Monthly Archives: March 2012

Minimalist Exercise

Not Darrin Carlson

Darrin Carlson on March 23, 2012, shared his ideas on the minimal amount of exercise and equipment needed to achieve reasonable fitness benefits.

Public health authorities for years have recommended physical activity in the range of 150 minutes a week.  That ain’t gonna happen for most folks.  Darrin says “Two hours a week will work for most people….”

Jonathan BailorChris Highcock, and others suggest 30-60 minutes a week may be enough.  Even Darrin admits as much, for the super-dedicated.

-Steve

Sources of Calories in U.S. Diet Over Last Four Decades

Italian seaside totally unrelated to this post

Do you ever wonder how many of the total calories in the aveage U.S. diet come from added sugars? Grains? Dairy products? Added fats?

You’d have to do some detailed nutrient analysis to get your personal numbers, but if you’d like U.S. averages, see this cool infographic at Civil Eats.

The graph also shows how many calories are or were available for consumption per capita over time (without accounting for wastage in restaurants). It’s based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

A superficial glance suggests that U.S. per capita daily calorie consumption has increased by about 600 from the 1970s until now. But remember, these numbers don’t discount for restaurant wastage. Nor do I see an adjustment for children versus adults. I’ve seen other calculations of an extra daily 150 calories (women) to 300 calories (men). Even the lower numbers could explain our explosion of overweight and obesity.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Are Saturated Fats Really All That Bad?

This is an epic post of mine from the old Advanced Mediterranean Diet blog, originally dated July 6, 2009. That was a watershed year for me in terms of accepting nutritional dogma, because of the ideas in this article.  This was also before I ever gave serious consideration to the paleo diet.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about saturated fats. Weird, huh?

No saturated fat in grapes

The American Heart Association recommends that Americans limit the amount of saturated fats they eat to less than 7 percent of total daily calories. If you eat 2,000 calories a day, no more than 140 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 16 grams of saturated fats.

In over two decades of clinical practice, I’ve never run across a patient willing to do that calculation. Not many physicians could tell you the “seven percent rule.”

One of the two major themes of Gary Taubes’ book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, is that dietary saturated fats are not particularly harmful to our health, if at all. From what I’ve been taught, this is sacrilegious. “Saturated fats are a major cause of heart disease and strokes,” I’ve heard and read over and over. In brief, this is the Diet-Heart Hypothesis or the “lipid hypothesis”: Dietary saturated fat, total fat, and cholesterol are directly related to coronary heart disease and other forms of atherosclerosis (aka hardening of the arteries).

In his review of Taubes’ book, Dr. George Bray didn’t even address Taubes’ point about saturated fats, writing instead, “read and decide for yourself.”

That started me thinking either that the Diet-Heart Hypothesis is indefensible or that Dr. Bray is lazy. I don’t think he’s lazy. Dr. Bray is a Grand High Pooh-Bah in the fields of obesity and nutrition.

The American Heart Association in 1957 recommended that polyunsaturated fats replace saturated fats.

U.S. public health recommendations in 1977 were to reduce fat intake to 30% of total calories to lower the risk of coronary heart disease. Slowly, some fats were replaced mostly with carbohydrates, highly refined ones at that. This shift tends to raise triglycerides and lower HDL cholesterol levels, which may themselves contribute to atherosclerosis. Current recommendations are, essentially, to keep saturated fatty acids as low as possible.

One concern about substituting carbohydrates for fats is that blood sugar levels rise, leading to insulin release from the pancreas, in turn promoting growth of fat tissue and potentially leading to weight gain. Some believe that the public health recommendation to reduce total fat (which led to higher carbohydrate intake) is the reason for the dramatic rise in overweight and diabetes we’ve seen over the last 30 years.

Note that if intake of saturated fats is inadequate, our bodies can make the saturated fats it needs from carbohydrates. These are generally the same saturated fats that are present in dietary fats of animal origin. The only exceptions are the two essential fatty acids: alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid.

Why would saturated fats be harmful? Apparently because they raise blood levels of cholesterol (including LDL cholesterol – “bad cholesterol”), which is thought to be a cause of atherosclerosis, which increases the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke. I don’t recall seeing any mention of a direct toxic effect of saturated fats (or fatty acids) on arterial walls, where the rubber meets the road. (Saturated fats are broken down in the small intestine to glycerol and fatty acids.)

Dietary saturated fats also raise HDL cholesterol – “good cholesterol” – although not to the degree they raise LDL.

You needed a break

Let’s not forget many other factors that cause, contribute to, or predict coronary heart disease and atherosclerosis: smoking, family history, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, oxidative stress, homocysteine level, systemic inflammation, high-glycemic index diets, C-reactive protein, lack of exercise, and others. I discussed dietary factors in my April 14, 2009, blog post.

Often overlooked in discussion of dietary fat effects is the great variability of response to fats among individuals. Response can depend on genetics, sex, fitness level, overweight or not, types of carbohydrates eaten, amount of total dietary fat, etc. And not all saturated fats affect cholesterol levels.

Many of the journal articles listed as references below support the idea that the link between dietary saturated fats and coronary heart disease is not strong, and may be nonexistent. Read them and you’ll find that:

  • Some studies show no association between dietary saturated fats and coronary heart disease.
  • Some studies associate lower rates of coronary heart disease with higher saturated fat intake.
  • Higher saturated fat intake was associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis in women.
  • Lowering saturated fat intake did not reduce total or coronary heart disease mortality.

“Read and decide for yourself,” indeed. I think you’ll begin to question the reigning dogma.

For example, here’s a conclusion from the Hooper article (from 2001):

In this review we have tried to separate out whether changes in individual fatty acid fractions are responsible for any benefits to health (using the technique of meta-regression). The answers are not definitive, the data being too sparse to be convincing. We are left with a suggestion that less total fat or less of any individual fatty acid fraction in the diet is beneficial.

And a conclusion of the J.B. German article:

At this time [2004], research on how specific saturated fatty acids contribute to coronary artery disease and on the role each specific saturated fatty acid play in other health outcomes is not sufficient to make global recommendations for all persons to remove saturated fats from their diet. No randomized clinical trials of low-fat diets or low-saturated fat diets of sufficient duration have been carried out; thus, there is a lack of knowledge of how low saturated fat intake can be without the risk of potentially deleterious health outcomes.

Zarraga and Schwartz (2006) conclude:

Numerous studies have been conducted to help provide dietary recommendations for optimal cardiovascular health. The most compelling data appear to come from trials that tested diets rich in fruits, vegetables, MUFAs [monounsaturated fatty acids], and PUFAs [polyunsaturated fatty acids], particularly the n-3 PUFAs. In addition, some degree of balance among various food groups appears to be a more sustainable behavioral practice than extreme restriction of a particular food group.

Here’s another of my favorite quotes on this topic, from the J.B. German article:

If saturated fatty acids were of no value or were harmful to humans, evolution would probably not have established within the mammary gland the means to produce saturated fatty acids . . . that provide a source of nourishment to ensure the growth , development, and survival of mammalian offspring.

Take-Home Points

The connection between dietary saturated fat and coronary heart disease is weak.

I may be excommunicated from the medical community for uttering this. You won’t hear it from most physicians or dietitians. They don’t have time to spend 80 hours on this topic, so they stick with the party line. And maybe I’m wrong anyway.

The scientific community is slowly moving away from the original Diet-Heart/Lipid Hypothesis. It is being replaced with stronger anti-atherosclerosis theories that promote:

  • fruit and vegetable intake
  • whole grain intake
  • low-glycemic index eating
  • increased consumption of plant oils and fish
  • moderate intake of nuts
  • ? moderate intake of low-fat diary (e.g., DASH diet) (less consensus on this point)

So, saturated fats and dietary cholesterol are being crowded out of the picture, or ignored. In many cases, saturated fats have literally been replaced by poly- and monounsaturated fats (plant oils). Several clinical studies indicate that’s a healthy change, but it may be related more to the healthfulness of the plant oils than to detrimental effects of saturated fats.

The original Diet-Heart Hypothesis won’t die until the American Heart Association and U.S. public health agencies put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. That will take another 10 years or more.

If you want to hedge your bets, go ahead and limit your saturated fat intake. It probably won’t hurt you. It might help a wee bit. By the same token, I’m not going on an all-meat and cheese, ultra-high-saturated fat diet; I don’t want to miss out on the healthy effects of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and low-glycemic index carbohydrates. Some would throw red wine into the mix. This “prudent diet” reflects what I hereby christen The 21st Century Diet-Heart Hypothesis.

If you’re worried about coronary heart disease and atherosclerosis, spend less time counting saturated fat grams, and more time on other risk-reducing factors: diet modification as above, get regular exercise, control your blood pressure, achieve a healthy weight, and don’t smoke. More bang for the buck.

What do you think?

Steve Parker, M.D.

Disclaimer: All matters regarding your health require supervision by a personal physician or other appropriate health professional familiar with your current health status. Always consult your personal physician before making any dietary or exercise changes.

Selected References Contradicting or Questioning the Diet-Heart Hypothesis (updated February 19, 2012):

Astrup, A., et al (including Ronald Krause, Frank Hu, and Walter Willett). The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93 (2011): 684-688. (The authors believe that replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats (but not carbohydrates) can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). For the last four decades, low-fat diets replaced fat with carbohydates. So they believe saturated fatty acids cause CHD or polyunsaturated fatty acids prevent it. I see no mention of total fat intake in this article written by major names in nutritional epidemiology and lipid metabolism. “In countries following a Western diet, replacing 1% of energy intake from saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fatty acids has been associated with a 2–3% reduction in the incidence of CHD.” “Furthermore, the effect of particular foods on CHD cannot be predicted solely by their content of total saturated fatty acids because individual saturated fatty acids may have different cardiovascular effects and major saturated fatty acid food sources contain other constituents that could influence coronary heart disease risk.”) A Feb. 19, 2012, press release from the Harvard School of Public Health covered much of the same ground. It’s titled “Time to Stop Talking About Low-Fat, say HSPH Nutrition Experts.”

Siri-Tarino, Patty, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, January 13, 2010. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725

Skeaff, C. Murray and Miller, Jody. Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: Summary of evidence from prospective cohort and randomised controlled trials. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 55 (2009): 173-201.

Halton, Thomas, et al. Low-carbohydrate-diet score and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. New England Journal of Medicine, 355 (2006): 1,991-2,002.

German, J. Bruce, and Dillard, Cora J. Saturated fats: What dietary intake? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80 (2004): 550-559.

Ravnskov, U. The questionable role of saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids in cardiovascular disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51 (1998): 443-460.

Ravsnskov, U. Hypothesis out-of-date. The diet-heart idea. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55 (2002): 1,057-1,063.

Ravnskov, U, et al. Studies of dietary fat and heart disease. Science, 295 (2002): 1,464-1,465.

Taubes, G. The soft science of dietary fat. Science, 291 (2001): 2535-2541.

Zarraga, Ignatius, and Schwartz, Ernst. Impact of dietary patterns and interventions on cardiovascular health. Circulation, 114 (2006): 961-973.

Mente, Andrew, et al. A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169 (2009): 659-669.

Parikh, Parin, et al. Diets and cardiovascular disease: an evidence-based assessment. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 45 (2005): 1,379-1,387.

Bray, G.A. Review of Good Calories, Bad Calories. Obesity Reviews, 9 (2008): 251-263. Reproduced at the Protein Power website of Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades.

Hooper, L., et al. Dietary fat intake and prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 322 (2001): 757-763.

Weinberg, W.C. The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: a critique. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 43 (2004): 731-733.

Mozaffarian, Darius, et al. Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80 (2004): 1,175-1,184.

Related editorial: Knopp, Robert and Retzlaff, Barbara. Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80 (2004): 1.102-1.103.

Yusuf, S., et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet, 364 (2004): 937-952. (ApoB/ApoA1 ratio was a risk factor for heart attack, so dietary saturated fat may play a role if it affects this ratio.)

Hu, Frank. Diet and cardiovascular disease prevention: The need for a paradigm shift. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 50 (2007): 22-24. (Dr. Hu de-emphasizes the original diet-heart hypothesis, noting instead that “. . . reducing dietary GL [glycemic load] should be made a top public health priority.:)

Oh, K., et al. Dietary fat intake and risk of coronary heart disease in women: 20 years of follow-up of the Nurses’ Health Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 161 (2005): 672-679.

Parker, Steve. Time to abandon the diet-heart hypothesis? Advanced Mediterranean Diet Blog, May 1, 2009.

Parker, Steve. New study confirms the heart-healthy Mediterranean diet. Advanced Mediterranean Diet Blog, April 14, 2009. (Examination of the Mente study listed above.)

Selected References Supporting the Diet-Heart Hypothesis (by no means exhaustive)

Ascherio, A. Epidemiologic studies on dietary fats and coronary heart disease. American Journal of Medicine, 113 (supplement) (2002): 9S-12S.

Griel, Amy and Kris-Etherton, Penny. Beyond saturated fat: The importance of the dietary fatty acid profile on cardiovascular disease. Nutrition Reviews, 64 (2006): 257-262. (Primarily a response to the Mozaffarian article above.)

Erkkila, Arja, et al. Dietary fatty acids and cardiovascular disease: An epidemiological approach. Progress in Lipid Research, 47 (2008): 172-187.

Classic Australian Aborigine Study on Return to Ancestral Diet and Lifestyle

Did you know kangaroo is edible?

The scientific article I review today is often cited by those who favor a Paleolithic diet for diabetics.  Cordain and Stefanson have written about it, for example.

Background

Urbanized Australian Aboriginal communities have a high prevalence of type 2 diabetes.   Kerin O’Dea writes:

The change from an urban to a traditional lifestyle involves several factors that directly affect insulin sensitivity: increased physical activity, reduced energy intake and weight loss, and changes in the overall dietary composition.  All of these factors improve insulin sensitivity and should, therefore, be of benefit to the insulin-resistant diabetic.

Methods

Ten urban type 2 diabetic and four nondiabetic full-blood Aborigines agreed to revert to their traditional lifestyle as hunter-gatherers in an isolated region of Australia for seven weeks.  Average age was 53.  Half of them were moderate to heavy alcohol drinkers.  Average diabetic weight was 82 kg (180 lb); nondiabetics averaged 77 kg (169 lb).  There were equal numbers of men and omen.  None of the diabetics was on insulin, and only one was on an oral diabetic drug (a sulfonylurea). 

Ayers Rock, Uluru National Park, Australia

The study was carried out at Pantijan, the traditional land of these Aborigines.  It’s a day-and-a-half drive in a four-wheel vehicle from Derby.  At least it was in 1984.

For seven weeks, the participants ate only what they hunted or collected.  Diet composition was dependent on whether they were travelling to the homeland (1.5 weeks), at the coastal location (2 weeks), or inland on the river (3.5 weeks). Protein sources were mainly beef, kangaroo, fish, birds, crocodiles, and turtles.  Carboydrate content ranged from under 5% to 33%.  Protein content varied from 50 to 80%.  Fat was 13 to 40%.  So, very high protein and low-carb.  Carb sources were yams, honey, and figs.  Yams were the predominant carb source.  They also eat yabbies (shrimp or crayfish (“crawdads” in Oklahoma)).  Average energy intake was a very low 1,200 calories a day. 

The author implies this was the traditional Aboriginal diet.

What did they eat back home in the city? 

The main dietary components were flour, sugar, rice, carbonated drinks, alcoholic drinks (beer and port), powdered milk, cheap fatty meat, potatoes, onions, and variable contributions of other fresh fruit and vegetables. 

O’Dea estimates a macronutrient breakdown of 50% carb, 40% fat, and 10% protein (similar to the Standard American Diet, then).

What Did O’Dea Find Out?

Everyone lost weight, a group average of 8 kg (18 lb) over the seven weeks.

Fasting blood sugars fell in the diabetics from 11.6 mmol/l to 6.6 mmol/l (209 to 119 mg/dl).  After-meal blood sugars also fell dramatically.

Fasting insulin levels fell from 23 to 12 mU/l.

Fasting triglycerides fell drastically. 

HDL cholesterol fell significantly, whereas LDL cholesterol tended to rise.

So What?

How often do you see a scientific article with just one author?  Rarely, these days.

The investigator wrote that, “Under the conditions of the study it is difficult to separate out effects of dietary composition, low energy intake, and weight loss.”

O’Dea estimates that experimental activity levels were probably higher than in the urban setting, but not dramatically more so.  (He was with the participants throughout the experiment.)

The main carbohydrate sources in this ancestral diet were yams, honey, and figs.  Modern Australian honey is probably similar to the honey of 100,000 years ago.  But what about yams and figs? 

These folks had to have been eating twice as many calories, at least, back in their urban environment.  O’Dea didn’t comment on how well the participants tolerated calorie restriction.  Did they complain?  Did they eat to satiety?  They had no access to food other than what they could hunt and gather.  Was food in short supply?  It’s not documented.  You’d think O’Dea would mention these issues if they were a problem. 

This particular ancestral diet was extremely high in protein: 50–80% of calories.  (Eaton and Konner suggest that an average ancestral diet provides only 25–30% of total calories from protein.  A typical modern high-protein diet derives about 30% of calories from protein, compared with 15–18% in the standard American diet.)  Protein helps combat hunger.  But halving caloric intake for seven weeks is extreme.  Don’t believe me?  Just try it.  This degree of caloric restriction by itself would tend to lower blood sugar levels and body weight in most humans, regardless of macronutrient ratios and ethnicity.

I know nothing about Australian Aborigines as an ethnic and genetic group.  Is their diabetes similar to European diabetes?  Pima Indian diabetes?   

O’Dea never called the study diet Paleolithic, because it wasn’t. It was a modern hunter-gatherer diet eaten by rural, isolated Australian Aboriginal communities.

This calorie-restricted, very-high-protein, natural diet was very effective for weight loss and blood sugar control in this tiny, seven-week study on a specific ethnic population.  I bet the caloric restriction was the most effective component of the lifestyle change.  Restriction of refined sugars and starches also helped. 

This ancestral diet was beneficial for a few Australian Aborigines.  Are the lessons widely applicable?  Not yet.  As they say, “further studies are needed.”  You can’t just cite this study to say that paleo diets are healthy for diabetics.

It does jibe with plenty of other research that shows severe calorie restriction leads to weight loss and lower blood sugar levels.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: O’Dea, Kerin.  Marked improvement in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in diabetic Australian Aborigines after temporary reversion to traditional lifestyle.  Diabetes, 33 (1984): 596-603.

Book Review: The Smarter Science of Slim

I  recently read The Smarter Science of Slim, by Jonathan Bailor, published in 2012.   I post this here because the author considers his eating plan to be a Paleolithic-style (Stone Age) diet.  Per Amazon.com’s rating system, I give it four stars (“I like it”).

♦   ♦   ♦

Mr. Bailor’s weight-management diet avoids grains, most dairy, oils, refined starches, added sugars, starchy veggies, corn, white potatoes.  You eat meat, chicken, eggs, some fruit, nuts, seeds, and copious low-starch vegetables.  No limit on food if you eat the right items.   

It’s high-fiber, high-protein, moderate-fat, moderate-carb (1/3 of calories from carbohydrate,  1/3 from protein, 1/3 from fat).  He considers it paleo eating (aka Stone Age) even though he allows moderate legumes and dairy (fat-free or low-fat cottage cheese and plain Greek yogurt).  Paleo purists outlaw legumes and  milk products.

Will it lead to weight lose? Quite probably in a majority of followers, especially those eating the standard, low-quality American diet.  When it works, it’s because you’ve cut out the fattening carbohydrates so ubiquitous in Western societies.  The protein and fiber will help with satiety.  Is it a safe eating plan?  Yes.

For those with diabetes needing to lose weight, I prefer a lower carbohydrate content in the diet, something like Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution or  Conquer Diabetes and Prediabetes: The Low-Carb Mediterranean Diet.

I don’t recall any recipes or specific meal plans.  You put your own meals together following his guidelines.

Our major points of agreement:

  • Exercise isn’t terribly helpful as a weight-loss technique for most folks.
  • We’re overweight because we eat too many starches and sweets.
  • Natural, minimally processed foods are healthier than man-made highly refined items.
  • No need to emphasize “organic” /grass-fed beef/free-range chicken.
  • We don’t do enough high-quality exercise.

I have a few problems with the book:

  • It says we’re eating less.  U.S. caloric consumption over the last several decades has increased by about 150 cals (630 kJ) a day for men and 300 cals (1260 kJ) for women.  The author seems to contradict himself at one point by favorably quoting Hilda Bruch’s writing that “…overeating is observed with great regularity” in the obese. 
  • Scary graphs showing increasing instances of heart disease and diabetes over time aren’t helpful because they ignore population growth.  The population-adjusted diabetes rate is indeed increasing whereas heart disease rates are decreasing.
  • It says the Calories In/Calories Out theory of overweight has been proven wrong.  This is by no means true.  It just hasn’t helped us much to reverse the overweight epidemic.  Sure, it’s often said that if you just cut a daily tablespoon of butter out of your diet, you’d lose 11 lb (5 kg) in a year, all other things being equal.  Problem is, all other things are never equal.  In reality, we replace the butter with something else, or we’re slightly less active.  So weight doesn’t change or we gain a little.
  • It says the “eat less, exercise more” mantra has been proven wrong as a weight loss method.  Not really.  See above.  And watch an episode of TV’s The Biggest Loser.  Exercise can burn off fat tissue.  The problem is that we tend to overeat within the next 12 hours, replacing the fat we just burned. I agree with the author that “eat less, exercise more” is extremely hard to do, which is the reason it so often fails over the long run.  As Mr. Bailor writes elsewhere: “Hard to do” plus “do not want to do” generally equals “it’s not happening.”  Mr. Bailor would say the reason it ultimately fails is because of a metabolic clog or dysregulation. 
  • He says there’s no relationship between energy (calorie) consumption and overweight.  Not true.  Need references?  Google these: PMID 15516193, PMID 17878287, PMID 14762332.  The author puts too much faith in self-reports of food intake, which are notoriously inaccurate.  And obese folks under-report consumption more than others (this is not to say they’re lying). 
  • Mr. Bailor’s assessments too often rely on rat and mice studies.
  • By page 59, I had found five text sentences that didn’t match up well with the numeric bibiographic references (e.g., pages 48, 50, 59).
  • S. Boyd Eaton is thrice referred to as S. Boyd.
  • How did he miss the research on high intensity interval training by Tabata and colleagues in 1996.  Gibala is mentioned often but he wasn’t the pioneer.
  • Several diagrams throughout the book didn’t print well (not the author’s fault, of course).
  • In several spots, the author implies that HIS specific eating and exercise program has been tested in research settings.  It hasn’t.

Mr. Bailor’s exercise prescription is the most exciting part of the book for me.  His review of the literature indicates you can gain the weight-management and health benefits of exercise with just 10 or 20 minutes a week.  NOT the hour a day recommended by so many public heath authorities.  And he tells you how to do the exercises without a gym membership or expensive equipment.  That 20 minutes is exhausting and not fun.  You have fun in all the hours you saved.  If this pans out, we’re on the cusp of a fitness revolution.  Gym owners won’t be happy.  Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?

One component of the exercise program is high intensity interval training (HIIT), which I’m convinced is better than hours per week of low-intensity “cardio” like jogging. Better in terms of both fitness and weight management.

The resistance training part of the program focuses on low repetitions with high resistance, especially eccentric slow muscle contraction.  This is probably similar to programs recommended by Doug McGuff. John Little, Chris Highcock, and Skyler Tanner.  I’m no authority on this but I’m trying to learn.  By this point in the book, I was tired of looking up his cited references (76 pages!).  I just don’t know if this resistance training style is the way to go or not.  I’ll probably have to just try it on myself.  What do you think?

I admire Mr. Bailor’s effort to digest and condense decades of nutrition and exercise research.  He succeeds to a large degree.

Steve Parker, M.D.