I wanted to deadlift today, but my groin is still giving me fits. While the rest of our class worked towards hitting new PRs, I was splayed out on the floor, using a foam roller to knead out my crotch.
This is killing me. I can't wait until I'm 100 percent again.
On the plus side, the metcon was something I could (sort of) do!
For time:
240-meter farmer's walk (24kg / 16kg in each hand)
45 wallballs (20lbs / 14lbs)
240-meter farmer's walk (24kg / 16kg in each hand)
45 burpees
I used the RXed weights, but to spare my groin, Tim suggested a couple of modifications: (1) I didn't fully squat at the bottom of each wallball rep -- I did 'em push-press-style instead; and (2) I did straight-leg burpees, meaning I popped up out of the push-ups without bending my knees.
Despite the scaled ROM, this was no joke. The farmer's walks were murder on my forearms, and by the end, I was setting the kettlebells down after every 30 or 40 steps. And the push-press wallballs were fast but challenging, too. The burpees, though, were by far the toughest for me; repeatedly jumping my feet to my hands to pike up from plank position kicked my ass. My hip flexors aren't going to like me very much tomorrow morning.
Still: It was a wicked good time.
Result: 14:04 (RXed weights, but modified range of motion)
It's the final week in our strength cycle, and I wanted to join the rest of the 5 a.m. class as they practiced overhead squats today. But thanks to my pulled groin, I still can't properly squat without pain.
Grudgingly, I sat this one out. I certainly don't want to tear up my adductors even more, but being sidelined annoys me to no end. I tried to stay productive by working on my handstand holds this morning, but it wasn't the same.
Thankfully, our metcon today didn't require any squatting:
"Grace" - 30 clean-and-jerks (135lbs / 95lbs) for time.
After my last encounter with Grace (when I used a too-light 95-pound barbell), I'd promised myself I'd go up to 115 pounds the next time we faced this workout. But I already got a good taste of my stupidity on Friday, so to be safe, I went up only to 105 -- in other words, just a few pounds more than 17-year-old Kallista Pappas clean-and-jerked during the "Heavy Grace" event at the 2008 CrossFit Games.
During the WOD, I felt slightly more tentative and restrained than usual, and babied my right leg more than probably necessary. Still, the power cleans felt good, and my lockouts overhead were strong. I finished in 4:41 -- a half-minute slower than the last time around -- but frankly, I was just happy I got to play.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is the first rap video in the history of mankind that name-checks Robb Wolf, Everyday Paleo, Mat Lalonde, Whole9, John Welbourn and Balanced Bites AND features a chinstrap-bearded gentleman advising corn to perform fellatio.
But a couple of days ago, I was exposed to a rather disturbing photograph of a pork belly that our pal Kevin (a.k.a., Dirt & Beer) is bacon-izing. And that photo still keeps me up at night.
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer my bacon without nipples.
This morning, while doing our usual warm-up duck walks, a shooting pain raced up my right groin muscle. I paused before resuming my waddling, but my leg did not feel awesome -- especially when I got up again and tried to squat. I could do it, but it felt incredibly un-good.
Still, I've been a wreck all week, so what's a little crotch pain? Besides, the strain happened during DUCK WALKS, for cryin' out loud. How bad could it possibly be?
As we practiced gymnastic skills (L-sits, pass-throughs, skin-the-cats), I tried to shake it out. I stretched and massaged my inner thigh, but it only made me wince. (I'm sure it was super sexy, though.) After a few minutes attempting to will my groin back into shape, I robot-walked over to Tim and quietly told him that I may have hurt myself doing duck walks. (DUCK WALKS!)
Seeing the concern on his face, I countered: "But I can totally do this gymnastic stuff! And it's not like I can't put weight on my leg. It's just...a little uncomfortable. As long as our metcon doesn't involve doing a hundred air squats..."
"We're not doing air squats today, but..." Tim's voice trailed off. "Just take it easy," he said, cautioning me to play it safe. "Be smart."
I heart Fran, and was desperate not to miss her today; and
I am not smart.
Tim and the Terminator both raised their eyebrows as I loaded the RXed weight on my barbell. "You sure?" they asked. Yes, I thought. My groin wasn't feeling 100 percent, but I was dead certain it wasn't serious. I'll just rest this weekend, I told myself. I can work through discomfort. Fran doesn't take long.
So I did it. Not long after I started, my mind shut out the fire in my groin. And I got through the first 21 thrusters unbroken (though my subsequent sets -- of both thrusters and pull-ups -- were interrupted by frequent breaks).
But now, looking back, I'm not sure it was worth it. My time was 6:56 as RXed -- 24 seconds worse than my previous Fran time. I'm left wondering how I would have performed if I'd waited until I was less thrashed, and whether I'd be more comfortable right now if I hadn't insisted on pushing myself so hard.
Lesson: I need to be less of a stubborn jackass when it comes to this CrossFit stuff.
And how did they pick the winners? Fitness Magazine shares its methodology:
We worked with top nutritionists to find hundreds of sweet, salty, and savory treats that are low in calories and fat. Then we crunched our way through them to bring you the best-tasting options to satisfy any craving -- and still keep you slim.
Oooh! "Top nutritionists"! "Low in calories and fat!" "Crunching!" Scientific!
So without further ado, here are a few of the items selected by Fitness Magazine as the “healthiest” foods available to us:
Frito-Lay's Rold Gold Pretzels (as one Fitness Magazine editor says, “the salt helps keep me going!” -- and we all know that salt is the human body’s primary energy source!)
Frankly, it’s a relief to see that grass-fed, pastured meat and sustainably-grown vegetables aren’t anywhere on the magazine’s list of “healthiest” foods. Otherwise, I would’ve suspected that Fitness Magazine’s editors had caved to the influence of the nation's evil, super-powerful lobby of small, local farmers and ranchers.
I felt a lot less wrecked this morning, but some residual soreness is still cramping my style.
Strength Skill:
Deadlifts (5-3-3-1-1)
Near the end of my deadlift practice this morning, Tim reminded me that I was able to rip out 49 reps at 245 pounds in a WOD just a couple of weeks ago. By all rights, I should be able to pull a lot heavier in a low-rep workout like today's. But for whatever reason, I couldn't. Just like last week, I struggled with 255-pound deadlifts, and didn't get anywhere near my previous PR. What happened to my mojo?!?
As a result, I'm contemplating incorporating deadlifts back into my routine at home. Maybe I'll revisit the Power to the People protocol again. A couple of short sets of deadlifts every other night shouldn't destroy me, right?
Metcon:
For time:
1 -> 10 ring dips
10 -> 1 box jumps (24")
In other words:
1 Ring Dip, 10 Box Jumps (24")
2 Ring Dips, 9 Box Jumps (24")
3 Ring Dips, 8 Box Jumps (24")
4 Ring Dips, 7 Box Jumps (24")
5 Ring Dips, 6 Box Jumps (24")
6 Ring Dips, 5 Box Jumps (24")
7 Ring Dips, 4 Box Jumps (24")
8 Ring Dips, 3 Box Jumps (24")
9 Ring Dips, 2 Box Jumps (24")
10 Ring Dips, 1 Box Jump (24")
I did this workout back in March in my garage, and it took me 7:28 to finish. Today, I fared better, shaving two-and-a-half minutes(!) off my time. I'm not sure if it's because I was in the gym with the 5 a.m. crew this time, but I certainly felt a lot speedier than when I was slugging it out alone at home.
After eight hours of MovNat yesterday, I knew I was going to be a wreck this morning. And sure enough, I woke up with soreness in places I didn't even know existed. My upper arms and knees are covered with splotchy purple bruises, and my forearms are sunburnt and flecked with small scratches. My lower back is stiff, and my shoulders are sore. And to top it all off, the bottom of my left foot is still pulsing and swollen from a bee sting. (Note to self: It turns out that bees don't like being stepped on.)
But if I had to do it all over again, would I? Hell to the yes.
MovNat is founded on three "pillars" of movement: Natural, Evolutionary, and Situational. As such, it's a system that aims to respect the environment, align with our biological heritage, and have practical application to real-world challenges. Particularly with regard to its emphasis on situational adaptiveness, MovNat overlaps to a large degree with programs like CrossFit; both, after all, focus on developing well-rounded athletes who are ready at a moment's notice to tackle a broad spectrum of physical demands.
MovNat has grown in the past couple of years, with Le Corre bringing a small handful of employees on board to teach seminars and to run much of the day-to-day operations of the business. Still, he continues to be MovNat's guru (and greatest marketing asset), and at the Ancestral Health Symposium a couple of weeks ago, he delivered a terrific presentation about the benefits of natural movement:
At the Symposium, I got the chance to meet Le Corre and his U.S.-based Master Trainer, Clifton Harski, and they encouraged me to join MovNat's one-day Fundamentals Workshop in Palo Alto. I'd been curious about MovNat for almost two years, and a "primal" fitness system sounds like something that's right up my alley, so I figured: Why not? Besides, M got invited by Clif to join, too -- and we live less than two miles from the neighborhood park where the Workshop was to be held.
Before showing up yesterday, my only in-person exposure to MovNat was at a brief movement session that Clif led at UCLA at the end of the Symposium. Out on a grassy field, we did some barefoot walking and crawling in the grass, and we practiced jumping. I found the emphasis on precision of movement to be challenging, but it's not like we ran across treetops or dangled from vines or anything. I didn't feel like a character in Avatar. "This stuff doesn't seem all that special," I thought.
I was wrong.
Almost as soon as we arrived yesterday, Clif had us dive right into climbing up poles at the park. "This isn't what we'd normally start with," he noted, "but we need to finish climbing before kids come take over the playground." (See? MovNat is adaptive!)
(Click any of the photos to enlarge)
Climbing, it turns out, is incredibly fun. Keeping our arms (relatively) relaxed, we braced ourselves against poles with our feet, walked up vertically until we were able to grab a horizontal beam, swung ourselves hand-over-hand to the other side, and then climbed back down another pole. Even if I'd walked away from the Workshop with nothing more than the personal satisfaction derived from scrambling up a pole, it would have been totally worth it. It's been years since I saw a pole and had any urge to climb it, but after yesterday, I'm not sure it'll be so easy to walk past one without pausing to consider going vertical.
Next, we invaded the kids' swing sets, taking turns to pull ourselves up and over the top beam using a series of progressions. Clif taught us to rest our forearms on the horizontal bar and then -- using rotational force -- screw our arms down and outward to engage our lats and propel ourselves up and forward.
It was kind of magical -- even though I sucked at it. Clif also showed us how to hook a leg over the bar and leverage the momentum generated by our other leg to flip over the bar. I was pretty terrible at that, too, but it was a blast.
After waking up sore from head to toe (thanks, MovNat!) and a throbbing left sole (thanks, bumblebee sting!), I thought twice before hauling my butt out of bed for the 5 a.m. class at CrossFit Palo Alto. But who am I kidding? I can't stay away.
Strength Skill:
Overhead Squats (5-3-3-1-1)
After playing around with asymmetrically-loaded weights (a.k.a. big-ass rocks) yesterday, it felt good to hoist a perfectly balanced barbell overhead and just squat. But I didn't press my luck shooting for a new PR today. Just like last week, Kyle and I got up to 105 pounds; next week, we can try for more.
(I keep forgetting to ask Tim about the new rep scheme. I like it, though.)
I love Helen, and I wish I wasn't feeling like crap this morning during the WOD. The pull-ups felt great after the overhead squats loosened up my shoulders, and the kettlebell swings were fine -- I did 'em all unbroken -- but my running was painfully slow. I'd like to pin the blame on the swollen bee sting on the bottom of my foot, but the sad truth is that I'm an awfully slow runner regardless.
M and I learned a ton from Clifton Harski at the one-day MovNat Fundamentals workshop in Palo Alto today. It was held at a park -- complete with kids' playground -- just a couple of miles from our house.
Among other things, I learned:
To be more mindful and aware of my body and environment;
To be more precise and efficient in my movements;
How to climb poles and traverse horizontal bars by swinging hand-over-hand;
How to pull myself up and over a bar (in this case, the top of a playground swing set);
That with the right technique, it's pretty easy to throw a guy onto your shoulders and carry him around while keeping an arm free so you can shoot an imaginary machine gun at people; and
Most importantly, that accidentally stepping on a bee while walking barefoot in the grass can have painful consequences.
More on my MovNat experience shortly, but I really need to go conk out right now.
Tim wasn't there. For the first time ever, he didn't coach the 5 a.m. crew. (He's in Colorado with Kristen to help pace The 6 Soles as they run the Leadville 100.)
Trish (M's coach) was our fearless leader today, and shook us out of our routine by having us perform unfamiliar movements (during our warm-up and cool-down). Like Tim, she's all kinds of awesome, but in a totally different way.
We set an attendance record! Fourteen bodies were in the gym this morning before the crack of dawn to get our WOD on. If just one more person had shown up, we'd have been at capacity for the first time ever. (Yes, Blake, I'm talking about you.)
Strength Skill:
L-Sits / Pass-Throughs / Skin-the-Cat
Gymnastics are fun. I wish I were better at 'em, though -- in particular, my L-Sits could use some work. I used to have a pair of parallettes at home, but my mother-in-law crushed one of them with the garage door. Time for a trip to the Home Depot, I guess.
Metcon:
7 rounds for time:
7 dumbbell push-presses (45lbs / 30lbs)
7 pull-ups
I flirted briefly with the idea of going RXed, but by the time I went to grab the sole pair of 45-pound dumbbells, the Terminator had scooped them up. Trish pointed out that I could do the WOD with a pair of 20kg kettlebells, but after trying 'em out, I ended up chickening out. By the time I put the kettlebells back, only the 30-pound dumbbells were left. (Lucky me!)
This made me want to reach into the Internet and throttle the writer for: (1) poor reading comprehension skills, (2) sloppy reporting, and (3) irresponsibly handing people a "science-based" excuse for ignoring a potentially life-threatening health problem.
Let's be perfectly clear: The study referenced in the tweet DOES NOT SAY THAT BEING FAT IS HEALTHY.
The real story? Canadian researchers looked at whether people with high Body Mass Index (BMI) scores are uniformly at high risk for an early death. To test this, they looked at a bunch of people they classified as "obese" BASED ON THE SUBJECTS' BMI SCORES, ranked their health according to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS), and compared mortality rates. A subject with an EOSS score of 0 was one who showed no problematic symptoms, while a person with a score of 4 (the highest possible score) was one with severe chronic diseases and disabilities.
This is not rocket science, folks. A high BMI tells you absolutely nothing about the state of a person's body composition or health. A muscle-bound person with little body fat might have a very high BMI and a flabby "skinny fat" smoker might have a "normal" one, but it doesn't mean that the former is obese any more than it means that Michael Jackson was a super-healthy fella. Body mass should not be mistaken for body fat. And while the researchers (unfortunately) used "high BMI" interchangeably with "obesity," let's be real: When most people think about obesity, the dictionary definition comes to mind -- and it's all about "excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body."
Take elite CrossFit firebreather Rob Orlando. His BMI is above 29, which puts him in borderline "obese" territory. But does he look fat to you? Would you use the word "obese" to describe him?
Let's face it: BMIs are completely useless as an indicator of health. And in fact, this is precisely what the Canadian researchers were seeking to show. As a recent CNN article pointed out, "[t]he main question was whether BMI alone could determine who dies early, said Dr. Arya Sharma, the lead author [of the study]." Unsurprisingly, the answer was "no." (Duh.)
You wouldn't know it from the articles written about the study, though. SF Weekly's article, for example, looks like this:
That's right: "[Y]ou can have your cake, eat it, and, um, have some more."
And this wasn't an outlier. Other "respectable" publications wrote headlines like:
Similarly, Facebook and Twitter lit up with further distortions of the study's conclusions:
No one's going to spend even a minute on Google to track down the original study. They're not going to hear that BMIs are bunk. But they will take away the message that "being fat can be GOOD for you" -- so why worry?
I didn’t get a good start out of the gate, and my running remains pathetically slow. (My running style is more "LURCH" than "POSE.") But I was surprised to find that the burpees weren't half bad -- it turns out that burpeeing onto a plate is a breeze compared to burpeeing onto a plyo box. And it felt good to rip out some pull-ups again, though I wish I could say I did all 30 unbroken like the Terminator. I managed 21 in a row before I lost my grip; by then, my cyborg friend had wrapped up the WOD. I wish I'd hustled back up on that bar -- by pausing too long (wheezing takes time, folks), I lost an opportunity to go sub-7.
Check out my new post over at SICFIT. Even if you're sick of my writing, you can look at my photos of sweaty, half-naked athletes working out in the Southern California sun.
Prior to CrossFit.com, Glassman's program was a tiny cult sensation in the lazy beach town of Santa Cruz, Califonia, where he began training clients in a functional workout program. The company's primary revenue stream, licensing entrepreneurs to start CrossFit gyms (for what is now a $3,000 annual fee), had only a few adopters, mainly from Glassman's friends who he says begged him to start an affiliate program.
...[But] while he could never find enough people in any particular city to get momentum, the Internet could pull together all the disparate islands of potential clients, "I found a few on the net, hundreds on the net, and then thousands."
Additionally, he says, the new blogging trend allowed recently deputized zealots to write about their experiences and pull in fellow fitness enthusiasts from their network. Today, the Internet is sprawling with CrossFit blogs, some from official affiliates, and others from specialists who post their expertise for free.
The second birthday of this here blog came and went earlier this month without any fanfare (mostly because I totally forgot about it). But if you've been a faithful reader and are in a generous mood, I've come up with a way for you to help me celebrate two full years of obsessive-compulsive blogging. And it doesn't involve you buying our T-shirts! (Not that you shouldn't buy a tee, of course.)
If you have some extra coins rattling around in your pocket, please consider making a donation to support my Fight Gone Bad fundraising efforts.
The Special Operations Warrior Foundation provides full scholarship grants and educational and family counseling to the surviving children of special operations personnel who die in operational or training missions. It also provides immediate financial assistance to severely wounded special operations personnel and their families.
And the CrossFit Foundation is focusing its efforts this year on the CrossFit Kids ISR Swim Program. The goal this year is to contribute $1 million through Fight Gone Bad to prevent accidental childhood drownings.
As you may remember, "Fight Gone Bad" isn't just about raising money, of course. It also involves a butt-kicking seventeen-minute CrossFit workout -- one that prompted UFC champ B.J. Penn to remark: "That was like a fight gone bad." It looks like this:
Rotate through five stations, spending one minute at each:
Wall ball shots (20lbs / 14lbs), 10 foot target. Each rep is scored as 1 point.
Sumo deadlift high pulls (75lbs / 55 lbs). Each rep is scored as 1 point.
Box jumps (20″ box). Each rep is scored as 1 point.
Barbell push-presses (75lbs / 55 lbs). Each rep is scored as 1 point.
Calorie row. Each calorie burned (according to the monitor) is scored as 1 point.
Rest one minute, and then repeat the five stations. Rest another minute, and then repeat all the stations again, for a total of three rounds.
Last year, as a rookie CrossFitter, I kind of sucked at this, and I'm determined to do better this time around. On September 17, M and I will join the CrossFit Palo Alto community in a big sweat-fest, all in the hopes of raising as much as we can for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation and the CrossFit Foundation.
I know times are tough, and that it's hard to spare any change these days. But these causes could certainly use your help. If you can, please pledge a few bucks (even just one dollar!) by clicking here or the button below. My current fundraising goal is modest, but I'd love to meet (and even exceed) it.
Thank you in advance, and I promise not to interrupt the regularly scheduled programming with any more requests for charitable giving. (That is, until next year.)
Is there anything better than an early morning workout?
No, there is not. The fact that thirteen of us arrived before dawn at CrossFit Palo Alto to get our butts handed to us is a testament to how much we love this stuff.
Strength Skill:
Overhead Squats (5 sets of 3, 2 sets of 3)
Kyle and I paired up this morning, and we methodically moved from squatting light (65lbs) to moderate (105lbs) weight on the bar, taking care to focus on our technique above all else. It's amazing how difficult it is to overhead squat even a fraction of what we typically load onto a barbell. To hit my goal of cranking out a full bodyweight overhead squat by the end of this three-week strength cycle, I'm going to have to work at it.
The beauty of properly-executed overhead squat? It's a crazy-good full-body move that demands strength, balance, flexibility, and keen attention to form. The lack of any one ingredient will result in a missed rep and a dumped bar. It's virtually impossible to compensate for bad form; change the angle of your arms by a couple of degrees, and the weight's coming down. I love that there's no way to cheat this move.
Metcon:
Three rounds for time:
20 flag push-ups
25 Abmat sit-ups
30 kettlebell transfer swings (24kg / 16kg)
This one was awesome. But then again, I love all bodyweight workouts -- they're right up my alley.
What made this one even more enjoyable was that the Terminator and I were neck-and-neck the entire way through, just like old times. The guy is unstoppable: He never once even paused during the WOD. I took a knee twice during the last round of flag push-ups to catch my breath, but luckily, I was able to make up time by going balls-out through the Abmat sit-ups. In the end, I edged him out, but only by a few seconds.
By the way, I used the Danimal 24kg kettlebell. It's pretty fantastic, but would be even better if it sported the patented Danimal moustache and possibly some old-timey striped shorts.
"Don't worry if your legs are sore from Wednesday," Tim announced this morning during our warmups. "You won't be using 'em to lift today." I heard a couple of people sigh with relief, but I already knew what he had in store for us:
"I can do better'n that," I muttered under my breath. But I'm not sure I believed it.
In the end, I certainly didn't break any land speed records today, and my arms are now just as wrecked as my legs, but I shaved more than two minutes off my previous time. The difference? I FINALLY STARTED KIPPING THE HANDSTAND PUSH-UPS.
Until today, I'd insisted on doing strict HSPUs, but after watching the Terminator rock 'em out with explosive kips, I knew I had to give 'em a shot if I were to have any shot at beating him. I didn't, of course -- he beat me by over two and a half minutes! -- but I was happy to finish in under 20 minutes nonetheless.
But then, instead of tossing the gigantic pink box of Type II diabetes into the Williamette River, the doughnut makers started distributing the sugary confections (including their signature "Fruit Loop-crusted" doughnuts) to the crowd.
“I think we must have set another record when we handed out 666 pounds of doughnuts in just 45 minutes,” said [one of the owners]. “It was a good way to give back to the city of Portland, which has been pretty good to us over the years.”
You hear that, Portland? Stop being so awesome, 'cause no good deed goes unpunished.
Hot off the presses: My buddy Eric's slick new iPhone app, Outside the Box, is now available for download on iTunes! Developed for CrossFit affiliate owners and athletes, Outside the Box gives gyms their own branded app. And among other features, it allows users to:
Check out their gym's WODs
Keep a personal, mobile workout log
Search past results
Receive "push" messages from their coach
View videos loaded by their gym
Keep a calendar of gym events
I downloaded the CrossFit Palo Alto-branded version of the app last night, and can't wait to put it through its paces. Congrats on the launch, Eric!
(And just in case you're wondering, I'm not getting paid to plug this app. I just happen to dig it. Admit it: It looks pretty sweet, doesn't it?)
[To download Outside the Box from iTunes, click here.]
It's an interesting question: How is Paleo any different from the Atkins Diet? And aren't both approaches going to lead to cardiovascular disease?
To understand how all this stuff works, we need to unleash some boring science in the form of a Q&A!
Q: If you’re cutting out all grains, legumes, sugar and dairy, you’re basically eating fewer carbs and replacing it with fat, right? Doesn't eating fat make you fat -- not to mention dangerously prone to cardiovascular disease?
A: Not exactly.
First, some fundamentals.
All food is comprised of three primary macronutrients -- fat, protein and carbohydrates -- that power our bodies with energy in the form of calories. The First Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the principle of energy conservation, says that energy can be transformed, but can't be created or destroyed. You know: Energy in, energy out. In the context of diet, then, the caloric energy in the food we eat can’t just disappear. It has to be stored (as fat) or used (to power, maintain and grow the human body). Calories in, calories out.
Out of this was born the old familiar “Caloric Balance Theory” (a tip of the hat to Adam Kosloff) which maintains that if you ingest more calories than you burn, your body’ll end up storing the remaining calories. In other words, excess calories make us fat. If we eat too much and move too little, we’ll throw our caloric balance out of whack and start putting on some pounds. On the other hand, if we simply eat less and move more, we’ll burn off our existing fat stores and lose weight.
This is the message we've been spoon-fed for decades. And it’s true that if you consistently or drastically overfeed, you’ll get heavier. But that’s not the whole story.
You Aren’t What You Eat
It’s well established that dietary fat -- the fat you eat -- is more calorically dense than protein or carbohydrates. In fact, each gram of fat consumed provides more than twice as many calories as a gram of protein or carbohydrate. Applying the Caloric Balance Theory, people looking to shed body fat have naturally glommed onto the idea that we should avoid eating dietary fat, and choose less calorically dense foods instead.
Plus, for decades, we’ve all heard that excessive fat intake correlates with a host of health problems, from cardiovascular disease to diabetes. Since we all know (or think we know) that these diseases are linked to obesity, many of us conclude that dietary fat must therefore cause obesity. Who cares if correlation doesn’t amount to causation? As the saying goes, “you are what you eat” -- so if you eat dietary fat, your body will turn into fat, right?
If the key to weight loss and overall wellness is to take in fewer calories, and if dietary fat makes us fat and sick, the solution, it would seem, is to go low-fat -- right?
Sounds reasonable. And over the past few decades, it’s become the common refrain among the vast majority of doctors, food companies, health authorities and nutrition experts. Dissenters are dismissed as conspiracy theorists, fringe scientists and bacon-obsessed Atkins groupies whose glucose-deprived brains have misfired. As a consequence, the low-fat movement has not only persisted, but has been widely and blindly accepted as fundamentally true -- despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
It's not dietary fat that's making us fat. It's the overconsumption of sugar.
When eaten, neither protein nor fat -- without carbohydrates -- has any effect on blood glucose. But when we take in carbohydrates, our blood sugar levels shoot up. (This isn’t news; in fact, it’s the scientific basis underpinning the popular movement away from eating refined carbs like white bread, which have the effect of suddenly spiking blood glucose. But as we’ll discuss later, whole grains aren’t the bees’ knees, either.)
Whenever blood glucose levels rise, the pancreas reacts by releasing a surge of insulin into the bloodstream. Insulin is a hormone that happens to be the primary mover and shaker in human metabolism. Among its many functions, insulin manages nutrient storage by driving excess blood sugar, fats and protein into the interior of our cells, where they can be used as energy or stored as fat.
Although there are numerous factors that can affect how much insulin we produce, as well as how our bodies respond to insulin and blood sugar, the basic rule is this: The more carbohydrates we eat, the more insulin we end up secreting in reaction to the spike in blood sugar.
As a result, two key things happen:
First, with all the excess blood sugar and surge in insulin, the liver no longer stores glucose as glycogen -- a fuel source for the body. Instead, the glucose is synthesized into fatty acids, which are exported from the liver as lipoproteins. These lipoproteins are ripped apart as they circulate through the body, providing free fatty acids to be sucked up into the body’s cells -- including the body’s adipose fat cells, in which the fatty acids are then “bound up” together to form triglycerides.
Insulin also inhibits the breakdown of fat in adipose tissue by interfering with the mechanisms that enable triglycerides to split into their constituent fatty acids. Triglycerides are bigger than fatty acids -- and too big to escape our adipose fat cells. In other words, once triglycerides form in your adipose fat cells, the excess insulin produced by your body makes it difficult for you to break them back down. So when we eat more carbohydrates and produce more insulin, more triglycerides -- which are also now prevented from breaking down into fatty acids -- are synthesized and locked up inside our fat cells.
And so, over time, our fat tissue swells.
In summary, if you take in carbohydrates in excess, your adipose fat tissue’s likely to expand. You get fat.
If my technobabble doesn’t make make sense, take a look at this video:
But wait – there’s more! An excess of insulin in our blood isn’t just bad because gives you an unsightly muffin-top. It’s bad because it can make you very, very sick.
Let’s say you’re a carb junkie. You stock up on bread, pasta, rice and 100-calorie packs of Snackwells because they’re low-fat. They know you by name at Jamba Juice and Auntie Anne’s Pretzels. The constant bombardment of sugar in your bloodstream -- and the excess insulin released to move the sugar out of your blood -- eventually blunts your insulin receptors to the effects of the insulin. (Your insulin sensitivity is down-regulated -- kind of like what happens when you linger in a busy kitchen for more than a few minutes: Soon, the cooking smells seem to fade.)
The likely result? Insulin resistance -- a.k.a. pre-diabetes -- meaning your insulin receptors are no longer efficiently activated by the constant rush of insulin that’s secreted to deal with the sugar in your bloodstream. Your insulin receptors lose their ability to effectively move the sugar out of your blood, so when you eat carbs, your blood sugar level stays high -- which, in turn, triggers your pancreas to pump out more and more insulin until there’s finally enough to get your sluggish insulin receptors to do what they’re supposed to do: lower your blood glucose level.
But now, you have a crapload of excess insulin floating around in your system. Bad news. This condition, also known as hyperinsulinemia, leads directly to Metabolic Syndrome (a.k.a., Syndrome X): a cluster of disorders including coronary disease, Type II diabetes, hypertension and obesity. Not fun.
Again, I'm no scientist. I'm just another idiot with a library card and a big mouth, so you have no reason to put any faith in what I've just written above.
But if you're at all interested in the science of fat metabolism, I urge you to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories," which lays out a much more compelling case than I ever could. For those who can’t stand the thought of sifting through the science-y stuff, Taubes recently penned an easier-to-read volume entitled “Why We Get Fat: And What To Do About It.” And for those of you who can’t be bothered to read a book of any length at all, skim these notes or read this summary of "Good Calories, Bad Calories."
(Although I'm kind of bashing carbs here, note that Paleo eating isn't necessarily low-carb. But because grains, legumes and sugar are verboten, Paleo enthusiasts tend to take in fewer carbohydrates than most people. Another way of thinking about this: The Paleo crowd isn’t “low-carb”; it’s everyone eating the Standard American Diet who are eating high-carb.)
Q: But isn’t weight control all about willpower and following the "calories in, calories out" rule?
A: Not exactly. Calories aren't all created equal.
Take another look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Caloric Balance Theory suggests that an imbalance between caloric intake and energy expenditure drives changes in weight. But that’s not necessarily the case. Under the First Law of Thermodynamics, it’s equally possible that the reverse of the equation is true: a change in weight causes caloric imbalance.
As Taubes puts it:
[S]ome regulatory phenomenon could drive us to gain weight, which would in turn cause a positive [or negative] energy balance -- and thus overeating and/or sedentary behavior. Either way, the calories in will equal the calories out, as they must, but what is cause in one case is effect in the other... This simple misconception has led to a century of misguided obesity research.
But under Taubes’ theory, what type of “regulatory phenomenon” is driving the development of beer bellies, saddlebags and big asses?
Taubes’ answer: The lipophilic -- a.k.a., fat-loving -- properties of our bodies’ adipose fat tissue. Simply put, by eating massive amounts of carbs, we seriously screw up our insulin levels, and therefore, our metabolism. Excess insulin causes our adipose tissue to swell, and we get fat. And -- consistent with the First Law of Themodynamics -- this change in weight causes a caloric imbalance, which triggers hunger. So we eat more. (To learn more about this “lipophilia theory” without having to go to the bookstore, check this out.)
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that the First Law of Thermodynamics works only in this one direction, and that it’s always a change in body weight that drives a change in caloric consumption. I’m suggesting that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a two-way street; while changing our caloric intake can certainly affect our weight, changing our weight can also affect our caloric intake.
Q: So calories still count?
A: Yes. Kind of.
Face it: If you go hog-wild and ingest tons of excess calories a day, you're bound to gain weight. And on the other end of the spectrum, caloric restriction will spur weight loss. Even if you're subsisting on Twinkies.
But when it comes to weight management, strict calorie-counting is kind of pointless because your body’s metabolism (assuming it’s not been thrown out-of-whack) has a way of maintaining its natural set-point. Homeostasis is a wonderful thing.
All calories are not created equal. Given what we know about the insulin-driving properties of dietary carbohydrates, sucking down a Neverending Pasta Bowl at the Olive Garden is likely to make you fatter than having a steak -- even if you're taking in the same number of calories. Weight loss just isn't as simplistic or one-sided as advocates of the Caloric Balance Theory would have you believe.
If you take two people of the same weight -- one on a high-carb diet and one on a low-carb diet, but both eating the same number of calories -- both will shed pounds if there’s a caloric deficit. That’s just the nature of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
But the carb fiend is going to be releasing more insulin than the low-carb eater, and that excess insulin’s going to interfere with the breakdown of triglycerides in fat cells. Recall that not only does insulin store fat in adipose fat cells, it also prevents the fat that is already in a fat cell from breaking up into fatty acids and exiting the cell. So all else being equal, the high-carb eater’s going to hold on to more fat than the low-carb eater.
Also, not to get too science-geeky or anything, but we should touch briefly on lectins and leptins. There's evidence that foods high in lectins (like cereal grains and legumes) trigger leptin resistance. Leptins are hormones that tell you when you're full, so when you're leptin resistant, you tend to keep on eating. Conclusion: When you eat a crapload of carbs, the result is that you have a much more difficult time reaching satiety, and you end up eating even more.
Q: You're telling me that eating carbs make you want to eat more?
The ingestion of cereals and milk, in normal modern dietary amounts by normal humans, activates reward centers in the brain. Foods that were common in the diet before agriculture (fruits and so on) do not have this pharmacological property. The effects of exorphins are qualitatively the same as those produced by other opioid and/or dopaminergic drugs, that is, reward, motivation, reduction of anxiety, a sense of well being, and perhaps even addiction. Though the effects of a typical meal are quantitatively less than those of doses of those drugs, most modern humans experience them several times a day, every day of their adult lives.
Now you know why folks are addicted to cookies and cupcakes, but not eggs and ribs. Take away their carbs, and the junkies go into withdrawal.
But wait -- there's more! Serious dieters tend to exercise. A lot. Exercise -- especially chronic cardio -- makes people want to eat more. Really. And exercise makes 'em hungry for carbs in particular. Plus, low-fat dieters are apt to ditch fat and protein in favor of more carbs because they’ve been told that this is better and healthier for them. But as I've pointed out , eating carbs actually makes folks want to eat even more -- and specifically, more carbs. What comes next? Caloric excess. Plus, the carbs they eat will drive fat into their fat cells, where they’ll stay trapped.
Let's face it: We all know people who constantly diet and exercise like crazy, but never seem to lose much weight. (Don't tell me you've never seen a less-than-svelte aerobics instructor or a plus-sized jogger with ham-hock shoulders and thighs.) Could it be because they’re starving from all the incessant cardio they're doing, and then snarfing up carbs because they mistakenly think they've "earned" an extra cupcake?
Even if they restrict themselves low-fat and fat-free foods, a lot of folks can't seem to shed the pounds. Is it because they're eating lots of pasta and bread, thinking that these "low-fat" foods will somehow prompt weight loss?
I think we can all agree that starvation diets -- the kinds featured on TV shows like "The Biggest Loser" and "Oprah" -- are not sustainable. A body can't run at a calorie deficit forever. Is it any wonder calorie-restriction diets are also known as yo-yo diets?
Q: So if you’re so anti-carbs, why don’t you just follow the Atkins Diet?
While many Paleo eaters skew towards the low-carb side (especially those who are still in the process of losing body fat and reversing their metabolic problems), there are plenty of others -- myself included – who actually eat a good amount of carbs on a regular basis. I consume lots of vegetables and a moderate amount of fruit. Plus, after every workout, I wolf down a big ass sweet potato with some protein. I’m clearly not going out of my way to go low-carb. But by avoiding processed foods (which are chock-full of sugar, grains and/or legumes), I’m still consuming far less in the way of carbohydrates than most people.
