Matt Metzgar

One More Theory

I couldn't resist posting about this one other theory I just read about.  In the latest ESPN magazine, there is an interesting article about a trainer from Atlanta, an immigrant named Vladimir Chubinsky.  He has developed a unique weightlifting system and has desparately been trying to get a pro sports team to adopt it.

You can read about his system here.  The basics of it are moving a very heavy weight through a limited range of motion (just a few inches).  It has supposedly helped one client who has multiple sclerosis, and there is a host of other fantastic testimonials.  Chubinksy doesn't claim to know exactly why this system works, but instead claims that it does work, and works quite well.

This system is interesting to me for one particular reason.  I've read where many old-time lifters used to retain their vitality and youthfulness by occassionally holding very heavy weights for just a few seconds (I can't remember the source).  For example, one lifter would load up the squat rack with very heavy weights, then lift the bar off the pins a few inches and put it back down.  This was done infrequently but supposedly had a rejuvenating effect.

Is Chubinsky's idea truth or fiction?  I'm not sure, but if I'm in Atlanta soon I will look him up and have a workout.  I'm always a sucker for these things...

Theory vs Practice II

I don't know why, but it seems almost too easy to become a believer in various theories about diet and exercise.  Maybe that's the way the brain works, or maybe it's just the product of an academic upbringing.

For example, in weightlifting there have been many theories over the years that supposedly have all the answers.  First, there were all the volume theories that went along with Schwarzenegger and his training methods.  Next came the Nautilus theory by Arthur Jones that prescribed brief, intense workouts.  Mike Mentzer took this a step further in the 90s and prescribed even briefer, more intense workouts.

Mentzer's theory is a perfect example of a theory and its attractiveness to people (including myself).  Reading Mentzer's "Heavy Duty" books makes you feel like you've discovered the secret to the universe.  He puts the theory in a nice, neat package that makes things simple.  And undoubtedly it works for some, though it didn't for me.

I had a phone consultation with Mentzer back in the 90s, and he put me on his Heavy Duty program.  I began working out less frequently and much heavier.  In no time flat, I felt about the worst I ever have connected with exercise.  After my workouts, I was comatose for days and didn't build much muscle.  I ended the consultation and switched to a more sensible plan.

The point is that any theory will work for someone.  I'm sure Mentzer's theory worked for some clients, just as volume training works for others.  The same is true for diet, as every diet philosophy has its share of success stories.

Maybe it's harder to sell a theory if you state that it won't work for everyone.  It's far easier from a marketing standpoint to paint a broad stroke and say that the plan will work for every person under the sun.         

Theory vs Practice

Jake commented on my previous post about how much one is willing to give up for the sake of theoretical health.  I have actually been thinking about this a lot during my recent starch experiment.

First off, I took my insulin test only a week after removing starch, so I don't think it affected it all that much.  Other studies show a starch-free diet takes a while to lower insulin levels.  Therefore, even with some starch in my diet my insulin levels were probably quite low.

Jake's point about dogma is also well-received.  The general theory behind my eating is to eat what our Paleolithic ancestors ate.  In theory, this should lead to maximal health.  But the key is "in theory".  But what if the theory is wrong or incomplete?

For example, one objection that comes to mind is a person's childhood diet.  If a child is fed starch while growing up, is it possible that the person's body will "need" starch (so to speak) when the person is an adult?  I certainly think it's possible. 

For example, this study shows that gluconeogenesis (creating glucose from noncarbohydrate sources - protein and fat) is only minimally affected  by a low-carbohydrate diet in healthy adults.  So if a person drastically cuts their carbohydrate intake by cutting starch, how is the brain to get its glucose? 

I have to admit that this came true for me.  My cravings for starch/sugar did return and did not go away.  I really felt that my body needed it at some point, and that it was not an artificial craving.

Hence, I've been eating a little starch this week, and I'm still mulling the whole experiment over. 

Starch

Fresh off my reading of The Glycemic Load Diet, I decided to take some action on the subject.  First, I signed up for an insulin test.  I went through www.directlabs.com, and the test only cost $49.  It's nice to know you can get medical services without going through a doctor (or paying exorbitant prices).  Second, I decided to get rid of the last bit of starch in my diet - the rice I eat with dinner.

I got my insulin test results back the other day: 4.6!  That's very low; anything less than 10 means you are insulin-sensitive (not insulin resistant).  Lower insulin levels are associated with living longer, so that's good news for me.

Getting rid of all starch proved a bit challenging at first.  The first week and a half, I still had cravings.  After that, it pretty much stopped.  I lost three pounds as well, but it was probably water weight. 

One lesson I've learned from this is that starch creates a hunger for more starch.  Hence, given that starch is possibly a semi-addictive substance, a red flag should come up.  Also, the fact that fast food businesses depend heavily on starch in their recipes should raise another red flag.

I also took my first starch-free trip to the grocery store.  It was strange going through the perimter and not going into any of the middle aisles.  You wonder what would happen to grocery stores if everyone gave up starch.

Book Review: The Glycemic Load Diet

I just finished reading "The Glycemic Load Diet" by Rob Thompson.  I thought it was a very good read, really getting to the heart of the matter.  His prescription is mostly for Paleo foods, allowing for a bit of whole grains.  But he makes a great case that starch, and the insulin resistance that results from excessive consumption of it, are behind many chronic diseases.

The Natural Drive To Work

With technological progress, there are now a lot of jobs that just aren't that exciting.  I think men, due to their psychology, suffer the most in this type of environment.

For millions of years, men were the hunters.  Every other day or so, they would go out together in a band of men and hunt down prey.  Each person played a role on the hunt based on their special skills.  The judgement of their work was simple: either they acquired food or they didn't. 

Now put that same male mind in a 21st centruy job.  He often works alone, not with other male companions.  The job tasks are usually mental (computer-based), not physical.  And how is his work judged?  Others often don't know, don't understand, or really don't care about his work.

I think what modern employers don't get is that men (and women to a lesser extent) have a natural desire to work, to produce something of value.  Only a few people would be happy being a beach bum all their lives.  Even those who are independently wealthy continue to work.

To me, there has to be a better way to set up work so it coincides with the male psyche better.  I see so many adult males that look beat-down, and I think work is the main issue.  I used to think that health was the issue, but now I think it's secondary.  If someone has a strong purpose, they can keep going even if their body is falling apart.  Employers need to set up environments that give men the freedom to produce something of value.

Good For People?

In economics, it is taught that decentralized markets usually lead to better economic outcomes than centralized decision-making.  This is usually true as far as economic outcomes are concerned, but says nothing about the "human" outcomes of the process.

For example, I, like many people, left my hometown in search of a better economic future.  While I am certainly economically better off in my current location, many other values were lost.  Friends, family, history all went by the wayside. 

Another point: the spreading out of families certainly has detrimental effects on people.  I think about when I was a kid, I had cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents all in my hometown.  Now I don't have a relative within 1,000 miles of me.

Libertarians might say that if I really wanted to stay in my hometown, I would have chosen that over economic gains.  But my point is, why should someone have to choose?  Couldn't the government rework economic incentives to help small towns prosper? 

It's obvious that the major metropolitan areas are gaining more and more population, and the small towns are losing them.  While this may produce great economic outcomes, I wonder what kind of people this system will produce - people who are alienated and missing a social support system. 

What bothers me even more is that no one seems to even care about this type of thing.  I hardly ever read about it.  I don't see Congress talking about it.  There doesn't seem to be much concern about what's "good for people," only what's good for the economy.  I wish people would think a little deeper about these types of things.

Worst Product of the Year Nominee

I've seen a few commercials for this bizarre product, "NutriSystem".  The commercials are quite strange - it features guys talking about how their sex lives have been improved by using NutriSystem.

From what I could tell from the commercial, NutriSystem consists of tv dinners delivered to your house.  I went to their website to verify this, and yes, as far as I can tell they're just selling tv dinners.  Of course, these are "specially balanced" tv dinners and they're delivered straight to your door.   

I can't understand how 1) these frozen dinners are any different from ones you could get from the grocery store, and 2) how eating tv dinners will improve your sex life.  Studies show that eating right and exercising can improve your love life, but I assume that the marketers of NutriSytem think men are an uneducated lot looking for a quick fix.  Here's hoping they don't have too many customers.

Lowering LDL Cholesterol

Loren Cordain's latest paper deals with the beneficial effects of lowering LDL ("bad") cholesterol.  The paper discusses how getting LDL in the range of 30 to 70 is optimal for cardiovascular health.

Getting LDL cholesterol that low is a pretty tough assignment.  Mine was 90 when I had it checked in the spring.  I've found one person, Mike Adams, who writes about having an LDL of 67.  His site is here, and it's pretty interesting.  His diet is extremely strict, and he exercises a good bit.  As with most things in life, there are no shortcuts if you want real long-lasting results.

Men: Save Your Hair

A few years ago, Loren Cordain wrote a paper (unfortunately it's written in German) that suggeted that male pattern baldness could be related to diet.  The theory was that consumptive of high-glycemic carbohydrates altered insulin function and eventually led to hair loss.

Now a new study adds to this idea.  Investigators looked at older Finnish men and their hair staus.  Those with insulin resistance and its related conditions had less hair then those who were healthy. 

Now there's one more reason to pass on those refined carbs: your hair!