Matt Metzgar

Asthma and Fat-Soluble Vitamins

I meant to post some time ago about this recent commentary.  The authors made some pretty bold statements regarding the importance of fat-soluble vitamins, specifically vitamins D and E.  They believe that "at minimum 40% of all asthma in children is because of the deficiency of these vitamins." 

The key is for the expectant mother to consume these vitamins during pregnancy.  Postnatal supplementation of these vitamins may only show small benefits or no benefits at all in regards to asthma.  If the authors are correct, then proper vitamin supplementation during pregnancy can be a cheap, effective way to prevent this childhood condition from ever occurring.

Worst Idea of the Year Nominee 2008

Here's a startling article I read in USA Today the other night.  The article explains how gastric bypass in teens can "cure diabetes."  The study was performed on teens ages 13 to 21, and it showed that all but one subject lost weight and went off medicine.

Of course, some will hail this as success when to me it is anything but.  I think only certain medical doctors would call this a success - those with a perspective that surgery and drugs are preferred options for health problems.  Someone who believes in preventive health and treating the root cause of problems (like myself) would be appalled.

Whatever happened to proper eating and exercise as a way to treat diabetes?  If bad eating is the cause of diabetes (and it is), then why shouldn't that be the focus of treatment?  I really question whether it's even ethical to perform this type of surgery on teens.  Unless it's a life-or-death situation, I can't see any justification for performing such surgeries.  If a teen is obese, then they should be enrolled in some type of intensive eating and behavior program.  And where are the parents in all of this?  I don't think 13-year olds are out their buying their own groceries.  Why aren't the parents managing the available foods?

This is just what America needs - another quick fix weight loss solution that is doomed to failure.  No one knows the long-term complications of gastric bypass surgery.  If you open someone up and staple part of their stomach shut, wouldn't common sense tell you there might be side effects?

A doctor in the story even said, "there is no known cure for type 2 diabetes."  This is in spite of the fact that many doctors treat diabetes by managing dietary carbohydrates.  In one recent study, it took only three weeks of diet and exercise to get diabetes under control.  However, this wasn't referred to as a "cure" because it was noted that the subjects would have to continue with the diet and exercise changes to keep diabetes at bay. 

In other words, there is a "cure" for diabetes, and it is a long-term plan of healthy eating and exercise.  But this requires effort in order to be successful.  Instead of encouraging this effort, doctors offer gastric bypass as a shortcut.  This strikes me as ridiculous.  If doctors really care about their patients, they should encourage them to achieve better health by proper eating and exercise - not with drugs and surgery.

Farmer's Stair Climb

One thing I have been working back into my routine is the farmer's walk (carrying around a weight).  This was inspired by the recent idea of "why lift something if you can't carry it".  One twist I like to do with the farmer's walk is to carry a weight up and down stairs as well.

For example, the other night I grabbed a barbell plate out of the basement and then walked around with it.  Next, I carried it up and down the stairs a number of times.  This seemed to really increase the heart rate more than just carrying a weight across a flat surface.  I'm sure the climbing works different muscles as well, making for a more complete workout.

Merry Christmas 2008!

There's Something About Starch

I wrote earlier this year about evidence that starch may have played a bigger role in Paleolithic diets than previously thought.  A new paper adds to this discussion.  Researches looked for starch granules on the dental calculus of ancient skeletons.  For the skeletons they analyzed, almost every sample contained starch.

While this type of analysis doesn't say how much starch was in the diet, it does show it was prevalent across different ancient cultures.  I really don't think that starch is the villian some have made it out to be.   The focus should be on the quality of starchy foods - a quickly-digesting modern starch (like white bread) versus a slowly-digesting ancient starch (sweet potato).  I just have a feeling that as more research is done, starch will turn out not to be as problematic as some think.

Vitamin D and Obesity

I saw this new study which hypothesizes that Vitamin D deficiency is the cause of common obesity.  The idea is that a lack of sunlight (and therefore a lack of Vitamin D) triggers a "winter metabolism" in humans.  This leads to increased fat accumulation until the return of sunlight in the spring.

I read through the paper, and it's pretty far out there.  There is a lot of explanation for how this mechanism works, but not much in the way of data.  It does mention how there is often an inverse correlation between Vitamin D status and obesity, which previously researchers thought was the obesity leading to the lowered Vitamin D status.  Now it's hypothesized that it's the other way around.

At the very least, it does suggest that Vitamin D deficiency may play a role in weight gain.  It's just another good reason to make sure children and adults get adequate sunlight or take Vitamin D supplements.

Open Interval Training II

After reading the new research on unscripted interval training, I tried it on Sunday and then again today.  Both workouts went very well.  I went into each session with no plan whatsoever about speed, length of intervals, length of rest intervals, or total duration of the workout.  I just did them all by feel, and it worked surprisingly well.  You do end up moving at a higher average speed during the workout.

It also occurred to me that this is what I did back in 2001-2002.  Back then I ran on a hilly trail at a local park.  I did intervals of various lengths and intensity, all based on what I felt like on a given day.  It's funny that such an unstructured but intuitive approach is now backed by some science.

Open Interval Training

I feel this is an important post, and hopefully readers will enjoy it.  I have been reading a very interesting paper that looks at forced versus voluntary exercise.  Researchers took two groups of rats and had them do equal amounts of voluntary and forced exercise.  They observed the amount of exercise performed in the voluntary group and then applied that to the forced group. 

What's neat about this study was how they applied the exercise to forced group.  The voluntary exercise group tended to exercise in short bursts with frequent rests.  Researchers often ignore this natural pattern and try to duplicate it with even-paced, continuous exercise.  In this study, researchers attempted to control for this by making the forced exercise group perform their exercise in similar  bursts.

There was one problem with this: it didn't work.  The rats in the forced exercise group were "reluctant to run" at high speeds.  Instead, the forced rats chose a slower, more consistent pace for longer periods.  These rats even developed anxiety-like behavior after being forced to exercise.

Therefore, the result was that while both groups ended up covering the same amount of distance, the average speed was much higher in the voluntary group.  Here's a section from the paper:

"Running wheels allow rats to self-determine when, how often and for how long to exercise, whereas these parameters are pre-determined for forced runners who must exercise even if not motivated to do so. These inherent differences likely underlie the differential effects observed in the present study. Forced, but not voluntary exercise increased emotional defecation and anxiety-like behaviors."

The researchers also found that the rats in the voluntary group increased aerobic capacity (VO2max) to a greater extent.  Here's another section:

"We suggest that intensity of exertion may be the most important difference between forced and voluntary exercise....  Voluntary exercisers ran at higher speed for less time, while forced exercisers ran at lower speed for a longer total period of time.  The difference in intensity of exertion between the forced and voluntary exercisers may well contribute to the differential effects of these two paradigms on brain and behavior."

This is so intriguing that voluntary, freely-selected running will actually result in a higher average intensity.  This is in contrast to common ideas that exercisers must be motivated and "pushed" to higher levels of performance.  The anxiety finding is also important.  If an exercise program increases anxiety, I doubt it will be sustainable in the long run.

I think most of the findings from this study can be directly applied to people and exercise.  This research suggests that open or unscripted interval training will be more productive than a pre-determined set of interval speeds and durations.  Freely-selected intervals can lead to a higher level of intensity, and therefore greater improvements in aerobic capacity.  Also, open intervals will not have the anxiety of forced intervals, which should promote more enjoyment and adherence in the long run.

Natural Lifting

I thought Todd had a great comment the other week that I wanted to highlight.  Here's part of it:

"Also, a max carcass or log or stone lift would likely be far less than a max barbell lift, because of the lack of handles and awkwardness of the weight. All in all, I expect that most of the work would be done in the carrying of the weight rather than the lifting. Why lift something if you don't have the strength to transport it?"

I think this represents a neat departure from traditional bodybuilding thinking.  While lifting heavier and heavier weight can build more muscle, to what extent is this "natural"?  If max lifts in nature were capped off by the need to carry and transport the item, should a person limit their heavy lifts to an amount they can actually move around?  Of course this amount can increase with training, but there will be a natural limit.

My other thought on this was how do heavy lifts impact the skeleton and the joints.  You see people squatting 500 or 600 pounds, and their muscles have built up to handle this load.  But if this is beyong the "natural ceiling" of how much a person should be lifting (in other words, this represents loads heavier than those present during the millions of years of human evolution),  what will be the long-term impact on the joints?  While muscle have a certain degree of plasticity, I would imagine the spine and the joints have a much lesser capability of adaptation.

Media Bias

One thing that bothered me about the recent presidential election was the talk of "media bias".  Some commentators believed that the media was biased towards Obama and painted him in a better light than McCain.  One measure was the amount of positive versus negative mentions a candidate would receive on a given network.

My thinking on this issue is: why would someone assume that the news channels aren't biased?  The news channels are private companies that are seeking to make a profit.  ABC, for example, is owned by Disney and is a publicly traded stock.  All the news companies are looking to maximize profit via higher ratings and the associated higher advertising revenue.  If Obama stories gathered more viewers than McCain stories, then it's no surprise which candidate they would feature.

I just start with the assumption that the information I'm receiving from the news channels is biased - one way or another.  If I really want to look at things objectively, I would go online and do some research.  I don't count on profit-seeking companies to provide an objective analysis for me.