In Nutrition, Videos

September 07, 2008

Video Article

This video was captured during the CrossFit Level 1 Certification Seminar at GSX in Fort Worth, TX on March 2nd, 2008. Robb Wolf explains the role of hyperinsulinism in the deadly quartet (hyperinsulinism, hypertriglyceridemia, upper body obesity, hypertension), and the role of diet in producing or avoiding hyperinsulinism. 8min 14sec

Download

Comment

41 Comments on “Hyperinsulinism and Diet”

1

wrote …

Robb Wolf is so inspiring! I've been dialing in my zone/paleo eating but not weighing and measuring. This changes today. I feel like I've just been pretending to zone:-(

Great video, thank you.

juli (u'i)

2

wrote …

What do people think of the Abs Diet (I have a feelig I'm going to get yelled at)? It seems like a cross between the zone and south beach diets.

Thoughts?

3

wrote …

I've been a Zone convert since 97 or so - hard to believe how much people want to believe in the high carbohydrate, low fat diet. I was listening to someone this AM on the radio, speaking for the Academy of Pediatric medicine, talking about the obesity epidemic and the connection between childhood eating and activity and heart disease/stroke in later life. They of course recommend activity and a diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables and grains, and is averse to saturated fat. It was funny that he pointed out that 'they don't have evidence that eating behavior is directly linked to later disease, or that changing it could reduce future risk' - at which point, I was practically screaming "you also have no evidence that the diet you advocate will have the outcomes (lower body fat, better balance of cholesterol and triglycerides) you seek."

Me, I eat all kinds of fat, of all different sources (meat, dairy, nuts, eggs w yolk) but my blood measures are all at the 'right' levels ("I don't know what you are doing, but keep doing it Paul" said my doc after last physical). I'm satisfied that the Zone works based on my highly biased, unquantified data point of one. Unfortunately, the world is full of folks that either don't know what to eat (which is tragic), or won't eat it even though they understand the impact(which is just 'not ideal').

I feel grateful to be in a community of folks that shares my advocacy of the Zone approach to nutrition, and look forward to attending Robb's cert so that I may continue to learn how to advocate that approach for clients. Paul

4

replied to comment from Tommy Ryan

Tommy, The abs diet seems like it could work, but it is not nearly as useful, from my perspective, as the Zone. If you buy the premise of this video, for example, that hyperinsulinemia resulting from excess intake of carbohydrate is the driver of metabolic derangement, you may know enough to apply the abs diet in a healthy way. Reading and following the Zone, however, would apply a more precise prescription of what to eat, when and how much, and would provide an education into why to eat that way.

For me, the understanding of what foods have what hormonal impacts is the greatest insight in the Zone books - if the Abs Diet provides that it may be as usable as the Zone.

One obvious flaw in the abs diet is the reference to whole grains as a 'power food' - there's simply no reason to eat that food as nutrition, the ratio of metabolic impact to nutrients is poor. For the same caloric and glycemic load, you can get larger amounts of nutrients with other carbs, but more importantly, you cannot eat much whole grain without exceeding the insulin response threshold.

Then again, if you are doing it and it gives you the desired outcome, it's the perfect diet. Paul

5

wrote …

I have a friend that does the abs diet and he's shredded. I'm not saying that it is as healthy as zoning on paleo, but like I said, he's shredded.

6

wrote …

I find all of the nutrition lecutre/articles extremely interesting and informative. Is it possible to follow the Paleo/Zone approach as a vegetarian?

7

It is completely possible, as long as your vegetarian diet include some fish. I suppose you could substitute some other protein sources, but meat is probably your best bet.

8

replied to comment from Tommy Ryan

Hey Tommy-
South Beach is a low carb induction phase, followed by a Zone ratio plan that makes little to no distinction in food quality. Mens Health and Rodale Press did a smart thing in that they released a high carb, low-fat grain based diet that keeps all the RD's happy (the Abs Diet) and also a cyclic low carb diet that people actually get remarkable results from (TNT diet). From a marketing angle they covered their bases well, but the TNT diet follows what we know about avoiding hyperinsulinism and is co-authored by a guy who is pretty deep into the use of ketogenic diet for cancer, traumatic brain injury etc. Personally I find the prescription in the Abs Diet to be pretty weak and simply a means of offering something to everyone...but I'd simply recommend playing with ALL of these eating regimens and see how YOU do on them. I have yet to see some kind of insulin management approach (Zone, CLC) with paleo foods not win with regards to body composition and performance.

9

replied to comment from Julie Ditzend

Julie-
Jericho hit it pretty well. You just need to get enough DENSE protein and it's tough to do with vegetarian sources unless you consume huge amounts of tofu, Tempeh (for the love of God don't eat Seitan, it's wheat gluten) etc. I find the food choices are very limited and it makes me nervous about allergies down the road. All that said, taking your vegetarian foods and putting them into Zone ratios is certainly a solid plan. Keep in mind: Nuts, seeds and beans ARE NOT PROTEIN!!! They register as a carb...here again is the problem as vegetarianism tends to be all-carbs, all-the-time.

10

Michael Bissaillon wrote …

Rob,
I thought nuts and seeds were fats and beans are carbs?

11

wrote …

I'm trying to go vegetarian for the environmental and animal right issues. Is tofu and free range eggs my only good sources of protein? Any negative effects of eating that large amount of tofu? I thought I read something somewhere about possible negative effects of estrogen content in protein tofu. Is this true?

12

wrote …

You could take up hunting, that would take care of your animal rights issues and environmental issues...granted it may make some other issues arise but it's a thought if you aren't against eating meat because of taste, or check out some of you local outdoors/hunting shops you could post a flier saying you'd be willing to buy "game" meat from hunters that have too much.

on the zone...

are you supposed to count the protein in the fat blocks toward the 40/30/30? or are you really just supposed to pick 5 (or your block proscription) from each of the carb/protein/fat list? peanuts for example?

Thanks

13

replied to comment from Michael Bissaillon

Michael-
that's right, just making the point they ARE NOT protein sources.

14

replied to comment from David Luu

David-
Do whatever you want here...I'm in no position to argue the morality of one diet vs. another but I will mention that it may be that a diet based on large herbivores and plants may be the "least harm" way to eat:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1277l2428v10637/

Prof. Davis has received death threats from wankers in PETA and elsewhere but no one has bothered to comment on whether his THEORY is inaccurate. Animal Rights, like Global Warming and Socialism are concepts that warm the soul but really crumble upon closer scrutiny.

As to the Tofu, yea, big soy consumption is a significant problem due to the phytoestrogen load. Even the clueless Dr. Mcdougal acknowledges this. This was my point, you are left with precious little in the way of options when tackling this from a vegetarian perspective. Some use concentrated rice powders and other items...chick-pea, hemp, but again, they need to be processed and concentrated or you will not get the benefit. If you'd like to show your support of environmentally sound practices buy grass fed meat, free range eggs and the like.

Best of luck.

15

replied to comment from Walker Gusse

Walker-
Keep it all VERY separate:
chicken is protein
Peanuts are fat
apples are carbs.

Adding up the micronutrients, like protein in peanuts, messes things up...don't do it! The exception to this is something like cashews which provide a block of carbs for every 10 blocks of fat. This becomes significant when we ratchet up to a athletes Zone 5x fat level.

16

replied to comment from Robert Wolf

Hi Rob,

Any idea when Crossfit Norcal will start having open gym sessions? I'm broke! :)
I really liked the video lecture BTW and started following the Zone yesterday. So far so good.

17

Rich Maurer wrote …

Interesting read. Just subscribed to CFJ a couple days ago, started CFing about 5 months ago. This thread appears to be slightly more open minded when it comes to tinkering with various diets. Most CF posts I have seen that even slightly suggest a non-Zone diet lead to post after post of insulting the offender's knowledge, respect for CrossFit and Coach, their children's ugliness, etc. While the Zone may be a great general diet for MOST CFers, it doesn't necessarily make it law. I think it is relative common sense that a high veg, high protein, moderate fat, relatively low carb, low/no sugar diet will produce favorable results.

I was on the Abs Diet for about 8 months, and it DID get me shredded (same workouts as pre-diet, down to approx. 6% bf). I strayed off due to the same reasons most people make excuses (work, school, blah blah), but continued to workout. I am going to try the Zone, but am not sure how excited I am about calculating all of the blocks and whatnot.

18

replied to comment from Robert Wolf

Thanks much Robert...tomorrow I start the "ZONE" was going to today but wanted clarification on that...

19

replied to comment from Brandon Roth

Brandon-
I do not foresee an open gym scenario. All we offer is coaching and community...the gear is superfulous to the scene. We could use cats, boulders and rail-road ties to good effect. Call or email and we can talk about your destitute standing.

20

replied to comment from Rich Maurer

Rich-
The Zone is a starting point, not an end. Folks can get a little fanatical about it but it's because it works. That said, there are many people who need to tweak the Zone significantly:
http://robbwolf.com/?p=110

What the Zone offers is stunning accuracy and precision. If you know exactly what you are taking in you can make educated decisions about what to do next. That said,the Zone is too many carbs, too often for many people. One can reduce the carbs, partition more to post WO periods and a few other strategies to fine tune this for individual needs.
Two things:
1-If you leaned out easily on the Abs Diet you will be stunned with how easy it is to lean out AND run at top performance on a higher fat, moderate carb Zone diet. It will be Homer Simpson Doh! meets "I could'a had a V-8" forehead smack. It's dead-simple and very effective.
2-The Zone is a moderate carb, LOW protein (~16$%), high fat diet when ramped up to 5x fat. It produces stunning blood lipid profiles, performance and quality of life. If the preponderance of carbs come from veggies and fruit it fixes everything from hyperinsulinism to gluten intolerance (no grains). A paleo/zone diet is about 95% of everything that can be done with nutritional science. If this sounds a bold statement I'd just say "what am I trying to sell you other than giving it a shot?"

21

Rich Maurer wrote …

Rob,
Thanks for the response. Let me also note that I don't claim to be any kind of nutrition guru. I believe much of my skepticism of any "one size fits all" diet comes from spending alot of time studying genetics and realizing that not one philosophy, in diet, training, etc. is suited to every individual.

With that being said, there are obviously better and worse starting point from which to begin developing an individualized program, in fitness, diet, whatever. While the Abs Diet worked well for me, the Zone may work even more effectively. I see how it makes it easier to quantify what you are putting into your body allowing you to more easily adjust "blocks" based on results.

Thanks again for replying.
Rich


22

wrote …

I have found this discussion interesting and don't intend to challenge anyone's beliefs here but thought I would add some "food" (pun intended) for thought. I first discovered the Zone approx 8 years ago and followed it closely for about 4 or 5 months. Problem was that I lost TOO MUCH weight on it and couldn't practically eat often enough so I had to start eating larger quantities at a time and became less restrictive about carbs (though tried to keep them relatively "low glycemic"). The other problem is that it is pretty impractical to apply ALL OF THE TIME. AND everyone thought I was a fanatic freak.

I still try to apply the basic principles of the Zone but have found that I don't need to be SO fanatic about it. At 46 yrs of age I still maintain a BF% of

I do wonder in the actual application of the Zone, whether most people avoid foods that can and should be part of a healthy diet...here's where I ruffle some feathers...like FRUITS!!! It is well demonstrated that diets with abundant fruits (and to a lesser extent, vegetables) are associated with longevity and reduced risk of vascular diseases and cancers - probably in part due to antioxidants not found in other foods. Some grains, such as oats and quinoa are likewise thought to have significant health benefits. I truly doubt that anyone became OBESE from eating too many whole fruits or whole grains for that matter. The hyperinsulinemia associated with the typical American diet is far more likely attributable to consumption of excess processed foods.

Last thought...I've never read the Paleo diet but note that it is often linked to the Zone. The implication in the name is that it tries to mimic the way that we EVOLVED to eat. When considered in this light, it seems highly unlikely that our hominid ancestors were able to eat combinations of macronutrients in precise quantities and balance. I presume when they killed something, they ate it and got a huge protein load. When they found fruits they got a carbs load. Therefore, I suspect that precise calculations of macronutrients at EVERY SINGLE MEAL AND SNACK is excessively restrictive.

For the people who asked about vegetarianism and the Zone...Barry Sears wrote a book called the "The Soy Zone" which is a veggie version. His basic premise was that the addition of abundant soy would further reduce the risk of vascular disease (at the time, medical literature suggested >10 gms of soy protein daily reduced heart disease..this has subsequently been challenged by further studies and the extent of the benefits of dietary soy is a matter of debate). Also, don't forget about whey protein supplements. They provide an easy way to add protein to a veg diet to balance your macronutrients.

23

Rich Maurer wrote …

Good points David.

It would have been difficult for Neanderthal to weigh his portions and count blocks. Without having read the Zone theory completely, it appears that it encourages removing all refined/processed foods and instead eat more natural foods (I understand there is much more to it, that was a nutshell). Most would consider that sound advice. I think the reason that people tend to gravitate toward the Zone may be the "quantifiablility" of different macronutrients and the relatively easy way it allows you to manipulate your intake of them. I can see the benefit there. It also makes you aware of portion control, which is one of the huge problems facing our country today (try to find a restaurant where you can order what is actually 1 portion of food). I'm giving it a try.

Don't do the soy thing, I believe I have read that long term soy consumption can lower sperm count in half and also that it can negatively affect brain function. (I probably shouldn't have stated that without the specific study, but don't have the time for research at the moment.) It also causes humpback, redneck, and a whole list of horrible maladies.

24

replied to comment from David Simonds

David-
I'm going to throw a bunch of stuff at ya here:
1-Read EVERYTHING from www.thepaleodiet.com
At that site you have over 50 peer reviewed articles, a huge FAQ section and archives a a newsletter. Here's your chance to become an expert on a topic the you metioned not really knowing anything about.

2-Folks loose "too much" weight on the Zone when they fail in increase their fat blocks after a certain point, typically when they reach a desired level of leanness. This is discussed in the book Mastering the Zone and can be researched on the main CrossFit site by searching under the term "Athletes Zone".

3-The Zone recommends the preponderance of carbs be made up of....fruits and vegetables. I'm not sure where you arrive at the notion the Zone is skinny in that regard.

4-Compare on a calorie by calorie basis "whole grains" and fruits & veggies. The grains are laughable in their nutrient density and offer a host of autoimmune problems. The folks who have removed them from their diet report feeling better...check out my blog and message board and/or give it a shot. Back to the #1 suggestion above: Historically studied hunter gatherers had NO reported cancer, diabetes or heart disease. This comes as a shock to modern medical researchers who tend to simply dismiss the information out of hand. Before you head down the "they lived short, brutish lives and did not have time to develop cancer..." read this:
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Counter%20Arguments%20Paper.pdf
In the recently published Kitava studies a transitional hunter gatherer/agriculturalist society is studied. The Kitavans eat a fairly high carb diet (60%) from NON_GRAIN sources. They show non of the age related decline in insulin signaling we see in societies we consider "healthy" such as Sweden, Italy etc. Lectins (found in grains) appear to be implicated in this process:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/5/10

Just to clarify, the kitavans ate the same level of carbohydrate as the European comparison societies, but the Kitavans show NO LOSS OF INSULIN FUNCTION WITH AGE.You can get the full scoop on the Kitava study here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118993411/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0


5-in The Omega Rx Zone Barry Sears details how he arrived at the 40/30/30 ratios recommended in the Zone. This is based off the work of Boyd s. Eaton MD and his analysis of the AVERAGE diet of over 200 hunter gatherer groups. This is an average but it does offer some insights of hopefully obvious merit. This is also why I insist on the concept of food quality FIRST, then proportionality second. Paleo, then Zone but at the heart of things the two are somewhat inseparable.

6-Weighing and measuring is excessive restriction: Seez who? The Zone is a tool for tracking food with both accuracy and precision while ensuring food quality. I'd call that a cost benefit analysis...if it's of value to someone great, if not fine also. A thing to also keep in mind, the people who do the best on the Zone long term allow themselves to deviate off the Zone as life dictates without being nuts about it. Too tight of compliance almost guarantees ditching the whole operation.

It's not my intention to bury you with this stuff but when folks roll in, admit to not really researching the paleo/Zone topic then detail why it's wrong...I've gotta respond to that.

25

wrote …

Robert,

I feel lucky to be able to read this these comments and see you reply here. Perhaps I'll get luckier and you will reply to my question.

I'm curious if you have found any difference in outcome when people change the quantities and/or ratios of omega-3 vs. omega-6 fats in their diets. I see that some people will not eat peanuts due to the high omega-6 load. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the matter.

26

replied to comment from Edward Henigin

Hey Ed,

If Robb doesn't get back to you on this forum, I highly recommend going to his blog, www.robbwolf.com and asking your question there

-Brandon

27

replied to comment from David Simonds

"When considered in this light, it seems highly unlikely that our hominid ancestors were able to eat combinations of macronutrients in precise quantities and balance."
David - you're mixing metaphors. Sears' claim is that you get the result from the precise macronutrient ratios he describes - which you verify for yourself by testing. His focus is highest on macronutrient ratios, then on food quality (carbs which have a low glycemic load, low fat proteins, proteins with less AA). Paleo takes the reverse priority - first on what foods, then on in what quantities and when. As Robb says, Zone is about quantity, Paleo about quality.

You assumption above is most likely correct - but if you like thinking about this stuff, you owe it to yourself to actually read the Cordain-Paleo books. I thought it would be minimal info after reading all the Zone books - on the contrary, it is very enlightening to read the info Dr. Cordain brings to the discussion, and goes much farther than the basic premise of "eat like our ancestors ate." Paul

28

replied to comment from David Simonds

"It is well demonstrated that diets with abundant fruits (and to a lesser extent, vegetables) are associated with longevity and reduced risk of vascular diseases and cancers - probably in part due to antioxidants not found in other foods."

Do you know of good studies that have shown fruits to be more beneficial than veggies? Although I haven't searched the literature, I've never seen anything that would indicate fruits, as a group, are any better than veggies.

The only study I recall, without doing a search, is this one:
NEUROLOGY 2006;67:1370-1376
© 2006 American Academy of Neurology
Associations of vegetable and fruit consumption with age-related cognitive change
M. C. Morris, ScD, D. A. Evans, MD, C. C. Tangney, PhD, J. L. Bienias, ScD and R. S. Wilson, PhD

From Rush Institute for Healthy Aging (M.C.M., D.A.E., J.L.B.), Department of Preventive Medicine (M.C.M., J.L.B.), Department of Internal Medicine (M.C.M., D.A.E.), Department of Clinical Nutrition (C.C.T.), Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center (R.S.W.), Department of Neurological Sciences (R.S.W.), and Department of Psychology (R.S.W.), Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Martha Clare Morris, Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, 1645 W. Jackson, Ste. 675, Chicago, IL 60612; e-mail: Martha_C_Morris@rush.edu

Objective: To examine the association between rates of cognitive change and dietary consumption of fruits and vegetables among older persons.

Methods: The authors conducted a prospective cohort study of 3,718 participants, aged 65 years and older of the Chicago Health and Aging Project. Participants completed a food frequency questionnaire and were administered at least two of three cognitive assessments at baseline, 3-year, and 6-year follow-ups. Cognitive function was measured using the average z-score of four tests: the East Boston Tests of immediate memory and delayed recall, the Mini-Mental State Examination, and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test.

Results: The mean cognitive score at baseline for the analyzed cohort was 0.18 (range: –3.5 to 1.6), and the overall mean change in score per year was a decline of 0.04 standardized units. In mixed effects models adjusted for age, sex, race, and education, compared with the rate of cognitive decline among persons in the lowest quintile of vegetable intake (median of 0.9 servings/day), the rate for persons in the fourth quintile (median, 2.8 servings/day) was slower by 0.019 standardized units per year (p = 0.01), a 40% decrease, and by 0.018 standardized units per year (p = 0.02) for the fifth quintile (median, 4.1 servings/day), or a 38% decrease in rates. The association remained significant (p for linear trend = 0.02) with further control of cardiovascular-related conditions and risk factors. Fruit consumption was not associated with cognitive change.

Conclusion: High vegetable but not fruit consumption may be associated with slower rate of cognitive decline with older age.

It is an observational study, which doesn't prove cause and effect, but I think it is consistent with at least one other observational study. I have to wonder if the difference is oxidative stress from the glycemic load of the fruits.

Most likely, we all agree that the real culprit for most of us is the convenient, processed stuff, just like you said. Until we know more, a wide variety of fruits and veggies seems like the best plan.

29

wrote …

Rob,


I do Zone blocks, eat Paleo and also practice Intermittent Fasting. I follow your blog and have read most of your Performance Menu articles on diet and performance (42 Ways to Skin the Zone, Mass, The Golden Ratio, etc.). I would like to read more on Cyclical Low Carb Dieting. Any recommendations (Cyclical Ketogenic Diet – Lyle McDonald, The Anabolic/Metabolic Diet - Di Pasquale, etc)?


Cheryl


PS – Any Nutrition Certs on the horizon for FL or GA?

30

wrote …

Any chance of getting some more video footage from that seminar? ;)

31

replied to comment from Robert Wolf

"It's not my intention to bury you with this stuff but when folks roll in, admit to not really researching the paleo/Zone topic then detail why it's wrong...I've gotta respond to that."

For the record, I have indeed read nearly everything Barry Sears has written. I never challenged the effectiveness of the diet, nor the overall principle. I alluded to the relative practicality of it (especially for the general population who, in my experience as a physician, is not committed enough for this kind of focus and attention to detail) and whether the PRECISE balancing of nutrients is really what leads to weight loss and other benefits.

I very much appreciate your insights re: quality first, then proportionality. I have been recommending the South Beach Diet or Atkins for my patients simply because those who have tried the Zone simply cannot apply it properly. Remember, Crossfitters are inevitably and by necessity passionate in their beliefs about exercise and diet. The general population is not. Even those of us who are passionate find significant conflicts with our lifestyles/jobs etc. Therefore, practicality is important for many or most of us. And it is indeed a cost-benefit analysis...if 20% effort (proper food choices) achieves 80% benefit, and a further 80% effort (proportionality) is needed to accomplish the final 20% benefit, most people (not necessarily those on this website) will put forth the 20% effort.**

Also, we should keep in mind that randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of any diet are essentially impossible to do because they are trying to "control" a very complex human behavior and, short of using surrogates markers such as lipid profiles, would require decades of participation to be able to make definitive conclusions re: effects on mortality and disease rates. Therefore, there is abundant conflicting "science" on this topic from the fields of epidemiology, physiology, genetics, nutritional sciences as well as teleological reasoning. There is abundant room for reasoned, dispassionate discussion.

I assure you that I will read the references on the Paleo diet. thank you for the rec.

A question for you...Soy protein...This is an area where I think the data is conflicting. Some studies show benefits of soy with reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease. Some on this site have raised the concern of phytoestrogens.
Estrogen is a derivative of the cholesterol molecule, not a protein. Is it the soy protein that is the problem or is it some other component of WHOLE soy products that function as the phytoestrogen? If the latter, do we really need to avoid soy proteins which is just protein extracted from soy?

**These numbers are just made up for argument sake. Please do not challenge me on where I got them, anyone.

32

replied to comment from Edward Henigin

Ed-
Sorry, on the road for 4 days going to Calgary. The n-3/n-6 ratio is absolutely critical if one wants optimized health and performance. The ancestral diet appears to have provided ~ 2n-6 for every 1 n-3. Modern diet skew that ratio upwards of 40/1. It is amazing to me that we can survive AT ALL on numbers like that. Give this some additional reading at www.thepaleodiet.com and check out the Omega Rx Zone.

33

replied to comment from cheryl polack

Cheryl-
Natural Hormonal Enhancement is a good read. We should be in GA sometime in March!

34

replied to comment from David Simonds

Doc-
I ABSOLUTELY agree...80% of the benefit from these approaches is gained from a quality first approach. This is often an un-popular position but it has certainly been my experience. Basic paleo eating solves hyperinsulinism, allows for great performance and an impressive physique. The addition of weighing and measuring simply refine this base, but at significant effort for many.

I HIGHLY recommend the book Protein Power:lifeplan for your Patients...it offers 3 levels of buy in with regards to their eating, it covers inflammation, autoimmunity, the paleo diet...phenomenal book and very readable.

Few things are 100% good or bad. hyperinsulinemic/hyperestrogenemia women benefit from soy consumption. the action appears to be that of competitive inhibition on the part of genestin and some of the other key soy isoflavones. This does not however address the underlying problem of high insulin and subsequent high estrogen. The main culprits in these scenarios are whole or minimally processed soy foods, but most protein powders list their relative amounts of genestin and other isoflavones...these are substances that played no role in our evolutionary past and are of dubious application today. Caveat Emptor!

35

wrote …

Hey Robb,

I've enjoyed reading your blog and watching the videos on the main site. I'm looking forward to seeing you in person at one of your seminars in the future as well.

Real quick question for you: I have been zoning for about three months now and just the other day I noticed some differences in the macronutrient content of uncooked SPINACH reported in Sears' book and on the main site. I eat a ton of spinach. I have been measuring 1 block as 4 cups or 120 grams. Since this is a daily carb for me, I want to make sure that I am correct.

Thanks,
Steve English (Olde English)

36

Rob Barrese wrote …

I'd like to get some direction from this community. I've been reading the CFJ's on hyperinsulinism, ect.
Basically, I've read the WHY and now I'm curious about the WHAT. After understanding much of this information, where do I go from here? Would this community suggest I purchase and read the Zone as a start to understanding more productive methods of focusing nutrition?

I hope what I'm asking makes sense? I actually have a lot of rational thoughts on nutrtion and I teach college HPE (which may not say much?).
I've noticed for years that nutritional information is filled with holes. For example, our current text is filled with statements such as "unclear, controversy over, unfortunately research has yet to pinpoint, without convincing evidence, has not yet shown, ect." This coupled with the fact that if we do what we're told only some of us get results!

I'm thinking I should just buy the zone and begin to put the pieces together, what do you think? Thanks
Rob

37

wrote …

Rob,
More important than reading about it would be doing it.

This Journal article has the block charts that you need to plan your meals http://journal.crossfit.com/2004/05/zone-meal-plans-crossfit-journ.tpl.

This video has the reasons why you should do it instead of read about it http://journal.crossfit.com/2008/03/nutrition-the-teetertotter-by.tpl.

And this article is a description of what happens when you do it http://journal.crossfit.com/2005/10/getting-off-the-crack-by-nicol.tpl.

Be cautious about using the block prescription chart in the first link. Instead, use one-tenth of your lean body mass as your daily block prescription (unless your lifestyle is significantly different from a standard CrossFitter).

You'll need to weigh and measure your food precisely for at least 2 weeks. After you do that, you'll probably find that most of your questions have been answered.

And, though Robb Wolf is much smarter than I am, my experience has been just the opposite. Over 80% of the benefit of this approach is QUANTITY adjustments over QUALITY. Get your quantities right, and you're guaranteed to see results (the Zone is arguably the best approach ever for managing quantities).

38

Rob Barrese wrote …

Tony,

Understood. I'll get this stuff printed up and get to work. Thank you very much for the information and the timely response! I'd say you were sub 10 on that turn around! Thanks again,

Rob Barrese
Pennsylvania

39

wrote …

WOW! Every time I log in I am so impressed by the level of intellignece, respect, lack of "I'm an expert, you're a doofus" attitude and general friendliness found on this site. Such a wealth of resources to be found here.
Thanks guys!
Andy

40

wrote …

Tony,
An example of quality over quantity that I saw was posted on the old message board some time ago. The woman said she was struggling with the Zone to see results. Her example food choices consisted of pepperoni, peanut butter, graham crackers, deli ham, microwave rice, etc. The micronutrient and phytochemical density is next to nothing in processed foods.

Do you advise vitamin and mineral supplementation with poor food selection above good food choices?

I've missed you man ;)

41

wrote …

Addendum: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 30. "Vitamins C and E and Beta Carotene Supplementation and Cancer Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial."

I actually just saw this article. It says that supplementation with anti-oxidant vitamins C, E, and Beta Carotene did not decrease risk of cancer or morbidity from cancer compared to a diet high in fruits and vegetables, obviously naturally high in anti-oxidants.

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)