Greg Newton
07-06-2009, 11:12 PM
Does anyone remember the fat scare from the early nineties and how carbohydrates were the only way to go for losing weight and health? I was talking to a friend about nutrition and this story came up.
In the early nineties a bodybuilder who I'll call Keith (not his real name) was a rookie police officer at the department I worked for at the time. He was in his late twenties, had the small waist, deep chest, and seventeen inch arms and had done several cycles of steroids to compete in bodybuilding contests. I was in my bulky phase at the time, weighing 217 at 5-10, and I was snacking on almonds in a desperate attempt to change my eating habits and lose all the extra weight I'd gained with the 20rep squats.
Keith wasn't and isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. If it was in the muscles mags, he believed it. He told me the almonds would make me fat and give me heart disease. And, he tried to give me Bill Phillips' book to prove his point.
Last winter I ran into him at a conference. He is now working as an officer in a high school. The tables are reversed now. I have the small waist and he is bulky, fat, and sporting at least a forty plus waist. He also looked ten years older instead of ten years younger than me. Keith still trains though, and still believes everything he reads in the muscle magazines.
The biggest irony comes from this. If I had told him about how I train now, Keith would have gone into great detail to explain to me how pushups, situps and isometrics could never produce the results I'd gotten with John's methods.
Does that ring a bell with anyone? What happened to common wisdom a.k.a. common sense when it comes to nutrition and exercise? I've been following physical culture since the early seventies and as far as I can tell, the common sense wisdom practiced by McFadden, Tilney, and Bragg in the 1920's and earlier are still relevant today.
Scientific studies come and studies go. I know one rolly polly armchair trainer that is so adept at finding scientific research on the internet that he finds studies that refutes other studies that he has previously used to support his ever changing point of view. Kind of like John's buddy who bought all the courses and never followed them when they were kids.
In the early seventies we were warned about eggs being dangerous and causing heart disease and decades later, although long refuted, we still accept the advice of only eating the whites. In the eighties hydrogenated vegetable based oils (trans fats) were the way to go instead of those horrible saturated animal fats. I'll never forget a portly friend of mine setting down to a double plate of french fries telling me they were heart friendly because the cooking oil was "cholesterol free." In the nineties carbohydrates were king and all fats were bad. Now we have an epidemic of obese Americans.
You see, the scientific method is a good way to determine the validity of a point. However, scientific studies have to be funded which often skews the results. Why did few question the recent Harvard study on vitamin E? The E used was the synthetic variety derived from cottonseed oil. A drug company funded the study. Yet, from that study, the mantra of vitamin supplementation doesn't work became the voice of the press.
I guess the point I am trying to make is, be careful of swallowing the next scientific study you hear about. Be careful of what you read. Do your homework and look for the agenda. Who are these results going to financially support? Last, look what is being promoted and look at the source. I look at John Peterson and I see a healthy, fit guy. Twentyfour/Seven, John is a healthy, fit guy. I then look in the mirror and I see a healthy, fit guy who follows John Peterson's advice and thanks God every day of his life for that advice.
Not all the voices out there seeking your buck through their supplements, books, or programs can say that. Many don't look like they train or eat right at all, or else they looked good at one point in their life when they were dieting and taking chemical enhancements, but don't look so good now. Why take someone like that's advice? Are you going to take gardening advice from the guy who raises the prize tomatoes or the well read gent who can tell you everything you are supposed to know about gardening and can quote agronomy backwards and forwards, yet never has soiled his hands. Caveat Emptor or as my Aunt Ozell used to say, "You can't trust a skinny cook."
In the early nineties a bodybuilder who I'll call Keith (not his real name) was a rookie police officer at the department I worked for at the time. He was in his late twenties, had the small waist, deep chest, and seventeen inch arms and had done several cycles of steroids to compete in bodybuilding contests. I was in my bulky phase at the time, weighing 217 at 5-10, and I was snacking on almonds in a desperate attempt to change my eating habits and lose all the extra weight I'd gained with the 20rep squats.
Keith wasn't and isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. If it was in the muscles mags, he believed it. He told me the almonds would make me fat and give me heart disease. And, he tried to give me Bill Phillips' book to prove his point.
Last winter I ran into him at a conference. He is now working as an officer in a high school. The tables are reversed now. I have the small waist and he is bulky, fat, and sporting at least a forty plus waist. He also looked ten years older instead of ten years younger than me. Keith still trains though, and still believes everything he reads in the muscle magazines.
The biggest irony comes from this. If I had told him about how I train now, Keith would have gone into great detail to explain to me how pushups, situps and isometrics could never produce the results I'd gotten with John's methods.
Does that ring a bell with anyone? What happened to common wisdom a.k.a. common sense when it comes to nutrition and exercise? I've been following physical culture since the early seventies and as far as I can tell, the common sense wisdom practiced by McFadden, Tilney, and Bragg in the 1920's and earlier are still relevant today.
Scientific studies come and studies go. I know one rolly polly armchair trainer that is so adept at finding scientific research on the internet that he finds studies that refutes other studies that he has previously used to support his ever changing point of view. Kind of like John's buddy who bought all the courses and never followed them when they were kids.
In the early seventies we were warned about eggs being dangerous and causing heart disease and decades later, although long refuted, we still accept the advice of only eating the whites. In the eighties hydrogenated vegetable based oils (trans fats) were the way to go instead of those horrible saturated animal fats. I'll never forget a portly friend of mine setting down to a double plate of french fries telling me they were heart friendly because the cooking oil was "cholesterol free." In the nineties carbohydrates were king and all fats were bad. Now we have an epidemic of obese Americans.
You see, the scientific method is a good way to determine the validity of a point. However, scientific studies have to be funded which often skews the results. Why did few question the recent Harvard study on vitamin E? The E used was the synthetic variety derived from cottonseed oil. A drug company funded the study. Yet, from that study, the mantra of vitamin supplementation doesn't work became the voice of the press.
I guess the point I am trying to make is, be careful of swallowing the next scientific study you hear about. Be careful of what you read. Do your homework and look for the agenda. Who are these results going to financially support? Last, look what is being promoted and look at the source. I look at John Peterson and I see a healthy, fit guy. Twentyfour/Seven, John is a healthy, fit guy. I then look in the mirror and I see a healthy, fit guy who follows John Peterson's advice and thanks God every day of his life for that advice.
Not all the voices out there seeking your buck through their supplements, books, or programs can say that. Many don't look like they train or eat right at all, or else they looked good at one point in their life when they were dieting and taking chemical enhancements, but don't look so good now. Why take someone like that's advice? Are you going to take gardening advice from the guy who raises the prize tomatoes or the well read gent who can tell you everything you are supposed to know about gardening and can quote agronomy backwards and forwards, yet never has soiled his hands. Caveat Emptor or as my Aunt Ozell used to say, "You can't trust a skinny cook."