T Nation

Some Nutritional Controversies

No wait, if practical, is best, assuming at least an hour since the preworkout drink. Then probably waiting an hour since the preworkout drink is best.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No wait, if practical, is best, assuming at least an hour since the preworkout drink. Then probably waiting an hour since the preworkout drink is best.[/quote]

??? Bill, aren’t some of your workouts 2-hours long?

I just need to keep you in my pocket or on my shoulder to tap me when I need to eat or drink what meal or supplement.

I doubt if I have time to go through his list of references to see if his claims concerning the mechanics of bowel evacuation are entirely accurate. At the core he claims that fibre may give the appearance of creating regularity while at the same time helping to back you up and damage your intestinal lining.

“Once inside the body, both [soluble and insoluble] fibers whip up noxious gases, toxic alcohols, and irritating acids �?? the common byproducts of bacterial fermentation, which, in turn, cause equally common flatulence, bloating, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea.”

“The bulked-up [fiber held responsible] stools require straining to expel them because their size may exceed the regular aperture (opening) of the anal canal. The straining, even if moderate, may cause a gradual enlargement of internal hemorrhoids, which line up along the anal canal. The enlarged hemorrhoids further constrain an already narrow pathway. Eventually, the passing of large stools causes pain and anal fissures (as the skin tears). The pain and bleeding leads to an incomplete emptying of the bowels.”

“This incomplete emptying causes an inadvertent retention of stools, which, in turn, become impacted (large, hard, and dry), and difficult to expel. Impacted stools cause constipation, not the other way around.”

“Impacted stools and straining cause diverticular disease �?? the bulging of the intestinal walls from excessive inward and outward pressure from straining and impacted stools. The bulges (diverticula) may trap stale stools and cause exceptionally painful inflammation. This condition is called diverticulitis, and may require surgery. Left untreated, it may cause colon perforation and peritonitis.”

From a review of his book:

“The author details how high-fiber diets produce large stools which stretch the intestinal tract beyond its normal range–eventually resulting in intestinal damage–and a drastic upset of the natural bacterial flora of the gut. The end results manifest as hernias, hemorrhoidal disease, constipation, malnourishment, irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s disease. He also provides numerous medical references to show that high-fiber diets do not confer the benefits claimed for them.”

The Protein Power Guy Dr. Michael R. Eades contends that fibre is thought to help the condition of constipation by irritating the intestinal lining provoking an emmision of mucus which speeds the evacuation process, which he believes to be dammaging in the long term.

A third article (this is all from the other thread btw) claims perhaps the least controvercially that high fibre diets have been shown in 4 studies not to have beneficial effects on the incidence of colon cancer and discusses the origin of the theory of how it was thought to help the disease:

"British medical missionary Dr. Denis Burkitt gave birth to the idea that dietary fiber reduced colon cancer risk in 1971. Burkitt observed �?? almost casually, not in any scientific manner �?? that poor rural Africans had much less colon cancer than Westerners. He theorized this was due to the Africans�?? fiber-rich diet.

The idea was that larger, fastermoving stools reduced the colon�??s exposure to carcinogenic bile acids. The theory�??s intuitive appeal propelled it to become conventional wisdom. But it lacked persuasive scientific support. Some studies seemed to support the theory; others did not. None of the studies were particularly well-designed �?? they tended to be retrospective in nature, relying on unverified self-reports of subjects�?? dietary and lifestyle habits."

Konstantin seems to be against foods that are “fiber for fiber’s sake”, not anti-fruit and vegetable, but opposed to bran and other breakfast cereals. It seems that his arguements about the effects of high fiber diets may actually be the result of high carb/low fat diets or diets that are dominated by grain products (perhaps making him more like a paleo-diet advocate).

Bill,

I don’t mean to put anyone in your crosshairs, but could you comment on the following from Dave Barr’s article (on here) titled “Top 10 Post Workout Myths” :

(from point 5)

Comparing research that used drinks consumed immediately after a workout (Tipton et al., 2001) versus those ingested an hour after training (Rasmussen et al., 2000), the results are surprising: it seems that post workout meal ingestion actually results in 30% lower protein synthesis rates than when we wait! So every time we thought that we were badass for drinking "as soon as the weight hit the floor, we were actually short changing ourselves. Not a big deal, that�??s why we read T-Nation. Let�??s just learn, adapt, and move on.

(from point 7)

The more common response to strength training is an increase in insulin sensitivity (Fujitani et al., 1998; Miller et al, 1984), and brand new data show even the acute effect from a single bout lasts for over 24 hours (Koopman et al., 2005). So while we�??ll have an enhanced whole body insulin sensitivity following resistance training, this effect is even greater for 24 hours following exercise!

Those points imply that not only is the PWO window over-hyped with regards to its impact on the body’s nutrient absorption, but that it could be detrimental to the goal of muscle protein synthesis to consume anything even within 1 hour PWO.

I don’t follow this “rule,” but it is interesting and I’m curious why this would be.

Also, I have seen references to a casein hydrolysate protein as potentially superior to even whey hydrolysate for a PWO shake.

What is the purpose of a casein hydrolysate? If casein proteins are digested more slowly than whey proteins, what is the added value of the “hydrolysate” of casein as a PWO nutrient?

Finally, the study I referenced in another thread suggesting the superiority of a whey/casein blend compared to pure whey for the goal of muscle protein synthesis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17093159&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I keep thinking that I might try and experiment with having something like Metabolic Drive for my first (and even a second) PWO shake.

Anyway, just rambling, but your posts are too informative to not ask follow up questions.

Speaking about fruits and vegetables here, I personally have seen little conclusive evidence that super-concentrating and consuming a particular compound contained therein offers any additional benefit that couldn’t be attained by simply eating a good amount of said fruit or vegetable. I don’t think its inherently dangerous in most cases, but I do think that a.) your health would benefit more by eating the real deal and b.) a good amount of your “megadose” is being conjugated into very expensive urine.

Just my opinion. I could very well be wrong.

[quote]andersons wrote:
Gumpshmee wrote:
I’m neither for or against these differing points of view that I’ve listed, I’m just interested in finding some clarification as to whether or not the supporting claims have any merit, and also if there’s anything else out there on the fringe that might be considered challenging to curent methodology that is worthy of discussion.

The information denouncing “excessive” dietary fibre comes mostly from Konstantin Monastyrsky’s website. One claim he makes is that:

"Chapter 10, Colon Cancer cites studies that demonstrate the connection between increased fiber consumption and colon cancer. Also, countries with the highest and lowest consumption of meat are compared.

Not surprisingly, the countries with the lowest consumption of meat and, correspondingly, the highest consumption of carbohydrates, including fiber, have the highest rate of digestive cancers, particularly of the stomach."

As for feeding frequency I recently came across a reference to a study relating the correlation between feeding frequency and colon cancer:

At the University of North Carolina, researchers studied six hundred thirty-six participants with colon cancer and 1,048 control participants. Eating frequency was categorized as fewer than three, three or four, or more than four meals a day.

"At the University of North Carolina, researchers studied six hundred thirty-six participants with colon cancer and 1,048 control participants. Eating frequency was categorized as fewer than three, three or four, or more than four meals a day.

"The researchers found that the effect of eating frequency on colon cancer differed by sex. The male participants in the lowest eating frequency group had approximately half the risk of colon cancer compared with the middle and highest group.

And, there were no significant associations for women. So eating three meals a day was associated with a lower risk of colon cancer for men but not for women."

Inconclusive I suppose if their diets were not controlled.

Neither study means anything.

In the country comparison study, it’s irrational to point out fiber as the culprit when who knows how many other factors might be responsible.

For example, say those countries with lower protein, higher carb, and higher fiber intake are Asian countries. Who’s to say it’s not the soy sauce causing the stomach cancer? (such a link has long ago been proposed)

Sounds to me like Konstantin has no clue about research, picks one epidemiological study that does NOT even support his conclusion (he’s overgeneralizing), and ignores all the studies about higher colon cancer rates in the US correlating with low vegetable intake.

We learn little from the second study because what were those men eating for meals 4, 5, or 6? How many non-bodybuilders eat so many meals? They may have been morbidly obese men who stop at Dunkin Donuts a couple times a day, and have a big milkshake at bedtime. [/quote]

Good post.

There are way too many things to consider, such as lifestyle patterns, compositions of foods being consumed, macronutrient ratios, etc. The study mentioned above is a statistic, where what is needed more is a cause and effect relationship.

If you are eating 6 meals of pure shit, versus 3 meals of healthy food, then yes more frequent meals will be worse for you. There needs to be more specifics for a study like that to mean anything.

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Also, I have seen references to a casein hydrolysate protein as potentially superior to even whey hydrolysate for a PWO shake.

What is the purpose of a casein hydrolysate? If casein proteins are digested more slowly than whey proteins, what is the added value of the “hydrolysate” of casein as a PWO nutrient?

Finally, the study I referenced in another thread suggesting the superiority of a whey/casein blend compared to pure whey for the goal of muscle protein synthesis:

I keep thinking that I might try and experiment with having something like Metabolic Drive for my first (and even a second) PWO shake.

Anyway, just rambling, but your posts are too informative to not ask follow up questions.[/quote]

Agreed. I’ve read from some that refining casein makes the casein pratically worthless as a long-digesting protein. But then I read that casein hydrosylate is superior/faster than whey hydrosylate.

I remember Berardi talking about how whey and casein are digested independently of each other. This leads one to believe that a blend would be ideal. But then he goes ahead and assists in making Surge. Am I missing something?

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
I doubt if I have time to go through his list of references to see if his claims concerning the mechanics of bowel evacuation are entirely accurate. [/quote]

Well, what you did quote, his own writings, are of the character of assertions. Not of citing anything that’s capable of discussion or analysis other than arguing whether the person he names actually said the thing in question or not, but the thing is, whether that person said it doesn’t prove it’s so anyway.

If someone wants to believe the, IMO, nonsense – and I think fair to say, completely ridiculous and certainlyh contrary to lots of fact nonsense – that was being said by him, they can, but I’m not going to refute claims that having a proper high fiber diet supposedly causes the stools to become so wide as to strain the rectum, etc. The man is a quack.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If someone wants to believe the, IMO, nonsense – and I think fair to say, completely ridiculous and certainlyh contrary to lots of fact nonsense – that was being said by him, they can, but I’m not going to refute claims that having a proper high fiber diet supposedly causes the stools to become so wide as to strain the rectum, etc. The man is a quack.[/quote]

HA!

Great discussions here - I’m loving this thread.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
but I’m not going to refute claims that having a proper high fiber diet supposedly causes the stools to become so wide as to strain the rectum, etc. The man is a quack.[/quote]

I am ordering Konstantin’s book, before making any kind of definitive about his argument. Maybe you should do the same (instead of claiming he is a quack), or at least hold your tongue and say it doesn’t interest you.

In any case, a lot of the peoples (if not all)that Weston Price investigated ate low-fiber diets, such as the Eskimo and were very hardy. Is Weston Price a quack, too?

Why should I order his book?

I asked Gumpshmee for his best arguments, and he gave me two of the author’s literature citations that it turned out very obviously and very definitely don’t prove his point.

Then I asked again for what in his opinion was the one thing he picks as the best remaining argument, saying that surely if what that author is saying is sound there must be at LEAST one good argument he has, and he quotes this stuff about how consuming fiber is going to make the stool too wide and therefore strain the rectum with all kinds of tragic consequences.

(Please do not suggest that I am supposed to keep going responding to endless assertion after endless assertion on that fellow’s part. If the 3 best sucked goat gonads, and they did, then that’s that for purposes of reasonable discussion within a thread.)

Why should I buy the book then?

It is not the case that when a person, e.g. that author, makes claims such as that fiber in the diet causes the stools to be too wide and strain the rectum, with absolutely zero evidence provided by him on that, just his assertion; that then it is the job of other people to prove it is never so.

No, it was that author’s job to provide the evidence when he made these whacky assertions. He didn’t.

The 3 things provided in response to request for his best arguments were all quackery. Thus, I called him a quack. Make sense?

And why should I “hold my tongue” when Gumpshmee specifically brought up the question on whether this was sound?

How 'bout you hold yours? (Surely you can’t complain I’m being rude in saying that. That would be a double standard.)

I love this part:

Personally I think that’s better than the alternative: if no straining were required, I’d be expelling them left right and center whether I wanted to or not. Either that, or I’d be straining 24/7 in order to NOT expel them. :slight_smile:

If people are going to start arguing about research you could always look at anecdotes.

How many people do you know that shit regularly that don’t eat a decent amount of fiber? Eating 20 servings of fruit per day or whatever that guy said would not be a bad idea for most Americans if it replaced processed stuff. Saying it has as much sugar as X amount of sucrose is not taking into account the fact that

a. sucrose has been shown to cause insulin resistance in rats. When has there been a study showing that 20 servings of fruit a day induced pre-diabetes??

b. fruits have a plethora of other nutrients that table sugar does not have which enhance their value.

WTF?? He said vegetables are sugar. That’s a little oversimplified and WAY too general to be taken seriously.

There is no single idea that can be touted as “The Truth” as many “gurus” claimed they have found. For example, Fiber Is Bad.

Bill Roberts seems to have a presented a good case for why this man’s claims are BS.

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Hmmm…this thread could get interesting.

I wouldn’t necessarily call the following “controversies” but they are things I sometimes wonder about…

1.) “Megadosing”: Bodybuilders tend to follow a “more is better” mentality, I think…both in terms of training and nutrition. I wonder, though, if the body can really make use of nutrients consumed at 3000x the amount found in nature. Where does the law of diminishing returns take place?

Take Fish Oil. Studies have indicated that, at low to moderate doses, it can reduce depression, improve blood lipid profiles, reduce blood pressure, heighten insulin sensitivity and so on. However, swigging back gram after gram after gram of DHA and EPA…does this really offer any additional benefit? Personally I felt “weird” for lack of a better term on such high doses.

One compound that does seem to offer more benefits at higher and higher doses is resveratrol, although I await further human studies on this. [/quote]

The thing that drives this is that it’s exceedingly difficult to study all the possible combinations of substances out there. It’s easy to take all the substances you might find in an orange, and then do studies where people take extracts of the different substances. This shows which ones can give you some isolated health benifits. However, often times it’s really the combination of substances in a particular food item that gives you the most benifit, however, studying every possible combination is just not feasible.

Say there was a food item made up of 5 different chemical compounds of note. You can isolate the effects of the 5 different compounds on their own and it would obviously take 5 studies to do so. However, to study all possible combinations would take a whopping 31 studies.

The part where Konstantin compared fruit/vegetables to sugar got to me as well. A question that’s on my mind just as a point of curiosity is where we derive the recommended daily intake of fibre from if anyone knows off hand.

entheogens,

I wouldn’t mind hearing about what evidence the book might contain. I believe in excercising a form of skepticism which applies equally to all ideas, including those which are well accepted. So while I’m not convinced by Konstantin’s claims so far I’m not convinced that I can’t be convinced.

Other controversies that come to mind:

Paleo-dietary eating. I find research in this area interesting as I think that it’s too difficult or at least too early to understand the full phisiological workings of the human body as they relate to diet.

Therefore it would follow that the diet we are evolutionarily adapted for would be the most beneficial to our health and that by knowing what it is we can perhaps know or at least approximate our optimal diet before we know why it is so. The same way that grass is better for cows than say corn.

The only problem with this is that it seems certain people cannot agree on what constitutes a paleolithic diet, and that while in one breath a certain coach or expert may recommend a paleolithic style or pattern of eating, in the next they may recommend foods that are non paleo, though perhaps for different reasons.

I wouldn’t mind hearing about how people weigh in on that one.

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

What is the purpose of a casein hydrolysate? If casein proteins are digested more slowly than whey proteins, what is the added value of the “hydrolysate” of casein as a PWO nutrient?
[/quote]

A hydrolyzed protein has been broken down into di- and tri-peptides, which are more quickly absorbed through the intestinal wall, that’s why Surge uses whey hydrosylate.

This, of course, completely destroys the most important property of casein, which is the ‘gel’ that it forms in the stomach, slowing absorption (Cool, and related, link: http://serv01.siteground174.com/~trueprot/showthread.php?t=1779).

As to why hydrolyzed casein is better, I honestly don’t know, maybe the amino acid profile is better?

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

The only problem with this is that it seems certain people cannot agree on what constitutes a paleolithic diet, and that while in one breath a certain coach or expert may recommend a paleolithic style or pattern of eating, in the next they may recommend foods that are non paleo, though perhaps for different reasons.

I wouldn’t mind hearing about how people weigh in on that one.[/quote]

I see it as guesswork (which is not an insult) but at least providing a central intended starting point for the guesswork.

And the principle makes sense, I believe.

Not that it’s important, but for example a major brand of organic bird food, while having a good reputation and formulated by an avian veterinarian that is one of those personality types that makes sure you know that he knows it all, used to be formulated from components radically different than what the birds eat in nature.

Yet the formulator insisted that his food should make up at least 90% of a bird’s diet. For example, parrots don’t eat corn and don’t eat peanuts, which used to be the two most predominant ingredients.

As for fruits, berries (OK they’re a fruit but you know what I mean), vegetables, and insects, which ARE in their diet, there was not a trace.

On the same sort of principles, I had my doubts as to his wisdom of formulation and therefore made a point of using his food – which is proven to work well, by the way, but one can’t say it’s proven to be optimal as he claims – as no more than about half the diet. With the other half being things birds actually eat.

He has since changed the predominant ingredient to be something birds actually eat. Though the formulation still lacks fruits, berries, and insects, and the second most predominant ingredient is of a food type I doubt they eat (a grain), so he still has room to go, IMO.

I do think it would be extremely desirable for study to be done of the birds’, for the major species of interest, natural diets. I don’t know if adequate information is presently available really, though broad statements can be made. It would seem wise to try to remain similar to the natural diet.

So it’s a good general principle, not just for humans but for any species.

But as you say, there has to be guessing involved as to what our ancesters ate many thousands of years ago, and of course not all of them ate the same. Exactly what we are optimized for cannot be said exactly, but an effort can be made to center things about what seems a reasonable guess of that.

And we can in many cases say that a given sort of thing cannot be what we are optimized for.

Which doesn’t prove, if not available to Paleolithic people (“Paleoliths” seems not to be a word with the intended meaning), it’s no good, but does suggest we need a reason to say it’s good rather than simply to assume it.

[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:

I wouldn’t mind hearing about what evidence the book might contain. I believe in excercising a form of skepticism which applies equally to all ideas, including those which are well accepted. So while I’m not convinced by Konstantin’s claims so far I’m not convinced that I can’t be convinced.
[/quote]

I can not yet be an advocate for Konstantin’s claims. I have ordered the book from Amazon, which should arrive next week. However, I OBVIOUSLY do think it is worth investigating, for the reasons given; that is, the data gathered by Weston Price in the course of his travels to various traditional cultures that enjoyed robust health.

Based upon his (Price’s) work, if I cannot say that “high fiber diets” are bad, I can say that there are numerous cultures where the people have enjoyed robust health, even though they ate a VERY low fiber diet. Traditional Eskimo are a prime example of this.

Anecdotally, I notice that when I consume plentiful probiotic foods, my bowel movements are regular. When I eat HIGH fiber, replete with psyllium, I need to drink large amounts of water or else my bowels don’t “move”. Of course, when they do move, they are abundant and being a good American, we all know that bigger is better :wink:

Based on my own experience, I tend to believe that good or bad bowel movements tend to depend on intestinal health, i.e. the state of the flora in the intestines and how much caked shit is in there.

To sum up, I think Konstantin’s claims are worth investigating. I certainly do not think he should be called either a genius or a quack from someone who has never read his book entirely.

I don’t know how much anthropology has turned up on this, but we do have (in ever diminishing numbers) access to some hunter-gatherer societies that survived into the 20th century. Once again, see Weston Price’s chef d’oeuvre, “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:

This, of course, completely destroys the most important property of casein, which is the ‘gel’ that it forms in the stomach, slowing absorption (Cool, and related, link: http://serv01.siteground174.com/~trueprot/showthread.php?t=1779).

As to why hydrolyzed casein is better, I honestly don’t know, maybe the amino acid profile is better?[/quote]

Great link. That actually had the quote/study I was referring to. Still curious about the hydrolyzed casein though.