Sugar Needs to be Regulated Like a Drug?

Does anyone remember that scene in the Exorcist where Father Merrin tells Father that the demon in Reagan was a liar but would also blend lies with the truth. That's a rare detail from a movie that's also too true in real life. The best lies have a few elements of truth to them. The lie serves to make the truth appear to be something that it's not, like When Reagan started talking like Father Karras' dead mother in order to make him break.
Such as it is with the latest pack of manipulative, power-hungry and wanna-be policy making doctors out of San Francisco who starting the latest charge against sugar in the American Diet. The 60 Minutes Clip all about this is showing up frequently on fellow blogger's web sites. In case you missed it, here it is:


I wouldn't even begin to disagree that the amount of sugar in most people's diet is as appalling as it is dangerous. Where I start to get pissed off and call bullshit is the notion that sugar affects the brain much like cocaine does. Since it acts on the brain the same as cocaine, it should therefore be regulated like a drug. This is the lie blended with the truth.

The whole purpose of the sensation of pleasure in the brain is a measuring stick so that the brain can determine the necessity of whatever it's ingesting, sensing or experiencing. Dopamine release is measured by the brain and then based on the level of release, the brain figures out how much it needs what just triggered the release. Since every cell in the body needs sugar to function, it triggers quite a dopamine release in the brain. Makes sense, right?

We don't need cocaine, or any other drug for that matter, to survive. The problem is that all recreational drugs are fooling our brains by triggering huge releases of dopamine. Cocaine actually goes one farther. The brain normally re-absorbs dopamine. Cocaine delays that up-take, therefore increasing the sense of need in the brain. So, it's incorrect to say that sugar behaves like cocaine. It's more accurate to say that cocaine is imitating sugar (and definetly doing it TOO well!).

So, now that you realize that they're heavily distorting the truth, the question is why? Why would they distort a comparison between sugar (which we need, just not in the quantities and level of refinement that' we're getting) and quite possibly natures most perfect recreational drug? The simple answer would be that they want control. You make up and debate amongst yourselves what they want to do with that kind of regulatory power but the fact remains that they're using blow because it's as illegal as a drug gets. The government has gone to insane lengths to control it with marginal opposition from most decent people. Likening sugar to cocaine sounds like a good way to make people not question the regulation.

That, to me, is a powerful statement about what's going on here. What's also laughable about it is that this is the same medical establishment that has been horribly inadequate in determining what people shouldn't be eating to begin with. They do expensive and extensive studies on the effects of refined sugar to find out something that their ancient Nemesis Bernarr MacFadden told people back in the 1910's. He certainly didn't need to put a human in an MRI and feed them soda to prove that high fructose corn syrup royally sucks! They just weren't paying attention because they fucking hated MacFadden's guts!I think that MaFadden is in his 50's in this picture.
The simple fact is that they've based the medical practice in the USA almost solely on being reactive than proactive. It's not hard to find a doctor who can't even tell you what cholestrol does for the body but can prescribe a host of drugs to bring it down.

Ultimately, I think that half-truths make for half-ass results. Going around distorting the truth about sugar won't amount to people reducing their intakes. Most of us know that cocaine and sugar aren't related to one another because they release lots of dopamine any more than a Prius and a Hummer can both be called similar cars because they burn gasoline. This kind of half-baked thinking just cheapens the argument. Yes, the 1/3 lbs-sugar-per-day habit has got to stop but inviting in the same crooks who helped create the problem in the first place and expecting them to solve it isn't a sound strategy.

The attitude is a WASTE!

Philosophy isn't something that I've studied much in my life. I confess to know barely enough to say that I have basic, passing knowledge of the subject. After all, I wasn't planning on working at Starbucks so I didn't feel the need to go to college and major in Philosophy. Still, I do recall Aristotle jotting down some notes years ago that virtue is the middle ground between excess and deficiency.

In this subculture of huge personalities performing so regularly on the theater of excess, we get treated to some pretty outlandish behavior with alarming frequency. On any given blog entry, article, forum visit, and even a real life gym-training experience, we're bound to be treated to someone that thinks that their bad attitudes are somehow beneficial to the cause.

The most obvious, and the one that gets on everyone's nerves with predictable consistency, has got to be those arrogant poseurs. They're the one's who don't miss an opportunity to flash their perfect midsection to the camera after doing handstand push-ups, never let their chest hair grow any more than two days without shaving, and never forget to wipe their spray tan off of their fingernails. It's an overwhelming display of arrogance that can cover up any sort of decent information that such people might actually be able to lend.
Actually written as a parody of gym douchbag antics.

Along those lines of cocky displays of perceived awesomeness are those people who go out of their way to make sure you know how hardcore they really are (this was brilliantly written about here). It's slightly less annoying since there isn't so much pageantry and primping.Still, having the eyeballs treated these kinds of loud proclamations of being bad-ass or being within earshot of the paleo-addicts making an effort to talk loud enough to let everyone in the produce section know how paleo they really are wears thinner than most super models.

Meanwhile, the rest of the animals in zoo suffer from some sort of delusion that being the real deal in all things strength means that they have to be so off-the-chart rude that they make an undersexed rhino look genial. We all know that there's more black and white to this thing that we do than most people want to admit. Since when did that give the gym gorillas the cart blanche to be assholes? What does that end up helping?

Frankly, how much does all of this excessive attitude help? I always thought that most of what I'm complaining about here started out as one, minor tool that people did to motivate themselves. When I get look in a mirror, I want to like what I see. I throw up comic book pictures and listen to heavy metal music as a way to stimulate myself. It's all a shout out to me and not anyone else.

Here's a great saying that applies to all of this: greatness doesn't need to explain itself. We know powerful, motivated people when we see them. People who take the time to shout it out probably aren't either.
I just wanted to throw this out there before I close this rant down: How many women even think guy is good looking despite all of his flaunting? All the GTL and the only women he gets laid by are drunk when they're fucking him!

It's all just a waste of precious time and energy that would be far better spent with training.

I hope you're not buying the latest warning about red meat...

Something had to break me out of my blog-posting draught and there's probably nothing better than a bunch of scientists spreading a rumor that you're going to die too soon if you eat a...

In case you missed it, The Harvard School of Public Health released a study warning Americans that their risk of premature death from what kills most Americans these days (heart attack, cancer) goes up 13% if they eat a serving of unprocessed red meat with any regularity. If an processed red meat product touched their tongues, that number pops up to 20%. If making your brain ache and unable to focus from reading scientific jargon is your idea of entertainment, then here you go. I found this nice article on the topic here. Still, I took one for the team, read the abstract, and you bet I've got a reaction to some Massholes telling me that something people have consumed for centuries without such obvious and detrimental effects to human health is going to now kill me 13% faster.

I'm sure most of us here have heard the phrase, "thoughts become things." If there was anything that leaped out of this information, it was these statements:

Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index (Table 1). In addition, a higher red meat intake was associated with a higher intake of total energy but lower intakes of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

I can't speak for everyone else but this quote paints a very clear mental picture of someone (and I'll bet we all know someone like this) who revels in the fact that they enjoy not taking good care of themselves. In the United States, the best way to brag about how you're not a health nut is to proclaim that you drink, smoke and eat lots of red meat. If people get their rebellion on like this, then what's the point of eating anything resembling a plant?

So, it's not really surprising that there aren't a lot of people who sit down to a slab of steak and a head of steamed broccoli. It's a style of eating that doesn't fit into the, "I don't give a fuck," eating mentality.

After my aching brain's swelling went down from statistical overload, I came to the conclusion that this study didn't really discover that red meat kills you faster. It's a lifestyle that seems to go hand-in-hand with eating red meat that does people in. By fingering red meat as the culprit to heart attack and cancer, western medicine created a banner food for the "enjoying life" crowd to flock to. Rather than point to the lifestyle, the food is becoming the culprit. Their thought of making red meat bad in the minds of people became too many people's reality.

I don't buy that red meat is bad for humans and I never will. I have an issue with doctors, nutritionists, and other "experts" telling me that something humans have consumed for Milena without the rash of heart attacks that we see today is the source of premature dirt-napping. Some evidence exists that cancer barely even exist until 200-300 years ago. Linking consumption of red meat that's gone back farther than our current cancer and heart attack epidemic just defies any good sense.

I would stretch that to many processed meats as well. If you note in the links I provided, among the processed meats named were salami and bologna. If my memory serves me correctly, these are Italian in origin. Therefore, couldn't these be described as part of the vaunted heart-healthy "Mediterranean Diet?" That becomes kind of hard to explain away, doesn't it?

These kinds of studies do prove one thing: studies can be made to say just about anything with the right crafting. Either this one had an agenda before it commencement or those who conducted it are unable to figure out the problem when it's staring at them.

If you're cheating, you're not trying

I heard an interesting, pseudoscentific term a week ago: Blue Monday Using a mathematical equation, someone figured out a way to determine the most miserable day of the year. Certainly January 16, 2012 was a really shitty day for me. Part of this calculation is the elapsed time after failing to meet New Years Resolutions.

You mean, like trying to lose weight? Around this time of year, questions start flying about when it's permissible to eat "cheat meals". The good intentions allegedly reaches it's end with the Super Bowl. It's been alleged that the junk food tradition accompanying the game is a conspiracy to permanently break the most popular New Years Resolution, keeping everyone fat.

So, what do I think about cheat meals?

This topic is getting as stale as asking about the best workout music. The problem is that people turn it into a question of cheating or not cheating. Then, once if becomes affirmed, then it's when and how often. I yawn just thinking about it.

This is actually simpler math than the Blue Monday calculation: addition and subtraction. What should we add? Well, we're going to add junk food. Have you ever considered that there are junk foods that should never be eaten? There's a huge difference between a cheeseburger from here and this...

I've done my best to make a policy of not eating things that contain ingredients that I can't pronounce or identify. When I make a pizza for dinner, I can tell you what's in the crust, the sauce, and even the bacon(yes, I make my own bacon. Pancetta, technically). I can usually drive to the farm where the cheese was made. That's a far cry from pizza like this...I'm too lazy to do a Google search. Can someone tell me what Sodium Erytho...um...yeah, that stuff.

So, when we add pizza, cheeseburgers, and similar unhealthy fare to our diets on our designated special days, does that mean that we absolutely have to subtract everything resembling healthy food from our diet for the day as well? Is it a crime against humanity to have a salad with the pizza? Could you bring yourself to throw some diced jalapenos (which have more Vitamin C, by weight, than oranges.) and serve the whole thing on a whole wheat bun? Last time I checked, this was all permissible.

Let's cut the bullshit though. If you did resolve to lose some weight and you're already asking about when you can cheat, you're just setting yourself up for a failure. I could spout off about tips to eat better but the reality is that you need to get stubborn with yourself. Those of us committed to keeping a healthy weight get urges like the rest of humanity. We're just disciplined enough to fight off enough of them to stay healthy. At this point, don't even fucking think about when you can cheat and eat if your resolution is to lean out. You might have to skip the wings at Super Bowl but you'll feel, and look, better for it.

Replace Functional. Right idea, wrong word

If you wandered over here from my Facebook page, then you know that I enthusiastically bought "Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors vol II" as soon as I heard it was available for sale. It's been an oddly enthralling read. I've never been interested in bodybuilding but I've deeply enjoyed reading all of the goings-on in the transitional 1970's. Those years are the nearly-sole focus of this 700-plus page book.

You can't talk about those years without bringing up Arthur Jones. The Nautilus story takes up a significant chunk of the book. So, as I was reading about this "sport" that I don't have much interest in during years I wasn't born, I came across a part about how Arthur Jones lamented that his lats were too small. As he saw it, the problem was his hands were holding back his quest to get his Lattisimus Dorsi bigger. So, he set out to make a machine to take his hands out of the equation.

He felt as though he succeeded wildly, proudly proclaiming in all his brashness that he could put "lats on a rake" ... all that was necessary was a machine to take the hands out of the process.

That kind of thinking leaves me with one though...


Maybe, in addition to being a borderline maniac, Arthur Jones was an engineering genius. I run into that all of the time with work. There's lots of civil engineers that are really smart... and impractical as the day is long.

A while back when I decided to start reading about human anatomy, a very common way to describe the Lats was, "the climbing muscle," due to how heavily we all use the lat when we climb shit. So, riddle me this: how on earth do you climb anything if you don't use your hands? Forget the climbing for a second. How much can we do with the lats without the hands?
and this helps with what exactly?

I used a word a minute ago that we don't see too often in muscle training: impractical. I don't think that we use this term enough. Instead, we see exercises referred to as either, "functional," or not. Maybe that's a piss-poor label. Functional exercise is something that helps you achieve a goal. So, any exercise is functional. That's not what we're referring to and lots of people make themselves look silly by using this phrase, even if they're getting at something they're not properly defining.

Impractical is what we're getting at. There are lots of stuff you can do to make big, strong muscles but it's an open question as to whether it's worth doing in the first place. Like I said before, what can you do with your lats with in real life that doesn't require the use of your hands? So, what the hell good is a machine that sets you up to work out in ways you'll never move outside of a gym?

So, it's worth thinking about the way you're moving when you're in your respective gym. A little practicality would be a nice change of pace in people's methods of working out. While you're trying to be practical, dump the mislabeling phenomenon known as "functional training."Owner of some of the best Lats in history. So, maybe there is something practical about building big lats: it drives the babes nuts!

The Time and The Place Part III: Joys of Wintertime Training!

I've got a nifty farmer's walk variation I started doing a few months ago. I load up my Ironmaster KB with 100 lbs (or more) of weight. I shoulder a sandbag on one side, grab the kettlebell with the opposite hand and march. Obviously, I've got to alternate sides. So, in between walking around awkwardly, I clean and press the sandbag.

There's just one problem. The only place I can do this GPP is outside. I don't have enough ceiling indoors to put the sandbag overhead and my wife won't let me walk around the house with 190 lbs of weight that I have a tendency to violently drop when throughly exhausted.

She's weird.

So, I go outside... In the blowing snow and rapidly dropping temperatures. Welcome to a traditional Northeastern weather. Then again, it's only a problem if you make it a problem. The fact is that I had no choice and I just had to make things work with the environment that I live. It may be bordering inhospitable but there's upsides to this climate. That is, if you're not weird enough look at the upside of the situation.

One thing that became rapidly apparent when I was walking with big weights in snow is that this is noticeably more difficult. Even six inches made things a lot harder. We all know snow makes a great way to increase resistance to training that requires walking. I never thought to do other stuff beyond snow sprints. I'm now intrigued...Dan John's got something here...

Yeah, it's cold now, and that can be uncomfortable. It can also be best fat-burning environment to train in. One discovery that have fat-fighting doctors and scientists abuzz is the somewhat recent discover of brown fat (brown adipose tissue) in adult human bodies. The quick and dirty explanation of brown fat is that it's a form of tissue that stores and burns calories for no other reason than to regulate body temperature. Normal fat (white adipose tissue) simply stores fat. Muscle tissue gives off heat as a bi-product. Brown fat's product is heat. It's arranged near major veins and it's designed to heat up blood going back to the heart, near the base of the neck and around the kidneys.
Science has known for years that babies have considerable deposits of this stuff because they can't move enough to generate their own heat from their muscles. It was always assumed that it goes away as a human ages into adulthood. In reality, the cells stay there. They never replicate and they never change to anything else. Some dim-witted exPURTS want to come up with a way to chemically stimulate brown fat to burn more fat. I guess they're not terribly worried about the effects of hyperthermia on the heart.

Instead, why not just force brown fat to warm up a cooler body by-YOU GUESSED IT-doing some of your training outdoors in the cold? Don't take this opportunity be be a fucking frozen retard . I like to wear enough clothing so that I feel cold as soon as I step outside but I feel warm after a few minutes. Moisture-wicking clothing, as well as stuff to keep the snow out, is important. If I work out with lots of intensity, I won't stay outside much longer than 40 minutes.

One major consideration when working out, or otherwise living, in the cold climates is hydration. It's very easy to dry out because drinking fluids makes you piss every other second. It's still necessary to drink water. I just do small amounts more often. That way, I don't look like I'm trying to mark my territory.

Yeah, winter time isn't the most comfortable time of year. Yes, training indoors is more comfortable but then again when was strength training about being comfortable? Intelligent strength training happens when you work hard and smart. Doing our thing outdoors can fit into that equation, even if the rest of the world thinks we look nuts while doing it in the snow. We just end up being tougher than the rest and as far as I'm concerned, that's what it's all about.

Working out When Sick

The shots are being administered. The cold remedies are moved front and center of the drug stores. Some of us are coughing and sneezing. Others are wearing masks and running around like SARS just broke out. It's flu season and sooner or later, someone's going to bring up the second-most pointlessly asked question...

"Is it okay to work out when you're sick?"

If you asked me, I'd say...

It depends

You couldn't ask for a more intuitive and though provoking answer, could you? While these people are at it, they might as well ask about the best workout music (that being the most pointless question).

I'll read any book that has words in it. That even includes British Survival Guides. I recall in that book about making sure that if you're in a group survival situation that it's important that every person has a job, no matter how ill or injured they are. The reason for that is to keep boredom at bay. An idle mind with a sick body will kill rapidly and any little thing that can keep someone stimulated and feeling important could be a life saver.

Face the facts: if you sit around and think about how sick you are, chances are good you'll be sick longer. I know that I can only tolerate the monotony of watching TV in my bed clothes while I try desperately to get the taste of cough drops out of my mouth with fizzy, sludgy mixtures of Airborne and orange juice for so long.

Yes, this blog entry came to mind when I thought I might have a cold. I usually go to the doctors just to make sure it's not strep throat (which I used to get a lot when I was a kid). Just being at the doctor's office made me feel sicker even though
the only thing that was bothersome was my throat. Other than that, I was fine. It's one of those times where the more I thought about being sick, the more sick I felt.

If I can work, then I'll work out. I'm not trying to set any records here. Working out is, after all, a controlled breakdown of the body. I'll just do something to keep busy but not bust balls. I'll keep the reps low, rest more between each set, and drink more water than I usually would. I followed this advice with a work out after going to the doctor's office. I felt fine the next day.

The scale of mental health versus physical health need to be carefully evaluated on more serious things than the flu. I'll never forget the sensation of trying to use my CoC's when I had the shingles earlier last year. Sensation is too gentle of a word. For those who've never had them, this is the best description of the pain: Life-threatening electrocution! So, that time, I had to deal with being one with the couch. Use some good sense on more extreme cases of illness.

Sickness and exercise is one of those moments where you need to be honest with yourself. A very modest amount of self reflection should give you the answer to your questions on this one. It doesn't require a key stroke ride to your favorite forum of internet-strength Gods. Chances are, you already know the answer to this question. Act accordingly.