In 1955, while on vacation in Colorado, Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack. “Suddenly people were frantic to understand the cause of heart disease,” says Jonny Bowden, Ph.D. and author of Smart Fat. In the years that followed, fat—and specifically saturated fat—took the blame.

If you’ve spent most of your life avoiding saturated fat, this moment is a big reason why. The day after Eisenhower’s heart attack, the president’s physician recommended the nation cut down on fat and cholesterol, citing the work of a nutritionist named Ancel Keys.

How Saturated Fat Became a Villain

Later that decade, Keys published research connecting countries that consumed the most fat with higher rates of heart disease. His “Seven Countries Study” wielded great influence on how Americans eat.

In 1977, a Senate select committee cited Keys’ research while making sweeping recommendations to the American people, stating you should consume less red meat — and by extension, less saturated fat — to avoid heart disease.

That message hardened into national policy when the government issued the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which advised people to trim the fat from their steaks and avoid saturated-fat foods like butter, cream and coconut oil.

Why Saturated Fat Made a Comeback

Today Keys’s research is under fire. An analysis by researchers at Harvard looked at 21 studies and found no link between saturated fat and heart disease (or stroke).

In 2014 an analysis of 76 observational studies and randomized controlled trials from the University of Cambridge concluded, “saturated fatty acids were not associated with coronary disease.” (The study also noted that some saturated fatty acids, notably the margaric acid found in dairy foods, was actually associated with a lower risk of heart disease.)

Finally, a couple years later, a third meta analysis published in the British Medical Journal reached a similar conclusion. After looking at more than 62,000 people in 10 randomized trials, researchers found that while reducing saturated fat helped to lower cholesterol levels, the effect didn’t translate to a lower risk of death. And death is what matters in this debate, ultimately.

Saturated Fat Isn’t Evil. But Does That Mean It’s Healthy?

The seeming turn of the tide within the scientific literature has led to an even bigger shift in public perception. Today you’re hearing loud messages from popular health pundits proclaiming that saturated fat is actually a long lost health food. Some even say you should get more of it by drinking butter in your coffee.

Wait. What?

Now’s a good time to call a timeout and look at what’s really going on in this debate. Because both sides have gotten a little carried away.

Let’s start with the first side of the pendulum swing, starting all the way back with Eisenhower’s heart attack. It was a gross oversimplification to place all the blame for that heart attack — and eventually, heart attacks in general — on saturated fat.

First, let’s look at Eisenhower. The man was president at time, and a five-star general before that — both stressful jobs, to say the least. Ike was also known to have a temper, and at one point smoked four packs a day. It’s fair to say there were confounding lifestyle issues.

Second, saturated fat isn’t necessarily something most people eat in excess. The USDA and World Health Organization recommend you cap your saturated fat consumption at 10 percent of your daily calories. A 2007 analysis by researchers at Rutgers University showed saturated fat makes up about 11 percent of the average American diet. The top sources of saturated fat being full-fat cheese (8.5 percent), pizza (5.9 percent), and cakes and pastries (5.8 percent).

It’s also true, as Sat-Fat supporters love to point out, that Ancel Keys’s research showed correlation, not causation. “The lowest evidence,” as Bowden described it. Modern day reviews have not been kind to the study’s findings.

“The most recent evidence, which reviews all the evidence from the past decade, shows that when you feed people more saturated fat, that doesn’t increase their chance for heart disease,” says Kamal Patel, director of the nutrition research website Examine.com.

But Patel quickly adds, “That still doesn’t mean that saturated fat is good for you.”

The Connection Between Saturated Fat and Cholesterol

There’s a lot we don’t yet know for certain about saturated fat’s effects on the body. But here’s one thing we do know:

Saturated fat does increase LDL (i.e. “bad”) cholesterol.

This has been proven many times.

Elevated LDL doesn’t guarantee you’ll have a heart attack — a possible explanation for the researchers’ null association between saturated and heart disease. It’s just one risk factor among many. But the general consensus is that, if your goal is to live longer, keeping your LDL low should still be part of the plan.

“If you have two people who are exactly the same except that LDL is high in one person and low in the other, the person with high LDL will still be at a higher risk [for heart disease],” says Dr. Spencer Nadolsky, a physician and osteopath based in San Diego.

So modern evidence shows that, at the very least, the once dogmatic fear of saturated fat is overblown. But Nadolsky and others caution that this doesn’t necessarily mean you should actively seek more saturated fat within your diet.

“Look at the Blue Zones,” says Nadolsky, referring to areas of the world where people live the longest. “Their cholesterols are low. They’re not putting butter in their coffee, but at the same time, they’re not entirely avoiding saturated fat.” In fact, they consume lots of dairy, mostly in the form of yogurt and cheese (albeit from sheep and goats, rather than cows).

“I’m not anti-saturated fat,” adds Nadolsky. “The problem is when people say, ‘Look! Saturated fat’s not bad for you now!’ Then you get people putting butter in their coffee. And what I’m seeing, and other doctors are seeing this as well, is that people [who do dramatically increase their saturated fat intake] are having explosive changes in their cholesterol.”

Saturated Fat and Your Diet: Here’s What to Do Now

You may not need to make any changes at all.

Your body doesn’t actually need saturated fat. “There are only two essential fatty acids,” says Patel. Those are alpha-linolenic acid (an omega-3) and linoleic acid (an omega-6)—both of which are unsaturated.

While some people thrive on diets high in saturated fat, your body might not.

For some people—it’s unclear what percentage of the population—small amounts of saturated fat lead to big changes in cholesterol levels.

“We call them hyper-responders,” Nadolsky says. Some day there may be a reliable genetic test that will show who these people are, but it doesn’t exist yet. It’s safe to say that if heart attacks are part of your family health history, you’d be smart to keep your saturated fat intake within the existing 10 percent recommendation.

“If you have people in your family who had heart disease, despite having normal cholesterol, then you should probably do everything you can to decrease your risk,” Patel says.

But if you’re still interested in adding more saturated fat to your diet, there is a relatively easy way to monitor how your body reacts to it. Schedule two cholesterol tests spaced one month apart. Take the first test while eating your current diet. Then make the dietary changes you wanted and take the second test. This is the approach Nadolsky uses to assess his clients.

“You can tell pretty quickly if you’re going to have big changes to your LDL cholesterol,” he says.

Another test, which some experts say is more accurate and should replace the standard cholesterol test, examines your blood’s concentration of apolipoprotein B, or the cholesterol-carrying protein that embed themselves within arterial walls. The apoB test, as it’s called, looks specifically at the particles of greatest threat.

“When we check cholesterol [through a standard test], we’re just measuring the cholesterol on that low-density lipoprotein,” says Nadolsky. “But what really gets stuck in the wall is the lipoprotein, and that actually correlates better with risk.”

The Healthier Way to Eat More Saturated Fat

If bloodwork sounds too intense for you, then consider a simpler and safer way to add more fat to your diet: Skip the butter and eat nuts, avocado, and olive oil (all proven healthy fats) instead.

“The safest fat to eat is monounsaturated [fats, which are found in nuts, avocados, olive oil and fish],” says Patel. “They always have a benign or positive effect on lipids, and on the end result for heart disease and heart attack.”

Another saturated fat source that’s become popular in recent years is medium-chain triglycerides in the form of MCT oil, which is one of the saturated fat additives people have begun adding to their coffee in recent years.

“MCTs don’t have to go through the liver, so they’re available for your body to use more quickly,” says Patel. That can be useful during extremely low-carb diets, when you need energy. But Nadolsky adds, “I wouldn’t have anybody replace their olive oil or nuts with MCT oil. I don’t want to replace the fat that we know is beneficial with fat that may be of some little benefit for fat loss.”

The bottom line is that saturated fat is a nutrient, not something that your entire diet should revolve around. The body of evidence, taken as a whole, indicates that saturated fat is neutral. You should neither go out of your way to eat more of it, nor concern yourself with avoiding it.

“You shouldn’t be scared of saturated fat,” says Nadolsky. “But you’d be better off focusing on your overall diet.”

READ MORE: 

Fix Your Diet: Understanding Proteins, Carbs and Fats

How Much Fat Should I Eat?

What is the Keto Diet? (And Should I Try It?)

The post Is Saturated Fat Bad? No. But It’s Not a Health Food Either. appeared first on Born Fitness.

Take one small example: do you find that you’re constantly craving sweets or not satisfied after you eat? It could be the doing of your microbiome — the army of microorganisms living inside of your digestive tract. These microscopic bugs fight to control your thoughts from a “second brain” located in your gut. And we’re not talking about urges caused by feeling hangry.

Diving into the (still young) research and you start to see interesting patterns, such as:

• Your skin health and the creation of acne can be influenced by your microbiome (bad gut bacteria promote inflammation that can lead to red spots).
• Your microbiome can impact your rational decision-making.
• Feelings of anxiety or depression might be controlled or activated by your microbiome.
• Early research shows that digestive bacteria and your microbiome can influence which foods you like (and which you don’t).

How is all of this possible? There are 10 times more bacteria living in your digestive tract than there are cells in your entire body.

There are 10 times more bacteria living within your digestive tract than there are cells in your entire body.

As a result, your body makes alliances and enjoys a symbiotic (that’s science-talk for “win-win”) relationship with the majority of the organisms within your microbiome. Gut bacteria aid in digestion and even produce an important nutrient, Vitamin K2 (think cardiovascular and bone health).

But not all of those bugs are so eager to be friends. There is such a thing as “bad” gut bacteria too. Even the “good” ones can turn on you and become harmful when things like the use of antibiotics, illness, stress, bad dietary habits, or other lifestyle factors shake up your digestive ecosystem. (Yup, basically living life is all it takes.) That’s when things can get rough, and why one of the biggest areas of research is trying to understand the relationship between your microbiome and medical issues such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), obesity, and maybe even cancer.

So how do you make sense of all the microbiome buzz? We know it’s important, but there’s a lot of misinformation swirling around and far too many claims that we can’t yet support (time will tell because we need more research). While “solutions” like probiotics may be helpful for some — and are definitely good, in general — there are many other accessible (and less expensive) things you can do to keep your microbiome healthy.

Microbiome 101: Simplifying the Science

We’ll be honest, anything about gut health can become a little too confusing, so it’s best to think in big picture terms: what it is, why it matters, and what you can do about it.

Your microbiome is the collection of all the microbes and microorganisms that populate your body.

There are unique groups of microorganisms living in many different regions of your body—your skin, mouth and digestive system, to name a few. Your gut microbiome (the “microbiota”) is home to millions of unique bacteria. Experts believe that having a wide spectrum of different bacteria in your GI tract is beneficial to your health (researchers are now trying to understand exactly what role they play in everything from your immune function, to macronutrient metabolism and absorption, and even your mood).

Diversity is a good thing. And research suggests that having less diverse gut bacteria might be linked to health issues like irritable bowel disease, cancer and obesity. While many questions about how and why still exist, there’s enough of a relationship that scientists are trying to figure out how you can best take care of your gut bacteria.

A Healthier Microbiome: Probiotics and Prebiotics

Probiotics are helpful bacteria in your gut. Think of them as adding backup troops when your frontline is a little weak. Probiotics can be found in fermented foods like yogurt and sauerkraut, and in drinks like kefir and kombucha. The beneficial bacteria from probiotics provide numerous health benefits including enhanced immune function, better digestion, a barrier against microbial infections, and much more.

Prebiotics, meanwhile, are foods that feed the microbes that are already in your body. And there’s been a growing awareness that they are also important because they affect the bacteria in your digestive system in such a way that it might improve your well-being and health. Basically, you help the bugs (by feeding them), and the bugs help you (by protecting you from bad bugs, keeping inflammation down, and so on).

Exactly why this happens isn’t fully understood, but prebiotics are carbohydrates that resist digestion in your small intestine. They reach your colon intact, where they wind up getting fermented by the bacteria there. That can shift gut flora in a positive way.

Some common foods that have prebiotic effects include bananas, whole grain wheat, garlic, leeks, and onions.

How the Microbiome Affects You

Remember how we referred to a “second brain?” That’s where the microbiome becomes more and more interesting for your overall health goals. The gut-brain axis is a two-way line of communication within your body between your brain and gut (at least they made the name easy to remember).

Each one can affect the other — for better or for worse. When your gut bacteria is out of whack, the signals that get relayed back up to your brain might cause or worsen anxiety or mood disorders, including depression. And stress—you know, what you feel when you’ve got looming deadlines or worries about paying the bills—can impact your gut microbiota negatively, and shift it in a less-than-favorable direction

Gut Dysbiosis describes what happens when you have an imbalance of gut bacteria favoring the more pathogenic (potentially harmful) microorganisms. This sort of imbalance is associated with a number of different problems including digestive disorders such as inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Those can manifest in many different ways, from consistent abdominal pain or diarrhea, fatigue or weight loss. Some skin problems like rosacea can potentially be linked to gut health issues. These types of medical issues will be much easier to notice, so don’t freak out or believe people that want to sell you expensive supplements or cleanses. As always, if you are worried about a medical condition, see a doctor and have the problem diagnosed.

While current research is still developing and learning about the many roles that gut bacteria play in our body, here are some of the things that we do know — and what you can do about it.

How Your Body Processes Calories and Nutrients: There’s growing evidence that shows your gut bacteria impact what you’re able to extract from your food, both in terms of the total number of calories absorbed and the nutrients you take in—and even in determining how much food you want to eat.

There are a number of complex mechanisms that make this possible, so here’s one example of how your microbiome affects energy balance: Gut bacteria break down previously undigested carbohydrates called polysaccharides into smaller bits known as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). When your body’s fat cells sense an increase in SCFAs, they release a hormone called leptin, which essentially sends a signal to the brain that says “We’re full, thanks. You can lay off the nachos.” This is a good thing. But, if you’re not releasing enough SCFA because of a break in your microbiome, then the opposite can happen and you never feel full.

This is part of the reason why some researchers believe there’s a strong link between the condition of the gut and obesity. There’s even some research showing that obese and non-obese people have differing levels of bacteria. (It’s worth noting, however, that no one is suggesting that your microbiome is the only factor causing obesity. Diet and exercise matter, and, certainly, also impact that healthy — and unhealthy — bacteria in your body.)

What Foods You Want to Eat: While most people chalk up their cravings to willpower (this is something that’s repeatedly proven to be incorrect), many researchers now believe that your gut bacteria might be manipulating you “like microscopic puppetmasters” to get what they want.

There is an internal battle in your microbiome where different bacteria in your digestive system are constantly competing for resources (food). Here’s where it gets crazy: these bacteria can create food cravings or generate feelings of dissatisfaction (mood) that can be alleviated by consuming the foods that benefit them. And it can work for good or bad. Your body might be telling you to eat more protein (yay!) or it could be pushing you for endless amounts of sugar (aw shit!). There are four main mechanisms that play a role in this ongoing battle:

1. Microbes (just a fancy name for the bacteria in your stomach) could alter your taste receptors, making certain foods taste better. (And no, they aren’t working to make you like broccoli. Bad-news bugs thrive on bad-news fuel sources like those high in sugar.)
2. Microbes could release toxins that can affect mood negatively, which can make you want to eat.
3. Microbes could influence whether or not you find certain foods rewarding. (That happens by influencing an important part of the endocrine system known as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.)
4. Microbes could “hijack” the vagus nerve, which is a major signaling pathway within the body.

Your Immune System: Your gut bacteria can assist your immune system by preventing potentially harmful pathogens from entering into the digestive system. You can think of the good bacteria as bouncers setting up velvet ropes along the walls of your intestines. They won’t let bad bacteria ruin the party. This helps protect the intestines against inflammation and prevents pathogenic bacteria from forming colonies.

What’s “Good” or “Bad” for Your Gut Health?

The colonization and development of your gut bacteria began at your birth and continues to evolve throughout your life. Some of the things that can adversely affect the microbial diversity in your gut include:

Antibiotics. Let’s be clear: We are not advocating against antibiotics. They can be potentially lifesaving drugs that absolutely have a time and a place for use. Antibiotics, however, indiscriminately kill the microbes in your body, which can lead to a disturbance of gut flora that you will need to work to rebalance and improve. The takeaway: Save the antibiotics for when you’re really sick. (But when a doctor says take them, take ‘em.)

Stress. Stress comes in many shapes and forms, but, on a basic level, stress is anything that removes your body from homeostasis or equilibrium. That stress can be psychological (worry, anxiety), physical (sleep deprivation is a physiological stressor that can negatively impact your gut bacteria), to social (feeling like a “loser”). All of them can disrupt the composition, diversity, and number of microorganisms in your digestive tract.

(Too Many) Processed Foods. A high-fat, sugar-rich diet feeds the pathogenic bacteria in your gut. Note that eating some sugar, or processed food here or there, isn’t a problem (We’ve discussed the overblown fear of sugar). It becomes problematic when you eat too much of them, combined with too little fiber — and most Americans get far less than the recommended 25 grams of fiber per day.

Diets that are high in processed foods, and low in fiber, have been shown to wreak havoc on gut microbes in trials in mice. Obviously, mice aren’t human, but similar results have occurred regularly enough that Dr. Justin Sonnenburg, an associate professor of microbiology at Stanford University, says simply: “It’s now evident that everybody should be eating more dietary fiber.”

Can You Test Your Microbiome?

Where there is a health problem, you can usually find a business offering a solution. This is not necessarily a bad thing (we all need cures to problems), but sometimes business interests come before practical applications. In other words: people are happy to sell you something based on theory and not on proof.

There are many new tests that claim to give you insight into your microbiome (most involve you sending your poop to a lab, so don’t be surprised when that’s the request). The problem: you will provide science with more (much needed) data…but it won’t really help you get more answers.

As discussed in a recent New York Times article (that we highly recommend), here are a few important takeaways about the big limitations of personalized microbiome testing:

• “It’s not ready for prime time.” (referring to personalized microbiome testing) -Dr. Rashmi Sinha, a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute 
• “You’ll get an enormous amount of data that is basically uninterpretable,” -Dr. Martin J. Blaser, director of the Human Microbiome Program at New York University, though he added, “there are people who will be very happy to take your money and tell you they can interpret it.”
• “What you can do with the information at the moment is limited. It’s very much a science project, not a diagnostic test.” – Dr. Rob Knight, director of the Center for Microbiome Innovation at the University of California, San Diego

Translation: we know the microbiome is important, but interpreting your microbiome, knowing what will or won’t have and impact, and how those changes will help your health is all still being investigated.

While that doesn’t help you figure out if you have a healthy (or unhealthy microbiome), it’s good to know that if you spend your money on any “microbiome services” it’s not likely your best use of money. The value from these tests will come with time and more clarity and understanding. But that doesn’t mean you can’t improve your microbiome.

How You Can Improve Your Gut Health

The good news is many basic practices that are good for your body are also good for your gut health. While you can’t assess those changes directly, there’s enough evidence to suggest that the recommendations below are good general practices for a healthy microbiome.

• Eat more fiber. We’re not trying to beat a dead horse, but carbohydrates and fiber are the most important sources of energy for the beneficial bacteria living in your colon. The fermentation of carbs and fiber in your digestive system helps lower its pH and therefore helps limit the bad bacteria. So you’d do well to consume more fiber-rich foods like:
  • Fruits such as raspberries (8 grams of fiber per cup), apples (4.4 grams per medium-sized piece), bananas (3.1 grams), oranges (3.1 grams), and strawberries (3.0 grams per cup)
  • Vegetables such as peas (8.1 grams of fiber per cup), broccoli (5.1 grams). Brussels sprouts (4.4 grams), corn (3.6 grams), or a baked potato (2.9 grams)
  • Grains such as barley (6 grams per cup), oats (4 grams) or brown rice (3.5 grams). Whole-wheat spaghetti has 6.3 grams of fiber.
  • Beans, whether they’re black, kidney, pinto, or you-name-it, are glorious sources of fiber. A cup of any one of them will give you a double-digit dose of fiber.
  • Nuts, especially almonds (3.5 grams per ounce, or about 23 nuts), pistachios (2.9 grams) and pecans (2.7 grams).
• Cook more at home. Research shows that food eaten away from home tends to have less fiber on a per-calorie basis. Pressed for time? This approach to meal prep may help you simplify things and get more done in less time.
• Eat fermented foods that contain probiotic bacteria, such as yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut or kimchi.
• Aim for 7-9 hours of sleep. Having trouble getting to sleep? Here are some non-obvious solutions you may want to try.
• Try to keep your stress levels in check. (Obviously, easier said than done, but something like meditation or journaling might help.)

READ MORE: 

Wheat Belly Deception: Understanding Wheat, Insulin, and Fat Loss

Healthy Fat: Which Foods Should You Really Be Eating?

The Foods That Fight Inflammation

The post How Gut Health Affects Your Health, Weight Loss, and Mood appeared first on Born Fitness.

The idea seems like something you’d see on TV at 3 am, with some cheesy, fit pitchman making too-good-to-be-true claims. As you process the reported benefits—more muscle, less fat—everything in your body screams “scam,” but the source isn’t QVC—it is The New York Times and the rage that is the 7-minute workout.

We’re not talking about a piece of equipment that looks like it was dreamt up by 13-year-old boys, it’s research published in the American College of Sports Medicine Health and Fitness Journal.

Next thing you know, Forbes is writing about the workout and the buzz has spread to Good Morning America. The 7-minute workout is real and it works…at least, that’s what the mainstream media would have you believe. And yet, doesn’t this feel a little played out? I mean, have we already forgotten about “8-Minute Abs?” It’s been nearly 20 years since it was released, and during that time obesity rates have nearly doubled.

Here’s a disclaimer: I don’t have a problem with the 7-minute workout. I take issue with setting unrealistic expectations that trick people into believing a “minimum effective dose” can lead to maximum results. This is the foundation of frustration.

New scientific discoveries are capable of uncovering new information that alters what we believe and thought was true; in fact, it happens all the time. The problem is we oftentimes trust what we want to believe rather than seek to prove if it’s true. That’s the issue with the recent release of the 7-minute workout. We’ve been misled by a catchy title that has some benefits but falls short on long-term promises.

There’s no denying that exercise—in any dose—is good for your body. In fact, when I travel, I’m constantly settling for 10-15 minute workouts instead of my normal 30- to 60-minute session. And you can have a great workout in less than 10 minutes.

But don’t confuse the part from the whole: it is very difficult (and unlikely) to build a healthy body by working out 7 minutes per day and only performing bodyweight exercises, which is the foundation of the 7-minute workout. And I’ll go on record that you’d be hard pressed to find anyone that has. After all, if it only took 7 minutes to get into great shape, the struggle to lose fat would be less of an issue.

Before you start cranking out the “perfect workout” at home and expecting dramatic results or buy into the inevitable 7-minute session coming soon to a gym near you, here’s what you can really take away from the research, and what you can realistically expect to achieve if you follow this routine.

Where the 7-Minute Workout Study Failed

Understand that research in the exercise field oftentimes falls within two categories: Studies that use prior research to validate prior concepts or designs that test something new while building on previous research. The 7-minute workout is more of the former; it looked at the perceived benefits of a 7-minute workout and deduced many benefits based on research that was already completed.

That doesn’t make the research bad or inaccurate, if not for one small problem: The studies used to “prove” the concepts don’t mirror the workout that is being lauded as the 7-minute fix for your body. That’s like saying that because there’s research showing low carb diets help with weight loss that a diet with no carbs will guarantee that you will drop fat. It doesn’t work like that. As always, the devil is in the details.

In the case of this circuit-training program, the claims outpace reality. That’s why I reached out to Brad Schoenfeld, author of The Max Muscle Plan. Schoenfeld is one of the leaders in muscle-building research, and a guy who literally wrote the book on packing on muscle. Here are some of his takeaways:

Not All Circuit Training is Equal

The general idea of the 7-minute workout is that you perform 12 bodyweight exercises as a circuit. This type of exercise is categorized as “high intensity circuit training.” No problem there, but once we moved beyond how to label the type of exercise that’s where the problems begin. “The authors make big leaps that are not substantiated,” says Schoenfeld.

Remember, the justification of this program is validated by prior research explaining why this type of workout will build muscle and burn fat. And yet, three of the four references cited are based on types of high intensity training—not interval training. “And the one circuit training study they do cite by Murphy et al. 1992 used a protocol that was nearly 3 times as long as the one proposed by the authors,” says Schoenfeld.

Even then, that study found a boost in EPOC (consider this your metabolism) that resulted in a whopping 25 additional calories burned. I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider 25 extra calories a fat-shredding workout.

Mistake #1: The type of training in the 7-minute workout is not as good for fat loss as claimed.

[prompted-search initial-state=”open” /]

Not All Exercises Are Equal

The other big flaw of this workout—besides the fact that the benefits are based on dissimilar types of training—is that the design of the program doesn’t lend itself to some of the big claims being made. No matter what anyone tells you, not all exercises are created equal. Some require more effort, activate more muscle fibers, and will generate more results. Does anyone really think that bodyweight squats are as hard as heavy barbell squats?

The authors correctly state, “When resistance training exercises using multiple large muscles are used with very little rest between sets, they can elicit aerobic and metabolic benefits.” That’s true. But if you look at the 7-minute solution, many of the exercises—crunch, plank, side plank—are not large muscle exercises, says Schoenfeld.

Another issue is that these exercises are all bodyweight moves. That’s not to say bodyweight exercise can’t be effective. I’ve seen enough crazy YouTube videos to know that bodyweight moves does a body good. And they are also extremely convenient for anyone without access to a gym. But the greatest benefit of high intensity training—not to mention the circuit training study mentioned–wasn’t performed with bodyweight exercises; they were done with added resistance, says Schoenfeld, where the weight could be manipulated to correspond to a given rep-max. (In other words, a percentage of your max strength.) The use of bodyweight does not afford this benefit, and for those who are fairly fit it would be difficult to achieve a consistent maximum level of intensity for 30 seconds that would compare to doing a similar length of time with added resistance. To use the squat example: Doing 80% of your 1-rep max on squats for a similar period of time would be much more difficult than doing 7-minutes of bodyweight squats.

The use of bodyweight does not afford this benefit, and for those who are fairly fit, it would be difficult to achieve a consistent maximum level of intensity for 30 seconds that would compare to doing a similar length of time with added resistance. To use the squat example: Doing 80% of your 1-rep max on squats for a similar period of time would be much more difficult than doing 7-minutes of bodyweight squats.

What’s more, from an aerobic endurance standpoint, it has been shown that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) can be an excellent alternative to traditional steady-state exercise. “However, the types of exercise performed here are not ideal for accomplishing the task,” says Schoenfeld. Exercises such as the crunch, plank and side plank will have minimal effects on energy expenditure and the amount of calories you can burn.

To further weaken their claims, the 30-second duration is not ideal for building muscular endurance. Generally, you’d want it to be about twice as long to really focus on local muscular endurance, adds Schoenfeld. Even in terms of muscle building, the research is being stretched to muscle-defying limits

Mistake #2: The exercises in the 7-minute workout as not as effective at achieving the reported benefits.

Strength (and Muscle Building) Requires Added Resistance

Just in case you were wondering, it’s also very unlikely that this routine would optimize strength. The low-intensity studies (bodyweight is low intensity) have consistently showed suboptimal strength gains when compared to heavy weight training, says Schoenfeld. “That’s because the big problem with bodyweight exercise is that you are limited to what you weigh—there is no means to overload the muscles within a given repetition range. Thus, this routine would be a poor choice for anyone looking to maximize their strength.”

Mistake #3: Based on the research quoted, in order to receive the optimal benefits suggested by the 7-minute workout you need to add resistance.

What Does The 7-Minute Workout Really Accomplish?

The 7-minute workout undeniably has some benefits. In fact, I gave it a test drive and it was difficult, raised my heart rate, and I’ve been training consistently for more than 15 years. To that end, there is nothing wrong with the workout, and it can be a great solution for anyone looking for a quick workout.

The problem is with the claims being made. The suggested benefits are very overstated for anyone who possesses even modest muscular fitness, says Schoenfeld. More importantly, it is not a well-designed routine for anyone who wants to maximize specific fitness goals such as burning fat, building muscle, or increasing strength. The funny part? The science used to “support” the claims is the same science that proves the claims are inaccurate.

While I wish the promises were true, changing your body will still require more than 7 minutes per day.

READ MORE:

How to Build the Perfect Bodyweight Workout

The Tension Weightlifting Technique: How to Make Every Exercise More Effective

Are Planks Overrated?

Adam Bornstein

Adam Bornstein is a New York Times bestselling author and the author of You Can’t Screw This Up. He is the founder of Born Fitness, and the co-founder of Arnold’s Pump Club (with Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Pen Name Consulting. An award-winning writer and editor, Bornstein was previously the Chief Nutrition Officer for Ladder, the Fitness and Nutrition editor for Men’s Health, Editorial Director at LIVESTRONG.com, and a columnist for SHAPE, Men’s Fitness, and Muscle & Fitness. He’s also a nutrition and fitness advisor for LeBron James, Cindy Crawford, Lindsey Vonn, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to The Huffington Post, Bornstein is “one of the most inspiring sources in all of health and fitness.” His work has been featured in dozens of publications, including The New York Times, Fast Company, ESPN, and GQ, and he’s appeared on Good Morning America, The Today Show, and E! News.

The post The Truth About the 7-Minute Workout appeared first on Born Fitness.

It was a confusing week for diets.

On one hand, you had a popular study about low carb vs. low fat diets slammed by basically every blogger.

On the other, you had maybe one of the more refreshing pieces of science add to the belief that there really isn’t one diet to rule them all. This is good news for everyone, unless you’re looking to publishing a book about a fad diet that is better than the rest. In that case, close your eyes and pretend this never happened.

Rising: Dietary Freedom (At Last)

I love a good meta-analysis. Why? Because it pulls together a bunch of studies (in this case 48 trials) with many people and offers a general summation (when done right) of what we currently know.  Sadly, many of these studies are left by the wayside because of their observational nature. I like them because it keeps us honest with what we know.

In this meta analysis, the researchers found what has become a repeated line that rarely makes it into the headlines: A lot of diets work really well. To the point that it doesn’t matter if you’re Atkins (and carb extreme) or Zone (and carb balanced), you’ll lose weight on a program that you follow.

This is good news for everyone because it means you can choose the best diet for you (assuming it’s not completely nonsense, you hear me Cookie Diet!) and not worry about the dogma of avoiding everything delicious in life.

Dropping: Fat vs. Carbs (A Debate That Isn’t Really A Debate)

Another study came out suggesting that low carb diets are superior to low fat diets. (Or at least that’s how it played out in the media.)

Is this still happening? Are we really trying to find “the perfect diet?” Again, I don’t fault the researchers. The goal of science is to build on itself and teach us so we know more. Studies frustrate most people, but the reality is research will always be fluid.

That said, if you’re going to create a study that is a “low fat vs. low carb” battle, you probably shouldn’t have more flaws than US foreign policy. Issues ranged form the low carb eaters eating fewer calories than the low fat participants,  the low carbers eating more protein, (advantage for fat loss and lean mass gains), and the low fat diet wasn’t even really a low fat diet. (It consisted of about 30 percent of daily calories.)

The controls also weren’t so great, and by the end of the study everyone ended up eating more than they were supposed to.

The headlines read, “Low carb better than low fat.”

But the real story should have been, “Following a diet you hate still sucks and doesn’t work.”

If you want to really understood what happened, start here.

Then read this editorial and this review. Or flip the order. Either way you’ll come away feeling better about your diet.

The In-Between: Strength and Conditioning Programs

Football season is back, which means life is good for the next 5 months. And when you watch the athletes—whether in college or pro football—it’s easy to be amazed by what they do. Some of that can be attributed to awesome strength and conditioning coaching. Programs like EXOS do an amazing job with athletes. And even former strength and conditioning coaches, like Ryan Capretta (one of the nicest guys in the industry) have created programs where you can train with his athletes, and learn the movements from some of the best.

But the strength and conditioning industry is also one of a lot of smoke and mirrors. I’ve heard many complaints from very smart fitness experts about bad strength coaches. And I’ve seen first-hand that in some places—both pro and college—the strength and conditioning programs are atrocious. This article, although harsh, sheds light on that frustrating reality.

Bottom line: At a lot of programs, it’s the incredible athletes that make the strength coaches look good. Not the other way around. (And yes, there are plenty of exceptions. Heck, I’d send any athlete to Robert Dos Remedios and feel better.)

Still Strong: Coffee

You love it. I drink it. And it has many health benefits (cream and sugar sold separately). Here’s how 19 health professional take their morning coffee and how it might make your day a little better.

Adam Bornstein

Adam Bornstein is a New York Times bestselling author and the author of You Can’t Screw This Up. He is the founder of Born Fitness, and the co-founder of Arnold’s Pump Club (with Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Pen Name Consulting. An award-winning writer and editor, Bornstein was previously the Chief Nutrition Officer for Ladder, the Fitness and Nutrition editor for Men’s Health, Editorial Director at LIVESTRONG.com, and a columnist for SHAPE, Men’s Fitness, and Muscle & Fitness. He’s also a nutrition and fitness advisor for LeBron James, Cindy Crawford, Lindsey Vonn, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to The Huffington Post, Bornstein is “one of the most inspiring sources in all of health and fitness.” His work has been featured in dozens of publications, including The New York Times, Fast Company, ESPN, and GQ, and he’s appeared on Good Morning America, The Today Show, and E! News.

The post Health and Fitness Power Rankings: Diet Wars appeared first on Born Fitness.

The foods you eat, should never been viewed in isolation. Just mashing together proteins, carbs, and fats in the meal can change the way you look, but the selections also might make a difference in your overall health. A meal consisting of vegetables, grains (if you have no issue with them), and high sourced protein is different than some curated meat pilled on a butter bun, with mayo added as a “fat” source.

A body that exercises—specifically with weights—is different than one that does not. It processes foods differently, ages differently, and protects (although can’t completely prevent) the body against a variety of health problems, such as diabetes, heart disease, and yes—cancer.

And a study that compares behaviors and tries to draw conclusions—when those behaviors are not controlled—should be used as a platform to ask better questions, not provide wide-sweeping, inaccurate answers.

This all sounds like common sense. When you read each one, you probably sit nod your head and don’t blink an eye.

But now it’s time to blink. Maybe twice.

A study in the journal Cell Metabolism published research that suggested—as headlines would have you believe—that eating a high protein diet in midlife (50 to 65) is linked to premature death. Or more boldly: high protein is as bad as smoking.

Choose your salacious headline, but the moment the information hit the mainstream, you could hear cows rejoicing and protein powder stock plummeting.

This study—like many others—has its flaws and unsubstantiated claims. But the study design (which was pretty good) did reveal a few things you might want to know about the protein in your diet.

Why You Should Still Eat Protein (And Should Not Overreact)

Let’s get the worst news out of the way. It’s irresponsible to blindly claim, “High protein leads to premature death.” Or say it’s as bad as smoking. That’s not what the study found. If it were true I’d run around the streets screaming at the top of my lungs, and try and go door-to-door and let the world know I’d made a mistake. But that’s not the case. Why? For starters, the study was epidemiological, meaning the design made it impossible to make that type of claim. For those of you who don’t have a background in research (or simply don’t care), this how these studies work: They take information (“data”) after the fact and then try to draw conclusions.

Understanding Epidemiology: From Nutritionist Alan Aragon

People have to remember that observational data (as opposed to controlled intervention data) is good for generating questions, not answers. It should be made very clear that the outcomes were determined via dietary recall, which is notoriously unreliable. Establishing cause-and-effect is impossible in epidemiology, which is uncontrolled and subject to multiple confounding variables (think of the implausibility of things like meat or eggs being linked to diabetes – yes, we’ve seen that in observational research).

This is not a causational study. Based on the way the study was designed, it’s impossible and irresponsible to say, “Behavior A leads to Result B.” That doesn’t mean we can’t learn anything from the results, but it does mean you can keep chewing on your steak as you read this.

What Did The High Protein Study Really Discover?

The study isn’t without merit. It was actually well designed, and the problem was less about the research and more about the shock-and-awe headlines they inspired. (Lesson as always: Let’s read the studies before we draw over-arching conclusions.)

The study split the participants into three groups: High protein (more than 20% of their diet), low protein (below 10%) and a middle group (because it’s nice to have someone who’s neutral).

Once the groups were established, they assessed what happened to these people over the course of 18 years and looked to see if any serious health factors—such as disease or death—was influenced by protein intake. Everyone in the study was either in a group of 50 to 65 year olds, or 65+ years of age.

The study found eating higher amounts of protein led to an increase in IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor), a hormone that is usually associated with building muscle. In reality, IGF-1 is linked to any type of cell growth.

The study suggests (from a correlational standpoint) that eating more animal protein led to an increase in IGF-1, and that those increases linked to the mortality rates of those in the study. In other words, higher protein showed higher death rates for those between 50 and 65, but also showed improved lifespan after you turned 65.

If anything, this study opens the door for more research to determine the role between IGF-1, high protein, and mortality for those aged 50 to 65. There’s more evidence to suggest that high protein is linked to increases in IGF-1, and it’s probably worth more studies to understand why high protein and IGF-1 might play a negative role for that 15 year span, but then be a benefit for those older than 65.

What the study did not find was anything to confidently suggest that high protein = more death. Or that high protein is as bad as smoking. In fact, the geniuses at Examine.com did their own review of this study and found that this research suggests a “2 to 4-fold increase in mortality” compared to a 20-fold increase in lung mortality for smokers. Big difference.

What Can We Learn from the High Protein, Early Death Study

Let’s start by doing what’s most important: We do not know if eating high protein leads to an earlier death. There’s nothing new to suggest that is a fact.

“The idea of laying blame on a single dietary factor such as protein intake in the pathogenesis of cancer – or any disease for that matter – is absurd,” adds Aragon. “The adverse potential of not getting enough protein (sarcopenia, compromised glucose control, lower immunity, brittle bones), especially in the aging population, far outweighs the risks of getting too much.“

If anything, we’re only left with more questions than answers, which really is a byproduct of how science works. Discover one piece of information, which creates new questions, and then follow-up research can help us learn more.

To help you eat protein with more ease, some of the flaws are very easy to identify.

There was no consideration of food sourcing. No consideration of exercise. No looking at what other foods the participants consumed.

Yes—the researchers will point out that they controlled for carbs and fats. But again, this was just bottom line and didn’t consider what types of food were consumed. Would anyone doubt that green + grains + organic chicken ≠ fast food burger + mayo + fries?

Those macronutrients (proteins, carbs, and fats) could be matched in those two meals, but if two different people ate those identical meals year-over-year for 18 years, I’m pretty sure I know whom I would bet on for better health.

More importantly, “there was no statistical accounting for confounders that I could find, and this is a huge issue in any study,” says Dr. Brad Schoenfeld, author of The Max Muscle Plan.

Consider the following analysis from Schoenfeld, and it quickly becomes obvious why the conclusions are overstated:

“The researchers are lumping ‘animal protein’ into an entire group, but it very well could be other aspects of the diet that are having the impact other than protein. Were the meats processed? If so, could be something in the processing. How were the meats cooked? Could be due to carcinogens from overcooking the meats. What was the fat content and breakdown of the fat profiles (i.e. saturated, MUFA, PUFA)? This could be an issue. What about total caloric intake? There are so many potential confounding issues that it makes drawing any conclusions extremely difficult. Simply looking at data from observations can be very misleading.”

Schoenfeld was also quick to point out that most people who eat red meat tend to consume it at fast food restaurants. (Just look at the sheer volume of sales to understand how much red meat is devoured at all of these establishments.) And while it’s not a hard rule, most people who eat fast food consistently have other lifestyle factors that could impact overall health.

Maybe the most important takeaway is an increased awareness that the needs of your body might change during different phases of your life.

The main thing we have to realize—or at least entertain—is that the things that make us ‘jacked’ or ‘ripped’ may not also be the best thing for longevity,” says nutrition researcher, Brad Pilon, author of Eat Stop Eat. “Even optimal health guidelines when you’re young may not be the best for longevity, as longevity is all about maintaining a status quo by reducing cumulative cellular damage and debris.”

Pilon suggests that the biggest push from this research could be a greater investigation into whether there simply might be different protein needs throughout your life cycle.

The response is not necessarily to overreact and cut all protein, but instead consider what your body needs given it’s activity levels and goals, and then consider the sourcing of your foods and all other factors that lead to health.

Adam Bornstein

Adam Bornstein is a New York Times bestselling author and the author of You Can’t Screw This Up. He is the founder of Born Fitness, and the co-founder of Arnold’s Pump Club (with Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Pen Name Consulting. An award-winning writer and editor, Bornstein was previously the Chief Nutrition Officer for Ladder, the Fitness and Nutrition editor for Men’s Health, Editorial Director at LIVESTRONG.com, and a columnist for SHAPE, Men’s Fitness, and Muscle & Fitness. He’s also a nutrition and fitness advisor for LeBron James, Cindy Crawford, Lindsey Vonn, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to The Huffington Post, Bornstein is “one of the most inspiring sources in all of health and fitness.” His work has been featured in dozens of publications, including The New York Times, Fast Company, ESPN, and GQ, and he’s appeared on Good Morning America, The Today Show, and E! News.

The post Do High Protein Diets Cause Early Death? appeared first on Born Fitness.

At the time, I was living in my parent’s house (I was still a teenager) and I would train in our basement. My workouts were absolute crap. A combination of bench presses, more bench presses, and curls. For good measure, I’d throw in some lunges and calf raises. To no one’s surprise, I was a solid 130 pounds.

If you would have told me back then that I’d be coaching people, I would have laughed at myself.

The specific timing of your post-workout meal ultimately depends on when you eat prior to training.

But my weird habit wasn’t the workout; it was my post-workout routine. After I’d finish I’d rush upstairs, grab the jar of protein powder I’d stashed in my room (I didn’t want my parents to know I was taking protein powders), and I’d mix up the following shake and down immediately:

• 1 scoop of chocolate protein
• 1 cup of milk
• 3-4 cubes of ice
• Peanut butter (more than necessary)
• Banana
• Honey (not really necessary)
• Frosted Flakes (lots of them…I believe I got this from Muscle Media)

If I were to do the macros, I’d say I easily surpassed 100 grams of sugar in this shake. In some ways it’s shocking I didn’t become heavier, but at the time I wasn’t really eating much, and I certainly qualified as skinny-fat, soft, non-muscular. Feel free to add in whatever adjective you want. One hundred and thirty pounds is not a lot of weight.

While it’s funny to think back about that shake now (which was probably the best-tasting protein shake I’ve ever had in my life), there was reasoning (albeit faulty) to my culinary madness.

I’d read enough bodybuilding magazines that I “knew” had about 30 minutes to take advantage of my “anabolic window.” I need carbs–lots of them–to replenish the glycogen lost during my workout, and there was no need to fear the sugar.

Fast forward 20 years and while I laugh at my drink, the “science” of post-workout nutrition has changed dramatically–but the behaviors of most have not.

Many still believe that you need to down a shake within 30 to 60 minutes after your workout or else your body might go catabolic. Or there’s the prevailing belief that your workouts are so carb depleting that you must refill your carb stores…and then some.

Is there really an “anabolic window” after your workout? That’s the question Alan Aragon and Brad Schoenfeld recently asked in a thorough review (a meta-analysis) of the research published on post-workout meals and the perceived benefits. In all honesty, I knew about this paper going way back, and it was a big motivation for us launching The Muscle Lab.

I spoke with Alan and Brad about post-workout nutrition, their study, and what you really should be eating (and when) after you finish training.

Why We Thought Nutrient Timing Was Important

AB: Your study was a pretty big deal, but probably needs more attention in the mainstream. To catch people up to speed, can you tell me: What was the established “truth” that we thought we knew about protein timing? In other words, why did we think the timing was important and what benefit did we believe was accomplished by eating within the “anabolic window.”

Alan: The conventional wisdom was that there was a quick closing “anabolic window of opportunity” after the training bout. This had its origins in research in the late 1980s showing that a delay in carbohydrate consumption resulted in less glycogen resynthesis in the few hours following the bout. In light of this, fast-acting carbs ingested ASAP became the popular mantra.

However, subsequent research showed that complete glycogen resynthesis after depletion occurred within the same day (regardless of adjacent macronutrient variation, as long as total carbs were matched), so the applicability of the quickie-carb tactic turns out to be limited to a fringe population of athletes who must compete with the same glycogen-depleted muscles multiple times in the same day.

Subsequent research included protein and/or amino acids to the peri-workout period and found beneficial effects on muscle protein synthesis. However, this research shared similar limitations as the carb research in the sense that it only looked at the short-term, and it examined effects in over-night-fasted subjects, minus a pre-workout meal (let alone a protein-rich pre-workout meal).

Hence, the “anabolic window” concept gained momentum. However, this momentum ran into several snags as chronic (long-term) trials examining timing effects on hypertrophy and/or strength failed to consistently corroborate the promise seen in the acute (short-term) studies.

What We Know About Post-Workout Nutrient Timing

AB: What did you actually find in your study?

Brad: This was a complex analysis. We first performed a basic meta-analysis where the effects of protein timing on strength and hypertrophy were compared without adjusting for any confounding issues. The results showed that timing had no effect on strength, but a relatively small yet significant effect was found for hypertrophy.

This initially led us to believe that we had confirmed the presence of a narrow “anabolic window of opportunity.” We then proceeded to perform a sophisticated statistical technique called regression, where we analyzed different variables (i.e. covariates) in isolation to see if they affected the outcome. This produced the most interesting finding of all: the quantity of protein consumed explained virtually all the variance in results!

Specifically, a majority of studies did not match protein intake between groups: the experimental group consumed substantially more protein than the controls. Thus, the average protein consumption in the control groups was well below what is deemed necessary to maximize protein synthesis associated with resistance training.

Only a few studies actually endeavored to match intake. We did a sub-analysis of these studies. No effects were found on protein timing (and this was in spite of having to toss out a study that showed no effect because we weren’t able to obtain sufficient data for analysis).

Why There is No Extreme Urgency for Your Post Workout Meal

AB: Why isn’t timing as important as we thought? How was this thought perpetuated for so long?

Alan: Timing is still important, but indeed the strong urgency of timing implied by the earlier research has not been substantiated. While acute response provides interesting clues and hypotheses, it’s the chronic adaptations that ultimately matter. And thus far, chronic trials have collectively failed to strongly support the idea that muscular adaptations are compromised if there is a short delay in providing protein in the immediate period surrounding the training bout.

Furthermore, recent research has also repeatedly failed to show an enhancement of the anabolic response to training when carbohydrate (even substantial amounts of fast-acting, high-glycemic carbs) is co-ingested with sufficient protein, compared to protein alone.

In answering the question of how this dogma has been perpetuated so long, I’d say there are two main reasons. The first one is that people by nature are resistant to modifying, let alone completely overhauling their beliefs – especially when they have been preaching them as a matter of their careers.

True scientists do not hesitate to change their long-held stance on any given topic if the weight of the evidence warrants it. Unfortunately, this is just not the case with most people, including those in the academic sphere. The second reason for the perpetuation of the traditional wisdom is that the tide-shifting research is relatively new.

The New Rules of Nutrient Timing

AB: Based on the meta-analysis, is there any benefit to timing meals around your workouts?  

Alan: It’s intuitively implicit that timing nutrition around training is a good idea from both a fueling for performance and a recovery standpoint. However, our analysis did not detect any significant benefit of timing protein within the “magic hour” either pre- and/or post-exercise. It’s apparent that there is more leeway than this for optimizing gains in size and strength – which is a welcome finding from the standpoint of flexibility, practicality, and convenience.

AB: From your research, what are the most important takeaways? What can someone who trains use from this to apply to their goals? And does it differ based on muscle building vs. fat loss?

Brad: The primary takeaway from the research is that you don’t need to worry about slamming a protein shake the moment you finish training. It’s okay to chill out for a bit, do what you need to do, and then consume your nutrients.

We estimate that there is approximately a 4 to 6-hour window in and around the workout. The specific timing ultimately depends on when you have a meal prior to training.

Thus, the closer your meal to the training bout, the longer the window following the session. Now there certainly is nothing wrong with consuming nutrients immediately after training. And the limitations of current research leave open the possibility that there may be a small but significant that could be meaningful if your goal is absolute maximization of muscle mass.

Adam Bornstein

Adam Bornstein is a New York Times bestselling author and the author of You Can’t Screw This Up. He is the founder of Born Fitness, and the co-founder of Arnold’s Pump Club (with Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Pen Name Consulting. An award-winning writer and editor, Bornstein was previously the Chief Nutrition Officer for Ladder, the Fitness and Nutrition editor for Men’s Health, Editorial Director at LIVESTRONG.com, and a columnist for SHAPE, Men’s Fitness, and Muscle & Fitness. He’s also a nutrition and fitness advisor for LeBron James, Cindy Crawford, Lindsey Vonn, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to The Huffington Post, Bornstein is “one of the most inspiring sources in all of health and fitness.” His work has been featured in dozens of publications, including The New York Times, Fast Company, ESPN, and GQ, and he’s appeared on Good Morning America, The Today Show, and E! News.

The post The Truth About Nutrient Timing appeared first on Born Fitness.

All of this was indisputable until intermittent fasting came into the picture, and the importance of breakfast was brought into question. Or more accurately, the timing of meals was analyzed in a new way. If you’re not familiar with this style of eating, intermittent fasting focuses on control over your appetite. It’s an approach that has several variations, such as offering an eating window during the day (think “Lean Gains 16/8” where you only eat for 8 hours a day), or days where you don’t eat at all. (A la Eat Stop Eat, with one weekly 24-hour fast.) Some methods even combine fasting modalities with certain types of training (As was prescribed in Engineering the Alpha.) Each approach is designed to take advantage of the growing evidence of the benefits of fasting, an area that is admittedly still young in terms of research.

Although intermittent fasting became synonymous with being an anti-breakfast diet, it’s an inaccurate generalization of a style of eating that attempts to remove rules (you must eat breakfast within 30 minutes of waking!) and replace it with a simplified approach that offers flexibility. For example, you can still wake up, eat breakfast at 9 and then stop your meals at 5. This would be considered intermittent fasting. Or you could have breakfast 5 days a week and fast one day per week. This is also intermittent fasting. [Eds. note: I practice a style of intermittent fasting—and wrote a best-selling book that shares an IF style diet—but I do not think it’s the only diet approach or the best for everyone. Every eating style should be dependent on an individual’s goals.]

Whether you practice intermittent fasting or not, it’s important to know that you don’t have to eat a meal at any particular time of the day. Just as it’s ridiculous to insinuate that having a meal after 6 pm will make you fat, it’s just as careless to make a blanket statement saying you must eating upon waking and enjoy a big breakfast.

Some people don’t do well when they are forced to eat first thing in the morning. Others prefer this style and find that it helps them prevent overeating. Both models work, with the main message being your eating schedule should fit into a sustainable lifestyle pattern. Saying “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” is a misnomer; every meal is the most important, and your food choices are much more important than the times you eat.

But I heard Skipping Breakfast is Bad For Your Heart…

Fasters and non-fasters should be able to get along just fine—if not for some dangerously misleading research that was recently published. Scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health (or maybe more accurately the PR department at the school) made the all-too-broad claim that skipping breakfast was tied to an increase in heart attacks and coronary heart disease.

Wait.

One.

Second.

Skipping breakfast does what?

After a close look at the study design and the results, that conclusion couldn’t be more inaccurate or misleading. If you only look at the study abstract, it appears that skipping breakfast leads to a 27% increase in heart issues. That’s what you’ll hear in the news and see published at all the main outlets. What a shame.

After a close analysis, here’s what the research really found:

• The study compared more than 23,000 breakfast eaters to a little more than 3,000 breakfast skippers.
• The incidence rate of heart attacks in breakfast eaters was 5.77% whereas the incidence rate for the skippers was just 5.05%. In other words, those who ate breakfast had a 14% higher incidence of cardiovascular problems during the duration of the study. Not quite what the press release suggests. But wait, there’s more.
• The study becomes even more interesting when you review the lifestyle behaviors of the subjects. As we all know, smoking isn’t good for your health and is tied to heart disease. So that would be an important variable to consider when drawing any correlational conclusions between a behavior (skipping breakfast) and a health condition (heart attacks). In research we call these confounding variables, and all too often they are completely ignored. This study was no exception. From the subjects used, breakfast skippers were three times more likely to smoke than breakfast eaters. (And no, this does not mean skipping breakfast leads you to smoking). Naturally, it would be fair to question: Is it skipping breakfast that’s causing the heart issues or the smoking? This study was not designed in a way that could answer that question, but it needs to be asked.
• The smoking relationship wasn’t the only red flag. The breakfast skippers also exercised less, consumed more alcohol, and sat on their ass and watched more TV per week. All of these factors could easily be tied to an increase in heart disease, but instead it was breakfast that received all the attention.
• If that wasn’t enough, the “fasters” were also more likely to be single. This is important because prior research shows that single men are likely to more stress and heart issues.

I could go on—such as discussing how the real variable in this study appears to be age—but that would be belaboring the point. When the study was adjusted for factors including high cholesterol and diabetes, blood pressure, and BMI, the link between skipping breakfast and the increased risk of heart attack was no longer statistically significant.

Or in layman’s terms, there was no connection between fasting and heart attacks.

To Breakfast or Not to Breakfast: The Choice is Yours

I’m a big fan of science, but I take much of it with a grain of salt. We need to use research to test informed ideas, not twist results to scare people and complicate health decisions and daily behaviors. It’s very easy to look at data and make association conclusions and find links between seemingly unrelated behaviors. But unless a study directly tests for that and can prove some sort of causation, it doesn’t benefit anyone to spread information (and panic) to the mass media that won’t provide any real service.

If a man who doesn’t eat breakfast starts eating tomorrow, there is no guarantee that he will lessen his chance of having a heart attack. In fact, if you take the hard numbers of this study, just 1 out of every 292 breakfast skippers have heart disease and 1 out of every 249 breakfast eaters have it. Do these numbers really mean anything?

As always, we must continue to keep an eye on what science tells us and learn so that we can become healthier, but we also must be critical enough to ask the questions that allow us to draw the line between a cool statistic and reality.

So eat breakfast. Or don’t eat breakfast. Choose the one that works for you based on whether you feel better, have more energy, want to gain muscle, lose fat, or know if one eating pattern will give you more control over your diet.  But don’t make that choice based out of fear that isn’t rooted in valid claims that will impact your health.

Adam Bornstein

Adam Bornstein is a New York Times bestselling author and the author of You Can’t Screw This Up. He is the founder of Born Fitness, and the co-founder of Arnold’s Pump Club (with Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Pen Name Consulting. An award-winning writer and editor, Bornstein was previously the Chief Nutrition Officer for Ladder, the Fitness and Nutrition editor for Men’s Health, Editorial Director at LIVESTRONG.com, and a columnist for SHAPE, Men’s Fitness, and Muscle & Fitness. He’s also a nutrition and fitness advisor for LeBron James, Cindy Crawford, Lindsey Vonn, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to The Huffington Post, Bornstein is “one of the most inspiring sources in all of health and fitness.” His work has been featured in dozens of publications, including The New York Times, Fast Company, ESPN, and GQ, and he’s appeared on Good Morning America, The Today Show, and E! News.

The post Does Skipping Breakfast Cause Heart Attacks? appeared first on Born Fitness.

Ask Born: After reading Alpha I was curious about Tribulus. Does it really boost testosterone and help gains? –Kevin

If there was a pill (let’s assume it’s legal) that caused men’s testosterone to skyrocket, I’m fairly confident most men would have it stocked in their homes. But most guys don’t use tribulus and for a good reason: it really doesn’t do what it promises.

Tribulus is an herb that it commonly found in over-the-counter testosterone products. Without stereotyping, it’s popular with the bodybuilding community. This led me to design a scientific study 7 years ago, in which I helped two researchers put together a (never published) review on tribulus use and the impact on strength, muscle gain, and testosterone levels. I’ll be honest and admit that the research wasn’t air tight (hence the lack of publishing) and the sample size was small (n=16), but the findings were still relevant. The bottom line: Compared to a placebo group, there was no difference after 16 weeks of supplementation, which was a long enough trial period where you would expect to see something. And trust me, we looked. (Side note: ANOVAs, ANCOVAs, and multi-variate analyses are things I do not miss at all. If you’re a stats nerd you get this and probably also enjoy these things more than I ever could. And that’s a big reason why I left the research side of academia.)

When you take a deeper look, there’s plenty of research to suggest that tribulus is a big waste of money if your focus is boosting testosterone.

In fact, according to Examine.com, creators of the most authoritative guide on supplements (and a resource that I use to cross check everything in the supplement industry), here’s what you need to know about tribulus:

The thing is, tribulus doesn’t work. And there is plenty of research to prove that it doesn’t work; we have direct and repeated evidence that tribulus doesn’t increase testosterone in athletic males. In other words, if you’re taking tribulus to become stronger or add more muscle, don’t expect much.

That’s not to say tribulus is useless. In fact, it could have potential benefits to the cardiovascular system and organ health. It just doesn’t boost testosterone.

And this is a very important point. You see, tribulus most likely remains on the market and appears to work because it can be an effective libido enhancer. Usually, libido-enhancing herbs are used in testosterone boosters to make the users ‘feel the effects’ of testosterone. The unfortunate reality is that while higher testosterone tends to cause an increase in libido, these herbs increase your libido without affecting your testosterone.

The Born Reality: Tribulus, while known as a testosterone-boosting herb, does not offer the benefits related to strength, muscle, or recovery. It might help your libido, but that doesn’t mean it is doing anything for your testosterone levels.

Want more supplement information?

The biggest problem with the supplement industry is that you don’t know who or what to trust. That’s why if you take supplements or are considering them, I highly recommend you do yourself a favor a pick up the Supplement Goals Reference Guide. In all my years in this industry, I have yet to find something as honest, useful, and accurate. The creators of this guide have no supplement affiliation, which results in information that has no bias. (A rarity in the industry.) The guide includes the analysis of more than 20,000 studies and has a review of every supplement you could ever imagine. Trust me, if you’re looking for a supplement, it’s covered. And that means you never have to worry if a supplement is worth your money or will deliver on the (oftentimes inaccurate) claims.

Resources:

Neychev VK, Mitev VI. The aphrodisiac herb Tribulus terrestris does not influence the androgen production in young men. J Ethnopharmacol. (2005)

Rogerson S, et al. The effect of five weeks of Tribulus terrestris supplementation on muscle strength and body composition during preseason training in elite rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. (2007)

Make it Count,

Born

READ MORE: 

Why Creatine is Even Better Than You Thought

Do Carbs Actually Make You Fat?

Does Deer Antler Velvet Actually Build Muscle?

Adam Bornstein

Adam Bornstein is a New York Times bestselling author and the author of You Can’t Screw This Up. He is the founder of Born Fitness, and the co-founder of Arnold’s Pump Club (with Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Pen Name Consulting. An award-winning writer and editor, Bornstein was previously the Chief Nutrition Officer for Ladder, the Fitness and Nutrition editor for Men’s Health, Editorial Director at LIVESTRONG.com, and a columnist for SHAPE, Men’s Fitness, and Muscle & Fitness. He’s also a nutrition and fitness advisor for LeBron James, Cindy Crawford, Lindsey Vonn, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to The Huffington Post, Bornstein is “one of the most inspiring sources in all of health and fitness.” His work has been featured in dozens of publications, including The New York Times, Fast Company, ESPN, and GQ, and he’s appeared on Good Morning America, The Today Show, and E! News.

The post Does Tribulus Boost Testosterone? appeared first on Born Fitness.