Matt Metzgar

National Healing Month

One thing that's hard to accept about exercise is that less is sometimes more.  Rest is a necessary and crucial component of any fitness program.  Yet two things appear to be working against incorporating sufficient rest into any program:

• Doing something is usually more fun than doing nothing
• There is no profit to be made from telling someone to rest

I remember reading how Mike Mentzer would often advise new, overtrained clients to take off a month from the gym and then restart with his program.  Of course, he got immediate pushback because the people didn't want to stop.  It's hard to accept that in some situations doing nothing is superior to doing something different.

The body can continue in an overtrained state for a very long time.  And putting the brakes on this overtraining can even lead to a person feeling worse in the very short-term.  For example, even if a person is overtrained and they go to work out, they can usually still get a hormonal boost from it.  Over the long term, they are digging an even deeper hole, but it's a quick fix nonetheless.

Something else I've noticed is that there appears to be a hierarchy to the body's healing process.  Primary injuries or spots of wear-and-tear are healed first.  Then secondary spots are healed.  These secondary spots can be physical problems that have been swept under the rug so long a person didn't even know they were there.

For me personally, I have designated May as National Healing Month and I will be doing no heavy exercise this month.  I've taken various months off in the past, and it doesn't really set you back that much in terms of fitness.  National Healing Month would probably be very beneficial to some, especially recreational athletes who are saddled with minor injuries.  At the very least, it would remind people to give their bodies and themselves a break.

 

High Fat Heaven

Coincidentally, I have been thinking more about high-fat eating, and then Mark Sisson lays down this killer post about it.  Mark has been out of commission for a few months, doing no cardio and some light weightlifting, but his physique has remained stellar due to his correct eating.  He notes that his diet is sometimes up to 65% fat - enough to make a traditional doctor choke, but not that crazy from a Paleo perspective.

I was combing through my own records the other night, and I noticed my waist was the lowest a couple of months ago when I was eating the most fat.  I was literally just drinking spoonfuls of oil, yet my waist and weight declined.  Strange, but true.

I think part of this can be contributed to the idea that you have to eat fat to burn it.  Many scientists think of the body as a fat-hoarding machine, but that doesn't really make much sense to me.  Even at low body fat levels (<10%), there's still plently of fat to use.  In various studies, people have gone 30 days or more on water-only fasts, with minimal ill effects.  So why would the body jump at seeing any calorie excess and direct it to fat storage, if it can go weeks without any food at all?

One other connection to make comes from this statement (originally from a scientific journal) from this online book:

"Fasting or feeding a high-fat diet abolished lipogenesis (fat formation) in adipose tissue and reduced glucose oxidation markedly; lipogenesis increased to the highest levels on a high-carbohydrate, fat-free diet."

So it appears that both fasting (as in intermittent fasting) or feasting on high-fat (Paleo) foods can contribute to lower body fat levels.  This falls in line with my feast/fast model I've discussed previously.

I believe the research will continue to turn away from the dysfunctional low-fat diet model towards higher-fat eating over the next decade.  Scientists are already testing high-fat diets to treat cancer, so the machinery is already in motion.  Until then, many people can potentially benefit from higher-fat eating in terms of health and weight loss. 

Green Works II

I was at the store earlier, so I decided to look at the Green Works brand versus typical cleaners.  As you can see in the picture, the Green Works cleaner costs $2.99 a bottle, while "409" (also made by Clorox) costs $2.29.  I don't know if this price differential is based on higher costs for the Green Works product, or if they are just trying to charge a premium for a health-conscious product.

I looked on the back of the "409" bottle, and it had listed: "Precautionary statement: Harmful to humans and animals".  So they are telling you right on the label that the product is probably toxic.  For me, I'd rather spend the extra 70 cents for a healthier product.

I have actually emailed Clorox to ask them why they sell both a toxic and non-toxic line of cleaners.  It wil be interesting to see if or what type of response I'll receive.

Green Works

After throwing out my toxic cleaning products last year, I have experimented with different brands to find suitable replacements.  Recently, Green Works products (from Clorox) have entered the marketplace.  I bought some the other week to give it a try.

The products seem to work as well as any typical cleaner.  And they are available at the local grocery store, so I don't have to make any extra effort to seek them out.  They are worth a try in my book.

I've started to wonder how Clorox can maintain their integrity by offering two lines of cleaners: a toxic version and a non-toxic version.  Why don't they just quit selling the old line and convert everything to Green Works?  Are any customers really going to get upset if they can't purchase their old toxic cleaners?  If so, maybe Clorox shouldn't want these people as customers.

Perhaps Clorox is in the process of changing their business model to focus on more environmentally-friendly products, I don't know. It's probably just a matter of time until these chemicals get (rightfully) banned in various places anyhow.  In the meantime, Green Works is at least a step in the right direction.

   

You Walk Wrong

Chris noted this article, "You Walk Wrong", that was recently published.  It discusses how most modern shoes impair our natural gait.  The article also discusses the development of various shoes that attempt to mimic barefoot walking.

I came to this same conclusion a few years ago.  The dress shoes I was wearing to work had the usual thick heel to them.  I noticed my knees began to hurt whenever I would wear these shoes.  I ditched them for a pair of flat, moccasin-type dress shoes and have never looked back.

Insulin Resistance and Breast Cancer

Here's a link to another new study showing the harmful effects of insulin resistance.  The study shows that early stage breast cancer patients have high levels of insulin and varying degrees of insulin resistance.  It is suggested that treatments focused on lowering insulin levels could be beneficial for breast cancer patients.

Obesity As Starvation?

Here's a great article(pdf) that looks at the effects of high insulin levels.  The article is focused on childhood obesity, but it can be applied to people of all ages.  Here is a passage in the article that shows how insulin resistance leads to obesity:

"How does this work? A thin, insulin-sensitive, 13-year-old boy might consume a daily allotment of 2,000 kcal, and burn 2,000 kcal daily (or 50 kcal/kg fat-free mass) in order to remain weight-stable, with a stable leptin level. However, if that same 13-year-old became hyperinsulinemic and/or insulin resistant, perhaps as many as 250 kcal of the daily allotment would be shunted to storage in adipose tissue, promoting a persistent obligate weight gain. Due to the obligate energy storage, he now only has 1,750 kcal per day to burn.

The hyperinsulinemia also results in a lower level of leptin signal transduction, conveying a CNS signal of energy insufficiency. The remaining calories available are lower than his energy expenditure; the CNS would sense starvation. Through decreased SNS tone, he would reduce his physical activity, resulting in decreased quality of life; and through increased vagal tone, he would increase caloric intake and insulin secretion, but now at a much higher level. Thus, the vicious cycle of gluttony, sloth, and obesity is promulgated."

Amazing - a person can be overweight, yet the brain signals them to eat even more.  As Gary Taubes showed, obesity is not directly caused by inactivity, but instead poor eating leads to both obesity and inactivity.

Alzheimer's Disease

I saw this new paper that proposed a unified theory for the cause of Alzheimer's disease.  Guess what they think is the ultimate cause?  Insulin resistance.

It seems to me that insulin resistance is connected to almost every disease condition.  And as I mentioned earlier, we already know what causes insulin resistance: refined carbohydrates.

The Alternate Day Diet

I just finished reading the new book, "The Alternate Day Diet", by James Johnson.  I will give a full review of it later on, but it has helped me clear up my ideas on things, especially my recent idea of Super-Fasting.

Johnson shows in his book the tremendous benefit of undereating one day and then making up for it by eating more the next day.  He describes these as "down-days" and "up-days".  I have been wondering how this fits with the concept of intermittent fasting, of which I'm a proponent.

The research shows that while intermittent fasting is good, alternate day calorie restriction (ADCR) is even better.  For example, this study shows that daily intermittent fasting during Ramadan confers some benefits.  But this study of ADCR shows massive benefits in terms of reducing inflammation and treating asthma.

In the book, Johnson points out that a 36-hour period of low energy seems to be needed to trigger these benefits.  He admits that simply not eating for these 36 hours would probably produce the most health benefits, but that few people will do it.  Instead, he suggests restricting calories to 20% - 35% of normal intake on these down days, with unlimited eating on the up days.  The studies show that this restricted amount of food still produces the lion's share of the benefits, so that complete alternate-day fasting isn't necessary.

My first thought was, how would this 36-hour period of low energy have naturally come about during hunter-gatherer times?  One clue is that he mentions how many people turn to vegetables on their down days.  That got me thinking about the following pieces to the puzzle.  First, we know that hunter-gatherers consumed about 35% of their calories from carbohydrates (plant food).  The rest was meat (protein and fat).  So let's say a group of hunter-gatherers was not successful in catching game one day.  What would they have been left with?  Plant food.  And the high fiber content of Paleolithic plant food probably naturally limited consumption, and led to a day of reduced calorie consumption.  The next day, if they successfully acquired meat, you can be sure that they would overeat to make up the deficit.

Therefore, I think you can extrapolate from the book a very simple and applicable model that can produce health benefits.  On some days, eat only fruit, vegetables, and limited nuts, and this will naturally lead to a reduced-calorie day.  On the other days, eat fruits, vegetables, limited nuts, but then add in generous servings of meat to make up for the previous day's calorie deficit.  If the research in the book holds up, this type of eating pattern will lead to superior health, including reduced inflammation and protection from many diseases.

Greed

I think it's human nature that once you have something, you want a little bit more.  A little bit more money, a bigger house, a bigger car, and on down the line.  I would guess that this greed is built-in, or perhaps it's also exacerbated by cultural conditions.

I think greed is unknowingly applied to a lot of fitness and health programs.  If you do well, then you want to do even better.  If you reach a goal, then it's time to set a bigger one.  All with the promise of future happiness awaiting.

Certainly, I am guilty of this myself.  I can't count how many times I've said that when I get to such-and-such weight or body composition that I would be happy.  And whenever I've reached these goals, they did make me happy - temporarily.  Then the hedonic treadmill will begin again, and it would be time for new objectives.

It's important to differentiate between greed and challenges.  Done in a healthful way, challenges can be a great way to motivate.  Greed, on the other hand, is the darker side of ambition.  It's more of a succeed at all costs attitude - regardless of health impacts.

The emotions of greed can easily lead to overtraining.  There can be mental hurdles to putting in "easy" workouts - the concept of laziness enters the picture.  After all, doesn't "working out" imply that there's work involved? 

Historically, I don't think hunter-gatherers were very greedy in terms of their exercise.  Their "exercise" was physical movement for the purposes of food procurement.  I don't think they would have intentionally keep exercising once they had acquired sufficient food.  Maybe showing off in a tribal dance, perhaps, but I doubt anyone was repeatedly lifting rocks for fun.