Smart Bomb

This week (16/01/2012) the Neurological Alliance warned that the National Health Service (NHS) were facing a ‘neurological time-bomb’ following a fairly damning report by the National Audit Office that showed that the services surrounding neurological care were severely lacking across the board. (1)

Although it’s not a choice situation, the NHS can’t really bear the burden for the current state of play. As I’ve shown before most disease is not an overnight occurrence, it generally develops over decades.

Neurological disease is only now coming to the forefront because we have become pretty adept at patching people up sufficiently after they’ve developed non-neurological diseases such as circulatory disease and cancer which enables them to live long enough to allow the brain to degenerate to a point where maladies such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s become evident.

As with all disease, the answer lies not in cure but prevention. By the time your brain is damaged to the point of clearly evident symptoms (15-20% reduction in neuronal mass), the best modern medicine can do is offer palliative care to provide symptomatic relief, as there are insufficient neurons to maintain proper brain, or indeed whole body, function. The symptoms may show slight improvement for a while as the remaining neurons are coerced into working harder to compensate, but once the rot has set in, it is unfortunately an inevitable decline until, hopefully, a quick death relieves them of the suffering.

Brain degeneration (and the associated loss of neurons) begins in our 20’s and declines by roughly 5% per decade. So it usually takes about 40 years until it becomes so pronounced that the disease is overtly obvious. If you have genetic markers for certain types of disease such as Alzheimer’s this can happen four times faster, with each decade seeing a 20% loss of neuronal mass, so some poor souls will reach the cut-off point in their mid-thirties.

Although this seems like a doom and gloom scenario, it is actually far from it.  The first step in any situation however, is to identify and admit that there is one. If like a lot of people you dismiss early symptoms such as regular forgetfulness or a slightly shaky hand by disregarding them merely as products of tiredness or stress, then by the time you do admit there is a problem, it’s too late.

Let’s put it out there, all of us, from the age of 25 years onwards are suffering from a gradual process of brain damage. Now, whether that reaches the point of no return in our 40’s or 80’s, or whether it manifests as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s or another debilitating condition, is determined by our individual genetics and our environment.

It doesn’t have to be this way though.

The current science in neurobiology has provided strategies that can not only limit the damage, but if you begin early enough, can actually repair the damage, and regain the lost neuronal mass. If that wasn’t good enough news, using this new science can increase the functioning and processing power of your brain. In fact, without any other change using a simple protocol of specific nutrients has been shown to increase brain speed by 25% in as little as 4 weeks. This is without any other intervention such as brain training or using specialised neurologically designed physical exercise.*

To prevent the accumulation of damage to your brain you need to adopt a few key strategies. I have been covering some of the key sources of damage in my series of articles on ageing, so if you need a primer, check in the archives for these writings.

Remember, to prevent disease you can’t wait until you begin to notice the symptoms, by then it’s too late, with a lot of conditions your first symptom is usually your last. The best time to invest in tomorrow is today.

*If you are interested in improving the functioning of your brain, get in touch for the various programs we offer.

References

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16581674 (Accessed 18th Jan 2012)

Maximum Weight Loss

A recent study has provided a nice equation to use when planning and monitoring your weight loss program. It also backs up my own findings with clients, plus the findings of two world renowned companies with whom I consult.

The study was conducted to look at the maximum amount of weight that can be lost without compromising lean body mass (LBM). This differentiation is vital, since as I’ve discussed previously, loss of LBM lowers metabolic rate. So even though somebody may lose substantial amounts of weight (Fat Mass and LBM), if a good proportion of that is LBM you actually end up with a slower metabolism than when you started, and essentially pave the way for both a lifelong struggle with weight, and eventually (and far more rapidly than your body would have before) fat gain.

This is commonly caused by employing the usual methods of weight loss which attempt to lose body fat far too quickly, use insufficient protein, and also often fail to use resistance exercise to maintain muscle. In doing so, they compromise both muscle and performance.

In this recent study (which is pretty representative of the prior evidence), researchers at the Norwegian School of Sports Science in Oslo, reduced the caloric intake of one group of athletes by 30% (Fast Loss), and another group by 19% (Slow Loss). The diet continued until both groups lost 5% bodyweight, which took the Fast Loss Group between 5 and 6 weeks and the Slow Loss Group between 8 and 10 weeks. To assist in maintaining muscle mass, they used four resistance workouts per week. (1)

Results showed that although the Fast Loss Group did not lose significant lean mass (there was however a slight reduction) or strength, they did not improve performance either, which you would expect from an effective training program. Their fat mass was reduced by 21%.

The Slow Loss Group gained 2% lean mass, and gained significant strength in the one–repetition-maximum strength test and improved performance in other tests. However, this group reduced their fat mass by 31% (10% more than the Fast Loss Group), leaving them not only leaner, but, due to the increased LBM, also with a faster metabolism.

The authors concluded that a weekly loss of 0.7% of your bodyweight is a good level in which to aim. This percentage is about the maximum you should ideally lose if long term body-compositional change is your goal. In fact, one of the companies I correspond with leans towards a percentage of between 0.4-0.6 per week as the maximum a client should lose for long term change.

This is extremely frustrating for a lot of clients of reputable coaches as they (the clients) have been deceived into believing the 2-3 lb per week bullsh*t touted by the big multi-national ‘weight loss’ companies. As I’ve exposed before (http://tinyurl.com/7kpslr4) this figure (2-3 lb) has more to do with guaranteeing repeat custom, than your long term success. I personally don’t want customers to come back for repeat weight loss programs, if they do, it means I wasn’t successful in the first place. I don’t do failure.

Quick example: If a female client came to me weighing about 161 lbs, the MAXIMUM weight loss I would want to see in the first week would be about 1 lb. The following week I would expect slightly less as we are now re-starting from a reduced set-point, and so on as we re-adjust through subsequent weeks.

However, bear in mind that this is if the person is both weight training and eating optimal amounts of protein. In which case, especially if they are new to weight training, the scale may not even register a drop in bodyweight as we may be gaining LBM in excess of the drops in bodyfat. The scale may even show an upward trend, at least for a while.

Both from the research and in real-world situations the best strategy for long term improvements in body composition and in terms of metabolic rate, is to take it slow, do regular resistance exercise, take the right type and amounts of protein each day, and lose NO MORE than 0.7% bodyweight per week.

References

1. Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Koivisto A, Sundgot-Borgen J. Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2011 Apr;21(2):97-104.

Poisonous Bodyfat

A recent study has provided concrete evidence how pollution is a contributory factor in obesity. In the study the subjects who were exposed to higher levels of pollutants gained more fat. It actually ties in to many other theories of obesity that are currently being discussed. You can read a summary of the research here http://tinyurl.com/285mj2h

The term lipophilic means the tendency of chemicals to be attracted to and mix with fats. During the last Century (and change), essentially since the advent of the industrial revolution, we have choked our environment with thousands and thousands of lipophilic toxins, such as pesticides, off-gassing toxins from building products, and industrial waste from manufacture and disposal of internal components of electrical goods.

Despite International efforts attempting to reduce or eliminate these toxins, it’s currently ineffective. Due to the rapid growth of industry in emerging economies, the pollution of our environment shows no sign of slowing down, at least not in our near future.

Many of these substances are highly carcinogenic compounds which also cause damage to your hormonal and organ systems. To prevent these toxins from causing mortal damage, your body attempts to protect itself by shuttling these compounds into your fat cells. Better there than the fatty structures that make up your most important organs, such as your eyes and brain. And if you don’t have sufficient fat to act as a storage depot, your body will set itself up to create more, either by altering your metabolism or stimulating your hunger drive to compel you to overeat.

The main route of entry of lipophilic toxins into your body is through the food chain, and from inhaled toxins in household, garden and industrial products. Man made pharmaceuticals are also a potent source.

Although the body protects itself in the short term; so that you don’t keel over immediately, in the long term it sets up a condition that, as I’ve explained in previous articles, underlies almost every disease state currently plaguing Humanity. If you want to read my take on this process, have a look here http://tinyurl.com/62kwcup

The linked study showed that once the toxins enter the fat cell they trigger an inflammatory response. We know now that inflammation in adipose tissue is a major piece of the metabolic dysfunction puzzle. Essentially your fat cells no longer work properly, and this plays a prominent role in the development and/ or progression of insulin resistance; the beginning stages of Type ll Diabetes.

In addition to the inflammation, there is another way toxins contribute to progressive obesity. The toxins stored in the fat cells are a threat to survival for the body, so unless your body has a means to remove the stored toxins, your body will do everything possible to limit the breakdown of fat. Say hello to stubborn bodyfat.

If you do manage to bully the body into releasing the fat, and subsequently the stored toxins, without providing a route of removal, all you have done is effectively poison yourself.

Because restrictive diets by their very nature cannot provide sufficient nutrients that are intimately involved in the detoxification pathways, you get a double whammy that increases toxic burden. Add to this the fact that (un-provided) nutrients required for toxin removal are subsequently scavenged from functional body tissues. These tissues won’t stay functional for long since they now haven’t got the necessary materials to work, and that they’re also slowly being poisoned. Dare I say…triple whammy?

Ever wonder why people feel so bad on restrictive diets? Here’s a hint, it’s not a lack of energy…

To release bodyfat effectively and safely, you need to need to open the canal gates so that the toxins have a pathway out of the body. To do this you need to be in the possession of a first rate lock and lock keeper. You also need an exemplary infrastructure that prevents the canal from becoming congested.

In order to achieve and maintain a healthy level of bodyfat you should aim to build a detoxification system that allows the most efficient transport of toxin removal. Without this primary step you’ll always continue to struggle to lose fat and find it progressively difficult to maintain good health.

I’ve Got Chills, They’re Multiplying

Thermogenesis is the creation of heat in the body. It occurs mainly in muscle and a particular type of fat called Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT). The BAT uses the fat from your White Adipose Tissue (WAT) as fuel. WAT is the fat that surrounds your organs (visceral) and forms a layer just under our skin (subcutaneous).

The thermogenic activity of BAT in hibernating mammals is how they survive the freezing conditions. Black bears, in the middle of winter, for example only drop their temperature an average of 12 deg C from the warm summer months by increasing the activity of their BAT. The amount of fat (WAT) used during this period can range from 150-300 lbs, without them having to lift a pinky.

It was thought that only human baby’s had BAT, which was lost as the human grew into adulthood. We now know this was wrong, although normal ageing and environmental conditions do reduce the amount and activity of BAT. Even so, the amount of BAT in an average human adult is sufficient to use 10-15% of their total energy, all of which comes from bodyfat. Anything you can do to stimulate BAT will reduce your bodyfat, even whilst you are sleeping.

BAT works through a process called uncoupling, which is governed by specific structures called uncoupling proteins (UCP’s). Unfortunately most popular methods of weight loss do not increase the activity of BAT. In fact, they reduce it.

The majority of weight loss programs out there, including all the mainstream groups and classes are still designed entirely on the premise of Calories In vs Calories Out, and for permanent fat loss, that’s a big no-no.

Anytime you curtail energy intake radically, you do lose weight for a few weeks, however this is mostly water (which is why the weight seems to come off so fast in the beginning). This happens because your body senses the reduction in energy intake and turns down your heat as a defensive manoeuvre to conserve its fat. Most diets that require you to reduce energy intake will reduce the activity of uncoupling proteins and subsequently the operation of BAT.

The second way most popular programs attempt to cause weight loss is through exercise, usually in the form of long duration, aerobic exercise. Even though your temperature may rise during the activity, outside of the exercise, both uncoupling and body heat production are reduced. Even if you exercise every day, the one hour you spend exercising is more than offset by the 23 hours of reduced thermogenesis caused as a result.

If you don’t manage to keep the weight off during or after you finish the program, then your thermogenic potential is severely compromised, potentially permanently. Incorrect dieting and exercise are the main reasons people continually flit from diet to diet and although performing hours and hours of aerobic exercise, remain fat.

People who have damaged their uncoupling system generally feel cold. This also compromises their immune system so they are more susceptible to chills and infections.

If you have started a weight loss program and are either experiencing these symptoms or begin to as you continue on the plan, maybe you should re-evaluate the efficacy of what you are doing, and consider a more effective alternative.

Celebrities, Nibbly’s, The Pope and a Bear

Just had a flick through the Health section of the Xmas edition of a very popular celebrity news magazine. I don’t do this very often, as I can’t usually bear the very low level of information included in the pieces. I sometimes flick through the pages in hope that this issue they may have actually brought something of value to their readership. I’ve as yet failed to have my hope rewarded.

To give you an example of what I mean, here was a tip (there were many to choose from) given to ‘Keep it healthy this Christmas’-

‘If only a salty snack is good enough, avoid peanuts and opt for pretzels instead, which are much lower in fat’.

I’ll only touch lightly on the salt issue as it can get quite complicated, not only due to the biochemistry, but as I’ll briefly explain, why food manufacturers include it in their products (believe me it has nothing to do with food preservation), lets look at the simple message being given.

Replace a fairly nutritious, natural, unaltered food with a highly processed, specially designed frankenfood devoid of any real nutritional content.

The rationale? Because it’s lower in fat. Seriously? Are we still in the 80’s?

As I’ve begun to show you, whether you are looking to slim down or just feel and perform better, you had better get your fats right. And I’m not talking about lowering them either. If you really want to excel you should learn which fats to actually increase in your diet.

But this seemingly innocuous substitution is even more devastating than you would believe.

Here’s the ingrediants list for salted peanuts:

Peanuts and ……ummm….salt

If you look at the nutritional content of a peanut (not actually a nut, but a legume (a type of bean)), they actually stack up pretty well. They are high in fiber, low glycemic, high in mono and polyunsaturated fats, a source of protein, and have a fairly complete array of minerals and vitamins.

Now let’s look at the most basic version of a salted pretzel:

Wheat Flour, Vegetable Oil, Sea Salt, Dextrose, Dried Yeast

Let’s dissect this little beauty. First ingredient; Wheat Flour. Phew, where do I start? Most of us in the UK are probably from European decent, that causes us trouble where wheat is concerned. Europeans were part of the first wave of humans that spread out of Africa, at that time our diet was primarily carnivore and didn’t contain much wheat. Why is this an issue? Well, wheat contains a protein called gliadin (a component of gluten), to which we (Europeans) were not exposed, as we had left before it became a staple in the diet. Therefore our DNA was not given a chance to adapt. The Humans left in Africa (and subsequently their descendents today) were exposed for millennia to this food and gradually their DNA evolved to be able to tolerate the gliadin. Us Europeans might adapt in the next 40,000 years, but I doubt it, as we are now influencing evolution in a funny way, but I digress.

A gluten intolerance is part of Celiacs disease and causes all sorts of issues which would take a book to describe. Short and simple version, Celiacs and health are incompatible.

Next problem with wheat, it’s processed. Again, the why’s and how’s and the eventual effects of processing would require an encyclopedic length explanation. Simply put, processing strips the food of nearly all of the nutrients required for their metabolism in the human body. Not only does it not provide you with the nutrient, it actually depletes you of nutrients as they are scavenged from other areas of the body to compensate for the shortfall. Don’t think this is serious? In an upcoming piece I’ll describe a new theory that places this directly at the heart of pretty much all Human disease and ageing.

I’ll provide just one of the effects of processing, that is to alter the glycemic index. The glycemic idex is a measure of a foods ability to raise blood glucose (sugar). Pretzels have a glycemic index of 84. To put that in perspective table sugar (sucrose) has a glycemic index of 65, peanuts are around the 20 mark. Might as well eat spoonfuls of sugar as opposed to pretzels. And guess what? Pretzels are promoted towards diabetics as a healthy snack. Erm…a little bit sick, I might suggest.

Crack/ Snack Addict

Next ingredient: vegetable oil. I won’t go into the whole hydrogenated (or partially) and trans- fat route as this can be dependent on many factors. What I do want to briefly share with you is why the food manufacturers include oil, sugar and salt in almost all processed food. If you look back at the ingredients of the pretzels you can confirm this for yourself:

Wheat Flour, Vegetable Oil, Sea Salt, Dextrose, Dried Yeast.

The manufactures use vegetable oil as it is promoted as being a healthier fat….ummm…not quite. The same goes for sea salt, as though sea salt is somehow completely different to regular table salt. And finally dextrose….isn’t that glucose? Have a look on the labels of some processed foods, if you know what to look for, sugar usually appears more than once, but just labelled with different names.

But why the inclusion of those three items? Sugar, fat and salt. Hmmmm…

Before I get into that, I’d like you to be aware of one fact, most food manufacturers are now owned by tobacco companies. Do you think tobacco companies most important product is tobacco, or now even food? Not a chance, the companies trade in addiction. Bear that in mind, as you read on.

Former FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration (funny bedfellows?)) commissioner David Kessler, MD, goes into detail about exactly how this works in his book, The End of Overeating. Definitely worth reading, but once you open Pandora’s Box, you’ll have a hard time keeping the last bit of hope left inside.

Kessler quotes research by Adam Drewnowski that shows it's the combination of sugar with fat and/or salt that makes people go crazy. Give someone a packet of sugar and tell them to go to town and you won't get much enthusiasm. Same thing for a stick of butter. But combine the ingredients (cake frosting anyone?) and watch out.

Drewnowski conducted a study where he added various amounts of sugar to five different dairy products ranging from skimmed milk to heavy cream. People gave low marks to sweetened non-fat products like sweetened skimmed milk and low marks to unsweetened high-fat products like a heavy cream/vegetable oil blend. But any high-fat product that had sugar added, or any high-sugar product that had fat added, scored higher than any other nation other than the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest.

This combo (sugar, fat, and/or salt) creates what Kessler calls "hyperpalatibility." Rats given a chance to eat these combinations will literally gorge themselves. Apparently, so do humans.

Sugar, fat, and salt is what makes food "compelling" according to the food executives that Kessler interviewed. Take potato skins, for example. Typically, the potato is hollowed out and the skin is fried which provides a substantial surface area for "fat pick-up." Then some combination of bacon bits (usually contains sugar) and cheese is added. The result is fat on fat on fat on fat, much of it loaded with sugar and salt.
Is this stuff addictive? Does the Pope sh*t in the woods? Ummm…might have confused my sayings there…anyway…

Sara Ward of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studied the willingness of animals to work for a food reward even when they're not hungry. She used Ensure, a pretty poor meal replacement drink (which has the magic combo’) that doctors give to older patients who aren't eating enough. The tipping point at which the animals would no longer work for the "reward" was just slightly lower than that for cocaine.

Manufacturers use these combo’s of ingredients to make them irresistible and to make us overeat them.
Then they also cleverly pair those foods with an actual emotional or visual experience, which become stored as pleasant associations to the food – you know; the happy group of friends partying with a tube of ‘crisps’ on a TV commercial or the use of the ‘flavour of the month’ Hollywood actress in their advertising. Pretty soon, you've got a customer for life.

Now you know how they can be so confident with the slogan ‘Once you pop, you can’t stop’.

Sooooo…..back to the health experts suggestion of substituting a peanut for a pretzel…uhhh…I’m assuming in the next issue they’ll be suggesting  swapping out your sweetener for speed as it has a much more favourable effect on your metabolism and it’ll also help curb your appetite.

Be wary of who you give your mind and body to. Remember it’s the most precious thing you do or will ever own, treat yourself with the respect you deserve.

Finally in respect to the initial tip, here’s my revised version

‘Out at a party and want to indulge in the nibbly’s? Leave those nasty pretzels alone, why not try a peanut instead, hell, it’s a celebration, throw the boat out and have a chocolate covered one instead’.

Festive Fattening Fear

If you're concerned about plumping up more than the xmas Turkey, then why not do yourself and many others a good deed and buy yourself a little treat. 

Liftstrong is a resource put together by Alwyn Cosgrove, that contains over 800 pages of training and nutrition information written by the industry's biggest names that'll help you to achieve your dream body in 2012. 

All of the proceeds go to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

http://www.liftstrong.com/

Revvin’ the Engine

‘Okay. First of all, it's cretin. If you're gonna threaten me, do it properly.’ ~ Mike - Monsters Inc

People who take programs with HPC-UK are often surprised at the lack of emphasis placed on Calories in vs Calories out, or, as it’s otherwise called, energy balance. Now, while energy balance is important in the overall scheme, it is dependent, and this is key, on how your mind and body react to food.

If you’ve read my previous work you’ll notice that as much as possible I like to modulate bodily function by focusing upstream, rather than directly affecting end stream processes. This method is used so that the body can put all the checks and balances in place to control the end process. If you would like an example of this top-down protocol read my article on how to increase Testosterone. The article is called ‘The Brain Game’, and can be found here http://hpc-uk.net/2.html

A new study (1) has just added support to the way I design protocols from a number of perspectives, let’s have a brief look at what the study found.

The recent study (a summary can be found here http://tinyurl.com/c3nnjr5) was focused on a group of cells located in a part of your brain called the hypothalamus. Your hypothalamus is responsible for regulation of hunger, thirst, and temperature, as well as feelings of excitement, pleasure, anger, anxiety and fear. It is a very important structure that an optimally functioning body is intimately dependent upon. The specific cells the study looked at are called Orexin neurons.

Orexin neurons are responsible for your state of wakefulness and partially your reward circuitry. Also, until this study came along Orexin cells were only thought to influence metabolism via signals that promote hunger. Well this new study shows that they do more than that, they actually alter your metabolic rate and the way your body partitions and metabolises nutrients.

The activity of Orexin cells can be turned up, which stimulates metabolism, or turned down, which does the opposite and reduces the metabolic rate. Glucose (sugar) has been shown to cause a reduction in the activity of the Orexin cells, which will cause a drop in the metabolic rate, and also cause your state of wakefulness to become subdued. Essentially glucose causes you to be and feel sluggish.

A class of amino acids (non-essential), were shown in this study to strongly increase the activity of the Orexin cells, which stimulated the metabolic rate to increase and promote a state of wakefulness and reward seeking behaviour. Fundamentally, this is the opposite state to that which is induced by glucose.

So carbohydrate alone tends to cause reduced activity in Orexin cells, and protein alone causes an increase in their activity. However, we generally do not eat our meals as separate nutrients, most meals are mixed. The study also commented on this too.

Although the presence of glucose reduced the activity of the Orexin cells, the concurrent presence of non-essential amino acids actually restricted the effect of the glucose. Therefore, consuming sufficient protein (to provide the amino acids) at each meal will not only stimulate your metabolism in its own right, but will attenuate the negative effect of carbohydrate on your metabolic rate.

The study also provides another huge implication. One way the body alters metabolism is through sensing total energy balance. However this study demonstrated that the body also alters metabolism via other key measurements in this case the glucose/ (non essential) amino acid ratio. I won’t go into too much detail here, but in evolutionary terms this makes perfect sense. High glucose levels equate to a fed state, therefore your body reads into this situation as ‘Okay, we have sufficient food, let’s rest and recuperate’. Hence the action of glucose to reduce wakefulness and reward seeking behaviour.

High ratio’s of non-essential amino acids generally occurs under fasting and starvation conditions, not really a time to be kickin’ back. In this situation the body is reading ‘Okay, we are starving, let’s go hunt and forage for food’. This situation requires you to be on high alert (for both predators and prey) and also to be physically capable of chasing down your meals, or if foraging, up to the task of sustaining long periods of physical activity in order to collect sufficient edibles.

I have a feeling this area of study is going to be ‘big’. What I’m going to do is curtail this quick little article here, then, I’ll expand in later articles on how Orexin cells can alter the way your body metabolises nutrients, and how we can manipulate this pathway to our advantage.

References

1. Mahesh M. Karnani, John Apergis-Schoute, Antoine Adamantidis, Lise T. Jensen, Luis de Lecea, Lars Fugger, Denis Burdakov. Activation of Central Orexin/Hypocretin Neurons by Dietary Amino Acids. Neuron, 2011; 72 (4): 616 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.027