Tuesday 033010 – Back Squat | CrossFit St. Paul

Tuesday 033010 – Back Squat

March 29th, 2010 by Mike J

Back squat 5×3, then:

75 Kettlebell swings for time (77/53)

*Compare to 012910*

Slate magazine has an article titled “End the War on Fat”, which discusses the saturated fat myths that we’ve been fed our whole lives.

If saturated fat doesn’t adversely affect cardiovascular health, what does? Sorry, Nabisco: We should be giving a closer look to foods with a high glycemic index—a measure that reflects a food’s influence on blood sugar levels, based on how quickly it is digested and absorbed. Typically, that means carbohydrates like cereal, bread, chips, and cookies.

The federal government’s role in the diet-heart hypothesis and recommending a high carbohydrate/low fat diet over the past 50 years is an absolutely fascinating story that involves presidents’ dietary preferences, administrators’ egos, and government bureaucrats crafting guidelines to an American public they think are too stupid to understand the facts. If you’re interested in reading about one of the biggest government failures in our country’s history, read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

Thanks Mac

This entry was posted on Monday, March 29th, 2010 at 8:06 pm and is filed under Workout of the Day.

1 Comment

Jump to comment form | Comments RSS | Trackback URI

David Brown Mar 30, 2010 / 7am

Both Melinda Wenner Moyer, author of the “End the War on Fat” article discussed above, and Gary Taubes, author of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” did not delve into the omega-6 controversy. Omega-6 is the other major ingredient in the modern food supply linked to chronic inflammatory conditions including heart disease. Moyer briefly touched on the issue toward the end of her excellent article when she noted that “…foods very high in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats—such as corn oil and margarine—are not particularly healthy, either.”

Moyer also noted “a meta-analysis published in ‘PLoS Medicine’ this month reports that the substitution of polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat can cut heart disease risk.” http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252 The “PloS” article seemingly contradicts the above statement about omega-6 polyunsaturated fats and therein lies the controversy. Here’s Stephen Guyenets response to the “PloS” findings: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/03/leave-your-brain-at-door.html

Slightly more than a year earlier the American Heart Association came out in favor of increasing intake of omega-6 fats. Here’s Evelyn Tribole’s response: http://omega-6-omega-3-balance.omegaoptimize.com/2009/01/30/the-american-heart-associations-agendait-sure-aint-science-or-public-health.aspx

One possible reason why Taubes ignored the omega-6 problem is because there exists only one long term heart disease trial in which omega-6 consumption was deliberately reduced. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7911176?dopt=Abstract Interestingly, this resulted in a 70% reduction of CHD events and mortality. The PloS meta analysis of 8 studies reported an over all pooled risk reduction of 19% with reduced intake of saturated fats and an increased intake of unspecified polyunsaturated fats. So whom are you going to believe?

Incidentally, the above link to the “Slate” magazine article doesn’t seem to work. http://www.slate.com/id/2248754/pagenum/all/#p2