When it comes to health, a paleo diet is perfectly sufficient but not necessary (unless you have strong intolerances to both grains and dairy).
In regards to sports performance, it is perfectly sufficient for strength/power sports. Endurance sports, you can possibly make it work with lots of yam consumption.
But is it optimal for any of these? I’m not sure if I would be surprised either way. One possible benefit is that a paleo diet is more nutrient dense than a diet that that includes grains, dairy and legumes. But the benefit of extra micronutrients compared to other diets is an emprical matter that has yet to be settled. From the perspective of volumizing, a paleo diet may be optimal.
Worst of all, they engage in too much philosophical (armchair) as opposed to empirical reasoning. While it’s true that the reason something is healthy or unhealthy for us is our evolution, it doesn’t follow, a priori, that just because X behavior occurred over evolution that it is healthy for us or that if X behavior did not occur it is unhealthy. This known as an appeal to nature. It could be the case that we evolved in such a way that a novel substance turns out to be accidentally good for us, or at least unharmful. A prime example of this is the benefit of moderate alcohol consumption.
Of course, paleo advocates do make empirical arguments. It’s not the purpose of this post to look at those arguments in detail, so I’ll only make some introductory comments.
(1) The randomized controlled trials thus far conducted haven’t been adequate enough to prove the superiority of the paleo diet.
(2) Paleo advocates talk a lot about gut physiology and the effect of grains, legumes, ect. This is still very preliminary work. Much of it is in vitro, so its hard to say if it will pan out.
With that said, let me reiterate that the paleo diet is a fine diet. If you choose to eat this way, nothing bad is going to happen to you. The question is whether or not staying away from grains, dairy, and legumes is worth it.
Categories: Book Reviews
Tags: anatomy trains chapter 1, double bag, fascia, tensegrity
Chapter 1 of Anatomy Trains is all the sciency stuff about fascia and tensegrity. Since the Anatomy Trains site already has summaries of those things, I’ll simply point you there instead of writing something myself.
Also, there is a excerpt from Chapter 1 here.
Finally, this chapter also talks about a concept called “double-bag theory.” Again, this is already explained on page 8 in this PDF file.
Read all of the above, and you will have a decent idea of what’s in chapter 1 and you should be fine for understanding the summaries of the upcoming chapters.
Categories: Book Reviews
Tags: disease, robery sapolsky, stress, why zebras don't get ulcers
In Chapter 1 of Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, Robert Sapolsky draws a contrast of causes of death today and throughout most of human history. For example, in the early 20th century the main causes of death were infection, such as the flu or tuberculosis. If you were female you worried about dying from child birth. Today, it’s cancer and heart disease. Why? Well, one of main factors is psychological stress. Stress can make us sick. That’s what this book is all about – what stress is, different types of stress, and why its bad for us.
To start, some initial concepts.
This book deals with chronic psychological and social stress. The reason zebras don’t get ulcers (am I answering this too soon?) is because they only have to deal with acute physical stressors, whereas people are stressed all the time. We worry about getting the kids dressed in the morning, the traffic on the way to work, the deadline at work, the economy, and so on. There are enough things to worry about that you can be stressed all day, everyday. Zebras only have to worry about the lion for a few minutes every once in a while. Basically, our bodies are designed to handle these short term physical stress well, but not chronic psychological stress.
Stress knocks us out of homeostasis. A stressor is anything that knocks us out of homeostasis and the stress response reestablishes homeostasis. With that said, Sapolsky prefers the term allostasis. How these two differ isn’t a big deal for a simple summary. Read the book if you must know.
When stress goes on for two long, the stress response can be more damaging that the stressor itself. All the things that occur during the stress response, and are good for the short term, hurt us if turned on too often. For example, during a stress response your body mobilizes glucose to provide the body with energy. This increases blood sugar. What happens if blood sugar is constantly elevated? Diabetes. Another example is blood pressure. Increasing blood pressure is good when you have to run from a lion, but constantly elevated blood pressure can lead to cardiovascular disease.
There are other examples given and we will talk about those (and the ones already mentioned) in more detail when I get to the appropriate chapter. That’s it for chapter 1, see ya next time.
Categories: Book Reviews
Tags: anatomy trains introduction
Note: This is the first edition of a series I will do that gives summaries of fitness books I’m reading. I will look at them chapter by chapter. The purpose of this to better retain the information that I get from the books I read. Far to often I read a book and then later forget the info that I read. Hopefully, this will help. Of course, I also hope that anyone reading this will get a benefit from it as well.
The gist of the book is explained in the first sentence: “The basis for the book is simple: whatever else they may be doing individually, muscle also influence functionally integrated body-wide continuities within the fascial webbing.” Essentially, fascia connects muscles into units, called “myofascial meridians,” which allows muscles along a line to effect other muscles/structures along the same line. This is a possible explanation as to why pain in one area of the body can have an origin in another part.
This is contrasted with the “isolated muscle theory” which looks only at the action of a single muscle on its attachment points. An alternative is to look at how the pull of muscles effect surrounding structures beyond it’s attachment points (through the fascial system). This opens up new treatment modalities.
The author admits that this concept is not established science, but is pleased with its success in clinical practice. He goes on to say that there is still too little research to claim an objective reality for the meridians. This is actually great to hear because it shows that he is a evidence based practitioner, and if the concept turns out to be incorrect, he won’t dogmatically hold to it.
Although it is frequently termed the “Anatomy Trains Method (ATM)”, the ATM is actually not a new treatment therapy, but a way of looking at the body as whole so as to discover new therapies. In that sense, the ATM is a premise, not a conclusion.
The final thing to note about this chapter is the basic terminology. “Myofascia” refers to the bundle of muscle and fascia. It’s a “meridian” in the sense that the body has different lines of pull that envelope the body like latitude and longitude envelope the globe. The ATM further breaks down into “myofascial continuity” which are two adjacently linked muscles, whereas the meridians are the entire series, line, or track (to use the trains terminology) of linked muscles.
It needs to be said that myofascial is not a functionally distinct term per say, as all tissues are ultimately integrated (muscle, connective, nervous, vascular, ect.).
So, that’s about it for the introduction to the book. Coming soon will be chapter 1.
Tags: Aragon, broscience, debate, Rippetoe
That’s why I was so disappointed in Mark when Alan Aragon exposed him as being brotastic. Also, he exposes some dude on Mark’s board named John.
Apparently, neither Mark nor John like to use peer reviewed research to learn about nutrition.
Here’s my take.
If you don’t want to use scientific literature to learn about nutrition, then fine, that’s your business. If you think you have discovered a method that gets you and your clients the results that you want then great for you. It’s certainly possible to do so and many have. Just think about all the old time strong men who got amazing results before anyone knew hardly anything about nutrition science. However, if that’s the position you want to take then don’t make a single claim about WHY your method works, only that it does.
Alan quotes John as saying:
Separate your carbs and fats. In each meal, you will have a portion of protein in addition to either carbs or fats, but not both. In the earlier half of the day, your meals should be Protein + Carb (P/C) in order to fill your muscle glycogen stores for your athletic activities. Later in the day (afternoon to evening, depending on your individual metabolism), when you are more sedentary, your meals should be Protein + Fat (P/F). Since carbs produce an insulin response, removing the carbs at this time will decrease the likelihood that you will store your excess calories as fat. Your final meal of the day should be *only* protein. Also, your PWO meal, regardless of what time of the day it is, must be a P/C meal.
So, now I have some questions. If John doesn’t believe in looking at the scientific literature, how does he know, “Protein + Carb (P/C)… fill your muscle glycogen stores…” Or that, “carbs produce an insulin response?” Furthermore, why is producing an insulin response bad? In order to say why (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it really is bad) you would have to make claims about knowledge that comes from peer reviewed science.
I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something.