Filed under: General Health, Nutrition
For years now I have recommended Carlson’s The Very Finest Fish Oil as my fish oil supplement of choice. It is a product that has passed a plethora of third party testing for purity and potency, tastes good and is a reasonable price. Many times on this very website I have sung it’s praises, however a new product has arrived that has displaced Carlson’s as my top fish oil recommendation, but we will get to that in a second.
There is another fish oil product that I have never mentioned on this site that is spectacular, but you certainly pay the price for it. Nordic Naturals Ultimate Omega is the market leader when it comes to fish oil, however it costs $20/month compared to Carlson’s $10. In terms of absolute quality this product has stood head and shoulders above the rest.
That has all changed.
Athletic Greens has recently launched their own fish oil, Athletic Greens Omega 3, where their sole aim was to match or exceed Nordic Naturals in all categories, and yet be affordable for the average consumer, and they did so with flying colors!
While much has been made of their Athletic Greens multivitamin/mineral/greens supplement, and I do think it is a good product, I personally still prefer Innate Response One Daily (Men’s and Women’s) due to its vitamin and mineral content actually being derived from food, no synthetics whatsoever. However, this fish oil product is absolutely fantastic and it just blew me away.
It is made from small, wild, sustainably-caught fish, is third-party tested for contaminants, is ultra-concentrated (you only need 2 capsules), has no fishy after-taste and it too will only cost you $10/month!
As a matter of fact I was surprised to see that Carlson’s does not source from wild, sustainably-caught fish. I guess I had just always assumed this was the case. From now on my default fish oil recommendation is going to be Athletic Greens Omega 3. Check it out for yourself and let me know what you think.
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition
The other day during a phone consult with an online client it was mentioned to me that the previous nutritionist this client had worked with (a “diabetes specialist” as this client is pre-diabetic) had recommended the strict avoidance of all orange produce. Yes you read that right, orange produce.
Seriously.
Orange produce – carrots, pumpkin, sweet potatoes, oranges, etc – were all on the Not To Be Eaten list. The rationale was that they are digested too quickly and therefore will exacerbate the pre-diabetes issue. This is such a misunderstanding of the science it is utterly scary.
So this “expert in diabetes” is telling me that if I am pre-diabetic that eating a serving of baby carrots (which we will say is 10 of them, close enough anyway) is going to harm my pancreas/increase my insulin resistance? Does this make any semblance of sense? Do you see the ridiculous of this assertion? I understand carrots have a relatively high GI for a vegetable, but that test requires 50 grams of digestible carbohydrate. That takes 1.5lbs of carrots! No one eats that in a sitting and it is utterly irrelevant to every day intake.
This type of advice is nutritionism at it’s worst. It’s just like telling someone to not eat eggs because they contain cholesterol. Focusing on one aspect of a food to the exclusion of all others is just asinine, and is missing the forest for the trees. Carrots are a lot more than their GI value, just like eggs are a lot more than their cholesterol content.
Do you judge an engagement ring simply on cut? No! You look at size, color, clarity, price, etc. Odd analogy I know, it just popped into my head and I think it works nicely.
The point is that whether or not you eat carrots or sweet potatoes is not in anyway going to affect your diabetes risk. Losing weight, quitting smoking, exercising more, decreasing stress, getting adequate sleep, and eating a nutrient-rich calorically balanced diet are your best weapons against most diseases, including diabetes. Avoiding orange produce is not.
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition
I recently received this question from a reader and I thought the answer was worth sharing with all of you.
Q. Brian,
I wanted to get your expert take on fish oil vs. krill. Which is better in your opinion? I’ve been on the fish oil bandwagon for years . Which is the better of the 2?
Thanks as always for your blog and the great info. It’s appreciated!
A. I think this is a good question, however I am not sure there is a clear cut answer.
In my opinion both are good, but in comparison to fish oil there isn’t nearly as much data on krill oil. The data that is coming out is quite positive, however much of it has been supported by Neptune Technologies, the company that owns the patent on the process of removing the oil from the krill.
Now that isn’t to say the research is invalid, it simply means I would like to see more independently conducted research before I draw any conclusions. Now having said that, people still want answers, and my answer is this:
For now I still recommend fish oil (I like 1 tsp of Carlson’s The Very Finest Fish Oil for most people). It has mountains of data supporting its efficacy in a plethora of capacities. It is cost-effective. And finally, it has been around long enough to have been found to work in real life, not just the lab.
Krill oil is an incredibly promising supplement that may one day supplant fish oil. With it’s phospholipid form of omega-3′s (rather than fish oil’s triglyceride form), astaxanthin (a powerful antioxidant), phosphatidylcholine (a potent source of choline, which I have written more about here), as well as some fat-soluble vitamins it certainly appears to be a wonderful thing. However, in comparison to fish oil it is not cheap. Yes you can allegedly take less to get the same result, but not enough to make up the cost difference.
For now with fish oil’s far longer track record it is my go source for marine lipids, but I am certainly keeping krill oil on my radar. If you choose to take krill oil that is certainly fine, just be willing to pony up a few (up to 5x more) extra bucks!
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition
A reader recently sent me a question that I thought many people may have, so I decided to provide my answer for everyone to see.
Q. Hi Brian,
I’ve been meaning to shoot you an email to thank you for a while. I purchased your nutrition information from Eric Cressey’s Show and Go product. It’s some of the most well thought out and realistic nutrition information I’ve ever read. I think you have a real knack for simplifying what others can make very complicated but at the same time educating and providing people with important reasons why their nutrition matters so much.
I wanted to ask you was in your guidelines I know you refute the commonly held belief that saturated fat is bad. In your shopping list though is lean meats. Is that just in case the meat is conventional and there are more antibiotics or hormones stored in the fat?
A. First off, thank you for the kind words, much appreciated. I like to think of that as my skill set as well!
The reason for relatively lean meats is because excess fat and calories is still excess fat and calories. While I don’t think saturated fat is the devil, far from it, the goal isn’t to eat as much of it as possible either! Eating lean meats allows you to decide what fat sources you want with that meal. Do you want olive oil, butter, avocado, nuts, or maybe you want fattier meat? In addition it’s not like I am recommending 99% lean ground meat either (which tastes awful), I think 93% is a good compromise. Eating fattier meat will decrease the protein content and make it harder to hit your macronutrient needs within your caloric needs. Granted, if you know how to fit it in then go for it.
For example lets say you want to make a burger – going with say an 85% lean patty makes it more difficult to add other things to it if you like cheese or avocado with your burger, or you wanted to saute up some veggies in olive oil or something like that. Going with 93% allows for more flexibility without sacrificing much in taste.
Again just general recommendations. If you know what you are doing you can easily consume a higher fat steak, just have something like a sweet potato and some steamed veggies with it. With the lower fat options you just more flexibility to add other components and not be jacking up the calories crazy high. Choosing a higher fat cut of meat is not inherently bad, it just tends to limit your side options is all.
Your point at the end about the hormones and antibiotics is a valid question as well, and if you are choosing conventional meat it might be a wiser idea to go with a leaner option.
Make sense?
I would love to hear your thoughts and comments below.
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition
I recently had a comment from a reader on one of my recent posts on cancer prevention asking this:
“On the topic of exposure to harmful chemicals/substances etc, – have you ever written on prenatal nutrition for those who are looking to have children? Also, what to do to minimize exposure to harmful substances while pregnant? Perhaps some general guidelines for healthy eating during pregnancy? I think that would be an interesting topic.”
While I don’t think this topic can be sufficiently covered by a blog post I am certainly happy to provide some general guidelines for healthy eating during pregnancy. I will also point out that my good friend and colleague Cassandra Forsythe has written extensively about nutrition and training during pregnancy on her site, and I highly recommend you check that out if this is something you are truly interested in learning a lot about.
To start I don’t think the general principles of good nutrition change all that much during pregnancy besides the fact that many women find it difficult to smell or consume a lot of foods they normally like in the first trimester (and sometimes throughout the entire pregnancy). This particular issue can be a challenge, but do realize that it is mostly temporary. For example my wife really struggled to keep food down and was simply not interested in eggs and other meals we used to eat on a regular basis. For a while she was really relying on cereal with some cold milk (full-fat, grass-fed of course) because it was simply all she could keep down. After a few weeks she was able to slowly get back to “normal” eating so it really wasn’t a big deal. Again, it is just important to remember that this stage is usually temporary. If it persists you should certainly discuss this with your doctor or midwife.
Having said that, some of my simple tips would be as follows.
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: Nutrition, Training
I recently had the fortune of interviewing the bright and talented Kevin Neeld on his new training manual – Ultimate Hockey Training. Kevin is a good friend of mine and was an early CP intern back when I was a new CP employee. He was the first intern we ever had who could have been hired as a coach before he even started interning, he was that good. And he has only gotten better.
Well, without further ado, enjoy the interview!
BSP: Kevin, first off why don’t you tell us a little about yourself – school, athletic career, training career, how you look up to me? You know, the basics.
In the interest of getting the boring stuff out of the way, I did my undergrad work in Health Behavior Science with a minor in Strength and Conditioning at the University of Delaware, and later got my Master’s in Kinesiology with a concentration in Exercise Neuroscience at UMass Amherst. Say what you want, but people that study neuroscience are cool.
I grew up playing ice hockey, and would objectively say that I had pretty good skill sets that I was too fat, slow, and generally unathletic to express at high levels. Luckily, I had an older brother to constantly remind me of these things, so I was never at a loss for motivation. This was what originally got me into training. It had a profound effect on my performance, and I knew at around the ripe age of 14 that I would ultimately build a career that revolved around helping athletes fulfill their potential through effective training. What I didn’t know then, is that the training that “worked” so well, was also completely moronic and lead me down a fun path of injuries that included a broken collar bone (in two places), inguinal hernia (and subsequent surgery), torn trapezius off the posterior clavicle, separated AC joint, hamstring strains, long-term “groin” pain, and periodic knee problems, all of which affected my hockey career to some extent. Oh, and I’m not very tall…which sucks.
BSP: As a former hockey player myself, I am well aware of the poor training we are given – hours and hours of “dryland” anyone? I am also especially aware of the poor diets of most young athletes, and guys playing junior hockey in particular. Your new book, Ultimate Hockey Training, fortunately rights this ship and provides players with appropriate training and nutrition programs. What I want to know is what in particular prompted you to focus that big brain of yours on hockey in the first place?
As I mentioned, I played hockey almost exclusively growing up. I would say my appreciation for the sport wavered somewhere between a determined commitment and an unhealthy obsession. I loved the game. I still do. Hockey has always been my passion. What most in the strength and conditioning field don’t know is that I have a good amount of experience running on-ice skill work as well. I came to a cross-roads in my career between diving into either the on-ice or off-ice development route. My decision led me to pass up an opportunity to run my own series of off-season on-ice development clinics in favor of paying out of pocket for a Functional Anatomy class that was part of Boston University’s DPT program, and interning at Cressey Performance. Other than having nightmares of having to lift to Disturbed over and over and over (thanks Eric), I would say that experience was universally positive and has probably been the smartest move I’ve made in my career.
I’m realizing now, that I was accidentally very fortunate to have chosen to build a career around training hockey players. In my experience, hockey players are passionate, hard working and attentive athletes, meaning they’re proactive in their development and willing to try new things if they understand how it will benefit them. This is true of some athletes in all sports, but as a whole, hockey players seem to be the most consistent in these qualities.
BSP: As the Director of Athletic Development at Endeavor Sports Performance, one of the premier hockey training facilities in the country (located in Pitman, NJ, FYI), what are some of the most common issues you see among young and old hockey players alike? Essentially what are the problem areas related to hockey that people need to work on or be aware of, regardless of skill or playing level?
As you know, I could write a whole book addressing these issues (shameless plug for Ultimate Hockey Training). The reality is that there are a number of hockey- and individual-specific things that warrant special attention, and it’s hard to make generalizations based simply on the demands of the game. For example, a person that has an excessively pronated (read: flat) left foot or forward head posture will need to have these issues attended to, regardless of what sport they play. I think people sometimes forget that a lot of sport injuries have lifestyle-driven mechanisms or predispositions. In other words, it’s the postures and movements (or lackthereof) AWAY from sport that brings many injuries closer to threshold. I could go on, but I have a feeling that this discussion would be like Nyquil for your readers coming from a hockey background.
I generally think of training as serving two primary, but HIGHLY integrated purposes: improving performance, and preventing injuries. In the interest of both, we need to make sure the athlete is structurally ready to improve performance measures. This comes down to assessing for postural and functional asymmetries, which I’ll talk more about later, but generally hockey players have extreme cases of adaptations-related to sitting too much. They’re tight in the front of their hips, hyperextended through their lower backs, rounded forward through their shoulders, etc. This, amongst other things, is what leads to the exceptionally high prevalence of hip flexor and adductor strains we see in the sport and, in my opinion, is a huge factor in the concussion epidemic that is infecting high level hockey currently. If you only look at a brain, you’re missing the big picture
Looking at training through a purely hockey perspective, the sport demands extremes in transitional speed, rotary power, anaerobic lactate conditioning, and collision resistance. That said, there are appropriate training progressions to maximize these abilities and if you only take them at face value and build a program around strictly these qualities, you may do more harm than good. For players with a “young” training age, everything will seemingly work. This means that every stupid, insane, scientifically unfounded, and completely moronic training technique ever created will lead to what appears to be an improvement in performances. Much of these training tactics are either proposed from naïve or downright ignorant people (many of whom have very positive intentions!), or someone selling something, and they all fail to look at the long-term perspective of development. Improving your vertical jump height doesn’t matter if your knees buckle on the load and land! Improved performance? Not in my eyes, but when you’re presenting numbers to a 14 year-old’s dad, they’re hooked. This is just one example; I could draw parallels to EVERY athletic quality that are equally misguided and short-sighted.
To be honest, these are problems that affect all youth sports, not just hockey. In the U.S. we do everything we can to rush development, even in the face of a ridiculous amount of evidence demonstrating that the most effective way to produce WORLD-CLASS athletes is to follow slow, focused progressions. In other words, we need to slow roast our athletes, not toast them. In hockey, it’s interesting to see that the U.S. has won the Gold Medal at the IIHF World U-18 Championships the last three years (‘09-’11), while at the U-20 level, they didn’t medal at all in ’09, won Gold in ’10, and Bronze in ’11, and at the Men’s level didn’t medal in any year. Do you notice a trend? Our development system leads to rapidly developed players at young ages that fail to progress beyond that point. Because we don’t create a large enough foundation, we lose the ability to progress to peak heights. We’re winning the race to the wrong finish line.
USA Hockey has done an outstanding job in rewriting our developmental programs to help right the ship. I think people hear of how the Soviets identify high performers at young ages and think that’s the way to go. Pick them early, and then drill them with single-sport development. What they don’t realize is that these “single-sport focus” schools MANDATED that kids play multiple sports up to a certain age! This means that at “hockey school”, you would spend a significant portion of the year playing soccer, tennis, etc. A broad base of athletic motor qualities is what leads to future elite level performance. USA Hockey gets it, and they’ve put together a terrific package in their new American Development Model for coaches to use. The problem is that many coaches are flat-out too stubborn to adopt these HIGHLY researched principles. It’s amazing how people with so little information have such strong opinions on these issues.
I’m not even sure I answered your question, but you got me all fired up!
BSP: Let’s discuss a little bit about program design. When assessing a new athlete, what are some things you’re looking at? Are there any exercises in particular that you try to avoid with your hockey athletes? Are there any exercises that you try to incorporate often?
Our protocol for hockey players uses a combination of assessments taken from Functional Movement Systems, the Postural Restoration Institute (PRI), and traditional orthopedic measures. We put a lot of focus on determining the structural make-up of their hips, as, in my opinion, problems such as hip flexor and groin strains, femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, sports hernias, and SI joint dysfunction have gotten completely out of hand in the hockey population. All of these issues are multi-factorial, but prevention starts with getting an understanding of where the athlete is structurally and making program and technique adjustments to allow them to be successful with their structural make-up. I met a guy at a seminar over the Summer that was completely blown away that I could asses for ante- and retro-version of the hips without using fancy and expensive imaging techniques. It’s possible, and it’s also possible to dissociate between femoral adaptations and those more specific to the positioning of the acetablum. As Eric used to say, it’s not rocket science because we aren’t building rockets!
The PRI information has been a revolutionary addition to how we handle our hockey players. Most players lack left hip adduction and are stuck in a relative position of external rotation, which leads to a number of compensations. Most notably, it means:
- Anytime they crossover to the left, they’ll be putting excessive strain on their left abdominal wall
- Anytime they stride with their left leg, there are opportunities for compensatory movement of the SI joint on either side
- They’re likely to develop laxity of their left anterior hip capsule
- They’ll feel more comfortable crossing over to the right than the left
There are a couple exercises we avoid with just about everyone, but most of the adaptations in exercise selection come down to how the individual player presents. An athlete with CAM impingement will not be pulling from the floor or squatting past parallel, at least not unless their primary training goal is to shred their labrum (haven’t had this one yet). We tend to emphasize unilateral and dissociated limb exercises in addition to traditional bilateral movements to capitalize on the neural circuitry and increased degrees of freedom associated with these movements.
I also think it’s worth noting that the adductor complex needs to be trained under eccentric loads. This isn’t necessarily something you should jump right into, but it’s definitely a goal to progress to. These stresses should stem from both closed- and open-chain movements to help prepare the player for the stresses of high velocity skating.
BSP: Ok, let’s get to the nitty-gritty of it all. Tell us a little about Ultimate Hockey Training – specifically that incredible Nutrition Guide that someone awesome wrote to go along with it. I’m kidding, sort of. Seriously though, it is an incredible and comprehensive resource for hockey players of all levels, but what distinguishes this from any other similar product out there?
I wrote Ultimate Hockey Training to be the most comprehensive resource on the subject ever written. I wanted to give a presentation of EXACTLY how we approach training hockey players at Endeavor. UHT discusses age-appropriate guidelines, year-round training recommendations, training strategies for improvements in every major athletic quality, the most in-depth look at exercise progressions and regressions I’ve ever personally seen, and has special topics pertaining to specific hockey injuries. In an era when crafty marketing is used to sell 12-week generic one-size-fits-all programs, I wanted to provide hockey players, parents, coaches, and S&C professionals with a resource that provides the philosophy AND methodology on how to train smart through an entire career, not a couple phases of one year. It’s the old “give a man fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime” idea. The feedback that I’ve gotten over the last month has been extremely positive.
To pump your tires a bit, as proud as I am about Ultimate Hockey Training, I think Ultimate Hockey Nutrition (which is exclusively available to people that purchase the book) is really the icing on the cake. I still remember when you and I first spoke about the idea for UHN about 12 years ago, and you said, “I’ll have it done in a week.” Well, it didn’t exactly unfold that way, but it was well worth the wait! The goal was to answer all of the most common questions how players, parents, and coaches have about their nutrition:
- What should I eat before games?
- What should I eat after games?
- What should I eat during tournaments?
- What should I eat if I have to eat out?
- What should I eat to gain muscle?
- What should I eat to lose fat?
- What should I eat to have arms like Tony Gentilcore?
Because UHN answers all of these questions (well, except maybe the last one), and includes sample meal plans for players at different levels for practices, home and road games, and tournaments, it really is the single-most comprehensive AND applicable nutrition resource that’s ever been created for hockey players. And honestly, the full package couldn’t be any more affordable. You and I were both on the same page when we said, “we want to make this available for EVERY single person in the hockey community.” The most important thing to me (and to you) is that the information gets out to everyone. I’ve always said that I’m a terrible businessman, and I think this proves it!
BSP: Kevin, thanks for taking the time to provide my readers which such a thorough and thought provoking interview!
Thanks for having me!
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition
The Environmental Working Group recently looked at 84 popular brands of cereal to see if they meet either the federal government’s proposed nutrition guidelines or the industry’s looser nutrition guidelines.
Amazingly 75% of the cereals tested failed to meet the federal guidelines, and many of the cereals had more sugar per serving than a twinkie!
For example Kellog’s Honey Smacks are 56% sugar by weight! That is disgusting. A lot of these cereals are like having dessert for breakfast, and they are marketed to kids and moms as healthy ways to start the day. Call me crazy but that seems a little misleading in my book.
Click HERE for the entire report.
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition, Training
Keeping in the same vein that of my previous two posts (My Family Health Portrait and President’s Cancer Panel Report) is another interesting tidbit I learned in my outpatient rotation at the Cancer Center – The World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research joint report - Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.
This report is a compilation of ALL of the data gathered so far about how food, nutrition and physical activity impact our risk for cancer. They show how fruit consumption has probable evidence for decreasing the risk or oral, esophageal, lung and stomach cancer (among others), while something like breastfeeding has convincing evidence for decreasing risk of breast cancer in pre and post menopausal women.
If you don’t want to read through the entire report they do provide a nice summary of the research right HERE.
Now I will say that much of this research is epidemiological, simply because that is an easy way to study a lot of people and find associations, however it does not prove causality. In addition the research is far from complete. You may wonder why certain foods have so few associations, and that may also be because they have not been studied with each type of cancer outlined.
Regardless it is a handy compilation of the data and a simple reminder to exercise plenty, maintain a healthy body weight and body composition, and eat a diet based on real, whole, minimally processed food.
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition, Training
This might just be the best Stuff You Should Read post in history. Seriously, it is that good.
1. While not really an article to read, check out this flowsheet sent to me by a reader/former client – How to find REAL FOOD at the supermarket. Overall it is a pretty helpful tool and I find it amusing as well.
2a. A House Divided. By Kellie Hart Davis via Tony Gentilcore’s blog. Kellie wrote a guest blog for Tony that might simply be the most touching post I have read all year. This is a must read for every single reader of this website. I think this is my favorite quote of the entire post – “Disease isn’t a part of aging; it’s a force of habit. It’s the inability to take action by putting your quality of life before indulgence, idleness, and insecurity.”
2b. Can I Have Your Attention Please: Pizza is Now a Veggie. By Tony Gentilcore. Tony rips apart the fact that Congress passed a new bill that as far as school lunches go, pizza now counts as a serving of vegetables. Seriously ridiculous stuff and Tony covers it in his usual entertaining manner.
3. 12 Tips to Tune the Nervous System. By Anthony Mychal. Anthony provides an easy-to-understand look at the nervous system and how it plays such an integral and misunderstood role in exercise and health. I really enjoyed this article and found Anthony’s writing style to be enjoyable to read and educational at the same time. It was really good, much like a Dan John article.
4. Stephen Guyenet’s entire series on whether insulin causes obesity. This is a much-discussed topic that in reality is poorly understood by most. Stephan does a fantastic job laying out the evidence and showing that insulin is far from the main driver of fat accumulation. Top-notch stuff as usual.
Enjoy!
Filed under: General Health, Nutrition
EC just posted the final piece of my 2 part series on coffee on his site Coffee Consumption & Health: The Final Word – Part 2. I highly recommend you check it out as I wrap up with some really interesting data on coffee and Alzheimer’s.
This series has generated some lively debate as many people are adamant that coffee is harmful to health regardless of the fact that the data mostly does not support that assertion. Too often people want to believe in conjecture and theory rather than boring facts, and I think coffee falls into that category. That may be because coffee consumption is often thought of in conjunction with a poor lifestyle – cigarette smoking, inadequate sleep and poor dietary habits – rather than an individual food.
I want to make clear that the conclusion of my article is a broad statement, and each individuals needs may or may not be different. What may be good for the population as a whole may not be good for you as an individual and I think it is important to keep that in mind, but also remember that I can’t account for every scenario in a 2,000 word article!
Posted on January 27th, 2012 by Brian St. Pierre
4 Comments »