Coffee: Friend of Foe?

Posted by Susan - 01/05/09 at 11:01:22 am

Depending on what camp you’re in, it is not difficult to find research supporting the pros and cons of coffee consumption.

It is important to acknowledge that caffeine is considered to be a drug; specifically a stimulant. While I leave it to the readers of this posting to decide whether or not caffeine consumption should be part of your diet, I do want to point out that pregnant women need to be aware that there is research that associates an increase in the risk of miscarriage with caffeine consumption.

With that out of the way, I’ll disclose that I am a coffee-holic. I will defend my right to drink coffee until the day I am no longer here on Earth. However, if this stuff is eventually going to kill me, I wouldn’t mind knowing so I have been pouring over what seems like an insurmountable amount of research trying to determine if coffee is actually my friend or foe.

For years there have been correlations made between caffeine and cardiovascular disease and in my research I was able to find several older studies that support the hypothesis that caffeine consumption increases the risk of heart disease.

These studies for the most part are focused on “heavy” coffee consumption (which I will define as five or more 8 oz cups per day) and the role caffeinated drinks play in regards to increased blood pressure. When coffee drinkers ceased drinking coffee, they experienced significant reductions in measured blood pressure, thus reducing their risk for a cardiac event.

A little discouraged I dug a little deeper and found research published this past summer in the Annals of Internal Medicine. This study concluded that regular coffee consumption was not associated with an increased mortality rate in either men or women, and may actually be associated with lower cardiovascular mortality.

These findings are supported by research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which suggests that in adults older than 65 without existing high blood pressure, caffeine intake may be associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality.

As stated earlier, it is not difficult to find research to support your side of the argument.

Caffeine and Fat Loss

Consumed ‘wisely’, caffeine can have a positive impact on fat loss.

A recent study documented in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning supports the use of caffeine as an ergogenic aid in untrained to moderately trained individuals.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers reported that weight-trained men who took a supplement containing about 200 mg of caffeine (equivalent to 16 fluid ounces of regular coffee or a 12 fluid ounce cup of Starbucks regular coffee) before working out, increased their one rep max (1RM) on the bench press by about 5 pounds. An earlier study also found that caffeine increased subjects’ 8 RM. In addition, researchers from the University of Georgia found that when subjects consumed caffeine about an hour before intense cycling exercise that was designed to make their thighs sore, they reported significantly less pain than when taking a placebo.

This means that caffeine can increase muscle strength, as well as your ability to endure more reps at the end of a grueling workout. Over the long, this can lead to greater fat loss and increased muscle growth.

My Two Cents

It is likely that an individual’s response to caffeine will vary and the amount of caffeine which improves performance in one individual may result in negative side effects in another.

Clearly, if you are pregnant or prone to hypertension, drinking coffee may be harmful to your health. Similarly, if you have high cholesterol it would be advisable to limit whole egg consumption, and if you suffer from vertigo my recommendation would be not to climb the Statue of Liberty.

The point is, there are a myriad of factors that dictate how something we consume interacts with an individual. We need to stop trying to neatly fit foods into a “good” or “bad” column and instead look at the big picture to determine what is best for ourselves, at a given point in time.

Ultimately, as with just about everything we consume, my take-away is that moderation is key.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

How Bad Do I Want It?

Posted by Scott - 12/19/08 at 09:12:28 am

This is the most important question most of us should ask ourselves during the most tempting time of the year. It is the holiday season again, apple pie, beer and wine, this and that — and lots more FAT! Many people fall off of the wagon now more than ever, and simply figure they’ll get back into it after the New Year. Many people gain 1-2 pounds per year of adult life, and these are usually packed on during the HO- HO- Holidays. If you are already overweight, you have an even greater risk of gaining 5 or more pounds between Thanksgiving and New Years.

 

It is so easy to just let things slide and eat that piece of pie. But do you really want to undo all of this year’s hard work? If it were easy to have an incredibly fit and trim body, everyone would, right? You have to ask yourself everyday: “How bad do I want it?” I hear people claiming that since they’ve worked hard they deserve a little treat. This is true to some extent, and it mostly depends on how close you are to your goals. But sometimes it can be no different than a former alcoholic having a drink because he or she has been sober for 11 months. A little treat that could undo the progress of the previous 11 months. The mental setback can be more detrimental than the physical.

It is the ultimate question to ask yourself when you are at the precipice: “How bad do I want it?” When you answer it, you can usually muster the strength to say “No thank you”. Just remember, there is no piece of pie, slice of cake or bowl of pudding that is so good, it can ever replace that feeling you get inside when someone says, “Wow! You look great! You’re so skinny!”

Happy Holidays and stay strong.

Milk Does A Body Good

Posted by Susan - 12/11/08 at 10:12:20 am

In his book In Defense Of Food, Michael Pollan suggests that we shouldn’t eat anything that our grandmother’s wouldn’t recognize as food.

The same can be applied to what we drink, which has resulted in my taking a very close look at my post-exercise supplementation.

I came across several studies comparing cows’ milk (whole milk, low-fat, skimmed and chocolate) to soy-based and commercial sports drinks (e.g, Gatorade, Powerade) and each supports cows milk as a good post-workout drink for both endurance and strength training.

In looking at the chemical make-up of milk, it contains casein and whey protein, carbohydrates, calcium, and a host of vitamins including D and B12. Compare that to Gatorade which is primarily composed of sugary carbohydrates, and already milk is looking pretty good.

But the news gets even better for cows’ milk as a post-exercise beverage:

- Research suggests that proteins in cows’ milk supports greater muscle hypertrophy post exercise than soy-based protein beverages.

- In addition to building more muscle, research has shown milk drinkers to lose almost double the amount of fat of athletes drinking a commercial carbohydrate beverage. Soy-protein drinkers lose no fat.

- One study found that when endurance athletes consumed chocolate milk as a recovery aid between exercise sessions, they were able to work out longer during the second round of exercise compared to when they drank a carbohydrate replacement beverage.

- Researchers have also found milk to be better at restoring hydration than other commonly used post-exercise beverages including water and Powerade

Personally, I’m not sure I can drink enough milk to reap the same benefits that I realize from using a whey protein supplementation, but I like the idea of mixing the whey powder with skim milk and adding a banana for extra carbohydrates, when necessary.

At the end of the day however, in a pinch, milk looks to be a good post-exercise recovery aid and certainly a cost-effective alternative.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

www.catapultfitnessblog.com

Essential Fatty Acids

Posted by Susan - 11/24/08 at 03:11:55 pm

I’ve stumbled upon alot of research recently regarding Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs), including how long chain Omega-3 fatty acids modulate hunger signals.

More on that later. In the meantime, as a primer, an essential nutrient is

1. Required by the body for proper function and,
2. One that cannot be made in sufficient quantities by the body and thus must be obtained through ones diet

The Essential Fatty Acids include

1. alpha-linoleic acid
2. linolenic acid

Alpha-linoleic acid (ALA) as well as the fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) belongs to a group of fatty acids called Omega-3 acids. EPA and DHA are found primarily in fish while ALAis highly concentrated in certain plant oils such as flaxseed oil and, to a lesser extent, canola, soy and walnut oils.

Most Omega-6 fatty acids are consumed in the diet from vegetable oils as linolenic acid (LA).

While the ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 should be close to 1:1, the typical North American diet has ratios now over 10:1 due to the addition of corn, sunflower, safflower, and sesame oils to our food supply.

Consequently, this shift is thought by many to be a factor in a number of chronic medical conditions including arthritis, cardiovascular disease, asthma, acne, depression and even obesity.

According to a recent study published in the November 2008 issue of Appetite, 232 overweight and obese volunteers were provided with a calorie restricted, balanced diet. Participants were randomly assigned to take a low dose of Omega-3 (260 mg/day) or a high dose of Omega-3 (1300 mg/day) supplement for a period of 2-weeks.

Those who received the high dose of Omega-3 maintained a better level of satiety immediately following meals as well as two hours post-meal. Blood tests showed not only a higher concentration of Omega-3 in these individuals, but an improved Omega-3 to Omega-6 ratio as well.

If you’re one of those individuals who are hungry 20 minutes following a meal, consider adding more Omega-3 rich foods to your diet!

Foods with high levels of Omega-3 include:

• Salmon
• Scallops
• Sardines
• Shrimp
• Cod
• Flaxseeds
• Walnuts
• Cauliflower
• Cabbage
• Romaine Lettuce
• Broccoli

Being that most folks on Gyminee are concerned with their body fat, It’s important to note that healthy fats do not make us fat. Quite the opposite. Healthy fats suppress appetite and Omega-3s help you lose body fat.  “Fat-Free” diets are partially responsible for the current obesity epidemic in America.  Eat fats, but choose wisely.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

www.catapultfitnessblog.com

Better Food Search!

Posted by Stephen - 11/13/08 at 09:11:24 am

So, I know many of you have been wondering what’s been going on behind-the-scenes at Gyminee. Well, the answer is a lot!

Most of what we have been working on recently has been totally behind-the-scenes (server upgrades, bug fixes, optimizations, etc.). We expect the Gyminee user-base to continue growing, and to do so at a much quicker pace in the near future. Soon, the Gyminee website will be able to scale at near 100% efficiency.

One of the updates that isn’t completely behind the scenes is a new and improved Food Search. I would expect that some of you keen-eyed users have noticed some improvements with their search results lately. This is because of a combination of things.

For one, we have completely revamped the search engine that helps drive the Food, GymBuddy, Exercise, and Forum searches. It will be faster, more stable, and also return more accurate results for all of the above.

On top of that, the (surprisingly complex) algorithm that helps return the best food results possible has been completely rewritten. Things such as how many times the food has been eaten and whether or not it has an image are now taken into account when you search for foods.

Enjoy and stay tuned for more updates in the near future!

“Everybody Wins” At Gyminee

Posted by Stephen - 10/24/08 at 11:10:31 am

For those of you who aren’t yet familiar with Gyminee Challenges, they are a very popular way for Gyminee users to compete with one another to see who can lose the most weight, run the furthest distance, lift the greatest amount of weight, and much more. Gyminee Challenges were released only a couple months ago, and we are pleased (to say the least) at how they have been helping people to exercise more and to stay motivated.

 In the 420+ challenges that have been created:

• Over 3,000 users have participated in a challenge.
• Over 4,580 lbs have been lost by users in Weight Loss Challenges.
  
• Over 25,375 miles have been traveled by users in Distance Challenges.
• Over 58,850,000 lbs have been lifted by users in Weight Lifting Challenges!

 

 

 

 

Don’t Eat That!

Posted by Susan - 10/17/08 at 09:10:41 am

I’ll start by acknowledging that I realize this may not be a very popular blog post.  I’ve seen positive mentions made of David Zinczenko’s, Eat This, Not That!, book on Gyminee and who am I to argue with a best-seller anyway?

Personally, I think David is a brilliant businessman. In his 8+ years as Editor-In-Chief of Men’s Health, the magazine’s circulation has grown by 30% and ad pages by 80%. Pretty impressive stuff.

Conceptually, I agree with the premise of David’s book, but while reading an article recently entitled America’s Worst Breakfast Foods, I couldn’t help being discouraged by the recommendations being made to readers. Here are a few examples:

Worst Side Dish:
Burger King Hash Browns (large)
620 calories
40 g fat (11 g saturated; 13 g trans)
1,200 mg sodium
60 g carbs

David’s Recommendation: Eat This Instead!:
Burger King Egg & Cheese Croissan’wich
300 calories
17 g fat (5 g saturated; 2 g trans)
740 mg sodium
26 g carbs

Worst Breakfast Sandwich:
Hardee’s Monster Biscuit
710 calories
51 g fat (17 g saturated)
2,250 mg sodium
37 g carbs

David’s Recommendation: Eat This Instead!:
Hardee’s Sunrise Croissant with Bacon
450 calories
29 g fat (12 g saturated)
900 mg sodium
28 g carbs

Is this the message we really want to be sending to a society in the midst of an obesity epidemic? At what point does health become a consideration? When we have an epidemic of thin 30-somethings going in for triple by-pass surgery?

The Burger King Egg & Cheese Croissan’wich has 51% of it’s calories from fat while the Hardee’s Sunrise Croissant with Bacon has a whopping 58% of it’s calories from fat.

Susan’s Recommendation:
1 cup steel cut oatmeal
Two egg whites and one whole egg omelet with low-fat Swiss cheese and mushrooms

315 calories
9 g fat (3 g saturated)
549 mg sodium
29 g carbs

In case you’re wondering, this healthy breakfast alternative has 25% of it’s calories from fat and is probably going to make you a heck of a lot more productive in the morning.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

Correlation vs. Causation

Posted by Brian - 10/09/08 at 12:10:44 pm

I’ve been slacking on my posting for about a month now due to some personal issues, but am hoping to work my way back into a regular routine and am going to start it with a simple, but nonetheless important note regarding the numerous research studies that people (myself included) throw around to support why we should or should not eat Food A or do Exercise B.  And that note is that correlation is not…repeat…is not the same as causation.

To start this discussion, we need to recognize that we’re all biased.  I’m biased.  You’re biased.  Yes, some people have a more open mind than others, but for someone to say that they are completely unbiased is ludicrous.  And it’s because of this bias that we have a tendency to blindly accept studies that reinforce what we already believe, and immediately dismiss or pick apart the ones that don’t.  So, when we hear of a study(1) that, for instance, finds a correlation between exercise (in this case running) and longevity, we immediately accept that as Gospel.  Why?  Because that’s what we already believe to be true in our minds.  Of course people who exercise live longer, better lives, right?!?

The conclusion that the authors of this particular study draw is that “Vigorous exercise (running) at middle and older ages is associated with reduced disability in later life and a notable survival advantage.”  There’s nothing wrong with that statement - in fact, it’s 100% accurate - but it’s important to note that the authors said they found an “association” (correlation), not proof (causation).  Reread their conclusion.  Nowhere are they claiming they proved a link between exercise and longevity, but today’s mainstream media doesn’t make mention of that distinction when studies like this are blasted across the television, radio, and the internet.  Saying something could, maybe, possibly, perhaps, we think help or hurt you doesn’t have the same impact as, “Want to avoid death?  We’ll tell you how…tonight at 11:00″.

Now, let’s look at another example of correlation.  Below is a famous, far-fetched example used in a letter to the Kansas School Board in January 2005 (2).

There is obviously a correlation between the two sets of data in that, as the number of pirates has decreased over the centuries, the global average temperature has increased.  But I don’t think that anyone would believe that the decreasing number of pirates in the world has actually caused the increase in the global average temperature or that the increase in the temperature has caused a reduction in the number of pirates.  Yet because a scientist or statistician somewhere in the world found a similar correlation between exercise and longevity we immediately think, “Ah-ha!  Finally! Proof!”

The interesting thing about science is that we tend to define it as creating a hypothesis and then proving or disproving that hypothesis.  In reality, hypotheses aren’t really proven.  Experiments either support the data, or disprove the data.  After enough support, we accept the hypothesis as fact, even though we have never proven it to be true.  We just can’t find anything that disproves it (if you’re interested enough - and geeky enough - check out the graph of the results of the COBE Mission as this is probably the most amazing example of an experiment agreeing with a theory (3)).

So, as we look at the two sets of correlating data presented in this post, the first (that exercise is linked to longevity) is one that we’ll still walk away believing because we “know” that to be true, while the second (involving temperatures and pirates) we will continue to “know” is false even though neither study…proved…anything.

Citations:

(1) - Archives of Internal Medicine: Reduced Disability and Mortality Among Aging Runners

(2) - Wikipedia: Flying Spaghetti Monster

(3) - Wikipedia: COBE Mission

Avoid this and avoid packing on the pounds.

Posted by SonOfKrypton - 09/25/08 at 12:09:32 pm

Recent research from the UT Southwestern Medical Center and appearing in the Journal of Nutrition illustrates the stunning rate we pack on body fat following fructose intake.  In the study, six healthy, fit individuals went through three tests where they each consumed a fruit mix drink.

In the first of three tests, the breakfast drink was produced with sugars that were 100 percent glucose, like the tests doctors give to patients to test for diabetes.  In the second test, the drink was produced with sugars that were half glucose and half fructose, and in the third, subjects consumed drinks with 25 percent glucose and 75 percent fructose.  All tests were performed randomly and blinded, and the subjects were allowed to eat a regular lunch about four hours later.

The researchers discovered that following replacement of as little as half of glucose with fructose, a dramatic rise in lipogenesis, the process by which your body converts sugars into body fat, could be observed.  

Dr. Elizabeth Parks, lead author of the study, remarks that her teams finding are important because they state that the kind of carbohydrates you consume can be just as important with regards to weight control as how many calories you consume.  She goes on to state, “This is an underestimate of the effect of fructose because these individuals consumed the drinks while fasting and because the subjects were healthy, lean and could presumably process the fructose pretty quickly. Fat synthesis from sugars may be worse in people who are overweight or obese because this process may be already revved up.”

Fructose eaten in breakfast meals also changed how our body deals with what we eat at lunch.  After fructose consumption, the liver increased the storage and production of fats from lunch meals.

For the Love of All That is Yolky

Posted by Brian - 09/04/08 at 09:09:18 am

A recent Gyminee post by SonOfKrypton regarding eggs got me thinking of this, and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to make a point about the nutritional value of an egg and the oh-so-wonderful goodness that many people are missing out on.  What goodness am I referring to?  Why, the yolk, of course!

Show of hands.  How many people out there eat egg whites, but throw the yolk away?

Go ahead…it’s okay…raise your hand…I know you’re out there…I saw your comments on SonOfKrypton’s post.

Let’s take a look at the incredible, (completely) eatable, egg.

Fat, calories, and protein

First, let’s take the 45,000 foot view of the two basic things the human body needs to function: water and an energy source (and we need the former more often than the latter).  So, what’s the energy source for the human body?  Food!  Broken down into fats, carbohydrates, and proteins, we tend to think of these in terms of grams, but to the body it is nothing more than pure, raw, energy used to sustain every aspect of our body.

So, by using the Gyminee food search functionality, and limiting our results to USDA nutritional data only, let’s compare whole eggs vs. egg whites.  Since carbohydrates are not only less important than fats and proteins but, in this case, represent a minuscule difference of only one gram between the two, we’ll focus on the other two energy sources.

On the left, you’ll see a whole, large egg, with its 7 grams of fat, and 7 grams of protein.  On the right, the egg white lags behind with its embarrassing 0 grams of fat, and only 4 grams of protein.  The proof is in the numbers.

Some of you may pick up on the higher level of cholesterol present in the egg yolk, but don’t let that dissuade you.  A recent study in the Advanced Online Publication area of the International Journal of Obesity (1) comparing four groups of overweight individuals shows, among other things, that adding a couple of (whole) eggs per day to your diet in no way affects your level of cholesterol.  Dr. Michael Eades gives a great summary of the study here.

Diving head first into an explanation of my position on cholesterol would take us away from the subject at hand.  Suffice to say, I’ll save that one for a future post.  In the mean time, I implore you to check out THINCS or any of the writings of Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, author of The Cholesterol Myths.

A little thing called nutrients

I would have preferred an actual breakdown of mg of each of the following nutrients rather than the “recommended daily percentage” based on a 2,000 calorie diet, but for the simple sake of comparison, these numbers will be more than adequate.  Again, this data is from Gyminee and again the whole egg is on the left, with the egg white on the right.  Look at all the goodies that the egg yolk has to offer!  Vitamins A, D, E, K!  Calcium!  All contained within the yolk of the egg, not the egg white.

Mother Nature (by way of a helpful chicken) has provided us, yet again, with a natural, healthy food that needs to have nothing added or removed to benefit our bodies.  It should simply be eaten the way she intended it: yolk included.

On average, I eat about two dozen eggs per week purchased, of course, fresh from the local farmer’s market (if you’ve never tasted “real” eggs from a farmer’s market, you don’t know what you’re missing out on).   Just keep in mind when cooking your egg that the more heat you apply, the more nutrients you are removing from the yolk.  A good rule of thumb for yolk is the runnier, the better!

Citations:

(1) Egg Breakfast Enhances Weight Loss

Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe by email

Search