Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVVI: Fat Facts

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVVI: Fat Facts

This week we'll wrap up coverage of the meal time quiz by discussing question #5 - "Are you including enough healthy fats?"

First, what are health fats? Sometimes it is easier to define what someth...ing is NOT. Healthy fats, just like all other food sources, are NOT PROCESSED. So butter, lard, beef tallow, coconut oil, etc. are all good choices. Bad choices include industrial seed and vegetable oils: safflower, sunflower, etc.

While we have been told for decades that saturated fats increase risk of heart disease and turn mogwai into gremlins, the fact is no evidence to suggest either is true actually exists. One of the great crimes against the American food supply.

Evidence does exist, however, that replacing those un-processed and natural saturated fats with the aforementioned industrial seed oil high in omega-6 fat content DOES INCREASE ALL DEATH MORTALITY. Check the following link for a recently released study:

http://www.futurity.org/top-stories/switch-to-vegetable-fats-linked-to-death-risk/?utm_source=Futurity+Today&utm_campaign=748d05668d-February_7_20132_7_2013&utm_medium=email

Beyond that, sufficient healthy fat intake is necessary for good health. In fact, a healthy brain contains greater than 60% fat. Fat is also essential for maintaining optimal hormone production, healthy skin, hair, joints, and energy.

Bottom line: Don't go out of your way to either avoid or add extra fat to your diet. The amounts found naturally in animal products generally will be enough to maintain healthy function. Todays' information is not license to abitrarily add bacon and butter to every dish.

Bonus Tip: Restaurants most often cook with the aforementioned processed industrial seed oils. Limit eating out, or request your meals be prepared in butter, olive oil, and rendered pork fat to reduce your exposure.

Free-Tip Tuesday Archive (Vol. I-XXV)

I've archived the first 25 volumes of Free-Tip Tuesday from the Pittsburgh Kettlebells Facebook page found here for reference purposes. Enjoy.

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume I: Get Some Shut Eye(7/17/12)

Get at least 7 hours of 'good' sleep each night. NO, you don't function better on less sleep, it just hasn't caught up to you yet. Sleep deprivation is linked to increased appetite and fat storage, compromised immune system function, as well as increased risk of diabetes and heart disease - which both make the top 5 leading causes of death list. Stay tuned throughout the week for strategies to help make sure you are getting enough shut eye......

So What Do The Terms "Effective" or "Significant" Mean To You?

A recent headline reporting the results of a study on an experimental Johnson & Johnson diabetes drug read as follows:

J&J diabetes drug effective in high risk patients - study - Reuters

So. What would effective mean to you?

More Mainstream Madness...

Straight off of Yahoo's home page this morning was yet another example misguided advice for diabetics entitled Diabetic Decoder: Restaurant Foods To Avoid, originally featured in Prevention. For the article the authors tabbed a chef - Sam Talbot - with a book out entitled The Sweet Life: Diabetes without Boundaries. "Since I'm a chef myself, I know the tricks," he says.

Right.

Well Maybe "The Standard Treatment" Sucks?!?!

Bariatric Surgery Dramatically Outperforms Standard Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes - ScienceDaily.com

To see how this is another example of a severely misguided and just plain false headline and soundbite, visit here.

Stuff You Should Read.....

A smattering of good reads I've come across in the past week or so.....enjoy.

Life Is A Special Occasion - Neghar Fonooni

Low Carbs, Again - Really? - Scott Abel

The Red Meat Scare: What Do We Make Of It? - Jonny Bowden

Push-Upalooza - Tony Gentilecore

The Skinny On Artificial Sweeteners - Ines Subashka

More Random Thoughts....

Another day, another mainstream article drawing odd conclusions and quotes from 'experts' responding to the latest findings from recent studies. This one comes from a study published in the British Medical Journal, which was used as the basis for this article from Yahoo. The study authors concluded that...

Random Thoughts....

My random thoughts in response to a mainstream health article from this past week. The following article from Yahoo was written by an RD dispelling the long held myth that 6 small meals per day is any better than 3. Gasp. Which Will Help Me Slim Down—6 Mini Meals or 3 Squares? - Yahoo

From the article...

The Mainstream Catching On..Finally?

From today's Wall Street Journal - Why the Hightop Has One Foot in the Grave.

"These shoe makers are good at selling shoes—science, not so much."

Related post: Piston's Trainer Banishes Nike Hyperize

At It Again...

I finally got something to ruffle my feathers enough to go for the one of the few papers I haven't been in. From today's Wall Street Journal - A Guilt-Free Hamburger.

My response:

While saturated fat may be believed to be a factor in increased heart disease risk, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true – as the new study from the Harvard School of Public Health, and the meta-analysis by Dr. Krauss are clearly indicating otherwise (A Guilt-Free Hamburger, May 18).

Unfortunately, many of the comments made by medical professionals within the article illustrate the prevailing mindset to continue clinging to such dogmatic beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. While Dr. Eckel is encouraged to be cautious in examining the “scientific value” of these and other studies, I wonder where such discerning eyes were with the study that got us to fear saturated fat in the first place. There, Ancels Keys omitted approximately two-thirds of the data in order to fit his pre-conceived hypothesis – saturated fat should have never been vilified in the first place. To date, there have been zero studies proving saturated fat has anything to do with heart disease.

The input from Mr. Hodges of the American Meat Institute is no better, stating the “body of evidence clearly demonstrates that processed meat is a healthy part of a balanced diet.” Is he referring the staggering rates of increase in obesity, diabetes, and a host of other ills plaguing our nation’s health? I suppose we are to ignore the extreme conflict of interest present here. Saying the results conflict with national dietary guidelines is just as laughable of a defense, as those guidelines are often derived from such poor science as the aforementioned Ancel Keys work – they too have had their part in the decline of our health.

While saturated fats are associated with higher levels of cholesterol, the increases are in the “good” HDL, and the harmless “fluffy” large particle LDL – making the point mute. Additionally, dietary cholesterol intake has a negligible effect on blood cholesterol in the majority of people. Cholesterol is actually an essential nutrient, avoiding it is misguided at best. Now that we are seeing there is no basis for outlawing saturated fat, we are going after salt. What happens when we find out salt isn’t the problem either? The science behind salt intake and blood pressure is inconclusive as well. The vilification of unprocessed nutrients like saturated fat and salt that have been a part of various healthy societies since the beginning of time is illogical - while nitrates and other additives new to human consumption barely garner a mention.

Dr. Mozaffarian hits the nail on the head when he says we need to stop “trying to micromanage nutrients and look at the healthy quality of foods.” That means to stop eating processed foods that have been stripped of all their nutritional value – only to be replaced by Franken-gredients not fit for human consumption.

I can only hope the good doctor is just as accurate when he says “Maybe the science is catching up with the intuitive sense.” Our health depends on it.

More Musings...

Update: This piece was also published in the USAToday on April, 26th, found here.

The piece I submitted to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that I originally previewed here, was published, and can be found here - albeit slightly edited. Today I will include the text for another piece submitted to the USAToday and currently under consideration.

RE: Do Food Stamps Feed Obesity? - USAToday

While I can’t say with certainty that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (Do Food Stamps Feed Obesity? April, 20) is necessarily feeding obesity, like those organizations charged with recommending our dietary guidelines – it isn’t helping.

Getting kids to eat healthier is indeed a very important long-term goal. The impact on healthcare costs from doing so effectively would be enormous. However, the assertion that school lunches already have to meet “reasonable standards” is laughable. French-fries bathed in vegetable/canola oil counting as vegetables, and flavored milk containing more sugar than soda are not “reasonable” – they are incompetent. We can’t feed kids pizza and chicken patties everyday for twelve years and not expect them to later develop health issues or obesity.

Similar negligence also emanates from organizations like the FDA, American Heart Association, and American Diabetes Association - among others. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, these folks still cling to dogma which vilifies something as harmless as saturated fat, while extolling the benefits of toxic substances like canola oil and margarine. Such misinformation then infiltrates our curriculums that, absent critical thinking and a self-emphasis on continuing education, produce a nation full of MDs and RDs that dispense outdated and inaccurate nutritional information.

SNAP, like many others, needs reform. Even as a 16 year-old grocery clerk, I could see the lunacy of the Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC) program providing for 64 oz. cans of JuicyJuice and sugar-laden breakfast cereals. But unless the reform is based on good science with an emphasis on real, unprocessed food - the war on obesity will be about as successful as the war on drugs.

If They Were Really Interested in Reducing Deaths....

Washington Post - FDA takes aim at salt content in processed food:Regulator says limits will reduce deaths, but many fear taste will suffer

"...Most salt eaten by Americans -- 77 percent -- comes from processed foods ..."

Assuming that "excess" sodium is harmful - the science is far from clear on that - the above statistic seems to suggest it would make more sense to target processed foods than simply attacking the amount of salt within them.

But I guess if we got rid of processed foods we wouldn't need the FDA anymore - and when is the last time you saw the government get smaller?

Time will tell if this is yet another misguided attempt at "saving" us.

Like...

- eggs are bad for you.
- saturated fat causes heart disease.
- red meat kills.
- butter is bad, have margarine instead!

But these are perfectly ok for you...

- high fructose corn syrup
- partially hydrogenated corn/soybean oils
- sodium nitrates/-ites

Whew! Sure glad I have Big Brother looking out for my health - aren't you?

Dancing With the Devil

Recently the facility I work at entered into an agreement to push GNC products - due in large part that one of our members holds one of the alphabet soup positions for GNC.

I'm your pusher!

Today it was time to stock up on product - or re-up as they used to say in the 'hood. So one of our employees returns with the usual assortment of fish oil, multi-vitamin and glucosamine-chondroitin - only to be accompanied by the latest and greatest supplement about to XPLODE....

Coconut Water

Apparently the stuff is the "new" Gatorade. Yippee do dah. With only one ingredient, at least it's not as processed as the "old" Gatorade- but really, nothing remarkable about it. No protein. No fat. Incomplete at best.

The scene that followed it's arrival however, was nothing short of disturbing. Supposedly educated health & fitness professionals with years of experience clamoring all over the stuff and the rest of the goodies like we were filming our on Christmas Story re-make. Unfortunately there was no Red Rider BB-Gun to shoot my eyes out, as it was a somewhat desireable outcome at the time.

But this is Pittsburgh, and Sidney Crosby is purported to be a fan of this magical water, so I really shouldn't be surprised. But surely as a surprise to most of you, I was able to withstand Sid the Kid's charm and not partake in the devouring of this precious coconut water. I guess I just felt I hadn't sufficiently depleted my glycogen stores with my HITT* session, and therefore wasn't worthy.

If this weren't enough to test my resolve we were also treated with GNC's latest issue of their Muscle & Body publication. Oh boy. The signs of the coming apocalyspe are plentiful today. Right on the cover is the nice big headline -

6 Top Supplements for Teens

Really?

Teens?

Going the route of the tabacco companies with the Get 'em while they're young approach I guess. It's bad enough pushing the stuff on unsuspecting schmucks trying to re-live their high school glory days, but preying on teenagers kinda crosses a line somewhere in the ethical desert no? I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to make money, but c'mon man.

Excuse me while I go grab a shower - I feel dirty.

*( High Intensity Interval Typing)

Bang Head Here -------> X

Two gems (note:sarcasm) from today's Wall Street Journal.....

First, A New Way to Lose Weight? discusses the latest red herring in obesity research - brown fat. While Regulators to Review New Drugs to Curb Appetite previews the possible FDA approval of 3 new "anti-obesity" drugs.

In regards to the former, researchers think they may have "one solution to curbing obesity". So what might this possibly amazing new discovery be?

Wait for it.... Wait for it.....

Essentially, turn down the thermostat. The belief is that by exposing people to colder temperatures that it will prompt our bodies to generate more heat by up-regulation of brown fat. Brown fat is a substance previously thought to only exist in humans as babies and then "shed" as we grew older. Brown fat is purported to use energy as opposed to traditional white fat's role of storing it.

Are you WOW'd yet? Yeah, me neither. Seriously, didn't we kinda go over this thing already in a way with that whole drink ice water thing a few years back?

Surprisingly, no they did not recommend just having fatter babies so that it takes longer to shed the magical brown fat - but give it time. Of course, we are already doing that yet the rates of obesity and diabetes are still going through the roof - maybe the researchers noticed this.

Bruce Spiegelman, professor of cell biology and medicine at Harvard's Dana-Farber Cancer Center is quoted as saying "We're not trying to replace diet and exercise, but frequently they're not enough or not effective."

Well duh! Not when the dietary guidelines handed down to us by the lovely folks at the USDA, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, etc. are akin to - oh I don't know....HORSESHIT*! Sorry, never said this was a kid friendly show.

*(Actually, horse-poopie may be more healthy than current guidelines - especially if the horse is grass-fed! )

These are the the same people that still believe saturated fat causes heart disease. Or that canola/vegetable oils and margarine are "heart-healthy" - or healthy at all for that matter. They can also be seen extolling the virtues of low/no fat dairy products.

What's worse, the archaic dogma these organizations are repeatedly shoving down our throats heavily influences the cirriculums in our institutions of higher learning - producing a nation of RD's, MD's, and RN's full of that same......... horse-poopie when it comes to Nutritional Advice*.

*(N/A for short. Which is what you should write over the nutritional scripts given by many of these folks. As in Not Applicable in this case - the human case.)

Later on, the article finally gets to the gut of the matter - "However, whether we lose weight or not depends on whether we overcompensate by eating more food." And how or what does brown fat influence in any way, shape, or form in that regard? Well good luck with that then!

However, the true beneficiaries of such research were revealed much earlier, as the discovery of brown fat in adults "spawned hope among scientists and drug developers"! Scientists because the drug developers gave them money and something to do, and drug developers because of the boat loads of cash they may possibly bring in with their latest weight-loss panacea. $150M boat loads in US sales of ALLI just last year to be specific. You know, the one where you need to bring a change of clothes with you in case you experience a sudden case of EXPLOSIVE diarrhea!*

*(Or the Hershey Squirts as my family has always affectionately referred to them.)

You have to love the logic ( or is it arrogance?) to sell people on a cure for something you don't fully comprehend the cause of in the first place - which is probably in part because they waste so much time on studies on brown fat and the development of magical weight-loss pills in the first place. The fact that people will spend $150M for a chance to lose weight knowing full well they will probably need their diaper changed at some point in the process only further underscores the utter failure of our nutritional governing bodies - and possibly the "over-medicating" of the country in general.

I bought a weight-loss pill, and all I got was a crappy pair of Fruit of the Looms.

Now there is a way to bump up that $150M figure, can't ever have too many t-shirts!

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe they are on to something? After all, when you think about it - horse-poopie, explosive diarrhea, and brown fat are all the same colo.......ah nevermind.

More on Meal Frequency

Does Eating More Frequent Meals Really Rev Up Your Metabolism? - Mercola.com

According to the study above, published in the British Journal of Nutrition at the end of last year, increasing meal frequency from three meals a day to three meals plus three additional snacks did not promote greater weight loss.

Both groups consumed an equal amount of calories (2931 kJ/day) and both groups ended up losing a little less than five percent of body weight after eight weeks.

Likewise, a previous study mentioned in the article above found no difference in energy balance between groups of people consuming either one meal or five meals in a two-week change-over trial.

So does that mean this is just another myth gone bust?

...a French study published in the journal Forum of Nutrition in 2003 found that people whose habitual diet pattern included a fourth meal – the so-called "goûter” or snack commonly eaten at 4 pm in France – had demonstrable benefits on Body Mass Index and metabolic profile, even though their total energy intake for the day is not greater than those who skip this meal.

The study states:

“The "goûter", commonly eaten in the afternoon in France by most children and many adults, has the biological characteristics of a meal because it is eaten in response to hunger. Suppressing the "goûter" in "habitual fourth meal eaters" soon leads to an increase in Body Mass Index (BMI).

Further, people who are regular "goûter" eaters have a higher carbohydrate intake and better metabolic profile than other adults, even though their total energy intake is not greater.

Increased feeding frequency leads to a reduction in the total secretion of insulin, an improvement in insulin resistance and a better blood glucose control, as well as an improvement in the blood lipid profile.

My thoughts are summed up nicely by this passage...

In the end, perhaps the most prudent recommendation is to simply let your hunger dictate when to eat. An important caveat here though is to remember that WHAT you eat is essential.

If your body gets the nutrients it needs, your hunger will be a reliable indicator for when you need to eat. However, many people today are in fact undernourished, despite being overweight.

Consuming junk food and fast food that does not feed your body the nutrients it needs will often lead to eating far more calories than you need simply because your insulin- and other hormonal balances are out of whack.

Eat REAL food. Eat when hungry. Seems pretty simple to me. Ties nicely right into the DUH! post from earlier this week.
In doing so, I have found I do go longer between meals, as well as have fewer meals per day - not to mention improved glucose control.

Duh!

Low-Cal Diets May Make You Gain Weight - MSN

..."For the first time in humans, we are finding out that cutting your calories increases cortisol," said lead researcher A. Janet Tomiyama, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholar at the University of California, San Francisco.

..."The term 'dieting' brings to mind deprivation, starvation, being miserable and uncomfortable and ultimately failing in weight-loss efforts," said Samantha Heller, a dietitian, nutritionist and exercise physiologist who is familiar with the study.

...Burning more calories than you consume is how your body loses weight, she said. "However, severe calorie restriction, diet fads, pills and potions, detox cleanses and other quacky approaches to weight loss only contribute to people's diet failures and, in fact, may increase the likelihood of regaining even more weight than what was lost—if any," Heller added.

..."By eating foods of higher overall nutritional quality, fullness can generally be achieved on fewer calories, eliminating the need for deprivation," Katz said. "In addition, physical activity can accelerate weight loss, promote health and alleviate stress in the bargain."

That's because your body isn't interested in calories - it's interested in nutrients! It's not interested in carbs, fats, or proteins so much as what's contained in them - magnesium, potassium and all the other essential vitamins and minerals that exist. Less calories=less nutrients. Anyone surprised that would be a recipe for failure? Part of the reason processed food is so harmful is because the nutrients are stripped away - the other part being the franken-gredients that replace said nutrients.

How do you know if you are eating processed, nutrient-naked food? Well, if it has a food label on it - chances are you've been had. Think about it. I don't see any labels in the produce section. Hmmm, don't see any in the meat dept. either. Or the farmers market - or farm in my case. Kinda makes all the confusion and emphasis on understanding and policing food labels kinda silly eh? There are a few exceptions of course - store bought eggs come to mind - so another clue could be if your ingredient list is longer than say, 2 items - or contains any ingredients that would get you a triple word score in Scrabble.

While processed and refined carbohydrates have been getting their just villification as of late, care must be taken to not ignore processed fats and proteins as well. The increased consumption of vegetable/canola oils and nitrate laced meats role in our ever declining health cannot be understated.

On the other end of the spectrum are those that are somehow under the impression that nutrients operate in a vacuum. You know, all those nutjob RD's out there telling you to gulp up all that FAT-FREE dairy to get your vitamin D & K. Problem is, those are fat soluble vitamins. No fat=no absorption. Oops.

Speaking of fat-free dairy... Full-fat Dairy for Cardiovascular Health. Double Oops.

Recent Musings...

Figured I would post a couple of rants I have submitted to local newspapers recently in response to articles they ran. The first was published, the other I'm awaiting word on.

First, submitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

In response to Dr. Quinlin’s letter from Sunday’s PG (“Obese people generally don't have a choice,” Nov. 23), as a health & fitness professional with 10+ years of experience; I must respectfully disagree.

The original article ("Fat and Fact," Nov. 22) finally brought to light the elephant in the room. While people may not choose to be fat, they do “alone decide how much they eat and how much they exercise (or how little).” It’s not necessarily laziness; it also stems from a lack of education on effective ways to do so. Folks may be surprised to know that the size and scope of their primary care physician’s education on the subjects of nutrition and exercise is extremely small. Even the American Diabetes Association, up until very recent years, was giving dietary recommendations that were actually compounding the problems and symptoms of those following it. These, combined with the large disconnect between medical professionals and health & fitness professionals; are largely contributing to our failure to sufficiently address the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

While I agree with the doctor that genetics play a large role, and that we know very little about the subject as a whole; there is science supporting specific dietary and physical protocols that have significant success. The idea that obesity cannot be controlled or managed any more than eye and skin color is simply not accurate. The responsibility of the individual cannot be understated.

While the obese population may “wish for a solution far more than any policy wonk”, do they know how to go about it and are they willing to make the necessary changes to do so? The multi-billion dollar sales of the supplement industry and FDA approved drugs such as ALLI, combined with the staggering rate of increase in obesity and diabetes in both adults and children suggests that the answer is no.

And most recently for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

RE: School districts expand healthy menu options - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

While the increased attention that the systematic poisoning of our children at the hands of our nation’s school lunch program has been receiving lately due to the efforts of Jamie Oliver and subsequent articles such as Thursday’s “School districts expand healthy menu options” excites me, the content and comments contained within suggest while meaning well and on the right path – we still have far to go.

I applaud the removal of the fryers - and more importantly the harmful canola/vegetable oil contained within them - in the Moon Area School District. But I decry the idea that by offering kids “baked chips, SunChips or pretzels” that it is somehow healthier. It’s not. It’s still processed junk. Why are we even offering snacks in the first place? A school is a place for learning; students need nutrients in order to do so - those snack choices offer no nutrients to speak of, rendering there availability illogical.

The allocation of more funds via legislation like the Health, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is good on the surface, but to “enable the secretary of agriculture to establish national nutrition standards” is not necessarily helpful. Not if that person decides, such as the case in Huntington, WV, that french fries count as a vegetable. Or that canola oil is healthy (it’s not). Or that saturated fat is somehow unhealthy (it’s not).

Again, I do believe that Ms. Lazzaro, and many others, “have the kid’s best interests at heart”. I do. But it’s not enough. Our educators need educated. The idea that “fat-free pudding and reduced-fat cottage cheese” is “cutting edge” – or healthy for that matter – is laughable. One would have thought the fat-phobia phase went out in the ‘80s right with Olivia Newton John. Those products are anything but healthy once you look at all the chemicals and additives that are poured into them to make them palatable. Not to mention many of our most vital nutrients and vitamins are fat soluble; remove the fat and you absorb nothing. Nutrients don’t function in isolation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with carbs, fat, or protein. The devil is in the refinement and processing of each of them. The solution is simple on the surface – eat REAL, nutrient dense foods. For all of the fuss about food labels, if what you are buying has a food label – chances are you shouldn’t be eating it in the first place.

The deeper issue is captured beautifully by Michelle Tejchman of Moon Middle School – “I’m a junk-food person.” Judging by the alarming rate of increase in obesity and diabetes – in our children – she is far from alone. But WHY is she a junk-food person? We can throw money at this problem just as we have at education in general. But it won’t be enough. Until there is a fundamental shift in the home - and America as a whole, the nation’s health will continue to decline right along with its intellect.

Jamie has done something beautiful. Hopefully it’s the beginning of a new movement, one which I intend to be a part of. The question is….

“Who’s coming with me?” – Jerry McGuire

Another Headline...

Science Daily: Bacon or Bagels? Higher Fat at Breakfast May Be Healthier Than You Think

"The UAB research revealed that mice fed a meal higher in fat after waking had normal metabolic profiles. In contrast, mice that ate a more carbohydrate-rich diet in the morning and consumed a high-fat meal at the end of the day saw increased weight gain, adiposity, glucose intolerance and other markers of the metabolic syndrome.

"Studies have looked at the type and quantity of food intake, but nobody has undertaken the question of whether the timing of what you eat and when you eat it influences body weight, even though we know sleep and altered circadian rhythms influence body weight," said the study's lead author Molly Bray, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology in the UAB School of Public Health."

"Conventional wisdom has dictated that fat from red meat is a risk factor for heart disease, but ..."

...So starts an article I came across this morning - "Processed Meat May Harm the Heart" - Healthday. The sentence finishes as follows:

"...a new analysis from Harvard researchers finds it's eating processed meat -- not unprocessed red meat -- that increases the risk for heart disease and even diabetes."

Other notable passages:

..."The researchers found that people who ate unprocessed red meat did not significantly increase their chances of developing heart disease or diabetes. However, eating processed meat was linked to an increased risk for the two conditions.

In fact, for every 50-gram (1.8-ounce) serving, the risk for heart disease jumped 42 percent and the risk for diabetes increased 19 percent."

and..

"When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed meats and processed meats eaten in the U.S., we found that they contained similar amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol," Micha said. "In contrast, processed meats contained, on average, four times higher amounts of sodium and two times higher amounts of nitrate preservatives."

This suggests that salt and other preservatives, rather than fats, probably explain the higher risk for heart attacks and diabetes seen with processed meats, Micha said.

Going well so far. Then...

...Both red and processed meat and other foods, such as butter and cheese, that are high in saturated fat have been linked to chronic disease, Heller said, adding that people should limit consumption of them as well.

"Going low- or no-fat with dairy products helps lower our intake of saturated fat," she said. "Choosing healthy protein sources -- such as white-meat poultry, low-mercury fish, soy, nuts and beans -- and focusing on moving in the direction of a more plant-based diet will help us all live longer, healthier lives."

Gotta take the good with the bad as the saying goes.

Pistons trainer banishes Nike Hyperize sneakers

Pistons trainer banishes Nike Hyperize sneakers - Yahoo

I got excited when I first saw the title, thinking a high profile NBA strength coach was going to finally expose the silliness that is the modern sneaker. Unfortunately I was disappointed. Let us examine.

"These shoes had taken most of the support out of the sides and it was a lighter shoe. Most basketball shoes weigh between 1.4 and 1.7 pounds."

"These shoes were weighing 0.8 pounds, which was way too light as far as side support. Since we've banned the shoe, knock on wood, we haven't had any ankle sprains."

So. A difference of 9.6-14.4 OUNCES(ounces?) is substantial enough to provide 'support' to a world class athlete often weighing in excess of 200 POUNDS(not ounces) moving and changing direction in multiple planes at full speed? Does anyone really think a shoe 'supports' anything in that situation? If you do, take one of your shoes and bend and pull on the sides of it and take note of how little effort it takes. Not seeing the logic here.

Pistons actually fine members of the team who don't tape their ankles because it has shown to be so effective in preventing injury.

First: Please show me the scientific evidence that illustrates that taping ankles prevents injury; and which type of injury it supposedly prevents. Go ahead; I'll wait.

Second: Those of us in strength and conditioning who have bothered to invest in any continuing education are aware that the ankle is designed for MOBILITY - just as the knee is desinged for STABILITY - and so on in alternating fashion as you move upward through the body. Restricting the MOBILITY of the ankle by taping - and to some degree high-top sneakers - only places further pressure on the knee to become more MOBILE; the opposite of it's function. Anyone see the problem there? Think it may have something to do with the large increase in the dreaded 'high' ankle sprain, ACL injuries, and microfracture surgeries we see today? I do.

Bottom Line: If you train athletes properly with a joint-by-joint approach, they will posess the MOBILITY and STABILITY they require to help prevent injury.

Go barefoot as much as possible, training included. Single-leg training in multiple planes. Train the ankles, hips, and thoracic spine for MOBILITY. Train the knees, lumbar spine, and shoulders for STABILITY.

For further reading on the silliness of sneakers, check out Born to Run by Christopher McDougall.