Metabolic flexibility is a buzzy topic, particularly among biohackers—people who use themselves as an experiment in an effort to be healthier or perform better. Being metabolically flexible means that you’re able to switch between burning carbs and burning fat for energy, which helps your body consistently function at its best, both in everyday life and during exercise.

But even though metabolic flexibility is important, do you need a tool to track it? , the company behind what it calls “the first device to hack your metabolism,” claims it can do just that, helping customers burn fat, lose weight, and naturally boost their energy in the process. The premise is simple: users breathe into the device within 30 minutes of waking, and the Lumen app creates a meal plan for the day based on whether the user is burning more carbs or more fat. The gadget, plusÌęsix months of appÌęaccess, costs $249; subsequent months requireÌęan additional subscription.

Despite Lumen’s big promises, experts aren’t sold on the device. Here’s why.

It’s Good to Be Flexible

Being metabolically flexible helps performance. Glucose is your body’s quickest source of energy, but it can only store so much at once; fat takes longer to break down and convert into energy, but we can store much more of it, so it’s virtually always available. In order to best meet your energy demands at any given moment, it’s helpful to be able to switch between these two fuel sources, depending on how much energy your body is burning and what’s available.

A explains thatÌęduring vigorous exercise (basically, anything that makes it tough to carry on a conversation), energy demands are so high that muscles need fuel from a variety of sources, including both glucose and fat. This is crucial for staying energized during long workouts—without good metabolic flexibility, someone will tire more quickly during strenuous exercise and likely won’t be able to go as hard. Being metabolically flexible can be associated with a person’s fitness level: aÌę found that professional athletes had better metabolic flexibility and were more able to efficiently burn fat for fuel thanÌęmoderately active people.

Metabolic flexibility is measured by a person’s respiratory exchange ratio (RER)—a “measure of carbon dioxide being produced by the body versus oxygen being consumed,” explains Dylan MacKay, an assistant professor of nutrition at the University of Manitoba. Generally speaking, most people’s RER is close to 0.7 upon waking in the morning or after a period of fasting. This ratio climbs closer to oneÌęafter eating (particularly carbs), MacKay says. “When RER is at one, you’re burning purely carbs for energy. At 0.7, you’re burning mostly fat.” During strenuous exercise, RER can increase to about 1.1, due to the way the body buffers against lactate buildup.

People with diabetes, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and other chronic health conditions tend to be less metabolically flexible. A showed that men with Type 2 diabetes had a higher RER after periods of fasting and less metabolic flexibility overall (measured as less change in RER over time) than men without diabetes.

You Don’t Need Another Gadget

So, if metabolic flexibility is such a good thing, wouldn’t it be great to be able to measure yours every day? That’s what the folks behind Lumen want you to believe. But experts say that the information it sells—especially when it comes to weight loss—doesn’t actually provide new insights.

“If you’re more than three hours without eating, you’ll burn more fat. If you’ve recently consumed some carbohydrates, you’ll burn less fat,” says Nicholas Tiller, a senior researcher in respiratory medicine and exercise physiology at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “Do you really need an expensive gadget to measure your carbon-dioxide output and tell you this? I just don’t see a practical use for the product in helping people achieve their weight-loss goals.”

MacKay agrees. “The app gives meal suggestions, with the goal of improving metabolic flexibility,” he says. “But I haven’t seen any data saying that following a certain meal plan to expand metabolic flexibility will have any benefits.”

Plus, Lumen isn’t even all that great at measuring your RER. Its technology is loosely based on a metabolic cart, aÌędevice that measures a person’s total volume of gas in (oxygen) and out (carbon dioxide), calibrates against other gases that might be present in trace amounts, and produces a very accurate RER reading. Lumen, on the other hand, only measures your carbon-dioxide output. And while a metabolic cart reading takes about ten minutes and is usually performed in a medical setting, a Lumen reading is based on just a single breath.

of Lumen, conducted by the company and published last year in the ​​Interactive Journal of Medical Research, compared various RER readings using both Lumen and a metabolic cart, one after the other. While the Lumen readings were correlated with the metabolic cart reading—when one went up, the other went up, and vice versa—Lumen wasn’t nearly as accurate at measuring RER. (Here’s that shows how the Lumen readings lined up with RER readings.)

As Always, the Answer Is to Eat Well and Exercise

One possible benefit of Lumen, MacKay says, is that using it could encourage people to eat a more varied and nutritious diet and to exercise more often, both of which are associated with increased metabolic flexibility and better health overall. But you really don’t need a device and an app full of your RER data in order to do that.

“The use of metabolic flexibility and other science-sounding terms lend the product a false scientific legitimacy,” Tiller says. Lumen’s promise is alluring: “Breathe into this device every day, eat what we tell you to, and you’ll be healthier!” But it’s not really evidence-based. “It’s quintessential marketing over science,” Tiller says.

The post Lumen Wants to Track Your Metabolic Flexibility. But Do You Need It? appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

Proper fueling when you’re training is about more than just eating when you’re hungry and stopping when you’re full, and it’s tough to get enough calories when you’re avoiding often-demonized calorically dense foods. While we’re thankfully undergoing a seismic away from and restrictive eating, subtler food rules like “don’t eat processed foods” or “limit carbs” persist among health-conscious people. These principles might seem innocuous, but the trouble with food rules is that they almost always decrease your caloric intake, and many active people have internalized ideas that make it tough to consume enough energy throughout the day. Limiting carbs might mean swapping bread for vegetables, and avoiding processed food could lead you to forgo on-the-go snacks or tasty desserts.

, a Philadelphia-based certified sports dietitian who has consulted for USA Swimming and the Philadelphia Phillies, sees this often. “The majority of the clients that come to our practice, as well as athletes whose teams I consult for, are underfueling in some way,” she says. Jones explains that they’re not eating enough overall, not getting enough carbohydrates, or not eating the right nutrients at the right time. Below, two sports nutrition experts share the fueling mistakes that they often see athletes making, as well as how to avoid them.

Veggies Aren’t Always Best

Fruits and vegetables are key to a healthy overall diet, and athletes, like everyone else, should be aiming for five servings per day. But it’s possible to overdo it, particularly if you subscribe to clean eating, or the idea that whole foods are always best. “Athletes may eat a lot of high-volume ‘healthy’ foods, like squash, salads, and vegetables, which leave them feeling full even though they have not met their calorie needs,” says , a sports nutritionist and researcher at Brock University in Ontario. Vegetables high in fiber and water fill you up, but they’re relatively low in calories and macronutrients, which means they don’t provide much energy. Take a look at your meals: are you mixing in an adequate serving of fats, carbs, and protein with your veggies? A kale salad with tomatoes, cucumbers, and sprouts is a good start, but try adding calorically dense toppings like nuts, cheese, chicken, avocado, and olive oil—and eat a slice of bread on the side.

Don’t Trust Your Gut

Even the non-diet approach, which prioritizes relying on hunger and fullness cues to tell you when and how much to eat, may not work for athletes without some modifications. “Those who eat based on stomach hunger can wind up with very low energy intake compared to what they’re burning,” Jones says.

This may be because, contrary to popular belief, exercise can actually decrease appetite. “Several factors can affect post-exercise appetite, including but not limited to hormones and blood redistribution during exercise,” Guzman says. A published in the American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism describes that the buildup of lactate in your blood during intense exercise is associated with lower levels of ghrelin, the hormone that makes you feel hungry. And a in the journal Appetite explains that many other things may contribute to decreased appetite post-workout, including the effect that exercise has on the levels of insulin, glucose, and fat molecules in your bloodstream.

The amount of food you need depends on the length and duration of your workouts and your basal metabolic rate (BMR). The best way to figure out your energy needs is to work with a dietitian or estimate them using a that takes your activity level into account.

Stop Cutting Carbs

Carbs are the foundation of a healthy diet. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recommend that carbs make up 45 percent to 65 percent of your total daily calories. But they’re even more important for athletes.

“Carbs are the most efficient and preferred energy source for exercising muscle,” Jones says. It’s important to eat them throughout the day, not just during or around workouts, because carbs get stored as glycogen to be used during exercise. When you run out of stored glycogen and there’s not enough glucose in your bloodstream, your body will start burning fat—which is OK but not optimal for high-intensity workouts—and may also start breaking down muscle for protein.

“To ensure the body isn’t tapping into muscle protein, which can impair recovery and adaptation to training sessions, eating adequate carbohydrates throughout the whole day is important,” Jones says. You should eat a pre-workout meal or snack that’s high in carbs, and if your workout is moderate or high intensity and lasts longer than an hour, eating at least 30 grams of carbs per hour (one banana, two slices of bread, or three or four energy chews) will improve performance and prevent muscle breakdown.

Don’t Fear Processed Foods

Even if you’re not dieting or trying to lose weight, you might still try to limit your intake of processed foods. That can be a good thing, to a point, as whole foods generally contain more nutrients. But there’s no need to eliminate processed foods completely. For one thing, processed carbohydrates are easier to digest because they lack fiber, which means that they’re generally a better choice before and during a workout. The carbs from a sports gel will enter your bloodstream and give you energy quickly, whereas the carbs in an apple will take longer to absorb. The apple’sÌęhigh fiber content may also upset your stomach, particularly because exercise diverts blood away from your gastrointestinal tract and slows digestion.

Processed protein sources, like powders and bars, can also be helpful. “​​The recommended intake of protein for both female and male strength and endurance athletes is 1.2 to two grams per kilogram of body weight per day, ideally with meals spread throughout the day,” Guzman says, citing a published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. For a 150-pound woman, that’s between 82 and 136 grams of protein per day, which can be hard to get from whole foods sources like nuts, cheese, or yogurt.

“Ideally, protein will be spread into moderate doses four to five times per day, rather than just having high doses post-workout and at dinner,” Jones adds.

Bottom Line: Break the Rules

Strict food rules are rarely sustainable, and even loose food rules like cutting back on processed foods or prioritizing vegetables can have unintended consequences when you’re an active person. “Healthy eating for an athlete is so different than for a non-athlete. Many athletes are not aware of how much higher their energy needs are,” Jones says.

If you’d like more guidance, check out , a tool that helps people visualize how much to eat based on training intensity. Ideally, this tool will help you give your body what it actually needs to perform and recover properly, instead of living by vague healthy eating maxims and arbitrary rules.

The post Eating “Healthy” Might Be Hurting Your Performance appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

Considering there are over two million podcasts out there, it’s hard to believe that a relatively new one launched by two noncelebrities could reach the top of the charts. But Maintenance Phase, a show dedicated to “debunking the junk science behind health fads, wellness scams, and nonsensical nutrition advice,”Ìęaccording to theÌę, has done just that. Hosted byÌęSeattle-based writer Aubrey Gordon, who until last year published anonymously under the pseudonym , and Berlin-based journalist Michael Hobbes,Ìęthe podcast is currently ranked third in Apple’s Health and Fitness category and is placed in the top 75 overall.

Maintenance Phase doesn’t just offer a new take on the same old self-help advice—it looks closely at how these tips and trends have actually impacted people. The hosts’ approach to research is one part investigative journalism, one part Wikipedia rabbit hole. “One of us spends probably two weeks full-time researching each episode,” Hobbes says. They’ll read a book or two, anywhere from 20 to 60 academic articles, and various media storiesÌęin order to present a complete picture of a diet (like ), wellness trend (i.e.,Ìę), or lifestyle guru ( or ). Then one of them will present their findings to the other on the air.

Both are great storytellers and quick with humor, so it feels less like a lecture and more like eavesdropping onÌętwo smart and enthusiastic friends. “I love listening to other podcasts like that, with somebody who has a real passion for an issue presenting it to someone else,” Hobbes says. “It’s also nice to just experience two friends bouncing off of each other, having inside jokes, and constructively analyzing an idea.” Gordon and Hobbes don’t present any topic as black-and-white, which they think the format of audio facilitates more than than written stories. “There’s just more room for the kind of nuance and couching that happens in conversation with friends,” Gordon says.

At a time when so many popular podcasts are either deeply reported true-crime stories or totally off-the-cuff conversations, it’s nice to tune in to something that mixes both research and personality. Gordon, a “fat, white, queer cis lady” talks about her experiences with eating disorders, weight-loss drugs, and Weight Watchers meetings. Hobbes describes watching his mother repeatedly try and fail to lose weight. And although the subject matter is often serious, the show itself is funny. Each episode starts with a quick intro that foreshadows what’s to come. Sometimes they’re lighthearted: “Welcome to Maintenance Phase, the podcast that butters your coffee.” (The topic was keto.) An episode titled “Is Being Fat Bad for You?” kicked off with: “Welcome to Maintenance Phase, the podcast that’s [yelling]Ìęjust concerned about your health!”

That’s a universal excuse given by people who believe they have the right to comment on fat bodies, as Gordon—and every other fat person—well knows. Almost every listener has likely been on either the giving or receiving end of the line, and approaching such a loaded topic with some humor makes it feel safer for all. The jokes work because they don’t come at the expense of fat people (or any bullied group) and because Hobbes and Gordon can gracefully transition from humor to humanizing vulnerability and thoughtful criticism.

In an episode called “The Obesity Epidemic,” they joke about news stations’ tendency to pair segments about obesity with neck-down footage of fat people walking around. “The only place in American life where you see that many headless torsos are local news segments about obesity and Grindr,” Hobbes says. Then Gordon opens up about her own experience as a fat person tuning in to those news segments of headless fat people. “I spent a good 10 to 15Ìęyears watching that B-roll, and I would often tear up watching it, because—oh, I might tear up now—because I was looking for myself.” Listeners in thinner bodies may never have considered how dehumanizing it is to be filmed without their consent as an example of poor health by a cameraman who doesn’t actually know a thing about their health.

On-air moments like this elicit thank-you messages from fans who can relate to Gordon’s experience as a fat person and are relieved to finally hear these things being voiced to such a large audience. But there’s also lots of positive feedback from those who work in the health field and are excited to see this perspective—that being fat isn’t inherently bad, and that fat-shaming is nothing but harmful—presented in a way that makes sense to an audience of nonexperts. “I think the bulk of the responses that we get are from people who do this work professionally—public-health officials, health care providers of all stripes, researchers, the whole bit,” Gordon says. “They’re overwhelmingly extremely complimentary, which is lovely.”

That’s not surprising, since the hosts are well versed inÌęthe research and the social systems around health and fatness. They’ve both published widely on the subject: pick up a copy of Gordon’s 2020 book and give Hobbes’s widely read HuffPostÌęfeature “” a read if you haven’t already.

Although Hobbes and Gordon followed each other’s work for years, they’d only met once in real life before starting the podcast (which they record virtually), when Gordon was in Seattle for a few days. “We met for dinner at 4 P.M., hung out, and just had a delightful goddamn conversation,” Gordon remembers. “It was a really lovely vibe.” But the podcast didn’t come about until many months later, after the pandemic hit, when they suddenly had far more free time.

Hobbes had done an episode about obesity on You’re Wrong About, a podcast he started in 2018 with fellow journalist Sarah Marshall dedicated to setting the record straight on past events, people, and things that have long been misunderstood by the public.Ìę“There are so many misconceptions about health and wellness that, if I wasn’t careful, You’re Wrong AboutÌęwas just going to become a health and wellness show,” Hobbes says. So he reached out to Gordon, and they decided to try something new. (Ultimately, Hobbes left You’re Wrong AboutÌęin October 2021).

They recorded six or seven episodes over several months, then decided to start releasing them. “We had this secret relationship for six months, because we didn’t want to announce it or make it a thing,” Hobbes says. “We wanted to record a couple just to see, Does this feel good?”

“I remember having a conversation that was, We’ll see if other people care,” Gordon says. “Maybe they will, maybe they won’t.”

“The response was absurd,” Hobbes says. “We thought, yeah, this is really meeting a need for people.” An overwhelming number of their listeners love the show, enough to pay for a monthly bonus episode. On the membership platform , they have over 23,000 patrons, with subscriptions ranging from $3 to $50 per month. This means the show will never have to take on advertisers, something its hosts believe would damage their credibility.

“We keep a running list that includes things that we think of along the way and suggestions from listeners. The list is long,” Gordon says. “We’re living in a time where everything, everyone, and every product seems to have some kind of wellness angle.”

Critically, the hosts don’t pass judgement on those who buy into these fads or act like they’re immune to the wellness zeitgeist. To wit: “At some point we’ll do CBD,” Gordon told . “I have been a CBD person, and I’ll be made uncomfortable by my own research.” Instead, they offer a more complete picture of the wellness worldÌęthan we get most anywhere else, allowing listeners the opportunity to reconsider and challenge their own beliefs, on their own time.

The post This Is the Best Podcast We’ve Heard About Health appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

Eating well isn’t cheap. At least, not according to the sports-nutrition industry. For $220 a month, will pair you with a credentialed coach who will tell you what and when to eat based on your body composition and training goals. For $100, you can have a fitness influencer (which you can then track yourself for free via MyFitnessPal). And for a comparatively minuscule price of $20, you can exactly like seven-time Super Bowl champion quarterback Tom Brady—although his will cost you $147.

We’re constantly being marketed products that promise us , , , and more. , , and even have all been reformulated and rebranded as performance-supporting foods.

Things didn’t used to be nearly this complicated or expensive. According to an article in , bodybuilders in the 1970s stuck to basic (if boring) meal plans of mostly protein (beef, eggs, cottage cheese, chicken, and fish) and vegetables. The only thing that resembled a supplement was an analog protein shake, which wasÌęeither made with soy protein powder or milk, with additional powdered milk stirred in. Among runners, even basic energy bars weren’t commonplace until marathoner Brian Maxwell created PowerBars in 1984 and started marketing them to other athletes.

The notion that fitness and healthy eating are complicated and expensive perpetuates privilege in the wellness world. Regardless of how effective supplements, meal plans, and similar products may be, it’s important to consider whether they make good sports nutrition—and, by extension, performance—seem out of reach to anyone who can’t afford them.

Normalizing pricey supplements, meal plans, and snacks just adds one more barrier to entry for lower-income individuals and families, when whole foods and a simple healthy diet will suffice. Journalist Anne Helen Petersen wrote about this recently in her , Culture Study, explaining how this messaging is especially challenging for young athletes in lower-income households, who are already at a massive disadvantage due to how expensive it’s become to play competitive peewee sports:Ìę“$4000-$6000 a year spent for , upwards of , and between for soccer,” Petersen writes, citing stats from USA Today.) And it’s certainly not a helpful message for college athletes, over a quarter of whom experience food insecurity (including 24 percent of Division 1 athletes), according to a .

Predictably, aÌę in PLoS One states that people with higher incomes are more likely to participate in any type of physical activity than people with lower incomes, and that those in the highest income group expended roughly 26 percent more energy through exercise than those in the lowest income group. The researchers can’t pinpoint the exact cause, but they point to time constraints as a possible explanation: those with lower incomes typically have less leisure time, because they work more hours and can’t afford as many conveniences. There’s also the fact that even basic forms of physical activity require investments like shoes and athletic apparel, not to mention the gym memberships, expensive gear, and travel required for more specialized sports.

A personalized fueling strategy can complement training and boost performance, but too much focus on how you eat can have diminishing physiological returns. “Unless they have aspirations of going pro or reaching elite status, the everyday athlete doesn’t need to be overly preoccupied with fine-tuning their nutrition,” says Cara Harbstreet, a dietitian and the owner of . In fact, she says, athletes who rely heavily on supplements or buy into “performance boosting” meal plans often end up eating too little, which has a significant negative effect on performance.

The basic tenets of good sports nutrition are to eat balanced snacks and meals—each containing protein, carbs, and fat—every two to four hours, and to make sure you’re properly hydrated, explains , a sports dietitian and the former director of sports nutrition at the University of North Carolina. This alone can be enough for many people, as long as you’re eating a variety of nutritious foods in quantities large enough to feel satisfied and energized. And while certain athletes might need to supplement specific nutrients that they don’t get enough of from their diet (vitamin D, iron, and calcium are common deficiencies among athletes), there’s no need for a cabinet full of pills and powders.

Plus, sports-specific supplements don’t necessarily offer anything that food doesn’t. “The ingredients in many sports supplements, such as creatine, branched-chain amino acids, and nitric-oxide boosters, are actually food components, and athletes should be reassured that food is an effective and inexpensive way to consume them,” says , a sports dietitian based in Littleton, New Hampshire. She recommends basic protein-dense foods—poultry, meats, fish, dairy, and legumes—in place of powders, and inexpensive snacks like chocolate milk or a bowl of cereal in place of bars and shakes marketed as recovery aids.

The bottom line is that pricey meal plans and sports supplements don’t offer a whole lot of value, despite costing significantly more than whole-food alternatives. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich has roughly the same nutrient profile as a peanut butter ProBar, and at a fraction of the cost ( for the PB&J, compared to over three dollars for the ). The next time you think about shelling out for one of these things, ask yourself if you really benefit from it or if you’re just buying into marketing or convenience.ÌęAnd remember that plenty of people don’t even have the luxury of making that choice.

Want to transform your relationship with food and develop healthier eating habits? Check out our Ìęonline course on , where șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű+ members get full access to our library of more than 50 courses on adventure, sports, health, and nutrition.

The post Eating for Performance Should Be Simple—and Cheap appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

In 2008, journalist Michael Pollan published , a book with a now familiar message: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The book’s central argument is that the processed foods that make up a big chunk of the standard American diet and are ruining our health, and we all should strive to replace these “edible foodlike substances,” as he calls them, with whole, unprocessed foods.

That message quickly became omnipresent. Pollan’s well-meaning advice lent more momentum to a growing fanatical clean-eating movement, which popularized the idea that natural is always best: whole foods are inherently pure and health promoting, and processed foods are filled with toxins that disrupt and undermine our well-being. On the surface, it seems to make sense—there’s truth to the idea that whole foods are more nutritious than overprocessed ones. But the clean-eating ethos can also oversimplify nutrition and lead to an unwarranted fear of food that isn’t in its original form. Think: “I don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients” (which comes from , another Pollan book) or “I won’t buy anything with ingredients that I can’t pronounce.”

Today the glorification of what’s “natural” (a vague term with ) has seeped out of the nutrition realm and into the broader landscape of health and wellness, and some influencers are using the same playbook to spread fear about the COVID-19 vaccine.

The “I don’t know what’s in it so I won’t put it in my body” argument has expanded from food and into medical interventions. But “natural” doesn’t always mean good for you, nor does synthetic mean the opposite. What started as a truth-based suggestion to eat more apples and fewer Pop-Tarts has morphed into misguided skepticism of the food industry, biotechnology, and science.

Natural Isn’t Always Better

Key to all of this messaging is the concept that the best way to solve our modern health problems is to return to nature. “There’s this idea that our bodies are perfect as is and could fight off every single disease if we could just eat right and live in some healthier environment,” says , a dietitian and nutrition researcher at the Baylor College of Medicine.

But scientific and historical evidence proves this isn’t the case. In 2018, the estimated that vaccines save roughly two and a half million lives every year (and that was pre-COVID). The of processed-grain foods like bread and cereal with folic acid has reduced neural-tube defects in newborns by over a third since it became mandatory in 1998. Human life expectancy in the U.S. has increased from 47 years old to 78 in 2020, largely due to improved food safety, sanitation, health care, and pharmaceuticals. None of these lifesaving advancements come from nature; they’re all a result of technology and science.

And yes, the same industries that give us vaccines, safe food, and effective cleaning products also do bad things, like implementing on medications, health and nutrition research, and essentially green-lighting . There are legitimate reasons to be critical of these industries and to stay up to date on the science of health and nutrition. But that doesn’t mean you need to boycott everything they produce.

It’s About Money

“The problem is that the wellness industry, which is a massive for-profit industry, has leveraged those genuine concerns to use fear to sell products,” says , research director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta. And now they’re twisting their message to dissuade people from getting vaccinated.

On Instagram, Ìęwho describes herself as a medical herbalist and who talks about “natural health” and “natural living,” started her account in 2019. At the time, her posts mostly criticized the food industry and promoted clean eating. Now she has over 65,000 followers and her focus has shifted to criticizing the pharmaceutical industry and vaccinations (which she spells “​​va***nations” to prevent Instagram from flagging her content). “People who refuse pharmaceuticals and work on their health naturally are the healthiest people alive,” she wrote in , citing no evidence or sources. Through the you’ll find links to 12 “natural” products that she recommends, 11 of which come with discount codes.

Another good example is . She claims she is a “certified nutritional therapist,” although she doesn’t say where this certificate comes from. She has amassed over 40,000 Instagram followers by focusing her account and her website on detoxing information, and she sells a seemingly infinite number of supplements meant to eliminate various toxins. In an Instagram highlight titled “ she reads biblical scripture and equates the media to the devil and the “spirit of fear,” asserting that those of us who listen to them “worship at the altar of pharma.” On her website, she sells aÌę “for Prevention and [if] someone comes down with the Virus.” It includes ten supplements and .

This isn’t an anomaly. Influencers who speak out against the vaccine are almost always promoting some kind of supplement as an alternative therapy—much like the way they often damn mainstream nutrition science in favor of their own alternative diet theory, which usually comes with a supplement recommendation or two as well. Klatt points out that while vaccines typically drive little profit for pharmaceutical companies, supplements are huge moneymakers for those who produce and market them. And while pharmaceuticals are heavily regulated by the government, supplements are not.

Doing Your Own Research Is Complicated

Such influencers promote the “do your own research” thinking that is a huge part of the clean-eating movement—dissecting nutrition labels, refuting dietary guidelines, second-guessing staple foods that have long been considered safe—and is now a catchphrase among people who don’t agree with masks and vaccines.

The trouble is, performing sound nutritional or medical research is something that researchers, scientists, and other experts spend years learning how to do. “My alarm bells go off immediately when someone says, ‘Do your own research,’” Caulfield says. “It’s problematic for a whole bunch of reasons. For one, it invites the idea that there’s some dominant conspiracy theory creating a narrative that you need to see through.” But the real issue, Caulfield says, is that people likely never take all of the evidence into account. In a legitimate evidence-based review, researchers gather every study previously done on a given topic (excluding those that don’t meet certain quality or study design standards) to get a full picture of the data. While it’s impossible to completely eliminate bias, even in a legitimate review, there are checks in place to minimize it. On the other hand, an individual who does their own research is usually seeking out evidence that supports what they already believe. “They find one study here, and another study there that supports them, and a YouTuber that supports them, and they’ve ‘done their own research’ and confirmed their preconceived beliefs,” Caulfield says.

“It’s just a gish gallop of bullshit,” Klatt says. “When you can say a bunch of stuff that sounds science-y to an audience who has no idea about what it means to be evidence based, it’s just a losing battle for the evidence-based folks.”

Be Critical, but Trust the Evidence

It has become glaringly obvious over the course of the pandemic that personal beliefs and values can skew the way that we view facts. This isn’t new, and the tendency to disregard the evidence isn’t unique to any particular worldview. Caulfield points out that while conservatives are far more likely to believe anti-scientific information about the COVID-19 vaccine, it’s primarily liberals who championed the early iterations of clean eating and ignore what the science says about the safety of GMOs. (Not long ago, liberals were also the loudest .) We’re all susceptible to this kind of thinking.

And there are still reasons to be wary of the companies that gave us the COVID-19 vaccine, just as there are reasons to be wary of those that manufacture processed food. Yes, there’s some level of uncertainty about the safety of both vaccinations and processed food—there always will be, because uncertainty is inherent to health and nutrition science. But the blanket distrust of industry and reverence for natural products, pushed forward by clean-eating acolytes and now serving as the crux of the anti-vax movement, isn’t helpful.

Instead of blindly believing in whatever interpretation of science best fits with our values, we all need to get better at respecting science itself. Seek out experts who have legitimate credentials and who regularly cite large systematic reviews and meta-analyses that pool huge amounts of evidence, instead of following self-appointed authority figures who take small bits of evidence out of context. And if you’re skeptical of what an expert is telling you, go ahead and do some follow-up research by reading through those same systematic reviews yourself. Just don’t fall prey to the influencers and conspiracy theorists who exploit the (inevitable) uncertainty of legitimate science in order to sell you an ideology that’s not based in any science at all.

The post How Clean-Eating Rhetoric Is Shaping the Anti-Vax Movement appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

Anyone who has cozied up with a bowl of mac and cheese after a hard day will agree that food can trigger feelings of happiness and comfort. The idea that food affects mood is a familiar one. But the emerging field of nutritional psychiatry aims to better understand how overall diet and specific nutrient intake can influence mental health, and apply it in a clinical setting. Psychiatrists and researchers are beginning to consider their patients’ eating habits an integral part of addressing mental health conditions like anxiety and depression, making diet recommendations in addition to providing psychotherapy and (in some cases) prescription medication.

The question of how to put the food-mood connection into practice is a hard one to answer. Nutritional psychiatry research is still in its early stages; so far, most of it points to eating the same type of diet that has long been recommended for physical health. And while a healthy eating prescription sounds simple and harmless enough, too much focus on eating the “right” foods can actually worsen mental health. Here’s what you should know before you start applying any food-mood principles in your own life.

An Up-and-Coming Field

The International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, which coined the phrase “nutritional psychiatry,” was established in 2013. Its founder and president, is a professor at Deakin University School of Medicine in Australia, where she researches the link between diet and mental health. The Ìęnow boasts hundreds of members, all practitioners or researchers in psychiatry and related fields. Psychiatrists at prominent institutions like and are teaching and applying nutritional psychiatry. And media outlets from to are helping popularize the approach.

It’s an exciting notion, but it’s worth approaching the field with some skepticism. The market is filled with companies and people interested in turning a profit: unregulated supplements with names like and make vague promises about making you feel happier or lessening your anxiety. Influencers and health coaches make anecdotal—and dubious—claims that and .

What you eat, of course, impacts how your brain functions. The brain needs calories to operate, and chemical messengers travel back and forth between your gut and brain via the vagus nerve triggering all sorts of functions, from hormone production to cognition. But researchers are excited about the prospect of finding concrete associations between specific nutrients and mental health.

The most well-supported recommendation in nutritional psychiatry is the use of omega-3 fatty acids to help treat and prevent depression. AÌęÌępublished inÌęNatureÌęanalyzed data from 26 existing randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 2,160 participants, all adults with diagnosed clinical depression. The authors found that a daily dose of one gram of omega-3 fatty acid was associated with a significant improvement in depressive symptoms. It’s not totally clear why, but researchers guess that it’s due to both omega-3 fatty acid’s anti-inflammatory effects and their role in producing compounds that support brain function. One important note is that they were looking at omega-3 supplements, not omega-3s from food sources like .

A of 213 studies, published in the World Journal of Psychiatry, sought to identify other nutrients that are critical to mental health. The authors identified 12 essential nutrients that, based on existing evidence, seem to be associated with the prevention and treatment of depressive symptoms: folate, iron, omega-3 fatty acids, magnesium, potassium, selenium, thiamine, vitamin A, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, vitamin C, and zinc. The authors then assigned an “antidepressant food score” to various foods, based on their concentration of these nutrients. The highest-scoring foods were leafy green vegetables, organ meats, oysters, clams, and mussels. Other types of seafood, fruits, and vegetables also made the list.

We know these nutrients play a role in the biological pathways related to depression, but the evidence isn’t enough to confidently conclude that getting more of them actually alleviates depression. Just because a nutrient affects a particular pathway, doesn’t mean that it will necessarily have an impact on the outcome (in this case, depression).Ìę

Even though we’re still in the early phases of identifying powerhouse nutrients, research does support the association between mental health and certain eating patterns. There’s that a healthy gut microbiome filled with a diverse set of probiotic (good) bacteria has a positive impact on mood and mental health, among other things. Probiotics produce hundreds of neurochemicals that your brain uses to regulate many physical and mental processes in your body, the explains. For example, 95 percent of our body’s serotonin (the neurotransmitter that helps regulate mood) is produced by probiotics in the gut.ÌęThe best way to support your probiotic bacteria is to feed them prebiotic fiber, found in whole, plant foods like fruits and vegetables. On the other hand, processed foods and simple sugars can feed less-healthy gut bacteria, so too much of these things can cause harm.

AÌę published in Molecular Psychiatry found an overall association between a Mediterranean diet—high intake of plant foods, moderate intake of fish and poultry, and olive oil as the main source of fat—and lower risk of depression, although not every study they included supported this conclusion. The same review found a loose, inconclusive link between eating fewer processed foods and a lower risk of depression.

Putting Theory into Practice

, a psychiatrist and the director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, became interested in nutritional psychiatry early in her career. She recommended simple adjustments to one of her patient’s nutrition while treating him for depression. First, he cut back on his daily coffee—which he took with ample creamer and several spoons of sugar. Then, he worked on replacing processed food with more fruits and vegetables. “It really made a difference in his care and his treatment and our therapeutic relationship,” she says.

Now works with several patients who suffer from depression and anxiety to improve their overallÌędiet quality,Ìęwith small tweaks like increasing their intake of whole foods and decreasing their consumption of processed food and added sugar. She checks in with patients about their progress during their regular psychotherapy sessions. In general, this approach is best suited to patients whose diets are high in processed foods to start with, and who are able, financially and otherwise, to make dietary changes. Naidoo says that she’s seen many of her patients’ symptoms improve as a result.

In some ways, it’s similar to the work that registered dietitians do, but Naidoo explains that nutritional psychiatry is just one tool in her practice, and it doesn’t exclude the use of other forms of therapy or medication. Medication can be life-saving for patients with certain mental health disorders. “It is meant to be a complement, and offer more solutions to improving mental wellbeing,” she says.

Keep It Simple

Eating nutritious foods can absolutely support mental health, but some mental health experts worry that prescriptive nutritional psychiatry may encourage patients to be overly vigilant about what they eat.Ìę

“​​The first thing that I think of when I hear about nutritional psychiatry is ‘great—even more pressure to eat perfectly,’” says , a psychologist who specializes in food and body image concerns. Our cultural fixation on healthy eating is already harmful to many people’s mental health; orthorexia, a damaging obsession with a rigid idea of healthy eating, is now recognized by many experts as an eating disorder (although it’s not yet in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used across the field to identify mental disorders). And while nutritional psychiatry doesn’t necessarily mean “eat only nutritious foods all the time,” it can be interpreted this way.

Daniels also points out that the sense of empowerment people may feel with nutritional psychiatry—improving their mood through their own food choices instead of relying solely on medication and psychotherapy—can backfire. Eating seems like something you can control, but being too strict can lead to unmanageable feelings around food, and shame whenever you slip up.

Nutritional psychiatry is still in its infancy. So, for now, think of it as a field to watch. Yes, small changes in how you eat can be sustainable, particularly if they have a noticeably positive impact on your mental health. But there’s so much room for misinterpretation here that it’s worth taking the food-mood connection with a grain of salt.

Food is more than the sum of its nutrients. It is also a source of comfort, joy, and connection, all of which are important for mental health. Too much focus on food can lead to stress, anxiety, and guilt. The only conclusion we can confidently take away from existing research is to keep eating the same type of diet that’s long been recommended for physical health: lots of whole foods, fruits and veggies, and a good balance of macros from a variety of sources. Most importantly, make sure that any diet changes you make—for any reason—leave room for finding pleasure in eating. If you’re going to change your eating habits in the name of better mental health, make sure those changes are actually having that effect.

The post Why Psychiatrists Are Prescribing Food appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

Eating disorders have been on the rise for years, but during the pandemic, there was a drastic increase in diagnoses and disordered behaviors. Psychologist Lisa Damour wrote in that the combination of high anxiety, lack of structure, and fewer outlets for energy and time created the perfect storm for this rise in disordered behaviors among teens. The same has proved true for adults, as eating disorder treatment centers are at capacity and therapists have long waitlists for new patients, .

In 2021, it’s easier than ever to spot the hypocrisy around how we think and talk about eating disorders. Ìęand mainstream outlets like the New York Times continue to spread fatphobic messages, warning against fatness and weight gain. publishes stories about how pandemic anxiety has , while simultaneously running pieces that (both of which are disordered eating behaviors, according to the ). As life settles back into a new kind of normal, we should take the opportunity to broaden our view of who is affected by eating disorders, and learn how to talk about them—and food and bodies in general—in a way that’s helpful without being triggering.

A Worsening Problem

A published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that roughly 7.8 percent of the world’s population will have an eating disorder in their lifetime, more than double the number from just 15 years ago. Another published in Eating Behavior found the prevalence among American women to be even higher, at more than 13 percent. And while there’s not yet a huge amount of data on how the pandemic has affected these numbers, say that they’ve seen a rise in both eating disorders and the severity of disordered behaviors since stay-at-home orders began last March.

This makes sense. a dietitian, registered nurse, and activist who works primarily with BIPOC communities, explains that oftentimes, eating disorders are a coping mechanism. “I treat eating disorders as a trauma response,” she says. Many people who live in marginalized bodies, or who deal with the constant stress and uncertainty of job insecurity, poverty, or abuse, use disordered eating behaviors as a way to feel some sense of control over their bodies and their lives. In a time of such universal uncertainty, it’s no surprise that so many people are turning to unhealthy coping mechanisms like extreme restriction, over-exercise, and bingeing as a way to feel like they’re in control.

Of course, that sense of control is always short-lived. Climber Kai Lightner explains in this șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍűÌępiece that his own eating disorder was born out of a desire to be a more competitive (lighter) athlete, but eventually took a huge physical toll. Champion obstacle course racer Amelia Boone admits that she downplayed her own eating disorder for years, ashamed that, as an athlete known for her grit, she couldn’t get a handle on it herself.

Many people with eating disorders appear healthy and high-functioning. , an eating disorder therapist and senior director of admissions at the in Chicago, explains that many of her patients are at the top of their class, or working a great job. They’re also totally consumed by their disorder, but people don’t notice because they don’t look sick. Or worse, others mistake disordered behaviors for discipline and dedication.

Most People Don’t Look the Part

Too often, we don’t worry about someone’s relationship with food and body unless they’re visibly emaciated, or they’ve lost a significant amount of weight in a short time. But this is a complete misunderstanding of what eating disorders actually look like. Many people think only of anorexia nervosa (extreme food restriction, very low body weight, and disturbed body image) and bulimia nervosa (repeated bingeing and purging, usually through vomiting or overexercise). But eating disorders encompass a much wider range of behaviors, including food restriction and/or obsession without weight loss, extreme picky eating, and binge eating. And only about six percent of people with diagnosed eating disorders fall into the underweight body mass index category, while the rest are classified as normal, overweight, or obese.

There’s also the issue of diversity when it comes to how eating disorders are portrayed. While more high-profile , , and people of color (like Lightner) have started talking about their experience with eating disorders, the vast majority of these stories still come from young white women, like , and . Trotter says that this is a huge problem—BIPOC communities experience similar rates of eating disorders, but because there’s no conversation about it, people are far less likely to seek or admit they need help. Bowling-Waters also adds that eating disorders affect people of all ages, despite the myth that it’s primarily young people at risk.

The worsening of eating disorders during the pandemic is in part due to this limited understanding of what these disorders look like and who they affect. Instagram has policies that from posts about weight loss, but are encouraged to lose their quarantine 15. We celebrate body positivity and acceptance when it’s , but criticize it .

And of course, there’s the fact that most of us have spent far more time than usual on social media in the past 16 months. “You can go on social media whenever you want and stare at ‘perfect’ bodies,” Bowling-Waters says. And when you’re not surrounded by as many real-life bodies, these photoshopped images that display a tiny fraction of the population start to seem normal—which makes some people feel like they have to engage in extreme restriction or other disordered behaviors just to fit in.

It’s Time to Change the Conversation

There isn’t a quick and easy way to prevent eating disorders. But there is so much we can do to reframe the way we think and talk about them. On a large scale, we can end the cultural panic about quarantine (or any other) weight gain. It’s stigmatizing to anyone in a fat body, and it’s triggering for anyone with or at risk of an eating disorder. On an individual level, we can be deliberate about not complimenting weight loss or expressing “concern” over someone’s weight gain. In sports, we can focus on an athlete’s performance and wellbeing instead of obsessing about their weight. And overall, we can stop praising thinness as the end-all, be-all of wellbeing and happiness. We’re talking about a huge cultural shift, and that will take time and work—but if we can pull it off, we can decrease the risk of eating disorders and make help more accessible to those who need it.

The post We Still Don’t Know What an Eating Disorder Looks Like appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

isn’t supposed to be a diet. The app is a weight-loss program, yes, but : “designed by psychologists & scientifically proven to create real, sustainable results,” its marketing copy reads. If you’re sick of dieting, the ads say, Noom is for you. The personalized health-coaching company was founded in 2008 by two engineers, Saeju Jeong and Artem Petakov, and it took off when they released an app in 2016. It promises to teach sustainable health habits and mindful eating, and to improve your relationship with food and your body via an individualized program. For most users, the goal is weight loss.

Clearly, the message is resonating with people. According to , Noom has been downloaded more than 50 million times since its launch five years ago. In May 2021, reported that the company raised an astounding $540 million in Series F funding. (For reference, raised $550 million in the same funding stage in 2018.) It’s safe to say, Noom is huge and it’s going to keep growing.

But behind Noom’s popularity and slick “” marketing, it’s really just another diet. The app is essentially a calorie tracker supplemented by lessons on behavior change and a personal coach who messages you. Many and experts have warned that the way Noom presents itselfÌęis misleading.

Earlier this summer, I signed up for the two-week free trial version of Noom (which then goes on to cost $59 per month or $199 per year). After downloading the app, I filled out an initial survey that asked for basic information like my gender, weight, lifestyle, goals, and food preferences. I input a weight-loss goal of 12 pounds, and it gave me a timeline suggesting when I might realistically meet that goal—about seven weeks. Technically, that’s in line with the one to two pounds per week that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers .

I swiped my way through a welcome that included a few multiple-choice questions, including one that read, “What’s the best way to reach your weight loss goals with Noom?” The correct answer was “Simply believe.” I was also assigned a Noom coach, a woman named Laura, who sent me a message through the app’s chat feature, saying that she was there to provide support and answer questions. Then there were a few swipe-through lessons about Noom’s approach, which is meant to be flexible, intuitive, and motivating.

On day two, I opened the app and saw, at the top of the screen, a calorie goal for the day: 1,200. Given all of Noom’s talk of psychology, behavior change, and not being a diet, I was surprised that it expected me to track my calories at all. But I was more shocked by the drastically low recommendation.

“Our bodies need a bare-minimum amount of calories to keep us alive and keep our heart pumping,” says , an anti-diet dietitian based in the Los Angeles area. That minimum number varies, but the says that most women need between 1,600 and 2,200 calories per day, and most men need between 2,000 and 3,200.

I reached out to Noom as a reporter, asking for clarification on how it calculated my (extremely low) caloric allotment, and a representative told me that Noom bases the recommendation on user information, desired speed of weight loss, and principles from the , a formula grounded in legitimate science and often used by health care professionals to estimate someone’s basal metabolic rate (BMR) and total energy expenditure.

For comparison, I plugged my height, weight, age, and gender into the Harris-Benedict Equation () and got a BMR—the minimum number of calories needed just to function—of 1,486 calories per day—286 more than Noom’s recommendation. Factoring in my activity level, the online calculator added an additional 1,000 calories to my total energy expenditure, the estimated number of calories burned daily when activity is taken into account. Because my body mass index falls in the normal weight category, the no more than a 500-calorie deficit for weight loss—which meant I should be consuming about 2,000 calories per day. That’s 800 calories higher than Noom’s recommendation. (The that even “healthy” weight loss typically plateaus after six months, and most people end up regaining any weight lost.)

I wondered whether Noom’s caloric recommendation was more accurate for others, so I posted about it on social media. Several dozen women messaged me saying that Noom had prescribed them the exact-same caloric goal. Many of them also shared their height, weight, and age—our weights ranged more than 100 pounds, and our ages spanned three decades. It’s hard to fathom how all of us could have legitimately ended up with the same recommendation.

I asked Noom about this, and a representative told me over email that 1,200 is the minimum amount assigned to women. “Many Noom users select the fastest speed of weight loss, which equates to losing approximately two pounds per week,” they said. But you don’t explicitly choose your rate of weight loss up front—the survey takes you through a series of questions and visually shortens your weight loss timeline based on your answers. You can adjust your weight loss speed in settings, but it’s not intuitive, nor is the option foregrounded in the user experience.

“Noom’s calorie budget is not a rigid recommendation but a starting point,” the representative told me. “We’ve been working on the best way to visually represent this philosophy within the platform.”

Noom supplements its calorie tracking with a stoplight-inspired food-categorization system based on caloric density. Calorically dense foods like olive oil, dried fruit, and French fries are red, slightly lighter options like whole-grain bread and grilled chicken breast are yellow, and things like berries, egg whites, and nonfat dairy are green. The app recommends increasing the amount of green foods you eat and limiting red ones. Although it tries to explain that red foods aren’t inherently bad, and acknowledges that a healthy diet includes all three categories, the colors are clearly associated with permission and a lack thereof; from there it isn’t hard to make a leap to thinking of certain foods as good and others as the opposite. , a dietitian and nutrition professor at Messiah University in Pennsylvania, says that thinking about food in such a binary way can be damaging, because it leads to feelings of guilt and shame when someone eats a “bad” food.

Also concerning is Noom’s lack of eating-disorder screening. While a Noom representative told me via email that coaches are trained to be “hypervigilant” and watch for signs that a user is struggling, its initial survey doesn’t ask about eating-disorder history or relationship with food. , a New York–based psychologist, eating-disorder specialist, and author of , has real concerns about this. Many of her eating-disorder clients have tried Noom, thinking it would help their recovery and not realizing that it was in fact a calorie tracker.

“People start the program and find that it’s incredibly triggering,” Conason says. “It goes against everything that the anti-diet movement is about.”

Noom repeatedly points out that it incorporates psychological research to help users lose weight safely and sustainably. The premise of this psychology-based approach is cognitive behavioral therapy, a type of treatment focused on changing people’s thoughts and feelings as a way to change their behaviors. But while , Noom’s application of it looks much different than it would in a clinical setting, where a licensedÌętherapist would administer it in ongoing, one-on-one counseling sessions. On Noom, users read short lessons about behavior change and might get weekly messages of encouragement from their coach.

Even a psychologist likely wouldn’t be able to effectively administer CBT through messages in an app, Conason says. And Noom’s coaches are not licensed therapists—instead, they enroll in Noomiversity, a 75-hour “health and wellness coach training program,” after which they clock 200 hours of coaching experience, a Noom representative told me via email. These coaches sign nondisclosure agreements and thus couldn’t speak to me on the record, but say that each coach is assigned to upward of 350 active Noom users at a time. In comparison, a full caseload for a licensed therapist is typically somewhere between 15 and 30 clients per week.

Like other diets out there, Noom doesn’t lead to long-term weight loss for most people who download the app. In a “learn more” page on the app, Noom cites a statistic that 78 percent of its users lose weight. But that number, which comes from a published in Nature in 2016, is a little misleading, explains Conason. When the authors collected the data, ten million people had downloaded Noom, but the company only pulled data from 36,000 people, because the other 99.6 percent of users quit the app before six months.

There’s not much data to back up long-term weight loss of Noom users, either. Of those 36,000 people, 15,000 were included in a one-year follow-up, less than 0.5 percent of the original sample size, and the data about their experiences is opaque: 38 percent of that small group is missing from the data table, and just 24 percent maintained weight loss for a year.

Despite its popularity and clever marketing, Noom is simply a calorie-counting app with a chat feature and bite-size lessons on eating and weight loss. If you’re set on trying to lose weight—although I’d encourage you to rethink this, as for improved health—there are more sustainable paths out there. Consult a registered dietitian and perhaps a licensed therapist, and come up with a plan that is genuinely individualized to your body, your history, and your goals.

The post Don’t Be Fooled, Noom Is Just Another Diet appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

Olympic athletes: they’re absolutely not just like the rest of us. Most train rigorously throughout the year and compete in high-profile events in the interim between the Games. Their schedules have a serious focus on performance and recovery, which means that they live—and eat—a little differently.

Demanding training schedules call for ample energy and the right nutrients at the right time. The nutritional needs of every sport, and every individual, are different, meaning that each athlete has to figure out a way of eating that supports their own output. We asked five athletes competing in Tokyo inÌęfive different sports to share what they eat on a typical day of training. Then we asked sports dietitians to weigh in on what works about their diets—and what they could do to dial it in even further.

, 21, Weight Lifting

Cummings is a first-time Olympian and four-time Junior World Champion weight lifter. Born and raised in the small town of Beaufort, South Carolina, he still trains at local gyms. At age 11, he became the youngest lifter to ever complete a double-bodyweight clean and jerk (200 pounds). He was also the first weight lifter to win four Junior World Champion titles in a row (2016 to 2019), and he currently holds 23 American records. While Cummings didn’t take home a medal this year, he’s just beginning his Olympic career. He trains five days a week for roughly two hours per day, and each training session focuses on one of the two Olympic lifts: the snatch or the clean and jerk.

Breakfast: A sausage, bacon, ham, and cheese omelet or a sausage, egg, and cheese burrito

Midmorning snack: Granola bar

Lunch: Either salmon and rice with tomatoes, or steak and potatoes with some vegetables

Afternoon/Post-workout: Ascent Protein shake or Ascent recovery water (Cummings is sponsored by )

Dinner: Steak and potatoes or chicken and vegetables, with fruit for dessert

Treats: French fries or cookie-dough ice cream every once in a while

Expert Opinion:

As a weight lifter, Cummings is primarily focused on building strength. There’s plenty of protein in his diet, which is important for muscle repair and growth, but experts say that getting adequate carbs is equally critical. “For optimal recovery, you want carbs to refuel, protein to repair, and electrolytes and water to rehydrate,” says Tony Castillo, a sports dietitian and the owner of in Stuart, Florida. Even strength-based athletes should include carbs in every meal and snack.

, a Pittsburgh-based dietitian who works with female athletes, applauds the fact that Cummings doesn’t avoid foods he loves. “Everyone, whether they are Olympic athletes or not, should enjoy all foods. By occasionally eating less nutritious foods like ice cream and French fries, CJ is creating a healthy relationship with food.”

Morgan Stickney, 24, Paralympic Swimming

At age 15, , raised in Bedford, New Hampshire, was one of the top 20 swimmers in the U.S. and hoped to someday qualify for the Olympics. But after an injury in her left foot, multiple surgeries, and an infection, she underwent a below-the-knee amputation on her left leg in 2018. She began training for the upcoming Paralympics, which begin in late August, as a unilateral amputee after recovery, but she soon felt a pain in her right foot and ultimately had to undergo a second amputation in 2019. Against the odds, she was able to return to the pool months later, and will now compete in the Paralympics as a bilateral amputee. She trains six days a week, and each day includes two pool sessions, clocking in as much as four total hours, and one weight-training session.

Breakfast: Two packets of oatmeal with a banana

During swim practice: Grape-flavored drink

After swim practice, before weight training:ÌęAn RxBar or a Kind bar

Lunch: Protein shake, fruit, two hard-boiled eggs, Chobani Greek yogurt, Kodiak Cake Graham cracker bites

Dinner, after second swim practice: A big plate of vegetables, protein, and carbohydrates

Expert Opinion:

Because Stickney’s training schedule is so intense,ÌęSan Diego–based sports dietitian recommends that she increase both her carb and protein intake. “Morgan is depleting her muscle glycogen—the carbohydrates in her muscles—during her workouts, and she needs more protein to build and maintain her muscles.” Stickney’s amputations decrease her caloric needs slightly, but she’s still an elite athlete with an incredibly demanding training regimen.

Castillo recommends adding an additional protein shake after her swim workout, for quick-absorbing protein leading into her strength workout. He also suggests that she eat an additional snack before bed.

MyKayla Skinner, 24, Gymnastics

, who has been training at the elite level in her home state of Arizona since taking a leave of absence from the University of Utah in 2019, was an alternate at the 2016 Olympic Games. She qualified for one of two American individual spots in Tokyo, completely against the odds—at 24, she’s the oldest U.S. gymnast to compete at the Olympics since 2004, and in the past year, she has contracted COVID, been hospitalized with pneumonia as a result, and dealt with a bone spur in her foot. Despite her impressive showing before the Games, she placed 11th in qualifying rounds and didn’t get the opportunity to compete in the finals. She trains in the gym for over five hours a day, five days a week.

Breakfast: Yogurt topped with strawberries, bananas, and granola

Lunch:ÌęAn acai bowl with protein powder and topped with fruit and granola

Dinner: A baked dish of rice, beans, chicken, and vegetables, topped with guacamole and cheese

Snacks (throughout the day):ÌęA Verb energy bar, fruit leather, Cocoa Pebbles, chocolate milk

Expert Opinion:

Skinner’s diet is high in fast-absorbing carbs, like the cereal and the acai bowl. DeGore says this is a good thing. “Carbohydrates are the most important fuel for athletes, especially for high-intensity sports like gymnastics,” she says. “MyKayla’s performance would suffer without adequate fuel for workouts and competitions.”

Castillo agrees, pointing out that several high-carb snacks throughout the day ensure that her muscle glycogen stores are always topped off.

Hannah Roberts, 19, BMX Freestyle

, who was raised in Michigan but now trains in Raleigh, North Carolina, has been competing in BMX freestyle since 2012. She is the reigning world champion and took home silver in her Olympic debut over the weekend in Tokyo, the first time BMX freestyle has been included in the Games. Roberts says she didn’t think much about nutrition until she was recovering from shoulder surgery in 2018 and realized how much it affected her energy and recovery. Now she eats five times a day to support her training schedule: three to four hours on her bike six days a week, and one to two hours in the gym four days a week.

Breakfast:ÌęA protein pancake, half a cup of berries, three eggs and one cup of scrambled egg whites, and a glass of milk (Roberts is a member of )

Before training:ÌęA glass of milk and a handful of berries

Lunch:ÌęA peanut butter and jelly sandwich, half a glass of milk

After training: Half a glass of milk with a scoop of recovery powder (a mix of protein and vitamins)

Dinner:ÌęA three-ounce steak, three ounces of grilled chicken, mashed potatoes, and a serving of mixed vegetables

Expert Opinion:

Roberts is sponsored by , which obviously gives her incentive to drink milk. But Harpst, Castillo, and DeGore all agree that it is an excellent choice for a pre- or post-workout drink and for performance nutrition in general. “Milk is an effective rehydration aid, providing calcium, phosphorus, B vitamins, potassium, and vitamin D, as well as protein and carbohydrates,” DeGore says, adding that it’s also accessible and affordable.Ìę“It outperforms most recovery drinks.”

Castillo says that PB&J is a favorite among athletes, because it’s portable, easy to eat, and rich in carbohydrates. He says that Roberts is smart to drink milk (a high-quality protein source) alongside it, because peanut butter doesn’t deliver enough protein on its own.

Cat Osterman, 38, Softball

is a pitcher from HoustonÌęwho took home silver this year during her third stint on Team USA. She also won gold at the 2004 Olympic Games and silver in the 2008 Games. She turned to coaching full-time in 2015, but came out of retirement when it was announced that softball would return to the Olympics in 2020 (it was excluded in 2012 and 2016). She trains five to six days a week for between two and six hours a day. Each session includes some form of conditioning, lifting, throwing, and recovery work.

Breakfast: Sweet potato hash with turkey sausage, peppers, onions, and an egg

Lunch:ÌęA salad of arugula, chopped raw vegetables, a few candied pecans, and a creamy dressing, paired with a glass of milk (Osterman is also a member of )

After training:ÌęA smoothie made with frozen fruit and milk

Dinner: Zucchini noodles with a tomato and meat sauce, plus some quinoa thrown in

Expert Opinion:

Osterman’s diet seems to be lower in calories than those of other athletes. But Castillo, who used to be a dietitian with Major League Baseball’s Toronto Blue Jays, thinks that overall it’s likely appropriate for her sport. (Although DeGore points out that, as a pitcher, Osterman can be more active than other players on the field.) Castillo applauds her for including milk in her smoothies and as part of her lunch, since it’s higher in protein than nondairy milks and sports drinks, but recommends adding more protein to dinner as well.

The post What 5 Olympians Eat in a Day of Training appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.

Social media isn’t a great place to find wellness or nutrition advice. The most viral stuff tends to be the most over-the-top and the influencers who create it typically care more about shareability than science. Put bluntly: “Likes and follows do not indicate competence,” says , co-founder of and the sports dietitian for the Kansas City Chiefs.ÌęBut once in a blue moon, a viral nutrition trend is worth trying. Like protein coffee, which recently took TikTok by storm.

#Proffee is pretty simple: it’s a protein shake, made with coffee. And while the idea of a caffeinated smoothie isn’t earth-shattering, it has its merits, particularly if you’re someone who likes to work out in the morning. Here’s what two sports dietitians have to say about it.

How to Make It

There’s no master recipe for #proffee. Scroll through the tag on TikTok and you’ll find thousands of videos. One woman orders a couple of shots of iced Starbucks espresso in a venti cup and then pours a pre-made shake on top. Another uses a vanilla protein shake as “creamer,” and several people blend their own shakes with flavored protein powder, ice, and coffee instead of milk. You get the idea.

Protein coffee is a great way to kill two birds—nutrition and caffeination—with one stone. Let’s get one thing clear, though. “Coffee is not a meal,” says Abby Chan, a sports dietitian and co-owner of Evolve in Flagstaff, Arizona. “And adding protein to coffee still does not make it a meal.”

If you’re relying on protein coffee alone to get you through the morning, Bonci recommends adding carbohydrates by blending in a banana or eating some fruit or cereal alongside your drink. Chan points out that you could add fat with a scoop of nut butter, too.

Protein coffee works well alongside a regular breakfast, particularly if your morning meal contains less than 15 grams of protein. Chan says this is the minimum amount that most people should eat per meal, although there’s no need to hit this target on the nose every time. For reference: two large eggs contain roughly 13 grams of protein, a seven-ounce container of plain Greek yogurt has 20 grams, and a half-cup of rolled oats cooked in a cup of two-percent milk has 13 grams. If you’re already eating protein-rich foods at breakfast, Chan says, there’s not much benefit to adding it to your coffee, although it won’t cause any harm. “Your body can only absorb 25 to 35 grams during a meal,” she says.

Why It Works

Some TikTokers use protein coffee as a pre-workout drink. This makes sense, since caffeine is the main active ingredient in most pre-workout supplements, and a cup of coffee is far cheaper than a scoop of expensive powder. Bonci explains that for many people, consuming caffeine 30 to 60 minutes before a workout can boost endurance and increase focus.Ìę

But it might not work for everybody, and it’s not a magic bullet. șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű columnist Alex Hutchinson previously reported on a looking at caffeine’s effect on performance, published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. The study followed a group of 101 male athletes during 10k cycling time trials, and found that, while caffeine did boost performance on average, the athletes who benefited the most had a specific gene that helps them metabolize caffeine well—and those without that gene actually rode more slowly.Ìę

You likely already know from experience whether caffeine helps, hurts, or doesn’t affect your workouts. If you feel better exercising after coffee, Chan explains that adding protein could have some benefitÌęfor workouts lasting more than 90 minutes. When your glycogen stores are depleted, having amino acids (the building blocks of protein) readily available in your system will prevent your body from breaking down existing muscle to get them. But for shorter workouts, the protein probably won’t serve any purpose beyond helping you hit your nutrient requirements for the day.

Chan stresses that you shouldn’t need caffeine to train. “If you’re relying on caffeine to get through a workout, then you are not ready or recovered enough to be training,” she says.

“At the end of the day, protein coffee is simply a protein shake with caffeine,” Chan says. “It’s not a meal, and it’s not a magical elixir.” Frankly, it’s surprising that something so simple took off on TikTok, a space usually reserved for wellness trends that are either or completely ridiculous (like dipping cucumber slices in stevia as a low-sugar substitute for watermelon). If you like the taste of a coffee protein shake, great! Just don’t drink it in lieu of breakfast.

The post Should You Be Drinking Protein Coffee? appeared first on șÚÁÏłÔčÏÍű Online.