[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t0L8WAkfVE[/youtube]

[Read more →]

I first came across Greg and Nikki a few years back on the CrossFit and Performance Menu forums. They were two of the people from whom I originally learned about the Paleo Diet. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview Nikki conducted of Greg:

Q.
The paleo diet has been shown to consist of foods which promote good health, while eliminating foods which do the opposite. However, is there a way someone could go 'wrong' when following the paleo diet to an extent that it would play negative effects on their health?

A.
Yes, and I'm glad you brought this up because I think it is an important issue to touch on. One of the things that I commonly see with people who think they're eating paleo is that they tend to assume that just because a food could have been attained in nature that it can and should be consumed in unlimited amounts. For example, when I first started eating paleo I ate nuts as my staple source of calories. I loved the taste of them and they filled me up quickly.

At first I felt great, probably because I eliminated all bad foods from my diet, but eventually I started getting some serious digestive disturbances. I eventually started to feel sick and lethargic after eating nuts. The reality is that it is hard to obtain large amounts of nuts in nature because it is very labor intensive and the nut intake of our paleo ancestors was probably not very high because of this. Nuts also contain protease inhibitors, which can interfere with digestion. A good way to reduce this effect is to soak the nuts in water over night and then dehydrate them (if they stay wet they'll grow mold).

You could also run into problems with a very high fruit intake. I have nothing against fruit and I eat quite a bit of it myself, especially during the summer months. However, modern varieties of fruit have been selectively bred over the years to contain much more sugar than wild varieties, and can cause some problems with insulin resistance when consumed in large amounts.

I would also advise people to keep their consumption of paleo deserts to a minimum. Some assume that just because a food has more natural ingredients that they can consume it in unlimited amounts with no consequences just because it's "paleo".

A good example is almond cookies. They contain butter, almond meal, and honey all in one snack.

Sure, they lack the anti-nutrients found in regular cookies and have a greater nutrient density, but when you combine large amounts of fat (from butter and almonds) with sugar (from honey) you're setting yourself up for fat gain. Not to mention that paleo deserts tend to also be quite high in calories. That said, I would save paleo treats for special occasions, which is completely acceptable and is obviously better than snacking on regular sugar/trans fat laden cookies.

About Nikki and Greg

Nikki Young is the founder of Feed the Fitness and the author of The Paleo Cookbook.
Greg Battaglia is a certified Level I CrossFit trainer and a dietetics student at Immaculata University.

[Read more →]

Mark Sisson, from Mark's Daily Apple, recently posted about saturated fat. Check it out: Mark's Definitive Guide to Saturated Fat

[Read more →]

Bottom Line

Asking me to recommend a sweetener, natural, alternative, artificial, or otherwise, would be like asking me to choose between burning the roof of my mouth on pizza or poking myself in the eye with a fork. There is no good option (ask Coach Rip). Sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Along with trans fats, sugar is the worst thing you can put in your body. Not only does it make you fat, but it wrecks you from the inside out with a myriad of different diseases.

Even fruit is no longer “natural”. Farmers have been genetically selecting and breeding fruit over the years to produce the sweetest fruits possible. Fruit from the past was never even close to as sweet as it is today. A raspberry before the agricultural era would have been much smaller in size and very bitter in taste compared to today’s.

If you absolutely must have a sweetener of some kind, then at least use the least processed. This means using raw honey or evaporated cane juice.

Here is a chart listing the sugar content of fruits and other foods: Table of Fruits and Sugars

[Read more →]

Hmm, maybe I'll just try to outsmart Mother Nature?

Now, I know what some of you are think, “I’ll avoid the pitfalls of sugar consumption by using artificial sweeteners instead.” I compare this line of thinking to the whole butter vs margarine debate or the removing of “unhealthy” yolk from eggs. People are wrongfully taught to be scared of saturated fat so they turn to a truly deadly manmade substitute instead.

Artificial sweeteners also generate a false sense of security amongst its users. Health concerns aside, artificial sweeteners may actually contribute to weight gain. Sure, artificial sweeteners are non-caloric, but they still stimulate the sweet receptors of your tongue. This in turn signals the body to prepare for sugar so the pancreas begins to secrete insulin. Your blood glucose level was at fasting levels before this surge of insulin and will now plummet to lower than normal levels. This will put you in a hypoglycemic state and you will crave more sugar and more than likely overeat while drinking that diet soda.

With those thoughts in mind, let’s take a look at your options:

Saccharine (Sweet ‘n Low)

This one was an original in the artificial sweetener game. It consists of an organic molecule made from petroleum. Animal studies conducted during the 1970s showed saccharine to cause cancer of the bladder, skin, uterus and overies, among other organs. Due to these findings, the USDA moved to ban saccharine, but a deal was struck. Instead, food products could contain saccharine as long as a label, warning against the possible cause of cancer, was used. In 2000, this requirement was removed. To this day, the true risk is still unknown. However, it is known now that saccharine does indeed cross the placenta during human pregnancy.

Aspartame (Nutrasweet, Equal)

To create aspartame, one must combine two amino acids, phenlalanine and aspartic acid, with methanol. Women who are pregnant and individuals with liver disease or the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) may have an inability to metabolize phenylalanine. This is a problem because high levels can result in brain damage. This is why an FDA-mandated warning exists on the packaging.

Also of note is that aspartame, like MSG, is thought to be an excitotoxin. That is, a compound that overstimulates nerve cells in the brain until they die. Thus, each serving of aspartame has the potential to cause a little bit of brain damage. This damage can accumulate over time and eventually lead to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or some other neurological disease.
Sucralose (Splenda, etc.)

Sucralose starts out as sugar, but turns into something that has 600 times the sweetening kick that sugar does. This is accomplished through chemically adjusting sugar by swapping three hydrogen-oxygen groups with three chlorine molecules. This results in a non-caloric sweetener that you are unable to metabolize.

Relatively new to the scene, there have still been reports of some people experiencing allergic reactions from sucralose containing products.

Stevia

OK, so stevia is herb-based, making it an alternative to sugar and not an artificial sweetener, but I had nowhere else to touch on it. Stevia is similar to the artificial group only in that it is non-caloric. Like sucralose, it packs a very powerful punch. A few drops of liquid stevia have about the same sweetening power as an entire cup of sugar.

Stevia is currently banned in the US, Canada, European Union, Hong Kong, and China. Toxicologists claim that stevia consumption may cause reproductive problems, cancer, or even metabolism disruptions. More specifically, males may experience reduced sperm production, lighter seminal vesicles, and increased cell proliferation in the testicles while females may experience fewer and smaller offspring. Cancer concerns arise from the metabolizing of stevia which may produce a mutagenic compound. As for the metabolism concerns, stevia may interfere with your body’s absorption of carbohydrates and disrupt the conversion of food into energy.

Stevia is currently sold in the US as a dietary supplement. This is because stevia has the potential to interfere with your body’s absorption of carbohydrates and disrupt the conversion of food into energy. You can see how this would be popular amongst people looking to lose weight. This becomes a major concern though if it were to be used in such things as diet pop because children would also be put at risk.

Stay tuned for part 7 where we will wrap this all up.

[Read more →]

OK, I’ll stick to “natural”

I have heard a lot of people refer to honey, especially raw honey, as healthy because it is natural. This kind of justification will keep you sick and fat though. Just because something is found in nature doesn’t mean it is healthy for human consumption. Honey actually contains the same ratio of fructose as HFCS-55 and will therefore wreak just as much havoc on your body. Makes one wonder how honey has seemingly escaped the same public wrath as HFCS.

Another touted sweetener in the “health food” circles is agave nectar. Unlike honey, agave nectar is not truly raw due to the extraction process requiring heat. The amount of fructose found in agave nectars various greatly from 56-92%, putting it somewhere between HFCS-55 and HFCS-90.

Finally, there is evaporated cane juice. Many consider it a healthier alternative to table sugar because it does not suffer the same lengths of processing that table sugar does. The fructose content here also varies, but only from about 42.5-47.5%.
The point I am trying to make is that your body doesn’t know the difference at the cellular level between table sugar, HFCS-55, honey, etc. It all has almost identical ratios of glucose and fructose which will result in the internal damages we already discussed.

Stay tuned for part 6 where we will discuss artificial sweeteners.

[Read more →]

When 2 become 1

Table sugar, also known as sucrose, is the most common disaccharide. It consists of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. This means that each and every molecule of sucrose consumed results in one molecule of fructose heading to the liver and one molecule of glucose entering the bloodstream.

What about HFCS?

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), currently demonized by our society, generally comes in one of the following forms:

1. HFCS-90 – 90% fructose and 10% glucose – used to produce the other two
2. HFCS-55 – 55% fructose and 45% glucose – used in soft drinks
3. HFCS-42 – 42% fructose and 58% glucose – used in baked goods

As you can see, HFCS is similar to sucrose (table sugar) in that it contains fructose and glucose. In fact, HFCS-55 isn’t much worse than sucrose in terms of fructose content and HFCS-42 is actually better in that regard.

The marketing simply has everyone fooled. There is absolutely nothing healthier about a sauce or dressing made with sugar instead of HFCS unless the total amount of sugar decreases. HFCS is sweeter than sugar though so it is more likely that foods in which HFCS was replaced with sugar will have to include more sugar to achieve the same taste. This results in more sugar in your diet, more insulin in your bloodstream, and more fat around your waist.

Stay tuned for part 5 where we will discuss "natural" sweeteners.

[Read more →]