Thursday, August 13, 2009
Mike T Nelson is getting married. So there's a Master Trainer Sale. Hurry on In
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Opportunity for discounted rate and sweet bonuses to consult with 
a Z-Health Master Trainer (and possibly Jedi Knight). All because said Master Trainer is getting married.
Where i grew up, a regular part of the getting married experience was having a Social to help raise dough for the wedding. Folks bought tickets effectively to go to a dance with a liquor license. It was a way to get strangers to help pay your expenses by providing a hall, some music and cheap booze. And sometimes have great food too. Around midnight. And if you can find a reference to explain this concept on google, you'll know where i grew up :)
Anyway, turns out Mike T. Nelson, PhD Kinesiolgy Candidate (that means he's just about done and abd) RKC and Z-Health Master Trainer is doing Something Else to help raise funds for his Big Day. He's making it cheaper to avail yourself of his services.
Why would someone want to call Mike T Nelson for a Consult? How good is that?
Well, i'd like to show you some of Mikes 3minute Wonders first
The first one is his clever use of Z-Health arm drills to fix some hip flexor mobility issues.
The next one is with respect to breaking a lift limit with a deadlift
Before:
After Z-Health
Fawn is an experienced RKC trainer herself, and one heck of a strong gal, and she's make the Mike Call to get her deadlift closer to where she wants it to be.
And well the third is a couple of the Minutes with Mike we've done here on nutrition [min 1 | min 2].
Plainly you can see the guy knows his stuff, can cut to the chase, and get you moving well, breaking through plateaus.
Ya well that's visual; this is a phone call?
There's lots of ways to do a remote consult. Mike will work with you to connect with your technology - phone, email, vid whatever!
Indeed, once you say you're interested, Mike has specific protocols so you can test yourselves based off of biofeedback (range of motion, heart rate, and so on) or you can send a video ahead of time or later - options, ya got options.
Also, to make this wedding pitch even more attractive, Mike is offering three bonuses for the first ten folks who sign up.
So tell me again why i want to talk with Mike?
Here are some of the examples of Mike's recent remote consults:
Full disclosure: Mike has not paid me for this and i don't get kick backs. I said i'd be happy to tell some folks about this op because (a) obviously i think mike's good at what he does (hence the minutes with Mike series) (b) save 20bucks to get with a Master Trainer and (c) he's a nice guy and i'd like him to have a debt free wedding so maybe some day he'll actually finish his PhD - one less thing to worry about (wedding debt; not the PhD).
With a discounted session and lots of juicy little freebies to boot it's just like it's midnight coldcuts time at the social!
special offer details at extremehumanperformance
Bon Voyage, Mike Tweet Follow @begin2dig
a Z-Health Master Trainer (and possibly Jedi Knight). All because said Master Trainer is getting married.Where i grew up, a regular part of the getting married experience was having a Social to help raise dough for the wedding. Folks bought tickets effectively to go to a dance with a liquor license. It was a way to get strangers to help pay your expenses by providing a hall, some music and cheap booze. And sometimes have great food too. Around midnight. And if you can find a reference to explain this concept on google, you'll know where i grew up :)
Anyway, turns out Mike T. Nelson, PhD Kinesiolgy Candidate (that means he's just about done and abd) RKC and Z-Health Master Trainer is doing Something Else to help raise funds for his Big Day. He's making it cheaper to avail yourself of his services.
Why would someone want to call Mike T Nelson for a Consult? How good is that?
Well, i'd like to show you some of Mikes 3minute Wonders first
The first one is his clever use of Z-Health arm drills to fix some hip flexor mobility issues.
The next one is with respect to breaking a lift limit with a deadlift
Before:
After Z-Health
Fawn is an experienced RKC trainer herself, and one heck of a strong gal, and she's make the Mike Call to get her deadlift closer to where she wants it to be.
And well the third is a couple of the Minutes with Mike we've done here on nutrition [min 1 | min 2].
Plainly you can see the guy knows his stuff, can cut to the chase, and get you moving well, breaking through plateaus.
Ya well that's visual; this is a phone call?
There's lots of ways to do a remote consult. Mike will work with you to connect with your technology - phone, email, vid whatever!
Indeed, once you say you're interested, Mike has specific protocols so you can test yourselves based off of biofeedback (range of motion, heart rate, and so on) or you can send a video ahead of time or later - options, ya got options.
Also, to make this wedding pitch even more attractive, Mike is offering three bonuses for the first ten folks who sign up.
Premier Bonus #1: Jason Rhymer's ╲Exercise Buffet ebook. Jason walks you through some unique exercises to put together your own killer training plan $34.95 value when purchased from Jason directly - included
Now the thing about this ebook is that it provides some interesting variants on classic moves - move variants that intriguingly are exactly the kind of stuff that come up in the next bonus:
Premier Bonus #2: Hypertrophy Roundtable with Brett Jones, Mike Robertson, Frankie Faires and Geoff Neupert Combined, these fitness experts have at least 40 years experience, amazing education and practical experience up the wazoo. If you want to know how to add muscle size and strength, this is a must have. This has NEVER been released before or published anywhere! I was able to extract some incredible information from them.
Speaking for myself, this was a pleasure to read. These guys are experienced olympic and powerlifting athletes and z health trainers to boot. First off they are all singing from the same song sheet of keeping it real and simple. The basics are no surprise; the surprise may be the absolute agreement among the four. Another delight is the nuances on those basics coming from each coach's particular passion within their skills. They complement each other in this read beautifully. Hard work and right actions - inescapable, but tractable. You will learn something new that you can use right away - or choose upfront if this is the path for you.
Premier Bonus #3: Special Z-Health Report from Mike T. Nelson, MS, PhD Candidate: This inside look at exclusive shoulder and hip mobility Z-Health drills will show you how to improve your movement and get pain free quickly. Mike reveals the essential tips and main points you MUST follow when creating a balance and releasing tension. In this report, you will also learn how the shoulders and hip are connected and why this is important for improving your strength and fluidity of movement.
Let me say the above a different way. One of the coolest things in Z-Health is the practice of addressing issues by going after what's termed the opposing joint. Here, the opposing joints focused on in the report are the two critical zones: hip and shoulder. This stuff is only currently covered in the Z-Health R-Phase certification. If you haven't done Z-Health before, you'll also get the how-to's on key hip and shoulder drills from R-Phase - just for talking to Mike.
So tell me again why i want to talk with Mike?
Here are some of the examples of Mike's recent remote consults:
- --Protein/carb timing, when, how much, why, etc
- ---ergogenics--which ones work, which are crap
- --Program design for work capacity for a strong "women" competitor
- --KB Snatch eval (via video)
- If you have a shoulder or hip flexor issue that's been bothering you, or any movement related irritant (mine was lower back stuff that i connected with Mike about)
- If you've hit a plateau in a lift and you just can't seem to crack it
- If someone's told you you have a "tight" anything and think that's what's holding you back
- if you're wondering about how to hook up nutrition with your performance
- any topic related to your human performance, by all means, Mike can help.
Full disclosure: Mike has not paid me for this and i don't get kick backs. I said i'd be happy to tell some folks about this op because (a) obviously i think mike's good at what he does (hence the minutes with Mike series) (b) save 20bucks to get with a Master Trainer and (c) he's a nice guy and i'd like him to have a debt free wedding so maybe some day he'll actually finish his PhD - one less thing to worry about (wedding debt; not the PhD).
With a discounted session and lots of juicy little freebies to boot it's just like it's midnight coldcuts time at the social!
special offer details at extremehumanperformance
Bon Voyage, Mike Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
What if we were no longer what we define ourselves by?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
dear b2d readers - forgive this jag.
was just meta reflecting on this blog a bit and the work i do, and what this blog is largely about, and how i tend to see myself when i think about myself,
and i had one of those Dark Tea Time Moments of the Soul.
What if what we think of as us was no longer ours?
What if we define ourselves as strong, and we can no longer lift?
What if we define ourselves as clever, and we lose our minds?
What if we define ourselves as musicians, and go deaf?
What if we define ourselves as lean, and we get fat?
What if we define ourselves as loving, and we raise a hand, turn away, ignore?
What if we define ourselves as brave, and we take the easy path?
What if we define ourselves as decent and good, but no longer listen?
Is there some part of ourselves that is beyond or other than what we do or present? That others would know us by if the things by which we think we are ourselves were no longer there?
my hands are quiet
i don't know.
But i hope no matter how you define yourself that it feels a good place to be and you have a lot of love coming back at you for the You beyond or other than the Do of You. if that doesn't sound (too) flakey.
likely a piece on chocolate milk and recovery, next,
best
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
was just meta reflecting on this blog a bit and the work i do, and what this blog is largely about, and how i tend to see myself when i think about myself,
and i had one of those Dark Tea Time Moments of the Soul.
What if what we think of as us was no longer ours?
What if we define ourselves as strong, and we can no longer lift?
What if we define ourselves as clever, and we lose our minds?
What if we define ourselves as musicians, and go deaf?
What if we define ourselves as lean, and we get fat?
What if we define ourselves as loving, and we raise a hand, turn away, ignore?
What if we define ourselves as brave, and we take the easy path?
What if we define ourselves as decent and good, but no longer listen?
Is there some part of ourselves that is beyond or other than what we do or present? That others would know us by if the things by which we think we are ourselves were no longer there?
my hands are quiet
i don't know.
But i hope no matter how you define yourself that it feels a good place to be and you have a lot of love coming back at you for the You beyond or other than the Do of You. if that doesn't sound (too) flakey.
likely a piece on chocolate milk and recovery, next,
best
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Monday, August 10, 2009
We're Happy happy Happy With our Fat - or maybe not
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
We are amazing. We adapt to anything. Including our own states when 
they are less than our once-cherished ideals. We settle. We get on. We make the best of. Or so it seems. It seems that since 1987, at least white folks' idea of an ideal weight has increased - higher BMI is ok'er. And with that, it seems, a desire to move or adjust diet has gone down. Oh dear.
A new study - indeed it's published in the future because its date is Aug 15, 2009 and it's not quite that date yet - looks at exactly the steady progress of how heavier people have become happier with heavier selves. This is pretty amazing on the one hand considering how much we're inundated with images of the Super Lean, but then perhaps not considering the reality of the Super Size (and it's another kick at set point theory being set, ha!)
In the following, therefore, i'd like to review that study and its focus pretty much on concerns around food and movement that come out of the data, and top it off with some work that considers a focus on work other than diet and movement may be in order.
And so to begin, here's the abstract of our perception changing study.
First, it's cool to have a study say we're not exactly sure yet what to make of these finding, but something's going on. Second, the findings themselves are pretty interesting - especially considering the main sample is from three times more men than women, and this is unusual in the obesity area where folks tend to focus more on women.
So what's going on here?
The authors are motivated by a simple, intriguing question: since BMI has gone (and continues it seems to go) up, and so many people (65% in the US) are now classed as overweight, has the perception of what is a "normal" weight changed? There are some interesting tensions in that question: the research that shows obese individuals perceive higher body weight as healthy and attractive - that's one direction - and the media's still constant drive towards the other extreme with associated research showing resulting body dissatisfaction - that's the other. So where are we at, culturally, with perceptions of what's normal?
Cool question
Approach
So the researchers hit the Cooper Clinic and looked at the data from 1987 to 2001 as part of the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study. Only folks with at least 15 measures over that period were considered. It's amazing to find a data set that's relatively unchanged in the data gathering model for such a period. There are rich questions asked about health history here.
One of the key questions in the intake form is about self-reported ideal weight.
Finding: who's "ideal weight" view goes up? What the data showed is that "the slope of the rise in ideal body weight between 1987 and 2001 was greatest in obese and young adults (0.18 kg/year to 0.25 kg/year) and the smallest in older adults (–0.07 kg/year to 0.01 kg/year)."
Who's satisfied with their weight - over time? "Only 2% of obese men and one obese woman reported being satisfied with their weight. BMI, examination year, and ideal weight were all independent predictors of weight satisfaction...In the same model, with each passing examination year, weight satisfaction was 3%–4% higher (P <0.01)...Higher cardiorespiratory fitness also was independently associated with greater weight satisfaction (men: OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.18, 1.29; women: OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.48) and less intention to lose weight (men: OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.89; women: OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.97; Ptrend <>"
What did folks more satisfied with weight do? The folks more satisfied with their weights had lower BMI's and lower percentages of body fat, but they also MOVED.
Intention to change. Almost everyone (93% men and 95% women) of the group who said they were dissatisfied with their weight said they planned to change their diet. About the same ratio (95%/94%) of all men and women said they planned to "change their stamina or physical condition)". 53%/63% of the whole group said they planned to change both. Folks who were happy with their weight had less intention to change their diet or workouts (duh?)
Lifetime: the magic 100. Men who'd lost more than 100 pounds over their lifetime had a lot of stuff going on than the satisfied with their weight.
What's it all mean?
here's where the researchers reflect on their findings, and what they find, overall, is that ideal reported weight has gone up (at least in this very large group) overall, but "particularly among obese individuals."
There main concerns is that younger overweight/obese folks are progressively happier, it seems with higher body weights (going up .3kg/year). Here's the crucial thing: higher body weight correlating with lower ratings of body weight dissatisfaction was also coupled with less intention to move, less consumption of fruit and veg, but also ironically more caloric restriction cycles with higher total pounds of fat lost (but not kept off) over a life time.
In other words, a lot of dieting cycles without super food choices that don't translate into persistent weight loss.
What the researchers are unsure of, is how to leverage these findings strategically for effective change. Is weight disatisfaction a good thing to help motivate change? How would that work, though, without a lot of readily available support? - Good questions.
These resaerchers are also concerned that of those disatisfied in weight who express an interest to change their diet don't also express an interest to change their activities - they feat that without getting physical activity into the mix, weight loss doesn't stick. I'm not so sure about that but am keen to check out the papers they cite to support that concern. If you wish to do so, too, here are the sources:
Today indeed in Science Daily, there's another cry to add to the above that the sedentary are setting themselves up for huge health collisions. Move it Move It. But as i'll come to below, the question may be if movement is such a great thing, why aren't folks doing it, hmm? Quit yelling at doctors to tell patients to move. Where's the support? This is sort of what the speaker, Steven Blair, is quoted as saying, too.
Limitations
The authors acknowledge that while the data they have is a super sample size looking at the same folks over a considerable amount of time (a) it's 95% white folks and (b) the measures are limited. For instance diet and movement were only assesed by single points like fruit and veg consumption and walking/jogging distance. And of course, these data are all self-reported, not objectively measured.
But where self-reporting might normally be an issue in a study if that's the sole measure, it's intriguing the authors highlight it, since after all, this study is about self-perception - and it's intriguing to see how one self-reports practice against attitude - regardless of objective accuracy - but maybe that's just me. And just in this case.
humans on the spaceship in Wall-E are sedentary blimps (above)
who see themselves as svelt (below)
Bottom Line
People (at least in the ACL study) are happier being heavier. That their ideal weights have increased across the board. Higher BMI's are ok. And this mayn't be ok. Let me quote the authors:
While these authors' work shows a thought-provoking trend around getting comfy with being heavier and more sedentary, work by Susan Roberts from Tufts, and her colleagues, has looked more at some of the *why's* behind the effect that gets folks overweight in the first place: eating more.
The authors of the current study touch briefly on the success of various approaches that look less at calories and more at behaviour/attitude around food, and say more work needs to be done to see how successful such non-calorie focused approaches are, and that may be true.
But when looking at Roberts' work, it's hard to deny what her colleague Nicolas Hayes and she found in looking at a particular age group of gals
In other words, what work Roberts' has been doing for the past while keeps showing is the strong correlation between eating as a response to particular situations and stressors. Consequently, one might say that looking at diet and activity alone (as the ACL study review above about ideal weight perception) is likely not going to be a solution for meaningful and lasting change towards health and healthy body weight.
Consider that the self-reporting in the ACL shows that the folks most dissatisfied with their own weight are those most likely to be dieting and have lost more weight overall than others more satisfied. Roberts' and Colleagues work tends to suggest that unpacking what's going on there and helping folks with those habitual responses may be key. She is certainly not alone in this view, but her work puts numbers and facts on this approach: dealing with habits is tough, but critical for health and well being. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
they are less than our once-cherished ideals. We settle. We get on. We make the best of. Or so it seems. It seems that since 1987, at least white folks' idea of an ideal weight has increased - higher BMI is ok'er. And with that, it seems, a desire to move or adjust diet has gone down. Oh dear.A new study - indeed it's published in the future because its date is Aug 15, 2009 and it's not quite that date yet - looks at exactly the steady progress of how heavier people have become happier with heavier selves. This is pretty amazing on the one hand considering how much we're inundated with images of the Super Lean, but then perhaps not considering the reality of the Super Size (and it's another kick at set point theory being set, ha!)
In the following, therefore, i'd like to review that study and its focus pretty much on concerns around food and movement that come out of the data, and top it off with some work that considers a focus on work other than diet and movement may be in order.
And so to begin, here's the abstract of our perception changing study.
Ideal weight and weight satisfaction: association with health practices.
York University, Toronto, Canada. jennkuk@yorku.ca
Evidence suggests that individuals have become more tolerant of higher body weights over time. To investigate this issue further, the authors examined cross-sectional associations among ideal weight, examination year, and obesity as well as the association of ideal weight and body weight satisfaction with health practices among 15,221 men and 4,126 women in the United States. Participants in 1987 reported higher ideal weights than participants in 2001, an effect particularly pronounced from 1987 to 2001 for younger and obese men (85.5 kg to 94.9 kg) and women (62.2 kg to 70.5 kg). For a given body mass index, higher ideal body weights were associated with greater weight satisfaction but lower intentions to lose weight. Body weight satisfaction was subsequently associated with greater walking/jogging, better diet, and lower lifetime weight loss but with less intention to change physical activity and diet or lose weight (P < style="font-weight: bold;">Although the health implications of these findings are somewhat unclear, increased weight satisfaction, in conjunction with increases in societal overweight/obesity, may result in decreased motivation to lose weight and/or adopt healthier lifestyle behaviors.
First, it's cool to have a study say we're not exactly sure yet what to make of these finding, but something's going on. Second, the findings themselves are pretty interesting - especially considering the main sample is from three times more men than women, and this is unusual in the obesity area where folks tend to focus more on women.
So what's going on here?
The authors are motivated by a simple, intriguing question: since BMI has gone (and continues it seems to go) up, and so many people (65% in the US) are now classed as overweight, has the perception of what is a "normal" weight changed? There are some interesting tensions in that question: the research that shows obese individuals perceive higher body weight as healthy and attractive - that's one direction - and the media's still constant drive towards the other extreme with associated research showing resulting body dissatisfaction - that's the other. So where are we at, culturally, with perceptions of what's normal?
Cool question
Approach
So the researchers hit the Cooper Clinic and looked at the data from 1987 to 2001 as part of the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study. Only folks with at least 15 measures over that period were considered. It's amazing to find a data set that's relatively unchanged in the data gathering model for such a period. There are rich questions asked about health history here.
One of the key questions in the intake form is about self-reported ideal weight.
Finding: who's "ideal weight" view goes up? What the data showed is that "the slope of the rise in ideal body weight between 1987 and 2001 was greatest in obese and young adults (0.18 kg/year to 0.25 kg/year) and the smallest in older adults (–0.07 kg/year to 0.01 kg/year)."
Who's satisfied with their weight - over time? "Only 2% of obese men and one obese woman reported being satisfied with their weight. BMI, examination year, and ideal weight were all independent predictors of weight satisfaction...In the same model, with each passing examination year, weight satisfaction was 3%–4% higher (P <0.01)...Higher cardiorespiratory fitness also was independently associated with greater weight satisfaction (men: OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.18, 1.29; women: OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.48) and less intention to lose weight (men: OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.89; women: OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.97; Ptrend <>"
What did folks more satisfied with weight do? The folks more satisfied with their weights had lower BMI's and lower percentages of body fat, but they also MOVED.
Weight satisfaction was also associated with higher levels of walking/jogging per week, higher cardiorespiratory fitness, less restrained eating, consumption of more fruits and vegetables, and higher self-rated health compared with those reporting body weight dissatisfaction (all PWhat seems interesting to me here is that there is not a lot of difference - really - in the amount moved per week between the satisfied and the dissatisfied groups. 18.9km per week vs 15.9? 3km (about two miles) separating BMI levels of happiness and health? Food for thought there. And speaking of food for thought.0.01). Body weight satisfaction was associated with greater distance walked/jogged per week compared with those reporting body weight dissatisfaction, whereas BMI category was negatively associated with distance walked/jogged per week (men—overweight or obese: 18.9 km/week vs. 15.8 km/week, lean: 20.8 km/week vs. 18.6 km/week; women—overweight or obese: 14.4 km/week vs. 14.3 km/week, lean: 18.2 km/week vs. 17.3 km/week, respectively) after adjustment for age, ethnicity, and smoking for both men and women (P < 0.001).
For men, there was a significant interaction between BMI category and body satisfaction on fruit and vegetable consumption such that only the overweight or obese men dissatisfied with their body weight consumed significantly fewer fruits and vegetables (overweight or obese: 14.9 vs. 13.6 per week; lean: 15.1 vs. 15.1 per week; P = 0.01). For women, only a positive main effect of body weight satisfaction was observed (overweight or obese: 17.8 vs. 15.7 per week; lean: 17.4 vs. 15.6 per week; P < 0.001).So guys who are overweight to obese and dissatisfied with their bodyweight also tend not to eat their veggies. Hmm. Interesting habit.
Intention to change. Almost everyone (93% men and 95% women) of the group who said they were dissatisfied with their weight said they planned to change their diet. About the same ratio (95%/94%) of all men and women said they planned to "change their stamina or physical condition)". 53%/63% of the whole group said they planned to change both. Folks who were happy with their weight had less intention to change their diet or workouts (duh?)
Lifetime: the magic 100. Men who'd lost more than 100 pounds over their lifetime had a lot of stuff going on than the satisfied with their weight.
- higher BMI
- higher ideal weight
- more likely to report current dieting
- subtly lower cardiovascular fitness
What's it all mean?
here's where the researchers reflect on their findings, and what they find, overall, is that ideal reported weight has gone up (at least in this very large group) overall, but "particularly among obese individuals."
There main concerns is that younger overweight/obese folks are progressively happier, it seems with higher body weights (going up .3kg/year). Here's the crucial thing: higher body weight correlating with lower ratings of body weight dissatisfaction was also coupled with less intention to move, less consumption of fruit and veg, but also ironically more caloric restriction cycles with higher total pounds of fat lost (but not kept off) over a life time.
In other words, a lot of dieting cycles without super food choices that don't translate into persistent weight loss.
What the researchers are unsure of, is how to leverage these findings strategically for effective change. Is weight disatisfaction a good thing to help motivate change? How would that work, though, without a lot of readily available support? - Good questions.
These resaerchers are also concerned that of those disatisfied in weight who express an interest to change their diet don't also express an interest to change their activities - they feat that without getting physical activity into the mix, weight loss doesn't stick. I'm not so sure about that but am keen to check out the papers they cite to support that concern. If you wish to do so, too, here are the sources:
- Diaz VA, Mainous AG III, Everett CJ. The association between weight fluctuation and mortality: results from a population-based cohort study. J Community Health (2005) 30(3):153–165.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Nguyen ND, Center JR, Eisman JA, et al. Bone loss, weight loss, and weight fluctuation predict mortality risk in elderly men and women. J Bone Miner Res. (2007) 22(8):1147–1154.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Rzehak P, Meisinger C, Woelke G, et al. Weight change, weight cycling and mortality in the ERFORT Male Cohort Study. Eur J Epidemiol (2007) 22(10):665–673.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Provencher V, Bégin C, Tremblay A, et al. Short-term effects of a "health-at-every-size" approach on eating behaviors and appetite ratings. Obesity (Silver Spring) (2007) 15(4):957–966.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Saris WH, Blair SN, van Baak MA, et al. How much physical activity is enough to prevent unhealthy weight gain? Outcome of the IASO 1st Stock Conference and consensus statement. Obes Rev. (2003) 4(2):101–114.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Martins C, Robertson MD, Morgan LM. Effects of exercise and restrained eating behaviour on appetite control. Proc Nutr Soc. (2008) 67(1):28–41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Today indeed in Science Daily, there's another cry to add to the above that the sedentary are setting themselves up for huge health collisions. Move it Move It. But as i'll come to below, the question may be if movement is such a great thing, why aren't folks doing it, hmm? Quit yelling at doctors to tell patients to move. Where's the support? This is sort of what the speaker, Steven Blair, is quoted as saying, too.
We need numerous changes to promote more physical activity for all, including public policies, changes in the health care system, promoting activity in educational settings and worksites, and social and physical environmental changes. We need more communities where people feel comfortable walking. I believe psychologists can help develop better lifestyle change interventions to help people be more active via the Internet and other technological methods.but i digress...
Limitations
The authors acknowledge that while the data they have is a super sample size looking at the same folks over a considerable amount of time (a) it's 95% white folks and (b) the measures are limited. For instance diet and movement were only assesed by single points like fruit and veg consumption and walking/jogging distance. And of course, these data are all self-reported, not objectively measured.
But where self-reporting might normally be an issue in a study if that's the sole measure, it's intriguing the authors highlight it, since after all, this study is about self-perception - and it's intriguing to see how one self-reports practice against attitude - regardless of objective accuracy - but maybe that's just me. And just in this case.
humans on the spaceship in Wall-E are sedentary blimps (above) who see themselves as svelt (below)
Bottom Line
People (at least in the ACL study) are happier being heavier. That their ideal weights have increased across the board. Higher BMI's are ok. And this mayn't be ok. Let me quote the authors:
Another Line
In conclusion, we have provided evidence that, in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study group, there have been secular increases in ideal weight perception, which relate to increased body satisfaction for a given BMI. Body weight satisfaction is associated with lower intentions to change weight, physical activity/stamina, or diet. In combination with the known consequences of obesity, failure to change lifestyle factors may further compound future health problems.
While these authors' work shows a thought-provoking trend around getting comfy with being heavier and more sedentary, work by Susan Roberts from Tufts, and her colleagues, has looked more at some of the *why's* behind the effect that gets folks overweight in the first place: eating more.
The authors of the current study touch briefly on the success of various approaches that look less at calories and more at behaviour/attitude around food, and say more work needs to be done to see how successful such non-calorie focused approaches are, and that may be true.
But when looking at Roberts' work, it's hard to deny what her colleague Nicolas Hayes and she found in looking at a particular age group of gals
Aspects of eating behaviors "disinhibition" and "restraint" are related to weight gain and BMI in women.
D.W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA. NPHays@uams.edu
OBJECTIVE: The causes of adult weight gain leading to obesity are uncertain. We examined the association of adult weight gain and obesity with subscales of eating behavior characteristics in older women.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Current height and weight, eating behavior subscales (disinhibition subscales-habitual, situational, and emotional; restraint subscales-flexible and rigid; hunger subscales-internal and external) as assessed using the Eating Inventory (EI), and self-reported body weight at six prior age intervals were reported by 535 women aged 55-65 years. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationships between EI subscale scores and weight change from the age interval of 30-39 to 55-60 years and current BMI.
RESULTS: The strongest correlate of weight gain over 20 years was susceptibility to overeating in response to everyday cues within the environment (habitual disinhibition; partial correlation coefficient (r) = 0.25, P < r =" 0.17,"> and susceptibility to overeating in response to specific situations such as social occasions (situational disinhibition) was not associated with weight gain. Flexible control of dietary restraint attenuated the influence of habitual disinhibition in particular on weight gain and BMI, and was less effective in attenuating associations of emotional or situational disinhibition.
DISCUSSION: Lifestyle modification programs for prevention and treatment of adult-onset obesity currently focus on reducing situational and emotional overeating; the results of this study suggest that a stronger emphasis on strategies that target habitual overeating may be warranted.
In other words, what work Roberts' has been doing for the past while keeps showing is the strong correlation between eating as a response to particular situations and stressors. Consequently, one might say that looking at diet and activity alone (as the ACL study review above about ideal weight perception) is likely not going to be a solution for meaningful and lasting change towards health and healthy body weight.
Consider that the self-reporting in the ACL shows that the folks most dissatisfied with their own weight are those most likely to be dieting and have lost more weight overall than others more satisfied. Roberts' and Colleagues work tends to suggest that unpacking what's going on there and helping folks with those habitual responses may be key. She is certainly not alone in this view, but her work puts numbers and facts on this approach: dealing with habits is tough, but critical for health and well being. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Friday, August 7, 2009
Respect the Fat: An overview of Fat Burning Goodness
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
We hear it all the time: fat is bad; we have too much; we need to shed the fat. Yes sure, leaner is better for health. But that doesn't mean either that fat is bad or that ingesting the right kinds of fats (yup, there are kinds) is bad. Quite the opposite.
In fact, fat is our biggest and one might argue most versatile sources of fuel. It also makes up the shell of every cell in our body, and is part of a host of other essential for life processes that happen inside us. But the focus of this post is on how fat contributes to providing us with the fuel we need and use in every breath we take.
Fat is amazing. It's the most abundant fuel source in the
body.
Every time we breath we're using fat to help take care of the energy needs of our bodies, whether thats muscular activity of lifting something, or the chemical activity of digesting something, or the transport activity of moving something from one cell to another.
In each of these cases, Fat contributes the lion's share of the energy to our physical processes. We couldn't live without it: adipose tissue affords protection to our body's various systems as well as immediate fuel storage sources; the membranes of cells are part fat and enable standard operations of the heart and lungs to get nutrients throughout our systems. And, it's also an energy reserve. Like having a bunch of batteries in the cupboard ready for when the smoke alarm or flashlight fails. Swap out the old cells put in the new.
Despite these great capacities, most of us want to shed some extra weight. Indeed, we know that it's our incredible ability to store fuel resources that works to our socio-cultural detriment in a society where fuel-as-food is readily and cheaply abundant. We put on extra weight. We carry reserves in excess of what we need given the ready abundance of fuel around us. And there are some pretty nasty health costs to carrying around that much surplus fuel, too. Type II diebetes, metabolic syndrome, additional load on joints, etc.
And so we look for ways to burn it off.
The goal of this article is to take a 50thousand foot view (ie really simplified view) at part of what's going on with that burn off, and why therefore fat is our super fuel and seemingly super nemesis.
What i mean by simplified view? Here's a map of the metabolic process:
A metabolic map, indicating the reactions of intermediary metabolism and the enzymes that catalyze them. Over 500 different chemical intermediates, or metabolites, and a greater number of enzymes are represented here. ((c) 1997 20th edition, designed by and courtesy of D. E. Nicholson, University of Leeds , U. K., and the Sigma Chemical Co. )
We're considering a wee fraction of this entire process, and only part of what's going on as illustrated below (source):
The three stages of catabolism. Stage I: Proteins, polysaccharides, and lipids are broken down into their component building blocks, which are relatively few in number. Stage II: The various building blocks are degraded into the common product, the acetyl groups of acetyl-CoA. Stage III: Catabolism converges to three principal end products: water, carbon dioxide, and ammonia
These maps help to get that this is complex cool stuff. we are amazing. The above maps let us ask the question - how do we get the good stuff out of fat to use? and to appreciate how a little bit of fat goes a really really long way. To get to that, we need to consider what energy from fat means. And that means taking a look at ATP, the primal fuel block (what fat and other nutrients in large part become), and also situating fat a bit relative to other nutrients like carbs and protein in this fuel-making process (nothing shines out like a comparison). We'll take a wee look at what can increase the fat burn in cells (mitochondria) and finally, where this should lead: why fat, while it burns all the time, is still a challenge to shed.
Energy from Fat
Anyone who's spent time counting calories likely knows that the standard wisdom about calories is that carbs are 4kcal per gram and so is protein. Fat however is 9kcal per gram. Remember a calorie is a measurement of energy: the amount of energy to raise 1 g of water 1 degree.
Right from the outset, it looks like fat has the advantage in providing us with more energy than either carbs or protein. Looks like about twice as much. That's true. But what is really cool about fat is that it gives us more useable fuel for the body to do its lifting, chemical processing and transporting than we get from protein or carbs, and that's in terms of it's translation from a fat to ATP.
ATP
ATP or adenosine triphosphate. ATP is what powers all the energy in cells.
We hear a lot about ATP in the body building world and general strength training: in big lifts the point of that long recovery is to replenish phosphocreatine stores that can make a little bit of ATP available without the presence of oxygen - like when we hold our breath, or exhale out, to do that big dead lift, or keep our head under water for that 50m sprint to the end of the pool. 1 molecule of phosophocreatine when it's broken down into ATP yields only a few ATP molecules. That's not a lot for intense work, but it can re-synthesize quickly for short 30sec bursts.
But what about for efforts that last longer than 30secs? Then we start getting into carb and fat world. Protein is used for very little energy - 2-5% - it has other jobs. If no other source of fuel is available for energy - no carbs say after a workout and you use protein - a chunk of that protein will be used as fuel - transformed into carb-like fuel for replenishing energy stores. And when folks take on more protein than can be used for any current physical requirements, protein will be translated into fat.
Digression on Protein and Starvation
Here's the other thing about Protein as fuel: some folks find that when they're working out and dieting at the same time, it seems their fat loss stalls out. That's a well-studied phenomena that if the body has fat for fuel, and it feels like it's being starved (only recieving 50% or more of the needed cals for maintenance), it will horde fat for as long as possible, and will start to catabolize (break down) other sources in our bodies for fuel. Protein from muscle is a goody.
So often folks starting an exercise program after they've started dieting need to INCREASE their calories a bit to off set starvation.
Now if someone persists at starvation levels long enough, the weight will come off. The famous Minnesota experiment demonstrated this action.
So back to ATP - and ATP from our nutrients.
The body stores only 80-100g of ATP at a time. So it has to synthesize ATP all the time.
A huge point of taking in food is to convert these fuels into ATP. Without going into the detail here, here's where fat comes into its own: a molecule of glucose (stuff from carbs generally), depending on the source, produces 36 or 38 molecules of ATP. 1 fatty acid molecule (derived from fat sources) produces 460 molecules of ATP. That's considerably more than 10 times the amount of usable fuel for muscular, chemical and transport activities than carbs.
Why is this? Basically the way fat breaks down more of it can be translated into ATP than carbs. If you look at the second big map above, you'll see that carbs have to go through three intermediate steps before they get to acetlyCoA. Fat can go pretty much directly to that stage.
Fewer steps, less stuff used for other things than ATP...
The process of how these various translations of a food into a bundle of energy occurs is really cool. It's a testament to how adaptable we are. For instance if we don't have enough carbs in our bodies for the jobs carbs are used to do - like feed our brains and liver - the body will translate fat into carb substitute. This process is the subject of books like Lyle McDonald's excellent review called the Ketogenic Diet.
Why bother with carbs at all if Fat is so awesome? and is that the secret of these "low carb" diets?
Fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate.
One of the best ways to stoke fat to burn is in the presence of carbs - this has to do with stuff in the Citric Acid Cycle. When carbs aren't present and the body has to go ketogenic to use fats instead, well, it can do it, but it's not necessarily optimal. You can skip this next bit if you wish but some folks have asked for a bit more explanation of what this Flame means. So the following digression:
And fat in something called "slow glycolosis" (part of the Krebs Cycle, pictured as the ring in the second figure above) loves carbs to let it burn baby burn. Now before anyone jumps on me, no Fat does not REQUIRE carbs to help it break down into the stuff that enters the KC to become ATP but it is sort of the path of least resistance, perhaps, if i can put it that way.
And just to repeat what may well be obvious to all:
fat burns as fuel via the happily fairly constant activity of breathing. Fat is "oxidized" to break
down into fuel. This oxidation takes place in the mitochondria of the cell. Hence it's important to have rather a lot of it as we breath so much.
Aside: Fat Burners. We may also recall that the discussion last week about super intense low volume 6min. workouts a week created as many new mitochondrias (ie fat burners) as did 1-2 hours a week of steady state cardio. Want to enhance fat burning? combined with diet, enhancing mitochondira helps.
I dunno, just thinking about all the things a bit of fat does it once again strikes me how incredibly amazing we are. So versatile. We can fuel ourselves up with just about anything we ingest. Our systems have preferences but can adapt to circumstances. Wild.
And fat is wild because it does so much for us.
Losing/Burning Fat - Hard Homeostatic or Hard Habit?
But you may be asking if we're burning fat (converting it into ATP pretty much constantly), why are we Fat? Why is fat hard to lose?
I guess the question might be reframed as is fat hard to lose?
What is hard, it seems, when food is so easily available to us, in ways historically unprecedented, we follow our ancient wiring and we eat. We want to load up for the lean times. But we don't live in scarcity. Access to ready prepared food continues to increase. Our need for these responses to horde up are less appropriate.
see
So perhaps what's hard is the habits around caloric restriction: being patient enough with ourselves to learn new habits to support some caloric restriction to lose weight. To be patient with ourselves that fat loss takes time. While the inital excess fat may come off faster, those last ten pounds are killers, and there are reasons for this too that i've discussed elsewhere.
And without habits to support ongoing lean attitudes, then how do we keep the weight coming off? and then how do we maintain our goal weight?
I've said it before, its this need for habits around food rather than specific diets that i like precision nutrition. It supports habits.
Rewiring for Fat: Love your Fat; Burn your Fat; Respect the Fat
So while we are wired to grab store and horde fuel, we can adapt our behaviours to be lean in the face of abundance. Once we start turning on those habits, we do need to tune them to optimize fat burning. The basic part of fat burning is to get the balance of eat less right with whatever activity one is at, so one stays productively above starvation level.
Being patient with ourselves to learn what that sweet spot mix of caloric restriction and workout effort to optimize fat burning - if that's the priority - takes time, patience, and a strategy to be able to assess if what's being tried works. Again, i'll say i like precision nutrition becuase it has a method called an Individualization Guide to support exactly that process.
Calorie Note: Why only 3500kcals to drop a Pound of Fat?
Some folks have noticed a seeming discrepancy between cals in a pound of fat and that there are fewer calories to burn a pound of "fat"
I'm still looking for sources on this, but here's the argument: let's start with the basics.
1g of fat = 9kcal
so 1kg of fat =9000kcal
9000/2.2 = 4091kcal / pound of fat (1kg/2.2=1lb)
Apparently a pound of human fat is made up of 10% water + 5% other materials that aren't digested - i need sources to support this, but if we go with that for a moment
4091 -15%= 3477.35
That's approx 3500kcals.
One other frequently quoted statement on the web is "Human fat tissue contains about 87% lipids, so that 1 kg of body-fat tissue has roughly the caloric energy of 870 g of pure fat, or 7800 kcal."
- just put that quote into google and it will show up on a dozen sites - but no primary source for it. - still that conveniently gets to the well cited 3500kcal/lb of (human) fat.
The closest i have to a real source for such info is
Higher Up and Further In
if you're intersted in going deeper into the physiology here, may i recommend
Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance, 6th Ed.
McArdle, Katch & Katch (US| UK)
There's a 7th ed coming in November 09.
If you get really intrigued, for after the above, there's Brook's bioenergetics, referenced in the side bar book recommendations
Related Posts
In fact, fat is our biggest and one might argue most versatile sources of fuel. It also makes up the shell of every cell in our body, and is part of a host of other essential for life processes that happen inside us. But the focus of this post is on how fat contributes to providing us with the fuel we need and use in every breath we take.
Fat is amazing. It's the most abundant fuel source in the
body.Every time we breath we're using fat to help take care of the energy needs of our bodies, whether thats muscular activity of lifting something, or the chemical activity of digesting something, or the transport activity of moving something from one cell to another.
In each of these cases, Fat contributes the lion's share of the energy to our physical processes. We couldn't live without it: adipose tissue affords protection to our body's various systems as well as immediate fuel storage sources; the membranes of cells are part fat and enable standard operations of the heart and lungs to get nutrients throughout our systems. And, it's also an energy reserve. Like having a bunch of batteries in the cupboard ready for when the smoke alarm or flashlight fails. Swap out the old cells put in the new.
Despite these great capacities, most of us want to shed some extra weight. Indeed, we know that it's our incredible ability to store fuel resources that works to our socio-cultural detriment in a society where fuel-as-food is readily and cheaply abundant. We put on extra weight. We carry reserves in excess of what we need given the ready abundance of fuel around us. And there are some pretty nasty health costs to carrying around that much surplus fuel, too. Type II diebetes, metabolic syndrome, additional load on joints, etc.
And so we look for ways to burn it off.
The goal of this article is to take a 50thousand foot view (ie really simplified view) at part of what's going on with that burn off, and why therefore fat is our super fuel and seemingly super nemesis.
What i mean by simplified view? Here's a map of the metabolic process:
A metabolic map, indicating the reactions of intermediary metabolism and the enzymes that catalyze them. Over 500 different chemical intermediates, or metabolites, and a greater number of enzymes are represented here. ((c) 1997 20th edition, designed by and courtesy of D. E. Nicholson, We're considering a wee fraction of this entire process, and only part of what's going on as illustrated below (source):
The three stages of catabolism. Stage I: Proteins, polysaccharides, and lipids are broken down into their component building blocks, which are relatively few in number. Stage II: The various building blocks are degraded into the common product, the acetyl groups of acetyl-CoA. Stage III: Catabolism converges to three principal end products: water, carbon dioxide, and ammoniaThese maps help to get that this is complex cool stuff. we are amazing. The above maps let us ask the question - how do we get the good stuff out of fat to use? and to appreciate how a little bit of fat goes a really really long way. To get to that, we need to consider what energy from fat means. And that means taking a look at ATP, the primal fuel block (what fat and other nutrients in large part become), and also situating fat a bit relative to other nutrients like carbs and protein in this fuel-making process (nothing shines out like a comparison). We'll take a wee look at what can increase the fat burn in cells (mitochondria) and finally, where this should lead: why fat, while it burns all the time, is still a challenge to shed.
Energy from Fat
Anyone who's spent time counting calories likely knows that the standard wisdom about calories is that carbs are 4kcal per gram and so is protein. Fat however is 9kcal per gram. Remember a calorie is a measurement of energy: the amount of energy to raise 1 g of water 1 degree.
Right from the outset, it looks like fat has the advantage in providing us with more energy than either carbs or protein. Looks like about twice as much. That's true. But what is really cool about fat is that it gives us more useable fuel for the body to do its lifting, chemical processing and transporting than we get from protein or carbs, and that's in terms of it's translation from a fat to ATP.
ATP
ATP or adenosine triphosphate. ATP is what powers all the energy in cells.
We hear a lot about ATP in the body building world and general strength training: in big lifts the point of that long recovery is to replenish phosphocreatine stores that can make a little bit of ATP available without the presence of oxygen - like when we hold our breath, or exhale out, to do that big dead lift, or keep our head under water for that 50m sprint to the end of the pool. 1 molecule of phosophocreatine when it's broken down into ATP yields only a few ATP molecules. That's not a lot for intense work, but it can re-synthesize quickly for short 30sec bursts.
But what about for efforts that last longer than 30secs? Then we start getting into carb and fat world. Protein is used for very little energy - 2-5% - it has other jobs. If no other source of fuel is available for energy - no carbs say after a workout and you use protein - a chunk of that protein will be used as fuel - transformed into carb-like fuel for replenishing energy stores. And when folks take on more protein than can be used for any current physical requirements, protein will be translated into fat.
Digression on Protein and Starvation
Here's the other thing about Protein as fuel: some folks find that when they're working out and dieting at the same time, it seems their fat loss stalls out. That's a well-studied phenomena that if the body has fat for fuel, and it feels like it's being starved (only recieving 50% or more of the needed cals for maintenance), it will horde fat for as long as possible, and will start to catabolize (break down) other sources in our bodies for fuel. Protein from muscle is a goody.
So often folks starting an exercise program after they've started dieting need to INCREASE their calories a bit to off set starvation.
Now if someone persists at starvation levels long enough, the weight will come off. The famous Minnesota experiment demonstrated this action.
So back to ATP - and ATP from our nutrients.
The body stores only 80-100g of ATP at a time. So it has to synthesize ATP all the time.
A huge point of taking in food is to convert these fuels into ATP. Without going into the detail here, here's where fat comes into its own: a molecule of glucose (stuff from carbs generally), depending on the source, produces 36 or 38 molecules of ATP. 1 fatty acid molecule (derived from fat sources) produces 460 molecules of ATP. That's considerably more than 10 times the amount of usable fuel for muscular, chemical and transport activities than carbs.
Why is this? Basically the way fat breaks down more of it can be translated into ATP than carbs. If you look at the second big map above, you'll see that carbs have to go through three intermediate steps before they get to acetlyCoA. Fat can go pretty much directly to that stage.
Fewer steps, less stuff used for other things than ATP...
The process of how these various translations of a food into a bundle of energy occurs is really cool. It's a testament to how adaptable we are. For instance if we don't have enough carbs in our bodies for the jobs carbs are used to do - like feed our brains and liver - the body will translate fat into carb substitute. This process is the subject of books like Lyle McDonald's excellent review called the Ketogenic Diet.
Why bother with carbs at all if Fat is so awesome? and is that the secret of these "low carb" diets?
Fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate.
One of the best ways to stoke fat to burn is in the presence of carbs - this has to do with stuff in the Citric Acid Cycle. When carbs aren't present and the body has to go ketogenic to use fats instead, well, it can do it, but it's not necessarily optimal. You can skip this next bit if you wish but some folks have asked for a bit more explanation of what this Flame means. So the following digression:
Always on, All the time - when possibleAnd just a note: that even diets that cut out grains and other what we might call fast carbs (fast to become avilable as fuel) to go ketogenic, even here one is encouraged to eat veggies. Lots of them. Why? carbs are part of our natural metabolic process. A third of our energy comes from carbs. Our brains like carbs. Our fat burning engine likes carbs; our muscles like carbs. In balance.
remember that all our energy systems are in play pretty much all the time. There's a little bit of glycolysis (carb burning) happening along with beta-oxidation (fat burning) even when we're at rest.
a by-product of the whole carb burning process is oxaloacetate (OOA). It connects with Acetyl-CoA to form citrate, and that gets processed in the citric acid cycle and ATP is produced.
Duel types of fat
Now here's the cool thing. Fat is so versatile it can get used as fuel a couple of ways. One of these - that produces the MOST ATP is via getting it into the citric acid cycle (see diagram above). This is what FFA's - free fatty acids do. Fat also becomes available as fuel as Glycerol. When you're low on carbs, it's glycerol that gets used as carbs (via gluconeogenisis) - whether you're doing a heavy workout or doing a ketogenic diet. BUT a molecule of glycerol only produces 19 ATP molecules.
FFA's Rock
Compare this rate of ATP availability with what FFA's do when they can enter the krebs cycle. Without getting into the Krebs cycle, fat conversion is also a relatively slow process so that pathway won't get energy to the muscles super quick. Which partially explains why even if you're on a ketogenic diet, most folks recommend getting some carbs into your system prior to a workout in particular for better available energy - and fat utilization. Now this is not to say that we don't adapt in a ketogenic situation to get the turnover of fat into carb substitute happening faster, and when loads are reasonable, all could feel ok. But even so, that rate can't compete with FFA going through the citric acid cycle.
Fuel from FFA is FFA going into Citric Acid Cycle (burning in the flame of carb)
first step is beta-oxidation of a FFA: cleaving off a couple of carbons from the fat (see first image by the battery) and we get products NADH and FADH2 which can form up into acetylCoA which can hook up with OOA to do the citric acid dance. This cycle in turn breaks down the acetylCoA into co2 and H. The H come out of the citric acid cycle to oxidize via something called phosphorylation. The result is 460 ATP from FFA conversion to energy.
SO this is why fat burns and really BURNS up in the flame of carbohydrate.
And fat in something called "slow glycolosis" (part of the Krebs Cycle, pictured as the ring in the second figure above) loves carbs to let it burn baby burn. Now before anyone jumps on me, no Fat does not REQUIRE carbs to help it break down into the stuff that enters the KC to become ATP but it is sort of the path of least resistance, perhaps, if i can put it that way.
And just to repeat what may well be obvious to all:
fat burns as fuel via the happily fairly constant activity of breathing. Fat is "oxidized" to break
down into fuel. This oxidation takes place in the mitochondria of the cell. Hence it's important to have rather a lot of it as we breath so much.Aside: Fat Burners. We may also recall that the discussion last week about super intense low volume 6min. workouts a week created as many new mitochondrias (ie fat burners) as did 1-2 hours a week of steady state cardio. Want to enhance fat burning? combined with diet, enhancing mitochondira helps.
I dunno, just thinking about all the things a bit of fat does it once again strikes me how incredibly amazing we are. So versatile. We can fuel ourselves up with just about anything we ingest. Our systems have preferences but can adapt to circumstances. Wild.
And fat is wild because it does so much for us.
Losing/Burning Fat - Hard Homeostatic or Hard Habit?
But you may be asking if we're burning fat (converting it into ATP pretty much constantly), why are we Fat? Why is fat hard to lose?
I guess the question might be reframed as is fat hard to lose?
What is hard, it seems, when food is so easily available to us, in ways historically unprecedented, we follow our ancient wiring and we eat. We want to load up for the lean times. But we don't live in scarcity. Access to ready prepared food continues to increase. Our need for these responses to horde up are less appropriate.
see
Hays NP and Roberts SB. Aspects of Eating Behaviors "Disinhibition" and "Restraint" Are Related to Weight Gain and BMI in Women. Obesity 2008:16, 52–58. doi:10.1038/oby.2007.12.
So perhaps what's hard is the habits around caloric restriction: being patient enough with ourselves to learn new habits to support some caloric restriction to lose weight. To be patient with ourselves that fat loss takes time. While the inital excess fat may come off faster, those last ten pounds are killers, and there are reasons for this too that i've discussed elsewhere.
And without habits to support ongoing lean attitudes, then how do we keep the weight coming off? and then how do we maintain our goal weight?
I've said it before, its this need for habits around food rather than specific diets that i like precision nutrition. It supports habits.
Rewiring for Fat: Love your Fat; Burn your Fat; Respect the Fat
So while we are wired to grab store and horde fuel, we can adapt our behaviours to be lean in the face of abundance. Once we start turning on those habits, we do need to tune them to optimize fat burning. The basic part of fat burning is to get the balance of eat less right with whatever activity one is at, so one stays productively above starvation level.
Being patient with ourselves to learn what that sweet spot mix of caloric restriction and workout effort to optimize fat burning - if that's the priority - takes time, patience, and a strategy to be able to assess if what's being tried works. Again, i'll say i like precision nutrition becuase it has a method called an Individualization Guide to support exactly that process.
Calorie Note: Why only 3500kcals to drop a Pound of Fat?
Some folks have noticed a seeming discrepancy between cals in a pound of fat and that there are fewer calories to burn a pound of "fat"
I'm still looking for sources on this, but here's the argument: let's start with the basics.
1g of fat = 9kcal
so 1kg of fat =9000kcal
9000/2.2 = 4091kcal / pound of fat (1kg/2.2=1lb)
Apparently a pound of human fat is made up of 10% water + 5% other materials that aren't digested - i need sources to support this, but if we go with that for a moment
4091 -15%= 3477.35
That's approx 3500kcals.
One other frequently quoted statement on the web is "Human fat tissue contains about 87% lipids, so that 1 kg of body-fat tissue has roughly the caloric energy of 870 g of pure fat, or 7800 kcal."
- just put that quote into google and it will show up on a dozen sites - but no primary source for it. - still that conveniently gets to the well cited 3500kcal/lb of (human) fat.
The closest i have to a real source for such info is
Adipose tissue contains 82-88% fat, 2-2.6% protein, and 10-14% water. The energy yield of adipose tissue is 8000-9000 kcal (34-38 MJ) per kg or 3600-4000 kcal (15.1-16.8 MJ) per pound.and that's at Answers.com, and i've no idea who writes this stuff for them or from where they get it.
Higher Up and Further In
if you're intersted in going deeper into the physiology here, may i recommend
Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance, 6th Ed.
McArdle, Katch & Katch (US| UK)
There's a 7th ed coming in November 09.
If you get really intrigued, for after the above, there's Brook's bioenergetics, referenced in the side bar book recommendations
Related Posts
- getting off diets and onto better eating habits. change is pain: reduce the pain :)
- becoming a better burner: 6mins a week to trigger mitochondrial growth = to 4.5 hours cardio
- cardio with kettlebells
- vo2max effort training
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
SunScreen Will Kill You - and other single factor melanomas about being in the sun
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
This post is perhaps a kind of meta-review of sunscreen - to use or not to use, and if not, why not. I was horrified at a recent course in a very sunny 
very hot location to hear that sun screen causes cancer. Especially after hitting the SPF 70 pretty hard all week. Doesn't this go against everything we know to be true and holy about protecting us from the sad 20thC induced evils of the sun?
A doctor at the course argued that we are supposed to get those sun's rays, not be blocked from receiving them. Yes, but my grade 8 science fair project reminds me, that was before we destroyed the OZONE LAYER. Ok ok, ozone does mostly UV-B filtration, which is sun burn world, and it's UVA that causes apparently the real mess that can lead to melanoma in particular. Thanks for the non-help, ozone layer. And yes there are indeed reports of badder types of skin cancers happening with reduced ozone protection. So don't we need that magic chemical sealant to let us not fear the suns less mediated rays?
And what's behind this assertion of evil sun screen? Is it the sunscreen itself that is toxic, supposedly? i mean a lot of them do have titanium dioxide in them - that's metal. Are we making ourselves into carcinogenic tin men?
2004 - the year it all started to change in the Solar System
Ok, if we go back a few years, here's what's been said (as 2004/2005 seem to have been the highpoints in the public discourse around sun screen/no sun screen):
1) Complaint 1. We need the sun to generate vitamin D; if we put on sunscreen we're stopping this critical process from happening.
Hmm. Try living on the West Coast of canada. Or anywhere in the UK. You could walk around buck naked all winter and still be vitamin D deficient. In fact we are. Which is one of the main reasons we're told we need to supplement our vit d intake EXCEPT during those periods of the year where we can get 15 mins of full body solar exposure.
Ok, i was out for 20 mins for lunch in the one sunny day in seatle a month ago. No sunscreen, forgot the long sleeve shirt. My arms burned. I don't think burning is good for the immune system either, do you? No it's not.
So what do people of dark, damp northern climes do? Take Vitamin D. Good quality vitamin D (it pays to check). But it works. Here's one example of a study that says vit D and calcium supplementation reduces risk of cancer.
BUT does the assertion hold that sunscreen actually stops vitamin D photosynthesis? Er, no, not really. Sunscreens do not block all UV radiation (though i dunno, that 70SPF i tried recently seemed to keep any evidence of sun exposure well hidden, but anyway). Then the question is suppose you're out in the sun, well lathered up in SPF, is the radiation hitting the skin sufficient to trigger Vit D synthesis?
Well, a dermatologist in 2005 thinks all's wellciting a 1997 study in 2005 :
maybe he's right but he's increasingly alone in that conviction in the research community. It's interesting to me that it's dermatology associations that are making claims about getting enough vit d, when they're also the ones promoting sun screen. Anyone else? Yes there is. Well there's one. A piece from 2006, histrionically titled "darkness at noon" suggests that sunscreen does block vit d formation.
We'll come back to going au natural in the sun in a moment. But first, the second claim about sun screen.
2) Complaint 2: Sun screen has toxic chemicals. Artificial fragrance and other stuff that are stabilizers in some sun screens can get absorbed into the skin and play havoc with our immune system.
Well hmm again. Anything pretty much we put on our skin can be absorbed by our skin.
As for sunscreen yes back in 2004, sun screen stuff was shown to do what stuff on skin does: get absorbed - to some degree. But it also gets spit out in urine too. So is this harmful? Heh guess what, we don't KNOW.
Chemicals Good to AVOID
One chemical we do know to be problematic is oxybenzone. Avoid any sunscreen that has it. PABA was also found to be just bad, but it's illegal to have in anything, so just run screaming - really - if you see anything with that in it. There's a few others that *may* be problematic: Benzophenone (benzophenone-3), homosalate, and octy-methoxycinnamate (octinoxate); Parabens (butyl-, ethyl-, methyl-, and propyl-); Padimate-O and Parsol 1789 (2-ethylhexyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoic acid and avobenzone).
Aside: God knows what long term harm i have done to something by the amount of Muskol bug dope (active ingredient: DEET) i used for years working on summer digs along the the Red River. I know it melted the lettering off watch bands and other plastics. But after awhile, you know, i think it was sort of an aphrodisiac. costs and benefits.
Now some folks may not want to take the risk of whether this kinda stuff is damaging. Some folks may prefer to walk around outside in a bug hell covered in netting (and when tree planting in Ontario, that's exactly what you did: bug nets - but you also did bug dope because you just can't duct tape up everything. I'm not kidding. Black flies, i tell ya: all wings and teeth.)
As for sun screen effectiveness/safety, guess what an organization called The Environmental Working Group (EWG) makes of sun screen (2009)? The biggest problem is that most of them don't block the right UV rays: UVB has been the focus - and rightly so - but UVA is apparently the stuff that is an increasingly known concern.
There other finding: ironically, many products in sun screens break down in the sun! har! - no, not har. When some chemicals break down what they break down into is not good.
So, the EWG has a list of 95 sunscreens (out of 1642) it's methodology assessed as recommended - low hazard and effective. Check it out. The methodology behind the selection is pretty clear and solid. Here's a summary:
There is no direct link in any study that says generic sunscreen causes cancer. We do know that
So what about going neked? Is a Tan a Good Thing? or Two Guys in a Boat
If you ever want to get a lot of press and be taken seriously, call yourself something important. Like the Council on Vitamin D. Or how about the Health Research Forum. A swishy logo that looks all medical helps too. Use the terms "we" and "us" a lot to make it look like there's more than 1 or 2 of you and have a "board of directors" - even if there's only two of you. or 1.
In 2004 a "report" was released from the Health Research Forum called Sunlight Robbery. Written by Oliver Gillie. Before we consider this, a quote from the HRF's about us page: " Health Research Forum will be run by an advisory board which at present consists of Oliver Gillie and Michael Crozier. HRF is presently recruiting more people to serve on the board. A constitution is in preparation."
The date on the page is still 2004. It's August 2009 as i write. So there's this two pony show putting out a report. Just by way of context. Let this be a lesson in marketing and press exposure. Because despite what seems like quite the cover, the report seems well done.
And what does this oft cited in the UK press of the day say? Well coolly, it re-presents in one convenient package a lot of research that had been done till that date about sun exposure relative to latitude, and why sun exposure is important for vitamin D generation, and why saying exposure of hands and face as sufficient is just wrong.
Now i have not read all the studies referenced in this report first hand, so i don't know if their use in the article is a completely fair and accurate representation of that work, but of the stuff i do know that's been cited, it seems that's pretty durn good.
It then goes into a HUGE section on why vitamin D is important in the prevention of everything, er, under the sun. Let's just say "ok" and move on. Let's get to the biggie of WHY sun screen in the first place: burns and SKIN CANCER.
another sunny day in the UK
Risk of Skin Cancer and other Evils like Burns from non-mediated sun exposure
Well in the Sunlight Robbery report, the collection of resources seems to suggest that melanoma is pretty insiginficant relative to all types of skin cancer, and may explain why the uk's various policies on how to lather up in the sun mayn't be doing much to retard the progress of such cancers. Diet is also proposed as more of a factor in skin related issues like actinic keritosis (skin aging) than sun. Again i haven't looked at the primary studies on this, but i'd be willing to give that one the benefit of the doubt.
And so Tanning - in the Real Sun?
First, let us note that tanning beds are not a safe way to tan or generate vitamin D. No. bad. pooey. Good explanation of why over here/ An overview of the research and related badness can be viewed in this 2008 report.
Fake Tans?
that's another whole ball of wax, and i ain't going there. But remember what happened to Bond's assistant at the start of GoldFinger - the one painted in gold? If you're curious, go to pubmed.org and just put in "tanning" as a search term - most of the latest research is about tanning beds and the icky effects of a lot of fake tanning spray products.
Tanning: it's an inflammation
UV radiation damages DNA. Our bodies don't like this. Tanning is an inflammatory response to UV radiation. One of the multiple things stirred up in the UV inflammation response soup are pigment containing organalles. Now for folks with fair skin who say they "don't tan; they just burn" - this is entirely true. There are a couple of triggers in the skin of fair people that don't kick of the tan effect as part of the response to the sun. If you're interested in the detail of these factors, A Healthy Tan? in Clinical Implications of Basic Research, March 2007, is very cool. There's also a 2009 article that's looking at mathematical models of how tanning works through various layers of skin to find out more what's going on in the cells. Important.
An inflammatory response to a stimulant is a Good Thing. Muscle growth has a big chunk of inflammatory response in it, after all. Adaptation causing growth: inflammation. Good Thing. So tanning is doing the same thing, no? Natural sun screen IF you have those bits in your biology that trigger them. Fair skinned folks have a harder row to hoe for sure.
Does this mean that a really deep dark wrinkly leather tan is a good thing? Well, it's not particularly attractive. And folks i've seen with such tans don't look healthy in a whole lot of other ways, so is it far to say the problem is with the sun tan?? But overdoing anything seems usually to lead to a bad end, does it not? What if a deep tan actually inhibited vitamin d production? Combine that with an elderly, overweight, sedantary person (think cruise ships) and it's one more factor to poor health.
So why do we use sun screen again?
What if i go back to that grade 8 science project and the ozone layer and that the amount of UVA/UVB radiation filtering through our atmosphere is more intense than it used to be. And now i have to say, So? Is that really a big deal? yes! More intense rays mean faster burn times. But the big concern is less the local and controllable phenomena of burns to the risk of skin cancer in particular melanoma.
Gillies sunlight robbery report suggests we're all in a lather about low risk/low likelihood types of skin cancer from the sun - especially in the UK and similar latitudes. And while burns are bad (there's lots of uncontrovertible science that the second and third degree whole body burns from any source are Bad THings), well, there's work to show that even lighter burns can have effects like a correlation with reduced multiple sclerosis.
But a 2005 study, discussed here, seems to suggest that exactly what triggers the inflammation responses of tanning may be exactly what triggers melanoma mutations, too.
Risk management?
Of course, simply reducing exposure to the sun by getting out of it, or covering up when in sunny climes is also a way to limit harmful rays. You may say well, sun screen will keep more of those rays out.
Maybe it's like solar contraception. Sun screen is one type of device to keep all the sun rays out but it's not 100% fool proof either. It just reduces the risk. In the case of the sun, though, what we seem to be learning is that abstinence has negative side effects too.
It's a Balance? I'm going to rationalize my short term use of sun screen when in Arizona working out outside for a week as Just Fine. I did not want to burn, and i did not want to pass out from increased heat exhaustion trying to run around in full body clothing while doing sprints and i did not have time/opportunity for slow gradual exposure/adaptation.
I go back to the one time i have burned this summer was 20 mins. Just 20 fricking mins with no sun screen sitting outside in Seattle having lunch. Burn! And that was not fun. It was not severe but it was not great either. Ok, there i could grabbed a shirt rather than lather up. True.
That said, the burn did "turn into" a bit of a tan. And i'm not unpleased. But maybe i should be?
Begin2Dig sun screen/sun tan take away: death to single factor thinking.
Sun screen, it seems, does not cause cancer. It does mitigate the effects of vitamin D production, and in a country as sun poor as the UK or areas as sun starved as the Pacific North West, perhaps we're all insane to see the sun, wish to run out in it and scury back to the bathroom to put on the sun screen before rushing out.
As with anything to do with our embodied selves, there is no one stop shop answer. There are risks to being in the sun; there are risks to using sun screen; there are risks to tans; there are risks to not being in the sun. Dam dam dam.
It may just be that running around a bit without any sun screen is a Very Good Thing to do - unless you do just burn in the sun - then alas gradual exposure is super important.
We do *seem* to know that just laying out in the sun for long periods fully exposed may have some issues - but we also know that sun exposure may only be one factor in those issues. Diet and movement are pretty big ones too.
The sun is not evil - in proportion.
If anything is evil, it's got to be single factor thinking that finds an easy panacea in saying "no tan is a healthy tan; always use sunscreen" or "sunscreen is evil; expose yourself to the sun."
Things to consider:
So after all this, i may just cautiously step out into another cloud filled UK day tomorrow - right at Noon! in shorts and a T, and stay there for 20 mins. If it's not raining. True, it's taking a risk with those UVA and UVB rays, but it's a risk i feel more certain, if done cautiously, i'm willing to take. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
very hot location to hear that sun screen causes cancer. Especially after hitting the SPF 70 pretty hard all week. Doesn't this go against everything we know to be true and holy about protecting us from the sad 20thC induced evils of the sun?A doctor at the course argued that we are supposed to get those sun's rays, not be blocked from receiving them. Yes, but my grade 8 science fair project reminds me, that was before we destroyed the OZONE LAYER. Ok ok, ozone does mostly UV-B filtration, which is sun burn world, and it's UVA that causes apparently the real mess that can lead to melanoma in particular. Thanks for the non-help, ozone layer. And yes there are indeed reports of badder types of skin cancers happening with reduced ozone protection. So don't we need that magic chemical sealant to let us not fear the suns less mediated rays?
And what's behind this assertion of evil sun screen? Is it the sunscreen itself that is toxic, supposedly? i mean a lot of them do have titanium dioxide in them - that's metal. Are we making ourselves into carcinogenic tin men?
2004 - the year it all started to change in the Solar System
Ok, if we go back a few years, here's what's been said (as 2004/2005 seem to have been the highpoints in the public discourse around sun screen/no sun screen):
1) Complaint 1. We need the sun to generate vitamin D; if we put on sunscreen we're stopping this critical process from happening.
Hmm. Try living on the West Coast of canada. Or anywhere in the UK. You could walk around buck naked all winter and still be vitamin D deficient. In fact we are. Which is one of the main reasons we're told we need to supplement our vit d intake EXCEPT during those periods of the year where we can get 15 mins of full body solar exposure.
Ok, i was out for 20 mins for lunch in the one sunny day in seatle a month ago. No sunscreen, forgot the long sleeve shirt. My arms burned. I don't think burning is good for the immune system either, do you? No it's not.
So what do people of dark, damp northern climes do? Take Vitamin D. Good quality vitamin D (it pays to check). But it works. Here's one example of a study that says vit D and calcium supplementation reduces risk of cancer.
BUT does the assertion hold that sunscreen actually stops vitamin D photosynthesis? Er, no, not really. Sunscreens do not block all UV radiation (though i dunno, that 70SPF i tried recently seemed to keep any evidence of sun exposure well hidden, but anyway). Then the question is suppose you're out in the sun, well lathered up in SPF, is the radiation hitting the skin sufficient to trigger Vit D synthesis?
Well, a dermatologist in 2005 thinks all's wellciting a 1997 study in 2005 :
dermatologist Darrell S. Rigel, M.D., clinical professor, New York University Medical Center in New York City, did exactly that. Rigel’s message: sunscreens do NOT block all of the UV radiation hitting the skin, so that those wearing sunscreen are still able form vitamin D.Now, there's been a ton of research into Vitamin D since 1997, and much of it has shown that there is such a thing as a vit d deficiency and supplementation is necessary cuz we're not out in the sun (when there is any) enough to get what we need. Riggel, sticking with 97 research, thinks we get just enough from daily activities and "diet" without supplementing.
maybe he's right but he's increasingly alone in that conviction in the research community. It's interesting to me that it's dermatology associations that are making claims about getting enough vit d, when they're also the ones promoting sun screen. Anyone else? Yes there is. Well there's one. A piece from 2006, histrionically titled "darkness at noon" suggests that sunscreen does block vit d formation.
In fact with sunscreen applied only miniscule amounts of preDHere's what this means:3 are predicted to be made outdoors even with extensive exposure.
- typically high noon sun is the best for vit d production (also, they acknolwedge, the best time for sun burn risk).
- With SPF 15 on, according to these researchers, it would take 4-6 hours of that KIND of sun to get enough to get the right vit d levels. And, as they point out, that kind of sun just don't last that long - even if someone were out in it.
We observe that brief unprotected midday exposure is optimal for promoting healthy vitamin D status while simultaneously minimizing accumulation of sunlight related risk. We further find that SPF-15 sunscreen, regardless of exposure scenario, reduces preDSO 20 minutes of mid-day sun, assuming pretty much full body exposure (10mins front; 10 back, not kidding), is good for vit d generation. Well again, in the winter (and we might talk about seasonal effective disorder) this isn't usually possible. And in dark climates, this isn't usually possible. No wonder so much work has been done in Australia.3 effective UV to levels well below that considered to provide practical vitamin D benefit, dubbed "vitamin D winter." Wearing high SPF sunscreen, essentially turning off the lights on vitamin D, is like darkness at noon.
We'll come back to going au natural in the sun in a moment. But first, the second claim about sun screen.
2) Complaint 2: Sun screen has toxic chemicals. Artificial fragrance and other stuff that are stabilizers in some sun screens can get absorbed into the skin and play havoc with our immune system.
Well hmm again. Anything pretty much we put on our skin can be absorbed by our skin.
As for sunscreen yes back in 2004, sun screen stuff was shown to do what stuff on skin does: get absorbed - to some degree. But it also gets spit out in urine too. So is this harmful? Heh guess what, we don't KNOW.
Chemicals Good to AVOID
One chemical we do know to be problematic is oxybenzone. Avoid any sunscreen that has it. PABA was also found to be just bad, but it's illegal to have in anything, so just run screaming - really - if you see anything with that in it. There's a few others that *may* be problematic: Benzophenone (benzophenone-3), homosalate, and octy-methoxycinnamate (octinoxate); Parabens (butyl-, ethyl-, methyl-, and propyl-); Padimate-O and Parsol 1789 (2-ethylhexyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoic acid and avobenzone).
Aside: God knows what long term harm i have done to something by the amount of Muskol bug dope (active ingredient: DEET) i used for years working on summer digs along the the Red River. I know it melted the lettering off watch bands and other plastics. But after awhile, you know, i think it was sort of an aphrodisiac. costs and benefits.
Now some folks may not want to take the risk of whether this kinda stuff is damaging. Some folks may prefer to walk around outside in a bug hell covered in netting (and when tree planting in Ontario, that's exactly what you did: bug nets - but you also did bug dope because you just can't duct tape up everything. I'm not kidding. Black flies, i tell ya: all wings and teeth.)
As for sun screen effectiveness/safety, guess what an organization called The Environmental Working Group (EWG) makes of sun screen (2009)? The biggest problem is that most of them don't block the right UV rays: UVB has been the focus - and rightly so - but UVA is apparently the stuff that is an increasingly known concern.
There other finding: ironically, many products in sun screens break down in the sun! har! - no, not har. When some chemicals break down what they break down into is not good.
So, the EWG has a list of 95 sunscreens (out of 1642) it's methodology assessed as recommended - low hazard and effective. Check it out. The methodology behind the selection is pretty clear and solid. Here's a summary:
So what can we say from the above about sunscreen and cancer?
Our analyses show that products vary widely, both in their ability to protect from the sun's harmful UV radiation, and in the inherent safety of the ingredients themselves. FDA has set no mandatory standards for any of these factors, and manufacturers are free to make products that may not protect consumers from the sun and that may not be safe when slathered on the skin.What's behind our sunscreen investigation:Customized rating for each product includes:
- 1,642 sunscreens
Ingredients evaluated in these sunscreens:
- Sun hazard (effectiveness) ratings for UVA protection, UVB protection, and stability in sun
- Health hazard (safety) ratings for all ingredients
Data sources:
- 14 of 17 active ingredients approved in the U.S. (the ones found in products)
- 2 active ingredients approved in other countries (listed as "inactive" ingredients in U.S. sunscreen)
- 2,150 other ingredients (not sunscreen)
There is no direct link in any study that says generic sunscreen causes cancer. We do know that
- a) a lot of sunscreens still do not filter for UVA and that's not good cuz that can mean overexposure to these rays
- b) some sun screens have ingredients that either break down in the sun and definitely don't do their job
- c) some sun screens have chemicals in them that seem pretty clearly to do no good to the body
- d) new bit: implementation can be an issue: while nano-lotions (nano-zinc etc) may be great, because stuff seems NOT to be absorbed by them, nano-based sprays may not be so good - their may be absorption issues.
So what about going neked? Is a Tan a Good Thing? or Two Guys in a Boat
If you ever want to get a lot of press and be taken seriously, call yourself something important. Like the Council on Vitamin D. Or how about the Health Research Forum. A swishy logo that looks all medical helps too. Use the terms "we" and "us" a lot to make it look like there's more than 1 or 2 of you and have a "board of directors" - even if there's only two of you. or 1.
In 2004 a "report" was released from the Health Research Forum called Sunlight Robbery. Written by Oliver Gillie. Before we consider this, a quote from the HRF's about us page: " Health Research Forum will be run by an advisory board which at present consists of Oliver Gillie and Michael Crozier. HRF is presently recruiting more people to serve on the board. A constitution is in preparation."
The date on the page is still 2004. It's August 2009 as i write. So there's this two pony show putting out a report. Just by way of context. Let this be a lesson in marketing and press exposure. Because despite what seems like quite the cover, the report seems well done.
And what does this oft cited in the UK press of the day say? Well coolly, it re-presents in one convenient package a lot of research that had been done till that date about sun exposure relative to latitude, and why sun exposure is important for vitamin D generation, and why saying exposure of hands and face as sufficient is just wrong.
Now i have not read all the studies referenced in this report first hand, so i don't know if their use in the article is a completely fair and accurate representation of that work, but of the stuff i do know that's been cited, it seems that's pretty durn good.
It then goes into a HUGE section on why vitamin D is important in the prevention of everything, er, under the sun. Let's just say "ok" and move on. Let's get to the biggie of WHY sun screen in the first place: burns and SKIN CANCER.
another sunny day in the UKRisk of Skin Cancer and other Evils like Burns from non-mediated sun exposure
Well in the Sunlight Robbery report, the collection of resources seems to suggest that melanoma is pretty insiginficant relative to all types of skin cancer, and may explain why the uk's various policies on how to lather up in the sun mayn't be doing much to retard the progress of such cancers. Diet is also proposed as more of a factor in skin related issues like actinic keritosis (skin aging) than sun. Again i haven't looked at the primary studies on this, but i'd be willing to give that one the benefit of the doubt.
And so Tanning - in the Real Sun?
The lay perception that a good tan is a sign of good health has been severely criticised by those who promote sun avoidance. In fact, scientific evidence suggests that the lay perception is correct and the public has been ill-served by the sophistry involved in suggesting that a tan is unhealthy. The phrase “there is no such thing as a healthy tan” is no more than a clever slogan devised by propagandists to discourage people from seeking sun exposure. Controlled exposure to the sun is beneficial and a tan, which provides some protection against sunburn, will naturally be acquired in the course of such exposure. It is quite wrong to make people anxious about a tan when there is no sound basis for doing so.So let us leave the report then and see why tans may be a pretty good skin protection. For which i am grateful if that's the case, because while i wore a ton of deet on those happy summer digs, none of us then wore any sun screen. We were keen instead to see who could get the most dark - before slipping into a 1m square by 3m deep shaft for the end of the summer.
First, let us note that tanning beds are not a safe way to tan or generate vitamin D. No. bad. pooey. Good explanation of why over here/ An overview of the research and related badness can be viewed in this 2008 report.
Fake Tans?
that's another whole ball of wax, and i ain't going there. But remember what happened to Bond's assistant at the start of GoldFinger - the one painted in gold? If you're curious, go to pubmed.org and just put in "tanning" as a search term - most of the latest research is about tanning beds and the icky effects of a lot of fake tanning spray products.
Tanning: it's an inflammation
UV radiation damages DNA. Our bodies don't like this. Tanning is an inflammatory response to UV radiation. One of the multiple things stirred up in the UV inflammation response soup are pigment containing organalles. Now for folks with fair skin who say they "don't tan; they just burn" - this is entirely true. There are a couple of triggers in the skin of fair people that don't kick of the tan effect as part of the response to the sun. If you're interested in the detail of these factors, A Healthy Tan? in Clinical Implications of Basic Research, March 2007, is very cool. There's also a 2009 article that's looking at mathematical models of how tanning works through various layers of skin to find out more what's going on in the cells. Important.
An inflammatory response to a stimulant is a Good Thing. Muscle growth has a big chunk of inflammatory response in it, after all. Adaptation causing growth: inflammation. Good Thing. So tanning is doing the same thing, no? Natural sun screen IF you have those bits in your biology that trigger them. Fair skinned folks have a harder row to hoe for sure.
Does this mean that a really deep dark wrinkly leather tan is a good thing? Well, it's not particularly attractive. And folks i've seen with such tans don't look healthy in a whole lot of other ways, so is it far to say the problem is with the sun tan?? But overdoing anything seems usually to lead to a bad end, does it not? What if a deep tan actually inhibited vitamin d production? Combine that with an elderly, overweight, sedantary person (think cruise ships) and it's one more factor to poor health.
So why do we use sun screen again?
What if i go back to that grade 8 science project and the ozone layer and that the amount of UVA/UVB radiation filtering through our atmosphere is more intense than it used to be. And now i have to say, So? Is that really a big deal? yes! More intense rays mean faster burn times. But the big concern is less the local and controllable phenomena of burns to the risk of skin cancer in particular melanoma.
Gillies sunlight robbery report suggests we're all in a lather about low risk/low likelihood types of skin cancer from the sun - especially in the UK and similar latitudes. And while burns are bad (there's lots of uncontrovertible science that the second and third degree whole body burns from any source are Bad THings), well, there's work to show that even lighter burns can have effects like a correlation with reduced multiple sclerosis.
But a 2005 study, discussed here, seems to suggest that exactly what triggers the inflammation responses of tanning may be exactly what triggers melanoma mutations, too.
Risk management?
Of course, simply reducing exposure to the sun by getting out of it, or covering up when in sunny climes is also a way to limit harmful rays. You may say well, sun screen will keep more of those rays out.
Maybe it's like solar contraception. Sun screen is one type of device to keep all the sun rays out but it's not 100% fool proof either. It just reduces the risk. In the case of the sun, though, what we seem to be learning is that abstinence has negative side effects too.
It's a Balance? I'm going to rationalize my short term use of sun screen when in Arizona working out outside for a week as Just Fine. I did not want to burn, and i did not want to pass out from increased heat exhaustion trying to run around in full body clothing while doing sprints and i did not have time/opportunity for slow gradual exposure/adaptation.
I go back to the one time i have burned this summer was 20 mins. Just 20 fricking mins with no sun screen sitting outside in Seattle having lunch. Burn! And that was not fun. It was not severe but it was not great either. Ok, there i could grabbed a shirt rather than lather up. True.
That said, the burn did "turn into" a bit of a tan. And i'm not unpleased. But maybe i should be?
Begin2Dig sun screen/sun tan take away: death to single factor thinking.
Sun screen, it seems, does not cause cancer. It does mitigate the effects of vitamin D production, and in a country as sun poor as the UK or areas as sun starved as the Pacific North West, perhaps we're all insane to see the sun, wish to run out in it and scury back to the bathroom to put on the sun screen before rushing out.
As with anything to do with our embodied selves, there is no one stop shop answer. There are risks to being in the sun; there are risks to using sun screen; there are risks to tans; there are risks to not being in the sun. Dam dam dam.
It may just be that running around a bit without any sun screen is a Very Good Thing to do - unless you do just burn in the sun - then alas gradual exposure is super important.
We do *seem* to know that just laying out in the sun for long periods fully exposed may have some issues - but we also know that sun exposure may only be one factor in those issues. Diet and movement are pretty big ones too.
The sun is not evil - in proportion.
If anything is evil, it's got to be single factor thinking that finds an easy panacea in saying "no tan is a healthy tan; always use sunscreen" or "sunscreen is evil; expose yourself to the sun."
Things to consider:
- how long out in the sun?
- what time of day?
- how can exposure be graduated by clothing vs screening
- how ensure sufficient vit d intake no matter the approach?
So after all this, i may just cautiously step out into another cloud filled UK day tomorrow - right at Noon! in shorts and a T, and stay there for 20 mins. If it's not raining. True, it's taking a risk with those UVA and UVB rays, but it's a risk i feel more certain, if done cautiously, i'm willing to take. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
