The Outside Blog

Dispatches : Nutrition

The New Rules of Protein

All athletes follow (or at least are aware of) the same nutritional guidelines: drink a protein shake within an hour—at most—after working out. It’s the same token of advice we’ve been hearing for years. But does it still hold true? It may be time for the rules of protein—namely, quality and timing—to be rewritten.

The workout window still stands, but not quite as rigidly as before.

The first two hours after a workout are still the most important, but not just because of protein. “When you exercise, your reserve of protein, carbohydrates, and amino acids are depleted while your hormones—cortisol, testosterone, and growth hormone—spike,” says Richard Kreider, director of the Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab at Texas A&M University. Low nutrient pools and high hormones put your body in the optimal position to synthesize protein and carbs, speeding recovery and encouraging muscle growth, he explains.

But a landmark meta-analysis last year in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition revealed that the window is influenced more by your pre-workout meal than the workout itself. Researchers found that timing your pre- and post-exercise meals to be within three to four hours of one another was more important to muscle growth and recovery than any post-workout window alone.

“Not only does this support that the window is substantially wider than previously believed, but other research has shown that muscle is sensitized to protein intake for at least around 24 hours post-workout,” says study author Brad Schoenfeld, a certified strength and conditioning specialist who directs the Human Performance Lab at CUNY’s Lehman College in New York. “This doesn't mean that there is no benefit to ingesting protein sooner, but you will continue to see benefits of consuming protein long after the workout is finished.”

Whey has long been held as the gold standard. It releases a higher level of amino acids faster than all other proteins, triggering protein synthesis—which turns on the muscle-building effect, explains Jacob Wilson, a certified strength and conditioning specialist and director of the Human Performance and Sports Nutrition Lab at the University of Tampa.

But other sources are making strong cases for recognition. A new study from University of Texas Medical Branch found that a blend of soy, casein, and whey prolongs the delivery of nutrients after a workout, enhancing muscle recovery and growth better than whey alone can. And a 2013 study in Nutrition Journal found that rice protein was just as effective as whey in trimming fat and increasing lean body mass, muscle mass, strength, and power.

There may be merit to these results—but the research is still in its infancy, whereas the benefits of whey are long-established, amplifies Wilson. As for protein powders themselves, their main advantage over whole food is unarguably one of convenience. Time constraints shouldn’t mean you’re not going to get proper protein and carbohydrates throughout the day, and shakes offer a solution, offers Kreider.

Except for their isolates, protein powders are, in essence, derived from whole foods, adds David Grotto, a registered dietitian and author of The Best Things You Can Eat. That said, on a diet of shakes, you’ll miss out on other nutrients—like fiber and iron—that are found only in whole foods and that might be critically important to the body and even to aiding recovery, he explains. 

The bottom line? The advice for optimal protein quality and timing is, in fact, a mix of old and new thinking. Post-workout protein and daily protein need to be working hand in hand, says Kreider. And, as far as what to eat, stick to a fast-digesting protein shake after a workout and high-quality whole-food proteins—like lean chicken, eggs, Greek yogurt, soy milk—with every meal and, in smaller amounts, with every snack, recommends Grotto.

Read More

Wine's Health Benefits Greatly Exaggerated

Red wine and chocolate might not be as good for us as we were hoping.

Though people often use the purported health benefits of antioxidants in grapes, chocolate, and red wine as an excuse to indulge, a recent study has found that the antioxidant resveratrol has no association with cancer and inflammation, the incidence of cardiovascular disease, or longevity. 

“Studies using mice and cell cultures suggested that resveratrol might be protective for health and extend lifespan,” says Dr. Richard Semba of Johns Hopkins University, the lead researcher on the study. “The idea that higher resveratrol levels are protective against heart disease and cancer, and might make people live longer had never seriously been examined in humans until we did our study.”

For years, the so-called “French Paradox”—a diet high in cholesterol and saturated fat, yet a low incidence of coronary heart disease—has been chalked up to regular glasses of red wine, and resveratrol specifically. To test out the theory, Semba and his team conducted the Aging in the Chianti Region study from 1998 to 2009. They studied 783 men and women 65 years and older from two Italian villages to determine what effects resveratrol might have on inflammation, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death.

Over the course of the nine-year study, 286 participants—more than one third—died. More than 27 percent of those who started the study without cardiovascular disease developed it, and four percent of those who started the study without cancer had it by the study’s end. Resveratrol had no correlation with cancer rates, inflammation, cardiovascular disease or death. It’s possible that instead, the French Paradox may be attributed to higher levels of exercise, Semba says. 

In the meantime, the news doesn’t mean you have to avoid red wine. Studies have found that a glass or two of red wine “can provide some protection against heart disease,” he says. “People should not be discouraged from having a glass of wine with a meal, as it can make the meal more enjoyable. Wine is a very complex beverage. Resveratrol is only one of the few dozen polyphenols in wine.”

Read More

Milk Ban: How Seemingly Dumb Nutritional Legislation Gets Proposed

In late April, news broke that Connecticut lawmakers proposed a bill that would ban day care centers from serving 2-percent and whole milk to kids older than two. The media was quick to point out that the ban is “sheer lunacy” and “based on an incredibly faulty understanding of nutrition.” That last part is right, and I’ll get to that in a second. But rather than say the lawmakers behind this bill are lunatics, I’ll call them Colberts. 

Stephen Colbert’s character on "The Colbert Report" is eager, but terribly misinformed. That’s what appears to be going on with milk ban bill sponsors, Democratic Reps. David Zoni, Roberta Willis, and state Senator Catherine Osten. The three are up for re-election this year and as Gary Rose, chairman of the Government and Politics department at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conecticuit told Connecticut magazine, “We’re going to see lawmakers announcing more legislative initiatives to let their constituents know they are trying.”

Fighting childhood obesity is a popular and laudable platform that, one would assume, would go over well with constituents. In fact, childhood obesity ranked as the number-one health concern amongst Connecticut parents in 2012. That’s where the eagerness comes in; these lawmakers likely wanted to do the right thing while winning votes. Unfortunately, the misinformation that led to milkbangate came from their own experts, who were meant to guide Connecticut’s newly established (as of 2013) childhood obesity task force.

In a presentation on March 27, John Bailey, the State Director of Government Relation for the American Heart Association gave a presentation to the task force, explaining their joint mission is to build healthier lives “free of cardiovascular disease and stroke.”

In the presentation, he explained that one-third of Connecticut kindergarten and third-grade students are overweight or obese, which could lead to health issues including asthma and type 2 diabetes when they’re older. One of the main standards he recommended promoting: low-fat and fat-free dairy products.

Where did Bailey get the idea that full-fat dairy products contribute to childhood obesity? From the American Academy of Pediatrics, which recommends low-fat milk and milk products for all individuals aged 2 years and over to “obtain the nutritional benefits of milk while limiting caloric and fat intake.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists the benefit as “achieving optimal lifetime bone health.”

In this case, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics are to blame for milk misinformation. As one researcher wrote in a 2005 study, “available evidence does not support nutrition guidelines focused specifically on increasing milk or other dairy product intake for promoting child and adolescent bone mineralization.”

And as NPR reported last year, several studies have “linked fattier milk to slimmer kids,” possibly because “whole milk gives us a greater sense of satiety.” In other words, kids feel fuller longer which keeps them from noshing on extra calories later in the day. 

In the end, the Milk Ban proposal isn’t just a question of faulty science, or even local government, but national politics. Food associations have contributed to the American Academy of Pediatrics in the past, and dairy lobbying is the likely reason why the CDC hasn’t updated its milk-drinking recommendations. However recent studies touting whole milk’s benefits should have lobbyists fighting to change the AAP’s recommendations so more parents and daycares will buy all types of milk for their kids—if Connecticut lets them. 

Read More

Your Food Is Poisoning You

There’s a scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind where the Air Force subjects Richard Dreyfus and his fellow Third Encounterers to the media. The press conference is actually going pretty well, the media seem to be on the verge of believing these people—until one of them, a bearded old hermit type (Roberts Blossom) launches into a speech about how he once saw Bigfoot. Credibility: shot.

Such is the case, too, with people who’ve been trying to link celiac disease (and other ills) with the use of the herbicide glyphosate. Despite having long been treated like Bigfoot believers by their opponents, their research is now gaining widespread attention. More importantly, there's a growing sense that the science has reached a tipping point: Glyphosate cannot be recognized as harmless.

“I'm always suspicious of these consensuses on [the safety of] agriculture chemicals—they almost always fall apart over time, and that may be happening with glyphosate,” says author and food activist Michael Pollan.

Introduced by Monsanto in the early 1970s under the trade name Roundup (and used primarily back then as a weed killer), glyphosate is now used throughout the world on wheat and soy crops and since 2007 it has been the most widely used herbicide in the U.S.—and the growing target of research linking it to a variety of illnesses.

“Since Monsanto first introduced Roundup into crops in 1974, there’s been a rise in autism and other diseases,” says Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and co-author, with Anthony Samsel, a retired environmental scientist, of the recent review claiming that Roundup leads to celiac disease . “I’m certain at this point that glyphosate is the most important factor in an alarming number of epidemic diseases.” Diseases ranging from autism, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes to pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease and—wait for it—the ongoing collapse of bee colonies.

But where then, beyond the work of Seneff and Samsel, is the proof? Well, there isn’t much hard evidence (only two long-term studies on the health effects of the chemical have been conducted). And for a complicated set of reasons. For one, historically, people who’ve challenged the biotech industry have been systematically discredited, says Pollan, "as we learned recently about Tyrone Hayes, the UC Berkeley herpetologist who ran afoul of Syngenta." Also, there’s the just-as-hard-to-prove theory that no one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

“Some of our scientists are the ones who are the most difficult—and the biggest impediment to better research—because they’re funding is dependent on the very same agrichemical companies like Monsanto that are producing Roundup,” says Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University (who for years consulted with Monsanto scientists). "They’re not about to go in a different direction from the people who’ve been funding them."

{%{"quote":"There are “absolutely potential adverse health effects from glyphosate,” says Hansen. But the strongest data is in cases of birth defects and non-Hodgkins lymphoma."}%}

Others agree. Many of them levelheaded, despite coming off like Oliver Stone. “Monsanto and these other companies are doing an exceptionally good job at blocking all information and data on the subject from public discourse,” stresses Dave Schubert, professor and head of the Salk Institute’s Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory.

“There is indeed an enormous amount of published data showing that Roundup is very nasty stuff, particularly at the levels currently being used (ten times more than before genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops) and the extent of human exposure in food—a greatly allowed increase by the EPA to reflect increased use.”

Not everyone, however, is so convinced—though many are still intrigued by a possible link. “Samsel and Seneff have produced a series of plausible hypotheses,” says Sheldon Krimsky, chairman of the Council for Responsible Genetics and Professor of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts University. “But that is all they are: hypotheses.”

Indeed, Krimsky himself, as sober as he remains in his reception to Samsel and Seneff’s study, cites a chapter from Earth Open Source’s 2012 paper, “GMO Myths and Truths,” in which, among many other things, glyphosate is called “toxic,” Roundup’s marketing campaign as a “safe” herbicide is “based on outdated and largely unpublished studies by manufacturers,” glyphosate’s acceptable daily intake level in the U.S. and Europe is “inaccurate and potentially dangerously high,” and “the added ingredients (adjuvants) in Roundup are themselves toxic and increase the toxicity of glyphosate by enabling it to penetrate human and animal cells more easily.”

If Bigfoot’s still a bit fuzzy, consider these words from Dr. Alessio Fasano, founder of Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Celiac Research, in a 2011 interview with the gluten-free website “Gluten and autism, gluten and schizophrenia—is there a link or not?” he asked rhetorically.“I have a hard time believing that gluten has absolutely nothing to do with these behaviors.”

Many, though, do. “There is no link between Roundup and celiac,” says Dr. Stefano Guandalini, founder and medical director of the University of Chicago’s Celiac Disease Center, in response to Samsel and Seneff’s review. “The whole story is preposterous and finds a cause/effect relationship when there is none.”

Other critics have been harsher, while supporters embrace the review as evidence of what’s been plaguing them and/or their children. Already an emotional issue, celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder of the small intestine that affects upwards of 3 million people in the U.S. alone. It is triggered by gluten, the protein in wheat, barley, and rye. As yet there is no cure.

Linking celiac disease to glyphosate also stems on the belief (and a growing body of scientific literature that seems to back it up) that glyphosate, and aminomethylphosphonic acid, or AMPA, the compound glyphosate breaks down into as it decays, affects the balance of our gut microbials. These changes to our bacteria can then lead to disease, obesity, autoimmune deficiencies—and maybe even the bee-colony collapse.

“You have this very broad, extremely powerful broad-spectrum chelator that causes a tremendous level of dysbiosis,” says Dr. Huber. “When you disrupt your intestinal microflora, you’re not a happy individual.” Or healthy.

Part of the reason it’s so easy to castigate Samsel and Seneff (and others like them) with the bigfoot brush is that, as they admit, many of their observations are anecdotal and their research is based on making correlations. Seneff graphed Roundup and its use in corn and soy and the rise of celiac disease (and other autoimmune disorders) and came up with A + B = C.

“People have been trained to dismiss these types of correlations, but they’re there,” asserts Seneff, a senior research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. “The data are there. You just have to connect the dots.” And the picture she has painted—glyphosate leading to celiac disease and a plethora of other maladies and autoimmune diseases—is far from pretty.

(Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist with Consumers Union, denied that the dots match up so well. “If you don’t understand biology, you’d go, Wow! They match up perfectly. If you do understand biology, those graphs don’t show anything. They’re nonsense.”)

“They looked at the biochemical impact of glyphosate relative to the biochemical impact of various diseases and found a perfect fit—they didn’t have any problem connecting the biochemical dots,” explains Dr. Huber, who warns that our “wake-up call” is just around the corner.

In the meantime, while Samsel and Seneff’s review may not yet be fully accepted, their work, and others’, should lead to better, more convincing studies, something both Dr. Huber and Krimsky agreed is worth pursuing. And Hansen, who’s still leery of embracing any link to celiac disease, notes that there are “absolutely potential adverse health effects from glyphosate,” but that the strongest data is in cases of birth defects and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

"There are growing suspicions that this supposed non-toxic pesticide is more toxic than we realized. Especially when used with the 'inert ingredients' it comes with—surfactants that help the chemical force its way into plant tissues," says Pollan. "There are also reports on illness around the big round-up soy fields in Brazil and Argentina. To me it seems like a lot of smoke and I wouldn’t be surprised to find fire.”

Until then, voices in the wilderness like Samsel and Seneff and Dr. Huber will continue to proselytize about the evils of their personal Bigfoot, and hope to prove Pollan right, and vindicate their theories. “The proof isn’t there,” says Seneff, “but the innuendo is.”

Read More

Free Newsletters

Dispatch This week's featured articles, reviews, and videos. Sent twice weekly.
News From the Field The most important breaking news from around the Web. Sent daily.
Outside GOOur hottest adventure-travel tips and trips. Sent occasionally.
Outside Partners Outside-approved deals and special offers from select partners. Sent occasionally.

to Outside
Save Over

Magazine Cover

iPad Outside+ App Access Now Included!







Previous Posts




Blog Roll

Current Issue Outside Magazine

Subscribe and get a great deal! Two free Buyer's Guides plus a free GoLite Sport Bottle. Monthly delivery of Outside—your ultimate resource for today's active lifestyle. All that and big savings!

Free Newsletters

Dispatch This week's featured articles, reviews, and videos. Sent twice weekly.
News From the Field The most important breaking news from around the Web. Sent daily.
Gear of the Day The latest products, reviews, and editors' picks. Coming soon.
Outside Partners Outside-approved deals and special offers from select partners. Sent occasionally.

Ask a Question

Our gear experts await your outdoor-gear-related questions. Go ahead, ask them anything.

* We might edit your question for length or clarity. If it's not about gear, we'll just ignore it.