Diet/Exercise and Human Physiology

[Pantlegz]

We already have a fat loss sticky but I don't think this applies solely to that, while some of it may I think it deserves its own thread. And it doesn't seem to be something that gets much discussion here but I feel would be beneficial to many of our members. I'm far from an expert but I do lots of reading/searching and figured that some other members may be doing something similar so it might be nice to have one place for the information and talk about what we've found interesting. I'll start with a simple podcast that I need to listen to a couple more times and take more notes on because it's filled with tons of great information. Feel free to add thoughts, opinions, or your own links to productive information. I know not everyone will agree but lets do our best to keep the discussion civil and arguments based on studies rather than anecdotal if at all possible 🙂

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/dr-rhonda-patrick-5

 

[hightree]

Pantlegs, can you write down some claims from that podcast here, because that's really a long thing.

From my research I can say:

- Muscle growth increases with muscle usage (training) but only to your genetically predisposed limits.
- Estimations of the protein amounts necessary for optimal muscle growth vary a lot, one says about 1.6 g protein/kg body mass for resistance training.
http://www.nutrientsreview.com/proteins
- You do not need any protein supplements to grow muscles, protein from food is just fine.
- The only supplement I know that can have some effect on muscle mass growth is creatine.
- If you regularly consume mixed food (animal, plant), you do not need any supplement (vitamin, mineral or whatever). You can get all of these with regular food.

 

[Pantlegz]

To be completely honest there is a TON of information and I'm leaving for Pan Am's Thursday and wont be at a computer for 4-5 days so it might take a while. I listened to it in my car while I was driving so I didn't take any notes because, well, I was driving.

A few key points I can remember off the top of my head:

Exercise isn't inherently good the stress is actually bad for your body but the stress response is what makes it good. Basically your body needs stress to activate genes that do good things.

Sugar/HFCS both trap ATP in the liver(?) which is part of the reason when eating sugary foods you don't feel satiated because that energy is 'hidden' from the brain. HFCS is worse because the way it's bound and has twice the amount of fructose.

NSAID's are generally bad, especially when taken chronically. They block COX2 receptors that regulate coagulation. They also effect the inflammation response from exercise and prevent muscle from repairing normally.

Cold/Cryo therapy should wait at least an hour after strength training for similar reason, it inhibits the inflammation response.

They talk a lot about the benefits of the sauna and it's ability to illicit Dynorphin release and Heat shock proteins.

 

[hightree]

Exercise not being inherently good and not coping with stress properly -- I can agree. From some reason, I personally believe some sort of moving, even if just normal walking, can be very good -- at least I feel it is for me.

I also think sugar/fructose may be not inherently bad. You can very easily overdo it and get spoiled and get weight, though.

 

[ArchAngel777]

In way, I think it is kinda of silly to make the distinction that exercise is bad for the body, but results in something good. The quickest way to be weak and die is to not do anything hard.

That is like saying gravity is not good for the body, but ends up being good because without it, the body and bone density atrophies. You can't really separate the two.

I would say more accurately that exercise is the required stimulus to have a stronger and more healthy body and mind... Stress and stress response cannot be divorced.

Anyway, I am nitpicking, I just did not see why the distinction is made. Tell anyone that 'hard things' are bad for us and they will cite that as to why they are fat and lazy, oh... and weak... and... suffering from chronic illnesses because they were told picking up a weight was abuse the body... Trust me, people will use that as an excuse.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Here is my take on it.

Exercise (I just lump it into Physical Activity). For MILLIONS of years up until very recently (50-100 years) ALL people were doing is HARD PHYSICAL labor, running/walking/hunting and busting their arses.

THIS should tell you that our bodies were build to move. Not just move but to MOVE A LOT.

When you stop that, you introduce all kinds of healthy problems.....which American economy THRIVES off (let's face it food and healthcare is a HUGE business).

If one is not in shape/fit and has a office job, I recommend AT LEAST 2 of hours of physical activity/investment into your body ON DAILY BASIS.

Walk, Run, Exercise, play sports......whatever floats that boat. Just MOVE.

If you are already fit and in shape, I still recommend 1 hour per day.

As for Diet. Accept and recognize that we live in an EXTREMELY unhealthy society. Look around, you see all the crap and junk around you? What a temptation right? Guess what, ignore it all and go back to the basics. Focus on Fruits and Vegitables. Each day should have 3 of each included.

Your diet plays a HUGE part of your health, mental state and your well being.

If you EAT SHIT......you will feel like shit.

Learn to recognize HOW You feel withing 5-10 min after you eat something. IF you feel depressed, down or sleepy....chances are you either OVERATE and ATE CRAP.

If you feel up, full of energy and happy........you probably ate good amount and healthy food.

And the most important part of the diet is....drum roll......it's WAY more important to eat proper portions than to eat healthy food WHILE losing weight. Eating too much of healthy food is NOT healthy.

What I usually recommend is........3 meals a day should be no bigger than 2 of your fists. Snack in between or ANY snack should be no bigger than your fist.

While losing weight focus on HOW MUCH you eat, before you focus on WHAT You eat.

One can easily lose weight by eating unhealthy crap/mcdonalds.....as long as they don't overeat it hehe

 

[ArchAngel777]

I want to add that "no anecdotal, only studies" makes it appear more scientific, but studies are often not controlled enough, nor isolated enough to come to much of a conclusion. One of my favorite writes on exercise physiology is is Lyle McDonald. He does about as good as a job as anyone of sifting through the studies and trying to interpret them, but in the end, people use the same studies to prove opposite points. Studies may have the very appearance of being scientific and more accurate than anecdotal evidence, I'd argue that isn't necessarily the case.

Unfortunately (actually, this is fortunate) we can't do many studies that would answer some of these questions without being unethical. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment is one great example. It would never have been allowed to be conducted today. It provided a wealth of information and we will likely never see a study like that again, at least in the civilized world.

I am not anti-studies, just that people use them as 'proof' for their position and often they are downright contradictory with other studies. So backing up your 'blog' (these are popular these days) with link's to studies makes one appear an authority when really, all we really have is anecdotal evidence. Trainers will disagree and read the same studies and why? Due to their anecdotal, perhaps empirical evidence from training others. Studies don't really change the result. Perhaps in the future, they will...

 

[purbeast0]

one basic rule to follow for your diet is that when shopping at a grocery store, stick to the outer walls of the grocery store for your shopping.

typically grocery stores are shaped like a square, with the registers being on one side, and opposite that is the meat. then on the other 2 sides are typically the produce section and breads on the other side. usually the meat also has the milk stuff on one side of it.

most everything in the center aisles are artificial foods or stuff with preservatives in them. try to stick to the perimeter when shopping for foods if you're trying to eat healthy. and eating healthy is a lot cheaper than people tend to think it is. you can get chicken very cheap, as well as most veggies. i tend to get canned green beans too which are dirt cheap.

i know this isn't ground breaking news or anything, but just something i threw out there because not everyone realizes this.

 

[Pantlegz]

In way, I think it is kinda of silly to make the distinction that exercise is bad for the body, but results in something good. The quickest way to be weak and die is to not do anything hard.

That is like saying gravity is not good for the body, but ends up being good because without it, the body and bone density atrophies. You can't really separate the two.

I would say more accurately that exercise is the required stimulus to have a stronger and more healthy body and mind... Stress and stress response cannot be divorced.

Anyway, I am nitpicking, I just did not see why the distinction is made. Tell anyone that 'hard things' are bad for us and they will cite that as to why they are fat and lazy, oh... and weak... and... suffering from chronic illnesses because they were told picking up a weight was abuse the body... Trust me, people will use that as an excuse.

Most people think more exercise = more benefits but that's not the case. If you listen to the podcast she clearly states that dose is important in anything that makes hormonal changes in the body. Which also makes sense but when you stop and consider that the good that exercise does it due to the hormonal response you'd realize that spending hours on end pushing yourself to the limit probably isn't a good idea.

I had some more driving today so I listened to part of it again. Other interesting notes: Aerobic exercise stimulates neuron growth but it takes about 2 weeks. High intensity exercise makes the neurons connection stronger allowing quicker firing and therefore quicker recollection.

 

[Pantlegz]

I want to add that "no anecdotal, only studies" makes it appear more scientific, but studies are often not controlled enough, nor isolated enough to come to much of a conclusion. One of my favorite writes on exercise physiology is is Lyle McDonald. He does about as good as a job as anyone of sifting through the studies and trying to interpret them, but in the end, people use the same studies to prove opposite points. Studies may have the very appearance of being scientific and more accurate than anecdotal evidence, I'd argue that isn't necessarily the case.

Unfortunately (actually, this is fortunate) we can't do many studies that would answer some of these questions without being unethical. The Minnesota Starvation Experiment is one great example. It would never have been allowed to be conducted today. It provided a wealth of information and we will likely never see a study like that again, at least in the civilized world.

I am not anti-studies, just that people use them as 'proof' for their position and often they are downright contradictory with other studies. So backing up your 'blog' (these are popular these days) with link's to studies makes one appear an authority when really, all we really have is anecdotal evidence. Trainers will disagree and read the same studies and why? Due to their anecdotal, perhaps empirical evidence from training others. Studies don't really change the result. Perhaps in the future, they will...

It's more of a general guideline, we've had posters in the past who would swear than 150g of creatine daily would increase their gains with absolutely nothing to back it up. If you've experienced something that disagrees with well established studies there's a chance your experience is unique to you, or you're an asshole on the internet wanting a stir up shit.

 

[SlitheryDee]

One thing I've found is that setting a high goal for protein intake within a limited calorie window is only going to help you in the long run. We can debate how much protein you need until we're all blue in the face, but the fact is that whether you need it or not, endeavoring to make protein and fats a higher percentage of your total calories is naturally going to cause you to seek out better foods for you. Lean meats and vegetables would necessarily have to supersede processed carbs and such. I find that watching my calorie intake while trying to hit a certain minimum amount of protein intake has largely caused my diet to self-correct without me needing to focus on anything but what foods will help me hit those goals.

Another realization that is invaluable to me is that the intensity or relative optimization of my workouts has to be secondary to tailoring them to consume as little time and effort as possible while still allowing me a path for progression. What I mean is that in the long run, it isn't going to be the fact that my routine isn't the absolute fastest way to build muscle that holds me back. It's going to be my continued willingness and enthusiasm to engage in exercise that potentially does that. Simply put, I had to make my workouts easy. I cut away all the useless grueling accessory exercises that take up so much time and do little but wear you out in favor of a more targeted approach. No more dozens of curls, flies, crunches, etc. Just the basics and make sure to keep the weight going up as time goes by. I also had to approach each workout with the mindset that I could always do as little or as much as I wanted to so long as I got at least something done that day. It may mean a few sub-optimal workouts were had, but it also means that day-in and day-out I was in the weight room working, making progress in some discernible way. After all, If I know that the workout for the day isn't going to take but maybe 25 minutes total, I have little excuse not to go knock it out instead of blowing it off. I think that philosophy has paid off more than any I've had in the past.

 

[Vdubchaos]

One thing I've found is that setting a high goal for protein intake within a limited calorie window is only going to help you in the long run. We can debate how much protein you need until we're all blue in the face, but the fact is that whether you need it or not, endeavoring to make protein and fats a higher percentage of your total calories is naturally going to cause you to seek out better foods for you. Lean meats and vegetables would necessarily have to supersede processed carbs and such. I find that watching my calorie intake while trying to hit a certain minimum amount of protein intake has largely caused my diet to self-correct without me needing to focus on anything but what foods will help me hit those goals.

That has not been the case for me. I cut down on meets quite a bit during my weight loss and it didn't have any effect on my choices etc.

Exercise, running, sports and hard work I put in had the most effect. Knowing that all of that work would go right in the garbage if I make bad food choices was plenty of steer me in the right direction.

 

[SlitheryDee]

That has not been the case for me. I cut down on meets quite a bit during my weight loss and it didn't have any effect on my choices etc.

Exercise, running, sports and hard work I put in had the most effect. Knowing that all of that work would go right in the garbage if I make bad food choices was plenty of steer me in the right direction.

If that's the case then you simply ate less protein while cutting then right? I mean if the distribution of calories between protein, fat, and carbs remained constant for you whether you were bulking or cutting you must have been taking in less protein because you would have been taking in fewer total calories. It's certainly possible to cut like that, but I find that the more carbs I take in, the more carbs I want. The more protein and fats I take in, the more satiated I feel all the time. I'm guessing that's the insulin response everyone talks about kicking in. So there's that aspect to think about. Besides that, foods that contain lots of protein and fats instead of carbs tend to be more wholesome, consisting mostly of meats and vegetables as a general rule.

 

[Vdubchaos]

If that's the case then you simply ate less protein while cutting then right? I mean if the distribution of calories between protein, fat, and carbs remained constant for you whether you were bulking or cutting you must have been taking in less protein because you would have been taking in fewer total calories. It's certainly possible to cut like that, but I find that the more carbs I take in, the more carbs I want. The more protein and fats I take in, the more satiated I feel all the time. I'm guessing that's the insulin response everyone talks about kicking in. So there's that aspect to think about. Besides that, foods that contain lots of protein and fats instead of carbs tend to be more wholesome, consisting mostly of meats and vegetables as a general rule.

That makes sense.