OT: Fitness and Nutrition Part V

[DAChampion]

Almost all high performing athletes are either very close to vegan, transitioning to vegan, or already vegan.

That claim is unreferenced, and incorrect.

Any time you see a movie star get absolutely shredded, stacked, ripped or whatever, they’ll almost always tell you that they did it through vegan nuritrion.

That claim is unreferenced, and incorrect.

It is also the issue that both high-performance athletes and movie stars are not ideal examples. Both groups benefit from having good genetics and good prior health (that's the basis on which they're selected), it's their full-time job to be fit and look good, they have enough money and time for the best nutrition and the best trainers and the best doctors, and many of them use PEDs even if you don't know about.

*********

You're a good example of why people can't stand vegans. You may start off with good intentions, but you're ultimately being religious about it. You self-righteously make whatever claim you want regardless of the underlying facts. You don't have an actual census of what movie stars and high performance athletes eat yet you imply that you do. It would also be irrelevant as I explain above.

 

[DAChampion]

What We Know (and Don’t Know) About How to Lose Weight

First of all, I want to say that this is a high-quality study. They followed 600 people for 1 year, they put them into two groups, and they both got good advice of cutting trans fats and simple carbs and cooking at home more. The people were selected to be in bad health but not catastrophically bad health, which reduces confounders. Those are great fundamentals, and I appreciate that they tested for several different factors.

Now I will talk about the limitations of the study. I quote from the article in bold and italics.

They did not, however, lose meaningfully different amounts of weight. At 12 months, the low-carbohydrate group had lost, on average, just over 13 pounds, compared with more than 11.5 pounds in the low-fat group. The difference was not statistically significant.
There are two confounders here. On the one hand, people who eat fewer carbs tend to store less water weight, the body simply needs less water when it's using fat for fuel. That could shift things to the high-carb side. On the other hand, there's evidence that weight-loss on a high-fat diet preferentially targets organ/abdominal/visceral fat rather than subcutaneous fat or lean mass. That would shift things to the high-fat side. It would have been nice to measure those two factors.

Insulin sensitivity didn’t make a difference. People who secreted more or less insulin lost no more or less weight in general on either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet.
I find that hard to believe to be honest. It may be the case that the signal was lost because hormone measurements are noisy. What matters to your health is the long-term average of your hormone levels, but in the short-term they can and do fluctuate significantly. If you're not measuring insulin resistance precisely, then your study has no sensitivity (pun not intended) to it. Insulin levels by themselves may also not be the best measure of "insulin resistance", the product of insulin and glucose , called HOMA-IR, might matter more since it's less sensitive to fluctuations, and waist size seems to be an effective correlate.

Genetics didn’t make a difference either. People who had genes that might indicate that they would do better on one diet or the other didn’t.
I'm not surprised by that. Genetics are most certainly the future of human health, but our current understanding of genetics is slim at best. People who turn to 23andMe for answers are often mistaken.

Others have taken this study as evidence debunking the idea that counting calories is the key to weight loss. While that wasn’t the main thrust of this study, nor the instructions given, participants did reduce their intake by an average of 500-600 calories a day (even if they didn’t count them). This study didn’t prove the unimportance of calories.
If they actually cut their consumption by 550 calories a day then they should have lost a lot more than 12 lbs. That works out to 1 pound per week under the fixed metabolism model. An online RMR calculator (Resting Metabolic Rate Calculator) says that for a 40 year-old male who is 5'9 needs to lose ~110 lbs for his resting metabolic rate to drop by 500 calories a day.

 

[DAChampion]

@Lshap are you actually in your 50s? I've always figured that you were the guy in your avatar, who doesn't look like he's in his 50s. Then again, maybe you're deliberately using a blurry pic to hide the scars, wrinkles, acne, and more severe facial deformities

 

[Goodbahd]

That claim is unreferenced, and incorrect.


That claim is unreferenced, and incorrect.

It is also the issue that both high-performance athletes and movie stars are not ideal examples. Both groups benefit from having good genetics and good prior health (that's the basis on which they're selected), it's their full-time job to be fit and look good, they have enough money and time for the best nutrition and the best trainers and the best doctors, and many of them use PEDs even if you don't know about.

*********

You're a good example of why people can't stand vegans. You may start off with good intentions, but you're ultimately being religious about it. You self-righteously make whatever claim you want regardless of the underlying facts. You don't have an actual census of what movie stars and high performance athletes eat yet you imply that you do. It would also be irrelevant as I explain above.

Your argument doesn’t hold up, and is ultimately negated by the mere fact that famous or not, people achieve the same results.

You claim it is their full time job, yet clearly omit the fact that they did not have all these resources before becoming famous, and yet still persevered to the top. You then falsely accuse “many” of taking PEDs with zero knowledge and more importantly zero proof! Show us the facts behind your claims before spouting anything.

 

[DAChampion]

You claim it is their full time job, yet clearly omit the fact that they did not have all these resources before becoming famous, and yet still persevered to the top. You then falsely accuse “many” of taking PEDs with zero knowledge and more importantly zero proof! Show us the facts behind your claims before spouting anything and pulling whatever out of your rear end.

I'm waiting for you to reference your claims that the vast majority of athletes and movie stars are vegans.

It will never happen though, as your claims are false.

 

[DAChampion]

Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking

US researchers investigating whether or not moderate alcohol consumption is good for you went to the alcohol industry to ask for funding. That's disappointing, as it would be worth finding out the truth, but it does appear that this study will be doctored.

I don't consume significant alcohol anyway, but I could see this having an impact on others.

 

[Kriss E]

Says I’m wrong, yet doesn’t even do his research before posting, and ends up being wrong himself. Too funny!

Efron is vegan.

Zac Efron Says He’s Been Enjoying A Vegan Diet

Zac Efron Swears By This Surprising Diet

Chris Hemsworth also went Vegan for his last Thor movie. He wasn't before. Neither was Efron.
Evans, Pratt, DJ, and others also have enjoyed bulking and shredding up while eating balanced.
So your claims is still wrong.

I won't waste any more time with you though, pretty obvious you have no interest in discussing anything.

 

[DAChampion]

Before I log off, I'll just make the case for blackberries being an exceptionally wonderful food, if you can afford them.

Here's their nutrition profile:
Blackberries, raw Nutrition Facts & Calories

As far as I know, blackberries are the only widely-available fruit with more dietary fiber than other carbohydrates. That's exceptional. For those not caught up, dietary fiber is always (almost always?) paired with sugar in nature (unlike processed foods), and it has a physiological impact. It decreases the insulin response of sugar, and gut bacteria in the colon convert fiber into saturated fatty acids that your body can use.

Blackberries have ~1.1 gram of fiber for every 1.0 gram of carbs It contrast, the ratio is 0.12 for bananas and cantaloupes, 0.15 for blueberries, 0.40 for strawberries. In this regard, blackberries are exceptional.

They also have decent amounts of protein, vitamin C, vitamin K1, copper, and manganese. They also have polyphenols and tannins if you're into that stuff, those are the nutrient classes alleged to make red wine and dark chocolate good for you.

Con: They're often expensive. A good way to get berries for (relatively) cheap is to buy them frozen.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I get blackberries in my frozen berry mix and eat them daily in my smoothies!

 

[Goodbahd]

I have a PhD in the physical sciences, and work as a researcher at one of the top-20 research institutes in the world. If you can't get anything from my science-related posts, you're likely failing to read them properly.

(MOD)

I provide facts, links. (MOD)​

These 14 elite athletes are vegan — here's what made them switch their diet

 

[Goodbahd]

Chris Hemsworth also went Vegan for his last Thor movie. He wasn't before. Neither was Efron.
Evans, Pratt, DJ, and others also have enjoyed bulking and shredding up while eating balanced.
So your claims is still wrong.

I won't waste any more time with you though, pretty obvious you have no interest in discussing anything.

I provided links that Efron is now a vegan, but you willfully deny it. (MOD) You've provided zilch to back up for your argument. No links, nothing. Your stance on nutrition is something of the past, no different than when people used to claim smoking was healthy for you.


NFL players' surprising new performance hack—going vegan

You can keep picking at straws with your handful of superheroes lmao! I'll take the word of an entire sport with regards to performance than some b-list actor like Pratt or Evans.

(MOD)

 

[Kriss E]

I provided links that Efron is now a vegan, but you willfully deny it. Obviously you can't grasp reality, even when it's put in front of your eyes. Maybe ease off on the comic movies, they're fiction by the way, like the WWE, if you didn't know by now. You've provided zilch to back up for your argument. No links, nothing. Your stance on nutrition is something of the past, no different than when people used to claim smoking was healthy for you.


NFL players' surprising new performance hack—going vegan

You can keep picking at straws with your handful of superheroes lmao! I'll take the word of an entire sport with regards to performance than some b-list actor like Pratt or Evans.

Cool.

 

[Andrei79]

Guys, any tips for combining weight training while playing a sport (hockey) 2-3 times a week ?

 

[Lshap]

@Lshap are you actually in your 50s? I've always figured that you were the guy in your avatar, who doesn't look like he's in his 50s. Then again, maybe you're deliberately using a blurry pic to hide the scars, wrinkles, acne, and more severe facial deformities

Yeah, that's me. I'm actually blurry in real life.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Guys, any tips for combining weight training while playing a sport (hockey) 2-3 times a week ?

I do this, and it's kind of hard. Leg days are hard to schedule for sure. Upper body I find if I work out in the morning I'm recovered enough by the evening to play though it's not ideal.

 

[Kriss E]

Guys, any tips for combining weight training while playing a sport (hockey) 2-3 times a week ?

I play hockey twice a week, wednesday and saturday.
I do weight training monday-tuesday-wednesday-friday. Works well for me.

 

[Andrei79]

I play hockey twice a week, wednesday and saturday.
I do weight training monday-tuesday-wednesday-friday. Works well for me.

Judging by your ex-avatar and that you're coaching crossfit, you're somewhat of a physical beast though.

Ever get soreness for going to heavy on Mondays or Fridays ? Or do you usually put in more repetition/speed those days ?

 

[Kriss E]

Judging by your ex-avatar and that you're coaching crossfit, you're somewhat of a physical beast though.

Ever get soreness for going to heavy on Mondays or Fridays ? Or do you usually put in more repetition/speed those days ?

I no longer coach crossfit though, I am more into managerial duties right now. Have moved away from crossfit as I think they lost their minds. They don't make the slightest bit of sense anymore, they really need to take a step back and refine their game, but they sold out, they are all about the spectacle.

I use hockey as my big cardio days, so if I feel sluggish from weight training, I just take shorter shifts.

On monday I will usually add a heavy+high intensity second workout a few hours after my weight training. One I really like is Bodyweight farmer's walk for 50 steps + 10 calories sprint on Assault Bike, for 10 rounds. The rest of the week is just strength training and hockey.
You will feel banged up the first week or so, after that you should adapt.

Anything that can improve recovery, supplements, yoga, massages, goes a long way.

 

[groovejuice]

Next on the health death-list: Coffee! Fresh from its recent smash hit, "I'm An Antioxidant!", comes news of its latest release, "I'm a Roasted Cancer Risk!":

Coffee may come with a warning label in California - CNN

Luckily, other reviews aren't buying it:

The science behind cancer warnings on coffee is murky at best

It's also recently been discovered that saliva is carcinogenic - but luckily only when swallowed in minute amounts over very extended lengths of time.

 

[DAChampion]

An interesting study on intermittent fasting with fixed total calories in rats (basically time-restricted feeding). With rats one can design a perfect experiment, unlike with humans. They want to see why fasting helps at fixed total calories, and one thing they find is that energy activation in white adipose fat changes with time in the fasted state. In contrast, a lot of studies of fasting in humans have the confounder that the subjects are either lying about fasting and actually eating a lot, or reducing total calories, or just dropping out of the study, so it's more difficult to interpret the results.

I'll have to read it in greater detail later -- it's a technical paper. I am converging more and more to the view that fasting and feasting are like being awake and sleeping. Neither state is "healthier", but over time we needs periods of both for maximal health, as they are physiologically distinct and initiate complementary processes.

Note that this paper only looks at metabolism and specifically fat metabolism. I got into fasting for issues of metabolism originally, but at this point I'm just as interested in the benefits for the brain, central nervous system, and immune system.

Intermittent fasting promotes adipose thermogenesis and metabolic homeostasis via VEGF-mediated alternative activation of macrophage

Abstract: Intermittent fasting (IF), a periodic energy restriction, has been shown to provide health benefits equivalent to prolonged fasting or caloric restriction. However, our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of IF-mediated metabolic benefits is limited. Here we show that isocaloric IF improves metabolic homeostasis against diet-induced obesity and metabolic dysfunction primarily through adipose thermogenesis in mice. IF-induced metabolic benefits require fasting-mediated increases of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression in white adipose tissue (WAT). Furthermore, periodic adipose-VEGF overexpression could recapitulate the metabolic improvement of IF in non-fasted animals. Importantly, fasting and adipose-VEGF induce alternative activation of adipose macrophage, which is critical for thermogenesis. Human adipose gene analysis further revealed a positive correlation of adipose VEGF-M2 macrophage-WAT browning axis. The present study uncovers the molecular mechanism of IF-mediated metabolic benefit and suggests that isocaloric IF can be a preventive and therapeutic approach against obesity and metabolic disorders.

 

[DAChampion]

It's also recently been discovered that saliva is carcinogenic - but luckily only when swallowed in minute amounts over very extended lengths of time.

From what I gather, the argument for coffee being cancerous is that it has burned material in it due to roasting, and burned carbohydrates / acrylamide (I think burned fats as well) are cancerous. That's a valid point, acrylamide is cancerous (when tested in animal experiments at very large doses), but coffee actually has a number of molecules in it. To argue that coffee is cancerous, one would need to sum over the pros and cons of all the molecules weighted by their quantities. That's very hard to do and thus the argument is not valid.

In practice though, I am sure that the ridiculous people who order 500 calorie mocha unicorn frappuccino or whatever latté from Starbucks are in fact increasing their odds of cancer. Well maybe not, they might be decreasing their odds of cancer, since the plausibly increased odds of heart disease and Alzheimer's means that they might die before getting cancer A difficult calculation

But I'll keep eating 1 or 2 cups of coffee a day, with no sugar added, in the earlier parts of the day, moving forward.

 

[DAChampion]

I no longer coach crossfit though, I am more into managerial duties right now. Have moved away from crossfit as I think they lost their minds. They don't make the slightest bit of sense anymore, they really need to take a step back and refine their game, but they sold out, they are all about the spectacle.

I use hockey as my big cardio days, so if I feel sluggish from weight training, I just take shorter shifts.

On monday I will usually add a heavy+high intensity second workout a few hours after my weight training. One I really like is Bodyweight farmer's walk for 50 steps + 10 calories sprint on Assault Bike, for 10 rounds. The rest of the week is just strength training and hockey.
You will feel banged up the first week or so, after that you should adapt.

Anything that can improve recovery, supplements, yoga, massages, goes a long way.

What are a couple things that you know and understand now, that you wish that you had understood when you first started your fitness career?

 

[Kriss E]

What are a couple things that you know and understand now, that you wish that you had understood when you first started your fitness career?

Good question..The top things are probably:
-The technical aspect of lifts.
-Programming.
-The importance of actually listening to your body.
-Knowledge of mobility and gymnastics.

I was always into sports and fitness, but I viewed those things as hobbies and pastimes. Got my first gym membership at a Nautilus Plus at 14, twenty years ago. Up until I started Crossfit, not much had changed in ways of training.
Of course, Olympic Lifting and Weightlifting had been present for a very long time but that was very underground-ish.
As much as I don't like what Crossfit is about today, if it weren't for them, I am not sure I decide to quit Real Estate, switch careers into Fitness, and be where I am today.
I remember the first time reading a strength Crossfit Workout...it only said "Deadlifts 3-3-3-3-3"...
I thought WTF does that even mean, let alone the first time I read Snatch.

Crossfit made a lot of different disciplines more popular. A big chunk of the population have learned a lot more about Fitness thanks to crossfit. Including myself.

I have learned so much over the past 10 years, it's tough not to include everything really. I started my career working as a trainer in a globo gym without any certification. I was just athletic, was doing crossfit and soon attending their certification. Crossfit was still quite underground to the point where it was tough finding anybody that was certified, but growing enough for the manager to actually know what it was. I got an opportunity there. So when I started, I really did not know much about the Fitness world other than just being your regular gym goer since 14 years of age, and repeating what the trainers I had over the years told me, which wasn't a whole lot.

 

[Kriss E]

From what I gather, the argument for coffee being cancerous is that it has burned material in it due to roasting, and burned carbohydrates / acrylamide (I think burned fats as well) are cancerous. That's a valid point, acrylamide is cancerous (when tested in animal experiments at very large doses), but coffee actually has a number of molecules in it. To argue that coffee is cancerous, one would need to sum over the pros and cons of all the molecules weighted by their quantities. That's very hard to do and thus the argument is not valid.

In practice though, I am sure that the ridiculous people who order 500 calorie mocha unicorn frappuccino or whatever latté from Starbucks are in fact increasing their odds of cancer. Well maybe not, they might be decreasing their odds of cancer, since the plausibly increased odds of heart disease and Alzheimer's means that they might die before getting cancer A difficult calculation

But I'll keep eating 1 or 2 cups of coffee a day, with no sugar added, in the earlier parts of the day, moving forward.

That isn't coffee though.

I used to order Starbucks all the time because of the conveniency of them simply being everywhere next to my work (I cover 8 different locations), until one day I realized I did not like their coffee.
Maybe it's because I am surrounded by nice coffee shops where I live so on the weekends, I always end up grabbing some from there and avoid Starbucks.
I stopped going to Starbucks now and always look for smaller more authentic shops.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

From what I gather, the argument for coffee being cancerous is that it has burned material in it due to roasting, and burned carbohydrates / acrylamide (I think burned fats as well) are cancerous. That's a valid point, acrylamide is cancerous (when tested in animal experiments at very large doses), but coffee actually has a number of molecules in it. To argue that coffee is cancerous, one would need to sum over the pros and cons of all the molecules weighted by their quantities. That's very hard to do and thus the argument is not valid.

In practice though, I am sure that the ridiculous people who order 500 calorie mocha unicorn frappuccino or whatever latté from Starbucks are in fact increasing their odds of cancer. Well maybe not, they might be decreasing their odds of cancer, since the plausibly increased odds of heart disease and Alzheimer's means that they might die before getting cancer A difficult calculation

But I'll keep eating 1 or 2 cups of coffee a day, with no sugar added, in the earlier parts of the day, moving forward.

That makes sense, and that would make a case for a lighter roast- which also happens to have more caffeine.

As an aside, I also disliked the burnt mud of Starbucks, and have always preferred lighter roasts.

My coffee addiction is real, so I think I'm going to make an attempt to only drink light roasts from now on.