What is actually happening biochemically during active weight loss? For example if a person is hypocaloric by 200-300 calories per day, eats enough protein and does resistance training it is reasonable to expect ~1/2 lb fat loss per week. What is the mechanism by which that fat is signaled to be released, how is it extracted from a fat cell (or muscle? or liver?), how is it trafficked to other cells in the body to be used as fuel (triglycerides in apoB containing particles???). Do they have to traffic through the liver first, or is there a direct path from fat to other tissues? Is the exposure to the extra circulating particles in itself a short term risk factor for CVD, even if long term weight loss itself is beneficial? Is there any relationship between duration of active weight loss and exposure to the potential extra circulating lipid burden? Are there any other molecules stored with the fat that are also released into circulation at the same time that might be of concern?
The topic of chrononutrition has been a super interesting theme Danny and Alan have continued to address. It would be great to hear more about chronotypes: what do we know about them? Are these more "nature" or "nurture" (i.e., are you born with your chronotype, or can you change it through behavioral modification)? What sorts of benefits and risks might be associated with various chronotypes, etc.? How might those with a particular chronotype make the best nutrition, fitness, and other choices to align with their chronotype (assuming such differences matter)?
Due to the fact that supplements are largely unregulated, what advice do you have for selecting reputable sources for supplements? Are there any specific red or yellow flags to look out for? On the other hand, what might give a clear "green" to go ahead and trust a given supplement or supplement company?
I'd love a comprehensive look at the evidence so far regarding keto diet during cancer treatment. Are there any types of cancers or types of treatment where such diet would make sense? Is there any reliable data so far or is the data so far to weak to have a real opinion?
I’m curious about nutrition for strength and recovery, particularly in premenopausal women. There’s a lot of talk about protein requirements, source, and timing for MPS. While I find all this interesting, I imagine it overwhelmingly appeals to men, at least as far as the focus on muscle size is concerned. As a woman, I am more interested in strength gains and recovery for getting back to the next workout—not interested nearly as much in muscle bulk. I eat almost exclusively plant based, so it’s been encouraging to hear that the “plant vs. animal” debate is focusing on “the wrong question,” and that many plant foods do well for promoting MPS. But is there any evidence suggesting that certain foods or general dietary patterns are better or worse at promoting recovery between workouts?
I'm curious to know what the literature says about the variation in how different individuals respond to caffeine. Is it true that there is a genetic predisposition to caffeine metabolism? Some seem to be able to consume it with little impact while others, such as myself, can only handle small amounts. For example, if I want to have coffee, I need to drink decaf. While I am able to have caffeinated teas (black, oolong, green, and white), I have to be very conscious about the quantity I drink, whether I have eaten food, time of day, etc. Finally, are there any recommended strategies for (1) discovering one's unique caffeine metabolism and (2) mitigating "over-caffeination"? Thank you, Danny and Alan, for all the work you do here. So grateful for the resource of Sigma. - Jessica Schroeder
There has been a recent rise in electrolyte supplements on the market and many of them containing a lot of sodium. One popular one is LMNT which I am seeing a rise of popularity in a few sports, one being CrossFit. My concern is around people who are doing a one hour CrossFit class a day and taking this supplement daily with has a gram of sodium in. Often times, I am sure this will be on top of an already high-salt diet in many cases. Looking on their website they have an article pushing back on the FDA's recommendation against limiting sodium where they (Rob Wolf) has attacked the recommendation and stated it is wrong. Even to the point that Salt intake isn't an issue for blood pressure or heart health. The article is here: https://science.drinklmnt.com/electrolytes/the-fdas-misguidance-on-sodium/?variant=16358367199266&_gl=1*3gd4ge*_gcl_au*MTg4MzM3MDUzMS4xNzIyNTI2OTgy*_ga*MTcwNDQzMzExMS4xNzIyNTI2OTgy*_ga_BKZV7MVXM7*MTcyNDIzMDI5MC4yLjEuMTcyNDIzMDQxMi41My4wLjA. I'm hoping you can apply some nuance here and pick apart his argument. Thanks, Lewys
All my blood work indicates I am metabolically healthy (lipids, A1C, thyroid, liver) and my doctor says I am well nourished. My BMI is under 17.5%. The Veterans Administration nutritionist said if I eat 1400-1600 calories. (I am currently eating 1700) I will slowly add weight and plateau at 45 kg. My weight is not increasing but I worry if I add calories from the wrong sources my lipids and liver will have issues. Adding good fats caused my lipids to be poor and adding carbs raised my triglycerides which the endocrinologist said caused liver fibrosis. My lipids and liver are great now so how does someone determine the balance between metabolic health and healthy BMI? Lisa
Years ago when these first came out I kind of stubbornly brushed them both off (that is, the Doc and also James' grilling of Chris Kresser with the help of Avi Bitterman MD) and kept my blinders on. Since then, I've came to the conclusion that actually the research behind veganism is actually pretty robust and some of the 'cons' that bodybuilding circles commonly mention such as 'nutrient deficiencies' are very weak and easily addressed (both directly but also within the argument itself) Which brings me to my question: have you watched either of the documentary and/or the JRE episode, and if so, what are/were your thoughts? As mentioned above, I did a complete 180. Thank you - big fan! Cameron
Hi, I am a 26-year-old man, and hypercholesterolemia runs in my family. Despite weightlifting and cardio training paired with a mostly whole-food-plant-predominant diet my ldl and total cholesterol levels are always at the top of the accepted "healthy" range. What approaches or supplements could I consider to lower those levels in a better/optimal value?
I have always thought that any resistance and/or strength training was good for both health and managing potential side effects of menopause such as decreased bone density etc., but a strength trainer has recently told me that unless you are consistently increasing the weights you use, then simply using weights is not enough to make a difference- is this true and how can you make this form of exercise accessible to all if this is true and this would require a gym and specialist training?
I am following a lot of accounts that promote body diversity as I am doing research into body image. The health information is conflicting with many of the professionals in this space notably around the impact of being in a Larger and it's impact on overall health and mortality and also (and I know you've recently covered this) the detrimental impact of dieting on health markers. Where do you stand with this movement - is body size important If behaviours are 'healthy'
With growing health awareness it becomes increasingly important for companies to offer a work environment that pro-actively promotes health (at the very least does not harm it). This is especially crucial as demographics in most industrialized nations require companies to address topics like health to stay competetive for top young talent. If you were to advise a company to establish solid workplace health fundamentals, the 80/20 of it if you will, what would you tell them? What are the crucial elements to have in place? Thanks and keep up the good work, gents!
In omega 3 supplementation studies it doesn't seem to be common practice to test the omega 3 index as a baseline measurement before supplementation. Why is this? How do we know if supplementation is beneficial if people do/do not have adequate levels? It seems to be intake is measured off food frequency questionnaires which can have issues, so why don't we use this marker as a standard?
Listening to multiple experts, podcast, books etc. I don't know what to eat anymore. There are like pro's and cons for everything. Is there a podcast where the best foods to eat are described. So not just protein/carb/fat, but the actual most benefical foods. etc.
A former guest Mike Sweeney RD, had an interesting recent interview on a Keto podcast: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8fGQ8mU3TGo The claim is at timestamp 46:20. It was interesting to hear a registered dietitian with such *ahem* different views, but I wanted to focus on one particularly interesting claim which I have dug into myself because I previously heard the same claim within the last year. You can listen above for his exact words but the basic claim is this: "Those on low carb diets require less vitamin C than those on high carb diets. This is because Vitamin C and Glucose have a shared transporter (GLUT#). The more carbohydrate in the diet, the more glucose, the more glucose, the higher the vitamin C requirement as they compete for the same transporter. On low-carb, there is less glucose, thus less competition for the transporter, thus a lower Vitamin C requirement." I have heard that this means the RDA for Vitamin C is "irrelevant" and "doesn't apply" to low carb dieters ..... I see a couple of significant problems: (1) Competition for the transporter would only be relevant if either Vitamin C or Glucose were sufficiently high in those areas where the transporters do their job. I believe in the case of hyperglycaemia, there can be an issue with Vitamin C uptake. But where is the evidence that high carbohydrate diets, of themselves result in sufficiently high levels of glucose to make competition for these transporter an issue that would affect Vitamin C requirements? (2) Why would cell requirements for Vitamin C be lower? Rummaging in "Nutrient Metabolism: Structures, Functions and Genes" (Martin Kohlmeier), carbohydrate metabolism does not seem to require Vitamin C. Maybe he is saying that although cell Vitamin C requirements are the same, because of high glucose levels, more vitamin C is needed to outcompete the glucose and reach the cells? It all sounds pretty sketchy so would love to hear you guys take it apart.