Tag: Headlines (Page 24 of 24)

Higher protein consumption yields muscle size, strength and overall health

Protein is by far the single most important supplement/nutrient you can consume in your quest for size and strength. Just the mere mention of it, however, gives most doctors and dietitians an anxiety attack. I?m sure you?ve heard much of the unfounded non-sense: ?All you need is food; supplements aren?t necessary.?, ?Too much protein can lead to kidney and liver problems.?, ?An average person can only absorb 30 ? 40 grams of protein at one sitting.?, ?Vegetable protein is just as good as meat, fish or milk protein.?, ?Eating more protein will make you fat.?, and so on and so on. There is not one reputable, reliable study to support any of these previous statements, and I cannot tell you how tired I am of dealing with this groundless garbage.

Protein repairs and maintains everything in our bodies from hormones to muscles to bones. Proteins are made up of building blocks called amino acids. There are nine essential amino acids. Essential meaning we have to ingest these for survival because our bodies cannot manufacture them. Many researchers now believe we have many other amino acids that should be considered ?conditionally essential?, because of their significance and our inefficiency at producing them. These include; glutamine, arginine, cysteine, taurine, glycine, tyrosine and proline.

If your protein intake or quality is low your body will get the essential aminos it needs from its most abundant storage system, muscle tissue. Knowing this explains why strict vegetarians, especially vegans, have a lower percentage of muscle than dairy, meat and fish eating humans and a harder time building muscle or strength in the gym. The quality of protein inherent to a vegetarian diet, especially vegans?, is dismal at best and a few studies have shown vege males have less testosterone then their meat eating counterparts; especially true if soy is part of their diet. What else should you expect consuming food inferior to human physiology?

Consciously consuming a diet low in protein has no benefits; is not based on good science, and merely a matter of ignorance. There are two things that begin with the letter ?P? that I would never cut back on; one is protein; the other ends in ?Y?. Having said that, how much protein should one consume? The International Society of Sports Nutrition, in a 2007 position statement, concluded that bodybuilders and strength/power athletes require just under a gram of protein per pound per day; consistent with my recommendation of 1 g/lb of lean body weight. However, if you train intensely, which is how you should train, empirical data suggests you may need upwards of 1.5g/lb to 2g/lb. Have no fear; this extra protein will not make you fat.

Protein, in and of itself has little to do with getting fat; protein consumption is inversely related to fat accumulation. The more protein you eat the more fat you burn as fuel. Protein consumption is directly related to thermogenesis and satiety through multiple mechanisms. It?s what you eat more than how much you eat that will determine how lean strong and muscular you will get.

A calorie is not a calorie. The assertion that macro-nutrients are all processed the same between individuals is just foolish. This is the basis for the calorie theory. A calorie of a carbohydrate does not equate to a calorie of protein when being metabolized in our bodies. Protein calories are not likely to be stored as fat as compared to carbs, because protein requires more energy to metabolize and assimilate and has numerous functions. Carbs are simply an energy source, and if not used as fuel, they are stored as fat without much effort; carbs also stimulate the release of high amounts insulin, the fat storage hormone. The higher your insulin, the more fat you’ll store. Keeping your insulin levels low is a key to becoming and staying lean. As an added bonus, protein helps to stimulate the secretion of glucagon, which helps mitigate the fat storage effects of insulin.

The Untold Story of Milk, green pastures, content cows and raw dairy products.

Ron Schmid, the author, is a naturopathic physician and farmer. A graduate of MIT, he has served as Clinical Director and Chief Medical Officer at the University Of Bridgeport College Of Naturopathic Medicine. This book is a must for anyone who is interested in whole natural foods. Milk, raw milk that is, has been referred to as nature’s most perfect food because of it numerous health benefits.

The debate of raw versus pasteurized milk is overwhelmingly over safety. We’ve been told over and over again for decades in order for milk to be safe to consume, it needs to be pasteurized. Could it be that people extolling its benefits for thousands of years had no idea how dangerous it was? According to Ron Schmid, we should have the same right to whole raw dairy products in order to reap the benefits our ancestors had.

How much disease attributed to raw milk was actually caused by raw milk? In the early 1900’s when both types, raw and pasteurized coexisted, there was significant controversy within the public health establishment. Official numbers concluded that raw milk was responsible for 10 – 40 percent of all typhoid fever. One paper concluded .221 of one percent of typhoid fever, scarlet fever and diphtheria in the entire U.S. was attributable to milk. Looks to me like more unbiased research should have been done.

One thing we do know is that chronic diseases attributed to cattle have been effectively eradicated, which obviously makes the milk produced by these cattle more safe. Another is that many other contaminants such as Salmonella and Campylobacter originate in feces. These organisms cause over 2 million cases per year in the U.S. In an 8 year period, only 700 cases were attributed to raw milk consumption. The total number of food-borne illness from all causes is now 73 million per year. Schimid points out the obvious, that milk is not uniquely hazardous and should not be treated as such. He makes a strong case for treating raw milk production and like another food. Why can we eat raw fish but not raw milk?

So how much of a problem was raw milk? No matter what the answer was, raw milk became a problem. A large push by commercial interests to influence politicians and market the virtues of pasteurized milk occurred in the early 1900’s. Unfortunately, the public’s perception of raw milk went sour and so did sales. Never mind the fact that the dairy industry was more interested in mass production and shelf life than health.

It has become very clear as with many other products in our food supply money, not health is the deciding factor. If you are at all interested in learning about the benefits of raw milk, its history and how you can get involved in making raw milk available to all, read this book, and visit www.westonaprice.com.

Q and A with Mike Furci

Q: Mike,
I was told to do dumbbell flys on an incline bench (35-40 degrees). wrong? better? worse?

A: Better? No. Different? Yes.
As the angel of the incline starts to go beyond 30% the only difference is the degree to which the deltoids are used. And while we’re on the subject of angled benches, don’t even bother with decline bench. It is a myth that it stimulates the bottom portion of the pec muscles more than the flat bench.

Also, if you’re performing different angles to change the shape of your pecs, it’s not going to happen. Your shape is genetically predetermined. Train with 100% intensity and stick with the basics.

Read the rest @ Q&A

Good Calories, Bad Calories By Gary Taubes

For decades we have been taught that fat is bad for us, carbohydrates are good, and that the key to a healthy weight is eating less and exercising more. Yet with more and more people acting on this advice, we have seen unprecedented epidemics of obesity and diabetes. With seven years of research, Taubes argues persuasively that the problem lies in refined carbohydrates (white flour, sugar, easily digested starches) ?via their dramatic effect on insulin, the hormone that regulates fat accumulation?and that the key to good health is the kind of calories we take in, not the numbers. There are good calories, and bad ones. Taubes traces how the common assumption that carbohydrates are fattening was abandoned in the 1960’s when fat and cholesterol were blamed for heart disease and then?wrongly?were seen as the causes of a host of other maladies, including cancer. He shows us how these unproven hypotheses were emphatically embraced by authorities in nutrition, public health, and clinical medicine, in spite of how well-conceived clinical trials have consistently refuted them. He also documents the dietary trials of carbohydrate-restriction, which consistently show that the fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

Good Calories Bad Calories is the end of the debate about the foods we consume and their effects on us.

Newer posts »