Here is some more editorial rambling; and NO, never fear, this will not become a normal feature of this newsletter. Headlights, turn signals, and idiot drivers, is my latest topic.
I hit the streets several times a week for my sorta-runs, normally as soon after 5:00 a.m. as possible. Depending on the time of year, it can be quite dark at that time of morning, and what do I encounter, other than another occasional runner? Bicyclists, for one; and often without headlights, reflectors, or helmets, and often on the wrong side of the street. As the sky starts to lighten, but still well before sunrise, cars with no headlights on begin to appear. The bike riders must either have a death wish, or are just plain stupid. The car operators don't seem to understand that headlights serve a dual purpose: to allow the driver to see the road, of course; but equally important to allow other drivers, bicycle riders, and pedestrians to see them. Lights should be on until 30 minutes after sunrise, from 30 minutes before sunset, and in other low visibility situations. It should be obvious, but there are sure a lot of drivers that are oblivious to the problems they can cause. Just like drunk drivers, I guess -- "I'm okay, what's the problem?" The same with turn signals, the most underused part on most cars. "The car ahead of me is slowing down; is he going to move into the left turn lane, or is he going to turn into that driveway on the right, or maybe stop for a woman walking across the street with her baby, or...?" Or how about when you're waiting at a driveway to make a right turn onto a street, a car is coming and turns in where you are sitting waiting for him to pass, is he stupid enough not to know that you are waiting for him to pass? Or there is the bozo who zooms across lanes, back-and-forth trying to make up a few seconds; and meanwhile risking an accident. I have no problem with someone who wants to run into a tree and kill himself, but nobody has the right to risk someone else's life by reckless driving. Turn signals really do help.
So, turn on your headlights in low-light situations, use your turn signals, and don't tailgate (but that's another issue). What does all this have to do with fitness? Maybe nothing, but it helps my mental health to express some frustrations of my travels on the roadways. And mental health is definitely part of fitness; it is not just physical.
The Atkins' Diet has been the subject of a popular weight loss diet book for awhile, and several reviews have been published. For the most part, they say the same things -- mainly that it is a rehash of a high fat and protein/very low carbohydrate diet proposed by Dr. Atkins back in the 1970s, that it fails in the long run, and that it may not be safe. A concatenation and summarization of several reviews follows.
A low carbohydrate diet can help you lose weight; lots of people have done it - temporarily. But, does anyone want just a short-term solution to their weight problem? Some people say YES! They just want a quick loss for a wedding, a class reunion, or to pass a qualification to be a firefighter, or whatever. Their plan is often to lose weight quickly, and then change to healthy habits like engaging in more exercise and eating healthier -- mostly a delusion. People have lost hundreds of pounds of body weight using the "diet-of-the-week," but not for long, and with health risks. An obvious one is that part of your weight loss will come from protein (via muscle breakdown), which lowers your metabolism, which more-or-less ensures future weight gain; probably more than you lost to begin with. The emphasis on low carbohydrate intake in one's diet also may lead to a nutritional deficiency, a loss of nutrients contained in carbohydrates -- vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and fiber, at least. And a multi-vitamin doesn't necessarily offset the loss.
There are also warnings about the Atkins diet resulting in high cholesterol, calcium loss, kidney stones, and other kidney problems. The initial weight loss that most Atkins dieters experience is mainly water, obviously not a long-term healthy condition. The reason for the water loss is that glucose, a product of the metabolism of carbohydrates, is the body's preferred energy source. Glycogen is the storage form of glucose in our bodies, and every gram of glycogen stored is accompanied by three grams of water. As carbohydrates are diminished in one's diet, so is glucose; hence a water loss.
Descriptions of low carbohydrate diets, like the Atkins diet, tend to go ballistic over insulin. Insulin is a hormone that enables body cells to move glucose from the bloodstream to muscles for use as energy; but it also helps to store fat, which is perceived by proponents of low carb diets as a major problem -- the reason why we get fat, they surmise. But, carbs aren't the only source for stimulating insulin production; everything we eat stimulates insulin production. Another incorrect theory is that insulin only stores fat when we eat a high carbohydrate diet. In reality, fat will only be stored if we eat too much (of anything). It comes down to needing to balance intake with output. If you ingest more calories than you burn, you will get fat; and insulin will aid in that fat storage. And don't forget that fat can simply be stored in one of your hungry fat cells with very little caloric cost, but carbs must be converted to fat for storage -- requiring a caloric expenditure.
It is absurd to point the finger at carbohydrates as the source for the fattening of America. Insulin isn't the problem -- consider that many of us simply eat too much and exercise too little (and that doesn't mean just formal activity, but simply not being generally active enough) to prevent being overfat.
Also consider that many population groups in the world eat high carbohydrate diets without suffering from high rates of obesity or obesity-related diseases. Japan, for instance, has a high carb diet as a standard -- rice, vegetables, grains -- without the problems predicted by low carb diet supporters as inevitable.
The Atkins diet allows unhealthy habits like eating all the saturated fat, high cholesterol foods anyone could want. That is good for heart surgeons and undertakers, but not so much for the rest of us.
Has it occurred to anyone that low carb diets have been around for decades. If they were successful, there wouldn't be a need for the plethora of diet books available today, including the Atkins version, and other bestsellers.
Long term weight control still boils down to balanced nutrition and increased activity; with some rare exceptions.
Have you heard of negative calorie foods? Well, maybe that's because they don't exist. Or do they? In an absolute sense, there is no such thing; but functionally, maybe there are. The idea is that there are certain foods that require more calories to digest than are contained in that specific food. Calories from other sources; therefore, must be commandeered to complete digestion. If this theory is correct, one could lose weight by eating (the right stuff, of course).
Lose weight by eating sounds good, but unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence to support this theory.
Before going any further with this theory, let's identify some so-called negative calorie foods by category.
A couple of studies used as supporting evidence are: 1) a recent study on diet relative to heart disease performed by Dr. Dean Ornish at the University of California at San Francisco, using subjects with previous heart disease. The subjects ate a vegetarian diet and they lost an average of 20 pounds. Since the study included no exercise, it was surmised that the diet of primarily fruits and vegetables was responsible for the weight loss [That is a far cry from proving the negative calorie theory.]; and 2) an article in the January '94 issue of Self Magazine, by Dr. Neal Barnard, supports the theory, but with no supporting evidence identified.
Clearly, including the so-called negative calorie foods (mainly fruits and vegetables) in your diet is beneficial, but the theory itself sounds to me like a lot of hokum. Looking on the Internet reveals that the main supporter of the theory is a company that is selling an "e-book" on-line that contains a diet making use of these "negative foods," and claiming much success. My guess is that you can certainly lose weight on a negative calorie food diet, but without including exercise it will ultimately fail. And please note that the diet is supposed to include the foods previously mentioned, but they should not be the sole components. A well-balanced diet is essential -- carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and water. Also fiber, although it is not a nutrient.
One further caution to those who choose to load up on these foods is to be alert for food allergies. Many of the foods listed may be new to you, and your body may not tolerate them.
Fat, but fit -- is that an option? It seems that being fit is more important to health than weight control. Being overfat (see Note 1) has its health risks, but one can also be well within the bounds of acceptable weight and also be unhealthy.
All humans seem to have a genetic capacity for fat vs. lean body mass -- a propensity for storing more or less fat, but mostly the difference between individuals (I think) is their level of exercise (activity), and the details of their dietary intake.
While it has been commonly thought that excessive fatness is a major health risk, it seems that fat and fit is healthier than thin and unfit; at least according to Stephen Blair, clinical director of the Cooper Institute for Research. He has indicated that it would be more useful to have overfat people start an exercise program than to go on a "diet" or a drug therapy program. He has said that thinness may be a goal for swimsuit models, or those with an image problem, but that for health purposes, having a big waist and being fit is more important than being thin and unfit.
In a study of 25,000 men and 7,000 women ranging in age from 20 to 88, they were put in one of three categories: least fit, moderately fit, and very fit (determined by a treadmill test). After eight years, those in the "least fit" group were twice as likely to die as those in the other two groups. And when alcohol consumption, smoking, age, weight, and other factors (like body composition or waist-to-hip ratios) were considered; the death rates were unaffected.
The exercise benefit seems to come, at least partly, from burning fat, and countering dieting's lowering of one's metabolic rate. And exercisers seem to gravitate toward a healthier diet.
And, according to Blair's test standards, "moderately fit" can be achieved by a brisk 30-minute walk done daily.
But, for overfat individuals, fitness may be no easy task, for a variety of reasons. One of which is the embarrassment some "heavy" people feel about being seen exercising. Others, especially anyone focusing primarily on cosmetic changes, quit quickly, if they don't see early results. I think that for many, the keys to success are a thick skin (Have you ever encountered someone who won't go to a gym because she has to lose weight first?) and persistence. Very often, when fitness, rather than pure weigh loss, is the primary focus, weight loss follows because of the good habits that often accompany an exercise program.
Especially for older people, there may be physical impairments that limit exercise efforts, even for those who are motivated to make changes. They should not give up, but follow the trite sounding admonition to "do what you can do." Moving a little is better than not moving at all.
____________________________
note 1 -- Overweight/overfat? The use of the word "overweight" always gives me a problem. Nearly everytime it is used it really means too fat, so from now on I will call it what it is -- "overfat." No more euphemistic "overweight."
Cholesterol absorption varies widely from individual-to-individual. When two people eat the same amount of cholesterol, one may absorb as much as five times that of the other. That hardly seems fair, but seems to be the reason why some people can eat eggs , for example, daily without ending up with a high serum cholesterol level.
One set for strength development has now been validated. It was once thought, overwhelmingly, that multiple sets were a necessity for building strength, but no longer according to many experts, based on dozens of recent studies, prompting the prestigious ACSM to update their exercise guidelines to one set for strength development. [Note that this guideline applies to less than elite athletes.] BUT, they stress the need for strong effort. Use weights that you can only do 8-12 times. When you reach 12 reps, add weight and restart the climb to 12 reps.
The Exercise Corner: In this issue, the bench dip is described. Muscles used in this exercise are the triceps brachii (back of the arm -- shoulder to elbow), anterior deltoid (front of the main shoulder muscle), and the upper pectoralis major (chest).
To perform this exercise, place two benches (chairs, or whatever) parallel and about 2 1/2 - 3 feet apart; then sit on one with your hands at about hip width, grasping the edge of the bench, and with your elbows pointed directly behind you. Now put your feet up on the other bench with your arms straight. Lower your body by bending your elbows until you feel a stretch in your triceps and shoulder joints. Hold briefly, then extend your elbows -- full extension, but don't snap them into a locked position. Hold, then repeat.
Try to keep your elbows as close together as you can (i.e., keep them pointed backward). Don't place the benches too far apart, or your elbows will be too far behind your body, which somewhat lessens the work your triceps muscles do, and increases the load on the latisimus dorsi (back) and pectoralis (chest).
To increase resistance, have a partner put a weight plate on your thighs.
Also, start with a short ROM (range-of-motion), and increase it as is comfortable -- your goal is to train your triceps, not injure your shoulder joints.
(Q) What is better, an electric or manual toothbrush?
N.M.F., San Jose, CA
(A)You might think the electric one is better, especially after all the manufacturers' hype, but according to an article in the February 2000 issue of the University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter, it isn't so much the tool that is important, but the technique used -- determined by amount of plaque removed. If you use a manual brush, flouridated toothpaste, and brush for at least two minutes (oh, and floss), you don't need an electric toothbrush -- it seems to have no inherent superiority over a good old-fashioned manual toothbrush. However, if you don't brush long enough, or you have some infirmity that prevents you from brushing properly, or you have braces, or you just like the ease of using a hi-tech toothbrush; go ahead and shell out the extra cash.
It is emphasized that you must brush for two minutes, twice a day, and floss, to achieve good dental health. Consistency and thoroughness are the keys.
(Q) I just heard about something called "electronic pasteurization". Is that the same as irradiation? And will either process make me glow in the dark?
J.F., Long Island, NY
(A)They aren't the same, although electronic pasteurization is performed inside six foot thick cement walls, so it isn't far-fetched to think they have similarities; one of which is that they both kill most bacteria in food. And, no, you won't glow in the dark from either process: they won't make you radioactive.
(Q) I am considering taking zinc lozenges for colds, but I have heard conflicting reports about their usefulness. Are they worthwhile?
J.L., Menlo Park, CA
(A)You may continue to hear conflicting reports, but at least one source (the U.S Federal Trade Commission -- FTC) has sued over unsubstantiated claims made for zinc-containing lozenges and chewing gum -- that they prevent colds, relieve allergy symptoms, reduce the severity of children's colds, and even reduce the risk of getting pneumonia.
There have been some studies with conflicting results about reducing the severity of colds, but there is definitely no consensus to support the claims.
Unfortunately, there is no power to stop the manufacture of zinc products with accompanying unverified claims ; but it should be known by those who will succumb to the ads, that the lozenges contain enough zinc to suppress the immune system, decrease HDL cholesterol levels, and disrupt copper metabolism in the body.
(Q) I have found myself in a state of mild depression lately, and am thinking about trying SAM-e, since a friend told me that it was a good natural anti-depressant. Do you have any information on this supplement?
D.G., Weed, CA
(A)SAM-e is a synthetic form of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), a chemical naturally produced in all animals. While it is involved in many processes in the body ( including influencing mood and emotions), marketeers have focused on its possible anti-depressant characteristic. Lately, it has even been touted as a possible treatment for arthritis, and liver disease. But, there is no clear evidence to back up the claims; and, maybe more importantly, SAM is converted to homocysteine, which seems to raise the risk of heart disease. It may well be that SAM-e also raises homocysteine levels. It is also expensive. SAM-e has potential, but needs more supportive evidence
If you suffer from depression or arthritis (or anything else that manufacturers claim that SAM-e can cure), see a physician before blindly accepting the manufacturer's claims.
(Adapted from an article in the January, 2000 issue of the University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter.)
(Q) I have always heard from dietitians and other health professionals that an occasional splurge is OK (i.e., a high-fat meal), as long as it doesn't become habitual. But I just read (in your favorite newsletter -- the U.C.. Berkeley Wellness Letter) that new research indicates that just one high-fat meal can have immediate negative effects on one's heart.
Fat from a meal remains in the bloodstream from 8 to 12 hours, during which time your triglycerides (fat in the bloodstream) are increased -- more in some than in others.
Another "feature" of a high-fat meal is that it raises the Factor VII level, which is a clotting agent that can lead to a clot in your heart that can result in a heart attack - not a problem in a healthy heart, but . . .
And a third "feature" of a high-fat meal is that it may interfere with blood vessel dilation -- potentially more heart problems; although omega-3 fat from fish seems to reduce triglyceride levels.
(A)A key is that if you have a healthy heart/vascular system, one high-fat meal seemingly isn't a problem, but someone with high risk factors for heart problems should pay heed to this message.
_____________________________________
Send questions or comments to Michael Fenner: e-mail to Mike Fenner
To see the MAF FITNESS NEWSLETTER archives, go to http://www.dinc.com/maf/