Every generation or so, an enlightened individual or group of individuals will come along and write a book about why Vegetarianism or Veganism is the way to eat for health and longevity, and for the betterment of our Earth and all that inhabit it. Back in 1971, Diet For A Small Planet became a best seller; in 1987, Diet For A New America, written by John Robbins, an individual related to the Baskin and Robbins Ice Cream empire, became a best seller; and now, Skinny Bitch, written in 2008 by two females in the fashion industry, has also become a best seller. None of the authors have degrees in the medical field. Perhaps that was and is part of the allure for such readability and therefore success. Maybe we can relate better to people who put in the effort to compile the unbiased research, who come across as everyday people, and who are not connected with the meat, dairy, egg, or medical organizations.
But how much quality research has really been done on this topic and how unbiased is it? Although there have been many University studies done over the years that have not contributed to any noteworthy nutritionally sound conclusions about vegetarianism (actually, go to any university and inquire about what research topics are being covered with grant money in the field of nutrition and you will cringe), I found one longitudinal study very impressive. It is with this impressive study that I gathered all of my information for this Blog. For thirty years, Seventh-day Adventist Loma Linda University in California teamed up with Harvard University for much comprehensive data, a small percentage of which I have gathered below, comparing vegetarianism to omnivorism.
Regarding Heart Disease:
Fact:
There was a 60 – 70% greater chance of a fatal heart attack in men who ate beef at least 3 times a week compared with non-beef eaters.
There was a 30% greater chance of a fatal heart attack in women who ate beef at least 3 times a week compared with non-beef eaters.
Vegetarians have lower total cholesterol levels due to high fiber and polyunsaturated fat intake, and lower cholesterol and saturated fat intake.
Vegetarians have a healthier (lower) bodyweight than meat-eating individuals, which could contribute to their slight decrease in blood pressure to that of non-vegetarians.
Vegan weaknesses:
Blood Clotting tendency. Vegetarian intakes of omega-3 fatty acids are only about half that of non – vegetarians. Omega-3 fatty acids produce potent hormone-like substances that reduce platelet aggregation, and thus reduce the likelihood of a heart attack or stroke from thrombus formation. Remedy: supplement with omega-3s, such as Flax seed oil, Fish oil, or a DHA supplement from a non-fish source.
Homocysteine Levels. This amino acid is produced by the body during the breakdown of methionine, which is concentrated in animal foods, but found in the vegan diet as well. When homocysteine is elevated in the body, it is an independent risk factor for heart disease, and may increase the risk for heart attack and stroke by two to three times. The vitamins B12, Folic acid, and vitamin B6 all lower homocysteine in the body. The problem: vegan menus are low in these B vitamins, resulting in higher homocysteine levels. Remedy: supplement with B-Complex tablet or sublingual (for better B12 absorption) lozenge.
Regarding Cancer:
Fact:
Lung Cancer. Risk is 50% greater with non-smoking non-vegetarians compared with non-smoking vegetarians. That risk increases to 100% greater with less than three servings of fruit per week.
Prostate Cancer. Risk is 54% greater with non-vegetarians compared with vegetarians. Consuming one serving of soy milk daily decreases risk by 70%.
Colon Cancer. Risk is 88% greater with non-vegetarians compared with vegetarians.
Bladder cancer. Risk is double for those that ingest meat three times per week. The risk is also double for those that drink 2 or more cups of coffee daily.
Pancreatic Cancer. Risk is decreased by 20% in individuals who consume legumes, dried fruit, and vegetable protein products at least four times per week compared with people seldom eating these foods.
Ovarian Cancer. Risk is 66% greater with non-vegetarians consuming meat four or more times a week compared with vegetarians.
Breast Cancer. Lifetime risk is 57% greater in an overweight 30 year old (BMI over 50th percentile) compared with normal weight 30 year olds.
Some concluding thoughts:
The above information is very powerful ammunition for becoming a vegetarian, but understand this: strict vegans have to eat a large variety of fruits and vegetables, nuts and grains, beans and rice, as well as supplement their diets with B-Complex and the healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Otherwise, an Omnivore diet would be healthier overall. Further, living on pasta and other grains alone, or worse, consuming low nutrient dense foods like processed and refined junk will cause deficiencies in the long run. Knowledge is power. Do the research. This blog is something to get your brains potentially thinking in another direction. Thanks for your time.
Ben
Attached Link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XPTa8AL_fGUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=diet,+life+expectancy,+and+chronic+disease#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Trends and Fads abound!
There seems to be this aversion towards movement and gravitation towards ingesting “stuff” in modern society, in hopes that this stuff will somehow take the place of what a given set of movements can produce naturally in our bodies. I feel that this aversion is why there will always be personal trainers and a market for those creative individuals looking to make some money selling something that we can ingest for that magic bullet. And if the marketers can somehow attach the right celebrity name to a given substance, it may quite possibly be the next big fad, or even have more staying power, and become the next big trend for a while. Let’s look at some of those fads and trends in more recent times.
During the 1940s and 50s, cigarettes were part of cutting edge health and fashion and Hollywood’s elite advertised their benefits to the public. Ronald Reagan was the spokesperson for Chesterfield cigarettes, and advertisements said that he gave them to all his friends for Christmas. What a guy. More doctors smoked Camels than any other cigarette, extolling their calming effects. Dentists actually recommended Viceroy. The novelist Ayn Rand saw smoking as a symbol of creativity and regarded the health warnings attributed to smoking as a socialist conspiracy.
Coffee has been around for centuries, originating in Ethiopia in the 9th century, and making its way to North America by the 1700s. But during the 1970s coffee was pushed to an entirely new level. A company called Star Bucks had the bright idea of developing a premium coffee that gave more of a jolt to both body and pocket. People bought this concept, as they could then get more done during peak hours of the day, taking time management to an entirely new level. Truth is, once the body adapted to the caffeine, ingesting the coffee was important just to function at a sub-par level, but there seemed to be such a void (or lack of one) without the drink that Star Bucks had them hooked, and franchises exploded internationally. This trend is still continuing.
Our nation is stuck on quantifying and synthesizing “stuff”. There must always be something to measure, always something to synthesize to get to the quintessence of this living force we are after. Take the French and wine. It is known that wine is a staple of their menu, and that the antioxidants in the wine, in high doses, may have a longevity effect. We go into a tailspin over this, assuming that it is the wine and not their overall lifestyle that is attributed to their lack of obesity and heart disease. In our little world, there must always be something that someone, somewhere, somehow, is taking – and this is the difference. But it’s not the wine; it’s the lifestyle, stupid.
All of these substances have side effects to one degree or another, and in time, make us slaves to them so that all we can do is try and make it through the day. What about movement? Depending on the type and intensity of movement will influence the ebb and flow of various hormones running through our blood to maintain homeostasis. It is the resource that is always available to us but is rarely harnessed correctly. If used appropriately, it will produce the desired effect we want or need for our body.
For instance, the endorphin or “runner’s high” can be attained without all of the unhealthy side effects attributed to smoking cigarettes. Aerobic activity will release endorphins for several hours afterward. It will also reset our baroreceptors, decreasing total peripheral resistance in the blood vessels, and as a result, decreasing blood pressure several hours afterwards. Cigarettes will do the opposite.
Feeling tired during the mid-afternoon? Instead of grabbing that cup of coffee, we could do some strength training. The workout will engage our sympathetic nervous system, lifting us up, but not letting us down a few hours later like coffee will – with a crash!
Are we exhausted and stressed after a long day at work but having a hard time falling asleep? Instead of reaching for a few beers, some wine, or something stronger, we could calm ourselves down by participating in Tai Chi, Yoga, or Chi Gong. The activity will sedate our sympathetic nervous system and engage the other part of our autonomic nervous system, the parasympathetic. This will also lower our cortisol levels and boost our immune system as a result.
Bottom line, let’s work with our body, not against it. By allowing our body a chance to function optimally, without ingesting substances that throw it a curve ball on a daily basis, we will ultimately feel better. When we feel better, we have a better outlook on life, and can begin living it again. Let’s choose movement: the drug of choice!
Do you need help with your exercise program. Would you like to implement this concept into your own routine? If so, I am here to help and would like to set up a time to meet with you to discuss your goals and objectives. Contact me at ben.a.barrett@pfizer.com
Ben Barrett
During the 1940s and 50s, cigarettes were part of cutting edge health and fashion and Hollywood’s elite advertised their benefits to the public. Ronald Reagan was the spokesperson for Chesterfield cigarettes, and advertisements said that he gave them to all his friends for Christmas. What a guy. More doctors smoked Camels than any other cigarette, extolling their calming effects. Dentists actually recommended Viceroy. The novelist Ayn Rand saw smoking as a symbol of creativity and regarded the health warnings attributed to smoking as a socialist conspiracy.
Coffee has been around for centuries, originating in Ethiopia in the 9th century, and making its way to North America by the 1700s. But during the 1970s coffee was pushed to an entirely new level. A company called Star Bucks had the bright idea of developing a premium coffee that gave more of a jolt to both body and pocket. People bought this concept, as they could then get more done during peak hours of the day, taking time management to an entirely new level. Truth is, once the body adapted to the caffeine, ingesting the coffee was important just to function at a sub-par level, but there seemed to be such a void (or lack of one) without the drink that Star Bucks had them hooked, and franchises exploded internationally. This trend is still continuing.
Our nation is stuck on quantifying and synthesizing “stuff”. There must always be something to measure, always something to synthesize to get to the quintessence of this living force we are after. Take the French and wine. It is known that wine is a staple of their menu, and that the antioxidants in the wine, in high doses, may have a longevity effect. We go into a tailspin over this, assuming that it is the wine and not their overall lifestyle that is attributed to their lack of obesity and heart disease. In our little world, there must always be something that someone, somewhere, somehow, is taking – and this is the difference. But it’s not the wine; it’s the lifestyle, stupid.
All of these substances have side effects to one degree or another, and in time, make us slaves to them so that all we can do is try and make it through the day. What about movement? Depending on the type and intensity of movement will influence the ebb and flow of various hormones running through our blood to maintain homeostasis. It is the resource that is always available to us but is rarely harnessed correctly. If used appropriately, it will produce the desired effect we want or need for our body.
For instance, the endorphin or “runner’s high” can be attained without all of the unhealthy side effects attributed to smoking cigarettes. Aerobic activity will release endorphins for several hours afterward. It will also reset our baroreceptors, decreasing total peripheral resistance in the blood vessels, and as a result, decreasing blood pressure several hours afterwards. Cigarettes will do the opposite.
Feeling tired during the mid-afternoon? Instead of grabbing that cup of coffee, we could do some strength training. The workout will engage our sympathetic nervous system, lifting us up, but not letting us down a few hours later like coffee will – with a crash!
Are we exhausted and stressed after a long day at work but having a hard time falling asleep? Instead of reaching for a few beers, some wine, or something stronger, we could calm ourselves down by participating in Tai Chi, Yoga, or Chi Gong. The activity will sedate our sympathetic nervous system and engage the other part of our autonomic nervous system, the parasympathetic. This will also lower our cortisol levels and boost our immune system as a result.
Bottom line, let’s work with our body, not against it. By allowing our body a chance to function optimally, without ingesting substances that throw it a curve ball on a daily basis, we will ultimately feel better. When we feel better, we have a better outlook on life, and can begin living it again. Let’s choose movement: the drug of choice!
Do you need help with your exercise program. Would you like to implement this concept into your own routine? If so, I am here to help and would like to set up a time to meet with you to discuss your goals and objectives. Contact me at ben.a.barrett@pfizer.com
Ben Barrett
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Why Do So Many New Year Resolutions Come Up Short?
The beginning of each year is traditionally a time to start fresh for many, to leave old ways or habits behind and begin new ones. New Year’s resolutions that revolve around fitness abound, with many of them coming up short. Why? The problem could be an extension of the way we perceive other things in life. We want instantaneous results; we want the quick fix; we want it now.
Maybe we could learn something about New Year’s resolutions or a lack of any New Year’s resolutions from the older generation of physical culturists, some of whom have been exercising since the 1920s. There is generally a Zen–like quality to their daily lives that precludes them from needing to make those resolutions in the first place. Everything seems to be in place – from the daily fitness regimen, to the wholesome eating, to the sense of gratitude they share for being alive. A commonality also seems to run through their being: a sense of moderation in everything they do.
In all the infinite wisdom of a 23 year old, I once suggested to Iron Man Terry Robinson, who had been pumping iron for over 50 years at that time, why he didn’t throw more weight on the bar he was benching and squatting, as he surely could have if he wanted to. His reply was quite simple. If he used the heavier weight, there was a greater chance of him getting injured and thus potentially not exercising later on. No, he was in it for the long haul. There were no jump starts to his fitness regimen every January 1st; diet was not a part of his vocabulary; and he did not have to adjust his schedule to fit exercise in. He generally exercised first thing in the morning, when most people were still asleep. Exercising and good eating were second nature to him. How can we achieve this?
When a healthy lifestyle is a part of one’s daily schedule, like breathing, then there is no reason for resolutions every year that revolve around fitness. We can delve into other facets of life, whether that is spending more time with friends and family, furthering our education, or doing something totally different. But, considering our bodies should be of high priority, a good resolution could be to integrate a healthy lifestyle into our schedule to a point whereby we do not have to continuously make New Year’s resolutions in a piecemeal fashion: lose fat, get jacked, get a ripped six pack, fit into a certain bathing suit. By viewing our bodies more holistically, the positive changes that occur in us over the years will spill over into the lives of those we come in contact with, and in turn, make a positive impact on their lives. The cycle continues.
Maybe we could learn something about New Year’s resolutions or a lack of any New Year’s resolutions from the older generation of physical culturists, some of whom have been exercising since the 1920s. There is generally a Zen–like quality to their daily lives that precludes them from needing to make those resolutions in the first place. Everything seems to be in place – from the daily fitness regimen, to the wholesome eating, to the sense of gratitude they share for being alive. A commonality also seems to run through their being: a sense of moderation in everything they do.
In all the infinite wisdom of a 23 year old, I once suggested to Iron Man Terry Robinson, who had been pumping iron for over 50 years at that time, why he didn’t throw more weight on the bar he was benching and squatting, as he surely could have if he wanted to. His reply was quite simple. If he used the heavier weight, there was a greater chance of him getting injured and thus potentially not exercising later on. No, he was in it for the long haul. There were no jump starts to his fitness regimen every January 1st; diet was not a part of his vocabulary; and he did not have to adjust his schedule to fit exercise in. He generally exercised first thing in the morning, when most people were still asleep. Exercising and good eating were second nature to him. How can we achieve this?
When a healthy lifestyle is a part of one’s daily schedule, like breathing, then there is no reason for resolutions every year that revolve around fitness. We can delve into other facets of life, whether that is spending more time with friends and family, furthering our education, or doing something totally different. But, considering our bodies should be of high priority, a good resolution could be to integrate a healthy lifestyle into our schedule to a point whereby we do not have to continuously make New Year’s resolutions in a piecemeal fashion: lose fat, get jacked, get a ripped six pack, fit into a certain bathing suit. By viewing our bodies more holistically, the positive changes that occur in us over the years will spill over into the lives of those we come in contact with, and in turn, make a positive impact on their lives. The cycle continues.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Old School Revisited!
Today we are seeing a not-too-distant mirror into the past regarding the exercise mindset, which is a good thing. Back in the hey day of the 1940s and 50s of what was then called the Golden era of Physical Culture, fitness legends such as John Grimek, Jack Lalanne, Steve Reeves, Pudgy Stockton, Terry Robinson, et al, not only looked strong; they actually were strong. There was no Nautilus or Cybex equipment, no Smith or Leg Press machines to get in the way of having a truly good workout, and reaping the benefits of such. Although the cutting edge exercises of that era were not called “functional exercises”, that is exactly what they would be called by today’s standards. Those exercises or movements that were popular back then, albeit to a small following (being fit was thought of as an oddity back then), involved groups of muscles that worked in concert with each other. As a result, they had some carry over, or correlation to every day activities. Of course, some were not; many of those exercises performed back then were highly evolved, and only a select few individuals were capable of accomplishing them, but those physical culturists had nothing to distract them from having an awesome workout: no exercise machines, televisions, Ipods or computers in the fitness center. Life was simpler then.
Contrast that with the exercises that became popular with the birth of the marketable exercise machine. Starting around the late 1970s, the exercise machine era slowly took root. By the early 1980s, the machine era took off. Iron Barbells, Kettle bells and dumbbells, Gymnast rings and medicine balls were replaced with all very attractive strength machines that seemed more user friendly to the less “hard core” exercisers. Unfortunately, knowledge base on what would be best for the active body was not growing at a pace equal to the engineering of these contraptions. Bodies suffered as a result. Why?
1. Strength machines do not engage the core; exercises on machines therefore become extremity dominant movements
2. The deep, intrinsic muscles (i.e., along the spine) are not challenged; they become weakened (muscle amnesia) from non use, and as a result, the inert structures (i.e., ligaments) are left to bare the brunt during an emergency situation.
3. There is no inter-muscular coordination development; only intramuscular coordination development (i.e., isolating the prime movers, without challenging the stabilizers and neutralizers).
4. Regressed workouts (i.e., Strength Machines) do not challenge our righting (balance on normal surface) and tilting (balance on slippery surface) reflexes, preventing us from being at our optimum for functioning in emergency situations.
But used sparingly, strength machine use has its place in productive exercise routines. Now that our knowledge base has caught up to strength machine engineering, many of us have come to realize the machine’s benefits when combined with the more functional fitness activities. The body adapts rather quickly to the same activities done over several weeks, and even a span of only a few weeks for more advanced individuals. By rotating the use of strength machines for a number of weeks, followed by the use of more functional exercises, greater strength and athleticism can be attained.
There are still a few of the fitness legends who started it all, alive and well. On any given morning, 93 year old Terry Robinson can be seen swimming at the Sports Club LA, in Brentwood California, before engaging in strength training. The same goes for 94 year old Jack Lalanne in Morro Bay, California. We finally understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. What we thought of as odd in the 1940s and 50s, is common place now. Fifty years later, history is starting to repeat itself.
Do you need help with your exercise program. Would you like to implement this concept into your own routine? If so, I am here to help and would like to set up a time to meet with you to discuss your goals and objectives. Contact me at ben.a.barrett@pfizer.com
Ben Barrett
Friday, December 19, 2008
2009 New U Makeover "The Fitness Edition"
The new year is here and it is time to get serious!
The 2009 New U Makeover "The Fitness Edition" is beginning on January 12th!
If you are looking to lose weight, increase muscle tone, increase upper & lower body strength, or feel better in 2009 you need to sign up TODAY!
Make 2009 the year you finally put yourself first!
For more information stop down to the fitness center or call us at 441-6855 (Groton) or 732-0357 (New London)!
See you soon!
Lifestyle Services Team
The 2009 New U Makeover "The Fitness Edition" is beginning on January 12th!
If you are looking to lose weight, increase muscle tone, increase upper & lower body strength, or feel better in 2009 you need to sign up TODAY!
Make 2009 the year you finally put yourself first!
For more information stop down to the fitness center or call us at 441-6855 (Groton) or 732-0357 (New London)!
See you soon!
Lifestyle Services Team
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
