Monday, September 20, 2010

CF ATL 1549
Ryan

Workout of the Day

Three rounds, 15-12-and 9 reps, for time of:
135 pound barbell Thrusters
45 pound weighted Pull-ups

For weighted pull-ups, placing a 45 pound dumbbell between the legs above crossed ankles works great.

Add asthma to the ever expanding laundry list of diseases caused by excess carbohydrate consumption.  A recent research paper links asthma to hyperinsulinemia and high triglyceride levels  (if you've been paying attention you know that high carb loads cause hyperlinsulinemia and high triglycerides.)  Some of you may be familiar with the acronym TANSTAAFL, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch," a phrase popularized by Robert Heinlein in his great novel, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.  Our play on that is TANSTAAHG,  "There ain't no such thing as a healthy grain."

Recent Posts
Showing 43 comments
  • Robert Aaron
    Reply

    Hey…not sure if anyone is planning on doing the SEVEN WOD from Saturday this wk but Id like to give it a shot if anyone else is interested. Today’s WOD is bascially a weighted FRAN (lord knows i dont need any more weight)which we did last Thursday. Id rather do the SEVEN WOD is anyone is interesed or if one of the trainer’s are substituting this one please post it…if not I take my ball and go home! aka Ill go to LA fitness and do a chest, bi’s and tri’s WOD and pout about having to do a weighted FRAN three days after doing Fran.

  • Adam Springer
    Reply

    I’m game for the Sevens…4:00?

  • Andrew bayles
    Reply

    I’ll do a 4 p.m. Sevens.

  • Robert Aaron
    Reply

    Ill see if i can get out of a meeting i have but more than likely i will have to do it later….like 6PM. sorry, i didnt mean to stir the pot then not be available for open gym.

  • Krista Valenzuela
    Reply

    Hey guys,
    I’m getting some of my family members to do a Paleo challenge, and I need some help with finding a particular bit of convincing evidence. My grandmom has parkinsons, and I know there are a bunch of taglines (for instance, Robb Wolf’s website) that say that paleo helps with Parkinson’s symptoms, but are there any blog posts/personal testimonials out there that talk about it specifically?
    Thanks!
    Krista

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    from wikipedia:
    Observational studies
    “Based on the subsistence patterns and biomarkers of hunter-gatherers studied in the last century, advocates argue that modern humans are well adapted to the diet of their Paleolithic ancestor.[138] The diet of modern hunter-gatherer groups is believed to be representative of patterns for humans of 50 to 25 thousand years ago,[138] and individuals from these and other technologically primitive societies,[139][140] including those individuals who reach the age of 60 or beyond,[37][141] seem to be largely free of the signs and symptoms of chronic disease (such as obesity, high blood pressure, nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin resistance) that universally afflict the elderly in western societies (with the exception of osteoarthritis, which afflicts both populations).[4][12][138] Moreover, when these people adopt western diets, their health declines and they begin to exhibit signs and symptoms of “diseases of civilization”.[11][138] In one clinical study, stroke and ischaemic heart disease appeared to be absent in a population living on the island of Kitava, in Papua New Guinea, where a subsistence lifestyle, uninfluenced by western dietary habits, was still maintained.[37][142]
    One of the most frequent criticisms of the Paleolithic diet is that it is unlikely that preagricultural hunter-gatherers suffered from the diseases of modern civilization simply because they did not live long enough to develop these illnesses, which are typically associated with old age.[12][17][143][144][145] According to S. Jay Olshansky and Bruce Carnes, “there is neither convincing evidence nor scientific logic to support the claim that adherence to a paleolithic diet provides a longevity benefit.”[145] In response to this argument, advocates of the paleodiet state that while Paleolithic hunter-gatherers did have a short average life expectancy, modern human populations with lifestyles resembling that of our preagricultural ancestors have little or no diseases of affluence, despite sufficient numbers of elderly.[12][146]
    Critics further contend that food energy excess, rather than the consumption of specific novel foods, such as grains and dairy products, underlies the diseases of affluence.[17][22][147] According to Geoffrey Cannon,[17] science and health policy advisor to the World Cancer Research Fund, humans are designed to work physically hard to produce food for subsistence and to survive periods of acute food shortage, and are not adapted to a diet rich in energy-dense foods.[148] Similarly, William R. Leonard, a professor of anthropology at Northwestern University, states that the health problems facing industrial societies stem not from deviations from a specific ancestral diet but from an imbalance between calories consumed and calories burned, a state of energy excess uncharacteristic of ancestral lifestyles.[147]”

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    Just to be the devil’s advocate: there doesn’t seem to be much research for effects of paleo diet. There is a ton of research, however, about the benefits of grains and dairy. for me personally, i would like to have substantial scientific (double blind studies) evidence to do something as drastic as eliminate grains and dairy. i’m not saying paleo isn’t great. i’m just saying i don’t have sufficent evidence to believe it is. before you give me some anecdotal evidence please keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation. for example, someone on a paleo diet would most likely be doing other things (crossfit) to improve their health.

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    i think i might have just kicked the hornet’s nest.

  • Rob M
    Reply

    In all likelihood… yes. Have fun!

  • rhjones5
    Reply

    Brah,
    I’m in for sevens at 6 as long as there is no objection from whoever is running that class. I don’t need to lose a fist fight to a female this early in the week.
    Also, I don’t think that this will be much of an escape from Fran movements or misery.
    -Harrison

  • Dave Hodges
    Reply

    Ryan,
    You’re not the first to make that observation. As I have said before, the Paleo diet is a fine one to eat, but much of it is based on horrible science. Grains have a purpose, too, but the truth is that non-traditional preparations of them leach your body of nutrients and spike your blood sugar. Simply sprouting the grains solves this problem entirely, which is what most prehistoric civilisations did. Another option is to prepare the grains 12-24 hours ahead of time by soaking them in something that is lacto-fermented in order to break down the phytic acid, which is the real problem with grains. The problem is that no store-bought product prepares grains this way. So unless you’re growing your own wheat and/or preparing it accordingly, yeah, you should dump the grains.
    You can read about phytic acid here and why it is the deal-breaker with grains:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid
    As for dairy, a similar problem exists in that most studies done with dairy are done with homgenised and pasteurised milk, which is nutritionally worthless and dangerous to consume. If you want to have dairy, fine, but it better be from raw (unhomgenised and unpasteurised) milk that came from grass-fed cows. The hormones, pesticides, and corn-feed (not to mention horrible sanitary conditions in the CAFOs) add up to the poisonous chemical disaster that you see on the grocery store shelves. So, if you’re not getting your milk from a grass-fed, raw source, yeah, you should let that one go as well.
    Weston Price, Michael Pollan, Gary Taubes, Joseph Mercola, Sally Fallon, &c. have made the case very well, and much better than I could make it in their collected works on the value of traditional diets. Paleo is ONE FORM of a semi-traditional diet, and as such it has numerous benefits. I say semi-traditional because Cordain limits the consumption of animal fats, which has neither any basis in actual Paleolithic habit nor in modern research. But for almost anybody in the country, the Paleo diet would be a step up primarily because the grains and dairy that people readily consume are both utter garbage.
    Cordain cites his main reasoning behind the diet to be the avoidance of Metabolic Syndrome (a.k.a. Syndrome X, e.g. atherosclerosis, tooth decay, cancer, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure) but never considers actual data that we possess about numerous diets that existed in the last two hundred years that never produced a single case of Metabolic Syndrome. This is where the efforts of Price, Taubes, and Pollan are vastly superior. The data is out there, but you have to be willing to look beyond Wikipedia in some cases.
    I myself follow a modified Paleo diet. I eat animal fats and I eat butter (made from raw, grass-fed cream). And I consume some sprouted grains, though very sparingly as we don’t always have grains soaking every day. Overall, I feel much better and perform better when I do consume some level of sprouted grains. But that’s just my own observation about me. Everyone else could be quite different.
    The Inuit and the Masaai have diets as different as they come, and both avoided all the problems of Syndrome X, and neither followed the Paleolithic diet as promulgated.
    The incessant desire for ridiculous numbers of double-blind scientific studies is uninformed in my opinion, when it comes to nutrition. Nutrition studies, by their very nature are vague and extremely prone to error. Basically, an experiment can be made to prove just about anything, and that’s exactly what we have seen: eggs went from being a universal staple in all countries south of the arctic circle to being demonised in the 1970s and 1980s only to be vindicated as a very nourishing food with subsequent research. But I don’t need a scientific study to tell me not to eat something that humans have eaten for a quarter of a million years. I would demand a scientific study only if I wanted to start consuming something that humans had never attempted to digest prior to 1900, like high-fructose corn syrup, pasteurised milk, and corn-fed beef.
    Studies are expensive and misleading in many cases. There are many out there though that do pass the bar in terms of legitimacy, and Taubes pretty much goes through them all. If you haven’t yet read Taubes’ tome, go to the library and get it to-day. It will probably answer most of your questions. For further reading, I suggest:
    Nourishing Traditions, Sally Fallon
    The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan
    In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan
    Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes
    Anything by Weston Price

  • MsDanyaL
    Reply

    UHM way too many words fellas .. so I just wanna say
    Hey Captain Crossfit- How did you get the primo pic TWO DAYS in a row ? . Is there a special Bromance in the air at CFATL?
    In all seriousness- before I started CF and Paleo I did a cleanse and medically prescribed diet- based on my body’s hormone levels and just because I am as old as dirt – The diet was basically Paleo to the “extreme” with drastic calorie reductions. I lost over 45 pounds in 3 months and then continued with Paleo and CF on my own to bring the total loss to almost 60 pounds THERE’s MY SCIENTIFIC PROOF and it’s all I need

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    Thanks Dave.
    grocery store milk is “poisonous chemical disaster”. Shouldn’t this be on the front page of every news paper in the world? why hasn’t fda done something about this?
    “but never considers actual data that we possess about numerous diets that existed in the last two hundred years that never produced a single case of Metabolic Syndrome. This is where the efforts of Price, Taubes, and Pollan are vastly superior. The data is out there, but you have to be willing to look beyond Wikipedia in some cases.”
    this doesn’t convince me because there are thousands of other factors that could have contributed to either of these groups of people not getting metabolic syndrome.
    “The incessant desire for ridiculous numbers of double-blind scientific studies is uninformed in my opinion, when it comes to nutrition.”
    i hope i wasn’t being incessant. i don’t want double-blind studies for every exclusion (or inclusion) of my diet. i just would like them for something that goes so much against conventional wisdom. and i like milk dangit! i agree that some studies aren’t good but if you don’t control for other variable that could be causing whatever you’re trying to prove, why should you believe it. anecdotal evidence isn’t good enough

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    danya danya danya, don’t you think “drastic calorie reduction”, “crossfit”, a general conciousness towards health, etc. may have been part of the reason and not necessarily “paleo”?

  • Dave Hodges
    Reply

    “Shouldn’t this be on the front page of every news paper in the world? why hasn’t fda done something about this?”
    If the FDA actually cared about health, then yes it would be. But the FDA doesn’t give a shit about anything that doesn’t keep them well-funded. You see, to them it’s great that most adult Americans are prescribed a modicum of drugs every day. Big pharma loves to make sure that the FDA approves lots of useless chemicals for people to take. And the FDA was quick to tell us that high-fructose corn syrup is just dandy to drink in huge quantities. Even after it was discovered that most HFCS has mercury in it, the FDA did nothing:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html
    The government doesn’t care about you, your health, or anything except maintaining their cash flow. Actually promoting good health means disaster for them. So no, don’t expect the FDA to do anything about it.
    The FDA is too busy telling us that Doritos are “Heart Healthy” and that walnuts are “drugs”:
    http://www.gaia-health.com/articles201/000230-fda-says-walnuts-are-drugs-and-doritos-are-heart-healthy.shtml
    This is the same FDA that wants to make it illegal to buy raw milk (which humans have drunk for ten thousand years) but will let us eat Smart Balance, which contains industrial treatment chemicals that are mildly carcinogenic.
    “this doesn’t convince me because there are thousands of other factors that could have contributed to either of these groups of people not getting metabolic syndrome.”
    That’s precisely my point. The Paleo diet is fine, but it’s not the ONLY diet that works. For most Americans, it’s a huge improvement. For me, it is an unnecessary restriction.
    “i hope i wasn’t being incessant. i don’t want double-blind studies for every exclusion (or inclusion) of my diet.”
    LOL, not you. It is the constant refrain I hear from people who will eat anything they find in a box at the grocery store and then will say that they want a “study” before they drink raw milk or eat raw eggs. It’s just retarded. I don’t need a study to tell me that celery is OK to eat. Similarly, I don’t need a study to tell me that animal fats or sprouted grains are good for me. There’s no reason to think that they’re not.
    The main problem with wanting a double-blind study for everything is that they are notoriously expensive (in the nutrition field specifically) and rarely tell you anything that you wouldn’t already know if you were familiar with traditional diets. They have value to be sure, but every time one comes out, it’s almost always a vindication of something that people have been doing for a very long time. Either that, or it’s an indictment of some recent monstrous practise like low-fat candy bars.
    “i just would like them for something that goes so much against conventional wisdom.”
    The problem is that what you are referring to as “conventional wisdom” is a recent fabrication of the last several centuries in the West. Prior to that, conventional wisdom was quite different. What is conventional is what humans have been doing for 250,000 years, not something that they started doing in 1950.
    “and i like milk dangit!”
    Good! Go buy it from this man: http://carltonfarm.com/
    “anecdotal evidence isn’t good enough”
    But we have it, and we have a lot of it. And although much of it lacks the rigour of a scientific study, it’s still informative. And that’s the point. If an African tribe of 60,000 people had only three cases of cancer for an entire decade prior to being introduced to western breads, and after being introduced to said diet had cases of cancer go up by 2000%, that should tell you something. This happened MANY times with missionaries going to Africa and other places. When the natives adopted the Western bread-based diet, this is when the problems started happening.

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    on another note, can someone recommend some weight lifting shoes? preferably a pair that has some double blind studies supporting their efficacy? just kidding about second part.

  • Rob M
    Reply

    TLDR

  • Robert Aaron
    Reply

    im in for doing it at 6 if whoever the trainer is has no objections…im going to bury you! jk but i promise you wont beat me by 16 mins like you did on the filthy fifty.
    Peter Paleo

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    “But the FDA doesn’t give a shit about anything that doesn’t keep them well-funded”
    This, also, seems like it should be news-worthy.
    “That’s precisely my point. The Paleo diet is fine, but it’s not the ONLY diet that works. For most Americans, it’s a huge improvement. For me, it is an unnecessary restriction.”
    ok. so we’re on the same page. its not “paleo” you are arguing for. its some components of paleo. i whole heartedly agree.
    “The problem is that what you are referring to as “conventional wisdom” is a recent fabrication of the last several centuries in the West. Prior to that, conventional wisdom was quite different. What is conventional is what humans have been doing for 250,000 years, not something that they started doing in 1950″
    its not conventional wisdom that mass-production of food is bad. its that they couldn’t do it before. this satement implies that things we’ve learned recently can’t become conventional wisdom. thats just crazy.
    “The main problem with wanting a double-blind study for everything is that they are notoriously expensive (in the nutrition field specifically) and rarely tell you anything that you wouldn’t already know if you were familiar with traditional diets.”
    double blind studies are just a method. its a way (the accepted way by pretty much every scientist i know of) to control for other factors besides the one your testing. i’m sorry but for this i want evidence.
    “If an African tribe of 60,000 people had only three cases of cancer for an entire decade prior to being introduced to western breads, and after being introduced to said diet had cases of cancer go up by 2000%, that should tell you something. This happened MANY times with missionaries going to Africa and other places. When the natives adopted the Western bread-based diet, this is when the problems started happening.”
    if a and b are correlated. both a and b could be caused by x. some things are obvious as to cause. nothing that i’m talking about is obvious. did you know that places that have the most doctors have the highest mortality rate? reported time after time since 1978. doctors are not the cause, by the way.

  • Dave Hodges
    Reply

    “This, also, seems like it should be news-worthy.”
    You live in a country where Justin Beiber is successful. Obviously that which is actually newsworthy isn’t newsworthy per the general public.
    “its not conventional wisdom that mass-production of food is bad.”
    Mass production of food isn’t bad in and of itself. Start throwing in pesticides, growth hormones, corn and tallow feed for cattle (yes, they feed cows cow fat), and you have some bad stuff going on.
    “this satement implies that things we’ve learned recently can’t become conventional wisdom. thats just crazy.”
    Not what I meant – see comment above.
    “double blind studies are just a method. its a way (the accepted way by pretty much every scientist i know of) to control for other factors besides the one your testing.”
    I know that. And when it comes to nutrition studies, this is extremely hard to implement accurately without lots of errors. Why? Because unless you are giving the people their meals personally, you’re looking at questionnaires that subjects filled out. That is not a good study.
    Actually to control the precise food intake and only have one single variable is next to impossible. Why? Because diet is far more complicated than that. You can’t remove fat from a diet and keep the calories the same without adding them somewhere else in the form of carbohydrates or protein. So to do a study on the effect of one thing requires changing something else as well – so there is no such thing as a single-variable nutrition study. So they’re pretty much doomed from the start. But some have been done that do this reasonably well, but it’s hard, and it’s expensive, and we don’t have all the time and money in the world to find out if broccoli is okay for me to eat. I’ll just eat it. When your double-blind study comes in, I’ll be sure to read the results.
    “if a and b are correlated. both a and b could be caused by x. some things are obvious as to cause. nothing that i’m talking about is obvious.”
    When missionaries showed up, they brought Christianity and the Western diet. The natives adopted both after some time. These were the only changes that occurred in the local populations. It was either Christianity that caused them to get the metabolic syndrome or the Western diet. Now I know some of the folks at CFATL are pretty hostile towards Christianity, but I can’t think of a reason that it would cause people to get fat and die of heart disease. Is this a double-blind study? Nope. Is it better than nothing? Yes. And we have lots of it, so a cursory review of it might be helpful.
    “did you know that places that have the most doctors have the highest mortality rate?”
    That’s why I don’t go to the doctor.
    “reported time after time since 1978. doctors are not the cause, by the way.”
    There are 120,000 accidental deaths in the United States caused by physicians every year, and the accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171. Specifically, information obtained by Death by Medicine shows that an estimated 106,000 people die from adverse drug effects — from properly prescribed drugs — every year, and approximately 98,000 die annually from some sort of error by medical staff.
    In all seriousness, do read at least one of the books I mentioned above. The Michael Pollan book (In Defense of Food) I will buy for you if you like. Comment boxes aren’t big enough to answer all these questions, but your line of questioning is fine. You will find better and more in-depth answers in those works.

  • Bethanie
    Reply

    Guys: if you want to do a workout other than the WOD, please come to open gym.
    As for the convos going on re diet today; whatever what some science might say for what reasons can be debated and will continue to be debated. What I won’t debate is the results I’ve seen and the way I feel when I eat real/quality food regularly, and the way that most who have given me minimum of 30 clean days say. A lot of issues are at hand when it comes to how we get our food nowadays. That’s all for now.
    I encourage everyone to continue to seek information from both sides from a variety of sources and to be critical of them…

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    you’re right. this is too big a discussion for this medium. but….
    i used the doctor correlation as an extreme example to prove a point about spurrious correlation. this correlation was proven to be spurious.
    i will read one of the books. heres an article by one of the authors you cited:
    http://www.realmilk.com/homogenization.html

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    just to be clear, i am not against “real/quality food regularly”

  • BMW-CFATL
    Reply

    Ryan…You may not find a treasure trove of scientific studies linking the “Paleo Diet” specifically to reducing the incidents of modern day diseases. But what you can find are many many studies linking obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and others to aspects of the western diet, in particular the high concentration of grains in the diet.
    Grains are a double edged sword for many. Not only do they contain anti-nutrients that for some are lethal, for most are an irritant, but they carry a huge glycemic load. For the vast majority of our population, reducing or eliminating grains cures many of their ills.
    Feel free to expand your research beyond Wikipedia, there is a ton of information out there on the subject. Also read up on our pal Ancel Keys and the “studies” that were used to form our collective conscious on grains and our RDA. The “science” our government used to develop the “western diet” is about as flawed as science gets.
    Here is a good start (not about the Paleo diet either):
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html

  • MsDanyaL
    Reply

    Brent is your man on weightlifting shoes .. I ordered RISTOs they are handmade in Colombia by some Olympic weight lifting champ and his wife. I think Brent says Addias are also popular
    and uh oh .. now I have Capt. Crossfit spitting out my name 3 times in a row … what is it about me that gets you all so repetitive? LOL
    while yes Caloric intake and ridiculous exercise did probably have a lot too do with the FAST results ( and believe me Brandon screamed at me to eat more the whole time we were training )- I still learned a lot about how my body reacted to certain foods. I have pretty severe arthritis- when I stick to Paleo – I am virtually pain free in my joints especially my hands – I also quit all meds for my ulcer… My migraines have all but disappeared-IF I stray and eat sugar or grains. I actually FEEL it …My face swells — my stomach goes on strike… it’s BAD. You my friend are blessed with youth and good genes.. you probably don’t need Paleo… look at Rob and Brandon they stuff their faces constantly with no visible consequences .. You probably fall into that same category. But for those of us in the “Special Needs” gene pool- paleo is a great way to get that extra “somethin somethin”! 😉

  • Dave Hodges
    Reply

    Yeah, that’s a great article!
    I understood the doctor thing, I was just having fun in response. I get the objection and it is perfectly valid, but it works both ways.

  • Bethanie
    Reply

    Ryan, thanks for all the questions today…I like that you’re thinking about this stuff. Don’t be afraid to try your own science experiment: crossfit eating whatever the hell you want for an extended period of time..in fact, eat the diet recommended by the FDA. Then, crossfit and eat real food for an extended period of time and tell me if you notice any changes. Oh, I’d encourage you to go get a blood panel done before and after each one of these to see any changes. Hey, why not!!?

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    people who do homeothapy feel fantastic. they say its the only thing that works for them. yet homeopathy doesn’t work unless the laws of physics as we know it are wrong. maybe its something else. if it works for you please please do it. but, like i said, this kind of anedotal has zero effect on my opinion.

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    testy, are we? again, not advocating the “eat whatever the hell you want” diet. nor am i against “real food”. sorry if i implied that. not even against “paleo”, i’m just not convinced yet.

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    every time someone posts something from wikipedia this is the response!!! sheesh. i don’t limit my research to wikipedia by the way. thanks for the link

  • Bethanie
    Reply

    Apologies if I came across as “Testy”…not my intention. I am confused as to what you’re looking for here. You seem to want “science”…so, why not take the politics out of it and do your own? That’s all. you also said you aren’t “against” eating real food…as expressed above: paleo is one avenue for this. Is this controversial to you?

  • Andy L
    Reply

    So I did not read every word posted today, b/c, well, I have other shit to do. But there seems to be some good debate – paleo diet vs other. I’m sure with all the students, professionals and bright minds we can probably put together a research panel. I’m willing to get involved. I’m sure we can get some of our non-xfitting friends whose only exercise is the 12oz curl and others from Globo-gyms to be involved. I feel confident this is something we could do and even get published.

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    i do want “science”. i can’t do it on my own. paleo is one avenue for eating real food. there are others. no. paleo as a means for eating real food is not controversial.

  • Andy L
    Reply

    On a seperate note. I miss the Lulu Lemon girls on our main page. Now I’m forced to looked at Ryan shirtless. I guess it’s good for the xfit women… I’m just saying. No offense, Ryan.

  • MsDanyaL
    Reply

    Sorry Andy ..but Ryan with no shirt beats out Lulu lemon girls by a mile ( No offense ladies )
    Oh and Andy I’d vote for you shirtless over them too !
    Somebody’s got speak on the behalf of the CF women for equal opportunity sexual harassment !
    Oh and would it kill you to put up a little Froning JR on the main page! If the guys get LULU lemon .. WE ladies want our fair share !

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    none taken. i vote for lululemon girls

  • Pablo Vega
    Reply

    Daamnmnnnn… you guys are having a heated discussion here, I’m afraid to bring a quart of milk into the gym, I don’t want to get smacked around with a 2 pood KB…

  • Pablo Vega
    Reply

    Ohhh… and shirt or no shirt, I vote for the lululemon girls too (actually, no shirt would be better)

  • MsDanyaL
    Reply

    uhm hello ladies !! a little back up would be nice here!

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    Dave,
    i’ve been doing some research and i have a question for you. Almost everything i research i get at least one seemingly reputable researcher reporting one thing and another reporting something contradictory. considering i don’t know anything about the techical details and can’t evaluate the science on my own, on what criteria should i base which report i should give more weight to? thanks

  • Dave Hodges
    Reply

    “i’ve been doing some research and i have a question for you. Almost everything i research i get at least one seemingly reputable researcher reporting one thing and another reporting something contradictory.”
    Exactly. Welcome to the world of double-blind nutrition studies. They’re supposed to be the golden rule of everything objective, and yet, there is no consensus amongst scientists, nutritionists, biologists, or medical doctors regarding diet. Why is this?
    Well, part of it goes back to the problem of nutrition studies in and of themselves. Another part of it comes into who funds the studies. In the seventies, a lot of “research” money was spent to support new “findings” that butter is bad for you. Who commissioned the studies? The margarine producers. And since nutrition studies are usually a bunch of questionnaires, the data isn’t all that hard to begin with.
    If you can’t evaluate the science of a study on your own, then how to pick which study to give heed to is, well, impossible. But that’s OK because humans have survived a long time without needing studies to tell them how to eat. Nutritional studies didn’t really start until about an hundred years ago anyway. But say you get a couple or three studies that seem to be contrary, and you want to find out more, you can delve into the studies and ask a few questions:
    1) Did the data come from a large group (5,000+ participants) or did it come from a very small sample (>30)? Studies that claim to come to any conclusion based on tiny samples can many times be disregarded as statistically insignificant. Some of the most outlandish nutritional claims have come from studies like these.
    2) How were the data collected? In other words, was this a “study” where scientists pooled thousands of questionnaires, or were actual meals monitored by medical/scientific staff?
    3) What are they claiming to prove? This is crucial because a lot of times the title to the study is not what is found in the abstract or what is outlined in the actual report. Sometimes, the LA Times will claim, “New Study Shows Low-Carb Diets May Cause Hairy Palms!” but then when you actually get down to the claims inside the report, you’ll see something like this: “Our results seemed to indicate that 25% of people who ate 10% more carbs than others had no response to hair-removal techniques being applied on their palms.”
    That’s a lot to unpack there, but this is the kind of tripe you will find in a lot of nutrition papers. And amid all the statistical ramblings, you can find a lot of times that the final claim is utterly meaningless and devoid of any value whatsoever. So skip the newspaper post, and read the actual study.
    4) How are they proving it? Remember how you pointed out that when two things happen, both could be caused by some other source. Well, one recent study came to the conclusion that omega-3 fats were not good for you:
    http://www.naturalnews.com/029627_junk_science_omega_3.html
    How was this particular study done? By feeding people four teaspoons of omega-3-enriched margarine every day. Notice that they could have easily gotten omega-3 fats from an actual natural source but instead they opted for the industrialised version instead of what humans have adapted to eat.
    This happens a lot as many scientists fall into the trap of “nutritionism” which is the belief that all of human nourishment is just the sum of all the nutrients he consumes. This was first believed by a German scientist who discovered the three major macronutrients: protein, fat, and carbohydrates. After months of feeding people his newly discovered diet, he discovered serious malnutrition problems. Years later micronutrients would be discovered as well. But then they also found that adding in micronutrients via vitamin supplements to the three-macronutrient diet did not improve anything. Basically, what we are finding out is that nutrition is far more complex than just adding up all the nutrients we need and taking them in a pill. Which is why most conscious people are returning to actual foods as they exist in nature, which is what the Paleolithic man was limited to eating.
    So if the study claims that something is good for you or that something is bad for you, find out what source they were using for the food before rendering a judgmment.
    I’m sure that there are more criteria that one could apply, but this is a decent start. Again, I want to stress what I believe to be the nutritionist fallacy, that we can some how reduce our diets to a list of chemical compounds that must be consumed. Over and over again, this has been shown to be an incomplete approach to diet. Our bodies are designed to pull nutrients from actual foods, not to absorb them through supplements, pills, &c. And many studies will discount some nutrient because they find that supplying it in pill form had no value.
    Finally, you can do the science on yourself. Bethanie’s suggestion that you do your own experiment is a good idea. Try it. Set up fixed times and meals, even have a control period where you change nothing and just resume your normal diet. Check your stats before, during, and after. Will it be imperfect? Of course. But so is every nutrition study that was ever done. The good news is that when you’re finished you will have customised results and findings that will be tailor-made appropriate to you. And no nutrition study on the planet can do that.
    And yes, the placebo effect is real. It’s just as real if you change your diet based on a double-blind study as well as if you change your diet to please a new vegan girlfriend. Double-blind studies don’t prevent placebos from still working.
    Cheers,
    Dave

  • Ryan Tyler
    Reply

    thanks very much. i wish i could find a couple of sources (not necessarily double blind studies) that don’t publish research that has any of your listed faults because they know there is no significance to the results. in other words, responsible, knowlegeable researchers. maybe the mayo clinic or something like that. also, research that you know is not funded by industry groups (did you hear about the rebranding of high-fructose corn syrup?). probably asking too much. thanks again. problem with doing my own experiment is that i could cut grains out of my diet, feel better and come to the wrong conclusion. it was because i cut out phytic acid, not grains. i could have still been eating grains if i just soaked them. there is no way i would have known about phytic acid unless you told me. besides the fact that, like you said, one subject is far less than 30, making any conclusions meaningless. can’t properly control for other factors such as placebo. these things are not trivial. thus conscience does make cowards of us all.

  • Dave Hodges
    Reply

    “problem with doing my own experiment is that i could cut grains out of my diet, feel better and come to the wrong conclusion.”
    This is entirely true. When I cut grains out of my diet at first, I came to that conclusion myself. I felt better, lost weight, and my performance increased. Conclusion: grains must be bad. But in reality they’re not, provided they are prepared properly.
    “one subject is far less than 30, making any conclusions meaningless.”
    Not meaningless, just not meaningful for anybody but you. I’ve seen people tout dietary rules for others based on what happened to them and that’s retarded. But if you’re looking for diet advice for yourself, your own experiments may shed some light on what type of foods you respond the best to.
    “can’t properly control for other factors such as placebo. these things are not trivial. thus conscience does make cowards of us all.”
    I know, I know, and now we’re back to square one. Being conscious of your diet is something that most people don’t have, so you’re ahead of the curve already. Taubes does a pretty good overview of all nutrition studies that led up to the controversy regarding dietary lipids and sugars. And he points out a great deal of the pros and cons of those studies. His book is a little heady, but the bibliography is about as complete as one could get.
    As for a source of good studies, yeah, don’t get your hopes up. Just about everybody these days is in somebody else’s back pocket.

Leave a Comment