gut wall and this takes time. Fiber, by speeding food through the gut faster so that less nutrients are absorbed, inhibits the absorption of iron, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, energy, proteins, fats and vitamins A, D, E and K. This happens with all types of fibre although with a normal Western-style, nutrient-rich diet, the loss caused by vegetable fibre intake is unimportant. More importantly, phytate found in cereal fibre (bran) also binds with calcium, iron and zinc making them indigestible, which in turn causes malabsorption. One study, for example, showed that subjects absorbed more iron from white bread than from wholemeal bread even though their intakes of iron were fifty percent higher with the wholemeal bread. Bran has also been shown to cause faecal losses of calcium, iron, zinc, phosphorus, nitrogen, fats, fatty acids and sterols, thus depleting the body of these materials.
WHAT!
Too much fiber can speed up food through the gut, bind itself to essential vitamins and minerals and cause malabsorption? I didn’t see that on the box of Cheerios. So honestly what are we to do for maximum health? Here’s the overview:The source of fiber is important, fruits and vegetables should be our primary source. Bran is cheap, worthless and does more harm than good. (also makes crappy foods “healthy”in the public eye)
If you are not eating processed foods, then you don’t have to worry about blood sugar control with slower gastric emptying, as you get that automatically with fruits and vegetables.
Bowel movements are more based on the BACTERIA environment of the gut. Don’t believe me? Go take some probiotics (healthy bacteria) and let me know what happens….stock up on the TP! If you want more bowel movements, start with treating the source which is the bacteria balance in your gut. Fiber is not the answer.
Fiber is not the magic pill to cure or prevent colon caner or any disease/illness. Eating a diet higher in fruits and vegetables will always give you a healthier body….but it is a small portion of what true health is. Our whole environment from external toxins, stress, and overall lifestyle play into those factors as well. Don’t think a fiber pill is going to save you if you life is chaotic and destructive.
Too much fiber is not going to be healthy too as it can absorb essential nutrients that your body needs and can cause gut irritation (like scratching your skin with your fingernails…fiber is scraping your intenstinal lining). You want to get really sick? Then mess up your gut! I can’t stress how important a healthy gut is for overall health…it’s the biggest factor that we can control and is usually all messed up! Re-read the post on gut health again….and again….and again.
Once again…..moral of the story….eat your fruits and vegetables, stay away from processed foods and don’t believe the marketing hype of manufacturer’s trying to make their food “healthy”…as it usually has more disadvantages than advantages. If you are eating meats, vegetables, fruits, health fats, avoiding sugars, not taking antibiotics (or taking probiotics), controlling stress, limiting toxin exposure…then you don’t need any more fiber do you? Keep your gut healthy, keep your foods natural, and live an enjoyable low stress lifestyle….chances are that you will live long and prosper. If you want more bowel movements….take some probiotics and enjoy!
Monday, April 7, 2008
On Womens Health and beyond...
As if that’s not enough; we can also use thermography to isolate areas of chronic inflammation, fractures, strains tears and other soft tissue related injuries.
Join us on the evening of April 24th , Seven O’clock at Paradigm Performance Lab, to meet Thermographic specialist Nina Rea from Infrared Thermal Imaging.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Education of a Misguided Trainer
by Alwyn Cosgrove
In my career I've had several moments of clarity when I learned something new, or when something I had believed was either verified, brought into question, or flat out disproved.
These mini-epiphanies are what I call my "ah-ha!" moments. In every case, these "ah-ha!" moments allowed my thought processes to take a significant step forward, which in turn brought me to a new level in my training education.
Here's a study that I came across about ten years ago (about 4 or 5 years after it was published, I'm embarrassed to admit):
Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.
Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.
Metabolism. 1994 Jul; 43(7):814-8.
The premise of the study was to compare twenty (20) weeks of steady state endurance training and fifteen (15) weeks of interval training.
When comparing total calories burned from exercise, the researchers found the endurance training burned 28,661 calories, while the interval training group burned 13,614 calories. In other words, the interval-training group burned less than half the calories of the endurance-training group.
However, when the researchers adjusted the results to correct for the difference in energy cost, the interval-training group showed a 900% greater loss in subcutaneous fat than the endurance group. In other words, calorie for calorie, interval training was nine times more effective than steady state exercise.
Interval training is nine times more effective than steady-state cardio for burning fat.
Additionally, the researchers noted the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the interval training program appear to favor the process of fat oxidation.
This piqued my interest because until this point we'd been told that it's all about "calories in versus calories out." So we assumed (or at least I assumed) that burning more calories in training would result in greater fat loss. This study (and several others since) have shown that to be completely incorrect.
So the "ah-ha!" moment showed me that we can't ignore the post workout period. That's where the adaptations happen. That's where the results are.
Why did this occur? I've hypothesized that it's related to EPOC, a post exercise elevation of metabolism, but some studies have shown that EPOC isn't as big of a contributor to caloric burn as we originally thought: calories burned during the exercise period is the biggest factor.
And it still doesn't explain the very significant difference in real world fat loss.
Simply put, the subjects doing interval training lost more fat by burning fewer calories than the steady state group. So maybe, as the study showed, total body fat oxidation seems to increase as a result of the adaptations to interval training.
But that still doesn't explain it. An increase in fat oxidation doesn't necessarily mean an increase in total caloric burn or fat lost (as other studies have shown that fuel source during exercise appears to be irrelevant, so fuel source at rest shouldn't matter either unless there is a total caloric deficit).
The bottom line is that perhaps we don't know why. But we do know that it's more effective because of something that happens post workout. And that something is beneficial.
Looking at aerobics for fat loss and ignoring the post workout period is short-sighted. If we studied weight training the same way, looking only at what happens during the workout and ignoring the post-workout adaptations, we'd have to conclude that weight training destroys muscle tissue, making you smaller and weaker. And we know that's not true.
Conclusion: the workout is the stimulus. The adaptation is the goal.
Ah-ha! #3: Cardiovascular programming is an ass-backward concept.
I don't know when I first thought this, but it was confirmed to me when viewing Lance Armstrong's performance in the New York Marathon.
Throughout my college education, countless training certification programs and seminars, I'd been taught the same thing: that cardiovascular exercise was necessary to improve the cardiovascular system and subsequently aerobic performance. But there seemed to be an inherent flaw in that argument.
Let's say I tested your aerobic fitness through a treadmill test.
Then let's say that for the next sixteen weeks, we developed a five-day per week aerobic training program that involved you running at various heart rates and for various lengths of times. The program would progressively increase in difficulty and duration, and the end result was a very significant improvement in your aerobic fitness.
At the end of this sixteen-week period, how much do you expect your swimming times to have improved? Marginally, if at all, right? It seems almost stupid to ask. But wait a second. If you have one cardiovascular system, why doesn't your cardiovascular system improve across the board regardless of the activity?
More to the point, why didn't Lance Armstrong, with perhaps the highest recorded VO2 max in history, win the New York Marathon? Or beat people with lesser aerobic levels than himself?
The seven-time winner of the Tour de France, the greatest endurance cyclist, quite possibly the greatest endurance athlete in the world, finished the Marathon in 868th place, and described the event as the "hardest physical thing" he'd ever done.
The flaw in this thinking was looking solely at VO2 max: the "engine," as it were. It's fair to say that Lance had a "Formula One" engine, but his wheels and chassis were built for a different kind of race. In other words, he just didn't have the structural development for running.
Lance was a cyclist: his body had adapted to the demands of cycling, but not to the specific demands of running. In fact, the longest distance he'd ever run prior to the Marathon was 16 miles. Lance had developed strength, postural endurance, and flexibility in the correct "cycling muscles," but it didn't transfer to running the way his VO2 max did.
The muscles don't move because of cardiovascular demand. It's the reverse. The cardio system is elevated because of muscular demand. We need to program the body based on the movements it's going to perform, not based on the cardiovascular system.
Basically, if that muscular system can't handle the stress of performing thousands of repetitions (which is what you're doing, after all, when running or cycling), then we have to condition that muscular system first. And by doing so, we automatically improve cardiovascular conditioning.
The only reason there's any demand on the cardiovascular system is because the muscular system places that demand: the muscles require oxygen in order to continue to work. In fact, cardiovascular exercise is impossible without moving the muscle first.
I've seen this across various sports. The cardio conditioning required to run a 10K won't transfer to motocross or jujitsu.
Conclusion: If cardio training doesn't transfer well from one activity to another, and it only 'kicks' in because of muscular demand, we should program muscular activity first in order to create a
cardiovascular response.
Originally published by Testosterone Nation 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Eat food. Not Much. Mostly Plants....
Upton Sinclair was a visionary.
Upton Sinclair even described how the occasional worker would fall into a meat-processing tank and be ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard."
The Chicago meat-packing industry was in deep trouble after Sinclair's landmark book, The Jungle, was published in 1906. It caused outrage in America and abroad and meat sales fell by half. The book forced the government to pass the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, which established the Food and Drug Administration.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of different ways to foul up our food supply and circumstances require that incarnations of Sinclair surface every generation or so to investigate our food supply.
Specifically, he traced how a single political decision made in the 70's having to do with farm subsidies led to a single grain — corn — being mass grown without the limitations normally imposed by supply and demand.
Corn became so abundant and consequently so cheap that manufacturers began looking for novel ways to use it. This led to the inclusion of high-fructose corn syrup in hundreds of products and the invention of a dazzling array of corn-based cereals and snack foods.
With all those cheap, salted, and sugared calories to be had, Americans grew increasingly fat and increasingly diabetic. Perhaps worse, though, was the wide-spread use of corn as cattle feed.
Cattle don't do well on grains. It makes them sick and they then require antibiotics. Furthermore, it changed the fatty acid content of their meat. Whereas normally the grass-fed creatures had omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratios more consistent with wild game or wild salmon, the corn-feeding turned them into hoofed heart attacks in waiting, the ingestion of which slowly clogged the nation's arteries.
Despite the billion-lumen light Pollan shined on the food industry, he didn't really pontificate too much on what humans should eat. He attempts to rectify that with his latest book, In Defense of Food.
Eat food.
Not much.
Mostly plants.
But you have to go deeper. Once you do, once you get into Michael Pollan's head and his gut, you realize that "eat food, not much, mostly plants," is a distillation of an entire dietary thought process; a Zen koan (minus a few syllables) that opens your mind up to a higher level of dietary thinking.
His thinking stems largely from the widely accepted notion that people eating a Western diet are prone to a complex of chronic diseases. If these diseased individuals stop eating a typical Western diet, they get better.
He cites the "civilized" Aborigines who developed diabetes and went back to the bush so they could eat more naturally and in doing so, heal themselves. Likewise, Americans need to escape the worst elements of the Western diet — heal themselves — by going back to the "bush."
Pollan laments the errors and inconsistencies in food science and, more importantly, the failure to rescind or even take responsibility for these errors. He wishes that the government or public health community would come out with something like the following:
Um, you know everything we've been telling you for the last thirty years about the links between dietary fat and heart diseases? And fat and cancer? And fat and fat? Well, this just in: It now appears that none of it was true. We sincerely regret the error.
But rather than just rail against what constitutes modern food science, he gives a dietary to-do list, most of which, maybe surprisingly, doesn't conflict at all with the bodybuilder or weight-trainer mindset. The following paragraphs detail some of the more significant suggestions on his list.
We've had our own version of this at Testosterone for some time, which is, "Don't eat anything that comes in a box." Our version was based mostly on the notion that things that come in a box are generally highly processed, i.e., they get digested very, very quickly and cause a huge insulin surge resulting in, over the long run, decreased insulin sensitivity and undesirable body composition.
But it goes beyond that for Pollan. He decries the lack of nutrition in these foods; how they aren't even food anymore and that many of these so-called improvements — replacing one "bad" macronutrient for a "good" one — have made the food far less desirable, nutritionally speaking.
One of the examples he cites is dairy food. When dairies make their products low-fat, they have to go to great lengths to preserve the body or creamy texture; they have to put in food additives.
In the case of low-fat or skim milk, that means adding in powdered milk, which contains oxidized cholesterol that's much worse for your arteries than ordinary cholesterol.
Furthermore, removing all the fat makes it hard or even impossible for your body to absorb the fat-soluble vitamins that are the very reason some people drink milk in the first place!
Of course, the "grandmother rule" doesn't work very well in the aforementioned case as milk still looks like milk.
Neither would it necessarily work with bread. Traditional bread is of course made with flour, yeast, water, and a pinch of salt. Compare that with the list of two-dozen or so chemical ingredients in Sara Lee's Soft and Smooth Whole Grain White Bread.
"If not for the indulgence of the FDA, you couldn't even call it bread," writes Pollan.
Because the small percentage of whole grains in the bread would render it that much less sweet than, say, all-White Wonder Bread — which scarcely waits to be chewed before transforming itself into glucose — the food scientists have added high-fructose corn syrup and honey to make up for the difference; to overcome the problematic heft and toothsomeness of a real whole grain bread, they've deployed "dough conditioners," including guar gum and the aforementioned azodicarbonamide, to simulate the texture of supermarket white bread. By incorporating certain varieties of albino wheat, they've managed to maintain that deathly but apparently appealing Wonder Bread pallor.
Again, this "bread" might fool your grandmother, but she definitely wouldn't recognize Go-Gurt Portable Yogurt as food as it comes in what looks like a toothpaste tube. Oh it has some yogurt in it, but it also has about a dozen other ingredients in it, none of which your grandmother could discern as real food.
She might look at the "Berry Bubblegum Bash" flavor of Go-Gurt, scratch her graying head and wonder aloud how it could be that it has neither berries or bubblegum in it.
Other Frankenfood examples include breakfast cereal bars that have bright white veins representing, but having nothing to do with, milk; nondairy creamers, Twinkies that don't go stale, cheese-like food stuff that has no bovine contribution at all and, unlike European market cheese, is literally dead, kept in its refrigerator morgue until some fool deems to eat it.
He offers that perhaps a better rule would be, "Don't eat anything incapable of rotting."
The FDA actually approved the following health claim for Mazola Corn Oil, a product very high in the omega-6 fatty acids that most Americans get way too much of:
Very limited and preliminary scientific evidence suggests that eating about a tablespoon of corn oil daily may reduce the risk of heart disease due to the unsaturated fat content in corn oil.
Of course, if you continue reading, you see the "qualification" of this health claim:
[The] FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim.
And then, to make it more head-smacking confusing:
To achieve this possible benefit, corn oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day.
I don't know if the aforementioned example proves the FDA is corrupt or just stupid. It appears to be clear, though, that the American Heart Association is corrupt.
Consider that they've bestowed (for a fee) their heart-healthy seal on Lucky Charms, Trix, and Cocoa Puff cereals, in addition to Yoo-hoo Chocolate Drink, and Healthy Choice's Caramel Swirl Ice Cream.
Similar degrees of chutzpah are evident in the countless food manufacturers who claim their product to be chock full of antioxidants. Keep this in mind: all plants contain antioxidants of some kind, so don't think for a minute that the people who make Snickers Bars (which contain cacao from plants) haven't considered slapping a "Rich With Antioxidants!" label on their product.
Meanwhile, the products that truly contain rich amounts of antioxidants — the fresh fruits and vegetables in the produce aisle — have no label to trumpet their nutritional value.
We all know this one. The periphery of the grocery store is lined with fresh food, food that rots, food that's alive. Those are the most nutritious foods. Of course, the suggestions isn't fool-proof as Go-Gurt Portable Yogurt is in the dairy case.
Pollan recommends you go to a farmer's market whenever possible. When you go to a farmer's market, you eat food that's in season, food at its most nutritious. Eating in season helps you diversify your diet. If concerned with chemicals, ask the farmer how he or she deals with pests and fertility.
Pollan isn't against eating meat; he just recommends people eat less of it. Eating too much industrial meat exposes us to more saturated fats, more omega-6 fatty acids, more growth hormones, and more carcinogens.
He contends, though, that the benefits of a diet rich in plant-based foods are probably the only point almost universally agreed on with nutritionists.
The explanation is pretty simple. We need to ingest antioxidants. They not only stabilize the oft-mentioned free radicals, they also stimulate the liver to produce enzymes that break down the antioxidants themselves. These enzymes go on to break down other chemicals as well, including whatever toxins happen to resemble the antioxidants.
In this way, they can neutralize carcinogens.
The more antioxidants in your diet, the more toxins you disarm.
As discussed earlier in this article, cows and sheep are meant to eat grass, not seeds. If they eat too many seeds, they get sick and require constant antibiotics.
A grass-based diet for farm animals means the meat, butter, or eggs you eat, along with the milk you drink, contains fewer omega-6 and saturated fats, as well as higher levels of vitamins and antioxidants.
Unfortunately, food manufacturers and food retailers have found another way to lie to us. While the meats they sell may be advertised as "grass fed," it doesn't mean anything. Allcows are grass fed until they get to the feedlot. That's where they're fattened up with corn.
Similarly, "free range" doesn't mean chickens were allowed to roam the countryside pecking at grasses and unsuspecting insects. It likely means they had a square foot or two of dirt to "range."
As far as cows, look for the words "grass finished" or "100% grass-fed." Only then can you be reasonably certain of getting healthy meat. As far as chickens, look for the word "pastured."
(To find a source of grass-fed beef or pastured chicken near you, go to eatwild.com.)
Pollan recommends you add new species to your diet whenever you can. Diversity in diet means diversity in nutrients and antioxidants.
And keep in mind that while the grocery store offers a dazzling diversity of foods or food-like susbstances, most are made from the same four plants, three of which are seeds (corn, soy, and wheat).
Pollan points out that the designation "organic" isn't the last word in food quality. Yes, organic means the food was well-grown in relatively healthy soil and was nourished by organic matter rather than synthetic fertilizer, but that doesn't mean organic Oreos are healthy. It makes little difference to your body whether the high-fructose corn syrup its been fed is organic or not.
Wild plants are richer in antioxidants than their domestic cousins. Since they have to defend themselves against pests and disease without the help of man, they had to get tough — develop a bevy of interesting and potentially healthful (to man) phytochemicals — to survive.
Likewise, they tend to have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.
While they might be hard to find, consider purchasing and using purslane and lamb's quarters, two of the most nutritious plants (weeds, really) in the world.
Likewise, consider eating wild game when you can, too. They eat wild plants, so their meat is higher in omega-3 fatty acids, too.
Every year, it seems a new "magic bullet" food hits the mainstream. A couple of years ago, it was algae. Then it was wheat grass. Now it's the acai berry from the jungles of Brazil.
While they might be nutritious, no single food contains the answers to human health. Foods are more than the sum of their nutrient parts and dietary patterns seem to be more than the sum of the foods that comprise them.
Despite not having great faith in individual ingredients, Pollan does seem to tout the benefits of the polyphenols in red wine, particularly resveratrol (which you might better recognize as Biotest's REZ-V), which study after study has suggested might be beneficial in cardiovascular health, fighting cancer, blocking negative effects of estrogen, and protecting the prostate.
After reading In Defense of Food, I can't help but think how bodybuilders, in their effort to have perpetual abs, have largely ignored nutrition, or at the very least gotten it horribly wrong.
We've jettisoned real milk for some nutritionally void and paradoxically more "harmful" type of milk; ignored entire categories of foods — carbs — when leaving them out might in the long run deprive us of valuable nutrients; been so afraid of fat or carbs that most of us find 15 or 20 "safe" foods and eat them day-in and day-out, thereby depriving us of countless, possibly essential nutrients; allowed ourselves to be hood-winked by labels that advertise "organic" or "grass-fed" or "low-fat" without realizing the potential loopholes; fallen prey to nearly every single wonder food or ingredient like blue-green algae or wheat grass without thinking that it's a combination of foods that constitutes health; and of choosing animal protein over plant-based products again and again in the puzzling belief that all our body needs to grow muscle is a single macronutrient.
Eat food, not too much, mostly plants? It might not work entirely for strength athletes and bodybuilders, but we'd do well to consider taking a step or two in that direction.