An Inconsistent Truth

You may remember a movie called An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. Although I didn't see it I heard there were many dire predictions.The Earth's temperature would rise to dangerous levels along with the polar caps melting causing the seas to rise flooding all the coastal cities and many other disastrous events would occur. What happened?

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-gores-10-global-warming-predictions.html

Yet, politicians continue to shout out the same global warming narratives Mr. Gore claimed would happen without looking back at his predictions.

 

 

How Often Should You Do Heavier Strength Training?

By Julia Malacoff

More people are lifting weights than ever, and we are psyched about it. There are so many health benefits to pumping iron, not to mention the mental perk of feeling like a total badass who can toss around weights like it's NBD. But as the interest in lifting—and lifting heavy—has skyrocketed, you might wonder: Is it really healthy to go all out all the time? Here's what you need to know about lifting heavy, including how often you should really be doing it.

What counts as lifting heavy? First up: Before you can think about how often you should be lifting heavy weights, you should know what "lifting heavy" really means. As with many things in health and wellness, it's not so straightforward.

"Heavy lifting" for the person who is working out just for general strength and fitness means using a weight heavy enough to where you can do no more than 4-6 repetitions per set, according to James Smoliga, PhD, NSCA-CSCS. "However, sets of eight to 12 repetitions are generally considered a good range that helps people to build a combination of strength and muscle size." So, for most people, the heaviest weight you can lift for eight to 12 reps of an exercise can be considered lifting (relatively) "heavy."

Why should you lift heavy? Plain and simple, whether you're working out for health purposes or aesthetic goals, lifting weights should be part of your routine. "Studies have shown that participating in strength training can have a number of benefits, including improving body composition, building lean muscle, decreasing fat mass, improving flexibility, and increasing bone density, which can help decrease the risk of osteoporosis later in life," explains Stephanie Paplinskie, a certified strength and conditioning specialist in Ontario, Canada.

But you don't necessarily have to be lifting crazy heavy to reap these benefits. In fact, it's better if you incorporate a mix of different types of strength training, from lighter weights with higher reps to heavier weights with lower reps. "You should seek to include a combination of intensities in your resistance training programs to ensure variety, prevent plateaus, and decrease the risk of injury," says Paplinskie

Adding in some heavy weight training can definitely help mix things up, though. "I believe that incorporating some heavy lifting can be beneficial for the average person, just for some mental stimulation as a change of pace from the usual workout," says Smoliga. "It can also be good for when individuals have hit a 'plateau' in their training." To keep seeing results after you've been working out for a while—whether you're after fat loss, strength gains, or more lean muscle mass—some heavy lifting is a good idea.

But you shouldn't overdo it. For the average exerciser, pushing yourself too hard could even harm your progress. "By going too hard, too often, the muscles and connective tissue cannot fully adapt to the training session," explains Smoliga. "This may simply mean that you are improving your fitness, but not as efficiently as possible."

Working out at a high intensity too frequently also ups your risk of developing overuse injuries (which tend to happen gradually), or overtraining syndrome. "This manifests itself in different ways, but can cause negative changes in your moods, emotions, sleep patterns, and metabolism," says Smoliga. To avoid overtraining, here's his general advice: Don't target a specific muscle group until the soreness from the previous workout goes away. Though the science behind recovery is a little more complex (your muscles are still recovering even after they're no longer sore), this is a good rule of thumb, he says.

So how can influencers and athletes lift so often and still see progress? Their lifestyle allows them more time to recover. "A professional athlete who works out extremely hard and can then spend the rest of the day recovering and taking in proper nutrients will be ready for the next workout a lot quicker than a busy person working 60 hours a week for their career, caring for a family, while also sacrificing sleep," Smoliga points out. True that.

Okay, so how often should you lift heavy weights? Experts agree that 2-3 days per week of heavy lifting is enough for the average person. While some more experienced lifters and bodybuilders like to work specific muscle groups on specific days, Schoenfeld says most people can see benefits from doing a few total-body lifting workouts per week that incorporate the main functional movement patterns. "I'd recommend some kind of hip hinge movement (like deadlifts or kettlebell swings), some kind of push (like push-ups or presses), some kind of pull (like rows or pull-ups), and some kind of squat or lunge," she says.

It's also important to note that intensity plays a role in gauging weightlifting workouts, and that's a different measure than "heavy." "You will get the most out of the workout if you put the muscle under a lot of stress," says Smoliga. "So, if you are aiming to do three sets of 10 repetitions, that 8^th, 9^th, and 10^th rep of each set should start to feel very intense. I often ask the athletes I work with how many more repetitions they could have done at the end of the set. If they say more than one or two more repetitions, I definitely know they're not using a heavy enough weight." No matter how many repetitions you're doing or what weight you're using, you should feel like the last few reps are HARD, and any weight should feel "heavy" at that point.

Use these tips if you're new to heavy lifting. Ready to get started? Here are a few final things to keep in mind.

1). Pain doesn't necessarily equal gain. Your lifting workouts should be hard—but not too hard. "You don't need to feel like you're dying in order to get results!" says Schoenfeld. "The key is to move really well within your training. The more exhausted you are, the more your form will break down, and the higher your risk of injury will be."

2). Form comes first. "Mastering proper technique is essential before one begins to lift heavy," says Smoliga. "Much like a person can get better at any movement through regular practice, the same holds true for weight training. If you have practiced the movements with good technique using light weights, as you move to heavier and heavier weights, you will be more likely to continue using good technique. This helps you get the most from your workout while also reducing the risk of injury."

3). Stick with what works. There's a reason why staple exercises like squats, deadlifts, and presses are present in most lifting programs. "You also don't need as much variety as you might think you do," says Schoenfeld. "Just because an exercise is new and sexy doesn't mean it's necessary or particularly beneficial to your goals. You don't need to do 12 different triceps exercises per workout; a couple will do just fine."

Calories In/Calories Out vs Hormones? Which One Is It?

By John Berardi, PhD, Precision Nutrition
 
When it comes to body change, there’s no topic more polarizing than “calories in vs. calories out.” Some argue it’s the be-all and end-all of weight loss. Others say it’s oversimplified and misguided. In this article, we explore every angle of the debate from “eat less, move more,” to hormonal issues, to diets that offer a “metabolic advantage.” In doing so, we answer—once and for all—how important calories in vs. calories out really is, and discuss what it means.  

CICO is an easy way of saying:
   When you take in more energy than you burn, you gain weight.
   When you take in less energy than you burn, you lose weight.

This is a fundamental concept in body weight regulation, and about as close to scientific fact as we can get. Then why is CICO the source of so much disagreement? It’s all about the extremes. At one end of the debate there’s a group who believes CICO is straightforward. If you aren’t losing weight, the reason is simple: You’re either eating too many calories, or not moving enough, or both. Just eat less and move more.

At the other end is a group who believes CICO is broken (or even a complete myth). These critics say it doesn’t account for hormone imbalances, insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and other health problems that affect metabolism. They often claim certain diets and foods provide a “metabolic advantage,” helping you lose weight without worrying about CICO.

Neither viewpoint is completely wrong, but neither is completely right, either. Whether you’re a health and fitness coach tasked with helping clients manage their weight—or you’re trying to learn how to do that for yourself—adopting an extreme position on this topic is problematic; it prevents you from seeing the bigger picture.

This article will add some nuance to the debate. I’ll start by clearing up some misconceptions about CICO. And then explore several real-world examples showing how far-right or far-left views can hold folks back and rethinking common misconceptions.

Much of the CICO debate—as with many other debates—stems from misconceptions, oversimplifications, and a failure (by both sides) to find a shared understanding of concepts, so let’s start by getting everyone on the same page for a change.

CICO goes beyond food and exercise. There’s an important distinction to be made between CICO and “eat less, move more.” But people, especially some CICO advocates, tend to conflate the two. “Eat less, move more” only takes into account the calories you eat and the calories you burn through exercise and other daily movement. But CICO is really an informal way of expressing the Energy Balance Equation, which is far more involved.

The Energy Balance Equation—and therefore CICO—includes all the complex inner workings of the body, as well as the external factors that ultimately impact “calories in” and “calories out.” Imperative to this, and often overlooked, is your brain. It’s constantly monitoring and controlling CICO. Think of it as mission control, sending and receiving messages that involve your gut, hormones, organs, muscles, bones, fat cells, external stimuli (and more), to help balance “energy in” and “energy out.” It’s one hell of a complicated—and beautiful—system.

Yet the Energy Balance Equation itself looks really simple. Here it is: [Energy in] – [Energy out] = Changes in body stores. Body stores refers to all the tissues available for breakdown, such as fat, muscle, organ, and bone. I purposely haven’t used “change in body weight” here because I want to exclude water weight, which can change body weight independent of energy balance. In other words, water is a confusing, confounding variable that tricks people into thinking energy balance is broken when it’s not.

With this equation, “energy in” and “energy out” aren’t just calories from food and exercise. As you can see in the illustration, all kinds of factors influence these two variables. When you view CICO through this lens—by zooming out for a wider perspective—you can see boiling it down to “eat less, move more” is a significant oversimplification.

Sometimes directly; sometimes indirectly, but make no mistake, even when you’re not “counting calories,” CICO still applies. CICO might sound simple, but it’s not. There’s no getting around it: If you aren’t losing weight, you either need to decrease “energy in” or increase “energy out”, or both. But as you’ve already seen, that may involve far more than just managing your plate or spending more time at the gym.
To help, here are common energy balance challenges. In each case, it might be tempting to assume CICO doesn’t apply. But look a little a deeper, and you’ll see the principles of CICO are always present.

CICO Challenge #1: Underestimating calorie intake. It’s insanely easy to miscalculate how much you’re eating, as it’s usually unintentional. The most typical ways people do it:
   They aren’t aware of what “a portion” of a food really is (don’t read the labels, guesstimate, etc).
   They totally underestimate the portions they’re actually taking (For example, without precisely measuring “one tablespoon of peanut butter,” it might actually be two, which adds 90+ calories each time you do it)
   They don’t track bites, licks, and tastes of calorie-dense foods. (For example, your kid’s leftover mac and cheese could easily add 100 calories)
   They perceive a “handful” as being the same as ¼ cup (it isn’t).
   They don’t record everything in the moment and forget to log it later on.
   They “forget” to count foods they know are unfavorable or wish they hadn’t eaten.

Don’t believe this can be a big issue? A landmark study, and repeated follow up studies, found people often underestimate how much they eat over the course of a day, sometimes by more than 1,000 calories. I’m not bringing this research up to suggest it’s impossible to be realistic about portion sizes. But if you aren’t seeing results on a low-calorie diet, it’s worth considering that underestimation may be the problem.

CICO Challenge #2: Overeating on the weekends. Work weeks can be stressful and when Friday night rolls around, people put their guard down and let loose. (You probably can’t relate, but just try, okay?) Here’s how it goes: Let’s say a person is eating 1,500 calories a day on weekdays, which would give them an approximate 500-calorie deficit.

But on the weekends, they deviate from their plan just a little. Drinks with friends and a few slices of late night pizza on Friday An extra big lunch after their workout on Saturday Brunch (with champagne) on Sunday (“Hey, it’s breakfast and lunch, so I can eat double!)

The final tally: An extra 4,000 calories consumed between Friday night and Sunday afternoon. They’ve effectively canceled out their deficit, bumping their average daily calories to 2,071. If you have slashed your calories dramatically, but you aren’t seeing the expected results, look for the small slips. It’s like being a metabolic detective who’s following—perhaps literally—the bread crumbs.

Generally speaking, in addtion to tackling challenges like the ones discussed above, your calorie management efforts may require you to:
   1. Improve the quality of what you’re eating in addition to reducing the quantity. Just by improving the quality of your calories, you may be able to eat more food with better satiety and fewer total calories consumed (example: a cup of broccoli vs a cup of potato chips).
   2. Increase your daily non-exercise movement by parking the car a few blocks away from your destination, taking the stairs, and/or standing while you work 
   3. Tinker with the macronutrient makeup of what you eat. For example: eating more protein and fiber, or increasing vegetables and lowering fats, and similar tweaks.
   4. Consider temporarily tracking your food intake—via hand portions or weighing/measuring—to ensure you’re eating what you think you’re eating (as closely as reasonably possible)
   5. Experiment with the frequency and timing of your meals and snacks, based on personal preferences and appetite cues
   6. Evaluate and correct nutritional deficiencies and/or food allergies and sensitivities, for more energy in everyday life and for workouts)
   7. Get more high-quality sleep to better regulate appetite, hunger hormones, improve recovery, and increase metabolic output
   8. Try stress resilience techniques like meditation, deep breathing, and spending time in nature
   9. Trade some high-intensity exercise for lower-intensity activities, in order to aid recovery and reduce systemic stress


CICO Challenge #3: “I’ve been eating the same way forever, but suddenly I started gaining weight.” Can you guess what happened? More than likely, “energy in” or “energy out” didchange, but in a way that is subtle, unnoticeable.
The culprit(s) could be:
   Slight increases in food intake, due to changes in mood, hunger, stress, or other circumstances (work, home, or social)
   Unrecognized decreases in physical activity and/or exercise
   An increase in the amount of energy absorbed—caused by new medication, an unknown medical condition, or a history of chronic dieting
   Physiological changes that resulted in fewer calories burned during exercise and at rest
   The onset of chronic pain, provoking a dramatic decrease in non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)
   Significant changes to sleep quality and/or quantity, impacting metabolic output and/or food consumed
In all of these cases, CICO is still valid. Energy balance just shifted in subtle ways, due to lifestyle and health status changes, making it hard to recognize.

CICO Challenge #4: “I can’t stop gaining weight, so it must be my hormones.”  
Hormones seem like a logical scapegoat for weight changes, and while they’re probably not to blame as often as people think, hormones are intricately entwined with energy balance. Even so, they don’t operate independently of energy balance. 

In other words, people don’t gain weight because “hormones” directly.  They gain weight because their hormones are impacting their energy balance.This often happens during menopause or when thyroid hormone levels decline. Take, for example, triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4), two thyroid hormones that are incredibly important for metabolic function. If levels of these hormones diminish, weight gain may occur. But this doesn’t negate CICO: Your hormones are simply influencing the “energy out” portion of your energy balance.

Research suggests people with mild (10-15% of the population) to moderate hypothyroidism (2-3%) may experience a metabolic slow-down of 140 to 360 calories a day. That can be enough to lead to weight gain or make it harder to lose weight. Mild hypothyroidism can be so mild many people don’t experience a significant shift in metabolic activity, making it a non-issue.

Critical factor: your results aren’t just diet dependent. They’re behavior dependent. Maintaining a healthy body (including a healthy body weight) is about developing consistent, sustainable daily habits that help you positively impact “energy in” and “energy out.” This might be accomplished while enjoying the food, by:
   Being mindful of having a balanced plate of proper protein, fiber/veggies, rational starch.
   Eating until you’re 80% full
   Eating slowly and mindfully
   Eating more minimally processed foods (aka, fresh foods)
   Getting more high quality sleep
   Taking steps to reduce stress and build resilience
   Kick your workouts and general movement up a notch (JUST 1 notch, not 3)

It’s about viewing CICO from 30,000 feet and figuring out what approach feels sane—and achievable—for you. Sure, that might include a plant-based or a keto diet, but it absolutely might not, too. And you know what? You can get great results either way.  

Hoaxed!

REVIEWS BY MICHELLE E. AINSWORTH

In 1980, Alan Abel hoaxed the New York Times into prematurely reporting his death. Thus, in September 2018, his obituary in the same newspaper carried the unusual heading “Alan Abel is (really) Dead.” The contrast of that prank to the President of the United States calling climate change a “hoax” exemplifies the breadth of what can be meant by the word, and makes the concept and consequences of hoaxes worthy of renewed study. Two new books examine the history of hoaxes from different intellectual perspectives. In Bunk, poet Kevin Young uses primary sources to analyze the history of hoaxes, with an emphasis on racial issues and recent fabricated writings. In contrast, the much shorter book Hoax, coauthored by an anthropologist and a science writer, uses secondary sources and full-page photographs to introduce hoaxes of all types, times, and places.

Bunk opens by discussing the racism of the early “humbugs” of iconic 19^th century U.S. entrepreneur P.T. Barnum, including the slave he claimed was 161 years old, and the African American man Barnum eventually advertised as a missing link in the then new Darwinian evolutionary theory. I found it exciting that Young explicitly linked the popularity of these exhibits to the rise of scientific racism, discussing the work of eminent mid-19^th century natural scientist Louis Agassiz and skull measuring anthropologist Samuel G. Morton. (Skeptic readers will appreciate that Young relies on the analysis of late 20^th century skeptic Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, noting that part of the problem was what we would now call confirmation bias. After his death Gould was himself accused of mismeasuring Morton’s data in a widely discussed article, but subsequent analyses vindicated Gould. Too bad he isn’t still around to join in the debate.) Science appears elsewhere in Bunk too: the séance craze piggybacking on science is mentioned, the hysteria theories of Charcot are discussed, and Oliver Sacks work on the fallibility of memory is noted.

Young’s real contribution, though, is in offering a racial interpretation of hoaxes not so obviously about race. Three examples are his analysis of the 1835 claim by the newspaper the New York Sun of life on the moon (falsely citing real astronomer Sir John Herschel), the late 19^th century popularity of spiritualist seances, and the 1917 Cottingley fairy photograph hoax by two girls. Young argues that in each of these hoaxes, the fantastic beings inhabited an imaginary world that was tellingly similar to the real one.

The Cottingley fairy discussion includes the memorable line that for people of the time it was a “comfort to know fairies fluttered among them in a world changing at the newly discovered speed of light.” Young’s discussion of the Cottingley fairy hoax also exemplifies the thoroughness of his research, as he notes three points missing from most accounts: fairy proponent Arthur Conan Doyle’s father’s priorfondness for painting fairies, skeptic James Randi’s discovery of the source illustrations used to create the hoax fairies, and the late 20^thcentury confession of one of the hoax’s perpetrators. […]

Read the entire article