Illegal Dopes?

I've been doing a bunch of research on substances banned by the World Anti-Doping Association lately. (Yeah, that's right. Some people experiment with elicit substances. Others get their kicks researching them instead. Back off.) Anyway, I stumbled into a couple weird smaller lists at the end of the big WADA list that I thought you might enjoy. Firstly, here's a list of sports that ban alcohol:

Alcohol (ethanol) is prohibited In-Competition only, in the following sports. Detection will be conducted by analysis of breath and/or blood. The doping violation threshold (haematological values) is 0.10 g/L. 

• Aeronautic (FAI)
• Archery (FITA)
• Automobile (FIA)
• Karate (WKF)
• Motorcycling (FIM)
• Powerboating (UIM)

I can understand the inclusion of most of these, including archery cuz no one likes a drunk with a bow and arrow, especially if you've taken to wearing an apple on your head, which I understand is the fashion in the American deep south, where carousing archers often spend their holidays.

That said, I do not understand the inclusion of karate. It has been my understanding (and perhaps my experience) that drinking alcohol does not improve your martial arts technique. In fact, I find it to be somewhat impairing - unless, of course, you're Jackie Chan, as proven in Drunken Master II, but that wouldn't be right to ban a substance purely to inhibit the performance of one person.

Sports banning beta-blockers are also pretty interesting:

Unless otherwise specified, beta-blockers are prohibited In-Competition only, in the following sports. 

• Aeronautic (FAI)
• Archery (FITA) (also prohibited Out-of-Competition)
• Automobile (FIA)
• Billiards (all disciplines) (WCBS)
• Boules (CMSB)
• Bridge (FMB)
• Darts (WDF)
• Golf (IGF)
• Ninepin and Tenpin Bowling (FIQ)
• Powerboating (UIM)
• Shooting (ISSF, IPC) (also prohibited Out-of-Competition)
• Skiing/Snowboarding (FIS) in ski jumping, freestyle aerials/halfpipe and
snowboard halfpipe/big air

(Before I continue, I want to point out how rad it is that an official WADA document actually uses the term "big air.")

I've always known beta blockers for their ability to help people with cardiovascular conditions, but apparently, they slow your heartbeat, keeping you cool in stressful situations. (Armed with this knowledge, I now plan to take beta blockers before any and all first and second dates. I will cease for date three, given a known "below the belt" side effect of this particular substance.)

According to the New York Times, they're the go-to drug for symphony musicians who want to chill out, which explains why rock 'n' roll replaced classical as the popular music of choice. Maybe if Keith Richards or Ace Frehley had a word with the Metropolitan Opera orchestra, they could turn things around a little for the genre - or at least make La Boheme a little more exciting.

So with that in mind, I understand most of these bans (although bowling is a bit of a stretch). But the one I don't get is bridge. Really? Keeping in mind that the only people I've ever known who play bridge are my grandmother and, well, everyone else's grandmother, it seems to me that banning heart medication is tantamount to banning your primary playing demographic. I look forward to the day that some rogue geriatric bridge champ makes the cover of Sports Illustrated for poppin' Lopressor between rubbers.

I hope they pose her next to Mark McGwire. I'd buy a lifetime subscription.

Exercise: Fat Buster or Fat Waste of Time?

I am often flummoxed by "experts" who claim exercise has no influence on weight loss. Case in point, Gary Taubes writing in the New York Times a few years ago:

Let’s say we go to the gym and burn off 3,500 calories every week—that’s 700 calories a session, five times a week. Since a pound of fat is equivalent to 3,500 calories, does that mean we’ll be a pound slimmer for every week we exercise? And will we continue to slim down at this pace for as long as we continue to exercise?... The catch is that science suggests it’s not, and so the answer to all of the above quiz questions is “no.”

Stuff like this drives me nuts. Taubes has a lot of important things to say about weight loss, but he ruins them by throwing out chestnuts like this. At this writing, the human body is not manufactured by Casio. It is not a calculator. Admittedly, this article is from 2007 and only last year did modern science finally admit that the whole "pound of fat is equivalent to 3,500 calories" is redonkulously over-simplistic. But instead of waxing sarcastic any longer, I'm going to throw down a little study out of Rome showing that exercise benefits insulin-treated obese patients with diabetes.

Stefano Balducci, M.D., from "La Sapienza" University in Rome, and colleagues conducted a subanalysis of 73 insulin-treated patients among 606 sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. The subjects were randomly selected to either the EXE group (twice-weekly supervised aerobic and resistance training plus structured exercise counseling) or the CON group (counseling only) for 12 months. Clinical and laboratory parameters were assessed at baseline and end of study.

 The researchers found that participants in the EXE group had significantly more physical activity than those in the CON group. Following the 12-month period, values for HbA1c, body mass index, waist circumference, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the coronary heart disease risk score were significantly reduced in the EXE group compared with the CON group.

Yes, I understand that these are hardly typical exercisers, but it's pretty black and white that BMI and waist circumference were affected by a healthy dose o' cardio and weight training. So I guess it's a little silly to categorically dismiss exercise as a weight loss method cuz for every study you have, someone else has another two studies saying the exact opposite thing. In other words, the only absolute truth about fitness and nutrition is that there is no absolute truth about fitness and nutrition, so quit being a smarty pants.

Just sayin'.

Blog Love: Steve Edwards wins the day!

I'm going to give my fellow Fitness Nerd Steve Edwards some love today. If you hop over to his Straight Dope blog, you'll find a great post on staying motivated 24/7.

Why is each day so important? Looking back through my calendar I noted that I had only 6 full climbing days 2011, my preferred sport. My favorite workout of last year, Asylum Strength, I only did 5 times. PAP sessions: 12. When you have a full schedule and begin to analyze how it’s broken down the importance of each workout becomes clear; each time you slack off is missing an opportunity to improve yourself. If you lay each workout on a graph you will see exactly how a bit more effort or concentration here and there would have yielded greater overall improvements. Over time it’s the difference between champions and everyone else.

If you're like me, your head explodes a little when you try to wrap it around the amount of exercise Steve does. We can't all be him -- but that's a good thing because if we were, it would mean that the next time you climbed Mount Everest (as you do every Wednesday night), you'd get to the top to find a bunch of skinny guys in fancy running shoes drinking black coffee, playing with their dogs, and swapping movie quotes. It would ruin the ambiance, to say the least.

El Steve-o has a good point, but this "win the day" thing doesn't need to apply only to those hell-bent on world domination. In many ways, physically, I'm the anti-Steve. Unless the only qualifications are willpower and brute force, new sports don't come easy to me. Furthermore, I'm prone to weight gain and I have a true gift for injuring myself. Yet his M.O. still makes sense, particularly when applied to that age-old question, "How do you eat an elephant?"

As some of you may recall, I spent much of 2011 under the knife. ("Why?" you ask. See willpower and brute force above.) I'm still in the middle of rehab. I finally got the limp in my left hip under control about 2 weeks ago and I'm still months away from lifting my right arm above my head. But I do the boring, painful junk that the PT assigns me. Every. Single. Day. Each time, my hip feels a little stronger and my arm reaches a little higher. I take one more bite out of the elephant.

The hardest part about this process is that I haven't been able to surf since last March. Hopefully, I'll be back in the water around this April, putting an end to a 13 month lull. When that happens, I'll surf like I've always surfed. Just as Steve uses each day to push himself, I will use each day to be grateful. I will go out with the bittersweet awareness that my board-riding days are finite. I'll also look back at the challenging days of rehab with the knowledge that they were even more finite.

Whatever your goal is, you're never going to get there unless you get there.

The Revenge of Saturated Fat

WARNING: Today’s Real Fitness Nerd post goes to 11 on the Geek-o-meter, so make sure to have your pocket protector firmly in place before reading. In the event of a water landing, simply empty your Big Gulp of Mountain Dew and use the cup as a floatation device.

A few months ago, loyal Nerd Herders may remember that a post questioning saturated fat was discovered by a pack of rabid paleo eaters. I made a few attempts to debate with them, but it was a little little like trying to debate the sanctity of the pope with the guy who makes his big hats, so I cut and ran, letting them overwhelm my comments section with vitriol.

But, as the Klingons say, “bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay,” so by no means did I walk away from the topic entire. Much like Rocky, I hunkered down in a Philadelphia meat locker and punched sides of beef until I had absorbed all of western science’s collected understanding of the saturated fats from the flanks I was so passionately abusing. In other words, I still have no idea if saturated fat is good or bad for you – and neither does anyone else. I do, however, have two theories.

1. I can find no convincing arguments why saturated fat is better for you than unsaturated fat or that it has any special benefits in the context of the standard diet. The body produces it on its own, so I see no reason we need to consume it. That’s a little like saying we need to eat straight glucose because our body manufactures that too.

2. I believe lumping all saturated fats together would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater in that more research needs to be done differentiating between the various saturated fats, or at least between long and short chain saturated fats.

Before I go into more detail, here’s a little background.

Contrary to what many a fad diet book will imply, humans need to eat fat to survive. Among other things, it serves as an energy source. It acts as a transport for fat-soluble nutrients such as vitamins A, D, and K, as well as several phytonutrients. It adds structure to cell membranes and acts as a regulator for several hormones.

For our purposes, there are four kinds of fats, or “fatty acids” if you want to sound fancy: monounsaturated, polyunsaturated (PUFAs), saturated, and trans. Generally speaking, trans fats are bad and monounsaturated fats are good. Saturated fat and polyunsaturated fat are much more controversial.

If eaten properly, PUFAs are good for you, but we tend to eat an imbalanced ratio of them (too many omega-6s and not enough omega-3s), which can lead to inflammation issues. Also, PUFAs aren’t very stable and when they go off (or “oxidize”) they become bad for you. If you avoid eating overly processed or heated PUFAs and get as many omega-3s as possible, you should be okay. (If you’re going to write in and flame about PUFAs, don’t bother. I just saved you a lot of effort by summing up all your arguments, only without the annoying spin. No need to thank me.)

All fat is made up of chains of atoms. The difference between sat fat and unsat fat is that, simply, a few carbon atoms in unsaturated fat aren’t “saturated” with hydrogen atoms. Monounsaturated fat has one loose atom. Polyunsaturated has more.

And as long as we’re geeking out about chemistry, I’ll also point out the fact that different fats have different amounts of atoms. That’s what people mean when they refer to long, medium, or short chain fatty acids. Remember this. It’ll be important later.

Although I read a shitload of books to reach my conclusions, I have two primary sources. The first is a 2001 review by the Harvard School of Public Health in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition entitled “Types of Dietary Fat and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review,” which pops up in a wide array of writings on the subject, from Catherine and Luke Shanahan’s Deep Nutrition to (my personal hero) Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food.

My second source is the most authoritative (read: not lame or poorly researched) pro-sat-fat book I could find: Dr. Mary Enig’s Know Your Fats. (Enig was the first real whistle blower on the dangers of trans fat, decades before the rest of the world figured it out.)

To my shock, Enig gave only two instances where she felt saturated fats were of particular benefit. First, she suggests, “research has shown that saturated fat in the diet is needed by the body to enable it to adequately convert the essential omega-3 fatty acid (ALA) to the elongated omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA.” I found the study she cited and it turns out that she got it wrong(ish). According to Gerster, sat fats are marginally better than PUFAs for helping ALA convert, but not “needed.” Furthermore, this advice only really applies to vegans and vegetarians, given a healthy, more omnivorous diet should include EPA and DHA-rich foods such as fatty fish.

If you’re looking for a little 411 on this ALA/EPA/DHA nonsense, read this.

Second, Enig states, “there is strong evidence that some of the medium-chain SFAs such as lauric acid are essential since they are needed for maintaining the natural ability of the individual to fight potentially harmful microorganisms.”

Annoyingly, she didn’t properly cite this claim and my research only uncovered studies that either applied to soap or food packaging. These are excellent uses of lauric acid, but The Fitness Nerd hasn’t eaten soap since he was about five (not willingly, at least) and has only once eaten food packaging (I thought it was an especially chewy burrito) so the validity escapes me.

That said, lauric acid (the stuff you get in coconuts) may not be essential, but it could be beneficial. Here’s a study showing lauric acid raised HDL cholesterol in subjects, potentially making it a “heart healthy” fatty acid.

That brings me to my second point – not all saturated fats were created equal. Could it be that some are good and some are bad? The above-mentioned Harvard review states that “the association between saturated fat and CHD... was much weaker than that predicted by international comparisons.” However, some individual saturated fatty acids still look dodgy. Also from the review: “Saturated fatty acids with 12–16 carbon atoms tend to increase plasma total and LDL cholesterol levels, whereas stearic acid (18:0) does not have a cholesterol-raising effect in comparison with oleic acid (18:1). Among the cholesterol-raising saturated fatty acids, myristic acid (14:0) appears to be more potent than lauric acid (12:0) or palmitic acid (16:0), but the data are not entirely consistent”

In other words, some sat fats mess with cholesterol and others don’t. So, while saturated fat haters were too quick the judge, saturated fat lovers are also a bit hasty in categorically embracing this nutrient. Maybe the truth lies in looking at the various saturated fatty acids individually and weighing up their individual benefits and drawbacks.

At the end of the day, I think the answer is to focus on your own biochemical needs. Even Enig admits, “there isn’t any real evidence that everyone needs to consume exactly the same balance of fatty acids.” She also points out that it’s naïve to categorize most foods as sat fats or PUFAs, given both animal and plant-based fat sources tend to be a mix of both. With that in mind, the answer might be as simple as a little self-analysis. Is your current diet working for you? How do you feel? How’s your blood work? Are you having any issues such as inflammation or high LDL cholesterol? If all this looks good, your sat fat levels are probably pretty right for you. If not, it might be time to start experimenting a little, no matter what your Crossfit trainer tells you.


Fancy List o' References:

• Beerman, K. & McGuire, M. (2011). Nutritional Sciences: From Fundamentals to Food. Belmont, CA. Wadworth Cengage Learning.
• Enig, M. (2000). Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils, and Cholesterol. Bethesda, MA: Bethesda Press.
• Hu, F., Manson, J., & Willett, W. (2001). Types of Dietary Fat and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 20:1 5-19. Retrieved from http://www.jacn.org/content/20/1/5.short
• Gerster, H. (1998). Can Adults Adequately Convert a-Linolenic Acid (18:3n-3) to Eicosapentaenoic Acid (20:5n-3) and Docosahexaenoic Acid (22:6n-3) International Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research. Retrieved from http://verlag.hanshuber.com/Zeitschriften/IJVNR/98/vn9803.html
• Mensink RP, Zock PL, Kester AD, & Katan MB. (2003) Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials. American Journal for Clinical Nutrition 77(5),1146-55. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716665
• Pollan, M. (2008). In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. New York, NY. Penguin Press.
• Shanahan, C. & Shanahan, L. (2009). Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food. Lawai, HI: Big Box Books.

Evil Fat Hatin' Microbes Must Die!

Ho, ho, ho. Season's greetings. Happy Festivus. Et al.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's get down to business. New research has unearthed an impossibly convoluted way to fight obesity, but before I share it with you, here are a couple quick anatomy lessons.

Lesson one: There are several kinds of adipose tissue (body fat) but the two that apply here are white fat, which is the normal stuff around your gut and butt, and brown fat, which you find in odd places like your neck. Brown fat is considered "good fat" because it promotes the burning of white fat when it gets cold.

Lesson two: Your large intestines are home to billions of bacteria, some vital to life, others destructive to life. It's your job to eat healthy and maintain the balance between the two. It's a big responsibility, but I think you're up to it. I believe in you. Go eat some probiotic yogurt.

Now that we're all edumacated and junk, we can discuss today's study. According to the Journal of Proteome Research (which I'm sure you've probably already read this month), scientists cleaned out the intestinal bacteria from a bunch of mice and discovered that it seemed to cause their brown fat to fire up and burn more calories. Furthermore...

The research also uncovered major differences in the interactions between males and females and their intestinal bacteria that might help explain why the obesity epidemic is more serious and rapidly developing in women. 

Those and other findings may point the way toward approaches that kick-up the activity of brown fat in humans to prevent or treat obesity.

That's just swell. Basically this means that by futzing with intestinal bacteria (a wildly complex ecosystem on your gut that influences your wellbeing in countless way, many of which we haven't discovered yet), we might be able to, in turn, futz with a weird kind of neck lipid that might have some impact on fat loss. Awesome, go for it.

While you guys do that, I'm going to publish a study in another medical periodical, the Journal for Obvious Solutions that Science Ignores Because They Don't Lead To Pharmaceutical Sales. In this study, I'm going to research another organ that might play a key role in the war on obesity: your mouth. Here's my hypothesis: Stop putting crappy fried foods and refined carbs in it and you'll lose weight. 

That said, it is the holiday season, so if you eat a couple cookies, it's not the end of the world. Just don't gorge yourself. Your brown fat hatin' large intestinal bacteria will thank you.

illustration source: www.bam.gov

Carb Fasting Fantasy Study?

Happy hump day, Nerd Herd! There's been a request at The Real Fitness Nerd HQ to have a looky-loo at a diet comparison presented this month at the CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium:

(British researcher Michelle Harvie and colleagues put) one third of the women on a Mediterranean-type diet that restricted calories to about 1,500 per day. A second group was told to eat normally most of the time, but two days a week to cut carbs and also calories to about 650 on those two days. The third group was also to cut carbs two days a week, but there was no calorie restriction on those days. 

At the end of four weeks women in both of the intermittent dieting groups had lost more weight — about 9 pounds — than the women who ate low calorie meals every day of the week — about 5 pounds.

It's also worth noting that the intermittent fasters experienced greater drops in insulin resistance.

So that's great and all, but I have a few issues. First off, I'm annoyed that they compared a super-high calorie deficit with the carb-fasting without throwing a sensible diet with a slight deficit in the mix. From an insulin resistance perspective, I'd be much more interested in seeing those numbers, given intermittent fasting may be a good long-term solution for diabetes management, whereas committing to a lifetime of 1500 daily calories tends to involve such pesky side-effects as breaking down of muscles for fuel, reduced metabolism, reenforcement of eating disorders and, oh yes, death. With that in mind, it nulls the comparison a little.

Furthermore, there seems to me to be a lot of vague "eat what you want" aspects to this study, making for a lot of confounding variables, n'est pas?

But even more furthermore, I question the timeline - 4 weeks doesn't prove anything. I've read a few studies showing that low-carbing works better at the start of a diet, but not necessarily in the long term. Oddly enough, in my research to document this, I came across a study by - you're not going to believe this - the same crew who presented the research we're discussing here! Whadayaknow, Joe!

In May of 2011, Harvie et al authored a study in the International Journal of Obesity in which they compared "intermittent continuous energy (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers." This study, however, spanned 6 months. The IER ladies lost slightly more weight (1.7 pounds more, on average). The general findings were that "IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers."

In other words, IER was a slightly better method, but not enough to get too thrilled about. So who's zooming whom here? Are these the same study? Were I a Conspiracy Nerd, I'd think someone cherry picked data from the May study to make for a more titillating, headline-grabbing December presentation. Who knows? I suppose the truth is out there.

I'm warming to intermittent fasting more and more each day. I'm willing to accept new methods for weight loss and diabetes prevention, but something's gone afoul here.

Radio Free Nerd

I got a couple chances here for you Nerd Herders to hear my dulcet tones.

Here's a blog radio interview I did back in April on a show called Veggin' Out. I could never figure out why Melanee, the host, didn't send me the link - until today when I learned about the secret Facebook inbox we all have that some of us don't know how to access. Better late than never. Enjoy!

And here's a segment I did for KTLK AM1150 here in LA. I'm about half-way through. It's heavily edited, so I actually come across as rather articulate.

Although I'd love you to listen out of pure love, I doubt you will, so maybe instead you'll listen to learn some fancy science, some folksy wisdom and a little about the vegan aspect of the new P90X2 Nutrition Plan, which I played a biggish role in creating.