Dietary Cure for Acne: Interview with Dr. Loren Cordain by Robb Wolf

I understand you have some projects relating to intermittent fasting and autoimmunity. Can you share any tidbits about those or any other projects in the works our readers should know about?

Meal timing and frequency are poorly studied topics. Despite the almost complete lack of scientific evidence, many nutritionists and physicians as well believe that many small meals are more healthful and may help to promote weight loss than fewer larger meals. Once again I look to the evolutionary template to help unravel difficult diet/health questions. We have preliminarily compiled data from hunter-gatherers, and their meal patterns typically involve a single large meal at the end of the day and sometimes a light morning meal. They almost never eat three large meals a day with snacking in between—a pattern that seems to have become the norm in the U.S.

Experimentally, we have on our plates a project that will examine whether or not dietary lectins (in particular, wheat germ agglutinin [WGA]) can cross the intestinal barrier and enter the bloodstream. We suspect that dietary lectins may play a key role in certain autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis and others.

http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/article.php?articleID=14

This is a great and short read.  When a dietary change affects something as pernicious and obvious as acne, that's is what you might think of as "a clue".  

CrossFit Bashers, Can You Be More Constructive? | Eva M. Selhub, M.D.

I remember this time last year, I spent a weekend going to watch the CrossFit Northeast Regionals competition. It was truly an amazing experience. I couldn't decide where to feast my eyes, the athletes competing, or the athletes in the spectator stands. The entire Reebok CrossFit One field was swimming with fit people. It was such a thrill for this doc to witness, especially since the night before I found myself walking amongst an ocean of obesity in the streets of Boston's North End.

In my two years of being part of CrossFit, I have witnessed more couch potatoes getting fit either because of CrossFit or because they were influenced by my or a friend's change in fitness level from participating in CrossFit. My friends and parents, for example have stopped eating high levels of grains and sugars and have started exercising regularly. Do you have any idea how many years I have been trying to get them to do so? This time around, I didn't push them to do anything.  They merely started because they saw how much healthier and fitter, not to mention happier I became.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eva-m-selhub-md/health-and-fitness_b_5412949.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Greg Glassman has said from the first days I was exposed to what he was teaching - "It's the results that matter."

So CrossFit has a "high injury rate"?  Well, not according to the insurance company CrossFit built to protect CrossFit affiliates (http://journal.crossfit.com/2014/05/crossfit-risk-retention-group-inc-announces-premium-reduction-claim-free-discount.tpl).  But suppose it is true that some folks get injured because they do CrossFit, and of course that is true, the bigger question is "compared to what"?

You would need to know the injury rate per hour of activity, and the effectiveness of the program.  We evaluate risk in a context.  Cars are the most dangerous thing for humans.  If you had a friend who chose not to drive due to the danger of cars, you'd think they were a loony.  Why?  Because we judge the utility of cars to be worth the risk.  Likewise, if CrossFit is the most effective physical training system, folks might easily judge a high injury rate worth the risk.  Others might not see it that way.  As the man said, "you pays your money, you takes your chances."  So I like this author's perspective, and I hope as she does that we can find better critics for CrossFit.

In the mean time it is time to get my WOD on!

Jimmy Reviews Nina T - It's a Hit

But what Teicholz does so brilliantly throughout her book is offer up illustrations and actual statistical data that underscores why Keys was wrong, how he got it so inexplicably wrong, and why the mistakes he made in his research never got corrected despite the fact it is well-known that he omitted statistical data that disproved his theory. It’s quite the sordid tale that is worth the price of this book just to get that history behind the worldwide launch of the low-fat diet fad. This should be required reading for every doctor, dietitian and nutritional health researcher so they don’t go down the same path that Keys did.

But Teicholz goes beyond the story of Ancel Keys and turns her attention to what actually happened (the unintended consequences) as a result of what he promoted as fact a half century ago. The low-fat lie became deeply entrenched into every fiber of our being as an absolute, unassailable truth and yet there was never one iota of solid research (randomized, controlled, clinical trials are the gold standard for making claims in science) ever conducted. But when you repeat an untruth over and over and over again so many times, even the perpetrator of the lie can become convinced it’s actually true. And that’s exactly where we are with saturated fat today.

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/book-review-the-big-fat-surprise-by-nina-teicholz/22762?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LivinLaVidaLowCarbBlog+%28Jimmy+Moore%27s+Livin%27+La+Vida+Low+Carb+Blog%29

Correlations Are Awfully Interesting

Did you know that fat ingestion causes cancer and heart disease?  Well, not only that, but crude oil imports from Norway cause an increase in death due to drivers crashing into trains in the US.
Here's the proof:  Tyler Vigen Spurious Correlations

http://www.tylervigen.com

This guy's page of correlations is how dietary advice is largely reported - folks get money to test for correlations, and report their findings.  When the information is interesting, or uninteresting, reporters make it into a story, usually by pretending that correlations mean more than they do.

Why are we stuck with this sort of immature science about diet and health?  Why don't they conduct more expensive and definitive studies?  Cost and complexity - both are so high such studies may never be done.  Medicare and Medicaid - designed to provide needed care to the poor and elderly - is eating the federal government, and leaving politicians with very little of other people's money to spend.  As the demand on these medical care systems grows the incentive to create feasible studies that yield usable information will increase.  

Low/No Equipment WODs

Taken from the link below, these are great examples of how to get a smashing workout with no/low equipment.

Accumulate 5 minutes in a handstand against a wall, and every time you kick down, do a certain number of air squats (I did sets of 15 squats because I suck at handstands and had to kick down about 300 times)

4 rounds for time:

400-meter treadmill run

20 one-arm 50-lb. dumbbell snatches (alternating arms) 20 front squats with both dumbbells

(I would change the snatches to 30 per round)

In a hotel with six floors, 20 minutes of stair sprints and bunny hopping up the stairs 

5 rounds:

40-meter treadmill run

15 hang power cleans at 135 lb. 

Monkey-bar Cindy in a park at night 

100 over-the-bench burpees with 50-lb. dumbbells

http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_11_2013_Dispatch10_Sherwood.pdf

Experts, Expert Opinion, and Science - May They Never Meet

Dr. Eckel describes himself as “a scientist and professing six-day creationist and a member of the technical advisory board of the Institute for Creation Research…” Many scientists are religious. This is not to question Dr. Eckel’s religious beliefs, but to question his ability to think scientifically. He believes there is scientific proof that the world was created in six days and that evolution does not exist. This should at least raise eyebrows when the co-chair of an influential panel charged with giving scientifically sound dietary advice has a financial conflict of interestand proselytizes for beliefs that are anti-scientific.

Practice guidelines affect both public policy and medical practice. We should expect professional medical organizations—like the American Heart Association—to examine all the evidence relating to diet and heart disease risk.

The American people should be able to trust that only impartial scientists write guidelines. We should be confident that those experts are not working to advance corporate interests and that they do not espouse beliefs that are well outside the scientific mainstream. An avowed creationist who consults for a food lobby hardly seems an appropriate choice to fulfill these criteria.

For the last several decades, the AHA has promoted a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet as a cornerstone of heart health. It has taken a very public position that saturated fats are a major driver of heart disease risk and the mounting tide of evidence that this is dead wrong must put them it in a very uncomfortable position. And yet a fundamental requirement of science—as opposed to propaganda—is that when evidence that contradicts a hypothesis is replicated over and over again, that hypothesis must be abandoned.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/22/the-heart-association-s-junk-science-diet.html

This writer is very confused.  She says we should be able to trust that only impartial scientists write guidelines.  There is no such thing as an "impartial scientist", and if there were, there would be no way to identify one.  Further, the scientific method is very clear about the problem with truth - people.  The point of the scientific method is to remove the influence of humans on determining what is or is not true as regards scientific inquiry. 

She says we should be confident those experts are not working to advance corporate interests, but come on - how will that happen?  Many of them are, and it's ridiculous to think that we can figure out which which is which.  We should look at experts and politicians and corporations and their products and perform due diligence - including considering the opinions of "experts" who will judge everything created by any corporation as being a bad thing.  

As for this assertion, that we should be confident that they [scientists] do not espouse beliefs that are well outside the scientific mainstream, that's another laugher.  If that was the criteria for trusting a scientist, we might all still believe the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us.  But it is also just an extension of the writer's underlying confusion - that we lay persons should be able to trust all knowing, all caring and all loving experts with our health, since we're all too stupid to sort out our own self interest and they practically were put on the earth to help us and ignore their own self interest.

There are no simple answers and there is not likely to be a solution that will remove from our plates the job of figuring this stuff out for ourselves.  

Good science can be executed by idiots with bad intentions and crazy beliefs.  Bad science is often the result of caring and highly informed people with great intentions.  The underlying assumption of the scientific method is that we cannot trust humans.  

Let the buyer beware.  The AHA has little to do any longer (and it may have never had anything to offer in that arena) with helping you keep your heart healthy, but that is not new news and has nothing to do with who their experts are.  It's a result of, or the cause of, the AHA's refusal to acknowledge how little we have proven by science about diet and health; and the AHA's assertion that it knows what is good/bad for heart health; and the AHA's refusal to admit to being wrong when there is now plenty of evidence that contradicts the AHA's advocacy of a low fat diet.

The AHA is just another institution gone wrong, of which there are plenty of other examples, and the idea - prestigious and influential institutions which are found to be self serving vice purposeful - is one of the less surprising discoveries in this time.  Raise your fist and be thankful that we have equal access to information, and need no longer be dependent on experts and institutions.

Eades on Big Fat Surprise, 3

The story of how these scientists, using Keys’ bogus data from Crete (which in and of itself is a unbelievable story), teamed up with what amounted to a PR firm for the olive oil industry to seduce scores of American scientists and food writers is one of more fascinating parts of BFS. It was a perfect storm. The scientists and food writers were ripe to be lured into spending time on the Mediterranean coast, imbibing wine and eating the food. These all expense paid trips were ostensibly medical conferences, but in reality, they were marketing ploys. Food writers and journalists were looking for something new and exciting to write about. The masses, wearied of their tasteless low-fat fare, were ready to start adding fat back into their diets, even if it was in the form of olive oil. And the olive oil industry was more than ready to oblige. And to fund.

A handful of researchers started working on studies of the Mediterranean Diet, but there really wasn’t a Mediterranean Diet. There were a lot of people around the Mediterranean eating diverse diets, but no single Mediterranean Diet. So each research group basically created its own idea of the Mediterranean Diet and studied it.

To say you will be surprised to learn not only the structures of these various Mediterranean Diets but the outcome of the studies is a vast understatement.

I’m forever being accosted at parties and other events with questions about diet. When I explain what I do, I can’t tell you how many people then tell me they eat a Mediterranean Diet or that their doctor put them on a Mediterranean Diet. Even doctors believe the Mediterranean diet is the one diet that has stood the test of vigorous scientific investigation.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/big-fat-surprise/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+drmikenutritionblog+%28The+Blog+of+Michael+R.+Eades%2C+M.D.%29