Amidst bad nutrition advice, how to choose?
With a deluge of bad to horrible nutrition ‘advice’ out there, even from traditional medicine, how does one proceed to find a proper balanced diet for longevity? As a post menopausal woman who dabbles in all topics nutrition and exercise, I’ve made great strides but get stuck. I want to be as healthy for as long as I am able. I’m ensuring my exercise and sleep and calm are good. I eat clean foods with minimal carbs. I eat properly sourced proteins. I drink a little alcohol and eat out some, but I am very careful. But I’m stuck - my functional doctor thinks it’s microbiome and gave me ideas but that doesn’t seem to be it. I’m still 20 lbs heavier than I know is healthy. It’s not about the weight in the usual female sense but I know weight is a measure of overall health. Doesn’t help that my scale app gives me a biological age several years older than I am, even though I feel better than I have in years with the exercise and better nutrition. I just keep on plugging away but for about a year, have been stuck. And that’s where the ‘expert’ advice, as I try to dig deeper, leaves me lost. So, how does one proceed?
Swimming and Heart Rate Zones
Since a person has a lower heart rate while swimming at a given rate of exertion than while exercising on dry land at the same rate of exertion, does that change how I should think about the physiological effects of exercising in certain zones while trying to extend longevity? For instance, when swimming in the middle of Zone 2, my rate of exertion is similar to someone exercising in the lower end of Zone 3 on dry land. How should I think about this? Is it just Zone 2 training regardless?
Men/women exercise
What about this? Women can improve longevity with less exercise than men A new study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that women can improve their longevity by doing about half the exercise that men need to do to get the same benefit. The study showed that women who exercise 140 minutes a week lower their mortality risk by 18%, whereas men must do 300 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous exercise to see the same survival benefit. Additionally, men saw the most benefit with three sessions a week of muscle strengthening activity compared with women, who saw the equivalent benefit from one muscle strengthening session a week. Full Story: The Washington Post (3/6)
Maintaining strength and body mass into our later years v. Blue Zone studies
Firstly, what an incredible podcast you have. And the book was great...even created a separate document summarizing my notes as I read the book so I can easily refresh my memory and have recommended it to many friends. While you are my primary podcast for health related issues, I have listened to a couple of others on weight training and exercise. Recently, though, I ran across Dr. Stephen Cabral on health related issues. In a podcast, he expressed his view that Blue Zone studies clearly indicate that larger amounts of protein later in life, while very effective when combined with strength training to build and retain muscle, also tax our systems and can lead to earlier illness or death. Our ability to process larger amounts of protein later in life decreases and can cause health issues. I'm 64 and have always made fitness a priority. In the past year or so, I started creatine and amped up the protein using whey powder and Maui Nui venison sticks and venison. I became leaner while also adding 10lbs of mostly muscle. I now weigh 190 lbs and have been shooting for 150 gms of protein or more each day. My strength on various exercises (biceps curls, bench press, deadlift, etc...) increased 20-30%. I'm trying to understand whether 150 gms or so a day is likely to cause longer term health issues in my 70s (for example), as Dr. Cabral was suggesting a higher focus on quality carbs as one ages and protein closer to 20% of total calories. Now, I'm confused! Thank you for your analysis.