Imagine a new study, published, one presumes in Road & Track, or Car and Driver, purporting to show that square wheels outperform round wheels.Imagine the attendant headlines: Everything Thought Known About Wheels Proves Wrong! and Wheel Guidelines Need Radical Change!

Would such headlines, in fact, cause you to abandon everything you knew about wheels based on a lifetime of evidence and experience?Or, would you say: that cant possibly be true, and just go about your business?Or, might you say, well, wait just a darn minute and look further into the study, to see how such a preposterous claim could be justified in the first place?

I am guessing one of the latter options in the case of wheels.I only wish we would roll the same way when it comes to news about diet.Well come back to that momentarily.

First, I want to establish that my imaginary study, and its entourage of imaginary headlines, could, indeed, be feasible if there were money to be made confusing people perennially about the proper shape of tires (as there certainly is with regard to diet).How?

Well, as the headlines told you, square tires were compared to round, and square won.What the headlines didnt tell you was that the square tires were made from state-of-the-art tire materials, such as vulcanized rubber.And, perhaps though square, the corners were gently rounded.The round tires were indeed round- but made out of porcelain, presumably because the study result was chosen in advance to favor the square tire industry.The porcelain tires all shattered to smithereens at the first rotation, leaving those cars stranded with no tires at all.The cars on square tires lumbered along clumsily, but they did at least move- and so, they won!The difference was statistically significant.

The above study is just the nonsense it seems.If, however, there were industries that could profit from confusion about the best shape for tires, I would not be shocked to see it.We get just such diverting nonsense about diet week after week.

The latest is the media coverage of a study called PURE (Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology), which ranges from mildly hyperbolic to patently absurd.

The study itself is impressive in scope, and I commend the many investigators involved for their good intentions, and massive efforts.In brief, PURE was designed to look at health outcomes associated with variations in lifestyle, and in the current batch of papers diet specifically, in countries not well represented in prior work of this type, and across the range from high to very low socioeconomic status.

A total of 18 countries with a particular focus on the Middle East, South America, Africa, and South Asia- and about 135,000 people participated.Participants were enrolled as long ago as 2003, or as recently as 2013, and were followed for about seven and a half years on average.Dietary intake was assessed with a single food-frequency questionnaire at baseline.Another dietary intake tool, 24-hour recall, was used in a sub-sample, and the correlation between the two was marginal, suggesting considerable inaccuracy in diet reporting.

Three PURE study papers were just published in the same issue of The Lancet, one reporting health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, non-cardiovascular disease, and mortality) associated with intake of vegetables, fruits, and legumes (beans, chickpeas, lentils, etc.); the second reporting on the same health outcomes with variation in the three macronutrients- carbohydrate, protein, and fat- as a percent of total calorie intake; and a third looking at variation in blood lipids and blood pressure in relation to nutrient intake.

There were two main findings that have spawned most of the mainstream media coverage, and social media buzz.The first was that, while health outcomes improved and mortality declined with higher intake of vegetables, fruits, and legumes- in multivariable analysis adjusting for other factors, that benefit peaked at about 3 servings per day.This has been widely interpreted to suggest that, at odds with conventional wisdom on the topic, more is not better with regard to vegetables, fruits, and beans.

The second finding garnering media attention was that across countries, the higher the intake of carbohydrate as a percent of calories, the higher the rates of disease and death; whereas the higher the percentage of calories from fat, the lower these rates.

Lets take these in turn.

Regarding vegetable, fruit, and legume (VFL) intake:

The researchers found that those with the lowest intake (about 9000 people) of vegetables, fruits, and legumes also had the lowest intake of total calories, starch, and meat- indicating that in the many poor populations included in this study, people were simply food-deprived, and hungry.

Those with the highest intake (about 11,000 people) of VFL had nearly twice the total calorie intake intake of the lowest group; smoked about half as often; and were 6 times more likely to have gone to college- and were more likely to exercise (even though the poor likely did manual labor at work).

In other words, the lowest levels of VFL intake represented a fairly desperate socioeconomic status; the highest intake, more than 8 servings daily, meant privilege, and choice.

What have the crazy, hyperbolic headlines NOT been telling you?Roughly 8% of those in the lowest VFL intake group died during the study period; whereas only 3% of those in the highest VFL intake group died- despite the fact that the highest VFL intake group had a slightly higher mean age at baseline.Overall, and rather flagrantly, mortality was LOWEST in the group with the HIGHEST intake of VFL. The lowest levels of heart disease, stroke, and mortality were seen in those with the HIGHEST intake of VFL.

What, then, accounts for the strange reporting, implying that everything weve been told about vegetables, fruits, and beans is wrong?These benefits were adjusted away in multivariable models.When this method of statistical analysis was applied, the health benefit expressly attributable to VFL seemed to peak at about 3 servings per day.That, however, is fundamentally misleading- and the headlines, quite simply, were written by people who dont have a clue what it really means.

Those people in PURE with the highest VFL intake were ALSO benefiting from less smoking, more exercise, higher education, better jobs, and quite simply- a vastly better socioeconomic existence.A multivariable model enters all of these factors to determine if a given outcome (e.g., lower death rate) can be attributed to ONE OF THEM with the exclusion of the others.The exclusive, apparent benefit of VFL intake was, predictably, reduced when the linked benefits of better education, better job, and better life were included in the assessment.

This no more means that VFL was failing to provide benefit in those with more education, than that more education was failing to provide benefit in those eating more VFL.It only means that since those things happen together most of the time- its no longer possible to attribute a benefit to just one of them.Really, thats what it means (and with all due respect to the miscellaneous headline writers untrained in the matter, I am qualified to say so).

The country-specific presentation of data showed the same gradient, with the lowest intake of VFL in the poorest regions and countries, including Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe.

Based on their multivariable models, the authors suggest that there is no clear benefit from eating more than 3 servings of VFL per day, and they propose a public health advantage in that conclusion: 3 servings a day, rather than 5, 7, or 9, represents an approach that is likely to be much more affordable for poor people in poor countries. Unfortunately, those same models could be used to make the same case about education: there is no clear, exclusive benefit (among those eating the most vegetables, fruits, and legumes daily) from more education- so lets forget about college!That, too, should make things easier for the poor.I appreciate the good intentions- but the message is, simply, wrong.

What about the study of macronutrients- carbohydrate, protein, and fat?

Lets start with dietary fat.Baseline fat intake by country ranged from a low of about 18% of calories, to a high of about 30%.All of these values are considerably lower than current, average intake in the U.S. and much of Europe.

Those countries with the lowest intake of dietary fat also had the lowest intake of protein, suggesting these were people with food insecurity, having trouble obtaining adequate food intake, or dietary variety.

Saturated fat intake ranged across the countries studied from about 6% of calories to a high of about 11% of calories, again all lower than average levels in the U.S. and much of Europe, and actually very close to recommended levels.Headlines encouraging populations that already eat more saturated fat than this to add even more are not merely unjustified by anything in the study, they are egregiously irresponsible.

Unlike dietary fat, which the investigators examined in all of its various categories, carbohydrate was all lumped together as a single class.This produced an apparent paradox in the data: disease and death went down with more intake of vegetables, fruits, and legumes- but up with carbohydrate.Whats the paradox?Vegetables, fruits, and legumes all are comprised overwhelmingly of carbohydrate.

What explains away the apparent paradox is that vegetable, fruit, and legume intake were apparently highest in the most affluent, most highly educated study participants- while total carbohydrate as a percent of calories was highest in the poorest, least educated, most disadvantaged.In those cases, carbohydrate was not a variety of highly nutritious plant foods; it was almost certainly something like white rice, and little else.

The highest intake of carbohydrate as a percent of total calories was associated with lower intake of both fat and protein, and was associated with higher mortality.However, much of the increase in mortality was from non-cardiovascular diseases.

So, unless you are prepared to believe that eating only white rice is the reason you are likely to be gored by a bull and bleed to death- this study doesnt mean what the headlines say it means!

The findings actually suggest that intake of carbohydrate as a percent of total calories was highest (e.g., a diet of white rice and little else) where there was the most poverty, the least access to medical care, and the greatest risk of dying of trauma, infectious diseases, and so on.

Non-cardiovascular mortality went down as total protein intake went up across the study populations, too.Do you think this means that eating more protein prevents you from bleeding when gored by a bull- or that people in places with access to more dietary protein are less likely to be gored by a bull in the first place, and far more likely to have life-saving surgery if ever that should happen?

An alleged surprise in the PURE data is that higher intake of saturated fat was associated with lower mortality overall.Here, too, however, higher saturated fat intake- which occurred together with higher protein intake- was associated with much reduced risk of non-cardiovascular death.So, does eating more saturated fat protect you from dying when run over by an ox- or does being in a place with access to more saturated fat (i.e., animal food) in the diet mean you eat the ox before he can run you over?And, that, if ever he does run into you- theres a hospital somewhere reachable?

To be quite clear about it, there was no adjustment for, or even mention of, access to a hospital or medical care in the PURE papers.

The researchers examined the replacement of carbohydrate as percentage of calories, with fat as a percentage of calories, but did not report variation in total calories, or the degree to which very high intake of carbohydrate as a percent of that total correlated with very low calorie intake overall, and malnutrition.Looking across the several papers, it is apparent that correlation is strong.There was also no examination of what replacing one kind of fat with another did to health outcomes, a kind of dietary variation that might have more to do with choice, and less to do with socioeconomics.This is an odd omission.

On the basis of all of the details in these published papers, the conclusion, and attendant headlines, might have been: very poor people with barely anything to eat get sick and die more often than affluent people with access to both ample diets, and hospitals.One certainly understands why the media did NOT choose that!It is, however, true- and entirely consistent with the data.

Also, by way of reminder: the HIGHEST levels of both total fat, and saturated fat intake observed in the PURE data were still LOWER then prevailing levels in the U.S. and much of Europe, providing no basis whatsoever for headlines encouraging people already exceeding these levels to add yet more meat, butter, and cheese to their diets. Absolutely none.

As noted, the work represented by PURE, and the apparent intentions of the investigators, appear to be quite commendable.There is, however, something very odd about the timing of this observational study- independent of its rather obvious failure to address the massive impact of poverty on health outcomes.

What is odd in this case is the publication of an observational study to refute the findings of many intervention trials, including randomized controlled trials.As a rule, observational studies are used to generate hypotheses, and intervention trials- especially RCTs- are used to test those hypotheses.Observational studies come first, and only suggest associations; intervention studies come after to confirm or refute.

Personally, I have long been a proponent of observational epidemiology.I argue routinely that what we know reliably about diet, and many other things such as putting out fires, can come from sources other than randomized trials.Generally, the most complete and purest of understanding comes when insights born of diverse sources, from intervention trials to the common experiences of a culture, are combined, and aligned.Still, it is very odd to go back to observational data once the intervention trial data have already been filed.

A number of the researchers directly involved in PURE have spent their careers, long and illustrious for some of them, nearer the beginning for others, criticizing just such observational methods.Certain investigators involved in PURE have been among the more vocal and high-profile critics, for instance, of Ancel Keys and the Seven Countries Study (SCS), impugning both on the basis of overtly false accusations about lapses and improprieties, but also on the basis of an undeniable truth: the SCS was observational epidemiology, not a randomized controlled trial.

There is a truly enormous difference, though, along with many lesser ones, between the SCS and PURE: a gap of more than half a century!

Planning for the SCS goes back some 60 years.At that time, not only did we not have RCTs to tell us much about diet and health outcomes; we did not yet even know that diet and lifestyle had any appreciable effect on the most common of such outcomes, namely heart disease.The primary question Keys and colleagues set out to address had nothing to do with any particular nutrient; it was far more fundamental.Keys was among the first to suspect that variation in diet and lifestyle produced variation in heart disease risk, that coronary disease was not simply an inevitable consequence of aging.

Perhaps it seems incredible to you now that there was ever a time we doubted a role for diet and lifestyle in coronary disease, but that simply indicates how far we have come in the last half century, how big a gap that truly is given the pace of progress.So, again, an observational study now, especially by researchers prone to propound the advantages of randomized trials, is rather odd- because we have accumulated many such randomized trials in the decades since the SCS.

We have randomized trials to show that a shift from a typical American diet to a diet richer in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, lentils, nuts, and seeds- and consequently reduced in refined carbohydrate, added sugar, and saturated fat- slashes rates of type 2 diabetes in high-risk adults, far more so even than the best of medications.We have randomized trials to show that shifting from a standard, northern European diet rich in meat and dairy, to a Mediterranean diet with less of those and more vegetables, fruits, olive oil, legumes, and seafood- causes the rate of heart attack to plummet in high-risk adults. We have intervention trials to show that diets in which whole, wholesome plant foods predominate can cause coronary plaque to regress, and heart attack rates to plummet.

We also have, along with simple observations of both longevity and vitality in populations around the word that eat diets of wholesome foods, mostly plants, in various sensible and balanced combinations- an intervention study at the population level shifting diets away from meat and dairy, toward more produce, whole grains, and beans, and resulting in more than an 80% reduction in heart disease rates, and a 10 year addition to life expectancy.

We have also seen what has happened in India and China with transitions to higher intake of processed foods, meat and dairy- and away from diets of simple plants in their native state: massively more obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease in general.We have a massive study in the entire U.S. population showing that more meat, especially processed meat, and more intake of processed foods, salt, and sugar, and less consumption of produce means more risk of premature death.

In other words, past the hype and headlines, the apparent paradoxes and puzzles, what PURE means is that: poor people with poor diets and barely enough to eat, and living in places with limited if any modern medical care- are more likely to get sick and die than people living in better circumstances.With all due respect to the researchers, and none to the promulgators of massively misleading media coverage- we knew that already.

Who eats mostly plants?Two kinds of people: those who have choices, and choose plants for the many benefits; and those who have no choices at all.The former enjoy excellent health.The latter eat what they can get their hands on, struggle against the forces of poverty, and routinely die young.There is a correlation between meat intake and coronary disease; but there is also a correlation between the affluence that allows for meat intake in the first place, and access to a cardiac catheterization lab.In general, those people living in places with more cardiac cath labs have more chronic disease, but avoid early death due to the advent of advanced medial care.

Before concluding this admittedly long column, one final note about the alarmingly bad timing of the PURE publications.These papers were released concurrently with the devastation in Houston, and the Gulf Coast, of Hurricane Harvey- the greatest rain event in the recorded history of the continental United States.The unprecedented rainfall is related to climate change, which in turn is monumentally influenced by global dietary choices.How appalling that the PURE findings were not merely misrepresented to the public in irresponsible reporting pertaining to human health effects, but in reporting that ignored entirely the implications of that bad dietary advice for the fate of the climate, and planet.

This week, as last, round tires are reliably better than square, assuming both are made of the same materials.This week as last, whole vegetables and fruits are reliably good for you, and for the most part, the more the better.The benefits of that produce, however, do not preclude the benefits of an education, a job, and medical care- nor vice versa.

This week as last, summary judgment about carbohydrate is entirely meaningless, because that term encompasses everything from green beans to jelly beans, arugula to added sugar, and subsistence diets of white rice and little else.The vegetables and fruits, as well as the whole grains, beans, lentils, nuts and seeds in the mix are this week as last- good for you.

This week as last, some fats are good for you, some are bad, and some are relatively neutral; but in all cases, it depends on what you eat instead of what.This week as last, the best sources of the most beneficial dietary fats are nuts, seeds, olives, avocado, and if from animal foods- then fish and seafood.

This week as last, observational epidemiology has merit in elucidating new hypotheses worth testing in intervention trials, but plays no legitimate role at all in displacing answers already predicated on just such trials.

This week as last offering up each new study out of context is like trying to make sense of an entire puzzle by examining each piece in isolation.Why we treat diet this way is the puzzle to me.As long as we do so, we can expect to make about as much progress as cars on porcelain tires.

Senior Medical Advisor, Verywell.com

Here is the original post:
Diet And Health: Puzzling Past Paradox To PURE Understanding - HuffPost

Bank of America Chicago Marathon

Professional athletes dont get to the top by accident. It takes superhuman levels of time, dedication, and focusand that includes paying attention to what they put in their bellies. In this series, GQ takes a look at what fit people in different fields eat on a daily basis to perform at their best. Heres a look at the daily diet of a sub 2:10 marathon runner.

No athlete diet is created equal. For Olympian and professional runner Diego Estrada, the key to nutrition is about being happy and not stressing over small details. Sure, he could keep count of every calories, log each time he decided to indulge in a Dennys Grand Slam breakfast, or even limit himself from Mexican food, but he would be miserable while doing so, which would make the high-intensity training sessions he endures that much more difficult. Currently in the final stages of training for the Oct. 8 Bank of America Chicago Marathon, he hopes to set a personal best after having to will himself through 20 miles of last years race on a severely twisted ankle; still managing to be the first American to cross the finish line, finishing eighth overall in 2:13:56. We caught up with Estrada to discuss his goal for this years marathon, training, giving into his cravings and more.

GQ: Youve mentioned your personal goal of finishing the marathon in under 2:10. As of right now, do you feel confident in being able to achieve that mark?

Diego Estrada: I think Im light years ahead of where I was last yearand I thought I was ready last year. Now, the key is to not overdo it. Just kind of cruise it in but make sure Im not too rested. I think that, based on how training is going, I think Im right inline for my goal in trying to [finish] in under 2:10.

Does last years finish disappoint or motivate you?

I think it motivated me because there were some obstacles along the way. I stepped on a water bottle six miles into a 26-mile race, so the fact that I finished [was good]. I wasnt satisfied with the time and I wanted better just because I could have finished sixth. I moved up to sixth with about 200 feet to go, and I couldnt put pressure on my foot anymore.

Its not like youre running the local marathon. I dont know when is the next time Ill be top five in a world major marathon and that was a good opportunity. So it just motivates me to make sure that I can reinforce everything in my body, so that Im ready to go mentally, physically and I can try to accomplish my goal in finishing really high in a world major. Theres the Olympics but this is kind of its own Olympics. Its prestigious. Its a world major marathon and if you can medal in one of these, to me, its almost like medaling in the Olympics.

You train in Flagstaff, Ariz. Im not too certain about the climate but how do you go from preparing there to trying to brace for Chicago when the weather can be at its most unpredictable in October?

Flagstaff is at 7,000 ft. So you have to slow down a bit in training than you would here in Chicago. The weather, I think, is very similar. Its very unpredictable in Flagstaff. It goes from 80 degrees to 50, monsoons and thunderstorms. The weather doesnt bother me. When it comes to Chicago, whether its hot, cold, rainy or whatever, it doesnt really concern me. I prepare by dropping to lower elevation. Ive been waking up around 3 A.M., driving around 4, doing these hard workouts down in a place call Camp Verde, which is 3,000 feet and it feels just like sea level. So Im just making sure that Im able to change pace,s and Im not just putting in the effort, but Im actually running the goal pace in training because its one thing for your lungs to have the capacity to maintain.

Its a different thing when you dont have the neuro system and muscles firing. It feels easyonce youre fitto run four 4:50 miles but once you get past 10:15, it just has to come like second nature, like breathing. You cant be sprinting, forcing or trying to get on your toes. It just has to be natural.

While your diet isnt necessarily the strictest, from college to now being a professional, were there any substantial changes you had to make?

In high school, my mom would cook most of the meals. Im Mexican, so these were healthy meals. When I went to college, we had the dining rooms, which was alright, but the remaining years, you have the freedom, money deposited into your account from scholarships. So you start overdoing it with the McDonalds, KFC, and my diet was nasty. I collapsed my lung in college and I still kept my ways. I started getting injured, and it wasnt until my first year as a professional where I saw that the fitness and requirements are at a different bar. I was training really hard because thats all I had to do but the nutrition wasnt there. My body shut down, my cortisone levels were really high and I would have sweaty palms. Basically, my body was saying no more. Even my testosterone and everything else was just dropping.

From then on, its not like I went to a strict diet. I just dont go get fast food anymore. I do consider Potbellys or Subway to be fast food, but its a healthier option. Its weird because I used to love certain burgers, but now Im disgusted. Not to say anything against them and the taste but its a reminder of what I endured when my body shut down. I dont count calories. I eat when I want to eat, which is small meals throughout the day.

If I go to a restaurant, Im most likely going to get a to-go box. Five weeks out, the big thingwhen I ran my first marathon at the Olympic trailsIm normally 135 pounds for my race weight. I dropped down to 120. I was training like an animal. Ive never trained that hard. The training was there but my body had nothing to feed on after 15, 16 miles. You go from glycogen to carbs, and then your body needs fat and there was no body fat there. My body cramped up, I dropped out and I remember going to Chicago last year and it being five weeks out, Coach [Joe Vigil] was on the phone with me every other day making sure I ate enough. So from personal experience with it being five weeks out, I make sure that I overeat. I want to be close to 135 because its hard to keep that weight when youre training so much. I just want to be a little bit fat because I know Im going to need some fat the last six miles.

Whats a typical training day for you?

Lets say its an easy day. Typically, Ill wake up, have a cup of coffee. I cant function without it. Some oatmeal or cereal and then Ill be out the door to run. Ill come back, probably eat a sandwich, banana, or a PowerBar. Ill take a nap, wake up and do the same thing as in the morning. Ill have some coffee, cereal, or oatmeal, go for a run and then later for dinner, Ill have whatever Im craving. Throughout the day, Ill snack on little things. I like pistachios and strawberries. I grew up in Salinas [California], where the agriculture is really big. So I need to have some strawberries.

On a typical workout day, lets say its now when Im dropping down to a lower elevation, I wake up at 3, coffee and then Ill be more specific. Ill have some kind of nutrition bar to make sure my stomach is set; maybe a bagel. Ill make the drive to trainingits like a 50-mile drive. After [training], Ill have a protein shake immediately in my car. Ill probably stop at Dennys and get whatever Im craving because its difficult to eat after a hard session because your stomach doesnt want anything. Ill try to get some breakfast, drive up the mountain, take a nap and then from there, its whatever I can eat.

But I try to up the hydration because Ive made the mistake of thinking Im fine post workout but if the hydration isnt there, it impacts the recovery. The muscles fatigue and youll feel that burn in your muscles longer.

"Towards the end, you need a little bit of caffeine, in my opinion. Not necessarily for the energy boost, but you want your mind to stay sharp. They say that your mind will give up before your body and thats very true in a marathon."

Are there any tweaks or adjustments you make the week of a long run?

I think everyone calls it carbo-loading and they stuff up with carbs. Some of my sessions are so hard; theyre probably as demanding as the marathon itself. I just try to repeat the routine. I dont try to do anything special. Its such a long race and if something goes wrong, say I overload, I might blow up out there. Ive heard stories of people overdoing the carbs and I think Ive found a fine balance where I keep my same diet. It doesnt change that much. Its either Mexican food, pasta, and occasionally some Red Lobster.

Im alone right now. Nobody is with me and Im just training all alone with my dog. Sometimes, Im tired and I just dont want to cook. Thats basically my dietsome seafood, Mexican, and pasta. I keep it the same but the night before, theres got to be some pasta. Its almost like Ill lose my confidence if I dont have some pasta the night before.

Whats your go-tos at Red Lobster?

I usually go with the wood grilled lobster, shrimp, and salmon.

Hydration would seem like the most critical aspect in completing a marathon but what else are you putting into your body throughout 26 miles?

You need calories and carbohydrates. Nowadays, with technology and everything being so advanced, you can drink something that will give you the right amount of energy and carbs, so theres not really much to think about. Every 5K, what Ive been doingwhat I did the first successful one because the first one I did, I just put fluids out there because it was so hotits just been regular fluids. It can be Gatorade or any type of sports drink that your body can handle.

The second stop would be like an energy gel. Every 10K was a gel, but I did make sure to throw in two gels for the last 35K and 40K, which is roughly 23 and 25 miles, just to make sure my body held up. Towards the end, you need a little bit of caffeine, in my opinion. Not necessarily for the energy boost, but you want your mind to stay sharp. They say that your mind will give up before your body and thats very true in a marathon.

As far as recovering after a marathon, are you trying to maintain weight or do you get a couple of weeks to let yourself go?

Its nice if I can put on some pounds and extra weight. Its nice after a marathon, because I can take two to three weeks off and maybe put on five to seven pounds. I think it helps my body. Since high school, some people would see running and look at it as you have to be skinny, but I always think about that human diagram and its all muscular. I always think of that as what you want to be as a distance runner. You want to be muscular and powerful because the lighter you get, the less output you have. If you look at the worlds best athletes, theyre athletically fit. You never see a skinny guy.

Are there any nerves still involved before that starting gun goes off?

I used to get nervous but now I dont. I got to a point, maybe a year or two ago, where I started second guessing myself, questioning why dont I get nervous and do I enjoy it anymore? I think in college, it was all so new to me. Now, I train so hard. My coach is 86-years-old, has a doctorate degree, and hes trained Olympic medalists. If he says Im ready, then Im ready. So, I guess Ive learned to trust the work.

Watch Now:

3 Workout Myths, Debunked

MORE STORIES LIKE THIS ONE

Read more here:
The Real-Life Diet of Diego Estrada, Olympic Long-Distance Runner - GQ Magazine

NORTON, Mass. Jordan Spieth and Tom Brady have been good friends for a few years now, a relationship that began with both players being sponsored by Under Armour and has grown since.

So much so that Spiethwho will attend Thursday nights New England Patriots-New York Giants exhibition football game with Justin Thomas ahead of Friday's first round of the Dell Technologies Championshipadmitted that he has even tried some of the food that makes up Bradys strict diet.

The verdict?

I know its good for me, Spieth, 24, said of the 40-year-old quarterbacks meal plan that includes such items as Lentil Buckwheat meatballs and avocado ice cream. Im not quite dialed in on the eating as he is. I dont think he was when he was my age, either.

Brady is now, though. So much so that when the two played together at Augusta National last year, Brady brought the items that make up his diet with him.

He had all this stuff at Augusta when all of us were just, you know, having some wine and steak and potatoes. And hes, you know, he shipped all of his stuff into there to have it as snacks and protein powder and all this stuff, Spieth said. Its obviously elongating his career and doing well for him, so Ill do whatever hes doing.

It seems to be working for both. Brady was the MVP of last years Super Bowl, and this year Spieth won the Open Championship and is in contention for Player of the Year honors.

Hes a tremendous guy to have in your corner, Spieth said of Brady. When hes rooting for you, you feel like you just have I keep using the word energy, but you really do feel like you have something else when you get guys like him on your side.

RELATED: 7 obscure golf facts about Tom Brady

WATCH: GOLF DIGEST VIDEOS

Why Jordan Spieth's Weird Swing Works Better

The rest is here:
Jordan Spieth tried Tom Brady's dietand had the reaction you'd probably expect - GolfDigest.com

The gut health-conscious among us are buzzing about the Hadza tribe, a small group of hunter-gatherers in Tanzania. For the most part, the Hadza eat only food they find in the forest, and because of their diet, they have remarkably healthy microbiomes, which means they have remarkably healthy guts. Seasonal cycling in the gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Smits SA, Leach J, Sonnenburg ED. Science (New York, N.Y.), 2017, Aug.;357(6353):1095-9203. So all that buzz might actually be for good reason.

But let's back up. What even is a microbiome? Basically, it's the collection of bacteria in our gut that's vital to digestive and metabolic health and the key to a strong immune system. Unfortunately, the low-fiber, high-sugar Western diet has changed our microbiomes so much, we don't have as wide a variety of gut bacteriameaning our bodies are more susceptible to things such as irritable bowel syndrome, food intolerances, metabolic syndrome, gallstones, diabetes, and even chronic depression. The human microbiome: at the interface of health and disease. Cho I, Blaser MJ. Nature reviews. Genetics, 2012, Mar.;13(4):1471-0064.

But not all hope is lost. A recent study looking at the Hadza people showed their microbiomes actually change over time, depending on what they're eating. In the dry season when they snack on things such as berries and honey, their gut bacteria is more diverse, but in the wet season when they eat a lot more meat, their micobiomes look strangely similar to ours. Why? Researchers think fiber might be the key.

We repeat: FIBER. Yep, the same stuff your grandma mixes into water. And this isn't anything new. There's a ton of evidence that fiber has a major impact on gut health, probably more so than kombucha or kimchi (or that probiotic you're taking). Microbes feed on fiber, producing short-chain fatty acids, which have been tied to myriad health benefits, such as reduced inflammation and protection against heart disease. Cardiovascular benefits of dietary fiber. Satija A, Hu FB. Current atherosclerosis reports, 2013, May.;14(6):1534-6242. Bonus: Increasing your fiber intake is way easier (and way cheaper) than flooding your body with fancy probiotics.

Americans consume only about 15 grams of fiber per day. Fiber Intake of the U.S Population.Hoy MK, Goldman JD. Fiber intake of the U.S. population: What We Eat in America, NHANES 2009- 2010. Food Surveys Research Group Dietary Data Brief No. 12. September 2014. Dietary guidelines recommend 25 grams for women and 38 grams for men, while Hadza people average 100 to 150, which means we need to seriously step up our game. This doesn't mean we have to begin hunting and gathering; we can start by reducing the amount of processed food we eat and adding things such as pulses, whole grains, berries, and fiber-rich veggies to our diet.

Read more from the original source:
Guys, This "New" Hadza Diet Has Actually Been Around Forever - Greatist

When I wrote about my own success in lowering cholesterol through (mostly) plant-based eating, I cautioned against reading too much into it. The internet is full of people touting their own experience as "proof" of broader trends, so it's best to look at credible peer reviewed studies to get a sense of how any particular lifestyle change might work for you.

That said, the scientific evidence keeps mounting that plant-based dietsor at least a shift in focus to more plant-based eatingcan have significant improvements for our health, with lower cholesterol being one of the more dramatic areas of improvement.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recently reported on yet another study backing this up. This one, authored by Yoko Yokoyama, Susan M. Levin, and Neal D. Barnard and published in Nutrition Reviews, consisted of a meta-analysis 30 observational studies and 19 clinical trials. The results were eye opening, and are worth noting for anyone who struggles with high cholesterol:

Consumption of vegetarian diets was associated with lower mean concentrations of total cholesterol (29.2 and 12.5mg/dL, P

Interestingly, the study did not show any significant improvements regarding triglycerideswhich would also fit with my own experiences. (My triglycerides continued to be significantly above recommended levels, even as other results showed dramatic improvements.)

Given that I'm not the only one reporting dramatic improvements in cholesterol levels from drastically cutting back on meat and dairy, and given that scientific evidence keeps mounting that this is an effective way to cut your cholesterol, I would highly recommend anyone facing this health issue to consider exploring a plant-based, or more plant-centric diet.

Heck, like me, you may even discover you like it.

See the original post:
Another study suggests plant-based diet lowers cholesterol - Treehugger

share

pin

email

A healthy diet not only does a body good; it can nourish your brain as well.

Remember to include omega-3 fatty acids in your diet, which may lower your risk of Alzheimer's disease, researchers have found.

Theres so much evidence this type of fat is good for you, NBC News medical contributor Dr. Natalie Azar vowed to find more ways to incorporate it into her routine.

I decided today, I think Im going to start, she said.

Small things that can make a big difference in your diet Play Video - 3:20

Small things that can make a big difference in your diet Play Video - 3:20

You can find omega-3s in oil that collects in the fatty tissue of cold-water fish, like salmon, mackerel, herring, lake trout and sardines, or in plant sources, such as walnuts.

If you're a fan of salmon, remember to opt for the wild-caught Alaska kind, which has the least contaminants. Its available from late spring until early fall.

Small ways to boost energy, get healthy skin and reboot your brain Play Video - 4:10

Small ways to boost energy, get healthy skin and reboot your brain Play Video - 4:10

Omega-3 fatty acids are good for your heart, too: They reduce the risk of abnormal heartbeats, reduce your triglyceride levels, slow the growth rate of plaque in your arteries and lower blood pressure, the American Heart Association says. AHA recommends eating fatty fish often a staple in the diets of people who live long, healthy lives at least twice a week. Eating a handful of walnuts every day could have similar benefits, experts say.

Follow A. Pawlowski on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. For more simple tips to improve your life, sign up for our One Small Thing newsletter.

View original post here:
Reboot your brain by adding 1 healthy fat to your diet - Today.com