I’ve taken a nod from Scott and installed a Skribit widget on my sidebar.  It’s the nifty little box that says, “What topics would you like me to write about?”

I’ve no shortage of topics to blog on (the time to write; that’s another story…), but most of my blog topics come from the day-to-day conversations, Q and As, and discussions I have with clients, friends, and colleagues.  I thought it might be interesting to see what topics you folks out there in cyberspace are interested in.

It’s a cinch - just click on “What topics would you like me to write about?”  A box pops up prompting you to enter your suggestion.  Type it in, click submit, and voila!  Alternatively, you can vote up other suggestions if someone else beat you to the punch and asked your question already - just click the little vote icon after the question.

So, if you’ve got a question or something you’d like me to rant about blog on, go right ahead.

Hey all, a little backlogged with projects and posts right now. Your pardons as I sort everything out in one big vomitus:

Last Thursday, the New England Journal of Medicine released a study comparing low-fat, Mediterranean, and low-carb diets. The big winner? The low-carb diet (much to everyone’s chagrin - false sarcasm). There are two extensive write-ups on this study over at Dr. Eades‘ and Scott’s blogs, but allow me to present the highlights:

First (and certainly to the delight of Rich and Andrius), the low-carb diet was a vegetarian low-carb diet. From the study text: “…the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein…” So it appears that the benefits of following the low-carb regimen are not exclusive to gun-totin’, America-lovin’ carnivores - just those who choose to reduce intake of grains, sugars, and starches.

While the Mediterranean diet resulted in more favorable LDL levels than the low-carb diet (”a collective ‘So what?’ washed over the crowd…”), the low-carb diet killed in just about everything else: higher HDL, lower TG, and better TC:HDL ratio. Additionally, both the Mediterranean and low-carb approaches resulted in a drop in C-reactive protein, indicating lower levels of inflammation.

Sadly (for the AHA, at least), the low-fat group fared worst overall: Least fat loss, highest LDL (isn’t a low-fat diet supposed to decrease this? Hmmm…), highest TG, least change in C-reactive protein, and an increase in blood glucose for diabetics. Yet this is the type of diet recommended by the AHA for diabetics. Yikes.

Of course, the punchline: While the Mediterranean diet was pretty close to specs, at two years (the end of the study) the low-carb diet had degenerated to 40% of calories from carbs (definitely not low-carb) and the low-fat diet had degenerated to 30% of calories from fat (definitely not low-fat). So that explains the lackluster amounts of fat loss. And yet, while proponents of low-fat will argue that their diet didn’t perform as planned because it wasn’t correctly represented, the low-carb diet seemed to defy this limitation (what’s scary is it would’ve done even better were it actually followed to the letter).

The bottom line: Even a little reduction in carbohydrate consumption (or a short period eating in a strict low-carb fashion) can provide some real health and fat loss benefits.  And that low-carb doesn’t have to mean eggs and bacon for breakfast, steak and salad for lunch, and salmon and tomato for dinner (although that sounds mighty tasty to me).

While I contend that short, intense exercise bouts and proper diet are all that are necessary to achieve and maintain health, the idea isn’t original. Jack LaLanne trumpeted this concept 60 years ago (as well as the crazy notion that eating too much sugar would make you fat and eventually kill you).

Here’s the relevant passage:

“He concurs with Jack’s belief that a person only really needs 13-17 minutes of high-intensity exercise every day and that a plan is more important than a lot of fancy equipment (emphasis added).”

I’d contest the “every day” part, but a plan being more important than the equipment? Is it ever.

Look, we’re not reinventing the wheel here, folks. The honest truth: While you can manage your health and fitness activities any way you please (and please, feel justified in doing so), there are several undeniable truths.

• First, muscles are made to move bones.
• Second, muscles move those bones in specific ways (i.e., have a unique job to do).
• Third, the cardiovascular system supports the muscular system.

The conclusions?

1. There’s probably a best way to move an object from point A to point B.
2. There’s probably some value in performing activities that challenge the muscular system.
3. It’s probably best to challenge that muscular system in a manner befitting the actual function(s) of the individual muscle group(s).

My old boss, Bill DeSimone, put it best - “My programs look simple; but boy, the thought I put into them!”

Keep it simple, folks. Basics = Best.

Edit (7/18): Full disclosure - I get no kickback from Bill for linking to his manual. In fact, unless he reads this blog it’s highly likely he doesn’t even know I did it. If you’re a fitness professional or a savant on exercise or biomechanics (or the kind of person who reads Godel, Escher, and Bach for fun), you will find his book valuable (personally, I think it’s Awesome). But be forewarned - it’s more Good Calories, Bad Calories than Body For Life.

*** Warning - Spoilers ahead! ***

Pixar’s Wall-E is cautionary tale; not just of the environment and planetary stewardship, but personal stewardship as well. Although a work of fiction, the film is scattered with reminders of how lack of movement and poor diet (and lack of self-responsibility) can lead to obesity and early death in real life.

Some takeaway lessons from the film:

1) Use it or lose it:
Over the course of 700 years (and many generations) of overfeeding and sloth, the nomadic human race has not only grown fat, but has lost most of its bone and skeletal structure. In fact, the average person has lost the ability to stand (which makes for a funny scene when Wall-E accidentally knocks “John” over).

All’s not lost, however; humans regain their ability to stand and walk (somewhat unbelievably, but hey, it is an animated film) and farm and fish - more on this later.

2) Drinking your calories is a bad strategy:
A perennial in top ten fat loss tip lists is not to drink your calories; i.e., don’t drink caloric beverages as it’s all too easy to consume hundreds of calories (and sugar) without realizing it. The future humans in Wall-E take this to the extreme with drinkable meals (pizza?) served up in 7-11 Big Gulp-sized cups.

3) The less you move, the less you’ll move:
The human body, made up predominantly of third-class levers, is designed for movement. Often, pain (and immobility) occur from disuse. The classic example?

Your job becomes all-encompassing and you forego exercise, thinking, “I don’t have the time or energy.” Over time, the muscles in your back begin to atrophy and you start to experience back pain. This new development makes you less inclined to move around at all (much less exercise) since even bending over causes discomfort, so subtly, you begin to curtail your general activity. All the while, of course, your lower back muscles continue to deteriorate (the pain increasing accordingly). Before long, it hurts to walk. You begin to walk differently, placing more stress on your knees. Then, one day, you start to notice a painful ache in the lateral side of your right knee…

Physical therapists call this “The vicious cycle of pain.” Pain from disuse atrophy makes you less inclined to move, which further exacerbates the atrophy, which further exacerbates the pain. The solution? Use your body. Better yet, lift heavy things.

4) There is a silver lining:
The humans eventually return to Earth, harkening a return to subsistence farming and the consumption of real food - and progressively get skinnier and skinnier (according to the credits). It’s notable that the skinniest incarnation of human is the one depicted as fishing for subsistence. Is it possible Andrew Stanton recognizes the impact of food selection on obesity?

Mr. Stanton’s motives aside, the point still rings true: If you go back to eating real food and moving around once in awhile, there’s still hope, no matter how far overfat you are. Hey, if Manuel Uribe can lose 55% of his body mass (about 670 lbs) through diet and exercise alone, I’d say there’s hope for everybody.

P.S. - While I hate to admit it, I liked Wall-E a great deal, and not for the reasons listed above (my wife always says I’m a sucker for great design).

Or do they? (Check out Dr. Eades‘ great post on this study)

Most of the China studies I’ve read deal with rural Chinese and appear to show that their low-fat, high-grain diet is superior for health. This, of course, flies in the face of all Western research, which clearly shows a link between carbohydrate consumption and diseases of civilization.

I’ve often heard this criticism from peers and clients alike:

“If carbs are so bad, why aren’t the Chinese all fat? Don’t they eat a lot of rice? And shouldn’t there be a tremendous diabetes epidemic in China?”

There are generally two responses I give:

1) Traditionally, the amount of rice/grain eaten in China (and Asian cultures as a whole) is slight - generally a cup or two a day. This is the equivalent of roughly 45-90 grams of carbs, which is a far cry less than the daily carb consumption of the average American.

2) There is a diabetes epidemic in China.

If only they’d seen pictures of my extended family in Malaysia. Or my Taiwanese godmother, who is obese and has Type 2 diabetes (and has been forbidden by her doctor from eating a mere grain of rice - smart guy).

During my trip to China last summer, I was struck by the number of diabetes treatment clinics we passed by on the 20 minute drive from the airport to my parents’ apartment in Shanghai (three, if you were curious).

The bottom line: China has a BIG public health problem on its hands; one that will cost them dearly if they don’t manage to get it under control. But how?

• Place greater emphasis on real food instead of manufactured foods (say, yu choy vs. prawn chips).
• Given China’s improved economic status, deemphasize grains for more nutritionally dense fare, i.e., meats, cruciferous veggies, etc.
• Educate Chinese on what constitutes “healthful eating” (for example, not yu tiao).

What are your thoughts? Got any stories? Post to comments.