Matt Metzgar

Phosphate Free

One of the last chemical-laden household products I have been looking to replace is dishwashing detergent.  I found dishwashing tablets by Ecover at the local supermarket that I've been using with good results.  It turns out that the phosphate contained in most dishwashing liquids is not so great for the environment.

The state of Washington has led the way on this issue and passed a statewide ban on phosphate that is scheduled to start in 2010.  Of course, after this became law other states, like Virginia, have followed like dominoes.  Manufacturers will also have to make changes because it's not efficient to produce phosphate-free products for some states and phosphate-laden products for others.  In reality, almost all dishwashing detergents will end up phosphate-free by 2010.

As far as I can tell, phosphate serves no function in cleaning dishes anyway.  It's supposed to help create a "sparkling shine," but that's about it.  Why you need all these chemicals to create dishwashing detergent I have no idea.  You would think that a few simple ingedients (like soap!) would be enough.

Spokane County in Washington wants the phosphate ban to start now, not in 2010.  They say that phosphate-free alternatives exist already, and that there is no need to wait.  It's even summed up in this hilarious line from the article: ""This is not like breakthrough stem cell research."

The Need for Speed

One strange thing I've noticed about running is the different after-effects of fast versus slow running.  Last week, I did a slower, easy run, and the next morning I woke up stiff.  Yesterday, I did a few fast intervals and this morning I woke up feeling good.

You would think that slower running would put less strain on the body, but it often doesn't seem that way.  It could be that slower running puts more strain on the bone and joints, while faster running loads the muscles more.

This led me to wonder about the relationship between slow running and injuries.  I came across a running discussion board the other day, and I noticed that the same people who were talking about their injuries also had slow race times.  It's easy to think that the injuries are what's limiting them from going faster, but what if it's the other way around?  What if the slow-paced training leads to both greater injuries and slower race times?

Fear of Food II

This recent post by Michael Eades got me thinking more about calories.  In the comments of the post, you find the same story: people go on low-carb diets, lose weight, and then stall out.  Curiously, Eades recommends that people continue what they're doing and focus on restricting calories.  To me, this is the wrong approach.

A better approach would be to vary calories, such that calories are restricted some days and then have normal or healthy overeating on other days.  The overeating side of things often gets overlooked.  Continually keeping calories at maintenance or below maintenance levels is not how we're meant to live.  Hunter-gatherers had periods of fasting and feasting, not an even level of calories each day.  In other words, there is supposed to be variation in caloric intake; eating the same amount every day is what's out of whack.

One poor lady mentioned in the comments section that she was done to 1,000 calories a day on low-carb and still not losing weight.  1,000 calories??  Sometimes I have that many calories just for breakfast.  Instead of eating 1,000 calories per day, she would be better off eating much more some days and then sharply reducing calories on other days. 

Also from the comments, here is a similar approach:

"I had been eating a reduced, healthy carb diet for about 4 years (whole grains), and a very low carb diet since December, but didn’t see much of a result until mid-February, when I started 24-hour fasting once a week. The weight came off without effort as soon as I started intermittent fasting - I lost about 20lbs in 8 weeks, even though in March I also increased the fat content of my diet to about 60 or 70%."

Intermittent Calorie Restriction

In the long run, diets don't work.  In this study that I've mentioned previously, any of four diets (Atkins, Ornish, Zone, or Weight Watchers) led to only a 5 or 6 lb weight loss over a year's time.  Other studies show the same result when they extend the time horizon out to a year or more.

In contrast, you can look at studies where calories were intermittently restricted and you see much better results.  By intermittently restricted, I mean that calories are cut fairly low on some days with normal eating on the rest of the days.  In the book, "The Alternate Day Diet", the idea is to restrict calories one day and have unlimited eating the next (as the title implies).  Others recommend different frequencies as to how often calories should be reduced.

It's important to distinguish between intermittent calorie restriction and intermittent fasting.  If intermittent fasting turns into eating a full day's calories in one meal, then there may not be much benefit.  For example, if you look at studies on Ramadan fasting where a person fasts until evening but then has a large meal, there often isn't much change in body composition.

I think some of the intermittent fasting studies show benefits only because they indirectly restrict calories on fasting days.  If a study has alternate-day fasting, then obviously a person will have no calories on one day.  Or if someone fasts until 6 pm, it may be hard to eat enough calories as would normally be consumed in a day's eating. 

In "The Alternate Day Diet", the author makes the case that the real benefits come from a 36-hour period of low calories.  That is, eating much less one day and then sleeping on it.  The benefits aren't dependent on not eating food for some many hours per se, as in one study subjects sipped on a protein shake throughout the day.  It's the 36-hour period of low calories that triggers weight loss, and also lessens oxidative stress and inflammation.

What I wonder is why this approach is not more widely known.  If you continually restrict calories, your metabolism will slow and the lost weight will come back.  If you restrict calories every other day (or every third day or twice a week), then you can lose weight but the metabolism will not adapt and slow down.

It has to be easier psychologically to restrict calories only part-time as well.  A lot of times on diets, people too much pressure on themselves and then they break down.  With intermittent calorie restriction, you only have to control calories on some days, not all.  This seems like a much more livable approach over the long term.

Calories Count Only One Way?

I was reading this interesting post by Michael Eades this weekend.  The post discusses how people on a low-carb diet can still have trouble losing weight if their overall calories are too high.  What interested me more though was this paragraph by Eades in the comments section:

"When insulin levels stay down, the fat cells open, but fat doesn’t really come out unless it needs to. With enough dietary calories to provide for energy needs, the fat stays in the fat cells. The other side of this equation says that if insulin is down, fat won’t go into the fat cells either. So people can consume large amounts of calories on low-carb diets and not gain weight either, which is what is happening to the subjects in your links."

I think this is so neat because it contrasts with the normal calorie in-calorie out model.  Usually, they say if you cut calories you'll lose weight, and if you increase them you'll gain.  But when you add hormonal effects into the picture (via insulin), you get a situation where things are different on either side of the equation.

I can certainly vouch for the fact that if you eating in a way that keeps insulin low (Paleo or low-carb) that extra protein and fat calories do not necessarily lead to weight gain.  I wrote about this a couple months ago.

As for decreasing calories when in a low-insulin state, I think there's more to the story.  I will write about this in the next post.