Rest day! My lower back thanks you... I WOD'd and PR'd on deadlift today - 285#! Woot!

Im glad its a rest day...my knees are still sore from the 10km run

fittest games Texas this weekend! I can't wait

Looks like some active rest on the trainer in the basement. That is good because my bike has been giving me that look when I walk by..."where have you been lately?". I just don't have the heart to tell her I have another mistress that abuses me oh so much better!

CROSSFIT BABY!

S/F

Good Calories - Bad Calories

My only comment is the regarding the reference to cancer. Where is the evidence is show that over consumption of glucose causes cancer? A similar claim is made in the "China Study" without presenting any evidence in that book either.

I suppose that overloading the liver with glucose could trigger a powerful enzyme response to point of toxicity - but are these toxins carcinogenic?

Someone please point me to the evidence proving that over comsumption of glucose increases the risk of cancer.

Happy resting.

#7,
I looked it up, and it seems that the overconsumption of glucose doesn't CAUSE cancer, but it does HELP any cancer cells that may be present.

A study somewhat recently (link at the bottom) showed that cancer cells prefer to consume glucose for growth. Cancer cells that are fueled by glucose can operate and reproduce in an oxygen-free environment. Without glucose, cancer cells show little growth in an anaerobic setting.

My guess it this information was probably just twisted and made into "Too much glucose can give you cancer!"

Link: http://www.uihealthcare.com/news/news/2004/05/17glucose.html

This isn't new thinking. It sounds like the Paleo Diet book except it seems he is restricting carbs even more along with some other technicalities. I would also like to see more studies that can prove some of these claims. From a logical stand point it makes sense to me, but we would need some more science to convince the mob.

I understand the argument that too many processed carbohydrates are a major contributing factor to the obesity epidemic we're involved in. Does Taubes make the claim in his book that a sedentary lifestyle is not also a contributing factor to this? I haven't read the book, but that's the feeling I get from several reviews/summarys I've seen...and I don't think I'm buying the argument that processed carbohydrates are the only thing that's made people fat - that lack of exercise has nothing to do with it...

YEAH BRIAN REPRESENT NYC! WHOOOOOOOO!

Wow, that coach, he is all knowing, even planning a rest day for superbowl Sunday!

Be cautious though, after New Years Eve he hammered us with the Crossfit Total!

Great program Coach!

Posting late from the Tabata, so I'll have to comment on the articles tomorrow.

20/M/5'9"/155#

Total Reps = 358

Pull-Ups: 25, 13, 10, 10, 9, 8, 8, 8 (*Note: next time I won't burn out so hard on the first set. First time doing Tabata)

Push-Ups: 20, 15, 11, 10, 10, 9, 7, 8

Sit-Ups (GHD): 9, 7, 6, 6, 5, 6, 6, 6

Squats: 18, 15, 16, 16, 15, 15, 15, 16

Looking forward to the day off tomorrow. Playing snow football has led to a series of pains that I'm sure working out isn't helping.

A relationship of mind and body:
Dualism or the view that the mind and the body are seperate entities. In many cases dualist emphasize mind over body. This view can be seen while performing exercises such as "Fran".
Monism or the view of the mind and the body being fused. In this instance neither the mind nor the body can be subservient to the other. This view in exercise can be seen in every exercise coach has ever put on the WOD board.
As for myself, crossfit has turned me into a monist. Not only do I prep myself mentally each and everday, I have reached a satisfactory level of fitness that gives me the ability to complete many of the exercises in decent times.

I love crossfit

Gary Taubes is a smart man. I laugh whole heartedly though as his statements are always accompagnied by violent and angry processions of low fat high carb disciples.

Usualy fat unfit ones!

Running seminar hmmm...

whew! went skiing today. first time.
good stuff.

yay BRIAN! shout out to brian who ran with two black box running newbies in the freezing cold long after he finished his wod to make sure we would not give up (or collapse!) he is the greatest!

The studies backing up Taubes work are no more or less plentiful than the studies 'proving' high fat diets and cholesterol cause heart disease, yet the masses accept that correlate without question.

I definitely agree with most of Taubes' point (from the excerpt as I have not read the book) - it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. But that vitamin C argument it sounds like he's claiming that fruit (as a source of carbs) should be avoided. In my view, that is completely ridiculous (and wrong from an evolutionary perspective); it reduces his credibility substantially.

My ten year old daughter and I made our own weighted ball by using directions we found on XFKids. It is so cool and we have been throwing it around all evening. What a wonderful thing to 'play' with. Thanks, XF.

theycallmefreak, can you elaborate or post links to your post about Dualism and Monism?

Seems like interesting stuff but there are some cases that regardless of how many times I tell myself "just two or three more HSPUs" I can't perform another one at a full range of motion without stopping and resetting. I'm not sure what you mean by Monism and the results that you're achieving.

It seems that when one analyzes foods it comes down to some simple logic when deciding what to eat, when to eat them and how often. The logic can be as simple as:

Morning: fruits, grains, dairy (high carbs, lower protein)
Afternoon: veggies, grains, meat (moderate carbs, moderate protein)
Night: nuts, veggies, meat (low carbs, high protein)

But done so in smaller portions more often throughout the day instead of "3 square meals." It makes sense to have "high" carb intake early when your body needs to have energy to wake up, and to reduce the carb intake throughout the day as you prepare to go to bed.

It amazes me that people follow these fad diets, or diets in general, when using some common sense choosing what to eat and when, and doing some physical activity is what human beings and our ancestors have done for thousands of years.

Good Calories - Bad Calories

Had me until it became clear I would have to give up beer.

When choosing between two scientific hypotheses, I think it is generally agreed that the one that would require forfeiting the consumption of beer must be wrong.

NYC... When and Where?

Loved the excerpt from "Good Calories - Bad Calories". I remember my Dad making me read articles in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) as a kid about the results of studies detailing the range of negative health effects due to high fructose corn syrup consumption. I am surprised that it has taken so long, at least ten years (yes, I'm only 20, but that is still a considerable length of time), for this information to become widely recognized.

And to those of you that gave me advice a few days back on how to keep people away from my oly bar during workouts - thanks again, it has worked like a charm =)

I can agree with Taubes that refined carbohydrates are bad. If you look at the so called "legitimate diets" or ways of eating such as the Mediterranean diet, the Zone, the Okinawan Diet, Ornish, etc., one of the main principals is the elimination or severe restriction of refined carbohydrates. The preponderance of evidence is pointing toward the ill effects of consuming refined carbohydrates and the good effects of complex carbohydrates. I used to be one of the low fat proponents but I'm changing my mind about that. Although I still think too much fat, especially saturated fat, is bad for you, after studying the above mentioned diets I've come to believe that refined carbohydrates, especially sugar, are just as bad. As long as we're talking about carbohydrates let's make sure that we distinguish between refined/simple carbs and complex carbs. The Zone, Gary Taubes, all these other legitimate diets say eat complex carbs. But, pundits, proponents and opponents, usually just say carbs are bad without distinguishing between simple and complex. Vegetables are carbs. Fruits are carbs. Whole grains are carbs. Eat them. They are complex carbs. Don't eat white bread, sugar, Gatorade, energy bars. They are simple carbs. Of course, beer and wine are exceptions.

On another note, I watched a rerun of American Gladiators this afternoon. Have you noticed that the Gladiators look more like bodybuilders while the contestants look more like CrossFitters.

In response to James D.

When I began my crossfit journey I knew the possibilities of completing rxd workouts were impracticle. During those months I would have categorized myself as a dualist. I would allow myself to work only until my body felt tired. Since, in a dualistic state, the mind usually controls body, I would be fast to surrender to the pain of lactic acid. Although I would not push myself to the max, I did become stronger. As I noticed myself becoming stronger, I transitioned into a state of monism. I would allow my mind to push my body, but at the same time would disregard the pain my body delivered to my mind. You said your body refuses do another hspu without resetting, well why not reset. As you feel yourself getting weaker, take a rest. Eventually, through practice, you will be able to rep out hspu with little or no problems. Some people are natural monist, other have to begin as dualist and make a transition, if wanted, later on. There is no wrong in either monism or dualism. To philosophers they are philosophies, to other such as myself they are starting points and ending points.

I love CrossFit

Great to see "Good Calories - Bad Calories" on network news. Even the comments posted on ABC News seemed largely to be favorable. As mentioned previously, not new thinking -- along the same lines as "Protein Power Lifeplan" by Michael and Mary Eades M.D.

Overseas at the moment

introduced a colleague to CF and I think he's hooked.

Got him to do a mini bear
followed by
21 15 9 of dips and DB swings

while I did a mini bear
and a Fran
posting 6min! :D

MikeC1, there is compelling evidence that consumption of cholesterol and saturated fats do not correlate with blood cholesterol levels (I am not providing sources here, but they are very easy to find). It is only too easy to believe that if you eat cholesterol, it must wind up in your arteries. In fact, our bodies produce cholesterol to repair the damage done to our arteries by insulin, thereby creating plaque.

Yeah Brian NYC. Let me know when you can help a complete newbie like me learn to run!!
On another note, today is my first Oly meet!!
Yeah

#12 - Well said! I've been reading quite a bit on the power of staying focused, in the moment.

I find this helps greatly when doing the WOD. I still have my moments when I listen to that little voice in the back of my head screaming "stop!" but, I'm learning that we are capable of so much more than we sometimes believe.

I read Good Calories Bad Calories in its entirety and I find Taubes' hypothesis more convincing than the low-fat hypothesis.

I love the corn producers' response at the end of the article:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3661766

They obviously didn't read the book, because they didn't address the fact that Taubes claims that fructose is an integral part in raising triglycerides, which is a better predictor of heart disease than LDL cholesterol.

When the low-fat people can refute basic endocrinological fact like insulin secretion and ketogenesis, and heaps of clinical evidence from doctors like Atkins and the Eades, they'll have something to stand on. Until then, if that time ever comes, they need to stop being so dogmatic in their views of diet.

I highly suggest everyone pick up a copy of Good Calories Bad Calories, just for the fact that it is a wealth of knowledge from the history of obesity research.

Had too many beers last night. so decided to punish myself, must be the catholic in me. Did my own WOD called it Colin's Sick Sixty;
60 Burpees +400m
60 Pullups +400m
60 Lunges +400m
60 KTE's +400m
60 20kg Thrusters +400m
60 15kg KB Swings +400m (should have gone heavier)
All for time 41' 10"
Have it!

Loved the article. One issue that's been brought up time and again that I agree with is that most companies have focused on providing cheap and quickly prepared high carb meals rather than healthy meals. Therefore, it takes hard work and more money to eat right. While for this motivated bunch it would seem like a slam dunk, there's a lot of people our there that actually don't have the money to do this, Seriously! Or they are too lazy. That's not surprising because I'm sure we are all a little lazy sometimes. Over time people will get it. We didn't get to this point yesterday and we won't be where we need to be tomorrow. Just look at the small somewhat token strides that some fast food and grocery stores are taking to but in more fruits, salads and organic foods in front of us as choices. While this doesn't seem like the result we want at least it's in the right direction. Over time, the public will change it's thinking as it figures out it's the diet that's killing them or making them fat and no amount of pills or surgery is going to fix it. Their demand will fuel the supply. For me, I just try to be an example of healthy living. So when people ask me what I'm doing, I tell them.

Thank God for Crossfit and this community.

A great new book by Michael Pollan ("In Defence of Food") supports and elaborates on much of what Taube discusses in "Good Calories...". Pollan's advice "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants" is the most sensible advice given to the Western omnivore since we learnt to refine sugar. The argument Pollan makes, that reductionist science of nutritionism (exemplified by Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" hypothesis) has confused us so badly we now rely on the unholy alliance of media and junk science (bought to you by your friendly corn syrup producer)to tell us what to eat. We need to get back in touch with whole food stuffs - defined as food your great grandmother would recognise, and avoid the nutritional novelties (like the refined carbs in breakfast cereals) that have been foisted on us by the food processes for the past century. We need to enjoy the act of eating again, and cooking it. Foods in context, eaten with traditional accompaniments, grown without the benefits of pesticides and growth hormones, are more likely to provide us with a complete diet than foods that have vitamins and nutrients added back in.
Great book, great practical advice and science as least as good (and usually much better) than that of the nutritionists.

41yo/f/158#
Tabata something else
pullups(blue band) 11,10,6,5,6,5,5,5
pushups(strict) 5,11,5,11,8,6,7,7 (not sure if I was on track with my interval rest/work times)
situps(abmat)10,10,11,11,10,11,11
squats(dynamax ball depth full ext) 15,15,15,15,15,15,15,16
Total=307

19 / F

yeeah, I was far too eager to do this workout to have "well I went skiing yesterday" be an excuse to not do it...

Modified CrossFit wod from Thursday, 31-Jan-2008

3 rounds
105 pound Deadlift, 15 reps
15 "HS" push-ups , had my knees on a 3 ft rail
15 jumping pull-ups
45 pound thrusters, 15 reps
time- 21:10

Brian making NYC proud. You're a Crossfitting Running Stud for sure.

The video analysis was one of my favorite parts of the running cert. It was so helpful. It made me aware of what I was doing which made it easier to fix things. I'm really thankful that I got to learn the Pose method. I love it. Before I learned it I was exhausted after running for one minute. Now I feel like I can finish a 10k without my legs giving out on me. It's pretty cool and I'm looking forward to the runs so I can practice.

Back in NYC. I'm pretty sad that my adventure is over but it's nice to be home. I was missing my baby brother like crazy. I'm looking forward to sharing everything I've learned on my trip with my fellow Crossfitting New Yorkers. I wish I could travel to affiliates every week. It's so much fun meeting new people, checking out gyms and getting great coaching. I feel like I have friends all over.

I did tabata squats in the airport yesterday. Bad move. My buns were already toasted from the workout at One World. It made sitting on a plane for 5 hours harder than it needed to be :)

I'm taking the day off and going to Brooklyn. I'll be back at the Box tomorrow!

Taubes says,

>>5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.

>>6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter…. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

Unless these elements of his model are supported by data, they are conjectures. They have far-reaching implications on the nature of metabolism, one that can be measured.

A simple experiment is obvious. Put one bunch of people on, say, a standard American diet, and another, similar bunch on a test diet, such as minimal bad carbs. Measure daily, and in total, their caloric intake by source (fat, protein, and carbs), caloric content of their stool, and weight, and their estimated physical work. Assume body temperature is not significant. Establish a baseline for all subjects. Raise their caloric intake incrementally and in the same proportions and after a few days, measure the parameters again. Repeat until the caloric intake is, say, doubled. This experiment should establish several valuable relationships between metabolism, weight or weight gain, and caloric intake by source.

If Taubes is right, then a person on a good calorie diet would not gain weight during the test, and the calorie content of his stool should account for not the just the majority, but 100% of the intake increase. That seems improbable, but it might turn out to account for, say, 90%. Taubes might want to qualify his claims just a bit.

I look forward to reading his book to see if he reports on this experiment. Until it's been done and the data and results are known, I would never give as my opinion the Taubes' conjecture: that excess calories do not cause weight gain.

As an aside, I've been told that on a good calorie diet, one loses the desire to overeat. That's good, seems true, but is irrelevant. Taubes didn't say that you wouldn't want to eat to excess on a good diet, and therefore wouldn't. He said that if you did eat to excess on a good diet that you wouldn't gain weight. Let's see the evidence.

(i) Nobody commented yet on Taubes' argument that exercise isn't an integral component? I would have guessed many would jump on that (I say as I get ready to hit the gym for tabata before the SuperBowl).

(ii) Many of these nutrition/dietary arguments hinge on evolutionism. For those of whose (OMG!) who come from a theist rather than evolutionist foundation, how does Taubes' (and/or paleo, for instance) stand up? I'm not anti, I'm just skeptical of the evolutionary foundation. Would like to hear the traditional and theistic foundation as well. [Note: No need to blast religion in response to this if anyone does indeed respond. I'm just saying...]

The gym jones crossfit issue has reared its head in a disscussion unrelated to this one. Can someone link me to or give me the date of the rest day article regarding gym jones/crossfit intelectual property disscussion?

Taubes seems to use evolution to back up his ideas (some are good, some are shaky). Evolution is itself a conjecture (maybe hypothesis.). Better to just stick to the facts for credibility's sake.

Here is an interesting link on how to interpret information we are fed on diets.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/media.html

What is interesting to note is that prior to the introduction of white flour and sugar, heart attack was virtually unknown. During the 20 year adaptation period that followed, M/I became more common, with heart disease becoming the no. 1 killer of Americans d during the 80's low fat, high carb period. I have been eating a modified Adkins for several years now and have great results with it. I experience no energy swings, no cravings, low body fat and good endurance. Best of all, I feel better.

Something I have been thinking about over the past week and noticed some postings today, concerns body mind interaction and bouts of intense exercise. I began doing metcon workouts 6 years ago in order to better prepare myself for real life challenges and aging. One of the biggest obstacles in this type of training is the little voice that wants to quit. This is one of the primary issues with completing some of the more difficult programs in the military. Those people must overcome this weakness if they are to be sucessful. They know they know that being able to do so could be the difference between life and death.

Crossfit training, the WODs, the posting of results, the difficult, repetitive nature of many of the exercises tend to activate the little voice and the need to overcome it. Life has a way of providing unexpected challenges that can sometimes become life threatening. Quitting isn't an option, but many do. I see this program as an ingenious training tool for these types of situations.

A wonderful gift in a gnarly wrapper.

More info on the affects of sugars on the body.

http://www.acpsc.com/Nutrition.htm

Taubes bases his claims on his interpretation of "existing knowledge." Not helpful.

#13. your comment is ad hominem (a logical fallacy). Regardless of whether someone is fat (or any other trait they may have), they may still be correct.

#25. your comment is ridiculous. a philosphy of the mind will not make people able to do physical tasks they are incapable of doing. Some people will never be able to do HSPU and some will never be able to do more reps of HSPU. It's genetic and age based. Obviously.

#34 - MattP, I couldn't have said it better myself. "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants" That's about the best advice anyone can take. I commented on the ABC page that you should be suspicious of any "diet" that forbids one thing or overly promotes one thing. For one thing that's a sure sign of a fad but for another thing it's also a sure way to fail.

I actually heard a trainer in my gym tell some teens that they should cut out everything white from their diet including milk.

Everything in moderation. You want a Ho-Ho, have a Ho-Ho, just don't have 6 of them or have them everyday. I mean heck even Crossfit gives us a day off every 4th day!

Jeff Glassman #38,

Those two points really stuck out at me also. If anybody can find some peer reviewed data that supports them I would love to read it.

#44 A philosophy of the mind can just as easily convince people they cannot do a task that they can. One of the biggest problems facing people today regarding weight control and fitness

#44 I never said the philosophy itself was anykind of door to completing any kind of tasks. They were mindsets during my workouts and the person I responded to was already capable of doing hspu. But why do you say some people will never be able to do hspu? If your argument is something like weight. They would be able to do it if they lost weight and practiced. If your argument is because they are to weak they can improve strength. Never say never. Once a person is able to do one hspu all it takes is practice practice and more practice and they will soon be able to do reps. I am very young but I would be careful using "age" as an excuse to not completing any physical tasks, especially when it comes to crossfitters.

The argument for Crossfit is unchanged by Taubes assertion that exercise does little to protect against or cure obesity. Crossfit is made of sterner stuff than 'weight loss'.

Taubes' offhand comment about exercise keeping orthopedic doctors in business is a poor categorization, a point I think he will concede once Coach gets a hold of him, but personal observations support his point that compared to diet, exercise is a worthless weight-loss tool.

There are caveats, but I wouldn't want to base a counter argument on them.

Still, if Taubes' larger hypothesis is correct, which I think we all believe it to be, 12 of our 100 words of world-class fitness may need to be revised. The command to "Keep intake to levels that will support exercise but not body fat" may still be correct in some ways, but it reinforces the old paradigm-- that we get fat because we eat too much. Taubes' central hypothesis is that we eat too much because we get fat. The cycle is broken by mobilizing fat, he convincingly argues. Thankfully, Crossfit's first 14 words unsure that we do just that.

#48 not everyone has the ability to improve strength. are you claiming that an elite 70 year old crossfit person (i.e. they are the most fit 70 year old crossfitter) will be stronger and faster than an elite 20-30 year old crossfit person? that's ridiculous. have you ever notice that there aren't that many 70 year old professional athletes?

i cross fit at an affiliate. i see people every day killing themselves to complete the wod's. great. but no matter how hard some - no most - people try, they will never (and i do say never) be able to complete certain physical tasks.

For instance, just because someone can do 21 95# thrusters in a row doesn't mean that some day they will be able to do 100. or, just because some can run a 100m dash in 13s, doesn't mean that some day they'll be able to do it in 10s. no matter what they (or you) believe and no matter how long and how hard they try. sorry. not going to happen for most people. again. this is obvious.

The dust cover of Taube's Book has someone named Richard Rhodes suggesting Taubes would be nominated for a Nobel prize for his work were he a scientist. I thought this is a bit much even for marketing hyperbole, but after having read the book, it is a benchmark. It is a huge, remarkable, review of hundreds (1000's?)of sourses. It answered a number of questions I've had for years about the seeming inconsistencies I see in diet, heart disease, weight gain.

However, it is a very difficult book to read. A strong background in biochemistry, statistics and probably is very helpful. Although it will blow all the fad Jenny-Craig-like diets out of the water, because it is so technical,it is unlikely to be widely read.

When I'm discussing the book, I tell people the key points of the 466 pages: 1) Insulin is the new cholesterol. 2) Insulin's primary role is to deposit carbs in fat cells. 3) Without insulin you won't get fat no matter what you eat (unless you're a genetically-modified rat) 4) Fructose is probably the worst carb you can eat, it is not converted to glucose or glycogen, but primarily phosphoglyceride which binds free fatty acids as triclycerides in fat cells.

I feel like I agree with just about everything Mr. Taubes had to say except for the references to exercise not having anything to do with the equation. It has been shown almost without fail that the body can adapt to anything except inactivity. At least anyone who is looking for a common denominator would find that to be it. At least that has been my minor observation. But I like what he has to say for the most part and love crossfit.

#51

Appreciate the summary. So what's the take on fruit ?

Everytime I turn around someone is stating its an essential part of my diet and vice versa.

So what's up ?

loving all the talk on nutrition. i agree with tha atkins,paleo style diets, but i can't stop eating ice cream. kroger had mayfield for $1.99 1/2 gallon. i bought seven. this should last a few months. anyway since i ate so much i ran 5mi. around stone mountain 40mins.

everyone have a great rest day.

#23 Elise (and anyone else), any advice on how to keep people away from my oly bar during workouts would be much appreciated.

@ The Gift:
man is capable to do what he believes he can do!

Or can you explain, for example, the fact that some Shaolin monks can do one finger hand stand with genetics!?

# 51 Ken_Davis:

do you want to say that fruit is bad!? If yes, why?

I am not opposing your opinion, I am just asking.

My last comment to TheGift.
How many 70 year old athletes/crossfitters (one in the same) actually have a goal of outdoing a 20 year old elite athlete? Its hard to discuss something when you take things out of a realistic realm. This began with a discussion between me (19/m/) and another person who I guarantee is not above the age of 35. Do your research though on the tasks that some 70 or even 80 year old adults still complete and scale it to the ability of an elite 20 year old. I guarantee the work is almost the same once you have taken muscular compisition,age,and overall physical health of the older person into consideration.

#55 Superman -

The general consensus could be summed up in two points:
1) Guard it like a hawk - i.e. keep all of your other equipment in close proximity or
2) if this isn't possible, try to "mark your territory" by tossing a towel or some other personal effect over the bar in between sets/rounds

Can someone please explain more thoroughly the arguments against eating fruit? I can understand that you don't want to load up on sugar (and so moderate fruit intake would be better than excessive intake), but is there really solid (peer-reviewed or otherwise) evidence that fruit should be stricken from a healthy diet? I have a very hard time believing that, but I am curious.

#60 - Like you said, as long as it's in moderation anyone who tells you not to eat fruit is a whacko. That said not all fruit is considered equal either. I look at it from a complete perspective and not necessarily just weight control. There's too much evidence out there suggesting that the antioxidants in fruit are beneficial for me to worry about gaining weight from eating blueberrys.

Plus, I can't imagine too many people on a fruit heavy diet have gotten fat.

38M/175

Rest Day WOD-

1 hr spin on the trainer to loosen up the legs.

Stay safe all

Regarding fruit:

Fruit is a simple carb. Simple carbs increase insulin significantly. Insulin drives carbs into fats cells without the chance to use the carbs for energy or stored as glycogen.

However, most (nondehydrated) fruit is largely water, and hence the carbs are not as concentrated as say a piece of bread. There are also phytochemicals: vitamins, flavins, etc and fiber which are beneficial.

Black Bears seems to get plenty fat by eating fruit and berries during the summer and fall.

I personally think of most fruit as a healthy candy. What carbs I eat are in the form of vegitables.

Comment #24 - Posted by MikeC1

Mike, there is no difference, metabolically speaking, between simple and complex carbs. What make a difference in how your body responds to carbs is whether they dissolve into sugar and therefore your blood rapidly or slowly. This factor can be measured, and is represented by the 'glycemic index.' It's widely available information, and there's no correlation to what is referred to as 'simple or complex' carbs. Take a look at one - you'll see for yourself.

Paul

Thanks for prompting some additional reading today.

The Taubes article seems to concentrate on weight and obesity...maybe that's what sells. But my understanding from reading people like O'Keefe is that the obesity is just a marker. The postprandial spikes in glucose from a meal high in carbs prompt a cascade of events starting with a rise in free radicals and oxidant stress and resulting in a pro-inflammatory response, hypercoagulability, and increased atherogenesis. Put another way, it is not the obesity that is the cause of the heart attack, it is this other cascade of events. Does the book touch on that?

In the book, how does he explain the cardioprotective effect of exercise? An exercise-related interruption of the inflammatory cascade is a logical interpretation to me.

Comment #20 - Posted by GMT-NYC

GMT - glad that works for you, however, for me it would be lousy. I don't think the body is energy deprived in the morning. All night long, your body uses relatively little calories, and can process more than enough energy from stored fat to have a stable supply - unless one chronically over-eats carbs, and runs on a carb based glucose metabolism. In that case, one can wake up carb hungry, but of course, it just sustains the carb hungry metabolism.

Far more useful for me has been to eat balanced meals whenever possible, no matter the time of day. That 40-30-30 ratio was a good starting point. It still works reasonably well, but of course one could modify a bit towards fat, protein or low glycemic index carbs and it would still be about as balanced as can be.

Paul

I love fruit! I don't know anything about bears, but I have never gotten fat from it, I usually eat 3-4 pieces per day. Apples, oranges, grapefruits, berries of all sorts. I don't eat bananas much but just because of personal preference not because they are 'high in sugar'!

sometimes it seems like you are not supposed to eat anything anymore! So obviously you shouldn't eat white bread and refined carbohydrates in general, but now fruit is bad? nuts are bad? tomatoes are bad? the more i look at CF nutrition boards the more I feel 'guilty' about my extremely healthy diet... because YES I sometimes eat a banana, and NO i don't cut my apple in half, i eat the whole thing. And if I eat a cup of nuts instead of a loaf of bread am I not making a good choice?

I apologize if I come across as negative but sometimes I get frustrated with the restrictions put on diet here... it just seems that we work so hard at the gym we should be able to have an apple or (god forbid) a BEER if we want one.

That being said I know many do well on an extremely low carbohydrate diet, but I don't think it works for most of the world as it is too restrictive and therefore too hard to stick to.

Comment #28 - Posted by Ed

Well put, and interestingly, when confronted by those who say "that "high protein" diet is dangerous!", even if the people in question already are overweight, and have a 'cholesterol problem', if I suggest that they actually TRY something different for six months and MEASURE the results by evaluating their cholesterol/trigliceride readings, they always balk. In other words, the desire to maintain stasis trumps the desire to learn/change for many, many people. Paul

m/61/178/6'

10 rounds for time:

200yd run
30 burpees
15 box jump 20"

time: 1:16

I dunno why, but today's and yesterday's videos won't play on my computer, it says it can't find the codec. All the other videos played fine, and I really doubt everyone else is downloading a brand new codec for these, or using a codec finder, I wonder what's up?

Hay guys. I have been crossfitting for around four months now, im getting a little bored with the warm up. Does anyone change the exercises for others?

Otherwise im loving crossfit.

Keep thinking up the GREAT workouts.

Chris

Hey my grip bursted well one of them. There is blood clotting underneath two of them...should I poke it...and wen i do how long is the healing process? can i still workout after?

Until someone presents incontrovertible evidence to the contrary I'll continue to subscribe to the theory that for weight control purposes the amount of calories ingested versus the amount burned determines your weight. The type of calorie doesn't matter for weight control, only the amount matters. Now, health is a different matter altogether. For health,the type of calorie is supreme. Lean protein, good fats, and good carbs eaten in the right amounts and proportions will help to ensure good health and weight. You can eat nothing but Twinkies and Jolt cola and still maintain a good weight - but, you won't be healthy and eventually that diet will kill you. There is a lot of controversy and disagreement among legitimate scientists, doctors, and nutritionists concerning what constitutes the proper proportions of fats, protein, and carbs. The individual CrossFitter has to learn as much as they can about these things and make up their minds. Diet is one of those areas that you'll never get everybody to agree on.

Stressbaby, read the book...

Short answer, not all exercise is cardio protective in fact some is more detrimental to cardiovascular health than it is protective.

Charles from Ottawa,
if you were inclined to do so you would give references to the large amounts of "proof" that high fat diets lead to cancer... In fact if you look for said proof - you would find lots of opinions, conjecture and debatable evidence at best. Lots of "scientists believe", but no scientists have proven!

And being that I like to play games I'm going to give you only one reference to make a point. The Canadian Army issue Field Rations have a 50% fat composition and have for decades. The reason? Because fat metabolism is more conducive to maintaining energy for long durations, reduces hunger responses due to insulin response, and keeps the soldier more alert.

The LRRP's (long range recce patrol) rations which are mostly high carb energy rations have a tendency to cause significant fatigue shortly after consumption and reduced alertness. This is why they are almost never issued anymore. They have the opposite effect that was intended.

For troops - the most success I've seen for LRRP substitute is a small bottle of cold pressed olive oil, salted mixed nuts, and dried fruit. The olive oil and nuts should make up about 70% of calories.

The longer you go with moderate calories made up of carbhydrates the more irritable you become and the hungrier you get. You can function on a reduced calorie diet made up of fat, protein and limited carbs for long periods of time and your hunger will remain under complete control.

-this is from experience-

Peace out!

"A wonderful gift in a gnarly wrapper." Comment #42 - Posted by davidorr

David, well put as usual. The voice was loud and clear yesterday as I was doing Difrian.

Hey my grip bursted well one of them. There is blood clotting underneath two of them...should I poke it...and wen i do how long is the healing process? can i still workout after?

Couldn't just sit around today, so made up my own little WOD...

For time:
Row 1500M
5 Muscle-ups
Row 1000M
10 Muscle-ups
Row 500M
15 Muscle-ups

My time was - 22:55... the last set off MUs was rough... and not to mention my shoulders were burning pretty bad...

#64 Apolloswabbie - I'm quite aware of the glycemic index. However, there is a lot more involved in the health contributions of foods than the glycemic load. According to the chart I looked at a Snickers bar has a lower glycemic load than grapes or green peas. However, you'll live longer and healthier eating grapes and green peas than you will eating Snickers bars. Phytochemicals, minerals, fats, etc. determine the nutritional value of a food, not just the glycemic index.

#60 and #61 - I have not read Taubes' book, but the argument against the holy grail of fruit centers around two things, ratio of calories to nutrients, and metabolic impact.

First - fruits have sugar, and some have vitamins of one sort or another. We don't do well without enough vitamins, but there's no evidence that we do better with 'more than enough' vitamins. We are not living a life in which vitamins are scarce. Bottom line - many fruits have far more sugar than needed, and not much in the way of essential nutrition. Cost/benefit way out of whack for the amount of praise they get in the press.

Second - and more important from my perspective - is the impact of insulin. Many fruits/vegetables provide large doese of easily digestible sugars. If you eat food that gives a rapid and significant boost in blood sugar, the body will secrete insulin. As reported quite nicely in post #28/Ed, insulin is damaging to your body. Various conjectures about why - Barry Sears/Zone says it is bad-eicosanoid production for example but I don't know if this can be proved - but you can test for yourself by eating a Zone type diet and measuring the results in both athletic performance and blood tests.

NOTE: This is not me saying 'fruit is bad.' This is my summary of how to think about how fruit could be bad for you - if too much is eaten, or if eaten as part of an overall high glycemic diet, or if the wrong kinds (high in easily digestible sugars) are eaten.

Antioxidants - I bet Taubes would say we only need the extra anti-oxidants because our diets are making us sick in the first place. Chances are, we're getting plenty in a more paleo based diet anyway due to decreased insulin production therefore decreased damage in the first place.

Paul

Jeff Glassman,

Thanks for the simple lesson in how to think about conjecture and what would make it science. Much appreciated as always.

Note to all - I'm writing about things I've learned over the last 12 years of Zone focused living. There's nothing scientific about it, it's based on my own experience and observations.

G.I. Jane 15:00 and almost puked (I was seeing stars!). Greg A is the man @ 10:17. The best part was someone doing some B.S. P.T. saw me knocking out the Burpee Pull ups and wanted to see what it was all about. Told her about CrossFit and the website. She couldn't even do a burpee (let alone the pull up), said she thought she was in shape and was going to check it out. Should have a new convert saved from the pit of mediocre fitness!

As for diet, I say all in moderation. If it owns you, you might want to cut it out for a while.

#74 - Pierre, great observations, thanks.

Comment #78 - Posted by MikeC1

Mike, we agree on your #78 summary but that is an entirely different issue that simple v complex carbs, which is as relevant to my health, or yours, as is my cat's fur!

Paul

Just made some parallettes!

can't wait to use them!

GO PATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #65 - Posted by stressbaby
I have not read O'Keefe, but Sears' books (The Zone et al) say virtually the same thing. Being obsese is the symptom, not the cause, of poor health.

#82 Apolloswabbie - I don't understand your comment, or maybe I'm just reading it wrong, "that simple v complex carbs, which is as relevant to my health, or yours, as is my cat's fur!" Isn't the difference between simple and complex carbs (although Sears doesn't use those terms)one of the main thrusts of the Zone?

Comment #67 - Posted by laura

Laura, based on your post I presume you are mis-interpreting posts based on two things.

One - not knowing the theory of the zone you don't know how to interpret the advice to eat 'half an apple'. Depending on the context that could mean a lot of things - but for example, I cat eat three in a balanced meal with no other carbs and be right on target.

Two - the advice is only for those that want the result the advisor has achieved and is offering to share. Eat what you want to get the result you desire and leave the guilt for others. If you want a beer, drink it. If you want 18 apples, eat them. The only tragedy is if you are ignorant of the consequences for these choices and get unintended results you could have avoided by knowing how food creates your health. Many Crossfitters have learned that a zone type diet fuels superior performance. They want to offer that experience for others.

If you want to eat like you eat, and get the results you want, you are The Queen! If you think there's a chance you could learn more and get a better outcome than the one you are getting now, go get a copy of 'the zone' and learn the ideas therein so you can contextualize the advice you are seeing on the boards.

Time to hit up Tabata Something Else with my beautiful bride and then watch the Super Bowl, while eating nachos and enjoying beer. When I grow up, I won't want to eat food like that, but I'm not there yet.

Paul

I'm going to go pick up Taubes book today. I'm curious to know how it deals with the science supporting HIIT as a preferred training method for fat burning (http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM).

Comment #84 - Posted by MikeC1

Mike, no, the Zone is pretty clear that there's no way to know whether a simple v complex carb will have a more negative impact on your metabolism. For example, rice cakes and bagels, both complex carbs, are absolute beasts in terms of glycemic load. I don't have a glycemic index handy, and am too lazy to go find one on line, but as I recall, they are both equivalent on the glycemic index with table sugar. Carrots, sugar beets, corn on the cob, rice, beer, cooked potatoes - you may as well eat a Snickers bar.

Hey my grip bursted well one of them. There is blood clotting underneath two of them...should I poke it...and wen i do how long is the healing process? can i still workout after?

Will anyone respond to me.. I'm still waiting on what to do?

I agree- refined sugars aren't really good for anyone, but 100g of carbs a day? What would Taubes recommend for an endurance athlete?

Sure, you could perform low intensity aerobic exercise while consuming a low carbohydrate diet, but what about those of us that are competitive cyclist/runners/etc? Muscle glycogen is a good thing- you simply can't keep metabolizing FFAs at the intensity levels that are required to be successful- it's physiologically impossible.
I try my best to avoid simple & refined sugars. The majority of my carbs come from high fiber sources like oatmeal, quinoa, veggies, whole grain bread, and the occasional piece of fruit (dessert!), but you'd never find me taking my carb intake down anywhere close to 100g per day- it would be suicide to my training/racing ability.

#51, Ken Davis writes that while "Good Calories, Bad Caolries" is an important book...

"... it is a very difficult book to read. A strong background in biochemistry, statistics and probably is very helpful. Although it will blow all the fad Jenny-Craig-like diets out of the water, because it is so technical,it is unlikely to be widely read."

I agree. But I think you are too kind to Taubes. At almost 500 pages, the book is double the length it needs to be. (And the original draft was almost 1,000 pages!)

The book is poorly organized. It hopscotches in time. The repetition can be exasperating.

That said, the book has many virtues. On most of the key points, Taubes is right. Like the best journalists, he is a born skeptic who is not intimidated by credentialed "experts."

Taubes shows how a cabal of about a dozen scientists was able to propagate a spectacularly bad idea: the low fat/high carb diet. And they did so despite much contrary evidence.

So Taubes is a non-scientist attacking scientists for being bad scientists. Talk about chutzpah! (And kudos for pulling it off, for the most part). But I'm guessing Taubes secretly craves academic respectability. He couldn't quite decide whether to write a popular book book or a "scientific" one. So we end up with this weird hybrid -- complete with a plodding prose style so dense that the book is almost unreadable.

I also find Taubes's contention that exercise doesn't reduce fat unconvincing. Sometimes you can carry contrarianism too far.

Jeff @ #38:

>>5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.

>>6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter…. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

these two sentences leapt out at me as well.

>> Measure daily, and in total, their caloric intake by source (fat, protein, and carbs), caloric content of their stool, and weight, and their estimated physical work.

caloric content of their stool? This seems pretty important. Let's discuss this.

>> If Taubes is right, then a person on a good calorie diet would not gain weight during the test, and the calorie content of his stool should account for not the just the majority, but 100% of the intake increase. That seems improbable, but it might turn out to account for, say, 90%. Taubes might want to qualify his claims just a bit.

>> He said that if you did eat to excess on a good diet that you wouldn't gain weight. Let's see the evidence.

I'm afraid i don't have the evidence of a scientific study, but I can provide an anecdote of one. I'm 24, m, 6' and 140# on a good day. I eat almost exclusively "good calories" -- usually 3,000-4,000 of them, which necessitates a lot of fats & proteins. Almost all "real food" too -- processed foods make me feel nasty.

I've always tried to gain weight. The idea that increasing my caloric intake merely results in "increased caloric content" of my stool (yuck) is rather disappointing. I always assumed all calories were being burnt and that i just had the metabolism of a hummingbird. Assuming this, i've also avoided cutting back on eating for fear i'd get skinnier. Talk about a hopeless spiral.

However, this point seems like a really important link. We assume that the equation "calories in - calories burned = calories going to/from bodyweight" holds, but that assumes that all of the "calories in" are metabolized and none are "wasted" in the stool. Can anyone speak to this? It's not really an appetizing topic, but it does seem to be the crux of the issue.

I've tried some interesting combinations of "caloric", "content" & "stool" on google, i've been unable to turn up any papers that have even baseline information on the efficiency of our digestive system, and how it adapts to increases/decreases in caloric load. Can anyone point me in a direction for more information?

As for Taubes' #6, it seems that fundamentally, long term hunger will lead to weight loss, unless we magically develop photosynthesis... but #5 actually seems more relevant. Also, i think Taubes had a bit more context for #5: i think it was qualified that a more natural diet will lead to a more natural state -- and certainly some of the phenomenally obese can't be said to resemble "homo sapiens" in any kind of natural state. That said, the natural state for a sedentary homo-sapiens is pretty easy to speculate: reduced neurological recruitment resulting in low strength, less muscle in terms of body composition, etc. I doubt Taubes' meant to imply that just "eating right" would yield a handsome physique, only a natural one, but of course i can't speak for him.

-andrew

#67 Laura, don't get too caught up on what is deemed to be correct at any given time in regards to nutrition do's and don'ts. Wait a week and it will change.

During work days I will often eat 2-3 pieces of fruit, spaced throughout the day combined with some sort of protein which blunts insulin response by slowing movement and absorption of fructose in the gut. When not working my diet is more inclined to high protein/fat combinations (whey shakes and nuts) as I am busy and they are convenient.

Final note on this is that we are all different. If your dietary habits work for you, meet your needs for energy, suit you emotionally and don't make you fat, you should stick to that. Trying to do something that doesn't fit your make up is doomed to fail.

Hey Paul, good to see you here.

Made up yesterday, but only remembered the lowest number of each exercise, as per normal tabata rules
Pullup: 11
Pushup: 20
Situp: 15
Squat: 20

Also, to prepare for tonights game (C'mon Giants, let's do this)...
100 Power Clean and Jerks @ 135. 13:12

That'll tucker someone out

LET'S GO GIANTS

A quick look over at the USDA nutrient data index (WFS): http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

ref measure for each food = 100 g

green (Thompson) grapes: 69 kcal, 18.1g Carb, 0.9g dietary fiber, 15.48g total sugars, 0.15g sucrose, 7.2g glucose, 8.13g fructose

raw apple, with skin: 52 kcal, 13.81g Carb, 2.4g dietary fiber, 10.39g total sugars, 2.07g sucrose, 2.43g glucose, 5.9g fructose

whole wheat bread: 266 kcal, 47.51g Carb, 3.6g dietary fiber, 5.75g total sugars (no further breakdown)

white bread: 266 kcal, 50.61g Carb, 2.4g dietary fiber, 4.31g total sugars, 0g sucrose, 1.38g glucose, 1.83g fructose, 1.1g maltose (fruits have none), 40.61g starch

It's hard to find anything on the Internet about fructose metabolism that does not get involved with high-fructose corn syrup and the (de)merits thereof.

This one was fairly straightforward (WFS) http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5

This one goes more into the biochemistry of the process in the liver (WFS) http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time%201-2/carbohydrate_metabolism.htm

What I take away is fruit in moderation is not bad, the higher fiber (and less sweet) the fruit the better.

Hey a little blister wont kill you just put some salt on it. Sure you can still work out just put some tape on it while you work out. Blisters are like shin splints the best cure is to do nothing and let them heal...but seriously who wants to do that?

Just did Painstorm XXXIV, 38:33, kind of fun.

total reps=191

PLU=4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
PU=14 8 6 6 5 4 4 9
SU=10 8 8 10 9 9 7 7
SQT=11 12 10 9 10 10 8 8

20/m/180/6'2"

i feel weak...

f/25/106

10k run in 51:30

could have run faster but knees tend to get tight on these longer runs so took it easy somewhat.

RE: the diet

I have read the zone diet book and followed the zone strictly for a while but it wasn't for me. For my size I am recommended approx 11 blocks and I got sick of restricting my carbohydrates so much. I understand the logic behind it, and I still follow a diet that close to zone in P:C ratio but I am not so meticulous in my measurements and I eat more in general.

I also understand that nobody is trying to 'force' their dietary beliefs upon me and are only making suggestions based on their own success.

I have a tendency to get very anal with eating when I follow a diet strictly : it was negatively affecting me. I think a stricter zone diet will have a place for me in the future, but right now I am young and active and eating the entire apple :)

thanks for the comments guys!

Blisters / Brian, you want to avoid getting rips as much as you possibly can. If you get a blister, but don't let it rip, it will harden into a callus the next day, which is exactly what you want. The trick is to do your bar work (pullups presumably, but gymnasts get ripped from swinging FAR faster) until the blister is puffy, then either quit or put on (leather) gloves (gloves will work for pull-ups but not for gymnastic swinging).

If you have a blood blister that's not ripped --- should harden in only a day or two and be safe to work on then.

Even after you have calluses, you need to learn to watch for new blisters around the edges. If your callus rips (eg. if you come back hard after 3+ days off), you lose its protection and you're back to square one.

If a blister rips, you need to give it a combination of ointment & protection, but don't keep it covered all the time, because you need some drying & air exposure to heal faster. It won't be quick, neat healing --- probably you'll tear the skin off, then you need to wait for the new skin to toughen, and meanwhile the edges of the dead skin will harden and could be a minor problem.

Anyone else with big experience got words on this?

I got a long ass post stuck in the filter. I get so self-conscious about writing these long intellectualish screeds. But hey, community blogs and tar babies go together like prison and astroglide.

"I Hope You Like Text!"

Here's what i've turned up with a little more searching, and some cliffs notes:

google books has a nutrition textbook, "exercise physiology", p.115, which discusses the derivation of the atwater factors. Then has a handy table detailing our "digestive efficiency" of various food sources. Sorry, it's hard to link to.

- it's a traditional nutritional textbook.
- there's that nice table, but no information of its derivation, namely, no discussion of methods.
so 3) there's no way to tell if caloric load is acknowledged as a variable influencing digestive efficiency.

Other articles that don't help:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html
- same site that republished Taubes' original work in Science)
- lists our dietary efficiency as "100%". Sure.

http://mb-soft.com/public2/humaneff.html
"Thermal Efficiency of a Human Being"
- this guy is a little out there. Rambles. Needs an editor. His "about me" page is ~10,000 words.
- Physics guy, he does the math. does rough calculations of raw chemical energy (i.e, in the molecular bonds ) based on weight. Not helpful.
- Does, deep in the word-jungle, acknowledge caloric variability.
- Feels like i'm listening to my crazy uncle.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4b.shtml
"The Relationship of Dietary Quality
and Gut Efficiency to Brain Size"

- not as helpful as i'd hoped.
- has a clear agenda (see rest of site)
- makes some interesting points about cooking as an evolutionary adaptation allowing for smaller guts.
- favorite quote: "This may sound inflammatory to some readers--please be assured, however, that this comment is based on hard experience with extremists."
- worth reading just to gloss over his mini-book:
"Assessing Claims and Credibility in the Realm of Raw and Alternative Diets", found at http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/claims-cred/claims-cred-1a.shtml

ok -- anyone else out there got some help? the relationship between caloric load & digestive efficency doesn't seem to have been considered. It seems as if the tacit assumption is that organisms would be selected to maximize absorption under all conditions because food has always been scarce, so why the hell would we have developed some kind of 'upper-limit' to our digestion?

Call an ambulance, I just ate a banana!

I think that balance is the key to everything in life, especially when it comes to diet and exercise. Like someone posted earlier even we take a break every 4th day from our crossfit routines, eat sensibly, and I assume that most posting to this comments page would understand what that entails. Let's face it, anyone can come up with a theory on how anything should be done, and find plenty of evidence scientific, "scientific", or otherwise to back it. In the end we are all responsible and accountable for how we use this information in the choices we make.

Good Calories - Bad Calories

The research is pretty sound and good. It's been out there as he said for a while.

I do take contention with the the seaming anti-exercise slant.

I'm afraid that the general public who are not as educated as we are about the benefits of exercise in regards to weight loss and beyond may use it as an excuse not to exercise.

1. Only exercise can create the athletic shape we desire. (unless you have great genes)

2. And only exercise can improve our physical performance.

Those whose only goal to lose weight superficially
will still be weak and dysfunctional.

Some of us call it skinny-fat or simply weak.

Hence, they will only achive a smaller sized "car" without any "horse power"

#41 ischuros,

Just setting the record straight, evolution by natural selection is not a conjecture, nor is it an hypothesis.

It's a theory.

This means that it began as a conjecture or hypothesis but has been supported over time with massive amounts of evidence (with not a single piece of contradictory evidence) and has shown great predictive power. In the case of evolution, we're talking about predictions of where, what types, etc. of fossil evidence may be found.

The only reason the theory of evolution by natural selection is not called 'law' is that scientists are open to revision of their theories with the presentation of new evidence, and one piece of contradictory evidence is all that would be required to cause such a revision.

Remember, 'theory' is not a pejorative term.

Comment #89 - Posted by Andrea on February 3, 2008 01:11 PM
I couldn’t stop thinking about this comment.

Assume for the same of discussion that Andrea is right, that you cannot do endurance athletics without high carb intakes – carb intakes that are, in Taubes’ and others’ analysis, toxic, resulting in the inflammatory cascade referred to above in the comments.

Then you take the analysis from the article posted some months back, and the seemingly common knowledge (saw a reference to system inflammatory issues in a runner catalog) that long duration efforts leave a systemic inflammatory response, thought by some to be toxic.

Throw in the observation from Coach that runners always come to him the most injured of all the athletes (result of the systemic inflammation or something else?).

Bottom line is, given these assumptions, Andrea is saying “I can’t eat in a way that is more healthy because my unhealthy athletic pursuit, which I won’t give up, requires that I eat in an unhealthy way to perform.”

I would take issue with Andrea’s assumption that she has to eat more than 100g/day of carbs to do endurance work (for example, see Pierre’s post 74 above). But even if she’s right, it would seem that one would have to re-example the point of said endurance work if it requires an eating habit which exacerbates the body damage from that work. Not to mention, Coach and other Crossfit affiliates folks have found ways to run much less distance/endurance work, but still deliver tremendous performance (There’s the young man on the affiliate blog, for one, that completed a sub 3.30 marathon, with a 4.33 mile on the way, and never ran a training event beyond 800m).

At any rate, I know of no health benefit that’s derived from ‘endurance’ work – the only science I know of says that walking does just as much for ‘health’ as any amount of running. I know that some folks get ‘runner’s heart’ – enlarged heart associated with endurance training – and I know there’s an emerging body of evidence that shows lots of endurance work has the negative outcomes associated with chronic systemic inflammation. It would all make me worried about doing ‘endurance’ training if I had not quit already (thank goodness, with crossfit I don’t miss the old ways I used to train).

Andrea, I hope all this conjecture is wrong and you can continue to eat like you do and train like you want to with no negatives.

Paul

BrettL said: Evolution has "not a single piece of contradictory evidence."

Really?

There was a rest day article some time last year that discussed the whole dietary fat issue in great detail. It basically debunked the theory that by limiting our intake of dietary fat that we could significantly change our rates fo heart deisease and obesity.

I have tried to search fo rthis aricle since, but without success. If anyone could dig it up and provide a link it would be greatly appreciated.

#38 Jeff
#92 andrewj

I don't think Taubes tried to argue that excess calories would not be metabolized. I understood his argument to be that the type of calories influence both the feeling of satiety, thus hunger and intake, and also possibly the basal metabolic rate (influencing activity level, body temperature, etc).

For those who haven't read Good Calories Bad Calories, I urge you to do so. This is not a diet book, but an interesting history of nutrional recommendations, the science (and lack thereof) leading to these recommendations, and a call for well-designed, objective dietary trials to prove or disprove the low-fat and/or low-carb hypotheses (conjectures?).

One personal observation that I have about Taube's assertion that exercise makes you hungry: When I used to follow-up my work-outs with high carb snacks, I would be ravenous much of the time. I am no longer going for that insulin spike after my work-outs and sticking to a much lower carb ratio (to stimulate growth hormone). I really do not seem to get especially hungry and find that I almost need to force myself to eat. So I suspect that it is not so much the exercise that made me hungry as much as it was my refueling strategy. No studies, just me.

"Tabata Something Else"
Complete 32 intervals of 20 seconds of work followed by ten seconds of rest where the first 8 intervals are pull-ups, the second 8 are push-ups, the third 8 intervals are sit-ups, and finally, the last 8 intervals are squats. There is no rest between exercises.
Post total reps from all 32 intervals to comments.

stretch/wu/400m run,

wod:
pull ups (mod) 77
push ups 119
sit ups 78
squats 109
total=383
Looks great until I was told that I was to complete each exersice for 20 sec of reps of 8 sets then rest 10 before starting the next exersice. oops

I did each exersice for 20 sec. of max reps then rested for 10 then started the next set until I completed the 8 sets. I'll get it right next time.

Ischuros, #107: Yes, really. There are certainly *many* mysteries in evolution, in biology, in medicine, in physiology, in cognitive science, behavioral and developmental psychology, that evolution hasn't solved -yet-.

These are not contradictions.

A great example is sexually antagonistic genetic variation, wherein high fitness fathers tend to produce low fitness daughters. It seems paradoxical.

Another example is homosexuality. How do we explain this? Seemingly a fairly steady 10% of any given population is homosexual. It's a challenging question (why?), but it doesn't contradict evolution. It's just that the exact mechanism and function are not yet clearly known.

There are also competing interpretations of how to apply evolution to, for example, social or cognitive psychology. For instance, some attempt to argue that natural selection had a greater role in shaping our biases and belief systems. Others argue that only sexual selection can really explain why the same beliefs or cultural patterns show up universally across tribes that we believe developed these behaviors in completely separated environments or in isolation.

There's a nasty semantic trick going on here. Laymen listen to these caveats about evolution being a 'theory', and the ready admissions by its proponents / advocates / supporters / practicioners that it is a theory, and they go apeshit on the simplistic interpretation of 'theory'.

They fail to understand the nuanced meaning of theory, so I think that evolutionists are mistaken in trying to explain it.

The intellectually dishonest try to use their ignorance of the term to open a huge, mysterious hole in our understanding of all things biological --- and then put all their fantasies into that hole.

On this nuanced, technical meaning of 'theory', we could point out that special relativity is a theory -- but a theory we can use effectively in engineering. Quantum mechanics is a theory, and yet we build and operate particle accelerators and most particle and plasma physics have been based on quantum mechanics for the last 80 years.

Of course, physics doesn't make people uncomfortable by poking at the 'mystery' of human nature that you want to keep unknown and unexplained. So you don't go crazy pointing out that quantum mechanics and relativity are mere theories and therefore we shouldn't recognize how clearly they explain 90% of the phenomena that modern physics studies.

Evolution has the same relationship not only to biology, but to medicine, fitness, psychology and economics. The fact that you haven't caught up with this yet doesn't make it untrue, it just means you have a lot to learn.

Apolloswabi- thanks for your response!
It's true that repeated long-duration endurance training can cause a systemic inflammatory response (usually manifests itself as a low-grade fever and general malaise in athletes). In all honesty, from what I've learned in my physiology classes, it probably isn't the healthiest thing to train as long/hard as some athletes do. Hopefully the health effects I've gained are greater than the possibly inflammatory effects of my higher carbohydrate (although likely not as high as a majority of endurance athletes) diet. I'm a skeptic about everything, and I'd like to research the topic a lot more now that my interest has been peaked...

All that aside, I have to say, though, I don't really train for health. It's a great side effect, but I really train because it's fun, I love to compete, to see just how far I can push myself, and to see just how hard I can push my competition before they break. Cycling is my drug :)

re Kirez #92:

The problem with your assertion is the fact that this "evolutionary" change you speak of is not "evolution" in the manner everyone speaks of it as (new information, aka our bodies simply saying "wow, I know how to do this now"), but rather simply a selection of ALREADY EXISTENT information being either utilized, or turned off.

This nonsense about us acquiring new information (or any being for that matter) by chance over millions of years is so ridiculous as to not even be considered reasonable by anyone without an axe to grind (aka not trying to find a way to get rid of God to remove their accountability to him)

Apolloswabbie # 80, andrewj # 93

The other side of the Taubes coin on weight and calories is another conjecture: the conventional wisdom that weight gain is determined by the excess of calories over calories burned. Taubes tacitly assumes that excess calories are not metabolized. The conventional wisdom assumes that ALL calories are metabolized.

Science doesn't answer conjectures with conjectures. The same experiment I outlined would help test both assumptions. Then Taubes would have something to write about.

Andrew, you may be the doomed by an ectomorphic metabolism. But your metabolism may yet be influenced by diet. The National Dairy Council funded a study that showed (surprise!) that rehydration with nonfat milk post exercise significantly promoted muscle accretion compared with soy protein and carbohydrate drinks. Experiment on yourself; test the hypothesis. Establish a baseline, then add a big slug of WHOLE milk after every workout. Replace any rehydration fluid, but otherwise don't compensate in your diet for the added milk. Give yourself about 10 weeks.

ischuros #41, BrettL #106

ischuros: listen to BrettL.

The raging alternative to the theory of evolution is creationism, in one form or another. Creationism in any form cannot qualify as a scientific model, even a conjecture, because it violates the tenets that science may not rely on the supernatural or on beliefs. Scientific models are based on facts, measurements compared with standards. God is not measurable; He is known through faith. Only the things He in His mysterious ways created and set in motion are in the domain of science.

Creationists would promote their belief to a conjecture, and likewise would demote the theory of evolution to a conjecture. Proof by moral equivalence.

Science doesn't answer conjectures with conjectures.

Mendelian laws, DNA, and the theory of evolution are in lock step. They support, corroborate, and validate one another, and the science is still in its infancy.

I agree with post #63

Fruit good...scurvy bad!!!

Comment #63

fruit good...scurvy bad

Jeff-

Thanks. I've tried just about everything, but mostly i've just made peace with it.

That said, it means my Cindy score is great but my Grace score...not so much. Hopefully i'll just focus on my oly-lifting components and everything will take care of itself. My current best bet variable is crossfit :)
I'll add the milk if i don't see anything in a few more months, and let you know how it goes.
-

As for the experiment you've outlined, my understanding of dietary experiments is that they are *very* hard/expensive to do with a large N and a large T, and the rate of recidivism, cheating, backsliding, etc, is incredible, leading to really, really noisy data. From talking with some social psych students i know, they tell me that it's so bad they use "we're doing a diet study..." as the setups to experiments investigating social lying behaviors, right after "we're doing a sexual activity study..."

I took my rest day on Saturday, and did Tabata something else today. Total count: 200.

Tomorrow I start my crossfit schedule again. It really is the best workout in the world and makes you army strong and really tough.

Looking forward to posting again soon!

Studies show Scurvy, though it can be cured by vitamin C, isn't in fact caused by vitamin C deficiency in the diet.

The "Balanced Diet', as it is properly conceived is something of a fetish.

Both are covered in Taubes book. Also challenged is the Calories-In Versus Calories Out paradigm of weight management.

To use the "studies can be used to show anything" argument to dismiss Taubes' findings is defeatist, especially since his express purpose is to diligently review the science (or lack of it) behind the conventional wisdom.

Forgive the comparison, but many of these comments remind me of the "what about the cardio", "when is chest day", "there's not enough running" comments posted by Crossfit skeptics.

We tell them to "DO THE WORKOUT AND FIND OUT". The only option now is to "READ THE BOOK AND FIND OUT".

We're all black boxers here. Feed it.

I don't think taubes is trying to discount excercise in any way. He is simply or not so simply pointing out that our current knowledge of dietary recomendations is based on mediocre science. He is suggesting that we ask the questions and demand better information from our doctors and government. If you don't want to read the book check out robbwolf.com and follow the links to the taubes lecture at Cal.

#31: LucienNicholson

"I love the corn producers' response at the end of the article:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3661766"

"Among common sweeteners, pure glucose triggers the greatest insulin release, while pure fructose triggers the least."

There's a a transcript of an excellent interview with Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco about this very subject at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

Some highlights:
"Fructose actually is a hepato-toxin; now fructose is fruit sugar but we were never designed to take in so much fructose. Our consumption of fructose has gone from less than half a pound per year in 1970 to 56 pounds per year in 2003."

"Norman Swan: It's the dominant sugar in these so-called sugar free jams for example that you buy, these sort of natural fruit jams.

Robert Lustig: Right, originally it was used because since it's not regulated by insulin it was thought to be the perfect sugar for diabetics and so it got introduced as that. Then of course high fructose corn syrup came on the market after it was invented in Japan in 1966, and started finding its way into American foods in 1975. In 1980 the soft drink companies started introducing it into soft drinks and you can actually trace the prevalence of childhood obesity, and the rise, to 1980 when this change was made.

Norman Swan: What is it about this, it's got more calories than ordinary sugar weight for weight hasn't it?

Robert Lustig: No, actually it's not the calories that are different it's the fact that the only organ in your body that can take up fructose is your liver. Glucose, the standard sugar, can be taken up by every organ in the body, only 20% of glucose load ends up at your liver. So let's take 120 calories of glucose, that's two slices of white bread as an example, only 24 of those 120 calories will be metabolised by the liver, the rest of it will be metabolised by your muscles, by your brain, by your kidneys, by your heart etc. directly with no interference. Now let's take 120 calories of orange juice. Same 120 calories but now 60 of those calories are going to be fructose because fructose is half of sucrose and sucrose is what's in orange juice. So it's going to be all the fructose, that's 60 calories, plus 20% of the glucose, so that's another 12 out of 60 -- so in other words 72 out of the 120 calories will hit the liver, three times the substrate as when it was just glucose alone.

That bolus of extra substrate to your liver does some very bad things to it.

...

The first thing it does is it increases the phosphate depletion of the hepatocyte which ultimately causes an increase in uric acid. Uric acid is an inhibitor of nitric oxide, nitric oxide is your naturally occurring blood pressure lowerer. And so fructose is famous for causing hypertension."

But really, the whole interview is extremely informative. It's also available as audio if you don't have the eye-time to read the whole thing.

One more: fruit has been maligned (carrots too!) for its fructose content. Here's where it's wise to review the difference between glycaemic index and glycaemic load. In fruit the important difference is fibre ... and, I believe, nutrient density).

From that interview again (sorry to harp on):
"...Glycaemic index is half the story, the other half of the story is the fibre. Here's the way it works -- carrots, let's talk about carrots for a minute. Carrots are very high glycaemic index, what is the definition of glycaemic index? It's how high your blood sugar goes if you eat 50 grams of carbohydrate in that food, that's what glycaemic index is. So if you eat 50 grams of carbohydrate in carrots your blood sugar goes up very high and so that would be a high glycaemic index food. Fructose is a low glycaemic index food because fructose does not stimulate insulin, it's all of these calories but it doesn't stimulate insulin. So in fact a soda has a glycaemic index of 53 which is low. So you'd say oh wait a second, carrots are bad for you and a soda is good for you? Because glycaemic index is not the whole story, in fact what you really want to talk about is a related concept called glycaemic load.

Glycaemic load is glycaemic index times the amount of food you'd actually have to eat to get the 50 grams of carbohydrate, so in carrots you'd have to eat the entire truck in order to get that. Well you can't do that, you wouldn't do that, so in fact carrots, even though they are high glycaemic index are actually low glycaemic load. Carrots are fine, there's nothing wrong with carrots. On the other hand fructose, I mean a soda, there's a lot wrong with it but you wouldn't see it in just looking at glycaemic index."

Managing glycaemic *load* is what the Zone is all about, and what Paleo naturally mediates by way by way the dramatically increased fibre and nutrient doses that compliment the macronutrients in natural foods.

Hyperinsulinism increases cancer potential in two ways:
1-A constant increase Vs. natural variation in androgen hormones such as estrogen and testosterone AND a decrease in insulin like growth factor binding protein (ILGFBP). This is esssentially a growth promoter.

2-Decrease in Retinoic acid, a vitamin A derivitive. Retinoic acid acts in the process of apoptosis which triggers cell death in abnormal cells.

Combine these two situations, increased growth potential (mitogenic) and lack of a means of stopping cell growth (loss of retinoic acid activity) and we have a well established mechanism for most of the endoderm derived cancers such as breast, prostate and colon.

Do some google or pubmed searches with "retinoic acid, cancer, insulin".

couldnt rest, not yet
did more pushup/burpie/pullups trio
benchs/rows/skipped...it was all good
more of an sctive rest day...

Back Squats
3-3-3-3-3 reps
100/110/120/125/130kgs

Oops. Wrong day!

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28714.html

A lot of people sure seem to think Taubes isn't much of a scientist...

It's interesting to me that you would take from that article that Atkins was not much of a scientist. What you need to say--because this is what you mean, whether you know it or not--is he was not much of a conformist. In this you would be correct.

However, please tell me what flaws you find in this Journal of the American Medical Association study: http://nutrition.stanford.edu/pdfs/AZ_abstract.pdf

I know Barry Sears had some issues with the methodology--I would guess it would be verification of actual compliance with the diet--but the net net is that both weight loss and secondary outcomes like levels of blood lipids and cholesterol were quite positive with Atkins.

Personally, I knew a woman with high cholesterol who went on Atkins, and significantly reduced her cholesterol. This is measurable.

Shuellmi-
Since when does Michael Fumento= "A lot of People"?
His analysis shows he is as ignorant to the realities of obesity control and hyperinsulinism.

The list of folks in the "low carb camp", Cardiologists-Atkins, Endocrinologists-Schwarzbein(sp?), Evolutionary medicine-Cordain, MD/Phd-phd in biophysics I believe-Ravanskov...not that I want to get starry-eyed about credentialing, but be VERY careful pulling the "They have no science" card. I'll hand you your hat.

For some balance, how about Taubes reply:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28721.html
Funny, I don't recall Fumento receiving ANY excellence in science awards.

Robb,

Glad to see you back participating. You add a lot.

Thanks Barry. Not half as much as you ad my friend.

Having great success on the Zone diet. Eating more than I ever have to keep up with the one to two workouts per day. Yet I have put on muscle mass and lost fat around the middle. Crossfit in the Zone, great combo!

I propose science is always in its infancy. That is the issue. To resolve that evolution is without condiction is... well, is there anything smaller than an atom? How about a quark. Is there anything larger than the universe? Yes, God is immeasurable, but then to disregard Him may limit the eventual scientific progress doesn't seem sound.

excuse my typing: "condiction" should be "contradiction"

I love fruit, but why do you think plants have created fruit, supplying it with an irresistible sweetness? It gets animals to consume, then carry the seeds or poop them out farther from the original location so more fruit trees can grow.

I guess my point is that just because fruit is natural sugar, and has been on the face of the earth for eons doesn't mean that it should be a part of our daily intake for increased health.

Mens's Health has been pushing their TNT diet VERY HARD lately, and it is based on this same information. 28 days of eating 50-70 grams of carbs max, but only from proper sources, then you convert to a plan of 0-2 days per week where you can "carb up" some.

I just find it SO HARD to stick to a diet like that because your choices are so limited. There are only so many days you can eat eggs, meat, cheese and veggies for breakfast and regular meals.

Still, I really get the feeling that we are heading that direction, and it is turning traditional nutrition knowledge on it's ear.

Think of the massive changes in store for organized education with respect to nutrition if this type of system holds true! The ADA is in for a whopper of a time!