Do You Need Milk For Optimal Health & Strong Bones? Marketing Says Yes But Science Says No.

“Milk helps build strong bones and teeth!”

Like many, I first heard this mantra when I was a child in elementary school and it is a message that is firmly ingrained in the minds of most as one of the few universal truths in nutrition. The need for dairy products as an irreplaceable part of the human diet for building and maintaining strong bones and warding off the ravages of osteoporosis is considered common knowledge, an unshakable truth, and  a message repeated ad nauseum in the media. A message that few would find reason to question. It’s no secret that milk contains calcium- a key mineral for maintaining bone health. Thus there would appear to be little reason to question it’s importance as a protective shield against bone loss.  As popular and seemingly rational an idea as it may be, the scientific evidence doesn’t support it. Very early in my career I myself was quite surprised to learn that my early indoctrination to the health benefits of dairy consumption didn’t come from credible peer reviewed scientific research, but from a rather successful marketing campaign on the part of the dairy industry. A campaign influential enough to have the US government (and many others around the world) classify milk as a food group- a decision made based on profit and not sound nutritional science.

Contrary to popular belief billions of people on the planet do just fine without having milk as a part of their diet. Not hundreds of thousands or millions, but billions. Surprisingly enough, people in countries where milk consumption is minimal have some of the lowest incidences of osteoporosis and hip fractures on earth. A revealing statistic that somehow never seems to find its way to American audiences, nor does the fact that for hundreds of thousands of years milk most humans on the planet didn’t drink milk and that many enjoy rather robust health without it. There is a reason for our rather myopic understanding of milk and what it can and cannot do for us and it’s the dairy industry. The reach of the dairy industry’s influence is impressive to say the least, spreading information designed to help them sell more milk not just nationally but globally.

Using a consumer creating model sanctioned by government entities, teaching material for young children in schools about the role of milk in building strong bones and teeth is graciously supplied by the American Dairy Council. Presented as educational material at an early age, such influence affects our perception of milk as a required part of our diets and it is hard, if not impossible for a child to question such authoritative information. An effective model that ensures that as adults the party line that milk is a requirement for optimal health is firmly rooted in our core set of beliefs. It’s a similar methodology used by fast food chains like McDonald’s to market to children, knowing fully well that it will guarantee another generation of customers.

Not only is milk taught at an early age to be an essential part of our diet, it is provided to us as well. As a food product produced far in excess of what we as a nation can consume thanks to heavy government subsidies secured by the dairy lobbies, it can be literally given away and dairy producers still make profits. With the early consumer marketing model in mind it thus makes sense that milk is distributed to young children in schools through government food programs. Good business as it helps to cement the thought process of milk being a necessity as an unquestioned view.

Milk & Calcium- Understanding The Science

As adults we are bombarded by messages and dairy lobby funded ‘studies’ reminding us about the calcium content of milk and dairy products. Most notably for women and the steadily aging American population, mill’s supposed prophylactic effects against bone loss are emphasized. But can the calcium in milk really make a difference in bone density? Looking internationally at the dairy-equals-calcium-which-equals-strong-bones idea, we see clearly that the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis are the largest consumers of dairy products.

The dairy consumption of countries like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, the UK and Northern Europe is enormous when compared to Asian countries such as China where dairy consumption is rare, yet those very countries where less dairy is consumed have they have the lowest rates of hip fracture and osteoporosis in the world.[1,2,3,4]

The Rate Of Osteoporosis & Hip Fracture Is Lower In Populations Who Do Not Consume Milk & Dairy Products.

To give an idea of the prevalence of osteoporosis, estimates are that 40% of American Caucasian women and 13% of Caucasian men aged 50 years will experience at least one bone loss related fracture in their lifetime. At age 50, a Caucasian woman has a 17% chance of sustaining a hip fracture, 15% chance of vertebral fracture and 16% chance for forearm fracture, with comparable figures of 6%, 5% and 2.5%, respectively, for fractures in white males.[2] Interestingly enough among the female African American population the age-adjusted prevalence of hip related osteoporosis is only 6%, compared to 17 % for postmenopausal White women- difference consistent with the much lower fracture rates observed in African Americans.[5] African Americans, by the way consume almost 40% less milk and dairy products as their Caucasian counterparts[6] which if by itself renders the milk/dairy-equals-strong-bones theory to be questionable.

Statistics from the observation of low dairy intake in Asian population contradict the milk/dairy-equals-strong-bones theory completely. Using China as an example, where cheese and other popular dairy products are not a part of their regular diet and where milk consumption is 10% of the American per capita consumption rate[7] age standardized incidences of hip fractures is far lower than their milk drinking American and European counterparts. Based on the 1990 China census figures hip fracture rates were only 87 per 100,000 for women and 97 per 100,000 for men. Contrast these numbers with 510-559 per 100,000 for white American women and 174-207 per 100,000 for American Caucasian men[8]. In fact, hip fractures in Beijing are reportedly among the lowest rates of occurrence in the world- and with a population where milk is by no means a staple.

Debunking The Need for Milk- It’s The Calcium Lost Not Calcium Consumed That Causes Osteoporosis

As much as the good (and well paid) folks at the American Dairy Association would like you to think that increasing your calcium intake by drinking milk would decrease your risk of osteoporosis, the science behind this premise simply doesn’t support it. From what we do know about bone loss, it happens not so much from not having a high enough calcium intake, but rather from having a high level of calcium loss due to dietary and lifestyle choices. [8] According to the findings of the 1994 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference,  at least one third of calcium balance and bone density is dependent on the ratio of intake to loss and not solely on calcium intake alone as the marketing campaigns would have you believe. To be frank, meta analysis of literature meeting the provisions for unbiased scientific research found there were no significant relationships proved between milk consumption or any other dairy product to measures of bone health nor were there no correlations between calcium intake and bone loss.[9,10,11,12] Similarly, an 18 year analysis of 72 337 postmenopausal women published in the February 2003 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that an adequate vitamin D intake was associated with a lower risk of osteoporotic hip fractures in postmenopausal women. Neither milk nor a high-calcium diet in the study had any correlation with a reduction in risk of osteoporosis.

Milk Isn’t The Only Source Of Calcium

So we have established that bone loss has little to do with intake, but for those concerned nevertheless about their calcium intake, it should be noted that a 1990 report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that green leafy vegetables such as broccoli and kale have high levels of calcium and is absorbed at least as well as the calcium in milk. [12,13,14] Proper calcium balance on a non-dairy diet is easily attained because ALL vegetables and legumes contain calcium.[15] Thus within the context of a balanced diet it is more than adequate to prevent frank deficiencies which are rare to nonexistent in developed countries such as the United States.[16]

In terms of the ultimate source of calcium, however no other food source can compete with the bioavailability of calcium from bones. That’s right, bones. You don’t hear much about it since eating bones isn’t that popular here in the United States and given that both dairy producers and supplement manufacturers would be hard pressed to sell their wares if the general population was aware that eating small amounts of bone is how humans got most of their calcium for several hundred thousand years. The small and soft bones of fishes like sardines are a perfect source of calcium in a form our bodies can easily absorb, as is the use of bone meal that can be added to soups and broths. Since these sources are better absorbed (and it makes sense that bones would be the best source of building material for bones) our body retains more of it as opposed to being mostly excreted in urine as is often the case with dairy products and artificial supplements.

Osteoporosis is a very real concern for many women, as they make up 80% of those affected by this condition. Osteoporosis is a major public health threat for an estimated 44 million people here in the United States with almost 10 million individuals estimated to already have the disease and almost 34 million more are estimated to have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk for osteoporosis. It is time we paid more attention to what has been proven to be real risk factors, such as soda consumption, high sodium diets, smoking, excessive caffeine consumption, alcohol and an inactive lifestyle , than simply falling for the marketing hype that somehow drinking  milk or eating yogurt and cheese will magically protect you from low bone density.

Getting the recommended daily allowance of calcium at all ages is important, preferably from dietary sources. But bone nutrient requirements are wide and far more complex than simply drinking milk or taking a calcium supplement. A diverse diet of natural foods that includes meat, fish, fresh vegetables, fruits and nuts will always cover the diverse nutritional needs of our bones as long as we stay away from high fat, high sugar and high sodium processed foods. Limit high fat protein sources, keep your salt intake low, reduce your alcohol consumption and don’t smoke and you’ll be fine. Also important is the amount of time spent outdoors. Get sunlight on your skin at safe times of the day for vitamin D as it plays an integral role in helping our body use calcium efficiently. As much as commercials warn us of the dangers of sunlight, recent studies have suggested that avoidance of sunlight is associated with higher risks of certain cancers- which should not be surprising as we did in fact evolve outdoors and not in the confines of fluorescently lit cubicles.

Dairy Products and Weight Gain

As early as the 1950’s when bodybuilders wanted to decrease body fat and increase their muscular definition the first thing they would cut out of their diet was milk and dairy products. Among natural bodybuilders who don’t resort to the use of powerful and potentially dangerous drugs to get into shape, milk and dairy products are a big no-no when trying to reduce body fat- whey protein shakes as well (see my article on protein shakes here). A mixture of water, sugars, fats and salt, milk is in essence nature’s ultimate weight gain formula, helping infant mammals increase their body mass significantly in relatively short periods of time. Milk helps baby elephants and cows pack on hundreds of pounds and interestingly enough, no adult mammal living in a natural environment drinks milk past infancy. Only humans and the animals we train drink milk as adults and it bears mentioning that the very countries with the highest dairy consumption are also the ones with the highest rates of obesity.

Finally, it is important to stress the role of exercise and not diary intake as a way of increasing bone density. Weight training in particular plays a poignant role in maintaining and building healthy bone mass levels (Read my article here on weight training and osteoporosis). It’s a simple and scientifically proven way for prevention of low bone mass and in helping those with low bone mass levels build up their bones. So put down that glass of milk and start pumping some iron!

References:

1. Xu L, Lu A, Zhao X, Chen X, Cummings SR.Very low rates of hip fracture in Beijing, People’s Republic of China the Beijing Osteoporosis Project. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China. Am J Epidemiol. 1996

2. Cummings SR and Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761.

3. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. (2004) A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone 35:375.

4. Kanis JA and Johnell O (2005) Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 16:229.

5. Melton LJ, Cooper C 2001 Magnitude and impact of osteoporosis and fractures. In: Marcus R, Feldman D, Kelsey J (eds.) Osteoporosis

6. Gender and ethnic differences in intakes of dairy foods and related nutrients, obesity, and metabolic outcomes: NHANES, 1999–2004

7. Per Capita Consumption of Milk and Milk Products in Various Countries, International Dairy Federation, Bulletin 423/2007.

8. Heaney, R.P., Evaluation of publicly available scientific evidence regarding certain nutrient-disease relationships

9. Wachman, A., et al. Diet and osteoporosis. Lancet May 4, 1968, p. 958.

10, Recker, R., The effect of milk supplements on calcium metabolism, bone metabolism, and calcium balance. American J Clin Nutr 1985; 41:254.

11. Nilas, L. Calcium supplementation and post menopausal bone loss. British Medical Journal 1984; 289: 1103.

12. Kolata, G. How important is dietary calcium in preventing osteoporosis? Science 1986; 233: 519-20.

13 Institute of Medicine. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.

14. Alaimo K, McDowell MA, Briefel RR, et al. US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary intake of vitamins, minerals, and fiber of persons ages 2 months and over in the United States: third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Phase 1, 1988–91. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1994. (Advance data from vital and health statistics no. 258.)

15. Weaver CM, Plawecki KL. Dietary calcium: adequacy of a vegetarian diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59(suppl):1238S–41S

16. Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet. US Office of Dietary Supplements

Kevin Richardson is an award winning health and fitness writer, one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City and creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here. If you live in the New York metropolitan area and need help losing weight or taking your body to the next level give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420 or click here to get started with 50% off your trial personal training session.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: diet, diet tips, eating tips, health tips, healthy eating, junk foods, osteoporosis, weight loss, weight training

Oatmeal- A Great Carbohydrate Choice For Breakfast

First, let me say that with the exception of human breast milk for babies, there is no such thing as a perfect food. Superfoods and the like are little more than advertising propaganda designed to make you buy more products, but it has no anchor in the science of nutrition and biochemistry. Not one food can be termed as better than another since we tend to be the healthiest when we have our nutritional needs met by eating a wide variety of different natural foods- each one providing different micro and macronutrients. That being said, there are foods that are not good for us- and that list would encompass the vast majority of products you would find on the inner isles of any supermarket. Processed foods and refined products make up the lion-share of what most people eat today- but at a price. Obesity and the slew of diet related diseases that have become commonplace in our society are silent testaments to the fact that there are indeed foods that should not be part of our regular diet. Almost unheard of in societies untouched by industrialized food products, obesity and metabolic disease are preventable as they are brought on not by inevitable genetic factors, but rather by the choices we make everyday at the dinner, lunch and breakfast table. While there are no superfoods that can come to our rescue- there are better food choices available to us as opposed to the refined goods that we have come to rely on for our sustenance. When it comes to breakfast- oatmeal is one such better choice.

Oats and Gluten- Understanding the Relationship

Oatmeal is made from ground oats, steel-cut oats, crushed oats, or rolled oats. Steel cut oats are very much a la mode these days but they are nothing more than smaller cut oats that are steamed and flattened.  With the exception of instant type oats and brands with added sugars, all forms of oatmeal are pretty much the same in terms of health benefits. Oats and oatmeal do not contain gluten, but many associate it with gluten as individuals with celiac disease (who must avoid gluten in their diets) can often have adverse reactions to it. The reaction has nothing to do with gluten sensitivity however, but rather a protein high in proline and glutamine called avenin.[1] Studies have found that oats can indeed be part of a gluten free diet for individuals suffering with celiac disease, as having this disorder does not necessarily mean that avenin will negatively affect you.[2] That being said, here in the United States oats are usually processed in the same factories that refine wheat, barley and other grain products and so there is always some risk of cross contamination and they are sometimes listed as containing gluten for this reason. It can be a bit confusing but oats themselves are gluten free and many steel cut and higher priced organic brands advertise as being processed in factories that do not manufacture wheat and grain products. In Europe where wheat and oats are not usually milled together oats are always classified as gluten free. Should you avoid oats made in factories that may have some degree of gluten contamination? My take would be that unless you have celiac disease and have been recommended specifically by your physician to avoid all traces of gluten, I wouldn’t worry about it. Microscopic amounts of gluten aren’t going to do much to you if you are healthy and if the cheaper brands make it easier for you to eat oatmeal consistently, then I say by all means go for it.

Instant Oatmeal- Junk Food Disguised As A Healthy Product

Instant oatmeal in all of its incarnations should be avoided. Unlike other forms of oats which are dehusked  by pounding and then heated, instant oats are cut into smaller pieces and pre-cooked. Rolled and steel cut oats require longer cooking times and the shorter cooking times required by instant oats may seem like a great idea for those pressed for time, but there are some problems created by the refinement process. Instant oats have much less fiber than its counterparts as the fiber is removed to make it cook faster and to give it a lighter taste. In so doing, the glycemic index value increases. Glycemic index is a tool used in nutrition to measure the effect of a food on our blood sugar levels. Foods that breakdown quickly during digestion and rapidly release sugars into our system are said to have a high glycemic index. Foods that digest slowly and gradually release glucose into the bloodstream are said to have a low glycemic index. Foods with a high glycemic index value such as candy bars, white bread and table sugar wreak havoc with our insulin levels and increase the likelihood of visceral abdominal fat storage.

Instant oatmeal has a glycemic index of 62- the which is the same as ice cream and that’s without the sugar usually added to instant varieties which effectively turns a potentially healthy food choice into a junk food. A fact that doesn’t stop food manufacturers from claiming it to be healthy even though it clearly isn’t.

Benefits Of Oatmeal As A Breakfast Food

For decades, oatmeal has been the standard morning meal of bodybuilders and athletes. (Wheaties and Corn Flakes may be marketed as the breakfast of champions but unless your sport is being overweight and out of shape you’ll do best to put cold cereals on your avoid list.)  Oatmeal is high in slow burning complex carbohydrates and water-soluble fiber that not only fills you up but also stabilize your blood sugar levels. High as well in B vitamins, fats and proteins, oatmeal provides a calorie rich food that can help you start the day on the right foot.

Due to the high beta-glucan and fiber levels found in oats- oatmeal was a bit of a health fad in the eighties when research found positive associations between oatmeal  consumption and lower blood cholesterol. This lead to a glut of oat bran products on the market masquerading as healthy foods. Oat bran muffins, instant oatmeal and other foods containing little in the way of fiber and filled with sugars, salt and artificial ingredients were vigorously promoted as being heart friendly and in turn adding even more misinformation to the clamor of misleading nutritional information.

Oatmeal is a great breakfast food, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that simply eating a bowl of oatmeal and then having junk for the rest of the day is going to do much. Instead, it is a valuable addition to the arsenal of wholesome and natural foods that can help you maintain an optimal body weight, help you lose weight and decrease your risk of diet related disease. Avoid the temptation to look at any one food as a magic formula and don’t negate the health benefits of your oatmeal by adding milk, sugars and sweeteners, instead stick with fruit and berries  for added flavor.  So have some oatmeal for breakfast- you’ll feel better and look better as a result. For more information on oatmeal and healthy choices for breakfast feel free to download a copy of my free breakfast ebook here.

References

1. Rottmann LH (2006-09-26). “On the Use of Oats in the Gluten-Free Diet”. Celiac Sprue Association/United States of America, Inc. (CSA)

2. Janatuinen, E.K., Kemppainen, T.A., Julkunen, R.J.K., Kosma, V-M., Mäki, M., Heikkinen, M. and Uusitupa, M.I. (2002) No harm from five year ingestion of oats in celiac disease, Gut, 50, 332–335

Kevin Richardson is an award winning health and fitness writer, the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™ and one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City. If you live in the New York City area and need help losing weight or getting into shape give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: breakfast, diet, diet tips, eating tips, health tips, healthy eating, weight loss

Cane Sugar Is Not Healthier Than High Fructose Corn Syrup

For the past several decades high fructose corn syrup silently snaked its way into the American food steam. Before its potential harmful effects were know, high fructose corn syrup was the perfect solution for food manufacturers seeking a product that was cheaper than cane or table sugar, sweeter than table sugar and that would make consumers eat or drink more of their product. Today over 10% of all the daily calories ingested by American adults come from fructose yet there is still a dearth of information on exactly how high fructose corn syrup impacts your health.[1] Once a food ingredient that the general public paid little mind to, it is pretty much common knowledge that high fructose corn syrup isn’t good for you, but it isn’t taken out of our food supply thanks to the inherent difficulties in declaring a food unhealthy. Such a declaration would bring about dramatic economic consequences for the agricultural and food manufacturing industry here in the United States and would require control studies that are practically impossible to conduct under normal circumstances. Such research would require a large group of people eating only one food in a completely controlled environment while being monitored for a significant period of time. Our current study methods have a hard time picking out products and ingredients that are not immediately harmful to your health as it is a daunting task to place the  blame for the development of any disease when everyone eats so many different things. That being said, high fructose corn syrup is out and good old fashioned cane sugar is enjoying a comeback as a healthier alternative. So much so that many major food manufacturers (especially organic labels) have high fructose corn syrup free versions of their foods. In these foods cane sugar is listed a natural and healthier choice which isn’t exactly true. As much as the advertising campaigns would like you to believe otherwise,  the chemical composition of sucrose (regular sugar) hasn’t changed. It’s still bad for you and the idea of it being a healthier alternative is blatantly absurd.

Thanks to the lobbying and billion dollar public relations campaigns put forward by the Sugar Association- one of the most powerful food lobbies in the country, sugar is placed to seem like a better choice when compared to high fructose corn syrup. Since the eighties the use of high fructose corn syrup has been gaining in popularity. At one time it even threatened to overtake sugar as the main sweetening ingredient in our foods. However thanks to the new high-fructose-corn syrup-is-bad-cane-sugar-is-good marketing strategies, this trend is starting to shift. High fructose corn syrup saw a continued increase in its use as compared to sugar up until 2003 and then began a decline ever since. In 2007 the US Department of Agriculture reported that American adults consumed an average of 44 pounds of sugar per person (an alarming statistic by itself) as compared to (only) 40 pounds of high fructose corn syrup. A clear about-face from the pattern of rising high fructose consumption and a very clear sign that the ploy of making high fructose corn syrup the bad guy and cane sugar the good guy is indeed working.

Cane Sugar & High Fructose Corn Syrup Are Equally Bad For Your Health

Is cane sugar better than high fructose corn syrup? Absolutely not. Chemically both cane sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup are made from glucose and fructose but in high fructose corn syrup the fructose concentrations are about 5% higher. Research has found that there are many negative health effects from a high fructose intake, especially in the liver where it is metabolized. Studies found that an overabundance of fructose (which doesn’t occur with eating fruits and other natural sources as the high fiber content limits the concentration of fructose at any one time) adversely affects the liver in the same way that alcohol does. This happens regardless of whether the sweetener you’ve consumed comes from cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup. Both provoke rapid rises in blood glucose levels and can contribute to the development of metabolic syndrome.[2] Studies also suggest that drinks containing sugar or high fructose corn syrup may be linked to obesity, increased visceral abdominal fat, insulin resistance and type II diabetes[3, 4, 5] in addition to its confirmed role in bringing about tooth decay. That being said, given the epidemic of obesity and diet related metabolic diseases that continue to extract an enormous health toll on the general population the act of marketing sugar as a healthy alternative is both unethical and immoral. It’s naïve to believe that public interest would ever be more important than increasing profits for corporate shareholders, but the unfortunate aspect of these practices is that it works to further confuse the public as to what they should and should not eat to stay healthy.

Arguing Whether Sugar Is Healthier Than High Fructose Corn Syrup is Useless As They Are Both Bad For Your Health And Should Be Avoided

Today the laws of what I call ‘Health Relativity rule. The idea that one bad food is somehow better than another.  These laws are marked by one constant- they are always wrong no matter how convincing and appealing an argument they may present. Saying cane sugar is a better health choice over high fructose corn syrup is akin to choosing to leap from the 70^th floor of a skyscraper as opposed to the 71^st floor. Both choices lead to the same result and thus the only sensible choice would be to not make a choice in the first place. Similar arguments are made for agave (which actually has more high fructose syrup than high fructose corn syrup), fruit concentrate (a natural sounding code name for an artificially concentrated high fructose product) and honey (which is also high in fructose and most certainly no healthier than any other sweetener).

Coming from the islands of the West Indies, I know all too well the often forgotten environmental impact of cane sugar. Most are unaware of the vast rainforests and their inhabitants that were effectively destroyed in the Caribbean islands and many other tropical parts of the world to facilitate the widespread sugar cane plantations during the 17^th to 19^th centuries. Ludicrously profitable slave-powered plantations that were meant to satisfy the world’s growing sweet tooth and the irony that so many resources, energy, effort and suffering went into the production of a product with no nutritional value whatsoever should never be overlooked. Cane sugar holds the distinction of one of the first processed unnatural junk foods and is not only a waste of valuable ecological reserves but an additive that historically has caused us nothing but poorer health.

At the turn of the 20^th Century a dentist named Dr. Weston Price did extensive surveys of primitive and close to the ground societies in Africa and Europe and he found that those cultures had little or no incidence of tooth decay whatsoever when compared to Europeans who had already incorporated sugar into their diets. What was even more significant was the lack of diseases common in the Western world at that time and today. Type II diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer, obesity and other metabolic related diseases were almost nonexistent in those societies thanks almost completely to the absence of refined sugars in their diet and processed foods. Dr. Price was one of the first to recognize the link between Western diets and the maladies that we face today, yet a hundred years later we have yet to accept the idea that life without refined sugars, sweeteners and junk food isn’t a death sentence. In fact it is very much the opposite. Make the right choice and let whole fruits and vegetables be your source of sugars.

Kevin Richardson is an award winning health and fitness writer, one of the most successful personal trainers in New York City and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™. Get a copy of Kevin’s free weight loss ebook here. If you live in the New York Metropolitan area and need help losing weight or getting into shape give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420. Check out Kevin’s training services here.

References

1. Vos MB, Kimmons JE, Gillespie C, Welsh J, Blanck HM. Dietary fructose consumption among US children and adults: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Medscape J Med. 2008 Jul 9;10(7):160.

2. Alexander Aguilera, Alfonso; Hernández Díaz, Guillermo; Lara Barcelata, Martín; Angulo Guerrero, Ofelia; Oliart Ros, Rosa M. (2004). “Effects of fish oil on hypertension, plasma lipids, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in rats with sucrose-induced metabolic syndrome”. J. Nutr. Biochem. 15 (6): 350–57. doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2003.12.008. PMID 15157941.

3. Ten, Svetlana; Maclaren, Noel (2004). “Insulin resistance syndrome in children”. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89 (6): 2526–39. doi:10.1210/jc.2004-0276. PMID 15181020.

4. Fukuchi, Satoshi; Hamaguchi, Kazuyuki; Seike, Masataka; Himeno, Katsuro; Sakata, Toshiie; Yoshimatsu, Hironobu (2004). “Role of Fatty Acid Composition in the Development of Metabolic Disorders in Sucrose-Induced Obese Rats”. Exp. Biol. Med. 229 (6): 486–93. PMID 15169967.

5.  Lombardo, Y. B.; Drago, S.; Chicco, A.; Fainstein-Day, P.; Gutman, R.; Gagliardino, J. J.; Gomez Dumm, C. L. (1996). “Long-term administration of a sucrose-rich diet to normal rats: relationship between metabolic and hormonal profiles and morphological changes in the endocrine pancreas”. Metabolism 45

Sign up for our Email Newsletter 

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: high fructose corn syrup

A lot of people ask me what I eat for breakfast so I thought I would give everyone another glimpse into what our mornings look like with all the kids. If you ever thought that you didn’t have enough time to make breakfast- this article should set you straight! Enjoy and Happy Fathers Day to all the dads who wake up to make breakfast!

Breakfast On The Run- Healthy Eating With Kids

At 5:45 am Lucien, my 2 year old starts singing the theme song from Superman at the top of his lungs. I try to ignore him and pretend that I am still asleep in the hope that the universe will take pity on me and make him go back to sleep for another half hour- but no such luck. With no reaction, he starts belting out the theme from the Good The Bad And The Ugly- one of his favorites. Realizing that his Royal Highness had no intention of going back to bed, I get up and pluck him out of the crib. The kids are still asleep- thank goodness and my better (by far) half is still in dream world. After a night of ninjutsu classes- (I am the head instructor and Steph is one of my senior teachers) that go on until a little after midnight, we are both pretty beat. But today is my day to wake up and do the breakfast run, so I let her sleep a little longer.

Right now, my first order of business is dealing with Lucien’s diaper as a nighttime of use makes him feel about five pounds heavier when I lift him out of his crib. Thankfully, there are no unwanted surprises this morning and he is all too happy to have his pamper changed while humming the tune from the Spiderman cartoons (see a pattern here?). Pampers changed, Lucien runs off into the kids bedrooms screaming at the top of his lungs. For a second, I think of running after him so the other kids won’t be startled into consciousness by their little brother jumping on their chests and screaming their names in delight- but I think of the times that each one of them woke me up in just that fashion and leave him be. Payback! I am alone in the kitchen for a second before the cats get me. I’m their best friend first thing in the morning when they haven’t eaten in about 7 or 8 hours and are about to expire from lack of nourishment. It’s hard to walk with two cats rubbing against your shins competing for your attention but somehow I am able to feed them both without stepping on anyone.

My two year old Lucien

Cats fed, the morning routine begins and I start getting breakfast ready. I have a total of five hungry kids to feed none of whom possess simple tastes. That being said, it isn’t uncommon for me to cook 5 different meals for each of them, in addition to what Steph and I will eat as well. Many have wondered if my family eats the way I do and the answer is yes and no. Yes, we as whole, only eat healthy foods- but I don’t really think it would make sense for my five year old to eat the same things his 225lb father with 6% body fat would eat. The cats would love to – but that’s another story. Stephanie, my (very) significant other eats extremely healthy as well and in a way the system of diet and exercise that I branded as Naturally Intense isn’t simply a platform created for my personal training business. It is instead very much our way of life and I am certainly fortunate to have a life partner who eats as healthy and who is as supportive as Stephanie is. Sustaining the body that I have worked the better part of 23 years building isn’t easy and having someone by your side who understands and respects your need to eat clean at all times is truly a Godsend. Very often when one person eats a certain way and their partner doesn’t, it can create major tension. The key is to always respect the other person’s choices and to be very much aware that just because you decide to change your life and eat better it doesn’t mean that anyone else around you is obligated to change theirs.

Breakfast On The Run- The Kids Wake Up

I punch in my for my shift as a short order cook at 6:30 am and I can hear the tribe waking up one by one as Lucien welcomes them into the new day at the top of his not so small lungs. The younger ones  file into the kitchen one by one hugging my leg until I can’t walk very much anymore and again I am trying to not step on anyone. My 16 year old peeks into the kitchen bleary eyed and with the look of a man who hasn’t seen food since the 90’s and asks what’s for breakfast. The kids join in and I answer with my usual answer- which is ‘You’ll see’ and get the usual groans and complaints that I never say what I am cooking ahead of time. They file into the living room to watch Nick Jr. much to the chagrin of  the older kids, but Lucien rules pretty much most of the time when it comes to what they watch on TV and so they sit to watch Elmo cavorting on the screen while my 16 year old pops out his tablet and starts surfing the web.

My daughter Indi loves a big breakfast!

Everyone is having oatmeal today but along with it each of them have their individual orders to go with their main course. My 6 year old daughter, Indi, walks in to say good morning and hugs me so hard that I have to tap out! She always finds it strange that Daddy can’t breathe when she hugs my neck so hard that my eyes pop out! For breakfast, Indi will be having anywhere from 2 to 3 egg whites (often as much as 6 when she is in the mood!) so I put some eggs in some water to boil with Lucien helping me count them out.  I put in 3 or 4 for Stephanie as well as she eats them but you won’t find me eating eggs anytime soon. Seventeen years of eating anywhere from 6 to a dozen eggs every morning has permanently blunted my taste for anything egg related. One day, I decided I couldn’t take it any more and haven’t had any for years. They are still a great source of protein but the memory of all those eggs- some of them eaten raw when I was back home in Trinidad and salmonella was not an issue keeps them off my plate.
My step-son, Paolo is 7 and quite the performer and the intellectual. He has a standing order of a special omelet that I make so I fire up the pan with some olive oil while he stands in the vestibule while I quiz him on his multiplication tables and we discuss the hardness of diamonds. Reid is the muscle of the group. Six years old but about as big as his two older siblings, he has a penchant for running into you at full speed and bringing home all sorts of animals that don’t really belong indoors. Reid isn’t into eggs- perhaps something he inherited genetically from the millions I ate before he was born, but has a taste for tuna fish, not unlike some cats that are still lingering in the kitchen waiting for the much anticipated sound of the can opener. Reid is an eater- he asks what’s for lunch right after breakfast and will hug you hard and not let go if you cook him curry chicken, but not a big breakfast eater. He’ll have some tuna with his oatmeal and of course some fruit.
Lucien is for all intents and purposes the man of the house and doesn’t wait for such trivialities as breakfast time to eat so he saunters into the kitchen and demands to be fed. He

My step-son, Paolo

spots the watermelon I’ve already cut and put into plates and grabs as much as his hand can hold while scurrying off into the living room to see Elmo- whom he affectionately refers to as ‘La-La’. Kuvonn, my 16 year old come in to see what’s ready to go to the table. He’s on the track team which is code for the fact that he will eat just about anything that isn’t bolted down. I’m making him 4 scrambled eggs (with one yolk tossed in) just the way he likes it with black pepper some Ms. Dash, Angostura bitters (don’t ask) and some green seasoning that I make myself. Paolo doesn’t like anything spicy in his eggs so I have to cook them separately sometimes. Sigh. Along with the fruit and oatmeal Kuvonn is all set for his day.
Most of the food is ready so Kuvonn starts bringing out the plates while looking on in dismay at the piling dishes in the sink. He has permanent dish washing duties until the others are tall enough to reach the sink and he dreads the aftermath that comes with cooking for seven of New York’s hungriest. While he carts stuff out, I have more countertop space to start preparing lunch for the little kids. Kuvonn goes to a private school where the meals are outstanding but I don’t put much faith in the public school lunches so we try to make something for the little ones every day. They really appreciate a home cooked meal at school- unless it’s Friday which is pizza day and then all bets are off. Sigh.

Breakfast On The Run-Getting Lunch Ready For The Day

Reid isn't terribly fond of oatmeal but he eats it!

Today the horde will be feasting on rice, peas and beef- a universal favorite. The rice is on and I am sautéing some steak strips in olive oil and by now I must have lost at least five pounds from the beads of sweat that are pouring down my brow.  It’s a lot of work but it’s a small investment given the fact that all of our kids have learned to eat well and actually prefer home cooked meals to fast foods. You can’t really put a price on that! With the beef added to the rice and peas and the pot simmering nicely it’s time to make my breakfast. I make a huge batch of oatmeal which is prepared several different ways- I eat mine plain while Steph, Kuvonn and Lucien eat theirs with a hint of vanilla essence some strawberries, blueberries or whatever is in season and some raisins. Indi likes hers with the berries but no raisins. Paolo likes the raisins sometimes while Reid isn’t crazy about anything in his oatmeal except for the vanilla. All orders fixed, Kuvonn carries them in to the dining area (and he’ll make a great waiter one day I tell him) while I get the tuna fish.
I eat tongol tuna with no salt if I am not eating fresh fish of some sort as my protein for the morning. The cats get the tuna water and hopefully they will ignore me for the better part of the day. I will also have a grapefruit- although it is more like half a grapefruit these days as Lucien has taken a liking to them and insists on eating what is in my plate. Sigh. I always have some fruit for breakfast, (I try to eat them as they come into season as opposed to eating the same thing day in day out and today watermelon is in season so the kids will have a little treat. I’ll have 16 oz of water with all of my meals and I have a truly ugly cup that I use to get my water all in. It isn’t aesthetic as Steph has pointed out on occasion but it does do the job and is easier for me that having to drink two glasses of water. Besides there isn’t that much room on the table for another glass anyway!

The kids all drink water as well- thankfully- and we all sit down to eat. Lucien complains a bit when the TV goes off but we think it important for breakfast together to be an activity in

My 16 year old Kuvonn get to do the dishes!

itself. Not something we do while watching TV. With breakfast eaten and the table and dining area looking very much like an active warzone it’s time for teeth to be brushed, clothes to be put on, and lunches to be packed. It’s 8:10 and we have to be at school to drop them off at 8:40 am. Kuvonn catches a school bus, but it is quite a challenge getting the others all to school on time as Indi and Reid go to one school and Paolo attends another about 10 minutes drive away. We strap them into the car seats and we are off to school with the sounds of the Good The Bad & The Ugly blaring in the car- one of Lucien’s special requests and we start the next phase of just another day with the kids. Thankfully Stephanie has cooking duties tomorrow!

Kevin Richardson is an award winning health and fitness writer and one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter 

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: breakfast, d, diet, diet tips, eating tips, health tips, healthy eating

Multi-vitamins And Vitamin Supplements Can Do More Harm Than Good

“Except for persons with special medical needs, there is no scientific basis for recommending the routine use of dietary supplements”- Food & Drug Administration

In a rather ironic twist, sales of vitamin supplements have surged as the economy has slowed. Once the mainstay of the health and fitness minded, vitamins are now seen by the general public as a quick, inexpensive and convenient way to improve their health and reduce their chances of getting sick. Thanks to savvy marketing on the part of the supplement industry vitamins now serve as an unofficial insurance policy for those who don’t have medical benefits and can’t afford to see a doctor. There is also the ever-growing number of people  who for one reason or another prefer to avoid Western medicine as much as possible. Vitamins are also popular among those who believe that taking a multivitamin will not only improve their health, give them more energy but also compensate for their poor dietary habits.[1] With over 15,000 dietary supplements on the market racking in over 17 billion dollars in sales each year[2] estimates are that anywhere from 25% to 50% of American adults have taken some form of vitamin supplement over the past year.[1,3] However as ubiquitous as these supplements have become there is still little credible and unbiased research to show that vitamin supplements have any effect in improving our health. On the contrary, many studies raise the issue that most supplemented vitamins are not  just ineffective but may be bad for your health.

Multi-vitamins & Vitamin Supplements Don’t Improve Your Health

“If a product says on the bottle that it isn’t meant to treat, diagnose or cure disease, what is it supposed to do?”

In 2009 researchers from the Women’s Health Institute concluded a 15 year study of methods to prevent heart disease and cancers in post menopausal women. The study was monumental in its scope, observing a total of 161,808 women using vitamin supplements for eight years and then checking in on them for several years afterwards. The conclusions were not very positive as researchers noted that there was ‘convincing evidence that multivitamin use has little or no influence on the risk of common cancers, CVD or total mortality.’[4] Another recent meta analysis of over 27 studies encompassing a total of 355,080 women had a similar finding- namely that multivitamin use had no effect on decreasing the risk of breast cancer.[5] A study on the intake of vitamins E and C by 15,000 male physicians over the course of ten years found absolutely no health benefits as well.[9] These results don’t come from small scale, industry-sponsored, single nutrient research but from credible and peer reviewed scientific study. Nevertheless these findings do little to dissuade the public from using them as the cacophony of self promoting misinformation disseminated by the supplement industry effectively drowns out any negative findings, regardless of how conclusive it may be. What is more cause for concern  are other studies have shown that vitamin supplements may actually increase your risk of certain diseases.

Using  Multi-vitamins & Vitamin Supplements May Increase Your Risk Of Disease

One of the initial warnings for not using vitamin supplements came in 2005 with a study finding that a high percentage of men who were white, well educated, and who had active and healthy lifestyles with prostate cancer had one thing in common. They regularly took vitamin supplements.[6] Following up on this was a trial of 295,344 men enrolled in the National Institutes of Health Diet & Health Study. The trial found that while vitamin supplements didn’t seem to increase the risk of localized prostate cancer, those who took them frequently had in some cases twice the risk of developing advanced prostate cancer. Frequent users were also were more likely to die from prostate cancer than those who never took vitamin supplements at all [7]- a sobering conclusion to say the least.  Positive cancer associations with excessive multivitamin use were strongest in men with a family history of prostate cancer or among those who took individual micronutrient supplements.  Including selenium, beta-carotene and zinc.

The use of individual vitamins as antioxidants has also raised concerns in the medical community after one of the most comprehensive reviews of randomized trials of 232,606 adults using beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E and selenium. Researchers found that not only did participants not receive any health benefits from using vitamin supplements, but that supplemented intake of beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may actually increase mortality.[8] More studies were recommended to research the possible effects of vitamin C and selenium on mortality but in 2008 a study on the ability of vitamin E and selenium to lower the risk of prostate cancer was halted amidst fear of potential harm to participants. The study was stopped after it was found that supplemental vitamin C may do more harm than good as it may serve to protect cancer cells.[9]

It gets worse. A recent control study in the United Kingdom found that high circulating blood levels of Vitamin B(12) and (in cohort studies) folate were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer [10] casting severe doubts on the use of vitamin B12 supplements and folic acid in men. Another study found that long term use of zinc from multivitamins or single nutrient  supplements was associated with a doubling in the risk of prostate cancer. Adding to the growing evidence for an unfavorable effect of zinc on prostate cancer carcinogenesis.[11]

It doesn’t end there; a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that, ‘in patients with vascular disease or diabetes, long-term supplementation with 400 IU/day of vitamin E may increase the risk for heart failure.’[12] It isn’t all bad feedback on vitamins as there is compelling cause and effect data linking the use of folic acid with consistent and significant reductions in adverse pregnancy outcomes in women. But on the other side there are also studies demonstrating no beneficial effects of calcium and vitamin D supplements in improving bone strength and reducing fractures.[9] It’s a complex issue but not one where the use of supplemented vitamins seem to make sense, especially given the alternatives.

Vitamins and Anti-Oxidants May Inhibit The Benefits of Exercise

It should be noted that ‘effective’ doses of many vitamins and minerals can be toxic and that high levels of any single nutrient being ingested into our bodies is an unnatural occurrence. In nature it isn’t possible to consume just one nutrient as they always coexist with a host of other valuable compounds. Not surprisingly studies have found that high levels of single nutrients can interfere with the functions of other nutrients and the way our body works. Of concern to anyone engaged in an exercise program is the study which found that large amounts of antioxidants can actually reduce the benefits of exercise. A study published in 2009 evaluated the effects of a combination of vitamin C (1000 mg/day) and vitamin E (400 IU/day) on insulin sensitivity in exercising men and the results were eye opening to say the least. They found that supplementation with antioxidants inhibit the beneficial reduction in insulin sensitivity usually produced by exercise[13] and the conclusion was that anti-oxidants may preclude the health-promoting effects of exercise in humans.

Exercise appears to cause some degree of damage to cells in addition to increasing oxidative stress. While not conclusive, some studies have reported that supplementation with vitamin C and E, other antioxidants, or antioxidant mixtures can reduce symptoms or indicators of oxidative stress while having no beneficial effect on performance.[15] This reduction inhibits the otherwise positive benefits of exercise and researchers advise that until studies fully substantiate the long term safety and effects of antioxidants physically active individuals should avoid them and instead ingest a diet of foods rich in antioxidants.[14, 15.16]

Vitamins Can’t Make You Healthy- Eating Well & Exercising Makes You Healthy

Studies questioning the safety and effectiveness of vitamins are numerous- and yet there are hundreds if not thousands of studies that confirm that regular exercise can decrease your risk of everything from depression to cancer and cardiovascular disease. Vitamin supplements however don’t have very convincing records. What has also been proven time and time again is that diets high in natural foods which contain vitamins, minerals and antioxidants are associated with lower incidences of chronic disease. Taking vitamins in pill form doesn’t yield similar advantages. It sounds like a broken record but whenever we try to duplicate the health benefits of natural foods with an artificial substitutes it usually doesn’t work and or produces negative outcomes. The use of omega-3 fortified foods and the many dietary supplements on the market are glowing examples of how the supplement industry promotes the use of synthetically produced ‘nutraceuticals’- all of which have questionable effects on public health. While vitamin supplements have seemed to show some benefit among individuals with severe deficiencies, in the United States it is almost impossible to find such a case- even among poorer populations as improvements in food supply and varieties in diet eradicated such deficiencies earlier in the 20th Century.

Dispelling The Myths: Vitamins Replace Micronutrients Not Found in Modern Diets

“Deficiency symptoms have been induced only under experimental conditions and there is no convincing evidence that the ordinary diet requires supplementation with these nutrients.” Food & Drug Administration

While there is no arguing that the average American diet is one in need of improvement, even with a food intake high in sugars, refined foods, salt and fats micronutrient deficiency to the point of severity is almost non-existent. Our problems stem from the overabundance of food which can lead to obesity and the syndrome of metabolic related diseases but deficiencies are the least of our problems today in spite of what you may hear in the media and from studies funded by the special interest groups who want you to buy their products. A good example is a recent study that made headlines reporting that 90% of Americans are nutrient deficient. The ‘research’ found that nine out of ten Americans are deficient in 11 key nutrients including calcium, vitamin D and potassium. It sounds alarming but before you run to buy some vitamins you might want to consider two important facts;

1. The study wasn’t reviewed or recognized by any scientific authorities on nutrition and
2. The fact that the study was done by the Milk Processor Education Dairy Research Program and that the study came with a recommendation that drinking more milk would alleviate these deficiencies.

It’s a typical industry-centered public relations campaign which is designed to looks like a scientific study, but is really just another way to make you buy more products. (Read more on industry marketing practices in The Economics of Obesity)
Throughout history we humans have been able to meet our vitamin and mineral needs by consuming available plant and animal foods. With the exception of human breast milk no one food is better than another or absolutely necessary for optimal health, and by mixing and matching our foods we are naturally able to create healthy diets that not only meet our nutrient needs but also suit our tastes, cultural, religious and ethnic preferences.

Dispelling The Myths: Foods Grown Today Have Less Vitamins and Minerals Than Several Years Ago So You Need Vitamin Supplements To Replace Them

“Vitamins and minerals are supplied in abundant amounts by the foods we eat. The Food & Nutrition Board of the National Research Council recommends that dietary needs be satisfied by foods.” – Food & Drug Administration

The depleted soil theory has been a popular selling point for manufacturers in the vitamin industry for years. The theory holds that soils today have been depleted due to intensive agriculture practices so fruits and vegetables today contain less nutrients than they did 50 years ago. Following that logic you need a vitamin supplement to get the missing nutrients. Sounds good but again it isn’t exactly true. Studies have found some reduction in nutrient content in vegetables grown today as opposed to 50 years ago, but his has nothing to do with soil quality which has remained the same. So what is the real story? Well, the marked increase in American food production over the past several decades occurred as farmers developed crops that grew faster and thus produced the greatest yields. The consequence of a faster growing plant is that it can’t acquire the same amount of nutrients from the soil or from synthesis as much as their slower growing counterparts. The differences vary between varieties of plants with declines found in six macronutrients and micronutrients- protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C. The reductions ranged from 6 % for protein, 20 % for vitamin C, 15 % for iron, and 38% for riboflavin.[17]

That being said the study’s author, Donald Davis a biochemist at the University of Texas, affirmed that it was wrong to stop eating vegetables on the grounds they lack nutrients or that vitamin supplementation is in any way necessary. What he did say, was that fruits and vegetables are still extremely high in vitamins, minerals and beneficial phytochemicals and remain our best sources of these nutrients. Valuable nutrients that are not present in vitamin supplements. His study also concluded that while there was a decline in the amount of certain nutrients it must be remembered that this came with the benefit of more available fruits and vegetables available for consumption which have gone a long way towards eliminating severe deficiencies.

More Vitamin Myths Dispelled

There are other arguments put forward by vitamin distributors, all answered by very basic science.

Does cooking reduce the amount of nutrients in our foods?

Absolutely, but not very much and most certainly not to the point where we develop vitamin deficiencies. If this were the case given the laws of natural selection humans would have either died out several hundred thousand years ago when we began using fire to cook out foods or stopped cooking. Either way cooking foods isn’t a valid reason for supplementation. Furthermore- if cooking does reduce vitamin content slightly, what do you think happens when those vitamins are processed and refined by machines and stamped into pill or powder form?

People feel better when they take vitamins.

This argument is equally flawed. Most of the ‘benefits’ of supplements can be explained by the placebo effect and the often ignored ability of the human body to heal itself. Studies showing that people taking vitamins are in better health also conveniently forget to say that statistics show that these people tend to be better educated and have higher incomes. Thus putting them in a subgroup of society that is healthier whether or not they take vitamin supplements.

Unfortunately selling vitamins is often a major source of income for many in the health and fitness fields and few are willing to jeopardize losing their commissions by speaking out against them. Vitamin distributors spend a lot of time convincing professionals in the field to sell their products- I get at least two or three requests a week. All from companies with vitamins purportedly made with ingredients that are more natural and of better quality of what you find on the market. They can be quite persuasive and the compensation is often substantial so it creates a legion of professionals who consumers really trust pushing the use of vitamins. A brilliant marketing ploy, but one that puts profits before public health. The magic pill ideology also takes away from the important and proven effective message of eating more fruits, vegetables and natural foods while incorporating exercise into your life. Taking a pill here and there isn’t going to make you any healthier and in many cases may do more harm than good.

Kevin Richardson is one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City, an award winning health and fitness writer and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here. If you live in the New York City area and need help losing weight or getting into shape give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420. Check out Kevin personal training services here.

References :
1. Blendon RJ, DesRoches CM, Benson JM, et al. Americans’ views on the use and regulation of dietary supplements. Archives of Internal Medicine 2001
2. The Nutrition Business Journal, 2001
3. Dietary supplement survey 2004- Insitute of Medicine
4. Neuhouser ML, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Thomson C, Aragaki A, Anderson GL, Manson JE, Patterson RE, Rohan TE, van Horn L, Shikany JM, Thomas A, LaCroix A, Prentice RL.Multivitamin use and risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the Women’s  Health Initiative cohorts. Arch Intern Med. 2009
5.Chan AL, Leung HW, Wang SF.Multivitamin supplement use and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis.Ann Pharmacother. 2011
6. Wiygul JB, Evans BR, Peterson BL, Polascik TJ, Walther PJ, Robertson CN, Albala DM, Demark-Wahnefried W.Supplement use among men with prostate cancer.Urology 2005
7. Lawson KA, Wright ME, Subar A, Mouw T, Hollenbeck A, Schatzkin A, Leitzmann MF.Multivitamin use and risk of prostate cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007
8. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C.Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis.JAMA. 2007
9.Soni MG, Thurmond TS, Miller ER 3rd, Spriggs T, Bendich A, Omaye ST.Safety of vitamins and minerals: controversies and perspective.Toxicol Sci. 2010
10. Collin SM, Metcalfe C, Refsum H, Lewis SJ, Zuccolo L, Smith GD, Chen L, Harris R, Davis M, Marsden G, Johnston C, Lane JA, Ebbing M, Bønaa KH, Nygård O, Ueland PM, Grau MV, Baron JA, Donovan JL, Neal DE, Hamdy FC, Smith AD, Martin RM. Circulating folate, vitamin B12, homocysteine, vitamin B12 transport proteins, and risk of prostate cancer: a case-control study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010
11. Zhang Y, Coogan P, Palmer JR, Strom BL, Rosenberg L.Vitamin and mineral use and risk of prostate cancer: the case-control surveillance study.Cancer Causes Control. 2009
12. Lonn E, et al. Effects of long-term vitamin E supplementation on cardiovascular events and cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;293:1338-1347.
13. Ristow M, Zarse K, Oberbach A, Klöting N, Birringer M, Kiehntopf M, Stumvoll M, Kahn CR, Blüher M. Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009
14.Clarkson PM, Thompson HS.Antioxidants: what role do they play in physical activity and health? Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Aug;72(2 Suppl):637S-46S.
15. Evans WJ. Vitamin E, vitamin C, and exercise. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000
16. Sacheck JM, Blumberg JB. Role of vitamin E and oxidative stress in exercise. Nutrition. 2001
17. Davis DR, Epp MD, Riordan HD.Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999. J Am Coll Nutr.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Nominate Kevin Richardson for a social media award in the Shorty Awards

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: health tips, healthy eating, supplements, vitamins

Is There A Health Benefit To Adding Omega-3 Fats To Our Foods?

Over the past few years, Omega-3 fats have become all the rage in the health industry. More than half of supermarket shoppers polled reported that they believed that eating products high in omega-3 fats would improve their health. Almost unheard of before the 1990’s, the health benefits of omega-3 fats are staggering- so much so that it truly does stand out as a bit of a panacea: regular consumption of foods naturally high in omega-3 fats has been linked to a reduced likelihood of dying from heart attacks.[1,2,3] Omega-3 fats intake has been linked to reductions in blood pressure[4,5], prevention of cancers, especially prostate, breast and colorectal cancer,[7,8,9,10] improving immune system function and development[11] and even seems to have a role in reducing the incidence of depression, anxiety and the progression of mental illness in adolescence.[12,13,14,5,16,17,18,19] Given the impressive health qualities of omega-3’s, and the fact that most Americans don’t consume much of it in their diets as fish and seafood are hardly staples in this part of the world,  it’s not surprising that food manufacturers have rushed to create a slew of omega-3 fortified foods. Everything from eggs, cereals, milk, bread, peanut butter and spreads are now augmented with higher levels of omega-3 fats- making them, of course, far more expensive in the process. But the question remains, is there really a health benefit to adding omega-3 fats to our foods?  With most of the processed foods on the market, the answer is no. But consumers continue to pay extra for the omega-3 labels.

Understanding Omega-3 Fats And Essential Fats

Omega-3 fats and fatty acids in general aren’t as straightforward as food manufacturers might have you believe but the more you learn about omega-3’s and omega-6’s as well, the more likely you are to make better decisions regarding your food choices. Consumer knowledge has sadly become the modern food industry’s arch-enemy, and knowing more about essential fatty acids will most certainly stop you from spending extra money on a new generation of processed foods that will do little for your health. Understanding how omega-3 fats and other fatty acids react in our bodies can be a bit on the technical side, but the chemistry of it really isn’t that difficult to grasp. While most of us think of fish when we say ‘omega-3 fats’- they actually come from plant sources. Alpha linolenic acid (ALA) is the omega-3 fatty acid that you can find in all green plants and is the most common form of fat found in nature. Leaves in plants produce these omega-3 fats (which we call ‘essential fats’ as our bodies cannot produce them) as a part of photosynthesis, helping the leaves collect light while seeds contain another form of essential fats called omega-6 fatty acids- linolenic acid (LA) which serves as an energy storage mechanism.  Omega-3’s are found in high concentrations in our brain tissue, eye tissue and appear to play a role in the glucose metabolism and the reduction of inflammation. Omega-6’s help maintain the rigidity of cell walls in our body, helps with fat storage and the inflammation response.

To make matters a bit more complicated there are actually three types of omega-3 fatty acids that play key roles in the human diet: alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which as we saw comes from plant sources and is extremely abundant, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). All the studies on the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids focus on the consumption of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic (EPA and DHA). These forms of fatty acids have what are called long chain forms of omega-3’s which can be easily used by our bodies, whereas the shorter chain omega-3’s such as alpha linolenic acid (ALA) are not as biologically available to us. Simply put, ALA is the pure omega-3 originating from plant sources and it is designed for plants- in order for other animals to be able to use it effectively it has to be first converted to EPA or DHA. Fish are high sources of omega-3’s that our bodies can use because algae is at the base of their diet and they do the work of converting ALA’s into long chain EPA and DHA for us.

When we consume plant sources of omega-3’s our body has to do the conversion and we aren’t that good at it. A study done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found the conversion efficiency of ALA to DHA in young adult males to be of only a 4% efficiency while another study found the conversion level of ALA to EPA and DHA to be 12%.[20,21,22,23,24] Other studies have found conversion levels to be as low as less than 0.1%[25] and it appears that the conversion rate can vary from person to person and women appear to convert even less.[26,27] These studies were done using flaxseed and possibly soybean oil sources- which are both high sources of ALA.

Omega-3 Fats  Added To Foods May Not Improve Your Health

That being said, guess what form of omega-3’s are usually found in most commercial products labeled as high in omega-3’s? You guessed it- most foods use the far cheaper and less volatile ALA forms from flaxseed and soybeans to fortify their foods, not the long chain omega-3’s that are found in fishes. If you look at the ingredient listings, you’ll usually see flaxseed and soybean oils and that way you’ll know for sure that you aren’t going to be getting anything extra out of the omega-3’s in that particular food- so don’t pay extra for it. Unless the ingredients have some form of fish listed- it isn’t going to do you any good. Even then, it might not have any positive impact on your health. A report by the International Cod Liver Omega-3 Foundation found that foods fortified with omega-3 fats conferred no additional health benefits despite being more expensive. .

A study in the Netherlands looked at 4,800 patients with a history of heart attacks and found that the use of margarine injected with different sources of omega-3 fatty acids had no effect in preventing heart attacks.[28] The patients consumed, on average, 18.8 g of omega-3 enhanced margarine per day, which resulted in additional intakes of 226 mg of EPA, 150 mg of DHA, 1.9 g of ALA, or both, in the active-treatment groups. Follow-up on the patients found that the use of the omega-3 fortified margarine had no effect in reducing the occurrence of heart attacks, even though patients were receiving state-of-the-art antihypertensive, antithrombotic, and lipid-modifying therapy. [28] This should come as no surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of the history of food supplementation, as it is usually impossible to get the same benefits from artificially processed compounds as from natural sources.

The other problem with the addition of omega-3 fats to many refined food products is that it takes the focus away from the other unhealthy ingredients it might contain. Boxed cereals are among the most refined and inherently unhealthy foods on supermarket shelves, but by adding omega-3’s it can put a heart friendly stamp of approval on the box. It’s a brilliant marketing tactic, but one that consistently undermines the best interest of public health. Here is a short list of some omega-3 fortified foods that you should keep in mind are still refined carbohydrates that won’t do very much for your health or your waistline. The ever growing list of omega-3 fortified junk foods includes:

• Frozen Waffles
• Kids Dairy Drinks
• Refined Wheat Bread
• Pasta
• ‘Health Bars’
• Breakfast cereals and more

Where To Get Your Omega-3 Fats

It isn’t rocket science that the best sources of omega-3 fats come from the same sources used in the studies showing its positive effects- namely fish. Oily fishes such as fresh tuna, salmon, sardines, mackerel, herring and trout are the among the best sources of omega-3 fatty acids that our bodies can use and you don’t need that much fish to get the benefits. As little as 100 grams of sardines a week will give you 2,200mg of omega-3 fats which is a little less than what you would find in a standard can. 100 grams of salmon contains a little more at 2,300mg of omega-3 fats, the same amount of mackerel provides 2,000mg, fresh tuna gives you 1,600mg and rainbow trout provides 1,200mg- all within what the realm of what most experts recommend per week. Fish oil supplements always leave some room for questioning as there is no real regulation in terms of how it is made or what is actually inside but so far there have been no major reports of illness from using them. Nevertheless, why take a chance when you can also get the protein and other vital micro and macronutrients from fish and be sure that what you are eating is indeed safe?

How Omega-3 Fats Were Taken Out Of Our Diet

In a way you can think of the modern food production methods as a way of removing the fiber and omega-3 fats from foods.

It is interesting to note that very often our desire to change methods of food production can have unexpected consequences on our health. Some point to the marked reduction in omega-3 fats in our diet as an additional reason why instances of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, arthritis and depression have skyrocketed over the past several decades as our intake was far higher in years gone by. Chicken and meats are all naturally significant sources of omega-3 fats, including the useful EPA and DHA forms as their base diet is, like fishes, plant leaves. The advent of grain based farming changed this. Corn and soy as a base for livestock foods created a diet for them rich in omega-6 fats which we know comes predominantly from seeds and altered the amount of EPA and DHA omega-3 fats in our diets. Like fishes, these animals would do the job of converting ALA to EPA and DHA for us, so eating them gave us a higher ratio of useful omega-3 fats. Today’s government subsidized cheap grain programs see to it that a return to their natural diet won’t happen. Instead chickens are fed either fish oil (which, if you think about the idea of chickens eating fish is a little disgusting) or flaxseed oils to increase the omega-3 fat content in their eggs. The eggs are indeed a good source of long chain omega-3 fats, but I for one prefer chickens that eat grass. Cows are fed flaxseed rich diets as well these days to increase the omega-3’s in their milk and thus justify a hefty price increase. A worrisome state of affairs and ironically the fish seem to be next on this list of unnatural diets since corn and other grains are used extensively in fish farming- thus creating fish with lower levels of omega-3’s. Adding flaxseed to their diets helps to offset this some- but whatever happened to fish eating what they were made to eat?

From a standpoint of convenience, omega-3 fats are volatile oils and are prone to rapid oxidation. Refined white flour was created as an alternative to the healthier and omega-3 rich stone ground flour as the removal of the omega-3 fats made meant the flour wouldn’t spoil as quickly and could be transported over longer distances. It sounded like a great idea at the time, but history has shown that the removal of naturally occurring omega-3’s from bread products brought with it significant consequences. (Read my article- Can Bread Make You Gain Weight for a full history.) In recent years, the process of hydrogenating oils was actually another way of removing useful omega-3 fats and making oils more stable. Food manufacturers care about increasing the profit margins of their shareholders- not whether a vital nutrient is being taken out of the public’s diet and so in the 1970’s when trans fats were hailed as a heart healthy food it became a solid part of the American diet. Trans fats created from hydrogenation are cheaper to maintain, make the foods last longer and people liked the flavor. We know now that trans fats are among the most harmful ingredients to your health, but it’s still found in most processed foods. It’s ironic to see that corporations that profited by removing omega-3’s and creating trans fats oils are  profiting today by adding omega-3 fats back to their products.

Kevin Richardson is one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here. If you live in the New York metropolitan area and need help losing weight or taking your body to the next level give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420 or click here to get started with 50% off your trial personal training session.

References

1. Harris, William S. (1997). “n−3 fatty acids and serum lipoproteins: human studies”. Am J Clin Nutr

2. Sanders, T.A.B.; Oakley, F.R.; Miller, G.J.; Mitropoulos, K.A.; Crook, D.; Oliver, M.F. (1997). “Influence of n−6 versus n−3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in diets low in saturated fatty acids on plasma lipoproteins and hemostatic factors”. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology

3. Roche, H.M.; Gibney, M.J. (1996). “Postprandial triacylglycerolaemia: the effect of low-fat dietary treatment with and without fish oil supplementation”. Eur J Clin Nutr.

4. Davidson MH, Stein EA, Bays HE, Maki KC, Doyle RT, Shalwitz RA, Ballantyne CM, Ginsberg HN (2007). “Efficacy and tolerability of adding prescription omega-3 fatty acids 4 g/d to Simvastatin 40 mg/d in hypertriglyceridemic patients: An 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study”. Clin Ther.

5.Morris, Martha C.; Sacks, Frank; Rosner, Bernard (1993). “Does fish oil lower blood pressure? A meta-analysis of controlled trials”. Circulation

6. Mori, Trevor A.; Bao, Danny Q.; Burke, Valerie; Puddey, Ian B.; Beilin, Lawrence J. (1993). “Docosahexaenoic acid but not eicosapentaenoic acid lowers ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate in humans”. Hypertension

7. Augustsson, Katarina; et al. (2003). “A prospective study of intake of fish and marine fatty acids and prostate cancer”. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

8. De Deckere, E.A. (1999). “Possible beneficial effect of fish and fish n−3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in breast and colorectal cancer”. Eur J Cancer Prev

9. Caygill, C.P.; Hill, M.J. (1995). “Fish, n−3 fatty acids and human colorectal and breast cancer mortality”. Eur J Cancer Prev

10. Yong Q. Chen, et al. (2007). “Modulation of prostate cancer genetic risk by omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids”. J Clin Invest

11. Damsgaard, Camilla T.; Lauritzen, Lotte; Kjær, Tanja M.R.; Holm, Puk M.I.; Fruekilde, Maj-Britt; Michaelsen, Kim F.; Frøkiær, Hanne (2007). “Fish oil supplementation modulates immune function in healthy infants”. J Nutr

12. a b Su, Kuan-Pin; Huang, Shih-Yi; Chiub, Chih-Chiang; Shenc, Winston W. (2003). “Omega-3 fatty acids in major depressive disorder: A preliminary double-blind, placebo-controlled trial”. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol

13. Naliwaiko, K.; Araújo, R.L.; da Fonseca, R.V.; Castilho, J.C.; Andreatini, R.; Bellissimo, M.I.; Oliveira, B.H.; Martins, E.F.; Curi, R.; Fernandes, L.C.; Ferraz, A.C. (April 2004). “Effects of fish oil on the central nervous system: a new potential antidepressant?”. Nutritional Neuroscience (Maney).

14. Nemets, Boris; Stahl, Ziva; Belmaker, R.H. (2002). “Addition of omega-3 fatty acid to maintenance medication treatment for recurrent unipolar depressive disorder”. Am J Psychiatry

15. Green, Pnina; Hermesh, Haggai; Monselisec, Assaf; Maromb, Sofi; Presburgerb, Gadi; Weizman, Abraham (2006). “Red cell membrane omega-3 fatty acids are decreased in nondepressed patients with social anxiety disorder”. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol

16. Yehuda S., Rabinovitz S., Mostofsky D.I. (2005). “Mixture of essential fatty acids lowers test anxiety”. Nutritional Neuroscience

17. Caryn Rabin, Roni (October 26, 2009). “Regimens: Omega-3 Fats Fail to Lift Depression in Heart Patients”. The New York Times.

18. Carney, Robert; Freedland, Kenneth; Rubin, Eugene; Rich, Michael; Steinmeyer, Brian; Harris, William (2009). “Omega-3 Augmentation of Sertraline in Treatment of Depression in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease”.

19. Amminger GP, Schäfer M, Papageorgiou K, et al. “Long-Chain omega-3 Fatty Acids for Indicated Prevention of Psychotic Disorders: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.” Arch Gen Psychiatry.

20. Burdge, G.C., and Calder, P.C. Conversion of a-linolenic acid to longer-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in human adults. Reprod. Nutr.

21. Burdge, G.C., and Wootton , S.A. Conversion of a-linolenic acid to eicosapentaenoic, docosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids in young women. Brit. J. Nutr.

22. Burdge, G.C., et al. Eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids are the principle products of alpha-linolenic acid metabolism inyoung men. Brit. J. Nutr.

23. Chan. J.K., et al. Effects of dietary alpha-linolenic acid and its ratio to linoleic acid on platelet and plasma fatty acids and thrombogenesis. Lipids.

24. Emken, E.A., et al . Dietary linolenic acid influences desaturation and acylation of deuterium-labeled linoleic and linolenic acids in young adult males. Biochim. Biophys. Acta.

25. Pawlosky, R. J., et al . Physiological compartmental analysis of alpha-linolenic acid metabolism in adult humans. J. Lipid Res.

26.Gerster, H. Can adults adequately convert a-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) to eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) and docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3)? Int. J. Vit. Nutr. Res.

27.Hussein, N., et al. Long-chain conversion of [13C]linoleic acid and a-linolenic acid in response to marked changes in their dietary intake in men. J. Lipid. Res.

28.Kromhout D, Giltay EJ, Geleijnse JM. n-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2010

Sign up for our Email Newsletter 

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: diet tips, eating tips, health tips, healthy eating, junk foods, omega-3 fats

Fasting Is Not An Effective Form Of Weight Loss

Fasting is one of the oldest methods for fast weight loss. You don’t need a degree in thermodynamics nor do you have to make any major changes in your lifestyle. You just stop eating, and maybe drink some water and juices, and voila! The numbers on the scale start going down. It sounds like a fantastic idea and there are a slew of New Age products on the market that claim to help you get the most out of your weight loss fast and support your efforts. Fasting is a simple and non-invasive method and is touted by some self-appointed experts as the cure to obesity, when used in conjunction with their products and services, of course. It could be a possible solution except for one small problem; it doesn’t really work. Yes, you do lose some weight temporarily, but most of the weight loss occurs simply as a result of the reduction in fluid retention that comes from not eating. A weight loss that is short-lived at best as it is will be inevitably regained within days of resuming your normal eating patterns. In the previous article we took a look at the questionable role of fasting in detoxifying your body, (see Fasting Does Not Detox Your Body) and in this article we will explore a bit more of what fasting actually does to our bodies and what role if any it may have in a healthy lifestyle.

Fasting & Weight Loss:  Understanding the Mechanisms Of Short Term Fasts

One of the key aspects to understanding what happens during a fast is to have a clear picture of exactly what occurs in your body when you stop or restrict your food intake. Sugars broken down and stored in the form of glucose is our body’s main source of fuel and is essential not only for our muscles to work efficiently but also for our brain. When food intake is restricted, even within the context of everyday life for more than 4 to 8 hours, the low blood sugar levels trigger a rise in the hormones glucagon and epinephrine. These hormones, among other things, stimulate the conversion of glycogen–a form of glucose stored in our liver and muscles–into a useable form of fuel by means of a process called glycogenolysis. Our liver and muscles have enough glycogen to last for two to three days, which is one of the reasons brief periods of fasting, be it forced by circumstances or for spiritual reasons, are usually harmless for healthy individuals.

Studies have also shown that when used moderately in conventional spiritual practices, intermittent fasting does not seem to increase risk factors for eating disorders even in young teenagers who are most at risk.[1] Fasting as a means of losing weight however has been long implicated as both a risk factor and symptom of eating disorders, especially in female adolescents. These disorders can have catastrophic effects on all the major organs of the body.[2,3] Most methods of fasting for weight loss last no longer than a day or two without some intake of food or juices which will supply much needed glucose to our bodies. That being said, there is no possible reduction in fat stores as the period of food restriction will not require our body to use fats as fuel. Any weight loss at this point will be due to the reduction in glycogen stores and water which will be quickly reversed when normal eating patterns return. Skipping a meal here or there thus, is not going to do anything to reduce the fat around your waist or anywhere else.

Spiritual fasting done in moderation does not appear to have any negative consequences.

Fasting And Weight Loss:  The Effects of Long Term Fasting

As we said, conventional weight loss fasting practices usually do not exceed a window of 24 to 48 hours without some intake of nutrients; however beyond this period our body will do its best to prevent the loss of skeletal muscle by using fats as a fuel. Fats from stored reserves in our body are broken down into glycerol and free fatty acids. Glycerol is used by the liver to help bring about gluconeogenesis (literally the new creation of glucose).[4] The free fatty acids are used by your body as an energy source, but not your brain–as fatty acids cannot be used to fuel brain tissue because their molecules are too large to cross the blood-brain barrier. To meet the brain’s large demand for glucose your liver will begin to synthesize compounds called ketones. Ketones, made famous by advocates of low carbohydrate diets, are shorter chain derivatives of fatty acids, which are small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier and be used by the brain as a fuel.

Our brains need fuel during periods of fasting and if extended for long periods of time our body will use proteins from muscle tissue as fuel.

The use of ketones as a fuel source for brain function is a stop gap mechanism by our body to reduce muscle breakdown during periods of food restriction. Given the historical reality of the countless famines and long periods without food endured by our ancestors for thousands of years, this mechanism makes sense as it allows us to have the energy to think clearly and be physically able to find food even in the face of long periods of starvation.[5] The use of ketones reduces the brain’s requirements for glucose but cannot completely satisfy it over time. For the remaining fuel your body turns to the protein in skeletal muscle. Without food for several days all cells in your body begin breaking down proteins. This releases amino acids into the bloodstream which are then converted into glucose by the liver (gluconeogenesis). It should be noted, given what we know of the fasting process, that the fear that many have in terms of muscle loss from missing a meal or two is in fact unfounded. Many bodybuilders in lesser developed countries are able to build and maintain muscle mass with often as little as one meal a day. I can attest to this personally having started bodybuilding in Trinidad, where from time to time I would have no more than one meal a day without any negative impact on my overall muscle mass. It might not feel that great, but the idea that muscle wasting begins within hours of not eating goes a long way to sell protein shakes and bars, but contradicts the facts of human biochemistry.

Muscle wasting is a last ditch effort by your body to stay alive in the face of prolonged fasting and food restriction and is evident in anyone who has not eaten or had inadequate nutrition for extended periods of time ( i.e. weeks or months). As fat stores get smaller, more protein will be used up as fuel by the body–which eventually results in organ failure and death. The heart and other essential organs such as the kidneys fail as a result of tissue degradation, and such organ damage can occur in those with prolonged and untreated histories of eating disorders as well. A cursory look at what happens to our bodies when we don’t eat for extended periods of time make it obvious, given the low food stores available to us for the greater part of our time on the planet, that we would not be designed to easily shed fat and muscle stores.

Fasting and Health

Fasting has yet to be proven as a means to increasing longevity in humans while proper diet and exercise has been proven several times over.

Many would argue that since fasting has been such an integral (forced) practice throughout the millennia that it could indeed be used as a method for weight loss. However there are no long term, peer-reviewed studies to support this claim and all studies on fasting and weight loss are small, short in duration and provide little evidence in terms of long term results. [6] Results which can be obtained by following a consistent regime of proper diet and exercise. Dieting for weight loss purposes also tends to distract people from the changes in lifestyle required for optimal health and weight management, but it may have some uses outside of the realm of weight loss.

Studies have found that intermittent fasting may reduce harmful cholesterol levels, [7] risk of chronic disease [8] and may even increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments.[9] Since the dawn of modern medicine, fasting has been studied as a means of increasing overall health and longevity. Hundreds of studies have been conducted since to document this ancient method of health regulation and while rodent studies have shown increases in lifespan by 30-50%[10,11], no such studies have yet been confirmed in humans. The theory of caloric restriction as a way of prolonging life has many advocates in the health fields, however again no long term studies exist to confirm this[12] and short term studies of caloric restrictions have reported ill effects such as loss of muscle mass, strength and bone mineral density.[13] Studies of Mormons who fast at least once a month show that they tend to have a better life expectancy than the rest of the general population, but a similar finding in Seventh-Day Adventists suggests that fasting may have little or nothing to do with it. Members of both groups tend to make better choices in terms of their diet, patterns of regular exercise and avoidance of cigarettes and alcohol which may be more of a factor than anything else.[14]

Interestingly enough, there are hundreds if not thousands of studies documenting the role of proper diet and exercise in decreasing health risks across the spectrum and thus increasing longer lifespans. At the end of the day, fasting can be a useful spiritual or health practice, but not one geared towards losing weight.

Kevin Richardson is one of New York City’s most sought after personal trainers and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training 10 Minute Workouts. Get a copy of Kevin’s award winning free weight loss ebook here and visit his official website at www.naturallyintense.net.

References
1. Erol A, Baylan G, Yazici F. Do Ramadan fasting restrictions alter eating behaviours? Eur Eat Disord 2008 Jul
2. Whitaker AH. An epidemiological study of anorectic and bulimic symptoms in adolescent girls: Implications for pediatricians. Pediatr Ann 1992
3. Stein DM. The prevalence of bulimia: A review of the empirical research. J Nutr Educ 1991
4. MacDonald IA, Webber J. Feeding, fasting and starvation: factors affecting fuel utilization. Proc Nutr Soc. 1995 Mar
5. Cahill, GF. Starvation in man. N Engl J Med.
6. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects”. Ajcn.org.
7. Bhutani S, Klempel MC, Berger RA, Varady KA. Improvements in Coronary Heart Disease Risk Indicators by Alternate-Day Fasting Involve Adipose Tissue Modulations. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Mar
8. Varady KA, Hellerstein MK. Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jul
9. Johnson JB, John S, Laub DR. Pretreatment with alternate day modified fast will permit higher dose and frequency of cancer chemotherapy and better cure rates. Med Hypotheses. 2009
10. Wan, Ruiqian; Simonetta Camandola, Mark P. Mattson (June 2003). “Intermittent Food Deprivation Improves Cardiovascular and Neuroendocrine Responses to Stress in Rats”. The Journal of Nutrition (The American Society for Nutritional Sciences)
11. Johnson JB, Laub DR, John S. The effect on health of alternate-day calorie restriction: eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life. Med Hypotheses. 2006
12. Spindler, Stephen R. (2010). Biological Effects of Calorie Restriction: Implications for Modification of Human Aging.
13. Morley, John E; Chahla, Elie; Alkaade, Saad (2010). “Antiaging, longevity and calorie restriction”. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
14. Enstrom JE. Health practices and cancer mortality among active California Mormons. J Natl Cancer Inst

Sign up for our Email Newsletter 

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: body fat percentage, diet, diet tips, eating tips, fasting, weight loss

Fasting Does Not Detox Your Body- Eating Well Does

Fasting is defined as an abstinence of some sort with regard to food and water, and is done usually for either spiritual reasons or improving overall health and losing weight. Spiritual fasting is an integral practice in almost all world religions and can be profoundly meaningful in a spiritual context. However, the current trend of fasting as a way to detoxify your body or lose weight lacks much in terms of scientific credibility. In this first of two articles we will explore the myths regarding fasting and detoxifying your body. The next blog post will tackle the issue of weight loss and fasting. Aside from losing weight quickly, there are three main reasons people use to justify the use of fasting, most of them commonly accepted by the general population as being true. They are:

1. Fasting gives your digestive system and organs time to rest and recover from the strain of the processed foods that we eat today.

2. Fasting helps the body get rid of unwanted toxins.

3. Fasting helps you lose weight.

Myth 1: Fasting & Resting Your Organs

With regards to the first suggestion that your digestive system needs a rest, it seems like a very plausible idea, and most would agree that it sounds like a good idea. However, our own rather linear logic does not always translate into physiological reality nor does it have any grounding in the biology of how the human body actually works. Our bodies are designed to process food as an ongoing requirement. As such, they can’t be overworked from digesting the very nutrients we need to survive. Consider the parallel example of a car engine; by not putting any gas in the tank you don’t do anything to make it run better. Engines are designed to run on gas and it would be unthinkable to expect any benefits from driving your car with an empty tank. In the same vein, you shouldn’t expect your body to function optimally if you don’t give it the fuel it needs.

Now if you put contaminated or low quality fuel in your car, you can indeed do damage to the engine, but having the car run with no gas for periods after filling it with cheap gas isn’t going to make it any better. The same applies to junk food. If you eat a diet high in refined junk foods, one or two days of not eating anything will not magically undo the 363-364 days of bad food choices. It is an appealing idea that a couple of days fasting can somehow absolve you of frequent bad food choices, but this is called magical thinking and has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you want to be sure that your organs are not overwhelmed, then your focus should be on consistently wholesome food choices and avoiding foods that our bodies naturally were not designed to consume. Not quite the quick, feel-good fix that most are looking for, but it is the only way proven to maintain optimal health.

Instead of fasting to remove toxins, you'd be better served avoiding putting them in your body in the first place.

Myth 2: Fasting Eliminates Toxins

With regard to eliminating toxins, again it sounds like a solid theory, but only if you don’t have a background in biology. Our organs are here to do just that: to breakdown and remove toxins. They do a pretty darn good job of it. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that fasting will cleanse the body. This is what our lungs, liver, colon, kidneys, lymph glands and even our skin does and are built to do. In a sense, our organs are natural detoxification centers and by not eating for a period of time you do nothing to eliminate any excess toxins. The practice of drinking lots of water or juices while fasting is equally useless.

Water and juices cannot flush away toxins- they only dilute whatever compounds are already in the body.

Drinking more water whether you are fasting or not does nothing to increase the rate of toxin removal, if anything the dilution from an increased fluid intake may actually slow down the rate of excretion. The idea of water and juices washing away the bad chemicals inside our bodies is laughable, yet there are numerous New Age types who take advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge of human biochemistry. An internet search on fasting and detox will give you hundreds of websites selling products but none with any scientific credibility. This is an oversimplified view of how the human body works and has no grounds in human biology. It goes a long way in selling juicers and promoting the sales of bottled water but does nothing to eliminate toxins.

If you want to ensure that your liver or kidneys are not strained by harmful toxins then not smoking, staying away from alcohol, illegal drugs and highly processed foods is the answer. Again, not a simple fix, but if you don’t put anything harmful into your body you don’t have to worry about having to get rid of it in the first place. The practice of fasting in that sense only serves to distract from developing the healthy habits needed to learn to live a healthier lifestyle.

See Part 2 of our series here: Fasting Is Not An Effective Method of Weight Loss

Celebrity personal trainer NYC Kevin Richardson is one of the most sought after fitness trainers in New York City and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™. Download a copy of Kevin’s free weight loss ebook here!

Sign up for our Email Newsletter 

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: detox, diet tips, eating tips, fasting, health tips, healthy eating, water

Are Protein Shakes Bad For You?

Although research hasn’t proven their role in sports performance and muscle strength, the ubiquitous protein shake has become a central presence in the lives of most fitness conscious people today and is the golden boy of the multi-billion dollar supplement industry. Once chalky and foul tasting mixtures of calcium caseinate used almost exclusively by bodybuilders and power-lifters in the 1970’s and 80’s, protein shakes have evolved into slickly advertised and milkshake flavored smoothies sold at trendy shops. Sales of protein shakes and its cousin the protein bar, increase each year as more mainstream members of the public use them as a quick and handy meal replacement. A 2005 study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics even found that protein powders and shakes were the supplements most commonly used by those aged 12 to 18, which isn’t surprising given the advertising that promises muscles from a can. In the fitness world, protein shakes are seen as an indispensable part of achieving a lean, muscular physique and they are sold at just about every gym in the country. Without a doubt, the number of fitness minded people who don’t use protein shakes are few, and I will be first to admit that I used protein shakes religiously for over ten years earlier in my career. This is no longer the case as I don’t use them anymore, nor do I advise any of my personal training clients to use them. Experience has taught me that protein shakes are not that effective for building quality muscle in a drug free athlete, and using them can be an easy way to get fat and adversely affect your health.

Protein can be thought of as the building blocks for our bodies. Muscle, bones, skin and other tissues are all made from protein and everyone needs in varying amounts to stay healthy. The appeal of protein shakes is that most people don’t always have access to wholesome meals and so a ready to drink shake is looked upon as a handy and healthy alternative- but is it really? The past hundred years have been a too often ignored history lesson of what goes wrong when we add unnatural food products to our diet. Cardiovascular disease and diabetes now affect as much as 25% of the U.S. population[1] and blame for the increase lies squarely on the new foods introduced into our diet in the latter half of the twentieth century. Nothing could be more further from a natural human diet than a protein shake or bar and given the fact that there are no safety testing criteria required by the FDA for supplements, we have nothing concrete to vouch for how their long term use will impact our health. The list of  fallen ‘healthy foods’ consumed by the fitness minded over the years is an impressive one. Trans fats laden margarine became a staple among the health conscious during the 70’s and 80’s while low fat food products are popular items today. All sold based on nothing more than advertising hype and endorsements while time and science proves them all to be questionable for regular human consumption.  It is important for us to realize that over the past 150,000 years of our existence as a species, the human body has evolved along with the very foods that sustained us in a harmonious and mutually beneficial way. Societies labeled as primitive that subsist on only naturally occurring foods do not have the prevalence of metabolic disease.[2]

Protein Shakes Are Unhealthy &  Unnatural Food Products

Our bodies are a marvels of biological perfection, and so is the environment in which they evolved. For millennia, we have relied exclusively on natural food sources for our sustenance. Our ancestors ate meat, fish, grains, grasses, nuts, eggs and other foods, but their diets did not include protein shakes with cross filtered, pre-digested whey proteins or micellar casein. The argument that protein shakes are made with natural ingredients are a moot point, as many products made with natural ingredients are harmful to human beings. Potassium cyanide can be harvested from wild almonds, and stating that it has ‘all natural ingredients’ will do little to reduce its toxicity. The most popular protein shakes are made with whey or casein which are both milk derivatives, but although they exist in milk, they do not exist naturally in isolation without the presence of other nutrients- a factor we are learning to be critical in the way the body digests micro and macro nutrients. An excellent example would be vitamin supplements. You can take the most expensive vitamin tablet to ensure your intake of essential vitamins and minerals, but because the many other chemical compounds naturally present in meats, grains, fruit or vegetables are absent, our bodies simply cannot absorb the vitamins as efficiently. Since vitamins were first isolated in the early 20th century by biochemist, Casmir Funk, we have embarked on an unsuccessful quest to reduce foods to simple compounds of vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and fats with the creation of engineered food products. The failure of the modern food industry to create and sustain an overwhelmingly healthy population should set off an alarm in the heads of anyone serious about taking care of their bodies. It took thousands of years for our bodies and our foods to evolve. There is a very strong relationship between us and the foods responsible for our survival as our bodies have learned over time to extract vital nutrients from these foods, while they in turn evolved to be more appealing to our senses and our taste buds. You don’t need a label with well muscled individuals making outrageous claims to make an apple on a tree appealing, but you need a pretty good public relations campaign to make the idea of liquid proteins palatable to the general public- and that is exactly what modern marketing has done. Liquid proteins can never share the kinship that we have with real foods and it is doubtful that it ever will.

Protein Shakes Can Make You Fat

The protein found in many of today’s shakes are predigested, which means they are chemically altered to allow for faster assimilation. In terms of supplying protein quickly to needy muscles, this sounds like  an excellent idea, especially after a hard workout, but it actually isn’t. Many studies confirm that ingestion of protein can increase your metabolic rate over 30% more than other food sources. This increase in metabolic rate from protein intake is called the thermic effect, and is a key factor in effective body fat reduction and is one of the reasons high protein diets are recommended for promoting fat loss. However, by drinking a protein shake in liquid form, it will always be assimilated faster than its natural, real food, solid counterparts. The rapid assimilation will thus significantly decrease the thermic effect. Factor in that these proteins are also partially pre-digested, it becomes obvious that this will further reduce any thermic effect. The rapid ingestion of a high calorie liquid protein can also lead to diarrhea, bloating and have a negative effect on eating behaviors. The skills required to lose weight long term by making consistent healthy real food choices go out the window when a protein shake is used to replace a meal. Let us not forget that a protein shake is still a source of liquid calories, and even the low calorie varieties can add up.

There is growing evidence that our bodies are unable to detect the calories in these new ‘liquid foods’ as when we eat solid foods. Our bodies have evolved so that solid foods make us feel satisfied, fluid calories, like the ones you would get from a protein shake don’t have strong satiety properties, nor does it suppress hunger. In fact when using fluid calories from any source, studies have shown that people often end up eating more calories overall as they ingest calories from the liquid and then keep eating as they are not satisfied by liquids in the same way, which sets the stage for overeating and weight gain. Physiologically the mechanisms behind hunger and thirst are very different. Thirst is quenched when your brain sends a signal that your blood and cell volume has increased, but hunger is regulated by signals from your stomach and intestines. When you eat solid foods, the nerves in your stomach detect that your stomach wall is stretching and sends a satiety signals to your brain while your intestines release hormones that all contribute to you feeling full. Protein shakes are often used on an empty stomach to replace a meal, but as you can see from the way in which our bodies are designed, it can’t satisfy you the way solid foods can and my experience has been that people using protein shakes as meal replacements during the day tend to overeat at night as your body isn’t satisfied by the liquid calories. People using protein shakes as a way to reduce their overall calories for purposes weight loss are only able to do so for limited periods. Over time the urge to eat solid foods (and the wrong ones at that) become overwhelming and any weight lost while using the shakes as a meal replacement tends to be rapidly regained.

As an up and coming natural bodybuilder, one of the first rules I learned from my coaches is that you never have protein shakes before a contest, and that you should always eliminate them at least three months out if you really want to get your body fat levels down. In so doing, you rely solely on solid foods that take full advantage of the thermic effect. My coaches, maintained that long before there were protein shakes, men and women had no problems building muscle and reducing their body fat and it is hard to argue with the list of impressive natural bodybuilders before the 1970’s. They also believed that consumption of protein supplements promotes water retention and increased body fat that many mistake for an increase in muscle mass. Take a look at the average protein drinking gym-goer and chances are that they don’t sport well defined abdominals. Instead they tend to look a bit on the bulky side- a look that can be easily duplicated by drinking milkshakes instead of protein shakes. They are a lot cheaper and at the end of the day, will do the same thing- which is make you fat.

Get your daily requirements of arsenic from protein shakes.

Protein Shakes Are Unregulated & Often Contain Harmful Ingredients

‘Pharmaceutical grade’ is a common element on many protein supplement container, however the truth is that FDA regulations do not require protein drinks to undergo any form of safety testing. That being said, it is no surprise that a recent review by Consumer Reports found that all of the protein shakes tested had at least one sample containing lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury [3]

• A sampling of the three recommended daily servings of a popular Myoplex product by EAS found 16.9 micrograms of arsenic (the safety standard set by U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) is 15 micrograms) and 5.1 micrograms of cadmium- which is just above the USP limit of 5 micrograms a day.
• Muscle Milk samples contained all the heavy metals mentioned: lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury with the daily recommended serving yielding 5.5 micrograms of cadmium (5 micrograms is the safe limit), 13.5 micrograms of lead (10 micrograms is the USP safe limit), and 12.2 micrograms of arsenic.

These numbers should not be taken lightly, as heavy metals such as cadmium accumulates in the body and can bring about extensive kidney damage. Heavy metals also have a tendency to stay in the body and it can take as long as 20 years to eliminate just half of the cadmium it absorbs today. The Consumer Reports investigation notes that cadmium raises special concern because it accumulates in and can damage the kidneys, the same organs that can be damaged by excessive protein consumption.  And it can take 20 years for the body to eliminate even half the cadmium absorbed today.

Protein Shakes Can Cause Kidney Damage & Increase The Risk of Osteoporosis

Not only can the kidneys be damaged by high levels of heavy metals found in protein shakes, but also from excess protein consumption. Many routinely drink upwards of the recommended servings of protein shakes throughout the course of a day by adding extra scoops or by having over three servings. The idea that more is better is especially prevalent among those seeking to build muscular physiques and there are no protein supplements with labels spelling out what the maximum serving sizes should be, that of course would be bad for business. Anyone with diabetes or kidney problems could find themselves facing serious side effects from overdoing their protein intake and shakes make it all the easier to do so. People are not always aware that they have kidney problems or diabetes, so you should always be aware of your health status before consuming them- or even better, don’t consume them at all. Long term excessive protein intake has also shown to increase the rate of calcium excretion from the bones of the body, thus upping the risk of developing osteoporosis. As a somewhat unnatural product, it isn’t at all surprising that many doctors suspect long term protein shake consumption as a cause of liver dysfunction. I was diagnosed several years ago with a fatty liver and abnormal enzymes. As a lifetime drug free athlete who never drinks and eats a consistently healthy base of foods, it was a bit of a shock and my physician pointed to my protein supplement intake as a possible cause- as it was something he had seen before in other athletes. I got several other opinions from different gastroenterologists and they all concurred that protein shakes might be the causative factor and so reluctantly I stopped taking them. In time, my liver enzymes stabilized again at normal levels, even though I was still taking in the same amount of protein, only this time it was from real foods.

Protein Shakes & the Pressure Of Advertising

It wasn’t easy stopping the shakes. Everyone else used them and everywhere I went in the gym there were ads with all the top athletes with a shake bottle in their hands. (In later years I learned that few of the athletes endorsing the products ever really took them and I myself have been asked on several occasions to endorse products even given my well known stance against their use). It was hard, and the peer pressure was enormous, but slowly I weaned myself off of the shakes. I thought that perhaps I would see some reduction in my muscle mass a result, but nothing could have been further from the truth. Over the past ten years, I have made better and more consistent gains in strength, muscle mass and conditioning as compared to when I was having protein shakes on a daily basis. It did mean that I had to pay more attention to my diet and plan my meals a bit more, but I credit that transition with being able to naturally maintain a body fat percentage of 5% or less all year round. Not only do I no longer have the stomach upsets that I learned to live with when I drank shakes regularly, but I also feel better and my digestion and energy levels are much better than they were before. Who knew just eating real food could be so beneficial?

In retrospect, I should have stopped earlier. I never used protein shakes before a contest or photoshoot, so why was it logical to go back to using them when I felt and looked my best without them. These products are a testimony to the influence of pervasive marketing and it is hard to escape it when as much as 60% of fitness magazines today are filled with supplement advertisements- most of them being for protein shakes. They also appeal to our modern microwave mentality for quick over quality. It is a fundamentally flawed argument to say that having a protein drink is better than eating junk food as the two both pose potential risks to your health and are well outside the circle of real foods that our bodies are designed to consume. Such ideas of health relativity are akin to saying that it is better to jump from the 19^th floor of a building rather than the 20^th. Both lead to the same result while the true logical response is to ignore both choices. The other evil bestowed upon us by protein shakes and the like is the idea that we need something outside of ourselves to be healthy. That we have to purchase something to achieve our goals and that we are unable on our own to do great things. Changing your body in a positive way requires sacrifice and convenience does not always factor into the equation. A strong and healthy body comes from years of dedication, commitment, sensible eating and time, but most certainly not from a protein shake.

References:

1. Ford ES, Giles WH, Dietz WH (2002). “Prevalence of metabolic syndrome among US adults: findings from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey”. JAMA

2 McMurry MP, Cerqueira MT, Connor SL, and Connor WE. Changes in lipid and lipoprotein levels and body weight in Tarahumara Indians after consumption of an affluent diet [see comments]. N Engl J Med

3. Consumer Reports July 2010

Kevin Richardson is one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City and the founder of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™. Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here. If you live in the New York metropolitan area and need help losing weight, building muscle or taking your body to the next level give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420. Check out Kevin’s personal training services here.

Nominate Kevin Richardson for a social media award in the Shorty Awards

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: eating tips, health tips, healthy eating, protein shakes, supplements, whey protein

Tongol Tuna- A Safe Real Foods Choice

Over the past few years there have been many concerns about the dangers of high mercury levels in fish, in particular that mainstay of the weight loss diets, canned tuna. Tuna is an often ubiquitous item on the daily menu for anyone serious about getting into shape. From fitness models and competitive bodybuilders to regular members of the general population interested in looking better, tuna offers a fast, convenient and easy way to satisfy your protein requirements. With over 20 grams of high quality protein in a 6 oz can, and a healthy serving of omega-3 fatty acids, tuna is the ultimate on-the-go-food for many in the health conscious circles. (The salt free and water packed varieties, that is!) While the ideal would be to always consume fresh fish that has undergone as little processing as possible, given the difficulties of always having fresh and healthy food at hand, canned tuna is an intelligent compromise as long as it is consumed in moderation. The canning process itself, which dates back to the turn of the 20^th century isn’t that involved, and as the fishes are always wild caught, you don’t have the problems with antibiotics and other chemicals used in modern fish farming. The canning process involves the tuna being pre-cooked then cleaned, filleted, canned and sealed. The sealed can is then heated for 2 to 4 hours to ensure that no germs or bacteria remain- thus extending the shelf life of the fish inside.

In this article I will try to give some insight into the problem posed by mercury in popular canned tuna as well as introduce tongol tuna fish; a low mercury tuna fish that is my recommendation for anyone that has tuna in their diet. Mercury levels aside, always be sure to choose canned tongol tuna that is packed in water and without added salt or high sodium vegetable broths. If you are unable to find a salt free variety, you can always wash your tuna thoroughly with hot water to get as much of the excess sodium out as possible. That said, here is everything you ever wanted to know about tuna and mercury levels:

Tuna & Mercury Levels

Nearly all fish contain some amounts of methylmercury, from both natural and man-made sources. Factory smokestack emissions are high in toxic mercury emissions gets into rivers, lakes and oceans when it returns to the earth through precipitation. The mercury is then broken down by bacteria into a form that’s easily absorbed by insects and other small organisms. In the predatory cycle, the mercury moves up the food chain as small fish eat the small organisms and big fish eat the smaller fish. The higher up the food chain, the higher the levels of mercury as concentrations accumulate in large predators such as shark, swordfish and our favorite, tuna.

Figure 1. Mercury levels in canned tuna fish

Source: Environmental Working Group analysis of Food and Drug Administration testing data.

In the year 2000 the FDA came out with the first of several warnings about the significant mercury levels in canned tuna fish, especially for children and pregnant women. Mercury, very much like lead, can cause severe neurological impairment, inability to focus and pay attention, delayed language development, impaired memory, vision and motor coordination, and problems processing information. It affects children and pregnant women most severely as mercury’s neurotoxicty can harm the fetus and negatively impact the development of young children.

The following is a chart of recommended intakes based on the Food & Drug Administration’s advisories:

Figure 2: Eating Tuna Safely

This table provides guidelines on how much canned tuna it is safe to eat, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. While mercury poses the most serious health threat to children and women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, others may also wish to use this list as a guide.

At the time of the warnings about tuna and mercury levels, I was an up and coming natural bodybuilder who ate often as much as five cans a day. That being said,  it was a real blow to my dietary habits, and I lowered my intake, but not too drastically. What made it worse was that albacore tuna (the better tasting one) had much higher levels than chunk light tuna, which I found to be unbearable , so tuna fish no longer had a place in my diet as a staple and I found other protein sources to supplement my intake.

As time went on, I became more and more health conscious. The idea of fish in a can itself was never a savory prospect and I began to see the wholesomeness of foods as being more important than convenience. Over the years I have made every effort imaginable to eat foods only in their natural form as much as is humanly possible, and I would go to any lengths to ensure that my foods come from as safe sources as possible.  (If I didn’t have to work as much as I do, I would probably be growing, hunting and gathering my own food, to be honest.)

However, although I had weaned myself off from tuna fish, many of my personal training clients still relied it as a ready-to-eat protein source. Given my stance against the use of protein powders and food bars, tuna was in some ways the lesser of two evils for those whose lives were a constant blur of motion. Nevertheless, I  always kept my eyes open for alternative solutions and advised that if they did eat tuna fish, the choice should be chunk light versions over albacore, as it is lower in mercury.

Tongol Tuna: Lower Mercury Levels and A Better Taste

Several years ago I happened to find tongol tuna fish at one of the local organic markets that I frequent.  I picked up a can and looked it up when I got home, as I had never heard of tongol tuna before in my life. Tongol tuna has negligible mercury levels since it is much further down the food chain than its albacore and blue fin cousins as since it is a much smaller fish. Tongol tuna is found in the waters not very far offshore in the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans. Main producers are Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Iran, but tongol tuna from Malaysia is the most environmentally responsible. Malaysia has sound population management practices in place to help protect the tongol tuna populations from being depleted and the strictest enforcement measures to see to it that there is not a high bycatch of sharks and other fishes. With fish populations being decreased at such an alarming rate, I think that the ecological impact that our foods have should always be considered as well.  With other species of tuna like albacore, bigeye tuna, blackfin tuna, pacific bluefin tuna, northern bluefin tuna, southern bluefin tuna and yellowfin tuna added to the Greenpeace International red list of fishes that are sourced from unsustainable fisheries, it is critical that all of our fish choices support responsible fishing.

In my own experience with tongol tuna, as much as I was impressed by the low mercury levels and responsible fishing practices, what really stood out was the taste. Tongol tuna doesn’t taste bad at all!  Having scarfed down thousands of cans of tuna fish over the years, I know all too well how the taste and smell can get to you over time. I always saw it as a necessary evil, but tongol tuna doesn’t have the strong smell, or an overly fishy taste. The flesh is much lighter and quite good, words I certainly never thought I would ever use to describe tuna fish. Not only does tongol tuna taste better than albacore, but it is also cheaper. We live in a demand driven market, so as more people start consuming tongol tuna, it might become a bit more expensive. In fact I have seen the price go up significantly in the higher end stores here in New York over the past 5 years. It is available packed in spring water with no salt added and some even come in pop top cans, which make opening and eating a breeze. There are also no added ingredients to many of the brands, no soy, vegetable broth or MSG additives, just tongol tuna and water, which keeps the sodium levels low. So at the end of the day, taking into consideration the lower mercury levels, affordable price and great taste, tongol tuna is one of the best kept secrets for someone looking for a wholesome quick and easy meal. My clients can’t stop raving about it, and with good reason. While I personally prefer get the majority of my fish from fresh sources, my preference is and always will be the tropical fishes that I grew up eating in Trinidad, I am not at all against having a can of tongol tuna on occasion and I encourage everyone to give it a try.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency.

Food & Drug Administration

Montery Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx?c=dd

“Greenpeace International Seafood Red list”. Greenpeace.org. 2003-03-17. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/red-list-of-species.

Kevin Richardson is and award winning blogger, one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City and the creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training™.  Get a copy of his free weight loss ebook here. If you live in the New York City area and need help losing weight or getting into shape give Kevin and his team a call at 1-800-798-8420. 

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Nominate Kevin Richardson for a social media award in the Shorty Awards

© KevinRichardson for Naturally Intense High Intensity Personal Training™ Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: diet, diet tips, eating tips, health tips, healthy eating, tuna