As a student of Chiropractic philosophy, I am always seeking to expand my understanding and awareness of natural principles and science in order to treat my body in a way that allows me to experience life optimally. What does that mean? It means that I choose to exercise in a way that supports me and allows me to do the activities I enjoy, while adding strength, flexibility, and stability to my physical being. It also means that I am constantly striving to eat in a way that supports my body rather than adding stress to it.
When I was in high school, I allowed my weight to get up to around 240 lbs. I wasn't particularly athletic, though I played soccer and studied martial arts, so that weight didn't represent a great proportion of fat and muscle. By simply restricting my calories (i.e. eating one bowl of cereal in the morning instead of three!) I was able to drop weight. I also got strict with a running program and weight training routine, and my health improved dramatically. As that journey has continued, I've managed to refine my eating choices over time until finally discovering the diet that has worked the best for me. I now effortlessly maintain a weight of between 205 and 210, while staying around 8% body fat (if you trust calipers).
A word about that. I do not believe in one diet for everyone. People are different, and thus they have different needs when it comes to food. Some people tolerate dairy very well, while others do not, for example. For me, I have found that by adopting the eating plan most similar to the Primal Blueprint, by Mark Sisson, (check him out at marksdailyapple.com) I stay lean, with lots of energy, and increasing strength. I am also almost never hungry, and when I am, I eat some veggies and meat, and it goes away, and I'm not just hungry again a few minutes later, as I used to be.
I do believe that almost everyone will benefit by eating a lot of vegetables. I also believe that most people require animal products to be optimally healthy. There are likely a few people out there who do just fine on a pure vegan or vegetarian diet, but I don't believe it's the healthiest choice for most. As always, experiment and see what works for you.
So how does this relate to the headline and the dangers of them? Simply put, the standard diet proposed by our government is NOT the right diet for most people. The reliance on whole grains and legumes as staples tends to increase overall carbohydrate loads while decreasing fat and protein, leading to increased insulin production and resistance, and a host of other diseases that result from that. A recent study that supports a lower carb type diet was lambasted in the press, but not for study flaws or poor design. Rather, it was simply lied about. Here are some examples (note these aren't actually headlines, but you get the point, I hope): (borrowed from The Eating Academy)
Unfortunately, if you actually read and interpret the study, these statements are mostly completely false. The Wall Street Journal came the closest to being true, but then they blew it by reporting on the measure of inflammation. If you're interested in the whole study interpretation, check out the Eating Academy blog by following the link above.
The truth is, the lower carbohydrate diets improved overall energy expenditure, which can result in more weight loss. While a calorie is a calorie, and calories in vs. calories out can determine weight loss, the source of those calories in can change how many we burn (calories out), so it's not quite that simple!
And the point of the whole thing is, don't simply believe headlines. Journalists write what they write to attract readers, not necessarily to tell the truth. And a story that warns people about a potentially dangerous diet gets a lot more play for some reason.
If you have any questions about the diet I'm following now, don't hesitate to ask!
When I was in high school, I allowed my weight to get up to around 240 lbs. I wasn't particularly athletic, though I played soccer and studied martial arts, so that weight didn't represent a great proportion of fat and muscle. By simply restricting my calories (i.e. eating one bowl of cereal in the morning instead of three!) I was able to drop weight. I also got strict with a running program and weight training routine, and my health improved dramatically. As that journey has continued, I've managed to refine my eating choices over time until finally discovering the diet that has worked the best for me. I now effortlessly maintain a weight of between 205 and 210, while staying around 8% body fat (if you trust calipers).
A word about that. I do not believe in one diet for everyone. People are different, and thus they have different needs when it comes to food. Some people tolerate dairy very well, while others do not, for example. For me, I have found that by adopting the eating plan most similar to the Primal Blueprint, by Mark Sisson, (check him out at marksdailyapple.com) I stay lean, with lots of energy, and increasing strength. I am also almost never hungry, and when I am, I eat some veggies and meat, and it goes away, and I'm not just hungry again a few minutes later, as I used to be.
I do believe that almost everyone will benefit by eating a lot of vegetables. I also believe that most people require animal products to be optimally healthy. There are likely a few people out there who do just fine on a pure vegan or vegetarian diet, but I don't believe it's the healthiest choice for most. As always, experiment and see what works for you.
So how does this relate to the headline and the dangers of them? Simply put, the standard diet proposed by our government is NOT the right diet for most people. The reliance on whole grains and legumes as staples tends to increase overall carbohydrate loads while decreasing fat and protein, leading to increased insulin production and resistance, and a host of other diseases that result from that. A recent study that supports a lower carb type diet was lambasted in the press, but not for study flaws or poor design. Rather, it was simply lied about. Here are some examples (note these aren't actually headlines, but you get the point, I hope): (borrowed from The Eating Academy)
USA Today
…the authors note a downside to the low-carb diet: it appears to raise some risk factors for heart disease.
The New York Times
…the low-carb diet “also had marked problems. It raised levels of CRP (c-reactive protein), which is a measure of chronic inflammation, and cortisol, a hormone that mediates stress.”
The Wall Street Journal
…the low-carb diet had the biggest boost in total energy expenditure, burning about 300 calories more per day than those on the low-fat diet — about the same as an hour of moderate exercise. But that bump came at a cost: increases in cortisol, a stress hormone, and a measure of inflammation called CRP, which can raise the risk of developing heart disease and diabetes.Unfortunately, if you actually read and interpret the study, these statements are mostly completely false. The Wall Street Journal came the closest to being true, but then they blew it by reporting on the measure of inflammation. If you're interested in the whole study interpretation, check out the Eating Academy blog by following the link above.
The truth is, the lower carbohydrate diets improved overall energy expenditure, which can result in more weight loss. While a calorie is a calorie, and calories in vs. calories out can determine weight loss, the source of those calories in can change how many we burn (calories out), so it's not quite that simple!
And the point of the whole thing is, don't simply believe headlines. Journalists write what they write to attract readers, not necessarily to tell the truth. And a story that warns people about a potentially dangerous diet gets a lot more play for some reason.
If you have any questions about the diet I'm following now, don't hesitate to ask!
No comments:
Post a Comment