Page 39 of 120

4 causes of aging

In his book, “The Most Effective Ways to Live Longer”, Johnny Bowden identifies what he calls “the four horsemen of aging,” which are thought to be dangerous processes that age our bodies and are triggered by the foods we eat and the lifestyles we lead. Conquer these four horsemen, Bowden contends, and you can slow down the aging process.

1. Free radicals: Free radicals are chemically unstable molecules that attack your cells and damage your DNA. You can limit your exposure to them by avoiding cigarettes, trans fats, charred meats, and other sources.

Organic fruits and vegetables will also limit your exposure to pesticides and herbicides, which contain the harmful molecules.

2. Inflammation: Inflammation is a major player in many diseases of aging, including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s. One way to avoid it is to follow a Mediterranean-style diet.

Other great anti-inflammatory foods include turmeric, dark chocolate, and the anti-aging chemical resveratrol. Exercise is another great way to lower inflammation.

3. Glycation: Glycation is what happens when sugar mixes with proteins and fats to form molecules that promote aging. Advanced glycation end products, or AGEs (Isn’t that an appropriate acronym?), are thought to accelerate your aging process by churning out free radicals and promoting inflammation. One way to avoid ingesting AGEs is to turn down the heat when you cook. The browning effect of high-heat cooking causes these molecules to form. Limiting your intake of sugar-filled foods in general will also help.

4. Stress: Stress initiates the release of a variety of hormones that make your pulse race and cause your blood pressure to rise. The hormone cortisol, released to lessen these effects, also creates problems when it remains chronically elevated. Try practicing relaxation techniques to help manage stress, and get enough sleep every night.

U.S. News & World Report July 29, 2010

Thumbs up review, “The Obesity Epidemic: What caused it? How can we stop it?”

Where does the formula “1 pound equals 3500 calories” come from? Zoe Harcombe checked with all the major British organizations including the British Dietetic Association. The best answer, or worst depending on how one perceives this topic, was, “We don’t know.” Some of the other questions one sees in a list towards the beginning of the book are: Does energy in equal energy out? Does the law of thermodynamics apply to humans? Can you prove saturated fat causes heart disease? How does exercise relate to weight loss or gain?

When dealing with weight loss the public is bombarded by misinformation concerning calories which are a measurement of energy. According to Harcombe when you see the statement, “energy in equals energy out” you are getting a misapplication of the laws of thermodynamics. The first law doesn’t state energy in must equal energy out; it states that energy in a closed system is neither created nor destroyed.

The calorie theory, i.e., counting calories for weight control, was tested in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Thirty six healthy men participated in the study, with the goal being to reduce their weight by 25% in 24 weeks. A control period was utilized to figure how many calories were needed to maintain weight at a specific activity level. During the starvation period of the experiment, while trying to maintain the specified activity level, the participant’s diets were cut by 1640 calories. At this point the weight loss didn’t meet the researcher’s goal, so the participant’s calories were cut even further. According to the “Gold Standard Formula” promoted by so many so-called experts, “1 pound equals 3500 calories”, each participant should have lost 78 pounds; by week 20 all reached a plateau, and the average weight lost was 37 pounds.

Once the men were allowed to eat, they couldn’t get enough. Even when they were stuffed, the men still complained of hunger. None of the men had eating disorders prior to the experiment; it was clear according to the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, that no one can tolerate calorie deprivation over an extended period of time.

The people who do research as generalist/specialists in the area of obesity (Barry Groves, Gary Taubes, Sally Fallon Morell are the forerunners) have all come to the same conclusion – we must eat real food and not processed food. Man is the only chronically sick species on the planet and the only one eating his own food. (I would add that we have also given our pets obesity, diabetes and other modern illness, by feeding them our processed junk ). “Eat food as nature intends us to eat it” is surely classic common sense – but government, dietitians and doctors tell us instead to “Base our meals on starchy foods” and they have developed the Eatbadly Plate (I refuse to call it Eatwell), which could not be more different to what we have evolved to eat. (Do take a look at this plate and see for yourself sugar, cornflakes, weetabix, white flour, bagels, white pasta, sugared baked beans, fruit in syrup, Battenberg cake, sweets, coca-cola and so on. No wonder Kellogg’s sponsor the British Dietetic Association obesity conference!)

The Obesity Epidemic” has a very simple message; everything you think you know about eating right and weight loss, is way off the mark. With a mound of references to support her well stated arguments, Zoe expounds the truth while dissecting the dietary BS promulgated by industry, health agencies, doctors and dieticians. There is no doubt that the world is experiencing an obesity epidemic and it’s a shame that money not evidence based research is guiding our behavior. Anyone interested in the correct natural way to a healthy body, needs to read this book.

The Calorie Theory Debunked

I you’re like most people, you think the only thing that matters when losing weight is calories, i.e., calories in versus calories out. The calorie theory, as you will see, is a physiological impossibility.

Calorie is a shortened name for kilocalories, to reflect the simplified math. A kilocalorie contains 1,000 calories, so the Angus Burger with bacon and cheddar is actually 770,000 “calories.” Now don’t get your panties in a bunch! This simplified math also applies to exercise calorie charts. If the cardio machine you’re using says you burned 200 calories, it’s simplified for 200,000 calories. However, don’t rely on exercise equipment charts; they are grossly inaccurate.

To understand why it’s not calories that matter when getting lean, go HERE.

Are Fish Oil Supplements Good For You?


Because it has a positive effect on memory, some people think of fish as “brain food.” Others believe it’s a healthier source of protein than meat or poultry. Whatever your feelings are about fish, the omega-3 fatty acids contained in this superfood have been proven to lower fats called triglycerides and prevent heart disease and heart attacks. The omega-3 fatty acids in fish are also effective for high blood pressure, weak bones, hardening of the arteries, depression, psychosis, weight loss, memory loss, and high cholesterol.

While recommended weekly amounts of fish vary, in order to reap the benefits of fish you should consider eating at least 2-to-3 servings of fish per week. Three ounces of sardines has about 1.3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids, while a 3-ounce serving of herring or Atlantic salmon has around 2 grams of omega-3 fatty acids. Consuming 2-to-3 servings of fish each week is not always feasible. Fortunately, fish oil supplements can fill the gap.

Although doctors recommend getting the fish oil you need from fresh fish, fish oil supplements are an excellent substitute. They offer the same benefits as consuming fish because they are made from the same types of fish that offer the most benefits. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH) fish that are especially rich in omega-3 fatty acids include mackerel, tuna, salmon, sturgeon, mullet, bluefish, anchovy, sardines, herring, trout, and menhaden. They provide about 1 gram of omega-3 fatty acids in about 3.5 ounces of fish. Fish oil supplements are usually made from mackerel, herring, tuna, halibut, salmon, cod liver, whale blubber, or seal blubber.

Many fish oil supplements contain other beneficial vitamins such as vitamin E to prevent spoilage, as well as calcium, iron, or vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, C, or D. The amount of fish oil that should be taken for any given condition will be determined by a physician, but for overall health, 650 milligrams to 1 gram of fish oil per day is recommended. For specific conditions, the recommended dosage amounts are:

-Aging 1,000 mg twice a day
-Angina 2,000 mg fish oils 3 times a day
-Arrhythmia 1,000 mg 3 times a day
-Asthma 1,000 mg 3 times a day
-Cancer 3 capsules twice a day
-Crohn’s Disease 2,000 mg twice a day
-Diabetes 2,000 mg 3 times a day
-Eczema 1,000 mg 3 times a day
-Gout 1,000 mg 3 times a day
-Heart Disease Prevention 1,000 mg 3 times a day
-High Blood Pressure 1,000 mg 3 times a day
-Lupus 2,000 mg 3 times a day
-Psoriasis 2,000 mg 3 times a day
-Raynaud’s disease 1,000 mg 4 times a day
-Rheumatoid Arthritis 1000 mg (2 capsules) containing 600 mg EPA/DHA, twice a day
-Skin Health 1,000 mg a day with food
-Stroke 1,000 mg 3 times a day

Before taking fish oil or any other type of supplement, it’s best to speak with your physician to determine if the supplement is right for you and the recommended dosage amount. Consuming high doses of fish oil may increase the risk of blood in the urine, hemorrhagic (bleeding) stroke, and nosebleeds.

Barbell back squat vs smith machine squats

Many strength and muscle building experts will say, the barbell back squat is much more effective at building size and strength. They argue free weight squats are a more natural movement and require much more stabilization and balance, which increases its effectiveness. However, the Smith machine is much easier to learn, especially for beginners, which many argue is safer. I contend that it depends upon the person’s build. If one has long legs and a shorter torso, they will have a very difficult time performing a squat correctly in order to get optimum stimulation for strength or growth. In this case and in others, they would benefit greatly from performing smith machine squats. But what does science have to say? Which is better for gaining strength?

Researchers from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada compared the free weight squat to the Smith machine using electromyography (EMG). The purpose of their study was to determine which exercise was better at stimulating the prime movers and stabilizers of the legs (e.g., tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis and biceps femoris) and trunk (e.g., lumbar erector spinae and rectus abdominus). Six healthy participants performed 1 set of 8 repetitions using a weight they could lift 8 times, i.e., 8 rep maximum.

Contrary to our hypotheses, muscles of the legs (specifically the vastus medialis and biceps femoris) displayed greater EMG activity during the free weight squat compared to the Smith machine squat, whereas there were no differences between exercises for EMG activity of trunk stabilizers.

Researchers conclude that the free weight squat may be superior to the Smith machine squat for training the major muscle groups of the legs and possibly would result in greater strength development and hypertrophy of these muscle groups with long-term training.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2588-2591.

« Older posts Newer posts »