|
A valuable
exercise I have learned as being a part of the Todd Durkin mastermind group is
the 10 forms of wealth. This is a circle that has 10 categories that you
evaluate every month and list a scale of 1-10 on each. The scale may change
from month to month depending on what you are concentrated on but you evaluate
each ten, each month.
It is also
a good idea to put 1-3 action steps on each that can enhance we characteristic.
When you see a category that is out of whack, create action steps to help it,
if it's a concentrate point. Here are the 10 forms of wealth.
10 Forms
of Wealth ...
Spiritual/Inner Self
This is
about inner peace and feeding yourself the personal nourishment you need.
Taking 10-15 minutes a day to give gratitude to what you are thankful for. This
could be church, it could be meditation, it could be whatever you want it to
be. Dig deep inside.
Physical Health
Your
health is the true sign of wealth. Are you feeding your with movement to make
your body better? Are you exercising? Your physical will always make your
mental better.
Mindset
Mindset is
everything...literally everything. How you approach life mentally defines your
success. Are you confident in your endeavors? Personal or professional?
Family
Are you
spending enough time with your kids or your spouse? Are there any relationships
that need attending too?
Professional
Are you
where you want to be professionally? What is holding you back from achieving
your goals? Do you hate your job? Are you working too much? Not enough?
Financial
Are you
saving money? Are you investing money? Do you need to pay off debt?
Circle of Genius/Social
You are
the sum of the five people you spend the most time with. If you want to get
ahead in life, spend time with people who make you better. People who push you.
People who believe in you. If you have negative people surrounding you, leave
them behind.
Adventure
Are you
having fun? Are you doing something that is out of your comfort zone?
Love
If you're
married are you spending quality time with your spouse? If you're single are
spending time dating or spending time with your significant other? Can you
spend more time with your kids?
Impact/Legacy
What are
you giving back to the universe? Charity work? Community work? Are you leading
the people who need lead? As we said last week, I feel like this is the most
valuable currency in life and will define how you are remembered.
The
average American eats around 130 pounds of wheat flour per year, and around 65
pounds of added sugar. This begs the question: how bad are processed foods for
your health?
Now
this is a trick question, we’ll just say that up front. But it’s also a very
important question.
Humans
have processed their foods for thousands of years, in order to save the time
and tedium of chewing tough meats and overly fibrous plants. Basically, we’re
not cows, and we don’t really have the stomach or jaw to be chewing all day
long.
And
while our ancestors ate a lot more unprocessed food than we do, some also
supplemented their diets with flour on occasion. Flour!
Around
ten million years ago, our ape ancestors developed an enzyme to metabolize
alcohol, which could be naturally found in rotten fruit. A few million years
later, these occasionally drunk apes gave rise to humans who purposely
processed (via fermentation) plants into beer, wine, and other alcohols.
Fermentation of milk allowed for yogurt production stretching at least as far
back as ancient India 6,000 years ago. Overall, fermentation provided not just
a tangy new flavor and a bit of a buzz in some cases, but also a great way to process
foods into a more well-preserved form. Other processing methods are also an
integral part of human history, such as the widespread practice of curing
meats.
Processed
foods are not new, they just make up a much larger part of our diet. Modern
methods of processing differ from our ancestors as well - with less
fermentation, more flour or other ultra-processing, and more monoculture
(hello, corn and soy domination!).
The
overall health impact of processed foods is really hard to pin down, because
there are so many different kinds of foods processed in different ways. So
let’s start with an easily quantified harm of processing … allergens.
Everyone
knows that allergies on the rise, which is terrible for those affected
(especially kids) who at risk of dying from even tiny amounts of allergens,
especially peanuts.
Unfortunately,
highly processed food made in factories is at higher risk for contamination
with allergens. For example, over 80% of oat samples in one study were found to
be contaminated with gluten, and factories are not always careful about
controlling peanut exposure.
Outside
of allergens, other risks are much harder to pin down. Processed red meat has
been labeled a carcinogen by the World Health Organization, and various
processed foods have been linked to a bunch of conditions … from instant
noodles linked to eczema in Korea, to ultra-processed foods linked to worse
cardiovascular profiles in Brazilian children.
But
what does that really mean? Most of that evidence is observational, since you
can’t do a randomized trial that assigns people to eat junk food for years, and
then check how bad their health gets. So we’re limited to using that evidence
to generate hypotheses, and then trying to understand the mechanisms behind
what happens in our bodies.
For
example, acellular carbohydrates like flour and processed sugar may predispose
people to chronic disease (if eaten in large amounts) due to energy density and
possible gut impacts. Large amounts of meat cooked at high temperatures can increase
cancer risk through compounds like heterocyclic amines. And so on, and so on.
The
bottom line is that processed food is not inherently harmful, for two distinct
reasons. First is that “processed food” isn’t one monolithic thing. Frozen
mashed sweet potatoes are technically processed, but their health effect will
be much different than deep fried Oreos. Second, chronic disease is nearly
always dependant on dose: having cake on yours and your friends’ birthdays is
different than eating donuts every day.
The
most prudent way to assess the risk of processed food is combining
observational evidence with some some mechanistic evidence. In other words, do
humans who eat varying amounts of this processed food develop disease? If so,
do the mechanisms make sense for the processed food impacting physiological
mechanisms that cause disease?
To
rephrase the takeaway: sugar isn’t evil, nor is flour or cured meat or other
processed food. But we humans are not robots, and some people can’t stop
themselves from eating too much processed food, in effect eating their way into
shorter lifespans caused by chronic conditions. It’s wise to be aware of both
the evidence and your personal food habits and triggers for overeating junk
food.
From
national newspapers to personal blogs, nutrition articles are everywhere. But
such a constant stream of information can make it difficult for readers to
distinguish reliable research from weak studies and sensational headlines.
Nutrition research is complex, and is often oversimplified by the media.
Writers may report on a single preliminary study that is unverified by
additional research, or highlight a study because it contradicts current health
recommendations – the goal being an attention-grabbing headline. A quick
research reality-check:
•Research
is an ongoing process, with a steady stream of new studies published every
month. Because dietary recommendations are made based on the best science
available at that time, guidelines may change as new research becomes
available.
•Contradictions
between published research papers may occur. They are an inevitable and healthy
part of the scientific process.
•Not all
scientific studies are created equal. Some study types are more reliable than
others.
•Newer
studies are not necessarily more reliable than older studies.
What’s
missing from the increasingly fast-paced media world is context. Diet stories
in the news often provide little information about how the newly reported
results fit in with existing evidence on the topic, which may result in exaggerating
the new study’s importance.The research process may seem confusing to the
public, as contradicting studies occasionally arise. However, when viewed in
the proper context – something often overlooked in media coverage – readers can
look behind the headline and decide whether a research study is reliable or
not.
Here are
seven questions that serve as a “reliability radar” to help determine which
health and nutrition news stories are worth your time.
7
Questions to help put health news in context
1.One of
the most crucial things to keep in mind is how does a given study fit into the
entire body of evidence on a topic? What is the weight of the evidence?
2.Is the
story reporting the results of a single study? A single study is rarely
influential enough to warrant that people change their behaviors based on the
results. It is important to consider how that study fits in with other studies
on the topic. Some articles provide this background, but sometimes you may need
to do more digging on your own.
3.How
large is the study? Take note of the study’s sample size, as large studies
often provide more reliable results than smaller studies.
4.Was the
study done on animals or humans? Many important studies have been carried out
on animals, but to best understand how food and nutrients affect human health
they must be studied in humans.
5.Did the
study look at real disease endpoints, such as heart disease or osteoporosis?
Chronic diseases, like heart disease and osteoporosis, often take many decades
to develop. To avoid waiting that long, researchers will sometimes look at
markers for these diseases, like narrowing of the arteries or bone density.
However, these markers don’t always develop into the disease.
6.How was
diet assessed? Some methods of dietary assessment are better than others. Good
studies will be able to show sound methodology.
7.What
type of study is it? Study types fall into different categories, including
cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, systematic
reviews, case control studies, and animal studies. The Department of
Nutrition’s Dr. Frank Hu sums up why some study types are considered more
reliable than others:
“The “gold
standard” is randomized clinical trials of dietary interventions on hard
endpoints such as cancer and heart disease. However, such trials are often
infeasible due to high cost, low long-term compliance, and potential ethical
issues. In the absence of evidence from such trials, the strongest study design
would be well-designed prospective cohort studies, in which a large number of
healthy participants are followed for years or decades for disease outcomes.
Cohort studies are usually superior to retrospective case-control or
cross-sectional studies, which are prone to biases due to recall of dietary factors
and selection of control participants. Animal studies can help understand
disease mechanisms but the results may not apply to humans. Smaller human
dietary intervention trials on intermediate biomarkers such as blood glucose or
cholesterol can also help to illuminate biological mechanisms, and evidence
from such trials is complementary to that from large cohort studies. In the
end, combined evidence from several types of studies—prospective cohort studies
and human intervention trials in particular—can be used to inform dietary
guidelines and policies. Summarizing evidence using meta-analyses or systematic
reviews can be helpful, but meta-analyses should be conducted with caution and
interpreted in light of the totality of the evidence.”
Intermittent
fasting (IF), also known as alternate day fasting (ADF), has been touted as a
weight loss method by celebrities and the media. It is a means of reducing
calories by restricting one’s intake for several days each week, and then
eating regularly the rest of the days, rather than focusing on permanent
caloric restriction. Proponents of IF claim that adherence and flexibility are
greater, compared with traditional calorie restricted diets.
Although
fasting and severe calorie restriction for weight loss have traditionally been
frowned upon by registered dietitian nutritionists because of a negative impact
on metabolic rate, some newer research suggests that intermittent fasting may
have benefits not only for weight loss, but also for health and aging. As a
result, books and diets such as The Fast Diet, The Every-Other-Day-Diet, the
5:2 Diet, and The Alternate-Day Diet
have popped up to give consumers some guidance on this new method of
dieting for weight loss and health.
Are there rules for alternate day
fasting?
There are
no official recommendations for alternate or intermittent fasting. Research on
voluntary abstinence of food and drink stems from studies on the effects of
religious fasting, as in Ramadan, as well as laboratory studies on animals, and
some observational studies on smaller groups of individuals, all of which use
different methods of fasting. Of the intervention studies that have been
conducted, the following methods of fasting were used:
•Alternate
day fasting – fasting days, with no calorie foods and beverages, are alternated
with ad libitum food and beverage days.
•Modified
fasting – subjects consume 20-25% of caloric needs on 2 scheduled,
nonconsecutive fasting days each week, and alternate with regular eating the
remaining 5 days of the week.
•Time-restricted
feeding – fasting intervals lasting between 12-20 hours, alternate with regular
eating. There is often one late afternoon meal.
In most of
the research studies, subjects could eat ad libitum, or up to their recommended
calorie level on the non-fast days, but the types of foods consumed were not
restricted.
Weight
loss and metabolic findings
Although
research is scant, it does suggest that all forms of IF contribute to weight
loss. In a recent review of 6 studies, researchers determined that IF resulted
in an almost 9% mean weight loss in overweight or obese subjects, after 6
months of the program. Further weight loss of 8.2% was seen in the following
month on maintenance. Of interest, researchers noted that compared with
traditional calorie restriction for weight loss, the attrition rates for the IF
studies were significantly lower, at only 20% (Hankey et al., 2015).
The effect
of ADF on weight loss does not appear to be associated with the macronutrient
distribution of the diet. In a study on 32 obese individuals who were fed a
diet of either 25% or 45% of calories from fat, and alternated with fasting
days, both groups had similar results for weight loss and reduced waist
circumference (Klempel et al., 2013).
Periodic
fasting is usually associated with weight loss diets; however, the research has
turned up other potential benefits as well. These include improvements in
metabolic markers such as insulin, glucose, and triglyceride levels, as well as
a reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol particle size. In
addition, there have been reductions in visceral fat and inflammatory markers,
including C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), adiponectin,
leptin, and brain-derived neutrotophic factor. The improvements in these
markers suggest that IF or ADF may be helpful in reducing the risk for
metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or even cancer.
While IF
or ADF can help individuals achieve weight loss and improve their metabolic
markers, the same can be said for traditional calorie-restriction that promotes
weight loss. It is important to note that studies that compared traditional
continuous energy restriction against intermittent fasting found similar
results for both groups. Based on current evidence, it does not appear that any
form of fasting is superior to continuous calorie restriction for weight loss
or metabolic improvements.
Additional reported health benefits
In
addition to the above studies on weight loss and metabolic benefits, IF is
being explored for potential benefits on brain aging, and even as a method of
expanding healthy life, although most of this research is on lab animals. Human
intervention studies have found that IF improves pulmonary function and reduces
inflammation in subjects with asthma. In children with epilepsy, IF combined
with the traditional ketogenic diet reduces seizures. These studies suggest
that IF or ADF may offer an alternative or synergistic method of treatment for
these and possibly other conditions.
The bottom line
The exact
mechanism for some of the benefits of IF is uncertain, but it may be that IF
helps to synchronize circadian rhythms, which affect hormones and other
metabolic regulators. Evidence from studies on shift workers shows that
disruptions in circadian rhythms can impact weight gain, and increase risk of
diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer. Whether this is
the case, or simply, that the structure of an IF program limits late night
eating, without an “all or nothing” or calorie counting approach, IF and ADF
may be beneficial to those individuals who have struggled unsuccessfully with
traditional calorie restricted diets. Certainly, more long-term research is
needed, but it appears that there is no harm or negative consequences to IF,
and potentially much benefit if it can be sustained.
|
|
|
|
