Anytime an author of a book offering dietary advice repeatedly reminds you that they are not a doctor or a nutritionist and that they aren’t qualifiedAnytime an author of a book offering dietary advice repeatedly reminds you that they are not a doctor or a nutritionist and that they aren’t qualified to give advice but will be more than happy to refer you to books that actually are written by qualified professionals, you should probably just move on. Save your money. Buy all the great books she recommends instead.
I get that some people might appreciate her simplification based on her understanding. I also appreciate that she lost 80 pounds and at the time of the writing had kept it off for two years. She has clearly beat the odds.
And to be honest I could have gotten over the oversimplification and slight misrepresentation of facts. The writing was just not that great. Exclamation points every other sentence. Silly jokes that add nothing.
Maybe others find her tone cute or endearing, I just found it annoying.
If you are really interested in benefits of intermittent fasting, read The Obesity Code or the Circadian Clock. If you are more interested in a personal testimonial and don’t mind amateurish writing with obnoxious punctuation, then go for it.
I am clearly in the minority based on rating here so there’s that. I just could not finish this relatively short book and returned about 1/4 of way through....more
This book is written by a journalist who finds herself with a somewhat rare and very debilitating autoimmune disease called guillain-barre syndrome.
AsThis book is written by a journalist who finds herself with a somewhat rare and very debilitating autoimmune disease called guillain-barre syndrome.
As someone with an autoimmune disease, I was intrigued. At the age of 25, I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism (the result of an autoimmune disorder called Hashimoto's thyroiditis) after suffering with extreme symptoms for over a year. At the time, I was in grad school, studying to become a physical therapist. I was tired, chronically cold, and dare I say it, horribly constipated...all the time.
The doctor I was dating at the time said I just needed more fiber. Of course, having already earned a BS in Nutritional Sciences, I knew that my diet wasn't the issue. Still, what was I going to do. I certainly wasn't going to go to the doctor.
It was only by chance that my diagnosis was made. A thorough exam by my gynecologist revealed an enlarged thyroid, and via his encouragement I had it tested. Ultimately, I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism.
20 years later, and my daughter who is 10 is suddenly struck with chronic vomiting and diarrhea. Testing reveals she has Celiac disease...closely associated with autoimmune thyroiditis (what I have) and also an autoimmune disease. Then we find out my mother also has celiac or at least an autoimmune response to the protein gluten.
So, yes. I get it. Ironically, it's only recently that doctors have even acknowledged that the immune system is capable of an autoimmune response. No wonder so many people, mostly women, go undiagnosed.
In her book, Nakazawa explores the rise in autoimmune disorders and what environmental factors may be at play, among her revelations...the fact that some of us may live on or near toxic dump sites...is eye opening.
She also talks about the need to start identifying autogens much the way we try to identify carcinogens as she argues that autoimmune disorders are just as serious and can be just as debilitating especially since they are often misdiagnosed.
Good book that looks at what is likely to be a growing area of concern for many of us, if it isn't already. Nakazawa points out that our immune systems are bombarded with foreign substances daily, from microscopic carpet fibers, to exhaust fumes, to chemicals we breath in and even eat. It should be no surprise that so many of our immune systems are going wonky....more
This is an intriguing book written by the renowned Harvard researcher, David Sinclair.
Sinclair believes that our attitudes about the inevitability of This is an intriguing book written by the renowned Harvard researcher, David Sinclair.
Sinclair believes that our attitudes about the inevitability of aging may be somewhat flawed. In fact, based on his research, he believes that not only will we be able to slow aging down, we may someday be able to reverse it.
He discusses the shortcomings of aging research that is partly a function of the fact that we don't currently classify aging as a chronic disease, thereby making its research ineligible for government funding. He also argues, and strongly so, that aging is by far the biggest threat we face, pointing out that most other chronic diseases are secondary to the aging process.
The last fourth of the book explores the social, cultural, and ethical implications of extending life significantly. This, for me, was wasted space as it's all supposition and didn't really do the topic justice.
Definitely worth a read for anyone who is interested in cutting edge anti-aging science. According to Sinclair, understanding why we age (something that is becoming more clear) is the first step in stopping and maybe reversing the process. Some things that might slow aging...fasting, short exposure to temperature extremes (hot or cold), the diabetes medication metformin. According to Sinclair, it's an issue of when and not an issue of if we will be able to slow/reverse aging. The cure for aging is on the horizon. And, he's probably right....more
Main strength: Women are not little men, and training like little men does our body a disservice. I also like that Sims recommends usingThis was okay.
Main strength: Women are not little men, and training like little men does our body a disservice. I also like that Sims recommends using real food to meet your energy and hydration needs. I think this is wise advice.
I learned two things from this book:
1. A woman’s performance can be impacted by hormones (aka where she is in her cycle). Seems like a no brainer, but not something I had really read much about. In fact, I would have thought performance would be worse during the actual menstrual cycle, but she lays out the evidence for why this is not the case.
2. As women age, changes in their hormones impact how their body burns certain fuel. Again, makes sense and actually good to know. I'll be 49 in a few months, and I do feel as if my approach to training and diet has had to change.
Weakness of this book:
I felt as if beyond the two things I learned not much else was there. Above a few generalizations about hormones, by her own accounting, each athlete has specific needs, and the only way to fully understand what they need is to get tested and then use the results of those tests to tweak what they are doing.
I also don't agree with some of her dietary advice, which goes against other stuff I've read. For example, I think she shortchanges intermittent fasting. I've actually read several books on TRE which is a form of intermittent fasting that has been shown to have many health benefits. I personally have started a 8 hour window of eating with a tremendous amount of success. I'm not participating in an ironman, but I do train regularly. In fact, I think as a woman who is getting very close to menopause, it has helped me beyond expectations. I've never been leaner, stronger, or slept better with less overall effort. So there you go.
Who would of thought...grit, aka perseverance, aka showing up everyday with a solid work effort and an unquenchable fire for something could lead to sWho would of thought...grit, aka perseverance, aka showing up everyday with a solid work effort and an unquenchable fire for something could lead to success? Maybe even a greater predictor of success than talent or natural ability?
Still, I enjoyed this book. I mean, maybe it's a no brainer, but still something worth reminding ourselves of.
Duckworth looks at success, and how the power of passion combined with perseverance leads to it.
And it's not just effort. It's effort that regularly seeks to outdo itself. It's effort that is structured and related to tangible outcomes.
I read this on the heals of "Outliers," another book that explores success from a slightly different perspective, so I thought it was a nice compliment to the ideas presented there, which maybe enhanced my reading experience.
Definitely a book for those with aspirations and for those who believe in the power of a good work ethic as it reinforces the importance of showing up, maybe even when things aren't going your way....more
So, I became a huge fan of Dr. Greger after reading his first book, "How Not to Die," which to me is probably one of the best books out there written So, I became a huge fan of Dr. Greger after reading his first book, "How Not to Die," which to me is probably one of the best books out there written on diet as it relates to health.
This book was also good, but felt a little more gimmicky in its presentation.
It starts off with a comprehensive look into the food industry and its shortcomings along with the politics of processed food. Because I happen to do a lot of reading on the subject, much of this was stuff I'd read in other books...which is not Dr. Greger's fault, but was a bummer for me.
He then goes through the various claims made about certain foods/products as they relate to weight loss. He looks at the research and discusses what is and what is not supported by the research to date.
I felt this was kind of useful, but again, kind of gimmicky, at least at times. I think the overall premise is to find easy nutrition hacks/tweaks to our diet that might assist with weight loss and weight maintenance while also promoting better health. In that sense, it succeeds.
My favorite part was a review of the literature on time restricted eating, a form of eating I've been reading a lot about and have recently adopted and had huge success with.
Like "How Not to Die," "How Not to Diet" is a lengthy book, maybe a little longer than it needed to be. That said, I love that Dr. Greger is constantly looking to the evidence as opposed to simply making claims about a particular food/diet strategy. For example, does apple cider vinegar assist with weight loss? What about drinking water? Flax seed or chia seed? Is one better at trimming our waistline? I also love that he provides links to all the cited works. Again, he makes sure we have access to the evidence so that we can decide for ourselves. I also learned some new tidbits, which is always nice. We are constantly bombarded with diet tips...eat this, not that...kind of thing, and it's nice to actually see what we have evidence for and what that evidence says.
Also, as in "How Not to Die," Greger's bias for a plant-based diet comes through. Clearly there is a lot of evidence for plant-based diets, but I think his enthusiasm goes a little beyond the science, and I'm okay with that.
Bottom line: this wasn't as good as "How Not to Die." That said, it does succeed at using the science to either support or debunk many popular diet hacks. Gregor's discussion of the politics of the food industry, while not novel, is still worth reading.
His next book due out in 2022? "How Not to Age." Will definitely be buying and reading that one, too....more
This was a fun and informative little book written by Dayna Lee-Baggley, a psychologist who discusses exactly why healthy habits are so hard to adopt This was a fun and informative little book written by Dayna Lee-Baggley, a psychologist who discusses exactly why healthy habits are so hard to adopt and sustain. In short, they are hard because, in her words, they suck. They go against years of evolutionary conditioning that values energy conservation. Unfortunately, in a world where calories are all too accessible and where the physical demands of life are no longer sufficient to promote fitness, adopting healthy habits, no matter how inconvenient or difficult, is key to both longevity and a good quality of life as we age.
Hate to exercise? Too bad. According to Baggley, many of us hate getting up to go to work, but we do it because we value the pay check. Exercise or eating healthy is no different. It would be great if every healthy choice was easy, convenient, or welcome. But at the end of the day, sometimes they are necessary and that alone should be reason enough to push forward.
The key, in her opinion, is to tie the healthy behaviors into something we value. Make it personal. So maybe we don't like to get up early to exercise because it's much more satisfying to hit the snooze button, however, we do value health because it allows us to enjoy our kids, spouses, or other activities. So the exercise is a means to an end, even if it isn't always "fun."
There is a lot here for someone who is a chronic "excuse maker." The "I don't like exercise" or "I just don't have time" groups. It also offers a lot of useful advice for emotional eaters. Those who eat to sooth some emotional need or dull some uncomfortable emotion.
I've read quite a few of these types of books and what I liked about this one was that Dayna doesn't sugar coat the truth. She also doesn't feel the need to overwrite the book. It's short, and instead of filling it with fluff to beef it up, she simply says what needs to be said, which I appreciate. Too many authors try to fill up pages even if it means going off topic or being overly repetitive. This is concise and to the point. ...more
If I could summarize the essence of this book it would be to stop and smell the roses, really smell the roses.
Deborah Eden Tull spent several years mIf I could summarize the essence of this book it would be to stop and smell the roses, really smell the roses.
Deborah Eden Tull spent several years mastering the practice of mindfulness while living as a monk in a Zen monastery. Abandoning all her worldly belongings and living as part of a self-sustaining community built around simplicity, sustainability, and harmony with oneself and ones surroundings, Tull routinely practiced meditation and mindfulness.
After leaving the monastery, she embarked on a journey as a teacher, speaker, writer and activist to share what she refers to as relational mindfulness.
In a nutshell, relational mindfulness is the practice of abandoning the separatist state of "I" for the inclusive state of "We." It requires us to move beyond our innate conditioning and allow ourselves to experience the moment with curiosity and kindness. As we allow ourselves to feel connected to others and the world around us, we can make decisions that not only honor ourselves but also honor the world we live in.
So much of how we respond to life is reactionary, automatic, conditioned knee-jerk responses that often lead us to assumptions that are inaccurate, unfair, and overly judgmental. Rather than judging, Tull encourages us to simply consider what is with openness and curiosity. Mindfulness is simply the act of being present in the moment, fully and with compassion. It's about breaking free of expectations, learned responses, and critical judgements of ourselves and others. It's about making choices that honor our connectedness to each other, the world we share, and all the creatures we share it with.
The book itself is well-written and logically organized, and offers the reader insight that while not earthshattering is certainly something worth contemplating, especially in today's fast paced, social media driven, technological society, where our interaction with nature and each other has changed dramatically in a very short period of time, and that often leaves of feeling disconnected from ourselves, each other and the earth that sustains us. ...more
In The Circadian Code, researcher Dr. Satchin Panda, PhD explains the impact and significance of our internal clocks. A professor at the Salk InstitutIn The Circadian Code, researcher Dr. Satchin Panda, PhD explains the impact and significance of our internal clocks. A professor at the Salk Institute, Panda is also a founding executive member of the Center for Circadian Biology at the University of California, a Pew Scholar, and a recipient of the Julie Martin Mid-Career Award in Aging Research.
According to Patcha, daily rhythms are a driving force in all biological processes. Light exposure, exercise, and when and what we eat can all impact these internal clocks. As a result, the key to optimal health is to align our behaviors with these internal mechanisms to ensure we are working with as opposed to against our physiology.
A relatively new field of biology, the impact of these circadian rhythms has only recently been explored and accepted. And I think most of us intuitively understand and accept the premise. Clearly we've evolved to thrive in our natural environment, that until only recently hadn't changed all that much.
For example, we have a horse that literally turns into a wooly mammoth every year as winter approaches. The thickening and growth of his coat is signaled by the shortening days. In fact, since getting our horse I have learned that if you want to delay or prevent a horse's winter coat from coming in you can keep them under lights. This is because the continuous light exposure tricks a horse's body into thinking that it is still summer. The reverse process occurs during Spring, as the days lengthen. Horses will suddenly start to shed their thick winter coats.
According to Panda, humans are also very sensitive to light, and too much, too little or light at the wrong times can impact our body systems negatively since like the horse, humans have evolved with certain internal mechanisms that respond to our environment.
He blames LED lighting, computer screens and other sources of artificial light. as well as shift worker and other lifestyle changes made possible thanks to artificial light as a contributing factor to poor sleep and an increase in chronic diseases.
But it's not just our exposure to light that matters when it comes to keeping our internal clocks running smoothly and on time. Our digestive system is also a key player, with the timing of our meals being a significant factor. He claims that the ideal method of eating is one that restricts eating to less than 12 hours a day at a minimum with additional benefits seen if eating is restricted to 8 hours. He calls this "time restricted eating" or TRE, but it sounds an awful lot like intermittent fasting. He also suggests eating your last meal at least 3-4 hours before bedtime to allow the digestive system to do its thing. According to Panda, eating too close to bedtime causes our digestive system to kick into gear at a time when it wants to shut down. This can cause reflux/heartburn, poor inadequate digestion, a delay in the production of melatonin (the sleep hormone) as well as increased circulating levels of insulin. It can also delay or minimize our fat burning capabilities while sleeping.
In fact, Panda spends a good bit of the book discussing TRE and its benefits as identified through his own research that you can sign up to participate in if you'd like and are willing to track your eating for the advancement of science.
It's certainly an interesting topic. We know that the calories in vs. calories out model of obesity is flawed. We also know that our weight problem also can't be fully explained by looking at activity levels. I think this adds another dimension to the discussion. If you believe Panda, many of his research participants report losing weight through TRE regardless of what they eat, leading Panda to conclude that what we eat may not be as important as when. That said, he does advocate for a healthy diet. Just saying.
Like most people, I've seen firsthand the havoc that the big "C" can inflict not only individuals but also on their families. In addition to treating Like most people, I've seen firsthand the havoc that the big "C" can inflict not only individuals but also on their families. In addition to treating dozens of patients who suffered from cancer, I recently watched my brother-in-law lose his own battle with cancer at the age of 52.
It's always struck me as bizarre that when we hear about a mass shooting or terrorist attack, we are overcome with a sense of imminent fear. Our hackles are raised and we are on high alert. And we mourn the victims, memorialize their deaths. But the truth is that for most of us the real enemy isn't a deranged shooter or radical extremist. Our killer and our deaths won't make the evening news. Because for about half of us the real threat lives inside of us.
I've always wondered what would happen if the time and energy we put into the gun control debate were instead targeted toward a bigger threat like cancer. This is not to diminish the issue of guns and gun violence, but rather to put the discussion into perspective.
The thing that makes cancer so difficult to treat is that cancer cells aren't some external invader like a virus or bacteria. They are our own cells. Rogue cells that turn against us.
In The Death of Cancer, DeVita takes us on a journey that explores the war on cancer, a national initiative that started in the 1960s and one that has yet to be won. In the process, he highlights the obstacles that we face, many political and institutional, and some driven by egos, doctors stuck in the past and unwilling to move forward for whatever reason.
DeVita speaks with disdain about our inability to make the bridge between science and its practical application. And if there is a villain in his story, it is the FDA, which he paints as a huge barrier to our progress. He acknowledges the importance of some oversight, but accuses the FDA of a sort of group think that in an effort to protect people from an untested drug, deny them the one shot at life they've got. After all, as he points out, when it comes to treatment, these patients are going to die sooner than later, and many would take a chance on a drug that had yet to go through the grueling approval process if it gave them a shot at a cure, or even just kept them alive long enough for the next drug to be discovered.
He believes, and I agree, that when you are dealing with something like cancer, you've got to consider what is at stake. We are talking about patients who are fighting for their lives. You have to be aggressive and be willing to take a chance, for many a last chance.
DeVita started his career at the NCI (National Cancer Institute) where he eventually developed a chemotherapy cocktail for those with Hodgkin's lymphoma that led to a cure, building on treatments that were already being given to patients with leukemia. Back then, the idea of using a combination of chemotherapeutic drugs was considered aggressive and radical, barbaric even. Up until that point, tumors were removed with disfiguring surgeries or exposed to radiation as a means of eradicating the cancer with marginal success. Most cancer patients died, sooner rather than later.
DeVita seems to blame many of our missteps on egocentric doctors who either consciously or unconsciously saw these new treatments as a threat to their livelihood. He also attributes a lack of progress to good old fashioned bureaucracy and, at times, poor management of our cancer centers, and he should know. In addition to working at the NCI, he eventually became the director. He served as director of the National Cancer Program, chief physician of the renowned Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the director of Yale Cancer Center. He is also a former president of the American Cancer Society and the coeditor of a cancer textbook.
Ironically, he is also a cancer survivor, after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and successfully treated at the end of his career.
This is really a fascinating read. In addition to providing the reader with a timeline and history for the evolving treatment of cancer, he brings attention to the many barriers, some physical and some ideological, some understandable and some ludicrous, that we've faced to get where we are. And while he admits that we haven't quite won the war, and that maybe we never will, we've still made significant progress, not only in establishing cures but also in developing treatments that keep people alive in the absence of a cure. In a nutshell, the prognosis continues to get better and better....more
I'm surprised by some of the negative reviews here.
I will admit that the book is repetitive at times, and it does seem as if the impact of stress on I'm surprised by some of the negative reviews here.
I will admit that the book is repetitive at times, and it does seem as if the impact of stress on telomere length gets more air time than it deserves, but I chalked this up to one of the two authors having a specialty in the field of psychology.
I also can understand why the conclusions are described by some reviewers as anticlimactic. Once again, we're being told to exercise, eat whole foods, get adequate sleep and destress. Ah, duh.
But, I think the strength of this book and the research is that while we've long accepted that exercise, eating whole foods, sleeping and destressing are good for us, we are only now starting to explore and understand the underlying physiologic reasons why. And anything that deepens our understanding is useful. I honestly don't know what people expect when they read a book like this? To learn that exercise, whole foods, sleep and stress management aren't good for us after all? Or maybe they are hoping for a magic pill...which is kind of the point. Magic pills don't exist.
Interestingly, despite an every-growing multibillion dollar health and wellness industry we've never been sicker or fatter, which may be in part due to the fact that the emphasis (sometimes misguided and sometimes on point) has been primarily on food and exercise. The role of sleep and stress is mentioned but almost as an aside. Yet books like this suggest that the latter as important, maybe even more important, and the telomere effect may be one explanation why.
In a nutshell, telomeres are a noncoding form of DNA that protects our chromosomes (the DNA/genes in our cells). Over time, the telomeres shorten to a point where they can no longer do their job. The result is cellular death and ultimately aging and disease. Research has identified various factors that impact telomere length. A large part of the discussion focuses on stress.
In the end, the research on telomeres only further strengthens what we already know: exercise, whole foods, sleep and stress management are all good for us. Surprise, surprise. But more importantly, it deepens our understanding of why those recommendations are valid and important....more
So one of my all time favorite writers is Shirley Jackson who happened to write my all time favorite short story that also happens to be the most anthSo one of my all time favorite writers is Shirley Jackson who happened to write my all time favorite short story that also happens to be the most anthologized short story ever.
"The Lottery" is a chilling tale that speaks to the darker side of tradition. The story begins with what appears to be preparation for some sort of seasonal celebration. Yet little by little the reader begins to understand the true sinister nature of the event called "the lottery." As part of this longstanding ceremony the people of this community draw straws to see who in the small, simple, little community will win the privilege of being stoned to death by their fellow citizens.
As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that many of the townsfolk are beginning to tire of the strange observance, most completely oblivious to the origin of the ritual, but no one particularly motivated to question its existence, let alone abandon it.
Interestingly, the story was so provocative, as is much of Jackson's writing. that when it was first published in 1948, the New Yorker was inundated with letters from readers wanting to know if the community in question was a real place and this bizarre "lottery" an actual celebration. Others, excepting it as fiction, simply wanted to know what the story meant.
Shirley, however, refused to break it down, stating only that the story spoke for itself.
In the end, I believe she was commenting on all the things we do, from the silly to the downright barbaric, that have no real justification other than they have always been done.
And that is essentially the premise of "Iced" which speaks to the unsupported use of ice to treat injuries.
According to the author, the practice not only lacks any real scientific support, its origin, using ice on an injury, had nothing to do with controlling swelling, pain, or treating acute injury. It came about as a means to preserve a severed limb so as to allow a reattachment.
And like many things that have no scientific basis but are nonetheless perpetuated, the practice of icing quickly caught on, eventually becoming the go-to treatment for any acute injury.
Reinl argues that not only does ice not help, it may actually be detrimental in that it retards healing, and he bases his argument on our understanding of how the body heals. He claims we use ice to reduce swelling, but all we really accomplish is to delay the inflammatory response (an essential component of healing) and make it harder for the lymph system to get rid of swelling (or the back up of waste that is associated with the inflammatory response). The only way to promote healing and to increase circulation and lymph drainage is through muscle activation. In that regard it would seem the advice to "walk it off," is more than simple conventional wisdom.
As a PT and as a person who hates cold, I've never been a big fan of icing, and I have always been an advocate of movement. That said, ice is everywhere in the rehab world, except, thanks to Reinl, in professional team training rooms around the country.
He makes some good arguments against the use of ice. Unfortunately, his alternative is muscle stimulators, as it appears they are the next training room panacea. He spends a lot of time offering useless protocols that seem like a waste of space as they are all pretty much the same, and basically offer little to the reader who wants to know why they shouldn't use ice. I wish he would have spent more time providing the science for his stimulators so as to distinguish it from unsubstantiated treatments like cold. . The book is long-winded with way too much fluff, boasting, and name dropping, so let me sum it up and save you a few bucks and a few hours. Just because we do something and have done it for a long time, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Throw your ice packs away. Icing an injury works against the healing process, is neutral at best and harmful at worst. Buy stock in muscle stimulators because if Reinl has his way and ice is no longer so nice, trainers around the world are going to have to fill their now empty training rooms with something.
I have mixed feeling about Reinl's claims. I agree with the idea that icing may actually work against the inflammatory response. It's like taking ibuprofen or Tylenol when you have a fever. You may feel better, but you ultimately interfere with the body's natural response to an infection or virus. The reality is if you can bear it, in many circumstances you may be better to let your body do what it has evolved to do. But taking Tylenol when you have body aches so that you can get some rest doesn't necessarily mean you won't get better. In fact, the rest you get might be critical to your recovery, despite the meds having suppressed the fever. It's sometimes the lesser or greater of two evils. Likewise with ice, there are times where I think the pain relief ice offers may actually support more movement which is ultimately a good thing. Basically, I think Reinl's argument is just a little too simplistic and idealistic. And of course, that means it will spread like wild-fire in the fitness community. All the fitness gurus seem to love debunking one "fad" to make room for another. Trainers will gladly ditch their ice machines for muscle stimulators and the guys peddling the ice paraphernalia will switch gears and be happy to sell it to them.
Ironically, Reinl repeatedly reminds us that the who's who of the sports world is on board with his anti-icing mantra, as if that somehow means anything when you consider these are the same elite group of guys who bought into icing, even perpetuated it, in the first place. I'm not sure their stamp of approval means squat.
I'm going to start this review by adding some perspective. Mine.
A chunky 10 year old, early on I developed an interest in exercise. This interest ultiI'm going to start this review by adding some perspective. Mine.
A chunky 10 year old, early on I developed an interest in exercise. This interest ultimately manifested itself in a request for some weights that Santa brought me on Christmas. They weren't much, 5-10 pound sand weights. Enough to curl and press and make me feel as if I were doing something.
These weights were soon followed up with a Joanne Greggins exercise tape. We're talking about the late '70s so think thongs, leg warmers, sweat bands and high impact aerobics topped off with a gazzilion hydrants.
I have this vivid memory of aerobizing away as my mother, perpetually entertained by my efforts, sat and watched.
I'm not sure what spurred my interest in exercise. Maybe it was the fact that my mother was not only a Tom-boy, but an accomplished high school athlete. Or maybe it had something to do with the fact that prior to having a growth spurt, I suffered through a chunky period. Whatever, the reason, it happened, and almost four decades later I'm still going at it.
I joined my first gym at the age of 14. Dr. Lauber's Family Fitness. It was a small generic gym tucked away in a small generic shopping center that specialized in the martial arts but that also offered Nautilus machines, a free-weight room, and a nightly line-up of aerobic and martial arts classes.
A well-developed and muscular 14 year-old girl who was sporting the curves of a woman, I was kind of a novelty, and there were no shortage of male members coaxing me into the free-weight room. Needless to say, it wasn't long before I was completing my first bench press with the bar.
Around the same time, I became friends with another fitness-focused classmate. She was a dancer, but her mother taught aerobics and her brothers and father were power lifters, and at sixteen we both joined a hard-core powerlifting gym called "The Training Center." It was tucked away in an dumpy, otherwise abandoned strip mall, and it attracted a certain type of fitness enthusiasts, big, muscly, sometimes roided-out guy, who was super serious about lifting some very heavy weight. I'll never forget the first time I saw a guy literally crap himself during a lift. Or the time another guy busted his head open on the bar, psyching himself up for a lift.
Ah, those were the days.
As you can imagine, there were few women in the gym which meant my friend and I got a lot of attention. We never had to worry about finding a workout partner. And boy did we work out. We lifted with the big boys (literally and figuratively) and somehow kept up. Super setting till our legs burned so bad, we could barely stand. Leg day. Back and Bi day. Chest, shoulders, and Tri day. Repeat. But it was all good. I learned a lot about lifting, for which I am still thankful.
By age 18 I was teaching aerobics and really any type of fitness class you could imagine. A teenage girl growing into my adult body, cardio seemed necessary to keep me slim and trim, or at least I thought so. Still, I never stopped lifting or lost my passion for the weight room.
Fast forward almost 30 years and I still lift weights on a regular basis. Over the years, when it comes to fitness, I've pretty much taken it, taught it, or at least sampled it. Yoga, kick-boxing, step aerobics, spin, physioball classes, Zumba, Cross-fit, Red Zone. Seriously, the list goes on and on and on.
During the past thirty years, I've also completed a degree in the Nutritional Sciences as well as a professional Masters of Physical Therapy. I've worked as a sport's and orthopedic physical therapist for almost 25 years. I've also worked as a massage therapist and personal trainer, eventually teaching a personal training certification course at a local community college.
So when I read books like this, I do in the context of my lifelong personal experience with fitness, my professional education and training, as well as my observations of patients and peers along the way. I consider the claim being made, look at the research cited, and then ask myself how it fits in with my years of experience and observation.
I can honestly say there's some good stuff here.
Basically, the author(s) offer a science-based approach to training that not only takes less time than most traditional training programs but that also appears to yield superior results.
I agree with the author, that many people approach fitness haphazardly. There is this Rocky Balboa mindset that more must be better, even though we know that this is never true. The reality is that "smarter" will trump "harder" every time.
I also think that the topic of recovery is relevant. I have spent years watching people working against themselves, sometimes to the point of injury.
I totally agree with the sentiment that fitness is not synonymous with health. In fact, I constantly remind my athlete patients that training isn't necessarily about promoting better health. It's about optimal performance, and the two aren't always one and the same.
Finally, I think the "12-minute" once a week work out appeals to the average person who believes that fitness and health require hours and hours in the gym doing burpees.
The authors do discuss how their approach to training factors into sport, which requires a certain level of fitness, but ultimately requires skill that is part genetics, part specific skill-development.
And while they spend a lot of time poo-pooing steady state endurance activities like running, it's more to build a contrast between what people think and what science tells us, I think.
For example, I love to walk. I walk on average 7-10 miles a day. I would argue that it contributes to my health and well-being. What it doesn't necessarily do is tax my system sufficiently to increase my cardiovascular health. But that's not really the goal, at least not for me. Then again, I also lift, sometimes heavy, and tend to focus on the "big five" they outline in the book. Still, after reading this book, I'm going to experiment with their protocols.
All in all, there's a lot here that is scientifically based and that should make any "gym rat" stop and pause. They may enjoy their grueling cross-fit style workouts. They may live for "hard." "Hard" may even be working for them, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better, smarter way....more
After many years of formal education and practical hands on experience, I have come to the conclusion that both diet and exercise are as much an art aAfter many years of formal education and practical hands on experience, I have come to the conclusion that both diet and exercise are as much an art as a science.
The premise presented in The Calorie Myth is that we need to rethink how we view weight and weight loss. Clearly, not all calories are created equal, yet there are still many people out there, a number of my health coaching clients included, who seem to believe that they are. Misled by labels that tout "fat free," "reduced calories," "whole grains," and "natural" to name a few, they are genuinely confused. Case in point, I recently had a client who was concerned about eating a baked potato, but viewed "whole grain" "low-fat" crackers as a "health food."
Bailor addresses this misconception and emphasizes the importance of quality calories. Luckily, it's a message that many health and wellness professionals have finally bought into but that still has not made its way to the average person.
He references the set point theory, the idea that our bodies naturally gravitate to a set weight range. They do this by becoming either more or less efficient with the calories we do consume. The set point theory is thought to explain the high failure rate of weight loss that is achieved through dieting (95% of weight lost on diets will be regained).
He claims that the only way to change your set point is to unclog the body's metabolic pathways. This clogging is the result of poor lifestyle (particularly dietary) choices. Bad foods clog the system, whereas good foods help to unclog the system and keep it from clogging in the first place.
He ultimately recommends a diet high in non-starchy vegetables (at least 10 servings a day), 3 servings of low sugar fruits, and high quality fats (like nuts and seeds) and protein (animal and/or plant). He particularly likes cacao powder, flax seed, chia seeds, seafood, and green tea.
And as far as exercise goes, he seems to think we are wasting our time with low and moderate intensity cardio like jogging and running. He thinks our time would be better spent with HIIT, and specifically with weight training that emphasizes eccentric loading. Eccentric is the lengthening phase of an exercise where the muscle is generating force to control the lowering of a weight. Some people refer to this as the negative.
He provides a fairly impressive reference section as well as a rather long list of authors whose work has influenced his ideas.
I don't agree with every point he makes, but agree with his overall approach and message.
Clearly, anyone eating his suggested diet is going to find it hard to also eat the crappy processed stuff. Furthermore, there is a lot of science out there to support the numerous benefits of a whole-foods plant-based diet, which is basically what he is recommending.
I also think he's onto something with the analogy of a clogged drain. I often work with people who are barely eating, yet still they struggle with their weight. Sometimes even when they are eating healthier foods. It's as if they are metabolically sick and/or metabolically inflexible from years of bad choices. And it can sometimes take a while doing the right thing to see an improvement, which is frustrating for the average person, since most people want results as of yesterday.
As far as his thoughts on exercise? I think they are interesting. I've always included weight training into my fitness regimen, and even though I'm a woman, I've never shied away from lifting heavier weights. I also often use eccentric training as a PT helping to rehab patients as it's well understood that we are stronger eccentrically. For this reason, it's a good way to build strength, particularly in situations where strength is significantly impaired.
All in all, I felt this was a great read. There is a lot here that resonates with my professional experiences as well as my personal experiences. Of course, I'm reading this from the vantage point of someone who has a Nutritional Sciences degree, a physical therapy degree, and close to 3 decades as a clinician with too many continuing education classes on various diet and exercise topics to count. I have not only been certified as a personal trainer, I teach a certification course for future personal trainers. My point is that I appreciate the complexity of these topics in a way that others may not. I've also been around long enough to see the health and wellness industry in action, for better or worse. Interestingly, in my personal life, my diet looks very similar to what Bailor recommends, and I've had a lot of success with it. I tend to eat huge volumes of delicious, gourmet foods (with an emphasis on fruits and veggies) and yet have no trouble with weight (or any health problems) despite having had four children, being female, and in my 49th year of life. The traditional practice of "dieting" doesn't even register on my radar. The idea of not eating something I wanted whenever I wanted is foreign to me. In fact, I am often shocked when I talk to a new client and find out how little they are eating, yet still struggling. Of course, I don't want to eat McDonalds. The very thought of eating at a fast food restaurant makes my stomach turn. And why on earth would I ever eat crap like that when I can eat the most scrumptious and sumptuous foods whenever I want?
Bottom line: I think Bailor has much more right than wrong....more
This book could have been a solid four star if not for the last section that deals with the use of supplements.
For the most part, Kahn, a cardiac specThis book could have been a solid four star if not for the last section that deals with the use of supplements.
For the most part, Kahn, a cardiac specialist, promotes approaching heart disease through diet (plant-based nearly vegan, whole foods diet) and exercise (& in come cases supplements), as opposed to emphasizing only meds and various medical procedures.
There is a lot of good advice here that ultimately gets lost when he starts talking about supplements. Listen, I get it. There are likely alternatives to traditional meds that may be safer and ultimately better for us. Maybe. But by Kahn's own admission, the supplement industry is so poorly regulated, you don't always know what your getting in the pill or potion from the health food store.
I also get that he is trying to cover a lot of ground and that the supplements he is recommending aren't meant to apply to every patient with a heart problem. But the discussion and the way it is presented seems to take away from the books most redeeming quality which is that it celebrates the preventative and curative power of a heart healthy diet.
Supplements are not regulated for the most part. There is no concrete proof that supplements are any less harmful or more helpful than traditional pharmaceuticals. And like traditional pharmaceuticals, you probably shouldn't be taking supplements unless you are being monitored by a physician to determine what supplement is indicated, how much is indicated, and if it actually impacts the body in the desired way. Bottom line, if a supplement is indeed exerting a therapeutic effect, what makes it substantially different than other pharmaceuticals? I'll tell you what makes it different. The pharmaceutical companies actually have to have some evidence to back up their claims. They are also required to maintain quality-control. But when it comes to supplements, there is very little regulation and almost no standardization and/or testing for safety and possible side-effects.
In that sense, Kahn should have stopped when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, that it is best to get the nutrition we nee from the foods we eat. Period....more
I was excited to read this book. As a healthcare provider I am all too aware of our medical system's shortcomings, and I believe in being critical, evI was excited to read this book. As a healthcare provider I am all too aware of our medical system's shortcomings, and I believe in being critical, even if it means pointing the finger at myself. That's part of learning. Part of growing. And unlike the doctors that Berry describes as intellectually lazy, I am a lifelong student who loves to read and devours books the way some people devour brownies.
Needless to say, the intro was strong, though I should have seen where things were leading. After all I've read enough of these books to know they have the same M.O. Tell people how they've been lied to, deceived and misled by the establishment. Take down the USDA guidelines one recommendation at a time, claiming lack of research and scientific support. Throw in some villains like the inept Big Government, greedy Big Pharma, evil Big Food, and irresponsible Big You Fill in the Blank. Then set the record straight without giving a shred of evidence to support your claims, which actually happens to be exactly what you've just criticized and chastised the establishment for doing. Offer up your own personal success story as irrefutable proof, and hope you throw enough reasonable sounding if not scientifically sound "truisms" at them so that they don't realize you're no better than the villains you're supposed to be fighting.
Here are some examples of the author's flawed logic:
Author claims that milk is not good for us because we are the only animals who consume another animal's milk.
Clearly, this is a flawed argument. I mean, surely he realizes that we are the only animals that can harvest another animal's milk. And it's probable, even likely, that a lion who kills a lactating gazelle consumes (and enjoys) her milk as part of the meal.
He also suggests that most people around the world can not properly digest milk. Unfortunately, he provides absolutely no evidence to support this claim.
Author claims the USDA dietary guidelines to eat whole grains is not only flawed but flat out wrong.
In providing support for his claim the author repeatedly uses "whole wheat" interchangeably with "whole grains," which is confusing and somewhat conflates the argument. Wheat is just one type of grain that we consume today that has recently received a lot of attention thanks to gluten, a protein contained in wheat that some people should probably avoid.
Interestingly, my daughter has Celiac disease and must avoid gluten, but that does not mean that she should avoid all whole grains.
Another point the author makes is just because whole grains may not be as bad for us as processed grains, that doesn't mean that they are good for us. And he is right, just because something isn't bad for us, doesn't mean it is good for us and certainly doesn't mean there isn't something better for us. But when discussing diet, we need to look at the overall content of the diet, the nutrient density of the foods, and the variety, balance, palatability, and sustainability of a diet. Just because we've only been eating grains for the past 10,000 years, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't eat them. And just because some people don't tolerate gluten, doesn't mean that everyone needs to avoid it.
Again, he seems to be making a claim that just isn't supported by any meaningful research. This is not to say that what he is saying is wrong, only that the claim lacks the scientific basis that he insists we should have before making dietary recommendations.
He repeatedly criticizes the cherry pickers as he goes about picking his own brand of cherries.
He attacks the food pyramid, claiming that if anyone/anything is responsible for the obesity epidemic it is the USDA and their dietary guidelines.
Honestly, in one sense he's right. The USDA dietary guidelines are the culmination of input from scientists around the world that ultimately gets watered down by special interest groups like the Dairy Council and the Pharmaceutical Industry, etc. because not only does the government have a responsibility to protect the interests of individual citizens, it also has the responsibility to protect and promote American industry. So is it any surprise that the guidelines don't necessarily represent the best science we have?
That said, my experience is despite all their failings, the original guidelines really weren't all that bad. It has also been my experience that very few people followed them.
For example, I happened to be a Nutritional Sciences major in the 80s. The recommendation was not to avoid fat as the author insinuates...the recommendation was to limit fat to 30% of your total calories, with less than 10% of your total calories coming from saturated fat. We were also taught that for most of the population, cholesterol in the diet was not an issue as the body makes cholesterol, but that people with elevated levels might need to avoid it in their diets. The guidelines also suggested that about 60% of calories should come from carbs (and at least half should be from complex sources) including fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, lentils, legumes. The remaining 20% should come from lean meats and include 2 servings a week of fish. 2 servings of dairy was recommended and it was suggested that we should limit salt to under 2300 mg...although we were taught that for those who didn't already have high blood pressure, salt in the diet probably wasn't a huge issue.
I mean seriously???? This isn't all that crazy.
But you can't have a book like this without a villain, so there you go. Ironically, he warns about mistaking an association with causation. Just because weight has been steadily increasing since the introduction of the guidelines, doesn't mean that the guidelines are to blame...especially if no one was following them. And no one did. Like so much of the science, the guidelines were bent and molded (sometimes aggressively so into something unrecognizable) to suit the needs of all the someones trying to sell us their somethings.
He claims that hormone replacement therapy is not only safe but ideal.
I don't know enough about this topic to agree or disagree. It's something I'd like to learn more about. I have read that some of the studies that associated negative health outcomes with estrogen replacement were done on estrogens that weren't biologically identical, as he points out.
He briefly discusses the microbiome and blames the overprescribing of antibiotics for damaging it.
In some respects, he's probably right. But I also don't think it was part of some conspiracy. I just don't think we realized that there was a negative side to taking antibiotics, and now that we do, most doctors are responding appropriately.
He says we should use as much salt as we want.
I tend to agree with him. Unfortunately, I think the initial concerns regarding salt intake was more directed toward those who already had high blood pressure. At some point, the recommendation got taken out of context and ultimately bastardized.
He claims that the medical community is responsible for the lie that all calories are equal.
Once again, he feels the need to identify a villain. I'm not sure the medical community ever agreed that all calories are equal, though I think that many people (doctors also being people) ultimately developed that impression. Part of the problem is that when it comes to nutrition, the public isn't getting educated by the experts, people who actually study nutrition, but by doctors who don't really know that much about nutrition and by special interests that have ulterior motives. (I dated a physician for several years while in PT school and he laughed when he told me that the nutrition advice he gave his patients came from his mother.) Sounds about right.
He claims that hypothyroidism is underdiagnosed because doctors rely only on TSH levels for a diagnosis.
Actually, my experience is that most doctors do a TSH along with T4, but I think he's right in that many doctors simply look at ranges and no longer correlate blood tests with physical findings and patient complaints. I have some personal experience here. In my twenties, I suffered from cold intolerance, severe constipation, and fatigue. I was young, fit, and not exactly what you think of when you picture hypothyroidism. And so I suffered until my gynecologist, who was examining my neck, asked if I had been tired and constipated lately, and I about fell off the table. Apparently, my thyroid was enlarged, a key physical finding. So I went to my primary care who did the blood tests. Both my TSH and T4 were in the range but at opposite ends. He told me my thyroid was fine despite the fact that I had extreme cold intolerance, severe constipation, fatigue and had started to lose the outer third of my eyebrows (another classic physical finding) and an enlarged thyroid. Clearly he was not a good doctor.
I ended up going to a specialist, an endocrinologist, who actually correlated my symptoms with my blood work and prescribed treatment. I have been fine for the past 2.5 decades, no thanks to my doctor.
I have a client right now who fits the hypothyroidism profile. She is overweight and can not lose weight despite following a healthy diet. Her blood tests are normal but on the outer ranges with a high TSH and a low T4. She also has mildly elevated fasting blood sugar at 100. She also complains of feeling tired all the time...and she's in her 40s. I suspect that her thyroid is petering out...or that she has Hashimotos. Of course, because her labs are technically normal her doctor says she is fine. Which would not be so bad, if her doctor were doing additional testing to determine the cause of her symptoms.
So, yeah. He makes a point. Doctors need to be able to put the pieces together and not simply depend on lab tests and normal ranges to make a diagnosis. Unfortunately, in a managed care setting, doctors have become more dependent on labs.
He makes a big stink about vitamin D and needing more, much, much more.
Anyone who has been in the nutrition field for any significant period of time understands it is always good to be skeptical when some new "super vitamin" comes out. In the '80s it was the antioxidants Vitamin A, C and E. In the '90s it was fish oil. Come 2000 it was vitamin D.
Talk about jumping on a band wagon. Not only does the author suggest that we all need vitamin D supplements, he also suggests without evidence that our blood range should be much higher than the established safe minimum range, but offers no basis for how he arrived at that number.
Interestingly, if you follow this sort of thing, you'll know that the vitamin D craze has lost steam, and there are many studies now questioning the role of vitamin D supplementation as well as its long term safety.
He claims that we need to stop slathering on the sun screen and start soaking up the sun.
Ironically, given sufficient exposure to the sun, our skin can make vitamin D. So maybe if we got more sun, this whole vitamin D think would never have started. Truthfully, I've long been skeptical of the call to avoid the sun at all costs, though I understand the concerns regarding skin cancer based on what we've been told. The author, however, claims that sun exposure isn't the problem. It's our diet. According to him, the quality of our skin is impacted by our poor diets and it is our diet that is making skin cancer more prevalent, not a hole in the ozone.
I'll admit, I find this idea intriguing, partly because I've always had a hard time believing a little sun was detrimental. I kind of want to believe what he says is true, although I'd have to read more on the topic to have an informed opinion.
He claims fiber is bad.
Ah, I can't even respond here as I think he wants so badly validate his new found love affair with keto, that he'll go anywhere his new love takes him. I think there is a lot of science that would refute this whole section. Period.
He claims that not only is red meat not bad for us, but neither are processed meats like bacon and sausage.
So, I might be willing to hear him out on red meat as I don't think that red is innately bad, though it's also not innately good. It's a food that provides certain nutrients that might be good and might be bad depending on the context of the diet and the person's health. But bacon? Seriously, you want me to believe that processed meats like lunch meat, bologna, sausage, spam for God's sake are not only not bad for me but good for me. NOPE. NADA. Me thinks somebody needs to do a PubMed search and soon. This is a classic example of cognitive dissonance and one of the things that irks me most about the Keto enthusiasts. It's almost like a religion where people will go to any length to explain away any inconsistency because delegitimizing one aspect of the religion tends to bring the entire religion itself into question.
In conclusion
I agree with the author, clinicians are often decades behind the science. I also agree that we are giving our profession away to alternative medicine. Somewhere along the way, we forgot that medicine is an art as much as a science...partly because the science is everchanging. I also wish that more doctors and clinicians were more open-minded. It's possible to remain skeptical but still willing to hear alternative ideas.
I also agree that the best clinicians are the ones that continue to read and learn. The ones that challenge themselves and are willing to be wrong so that they can be right.
Unfortunately, I think this particular doctor has parked his car in the keto garage and in doing so has stymied his own intellectual growth when it comes to matters of nutrition as it relates to health. His logic and his arguments are often as flawed if not more flawed than the ones he's supposedly debunking.
Ultimately, I think that this doctor in trying to jump outside the box has simply landed in another box, a different box (maybe a slightly better box, maybe not), but a box all the same. Bacon...??? Seriously?...more
Though I had high hopes, it fell short on every count.
I think the author probably has something to contributI only made it halfway through this book.
Though I had high hopes, it fell short on every count.
I think the author probably has something to contribute to the subject, but her writing skills are lacking. The information is provided in a hodge-podge way that makes it hard to follow.
I have two science based degrees, work in the medical field, and have read more than my fair share of health-related books. So, it's not an issue of being able to grasp the information, but more an issue of the author saying too much that means nothing.
She talks about auto-immune thyroiditis or Hashimotos. She talks about the infamous "leaky gut." She mentions the danger of wheat and an overtaxed, worn-out adrenal system. Unfortunately, she's all over the place and never provides a sound logical basis for her claims that are jumbled together in a non-sensical way.
I just don't see how the average person will walk away from anything useful from this book. I know I didn't....more
If I had to describe this book in one word, it would be "dense," 470 pages small print, few pic/illustrations dense.
I was disappointed in this book aIf I had to describe this book in one word, it would be "dense," 470 pages small print, few pic/illustrations dense.
I was disappointed in this book as it kind of summarized for me what I see as a major failing in the US system of sick care.
First and foremost, I think the authors do Type 1 diabetics and Type 2 diabetics a disservice by not giving them each their own book. They are such different diseases and the demographics are generally quite different as well.
Type 1 diabetes is caused by an auto-immune disease that attacks the pancreas, essentially killing the insulin producing cells. It is historically referred to as juvenile diabetes because it is often diagnosed during childhood, though sometimes does not show up until later in life. These diabetics will be on insulin for the rest of their lives. There is a genetic component to the disease, but genes alone are not the only determining factor. It is believed someone has the genetic predisposition, but than something turns on the gene. What, we still don't know.
Type 2 diabetes, once called adult-onset diabetes because it was generally only seen later in life, is characterized by a resistance to insulin. So that their bodies are still producing insulin, just not enough to get the job done, thanks to a resistance. There is a strong association between diabetes and Type 2, and there is also a strong genetic link.
Working in health care, I would say your average Type 2 patient is much different than your average Type 1, and while they share some of the same struggles, they differ in many significant ways and those difference get lost in this book.
The book is also very technical, going into the nuances of dosing insulin, the struggles of glucose monitoring, and the various associated health conditions. And while nutrition, exercise, and sleep are mentioned in passing, few of the 470 pages are dedicated to their role in preventing and/or managing diabetes, Type 1 or Type 2.
I did learn a few things that even as a clinician with medical training I did not know, which is always nice. I just do not see how this book would be helpful to 99.9% of the patients I deal with who live with diabetes or its complications. And as is the case with medicine these days, it focused more on treatment. At least one chapter on prevention would have been nice. I also think the authors did not take enough time to discuss prediabetes, the risks, or concerns.
Finally, I thought this book seemed more geared toward and more useful for the Type 1 diabetic, which is a shame seeing as according to the authors the majority of diabetics worldwide are Type 2....more
Martin Blaser "is the director of the Human Microbiome Program at NYU, served as the chair of medicI love books like this.
Taken from the book jacket:
Martin Blaser "is the director of the Human Microbiome Program at NYU, served as the chair of medicine at NYU and as the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and has had major advisory roles at the National Institutes of Health."
He has studied the bacterium H. pylori extensively. Linked to stomach ulcers, gastritis, and ultimately stomach cancer, this "stomach bug" is generally treated aggressively when found. Interestingly, Blaser and colleagues have established that while H. pylori can cause negative health outcomes in later life, it may also be protective against other diseases like asthma, esophageal adenocarcinoma, and possibly a whole host of other diseases earlier in life, a notion supported by research performed by Blaser and his cohorts. And, good or bad, it appears that H. pylori is slowly disappearing from the human microbiome.
Blaser's main point seems to be that humans have evolved as a complex ecosystem in which some inhabitants can be helpful at some turns and harmful at others. And thanks to relatively new changes like the invention of antibiotics, the increased incidence of C-section, and other changes to our environment, our microbiome may be undergoing a shift. It is possible, even likely, that this shift may be contributing to the increased incidence of diabetes, asthma, food allergies, and auto immune diseases...possibly others.
He acknowledges the importance of antibiotics, which save lives. Yet, he also points out that until now we did not know what the true cost of using them was/is. Assuming there was no downside to taking them, we may have been too indiscriminate and overly liberal when prescribing them, using them even if not absolutely necessary because we assumed they could only help and never hurt. But as we learn more about the role of microbes, whether they are good, bad, or possibly both, the more that assumption is looking to be false. In the end, like H. pylori, antibiotics could be both beneficial and harmful at the same time.
He also worries about antibiotics that are given to livestock, not to treat disease, but to fatten them up. He fears it will not only contribute to antibiotic resistant strains of harmful even deadly bacteria, but may also be exposing us to antibiotics indirectly through the foods we eat.
He also worries about the increasing prevalence of birth by C-section. It has been shown that babies born via C-section are missing certain microbes that appear critical for optimal health and development of the baby. And while the microbiomes of both groups eventually converge so that by age three there are no significant differences, the damage may already have been done. Again, he is not saying women should not have C-sections, just that we might not truly understand the long-term risks to the baby.
Bottom line: we are only now beginning to understand the immense impact the bugs living among us and even in us have. And as we learn more, we need to rethink standard practices to ensure that we aren't throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or worse, drowning the baby in the bathwater. We also need to take these bugs seriously and remember that they are older, and, at least from a evolutionary standpoint, wiser. They aren't simply going to go away. Good thing, too, since we need them probably more than they need us. And if we hope to avoid another massive plague thanks to a microscopic organism, we better start being smarter about how we use the antibiotics we currently have in addition to finding new ones. (He claims that the pharmaceutical companies have found many of the easy ones and aren't particularly motivated to find a cure for rogue bacteria like MRSA, simply because it isn't cost effective.)
Good book written with a lot of passion, yet not alarmist in its message....more
This book had a great start as it promised to explore the relationship between gut health and different classifications of arthritis (particularly thoThis book had a great start as it promised to explore the relationship between gut health and different classifications of arthritis (particularly those caused by an auto immune disorder like rheumatoid arthritis.) She even provided some of the mounting scientific evidence.
Then the narrative quickly takes a nose dive. Blum is an MD with a MPH and founder of the Blum Center for health. She also takes a more wholistic approach to treating patients. The problem is many of the treatments she advocates by her own admission predate the research she provides to justify them. Clearly, the research is starting to support the notion that our microbiome does play a role in many disease processes including auto immune disorders, the problem is there is a still a lot we don't know. Blum's approach is presented as scientifically based, but it's really not. That is not to say that some of the treatments she advocates for are useless, it's just I'm not sure it's for the average person.
Though she admits it is always best to get what we need through the diet and promotes a healthy diet (two areas which have a lot of support among health professionals of all flavors), she also promotes a number of supplements at therapeutic doses. But should we really be blindly taking therapeutic doses of a supplement without some oversight?
So unless you're a doctor who is in a position to do more extensive testing and follow-up, I'm not sure her program is safe for everyone. As far as the science...maybe the science will get there, but despite her claims, I don't think it's there yet.
Just because we know the microbiome is a factor that is likely contributing to our health, doesn't mean we understand all the nuances. And just because we don't understand all the nuances doesn't mean we can't experiment a little. So as an alternative to drugs, under supervision, maybe some of the supplements she suggests are a lesser evil. Maybe not.
However, it sounds as if her treatment protocol predated the research to date and now she's saying, "Look, we were right." Yet while the research certainly supports the notion that the microbiome plays a role, to say it validates her treatment approach is misleading, IMO.
On one hand, I hate to give this just 2 stars as I feel there is some good stuff here. I do support a more personalized approach to medicine. I do believe that the gut is a much more significant player than we ever realized, and I totally agree that diet is so important to our health on so many levels. On the other hand, I think she twists and molds what we do know to fit her views and approach, rather than basing her approach on what we know. And I get it. That's often how progress happens. Visionaries push the boundaries. Still, when writing a book for the masses, you have a responsibility to make it clear that what you are doing while logical based on what we do know, is not necessarily proven.
I'll use a personal example to illustrate. I have a patient who sought the advice of a naturopath regarding her daughter who had several chronic issues. The naturopath immediately diagnosed her with a mold allergy even though there was no testing to confirm. She put this girl on a pretty strict diet that is healthy albeit restrictive. As one might expect, the girl lost weight and started to feel better. Case closed!? The family is now convinced that the girl has a mold allergy. She is currently sticking to the prescribed diet. But if I've learned anything about restrictive diets it's that they are difficult to maintain over the long haul. And this girl may be needlessly restricting certain foods based on the diagnosis of a mold allergy that has no basis other than a suspicion on the part of the naturopath.
Some people might say...well, who cares. The girl is feeling better. And they are right. And maybe it won't matter in the long run. Similar to the way many people feel better after they cut out gluten, not necessarily because they had a sensitivity to gluten but because by default when they cut out gluten they also cut out a lot of processed crap and generally eat better quality foods. Again. Then who cares? I guess I kind of feel like we shouldn't be treating people blindly. We shouldn't just take a supplement because someone says it's good for us. We should have a basis for what we do and some objective way to measure success.
Why can't we just promote healthy eating as being good us.
Again, yes some people have mold allergies. And some people don't tolerate gluten or lactose or soy. But many of us do. We know from experience that the best diets are the ones that people follow consistently and restrictive diets are hard to follow consistently.
After reading this book, I feel as if Dr. Blum treats many of her patients the way this naturopath treated my patient's daughter. Blindly. How is that personalized or medicine?...more
Loading...
