What's everyone been up to lately?

[rydra_wong]

We haven't had a check-in for a while, and I thought an informal one might be nice. So:

What have you all been up to lately? What are you getting into? What's your latest discovery regarding the lifting of heavy things? Got any new toys or tricks?

Who's got a new achievement to brag about? Who's just getting started and would like some encouragement and cheering? Who's had to take time off owing to injury or life and could use some sympathy? How's it going?

Comments

Re: Belated comment is belated

[smackshack]

The thing that made me extra-skeptical was seeing advocates of the paleo & primal diets come out with their own lines of supplements. Like cavemen had supplements.

That said, there's a lot of good advice in the paleo stuff. It's just that about 80% of it seems indistinguishable to me from modern good-diet advice you'd get from a doctor. The remaining bits -- the "extra mile," you might say -- seems to involve a lot of dubious science and language that borders on conspiracy theory.

Re: Belated comment is belated

[rydra_wong]

The thing that made me extra-skeptical was seeing advocates of the paleo & primal diets come out with their own lines of supplements. Like cavemen had supplements.

That bugs me less than it might. IMHO, the point is not historical re-enactment (even though some people do seem to approach it that way, which I tend to find aggravating) but using information about ancestral diets to make informed decisions about the optimal way to eat now.

Taking fish oil supplements (for example) to get closer to an ideal omega-3/6 balance doesn't seem out of keeping with that.

It doesn't mesh well with all the "caveman" posturing, of course, but that's another issue.

It's just that about 80% of it seems indistinguishable to me from modern good-diet advice you'd get from a doctor.

I dunno, I think the average GP is still not going to tell you "cut the grains and vegetable oil, eat more offal, and don't worry too much about saturated fat." Not unless they've been reading a lot of Gary Taubes. *g*

There are certainly points in common with standard advice (eat your vegetables, avoid processed foods, limit sugar, etc.), but also some major divergences.

*shrugs* As said, though, I treat it fairly loosely and am demi-paleo at best (rice, olive oil, edamame, chocolate brownies ...). I'm a big believer in taking what works for you and leaving the rest.

Re: Belated comment is belated

[smackshack]

That bugs me less than it might. IMHO, the point is not historical re-enactment (even though some people do seem to approach it that way, which I tend to find aggravating) but using information about ancestral diets to make informed decisions about the optimal way to eat now.

Taking fish oil supplements (for example) to get closer to an ideal omega-3/6 balance doesn't seem out of keeping with that.

I agree, but it seems like I've seen people take the supplements thing way beyond fish oil while claiming it's all caveperson. And I have nothing against using ancestral diets to inform modern nutrition. And maybe it's just me -- being contrary and not wanting to be sold on something -- but I feel like I'm seeing an awful lot of high-pressure rhetoric claiming that ancestral equals good and modern/agricultural equals evil in a way that mirrors conspiracy talk. It sets my teeth on edge.

(But of course my teeth don't actually know anything.)

I dunno, I think the average GP is still not going to tell you "cut the grains and vegetable oil, eat more offal, and don't worry too much about saturated fat." Not unless they've been reading a lot of Gary Taubes. *g*

There are certainly points in common with standard advice (eat your vegetables, avoid processed foods, limit sugar, etc.), but also some major divergences.

GPs tend to be conservative, I'll concede, but it seems to be pretty common knowledge these days that the anti-fat craze of the 80s and 90s went too far. The major sticking point seems to be in the idea that by micromanaging macronutrients you can fine-tune how the body behaves.

I suppose the way I tend to see it is: if you avoid processed foods and allow larger portions of meat and natural fats back into your diet -- all of which seems to be in line with modern medical theory -- and if you don't over-eat, then the moderation of grains will tend to be a natural side-effect of that rebalancing.

But then the thing that seems to make paleo/primal a brand and not just repackaged medical orthodoxy is a lot of claims about "reprogramming your genes" and managing levels of hormones and tuning the diet for specific outcomes that I find fairly dubious.

I'm a big believer in doing what works for you, but I'm also aware that personal anecdotes don't add up to scientific data, and the way paleo/primal is marketed, it seems like we're supposed to treat everyone as being pre-diabetic and subject to Celiac disease, and then after hugely pressuring a person into making a big change, and then praising them for making the change on political and moral grounds, we'll ask the world to treat the personal anecdotes of people subjected to this pressure as data.

(And after all this ranting, I realize that what I really, really hate are the high-pressure sales I'm encountering in the fitness industry. Paleo could be gold on a stick and I'd reject it on those grounds.)

Re: Belated comment is belated

[rydra_wong]

I suspect the key difference here is that I'm not a Crossfitter, therefore don't run in the circles where I'd get hit with the hardcore evangelism. Which is almost always obnoxious, on any topic.

So I can dip in and out, take what's useful for me, ignore the rest, and nobody's going to be trying to burn me at the stake for eating a broad bean.

The major sticking point seems to be in the idea that by micromanaging macronutrients you can fine-tune how the body behaves.

Well, for me, being fairly stringent about getting enough protein (and for me, "enough" turns out to be a lot) and minimizing high GI food (except immediately after exercise) has turned out to make a quite drastic difference to how my body behaves.

(As I am proving right now, sitting here feeling like shit because lunch was a sandwich and a sugary thing grabbed on the run because I needed the calories and did not plan ahead. It happens.)

So I do buy that as a basic principle.

OTOH, I also suspect that the right macronutrient mix (and how important it is or isn't) is going to be very different for different people. For me, when I'm climbing, I need significant carbs not to falldowngoboom, and one of the many reasons I'm not purist paleo is that there is no conceivable way I could face eating that many sweet potatoes (and I like sweet potatoes). Also, I refuse to carry cold cooked sweet potatoes around with me.

So I make protein balls with brown rice syrup, and I'll usually grab some sushi and edamame or chicken curry with rice (or a steak and chips) afterwards, and my body seems to be just fine with that.

I feel like I'm seeing an awful lot of high-pressure rhetoric claiming that ancestral equals good and modern/agricultural equals evil in a way that mirrors conspiracy talk. It sets my teeth on edge.

Indeed. I'll stay here in the 21st century with the medications that keep me not dead, thanks very much.

Re: Belated comment is belated

[smackshack]

Well, I've lately taken to having protein shakes after the crossfit workouts, so I probably protesteth to mucheth. But yeah, the paleo-evangelism is the one thing I really don't like much about crossfit. I just do my best to ignore it. (And then get all ranty online, apparently.)

But I totally sympathize with tailoring your diet to what makes you feel good and what works for a given person's level of activity and their goals in terms of endurance exercise or gaining muscle or whatever. I quibble with the alleged benefits of never eating a bean or a slice of bread or more than a third of a banana.