For the sake of convenience: Commercial sources of prebiotic fibers

3. May 2015 William Davis (0)
Our efforts to obtain prebiotic fibers/resistant starches, as discussed in the Cureality Digestive Health Track, to cultivate healthy bowel flora means recreating the eating behavior of primitive humans who dug in the dirt with sticks and bone fragments for underground roots and tubers, behaviors you can still observe in extant hunter-gatherer groups, such as the Hadza and Yanomamo. But, because this practice is inconvenient for us modern folk accustomed to sleek grocery stores, because many of us live in climates where the ground is frozen much of the year, and because we lack the wisdom passed from generation to generation that helps identify which roots and tubers are safe to eat and which are not, we rely on modern equivalents of primitive sources. Thus, green, unripe bananas, raw potatoes and other such fiber sources in the Cureality lifestyle.

There is therefore no need to purchase prebiotic fibers outside of your daily effort at including an unripe green banana, say, or inulin and fructooligosaccharides (FOS), or small servings of legumes as a means of cultivating healthy bowel flora. These are powerful strategies that change the number and species of bowel flora over time, thereby leading to beneficial health effects that include reduced blood sugar and blood pressure, reduction in triglycerides, reduced anxiety and improved sleep, and reduced colon cancer risk.

HOWEVER, convenience can be a struggle. Traveling by plane, for example, makes lugging around green bananas or raw potatoes inconvenient. Inulin and FOS already come as powders or capsules and they are among the options for a convenient, portable prebiotic fiber strategy. But there are others that can be purchased. This is a more costly way to get your prebiotic fibers and you do not need to purchase these products in order to succeed in your bowel flora management program. These products are therefore listed strictly as a strategy for convenience.

Most perspectives on the quality of human bowel flora composition suggest that diversity is an important feature, i.e., the greater the number of species, the better the health of the host. There may therefore be advantage in varying your prebiotic routine, e.g., green banana on Monday, inulin on Tuesday, PGX (below) on Wednesday, etc. Beyond providing convenience, these products may introduce an added level of diversity, as well.

Among the preparations available to us that can be used as prebiotic fibers:

PGX

While it is billed as a weight management and blood sugar-reducing product, the naturally occurring fiber--α-D-glucurono-α-D-manno-β-D-manno- β-D-gluco, α-L-gulurono-β-D mannurono, β-D-gluco-β- D-mannan--in PGX also exerts prebiotic effects (evidenced by increased fecal butyrate, the beneficial end-product of bacterial metabolism). PGX is available as capsules or granules. It also seems to exert prebiotic effects at lower doses than other prebiotic fibers. While I usually advise reaching 20 grams per day of fiber, PGX appears to exert substantial effects at a daily dose of half that quantity. As with all prebiotic fibers, it is best to build up slowly over weeks, e.g., start at 1.5 grams twice per day. It is also best taken in two or three divided doses. (Avoid the PGX bars, as they are too carb-rich for those of us trying to achieve ideal metaobolic health.)

Prebiotin

A combination of inulin and FOS available as powders and in portable Stick Pacs (2 gram and 4 gram packs). This preparation is quite costly, however, given the generally low cost of purchasing chicory inulin and FOS separately.

Acacia

Acacia fiber is another form of prebiotic fiber.  RenewLife and NOW are two reputable brands.

Isomalto-oligosaccharides

This fiber is used in Quest bars and in Paleo Protein Bars. With Quest bars, choose the flavors without sucralose, since it has been associated with undesirable changes in bowel flora.

There you go. It means that there are fewer and fewer reasons to not purposefully cultivate healthy bowel flora and obtain all the wonderful health benefits of doing so, from reduced blood pressure, to reduced triglycerides, to deeper sleep.

Disclaimer: I am not compensated in any way by discussing these products.

How Not To Have An Autoimmune Condition

20. April 2015 William Davis (0)

Autoimmune conditions are becoming increasingly common. Estimates vary, but it appears that at least 8-9% of the population in North America and Western Europe have one of these conditions, with The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association estimating that it’s even higher at 14% of the population.

The 200 or so autoimmune diseases that afflict modern people are conditions that involve an abnormal immune response directed against one or more organs of the body. If the misguided attack is against the thyroid gland, it can result in Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. If it is directed against pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin, it can result in type 1 diabetes or latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA). If it involves tissue encasing joints (synovium) like the fingers or wrists, it can result in rheumatoid arthritis. It if involves the liver, it can result in autoimmune hepatitis, and so on. Nearly every organ of the body can be the target of such a misguided immune response.

While it requires a genetic predisposition towards autoimmunity that we have no control over (e.g., the HLA-B27 gene for ankylosing spondylitis), there are numerous environmental triggers of these diseases that we can do something about. Identifying and correcting these factors stacks the odds in your favor of reducing autoimmune inflammation, swelling, pain, organ dysfunction, and can even reverse an autoimmune condition altogether.

Among the most important factors to correct in order to minimize or reverse autoimmunity are:

Wheat and grain elimination

If you are reading this, you likely already know that the gliadin protein of wheat and related proteins in other grains (especially the secalin of rye, the hordein of barley, zein of corn, perhaps the avenin of oats) initiate the intestinal “leakiness” that begins the autoimmune process, an effect that occurs in over 90% of people who consume wheat and grains. The flood of foreign peptides/proteins, bacterial lipopolysaccharide, and grain proteins themselves cause immune responses to be launched against these foreign factors. If, for instance, an autoimmune response is triggered against wheat gliadin, the same antibodies can be aimed at the synapsin protein of the central nervous system/brain, resulting in dementia or cerebellar ataxia (destruction of the cerebellum resulting in incoordination and loss of bladder and bowel control). Wheat and grain elimination is by far the most important item on this list to reverse autoimmunity.

Correct vitamin D deficiency

It is clear that, across a spectrum of autoimmune diseases, vitamin D deficiency serves a permissive, not necessarily causative, role in allowing an autoimmune process to proceed. It is clear, for instance, that autoimmune conditions such as type 1 diabetes in children, rheumatoid arthritis, and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis are more common in those with low vitamin D status, much less common in those with higher vitamin D levels. For this and other reasons, I aim to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 60-70 ng/ml, a level that usually requires around 4000-8000 units per day of D3 (cholecalciferol) in gelcap or liquid form (never tablet due to poor or erratic absorption). In view of the serious nature of autoimmune diseases, it is well worth tracking occasional blood levels.

Supplement omega-3 fatty acids

While omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, from fish oil have proven only modestly helpful by themselves, when cast onto the background of wheat/grain elimination and vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids compound anti-inflammatory benefits, such as those exerted via cyclooxygenase-2. This requires a daily EPA + DHA dose of around 3600 mg per day, divided in two. Don’t confuse EPA and DHA omega-3s with linolenic acid, another form of omega-3 obtained from meats, flaxseed, chia, and walnuts that does not not yield the same benefits. Nor can you use krill oil with its relatively trivial content of omega-3s.

Eliminate dairy

This is true in North America and most of Western Europe, less true in New Zealand and Australia. Autoimmunity can be triggered by the casein beta A1 form of casein widely expressed in dairy products, but not by casein beta A2 and other forms. Because it is so prevalent in North America and Western Europe, the most confident way to avoid this immunogenic form of casein is to avoid dairy altogether. You might be able to consume cheese, given the fermentation process that alters proteins and sugar, but that has not been fully explored.

Cultivate healthy bowel flora

People with autoimmune conditions have massively screwed up bowel flora with reduced species diversity and dominance of unhealthy species. We restore a healthier anti-inflammatory panel of bacterial species by “seeding” the colon with high-potency probiotics, then nourishing them with prebiotic fibers/resistant starches, a collection of strategies summarized in the Cureality Digestive Health discussions. People sometimes view bowel flora management as optional, just “fluff”–it is anything but. Properly managing bowel flora can be a make-it-or-break-it advantage; don’t neglect it.

There you go: a basic list to get started on if your interest is to begin a process of unraveling the processes of autoimmunity. In some conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and polymyalgia rheumatica, full recovery is possible. In other conditions, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and the pancreatic beta cell destruction leading to type 1 diabetes, reversing the autoimmune inflammation does not restore organ function: hypothyroidism results after thyroiditis quiets down and type 1 diabetes and need for insulin persists after pancreatic beta cell damage. But note that the most powerful risk factor for an autoimmune disease is another autoimmune disease–this is why so many people have more than one autoimmune condition. People with Hashimoto’s, for instance, can develop rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis. So the above menu is still worth following even if you cannot hope for full organ recovery

Five Powerful Ways to Reduce Blood Sugar

4. April 2015 William Davis (0)
Left to conventional advice on diet and you will, more than likely, succumb to type 2 diabetes sooner or later. Follow your doctor’s advice to cut fat and eat more “healthy whole grains” and oral diabetes medication and insulin are almost certainly in your future. Despite this, had this scenario played out, you would be accused of laziness and gluttony, a weak specimen of human being who just gave into excess.

If you turn elsewhere for advice, however, and ignore the awful advice from “official” sources with cozy relationships with Big Pharma, you can reduce blood sugars sufficient to never become diabetic or to reverse an established diagnosis, and you can create a powerful collection of strategies that handily trump the worthless advice being passed off by the USDA, American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, or the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Among the most powerful and effective strategies to reduce blood sugar:

1) Eat no wheat nor grains

Recall that amylopectin A, the complex carbohydrate of grains, is highly digestible, unlike most of the other components of the seeds of grasses AKA “grains,” subject to digestion by the enzyme, amylase, in saliva and stomach. This explains why, ounce for ounce, grains raise blood sugar higher than table sugar. Eat no grains = remove the exceptional glycemic potential of amylopectin A.

2) Add no sugars, avoid high-fructose corn syrup

This should be pretty obvious, but note that the majority of processed foods contain sweeteners such as sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, tailored to please the increased desire for sweetness among grain-consuming people. While fructose does not raise blood sugar acutely, it does so in delayed fashion, along with triggering other metabolic distortions such as increased triglycerides and fatty liver.

3) Vitamin D

Because vitamin D restores the body’s normal responsiveness to insulin, getting vitamin D right helps reduce blood sugar naturally while providing a range of other health benefits.

4) Restore bowel flora

As cultivation of several Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species in bowel flora yields fatty acids that restore insulin responsiveness, this leads to reductions in blood sugar over time. Minus the bowel flora-disrupting effects of grains and sugars, a purposeful program of bowel flora restoration is required (discussed at length in the Cureality Digestive Health section.)

5) Exercise

Blood sugar is reduced during and immediately following exercise, with the effect continuing for many hours afterwards, even into the next day.

Note that, aside from exercise, none of these powerful strategies are advocated by the American Diabetes Association or any other “official” agency purporting to provide dietary advice. As is happening more and more often as the tide of health information rises and is accessible to all, the best advice on health does not come from such agencies nor from your doctor but from your efforts to better understand the truths in health. This is our core mission in Cureality. A nice side benefit: information from Cureality is not accompanied by advertisements from Merck, Pfizer, Kelloggs, Kraft, or Cadbury Schweppes.

Cureality App Review: Breathe Sync

7. March 2015 William Davis (0)


Biofeedback is a wonderful, natural way to gain control over multiple physiological phenomena, a means of tapping into your body’s internal resources. You can, for instance, use biofeedback to reduce anxiety, heart rate, and blood pressure, and achieve a sense of well-being that does not involve drugs, side-effects, or even much cost.

Biofeedback simply means that you are tracking some observable physiologic phenomenon—heart rate, skin temperature, blood pressure—and trying to consciously access control over it. One very successful method is that of bringing the beat-to-beat variation in heart rate into synchrony with the respiratory cycle. In day-to-day life, the heart beat is usually completely out of sync with respiration. Bring it into synchrony and interesting things happen: you experience a feeling of peace and calm, while many healthy phenomena develop.

A company called HeartMath has applied this principle through their personal computer-driven device that plugs into the USB port of your computer and monitors your heart rate with a device clipped on your earlobe. You then regulate breathing and follow the instructions provided and feedback is obtained on whether you are achieving synchrony, or what they call “coherence.” As the user becomes more effective in achieving coherence over time, positive physiological and emotional effects develop. HeartMath has been shown, for instance, to reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure, morning cortisol levels (a stress hormone), and helps people deal with chronic pain. Downside of the HeartMath process: a $249 price tag for the earlobe-USB device.

But this is the age of emerging smartphone apps, including those applied to health. Smartphone apps are perfect for health monitoring. They are especially changing how we engage in biofeedback. An app called Breathe Sync is available that tracks heart rate using the camera’s flash on the phone. By tracking heart rate and providing visual instruction on breathing pattern, the program generates a Wellness Quotient, WQ, similar to HeartMath’s coherence scoring system. Difference: Breathe Sync is portable and a heck of a lot less costly. I paid $9.99, more than I’ve paid for any other mainstream smartphone application, but a bargain compared to the HeartMath device cost.

One glitch is that you need to not be running any other programs in the background, such as your GPS, else you will have pauses in the Breathe Sync program, negating the value of your WQ. Beyond this, the app functions reliably and can help you achieve the health goals of biofeedback with so much less hassle and greater effectiveness than the older methods.

If you are looking for a biofeedback system that provides advantage in gaining control over metabolic health, while also providing a wonderful method of relaxation, Breathe Sync, I believe, is the go-to app right now.

How did Cureality get its start?

27. July 2014 William Davis (0)



In the Cureality program, we embrace information and strategies that empower you in health without drugs, without hospitals, without procedures. We convert your doctor from director of healthcare to your assistant in health. He or she is there when you need help, but you largely direct your own health future.

How did we gain the know-how, information, tools, even chutzpah to take on such an ambitious project?

It started around 10 years ago with the awkwardly named Track Your Plaque program. In fact, some of the current followers of the Cureality program are former Track Your Plaque members, having learned of the wonderful list of strategies that can be adopted to gain better control over, even reverse, coronary atherosclerotic plaque and risk for heart attack. They also learned that something special happens when you engage with other people with similar interests, all sharing ideas, insights, and resources to get the self-directed health job done. Over time, what started out as simply a source of better information for coronary health evolved into a self-directed coronary disease management program. We never set out to create something as wildly ambitious as a do-it-yourself-at-home coronary disease risk management program, but that is how it inadvertently turned out.

How we went from Information Provider to Health Empowerment Program

So we never intended to take on something so seemingly impossible as managing coronary risk on your own. But, because we armed people with such empowering, profound insights into better ways to manage their heart disease risk beyond “don’t smoke, cut saturated fat, be active, and take a statin drug”—the typical advice offered by doctors—they returned after an interaction with their doctors disappointed: doctors often declared such strategies unnecessary, or the doctor didn’t understand them—even when there were clear-cut clinical data already available to support their use. In other words, the patients—everyday people, not experts—knew more than their doctors. 

This flip-flop in the balance of knowledge made for some very interesting stories, like “Harold” (not his real name) who, having survived a heart attack and received a stent, was told by his doctor to cut his fat intake, eat more whole grains, exercise, take aspirin and a beta blocker drug, and reduce his cholesterol values with a statin drug. Upon learning all the additional information from the Track Your Plaque program, Harold returned to his doctor and asked “I’m not so ready to just go along with this idea of ‘reducing cholesterol’ to address heart disease risk. Because my goal is to gain as much control over coronary disease as possible, maybe even reverse it, I’d like to address some additional issues that I believe may be important. I’d like to have my advanced lipoproteins drawn to measure the proportion of small LDL particles I have, whether I have lipoprotein(a), an omega-3 fatty acid index and 25-hydroxy vitamin D level, and a thyroid assessment. Oh, and I believe I should also have an assessment of my inflammation status, perhaps a c-reactive protein and phospholipase A2, and my blood sugar status measured with a fasting glucose, insulin, and hemoglobin A1c.” Harold’s doctor was dumbfounded and speechless. Rather than reveal his ignorance, his doctor advised Harold that none of that was necessary, sending him on his way and telling him that he was fine.

But this left Harold with a sour taste in his mouth, having engaged in many online discussions with people who had followed conventional advice that resulted in more heart attack, more heart procedures—the conventional answers simply did not work. He also discussed his situation with people who had successfully obtained the additional information he sought, added it to their program and enjoyed dramatically improved health, including freedom from more heart attacks, heart symptoms, and heart procedures, as well as improved overall health. So Harold found an easy way to obtain the testing on his own. Within a couple of weeks, he returned to his online community and shared all his information. Within moments, he was provided useful discussion to help him understand the values, all leading to changes in nutrition, nutritional supplement choices, how and where to get the simple tools necessary, such as iodine and vitamin D supplements. He even entered his data, choosing which values he was willing to share with others, which remained private, allowing him to compare his own follow-up values several months later. Engaged in this process, self-directed but collaborative, he witnessed marked transformations in his health. Not only did he never again—over several years—ever re-develop heart symptoms nor require any more trips back to the cath lab, he lost weight, reversed a pre-diabetic sugar profile, improved his cholesterol values without drugs, got rid of the acid reflux symptoms he endured for many years, dropped his blood pressure to normal, enjoyed better mood, energy, and sleep. Slender, healthier, all accomplished without his doctor. 

Harold returned to his doctor for a routine follow-up. Slender, energetic, without complaints, on no drugs except the aspirin for his stent, the basic laboratory assessment his doctor ordered in front of him, his doctor admitted,” Well, I don’t know how you’re doing it, but these values look like a 20-year old substituted his blood for yours. They’re unbelievable. What drugs are you taking to do this?” “No drugs,” Harold replied, “I’m following a program to reverse heart disease, but it means doing some things that are different from conventional solutions.” His doctor closed their meeting with the signature response of doctors nationwide: “Well, I don’t understand what you are doing, but just keep doing it.”

Yes, Harold knew more about how to control heart disease than his doctor, more than his cardiologist. The cardiologist knew how to insert a stent or defibrillator. But deliver information that empowered Harold in all aspects of health from head to toe, while also dramatically reducing, perhaps eliminating, his coronary disease risk? As you now know, that is not what conventional healthcare does, nor is it interested in doing so, as it would relinquish control and threaten to cut off this hugely profitable revenue stream that drives “healthcare.”

Having managed to inadvertently create a self-directed coronary risk management program with such spectacular results and in probably one of the most difficult areas of all—heart disease—it became clear that a similar approach could be even more easily applied to many other areas of health, such as weight loss, bone health, cholesterol and blood pressure issues, diabetes and pre-diabetes, hormonal health, autoimmune conditions, and others. You can do it when empowered by safe, effective information, and supported by a community of sharing and collaboration. We don’t fire our doctors; they are there when we need them when, for instance, we get injured or catch pneumonia, or as an occasional resource. But doctors should no longer be able to get away with neglect, misinformation, or blindly directing you to the next revenue-generating procedure because you are empowered by the information and support you receive in Cureality.

As we get more effective in delivering this information and new tools to you, just imagine what we can accomplish in this new age of information and self-empowerment. The future for us is bright with ambitions for better interactive tools with Cureality expert staff, better ways to crowd source health answers, provide more engaging community conversation, all while the health insights that help accomplish our self-directed health goals get better and better. Each person that joins Cureality helps make this service more effective because your wisdom, insights, and experience are added to the collective knowledge. We are more powerful together than we are as individuals.

If you are already a Cureality Member, please add your comments and questions to the growing conversation. If you are not a Member, consider joining our discussions, as each new voice gets us closer and closer to better answers to take back control over health.

Power in Numbers

25. June 2014 William Davis (0)


In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, author James Surowiecki begins with the story of an ox judging competition in which 800 people—not ox experts nor breeders, just ordinary people attending a county fair—were asked to guess the weight of the ox. The competition was conducted by a scientist, Francis Galton, who held a low opinion of the intelligence of the average person, remarking that “the stupidity and wrong-headedness of many men and women being so great as to be scarcely credible.” He hoped to prove, by examining the various guesses, that the average person had no idea of how to judge the real answer. After all participants casted their written votes, Galton tallied up the total and averaged the result: 1,197 pounds—just one pound off from the real weight of 1,198 pounds. Few individuals actually guessed the correct weight themselves but, when the opinions of many were combined, the result was near-perfect.

Crowds can also be a source of irrational behavior, panic, and stampede. Witness any modern football or soccer game, for instance, in which fights break out over an issue as minor as a disputed call or a heckle. Or go back through history to the countless events when mass hysteria ruled, such as the Salem Witch Trials or Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

Let’s put aside examples of mass emotional chaos of the sort that causes crowds to stampede store doors on Black Friday. Let’s focus instead on conscious, considered, thoughtful opinions. We all accept that there are as many opinions on issues as there are people, not uncommonly with widely divergent views. But can we, as Galton’s famous experiment did, combine the opinions of many and come away with some fruitful insight—the correct answer? Just as the people participating in Galton’s experiment were not experts, so Cureality participants—a crowd-sourced collection of opinions—are not experts. If we were to poll everyone to identify their area of expertise or experience, it would likely include finance, the retail industry, raising children, or teaching—but not health. Yes, we have experts curating the direction of content, but we also crowd-source collective opinion.

Right now, Cureality is based on existing science, the philosophy of self-directed health, combined with guidance and community to help the participant along in the sometimes complex world of health questions. But as our processes and procedures improve, can we—like Galton’s ox weight guessers—come away with coalescent wisdom, answers to our health questions, near-perfect solutions to health conditions that have eluded the “experts” for centuries?

I think that we can. No, I know that we can. We enter a new age in information and harness the power of the crowd-sourcing of solutions, even when no single individual has the complete answer herself.

What is Cureality all about?

27. May 2014 William Davis (1)

“Looking over your medical record, Nancy, I’m a bit concerned about your risk for osteoporosis and hip fracture. It looks like your mom had a hip fracture at age 67. Is that right? ”

“Yes, she did,” Nancy responded. “And her life was never quite the same for the 15 years she lived after that.

“You’re 53 year old. Bone thinning develops over many years. Let’s get you scheduled for a bone scan.”

Two weeks later:

“Your z-score is 1.5, Nancy. This means you’ve got a mild form of osteoporosis called ‘osteopenia.’ Here: This is a prescription for alendronate, what used to be called Fosamax.”

“Aren’t there side-effects with that drug? A friend of mine said that her mom had a leg fracture from it.”

“Well, yes. All prescription drugs have potential side-effects. They’re rare, but they can happen and we can’t predict it. Besides leg fracture, there’s something called jaw osteonecrosis in which the jawbone dies and has to be surgically replaced. But would you rather run the risk of a hip fracture?”

“Before we jump to drugs, aren’t there natural things I could do first?”

(Big sigh.) “You can take calcium, but that only helps a bit. You’ve got to make a choice: Take the drug or risk a hip fracture.”

“I’m going to explore some natural remedies on my own first.”

Nancy’s dialogue with her doctor is fictional but based on similar encounters that occur thousands of times every day nationwide. Identify a problem, prescribe a drug. Natural remedies? “They don’t work.” “I don’t know anything about that.” “None of that is proven.” “I only practice evidence-based medicine.” You’ve probably heard a few of these explanations yourself if you ever question the wisdom of conventional medical care.

Each of Nancy’s fictitious interactions were no more 10 minutes long. If she is like most people, she will have one or two such interactions over the course of a year, unless she develops some acute illness. So she’s got something like 20-30 minutes per year to compress all of her “health” advice into the time allotted. 20-30 minutes per year to discuss bone health, nutrition, blood sugar issues, cholesterol issues, blood pressure, female issues, and all the other facets of health. Perhaps she has developed some chronic gastrointestinal complaints, too, and an odd rash on her elbows, maybe headaches a few times per week that she didn’t have before. Regardless, she’s going to have to make do with those few minutes, likely receiving one or more prescriptions or imaging procedures for each.

Such is the nature of modern healthcare: Provide the minimum interaction, address only a few, perhaps no more than one, problem, then prescribe a drug. This is, more often than not, wrong. Plain wrong. Tragically, awfully, unethically, unnecessarily wrong.

Let’s pick up again with Nancy. Upon learning of her osteopenia and long-term risk for hip fractures of the sort that changed her mom’s life and health irretrievably, Nancy started searching for solutions. Not only did she discover that, yes, there are indeed a number of safe and effective ways to deal with osteopenia. She also learned that such strategies have even been examined in clinical trials, some of the strategies pitted head-to-head with drugs and performed on a par, sometimes better, than prescription drugs. She also found that there are online communities that she could join and discuss her health situation with people all sharing the same health interests. During one such interaction at the start of her effort, when she was still a bit unsure and tentative, a woman she didn’t know but who shared a similar interest in restoring bone health, commented to Nancy, “Don’t sweat it, Nancy. I was in your shoes a little over a year ago. I followed a program for bone health: vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium, I made sure that I included leafy green vegetables at least once or twice per day, and I added strength training for a few minutes twice per week. I started with osteoporosis. My most recent bone density test showed that I reversed it completely—it’s entirely normal! So hang in there and be sure to share your questions and concerns with us here.”

THAT is what Cureality is all about. Cureality fills the gap of knowledge in health that is not being provided in a few minute-long medical interaction. Cureality reveals the astounding amount of credible, safe, scientific information that allows you to participate, sometimes take over completely, various aspects of health. You don’t have to fire your doctor; these efforts supplement the information and advice you obtain (or don’t obtain) in the doctor’s office. While critics may sometimes say that this can be dangerous or that misdiagnoses and dangerous treatments might be risked, our experience is the exact opposite: People do better by taking the reins of health themselves, choosing to use the health care system for acute or catastrophic illness—but not necessarily for health.

Our fictional woman, Nancy, returns to her doctor one year later after undergoing a repeat bone scan. The doctor opened her chart, clearly expecting to scold her for her foolhardy and careless attitude. Instead, he was speechless. After a pause, he said, “I don’t know how you did it, but your bone density is now normal, the density of a healthy 30-year old woman. Just continue doing what you’re doing.” He closed the chart and walked out.

Yes: “Just continue what you are doing”—not “Please tell me what you did so that I might learn something new,” or “Where did you learn about such strategies? I knew nothing about this!” Just “do what you’re doing.” Too often, that is the response you get that defines what modern health care has become.

You don’t want that kind of health care. Sure, it’s reassuring to know that the doctor and hospital are there in case you injure yourself or develop pneumonia. But obtain day-to-day health advice of the sort that keeps you slender, keeps blood pressure normal, maintains normal insulin and blood pressure responses, helps keep bowel health ideal, can even be used to reverse conditions such as autoimmune joint pain, diabetes, osteoporosis, or skin rashes, while costing next to nothing and yielding health care benefits for you and your family in multiple areas of health? That is the kind of health care you want.

That’s why we developed Cureality.


William Davis, MD
Author of #1 New York Times Bestseller Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health, The Wheat Belly Cookbook, and Wheat Belly 30-Minute (or Less!) Cookbook published by Rodale, Inc.  
Author, Track Your Plaque: The only heart disease prevention program that shows how the new CT heart scans can be used to detect, track, and control coronary plaque

Omega-3 fatty acids likely NOT associated with prostate cancer

18. July 2013 William Davis Omega-3 fatty acids (6)
A weakly constructed study was reported recently that purportedly associated higher levels of omega-3 fatty acid blood levels and prostate cancer. See this CBS News report, for instance.

Lipid and omega-3 fat expert, Dr. William Harris, posted this concise critique of the study, exposing some fundamental problems:

First, the reported EPA+DHA level in the plasma phospholipids in this study was 3.62% in the no-cancer control group, 3.66% in the total cancer group, 3.67% in the low grade cancer group, and 3.74% in the high-grade group. These differences between cases and controls are very small and would have no meaning clinically as they are within the normal variation. Based on experiments in our lab, the lowest quartile would correspond to an HS-Omega-3 Index of <3.16% and the highest to an Index of >4.77%). These values are obviously low, and virtually none of the subjects was in “danger” of having an HS-Omega-3 Index of >8%. So to conclude that regular consumption of 2 oily fish meals a week or taking fish oil supplements (both of which would result in an Index above the observed range) would increase risk for prostate cancer is extrapolating beyond the data.

This study did not test the question of whether giving fish oil supplements (or eating more oily fish) increased PC risk; it looked only a blood levels of omega-3 which are determined by intake, other dietary factors, metabolism and genetics.

The authors also failed to present the fuller story taught by the literature. The same team reported in 2010 that the use of fish oil supplements was not associated with any increased risk for prostate cancer. A 2010 meta-analysis of fish consumption and prostate cancer reported a reduction in late stage or fatal cancer among cohort studies, but no overall relationship between prostate cancer and fish intake. Terry et al. in 2001 reported higher fish intake was associated with lower risk for prostate cancer incidence and death, and Leitzmann et al. in 2004 reported similar findings. Higher intakes of canned, preserved fish were reported to be associated with reduced risk for prostate cancer. Epstein et al found that a higher omega-3 fatty acid intake predicted better survival for men who already had prostate cancer, and increased fish intake was associated with a 63% reduction in risk for aggressive prostate cancer in a case-control study by Fradet et al). So there is considerable evidence actually FAVORING an increase in fish intake for prostate cancer risk reduction.

Another piece of the picture is to compare prostate cancer rates in Japan vs the US. Here is a quote from the World Foundation of Urology:

"[Prostate cancer] incidence is really high in North America and Northern Europe (e.g., 63 X 100,000 white men and 102 X 100,000 Afro-Americans in the United States), but very low in Asia (e.g., 10 X 100,000 men in Japan).”

Since the Japanese typically eat about 8x more omega-3 fatty acids than Americans do and their
blood levels are twice as high, you’d think their prostate cancer risk would be much higher...
but the opposite is the case.

Omega-3 fatty acids are physiologically necessary, normalizing multiple metabolic phenomena including augmentation of parasympathetic tone, reductions of postprandial (after-meal) lipoprotein excursions, and endothelial function. It would indeed make no sense that nutrients that are necessary for life and health exert an adverse effect such as prostate cancer at such low blood levels. (Recall that an omega-3 RBC index of 6.0% or greater is associated with reduced potential for sudden cardiac death.)

I personally take 3600 mg per day of EPA + DHA in highly-purified, non-oxidized triglyceride form (Ascenta Nutrasea liquid) that yields an RBC omega-3 index of just over 10%, the level that I believe the overwhelming bulk of data suggest is the ideal level for humans.

Are statins and omega-3s incompatible?

18. June 2013 William Davis (4)
French researcher, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril, has been in the forefront of thinking and research into nutritional issues, including the Mediterranean Diet, the French Paradox, and the role of fat intake in cardiovascular health. In a recent review entitled Recent findings on the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids and statins, and their interactions: do statins inhibit omega-3?, he explores the question of whether statin drugs are, in effect, incompatible with omega-3 fatty acids.

Dr. Lorgeril makes several arguments:

1) Earlier studies, such as GISSI-Prevenzione, demonstrated reduction in cardiovascular events with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, consistent with the biological and physiological benefits observed in animals, experimental preparations, and epidemiologic observations in free-living populations.

2) More recent studies (and meta-analyses) examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids have failed to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit showing, at most, non-significant trends towards benefit.

He points out that the more recent studies were conducted post-GISSI and after agencies like the American Heart Association's advised people to consume more fish, which prompted broad increases in omega-3 intake. The populations studied therefore had increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids at the start of the studies, verified by higher levels of omega-3 RBC levels in participants.

In addition, he raises the provocative idea that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids appear to be confined to those not taking statin agents, as suggested, for instance, in the Alpha Omega Trial. He speculates that the potential for statins to ablate the benefits of omega-3s (and vice versa) might be based on several phenomena:

--Statins increase arachidonic acid content of cell membranes, a potentially inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid that competes with omega-3 fatty acids. (Insulin provocation and greater linoleic acid/omega-6 oils do likewise.)
--Statins induce impaired mitochondrial function, while omega-3s improve mitochondrial function. (Impaired mitochondrial function is evidenced, for instance, by reduced coenzyme Q10 levels, with partial relief from muscle weakness and discomfort by supplementing coenzyme Q10.)
--Statins commonly provoke muscle weakness and discomfort which can, in turn, lead to reduced levels of physical activity and increased resistance to insulin. (Thus the recently reported increases in diabetes with statin drug use.)

Are the physiologic effects of omega-3 fatty acids, present and necessary for health, at odds with the non-physiologic effects of statin drugs?

I fear we don't have sufficient data to come to firm conclusions yet, but my perception is that the case against statins is building. Yes, they have benefits in specific subsets of people (none in others), but the notion that everybody needs a statin drug is, I believe, not only dead wrong, but may have effects that are distinctly negative. And I believe that the arguments in favor of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, EPA and DHA (and perhaps DPA), make better sense.



DHA: the crucial omega-3

22. May 2013 William Davis (5)
Of the two omega-3 fatty acids that are best explored, EPA and DHA, it is likely DHA that exerts the most blood pressure- and heart rate-reducing effects. Here are the data of Mori et al in which 4000 mg of olive oil, purified EPA only, or purified DHA only were administered over 6 weeks:



□ indicates baseline SBP; ▪, postintervention SBP; ○, baseline DBP; •, postintervention DBP; ⋄, baseline HR; and ♦, postintervention HR.

In this group of 56 overweight men with normal starting blood pressures, only DHA reduced systolic BP by 5.8 mmHg, diastolic by 3.3 mmHg.

While each omega-3 fatty acid has important effects, it may be DHA that has an outsized benefit. So how can you get more DHA? Well, this observation from Schuchardt et al is important:

DHA in the triglyceride and phospholipid forms are 3-fold better absorbed, as compared to the ethyl ester form (compared by area-under-the-curve). In other words, fish oil that has been reconstituted to the naturally-occurring triglyceride form (i.e., the form found in fresh fish) provides 3-fold greater blood levels of DHA than the more common ethyl ester form found in most capsules. (The phospholipid form of DHA found in krill is also well-absorbed, but occurs in such small quantities that it is not a practical means of obtaining omega-3 fatty acids, putting aside the astaxanthin issue.)

So if the superior health effects of DHA are desired in a form that is absorbed, the ideal way to do this is either to eat fish or to supplement fish oil in the triglyceride, not ethyl ester, form. The most common and popular forms of fish oil sold are ethyl esters, including Sam's Club Triple-Strength, Costco, Nature Made, Nature's Bounty, as well as prescription Lovaza. (That's right: prescription fish oil, from this and several other perspectives, is an inferior product.)

What sources of triglyceride fish oil with greater DHA content/absorption are available to us? My favorites are, in this order:

Ascenta NutraSea
CEO and founder, Marc St. Onge, is a friend. Having visited his production facility in Nova Scotia, I was impressed with the meticulous methods of preparation. At every step of the way, every effort was made to limit any potential oxidation, including packaging in a vacuum environment. The Ascenta line of triglyceride fish oils are also richer in DHA content. Their NutraSea High DHA liquid, for instance, contains 500 mg EPA and 1000 mg DHA per teaspoon, a 1:2 EPA:DHA ratio, rather than the more typical 3:2 EPA:DHA ratio of ethyl ester forms.

Pharmax (now Seroyal) also has a fine product with a 1.4:1 EPA:DHA ratio.

Nordic Naturals has a fine liquid triglyceride product, though it is 2:1 EPA:DHA.





Slow Burn works

Slow Burn works

14. December 2010 William Davis (55)
I have been impressed with the results I've been obtaining with Fred Hahn's Slow Burn strength training technique.

Because I have limited time to hang around the gym, any technique that provides outsized results in a limited amount of time, I have to admit, appeals to me. In past, I'd be lucky to squeeze in one or two strength training sessions per week, devoting the rest of the time to biking outdoors, biking on a sedentary bike (while playing XBox), jogging, or doing strenuous yard work like digging trenches and planting shrubs.

Over the years, I've gradually lost muscle, since the strength training effort suffered with my time limitations.

So Fred's time-efficient Slow Burn idea struck a chord. Having now done it with some regularity, usually 1-2 times per week since mid-September, I have gradually added back visible muscle. My Slow Burn workouts, involving 8-10 different movements, seem to have restored the muscle I've lost, with a very modest time effort.

It took a little getting used to. After Fred showed me how to do the movements--slow motion movement in both the "positive" and "negative" directions, with smooth, non-jerking transitions, one set per muscle group, each taken to muscle exhaustion--it left me unusually tired and sore the next day. This surprised me, given the limited time involved. Breathing is also very important; the usual exhale-during-the-positive, inhale-during-the-negative pattern is replaced by breathing freely during the entire set. I didn't get this at first and ended up with headaches that got worse with each set. Breathing freely relieved me from the effect.

I have strength trained since I was around 15 years old. Back in the early 1970s, I had about 2000 lbs of barbells and dumbbells in my garage in New Jersey, while also driving back and forth to the Morristown, NJ, YMCA to train with friends. The Slow Burn movements forced me to break habits established over nearly 40 years of conventional strength training.

I've also played around with mixing conventional movements with Slow Burn movements to keep it fresh. This also seems to work.

If you're interested in giving it a try, here's an animation that demonstrates what Slow Burn movements look like. Fred has also produced an excellent 3-DVD set of videos that more fully describe the practice.
Tags :

Comments (55) -

  • Anonymous

    12/14/2010 1:47:34 PM |

    I think the key will be if you continue to see good results over a period of a year or so.  Changes in your workout approach, whether it is more volume, less volume, slower, more explosive etc. tend to produce good initial gains because you are doing something new and different, it's always good to mix it up once in a while.

  • Fred Hahn

    12/14/2010 3:16:20 PM |

    "I think the key will be if you continue to see good results over a period of a year or so. Changes in your workout approach, whether it is more volume, less volume, slower, more explosive etc. tend to produce good initial gains because you are doing something new and different, it's always good to mix it up once in a while."

    I beg to differ on this. When something works, it works. There is no reason to "mix it up" if results are what you are after. If exercise is something you are using for entertainment then yes you'll need a variety of things to keep you interested.

    If you allow for recovery, sleep and eat healthfully, eventually strength gains slow to a crawl no matter what technique you use. In fact, once you see your strength gains slow and halt, you know you are on the RIGHT track. Sometimes it will take multiple attempts with the same weight load before progress resumes. Stay the course. Don't jump ship because you are not making the same gains you did early on in your training program - so long as your training is sound.

    Here's a good paper discussing in part the non need for "mixing it up."

    http://bit.ly/dIexZi

  • Bryan Rankin

    12/14/2010 3:46:57 PM |

    I had good results with slow burn after reading Fred's book. After a while, my strength gains stalled. Fred then recommended adding more fat to my diet and 'microloading'.  I got some 1.25 pound magnets and used those to more gradually increase the weight at each workout.  It worked very well and I lost another 10 pounds of fat and added another 30% of resistance across the board.

    Doug McGuff's book Body by Science also has a lot of good information.

  • Alan S David

    12/14/2010 5:27:21 PM |

    After many years of training to stay in shape, I think mixing it up is good for the mental part of it all, the "mo".
    No doubt slow burn works and is very practical compared to the 90 minutes done 5 days or more a week of P90X which is quite popular right now.
    In my teens I did a Bob Hoffman work out from Strength & Health Magazine, that consisted of very heavy weights, with low reps done slowly & breathing deeply. I gained a lot of muscle doing that, and could hardly walk after the squats.

  • Anne

    12/14/2010 5:58:12 PM |

    I've been doing Fred's Slow Burn for over three and a half years now after a recommendation from  Dr Mike Eades and I love it. Also read Doug McGuff's book Body by Science a while back and it's a really useful addition. I follow a low carb Paleo diet. I have a diagnosis of osteoporosis and this was the initial reason I took up Slow Burn but it has improved my overall health no end. I used to do it at home but now at a gym so I can lift heavier weights. I must look strange - a middle aged woman doing her weight lifting in slow motion but I don't mind Smile

  • Kipper

    12/14/2010 6:08:11 PM |

    I haven't tried Slow Burn, but I've had good results with Body by Science (which was my first introduction to HIT). I was impressed with how quickly it made my arms look more athletic (I'm female) and I was pretty surprised to get the metabolic training effect out of something so slow.

    As far as "mixing it up" goes, as I understand it the concept of periodization came about to allow athletes to focus on strength, explosiveness, metabolic conditioning, etc. at different times so as to improve in multiple ways over the longer term without overtraining
    (patterns like Westside Barbell training try to address the same problem a different way). If your goal is to maintain muscle mass for health and appearance, as Fred says you really don't need to worry about it even though your progress will eventually slow.

  • Anonymous

    12/14/2010 7:43:41 PM |

    I've been doing a slightly modified version of 'Slow Burn' (modified to suit my own interests and physical needs), with great success.  I agree with Mr. Hahn that if one is following a properly designed routine, there is absolutely no need to "mix it up" every now and then, as the P90X ("muscle confusion) infomercials would maintain; there's simply no scientifically derived evidence to support the point.  That said, Dr. Davis, if you would be willing, I'd love to see a few of the specifics of your workout routine (e.g., exercises, exercise order, etc.).  Thanks for the blog.  Will.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 1:29:19 AM |

    Wow. After 15 years, you just caught up with it? Now you know why exercise science in college is terrible. No difference than nutrition. Most of information are from USSR or its surrounding area way back in time. Ever wonder why they used to dominate Olympic games? They were way way way ahead of USA in exercise science despite inferior genetics. After the break up of USSR, USA started to get all the information over exercise science but not everyone caught on quickly.

    Anyway, it's good to mix things up mainly to beat boredom. It's different for everybody so go with whatever you want.

    Slow burn will never work for athletes though. The movements demand quick sudden movement so it's good idea to mix things up, not solely on slow movement. It doesn't work in REAL LIFE. Basically, you're being taught to move slowly.... Not really a good idea.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 1:33:53 AM |

    I want to add one example of how learning USSR's exercise science and others will get you very far...

    http://www.defrancostraining.com/index.php


    VERY GOOD trainer for athletes.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 5:26:11 AM |

    I bought Mr. Hahn's book and was very interested in the assertion that slow burn is the only (or perhaps best way) to train fast twitch muscles. My cross-fit instructor is skeptical. Other than this book, does anyone know of additional research that supports this?

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 12:46:36 PM |

    I tried "Slow Burn" at home, and frankly, it was too hard for me to keep doing. It is intense! Next I tried the children's versian, still couldn't make my self do it, even though I could tell it was working.
    Finally, I asked Fred Hahn for a recommendation for a person trainer in this method in the Seattle area, and he gave me Greg Anderson's, Serious Strength gym. I've been training there since April and am very happy to go in and work out with personal attention and encouragement for about 10 minutes a week, and with the results.     Jeanne

  • mrfreddy

    12/15/2010 1:06:46 PM |

    "Basically, you're being taught to move slowly.... Not really a good idea."

    I don't buy this notion. I use slow-burn to build strength, and it's the only formal exercise I do. I'm 54 yrs old and I indulge in two sports that require both stamina and speed-surfing and skiing, and I have plenty of both.

  • Fred Hahn

    12/15/2010 5:15:04 PM |

    "Slow burn will never work for athletes though. The movements demand quick sudden movement so it's good idea to mix things up, not solely on slow movement. It doesn't work in REAL LIFE. Basically, you're being taught to move slowly.... Not really a good idea."

    Slow Burn is a method of resistance training designed to build muscle and thus strength and endurance. Any athlete who becomes stronger than he is already will experience a benefit in her chosen sport.

    A stronger athlete is a better athlete IOW.

    The two requirements for improvements in a sport skill is the exact practice of that skill and improvements of the body (being stronger, leaner, etc.)

    Training fast with weights does not make one faster on the field. Slow and fast twitch muscle fibers are both recruited towards the end of an intense set of an exercise. These terms slow twitch and fast twitch refer to the fibers fatigue characteristics not their ability to move the body slowly or quickly. Many coaches and trainers misunderstand this.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 5:45:17 PM |

    It's been said that the best program is the one you can stick with.  There is no single optimum system IMHO.  If one tries this system and enjoys it, it is a good system for that person.    Also, there is much written about the benefits of slow movement training, as related to central nervous system training.  The safety factor would also be attractive to middle-aged people to whom injury prevention is a priority. For serious athletes (probably 0% of commenters) training crossover is probably exaggerated. If you want to get good at football, play football.  If you want to get good at lifting weights slowly, lift weights slowly.

  • Kevin

    12/15/2010 7:25:07 PM |

    I get a lot of strange looks when I'm doing the slow burn at the gym.  I do an upper body workout one day and lower body/core two days later.  Three days I week I do Mercola 8's HIIT on a treadmill.  I'm already seeing improvements in my running but nothing new in the mirrors yet.

    kevin

  • Tommy

    12/15/2010 8:13:15 PM |

    "The two requirements for improvements in a sport skill is the exact practice of that skill and improvements of the body"

    I agree with this and I don't see the relation between "strength" training and other sports specific training. Strength is strength no matter how you get it.  To train "athletically" then you need to train as close as possible to that end which fits into other parts of a complete regimen. There are ways to train weights sports specific which would bring it closer to, and work more toward your chosen endeavor but then you would still need separate strength training. Or at least can benefit from it.  So when training for strength, what difference does it make how fast or how slow you lift (as it applies to your sport)?  None IMO. It only matters as far as "weight training" results are concerned.  And getting stronger and more fit never hurt any part of sport (IMO).

  • Fred Hahn

    12/15/2010 9:02:08 PM |

    Kevin you said:

    "I get a lot of strange looks when I'm doing the slow burn at the gym. I do an upper body workout one day and lower body/core two days later. Three days I week I do Mercola 8's HIIT on a treadmill. I'm already seeing improvements in my running but nothing new in the mirrors yet."

    I really suggest that you consider ditching the HIIT stuff. You're hindering your ability to build muscle with that stuff.

    As for looking leaner, that is diet. What is your diet like?

  • Martin Levac

    12/15/2010 9:54:00 PM |

    About the comment that slow burn teaches to move slowly. So what? That's how we learn motions. We learn motions independently of speed. As we repeat the motion, we become more proficient. As our proficiency increases, we can do the motion faster. But we learn the motion at slow speed first.

    We don't learn to move slowly. We learn the motions slowly, then we can increase speed at will.

    Once we've learned a motion, it's difficult to learn a similar but different motion at full speed. That's because the previous motion takes over as an automatism. Something like the golf swing for example. It's difficult to learn to swing a certain way when we've been swinging a different way for years. But it's possible, if we do the motions slowly first.

    However, Slow Burn is not about learning the motions slowly, then increasing speed at will. Yet there is nothing preventing us from doing the same motions at full speed outside of the Slow Burn workout. If anything, since we've "practiced" the motions during the workout, we are now more proficient in these same motions and can execute them with more precision at higher speeds.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 10:47:26 PM |

    About the comment that slow burn teaches to move slowly I remember reading that chi kung standing meditation is suppost to be one of the most effective exercises to build speed. Not too fun to stand still for an hour a day though.
    For me 2 workouts a week sound like too little, I don't doubt they're effective, I'm just sure I'd miss the activity the other 5 days of the week. Would probably feel lazy and tired. As a computer worker one of the reasons I enjoy working out is the high energy feeling it provides.
    Is there a complementary activity that is suggested? I see in a previous comment that HIIT isn't.

  • Lori Miller

    12/16/2010 1:19:19 AM |

    The inevitable comments about a slow-movement workout making you slow always leave me puzzled. The slow movement makes your muscles work harder and prevents you from relying on momentum to move the weights. Your muscle memory of faster movements aren't erased.

    My previous workout plan (Body for Life) consisted of more, faster reps. If the argument that slow workouts make you slow were true, my dancing would have gotten slower. It hasn't. I've built up strength with no joint pain and fewer workouts.

    As for two workouts per week versus five being a problem--now I've heard everything. Go out and have some fun!

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    12/16/2010 2:40:02 AM |

    Muscle stem cells (in skeletal muscles) promotes a muscle transcription factor. With under use and age fast twitch fibers undergo more stem cell loss relative to the rate which slow twitch lose their % of stem cells.

    Exerting the muscle to endure being used constantly over a time period increases the number of muscle stem cells. This applies to men and women. For both, fat and fibrosity infiltrated into muscle down regulates stem cells.

    The anabolic effects of sex hormones show that endurance use at moderate intensity raises testosterone and the amount of muscle stem cells. Men lose +/- 1.6% testosterone annually after their very late 30's.

    Women lose 90% of their estrogen at menopause, so their muscle loss pattern differs. Endurance training done by women to maximize anabolic bonus for stem cells is less simple. However, straining exertion at an incline triggers estrogen receptors and these instigate stem cell boost.

    In both sexes the loss of non-postural fast twitch muscles is more rapid than the loss of slow twitch fibers. Yet not all human muscles lose stem cells at the same rate. These myogenic stem cells are called "satellite cells".

  • Sifter

    12/16/2010 3:09:35 AM |

    "anonymous'..... the Soviets excelled for years because their athletes were 'roided to the gills. C'mon, man, some of their women looked like Mad Dog Vachon, for cryin' out loud!

    I'd like to give Slow Burn a try, but the Ken Hutchins-style workout places are usually located in tony 'hoods like Lake Forest, IL, out of reach for the majority of us. I'm also .... curious....I've hear that both the joints and nervous system can get fried over time with this method due to 'going to failure' all the time. Comments please.....

  • Fred Hahn

    12/16/2010 3:45:58 AM |

    "I've hear that both the joints and nervous system can get fried over time with this method due to 'going to failure' all the time. Comments please....."

    Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

  • Anonymous

    12/16/2010 4:53:57 AM |

    "As for two workouts per week versus five being a problem--now I've heard everything. "

    Really? Never heard that before? ok then, go tell any of this kids he can exercise only 30 minutes per week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1malgZpYKn8

  • Anonymous

    12/16/2010 12:43:04 PM |

    I enjoy the fact that I only need to do this once a week.
    The rest of the week I figure skate and horseback ride, and enjoy the fact that I have a lot of energy and strength for my very physical job.
    I don't want to spend my whole life in a gym.

    Jeanne

  • Fred Hahn

    12/16/2010 1:37:04 PM |

    Bingo Jeanne.

  • Fred Hahn

    12/16/2010 1:53:51 PM |

    "Really? Never heard that before? ok then, go tell any of this kids he can exercise only 30 minutes per week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1malgZpYKn8"

    We're talking about resistance training for 30 minutes a week not sports play. And these kids do not need ANY amount of exercise for sports play other than for skill practice of soccer.

  • Kevin

    12/16/2010 3:34:15 PM |

    Fred Hahn said...
    Kevin you said:

    . I'm already seeing improvements in my running but nothing new in the mirrors yet."

    I really suggest that you consider ditching the HIIT stuff. You're hindering your ability to build muscle with that stuff.

    As for looking leaner, that is diet. What is your diet like?


    Fred, Thanks for the reply.  At my age--54--I have to reconcile myself to the inevitable slow physical decline.  Slow Burn keeps me from overdoing the weights and self-injury.  HIIT does the same for my cardio.  Dr Mercola wrote that his HIIT protocal stimulates over 500% increase in Growth Hormone.  

    In part because of this website I've quit most all meat and dairy.  I admit to over-indulging in cookies and cakes this time of year.  In the past it didn't matter because running 50-80 miles every week kept my weight under control.  I've had to stop that due to a torn achilles;  Vibram Five-Finger Shoes were the cause.

    A checkup and treadmill stress test last year showed I was at 20% body fat but a better stress-test number than 90% of men my age.  

    My comment about nothing new in the mirrors yet was a joke but the point is I'm not seeing any new muscles yet from the Slow Burn.  But my resting heart rate has slowed since being on the Mercola 8's.  

    Again, thanks for the note.

    kevin

  • Fred Hahn

    12/16/2010 4:55:59 PM |

    "Fred, Thanks for the reply. At my age--54--I have to reconcile myself to the inevitable slow physical decline. Slow Burn keeps me from overdoing the weights and self-injury. HIIT does the same for my cardio. Dr Mercola wrote that his HIIT protocal stimulates over 500% increase in Growth Hormone."

    I don't believe that for a second. He would need to provide proof of this and you know he won't.

    "In part because of this website I've quit most all meat and dairy."


    WHAT? ALL meat?! That is an enormous mistake. Grass fed meats and wild caught fish are essential to your health. The dairy is fine.

    "I admit to over-indulging in cookies and cakes this time of year. In the past it didn't matter because running 50-80 miles every week kept my weight under control. I've had to stop that due to a torn achilles; Vibram Five-Finger Shoes were the cause."

    All I can say is running like that is terrible for your health hormonally and orthopedically.

    "My comment about nothing new in the mirrors yet was a joke but the point is I'm not seeing any new muscles yet from the Slow Burn."

    Your not eating any meat! How can you get benefits from any strength training program if you are not ingesting the necessary nutrients?

    "But my resting heart rate has slowed since being on the Mercola 8's."

    This doesn't mean a thing. I for one do not believe that a low RHR means improved health. In fact, I think quite the opposite.

  • Bobber

    12/16/2010 5:41:48 PM |

    I just tried doing push ups and body squats very slowly.  Although the body squats didn't seem very hard at all, after doing quite a few reps, I was sore.  I will continue this and see how it goes.

  • Kevin

    12/16/2010 6:08:01 PM |

    Fred Hahn said..  

    I've quit most all meat and dairy."


    WHAT? ALL meat?! That is an enormous mistake. Grass fed meats and wild caught fish are essential to your health. The dairy is fine.

    "I admit to over-indulging in cookies and cakes this time of year. In the past it didn't matter because running 50-80 miles every week kept my weight under control. I've had to stop that due to a torn achilles; Vibram Five-Finger Shoes were the cause."

    All I can say is running like that is terrible for your health hormonally and orthopedically.

    "My comment about nothing new in the mirrors yet was a joke but the point is I'm not seeing any new muscles yet from the Slow Burn."

    Your not eating any meat! How can you get benefits from any strength training program if you are not ingesting the necessary nutrients?

    "But my resting heart rate has slowed since being on the Mercola 8's."

    This doesn't mean a thing. I for one do not believe that a low RHR means improved health. In fact, I think quite the opposite.
      
    Hi again Fred,

    I'm sorry to argue but I could
    cite plenty of studies showing the value of a lower resting heart rate.  That's basically the goal of all endurance athletes.  At high heart rates you're burning just glycogen.  At low heart rates you're burning mainly fats.  Trained marathon runners have such a low heart rate that they're burning mostly fat at speeds that have the rest of us still burning glycogen.  

    I eat hi-protein veggies and supplement with B12 injections.  I'll have scrambled eggs once a week.  I'n not a tree-hugging vegan nutcase.  Like Clinton, I'm  trying to make up for a lifetime of poor eating habits.  For me that means no dairy,  no soy, very little sat fats, and once the silly season is over, no wheat products.  

    kevin

  • Fred Hahn

    12/16/2010 6:34:41 PM |

    "I'm sorry to argue but I could
    cite plenty of studies showing the value of a lower resting heart rate."

    Please do cite some.

    "That's basically the goal of all endurance athletes. At high heart rates you're burning just glycogen. At low heart rates you're burning mainly fats. Trained marathon runners have such a low heart rate that they're burning mostly fat at speeds that have the rest of us still burning glycogen."

    Please can you cite some full text papers that support this claim. Thanks.

  • Kevin

    12/16/2010 6:52:05 PM |

    Guys I've enjoyed the mental pingpong but it's lunch time and  the sun is shining for first time in weeks.  So I'm changing into my running shorts and going out to make some Vitamin D.  I just wish it wasn't 15 degrees but that's Wyoming.

    kevin

  • Anne

    12/16/2010 7:38:25 PM |

    Kevin - I don't think you're going to be able to make any vitamin D this time of year and at your latitude !

  • Kevin

    12/16/2010 10:18:38 PM |

    Anne, I got a 90 minute run, my face and legs are mildly sunburned.  At 7000ft altitude with no clouds or shade anywhere on the track I'm hoping for a lot of VitD.  But I wouldn't argue the point.  I run for other reasons and supplement with Vit D oil caps.

    kevin

  • Lori Miller

    12/17/2010 1:13:06 AM |

    "@Anonymous said...
    'As for two workouts per week versus five being a problem--now I've heard everything'.

    Really? Never heard that before? ok then, go tell any of this kids he can exercise only 30 minutes per week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1malgZpYKn8"

    Never heard of it--I guess I don't hang around a gym enough.

    The little kids playing soccer is an example of what I meant when I said "go out and have some fun." Workout = strength training. Fun in this case = dance, soccer, skating, or whatever makes you enjoy working up a sweat.

  • Lacey

    12/17/2010 3:31:02 AM |

    I'm the only person at my gym doing slow, controlled lifts with my iPod tuned to a metronome. I get a lot of funny looks, which makes me chuckle to myself.

    I'm happy with the results I've been getting in the two months I've been doing Fred's workout style, especially considering how little time it takes out of my week.

    My one complaint is that it takes a lot of mental energy to be that focused for the duration of my workout. It was much easier to get to the gym when I knew I'd be doing a bunch of mindless reps and resting between sets while listening to music on my headphones. I'm also noticing how unfocused other people at the gym are, and the cardio people on the treadmills are suddenly driving me nuts.

    I guess that's not really a complaint, just an observation. It makes me wonder what the atmosphere is like at Fred's gym. Too bad I don't live in New York.

  • scall0way

    12/17/2010 3:46:31 AM |

    Dr. Bill, I didn't know you were a Jersey boy. Smile Gosh, we were practically neighbors back when you were young. Smile

    I've also been doing Fred's Slow Burn method for the last few months - only once a week, and I've only been doing it about 20 minutes. No changes on the scale (and I need changes, sob) but my jeans seem to get looser every day - and when I'm out going for birdwalks I find I have far more stamina than I have had in a long time.

  • Anne

    12/17/2010 7:33:28 AM |

    Hi Kevin,

    I'm sure the experts will correct me if I'm wrong, but the sun's ray's need to strike your skin at a particular angle for you to be able to make vitamin D, and that angle is not acute enough at northern latitudes in winter. Even though you can get sunburn in winter that is not the same part of the sun's rays which make vitamin D.

  • Kevin

    12/17/2010 3:36:07 PM |

    Hmm,  During the summer I run midday.  The sun is directly overhead and the tan is darkest on my shoulders and the tops of my feet;  I run in VFF sandals.  If an imaginary line directly overhead is zero degrees and the horizon is 90 degrees, this time of year the sun is never higher than about 45 degrees.  When running midday now the sun is hitting my face and legs at an angle similar to what it does during Summer.  I know I can have my Vit D levels tested.  I may do that soon.  

    kevin

  • Kevin

    12/17/2010 4:38:40 PM |

    Appropriate to this Slow Burn thread, I'm a veterinarian practicing since 1984.

    I was at the gym just finishing my SlowBurn arms and shoulders workout when the clinic called to say there was an emergency.  The workout involves using eight different machines.  When it's done I can barely lift my arms.  

    I got to the clinic and found a patient I'd spayed two days ago had chewed out her stitches, all three layers and her intestines were hanging from the six inch long open wound.  The owner had come home for lunch and found her like that and rushed her to the clinic.

    I took her right to surgery.  The owner stayed to watch.  Having just finished a Slow Burn workout I didn't have much control over my arms.  They shook like St Vitus Dance.  It took an effort of will it control my surgical tools as I debrided the raw wound, cleaned the exposed bowels and replaced them.  

    As I worked I overheard the owner murmer to the nurse, "He really cares, doesn't he."

    This morning, patient doing well.

  • karl

    12/17/2010 9:41:21 PM |

    I've done slow burn workouts - I've become convinced that the key is the amount of time that the muscle is working and to stimulate growth you need to work it until if is starting to fail.

    If you do 10 quick reps you end up spending more of you time between reps rather than working out.

    I do a mix these days - 8 quick reps followed by two ultra slow reps - until the muscle collapses.

    Most of the folks in the gym are embarrassed to push to collapse - but that seems to be what stimulates growth.

  • Vick

    12/18/2010 4:15:16 PM |

    Hi Fred:

    I'm not familiar with your book but I plan on changing that.

    I started resistance training for the first time 18 months ago.  I'm 54.  I apply the Body by Science concepts, however I've evolved my program to where I do one body part a week.  On a 6 week cycle I do lat pulldown, overhead press, leg press, seated row, chest press and leg press.  

    I continue to see gains in TUL or load every workout.  

    This with a paleo diet, has improved my overall fitness by an amazing degree.

  • acanthusbk

    12/18/2010 9:23:03 PM |

    Sifter said: I'd like to give Slow Burn a try, but the Ken Hutchins-style workout places are usually located in tony 'hoods like Lake Forest, IL, out of reach for the majority of us.

    Exercise Coach has facilities in Lake Zurich, Buffalo Grove, and Arlington Heights IL, and features Super Slow style workouts.

  • Kevin

    12/18/2010 9:51:01 PM |

    I work out at a 24hr Fitness.  If there's an opposite to 'tony' that's probably it.

  • rmarie

    12/19/2010 2:39:45 AM |

    Fred,
    How can 'slow burn' exercise benefit someone who is pre-diabetic, HAS NEVER BEEN OVERWEIGHT (and does not want to lose weight) but uses a combination of aerobic/resistance exercises along with low-carb eating to control blood sugar? Exercising only once or twice a week doesn't seem enough to do the job. I have never tried this type of exercise only read about it.

  • Anne

    12/19/2010 9:11:03 AM |

    acanthusbk - I live in the the UK where there are no Slow Burn or Super Slow gym facilities. I just used Fred's book and asked him questions over the net, he was so helpful. When I went to a gym I found out how to use the machines correctly from a trainer there and then simply used the Slow Burn technique.

    rmarie - in addition to other health problems I am atypical type 2 diabetic, thin, never been overweight, who eats very low carb Paleo diet. I do Slow Burn/Superslow twice a week and walk three or four miles a day. My blood glucose control is excellent.

  • rmarie

    12/19/2010 12:46:21 PM |

    Ann, thank you for your very helpful and informative answers! Maybe Fred has something to add as well.

  • Fred Hahn

    12/19/2010 1:48:27 PM |

    "How can 'slow burn' exercise benefit someone who is pre-diabetic, HAS NEVER BEEN OVERWEIGHT (and does not want to lose weight) but uses a combination of aerobic/resistance exercises along with low-carb eating to control blood sugar?"

    Well it helps the way any resistance training program helps. IMHO, SB is a better way to perform your resistance training program. I also strongly believe from years of experience that high intensity resistance training produces better results than high volume, low intensity training.

    "Exercising only once or twice a week doesn't seem enough to do the job. I have never tried this type of exercise only read about it."

    Twice a week, not once, is best. If you have never done it then how do you know it won't do the trick? And yes you should stay active too.

    Now when you say low carb, how low carb are you? If you are pre-diabetic, I wouldn't go above 30-60 grams of carbs a day all from nonstarchy veggies.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    12/19/2010 4:25:36 PM |

    45 year old Bernard Hopkin's bulky (but undefined) body boxed against the sculpted 18 year younger light heavy weight division champion in Canada Sat. night.

    Many don't like boxing and have their reasons. The muscle response involved is very impressive though.

    Maybe someone can tell me if any
    of the boxers' important training steps would be akin to slow burns.

  • Fred Hahn

    12/19/2010 4:28:41 PM |

    "45 year old Bernard Hopkin's bulky (but undefined) body boxed against the sculpted 18 year younger light heavy weight division champion in Canada Sat. night.

    Many don't like boxing and have their reasons. The muscle response involved is very impressive though.

    Maybe someone can tell me if any
    of the boxers' important training "steps would be akin to slow burns.

    Not sure what you mean by this Mito.

    Slow Burn is a way to lift weights. Boxing is boxing.

  • Kevin

    12/19/2010 8:35:54 PM |

    I think this was addressed in the edition of Slow Burn that I have.  Weight lifters can become as large as NFL linemen but the weight lifters don't have the explosive power of those linemen.  The lineman are training those fast twitch fibers while weight lifters aren't.   Slow Burn works all muscle fibers.  I could be wrong.  I don't have the book handy.

  • Kevin

    12/19/2010 8:36:28 PM |

    I think this was addressed in the edition of Slow Burn that I have.  Weight lifters can become as large as NFL linemen but the weight lifters don't have the explosive power of those linemen.  The lineman are training those fast twitch fibers while weight lifters aren't.   Slow Burn works all muscle fibers.  I could be wrong.  I don't have the book handy.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    12/20/2010 1:49:37 AM |

    Supposedly all boxers move weights around in some way sometimes in their training regimen. I've seen promotional shots of guys on their backs slowly pushing oversize tires up with their legs.

    Explosive ability is a good description of a special capability they'd want to develop. A counter punch is often a fight changer. I'd like to hear if slow burn method might improve any aptitude over another weight technique.

    If this is too far off topic or doen't merit discussion there is no need to respond. I don't box, but often see physique disparities in contenders in a match.

    ((I always think of lifting weights as a solution to our contemporary lifestyle - it meets a need and serves individual goals. Nobody considered it where I worked as a longshoreman; we man handled each sack and box in jumbles using giant rope nets inside and outside fetid holds of ships.))

  • Jack Christopher

    12/29/2010 1:42:41 AM |

    You play Xbox?

Add comment

Loading