New GMO Wheat Strain To Have Lower GI Value; Complete and Utter Bullshit!

Read the article, if you want, or see the excerpts.

From “Scientists Reject human trials of GM wheat,” the following quotes appeared:

“The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.

…eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials…

…They believed the CSRIO’s animal feeding trials of up to 28 days were “completely inadequate” to assess such risks….

…The CSIRO’s trials were trying to determine whether the new type of GM grain had health benefits for people with conditions such as colourectal cancer and diabetes, he said….

…And you say?

What.A.Bunch.Of.Bullshit!

Inadequate testing aside, are we being serious here?

Lowering the glycemic index of wheat to improve blood glucose levels?

In who?

Diabetics?  Or the farm animals you want to feed it to?  Or both?

How many people actually eat whole wheat berries which, BY THE WAY, have a mere glycemic index of 46???  (“High” is over 70.)

So what these PR assholes are trying to tell us is that GMO wheat might, what, magically control our blood glucose levels and make us all healthier?

Don’t these guys know that it is the refining of wheat that causes its high GI value, and not the wheat berries?  It’s not the food.  It’s what you do to it.  And eating a low-GI food alone will not correct your blood glucose levels if you have no clue what other foods to avoid.

This has got to be the worst guise for a GM crop I’ve ever heard of.

Clearly this isn’t about feeding the world.  It’s just selling any stupid idea to gain control of the seed market.

I’m done!

Problems With Paleo & Low-Carb Diets

This is the Paleo article I didn’t want to write.

No wait.  I take that back.  I desperately wanted to write it, because the Paleo obsession with meat and its attack on starch drove me up the wall.  But at the end of the day, I couldn’t stay angry at the Paleo Diet.  Though the original popularization of Paleo was aggressively put forth by Dr. Loren Cordain with a meat pyramid that made my environmentalist-anti-industrial-meat-production sensibilities shudder in horror, many of the spin-offs of the Paleo movement have a much more docile message: don’t process your food.

Simple.

Oh yeah, and don’t eat refined “fast-carbs,” as I like to call them (i.e., fine flour products, sugars, syrups, extracts, alcohol).

That’s easy.  And that sounds just like every other sensible diet that works.

But what kills me is the Paleo avoidance of whole food starches like whole grains, bean, legumes, and potatoes.  What gives?

If you had given me sixty seconds to say it all, I would have sucked up a bunch of air like Ace Ventura and proceeded rapidly with something like this:

  • Carbs are essential for performance, especially for endurance.
  • Our anatomy far more resembles than of an herbivore than it does that of a carnivore.  In light of this, as omnivores, it makes more sense to lean toward the herbivore end of the food spectrum.
  • Carbs are overwhelmingly abundant in nature compared to fats and proteins, though marginalized terrains don’t offer enough of the carbs we can actually eat, and therefore lead us to rely more heavily on animal-sourced calories.
  • Carbs have a unique ability to make us fat if we eat too many of them; this would actually be an evolutionary advantage, especially with fructose consumption. Interestingly, it is nearly impossible to become fat on a high whole carb diet if fat intake is limited.
  • Carbs regulate serotonin and digestive contraction.
  • Carbs mostly break down into glucose, which is our preferred energy source; glucose metabolism is the oldest form of energy metabolism identified.
  • The Paleo movement is egocentric, especially for men; any diet that makes us feel more manly, more aggressive, and more dominant over our environment (read: top of the food chain) would clearly gain favor, as demonstrated by the Crossfit movement.
  • Crossfit, a popular and generally-looked-down-upon, dangerous and poorly-implemented fitness fad (at least from my surveys of other exercise physiologists–I’ll save this critique for another article) promotes a style and intensity of fitness appropriate to the limitations of a low-carb diet.  Metabolic conditioning workouts lasting 5-20 minutes do not draw heavily on glycogen stores.
  • Re: Crossfit and its Paleo appeal to functional training – I can’t think of any circumstance in which a paleolithic human would ever need to perform a true Olympic lift, or could actually handle such weights in their natural, awkward, unbalanced forms (logs, rocks, etc.).  Olympic lifting, at least, requires considerable and impressive technique; power lifting, also a mainstay of Crossfit, is less technical and certainly another ego-driven endeavor.  It comes as no surprise to me that meat-eating and Crossfit are happily married.
  • High protein, low-carb diets are not only dehydrating, they require much more intensive digestive and metabolic effort, and the net energy gained from such diets is poor.  While this is helpful to a sedentary fat person who wants to lose weight without working out, it is not beneficial to people who must move all day.
  • Blood samples from plant-based meals are cleaner and less cloudy than those from animal-based meals; this, too, should have implications on cardiovascular efficiency.
  • High meat consumption–especially red meat–is acidifying and overly “yang.”  This can be no better than a “yin” dominated diet of refined foods, alcohols, and stimulants.  The name of the game is balance, and Paleo is nothing more than a re-packaged Atkins diet with marginal flexibility around fruits and vegetables (as long as they don’t grow underground).
  • Intermittent fasting packaged as “replicating” paleo life is a joke.  This is nothing more than promoters establishing–through their dietary protocols–a guarantee to deplete glycogen stores (the first to go during a fast) so that you must always be in a state of gluconeogenesis (a metabolic pathway that results in the generation of glucose from non-carbohydrate sources).
  • Paleo Diet is nothing more than a fad diet book that makes impatient, lazy people happy with a scientifically proven (thanks to the attention drawn from the Atkins movement) failsafe way to burn fat.
  • The Paleo Diet’s environmental impact (if applied on a large scale) is nothing short of a suicide mission for the environment, considering our capacity for land animals.
  • The Paleo Diet completely ignores less glamorous aspects of paleolithic life: namely, consumption of insects, parasitic infection rates and their inhibition of autoimmune disorders and allergies, and the inevitable consumption of feces and dirt.
  • The Paleo Diet unfairly names protein and fat consumption as being responsible for encephalation (increase brain size) in relation to a decrease in the size of the gut.  It is far more likely that encephalation resulted from the implementation of cooking food, thereby reducing its mass, “pre-digesting” it, creating greater bio-availability of its nutrients, and increasing net energy after digestive effort.
  • The Paleo Diet claims that agrarian life led to shorter, weaker, sicker humans.  This is unfounded.  The evidence points in all directions; many agrarian peoples fared better than hunter-gatherer groups; the inverse is also true.  Ultimately, height and strength is a factor of nutrition, parasitic load, and physical activity more than it is a factor of meat consumption.
  • Meat and animal sources of protein are high in certain amino acids which are strongly linked to cancer growth (i.e., methionine).
  • The Paleo Diet denies (or at least tries to ignore) the well-established lipid hypothesis, which has established the link between cholesterol and heart disease.  Saturated fat, a mainstay in the paleo diet, is strongly associated with increased LDL (bad) cholesterol.  (Learn more about lipids in this reader-friendly article.)
  • Bad breath is usually a sign of a health imbalance.  Bad breath is a common sign of ketosis, which is a desired effect of low-carb diets.  Constipation is also strongly correlated with high protein consumption.

This was just my superficial rant.

I’ll stop here.  I won’t dig any deeper, because Plant Positive does it so much better, and I’d much rather give homage to his thorough, well-reasoned, calm discussion of scientific research he uncovered.

It you are serious about your health–I mean, if you really are on a mission to avoid all the bad diseases of affluence and live a long, energetic life–then I DARE you to take the time to watch the entire PRIMITIVE NUTRITION series by Plant Positive.

Budget about 9 1/2 hours.

Diets Containing 10-20% HFCS / Sugar don’t prevent weight loss.

This was a fun read.

A study published recently (August, 2012) in Nutrition Journal called “The effects of four hypocaloric diets containing different levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup on weight loss and related parameters” made some conclusions about sugar consumption and weight loss.

If you don’t know what “hypocaloric” means, it means “low-calorie.”  The study took different groups of overweight-to-obese people and placed them on diets containing levels of sugar (sucrose) or HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) in levels of 10-20% of their total caloric intake, and ensured that all groups achieved a caloric deficit of about 300 calories per day.  Every group, including the control group, was also put on an exercise program.

And what happened?

Short answer: everyone lost body fat.

Yippie!

I didn’t need to read the article to know that would happen.  Come on.  That’s just Personal Training 101: calories in vs. calories out–plus the bonus of thermogenetic exercise!  Every trainer is taught to sell training on that concept.  Burn more than you eat and you lose weight.

“What are you getting at?” you ask.

Well… this isn’t new research.  It’s old.  Super old.  We didn’t need a controlled double-blind study to prove it.  Trainers see it every day.  Anyone who had ever deliberately lost weight by counting calories know this.

But if you dig deeper and look at the underlying biochemistry of sugar metabolism, it still isn’t news.  No one explains it better than Dr. Robert H. Lustig.  Sucrose and HFCS are almost identical in composition, and in how they behave in the body.

To be completely fair, HFCS got a very bad reputation for a while.  People failed to see that it was pretty much the same as regular table sugar.

The scientists, in an effort to save the reputation of added sweeteners, state:

evidence regarding a potential positive association between sugar sweetened beverage consumption and obesity is inconsistent [43]. Because of the metabolic nature of overweight and obesity and the complexity of the western diet, it is unlikely that a single food or food group is the  primary cause. Randomized, clinical feeding trials have shown inconsistent results from testing the effects of added sugar on weight gain. Differences in study instruments and methods, population studied and study design may have contributed to these inconsistent findings.

In other words, science has a very tough time pinning down cause and effect in multi-variable situations.  It can’t really.  ”Causation” is exceedingly difficult to prove.  But correlations are easy to demonstrate.  Too easy, sometimes.  This is why social context, politics, policy, money, corruption, public opinion, advertising, and everything else should always be factored into the decision-making process.  Emotional intuitive (visceral) decisions shouldn’t be overlooked, either.  Yes, these things get us into trouble, but so does science.

My favorite quote these days is “100% of all products recalled by the FDA were deemed ‘safe and effective’ by the FDA.”  Science can be bullshit.  ”Good science” is much rarer in our industry-led scientific data pool.

I have absolutely no argument with what the study concluded:

“In conclusion, similar decreases in weight and indices of adiposity are observed when overweight or obese individuals are subjected to hypocaloric diets with different prescribed levels of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup.”  < (AND EXERCISE, you jerks!  You left that out!)

At the bottom, I looked for conflicts of interest.  Here’s what it said: “JM Rippe has received research funding from the Corn Refiners Association for the present study. The other study authors reported no competing interests.”

Ok… one guy.  Big deal.  And there were how many scientists?

Here they are:

Joshua Lowndes (jlowndes@rippelifestyle.com})
Diana Kawiecki (Dkawiecki@rippelifestyle.com})
Sabrina Pardo (Spardo@rippelifestyle.com})
Von Nguyen (Vnguyen@rippelifestyle.com})
Kathleen J Melanson (kmelanson@uri.edu})
Zhiping Yu (Zyu@rippelifestyle.com})
James M Rippe (Jrippe@rippelifestyle.com})

Wow!  They all WORK FOR Mr. James M. Rippe!  No conflict of interest, you say?  That’s sweet.

The CORN REFINERS ASSOCIATION paid Mr. Rippe and his associates (or employees) to design a study that teaches us nothing new at all, to make HFCS look less hazardous than it is.  I had such a giggle over this I thought I’d point it out to my readers.

HFCS and Sugar consumption at levels of 10-20% of a low-calorie (plus exercise) diet don’t inhibit weight loss when efforts are well-structured and executed.  The introduction of HFCS didn’t make us fat, they’d like us to think.  Well let me say this: the correlations are staggering.

Correlations are neat little things that help us make general decisions.  Correlations should be taken with other correlations and perhaps a dose of intuition.  This ads up to lifestyle change.

So keep in mind that the Corn Refiner’s Association is a lobbying group whose sole purpose is to make the public and politicians feel all warm and fuzzy about corn.

Corn. King corn.  The CORNerstone of farm policy.  The crop that receives the most subsidies (i.e. ‘welfare’).  The crop around which our backward policies have enabled the competitive wipe-out of other corn producers.  The crop around which so much GMO attention and research is hinging.  The crop that is quite impossibly being directed towards “sustainable energy.”

Good old corn, you complicated SOB.  I’m so glad these scientists devoted their valuable skills to the promotion of bastardized food production and processing.

6-Pack Abs Are Expensive

…unless you’re a teenage boy, or a hard-gainer.

The guy on the cover of Men’s Health Magazine is a professional model.  His job is to look good, and he doesn’t look that good by cutting back on carbs and doing crunches.

That guy probably pays money to look that good.  A lot of money.

I work in a body building gym in San Francisco.  It also just so happens to be San Francisco’s “gay gym.”  Sure, straight people are allowed in, but the member base is predominantly male.  You’re either a body builder, gay, or both.

It seems to me that body image is as important to this particular member base as it is for women!  Everywhere you look, there are tight, hard bodies pumping iron.  There’s the core group: the members who arrive every day, without fail, and work out for 2-3 hours.  Lift-pause-lift-pause-lift-pause.

…and then some “cardio:” slow, deliberate steps on the stair mill–forever.

I don’t know enough about body building to give an in-depth analysis, but what I can tell you is that these guys have the most expensive bodies of anyone I’ve ever known in a neighborhood gym.

  • $200 a month for supplements: protein powder, meal replacement, BCAAS, and more.
  • $100 a month for extra food: shakes, smoothies, and chicken.  Lots of chicken.  Insane amounts of chicken.
  • $0-$400 a month for personal training and accountability.
  • $80-$200 a month for body work, including stretching, massage, hair removal, and tanning.
  • $$$ = Time.  Tons of time exercising and eating.  Time planning meals.  Time commuting to and from the gym.  Time waiting between sets.  Having a solid body is one of the most time-intensive exercise goals of them all.  It’s like playing a sport, only your “practice” is 2-3x longer every day, and you have to invest 2-3x more time fretting about your food, and 2-3x more time recovering (every workout aims to demolish muscles; every workout aims to leave them twitching, dying, and torn at a microscopic level, in order to repair and grow bigger and stronger).  What is an hour of your time worth?

Don’t get me wrong.  I have tremendous respect for body builders.  It is a sport that requires insane precision and dedication.

But I’m weary on their behalf.  I’m weary for the time they spend fretting about whether one shoulder looks bigger than the other, about whether their kidneys are okay, whether they are coping with their body dysmorphia constructively.

Hey!  That’s just for body builders!  I don’t want to be a big massive guy.  I just want that 6-pack!

Take a ticket.  You and everyone else who doesn’t want an ounce of fat on them.  And there are two ways to get rid of every ounce of fat:

1) Just don’t eat.  Ever.  Give up food.

2) Don’t eat carbs.  Hyper-dose yourself on protein.  Stick with natural, unprocessed fats when needed, and lean protein the rest of the time.  Oh, and when you’re ready for your photo shoot, dehydrate yourself.

The body is designed to have a healthy layer of fat on it.  Your brain is wired to seek out fat and sugar.  When it ingests fat, it thinks, “Awesome!  Let’s eat more of that!”  When it finds sugar, it says, “Whoa! Cheap, delicious energy!”  When the two are combined, “Holy shit!  The is the most amazing food stuff I’ve ever encountered!”  It’s fat and carbs that the body wants.

Fat keeps the body feeling full longer than anything else, and it keeps the body running slowly.  Carbs are the body’s preferred energy source, and they allow for fast, rapid movement; they also make you feel happy.

The body does not have the same hard-wiring for protein.  Of course, protein is an essential macro-nutrient, but after you eat a sufficient amount, the brain says, “Boy, I don’t want another bite of chicken.  I’ll throw up.  I’m warning you…  No more!”

Eating massive amounts of protein is hard work.  And it’s hard work to digest as well.  You’re net energy decreases, and your organs work over-time.  It also requires a lot of water to digest.  If you aren’t getting sufficient fiber and vegetable intake, you run the short-term risk of constipation (uncomfortable) and the long-term risk of colon cancer (life threatening) and other types of cancer (if your protein is predominantly animal-sourced).

On the plus side: you will have very healthy hair and nails, and big muscles.

If you have a good ethic of regular exercise, including a variety of exercise activities, and you are fretting about your abs, know that for most people, 6-pack abs take an extreme level of dedication that may not be lifestyle friendly.

Against The Grain: Effects From Starch In The Diet

The human digestive tract is a subject of great controversy.  Those professing that humans are innately carnivorous, herbivorous, or omnivorous argue at length about the differences in cheeks, teeth, stomach acids, length of intestines, etc.  My readers already know that I lean toward the herbivorous side of things, but do agree that small amounts of animal-based foods are beneficial.  Everything in moderation, after all.

The subject of carbohydrates is also highly controversial.  Everyone agrees that sugar (a carbohydrate) is harmful in our modern amounts–especially fructose when it doesn’t come directly from a fruit.  For non-fruit-and-vegetable carbohydrates, such as beans and grains, the jury is still out.

Gluten, a protein found in high quantities in wheat, is getting the spotlight as everyone’s new favorite fad diet.  ”Gluten free” is a popular labeling tool to make consumers feel all warm as fuzzy about their purchase.  My co-worker reported not too long ago that his shampoo bottle said “gluten free.” “It’s not like I’m going to drink the stuff!” he exclaimed.  So what’s all the hype about gluten, starch, and carbs in general?  Are they good for us?  Bad for us? Do they make us fat?

Before we go into it, let’s take a look at digestion…

The digestive process can be divided into two main categories: mechanical and chemical.  Mechanical is simple: processing a food, and chewing it.  Chemical digestion, however, is a little more complicated.  It occurs in the mouth, the stomach, and the small intestine.  Digestive action is dependent on receptors that send messages to the brain, which responds sequentially by sending water, digestive enzymes (from the pancreas), enzyme precursors, coenzymes, electrolytes, acids, bases, buffer salts, hormones, and more.

Chemical digestion begins in the mouth with the secretion of amylase, an enzyme that breaks down starch.  Stomach acid, however, neautralizes amylase and effectively stops starch digestion, until it is resumed again in the small intestine (considering that carbohydrates are quick to leave the stomach, this makes sense).    Protein digestion is mechanical in the mouth (not chemical); protein is broken from long to short chains of amino acids in the stomach’s hydrochloric acid.

When starches are consumed without proteins, the acidity of the stomach approaches neutral and it will not hinder starch digestion.  When proteins are consumed without starches, stomach acid becomes strong.  But when starches and proteins are consumed at the same time (a hamburger, chicken and rice?), the body must provide two opposing digestive mediums, and it cannot.  The result is impaired or partial starch digestion and impaired or partial protein digestion.

Partial grain digestion can have adverse health effects.  ”Undigested particles of grain get stuck in the microvilli of our intestinal walls, building up with time, ultimately undermining our ability to properly digest other foods because of this interference. If the interference becomes extreme, a host of intestinal and auto-immune disorders can result including leaky gut syndrome, gluten intolerance, celiac disease, and irritable bowel syndrome,” (Kristen M., from foodrenegade.com).

Partial animal protein digestion also causes problems.  Animal proteins contain no fiber and so they pass through the digestive tract more slowly.  In the words of Dr. Douglas N. Graham, a leading spokesman for raw foods, “At one hundred degrees, in a dark, wet environment, undigested meat will go bad (rot) rather rapidly.  The partial digestion of meat that occurs when it is eaten with grains very often accounts for the putrefication so obvious when feces are expelled.”

Grains don’t putrefy.  But they do ferment, producing some ethanol (alcohol) and gas.  While there is nothing inherently harmful about gas, alcohol does not belong in the body, as it is a poison that kills cells with which it comes into contact.  Alcohol is also an addictive substance.

Chemists have also discovered over a dozen separate opiates in wheat (opium is a narcotic known for its addictive and sedating qualities), which explains the “brain fog” people often report from too much gluten.  Turning to a high energy food that leaves you feeling drugged and addicted is not advisable.

Gluten in most starchy foods is mucous-forming, leading to congestion and impaired breathing.  Due to this, as well as their digestive speed, starches (particularly wheat) are ill-advised for athletes.  Starches are recommended due to their slow release of energy, but from an athlete’s point of view (athletes demand rapid energy release), this makes little sense.  Eating a complex carbohydrate after a training sessions has the athlete waiting for hours before he obtains any benefit, and by then, the receptors for glycogen storage are less sensitive, leading to delayed glycogen repletion.

Slow digestion requires much more digestive energy, when compared to the rapid digestion of fruits, resulting in lower “net” energy.  Simple sugar is the body’s preferred source of energy: glucose and fructose.  The two behave very differently in the body.  Glucose goes right to the blood stream to fuel muscles and cells.  Fructose gets metabolized into the liver and is converted into fat (roughly 30%–an evolutionary survival strategy, I’m sure) and glycogen (the fuel reserve for the muscles and brain).

Sugar and starch (which breaks down into sugar) are highly addictive–sugar, primarily, because we are hard-wired to seek sweet foods as naturally bioavailable sources of energy; and both sugar and starch (high-glycemic starch, really… like flour products and processed grains), due to their direct influence on serotonin (the happy neurotransmitter) levels.  Once released, serotonin elevates the mood, having a powerful effect on our demeanor.  Cravings for sugary and starchy foods are typically your brain’s attempt to make you feel better.

If that weren’t enough, there are the acid-forming properties of grain that should be considered.  Grains (and beans, nuts, and seeds) contain phytic acid (phytic acid is tightly bound in the phosphorus content of grains and legumes, especially the bran portion of grain or the outer layer of legumes. It is considered the “principle storage form of phoshorus.”).  The human body is more alkaline, and a diet high in acid-forming foods leads to blood acidification, de-mineralization (and alkaline minerals are pulled from the body’s reserves in order to neutralize acid), and inflammation.

Grains only entered the human diet about 10,000 years ago–a mere blink in evolutionary time.  Traditional human societies all found ways of coping with phytic acid.  According to Kimi Harris, author of thenourishinggourmet.com, “Phytase is the enzyme generally present in phytic containing grains and legumes that neutralizes phytic acid. Sprouting, soaking and fermenting raw grains allows phytase to become activated, which then reduces the phytic acid. We as humans do produce some phytase in our bodies, which explains why some can eat a high, unsoaked whole grain diet without negative impact. Since lactobacilli and other digestive microflora can also produce phytase, those of us with a robust intestinal health will have a much easier time digesting grains, soaked or unsoaked.  But regardless, all of us can benefit from less phytic acid in our grains.”

  • Sprouting — This is when the whole grain kernel is sprouted.
  • Soaking — This is when the already milled whole grain flour is soaked in an acidic medium like buttermilk, whey, yogurt, lemon juice, or vinegar before being cooked.
  • Fermenting — This is when the grain is naturally fermented with wild yeast, as is the case with all sourdough breads.

More recently, due to the Industrial Revolution and the hyper-mechanization of grain milling, the advent of processing techniques to increase shelf life, the saturation of refined carbohydrate products into supermarkets, and the subsidization of grain production, never have grains been so negatively influential in the human diet.  We have abandoned most of our traditional processing methods.

So what to do?  Should we stop eating grain?

No.  But consider the following tips:

1) Grain should not dominate the diet.  The majority of carbohydrates should be sourced some whole fruits and vegetables.  Too often we see individuals who consume scarce amounts of fresh produce and subsist off cheap, easy-to-eat grain products.  Grain should be an accompaniment, not a centerpiece of the dinner plate.

2) Avoid as much as possible (consider the true social impact of eschewing all of it) hyper-processed grain products like most store-bought bread, cakes, cookies, pastas, pita chips, crackers, pancakes, etc.

3) Eat a variety of whole grains, and consider soaking, sprouting, or fermenting them before consumption if you suspect you have impaired digestion.

4) Abandon the old starch-and-protein paradigm, to improve digestion.  Whole grains are a great morning recommendation, as they do give slow-releasing energy for daily activity and concentration.  They are fiber-rich and increase satiety.  Save your protein for later in the day, especially after your training sessions, in order to give your body the building blocks it needs when it shifts into repair mode (rest and sleep); or, eat protein separately as a small snack.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers