The Basic Fundamentals

Everyone wants the magic bullet diet.  And given the choice of doing things the easy way or doing things the hard way, most everyone will choose doing things the easy way.  Work smarter, not harder, right? Unfortunately this leads people down paths that won’t work in the long run, or that would never work in the first place.  Sometimes it’s a quick temporary fix that gets results the first week or two but is complete unsustainable.  To be blunt, there is a lot of money in industry, be it weight loss, athletic performance or body building.  Health and performance supplements, fad diets, special exercise routines and equipment and energy boosters are everywhere, and there are plenty of wolves in sheep’s clothing that are eager to cash in.  Snake oil has been sold for longer than any of us have been around.  And one thing that people always seem to lose sight of is the old adage “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is”.   But people have a tendency of believing in magic, it’s potentially hardwired into our brains¹.  We all want to believe there is a magic drink that can make better faster stronger… and thinner smarter and richer. But the reality is that there is no simple solution.  It does take hard work- so it’s not really a matter of working smarter, not harder; it’s a matter of working smart and hard, or working way to hard and hindering your results.  So how do you prepare yourself for this battle?  Everybody is different, and specifics can be adjusted to the individual, but a general guide still stands.  If you have a specific question pertaining to yourself, please contact me.  I present the basic fundamentals.

Goals

To have the best chance of hitting a target, you have to aim for it.  If you don’t have a target, you will need the best luck in the universe to hit it.  So figure out what you want to do and plan accordingly.  There are a few general categories that are the main focus, although people typically will have overlap, or want to do a variety of things at once.  Unfortunately, that will complicate things and perhaps hamper efforts, particularly if you want to bulk muscle and lose fat at the same time.  It’s much simpler to pick one or the other, reach your goal, and then switch.   So what is your goal?  If you want to lose weight, just stop reading now, I have a simple solution- amputation (if you think you want weight loss, you probably mean you want to lose some fat). For goals were nutrition would be related, I would break the possible goals down into four categories:.

1.       Look good naked (fat loss)

2.       Athletic Training/ Performance related

3.       Muscle building/ Bulk

4.       Health

There is some overlap between all these groups, but generally speaking, an ideal diet and regiment will probably differ between each goal.  The optimum diet for athletic performance might be healthy, but not as healthy if you were only concerned with health.  As mentioned before, it’s rather difficult to lose fat and add muscle simultaneously, and the structure of those regiments would typically be different.  Additionally, the most optimal way to add muscle might not be the healthiest way of eating.  I’ll address this more at a later time.  Of course there will be some variation and tailoring that needs to be done depending on where you start as well.

Tracking

You can’t adjust variables if you don’t track them.   So where are you starting? You should know where you’re going, and how to get there will depend on where you are at.  And the path isn’t always a straight line.  There is variation and chaos in life- things happen, unforeseen winds will blow and cause a shift.  You need to track your journey so you at least have an idea of the direction you’re going, if you are still going towards your goal, or if you got turned around.  It can help you compare small incremental tweaks to help you optimize getting to your goal in the fastest way for YOU, based on your results.  Depending on your goals, and perhaps level of OCD, you should at least write down your starting weight and measurements (percent body fat, body dimensions like waist, chest, arms etc), pictures are great, a rough dietary guideline of what you ate before your diet, your plan for dieting,  and perhaps your athletic measures (number of pushups you can do, 5 rep max on squat, or 100 m time).  An exercise log is very important, to track everything at every workout.  At most you should have a food log documenting calories, macronutrient break downs, and the time of the meals.   How much sleep are you getting and how much water are you drinking. Are you stressed from whatever reason?  Make a note.   Some people don’t have the time, energy, or can get themselves overly stressed worrying about counting calories and meeting their targets.  Still right down an outline and stick adamantly to it and watch for results- adjust as necessary.  You can’t adjust variables if you don’t track them. 

DIET

To keep this from blowing up into a huge post, I will summarize some general guidelines- I don’t think these are exactly set in stone, and again, if you have a specific question pertaining to yourself, please contact me. 

The best diet is one that you can adhere to² that meets your goals.  And if you haven’t figured it out (take a deep breath) it’s going to take some work and dedication to get results.  There are two main ways to go for fat loss.  Both will work, and sometimes a combination works best. The two options are elimination and caloric restriction.  If you are trying to look good naked, pick either one of the options.  If you are trying to go healthy, go for the elimination and check out my previous posthere.  If you are training or bulking, you really need to count calories.

Elimination:

If you don’t like to obsess over every calorie and don’t want to have to log all your food, do an elimination diet. For the elimination flavor go paleo.  Eat nothing but meat and veggies, some fruit, nuts and seeds and that is it.  No grains (including corn) legumes or dairy, and definitely NO sugar. Don’t gorge yourself, but eat reasonably when you are hungry.   

Caloric Counting:

If you want to look good naked and want more flexibility in what type of foods you eat, go with caloric restriction.  Start off with figuring how many calories you currently eat or need, and then cut them by about 20-25%.  You could use Google to find an online calculator that will guess your total daily energy expenditure, but know this; there is a large amount of variation in people’s basal metabolic rate³, which is by far the largest component of daily calories (unless you are training for the Olympics).   Due to the variation, the equations don’t mean too much and you can estimate just as well, and make adjustments based on your personal results (gasp).  The conventional wisdom is that your maintenance caloric intake is about 14-16 calories per pound, and a decent caloric deficit is about 20-25% less than that, or around 10-12 calories per pound.  Start there and give it a few weeks- if you have a lot to lose, and you are losing more than 2 pounds a week, bump the number up a bit.  If you are losing too slow, bump it down.  There are some caveats here, it’s not a free pass to eat all your calories from ice cream, which would result in metabolic derangement, and other issues I’ll go into in later posts.  Ideally you should be eating as much whole food as possible, lots of meat and veggies, in fact, mostly meat and veggies.  It will help with feeling full when under a caloric defficit⁴ among many other benefits of protein I’ll be continually addressing on the site. Try to get a gram of protein per pound of body weight. No, it’s not bad for your heart⁵ or kidneys⁶.  Try to split the remaining calories between carbs and fat, about equal number of grams of carbs and fat.  Limit carbs unless you are working out, and try to plan for a day of higher carbs and calories on the days that you will be working out hard, maybe once a week. It will help with cravings mentally, and physically with your recovery.  Again, adjust based on how you feel.

 Figure out what you think would work best for you and pick the flavor you like. Stick with it for at least three weeks before you try to make any changes so you can judge how it has been working.  If you need help, ask me.

If you are training or bulking follow the same above advice but adjust your caloric intake target.  Go for maintenance, 14-16 calories per pound, plus a bit for athletic training and add a little.  It gets a little fuzzy about how much to add, it will all depend on how much and what type of training you do.  If it’s non-body building, you are probably going to need a fair amount of carbohydrates to replenish muscle glycogen stores to have enough energy to keep them firing.  Get a good dose before and after your workouts, probably around the same ratio of protein to carbs. Adjust based on your performance and physical changes. 

For bulking or muscle gain, the best way is to do it slow and steady, so you avoid gaining to much fat with the muscle. Go for maintenance, 14-16 calories per pound, plus about 20% on workout days.  Eat about 1.3-1.5 g of both carbs and protein, with the bulk of your calories coming close to your completion of weight training.   Make sure that you give yourself at least 50 g of carbs and protein before the work out too, so you have energy for the workout.   On rest days try for about maintenance, and keep the carbs low, maybe about 100 grams.  Again, guess what- you should adjust based on your physical changes, making sure the gains are mostly muscle and not at such a rapid rate that there is significant fat gain as well.  You should also be putting weight on the bar on a regular basis- if you’re not, eat more.  

Exercise

Yea, you should exercise.  This section will be predominantly aimed at the look good naked dieter, as the athletic trainer and muscle gainer probably already have signed onto the concept (but they should pay close attention to the comments about meal timing).  Again, the best exercise is the one that you will consistently do, but I recommend weight training, three days a week for an hour were you really push yourself.  Of course, adjust as needed.  If you feel you are not recovering, dial back to maybe fourty-five minutes, or cut a day, but for initial stages of weight loss, just three hours a week should be perfect.  More might risk burnout or over training.  Under a caloric deficit too much exercise will be counter productive.

Before I get to deep into the reasons why I’d recommend weight training, and weight training over aerobic activity, I’d like to mention that getting some protein before and after your workout is very, very important, specifically metabolicly⁷.  Additionally, there are benefits of ingesting carbohydrates post exercise as muscle glycogen (muscle energy) uptake is increased without any negative effects of insulin ^{8, 9}. 

So why weight training?  Well for one, muscular strength seems to be reversely correlated with obesity¹⁰.  Not only that, increased muscle from resistance training increases beneficial metabolic parameters¹¹ and can increase testosterone, growth hormone, IGF-1 in men creating benefits in later life¹².   These health benefits (also including the cardiovascular benefits¹³ superior to that of aerobic exercise) will also aid in weight loss, but one of the dominate reasons is the increase in metabolic rate (the calories your body burns) after the exercise.  This effect is known as excess post exercise oxygen consumption, or “EPOC”, what many people refer to as the “after burn”, the calories you burn from exercise after you are done exercising.   Intense resistance exercise for less than an hour has been shown to burn significant calories over the next fourteen hours, increasing the energy expenditure by 37% over the initial resistance exercise¹⁴.  This could add up to an additional 250 cals burned after the workout.  Just sitting around doing nothing, the weight training will continue to burn that many more calories!  This is more advantageous for anaerobic (resistance) workouts compared to aerobic workouts.  Comparing anaerobic and aerobic workouts of equal work, anaerobic exercise used nearly twice as many calories¹⁵.  Not only does the anaerobic workout use more calories, the EPOC is significantly higher, one study showing an anaerobic workout to have over five times the EPOC than an aerobic workout¹⁵.  My final argument for resistance training over aerobic training comes from a large study data showing that there is little to no difference in weight loss by adding aerobic exercise to a diet for weight loss (additionally, diet alone was far superior than attempts to lose weight by exercise alone)¹⁶.

Ok, that’s it.  More details to come in smaller, more specific chunks.

1.      Pronin, E., Wegner, D. M., McCarthy, K., & Rodriguez, S. “Everyday magical powers: The role of apparent mental causation in the overestimation of personal influence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (2006), 91, 218-231.

2.      Selker HP, Shaefer EJ. “Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets for Weight Loss and Heart Disease Risk Reduction” JAMA. 2005;293:43-53

3.      Johnstone, Alexandra M; Murison, Sandra D; Duncan, Jackie S; Rance, Kellie A; Speakman, John R (2005). "Factors influencing variation in basal metabolic rate include fat-free mass, fat mass, age, and circulating thyroxine but not sex, circulating leptin, or triiodothyronine". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 82 (5): 941–948.

4.      Astrup A, "The Satiating power of protein- a key to obesity prevention?" AM J Clin Nutr 2005;82:1-2

5.      Hu FB, Willet W "Reply to TC Campbell" Am J Clin Nutr 2000:71;844-53

6.      Poortmans JR, Dellalieux O. "Do Regular high protein diets have potential health risks on kedney function in athletes?" Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 200 Mar;10(1):28-38

7.      Hackney KJ, Bruenger AJ, Lemmer JT. "Timing protein intake increases energy expenditure 24 h after resistance training" Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 May;42(5):998-1003.

8.      Richter E, et. al. "Increased Muscle Glucose Uptake After Excercise: No Need for Insulin During Excercise" Diabetes Oct 1985 34:1041-1048

9.       Defronzo RA, et.al. "Synergistic Interaction between Excercise and Insulin on Peripheral Glucose Uptake" J. Clin. Invest. 1981 68;1468-1474

10.  Jackson A, et. al. "Muscular Strength Is Inversely Related to Prevalence and Incidence of Obesity in Adult Men" Obesity (2010) 18, 1988-1995

11.  Iaumiua Y, et. al. "Fast/Glycolytic Muscle Fiber Frowth Reduces Fat Mass and Improves Metabolic Parameters in Obese Mice" Cell Metabolism 2008 7;2:159-172

12.  Kraemer WJ, et. al."Effects of heavy resistance training on hormonal response patterns in yournger vs. older men" Journal of Applied Physiology September 1999 vol 87 no. 3 982-992

13.  Collier SR, et. al. "Changes in Arterial Distensibility and Flow-Mediated Dilation After Acute Resistance vs. Aerobic Exercise"  J Strength Cond Res 24(10): 2846-2852

14.  Knab AM, et. al. "A 45-Minute Vigorous Excercise Bout Increases Metabolic Rate for 14 Hours" 2011 Med. Sci. Sports Excerc., Vol 43, no 9 1643-1648

15.  Scott C, "Misconceptions about Aerobic and Anaerobic Energy Expenditure" Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2(2):32-37, 2005

16.  Miller WC,et. al. "A meta-analysis of the past 25 years of weight loss researchusing diet, exercise or diet plus exercise intervention" InternationalJournal of Obesity (1997) 21, 941-947

Multivitamin Risk Suggests It's Better to Eat Your Veggies, Fruit and Meat

A new study published today in the journal of biological chemistry brings up questions about the benefits of taking a multivitamin.  I am of the opinion that under most circumstances people shouldn’t be taking a multivitamin- it’s a bit of a crutch- all the necessary vitamins and minerals should be ingested from a well balanced diet of lots of veggies, fruits and meats (I discussed it briefly in aprevious article).  Why should we take processed chemically manufactured substances , especially when we can get the same thing in a natural form?  Some of the available research supports some of this concept.

The study suggests that large amounts of ß-Carotene acts as a blocker of vitamin A, and this in turn can increase the risk of cancer¹.  The mechanism they propose support previous research that showed increased rates of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease².    

These are not the only studies to show some of the potential detrimental effects of supplements.  A study published last year showed an increased risk of prostate cancer in healthy men that supplement with vitamin E³. 

The results of an Iowa women’s health study on the effects of multivitamins and individual vitamin and mineral supplements showed that a multivitamin, vitamin B₆, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc and copper were all associated with an increase risk of total mortality⁴.

Now I don’t want to sound alarmist.  There are definitely reasons why some people may need a supplement or could benefit from a supplement (consult your health care provider about this, but make sure to bring up the potential risks associated with supplementation and perhaps try to find a dietary path to increasing any insufficiencies you may have).  There could be various confounding reason as to explain some of the negative effects of supplementation.  But again, multivitamins shouldn’t be used as a crutch or an “easy way out”.  Eat a colorful palate of veggies and fruits, lots of meat, and you will be getting all the vitamins and minerals you need, from a natural source.

1.       Eroglu A et al, “Naturally Occuring Eccentric Cleavage Products of Provitamin A ß-Carotene Function as Antagonists of Retinoic Acid Receptors” J Biol Chem 2012;287:15886-15895

2.       Omen GS et al, “Effects of a combination of beta Carotene and Vitamin A On Lung Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease” N Engl J Med 1996;334:1150-5

3.       Klein EA, et al “Vitamin E and the Risk of Prostate Cancer” JAMA 2011;306(14):1549-155

4.       Mursu J, et al “Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women” Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633

Over Simplification of Energy Balance & the First Law of Thermodynamics

There are many variables that go into any type of diet.

All too often people try to describe complex things in the world in terms of black and white.  This is particularly true with dieting, specifically the two sides of the “caloric balance”.  One side says “eat less, move more” and one side says “eat this not that”.  The “if it fits your macros” camp will tell you that as long as you eat fewer calories and exercise a lot, you will lose weight.  The “good calories bad calories” will tell you to avoid processed foods and eat lots of veggies and healthy meats and you will lose weight?  Who’s right and who’s wrong?  Both!  

It really doesn’t take too much reason to find flaws in both camps- they do it to each other all the time.  If you give a severely obese child nothing to eat but Snickers, Doritos and Coca-Cola (making sure it’s around a 20% deficit of total daily energy expenditure, let’s say around 500 calories less intake than expended) will the kid lose weight?  Likewise if you gorge yourself on fresh fruits, veggies and meat at a 1000 calorie surplus on a daily basis, will you lose weight?  Let’s take a closer look at some simplified equations to perhaps find an answer.

First off, if someone tells you that weight loss is easy, it’s all about the first law of thermodynamics you should at minimum walk away from them, probably run.  Before hand I would suggest laughing at them, or perhaps giving them a good smack.  There are so many people who have become experts in the field of weight loss and will prescribe simple solutions such as “eat less and exercise more, it works because of the first law of thermodynamics. ”  I find this slightly offensive, and as an engineer that is gets paid on a daily basis for doing actual real work involving the first law of thermodynamic, I tend to want to strangle people who mention this. 

The first law of thermodynamics states:

“THE INTERNAL ENERGY OF AN ISOLATED SYSTEM IS CONSTANT”

Mathematically:

dU= dq + dw

The equation can be verbalized as the change in internal energy of a closed system (U) is equal to the energy that passes through its boundary as heat (q) or work (w).  For the non-math geeks, the “d” in before U, q, and w is basically denoting a small change or differential.

What people are really trying to invoke is energy balance- and there is a difference.  The first law of thermodynamics is a descriptor for a CLOSED thermodynamic system.  That means there is no mass exchanged between the outside of the system and the inside of the system.  Obviously, people who say weight loss is all about the first law of thermodynamics really don’t know the first law, don’t know what they are talking and perhaps don’t understand matter is typically both inputted and outputted from humans, despite the fact that they may lack the output as they are most likely full of $#!T.  While the first law does imply energy conservation, it is in terms of the change in the internal energy of a CLOSED system being equal to the heat added to the system and the work done by the system.  Honestly, it’s not built to be applied to the human body- it’s a little bit of a stretch to do so.

What they are really after is the energy balance equation usually stated in some form of “you have to burn more than you consume”, or “If you take in more energy than you burn, your body will store the excess as fat.  And likewise if you don’t take in as much as you need, your body will burn fat”.  Again, this is a simplification and almost seems to imply causation. 

Our bodies are really chemical reactors, and we can create equations to account for the conversation of energy and mass.  This is standard operating procedure for chemical engineers. The balance equation should really be stated more along the lines as

Energy Input to the body = Energy Output from the body +disappearance of energy by chemical reaction within the body + Accumulation of energy within the body

There is nothing in the energy equation that directly accounts for mass.  The mass balance must be performed similarly,

 Mass Into the body = Mass Out + Mass loss due to chemical reaction within the body+ Accumulation of Mass within the body

The two equations relate to each other in terms of the chemical reactions that take place in the body.  To put everything in terms more closely related to the human body we will structure the above equations to simplify things a bit:

Calories In = Calories Out + Net Change in Mass

Now I’m all for simplification and assumptions, however the fastest way to the wrong answer is oversimplification and the wrong assumptions.  The first problem is simplification of the “calories out” term.  Calories Out is made up of more than just exercise (exercise for most people is actually a very small percentage of the total).  The majority of calories out for most people will be due to basal metabolic rate (BMR), the daily energy requirements for the functioning of all our organs.  Additionally there is the thermic effect of food (TEF), basically the energy required to process food ingested.  Finally calories are used for external work, basic physical activity.  Some sources will refer to this as physical activity level (PAL), some refer to the Thermic Effect of Activity (TEA).  Some researchers have further tried to complicate the activity breakdown by including Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT) or Spontaneous Physical Activity (SPA).  So substituting these new terms into the balance equation we have

Calories In= BMR + TEF + PAL +SPA + Net Change in Mass

Rearranging this so we can see it in terms of mass change:

Net Change in Mass = BMR + TEF + PAL +SPA  - Calories In

The “eat less exercise more” people will assume that food in and energy used on exercise are the only adjustable variables in our equations.  In fact, most of these terms are interrelated, and changing one will most likely affect another. 

For example, doing a lot of hard “metabolic conditioning” type training, something like Crossfit, or P90X, will burn some calories (PAL goes up) will also deplete muscle glycogen stores and lower the metabolic rate (BMR goes down!)¹.  To complicate things even more, prolonged light exercise has been found to increase metabolic rate².  So studies have shown that increasing PAL can both increases and decrease BMR.  It has also be proposed that increase in physical activity results in less weight loss than expected due to changes in other components of the energy balance equation⁹.

Not only does exercise affect metabolic rate, but the food you eat after your work out will also affect your metabolic response- a carbohydrate reefed after exercise will increase BMR¹.  In fact, it has been regularly argued that the makeup of the Calories In macronutrient profile (protein, carbohydrate and fat) can affect weight change due to energy inefficiencies^3, 4, 5. 

This leads into the TEF; any change in calories in will also change the TEF (less food, less energy to process it, more food, more energy to process it). Additionally, not all calories will be processed (chemically reacted) by the body in the same way, and the efficiencies of these reactions will be different.  So by changing the composition of the calories in, the TEF term equation will be altered.  For example, it has been shown that whole food has a much larger effect than processed food⁶.   More specifically, the thermic effect of protein is 20-35% of the calories, 5-15% for carbohydrates, and 0-15% for fat⁸. This is basically to say for every 100 calories of protein ingested, 20-35 calories must be used by the body to process it. To further complicate things, TEF is not only dependent on the type of food, but on the person eating the food- people with insulin sensitivity and obesity have a blunted TEF⁷.

Increase in caloric intake may also cause some people to fidget or move around more, burning calories and becoming resistant to weight gain when overeating¹⁰.  Thus, increasing the Calories In, may, for some people, affect the amount of spontaneous physical activity, and thus change how many calories may be burned.

In conclusion I would like to summarize that the energy balance equation does hold true, however, it is not as simple as most people make it.  A calorie really isn’t a calorie (not even mentioning some of the psychological aspects).  Changing the exercise and amount of calories ingested, and specifically the type of exercise and calories ingested, will have effects on other components of the energy balance equation.  To from an article by Dale Schoeller quote “Using the energy balance equation to predict weight change when only energy intake is know or when only energy expenditure is know is not valid because that calculation makes the assumption that the other term will not change… because changes in any one term often are met with a response that counters some of the effect of that change on energy balance.”¹¹

When you get down to brass tacks, both the calories you eat, the type of calories you eat, the exercise you do, and the type of exercise you do, all in combination with each other must be taken into account for weight loss and optimum health.  Not everyone can blindly eat less and exercise more, or only eat healthy.  Granted, if it works for you, then all is well.  But it may not be as easy for all people.  Some people can get away with eating anything they want and exercising away the fat, however they are few and far between.  There are people who eliminate sugar and processed carbs from their diet and the fat melts off, but not everyone has the will power.  There are many variables that go into a weight loss diet (or weight gain/bulking diet), and the key is finding what works for you.

As for our two examples in the second paragraph, I’ll let you decide. 

1.       Mikulski T, Siemba A,& Nazar K. “Metabolic and hormonal responses to body carbohydrate store depletion followed by high or low carbohydrate meal in sedentary and physically active subjects.” J Physiol Pharmacol 2010 Apr:61(2):193-200  

2.       Bielinski R, Schutz Y, & Jequier E. “Energy Metabolism during the postexercise recovery in man” Am J Clin Nutr 1985;42:69-82

3.       Feinman RD, Fine EJ, “Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and energy efficiency in weight loss diets” Theor Biol Med Model. 2007;4:27

4.       Fine EJ, Feinman RD, “Thermodynamics of weight loss diets” Nutrition and Metabolism 2004; 1:15

5.       Feinman RD, Fine EJ, “A calorie is a calorie violates the second law of thermodynamics” Nutrition Journal 2004; 3:9

6.       Barr SB, & Wright JC “Postprandial energy expenditure in whole-food and processed-food meals: implications for daily energy expenditure” Food & Nutrition Research 2010;54:5144

7.       Segal KR, Albu J, Chun A, Edano A, Legaspi B, & Pi-Sunyer FX “Independent Effects of Obesity and Insulin Resistance on Postprandial Thermogenesis in Men” J Clin Invest 1992;89:824-833

8.       Halton TL, Hu FB “The Effects of High Protein Diets on Thermogenesis, Satiety and Weight Loss: A Critical Review” J Am Coll Nutr October 2004;23(5):373-385

9.       Donnelly JE, Smith BK “Is exercise effective for weight loss with ad libitum diet? Energy balance, compensation and gender differences” Exercise & Sport Sciences Reviews: 2005;33(4):169-174

10.   Vanltallie TB “Resistance to Weight Gain during overfeeding: A Neat Explanation” Nutrition Reviews 2001;59(2):48-51

11.   Schoeller DA, “The energy balance equation: looking back and looking forward are two very different views” Nutrition Reviews 2009; 67(5):249-254

Optimum Diet for Captive Humans: Part 3

In parts one and two I discussed the theoretical optimum diet for a human in captivity, and the nutritional adequacy of such a diet.  Here I will continue to address the AZA feeding program guidelines by examining the feeding instructions and acceptance of the diet.

Feeding Instructions:

Part of our captive existence in society is that food is readably available for most of us.  Granted this is not true for everyone.  One of the largest failings of urban city life is the lack of adequate groceries and markets, instead a replacement convenient store full of processed food and a complete lack of fresh produce and meat.  But for a lot of us, groceries and markets are accessible, and they supply us with easy access to food- it’s our jobs to figure out how to ideally pick the right foods, specifically for our paleo, hunter gather diet. 

There is typically a trade off in most weight reducing diets- you either eliminate calories, or eliminate foods, sometimes both.  The paleo diet prescribes eating ONLY meat, veggies, fruits, nuts and seeds, and NOT EATING grains (wheat, corn, rice etc) legumes (beans, tofu, etc) or dairy.  There is debate and discussion in the paleo-sphere around different specific foods, such as potatoes (typically not allowed) and sweet potatoes (typically allowed), or dairy in general.  But specifics should be tailored to the individual and will be addressed further in Part 4.  So the trade-off for this elimination of grains, legumes and dairy is getting to basically eat until satiated (and if for weight loss not having to count calories).  The typical paleo diet is an ad libitum(literally at one’s pleasure)- you can basically eat as much you please.  For the person concerned with weight loss, this needs to be prefixed with some descriptor to the contrary, such as “sensibly” or “reasonably”.  Humans are not wired for self control, and eating a jar of almond butter a day is not a recipe for weight loss.  But the general diet allows one to eat when hungry, and eat until full- and that is full, not stuffed or gorged or jammed packed or bursting.

Some of the best advice I have heard on grocery shopping is to only shop the perimeter of the store- this will get you through the produce department and to the meat department.  Basically there is nothing good in the aisle.  It is all boxed food that was made in a machine.  It was processed and manipulated.  I will use an analogy of the Coca leaf- debatably the leaf itself is fairly benign and has potential medicinal use².  It is natively used as relief from altitude sickness, headaches, arthritis, and general anesthetic use.  It is chewed and used in teas.  However, you process it, manipulate it and you have cocaine.  So we’ve gone from a natural plant, something relatively benign, to something definitively bad.  You should consider your food the same way- the more process sing and manipulation it has had, the less you should want to eat it, it’ll probably end up being addictive^3,4,5,6,7 and detrimental to your health.

So basically eating instruction would be to eat as much variety of colorful vegetables and fruits as you can, and lots of meat.  Throw in some nuts and seeds to taste, and your set.  Avoid all grains, legumes and dairy.  Of course this would need to be tailored specifically to the individual, but I will address this further in Part 4

Adherence:

Perhaps the most important feature of any diet is the ability to actually follow the diet, demonstrated by this study⁸.  The basic conclusion is that the health benefits of any diet can only be realized by following the diet, and perhaps it may be more beneficial to follow any diet than no diet.  Differences between the diets are basically negligible compared to the effects of NOT dieting.  So what are the theoretical adherence rates of a paleo type diet?

The basic set up of the paleo diet tends to be low carb-ish.  They are not strictly low carb, and can be tailored to provide more of a carb loading scheme, particularly beneficial to athletes.  But for the sake of argument, we will assume that this is a low carb diet, with most of the carbs coming from fruits and veggies. 

In the same study⁸ mentioned above, four popular diets were analyzed for weight loss and adherence.  160 people were randomly placed into one of the diets (Atkins, Zone, Weight Watchers and Ornish).  The Atkins diet, which is low carb and would be somewhat similar to a paleo diet, had a reported 18% of the group unable to adhere.  Compare this to 20% unable to adhere to the zone, 18% unable to adhere to Weight Watchers, and 23% unable to adhere to the Ornish diet.  

Another study reported an overall 80% adherence rate to a low carb diet (< 25 g/day) after six months ⁹.

In a randomized trial of a low carb diet for obesity¹⁰, sixty percent of a low carbohydrate diet group.  The low carbohydrate diet was defined as 20g/day initially and gradually increased throughout the 12 months of the study, but having unlimited amounts of protein and fat.  It was running alongside a group assigned a calorically restricted “conventional diet” .  The diet is described as “high-carbohydrate, low-fat (1200 to 1500 kcal per day for women and 1500 to 1800 kcal per day for men, with approximately 60 percent of calories from carbohydrate, 25 percent from fat, and 15 percent from protein)”.  In this study, compliance was higher in the low carb group compared to the conventional diet group at the 3, 6, and 12 month marks.

In a similar study¹¹, a 78% adherence rate for a low carb diet comprised of 20g/day initially gradually increased to 120g/day.

Overall, I would say the adherence rate of such a diet would be projected to be around 80%, not significantly better or worse than any other diet. Of course personalized tweaking to the diet should be performed after initiation, something I will address in the next part.  Adding a little flexibility and modification to any diet to personalize will increase adherence, and remember, sticking to a plan is the only way to reap the benefits!

1.       “Nutrition Advisory Group Feeding Program Guidelines for AZA Institutions” AZA Nutrition Advisory Group, 2002
2.       Weil AT. "The therapeutic value of coca in contemporary medicine." J Ethnopharmacol. 1981 Mar-May;3(2-3):367-76.
3.       Bart Hoebel, Ph.D. “Sugar can be addictive, Princeton scientist says.” 
4.        Serge Ahmed, Ph.D. “Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward” 
5.        Gold, Mark S MD “Food Addiction?” Journal of Addiction Medicine 2009;3: 42–45
6.        Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. “Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake”. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32:20 –39.
7.        Cocores, James A., Gold, Mark S. “The Salted Food Addiction Hypothesis may explain overeating and the obesity epidemic” Medical Hypotheses 2009; 73(6):892-899
8.        Selker HP, Shaefer EJ. “Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets for Weight Loss and Heart Disease Risk Reduction” JAMA. 2005;293:43-53
9.        Westman EC, Yancy WS, Edman JS, Tomlin KF, Perkins CE.  “Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program” Am J Med. 2002 Jul;113(1):30-6
10.    Foster GD, et al “A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity”  N Engl J Med 2003;348:2082-90
11.    Shai, Iris “Weight Loss With  Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet”  N Engl J Med 2008;359:229-241

Optimum Diet for Captive Humans: Part 2

As part of the guidelines presented by the ASA in part 1, an evaluation for nutritional adequacy of the diet should be performed, an analysis to determine the nutrient density and nutritional appropriateness of the diet.  I believe this is very important- Particularly for any elimination diet, or a diet that depends on the removal of a particular group of food, as we may fall short on particular nutrients we require for optimal health.   Our proposed diet is one that closely mimics that of what humans have been eating for the large majority of their natural existence- a hunter-gather diet composed of mostly meat and vegetables.  So how can we go about examining the nutritional characteristics of this diet?  Luckily, there are some pretty savvy scientists out there that have already looked. 

Doctor Loren Cordain published a paper in The Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association (JANA) examining the characteristics of a contemporary diet based on currently available foods that would be very similar to what hunter gathers would have eaten.  A computer program was used to compile and analyze nutritional characteristics based upon average values previously determined in 229 hunter gather societies, a diet without any processed foods, dairy products and cereal grains. 

The foods used create a theoretical menu were only meats, vegetables, fruits, and nuts/seeds.  For each food type, the commonly popular foods consumed in the US were incorporated.  Based upon the 229 hunter gather societies mentioned above, a balance between animal based food and plant based food was set to partition animal based foods accounting for slightly over half of daily caloric intake (for more information on proportions of plant and animal food in hunter gathers, see Evolution of the Human Diet).  This results in a macronutrient breakdown of 38% daily calories from protein, 23% from carbohydrates, and 39% from fat, varying from the traditional western diet of 16% protein, 49% carbohydrate, and 34% fat.  

 “Except for calcium, all trace nutrients occur in considerably greater quantities than the recommended daily allowances (RDAs)” with folate, Vitamin E, magnesium, iron and zinc all being between 150-300% RDA, and Vitamin A, B1,B2,B3,B6,B12,C and phosphorus all being over 300% RDA.  Calcium intake was only 691 mg (69% RDA), however analyses of the skeletons of ancestral humans living during the Paleolithic as well as more recently studied hunter gathers have shown these people maintained robust, fracture-resistant bonds, free from signs and symptoms of osteoporosis (here, here, and here).

In summary, the article shows that all macro and micronutrients are at levels sufficient or optimal for health.  It is also suggest that, despite the high levels of animal based food, blood lipid profiles would look better, and the risk of cardiovascular disease would be reduced.

In part 3, I’ll discuss implementation and adherence of the diet

Optimum Diet for Captive Humans: Part 1

Once upon a time, there was a human in a zoo.  I know it sounds crazy- and there have actually been more than one occurrence.  I think we can currently all agree that keeping humans in zoos is unethical, but from the time of the Renaissance to fairly recently, humans have been put on display.  Perhaps one of the most famous was Ota Benga, a native of the Kassai River in then Congo.  On September 8, 1906 visitors to the Bronx Zoo who wondered by the monkey house could see Ota.  He was considered a pygmy, and like in many other places around the world, from American side shows to European zoo, “exotic populations” and “unusual humans” were popular exhibits of the day.  One major question arises- not “who in their right mind puts a human in a zoo”, that question is relatively easy to answer- a moron.  No, the question is, “what did he eat”, or more importantly, “what is the optimum diet for a captive human”. 

I think this question is important, because the story of Ota Benga is almost that of Inception- a zoo inside a zoo.  Human society is defiantly different than that of our ancestors twenty thousand years ago.  Society is rather “captive” and a fair cry away from “natural”.  Many of us would have little to no chance surviving on our own in the wild; much like a monkey born in captivity would have little chance of survival upon being released.  Human technologically has exploded as of late, and I would postulate that we are growing on that front exponentially.  Modern society has changed us from hunter-gathers to desk jockeys and weekend warriors.  Socially and mentally we have advanced… but we are in the confines of society, captive to its care.  Most of us are reliant on modern technology and convenience. Not so much like “I need to check Facebook or I will die”, but literally if ostracized from modern society we’d have little chance of survival in nature.  I thinks it’s fair to say that we have been moved from our natural habitat – we have been moved from nature into buildings, houses and automobiles.

So if we considered, as a captive animal, what our ideal diet would look like, what would we suggest?

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has a proposed a set of Feeding Program Guidelines.  From the AZA website:

AZA FEEDING PROGRAM GUIDELINES:

Aim to provide a nutritionally balanced diet.

Provide a diet that reasonably stimulates natural feeding behaviors.

Provide a nutritionally balanced diet that the animal consumes consistently.

Provide a diet that meets all of the above criteria, and is practical and economical to feed.

To meet the guidelines, it is recommended to follow four steps:

Investigate the background of the animal

Evaluate the nutritional characteristics of the diet

Implementation- ensuring proper instructions and acceptance of the diet

Diet update and reformulation- changes should be made based upon initial results.

Determining the background of the animal is the first step. “A literature review will help pull together information on a particular species or on an individual animal”, and “the literature review should include information on the nutritional, behavioral, and functional needs of the species in the wild and in captivity.” Of particular interest is that the diet stimulates natural feeding behaviors, should be in form and functions as reasonably close to what they would eat in the wild. 

What is the natural human diet and what does the literature say about it?  I’d postulate that it’s what we evolved eating.  A hunter-gatherer or forager diet, were most or all food is obtained from wild plants and animals.  The diet eaten by Homo Sapiens for 200,000 years- food typical before the Neolithic revolution when the wide-scale transition of many human cultures from a lifestyle of hunting and gathering to agriculture and settlement that occurred only 3000 years ago.  Today that would translate into mostly meat and veggies, some fruit and nuts, and avoiding all the processed foods humans have developed in the last couple thousand years (but more so the last 100 years of processed food explosion).   

There is a significant amount of anthropological evidence suggesting that this style of eating is how humans and the human body were designed to run.

For example, in the paper “Anthropological Research Reveals Human Dietary Requirements for Optimal Health “ from the Journal of Applied Nutrition, 1982

"There are one hundred and ninety-two living higher species of primates in addition to humans. Until recently, it was taken for granted that all monkeys and apes were vegetarians, but ethological studies revealed that all primates, in their natural habitat, also eat small animals."

"Of humans some four million years on earth, 99% of this time has been that of hunting game and gathering wild plants."

"No cultures or people in the world have ever been 100% vegetarians; however, a number, such as the Masai of Africa, Plains Indians, the Eskimo  and the Lapps, in their traditional culture, subsist almost entirely on meat and have been very healthy. When they adapted to our modern diet which is high in refined carbohydrates, their health deteriorated rapidly; they developed a high incidence of degenerative diseases characteristic of our modern civilization, especially heart disease. "

"There is a relationship between diet and degenerative diseases, but the total history of mankind strongly indicates that the relationship is not one of consuming meat and animal fats. Anthropological data strongly suggest that as human societies developed a greater dependence on cereal grain crops and other carbohydrate foods, such was accompanied by undermining the health adaptations of food-producing populations unless they were successfully able to maintain a balance between meat and animal protein and their relatively low content protein plant crops such as rice, wheat, barley, potatoes, and corn. Since the last century, this deterioration has been accelerated to a very high level due to the ever increasing use of sugar, refined white flour, coffee and other caffeinated beverages, excessive consumption of salt, alcohol, chemical preservatives, synthetic, processed and junk foods.”

“Anthropological research proves that humans are both animal and plant eaters, but of the two, animal foods are essential in human nutrition. The wisest diet is no doubt the one humans have followed for millions of years, a diet that emphasizes fresh meat or animal protein supplemented with wholesome plant foods augmented by ample exercise.”

In part 2, I’ll address the evaluation of the nutritional characteristics of the diet.

Procrastination Is Like M@sturbati0n:

Yesterday I displayed an amazing amount of restraint.  Not with my “diet”, but with my temper.  I did eat as planned yesterday, it was pretty decent, hit my macros and cal target, and I fasted and had about a six hour eating window, just as planned.  Didn't need any additional food and typical for me was not transfixed by any extraneous culinary indulgence.

No... no,  restraint needed on that front.

Yesterday I decided to peruse a diet forum a little more in depth, and started reading through the logging reports people post.  It's predominantly supportive, which is really kind of nice.  But I'm reading threw these posts and I really want to shoot my mouth off to everyone and tell them what I think they should be doing.  I think I know what they should do to get them results.  But alas, they have not asked me and it's really none of my business.  And unsolicited diet advice is rarely useful, and potentially harmful.  So I (for the most part) keep my mouth closed about stuff... I am really tempted to say a few more things, and search out people asking questions so I can tell them what to do.  I'd really like to find a group of people I could run "experiments" on. I am a scientist, and I am running an experiment on myself at the moment, and anytime in the past I’ve done such a thing with other people it has gotten them results, but I’d like more data...  and I digress.

The true restraint has come from not belittling people for the comments "There's always tomorrow".  This comment is in the diet community like flies on cow pie.  It's like they are all using the internet as a confessional, and the penance is always "TOMORROW".  You know what?  You screwed up... you didn't follow your plan, and no you can't make it up... you can't run that piece of apple pie, Cadbury egg and frappuccino off tomorrow.  Running tomorrow (if you even do it) to burn off calories you have eaten today is a recipe for disaster... and failure.  The day has been lost; you can't "make it up tomorrow".  You can however start over, and try to have more restraint and stick to your plan. It's not easy... That's why there are so many wolfs predating on plump sheep for weight loss magic that everyone should know doesn't work (but everyone want the easy way out).  Stop making excuses for yourself and stop trying to make it up tomorrow.  Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today.  Don’t beat yourself up about it (okay maybe just a little), but move on and stick to your plan NOW, not TOMORROW. 

Procrastination is like m@sturbati0n... your F#(k!ng yourself... 

INTRODUCTION:

I’ve created this thing as an outlet, a preoccupation and a brain dump.  I have always love things related to science and math, and after getting obese and losing over 50 pounds of fat and adding some muscle, I’ve become obsessed with diet and nutrition.  The science behind nutrition, diet and weight loss, at its simplest is very complex.  There are so many variables in the human body, and a wide difference between people.  Yes, we are all wonderfully unique snowflakes (but we are all made of water).  This can cause all sorts of confusion and conflict between researchers, doctors, and scientist.  All the contradictory views can make the average person start drooling and licking windows.   

I’d like to use my knowledge, understand, and passion to be able to educate and assist people in their health and weight loss goals.  I can help provided personalized diets, meal plans, workouts, or general information to you to help you achieve your goals.  Cuss, I can even help setting goals too.  If you have a question, please contact me!  I'll be adding more stuff regularly, so check for details.