Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Hunting season workouts - strength vs cardio?

Been following the Fitness thread and decided to start my own on a topical area instead of posting on the other thread even though they are somewhat related.

I'm 51 and have lifted since my late teens. Lets just say I didn't start out as Arnold junior. I was fairly scrawny but discovered weights and protein while in college and never looked back. As such cardio has always been a weakness I never cared to work on beyond normal fitness. Once I started seriously elk hunting about 10-12 years ago, I discovered that one needs a good deal of cardio to wander long distances in the Rocky's at high elevation. I started doing much more cardio and am able to wander at will. I also started killing a few elk way back in which requires another level of fitness to get them out. Horses are wonderful but are not always available. Carrying elk quarters 2-3-4 miles plain sucks.

Long winded introduction to the topic at hand - what is the proper mix of cardio and strength training? You need both if you plan on Rocky mtn elk hunting and being successful. Or more cash than I care to lay out for an outfitted hunt. I'm not much on outfitted hunts because A. I like doing things on my own, B. I'm too cheap.

This year I've spent more time and effort doing cardio. Hell I even went on a low carb diet just for giggles to see what would happen. The only blood issue to address is my ratio between LDL/HDL cholesterol. Total levels are low but I have a tad too low HDL, ratio is still in the 'normal' range but I'm trying to raise it. My doctor said try a low carb diet - 100 grams total/day. So I tried it about 7-8 weeks ago as well.

Discovered a couple things. First, you will lose weight on a low carb diet, mainly because anything with any flavor also has carbs. Everything sucks so you eat less of it trying to get your body to switch from utilizing carbs to using fat as its main energy molecule. It seems to work. I lost 12-14 pounds without really wanting or needing to. I do have more than 1 ab now.

Second, low carb diets kill strength training. I've always been fairly strong and can hold my own in % body weight lifted in the various barbell exercises. I can multi rep 250 in squat and bench, 135 seated military, etc. Enter low carb diet. Its been a struggle to keep my normal weights, sets, reps. In fact, I started to go backwards.

So I'm pondering what is the correct ratio of strength training to cardio. I currently do 2 days full body strength training using 2-3 working sets for the main body parts, 1-2 sets for smaller muscle groups. I also jog 3 miles in 30 minutes twice per week. I hike 7-10 miles one day on the weekend. I find that doing cardio or strength training on back to back days is very difficult to maintain. I'm currently letting my body tell me when to workout. Every other day with 1 back-back day per week seems to be working. Plus my weekend hike. My strength is recovering and my cardio is staying consistent.

What are your thoughts as far as a mix of cardio to strength training?

Just join a Crossfit gym if that is an option. Once you nail the basics of that down, you'll "own" it for the rest of your life. It truly is a "physical education".

Having said that, I am of the opinion that a backpack hunter is most likely better served by a program that incorporates "periodization".

Stew Smith (How to Train like a Navy SEAL) gets folks in condition for a living, and his program is to mostly lift starting around the first of the year, using template that looks a lot like Mark Rippetoe's "Starting Strength". Most folks plateau on that program in a couple months, try to maintain that strength level and start doing Crossfit and some runs. Learn POSE/barefoot running form. Get the form nailed down, then start doing 400/800m repeats. The form is easier to learn if you start running fast first. Taper the Crossfit back and ramp up the distance on the runs up until hunting season. You are trying to maintain strength/GPP while ramping up cardiorespiratory endurance.

Do what you can when you aren't hunting. First of the year, start over. Also, you can't outrun/lift schidt for food. Paleo/Zone is optimal, the Zone Diet is a non-negotiable. Learn and implement it.

I'd wager a tidy sum that Crossfit's "neuroendocrine response" will raise your HDL at least ten points.

The crossfit, wt. training, running etc is necessary for both conditioning, strength and injury prevention, but some of your training needs to be what you do when you hunt and that means packing heavy loads. So start increasing the wt. of your pack load during your weekend hikes.

Yeah, I forgot to add that towards the end of summer start swapping runs for ruck marches. The US Army Rangers used to do one longish ruck march each week, they decided that was enough with their other PT. Guys getting ready for SFAS typically ruck march 3-days/wk. Definetely no more than that. Two middle distance and maybe one longish ruck each week, max.

Sounds like you have a pretty good program, more than what 90% of people do. 2-3 cardio sessions a week is about right IMO, at least it works for me. A few different trainers have advised me to mix in high intensity intervals and I believe they help. According to the trainers, intervals are much better for you than a steady pace. The same trainers have all advised me to focus more on core muscles than I have been, and that's been great advice too. Along with different stretches to stay loose.

Edited to add: What I've read about high-intensity intervals says they boost cardio faster than a steady pace. My personal theory is, they also train your muscles to get rid of lactic acid quickly, because you're cycling in and out of the anaerobic zone.

An Ak guide I had could really move in the mountains while carrying a load. Little guy like me, but obviously younger and an Army Ranger in a previous life. Tough he was. I asked him if he encountered any hunters that could hang with him and he said only one and he was a marathon runner. FWIW

He eventually blew out a knee from numerous strenuous hunts with a heavy pack.

Some of the workouts guys post here are knee intensive. I'm not one to tell another what kind of workout they should be doing, but If I was younger and had what hopefully would be years of hunts ahead of me, I would be looking at workouts that didn't maximally stress the knees or shoulder joints. Workouts, cardio and a diet that tended towards developing a leaner body structure. More towards reps vs max when it came to the weights.

Everyone has given you good advice. One more thing is don't be afraid to eat some "bad" carbs right after your workout. Bad meaning sweet potatoes or steel cut oats or something like that. Also you didn't say how much fat you are eating but for me, I eat 3-4 times the amount of an "average" Zoner. If you workout hard you need adequate fat and carbs for recovery. I think that may be why are noticing a strength loss. Sounds like you have a good handle on things but just need to tweak it.

Read an article on "Fat is Fuel" the other day. Some points�.

"Fat as Fuel" from a GNC article by Jeff S.Volek, PHD

No GNC products were advertised in the article. Which eliminates Corporate bias.


"Low carb and higher fat diets will induce an acceleration of ketone production. When this occurs the body will adapt to using fats as fuel."

"Fats are more plentiful. The body has around 500-2500 Kcal of carbs which are enough to last one day. While the body has approx around 40,000 kcal of fat. However, it can't be used unless they have been on low carbs for a couple of weeks."

"Eating carbs locks and athlete into a dependence on carbs until the body adapts to burning fat for fuel."

" Fat contains twice a many Kcal than carbs to be used for energy"

"Burning fat in place of carbs generates less lactic acid."

"Burning fat will result in the loss of body fat which means a greater percentage of muscle mass and an improved power-to-weight ratio."

"A low carb diet has been shown to improve insulin sensitivity."

Something to think about and perhaps some of the old rules are being re-evaluated.

Post workout is the one time I was advised to go ahead and have sugary drinks or snacks, along with 40 grams of whey protein. The sugar goes directly into the muscles and helps with recovery, as does the protein, and a little glutamine. I mix up a shake with OJ, whey protein, and glutamine for post workout.

Everyone has their own definition of "bad" carbs, but I don't consider sweet potatoes to be in that category, or whole oats for that matter. Unless you're cutting weight and fat for some sort of competition.

Another article and the roll of fats for endurance athletes. Portions of it complement the GNC article.

http://www.ultrarunning.com/features/fats-in-the-endurance-world/

The Zone Rx for fat is 30% of calories from healthy fats. You consume 90-120% of your calories from fats? Please enlighten me.

Thanks for all the links and thoughts.

A couple of observations on my end. I increased the percentage of both fat and protein in my diet. I also bumped up the carbs a bit - I eat 100-150 grams per day. I quit eating simple carbs and starches a long time ago - white bread/pasta, sugar drinks, candy, sweets, etc. I still can't resist my wife's apple pie with vanilla ice cream............

I think the combination of increasing the ratio of fat/protein, a few extra carbs, and allowing recovery between workouts is working better at keeping strength and endurance. When I was in my 20's and 30's, I used to work out 5-6 days a week. At 51, can't do it - I need more recovery time.

In a couple of weeks, I'll switch to 2 longish hikes with more weight over the jogs. I have a trail close to my house that I call my workout hike. It is shade over 3 miles and climbs 1700 feet, mostly over the last 1.5 miles. My goal is always to do it without stopping - I'm only successful about 50% of the time. It is tough with a pack on. This hike simulates most of my elk hunts. I usually hunt 2-3 miles off the road and end up climbing 10-1500 vertical feet. When hunting I plan on at least 2 hours to do a hike like that. Training I do my training hike in less than 1.5 hrs.

I leave for elk camp in 8 weeks. Can't wait............

I've seen most of these facts before and was confirmed by my doctor. He's a great doc and took the time to explain the fat vs carb metabolic process. I did a bit of follow on the interweb and it makes sense. Thanks for doing a good summary and posting.

I'm far from the model of fitness, but one thing I think is going to help me this fall is that often my "cardio" is with weights! It's amazing how out of breath and high the heart rate can get in a short amount of time doing things like thrusters or wall balls. Where I think that is going to help me is I can recover much faster than I could before. I'm hoping that helps me this fall.

Ditto on the above. I'm not into "workouts" counting carbs, protein, etc etc. and if I had to spend time in a gym to be fit to hunt I'd put a bullet in my head and quit hunting...in that order.
Having said that, different strokes for different folks applies. The only advice I feel qualified to give is in the quote above.
You pound those joints you WILL LIKELY pay for it sometime after age 50, I don't care what kind of "shape" you're in.

Take care of your joints, you have no spares.

True, without a doubt. I always feel better after I take a couple days off, can lift more, more reps, etc.

I've gone to a three-day cycle with cardio one day, lower body/core the next, then upper body. Gives the muscles a chance to recover between workouts.

Not going to a gym (your garage or someone else's gym) isn't "taking care of your joints". That is called "neglect".

"The greatest danger from Crossfit movements, is from not doing them." Greg Glassman

This. Moving heavy stuff, with a high heart rate, ain't what most folks do.

I do light upper body to keep my arms, shoulders, and chest strong, but I really focus on legs. I'm a bigger guy, and my legs get tired very quickly with anything resembling an incline.

I don't do many dead lifts with more then 225#, as every time I do I slip my hip out of place and can hardly walk for several days. That usually happens with weight over 315#, but happened last week with 275... I'm starting to get my mobility back.

I also don't focus on max weight on any lift. I focus on a weight that challenges me, but that I can do 10 times for 3 sets.

For example...

Bench, Ill do sets of 215, 220 and 235.

Squat, 245, 255, 275 (usually 10, 8 , 6 on squat)

Military press (bad shoulders, so really light) 95, 105, 110.

That main component which, I am really bad about exercising is the core. Leg lifts, sit ups, butterfly kicks etc.

I do like to do at least some cardio every day. Only about 10 minutes on leg days, 20 minutes on upper body days, and about once a week I will do strictly cardio. On those days, I usually run for 15 minutes, bike for 15 minutes, and do either the stair stepper or elliptical for 10 minutes.

Take a knee, on the zone a fat block is 3-4 almonds for example, so 4 blocks would be 12-16 almonds. I will eat at least double that amount of almonds plus olive oil my meat is cooked plus the fat in the meat (if its red meat) plus some grass fed butter on say a sweet potatoes. So to me that is at least 3-4 times the fat blocks they reccomend is it not?

Think you missed the point.

At 32 I have to strongly agree with snubbie about the joint care. I am a blue collar tradesman that enjoys what I do but have a physical job and am on my feet all day.I joined a crossfit gym with my wife for 3 months and neither of us wants to return. We are perfectly happy to follow a linear gains routine and then incorporate some conditioning work. We are both feeling stronger and healthier as opposed to feeling weaker, tired and rundown when we did crossfit. I am not saying crossfit sucks but for us we don't feel that it is sustainable in the long run.

Warren

fuzzy - I tend to agree with you on crossfit. Several local gyms have it around my town. The routine is 5 days per week for 30-60 minutes. I tried one that did heavy squats for 5 straight days, followed by a 440 run. I don't care how old you are, the body was not made for that kind of abuse.

I feel the same way about Mark Rippetoe's 5x5 workout. I did the Rippetoe workout for about 6-8 months religiosuly. A. it works for building strength, B. it is not sustainable past the age of 35 or so. I have a bump on my kneecap where the patellar tendon attaches. It is scar tissue and appeared during my Rippetoe workouts. I think a cycle or two of Rippetoe is a good idea but as a long term adventure, not so much. I've always been prone to over-use injuries and after working out for 30 years, have figured out what works, what doesn't, and what is painful.

Someone on here mentioned a cycle that is basically what I've been doing for the past 2-3 years - concentrate on strength training early in the year with some cardio, move into equal balance of strength and cardio in spring summer, then into weighted pack hikes with strength training in late summer/fall. I think this type of training for me is optimum because it keeps me from over-use nagging injuries, provides some variety, and is a good blend of strength and cardio. I think Rippetoe and crossfit fit into that equation, I just don't see either as a year around event.

Ah,yes, more junk science about diet.
For example, "Low carb and higher fat diet will accelerate ketone production.' ?!? "When this occurs the body will adapt to using fats as fuel."
Not really. The body burns glucose from carbs and fats all the time. The exception is when the body is short of oxygen.
More. "However, it (fats) can't be used unless they have been on low carbs for a couple of weeks." Dead wrong. The consumption of fats slows down when the body's blood sugar level is reduced.
Another. "Burning fat in place place of carbs generates less lactic acid." Not possibe. The nervous system runs on glucose, for instance, not fats. Latic acid is generated by converting proteins to glucose, however. And that happens when one's blood sugar gets too low from lack of carbs.
I sure hope you aren't paying money for this junk science. None of this has been proven in accredited studies. E

You mean, as opposed to all the accredited studies you cite in your posts?

Diet and rest plan?

Also, not all Crossfit gym owners are created equal. Some of their programming is a pale imitation of the main page workout. Pointer's posted workouts sometimes cause me to shake my head.

Fugg a bunch of studies. How 'bout results?

E, I really don't care what you believe but I don't want your views to influence people reading this that don't know better. Your drivel that totes the govt. Food pyramid is utter bullshit. The govt. First of all doesn't want anyone healthy and second of all wants you eating grain because they fund it. Take 100 people in their thirties or older. Have a group that eats Paleoish/Zoneish and another who eats from the "pyramid." Look at their blood work (and I don't mean the bull [bleep] from the docs of in range but optimum figures), look at what their bodies look like and asses their work out put abilities over a few tasks. Then come back and tell me who is healthier, fitter and able to do more work. I can take an obese person who is diabetic or prediabetic and make them fit with good labs in a short amount of time if they eat the way many of us are stating. Add to that a work out regimine of lifting heavy [bleep], sprinting, jumping, body weight tasks, some distance work and rucking and you will have a healthy, fit individual who can perform a variety of tasks and recover quickly.

As for crossfit workouts, as was stated above, not all the boxes are equal. Some are good some not so good. I'm 46 and follow crossfit football programming. I veg stronger, feel good and am not overtraining. I do listen to my body though and work around how I may feel and a past shoulder injury.

+1

My best buddy is a medical doctor. My personal doctor is a friend of his. My gastro doc knows the other two well. As an added bonus, they all hunt out west and know what it takes to hunt well at altitude.

It won't come as much of a shock but I discussed my blood chemistry, workouts, and goals with all three at different times over a month period when I was figuring this out. Suffice to say all three more or less agree with what Battue wrote.

Keeping carbs to ~ 100-125 grams total per day, I've lost 15 lbs, only take my Prilosec once per day (versus twice for the past 5 years), and have retained most of my strength and increased my cardio workouts. I'll post my blood chemistry when I get it taken again. In the mean time, my heartrate is 56-58 beats per minute, BP is low 100's over low seventy's. There is something to eating low carb.

As an aside, my gastro guy put it very succinct - forget everything you think you know about eating. Throw out the food pyramid, and eat low carb, increase ratio of fats and protein. Lift heavy things and hike/jog/walk alot.

Bears repeating. The Zone isn't really "low-carb" though as you still get 40% of your calories from carbs. That is markedly less than the average American eats though. Grains should be avoided if you are trying to loose weight, and minimized if you are at an optimal weight. Wheat is likely the worst grain for most folks. Rice is probably the best.

Where E falls down is that he read something once and either didn't read the entire article or he forgot what he didn't want to remember.

Had to go back and dig into some studies on metabolism. While digging this quick discussion popped up. This is Kreps cycle stuff and there are dang few who understand it completely.

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/sportsnutrition/a/Energy_Pathways.htm

Hunting last time I looked was essentially an aerobic endurance activity and thus fat plays the roll of the primary energy source. Fat wins the long race.


E also said lactic acid is produced when the body runs out of carbs. Wrong, lactic acid it produced when the body runs low on oxygen.

Another article relating to the aerobic and anaerobic metabolic pathways.

Why does lactic acid build up in muscles? And why does it cause soreness?
Jan 23, 2006
Stephen M. Roth, a professor in the department of kinesiology at the University of Maryland, explains.
As our bodies perform strenuous exercise, we begin to breathe faster as we attempt to shuttle more oxygen to our working muscles. The body prefers to generate most of its energy using aerobic methods, meaning with oxygen. Some circumstances, however, --such as evading the historical saber tooth tiger or lifting heavy weights--require energy production faster than our bodies can adequately deliver oxygen. In those cases, the working muscles generate energy anaerobically. This energy comes from glucose through a process called glycolysis, in which glucose is broken down or metabolized into a substance called pyruvate through a series of steps. When the body has plenty of oxygen, pyruvate is shuttled to an aerobic pathway to be further broken down for more energy. But when oxygen is limited, the body temporarily converts pyruvate into a substance called lactate, which allows glucose breakdown--and thus energy production--to continue. The working muscle cells can continue this type of anaerobic energy production at high rates for one to three minutes, during which time lactate can accumulate to high levels.

A side effect of high lactate levels is an increase in the acidity of the muscle cells, along with disruptions of other metabolites. The same metabolic pathways that permit the breakdown of glucose to energy perform poorly in this acidic environment. On the surface, it seems counterproductive that a working muscle would produce something that would slow its capacity for more work. In reality, this is a natural defense mechanism for the body; it prevents permanent damage during extreme exertion by slowing the key systems needed to maintain muscle contraction. Once the body slows down, oxygen becomes available and lactate reverts back to pyruvate, allowing continued aerobic metabolism and energy for the body�s recovery from the strenuous event.


Addition: E may be a carb addict and seldom gives his body the chance to run on fat and thus thinks the way he does. Most of Americans today probably are addicted to the ups and downs of relying primarily on carbs for fuel. Carbs certainly play an important roll and I don't think carbs can be blamed for the obesity problem we have today. The problem is most don't move enough nor have control of the calories they consume.

There is much to dislike about the reality survival TV programs. However one thing to observe, is the amount of red meat and fats those who can stay out and keep going consume.

Well actually Battue, current thought is lactic acid has little to do with muscle soreness. It is the leakage of calcium from the muscle's "trigger", IE the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Calcium is the primary intracellular ion that allows muscles to contract. It has to be pumped via active transport back into the cells to allow the next contraction to occur. That is why most of us can't do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqnF7j9coes

There is no substitute for repeatedly picking up heavy stuff at a high heart rate.

I left out a portion of that article and it agrees with what you mentioned with regard soreness, although it didn't specifically mention Calcium. However, calcium is essential for certain metabolic processes. Lactic acid is a trigger-the burning sensation-that tries to prevent us from damaging a muscle to the point that repair can only occur over a long period of time and not just a couple days.

The rest of the story:


"Contrary to popular opinion, lactate or, as it is often called, lactic acid buildup is not responsible for the muscle soreness felt in the days following strenuous exercise. Rather, the production of lactate and other metabolites during extreme exertion results in the burning sensation often felt in active muscles, though which exact metabolites are involved remains unclear. This often painful sensation also gets us to stop overworking the body, thus forcing a recovery period in which the body clears the lactate and other metabolites.

Researchers who have examined lactate levels right after exercise found little correlation with the level of muscle soreness felt a few days later. This delayed-onset muscle soreness, or DOMS as it is called by exercise physiologists, is characterized by sometimes severe muscle tenderness as well as loss of strength and range of motion, usually reaching a peak 24 to 72 hours after the extreme exercise event.

Though the precise cause of DOMS is still unknown, most research points to actual muscle cell damage and an elevated release of various metabolites into the tissue surrounding the muscle cells. These responses to extreme exercise result in an inflammatory-repair response, leading to swelling and soreness that peaks a day or two after the event and resolves a few days later, depending on the severity of the damage. In fact, the type of muscle contraction appears to be a key factor in the development of DOMS. When a muscle lengthens against a load--imagine your flexed arms attempting to catch a thousand pound weight--the muscle contraction is said to be eccentric. In other words, the muscle is actively contracting, attempting to shorten its length, but it is failing. These eccentric contractions have been shown to result in more muscle cell damage than is seen with typical concentric contractions, in which a muscle successfully shortens during contraction against a load. Thus, exercises that involve many eccentric contractions, such as downhill running, will result in the most severe DOMS, even without any noticeable burning sensations in the muscles during the event."

Given that delayed-onset muscle soreness in response to extreme exercise is so common, exercise physiologists are actively researching the potential role for anti-inflammatory drugs and other supplements in the prevention and treatment of such muscle soreness, but no conclusive recommendations are currently available. Although anti-inflammatory drugs do appear to reduce the muscle soreness--a good thing--they may slow the ability of the muscle to repair the damage, which may have negative consequences for muscle function in the weeks following the strenuous event."

Could it be that he doesn't have regular bowel movements and just gets full of sh**?

I think E is a big/tall/lanky dude. Many such folks are the 25% of the population that have a muted insulin response from a high carb diet, and can mostly eat them without gaining weight. It works for him and he can't understand why everyone isn't like him.

E can't conceive the knowledge base has broadened from what he learned 25 to 30 years ago. All fats where bad, you ran from cholesterol in any form and good carbs where all a person needed.

The science of exercise and how diet relates has advanced. If one needs proof then look at the athletes of today compared to those of 30 years ago.

E is partially correct. His mistake is in refusing to continue learning.

"There are no accredited studies" is the same mantra the sugar industry keeps repeating when it comes to sugary sodas and obesity.

Last time I did that it only took me 5X that long...

Low carb is a relative statement for 99% of Americans.

Why is wheat the 'worst grain'? I've heard/seen that before and don't really know why.

For E, who wants studies. Mentioned will be the American Diabetes Assoc, Washington School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Purdue University.

Found with an easy Google search. Are they the final answers? Doubt it, but the old theories are being questioned and the answers are coming up different.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/557726-eat-fat-to-burn-fat/
_______________________

Harry, with all due respect, the old theories are not "being questioned," they've been sh**-canned. Talk to any sports nutritionist and they'll tell you that.

No doubt.

Can't wait until the government builds a supplements pyramid. Then again they probably won't. Unless there are some hidden votes in there somewhere.

Mark Sisson says that body composition is 80% diet. My experience backs that up.

In 2009 I trained for a 17 mile race for four months, upping my mileage the whole time. At the time I had always heard that runners needed lots of carbs, so I was eating pasta, rice, and other carb heavy foods every day. With all that exercise I never lost a pound.

I started moving to primal/paleo eating a few months later and dropped 10-15 lbs in about three weeks. Plus my after lunch headache and foggy feeling went away.

Probably been eating this way for three years now and can tell a big difference in the way I feel and in my physical ability.

Crap food makes you feel like crap. Great food makes you feel great. Go figure.

[bleep] canned again????

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract



Aannnd another study. Gotta love studies�.

http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032.full

OK, guys. First of all, I'm 5-8 and weigh 168 lbs. At age 70, my doctor says I'm the healthiest person he knows in my age class. I take no oral meds for anything, etc. My resting pulse runs 53-58 depending on the day.
I've read lots of current stuff. One of them is the Wellness Letter put out by the staff of UC Berkeley's schools of medicine and science.
This letter is put out soley to counter the junk science which many are making big dollars out of the public's lack of will to eat healthy foods in the right proportions. Then there are those who want to eat lots of protein and fats simply because they like it far better than whole grains, fruits and vegetables. The diet gurus are racking in their bucks.
If that's what you want, good luck. But the fact is that those societies that base their diets on the whole grains, not meat and fat, live longer than we do in spite of the fact that we have health care that is light years ahead of theirs. E

You have to experiment and find out what works for YOU. I know vegetarians who have lived healthy lives into their 90's. Won't work for me though. I seem to be doing better eating 150 grams of carbo a day or less. This is what Sisson and diabetic diets recommend. My PT calls grains "slave food" because thats what the Romans fed their slaves. As far as protein goes I do better with fish and chix. Probably due to my hereditary hemochromatosis. For me iron=death.

You mentioned studies and two were easily found that had no bias with any commercial diet. Yet you had to throw in the insinuation they were junk science predicated on making money and the diet gurus and their commercialism were behind them.

With regards those two studies how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Here is another bit of food for thought. America exercises-according to studies-more than any other country, yet our life expectancy is down on the list. Do we exercise too much?

It's amazing to me that a guy who demands "accredited studies" can turn around and throw out an unsubstantiated personal anecdote with a sample population of one and no objective criteria and think that it means something.



In other words, with all the information out there, you chose the one source that (according to you) agrees with your opinion.




Now this is hilarious. A guy who cites the "food pyramid" put out by the USDA talking about someone making money off of nutritional advice. How much money do you think grain and dairy farmers have made as the result of the food pyramid?





So now the guy who demands "accredited studies" switches from personal anecdotes to generalities not borne out by those same studies.

First of all, longevity is one measure of health, but not the one we're talking about here. Unless those centenarians are lugging backpacks in the hills.

Second, I've read some of those studies and even the authors cannot ascribe the longevity to a single factor, much less ascribe it to increased consumption of whole grains as you want to do. Or if you think I'm wrong on that point, please provide one study that points to grains as the reason for longevity. The studies I've seen point to a variety of factors, and not all are even dietary. Other dietary factors seem to be increased consumption of fish, and increased proportions of unsaturated fats vs. saturated fats.

Just remember, that E's reading comprehension of Leupold's product literature led him to stating that they coated their scope lenses with real diamonds...

The difference in developed countries is in between 1.5 and 2.5 years. Eat your grains and you may make it to 82. On average. Then again, you may not be average�.

E is probably an OK guy. Problem is most 70 year olds loose a certain amount of flexibility, both physical and mental.

How do I know?

Any guy who's 70 and still knocking around in the mtns has got to be OK.

Battue, I didn't bother to read the studies because I read what you said they "proved." I simply responded to your comment about their conclusions. The results of studies I read are all printed monthly in the UC Berkeley Wellness Letter. I've been following that for over 15 years.
They refer to studies that are per reviewed and have repeatable results when they are carefully done under accepted principles of the medical and scientific communities. Feel free to read them yourself.
Again, you rely on junk science. It's diet that is the big difference between societies like the japanese and us. BTW, studies have found that if you take a healthy japanese citizen out of japan, and let him eat our food choices, he develops the same medical problems we have. Got that from the UC Wellness Letter too. E

Smokepole, my doctor also says my health is as much the result of good genes as anything else. OK ? But he is very happy with the way I eat. I has told me that he can't do anything for bad eating habits but write a prescription or, in some cases, perform an operation. But good eating habits avoid such problems.
I'd also point out that the Berkeley UC Wellness Letter cites literally hundreds of studies, all of which can be found and read by those interested in them. That's what they base their recommendations on. Sometimes they take the position that there isn't anything conclusive upon to make a decision based on the available studies.
I am not vegetarian. I eat meat everyday. But not nearly as much as I used to eat.
The Federal Food Guidelines doesn't just recommend more whole grains. It also recommends a much wider variety of fruits and vegetables, along with less meat/protein and fat. It recommends no sugar and reduced salt consumption.
Last of all, since being published, the grain producers and processors have not made much, if any, additional money due to the FFDG's. That's because we insist on eating what we always have and liked, not what is good for us.
In other words, the Federal Food Guidelines have been ignored by most of the public. Only those who follow the lessions of the Diet Registry or people like me follow them.
You might try looking up the Diet Registry. They are folks who found out that every time they dieted and lost the weight they didn't want, they always gained it back. Until they finally started eating, you guessed it, using the Federal Food Guidelines. E

Your doctor was wrong. Either that or he/ she has limited experience with elder patients or was just being nice.

No, it's true Battue, most doctors who have patients that are "the most healthy person they know in their age group" would advise them to change their diet. Of course they would.

According to E, diet research has uncovered nothing new since the 70s.
Health is more than the numbers the body reveals.

I could spell it out, but his mind wouldn't allow him to see the bigger picture and the docs don't have a number for that.

E, I pray when I am 70 I am able to hike in the mountains and work out. I meant no disrespect in my previous post. I do however disagree with what you believe and I think you are the kind of person who it really doesn't matter the way you eat you would still be healthy. Kind of like someone who smokes their whole life and lives to 100. The problem is the average person can't smoke and live to 100. I've seen with my own eyes way too many examples of people getting away from grains and processed crap and eating paleoish and doing tremendously better.

If you can make fitness and diet a top priority for you for the rest of your life, then paleo is a good way to go. If you have a life where it's not reasonable to do it long term, I'd suggest training yourself to eat smaller portions, and cutting out most processed foods and sugars.

And cut down starches from grains.

Something different kettlebells, Look up Steve Cotter its strength and Cardio all at once.

Yep. Cutting down on starches is good too. The biggest thing I see from the paleo stuff is how fleeting the results are. Folks get used to eating lots of meat and fat, and then eventually incorporate carbs back into the mix. They end off worse than when they started. So basically they spend a bunch of money/time eating meat like a caveman, only to end up fatter. A small percentage end up keeping it off, but most don't.

Momma does all my cooking. I do all the earning. I eat what she puts in front of me. She's headed to town today to give birth to our second, so I'm thinking I'll be eating pretty lean the next 6 months as she knocks off the weight she gained in the pregnancy.

My work out regime consists of getting up a 5:30 a.m. driving 125 miles to job site( driving endurance) , doing 8-10 hrs. of field surveying a day on foot mostly , carrying gear, walking , and exercising my brain, then driving 125 miles back home. Involves walking rough terrain,. carrying plenty of crap, and even some goofing around as my co workers are twice my size and 25 yrs. younger then me..... Elk hunting is like relaxation compared to work for me.......

Tag

the thing about carbs is, if you eat a lot of fruits, vegetables, and nuts, you get plenty of carbs without resorting to grains.

The medical and science communities have made many valuable discoveries since the 70's. They continue to do so.
Anybody can do a study, Battue. But to be accepted and to withstand the test of time, they have to meet certain standards.
That's why the various diets come and go. E

Used to have the same job. I'm more fit today from a 20min workout. Counter intuitive to many but the numbers don't lie.

I would argue that if you eating vary many carbs in the form of grains, then you are either overeating or not eating enough fruits and vegetables. That or not getting enough protein.

The Zone Diet cannot be refuted. It is based on biochemical parameters that are just as un-defiable as gravity, ignorance of them changes nothing.

Pray tell, what are those standards, and which information you've posted meets them.

The standards are the study must be shown to have controled for variables, have a significantly large sample and be repeatable by other reasearchers. After being published and critiqued by others in the field, it is then usually accepted until other studies tend to confirm or refine it's conclusions.
All of the information I've posted have come from such studies. E

I suppose we'll have to take your word for it, since you've never cited one.

I've cited my easy to find source, The UC Berkeley Wellness Letter, many times. They cite the studies that apply in all of their articles.
The best source to explain the benefits of the Federal Food Guidelines I've found it Body Fueling by Roblyn Landis. She cites all of the applicable studies as well. E

A newsletter is now a refereed journal. You learn something new every day.

Try readng it before you decide what it is. E

I have spent some time reading quite a few of their articles I could find on the internet, and it seems like UCB only allows studies that agree with their seemingly agenda.

Surely there must be some conflicting studies-and there are in places such as the New England Journal of Medicine-that if they were open to acknowledging the work of others they would find deserving for open discussion.

Do you know of any example of them doing so?

I've played competitive judo and been an infantry officer which had two different training regimes.

What's funny, is that when I was doing judo 5 days a week and lifting heavy too, I think I humped the hills much better than when I was doing PT and running lots of miles per day.

Seems to me that the repetitive training for 5 minute matches led to explosive lung capacity (basically tabata) and tied with the lifting (squats and sled) to stabilize the legs, that was the best combo. For judo, I found alternating rounds worked real well in the dojo, coupled with wind sprints up the stadium ramps or stairs.

Massive road running capability without load was not the ideal training for chasing elk in the hills. Especially, if you are humping out loads and don't want to blow a knee. But I amble too. Never in a hurry unless needed.

Yup. I used to hunt like that.

The editors of the Wellness Letter discuss conflicting studies on a regular basis. They often cite studies done by the New England Journal of Medicine and many others like them.
If the studies are not conclusive, or don't seem to agree, they say so with comments like "the jury is still out," and recommed the conclusions not be accepted at present. E

�.and sometimes do they think studies that are on the side of protein and fat are valid?

BTW: Studies say us seasoned fellows can use a little more of each than the younger crowd.

They are finding that a lot of what we've chalked up as "aging" is malnutrition. Lowfat/high sugar diets are causing the explosion of dementia. Not enough protein is causing sarcopenia.

Damn Harry, that is good. I'm gonna remember that and save it, for when I get old.

When you're smoked is when things get really bad.

....and you won't have to remember it very long.