It’s Real Fit

Here’s another one for you: Is fat bad for you?  Many associate being “fat” with eating fattening foods.  It’s not a quick and easy answer, necessarily, but I think you will be surprised at the findings (or maybe not).  I’m going to refer to Mark Sessions again over at MarksDailyApple.com.  The post he wrote about this is at http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fats.  Without further ado:

Whereas cholesterol usually gets the gold for most demonized nutritional substance, fats undoubtedly take the silver. We recently covered the cholesterol conundrum, and this week it’s time to confront the fervor over fat. Thanks for joining us today. Please make yourselves comfortable.

As you know, I’ve always been a friend to many fats. But the fact remains, ladies and gentlemen, that not all fats are created equal.

A few fats, including but not limited to trans fats, deserve every bit of disparagement they get and then some. However, we feel for those other little guys in the group. Many of them are, assuredly, a good lot, and we’d like to put in a good word for them.

Everyone ready? Servers are coming around with crudite platters as we speak. Let’s begin, shall we? 

Fats are compounds of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms that exist in chains of varying lengths, shapes and orders. They’re one of the vital nutrients required by the body for both energy and the construction/maintenance of “structural” elements, such as cell membranes.

Although all fats to some extent contain both saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, they are generally categorized by levels of saturation. Moving on…

The Monounsaturated Fats

oleicacid

Biochemically speaking, these fatty acids sport a single double bond in their fatty acid chain. The more double bonds a fatty acid boasts, the more “fluid” it is. They are generally liquid at room temperature.

Monounsaturated fats are found in numerous oils, including olive oil, flaxseed oil, sesame seed oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, corn oil and peanut oil. Notice that we use the word “found” and not comprise. The fact is, these oils contain varying levels of monounsaturated fat. The rest is a mix of polyunsaturated and saturated. Olive oil, for example, contains about 75% monounsaturated fat, and canola 60%. By the way, these fats are also found in avocados and nuts. They’re granted approval (as much as any fat is in conventional wisdom) as a “healthy fat.”

(Excuse me. May I cut in here please? Yes, I’d like to announce that we will be deconstructing some of this “healthy fat” assertion shortly. Thank you. Carry on.)

Poly in the Cracker? The Polyunsaturated Fats

linoleicacid

Can you guess? Polyunsaturated fats have, yes, more than one double bond in their fatty acid chain. They tend to be liquid even when refrigerated. Their problem is they also tend to go rancid easily, particularly when heated. Yup, it sounds nasty, and you should see it! Free radical damage galore. When we heat them (and we often do), they often become oxidized. We’ve let in the Trojan Horse at that point and opened ourselves up to all kinds of free radical pillaging – everywhere from cell membrane damage to wrinkles to arterial plaque build up.

Polyunsaturated fats are found in grain products, soybeans, peanuts and fish oil. Fish oil and grain products in the same category! Say it isn’t so! (Heightened whispers and shuffling.)

Let’s all take a breath. There’s more to the story.

Enter Essential Fatty Acids!

First off, we call them essential because the body can’t produce them itself and must obtain them from food. We’re talking about omega-3 and omega-6.

Omega-6. It’s important, I fully acknowledge. Omega-6 fatty acids, found in corn and other grains as well grain-fed livestock, play a crucial role in dermal integrity and renal function among other things. But if left unchecked, they run amok, and spur inflammation. Egad! Ratio matters, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

What keeps these guys in check? Why, omega-3s, of course. Ignored for decades by the medical establishment, they’re finally garnering respect, but it’s still not enough in my opinion.

ALA

Omega-3s are found primarily in fish, algae, flax and nuts. You also find good portions of them in eggs from chickens that are fed fish or flax meal. And you’ve heard us go on and on about the three forms: ALA (think flax) as well as EPA and DHA (think fish oil). Omega-3s aid circulation by naturally thinning the blood, fight systemic inflammation, support brain function and ease symptoms of depression, anxiety and even ADHD. (Nods of approval)

Now back to the ratio matter. Estimates vary, but experts generally characterize Western diets as anywhere between 10-30 parts omega-6 to 1 part omega-3 (10-30:1). What ratio should we be getting? What did our primal ancestors likely eat? Try 1:1. Although many in the establishment will try to tell you that 4:1 is good enough.

This takes us back to the question of lean meat. If you recall, my reasoning in offering some support for lean meats (in lieu of fattier meats that our ancestors ate, as a number of you reminded me) was the fatty acid ratio of the fat in modern meat. Grain-fed meats are much higher in omega-6 fatty acids and lower in omega-3 than grass-fed meats, but not everyone has access to grass-fed meats. The best way to combat the plethora of omega-6 is to watch your ratios and to consume more omega-3s.

Yes, folks, we’re a long way from healthy here. The sky high ratio of typical Western diets sets us up for inflammation, high blood pressure, blood clots, depressed immune function and sub-optimal brain development and neurological function. Egad, is right.

And so we return to the question of all those “healthy” monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. There’s more to the question than the big CW tells you. The omega ratio of “monounsaturated” soybean oil? Anyone, anyone? It’s 7:1. Corn oil? It’s 46:1. (Audible gasps, clutching of pearls, adjustment of jackets)

So, what about the other oils? What about olive oil? The ratio for olive oil is 3:1, which isn’t great in and of itself. But there’s yet another wrinkle. Olive oil is 75% monounsaturated and 14% saturated, which means that only 11% of it has the polyunsaturated ratio to begin with. In these relatively small amounts, ratio isn’t as much of a concern, particularly when the oil contains so many other good compounds like polyphenols that fight inflammation damage caused, in part, by the problematic ratio. Corn oil, on the other hand, contains only about 25% monounsaturated fat (and 13% saturated). The ratio matters big time here.

The Saturated Fats

Ah, good old saturated fats. You seem so easy in comparison. CW makes you into a monster, but we see you more in the light of King Kong-powerful but sympathetic, misunderstood. You’re among friends here.

saturatedfat

Before we move on, we can’t forget the chemistry note. Saturated fats have all available carbon bonds paired with hydrogen atoms. I know, not the most interesting, but the important part here is that they’re highly stable. They don’t have the same tendency toward rancidness as polyunsaturated fats, even if heated. This is a good thing.

I’ve been brazen enough to recommend saturated fats, found in animal products and some tropical oils, as part of a healthy diet, and I’ll say it again. Saturated fats serve critical roles in the human body. They make up 1/2 of cell membrane structure. They enhance calcium absorption and immune function. They aid in body’s synthesis of the essential fatty acids and provide a rich source of fat soluble vitamins.

Last but not least, they provide cholesterol. Yes, the human body makes its own anyway, but it all balances out. Can I help that I’ve been won over by its many charms? Naturally occurring substances, natural body processes appeal to me – unlike our next categories.

Trans Fats

We’ve all heard the story by now. The unnatural chemical modification process that created trans fats made products more shelf stable but has wreaked havoc in the bodies of those who ingest them. (Quick fact: the hydrogenation process changes the position of hydrogen atoms in the fatty acid chain.)

Hydrogenation

The body doesn’t recognize the transformed fats and, innocent as it is to snack food chemists’ intent, doesn’t know to eliminate it. The trans fats are absorbed through cell membranes, where they initiate general disorder in cell metabolism. Downright unsavory, if you ask me.

Trans fats, banes of our existence that they are, have been associated with inflammation, associated atherosclerosis, diabetes, obesity and immune system dysfunction. And it turns out they’re bad for your profile.

study out some months ago showed that trans fats caused a “redistribution of fat tissues into the abdomen… even when total dietary calories are controlled.” Kidding about profiles aside, abdominal fat (i.e. apple shaped body) has been associated with the build up of fat around internal organs, which has in turn been associated with a higher risk of heart disease.

Interesterified Fats
“What are these?” you ask. Good question. Insteresterified fats are a new breed of chemically modified fats created to avoid the trans fat label now reviled and even outlawed in some cities. Like trans fats, these fats go through a kind of hydrogenation process along with the associated rearrangement of fat molecules and an enrichment with stearic acid. (Anyone licking their chops yet?) The point is the same as it was with the trans fat poison, er process: it makes the product more shelf stable.

So, this sounds all too familiar, no? Sound like splitting hairs? You got it. (Insert your own expletive.)

My suggestion: if hydrogenated is mentioned anywhere on the label, run like mad.

Now get this. Research is showing that the effects are not just similar to trans fats but worse. Turns out these fats “may raise blood sugar levels even more than trans fats.” Just what we need in this country! The researchers suggest that this new fat actually “alters metabolism in humans.” (General commotion, a few calls to action.)

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your generous attention. I say we open the floor for questions and discussion.

If you are reading this, you either know the answer to this (or think you do) or you are not sure.  This is a big question: Are grains bad for you?  I’ve been thinking about how to write this article.  It’s a tough subject to tell the answer to as there is a lot to it.  So instead of me writing it from scratch and possibly not getting the point across properly, I am going to refer to Mark Sessions over at MarksDailyApple.com.  It’s a website I visit daily and probably my favorite health & fitness blog.  Mark is also fantastic at getting the point across with all the proper information in detail.  I will refer to him numerous times in the future, I’m sure.  The post he wrote about this is at http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains.  I will post it here as well.

Grains. Every day we’re bombarded with them and their myriad of associations in American (and much of Western) culture: Wilford Brimley, Uncle Ben, the Sunbeam girl, the latest Wheaties athlete, a pastrami on rye, spaghetti dinners, buns for barbeque, corn on the cob, donuts, birthday cake, apple pie, amber waves of grain…. Gee, am I missing anything? Of course. So much, in fact, that it could – and usually does – take up the majority of supermarket square footage. (Not to mention those government farm subsidies, but that’s another post.) Yes, grains are solidly etched into our modern Western psyche – just not so much into our physiology.

 Those of you who have been with us a while now know the evolutionary backdrop I mean here. We humans had the pleasure and occasional scourge of evolving within a hunter gatherer existence. We’re talking some 150,000 plus years of hunting and foraging. On the daily scavenge menu: meats, nuts, leafy greens, regional veggies, some tubers and roots, the occasional berries or seasonal fruits and seeds that other animals hadn’t decimated. (Ever seen a dog at an apple picking?) We ate what nature (in our respective locales) served up. The more filling, the better. And then around 10,000 years ago, the tide turned. Our forefathers and mothers were on the brink of ye olde Agricultural Revolution. And, over time, grains became king. But, as countless archaeological findings suggest, people became smaller and frailer as a result of this new agrarian, grain-fed existence.

Ten thousand years seems like a long time, doesn’t it? Think of all the house projects you could get done, the advanced degrees you could earn, the dinner party recipes you could try out, the books you could read. Almost oppressive, isn’t it? But our personal vantage point on the span of 10,000 years doesn’t mean much of anything when the context is evolution. It takes a lot to drastically change a major system in the human body. We’re talking a way bigger change than trying out the latest flavor of Malt-O-Meal. Grains were certainly not any substantial part of the human diet prior to the Agricultural Revolution. And even after grains became a large part of human existence, those who were deathly allergic to them or had zero capacity to take in their modest nutrient value were, in all likelihood, selected against. And pretty quickly at that. Those whose health was so compromised by grains that they were rendered infertile early in life were also washed out of the gene pool. That’s how it works. But if you can limp along long enough to procreate (which was considerably earlier then than it typically is now), that new fangled diet of grains got you through. No matter how stunted your growth was, how awful your teeth were, how prone you were to infection.

When I say humans didn’t evolve eating grains, I mean our digestive processes didn’t evolve to maximize the effectiveness of grain consumption. Just because you can tolerate grains to a certain degree, as just about all of us can (thanks to those earlier folks hitting the end of the genetic line), doesn’t mean your body was designed for them or that they’re truly healthy for you or – especially – that you can achieve optimum health through them. We’re not talking about what will allow you to hobble along. We’re talking about the foods that offer effective and efficient digestion and nutrient absorption in the body. And that’s all about evolutionary design. If you’re not after optimal health, you’re probably reading the wrong blog. But if you want to work with your body instead of unnecessarily tax it, if you want to focus your diet on the best foods with the most positive impact, you most definitely are reading the right blog. Now let’s continue.

Among my many beefs with grain, the first and foremost is the havoc it plays with insulin and other hormonal responses in the body. For the full picture, visit the previous Definitive Guide to Insulin from some months ago. Guess what? The same principles still hold. We developed the insulin response to help store excess nutrients and to take surplus (and potentially toxic) glucose out of the bloodstream. This was an adaptive trait. But it didn’t evolve to handle the massive amounts of carbs we throw at it now. And, yes, we’re talking mostly about grains. Unless you have a compulsive penchant for turnips, the average American’s majority of carb intake comes from grains.

The gist is this (as many of you know): Whatever the carbohydrate, it will eventually be broken down into glucose, either in the gut or the liver. But now it’s all dressed up with likely no place to go. Unless you just did a major workout or are finishing tying your running shoes as we speak (which would allow those grain-based carbs to be used in the restocking of depleted glycogen stores or burned as secondary fuel, respectively), that French baguette will more likely get stored as fat.

Why? Because carbohydrates elicit a physiological response that favors fat storage. That blasted baguette has already set off a strategic chain of hormonal events akin to a physiological-style Tom Clancy plot: the ambush of baguette glucose, the defensive maneuver of insulin, (if you ate the whole baguette, in particular) the entering reinforcements of adrenaline and cortisol. Why the drama? Because, remember, this was not the standard mode of nutrition in our body’s evolution. And every time it happens, the body is a little worse for the wear. This whole hormonal production taxes the adrenal system, the pancreas, the immune system, and results in a tiny amount of inflammationWe all know what we say about inflammation, right? (Hint: the blight of modern existence.)

And as for the nutritional value of grains? First off, they aren’t the complete nutritional sources they’re made out to be. Quite the contrary, grains have been associated with minerals deficiencies, perhaps because of high phytate levels. A diet high in grains may also reduce the body’s ability to process vitamin D.

Why not get the same nutrients from sources that don’t come back and bite you in the backside? If you have the choice between getting, say, B-vitamins from chicken or some “whole wheat” pasta, I’m going to say go with the chicken every time. Is pasta cheaper? Yes. Is it healthier? No. The B6 in chicken is more bioavailable, for one. The fact is, you pay too high a physiological price for the pasta source. Let’s get this point on the dinner table as well:whatever nutrients you can get from whole grains you can get in equal to greater amounts in other food. In terms of nutrient density, grains can’t hold a candle to a diverse diet of veggies and meats. (And if the label says otherwise, look closely because the product is fortified. Save your money and buy a good supplement instead.

But, wait, there’s more. Enter the lurker substances in grains that cause a lot of people a whole lot of obvious problems (and probably all of us some kind of damage over time). Grains, new evolutionarily-speaking, are frankly hard on the digestive system. (You say fiber, I say unnecessary roughage, but that’s only the half of it.) Enter gluten and lectins, both initiators of digestive mayhem, you might say. Gluten, the large, water-soluble protein that creates the sludge, err, elasticity in dough, is found in most common grains like wheat, rye and barley (and it’s the primary glue in wallpaper paste). Researchers now believe that a third of us are likely gluten intolerant/sensitive. That third of us (and I would suspect many more on some level) “react” to gluten with a perceptible inflammatory response. Over time, those who are gluten intolerant can develop a dismal array of medical conditions: dermatitis, joint pain, reproductive problems, acid reflux and other digestive conditions, autoimmune disorders, and Celiac disease. And that still doesn’t mean that the rest of us aren’t experiencing some milder negative effect that simply doesn’t manifest itself so obviously.

Now for lectins. Lectins are mild, natural toxins that aren’t limited to just grains but seem to be found in especially high levels in most common grain varieties. They serve as one more reason grains just aren’t worth all the trouble that comes with them. Lectins, researchers have found, inhibit the natural repair system of the GI tract, potentially leaving the rest of the body open to the impact of errant, wandering (i.e. unwanted) material from the digestive system, especially when these lectins “unlock” barriers to entry and allow larger undigested protein molecules into the bloodstream. This breach can initiate all kinds of immune-related havoc and is thought to be related to the development of autoimmune disorders. Some people are more sensitive to the damage of lectins than others, as in the case with gluten. Nonetheless, I’d say, over time we all pay the piper.

The bottom line is this: grains = carbs. Unnecessary at best, but flat out unhealthy at worst, they’re not the wholesome staples they’re made out to be. Talk about double taxation: Our bodies pay for what our trusty government subsidizes Big Agra for. The best – really the only way – to achieve a low carb, whole foods diet is to ditch the grains. (Your body will be better off without inflammation, the insulin roller coaster, not to mention the constant onslaught of creepy gluten and lectins.) A diet very low or entirely without grains (low-carb) has been shown to decrease risk for problems associated with diabetes, to lower blood pressure, alleviate heartburn symptoms, and shed abdominal fat. Finally, low carb diets have been associated with significant “reductions in a number of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and adhesion molecules.”

The idea here is not to demonize grains. Well, O.K., it is. (But only because our society and medical establishment spends so much time exalting them.) Just as I choose to steer clear of grains as a regular part of my diet, I do occasionally indulge a bit. A tiny bit. And that’s where the Primal Blueprint enters: it’s about informed, not dictated choices. That French bread at an anniversary dinner, a sample of the pasta salad at your Uncle Billy’s steak fry, the saffron rice your daughter cooks for you when you visit her first apartment – they’re thoughtful, purposeful compromises. (And they’re perhaps very worth it for reasons that have nothing to do with the food itself.) The point of the Primal Blueprint if this: When you understand the metabolic effects of eating grains, you’re empowered to make informed decisions about the role grains will have in your diet. You’re free to enjoy good health and self-selected compromises with a clear conscience and full epicurean gusto!

A lot of people talk about what to do with their cravings.  Unfortunately, in “western civilization”, we have all kinds of nasty tasty foods available to us.  It’s too bad.  If we didn’t know about it, we’d be fine.  Some people can stay away from it, others can’t.  So what do you do about it?

Some people shut out their cravings entirely, others have a little bite here and there, some have a big binge.  If you can shut out your cravings, good for you!  I did that for the longest time.  I was able to do it too but the cravings never went away.  I consider myself a “food addict” like probably many of us are (and why not?!  food is great!).  Some people make the the switch from a bad diet to a good diet and never look back and actually have no cravings for the bad foods.  If you are one of those, you are lucky!  For the rest of us, really, what do we do?

Personally, I’ve tried all the methods.  The last couple of months, I’ve done a once a month binge (or cheat meal, cheat day, whatever you want to call it).  I find this the best method for a food addict like me.  These type of meals/days get different reactions from different health & fitness “experts”.  Some say to NEVER do it.  Others say it’s okay as long as you don’t go overboard.  It’s your own decision if you want to do a binge.  But if you do, I will tell you how to do it without gaining weight and even LOSING weight!

Maintaining weight or losing weight is simply calories in versus calories out.  Someone who tells you otherwise, is flat out WRONG.  I don’t care if t hey have 50 years of “experience” in the industry.  It’s one of the biggest lies out there.  Ever hear about the story of the guy who only ate twinkies and lost weight?!  Yes, because he was in a calorie deficit!  Now, with this said, I would not recommend eating bad foods all the time.  Yes, you could lose weight but you will not be a healthy person.  All these bad foods contribute to a lot of our modern deceases and health problems.

Okay okay, you just want to know how to do it!  Well here is how.  It’s very simple:

  • Preferably schedule your binge (not all is lost though if you can’t, you can still recover)
  • Eat a little bit less all week AND/OR
  • Eat less/fast the day before the binge AND/OR
  • Eat less/fast the day after the binge AND/OR
  • Do a workout right before the binge
  • Make sure your macro-nutrients still add up for the week
  • Drink lots of water (like always)

All of these methods contribute to calories in versus calories out.  You basically want to be at your caloric deficit at the end of the week.  So don’t worry if you eat more one day, you can make up for it.  I just had a binge this past weekend.  Having a good workout right before a binge puts your body in a burning state hours after you are done.  So that will help to burn off some of your binge easier as well.

So I’ve been craving Jack in the Box for a while.  So I made that my binge.  I did a combination of all these things this time.  I ate a little bit less all week.  Doesn’t have to be much.  I didn’t even notice it actually.  I did a partial fast the day of the binge and I did a good workout right before the binge.  Then I ate about 3000 calories of Jack in the Box.  My net calories for a day is roughly 2100.  So obviously I was over in just one meal.  But, because I adjusted my calorie intake throughout the week, before the binge, and after the binge, I did not gain a pound.  Sometimes, I even lose weight.  Again, it’s simply calories in versus calories out.

So, I, personally, say it’s okay to binge.  How often you ask?  Well that’s up to you.  Like I said, you can still lose weight even eating bad foods full time, just be in that calorie deficit.  You just won’t be healthy doing that.  I binge roughly once a month.  I stick to my normal diet 99.9% of the time otherwise.  If I find myself in a non-scheduled situation where I’m eating something bad, I just adjust with the above methods.

Good luck and happy binging!