Marathons & Heart Health: Friends or Enemies?

Is running a marathon healthy?

New studies are always coming out—some of which support my incessant ranting; others of which contradict or refute it. Today, as I was sifting through some of the latest news via my “news” app on Google, I came across an article written by Shots columnist Nancy Shute who suggests “marathon training actually reduces a person’s cardiovascular risk” (1). For those unaware, a ways back I wrote an article about the negative effects of chronic marathon running on cardiovascular health (2). While I could simply try to neatly and slyly murder and burry this latest article somewhere deep in the woods, far from curious eyes, I have no desire to have my life’s story scripted and televised for the next episode of “Murder She Wrote: Academic Article Edition.” Instead, I plan to take an honest look at the evidence so as to see if I might have to, in even the slightest of ways, adjust my position on “chronic cardio.”

So What’s the Evidence?

                Firstly, let’s take a look at the subjects of the study. The researchers examined 45 people who ran in the 2013 Boston Marathon. These subjects had actually not qualified to run in the race, but they were permitted to run anyway because they were doing so for a charity.

                Now, I don’t think I should have to explain some of the limitations of this study that rear their ugly heads from the get-go. 45 test subjects is a very, very, very, very small cross section of the number of people who ran in the Boston Marathon. Moreover, these test subjects, as evinced by the fact that they did not qualify to run the marathon in the first place, are not highly trained athletes. Many of the studies which I referenced in my past article on the detriments of chronic cardio consisted of experiments and meta-analyses conducted on, and in reference to, well-trained athletes.

                Why does this discrepancy matter? It matters because trained athletes are the ones most prone to overdoing things. People who run marathons on a regular basis are by far more likely to suffer from atherosclerosis than casual one-timers (3). Those tested in this study had only, at the most, run up to 3 marathons previous to the 2013 Boston Marathon. In other words, we’re not dealing with professional athletes here. I’m not saying these people are unhealthy mind you—after all, “couch potatoes” don’t necessarily say to themselves, “I think I’m going to run a marathon today.” Nevertheless, these 45 test subjects aren’t the sort of people who live and breathe marathons to the extent of diehard runners.

                Looking at the Numbers

                Prior to and following the test subjects’ 18 weeks of training, researchers measured the participants’ markers for cardiovascular risk. It was found that half of the participants had preexisting risk factors going into the study; however, by the end of the study, the risk factors of many of those at risk prior to training improved. The men who participated in the study had their risk for coronary heart disease go down by 15% (not bad). Additionally, average total serum cholesterol levels decreased by 5%. All in all, things seem rather peachy.

                More Evidence to Consider

                In order to further bolster the claim that marathoners do not exhibit a higher than average risk of suffering cardiovascular related deaths, Shute further cites a study conducted on marathoners and half-marathoners wherein the authors examined data collected between 2000 and 2010 (4).  Of all the 10.9 million runners examined (that’s a lot of data points!), only 59 suffered cardiac arrest, with more men being afflicted than women. In light of the data, the authors concluded that men are at a higher risk than women for suffering cardiac arrest during a marathon, that marathon running is “associated with a low overall risk of cardiac arrest and sudden death,” and that (and this point is interesting to note) the incidence rate of coronary heart disease among male marathoners increased between 2000 and 2010.

                These are some rather interesting conclusions, of which the last is the only one that seems at all negative. Something we should keep in mind is that, of those competitors who suffered cardiac arrest, the highest incidence was among those participating in full marathons. Half-marathoners exhibited less than half the risk for suffering cardiac arrest than their marathoner counterparts. This data makes a whole lot of sense when we consider the fact that the highest incidence of cardiac arrest was observed during the first half of the 4^th quartile during full marathons. Half-marathoners obviously finish long before they reach this point. But I digress…

What to Make of This Data

                I have to admit, this evidence is hard to argue against, but my inner critic must, regardless of what has hereto been presented, find a way to poke holes in the data. My first, and biggest, critique of the evidence we’ve viewed thus far is this: we’ve only taken a look at the risk of suddenly dying of cardiac arrest while running a marathon. What about the host of other health complications which arise as a result of “chronic cardio”?

                Other Evidence

                A study conducted on 49 marathoners (42 men & 7 women) who had run 25+ marathons for consecutive years revealed that these runners had higher levels of calcified coronary plaque than a sedentary control group (5); therefore putting the marathoners at a higher risk for suffering stroke and dementia (6). One thing to pay close attention to regarding this study is the chronic nature of marathon running involved. In contrast with the evidence Shute cites for her article—evidence which suggest that one marathon may improve one’s risk factors for developing cardiac disease—running consecutive marathons (25 or more!) for several years may increase your risk for suffering from heart related disease.

                Another study, wherein researchers tested 108 seemingly healthy male marathon runners who were 50+ in age and had run at least 5 marathons in the previous 3 years leading up to the study, revealed that the marathoners had higher levels of calcified coronary plaque than controls (7). This study further supports the conclusions of the previous one; though, notably, the test participants in this study had run fewer marathons on average than what the participants in the previous study had run; therefore meaning that you could very well experience negative effects from marathon running long before you’ve run 25.

                Why I Think Chronic Cardio Is Bad

Poor soul! If only he'd read my blog....

                While there are numerous complicated, biological theories and explanations for why chronically running marathons in successive fashion may harm, rather than help, our cardiovascular fitness, I think most of these explanations boil down to one primary theme: chronic stress. Elevated levels of cortisol and unabated oxidative damage can have disastrous down-stream consequences for our health and well-being. One study I looked at revealed that elevated levels of oxidative stress following a marathon lasted up to 48 hours after the race was completed (8). Another study revealed that those who were ill-trained and poorly prepared for running a marathon, experienced heart damage for up to 3 months after the marathon was over (9). Talk about chronic stress!

                All I have to say is: why not just say no to marathons? (at least chronically). The occasional marathon (I’m thinking along the lines of 1 to 2 over the course of your entire lifetime) may not be enough to cause any detrimental effects. Just make sure that you properly train, and are well-prepared before deciding to run one.

                What to Do for Cardio Instead

                Regular moderate exercise (exercise done at 55-75% of your maximum heart rate for about an hour a day) is associated with numerous health benefits; all of which are achievable without having to run yourself silly. Research suggests that it can reduce your risk of suffering from metabolic syndrome, from developing breast cancer, and from dying of cardiac disease (10 & 11). It may further reduce your risk of developing dementia, decrease your overall levels of inflammation, and it might just improve your mood (12, 13, & 14).

In Conclusion

                Look, if you want to run a marathon, then feel free do so. Many people gain a meaningful sense of accomplishment from finishing the 26 mile and 385 yard run. I personally wouldn’t, but I’m not you, and you’re not me. All I ask is that you consider your health status, first and foremost, before you set about running a marathon, or a half-marathon for that matter. Going further, I ask that you recognize that marathon running does not equate, 1 to 1, with health. My overall philosophy regarding health and athletics is this: It’s easy to be healthy, but it’s hard to be an athlete. Bear that thought in mind before you start training for a marathon for the sake of health rather than for the sake of competition.

Couldn't have said it better.

How to Get in Shape and Build Muscle When You're 60+

I'll just lay everything on the line, right here and now--I think resistance training is the BEST possible exercise anyone can do.

Why? Because muscle mass and organ reserve are correlated with improved health, especially for older adults. Moreover, muscle mass and organ reserve (referring to the robustness of our organs and their ability to function at top notch capacity) will tend to correspond with each other--i.g. if we improve muscle mass, we might just improve our organ health as well.

However, what if, upon reading this information, you find yourself in the rather precarious position of being, well, OLD? Is there still hope for you to improve your health and quality of life via building muscle mass?

The answer is YES!

But, you may now ask--"Isn't the loss of muscle a 'natural' part of the aging process?"

Yes and no.

Some evidence does suggest that muscle wasting is a very real phenomenon with older populations, and this loss of muscle may result from a decline in metabolic efficiency. All of this, however, can be prevented, and REVERSED!

First Let's Look at Nutrition

I don't think I really need to convince you that proper nutrition is a must (these days such a thing seems like a given). However, we do need to take a look at some important nutritional strategies to consider in order to improve our chances of maintaining, and building muscle later in life.

Protein

You've undoubtedly heard a slew of reports that consuming adequate protein is a must, especially for older adults who have lost the metabolic efficiency to properly partition and utilize the protein they get through their diet. 

But how much protein is enough?

Many people will likely point to studies (such as this one) which indicate that protein supplementation--i.e. adding protein to one's diet--will improve muscle mass and strength gains.  However, other studies (such as this, this, and this) suggest that somewhat lower levels of protein consumption--even levels below the RDA recommendation--may be adequate (keep in mind that adequacy does not = optimal) to support the maintenance and growth of muscle mass and strength in older populations, so long as resistance training of some variety is involved. 

I'm not saying that you ought not consume plenty of protein.  After all, some research indicates that, for elderly populations at least, consuming up to 1.6 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight (roughly .7 grams per pound of bodyweight) will optimize hypertrophy (that's muscle growth). 

But, what if you're someone who has kidney disease? Under such circumstances 1.6 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight is way too much.  For you, I suggest sticking with the recommended amount of protein issued to those with renal dysfunction--that being an amount that does not exceed the RDA of .8 grams per kg of bodyweight.

Does consuming so little protein spell disaster? 

Not at all. Just take a look at this study wherein older test subjects consumed less protein than the RDA recommendation and still maintained and built muscle mass in conjunction with resistance training.

No Excuses!

Now Let's Turn to Exercise

There's some interesting research that suggests very little volume and frequency of exercise is necessary in order to build muscle. Such knowledge is a godsend for older populations who lack the recovery capacity and joint strength necessary to do a more demanding routine--such as one I would recommend to a 20-something looking to build muscle.

Of course, safety must be a key consideration, first and foremost, as we consider routine programming. I can't have you breaking your hip on me! For this reason, I highly recommend (HIGHLY) that you consult with your doctor/physician before you leap headlong into a weight training program. I'm not going to be held liable for your own irresponsibility. With that said, you're an adult. Do what you feel is best.

Beyond Just "Pumping Iron"

There's no better motivation than a workout buddy!

In addition to lifting weights, I also highly recommend you do some form of interval cardio 1 to 2 times per week--preferably every 4 to 5 days. This doesn't have to consist of anything ridiculous. Start out slow. Consider walking slow for 2 minutes, and speed walking for 30 seconds, on and off for up to 30 minutes. You could also do something similar on an exercise bike, on an elliptical, on a trampoline, etc. Modify the intensity for your unique situation. If you're relatively fit, go harder. If you've been relatively sedentary for the last 40 or so years, take it easy and gradually work your way to higher intensities.

I also suggest you spend up to an hour a day (or as often as possible) doing some form of non-seated activity. Low intensity activity, such as walking, is an excellent means for reducing your risk of developing hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, and coronary heart disease. 

The Program I Recommend

Do the following routine every 4 to 5 days--

• First, spend about 5 minutes on a treadmill, exercise bike, or elliptical to warm up and get your hear pumping.
• Then do the following exercises
• Leg Extensions (or Leg Press)--3 warm-up sets @ 50, 70, & 90% of your target weight for the day, followed by 2 to 3 work sets of 10 to 15 reps, resting 2 minutes between sets.
• Leg Curl--Same as Leg Extensions.
• Chest Press--Same warm-up progression, followed by 2 to 3 work sets of 8 to 10 reps, resting 2 minutes between sets.
• Cable Row--Same as Chest Press. (To speed up the workout, you might consider doing chest press and rows in alternating sets--doing a set of chest press, resting 1 minute, doing a set of rows, resting 1 minute, etc.)
• Seated Dumbbell Shoulder Press  (or Seated DB Lateral Raise)--Same warm up, followed by 1 to 2 work sets of 8 to 10 reps.
• Lateral Pull-down (with a palms either facing each other, or away from you face)--Same warm up, followed by 1 to 2 work sets of 8 to 10 reps. (You can alternate shoulder presses or raises with pull-downs in the same manner as the chest presses and rows)
• Time to Stretch! Follow this link to learn more!

As a note:  Regarding rep ranges, do your work sets with a weight that allows you to get at least the bottom number of reps prescribed, but no more than the top number of reps prescribed. There's no magic secret to success here. Just make sure that you're gradually working with heavier and heavier resistance from workout to workout.

As another note:  Learn the difference between soreness and pain. I'm not joking around here! If you feel like performing a certain movement is impinging a joint or a never, or anything vital for that matter, stop! Muscle soreness from working your muscles with high intensity is natural and expected, but intense joint pain is not.

In Conclusion

Don't use old age as an excuse! You can still experience a host of benefits with resistance training, even in old age, and you might just "live long and drop dead" in style as a result.

The Ultimate Arms Workout for Building Guns o' Steel!

"Curls are for girls!" They say.  Well I say, if you want bigger arms, why not do curls (and triceps extensions)?!  Keep reading to learn the "secret" exercises that will build up your arms like you've never thought possible.

I'm always open to varying philosophies regarding optimal training.  However, sometimes certain philosophical schools of thought are just plain stupid to espouse within certain contexts.  Take for example the competing methodologies of "purists" who believe people should only do compound movements to grow bigger muscles (including the arms), and "non-purists" (I don't really have a better term for this group) who think isolation movements are the truly defining exercises of any great muscle building routine.  Both methods for building muscle have their place, depending on a person's circumstances, but, holding to one or the other dogmatically is just a recipe for disappointment--and disaster.  In the spirit of utility, I think a good lifting routine will use a combination of both compound and isolation movements to achieve proportional muscle growth.

But enough with my rambling!

You came here to learn how to build bigger arms, and I plan to show you how!  

The Biceps.

The Biceps - 1) Long Head, 2) Short Head, 3) Brachioradialis, & 4) Brachialis

Training the biceps is relatively straightforward--CURL!

More specifically however, movements which involve a supinated grip (that's with your palms facing up) will better target the biceps.  As you begin rotating your hands toward the neutral position (palms facing each other) and even further to the pronated position (palms facing down) the brachioradialis and barachialis will be targeted to a greater degree.  Neutral grip curls--like hammer curls--will actually give you a solid mix between the long and short heads of the biceps with the brachioradialis and brachialis--this is why many people can hammer curl more weight than they can with supinated curls.  Pronated curls put you in the weakest curling position by taking the long and short heads of the biceps out of the equation (at least more so than other hand grips).  Still yet, going into further depth, many bodybuilders report being able to emphasize either the long or short head of the biceps by changing their grip width.  A wide grip will emphasize the short head, and a narrow grip will emphasize the long head.

The following exercises are the best (in my opinion) for building solid biceps -

• Chins, pull-ups, barbell curls, EZ-bar curls, and dumbbell curls will give you the biggest bang for your buck.  Do these exercises heavy--in the 4-6 rep range.
• Other movements such as preacher curls, incline bench dumbbell curls, and concentration curls--all known as "peak contraction" exercises--will allow you to improve your mind-muscle connection (thus allowing your to better activate your muscle fibers in the long term).  These exercises are best performed as "pump" exercises--done pyramid style.  Pick a weight that allows you to curl for 12 reps on the first set, rest 60 seconds, then with the same weight, do 10 reps, then 8 reps, then 6, another 6, and yet another 6.  Trust me, you'll be good and pumped using this rep scheme.

The Triceps

The 3 triceps heads.

Once again, like the biceps, training the triceps is not rocket science.  Nevertheless, some exercises, just like with the biceps, will be more effective for various purposes in comparison to others.  By using a wide grip, you will target the inner long head of the triceps.  A narrow grip will put more of an emphasis on the lateral and medial heads.  A pronated grip will target the lateral and medial heads, and a supinated grip will target the long head.  A V-grip will allow you to target all three heads equally.  

The following exercises will really put some size on your triceps (if you focus on getting progressively stronger with them) -

• For the lateral and medial heads, cable extensions, skull crushers, and dips will work just nicely.  Do these for 4-6 reps.
• For the long head, dumbbell kickbacks and seated triceps presses (with either an EZ-bar or dumbbells) are your best choices.  Do these in the 4-6 rep range.
• In terms of "peak contraction" exercises, use whatever allows you to really feel the triceps contract.  Use the same rep scheme here that I prescribed for the biceps.

The Ultimate Arms Routine

After a warm-up, do alternating sets of the following (rest 60-90 seconds between exercises)

• Barbell Curls for 3 sets of 4-6 reps.
• Skull Crushers for 3 sets of 4-6 reps.

Alternating sets of the following (rest 60-90 seconds between exercises)

• Dumbbell Curls for 3 sets of 4-6 reps.
• Seated Triceps Press for 3 sets of 4-6 reps.

Super-set (rest as little as possible between sets)

• Incline Bench Dumbbell Curl for 12, 10, 8, 6, 6, 6 reps.
• Rope-Grip Triceps Push-down for 12, 10, 8, 6, 6, 6 reps.

If you can do the number of reps prescribed per exercise, continue to add weight--so long as you aren't compromising form in order to cheat your way into lifting more weight!

I love arm days, so enjoy!

Dietary Fat & Coronary Heart Disease - Why We May Just Be Chasing the Wind

Stephan Guyenet recently did a write-up/critique of a rather interesting meta-analysis done by Chowdhury et al. The authors of this study gathered, somewhat indiscriminately, 32 observational studies of ingested fatty acids, 17 observational studies of fatty acid biomarkers, and 27 randomized controlled trials of fatty acid supplementation.

What did Chowdhury and his cohorts conclude?

They surmised that...

• In observational studies that measured diet, only trans fat was related to cardiovascular risk.  Saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats were unrelated to risk.
• In observational studies that measured circulating concentrations of fatty acids, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (DHA, DPA, EPA, AA) were associated with lower risk.  The dairy-fat-derived margaric acid (17:0) was also associated with lower risk.  No other fatty acids were related to risk, including trans fatty acids.
• In controlled trials, supplementation with omega-3 or omega-6 fatty acids did not alter risk.

What a mess of conclusions!  Some of the data collected by the authors suggests that only trans fat presents a problem in terms of cardiovascular risk.  Still yet, other data seems to indicate that polyunsaturated fatty acids and margaric acid lower your risk of cardiovascular disease, meanwhile, all other sources of dietary fat (including trans fats) yield neutral results.  Moreover, the highly beloved anti-inflammatory omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (in addition to its infamous, inflammatory cousin omega-6) had no effect on cardiovascular risk (at least when supplemented)!

For the most part, I'll have to piggyback on Guyenet's critique, given that Chowdhury et jerks want me to pay to see anything more than a quaint, but rather not-so-transparent summary of their work.

Important Limitations

As Guyenet rightly points out in his critique, meta-analytical studies have some pertinent limitations -- i.e. the meta-analysis is comprised of studies with varying degrees of quality and design, and the meta-analysis can only be as good as the quality of sources it uses.  Since I can't access the study itself, I'm relying on Guyenet's assessment.  According to him, "inclusion criteria were very lax."

Important Conclusions

Of course, the authors' verdict on trans fat (at least in relation to the observational studies that measured dietary fat) doesn't surprise me at all.  I've seen ample evidence to suggest that trans fat, which is primarily a product of hydrogenated polyunsaturated oils, can cause problems.  Nevertheless, not all of the evidence the authors of this study looked at confirm the deleterious effects of trans fat.

Some interesting bio-chemistry of how you body processes dietary fats.

I was actually rather shocked that little to no benefit was found for supplementing with omega-3 polyunsaturated oil.  However, omega-3 can come from a variety of sources, and the source can effect its bio-availability.  Animal based sources (EPA & DHA) are much more efficiently utilized by the body than plant based sources (ALA) [Read this article by Chris Kresser to learn more].  Unfortunately for us, the authors of this study looked at animal based sources of omega-3; thus, things look rather bleak for omega-3 supplementation.  While I still hold to the position that we ought to try as best we can to maintain a proper balance between omega-6 and omega-3 in our diet, the conclusions gleaned via this meta-analysis suggest that this balance may not be as important as other health risk factors.  Even Guyenet seems somewhat bummed out by the poor showing omega-3 supplementation has demonstrated in recent research --

After considering new evidence and reviewing old evidence, I've gradually drifted away from the view that omega-6 polyunsaturated fat contributes to cardiovascular disease.  I still think it's probably a bad idea to eat a lot of refined seed oils-- the lipid equivalent of white sugar-- but I don't see much of an argument for avoiding whole nuts and avocados.  Recent controlled trials and meta-analyses have also dampened my enthusiasm for the idea that omega-3 fatty acids have a major impact on cardiovascular disease risk.  Either the trials weren't long enough to see protection, or omega-3 isn't as powerful as we had hoped.

Herein lies el problemo.

In regards to what the authors concluded about saturated fat, I'm not at all surprised.  Little evidence exists to suggest that saturated fat is a boogeyman.  As a matter of fact, there's very little evidence to indict or defend saturated fat.  Though Guyenet maintains caution in regards to a diet high in saturated fat, I'm inclined to think that it isn't an issue.  The only circumstance under which I would say you should cut back on your saturated fat consumption would be if you were consuming it to the detriment of essential fatty acids such as omega-3 and omega-6, and/or if you were consuming more calories than you ought to be eating, and this excess was coming from saturated fat.

While the more specific conclusions of the authors present "something to upset just about everyone," the overall inconclusiveness of their study suggest that we may be, more or less, chasing the wind whenever we set out to isolate one type of fat (or any other nutrient) as the chief cause of disease in Western society.  I don't think it's anything controversial to suggest that, if you're looking to reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease, first see if you can eliminate such things as smoking, high consumption of alcohol, processed hyper rewarding foods, excess stress, and chronic sleep deprivation before you start assessing whether omega-3 supplementation might improve your heart health.  Lifestyle is by far a better predictor of health risk than any one dietary factor alone (unless of course you have a penchant for eating arsenic.  Then we know exactly what killed you!).

Low Protein Intake Associated with Lower Risk of Cancer? I Think NOT!

A recent study seems to contradict everything I've said regarding the non-harmful effects of animal proteins. I now stand before the Vegetarian Inquisition. Time to be a man and defend myself!

The Article:  "Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population" (Link Here)

The Major Theses of the Paper

If you follow the link to the article (found above), you'll readily note the highlights of the article -

1. High protein intake is linked to increased cancer, diabetes, and overall mortality
2. High IGF-1 levels increased the relationship between mortality and high protein
3. Higher protein consumption may be protective for older adults
4. Plant-derived proteins are associated with lower mortality than animal-derived proteins

It seems I've got some work to do.

Addressing Thesis 1

The first conclusion the authors of this study make seems awfully similar to the contention that Campbell makes in The China Study.  If you've been following my series on vegetarianism wherein I've been breaking down Denise Minger's very thorough critique of Campbell's work, you well know of the impossibility of indicting protein (especially animal sources of protein) as if the term "protein" somehow could sufficiently encompass all of the various sources of amino acids in existence.  

Speaking of animal proteins in particular, we already know that the source, and the type of protein from that source, will drastically effect how our bodies react.  For instance, casein protein, which comes from milk, has carcinogenic properties when it is consumed in an environment where other toxins are already present - i.e. when we consume casein along with aflatoxin (which is rampantly prevalent in peanuts).  Whey protein, however, which also comes from milk, has anti-carcinogenic properties.

So, as we can see, we make a rather big mistake when we categorize all animal sources protein into a single group.  The authors of this particular study make this mistake.  They broadly categorize all sources of protein as either animal or plant based.  As the vigilant reader will easily note, certain sources of animal protein don't necessarily represent the panacea of health foods.  I'm of course referring here to processed "franken-meats" (Oscar-Meyer anyone?).  

Something else to keep in mind is that the average American (oh yeah! Did I mention that the authors based their study on "average" Americans, not health conscious omnivores) consumes, not only a plethora of processed meats, but also a variety of processed grain and flower products, along with a variety sugary goods, with these meats - i.e. buns, Doritos, soft drinks, etc.  Such foods likely contributed to the increased risk of cancer mortality among the higher protein groups which the authors examined.

Addressing Thesis 2

So what is IGF-1?  It is merely a shorthand name for insulin-like growth factor 1.  Like its name suggests, IFG-1 is like insulin.  Thus, like insulin, it is an anabolic hormone, related to, among many things, muscle growth and the supply of nutrients to various cells.  

You may now ask:  "If IGF-1 is like insulin, and insulin is spiked by carbs, why are we talking about protein?"

Good question!  In reality, carbohydrates are not the only nutrients which effect insulin.  Protein, too, will spike insulin, and also IGF-1.  So what's so bad about it?  Like any hormone in your body, IGF-1 is good when in the context of balance.  Your body produces a variety of hormones for various biological and survival reasons.  In the proper quantity, these hormones keep you alive and thriving.   In the wrong quantities, they can be chronic stressors.

Intermittent fasting can actually lower IGF-1.

In this particular study, unnaturally high levels of IGF-1 seem correlative with increased risk of mortality.  However, is this increased level related to excess protein consumption, or the actual health of the study participants prior to the test?  IGF-1, interestingly enough, is related to a high body mass index.  Since we've already established that the group in this study which consumed the highest amount of animal protein was also likely consuming other processed junk foods, and, moreover, since we may readily say that such foods are hyper-palatable and thus conducive to over-consumption, the reason the higher protein group had higher levels of IGF-1 was likely due, much in part, if not totally, to the overall poor quality of their diet.  Animal protein, as a broad categorization, likely had nothing to do with the results the authors observed.

Addressing Thesis 3

I actually agree with this component of their study.  I've read some interesting research (though I can't find it at the moment) that suggests that, as people age, their ability to efficiently metabolize dietary protein degrades.  As a result, older individuals may likely need to consume higher quantities of protein in order for them to more easily hold on to their lean mass.  However, as a caveat, one can also more readily hold on to, and build, lean mass by doing some form of intelligently designed resistance training program, even in the context of a low protein diet (Read this article I wrote for more info about this issue - Click Here).

Addressing Thesis 4

To address this point, I would like to direct you to what I said regarding the 1st thesis.

The Verdict?

Inquisition defeated!

I Reject Your Meta-Narrative & Substitute My Own!

Meta-narrative - otherwise known as a story of everything - completely saturates many dietary "camps."  Vegans, low-carbers, paleo dieters, keto dieters, raw food dieters, etc. each and all have particular stories to tell about the food we eat and how said food affects our lives.

I won't lie here, in my study and evaluation of several different dieting strategies and philosophies, the temptation to join this or that school of nutrition dogma (by dogma, I mean theoretical principles only - I mean nothing degrading nor derogatory) has proved quite powerful.  Moreover, my disdain for certain schools of thought is readily apparent by my as yet uncompleted series on vegetarianism (which I promise I will eventually finish).

While regular readers may think that I have a special place in my heart for the paleo cause, I have failed,
many-a-time, to reveal my subtle dislike for paleo.  Although, to put things in a more accurate light, I don't have misgivings about any one dietary school per se.  Rather, I only reject their respective meta-narratives - that being each camps' story about all things healthful and harmful.

I reject their meta-narratives for 2 reasons:  1)  I've found bad in most all dietary philosophies; 2)  I've found good in most all dietary philosophies.  This rather oxymoronic discrepancy tells me one very important thing:  that many dietary philosophies are on to some "truth," meanwhile, the meta-narratives these philosophies use to orient us toward this truth somehow miss a very crucial component of it.

In my opinion, if a meta-narrative for diet is really going to be a comprehensive story of all things healthful and harmful, then points of misalignment cannot exist within this story's framework.

So what are points of misalignment for paleo?:  That not everyone, at all times and all places, ought to give up eating grain based goods.  While many people who go down the paleo path experience great health benefits by avoiding whole grain foods like the plague, not all people share this same experience.  Low-carb diets, especially, have a number of misalignments in their meta-narratives.  While restricting carbohydrates may work quite well for a sedentary, overweight/obese individual, a low carb diet might spell disastrous effects for an active, relatively fit and thin person who weight trains and does high intensity interval training on a regular basis.  Low carb works wonders under a certain set of parameters, but it can do great harm within a different context.

The problem, therefore, with most dietary meta-narratives arises from their lack of nuance.  Advocates of given schools have extensive lists of "medicines" and "poisons."  However, what is medicine but the proper dose of poison?  As the ancient Greeks tell us, "let food be thy medicine, and let medicine be thy food."  If medicine equals the right dose of poison, and poison the improper dose medicine, and if medicine should be our food, then the healthfulness or harmfulness of any food is a matter of dose.

So then you ask:  "Tell me wiseguy.  What is the right dose?"

My answer:  "Whatever doesn't kill you!"

Put more practically, we can know the right and wrong dose based on how our body reacts.  If we start putting on unwanted weight, we know that our dose of food is too high.  However, the dose which leads to such weight gain will vary from person to person.  Olympic athletes have to consume upwards of 6,000-12,000 calories a day just to maintain their weight and their performance.  If I ate that much in a day, I'd be a fat tub of lard.

Think about it this way:  would a doctor prescribe the same dose of a certain medicine to a 100lb woman as he would a 225lb man?  To do so would be absurd!  In the same manner, prescribing a low carb diet to a competitive athlete would, in effect, "poison" said athlete, at least in terms of said athlete's performance and hormone regulation.

Thus, we need to replace our paleo, vegan, low carb, high carb, semi-high carb, high protein, low protein, etc. meta-narratives with the doctor's meta-narrative.  This meta-narrative entails that we self-prescribe dietary strategies that accord with our unique goals and food tolerances.  Someone who is not wheat sensitive, but who easily succumbs to hyper-palatable food (i.e. - someone who readily overeats when exposed to pizza, brownies, cookies, ice cream - basically all the foods that cause me overeat :( ), may be
able to easily get away with having brownies once or twice a month to no ill effect.  Someone who is wheat sensitive, however, depending on the severity of the sensitivity, may have to avoid brownies altogether.

The paleo meta-narrative automatically assumes the latter situation (that we need total abstinence).  The "doctoral" meta-narrative allows for both possibilities (whether one can or cannot have a brownie is subjective).

It's easy to fall within a given dietary meta-narrative and, from there, make universal prescriptions of healthful and harmful foods.  It's incredibly hard to be a doctor.  Being a doctor requires practice.  Not only do you have to know certain aspects of nutrition and fitness, but you also have to know what's relatively nutritious and fit within a given context; whether that context be your unique situation or your next door neighbor's.

So what meta-narrative will you choose?

I plan to be a doctor (like one anyway), rather than a patient, because frankly, I don't have the patience (pun intended) to put up with a faulty meta-narrative that doesn't apply to me in my unique situation.

The Ultimate Back Workout

What's the best back workout, hands down, for building a bigger, stronger back?  Read on to find out....

Many would-be gym rats often make the major mistake of focusing solely on the "mirror" muscles - i.e. the chest and biceps.  As a result, these trainees often neglect the musculature of the back (and to their detriment I might add).  By overemphasizing the chest, an imbalanced ratio of pushing-to-pulling arises, thus leading to a host of shoulder injuries down the road.  

Beyond the unhealthful implications of eschewing back work (think hunched shoulders and chronic scapular depression), many unfavorable anatomical/physique oriented issues arise as well (imagine having a rock hard chest, but a soft, undefined back).  

If having a strong, muscular, well-defined back interests you, the following information will enlighten you beyond your wildest dreams (in which case, you likely have some pretty boring dreams).

ANATOMY OF THE BACK

Since the musculature of the back, in its entirety, certainly entails a complex array of varying muscle fibers, I, admittedly, have oversimplified its anatomy below.  Nevertheless, I think if we put our greatest effort into training these particular components of the back, we'll inevitably succeed in achieving our goal - i.e. a ripped-to-shreds back!

Most people would categorize the back muscles into the following 4 sections:  1) the latissimus dorsi; 2) the lower trap fibers; 3) the mid trap fibers; & 4) the upper trap fibers.

1.

2.

3. 

4. 

A comprehensive back workout will hit all of these components of back anatomy, but, more importantly, this back workout will be concise.  So what would such a workout entail?

• The exercises used will optimally target each component of the back that I've pictured above.
• The exercises will be done with sufficient volume and intensity to optimally grow type II muscle fibers.
• The workout will be short, sweet, and to the point.

THE OPTIMAL BACK WORKOUT

The exercises I entail below, I've picked for a number of reasons:  EMG data (EMG data is from here - the credentials of the guy I got this info from can be found here), anecdotal reports, and my personal experience. 

1. Deadlift: 4 sets of 3-5 reps.  Deadlifts are, hands down, one of the best back builders of all time!  They'll work the upper and mid traps, your grip strength, your spinal erectors, your lats, your glutes, your hamstrings, your core, the sternal head of your pecs, and....on and on forever!  Rack pulls are quite good too. I know the rep scheme for this lift is different from what I prescribed for chest and shoulder workouts, but trust me, if you can do more that 3-5 reps on deadlifts, you're not lifting with enough weight!  If you're grip starts giving out, switch to using a mixed grip, or use straps.
2. DB Bent-over Row:  4 sets of 4-8 reps.  This is a great exercise for hitting the mid and lower traps.
3. Chin-up:  4 sets of 4-8 reps.  This exercise is great for hitting both the lats and your biceps!  Anecdotal evidence, and EMG data suggest that chins (done with a supinated grip) will hit the biceps harder than curls!
4. Chest Supported DB Row:  4 sets of 4-8 reps.  Like the DB bent-over row, this exercise will also target the mid and lower traps; though it will likely put a greater emphasis on the lower traps, whereas the DB bent-over row will better target the mid traps.

Notes - 

• Warm-up with 1 set of 8 reps at 50% of your target work weight, then do 1 set of 6 reps at 50%, 1 set of 3 reps at 75%, and finally 1 set of 1 rep at 90%.  Rest 1 minute between warm-up sets, and rest 2 minutes before beginning your first work set.  Only do this for the flat bench press (your chest will be plenty warm for the remaining exercises).
• Rest about 2-3 minutes between work sets.
• Once you can get the top number of reps for a given exercise, add 5-10lbs of weight, and work with that weight until you can reach the top number of reps again.

NOW GET TO THE GYM AND START PUTTING THIS KNOWLEDGE TO PRACTICE!!!