For a while now, many different organizations and independent health experts have been pushing for a shift in the U.S. dietary guidelines. And for good reason: Obesity and all of it’s associated conditions – including heart disease and diabetes – are still steadily increasing despite all sorts of health initiatives. In fact, according to the CDC, obesity rates in American doubled for adults and tripled for children between 1980 and 2008. Those dates are particularly fascinating because it was during the 1980s that we really saw a push to adopt a low fat dietary approach. Obviously, something needs to change.

Beyond statistical evidence, though, there is an ever-growing collection of scientific information that runs counter to everything we thought we knew about nutrition. One particularly fascinating editorial, published in 2014 in the journal Open Heart focused it’s attention on the 1977 dietary guidelines. It was in that year that Americans were told to decrease their intake of saturated fats and cholesterol while increasing their daily allotment of carbohydrates. The author, Dr James DiNicolantonio, points out that those initial recommendations were based on the incredibly flawed findings of the Seven Countries Study – the authors of which had access to information from 22 countries but chose to only use the data from seven. Later review of the complete information contradicted the recommendations, but was largely ignored since the damage had been done.

The current evidence actually suggests exactly the opposite: That saturated fat does not increase your risk of heart disease but refined carbohydrates do.

Building on this idea, DiNicolantonio worked with a team of researchers to publish a study in a more recent edition of Open Heart that looked more carefully at the historical research that took place before the low-fat craze really got started.

Looking Back

To further build the case against the above-mentioned dietary guidelines, the team went back and performed a meta-analysis of six studies including information from 2467 adult men. The studies used were all took place before 1983 and focused on the relationship between dietary saturated fat, cholesterol and the development of heart disease.

In all of the studies, a reduced-fat diet was not shown to reduce mortality rates any more than the control groups. Basically, decreasing saturated fat intake did very little for the health of the subjects in these studies.

And yet, the recommendations were made anyway.

The team concluded that the available research leading up to the release of the dietary guidelines “did not support the introduction of dietary fat recommendations in order to reduce” the risk of heart disease. They even went so far as to say “Dietary advice not merely needs review; it should not have been introduced.”

A Word of Caution

So, as we learn more and more it seems like the dietary guidelines we were all raised with are not only wrong but potentially dangerous. It should be plainly stated, though, that that does not mean that saturated fat is not without it’s dangers.

First, obesity and heart disease are complex conditions and should not even be blamed on one factor. The increased knowledge of epigentics have even lead some experts to suggest that the culture of the 1950s – which included plenty of tobacco and alcohol, while encouraging women to gain very little weight during pregnancy – may still be effecting our genetic expression.

Second, dietary fat is very calorie-dense. While it may not be as bad for your heart as we once thought, in excess it is most certainly not great for your waistline if its leading you into caloric excess.

Sources

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/obesity.htm

http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032

http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196

In several past posts, we’ve discussed the use of caffeine when it comes to athletic performance. For the most part, though, we’ve only looked at general information. Thanks to some newer research that has emerged since those posts were typed, we can now get a little specific. Primarily, we want to look at appropriate dosages of caffeine for and how you can properly manage your caffeine intake for optimum results – and limited side effects.

The Goldilocks Effect

Let’s just get this out there: Caffeine is a drug. As with most drugs, your body will eventually form both a tolerance to – and dependance on – caffeine. Thanks to the dependance, you will crave caffeine and experience withdrawal symptoms when you go without it. But your brain’s ability to form a tolerance means that you will consistently need more and more caffeine to feel the same effects.

For many people, this is knowledge enough to make them totally cut caffeine out of their lives. But the truth is that numerous studies have proven that caffeine can be incredible useful to athletes competing in an number of sports. The stimulant has been shown to improve power output, endurance, mental focus, reaction time and the metabolism of fats. The trick, then, is to find a maintenance dose of caffeine that will allow you to enjoy the benefits without developing a tolerance and dependance.

Since caffeine effects people differently, depending on a variety of factors, it’s difficult to come up with an exact dosage. According to many experts, though, dependance is unlikely to occur when your daily dose hovers around 100mg of caffeine every day – equivalent to about one 8oz cup of coffee. Again, though, this may not be true for everyone and some studies have observed withdrawal symptoms after discontinuing even this small dose. It may take some experimenting to find the sweet spot for you – the lowest possible daily dose of caffeine that allows you to feel the benefits without being totally hooked.

The Hardcore Taper

If you’re really willing to dive in and make some serious sacrifices to get your coffee habit under control while discovering your optimum maintenance dose, you might think about a two-week taper. To start, pick a two week period that seems like it will be relatively low in stress and estimate your normal caffeine intake – including coffee, tea, soda, energy drinks and anything else you can think of that contains even small amounts of caffeine.

Each day, gradually decrease the amount of caffeine until you’re down to just 100mg. Maintain this for a few days and then – when you’re ready – cut out all caffeine for three days. You will probably experience headaches and other withdrawal symptoms. After a few days, though, these will fade and you will totally free of your caffeine habit. At this point, you can resume 100mg or less of caffeine every day and you should be able to exercise more control over your habit.

For the Athlete

So far, though, we’ve only covered daily use. Once you find your lowest possible baseline dose, you can start to use caffeine as a performance enhancing supplement. In most studies, the optimum dose is calculated as being ~3-6mg of caffeine for each kg of body weight. Which means you’ll have to do some math. Sorry.

If you’ve found your ideal daily dose and it’s relatively low, you should be able to make due with just 3mg/kg. To keep yourself from developing a tolerance while using caffeine in this way, only boost your dose on training days and only when you feel like you need it. Some days you may be feeling great and not need any help, other days may be different.

Strictly speaking, coffee is not the best source of caffeine. The exact amount of caffeine found in the coffee will depend on a huge number of factors, including brewing method, filter type and the quality of bean. If you really want to be precise, you might consider a caffeine pill or powder that has a specific dosage.

Sources

http://examine.com/supplements/Caffeine/

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/psychiatry/research/BPRU/docs/Caffeine_Dependence_Fact_Sheet.pdf

To be honest, you likely already knew that your favorite fast food haunt wasn’t doing you any dietary favors. It’s no secret that we should all be limiting our frequency at these establishments if we want to keep our weight down and our bodies functioning properly.

But, after a wave of negative press during the late 1990s and early 2000s, many fast food chains seemingly made an effort to improve their image. During that time, a series of documentaries and investigative news features exposed the unsavory – and often unethical – nutritional practices of these establishments, leading to a huge dip in popularity.

The situation didn’t improve for them when governmental agencies began to move against the use of trans fats in fast foods. This particularly unhealthful form of fat was in just about every item on many restaurants menus and a highly publicized overhaul quickly began.

Then, of course, there was a barrage of criticism over the often ridiculous portion sizes offered – some would even say “encouraged” – by these chains. In response, McDonald’s even dropped their trademark Supersize option in 2004 – although, the chain claimed it was only done in an effort to simplify the menu.

So, with their newer, healthier images fast food chains are still a major part of the American diet. The question arises, then, are they actually any better for us after these changes?

The Startling Numbers

In two reports, researchers at Tufts University compared the portion sizes and nutritional make up of three large fast food chains between 1996 and 2013. Specifically, the team looked at the composition of fries, cheeseburgers, grilled chicken sandwiches and regular colas.

Despite all of their efforts to make it seem otherwise, the data is clear: Fast food chains have done little to improve their menus. The one notable exception was the sharp decline in the use of trans fats – but only in fries. For the most part, this was directly related to legislative action taken between 2005 and 2009. Trans fats are still alive and well in many other options, though, including burgers and milkshakes.

Even when trans fats did slowly make an exit, however, the food as a whole didn’t really improve all that much. The total calories and sodium content remained remarkably high. Depending on the restaurant, a single cheeseburger could supply you with as much as 63 percent of your recommended daily sodium intake. Add fries to that and you’re up to 91 percent of your allowed sodium for the day.

Of course, it’s not completely surprising that fast food is still unhealthy. What is off-putting, though, is how little things have changed and just how unhealthy these restaurants still are. In fact, some chains even feature menu items that cram about 1000 calories into one single sandwich. For the average person, that’s about half the daily allotment. In one sandwich. Drinks are still woefully large, too, and a single beverage intended for one person could contain as much as 800 calories. A complete fast food meal, then, with burger, fries and a drink could run as much as 1750 calories. That means that that one meal could account for about 88 percent of a 2000 calorie per day diet.

Again, this isn’t really news. But the point is that, despite their well-designed marketing campaigns that try to argue otherwise, fast food restaurants have not really changed their menus.

Sources

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141231140434.htm

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4433307/ns/business-us_business/t/mcdonalds-phasing-out-supersize-fries-drinks/#.VKquEns9tGM

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/#.VKqtQ3s9tGM

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/trans-fats

It’s often been said that exercise is only a small part of the fitness equation – about 30 percent. The remaining 70 percent of your fitness progress is influenced by your diet. And, while there’s no way to really prove these numbers, experience has shown that this is roughly the way things go. Regardless of how hard your workout, it’s frustratingly easy to undo all of that good with a junk food binge.

But the sad fact is that many people simply do not enjoy healthy foods. Research into how the brain reacts to foods has shown us not only how we’ve gotten into this mess, but also how to get out of it.

Misused Reward System

To put it simply, your brain has a way of training you to repeat positive behaviors – those that it perceives as being key to your survival. To do this, your brain floods itself with dopamine and other “feel good” chemicals.

This is a major oversimplification of your body’s Reward System. Under normal circumstances, the whole process is a fantastic way of keeping you happy and healthy, since you will naturally seek out behaviors that previously earned you a reward. The problem is that modern processed foods as designed to give you a massive spike of reward hormones – much bigger than you would normally get from any food found in nature.

And this creates food addictions.

Just like most other chemicals, your body will eventually develop a tolerance to these endorphines after constantly being exposed to unusually high amounts. As a result, you begin to crave more and more junk foods to get the same high. And I’m not being overly dramatic by calling it a “high.” Multiple studies have shown that the process by which we develop addictions to and cravings for food is identical to the brain chemistry of a drug addict.

In fact, a steady diet of these foods can change your thoughts and behaviors in a way that is typical of any addict.

So there’s the problem. But – while you might not have realized the extent of the damage – you likely already knew you had to ditch the junk food. As we’ve seen, though, that is extremely difficult. It is, after all, a legitimate addiction.

Breaking The Cycle

For a long time, researchers where not sure if people could ever be fully free of these cravings once the neural pathways were established. The thought was that, even if eating habits changed, it would be a struggle for the rest of the addicts life.

To get a definitive answer, a team at Tufts University recruited 13 overweight or obese men and women for a new study on the reward system. Eight of the participants were enrolled in a weight loss program, which included a dietary overhaul while the other five remained the control group. At the beginning and end of the 6-month study, both groups received MRIs to monitor the reward centers of their brains.

Interestingly, the weight loss group showed a complete change in the reward pathways of their brains. Not only did these individuals now receive a greater feeling of reward when they ate healthy foods, they had a significantly reduced reaction to junk food.

Even though the cravings associated with years of poor dieting are powerful, and exert a surprising influence on the brain, this study give us hope that we can retrain out brains to actually prefer healthy foods.

Sources

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v4/n9/full/nutd201426a.html