Establishing healthy eating habits for success in your weight loss and fitness goals.

Here's something I posted elsewhere last night, along with a link to my "Just eat healthy. What does that mean?" entry from a while back.

Don't set the standard too high as to what level of "healthy eating habits" you need to adhere to. Appropriate total intake, enough protein and fiber, your required serves of fruit and veg... other choices as best suits you. That's healthy enough. 

Now... we can think of any number of extra "but shouldn't they also?" type points as well, which are probably advisable. There's probably no limit on the amount of suggestions we could make for eating habits what would be helpful, beneficial and just simply put "a pretty damn good idea". Does that mean that any, much less all of them are crucial, though? Will the whole house of cards come tumbling down if we slip on just one these beneficial points, resulting in chronic ill health and out of control weight gain?

Absolutely not. Bizarre though, that we see such suggestions made so often and so frivolously on so many health and fitness type blogs and pages. It is highly irresponsible.

In my professional experience, I don't ask for any more than those few points listed in the first paragraph, and I consistently find that people will naturally gravitate towards including a greater amount and variety of the healthier choices of their own accord. As they see results from training due to now being adequately fueled, enthusiasm and self belief increases, so they start to adhere even more consistently, and start aiming for more "optimal" targets rather than merely "adequate". This is clearly a much better situation than clients being bullied and badgered into eating things they are not enthusiastic about, and made to feel guilty or ashamed if they fail to adhere.

My observation is that many coaches (or individuals without coaches) set impossible (and unnecessary) standards, and the end result is the opposite of what anyone wants. There are studies (damned if i can find the link right now) that confirm this; the more restrictions you put on people, the more likely they are to end up binging on one or more of the banned choices. This is counter productive, obviously.

Now if you are in the habit of "by default" hitting that appropriate total intake mostly from the more healthy choices that you find suitable... you're going to get results. You're meeting your requirements, so you're not going hungry and likely to give in and over eat later. You're meeting your requirements from choices that appeal to you, so you're not testing your willpower needlessly abstaining from enjoyable meals. It is merely a matter of getting organised, planning a day in advance, and before long your habits are in line with your requirements and you can do it on the fly by intuition. The odd day when you do go off the plan due to whatever circumstances is irrelevant in the context of habitually meeting appropriate intake by default the majority of the time.

In other words don't psych yourself out treating every choice, every aspect of your nutritional habits as "make or break, do or die". Set out to do the bare minimum, and you will succeed in your goals.

Read More

Science vs opinion

i was just thinking about the Large Hadron Collider. It took 10 years to build, and according to wikipedia

The LHC was built in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories.^[3] It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference, as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland.

That's a lot of time and expense and effort, to find this "higgs particle". I have tried and failed to understand exactly (or even approximately) what that is, but you've gotta think if they've gone to all that effort and expense they've gotta be pretty damn certain of success.

in which case... wouldn't that be proof enough? "We are so sure this is what's up, we're going to spend 10 years and however much money it takes to build this thing to prove it". To me that's like... you know what? That's good enough for me. I'll take your word for it.

That's not how science works though. They have to prove it. And from time to time you'll read where they were sure of something, set out to prove it, actually discovered it was something else and they aren't even sure why just yet but they're going to try to figure it out.

You read about studies too, where the result is "a suggestion" that something is plausible enough to warrant a more stringent study to make absolutely sure. And sometimes the more stringent study actually suggests the opposite.That study might be carried out by the same people, or by others. The prime example would be when the researchers who provided key evidence of gluten sensitivity thoroughly showed that it does not exist, in a later study. Still, I've observed several people dismissing the later study in preference of the first one, which better suits their confirmation bias.

So... when you think about all this. When science says "we know this to be true", or "we have established that this is a fact", the standard is really as high as high could be. It's not just "here's the idea we're going to run with" and no one wanting to throw a spanner in the works with an opposing theory. That's the thing, they actually TEST those theories so they KNOW if they're right or not.

And yet...

Whether it is self appointed nutrition experts, anti vaccine campaigners or whoever else... there are so many big mouths out there who'll completely reject all of that on the basis of "well, I thought about it for a few minutes and this is what seems most likely to me". That'd be fine and there'd be a cause for debate, if it was on a topic that had never been tested.

When something has been tested, the method scrutinised, retested again, and the findings are consistent with our observations... there' s no shame in being corrected if you're an untrained person who had speculated on the topic and come to a different conclusion.

To insist that you're still correct though in defiance of the body of evidence though? To insist that your personal speculation be considered as a valid alternative to tested and proven theories? That is sheer arrogance and belligerently willful ignorance.

While we do all have a right to an opinion, in cases where presenting that opinion as fact can impact the wellbeing of others, we have a moral obligation to ensure that this opinion is accurate and factual, based on the best available evidence.

Read More

Science vs scammers and scare mongers.

The following will be rather an unscientific style of science lesson. Enjoy.

There are many different ways to run a scientific study but generally speaking, you need to have something called a "control group". In a weight loss study... maybe you're testing a weight loss pill or something. You have one group of people who are taking the pill and you want to determine whether or not it causes people to lose weight. You have another group taking a placebo pill that you know does nothing, and you want to compare the amount of weight lost in each group.

Of course, the people don't know which group they're a part of, and they all think they are testing a "working" weight loss treatment. Usually what happens in these studies is that people in both groups lose a similar amount of weight. Whether they're taking the pill that supposedly has all these fat burning ingredients, or they're taking the "empty" pill...similar result.

You can logically conclude that in either group, since people have an expectation of losing weight due to the treatment they are trialling, this is probably enough to influence them to make a few decisions regarding food choices during the day that are more conducive to weight loss. "Maybe just a half serve, I'm supposed to be losing weight" for example.

Now... it might only be one or two very small deviations from their less mindful, and slightly excessive normal eating habits, but still enough reduce total calorific intake by enough to result in some weight loss. We know that at least one of the pills does absolutely nothing. It isn't even supposed to anything, and the only instruction people are given is "take the pill and go about your business. Record the results for us". Therefore the loss of weight comes very simply by making a few more mindful choices during the day resulting in total energy intake being reduced to a less inappropriate amount.

I want to emphasise the point... a couple of very small changes from normal habits resulting in slight reduction of total intake.

Therefore when you see people arguing about what's "allowed" in a particular diet... "are potatoes ok? yes but only these types and not those"... "you can't eat these foods because of this reason" and so on... you can logically conclude that they're idiots who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

What these studies really prove, even if they're funded by marketers trying to prove "people lost weight taking our pill", what they're really proving is "people can lose weight with no special conditions or drastic changes in habits simply by being more mindful of not consuming an excessive amount".

That is PROVEN. You all know someone who has lost a few kilos just by making one small change in daily habits.

So... that might not be enough to take you all the way to your goal but the lesson is, don't pay attention to scare mongers talking bollocks about which foods are and aren't allowed on a diet and what special & drastic conditions need to be adhered to. It is all down to a more appropriate total intake relative to fueling your lifestyle at your healthy goal weight.

Read More

Why do people get fat? Because it's easy.

I have had a few ideas for some articles recently, but I've felt kind of disillusioned at the moment like trying to talk sense just gets lost in all the noise and idiocy that is rampant everywhere else.

I had this idea though for a "why people get fat" article.

Everyone's looking for like a "root cause" like it's a mystery. We argue about whether the issue is with total calories or with choices of foods irrespective of calories... and then there's some bizarre ideas going around about "over eating doesn't make people fat, being fat causes over eating" and so forth. Crazy.

There are borderline orthorexic theories as if certain foods are impossible to not over eat, crap about sugar being "more addictive than cocaine", and nonsense about certain foods instantly being stored as fat just because they're "bad" for some reason due to being processed, or transported long distances, or including GMOs or whatever.

All nonsense and taken to extremes, potentially harmful as people start to get neurotic about which choices of foods are "ok" and which ones aren't. Don't get me wrong though, it's a good thing that people are considering the underlying, root causes and trying to treat the cause rather than just the symptom.

So then. Why do people get fat? 

BECAUSE IT'S EASY.

It's easy to get fat. Most of us have no need to perform any strenuous activity or even move around much in our daily lives. Therefore a "normal" amount of food is enough to make you gain weight. It's easy to consume a way above normal amount too if you're not a little bit mindful especially in regard to snacking and choice of beverages.

It's no mystery. We get fat because it is easy and truthfully, unless you take a few steps to make up for an otherwise inactive modern lifestyle, it's not just easy... it is the most likely outcome.

The issue IS with total calorific intake. You can either resolve this by limiting your choices of foods to ones with a really good satiety to energy content ratio (meaning they fill you up without a lot of calories),  or by simply planning to meet your requirements with appropriate (and therefore non excessive) amounts of whatever foods you fancy.

You'll be well aware by now that my preferred course of action is the latter. Since appropriate calorie intake is the key, you might as well ensure success by determining and planning to meet your requirements. I see the other option as something of a shot in the dark, and if you don't see the expected results you're really left guessing as to what adjustments you need to make. Are you making all the most wise choices of foods, but still eating too much of them? Or are you making all the most sensible choices of foods, but with a total intake that is insufficient, forcing your body to compensate and conserve energy? It's certainly not down to any one off individual choice of a more indulgent meal, although this is what people tend to assume, leading to more of that neurotic fear of "unclean" foods that we touched on earlier.

So then. What to do?

It's pretty simple. Sort of.

An excessive intake of energy above the amount you require will result in excessive weight via increased body fat. Therefore, simply consume an appropriate amount rather than an excessive amount.

There's a problem though. This will work, but it's not terribly efficient. In most cases people have gained weight gradually, almost without noticing. When trying to lose weight, we want to see consistent results, or we lose interest.

Bigger problem. You have psychological needs as well as just energy and micronutrient requirements. On a total intake suitable only for an inactive lifestyle, there's just not enough room in the plan for much indulgence or enjoyment. We can address this somewhat by increasing activity levels, but simply by "moving more" we're still left with a fairly inefficient strategy that it isn't much fun to stick to.

So then. What to actually do?

The same thing I always say. We need to do more than just "move more", and apply some strenuous effort in the context of a more strategic training program. A program that is designed to promote the increase and maintenance of lean mass... specifically increased bone density and muscle tissue, at the expense of body fat stores.

Following a program such as this, your energy requirements are increased significantly, and continue to increase as you make progress and improve performance at training. Within these requirements there is plenty of room to base your nutrition plan on the choices of foods you enjoy, secure in the knowledge that all of the resources those foods provide will be utilised to good effect in building your healthy, athletic goal body condition at goal weight.

Read More

How do you "prove" something?

God all this "calorie myth" stuff that blew up during the week is doing my head in. Nutrition must be the only field where literally anyone can decide they're an expert based on reading a couple of articles on the internet and maybe one of the books they refer to, also all written by self appointed experts with no qualification on the subject.

Actually climate science would be the other one, apparently. All the qualified people who have made meteorology their life's work have got it wrong, and the deniers are the ones who really know what's going on. It's all a conspiracy, innit?

SO... god help me. Everyone has their own idea or their own opinion. I suppose that's fair enough. For nutrition, everyone is entitled to make the decision to follow whatever strategy or ideal they feel is best for them. However, that doesn't give them the right to insist that their way is the "only" way that's healthy, and present their opinions as "proven facts" to convince other people. It would be fine to say "well I think this is quite sensible and it has worked out nicely for me, so I do recommend that you consider trying it".

That's never what anyone says though, is it?

So to PROVE something, what's required seems to vary on the setting.

In a court of law, if you're the prosecutor / Queen's counsel or... you know... depending on what country you're in I think they're called different titles. If you're the law talkin' guy trying to put an alleged crook away, you can't just stand out there and say "Isn't it obvious? He's responsible. Everyone knows that, the Counsel for Defence probably still thinks the Earth is flat too! lololol"

Nope that aint going to cut it. You have to present all the evidence, and then there's a highly educated expert on the law who's job is to poke holes in all of your evidence. You have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" in order to get a conviction. The standard of proof is quite high.

In real science... I'm happy to have a real scientist correct me on any of this if I'm mistaken but my understanding is, to prove something is correct, what you actually have to do is set out to prove that it is incorrect.

For example... we have a theory that if we do AB&C, the result will be XYZ. We test that theory and as expected, the result is XYZ. Does this prove that AB&C (and only AB&C) causes XYZ? Not necessarily. To prove that this is the case, we'd have to try to re-create the same result in other ways, without success. So if you get to the point where you can say "we tried literally everything, and AB&C was the only thing that produced the result XYZ...." then what? Is it proven?

Not yet. My observation of reading a few studies is that the conclusion might be something like "the evidence suggests that XYZ is indeed caused by AB&C", which is still a safe distance from a statement more like "this is now proven and anyone who thinks otherwise is a deluded idiot". Right?

But we're still not done. Scientific method then requires a "peer review" process, where... I believe it is three other, independent scientists will review the work and see if there is anything wrong with the way the study was conducted, that would cast doubt over the results. Again, the standard of proof is really very high indeed.

Now let's get back to talking about nutrition. There is so much confusion in ideas about diet and nutrition especially related to weight loss, and it is because people are so eager to inflict their opinions on others as "indisputable facts" that only an idiot wouldn't know already. Their standard of proof is much lower.

For example "I cut out bread and lost weight. Therefore bread makes you fat, and you can't lose weight without cutting out bread". For this to be true, you'd have to ask "well, has anyone ever lost weight while still eating bread?" and of course the answer is yes. Finding more people who've cut out bread and lost weight doesn't strengthen the position. Substitute bread with whatever other supposed single culprit people like to blame, be it grains, GMOs, sugars or whatever.

The bottom line here is total calories. There are people who have lost weight by cutting out a particular food or food type, but it is not proof that this particular food choice is to blame for all cases of overweight or that cutting it out is required in order for weight loss to be successful. If removing a particular choice of foods from your daily eating habits means that you are now no longer consuming an excessive amount of calories, you'll lose weight.

Appropriate vs inappropriate total calories will always be the primary determining factor in body weight. How you arrive at an appropriate intake is up to you, although obviously I'd suggest learning your requirements and planning to meet them with your choice of foods is a better strategy than trial and error through restriction of food choices.

Whichever way you do it is up to you, and is fine. But it's not fine to present this approach as a proven "only" way of doing things, which disproves all other approaches and ideas, and it is far from OK to claim that this is "backed by science".

Another disturbing trend I (and others) have noticed recently is the claim that something is "proven by science", supported by links to research which has actually reached the opposite conclusion. You have to worry then... are these people just mistaken and lacking in some comprehension skill, or are they deliberately setting out to confuse and deceive the public?

Read More