Sunday, August 3, 2008
Should vs Why
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
In various encounters of late, i've heard a lot of people responding to other people's ideas, not really engaging with the idea, but grabbing onto one piece and saying "you shouldn't do that; you should do this." Statements, not questions. Why do so few people ask "why"? Why do you have this point of view? why do you think making this particular observation is important?
What happened to things that make you go "hmm"?
Is it that we get too comfy in a particular point of view so that we know how to address anything in that space to make it conform to our view, and if it doesn't it's just wrong?
i dunno. i find it somewhat depressing/discouraging that a frequent response is to react rather than to pull back, go up, and ask where's this coming from? do i understand the context? if i'm feeling challenged, defensive, do am i just getting triggered? is this finding a weakness in me?
I guess perhaps in part it gets down to what are our goals in an exchange: what do we want to achieve? is it to engage with an intent to learn? to defend? to communicate?
Community can be built in a number of ways: either by re-inscribing boundaries ( driven perhaps by a little f-scale, a little impostor syndrome [1] mayhap) or by striving (and that does main making a deliberate effort) to push them.
A broad church or a narrow doctrine?
Growth, other than cancer, rarely occurs in a monoculture.
---------------------
[1]thanks Rannoch for the ref Tweet Follow @begin2dig
What happened to things that make you go "hmm"?
Is it that we get too comfy in a particular point of view so that we know how to address anything in that space to make it conform to our view, and if it doesn't it's just wrong?
i dunno. i find it somewhat depressing/discouraging that a frequent response is to react rather than to pull back, go up, and ask where's this coming from? do i understand the context? if i'm feeling challenged, defensive, do am i just getting triggered? is this finding a weakness in me?
I guess perhaps in part it gets down to what are our goals in an exchange: what do we want to achieve? is it to engage with an intent to learn? to defend? to communicate?
Community can be built in a number of ways: either by re-inscribing boundaries ( driven perhaps by a little f-scale, a little impostor syndrome [1] mayhap) or by striving (and that does main making a deliberate effort) to push them.
A broad church or a narrow doctrine?
Growth, other than cancer, rarely occurs in a monoculture.
---------------------
[1]thanks Rannoch for the ref Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Friday, August 1, 2008
Carbohydrates: the New Fat
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
In a recent thread, i saw yet another reference decrying carbohydrates:
another claim from *one* study sited in the article is
Well what's the context? a survey of the past decade+ of papers doing low carb vs low fat diets finds that the differences are in the noise, not in significance. That indeed when we talk about carbohydrate sources, we need to be a little more sophisticated about what we mean - just like we've become with fats - before we throw the potato and the quinoa and the whole grain loaf out with the Krispy Kreams.
Here's an article i put together for iamgeekfit asking so just what the heck do we mean by a carbohydrate anyway.
IF you don't want to read the whole article, which is written mainly for students who know nothing about nutrients really, so some of it you will likely already know (though i hope there's a few insights) i'll skip to the end for you:
In a recent thread, i saw yet another reference decrying carbohydrates:
"If you refuse to restrict your carbs, then you need to at least change the type of carbs you eat. If you're sawing through a French baguette, it's time to focus on legumes, fruits, and vegetables while minimizing those grains and starches."
another claim from *one* study sited in the article is
When you cut carbs, you'll see greater weight loss, improved insulin sensitivity, three times the abdominal fat loss (as shown in a new study by Dr. Volek), and improved vascular function (move over arginine).
Well what's the context? a survey of the past decade+ of papers doing low carb vs low fat diets finds that the differences are in the noise, not in significance. That indeed when we talk about carbohydrate sources, we need to be a little more sophisticated about what we mean - just like we've become with fats - before we throw the potato and the quinoa and the whole grain loaf out with the Krispy Kreams.
Here's an article i put together for iamgeekfit asking so just what the heck do we mean by a carbohydrate anyway.
IF you don't want to read the whole article, which is written mainly for students who know nothing about nutrients really, so some of it you will likely already know (though i hope there's a few insights) i'll skip to the end for you:
Tweet Follow @begin2dig
(1) best way to eat better: cut the crap - just cut out refined, over processed foods.
(2)if you want to lose weight eat less of WHATEVER and exercise more.
(3) As for the carb itself, it's our friend; it's critical for an athlete. What kind and when is more important than a carte blanche demand to reduce carbs, or more or less eliminate an entire nutrient from our diets. when really that just means starchy carbs, and it's even more subtle than that cuz we're talkin insulin index responses. argh. maybe read the article after all.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Mike T Nelson: sharing the Protein and Carb and Pain Relief Joy
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Mike T. Nelson. RKC, King of Mn. Z Health. PhD candidate (profile/interview here)
Plainly Mike Mike has learned a great lesson of academics: reuse. Michael's been doing the skull cruching work of doing the exam papers for his PhD to show he's an expert in his field, before going deep with his big D, dissertation, to show he's an expert in his area.
Now our happiness out of this is that while digesting all the latest and greatest info in his area, he's been feeding it back out on his blog so that you don't have to.
His latest synthesis, found in his MyNotes at the end of presenting a paper's abstract, is on his blog RIGHT NOW. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Mike T. Nelson. RKC, King of Mn. Z Health. PhD candidate (profile/interview here)
Plainly Mike Mike has learned a great lesson of academics: reuse. Michael's been doing the skull cruching work of doing the exam papers for his PhD to show he's an expert in his field, before going deep with his big D, dissertation, to show he's an expert in his area.
Now our happiness out of this is that while digesting all the latest and greatest info in his area, he's been feeding it back out on his blog so that you don't have to.
His latest synthesis, found in his MyNotes at the end of presenting a paper's abstract, is on his blog RIGHT NOW. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Monday, July 28, 2008
Alwyn Cosgrove on the Anti Crunch
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Worth checking out is Alwyn Cosgrove's post about awesome ab routines that kill the crunch. And would likely pass with the Stuart McGill seal of approval for low back performance.
If you've not heard of Stuart McGill and care about things back-ish, he's at MacMasters in Canada (to a canadian that's funny because there's a uni named McGill, too. So McGill at MacMaster...anyway), check out his site. You'll find that he's *the* reference when it comes to working out and caring for the spine. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Worth checking out is Alwyn Cosgrove's post about awesome ab routines that kill the crunch. And would likely pass with the Stuart McGill seal of approval for low back performance.
If you've not heard of Stuart McGill and care about things back-ish, he's at MacMasters in Canada (to a canadian that's funny because there's a uni named McGill, too. So McGill at MacMaster...anyway), check out his site. You'll find that he's *the* reference when it comes to working out and caring for the spine. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Sunday, July 27, 2008
By Way of Contrast: Lyle McDonald - just the poo, the cynical poo, m'am
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
On his forum, Lyle McDonald has as his signature, next to the image on the left "i fling poo." What does that mean? It may mean nothing, but it's certainly evocative. It suggests a person who is unafraid of getting to the heart of a matter, speaking his mind, and not taking himself too seriously. A few folks whose opinions i don't take lightly have recently recommended MacDonald's stuff. Trainer extraordinaire Roland Fisher recommended a series of blog posts on an overview of research on EPOC. BJ Bliffert, RKC recommended his book the Ketogenic Diet, which i've just finished reading. Most recently i've cited a post of his in discussing how to figure out what eating "less" means for reducing calories. It finally clicks: poo flinger is all the same guy.
What works about McDonald's work
In each of the above cases, this graduate of a bachelors in physiological sciences digs into the research on an area and brings his own questions to that space to come up with *well-grounded* assessments of material.
Take for instance, the Ketogenic Diet. It is a fantastic overview /reference of what a diet that strips out carbs does to the body. It looks at why/how this approach to diet has been used (and misrepresented) over the decades. McDonald makes clear in it that he is not trying to persuade anyone to use the diet, but to explain how it works, and how its variants work for people to decide if this approach may be helpful to them.
One of the passages in the book i treasure is about the research used to synthesize the effectiveness or not of the diet.
These statements are really cool: they take head on the fact that there are no well done studies to support that more fat in particular is lost with this metabolic shifting diet. That might seem to be a show stopper - in other words, why continue to discuss this approach if the ostensible reason for carrying out the diet - preferential fat loss - isn't there?
Likewise McDonald takes on the arguments about greater caloric deficit from being on such a diet, and then works through how none of the reasons proposed for such an argument stand up.
And finally, after all the physiology is addressed, McDonald goes through what a diet actually is in terms of considerations like metabolic rate, weight loss vs fat loss and so on. If knowledge is power, this is a powerful presentation. And it's one that's 10 years old.
McDonald clearly situates his interest in the diet based on the effects it had for him:
As such, this is an incredibly useful volume, and i certainly recommend it as a great way to get up to speed with what ketogenic diets are, how they work, where they're contra-indicated, etc. We are ten years further on in research in nutrition. The basic findings however haven't changed according to a recent survey of the literature. A calorie is still a calorie thermogenically, and fat loss only reults from caloric deficit, but why some diets seem to work better than others is still an open question.
The Ketogenic Diet was written in 1998, and is different in presentation from the 2005 Ulitmate Diet 2 in one particular: lack of references. McDonald says that he doesn't use them anymore in the books because regular readers could care less; readers who don't like what he has to say aren't going to be persuaded by any number of references (indeed), and those who know the area will be able to figure out the references. That makes me a minority: i like the references, but i'm not an expert in these nutritional domains so can't always find the references myself. Oh well.
Coda
Here's the thing: McDonald describes himself as both passionate about his interests in training and nutrition, and cynical. That's a healthy combination. From his bio page:
Is such a philosophy flinging poo? if so i need to revisit my understanding of poo. In the meantime, if you don't have a copy of the Ketogenic Diet for reference, then check out the series on Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) to see a great example of a ballsy engagement with the research, common myths, and a cynical mind can bring to a pretty good training question.
We might not all want to be or need to be physiologists, but most of us perform better when we know why something works; it also helps when we need to fix it. Well-founded work like McDonald's contributes to confident material for the DIY training toolbox.
Hmm: Cat in the Hat with I can read it all by myself, and Mr Poo's I can read the Research all by Myself? Tweet Follow @begin2dig
On his forum, Lyle McDonald has as his signature, next to the image on the left "i fling poo." What does that mean? It may mean nothing, but it's certainly evocative. It suggests a person who is unafraid of getting to the heart of a matter, speaking his mind, and not taking himself too seriously. A few folks whose opinions i don't take lightly have recently recommended MacDonald's stuff. Trainer extraordinaire Roland Fisher recommended a series of blog posts on an overview of research on EPOC. BJ Bliffert, RKC recommended his book the Ketogenic Diet, which i've just finished reading. Most recently i've cited a post of his in discussing how to figure out what eating "less" means for reducing calories. It finally clicks: poo flinger is all the same guy.
What works about McDonald's work
In each of the above cases, this graduate of a bachelors in physiological sciences digs into the research on an area and brings his own questions to that space to come up with *well-grounded* assessments of material.
Take for instance, the Ketogenic Diet. It is a fantastic overview /reference of what a diet that strips out carbs does to the body. It looks at why/how this approach to diet has been used (and misrepresented) over the decades. McDonald makes clear in it that he is not trying to persuade anyone to use the diet, but to explain how it works, and how its variants work for people to decide if this approach may be helpful to them.
One of the passages in the book i treasure is about the research used to synthesize the effectiveness or not of the diet.
The basic premise of the ketogenic diet is that, by shifting the metabolism towards fat use and away from glucose use, more fat and less protein is lost for a given caloric deficit. Given the same total weight loss, the diet which has the best nitrogen balance will have the greatest fat loss. Unfortunately a lack of well done studies (for reasons discussed previously) make this premise difficult to support (p63).
These statements are really cool: they take head on the fact that there are no well done studies to support that more fat in particular is lost with this metabolic shifting diet. That might seem to be a show stopper - in other words, why continue to discuss this approach if the ostensible reason for carrying out the diet - preferential fat loss - isn't there?
Likewise McDonald takes on the arguments about greater caloric deficit from being on such a diet, and then works through how none of the reasons proposed for such an argument stand up.
And finally, after all the physiology is addressed, McDonald goes through what a diet actually is in terms of considerations like metabolic rate, weight loss vs fat loss and so on. If knowledge is power, this is a powerful presentation. And it's one that's 10 years old.
McDonald clearly situates his interest in the diet based on the effects it had for him:
I became interested in the ketogenic diet two and one-half years ago when I used a modified
form (called a cyclical ketogenic diet) to reach a level of leanness that was previously impossible using other diets. Since that time, I have spent innumerable hours researching the details of the diet, attempting to answer the many questions which surround it. This book represents the results of that quest.
As such, this is an incredibly useful volume, and i certainly recommend it as a great way to get up to speed with what ketogenic diets are, how they work, where they're contra-indicated, etc. We are ten years further on in research in nutrition. The basic findings however haven't changed according to a recent survey of the literature. A calorie is still a calorie thermogenically, and fat loss only reults from caloric deficit, but why some diets seem to work better than others is still an open question.
The Ketogenic Diet was written in 1998, and is different in presentation from the 2005 Ulitmate Diet 2 in one particular: lack of references. McDonald says that he doesn't use them anymore in the books because regular readers could care less; readers who don't like what he has to say aren't going to be persuaded by any number of references (indeed), and those who know the area will be able to figure out the references. That makes me a minority: i like the references, but i'm not an expert in these nutritional domains so can't always find the references myself. Oh well.
Coda
Here's the thing: McDonald describes himself as both passionate about his interests in training and nutrition, and cynical. That's a healthy combination. From his bio page:
People often get frustrated with me because they will ask me a question and typically get an answer of 'It depends'. Because it does. In the lifting and nutrition world, it's most typical to see people get married to a single concept and defend it for all people under all circumstances. whether it's high-carb or low-carb dieting, high volume or high-intensity training, or the never ending free weights vs. machines or compound vs. isolation exercises debate, the message is the same 'There is a single correct answer in terms of how to eat or train and I have it. Now give me money.'
So I'm a little cynical but I can't look at training or diet or the myriad aspects of human physiology that simplistically. The appropriate training for a 35 year old female newbie who has never performed competitive sport before is not the same as what's appropriate for a 22 year old athlete; a beginning powerlifter (or any athlete for the matter) shouldn't be trying to copy what guys with 15-20 years of training experience behind them are doing. Whether machines or free weights or compound or isolation exercises are 'optimal' depends on the individual, their previous training, their current training, their goals and the remainder of their workout. It can all potentially fit into a given workout scheme, depending on the circumstances.
The same goes for diet. The optimal diet for competitive cyclist performing 2 hours per day or more in the saddle won't be the same as for a sedentary couch potato, or for a bodybuilder or powerlifter. Optimal can only be defined in a context dependent way: what is optimal under one situation isn't optimal under another.
At the same time, I find that a lot of folks get too wrapped up in a million and one details that they tend to miss many of the fundamental principles of training or diet.
A training program must provide progression, overload, recovery and few other things to be ideal; what approach to progression, overload, and recovery are optimal for a given individual under a given situation will depend on the circumstances.
A fat loss diet needs to meet certain requirements to be correctly set up in my mind, that includes below maintenance calorie levels, protein intake and essential fatty acid intake. Beyond that, issues of how many carbs, or how much dietary fat, meal frequency and timing all depend on the circumstances.
Is such a philosophy flinging poo? if so i need to revisit my understanding of poo. In the meantime, if you don't have a copy of the Ketogenic Diet for reference, then check out the series on Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) to see a great example of a ballsy engagement with the research, common myths, and a cynical mind can bring to a pretty good training question.
We might not all want to be or need to be physiologists, but most of us perform better when we know why something works; it also helps when we need to fix it. Well-founded work like McDonald's contributes to confident material for the DIY training toolbox.Hmm: Cat in the Hat with I can read it all by myself, and Mr Poo's I can read the Research all by Myself? Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
