• H&R Moderators: VerbalTruist

I'm a trained Fitness Instructor, any questions on exercise or simple nutrition? :)

Cpt.Caveman said:
g'day ebeneezer!

captain, thanks for the advice and taking so much time in doing so - brilliant. Re the first one, i changed my gym routine to match what you said and i felt lots better doing it. i seemed to be able to do more as i was doing the cardio last, though cant seem to quite get through the boredom threashold of 10 minutes on the threadmill fast uphill walking (= 850 calories per hr) and a few minutes cycling. I know i can do more but i just get so bored and even if i force myself one week and few weeks later i will slump back.

It does help when someone is with me, but that dont happen that often.
 
ebeneezer_geeza said:
My Wife doesnt eat meat and will only eat fish once a week. She wont eat cheese. She has osteopenia so i am worried about her diet. I do all the cooking but she is very fussy when it comes to food.

Any ideas what sort of nutrition i should be providing for her?

GOOD! She doesn't eat dairy, that's great. The calcium provided in dairy is negated and actually is COUNTERproductive due to the protein that sucks your bones dry. Soy is your friend, as are vitamin supplements. But honestly, if you keep a good circulating diet of legumes, vegetables, fruits, cereals, she'll have no problem.

Also, I recommend Odwalla bars/drinks with breakfast for super nutrition. Clif bars are great for energy, too.
 
Clif bars are a slab of natural oats, soybeans, and syrups, similar to a granola bar. They're concentrated protein, carbs, and a nutrients. I believe they're based in California, so you'll probably have a hard time finding it.

I recommend soy flour for all your baking needs. Soy bread is great, but I have a hard time finding it. I found soy pita in Trader Joe's the other day.
 
Mr Caveman,

Not to be too picky but I must ask for clarification on 2 of your statements....

"cardiovascular workouts target fat as a fuel source and are great at burning the calories that you eat"

***Doesn't all exercise target stored body fat for energy use, specifically after the body has depleted the more accessable energy from carbs?

"if you ever think that you've put too much muscle on you can always stop training in weights. You loose muscle reasonable quickly if you don't do any training."

***I dont think there is any proof of this, is there? I mean, it takes time to build the muscle, and in fact it may take just as long to lose it. I would be interesting in seeing reference to this if what you say true..
 
I would guess that you've built muscle! Nice work, your training is working!

Yay for me! I am noticing more defined muscles, but now that i work out so much i find myself a lot hungrier throughout the day than i used to be. I used to be the 2 meal a day type person the first one being at like 3 pm or something horrible.

I started eating breakfast in the morning but wanna know what you would recommend as healthy snacks for throughout the day. I know vegetables like carrots and such but to be quite honest i just don't like them unless there drowned in ranch dressing which seems to be counter productive. So can you name some other healthy alternatives?
 
Mr Caveman..

Sorry to bother again, but I am taking issue of some more of your advice..

"Its pretty hard to gain weight from eating too many carbohydrates so don't worry too much about rice, bread and pasta etc."

And then

"Beer and other alcohols contain quite an amount of sugar"

Both are carbs....it would be unwise to not worry about pasta adn white rices and breads but then worry about alcohol. The only difference in fact between the sugars from enriched flour products and alcohol is the additional nutrients from the bread, rice, etc. (fiber, etc) that may slow the absorbtion of the simple carb.

"Another method to mention on the side, which I don't recommend, is to calculate how many calories you need in one day including exercise then eat slightly less calories that needed. Its kind of like slowly malnourishing yourself so I don't recommend it. You'll need a nutritionist or personal trainer to calculate these things for you and go through what you should be eating in a day."

What do you mean this is not what you suggest to lose weight? This is HOW you lose weight. You expend more calories then you take in! Its that simple, either by exercise or by diet or by both, it comes down to calories expended and calories consumed. Thats all. Being a certified personal trainer, I am sure you know that!
 
"I started eating breakfast in the morning but wanna know what you would recommend as healthy snacks for throughout the day. I know vegetables like carrots and such but to be quite honest i just don't like them unless there drowned in ranch dressing which seems to be counter productive. So can you name some other healthy alternatives?"

Yogurt, low-fat cottage cheese, protein bar, apple, tuna fish, plain chicken, oatmeal....
 
Caveman, I have a question.
From the bottom of my ribs down to my knees is nothing but flab. What I want to do is tone these specific areas while not wanting to use too much weight, since I am rather young have been advised not to start lifting anything too heavy until im 17-18. Any advice?
 
ebeneezer_geeza said:
captain, thanks for the advice and taking so much time in doing so - brilliant. Re the first one, i changed my gym routine to match what you said and i felt lots better doing it. i seemed to be able to do more as i was doing the cardio last, though cant seem to quite get through the boredom threashold of 10 minutes on the threadmill fast uphill walking (= 850 calories per hr) and a few minutes cycling. I know i can do more but i just get so bored and even if i force myself one week and few weeks later i will slump back.

It does help when someone is with me, but that dont happen that often.

Thats great that you're finding it better :)

Maybe look for some sort of sport or activity that is a cardiovascular workout. I'm quite the same, I have to forget I'm exercising and try and have some fun in the process so I have a kayak which I paddle around in quite often :) Just an idea.
 
markusgoneawry said:
Mr Caveman,

Not to be too picky but I must ask for clarification on 2 of your statements....

"cardiovascular workouts target fat as a fuel source and are great at burning the calories that you eat"

***Doesn't all exercise target stored body fat for energy use, specifically after the body has depleted the more accessable energy from carbs?

No, not in strength training. Fat is used in the production of energy only in the aerobic energy system (I can't tell you exactly how, I will when I've finished my degree though :). It does burn glucose as well but in terms of weight loss it burns a lot of glucose (cobating your food intake) and burns fat as a fuel (combating your fat stores). The aerobic energy system is what is used in cardiovascular exercise and is only an energy source for endurance

When you do strength training you are using either the ATP/CP (adenosine tri-phosphate/creatine phosphate) system which is responsible for short bursts of high power movement. It only lasts about 10 seconds of flat out exercise and it uses glucose as its fuel. The other used for weight training is the lactate system which again only uses glucose as a fuel and lasts about a minute. The lactate system is used more in strength training that has high repetitions. When your muscles start burning close to the end of the set this is due to a buildup of lactic acid.

"if you ever think that you've put too much muscle on you can always stop training in weights. You loose muscle reasonable quickly if you don't do any training."

***I dont think there is any proof of this, is there? I mean, it takes time to build the muscle, and in fact it may take just as long to lose it. I would be interesting in seeing reference to this if what you say true..

From my courst they stated that it takes on average 2 months to loose 100% of your strength gains. If you have been training for a long time, as in exercise has been a part of your life for quite some time it does take longer to loose it. In my exerpience I've always had a certain level of muscle from the amount of exercise I've done over the years but 1-2 months without any strength training usually sees me slip back to my normal amount of muscle I seem to have developed over the years.
 
womanthatrolls said:
Yay for me! I am noticing more defined muscles, but now that i work out so much i find myself a lot hungrier throughout the day than i used to be. I used to be the 2 meal a day type person the first one being at like 3 pm or something horrible.

I started eating breakfast in the morning but wanna know what you would recommend as healthy snacks for throughout the day. I know vegetables like carrots and such but to be quite honest i just don't like them unless there drowned in ranch dressing which seems to be counter productive. So can you name some other healthy alternatives?

Thats great! :D

Great to heart that you're starting to eat breakfast as well, thats really important to starting your metabolism for the day. A high metabolism is great for burning energy :)

For the food, its totally up to personal preferance. Anything that is low in sugar and fat.

I like to eat fruit, sandwiches (with whole grain bread, some salad, some low fat cheese and a slice of ham), dried fruit and nuts, low fat yoghurt, muesli bars, fruit sticks, salads. Those are my favs. I like to make sure that I eat fruit and nuts every day to keep a good vitamin and mineral intake.

Something to look into for your snacks is the GI rating of your foods as well. If you want to get really serious about having snacks through-out the day then you'll need to get some information over the net or from a healthy eating book about the glicaemic index (not sure if thats the right spelling) of your foods. A low GI food will release the glucose much slower into your body and make better use of the long sustained energy than a high GI food. A high GI food would dump a large amount of glucose into your body, give your an energy burst but then drop back to storage (uh oh) if its not used at that time.

If you don't want to get that pedantic about your diet and just want to grab stuff and eat it, then just make sure you're eating things low in fat and sugar. If you do that then you'll be fine :)
 
markusgoneawry said:
Mr Caveman..

Sorry to bother again, but I am taking issue of some more of your advice..

"Its pretty hard to gain weight from eating too many carbohydrates so don't worry too much about rice, bread and pasta etc."

And then

"Beer and other alcohols contain quite an amount of sugar"

Both are carbs....it would be unwise to not worry about pasta adn white rices and breads but then worry about alcohol. The only difference in fact between the sugars from enriched flour products and alcohol is the additional nutrients from the bread, rice, etc. (fiber, etc) that may slow the absorbtion of the simple carb.

It takes about 3 days of over-eating carbohydrates for the carbohydrates to start to get converted into fat. Its a process called di-novo lipogenesis.

In terms of the sugar in alcohols, its actually a simple sugar as you say but that causes it to get put into the blood stream faster and if not used immediately, it gets thrown back to storage. The sugars in rice, pasta and most breads and complex sugars which take longer to break down and enter the blood stream making the sugar better used for metabolism and movement.

If you really want to crack down on your carbohydrate intake I would recommend only eating low GI carbohydrates.

"Another method to mention on the side, which I don't recommend, is to calculate how many calories you need in one day including exercise then eat slightly less calories that needed. Its kind of like slowly malnourishing yourself so I don't recommend it. You'll need a nutritionist or personal trainer to calculate these things for you and go through what you should be eating in a day."

What do you mean this is not what you suggest to lose weight? This is HOW you lose weight. You expend more calories then you take in! Its that simple, either by exercise or by diet or by both, it comes down to calories expended and calories consumed. Thats all. Being a certified personal trainer, I am sure you know that!

Its actually all in the cardiovascular (aerobic) exercise. If you exercise often and turn your body into a high metabolism engine which burns fat regularly from aerobic exercise, you are countering the food that you eat and loosing fat in the process. You can eat quite an amount of calories, just as many as a person who doesn't care about his/her weight and still be losing or keeping the same weight (assumine that you don't eat any foods high in sugar or fat).

One of our lecturers told us not to recommend that method, he didn't state why in detail(I'll be able to tell you in a couple of years when I've finished my degree :). He only implied that its not the healthiest way to lose weight. He was training us to promote cardiovascular exercise and healthy diet as opposed to cutting calories. If you think of no carbohydrate diets, this does the same thing only to much higher degree and is definately a form of malnourishment.
 
Last edited:
Cyrus said:
Caveman, I have a question.
From the bottom of my ribs down to my knees is nothing but flab. What I want to do is tone these specific areas while not wanting to use too much weight, since I am rather young have been advised not to start lifting anything too heavy until im 17-18. Any advice?

Unless you get lipo-suction is impossible to tone a particular area in the way that you are implying.

Start doing regular aerobic exercise (jogging, cycling, swimming, aerobics etc.). Dont over do-it at first but try and do it at least 3 times a week and start off trying to do at least 20 minutes a session. You want to try and work up to doing it every second day and for at least 30 minutes. Try and do 30 minutes of walking on the days that you're not having a workout as well. Maybe walk to school or go for a walk in the morning before you leave and when you get home etc.

In your diet, avoid all foods that are high in sugar in fats. So this includes icecream, lollies, macdonalds, burgers, biscuits, full cream milk, etc. If you don't do your shopping, ask whoever does to start buying healthy snacks for you and low fat milk, cheese, yoghurt, etc.

Once you are exercising a lot and burning a lot of energy, you'll start loosing weight.

Just remember that its a gradual process to loose weight so maybe check the scales every month or so.

Good luck :D
 
Cpt.Caveman said:


Its actually all in the cardiovascular (aerobic) exercise. If you exercise often and turn your body into a high metabolism engine which burns fat regularly from aerobic exercise, you are countering the food that you eat and loosing fat in the process. You can eat quite an amount of calories, just as many as a person who doesn't care about his/her weight and still be losing or keeping the same weight (assumine that you don't eat any foods high in sugar or fat).


Caveman,

If you are exercising regularly, clearly you can be eating mroe calories. However, simply put, to lose weight you need to have a caloric deficiency. Are you suggesting that you will lose weight taking in more calories than expending...just by doing cardiovascular exercise? You could run all day long, but if you went home and ate 25 Big Macs from McDonalds you will still gain weight.

Mark
 
markusgoneawry said:
Caveman,

If you are exercising regularly, clearly you can be eating mroe calories. However, simply put, to lose weight you need to have a caloric deficiency. Are you suggesting that you will lose weight taking in more calories than expending...just by doing cardiovascular exercise? You could run all day long, but if you went home and ate 25 Big Macs from McDonalds you will still gain weight.

Mark

Yes, this is one way of loosing weight by making your body run out of energy stores and forcing it to dig into fat stores. This isn't the healthiest way to lose weight because our bodies need an amount of energy for brainpower, metabolism, heat, etc. Think about how your body would feel if it had no short burst energy available.

When I say you can eat just as much as anyone I mean that you can eat wholesome healthy meals if you are making your body a machine geared up to exercise in one form or another every day. The big no-no's are sugar and fat. Eating a massive salad and a few slices of lean meat is not going to make you gain weight and is not going to stop you from loosing it if you are doing regular strenuous exercise. If you are doing strenuous exercise regularly, then maybe you are burning more calories than you are eating but you are eating a healthy amount of food, just the same as any other person getting all of your vitamins, minerals, fibre, anti-oxidants, etc. in large amounts to stay healthy in all sorts of other ways. Recovery meals after training are a must in this sort of exercising regieme to make sure you're able to function properly.

25 Big Macs would have a massive fat content, and I'm pretty sure their buns have quite an amount of sugar in them as well. This is outside of the diet we are considering for weight loss.

Take me for example, I exercise just about every 2 days if I can. My cardiovascular exercise consists of 3 hour surfing sessions and if I haven't been surfing for a few days about 1 hour of paddling around in my kayak. I do any one of these at least 2 times a week, normally more. I also try and do 2 days of strength training to keep my muscle. I am always hungry and I eat a lot, I even eat icecream and cake every now and then because I love it. I am quite lean and have not gained a single kilo for over 6 months and if I stepped up the cardio workouts to every 2nd day and walking in between them I would loose more weight very easily.

I can sense someone being grumpy because they don't want any aerobic exercise ;)

I'm not being payed for this so I can speak my mind ;)
 
StagnantReaction said:
GOOD! She doesn't eat dairy, that's great. The calcium provided in dairy is negated and actually is COUNTERproductive due to the protein that sucks your bones dry. Soy is your friend, as are vitamin supplements. But honestly, if you keep a good circulating diet of legumes, vegetables, fruits, cereals, she'll have no problem.

Also, I recommend Odwalla bars/drinks with breakfast for super nutrition. Clif bars are great for energy, too.


Soy Protein: Panacea or Poison?
By Don Matesz


The soy bean is the darling of the health food industry these days, and soy products are most highly and fraudulently touted of all health food products. Reading all the popular press on soy products, one would naturally believe that soy is a panacea and ideal substitute for animal protein in human diets. It is claimed that soy protein is of the same quality as animal protein, yet lower in fat and devoid of cholesterol. Soy promoters make many unsubstantiated claims, especially regarding soy isoflavones, estrogen-like molecules (called xenoestrogens) found the bean. It is claimed that these isoflavones from soy products will prevent breast cancer and osteoporosis and serve as estrogen replacements for post-menopausal women. In fact, according to some prominent soy researchers, the evidence for these claims is very weak (see below).


Promoters of soy commonly point to the low rates of heart disease, breast and prostate cancer, osteoporosis, and symptoms of menopause in Asia and claim that this is due to the "soy-based" Asian diet. But it is a stretch of imagination to call the Asian diet "soy-based". According to the non-profit Soy On Line Service (www.soyonlineservice.co.nz), the typical Japanese diet contains only 0.08 to 0.13 mg isoflavones per kg of body weight per day. That means only 5.6 to 9.1 mg of isoflavones per day for a 70 kg/154 lb. person. This amount is found in about 8 grams-less than one third of an ounce-of whole soybeans! Compare this to the average 3 to 4 pounds of food eaten daily by the typical individual. One-third of an ounce represents only 0.5 percent of the Japanese diet; one ounce is 1.5 percent of the diet.


This pattern of soy consumption is found throughout Asia, where soy is consumed primarily as a part of very salty fermented seasonings, in the form of shoyu (wheat and soy sauce), tamari (wheat-free soy sauce), or miso paste. Asians are not snacking on soy "nuts", drinking soy milk, using isolated soy protein, and eating tofu burgers or soy hot dogs three times per day. Thus, Asians do not eat a soy-based diet! It includes some soy but it is not a major article of diet as implied by the word "based."


This casts doubt on the claim that soy is the secret to Asian health. Consuming only as little as 9 grams of soy and 9 mg of isoflavones per day, Asians purportedly have much lower rates of heart disease, breast and prostate cancer, osteoporosis, and menopause compared to Americans. Nevertheless, promoters of soy are suggesting that protection from heart disease, etc. requires consumption of 25 grams of soy protein per day, which can provide up to 5 times as much isoflavones as found in the typical Asian diet.


In addition, traditional fermented soy foods are quite different from the processed soy foods promoted in "health food" markets. Soy beans contain various harmful anti-nutrients, including trypsin inhibitors that block protein digestion and phytates that block mineral absorption. Traditional long term fermenting (3 to 48 months) of soy beans to produce soy sauces and miso pastes destroys significant amounts of these anti-nutrients, whereas modern factory processing to produce soy sauces, soy milk, tofu, and mock meats does not remove those harmful elements.


Recently, in response to a petition submitted to the FDA by Protein Technologies International (PTI), a division of DuPont corporation that manufactures Supro® brand soy protein, the FDA has allowed the following health claim to be attached to soy products containing soy protein: "Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease." This claim was allowed supposedly based on some clinical trials which show adding soy protein to a diet low in fat and cholesterol will result in decreases in cholesterol beyond what occurs as a result of a low-fat, low cholesterol diet alone. However, other studies have not shown such a benefit. Therefore, the allowed claim conveys uncertainty, by the phrase "may reduce the risk..." Also note that the possible benefit of soy consumption is promised only in conjunction with a diet low in fat and cholesterol, which itself "may" reduce the risk of heart disease (another uncertainty)-so if your risk goes down when consuming soy as part of a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, is this due to the soy, or the diet?


Similar uncertainty exists with regard to soy and other putative health benefits. Some studies have suggested that consuming soy reduces hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms and increases bone density among post-menopausal women-while others have not.


Clearly, this is an experiment untried on a large scale. Promoters of soy suggest that it is safe to consume soy in almost any quantity but this has not been proven true. In fact, there is some rather strong evidence that ingesting soy on a daily basis, even in rather modest quantities, and certainly in large quantities, may have serious adverse effects on endocrine functions, immune system functions, and brain cell repair.


Here are the details:


Protein Quality
Soy salesmen claim that soy protein is equal to animal protein. Their claims are aided by the FDA's endorsement of the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), which uses soy protein as the standard. However, the PDCAAS disregards digestibility, rating proteins only by their amino acid score; and further, the FDA simply defined soy protein as the standard, even though animal proteins have superior digestibility and amino acid profiles. Outside the FDA, nutritional biochemists still rate proteins according to biological value, and the standard for biological value is human milk protein (an animal protein), which is given a score of 100. The biological value of soy protein is only 73, and all animal proteins rate superior to soy protein on the scale of biological value, with egg and whey protein at the top of the heap, equal to human milk.


Reproductive Function
Soy isoflavones are estrogen-like molecules. Environmental toxicologists refer to such things as xenoestrogens. Many health care professionals are extremely concerned that human health is adversely affected by increasing intake of xenoestrogens, including soy isoflavones, because they stimulate various undesirable growth processes in girls and women, and may interfere with normal hormone dependent development of boys and functional capacities of men.
In 1997, researchers reported that "The daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formulas is 6- to 11 fold higher on a body weight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods. Circulating concentrations of isoflavones in the seven infants fed soy-based formula were 13000-22000 times higher than plasma oestradiol concentrations in early life, and may be sufficient to exert biological effects, whereas the contribution of isoflavones from breast-milk and cow-milk is negligible." [Lancet 1997 Jul 5, 350: 9070, 23-7]


In 1998 researchers from New Zealand reported that the rate of isoflavone intake in infants fed soy-based formulas, cereals, dinners, and biscuits "is much greater than that shown in adult humans to alter reproductive hormones." They advised: "Since the available evidence suggests that infants can digest and absorb dietary phytoestrogens in active forms and since neonates are generally more susceptible than adults to perturbations of the sex steroid milieu, we suggest that it would be highly desirable to study the effects of soy isoflavones on steroid-dependent developmental processes in human babies. [Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1998 Mar 217: 3, 247-53]


Previous to these recent studies, in 1982, pediatric endocrinologists in Puerto Rico reported an increase in the incidence of premature breast development in girls under eight years of age. Of 130 cases studied, 85 involved breast development in girls under 18 months of age. Of those 85 cases, 22 were found associated with use of soy formula, rich in isoflavones. [Am J Dis Child 1986 Dec 140: 12 1263-7]


The evidence for cancer preventive properties of soy foods and isoflavones is rather weak.1 Some epidemiological studies have shown a relation between soy consumption and protection from breast and endometrial cancer, but they have not been able to separate the effect of soy from that of other significant factors of Asian diets, such as low fat and high fiber, fish, whole grain, vegetable, fruit and non-soy legume intake-especially since soy is such a small part of Asian diets. Meanwhile, some clinical evidence suggests that high doses of isolated soy protein and isoflavones (not parts of traditional Asian diets) actually may be cancer promoters.


In 1996, one group of researchers fed 38 grams of soy protein isolate containing 38 mg of isoflavones to both pre- and post- menopausal women for five months. It is of interest to note that these researchers reported "No changes were found in plasma prolactin, sex hormone binding globulin, cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations."[emphasis added] Perhaps the women weren't also on a low fat, low cholesterol diet? Or maybe they were on such a diet and that doesn't reliably reduce cholesterol or tryglycerides either?


They did find, however, that there was a greater production of breast fluid in premenopausal women during the months of soy consumption, and "plasma estradiol [estrogen] concentrations were elevated erratically throughout a 'composite' menstrual cycle during the months of soy consumption." Further, they reported "Of potential concern was the cytological detection of epithelial hyperplasia in 7 of 24 women (29.2%) during the months they were consuming soy protein isolate" and they concluded "this pilot study indicates that prolonged consumption of soy protein isolate has a stimulatory effect on the premenopausal female breast, characterized by increased secretion of breast fluid, the appearance of hyperplastic [abnormal] epithelial cells, and elevated levels of plasma estradiol." [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996 Oct 5: 10, 785-94]


In 1997, another group of researchers studied the effect of soy isoflavone genistein on breast cancer cells and reported that "dietary estrogens at low concentrations do not act as antiestrogens but act like DDT and estradiol to stimulate human breast cancer cells to enter the cell cycle" [Environ Health Perspect 1997 Apr 105 Suppl 3, 633-6].


In the September 1998 issue of Cancer Research, William G Helferich, Ph.D., from the University of Illinois, reported that human estrogen-dependent breast cancer cells injected into mice multiplied if the mice were fed genistein. Helferich says "We've seen a lot of good research that genistein is a cancer preventer, but it is dangerous to people who already have cancer....Caution is warranted."2


An epidemiological study done in China found that high soy intake did not provide protection from breast cancer ["Diet and breast cancer in Shanghai and Yianjin, China," Br J Cancer 1995 71: 1353-8]. At a recent conference on soy foods and health, soy advocate and author of The Simple Soybean and Your Health Mike Messina Ph.D. stated, "It's simply not possible as yet to draw any conclusions about soy consumption and cancer prevention, but further research is certainly warranted" [Honolulu Star Bulletin 11/19/99, http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/19/news/story4.html]. This is completely contrary, of course, to the image of soy presented by advertisers who would like women to believe that ingesting soy will prevent breast cancer.


Other research has shown that some premenopausal women ingesting 60 grams of soy protein daily (45 mg isoflavones) have leutenizing hormone levels 33% of normal and follicle stimulating hormone levels only 53% of normal levels [Am J Clin Nutr 1994 Sep 60:3, 333-40]. These levels are low enough to inhibit ovulation in some individuals. In 1994 a team of researchers reported that in vitro "Genistein, and inhibitor of tyrosine kinases, including c-kit, blocked oocyte growth and disrupted follicle morphology." In translation, genistein blocked egg growth and caused abnormal changes in the shape of the follicle [Dev Biol 1994 Jan 161:1, 194-205].


There is good reason to suspect soy estrogens as a cause for male infertility. Over the past 30 to 50 years, as human exposure to xenoestrogens (including soy isoflavones, in so many processed foods containing soy protein) has increased, there has also been an increase in incidence of developmental disorders of male reproductive organs and a decrease in sperm counts. Researchers have found that soy isoflavones genistein and daidzein inhibit the activity of an enzyme required for proper metabolism of steroids critical to hormonal functions-in particular, this enzyme is required for the production of testosterone. [Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1995 Oct 24 215:3, 1137-44.]


Soy isoflavones have been shown to interfere with normal reproductive functions on the cellular level. In 1996, researchers showed that genistein is a strong inducer of DNA strand breaks, thus clastogenic and mutagenic. [Food Chem Toxicol 1996, 35: 605-13] In 1998, researchers reported that "coumestrol and genistein are clastogenic in cultured mammalian cells and lead to gene mutations."[Z Lebensm Unters Forsch A 1998, 206: 367-73] Below we will report how this may affect the immune and nervous systems.


Soy and Thyroid Function
A significant body of research has suggested that the estrogen-like soy isoflavones in 25 grams of soy protein can seriously disrupt other endocrine functions. In the late 1950s and early 1960s there were reports that infants fed soy formula developed goiter (enlarged thyroid). A study done in Japan in 1991 found that diffuse goiter and hypothyroidism appeared in half of the subjects after consuming 30 gm per day of pickled roasted soybeans for three months [Ishisuki Y et Al., "The effects on the thyroid gland of soybeans administered experimentally in healthy subjects," Nippon Nibunpi Gawk Zasshi (1991) 67:622-629].
In 1997 it was shown that the supposedly healthful soy estrogens/isoflavones suppress thyroid activity.3 As thyroid inhibitors, soy isoflavones are considered to be somewhat more potent than common anti-thyroid drugs, working to inhibit action of an enzyme that converts the amino acid tyrosine to thyroid hormone. Daniel R. Doerge, Ph.D., one of the researchers from the FDA National Center for Toxicological Research involved in the study that isolated and studied the anti-thyroid mechanism of the soy isoflavones, says: "I don't think you can get into trouble if you eat a few soyfoods within the bounds of a balanced diet...But I see substantial risks from taking soy supplements or eating huge amounts of soy foods for their putative disease-preventive value. There is definitely potential for interaction with the thyroid."4


Soy and Immune Function
Several studies have shown that soy isoflavones suppress the immune system. In fact, genistein has been studied as a potential drug to give to transplant recipients, who are always given immune suppressant drugs to prevent their bodies from rejecting the foreign transplant tissues. One team of researchers studied the immunosuppressive potential of genistein and reported, "Our data suggest that genistein is a powerful immunosuppressive agent, with no toxic effects on T cells, and has the potential for use in the prophylaxis and treatment of allograft rejection" [Transplantation 1991 Feb 51:2, 448-50]. In other words, genistein has a immune suppressant effect comparable to that of immune suppressant drugs given to transplant patients.


Other researchers have found that genistein works as an immune suppressant by causing chromatin fragmentation [Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1993 Jul 30 194:2, 944-50]. In 1998 researchers reported that "Exposure of mammalian cells to genistein results in DNA damage that is similar to that induced by the topo-II inhibitor and chromosomal mutagen, m-amsa." These researchers found that "genistein is a chromosomal mutagen" that causes mutations and cell death of human lymph cells [Mutat Res 1998 Aug 31 405:1, 41-56].


Soy and Brain Function
According to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin (11/9/99) newspaper, ingestion of soy products has recently been strongly linked to development of dementia. The National Institute of Aging sponsored a study of 3, 634 Japanese-American men in Hawaii, which found that those who ate the most tofu had the most advanced dementia and on autopsy the brains of men who ate more than two servings per week of tofu weighed less than the brains of men who consumed fewer than two servings of tofu per week. The rate of impairment was also found correlated with soy intake. Those who ate no tofu showed mental abilities of men five years younger, while those who ate the most tofu tested as if they were five years older. Of 27 dietary items checked, including meat, only soy was found consistently correlated with increased incidence and severity of dementia [http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/19/news/story4.html].


This finding is supported by experimental evidence which has shown that soy isoflavones decrease DNA repair and synthesis in the brains of rats and mice [Yakisich JS, et Al, "Early effects of protein kinase modulator on DNA synthesis in rat cerebral cortex," Exp Neurol 1999 Sep; 159 (1): 164-76; Schmitz C, Axmacher B, Sunker U, Korr H, "Age-related changes of DNA repair and mitochondrial DNA synthesis in the mouse brain," Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1999; 97(1): 71-81] .


According to the Star-Bulletin, this study linking tofu to dementia was presented at a conference on soy and health sponsored by soy foods producers such as DuPont and Archer Daniel Midlands. Commenting on the conference, the lead investigator in the Hawaii study, Dr. Lon White, stated "The majority of scientists said the data they were talking about for beneficial effects [of soy foods] on health is very weak" and doesn't really support health claims for soy foods.
The Money Game


Thus, right now it appears that there is sufficient contradictory evidence to conclude that we don't really know yet whether ingesting soy in large amounts as food or as isoflavone supplements will be beneficial or harmful. Obviously it is best not to consume soy or its isoflavones in the large amounts recommended by soy product manufacturers and "approved" by the FDA. Until more is known, it would be best not to exceed the levels of soy food consumption found in the typical Asian diet, about 8 to 10 grams (one-third ounce) daily-and certainly one should avoid using isolated soy protein or high dose soy isoflavone supplements.
So why are soybeans so highly touted in the popular media? Here is my hypothesis: Up until about 10 years ago, most of the soy grown in the U.S. was fed to cattle or used for industrial purposes, such as making margarine, paints, plastics, drugs, cleaners, emulsifiers, and so on. However, there is a limit to the profit to be made in this use of soy. You can make much more money if you can get people to eat the soy-and especially if you can get people to believe that it is the panacea for many ills, since people willingly pay dearly for panaceas.


The soy pushers are some of the largest, wealthiest corporations in the U.S. For example, Monsanto (the same corporation behind rBGH mentioned above) markets its "Round Up Ready" genetically engineered soybean along with its Round Up pesticide-the soybean is engineered, not to be more nutritious or delicious, but to be capable of withstanding larger doses of Round Up! Another example is Archer Daniels Midland (a.k.a. ADM), which advertises itself as "supermarket for the world," and is heavily invested in producing soy products. DuPont Chemical is also involved in the soy market, through its subsidiary Protein Technologies International, a soy protein powder maker. Green Giant is selling soybean mock meats.


All of these big boys are interested in getting you to eat soy, drink soy, and take soy pills. They don't really care about your health, only about their profits. So you should take all soy advertisements and popular articles and books with a big grain of salt.



*** ***


Don Matesz, M.A., C.N., C.R.T. is an associate member of the International Association of Resistance Trainers and graduate of the American Academy of Nutrition. Don resides in Toledo, Ohio, and is available for fitness consultation by phone and e-mail, and personal training in Toledo. Call (419) 476-2967 for rates and details. You can also reach Don by E-mailing: [email protected]

1 Fitzpatrick M, "Soy Isoflavones: Panacea or Poison?", submitted to the FDA in an effort to block GRAS status for soy isoflavones, published in Health and Healing Wisdom, Volume 22, No 3, p. 3. Also available at www.soyonline.com.
2 Osborne SE, "Does Soy Have a Dark Side?", Natural Health, March 1999, p. 158.
3 Divi RL et al., "Anti-thyroid isoflavones from the soybean," Biochem Pharmacol (1997)54:1087-1096.
4 Osborne SE, op cit, p. 113.
 
Caveman...

I agree that a healthy diet and exercise can change the shape of your body, and your overall health.

But....

To actually lose weight, you must be taking in less calories than you are expending. This isn't just one way to lose weight, but this is the only way!

For example: If I was the epidemy of health, worked out regularly (cardiovascular and resistance), ate perfectly (controlled balanced meals) and at the end of the day I took in 2000 calories and expended 1900 calories, over time I would gain weight. Maybe it would be muscle, I dont know...but the same works in opposite. If I expend 2000 calories and take in 1900 I will lose weight in the long run (assuming I keep this controlled diet).

Do you not agree with this? Regardless of how helathy a lifestyle you live, it is physically impossible to lose weight while taking in more calories than you expend, as it is physically impossible to gain wight in a caloric deficit.
This is what I know, given I am not a trainer, just self edcated through books and the internet. If you have something that says different, by all means please do reference it so I can learn!

As a side note, I hate cardiovascular work as much as the next guy, but it is required to play rugby, unfortunately.
 
Cpt.Caveman said:
I honestly can't find anything wrong with your exercise and eating because that is exactly the sort of program that will help loose weight. You're exercising almost every day which is great and you're not eating food high in sugar or fat. Thats a perfect regieme. As long as you're not eating snacks high in sugar or fat around those meals or drinking alcohol with meals then I can't see anything wrong. Maybe try and have a good breakfast, healthy snacks through-out the day instead of a big lunch and then your normal dinner. That will make sure that any food eaten will go to good use for energy and you won't get as tired in the afternoon hopefully.

Also, I would suggest getting a body fat percentage done to give you a bit of an idea where you are at and get it done again after a month or two to watch for progress. With that amount of exercise for 4-5 years, even 1 year, would lower your body fat percentage. Maybe the percentage is actually quite low and you're down to minimum levels of fat stores? Most gyms will have a scale that will give you a lower body body fat percentage test or hopefully they will know how to use those pinch calipers.

Try and drink at least 2L of water a day if you don't already, increase it as needed with you're exercising as well. Wate plays a major role in fat metabolism and if you don't drink it often you'll actually be retaining water.

Can I ask, do you look cut and toned? Because if you do, then you are at an optimum athletic condition and loosing any more weight might get a bit tricky.

First off thanx for taking the time out to reply. Muchly appreciated! :)

Well in answer to your question yea i guess i look pretty fit and you can tell i work out but i still look like i could drop about 5kg. I actually went and got a body fat test done today at my gym and it came back as 25%, which makes me in the normal ranges but only just! I was just under the border between normal and moderate.

To give you an idea he said that 22% was just above the border of normal from lean so if i lost 3% (or about 4-5kg) then that would be all that is needed for me to look fully cut and toned.

I was fairly happy with that, i knew i still had a bit of fat to lose because i can see it but at least now i have something clearer to work for! :)

I also had my blood pressure taken and it was at 51! He said that was awesome and that he hadnt seen someone with their BP that low for ages so i was pretty stoked about that =D
 
markusgoneawry said:
Caveman...

I agree that a healthy diet and exercise can change the shape of your body, and your overall health.

But....

To actually lose weight, you must be taking in less calories than you are expending. This isn't just one way to lose weight, but this is the only way!

For example: If I was the epidemy of health, worked out regularly (cardiovascular and resistance), ate perfectly (controlled balanced meals) and at the end of the day I took in 2000 calories and expended 1900 calories, over time I would gain weight. Maybe it would be muscle, I dont know...but the same works in opposite. If I expend 2000 calories and take in 1900 I will lose weight in the long run (assuming I keep this controlled diet).

Do you not agree with this? Regardless of how helathy a lifestyle you live, it is physically impossible to lose weight while taking in more calories than you expend, as it is physically impossible to gain wight in a caloric deficit.
This is what I know, given I am not a trainer, just self edcated through books and the internet. If you have something that says different, by all means please do reference it so I can learn!

As a side note, I hate cardiovascular work as much as the next guy, but it is required to play rugby, unfortunately.

My point is, from the information given to me in my course is that:

1. Over-eating carbohydrates will not make you gain fat because it takes 3 days of over-eating carbs for them to start turning towards di-novo lipogenesis and from what they were implying, you have to really over-eat them. Assuming that your diet does not consist of any foods that have a high sugar or fat content then it will be pretty hard to gain weight from eating fruit, lean meat, carbs, vegetables, etc.

2. A fuel source of aerobic exercise whether it is walking or running is fat. Regardless of how much you have eaten that day or how much fat is actually on your body, your body will use fat as an energy source. It will save the glucose for when it needs short bursts of power.

3. Cutting down your diet to meet your calorie requirements and make it even lower will mean that you will loose essential amounts of fibre, vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, legumes, etc.

4. NOT doing high cardiovascular exercise (as in running or cycling where your heart rate is around 70-80% of your age predicted max heart rate, which is 220 minus your age) has no health benefits on your cardiovascular system. You will be just at risk to cardiovascular problems as someone who barely exercises, your immune system will not be as healthy and your metabolism will not be running high so you won't be burning as much of the food that you are eating as you could.

Regular high activity exercise and a healthy diet is the most balanced and healthy way to loose weight and improve your quality of life.
 
Top