Matt Metzgar

The Hormonal Environment

I work out at a University gym, and it can be very educational at times.  One thing that is obvious is how many students there achieve good body composition without a rigorous eating-and-exercise plan.  For example, I see students eating candy bars before and/or after workouts.  I see students working out hungover.  I see women with muscular legs who never do any squats (and probably never any leg presses).  I see guys who are very muscular who seem to only be doing cable curls of some sort.

So even in the absence of a disciplined plan, college students can often achieve good body composition.  It is my feeling that this is mostly due to the hormonal environment that their body is currently in.  The late teens/early twenties is prime evolutionary time, and all hormones are at full stength.  At such an age, it appears that these hormones can overcome most of the negatives of less-than-stellar eating and exercise.

Of course, poor eating and exercise will catch up with most people eventually.  But my point is that there should be more of a focus on the hormonal effects of actions rather than the mechanical aspects.  For example, in terms of food many people focus strictly on the calorie count, leaving out the hormonal effects.  Let's say a person eats 2500 calories per day in two different patterns: three squares or an intermittent fast followed by a feeding window.  Though the total calories consumed are the same, the hormonal effects of these two feeding patterns should be quite different.  The 2500 calories may not affect bodyweight, but the two different eating patterns may produce a shift in body composition over time. 

In terms of exercise, we know certain exercises like squats and deadlifts produce higher levels of growth hormone.  Anecdotally, many people say their strength in upper body exercises increased when their squat/deadlift improved.  Here, the squat/deadlift appears to be invoking a total-body hormonal response, as opposed to just a local muscular response.

Instead of thinking about "getting into shape," it may be more productive for a person to think about "balancing their hormones."   

Soy II

I wrote last year about the potential dangers of soy.  Specifically, I said: "The medical research on soy and its dangers is just beginning.  In the coming years, I predict researchers will show that soy is detrimental to men, women, and especially infants." 

Now, guess what?  A new study links soy intake with significantly lower sperm counts in men.  This effect was heightened in overweight and obese men.

Many people have jumped on the soy bandwagon thinking it's a healthy food.  I see commercials for soy energy bars and other types of junk.  Why do people assume that soy is a good food?  Where did this belief come from?  The only research I find shows that soy has negative effects, not positive ones.

The continued research on soy will only show how harmful it truly is. 

Waterlogged

The basement flooded a bit, so I had to move the computer upstairs to safety.  I will probably be offline for a few days until things get situated.

Calorie Restriction and Cancer

I just finished reading this short paper on calorie restriction and cancer.  Researchers have known for quite some time that chronic calorie restriction can slow the growth of cancerous tumors.  Now, they are looking at intermittent-type feeding patterns, which better mimics how ancient humans ate.  Here's a quote from the paper:

" In one potential new twist, some research indicates that short bouts of caloric restriction may be even more beneficial than long-term restriction, ..."

 This isn't really a "new twist" - it is the Paleolithic eating pattern that has been around for millions of years.  Nevertheless, it's good to see research progressing in this direction.

Patrick Swayze

I was surprised to learn a few months ago that actor Patrick Swayze has pancreatic cancer.  Something about the whole thing didn't seem right, because he is fairly young (55 years old) and always seemed to keep himself in shape.

I did a little digging and found that smoking is a dominant factor in early-onset pancreatic cancer.  In this study last year, over 50% of the cases of early-onset pancreatic cancer could be attributed to smoking.

From what the media reports say (if they can be trusted to be accurate), Swayze was and still may be a very heavy smoker.  So if this is true, it might explain why he was afflicted with this cancer at a younger age.

At any rate, it's a sad story and I hope he can reclaim his health.

Today's Workout 07/20/08

I went to the gym today and did a nice, simple workout.  The exercises were:

• Squats
• Chin-Ups
• Shoulder Press

To me, this is about as natural or primal as you can get.  These three exercises are all functional, compound movements.  Squats of course also promote all types of good hormone surges.  I did a few sets of each, working up to a heavier set of 5 reps on each movement.

I topped this off with a one-mile run.  I wasn't looking to do anything super-strenuous today, just something to get the week off on the right foot.  I left the gym feeling good, so it looks like my mission was accomplished.

The Same Old Song

I've seen a few reports on this new study(pdf) that came out comparing different diets.  The study tested low-fat, low-carb, and Mediterranean diets over a two-year period.  Some reported this as a victory for the low-carb diet, which resulted in the most total weight loss, while others noted the Mediterranean diet performed better for women.

In comparison, I see this study as evidence that traditional diets are completely ineffective for weight loss.  If you look deeper into the study, you'll find a few things.  First, subjects started out as "moderately obese" with an average weight around 200 lbs (this is a combined average for both men and women).  Second, you'll find the subjects on the low-carb diet lost only 10 pounds over a two-year period!  Third, all of the weight loss was achieved in the first year; from months 12 through 24, there was no change in weight or a slight regain.  Here's the graph that shows this:

You can see that maximum weight loss occurred around month 5, and weight was regained until somewhat leveling off.  Further, it's obvious that the diets quit working; no one lost weight in the second year meaning that there was no more weight loss to be had from the diets.

What bothers me about this study is that researchers have known about this rebound phenomenon for decades.  If you continually restrict calories (no matter what the type of diet), the metabolism slows.  After around six months, this lowered metabolic rate leads to weight regain.  This has been shown in studies dating back at least 30 years, and probably longer.

So the question is, why do researchers keep wasting their time comparing one diet versus another when they know (or should know) that diets are bound to fail in the long-run?  Does this study provide any new, useful information to the general public? No.  Does this study provide anyone with a blueprint for healthy eating and weight control?  No.  Does this study just add to the confusion within the general public about how to lose weight?  Yes. 

If decades of research show that continually restricting calories fails, then the obvious next step is to try something different.  A logical choice would be some type of intermittent calorie restriction, where calories are restricted some days and not others.  This can allow for gradual weight loss, and more importantly, it will not lead to a slowing of the metabolic rate.

Another logical choice is to eat a similar amount of food each day, and exercise more and create a calorie deficit through the exercise.  This is another approach that can lead to weight loss that will not slow the metabolic rate.  Of course, a combination of exercise and healthy eating is optimal.

It's frustrating that studies like this are even performed.  Subjects followed the various diets, counting carbs or what not, for two years to lose only 10 pounds.  If I was a subject in this study, I would want my money back so to speak.  For comparison's sake, the subjects could have done a good bit of exercise and lost 16 pounds in only 12 weeks, like in this study. 

And people wonder why we have an obesity epidemic.  We have top researchers wasting their time comparing ineffective diets, and the government promoting their bogus food pyramid.  Beyond all this nonsense is a simple solution: a return to our roots of Paleolithic eating and exercising. 

Cooked Food

I have been reading through this brand-new paper on cooked food.  An experiment tested whether great apes have a preference for cooked food.  The result showed that there is a statisticially significant relationship with apes choosing cooked food over non-cooked food.

Why is this impotant?  A major hypothesis is that humans first utilized fire for warmth, and then much later learned to use fire for cooking.  This new research on apes suggests there was already a pre-existing preference for cooked food as humans evolved.  This would mean that soon after fire was controlled by humans, cooking became prevalent.

The study shows that apes preferred both cooked meat and cooked vegetables over the non-cooked counterparts.  This gives more support to the idea that cooked tubers were an important part of human evolution and the Paleolithic diet.  Back in 1999, researchers proposed that cooked tubers played a bigger role than most thought.  The new study on apes lends support to their hypothesis.

One small thing I was curious about was how apes would encounter any type of cooked food in the first place.  The paper notes that chimpanzees prefer seeds that are heated from wild fires.  This means that apes encountered cooked/heated food on a random basis, when fires on the savannah heated existing foods.

More on Vitamin D

Here's one other good link related to Vitamin D/sunshine.  It's for the Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center.  I found this particular graphic very interesting -  the rate of multiple schlerosis versus latitude in a sample.

Autism and Vitamin D

A reader pointed out the possible connection between autism and Vitamin D, and so I followed up on it.  Here is a nicely-written article from the Vitamin D Council that sketches out the theory.  They point out that currently this is only a theory, and that more research is needed. 

However, it does provide a global concept for what causes autism.  This idea was recently written up in a journal and the abstract is here.  It will be interesting to see how this line of research develops.