Friday, January 28, 2011

Exercising Doesn't Need to be Unpleasant


I'm a busy guy with a fair number of responsibilities, but I love my free time. Being absolutely unproductive, whether alone or with my wife, kids, and dog, at the beach or reading a book on the couch at two in the afternoon, is what makes life worth living. I imagine you're all pretty similar in that regard. It's what we're all looking for, after all -- to have gotten all the important stuff done so you can rest easy and simply be.

I've got enough work in my life to fill several, so when it comes to staying fit, healthy and strong, I'm not looking for a second job. I tried that for a couple decades as a marathoner and triathlete, and I was miserable (not to mention unhealthy and weak, but that's another article). I want the most bang for my buck. Yet when most people discuss fitness, they speak in terms of work. It's right there in the word: "workout." And since work is supposed to be hard and unpleasant, good workouts become long, dreary things, exercises in pain and suffering that you have to push through. No pain, no gain, right? It's all very Puritan. But is it true?

We certainly try to make exercise as unpleasant as possible. Consider how most of us work out. Jog for an hour (if we can muster up the will to do it), making sure to keep our heart rates at 80 percent of our max and jogging in place at stoplights (because stopping for even a second will halt the fat burning). Lift weights, using complex machines that isolate the most important body parts, like biceps, forearms and calves (you know, the ones that everyone can see), and subject our bodies to movement patterns they'd never face in real life.

Sure, our joints might hurt a bit and all that chronic cardio makes us gorge on pizza and ice cream, but that's just part of the deal. Sure, we dread working out, but that's normal -- exercise is supposed to be miserable, or else it ain't doing its job.

To decide whether the conventional advice regarding physical fitness is actually working, consider your average gym-goer. He or she is doing things the right way, putting in the time on the treadmill, hitting the separate body parts with resistance training, and yes, huffing and puffing and sweating, but with paltry results. Note the persistent belly fat, the magazine to keep the boredom away and the agony off the mind, and the sad eyes fixated on the television for digital escape. And that's just the person who actually goes to the gym. There's also the flood of newcomers every January who go a few times, maybe a few weeks, and never return. You know it's true; we've all noticed the New Year's gym influx and subsequent exodus. Something isn't working. There's something about the way we exercise that squanders results and makes people hate working out. It's both unsustainable and ineffective.

To figure out how to fix the problem, let's go back to the concept of work. What is effective work? Is it short and to the point or long and drawn-out? Who's the better worker -- the one who gets his report done in four hours working diligently or the one who takes seven hours to complete the same task? Obviously, to produce the same result in less time is of greater value for everyone involved; this is self-evident for schoolwork, physical labor, and the workplace, and yet when it comes to physical fitness we forget all about the concept of time economy. We confuse length with intensity, when the opposite is true: excessive quantity of exercise necessarily diminishes intensity, and thus quality, of exercise.

Workouts shouldn't be long and awful, then. They should either be hard and fast and even fun, or really long and leisurely. I always say that you should make your long, slow workouts even longer and slower and your short, fast workouts even shorter and faster. Don't jog for 45 minutes at a high heart rate, plodding along as you try for intensity but never really reach it, stressing your adrenals, and prompting the release of excess cortisol that in turn increases carb cravings, belly fat and muscle wasting; walk or hike, instead engaging in low level aerobic activity that slowly burns fat and, most importantly, makes exercise pleasurable and relaxing. Save your intensity for the truly short workouts where you can really push yourself.

Like sprinting. Sprint once in awhile. Once a week, run six sprints at top speed -- remember, a sprint is a max effort by definition -- with plenty of rest in between. Cut the sprint short when you start to slow. You're done in about five minutes, your body is sufficiently stimulated, and you will get fitter and faster. It's hard, yeah, but it's over before you know it. If you can't actually run, consider swimming, cycling, even crawling sprints, which work equally well.

Strength training doesn't require complex equipment or machinery, or even a gym membership. Consider the world your gym and your body the equipment with gravity providing the necessary resistance. Free weights are excellent tools, but they aren't required for basic fitness and strength development. And when you work your body, consider that it is a single thing comprised of many working parts that work together to move you through space. Full body movements, like squats, pushups, and pullups are the most effective, the safest, and provide the greatest transfer to real life movements, not isolated exercises that segregate muscles and joints.

We're all busy people with packed schedules and multiple responsibilities, but we owe it to ourselves to stay fit, healthy and happy. Luckily, by pairing intensity with brevity, and length with leisurely movement, we can achieve all three goals at once.

Mark Sisson is a former elite marathoner and triathlete. He is the author of the best-selling health and fitness book, "The Primal Blueprint", and publisher of the health blog, MarksDailyApple.com. Become a fan on Facebook and visit Mark's blog for daily health tips.


Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Long and Short of Calcium and Vitamin D

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/health/25brody.html?ref=nutrition

Breakfasts Rich With Grains

Breakfasts Rich With Grains

Andrew Scrivani for The New York Times
Published: December 7, 2009

Until recently, I’d drifted away from grainy breakfasts, even though breakfast is a great time of day for whole grains — especially if you exercise first thing in the morning, as I do. Then I rediscovered steel-cut oats and homemade granola.

Skip to next paragraph

Recipes for Health

Each week this series will present recipes around a particular type of produce or a pantry item. This is food that is vibrant and light, full of nutrients but by no means ascetic, fun to cook and a pleasure to eat.

See previous recipes »

Lately, I’ve begun making granola again. It only took one batch to hook my son, who takes a bag of it to school every day as a mid-morning snack. I was inspired by a nifty Web site called www.mixmygranola.com, where users can order up a custom mix of granola beginning with a crisp base of sweetened oats and rice. After selecting your base, you can choose from a wide selection of added dried fruits, nuts and “extras.” (Unfortunately there are some questionable options, like M&M’s and gummy bears, which negate the virtues of the healthy base). Then they send you the granola with your own customized label.

If you like hot cereal for breakfast and you’re not familiar with steel-cut oats, I urge you to try them. Also known as Irish or Scottish oatmeal, steel-cut oats are creamy and chewy at the same time. Since steel-cut oatmeal takes a while to cook and doesn’t really work in the microwave, I’ve been cooking up a pot one night a week, then heating it by the bowl in the morning.

If a bowl of cereal isn’t your thing, there are other ways to work whole grains into your breakfast. I add softened rolled oats to buttermilk pancakes and granola to muffins, which are handy if you are a grab-something-and-run sort of breakfast eater.

Granola

I used to make a rich holiday granola, but often it burned and stuck to the baking sheets. One of the reasons: I used wheat germ, which browns more quickly than oats.

Now I keep the heat low in my oven and line my backing sheets with parchment. Be sure to stir the granola every 10 to 15 minutes, and switch the trays from top to bottom each time you stir. If you want to make a smaller amount, you can halve this recipe.

6 cups flaked or rolled oats

2 cups oat bran

1/2 cup flax seeds, coarsely ground

1/2 cup coconut, flaked or shaved (optional)

1 cup chopped nuts (I recommend almonds and pecans)

1/2 to 1 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg (to taste)

2 to 3 teaspoons ground cinnamon (to taste)

1/2 to 3/4 teaspoon salt (optional)

1/3 cup canola oil

1/2 cup mild honey, such as clover

1 tablespoon vanilla

1 to 2 cups raisins (optional)

1. Preheat the oven to 325 degrees. Line two baking sheets with parchment. Toss together all of the dry ingredients except the raisins in a very large bowl. Combine the oil, honey and vanilla in a saucepan or in a measuring cup, and warm over low heat or heat at 50 percent power in a microwave. Do not let the mixture come to a simmer. Stir into the dry ingredients. Stir to coat evenly.

2. Spread the granola mixture on the sheet pans, and bake for about 45 minutes to one hour until golden, stirring every 10 to 15 minutes and switching the pans from lower to middle racks. Remove from the heat, stir in the raisins if using, and allow to cool on the pans. Store in well sealed jars, bags or containers.

Yield: Makes about 2 1/2 quarts.

Advance preparation: This will keep well for several weeks in the freezer.

A previous version of this recipe described oats as gluten-free. In fact, while oats do not contain gluten, it may be added during processing. The reference has been deleted.

Martha Rose Shulman can be reached at martha-rose-shulman.com.

Decoding Terms Like "Whole Grain" and "High Fiber"

Fiber and whole grain products have gained popularity and are popping up on grocery shelves in record numbers. It is important to understand the meaning of labels such as "high fiber," "made with whole grain" and "whole wheat." Studies have found whole grains and high fiber diets help with weight management and reduce risk of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers. The Dietary Guidelines recommend at least 3 servings of whole grains daily to meet nutritional needs; however, more than 80% of Americans consume less than one serving daily.

Even in spite of clever marketing, it is important to be able to decipher whole grains from refined grains. By definition, whole grains are made from the entire grain including the bran, germ and endosperm. Whole grains provide fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and phytonutrients that refined grains lack. "Whole grain" does not necessarily mean high fiber and vice versa. Breads may have added processed fiber from peas or other foods which do not contain antioxidants and phytonutrients found in whole grains. The fiber content of different grains varies based on the proportions of bran, germ and endosperm naturally occurring in the grain and also the amount of added sugar. For example, brown rice is 3.5% fiber while barley contains 15% fiber because it contains more of the bran portion. Grains such as crackers and cereals that contain added sugars will have to eliminate natural fiber to make room for the sugar content.

The best advice is to read labels carefully. Do not assume products that state "made with whole grain," "wheat" or "unbleached wheat flour" are whole grain. Look for 100% whole grain on the package or whole wheat flour listed as the first ingredient. If there are two grain ingredients and only the second ingredient listed is whole grain, the product can contain as little as 1% or as much as 49% whole grain. Many products have a mix of grains; however, "multigrain" does not necessarily mean all the grains are whole grains. For example, "multigrain" bread could contain 70% refined flour and only 30% whole grains.

To make the identification of whole grains easier, the Whole Grain Council encourages consumers to look for the Whole Grain Stamp on packages. The stamp comes in two varieties; a 100% Whole Grain Stamp assures foods contain a full serving or more of whole grains and that all the grain is whole grain while the basic Whole Grain Stamp can appear on products with at least half a serving of whole grains per serving. In order to meet nutritional guidelines, pick three foods with the 100% stamp or six foods with any whole grain stamp.
Overall it is best to look for products that are whole grain and high fiber. Both fiber and whole grains have documented health benefits and should be included in a well-balanced diet. Aim for breads that contain 3g of fiber per slice and cereals that contain 5g or more per serving. Choose grain products with minimal sugar and always look for the Whole Grain Stamp.

Friday, January 14, 2011

PETE Toxic?

Look for this symbol on your plastic containers and bottles......




Food and water are often packaged into polyethylene terephthalate or PET containers. This is especially the case for convenient serving sizes of sodas and waters. PET contains a thermoplastic polymer resin. This is part of the polyester family. PET bottles can be clear or opaque. PET is typically made using a trans-esterification reaction between ethylene glycol (yes, that green stuff they put in radiators) and dimethyl terephthalate. The ethylene glycol is the byproduct of polymerization. Resonated PET is strong, but unmodified PET's melting point is often below the boiling point.

Modified PET is more stable and can be heated to 180 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes without melting. This PET will maintain glass temperature (the level where its molecules have more mobility) at about 75 Celsius (about 167 degrees Fahrenheit). This is when placticizers or other molecules used in the polymerization can leach indiscriminately into the liquid or food in the container.

However, this is a sliding scale and minute leaching will begin at significantly lower temperatures. Research confirms that heat leaching is higher when PET is exposed to direct sunlight. Temperatures above room temperature or even at room temperature for an extended period will cause significant leaching of toxins from PET. Up to 19 different migrating chemicals have been observed from amber PET bottles.

A number of acids, plasticizers, and acetaldehyde have been found to leach in PET research. Furthermore, foods microwaved in PET containers release cyclic oligomers. Other cyclic molecules such as benzene have proven to cause tumors. Cyclic oligomers from PET bottles may also leach from sun exposure.

PET has undergone significant toxicology research. In vivo and epidemiological studies have indicated that toxicity due to PET leaching is below levels thought to pose an immediate threat to the health of most of the population.

Indeed, the body has tremendous abilities to adapt to and detox plasticizers and other chemicals. However, we must also consider their possible affects upon those whose immune systems are
burdened with other toxins or infections. Toxins leached from PET can either be significant toxins or merely additional toxins that will add to the stress burden upon the body. Plasticizers have been found to disrupt hormone receptors, for example.

Small amounts of PET when kept chilled might not pose an immediate toxicity concern. Continuous exposure, on the other hand, especially when sodas are exposed to sunlight or PET containers are microwaved, could cause a host of possible disorders over time. Little research has been done to measure this possibility. In other words, we have yet to understand the long term risks of PET. That makes us continue to be the guinea pigs of the synthetic chemical industry.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Curried Cauliflower and Sweet Potato Soup

Recipe

Set's favorite soup

Tapped

Water


Best Bottled Water?

I was alarmed to read that bottled water contains many of the contaminants found in tap water – and some brands actually appear to be tap water. How can I find good quality bottled water?

The latest study of bottled water came from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a Washington-based nonprofit organization that investigates pollutants and their impact on public health. The EWG report isn't the first or the most comprehensive on the subject of bottled water. In 1999, the National Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental advocacy group, tested more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of bottled water and found that about one-third violated state standards or microbial impurity guidelines. The following year, a Consumer Reports investigation concluded that eight of 10 five-gallon polycarbonate jugs tested contained residues of bisphenol A, an endocrine disrupter.

The EWG report, issued in October 2008, documented a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed. The contaminants included toxic byproducts of chlorination in the store brands of several large retail chains, at levels the same as those routinely found in tap water. The EWG said that it considered the results to "represent a snapshot of the market during the window of time" in which the samples were purchased.

Cancer-causing contaminants in bottled water tested "substantially exceeded the voluntary standards established by the bottled water industry," the EWG reported. The lab tests were conducted at the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory on 10 brands of bottled water purchased at retail outlets in nine states and the District of Columbia.


The contaminants included disinfection byproducts, common urban wastewater pollutants such as caffeine and pharmaceuticals; heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes; fertilizer residue (nitrate and ammonia); and a broad range of others, tentatively identified industrial chemicals used as solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, and propellants.

If you're concerned about the quality of your drinking water, your first step should be to have your tap water tested for contaminants. Get an independent lab to do this, not a company that sells water purifiers. Testing for a range of common contaminants can run more than $100, but the investment is worthwhile. If the test shows that your water quality isn't up to par, I suggest that you do what I have done - buy a water purification system that uses a distiller. While expensive, it will save money over bottled water in the long run.

Be sure to do your homework - these systems vary greatly in quality, efficiency and price. Two systems that I use personally are the D-3 distiller from Glacier Water Treatment Systems, and the Purefecta System from Pall Corp. I also like cheaper carbon block/KDF systems.

The latest study of bottled water gives us no more cause for confidence in these products than earlier ones did. If I knew for sure which brands provide water as pure as we would like it to be, I would name names. Unfortunately, all the information we have on that subject is in the form of manufacturer claims.

Andrew Weil, M.D.