Low-carb options 1: The devil is in the detail (the 'detail' being the ingredients)

I've spent a considerable length of time this year educating myself (and hopefully some of you) on nutrition. In honesty it's never been something I've been hugely interested in, but this year it just seems to have hit me. And of course, since we all eat, I feel like it's perhaps one of the most important choices we make on perhaps an hourly basis!

I've gone on about low-carbohydrate options and the chemical wizardry behind my advocation of this choice and discussed in detail paleolithic nutrition (as in learning from, not emulating). And the more I read the more I see low-carb, light, carb options, Max, Zero, Diet and the like as products that tell you, "you're right to go low-carb, so here I am!". But is this good and what are they replacing all that sugar and starch with.....

What follows is Part 1; of likely a series of blogs looking at how the food and drink industry has catered to your demand by changing it's product.

Sweet is a bitter pill to swallow
One of the major goals of any kind of artificial sweetener is to reduce calories but still have a sweet taste. This way you (the public) think you're getting the deal of a lifetime. Your taste-buds say "mmmm" and you're happy, right? Well not quite. The problem is at the taste level you send the same signals around your body to say sugar so you still get the same insulin response (e.g. you release insulin to deal with the sugar). But you haven't got the sugar there. Well insulin release is normal, we need it to put amino acids into muscles anyway. In fact, our insulin response will rise when we smell food. But part of the problem is that when our insulin rises we get hungry. In addition elevated insulin levels are good from time to time, but not all the time. You might have heard of insulin resistance, also known as metabolic syndrome, this is bad, our body does not respond to the insulin and it causes all sorts of problems. It can happen when our insulin levels are elevated for extended periods of time. I've best heard it compared this way; if you go into a room and smell perfume eventually your senses adapt to the smell and you don't really notice it after a while. If you leave for a short time and then go back in, then you notice it again. If insulin is there all the time, then our cells become resistant to it.

But what are they replacing sugar with to give us this taste...

Aspartame
Go get the diet soda or juice out of your fridge and take a look at the ingredients.....you see it? Right then, let's continue. When I first came across aspartame it was described to me as being one molecule away from plastic, the idea that our body has to break down this product makes it a little scary, but lets take a closer look.

Symptoms associated with aspartame include:

• headaches/migraines
• dizziness
• seizures
• nausea
• numbness
• muscle spasms
• weight gain
• depression
• fatigue
• irritability
• tachycardia
• insomnia
• vision problems
• hearing loss
• heart palpitations
• breathing difficulties
• anxiety attacks
• slurred speech
• loss of taste
• tinnitus
• vertigo
• memory loss
• joint pain

Phew. Did you get bored half way through the list? Yeah; me too. but I list it because I don't want you to sit there and think "well I'm gonna die of something!" Of course you are, hopefully when your very old having led a very fulfilled life. But isn't that the point; fulfilment of life!? This doesn't kill you, it potentially ruins your quality of life.

Now then, as if all that wasn't bad enough, it's been linked to brain tumours, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia and diabetes.

This is something you might want to think twice about putting inside your body.

I 'googled' "Aspartame Products" this is the image I got.
Don't sue me, just stop putting it your products!

Aspartame is made up of aspartic acid, phenylalinine, and methanol. Aspartic acid (and glutamic acid (about 99% of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid - look out for that too)) acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain transmitting information from neuron to neuron. However, too much aspartate (or glutamate) kills these neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which then kill the cells. Aspartic acid (when unbound to proteins) raises blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate.

Of course we have a protector against this; the blood brain barrier (BBB). However:

• this is not fully developed in children
• it does not fully protect all areas of the brain
• it can be damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions
• it can still allows seepage of excess aspartate and glutamate into the brain

Hmmm, a little worrying, no? I know I haven't spent the time going in to Phenylalinine and Methanol, but you definitely google them or wikipedia them. Methanol for example is used in anti-freeze! 

My point simply is that fundamentally we know that soda is bad for us right. We know it. So we choose what is labelled as the healthier option. But is it really healthier? I'm someone who up until recently has enjoyed the odd diet soda, but it's time to start asking whether this is a good choice. Ultimately if nothing more this is now an informed choice. I have a bunch of friends with children out there, and hoping they read this for their children's sake for the health and longevity of their spouses.

I guess when it comes to nutritional choices both of food and drink I heard it best described by Drew Baye; "it's not about going low carb, it's about going low-crap!"

Be well

JF

UPDATE: As a result of this blog, I got advised to check out research discussing aspartame and formaldehyde. Apparently the methanol can be broken down into formaldehyde.....which is recognised as a human carcinogen and strongly linked to cancer. I was also guided to this, I know it's Wikipedia which isn't the most reliable source and I haven't read the whole thing but apparently there is a page devoted to Aspartame controversy.

Movember...and the health of men.

Mike Mentzer is a hero of mine, therefore
I'm going to try to emulate his amazing Mo.

For those of you who don't know, Movember is a charity that aims to raise vital funds and awareness for men's health, specifically prostrate and testicular cancer.

This is a worldwide charity that is growing exponentially. Last year there were over 450,000 registered Mo Bros.

So let me clarify, throughout the month of November a Mo Bro grows a moustache. Simple. In this effect, and partially cause he might look a little silly, he "becomes a walking billboard" answering questions and raising funds.

For me, personally, my involvement is simply that we know that men are reluctant to discuss health issues, and too lazy to go to doctors (although it might be because if we didn't know the way then we'd have to ask directions to the doctors and get stuck at the first hurdle!). There are a million and one great causes out there, and I've no doubt everyone does their bit in one way or another, but ultimately every little helps. Don't think that giving £5.00 or £10.00 is too much, or you'll look stingy giving less. I'd rather you sign over 50pence and help me raise funds. If everyone reading this gives 50p then I'll have done my bit.

Of course, as the proud owner of finely rugged beard, I'll need to shave the beard and grow the moustache. (sad face!)

All pictures of my Mo will be posted on my blog.

Many thanks

JF

What you say, not Where you say it...

I was recently directed by a colleague to a website which has discussed our recent publication Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations (click to follow link). Intrigued as to how it has been accepted/discussed I had a bit of wander through the google hits....

Well it's been discussed on a Men's Health site, where whilst considered an interesting read, was discussed in regard to anecdotal vs. scientific peer reviewed evidence. It was also a little criticised by those who don't agree with High Intensity Training (HIT) philosophies. Finally there was an intelligent comment in there discussing how we had only considered articles and guidelines for 'healthy' adults whilst stating that we had cited an article in our introduction that had considered elderly participants. This is an accurate observation, we did indeed do this. However, the introduction was simply clarifying the health benefits of resistance training in all sorts of areas including insulin resistance, bone mineral density, etc.

Another site discussing the article is a physiotherapist's called One to One Wellness Centre. This is a very favourable review of the article summarising it simply as well commenting on the applicability to health and fitness professionals. Unfortunately the article also mentions that many medical or exercise professionals would likely be unable to site the research presented herein. (Many thanks David Lee).

Free Muscle Building Tips.com also discusses the article, interestingly picking up one of the lesser mentioned points, of using a training journal to record your progress. Chris Cannon continues discussing some of the other major points of training to muscular failure, as well as the lower volume required to stimulate strength gains as well as health and fitness benefits.

Ultimately this is just a few of the sites that have discussed the article, but generally I think there's been a pretty positive response. I received multiple personal emails thanking me for the article, both from the lay person enthusiastic about their health and training and from some experts in the field pleased to see a more thorough scientific review.

On a side-note, it has caused a little bit of a stir by someone feeling that we had copied many of Mike Mentzer's philosophies without giving him due respect. At this stage let me clarify; Mike was a hero of mine, both for his training and his philosophical outlook (Ayn Rand and Objectivism). Alas, while many people consider Mike to be an exercise scientist, he wasn't research based. Yes, yes, anecdotal research, but not scientific, peer reviewed and published. I know that for many people that won't be much of a difference, but ultimately it is. The evidence discussed in our article supports most of Mike's ideas, alas Mike couldn't be cited in the reference list as he hadn't performed any published scientific research. Thus don't be upset that we haven't cited him; we couldn't.

Interestingly this has been a catalyst to a conversation considering publishing articles in open access journals which are available for the general public to read. I won't go in to much detail on this, but at the moment my perception is that what you publish is ultimately far more important that where you publish.

Albeit a tenuous link this reminds me of Charles Bukowski poem; 'The Strongest of the Strange'....

the strongest of the strange

you won’t see them often
for wherever the crowd is
they
are not.

those odd ones, not
many
but from them
come
the few
good paintings
the few
good symphonies
the few
good books
and other
works.

and from the
best of the
strange ones
perhaps
nothing.

they are
their own
paintings
their own
books
their own
music
their own
work.

sometimes I think
I see
them – say
a certain old
man
sitting on a
certain bench
in a certain
way

or
a quick face
going the other
way
in a passing
automobile

or
there’s a certain motion
of the hands
of a bag-boy or a bag-
girl
while packing
supermarket
groceries.

sometimes
it is even somebody
you have been
living with
for some
time -
you will notice
a
lightning quick
glance
never seen
from them
before.

sometimes
you will only note
their
existance
suddenly
in
vivid
recall
some months
some years
after they are
gone.

I remember
such a
one -
he was about
20 years old
drunk at
10 a.m.
staring into
a cracked
New Orleans
mirror

facing dreaming
against the
walls of
the world

where
did I
go?

It stirs images of the funny guy at the bus-stop writing profound and revolutionary ideas in marker pen over bus times and routes. Like I said what you say, not where you say it.

Maybe we should all listen a little more.

Be Well

JF

Monday's News, aka: "Dogs in Sunglasses"

I was originally going to title this blog:

"Better to stay silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt show pictures of dogs in sunglasses than report actual news"

The picture shown is the cover of The Times newspaper (UK) on Monday 3rd October 2011. Yes, yes, our famous British press found nothing better to report on than the sunny weather in October.

I think that this was the day after Amanda Knox was acquitted from a media hyped trial in Italy after her conviction of murder was overturned.

I just have images of the editor-in-chief of The Times sat in his penthouse office stating clearly

"So we're all agreed then, we're running with the Knox trial on the cover?"

Then up pipes one of the columnists in the corner playing on his phone;

"Wait, WAIT! I have a picture here of a dog, and it's wearing sunglasses!!"

The editor, of course, immediately responding

"What the....!? - Right stop the press, this is it!! - sun in October, and a dog in sunglasses! - AMAZING" 

...as he gleefully rubs his hands together imagining the additional copies sold due to this 'news'!

The reality; the dog isn't really wearing the sunglasses properly; it's like they're just their to look cool not enhance vision in the brightness. - Still it's just a French Mastiff, not a Collie, or Golden Retriever.

All that said, I shouldn't really mock it, I've had a great week, and I tribute a large proportion of it to this news article!! Bring on winter when The Telegraph will no doubt find puppies in snow shoes!

Be well

JF