Showing posts with label nutrition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nutrition. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume L: Can The BPA (and cans)

BPA, or bisphenol-A, is a substance frequently used to harden plastics in such things as baby bottles, food storage containers, and water bottles. It is also found in the lining of many canned goods as an anti-corrosion agent.

So what's the big deal with BPA? Well, in just this year alone, BPA has been linked to the following:



Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XLVI: Nutrition On a Budget (Time)

Just as it is with training, 'lack of time' is often cited as a major barrier as to why people are unable to prepare their own meals and end up eating out so often where they are no longer under control of what they are putting in their bodies. Here are a few ways to make 'time' much less of an issue:



Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XLIV: Do The Opposite (In the kitchen)

Over 2/3's of the population is considered overweight or obese. Approximately 26 MILLION adults and CHILDREN currently have diabetes. By 2030, these numbers are expected to DOUBLE. Clearly, the methods being used to counteract these epidemics aren't working. If you want to experience true success, do the OPPOSITE of what the majority ...is doing.



Thursday, April 25, 2013

Getting Away From It All Without Getting Off Your Diet

Guest post by Cole Millen
You have worked hard to lose weight and get fit in time for summer. However, you may find that the vacation you anticipated threatens to sabotage your efforts. Here are some principles to help you maintain a healthy eating plan:



Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXXXI: Wanna lose weight?

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXXXI: Wanna lose weight?

No you don't.



Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXXX: NOT So Good Health/Fitness Resources

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXXX: NOT So Good Health/Fitness Resources

Up first: mainstream media headlines/articles

Why?

As the following article states, "...the media oversimplified things; to the point of not even being accurate. And yes, that’s why most media headlines are not very trustworthy."

CARDIO VS. WEIGHTS

This can happen when the writer, having no formal education or experience in the area, simply glances over the abstract instead of reading the entire study. Additionally, sometimes the researchers themselves often misinterpret their own data - an occurrence that happens far more often than most people realize!

As a bonus, the article also explains why, despite popular opinion and practice, cardio is inferior to resistance/strength training when it comes to FAT loss and therefore lies at the BOTTOM of the fat-loss hierarchy we utilize with our clients here at Pittsburgh Kettlebells.

Have a health/fitness related question? Shoot us an email, or stop by and say hello during our Open House Saturday, April 27th from 1:00pm-5:00pm!


Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXXVIV: Nutrition Resources

Last week we gave you some of our top strength training resources, this week we'll shift the focus to nutrition. Without further adieu:

Girth Control - Alan Aragon
 

Primal Blueprint - Mark Sisson


The Schwarzbein Principle - Diana Schwarzbein


While similar to last week's resources these 3 books may seem very different on the surface - in actuality the principles which guide them all are quite similar. Last week's strength training examples all championed using compound movements and the principle of progressive overload despite the 'tool' being used to accomplish it.

This week, despite the minor differences in application, the bottom line is all three authors advocate:

1. Eating Real Food and NOT "Food Products"
2. Ensuring Adequate Protein Intake
3. Combining #1's & 2 in order to create a REASONABLE caloric deficit

We understand there is a bunch of conflicting and confusing advice out there as it pertains to fitness and nutrition, and that's why at PGH KB it's our mission to teach and educate you how to sift through the BS and look for the similarities as opposed to trivial differences.

As the saying goes: METHODS are many, PRINCIPLES are few.



Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXXII: DIE-ts

Diets don't work, simple as that. If there was one that worked, everybody would be doing it.

Anything that villifies an entire nutrient group (fat, carbohydrate, protein), is nothing more than a gimmick which simply tricks you into eating less in the short-term. The problem is two-fold:
...
1. it's not sustainable

2. you will create nutrient dificiencies.

The only thing that works long-term is making sound choices on a consistent basis.

Eat real food - not food products.

Consume reasonable quantities of said real food.

Rinse. Repeat.

For more on how diets can cause harm, even when short-term weight-loss is achieved, check the following link:


How Dieting Causes Metabolic Syndrome - 180Degree Health


Tuesday, February 12, 2013

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.



Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVV: Veggie Tales

Most nutrition and weight-loss discussions center around what you CAN'T eat, or what you should eat LESS of. Today, we'll discuss what you probably need to eat MORE of - vegetables.

Based on a 3 meal per day plan, aim for 2-3 palm or fist-sized portions per meal. This will take up approximately half to two-thirds of your plate. Salads; or grilled, steam...ed, or sauteed vegetables are all great choices - choose the method you like best to assist with adherence.

Action plan: Simply start eating more vegetables than you are now.

Afterall, how many people have you heard comment that they struggle with their weight because the often eat too many vegetables?!?

Unless of course, you count pizza as a vegetable like the US Government does as part of your children's school lunch program.......



Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVIV: Sugar & Starch Simplified

This weeks' tip tackles question #3 from the meal-time quiz - "Are you eating too many sugars and starches." In short - probably so. So how much is enough?



Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVIII: Practical Protein

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVIII: Practical Protein

This weeks' tip deals with question #2 from your meal-time quiz - "Are you eating enough protein?" So, how much is enough?

For women, shoot for 3 fist-sized portions per day. For men, 3-5 fist-sized portions per day. As a general rule of thumb a drug-free strength training individual would need anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 of their body weight in grams... of protein. So a 200 pound individual for example, would require anywhere from 100-150g in protein per day. In our experience any more than that doesn't add anything except excess fat gain.

Trained professionals use factors such as current weight & body-fat percentage, lifestyle, goals, and intensity and duration of exercise to determine a more precise amount on an individual basis.

Each first-sized portion correlates to approximately 3-6 oz. of food - equaling anywhere from 20-40g of protein per serving. Good choices include: chicken, turkey, fish, lean beef, and other leaner game meats.

Protein supplements may be used as a last resort if you have difficulty obtaining enough protein through real food, or for situtations where you are rushed and don't have time to prepare a meal.

Many would have you believe that you need as much as 1-2g of protein per pound of bodyweight. It is our opinion that this is nothing more than marketing hype in order to convince the public to buy un-necessary and pricey protein supplements.



Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVII: Do You Eat Too Much?

If you'll recall, the first question from last weeks' meal time quiz was "Are you eating too much food?" Considering the staggering number of people worldwide now considered obese, diagnosed with diabetes, or in the midsts of yet another resolution - the answer is most likely yes. So, how to remedy this particular problem?



Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVI: Meal-time Quiz

Free-Tip Tuesday Volume XXVI: Meal-time Quiz

As mentioned before, research shows relying solely on exercise for fat loss results in a measely 1/2-1 pound of fat lost PER MONTH! Therefore, making better nutritional choices is where the difference is made. Courtesy of Dr. John Berardi, here are 5 questions to ask yourself the next time you sit down:

1. Are you eating too much food?
2. Are you eating enough protein?
3. Are you eating too man sugars or starches?
4. Are you eating enough vegetables?
5. Are you eating enough healthy fats?

Stay tuned over the next few weeks to find out what the answers should be, some of them might surprise you.



Friday, December 28, 2012

Guide To Surviving The Holiday(Eating) Season



1.     Relax. Enjoy.

Most Fattening Thanksgiving Foods. Top 10 Worst Christmas Foods. Every year the same headlines, right?!? I say – Who cares?!?! Results from sound nutrition come from what you practice the MAJORITY of the time, not ALL of the time. The average person will eat approximately 1200 meals in a year (365 days x 3 meals/day). Of these 1200 meals, Thanksgiving and Christmas Dinners will account for a grand total of TWO of them. 1200 or 2……which one do you think carries more weight? Worry about the choices you are making on those other 1198 meals and enjoy the time and food with your loved ones they way you are meant to – seems like an easier and more enjoyable way to go about life to me.



Thursday, May 13, 2010

Unlike Slick Willy, I Inhaled....

My food that is. This is a topic I have been watching closely over the past few weeks which I was reminded of by a recent article at Science Daily - Jurassic Fast Food Was a Key to Giant Dinosaurs.

Like any teenager, I certainly was picky about what I ate. On top of that, my dad was going to culinary school at the time. Suffice it to say I spent many an evening at the dinner table with food on the plate I had no desire to eat. But I did want to go back out and play. Problem was, I couldn't do that until I finished my food. Initially, I stubbornly picked at prodded at these foreign foods on my plate - often taking over an hour to eat a a plate full of food.

For whatever reason, one day I had an epiphany and realized my Dad was telling the truth - finish the food and I could indeed leave and go back outside. And eat I did. I inhaled. A story he loves to tell - and much better than I - to this day. This newly found practice came long for the ride when I started college.

Again, like any normal college student, I had no desire to get up any earlier than I had to. I would often set the alarm for 45 minutes before my first class. In this time I had to shower, get dressed, get to the dining hall and eat breakfast, and arrive in class on time. This lead to a true refinement of my inhaling ways - something I have carried with me ever since. Just about every woman I have ever dated has commented on the speed at which I devour my meals - probably because I wasn't talking to them at all with being so preoccupied with my food!

So what am I getting at?

From the article above:

"Why were the sauropod dinosaurs able to get so much larger than today's terrestrial animals? A research group led by the University of Bonn seems to have solved this puzzle. According to this research Jurassic fast food culture was a key to gigantism. The giant dinosaurs did not chew their food -- they just gulped it down."

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar - maybe I have a little dinosaur in me? The Paleo crowd gots nothing on me!

The article goes on to explain:

"Chewing helps to digest the food faster. By the grinding process it is broken down and at the same time its surface is enlarged. This way the digestive enzymes are able to attack the food more easily."


Recently however, for whatever reason, I have been making a conscience effort to slow down when I eat. Chew thoroughly. Thoroughly enjoy every bite.

What I have noticed almost every time - better glucose response. Lower numbers eating the same meals. Something I will be continuing to keep an eye on.

But what might the implications of this information be on a larger scale? What about are own fast-food culture? In a recent article in the WSJ - Our Big Problem - the author states that "for much of the population, family meals are a ritual of the past."

No wonder McDonald's has Over One Billion Served.

Many, if not all of us, are aware of the dangers of eating processed foods. However, we obviously are still eating it in super-sized amounts. The common excuse is a lack of time. Always on the run. Do you think these people are taking the time to slow down, chew, and enjoy the poison they are ingesting? What about those on starvation diets and other silliness? When they get those cravings and the ravenous hunger that eventually comes without fail - think they take much time to chew-up?

I commented on the decline in our nation's health over the past two generations here. Many have, and correctly so, layed blame at the foot of the introduction of processed foods and additives like HFCS and the fat-phobia that followed. But are we neglecting one other factor that began occurring in the same general time frame?

The breakdown of the family unit.

And I'm not just talking about the easily targeted single-parent homes. What of that other change coming along with the Industrial Revolution and WWII - the entering into the workforce of the now almost extinct stay-at-home parent. It's almost essential in today's economy that both parents work. You don't find many households where one parent can afford to stay at home.

Whether you have a single-parent home, or one with two that both have to work 50-60+ hours a week - how much difference really is there? It seems apparent to me you get a generation of children raised by TV, computers, and fast-food either way.

Indeed, the sit-down family meal and passing down of family recipes do become dinosaurs in their own right. The author goes on to state:

"...the unemployed and the single parents that I used to visit as a doctor, I would find no evidence of cooking ever having been done there. Fatty take-away meals and ready-prepared foods heated in the microwave were the diet, together with almost constant snacks. There was not even a table to eat at: an absence that was not the consequence of raw poverty, since the flat-screen television would have been large enough, turned horizontal, to serve as a dining table."

An ever growing divergence from an environment which relies on and values REAL foods, to one fueling a dependency on processed and fast-foods. Quick and cheap - at least until you receive your health-care bills. A vicious cycle completed over and over again - one generation to the next.

Meal frequency also interestingly pops up again in both articles as well. The University of Bonn dinosaur research group states "the larger an animal is, the more time it spends eating." While the author from the WSJ comments on the circumstances and effects from an environment in which "children graze or forage." Despite the matter-of-fact recommendation to eat 5-6 small meals per day to "rev up the metabolism " from the health & fitness industry, the science behind it is sketchy at best - as layed out here.

So what can we do? The author from the WSJ goes on to explain the futility of government intervention and prohibition:

"By taking on responsibility for the health consequences of obesity, the government has given itself the locus standi to interfere in many aspects of human existence. If obesity kills, is it not the government's duty to prevent it? He who pays the doctor decides the prophylaxis. Positive encouragement of healthy eating won't work, nor mere printed warnings that some foods are unhealthy (people who are prepared to eat doughnuts with pink and blue icing are unlikely to desist on learning that they contain nothing good for the bowels or any other organ).

As usual, therefore, prohibition beckons. Regulation of the sugar and fat content of ready-prepared and fast foods is likely to be proposed and perhaps eventually accepted, though not without a very fierce rear-guard action by the food industry. If John Doe will not eat his greens, Uncle Sam will make him, if necessary by restricting the availability of other foods."

Instead, he suggests teaching children to cook and eat together. A great idea in my opinion. Indeed, this has been one of the silver linings of my diabetes cloud. Prior to being diagnosed, my most elaborate dishes consisted of things like Kraft Mac N' Cheese. My culinary skills have since improved exponentially - and it's been an enjoyable process to boot!


Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Wu-Tang Is For The Children!

Well ODB, I don't know if Wu-Tang is for the children, but the rest of us should be - how will you?

From MSN - Obesity Epidemic May Cut Life Spans of Young Adults

...The study authors report that one in five people born between 1966 and 1985 became obese -- a step above merely overweight -- when they were between 20 and 29 years old.

By contrast, those who were born from 1946 to 1955 didn't reach the level of obesity until they were in their 30s. And those who were born between 1936 and 1945 didn't get to that weight category until their 40s ...


Wow. Startling trend huh? We now manage to become obese ~20 years quicker than we did just two generations ago - and we aren't slowing down. The current generation of children will become the first to have a life expectancy shorter than their own parents! Take a moment to let that marinate a bit.

This generation of children will become the first to have a life expectancy shorter than their own parents!

If you have children - or are planning to have children - that has to concern you. Might even piss you off. I know it pisses me off, and I don't even want children. But I do have two younger brothers, ages 16 and 12. I am concerned for them - they don't know any better. I hope they never know what it's like to have prick their finger after every meal, or become so skilled with a syringe that they could moonlight as phlebotomists. Unfortunately, the statistics suggest they likely will.

But not if there is anything I can do about it.

The staggering increases in the rates of obesity and diabetes in children have been well documented. If you are indeed Smarter Than a 5th Grader, it's also not hard to comprehend the ENORMOUS impact these numbers have on health care costs. Ahhh the costs - one of the largest arguments against the most recent health care bill. Who is going to pay for all of this? A question that does need to be asked, but one that is well out of the scope of this post.

Indeed, the costs are staggering. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't think lowering health care costs is a huge positive. But what costs exactly have everyone so up in arms? Treatment costs right? Seems to me as though someone has forgot equations have two sides.

Couldn't costs be also substantially lowered through prevention? If there is nothing to treat, there is no cost! Seems like a logical approach to me. Are we saying - "Oh we tried that and it didn't work?" It's almost as if the FDA, USDA, AHA, ADA, etc. have all collectively thrown their hands up in the air and shouted - NO MAS! I am the only one that hears no one talking about prevention anymore?

The above statistics seem to suggest that the preventative strategies we have implemented that were recommended by the above agencies have been an utter and colossal failure - and indeed they have been! But WHY? Instead of giving up on prevention, why are we not questioning the methods with which we have been using with ZERO success?

How can we possibly say we have tried prevention when we look at our nation's school lunch programs? Pizza for breakfast and lunch? French fries as vegetables? We don't truly expect people to eat well or be healthy after feeding them crap for 2/3's of the day for 12-16 years of their life do we? They don't even know how! Large masses of "experts" still operating under the fallacies of healthy canola oil and dangerous saturated fat is bad enough - but french fries counting as vegetables? Who is making guidelines like those? What are their qualifications? Are they obese? All fair questions in my opinion.

The appointment of Surgeon General Dr. Regina Benjamin - who is obese - was justifiably criticized due to her weight. Her response was that she understands "what it's like to be overweight" and that she would help us become a healthier nation. Lot's of people understand what it's like to be overweight - about 67% of the population at last check - that doesn't make you qualified to do anything about it. If you haven't been able to help yourself, how are you going to help anyone else? By no means does she need to look like a figure competitor - that would most likely be just as bad as being obese - but she is a posterchild for that 67%. If the message is that we just have to keep trying harder - using the same tired methods we have been - our ever declining health will continue.

We need to get back to real, nutrient-dense, unprocessed food. We need to get back to using good science - not what passes for good science (or is it a good headline?) these days. These changes need to happen not only in our homes, but in our schools, and perhaps most of all....in academia. A stronger emphasis on continuing education for our medical and health professionals is in order as well. Only then will we begin to reverse the dangerous downward spriral we have been in for the past 2 generations.


Saturday, April 10, 2010

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.


Thursday, April 1, 2010

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."



Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Are we focusing too much on how MUCH we eat; and ignoring how OFTEN?

Those of you following along for a while have noticed a marked improvement in both my fasting and post-prandial glucose control over the past 3-4 weeks. This despite decreasing insulin use by about 1/3, enjoying potatoes, and ingesting meals that have exceeded 75g of carbohydrate and/or 1500kcals in one sitting. While surely many interacting variables are at play, I strongly believe decreasing the FREQUENCY of my meals has had a significant positive effect.

Specifically, I have been aiming for the following:
  • At least 4 hours between meals
  • At least 12 hours between my last meal of the day and the following mornings breakfast
To recap, I had previously attempted the High Everything Diet(HED) and had not seen much improvement at the time - though maybe mostly because I ended up discovering I seem to be Type I and not Type II. But maybe I was too quick to judge....
A couple of the main tenants of the HED are to:
  • Eat whenever hungry
  • Eat until satisfaction
The key being to ingest REAL, nutrient dense foods - while avoiding processed foods, Omega-6 fats, and large quantities of fructose. Prior to, and throughout the month on the HED, I definately felt the need to eat every 3 hours or less. I was seemingly ALWAYS hungry. A few things were possibly to blame:
  • Prior to HED - Unintentially starving myself while going low-carb. Essentially, not replacing the lost carb calories with sufficient calories from fat.
  • The nutrients I was ingesting possibly not ever making it to their proper destination due to a lack of insulin to drive it home.
  • I question whether I was eating to satisfaction as well as I was eating whenever hungry.
At that point, the idea of going more than 3 hours between meals - or going 12+ hours overnight - seemed unattainable. I decided to bag the HED experiment and begin to use a little bit of insulin with each meal; as opposed to my doctor's recommendations to use it whenever I have a reading >200mg/dl. Not letting it get to 200 mg/dl in the first place seemed to make more sense to me - no I don't know why it took me a month to realize this!
I also began to really focus on eating to satisfaction - regardless of how many calories and grams of protein may have been in the meals. It was also during this time I got turned on to brown rice and coconut milk by Matt Stone of 180DegreeHealth. What I found interesting about both of these foods is that they are outstanding sources of maganese and magnesium - nutrients that even on HED I was failing to meet even RDA levels. I can only imagine how woefully inadequate my intake on these vital nutrients was for years.....decades prior! The reason being they are both involved with glucose metabolism and/or insulin resistance/sensitivity. The role of magnesium was covered wonderfully by Stephen at Whole Health Source recently.
Then....
Suddenly I began to realize I just wasn't hungry near as often. Times in between meals began to slowly grow larger and larger. I was going 4, 5, 6 - even sometimes up to 8 hours between meals! Maybe there was some healing going on during HED afterall?!
It was during this time I also noticed how differently I felt when not sitting as much. The more I sat at work, the hungrier I became. The less I sat - you guessed it - simply not hungry. Just an observation at this point - but interesting nonethless.
Things were occuring in waves. I next came across an interesting mainstream health article(for the life of me I cannot find now; was either through Yahoo or MSN surprisingly). The title of which was something along the lines of "Eat MORE to lose weight?" If somebody can find it; please link!
In this study, the researchers fed two groups of rats or monkeys(can't remember which) EQUAL amounts of calories. One group was allowed unlimited access to the food - allowing them to essentially eat constantly throughout the day. The second group was only allowed access to the food at specific time intervals; up to 12 hours between in some cases. I fould the results interesting. Not because of the group that had unlimited access to the food gained weight, but more interestingly because that same group also developed some negative bio-markers in the liver as well! Remember, total caloric intake was equal between the two groups.
All the while during this time, I could see more and more signs of a healed metabolism. The checks and balances that are so lacking in those weight weight problems and other issues I was begining to see work their magic. All the sudden I didn't feel the need to be ingesting 3000kcals or more to be full that day. I could eat 2300 kcals and be totally satisfied; stuffed even. If I did have a day with a large caloric load, the next day my body seemed to correct itself by just asking for that much less. It was working like it is supposed to! The constant feeling of hunger was long gone.
The waves kept rolling in. Just this week I came across a new blog with some nice content - The Lean Saloon. The entry that struck a chord with me was - "In Response to A Fat-Loss Client" from Febuary 24th. The following passage captures my current feelings...
"As such, I have found long-term success in eating fewer times per day. I also make sure most of the food is nutrient-rich — mostly vegetables, fruits, and meats. This may help to preserve optimal health while in a calorie deficit. Beyond this I still enjoy some sinful food — or what’s the point?!

Our culture is conditioned to eat 4 to 6 meals a day, believing this stabilizes blood sugar, maintains muscle, speeds up metabolism, etc. But no scientific evidence can demonstrate these factors to be different in fewer meals a day.

From a metabolic standpoint, there are no advantages to spreading 1, 2, or 3 meals over more smaller meals throughout the day.

People who eat 5 or 6 meals per day are still overweight. Bodybuilders who eat 5 or 6 meals are still fat in the off-season, and are lean only when they “diet down” for a competition, typically by eating fewer calories. "
And then today... "Snacks mean U.S. kids move toward constand eating." lays possibly even more blame at the feet of more frequent feedings:


"This raises the question of whether the physiological basis for eating is becoming deregulated, as our children are moving toward constant eating."
While my recent experiences may be nothing more than random happenings, closing in on a month of fairly consistent improvement leaves me optimisitic there is more to explore and learn from the specific issues I have addressed today.