Tag: research analysis
For today’s edition of Dear Mark, I’m answering two questions about two recent studies. First, given that the omega-3 alpha linolenic acid (ALA) has been shown to reduce some of the positive effects of exercise on rats’ metabolic health, could the omega-3s found in fish oil (DHA and EPA) also nullify exercise benefits? Second, what are my thoughts on the recent study showing a link between breakfast skipping and subclinical atherosclerosis?
Few would disagree that a Primal way of life advocates simplicity above all else. Nutritious foods, strategic movement, and an aversion to stress bordering on (healthy) obsession.
This “simple is good” mentality works swimmingly most of the time. Aligning our lifestyle to our evolved biology allows us to achieve a modern semblance of that all-important homeostasis, and I generally see no reason to tinker if it ain’t broke.
But, unfortunately, it’s not always black and white….
For today’s edition of Dear Mark, I’m addressing just one question. It’s not even a question, really. It’s a study. In the comments to a post from last week, Pedro dropped a line about some very cool research.
Hello Mark. No miss: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract
No way would I miss that one, Pedro. Thanks for the note.
This wasn’t quite a question, but it gives good fodder for me to riff on a few things.
First, as I have said for a decade “The less glucose you burn in a lifetime, the healthier you’ll be and the longer you’ll live.” A new study—the PURE study—seems to hint at that. They looked at the dietary intakes of over 135,000 individuals from 18 countries with an average followup of about 7.5 years. They saw what people said they ate then watched what happened to them.
For today’s edition of Dear Mark, I’m answering two questions from readers. The first one concerns a study I linked to in this week’s Weekend Link Love. It appears to suggest that ancient humans had worse genes than modern humans have, that they were at greater risk for many different disorders and diseases. How can this be? Last but not least, Pierre expresses skepticism at the notion of fasting or starvation causing metabolic slowdowns. I agree, but only to a point, and I explain why.
I was beginning to rest on my laurels. It had been months since the inbox had flooded with upset readers asking me to address the latest episode of the conventional establishment’s attack on healthy food and living. Until last week, when people starting freaking out about the American Heart Association’s attack on coconut oil. As USAToday put it, “Coconut oil isn’t healthy. It’s never been healthy.”
I was surprised. While I get most of my scientific references from USAToday (the “Works Cited” section of my upcoming keto book is just a single link to USAToday.com) and they’ve never let me down in the past, I didn’t know what to make of their coconut oil claims.
It’s fair to say that I gravitate towards tangible, actionable subject matter when it comes to improving my own and others’ health. Things like nutrition, fitness, sleep, hormonal responses, and supplement science may seem like a lot to chew on for the layperson, but these are my personal passions as well as my long-time profession.
And while these are certainly the big, actionable players in the game of health, I fully acknowledge there may be more lurking behind the scenes than we realize. A body that refuses to heal no matter how Primal you eat. Stubborn health conditions that simply refuse to fully go away, despite all the changes you make in your life. A propensity for disease that defies everything you’ve learned about ancestral nutrition and wellness. An intriguing new angle in the health sphere suggests the hurdle for some people may be embedded deeper than outer changes can access.
For today’s edition of Dear Mark, I’m answering one question. It’s a good one. A reader (many, actually) wrote in to get my opinion on the latest blockbuster cholesterol-lowering drug. A new study appears to show that the drug in question—Repatha—reduced LDL to unprecedented levels and protected patients against the primary cardiovascular disease endpoints they were measuring. What does it all mean? Should we all start taking Repatha?
Let’s dig into it:
Last month, I installed an infrared sauna in my house. A company offered it to me to try out, and I was willing to give it a go, knowing a little about them already. It also inspired me to dig into the research—to test it personally but also to see what studies had demonstrated in terms of benefits. I’ll say I’ve been pleased with what I’ve found from both angles.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been following a new bedtime ritual: a half hour in the sauna, a cold plunge in the pool, bed. The reasoning is that after warming up my tissues in the sauna, I drop them back down to prepare for sleep. So far, it’s working. I wasn’t exactly starting from a deficit—my sleep has been consistently good ever since I changed how I consume alcohol—but I’m really happy with the new setup.
A traditional sauna heats the air around you. An infrared sauna uses infrared light to penetrate your skin and warm you directly without affecting the ambient temperature. This makes them great for home use.
Here at Mark’s Daily Apple, I avoid writing off anything without first investigating it. I keep one foot in the “alternative” health world and one in the “conventional” realm, making sure to maintain a skeptical—but openminded—stance on everything. There’s no other way to do it, if you’re honest. At least as far as I can tell.
No, not every alternative therapy works. A lot of it is pure hogwash. But whether we’re talking about off-label uses of conventional drugs and illegal drugs, natural pharmacological agents, or downright outlandish-sounding interventions, some therapies are worth considering. Not trying, necessarily. Considering.
As the calendar draws toward the close of another year, I’m inclined to take stock of where the Primal vision stands. Are people slowly warming to the idea of Primal eating (and living), or are we merely seeing inconsequential, lateral shifts within the same old confines of conventional grain-based, saturated fat-averse, dietary “wisdom”?
All right, all right. It’s fair to say that, without examining the numbers, the majority of people are still stuck in their same detrimental ways. But are the cracks in CW I noted a few years ago deepening and expanding? If we look closely enough, could there be a bit of whole-food common sense shining in there? Or is it just some refracted marketing gloss that catches the right angle from time to time? Or just wishful, starry-eyed delusion?