 |
Comments |
|
 | Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 8:13:53 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
That sounds like good advice, Diana. I think the reason diet fads become popular is that it is a fair amount of work to do the type of research that you did. It's really easy to say "if it's [x], it must be OK" and be done with it. Diet faddism is a bit like religion, when you think about it. |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 8:37:26 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Monica
E-mail: monicabeth10(at)gmail.com
URL: http://fa-rm.org/blog
I agree with your analysis. But oh my, I do have to comment on something. Here are some excerpts (re-arranged):
"Ms. Dunn is among the legions of parents who are vigilant about their children's consumption of sugar, processed foods,..."
and then this...
"Greye's mother (helps) Greye read labels on cereal boxes and cans."
Ummm. Both of these are processed and one probably contains a lot of sugar.... in the form of starch.
It's amazing how many believe that organic food is going to keep them safe from diabetes and heart disease. Sure, there are some estrogenic pesticides, but the organic cereal is loaded with diabetic-inducing sugar (i.e. "whole grains") and the organic canned food (whatever it is) comes in a diabetes-inducing BPA-lined can. !!
Missing the forest for the trees. |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 8:47:33 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Dana H.
I think the food neurosis as described in the article is just one example of a broader cultural phenomenon -- a general sense of fear that many people have about their health and safety, and that of their children, to the point of obsession. Along with this is the sense that it is possible or proper to avoid all risks in one's life -- so that, even if a risk is real, the concern is all out of proportion to the actual risk. In addition to the food fears described in the NYT article, I'm thinking here of fear of pesticides, of global warming, of child abductions, and so on. I have read other articles about children being scared to death about the last two of these, thanks to the efforts of schools and parents to "educate" them.
The tendency among parents today is to become obsessive micro-managers of their children's lives. I see this phenomenon in myself sometimes, and I try to fight it when I notice it. |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 9:22:50 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Rational Jenn
E-mail: rationaljenn(at)gmail.com
URL: http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com
I agree with Dana. There's protecting your kids from reasonable, rationally-assessed risks. I'm all for that. Then there's overprotecting kids from every possible danger, real or imagined--and worse, passing on irrational fears to kids, who are ill-equipped to cope with such fears because of their immaturity, incomplete reasoning skills, and dependency on their parents.
What we do regarding food is talk to them about general nutrition and health in terms they can understand: for example, "Eating protein helps your body build strong muscles--and eggs have lots of protein!" We help them identify which foods are healthy and why (and vice versa). We help them notice what happens to their bodies when they don't make good eating choices. My son is famous for just forgetting to eat, and he becomes irritable and obstinate. So I say "I noticed that you haven't eaten in a while and I can tell by the way you are speaking and acting that your body is telling you something. Let's go find a snack and see if you feel better. Wow! You ate that snack and I can see that you're feeling better! Am I right about that? How do you feel?"
We give them pretty much free-range to eat as much food as they want, when they want, so they can learn their bodies' hunger cues. We never make them clean their plates; but we help them choose reasonable portions so that too much food isn't wasted. For the most part, they make good choices. The good thing about providing them with so much freedom to choose their food is that it encourages ME to make sure that there are plenty of healthy food choices available. I know that if there is crap available, then they'll tend to eat that first. We don't restrict sweets, but we tend not to have them in the house unless there is a special occasion coming up--which is probably more often than we ought to have them anyway, honestly.
I do think that this obsessive, over-protectiveness tendency that some parents exhibit is part of a broader trend. Asking myself the question "Am I being reasonable about thinking there is a risk here?" helps me focus on the things that really ARE risks: playing in the street, jumping around like a maniac near a newly-crawling baby, swinging broadswords at one's sister, etc. :o) |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 9:43:55 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.freetheanimal.com
Then there's the clean freaks, disinfecting everything in sight and never letting their kids become exposed to the things that build a strong immune system.
Can't remember where I read it, but part of a kid's development is to actually allow them to eat dirt. They all do it, if allowed, so there there's likely an evolutionary basis in ingesting the many bacteria and other nasties.
Ah, a quick Googling turned this up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/health/27brod.html |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 9:55:44 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Jonny Blaze
E-mail: password
"but the organic cereal is loaded with diabetic-inducing sugar (i.e. "whole grains")"
Sorry this is not true. The fact is that people who are physically active do need carbs like those whole grains to fuel themselves. I went on a low-carb/no-carb diet, and my performance in the gym was significantly weaker. I like to lift heavy weights, and for this, I need carbs to fuel me so I can make good muscular & strength gains. I also like to run (sprints and long-distance) and without carbs I get winded much more easily. |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 11:07:18 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.freetheanimal.com
"The fact is that people who are physically active do need carbs like those whole grains to fuel themselves."
Well, first of all, one can get more than enough carbs without resorting to grains or the processed food derivatives.
I've been lifting heavy for 18 months on high-fat, low-carb, and for the last year, 90% of my workouts are at the tail end of a fast, 24-36 hours (and I don't eat after for at least 2 hours, and as much as 6 sometimes). I have achieved significant strength gains across the board, 300% + in some cases. For example, 18 months ago I could not bench 115 pounds more than a couple reps. Now, I warm up (10 reps) at 135, hit five reps at 185, 3 reps at 205, then durn off another 10 at 135.
Here's the results in photos:
http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/periodic-photo-progress-u ...
It's hard to say, but I think the fasting is what ultimately made the difference. It really trains your body to access fat stores. I'm usually not hungry when the workout begins, but even if I am, it goes away within 5 minutes. Then, I can bring it back at will with intensity, particularly leg presses or squats (the big muscles). In that link, above, the first comparison shot was just about exactly a year ago, and it's the point at which I began training while fasting.
This human obsession with nutrition pre and post workout is totally unobserved in carnivores and omnivores in nature. Animals don't hunt prey on full bellies. |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 11:47:46 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: jonathan blaze
You have obviously not been working out for very long. I have been working out pretty consistently for over 10 years now. If you couldn't bench 115 18 months ago, you are still a noob. When people start working out with weights, they initially make a lot of progress and gains in the beginning, as you have. But you will inevitably hit a plateau, and you will need to up your carbs to make more gains.
After looking at your pics, I see that you started out pretty fat. This probably helps to explain some of your success, as you are a naurally big guy, and you probably put on muscle easily. I'm the opposite...my build is natually skinny and I don't pack on the muscle as easily as the bigger-framed guys. If I go to the gym hungry, I am pretty useless. If I'm not eating carbs, I can feel my body getting fatigued much quicker.
Although you have done OK so far, you probably would have packed on more muscle if you were eating carbs. And you're probably going to hit a wall soon where you need to up your carbs w/ grains and such to really make gains in the gym |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 12:49:33 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.freetheanimal.com
"But you will inevitably hit a plateau, and you will need to up your carbs to make more gains."
What sort of "gains?" I think you have zero idea of what I and others who do what I do consider as "gains." Here, for an education, if you want someone who does low carb and fasts, has been working out longer than you have, and likely has far better results than you.
http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/
http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/a-little-bit-about-me/
"...you probably would have packed on more muscle if you were eating carbs."
Nonsense. For one, I was lifting for the six months before going serious low carb, eating burgers, pizza, pasta, potatoes and such. I got bigger, a little stronger, but in the end, what I had was ribeye steaks for muscles (you know, filled with visceral fat, just like all the "big" guys in the gym. Now, my musculature is actually smaller, but very dense and way stronger (I'm about 10 pounds leaner that the recent Sept photos, still stronger). In short, my one-off results falsify most of the regurgitative exercise hypotheses I've heard over time. Also, I didn't mention: I work out only one hour per week, two highly intense 30-minute sessions, never ever more. Every few months I take a week or two off completely. This may even be to much. Here's another education for you:
Body by Science, new book by Dr. McGuff & John Little. They only exercise their trainees 12 minutes per week.
http://tinyurl.com/dzayk4
My trainer (BS, exercise physiology, 15 years experience) has been thoroughly convinced that I AM RIGHT and that EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG. He has dozens of clients from newbies to guys he's been training for 12 years, and of course they all practice the catechisms to various degrees: carbs, pre and post nutrition, tupperware 6 meal routine, cardio, and so on. I have blown every single one out of the water in the last 18 months, and by an effing mile. Every trainer in the gym knows it.
I don't think you have any idea of what you're taking about with regards to my unconventional methods. Having gotten a huge education from me and my self experimentation over the last 18 months, my trainer now refers to most people who think they know something, including other trainer as: reguritators. |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 13:00:39 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
For starters, since when do we measure health by how much you can bench press? Unless you have a job that requires heavy lifting (and even in that case) there is a point of diminishing returns. Anyway, there are lots of sources of simple and complex carbohydrates besides grains. |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 13:25:02 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Richard Nikoley
E-mail: rnikoley(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.freetheanimal.com
KPO'M:
I think the argument was about strength and body conditioning, not health, per se. A bench press, or squat, or whatever is simply one measure of results toward a particular goal, whether or not that goal includes improved health (but I'd argue that in most cases, health improves with strength too).
Also, I'm not disputing that jonathan "needs carbs." He might. He might not as much as he thinks but just doesn't know it (maybe carb restriction combined with fasting would kick him over the edge). All I know is that I drag ass if I go to the gym having eaten anytime within the past 6 hours, carbs or not. In fact, just the last workout I had a rare cheat meal, a burger with the bun about 4 hours prior to my workout. I felt like crap the whole time and my intensity and performance suffered.
So, what I'm disputing is his blanket statement that everyone needs carbs and will do better if they do. That has been verified false in my case over and over.
BTW, here's another trainer who primarily employs fasting, but also carb resriction on most days (he has them boost carbs post workout, but moderately so; in all, a moderate carb diet I'd say):
http://www.leangains.com/ |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 16:52:33 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Chris
E-mail: chrishighcock(at)gmail.com
URL: http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/
Just to jump in on the subject of carbs - I've been training with weights for about 25 years. Heavy weights are not my focus now but 10 years ago I was doing stiff leg deadlift with 330 pounds for reps. The past 5 years or so I've been on a fairly consistent low carb diet with some fasting thrown in and at 41 my overall fitness has never been better. Most of my training now is focussed on sprints, intervals, crossfit style circuits and a weekly Krav Maga class. It is quite possible to train hard with minimal carbs - (not zero carbs i still have veggies and some dairy)
In fact as Richard points out this is the natural way of eating - it is what we were designed for - it is not a fad diet. All the pre and post workout stuff is generally overblown in my view too, usually in an effort to sell the latest shake or food supplement.
The eskimo experience is interesting. This study: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2 shows that an extreme low carbohydrate diet is no impediment to high levels of physical performance.
The study below also showed that an extreme low carb diet did not limit endurance performance and actually encourages the athlete o burn more fat:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776
You can train with carbs but you can also train quite happily without them |
|
| Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 20:38:56 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Emma B
E-mail: fertilityproject(at)gmail.com
URL: http://twinproject.blogspot.com
Of course, we're not talking about adults here, but kids who need energy to grow bones, muscles, organs, and essential fat stores. Breastmilk is composed primarily of carbohydrate and fat, with very little protein, for the excellent reason that infants and toddlers need to be able to rapidly convert it to energy with a minimum of wastage in the digestive process. If you're an adult with a weight problem, you want an inefficient metabolism, but the opposite is true when you're talking about a growing child who needs fuel to generate lean mass.
More generally, the problem with trying to teach kids about nutrition is that kids are naturally very black-and-white in their thinking, and haven't yet developed the faculty to understand about exceptions to rules and safe levels of consumption. Kids transform "too much sodium is bad" to "sodium is bad" (a sentiment which I disagree with, but it's a convenient example), because they just can't process the concept of something being both safe and dangerous depending on the circumstances.
Rule-following is a tendency we encourage in our kids, because it's a good thing when kids can't yet understand the reasoning behind the rules. However, it does mean that you need to be very careful about what rules you set. Right now, my two-and-a-half-year-olds know that the oven is hot and that we don't touch it, so when I'm cooking, they hover behind me saying "Mama no! Don't touch! It's hot!" It takes them until well into elementary school to begin to consistently resolve these kinds of apparent contradictions. So I'm very wary of labeling any food or eating behavior as "bad", because kids universalize so easily.
I think a lot about this, because I'm a mother of girls, and I want them to develop healthy attitudes as well as healthy bodies. I would a thousand times rather my kids carry a little extra weight than lay the groundwork for eating disorders and food neuroses, because it's a lot easier to lose weight than to restructure your whole thinking. |
|
| Monday, March 9, 2009 at 13:05:19 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Keith Norris
E-mail: asharpaxe(at)gmail.com
URL: http://theorytopractice.wordpress.com/
Emma B,
You’re absolutely right that human babies thrive on human breast milk (replete, as it is with its full array of child-healthy hormones, enzymes and antibodies) to get them kick-started into toddler-dom. However, just to throw out a couple of things for consideration, babies do tend to be rather chubby. Now, I can only assume that there is an evolutionary advantage to this infant chubbiness " I can also assume that that’s a big reason why human breast milk is high in carbohydrates (to maintain said chubbiness). Now, in keeping with evolutionary terms, would it be realistic to expect that children past the age of weaning would eat differently than the adults of their hunter-gatherer group? I don’t think that would be the case. I believe they would shift rather easily into the Paleo eating habits of their “tribe”, lean-out and grow (apparently, rather adeptly, if fossil evidence can be believed) into adulthood.
J-Blaze,
There is no biological need for carbohydrates. What has happened is that you have adapted your physiology to cope with (best it can) this onslaught of carbohydrates you’ve forced upon it. Your genome is tuned to run using fats, ketones and protein (yeah, recycled in a catabolic process from your muscles) as fuel. If you were to take the time to wean yourself from carbohydrates (yeah, it’s pretty tough going for a while) and allow your body to re-learn how to properly function, you’d be amazed at the progress " in musculature, athleticism and overall health/wellbeing " you could make. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
